Cash-starved British Waterways has withdrawn from its involvement in the Cotswold Canals Partnership (see our news report). This follows the diversion of significant funds for the urgent repairs to 16 miles of the Monmouthshire and Brecon Canal in Wales.
"Our existing waterways must take priority" says Robin Evans and, while that is undoubtedly true, it hardly explains why BW is walking away from the Cotswolds scheme. BW has already re-directed the money earmarked for the rebuilding of Vale Royal lock to the Mon and Brec. A large number of other repair and maintenance works scheduled for this winter were also put on hold to save money. Why is BW pulling the plug on the Cotswold Canals at this stage? Could it be that the flattening of the housing market has reduced the expected income from BW's property interests?
This news is very alarming for all waterway restoration groups. But the cutting back of maintenance and repairs is alarming for existing waterway users. If another catastrophic failure should occur, where will BW find the money to sort it out? This all comes back to our main campaigning theme - the need for waterway funding to be put on a secure, predictable and adequate basis and not subject to the dubious fortunes of DEFRA.
Click "Comments" link to add your own comment on this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
originally posted 4th Feb
The IWA have come out with a scathing attack on British Waterways’ decision to back out of the Cotswolds project and while on one hand I share their concern, I must say that I think IWA have partially missed the point.
This is a decision that must have been very difficult to take but I can’t see that BW had any other option. Would you spend your limited capital to build an extension on your house if the very fabric of the main building was in need of major repairs?
Of course, it is a great disappointment to those who have put so much work into the Cotswold project, but whatever BW put into that project would just be taking money away from maintaining the major part of the network. Sure, I know it is being spent on repairing the Mon & Brec which is also not part of the main system but that will save jobs & businesses that are already established. Don’t forget too, that BW have a legal obligation to keep the cruising waterways open.
In short, this is just an extreme example of the fall out caused by Defra’s short-sighted cuts. Coupled with the fact that BW have not been re-imbursed (by Defra or EA) for the £8-10 million emergency spend on floods last year, BW have obviously been left in an extraordinarily tight financial position that cannot sustain a standard maintenance programme let alone restoration projects (however worthy they may be for the long term future of our waterways).
Our campaign for the past 18 months has been emphasising that there was a risk that cuts like this would be forced upon BW. I can see why the IWA is criticising BW for poor consultation but surely the actual decision was inevitable? Wouldn’t it be better not to just shoot the messenger, but also to wag your finger at the root of the problem, Defra or, I suspect, more accurately, the Treasury.
The great danger is that we now have had 18 months of below standard maintenance; remember the network is made up of 11,000 structures many of which are 200 years old. How many more breaches/collapses are waiting to happen?
If they do happen, will Government expect BW to close more restoration projects or will they listen and realise that they have to find an early solution to BW’s funding crisis?
Methinks we need another massive letter writing campaign to MPs and local politicians.
originally posted 5th Feb
This is a very sad day for canal enthusiasts. Whilst I see Will’s point about prioritising available funds, I should defend the point of view expressed by the IWA. When any organisation joins a partnership, a commitment has been undertaken. Decisions have been taken on the basis of the current make-up of the partnership and when one of the promoters later pulls out, it threatens the whole viability of the partnership.
Where will it all end? Will BW abandon all dredging next? Close whole lengths of canals to save money?
What will happen to hire companies and canalside businesses that depend upon usage of the canal for their trade? There is a danger of a domino effect here. How long before someone starts looking at infilling of a canal as an economy measure?
Rationalising is all very well, but who decides where to draw the line?
originally posted 7th February
The IWA press release says BW had previously committed to fund £6 million but your link lists BW’s input as only £1 million - a big difference.
BW’s press release says only that they have invested £1.5 million to date, but not how much they are withdrawing.
Does anyone know which is right? It obviously makes a big difference; a shortfall of £1m might be made up from the other sources but £6m is most unlikely.
Post a Comment