The Chancellor's budget announcement that BW is to move to the 3rd sector is an exciting development; one that justifies much of the campaigning that has been going on since the SOW protests of 2006 whilst being a signal for us to switch from protest-mode to a more positive yet still pro-active role.
We know from ongoing consultations on BW's 2020 Vision that they foresee a future that integrates stakeholders into the management structure at the top level and closer, better defined, working relationships at the sharp end with communities.
At the top end, the favoured proposal is that stakeholder representatives would populate the important Members Council, a body which would have the duty to scrutinise activities and nominate and select future Trustees. Members of this Council would be democratically selected by stakeholder groups. Trustees would replace the current Board and be unpaid.
At the grass roots, local navigation offices would have Waterway Committees which would seek to improve communications with local users. This is where SOW's Waterway Watch initiative fits in.
We know that over 30,000 boats and 13 million users make 260 million visits each year to BW waterways. [The Thames and the Broads are each believed to enjoy a similar degree of popularity and many of the following suggestions could apply equally to other navigations.] Most boat owners and the vast majority (95%) of other users are not members of our stakeholder organisations. Clearly, we need to find a way that will engage the active support of this substantial group of largely unrepresented users.
It seems likely that the majority of users will be residents of a riparian community. Most may not be aware of contribution that the waterway makes to their way of life but SOW believe that these residents would respond with concern if it was suggested that their waterside environment was to change for the worse. As the main recipients of the economic and social benefits that our inland waterways bring, the residents of riparian communities have the most to lose if decline sets in. It is common knowledge that BW is under-funded to the tune of £30 million/pa and for each year that this continues the current maintenance backlog of £100 million will increase; circumstances that can only mean the condition of our waterways will decline even further. Given the current economic climate it is extremely unlikely that this gap will be filled by central government.
DEFRA's new 'Waterways for Everyone' draft policy document encourages greater community engagement and specifically asks the question 'How do we engage local communities?'
Most riparian communities are already covered by the extensive network of stakeholder bodies that comprise IWA branches; angling and cruising clubs; water sport clubs; community boat associations, canal and restoration societies, waterway festivals, etc.
SOW used these community links when we staged the protests of 2006/7 and we believe the change in government approach coupled with wide cross-party support for the waterways presents an opportunity to tap into that community spirit once again but this time as a call for self-support rather than protest.
Over the past few weeks SOW has been talking to BW and a number of stakeholder groups about an initiative we call Waterway Watch. The idea is simple. We call a number of meetings in key waterway communities to explain to our supporters and other local residents that without community support, there is a risk that their local waterway could fall into steady decline. We would point out that BW's move to the 3rd Sector is an opportunity for each community to make a contribution that will help prevent that decline and give its residents the power to shape the waterway for the future.
As the name implies, Waterway Watch is not dissimilar to a Neighbourhood Watch that draws on the success of schemes like Towpath Tidy. However, each community Watch would have opportunities to play a wider role than just the protection and upkeep of the waterway that passes through their community.
The range of activities in which an individual Watch community might become involved will depend largely on the skills and enthusiasms of the local supporters that they attract but a typical community Watch would aim to have the active support of:
- All users – walkers, dog owners, anglers, cyclists, canoeists, etc well as boaters
- Parish and District councils, local MP and MEP
- Schools and higher education establishments
- Business community, youth groups, local societies
- Police and emergency services (crime and access issues
- Local media
Every community is a potential source of professional and practical skills that might be attracted to a local Watch to help with opportunities and problems facing navigation authorities, examples might include:
- monitoring unlicensed boats and mooring over-stays, perhaps manage local moorings
- bidding for contracts for vegetation control, towpath maintenance....
- repair of assets and services, clearing fly tipping, locate rubbish points, etc
- acting as intermediaries on planning issues
- communicate views on matters of wider concern to local MPs and MEPs
- gaining access to lottery and EU funding for community projects
- new community initiatives - water festival, community boat; youth activities
Transferring such activities to community level will present opportunities to identify cost savings. Restoration societies have shown that there is a wide range of talent that can be tapped to assist with all manner of tasks that would lead to the betterment of one's local community. Just looking at the examples of vegetation control and towpath monitoring, SOW estimates that a national Watch movement has the potential of saving BW £2-3 million a year in costs and recovered income.
Although individual community Watches might decide to raise funds for local projects and activities, SOW don't see WW as a membership-based structure that competes with other stakeholder groups for members. Nationally, the WW movement wouldn't be run by any single stakeholder group, it would be a joint initiative by stakeholders and run locally by residents drawn from all users and vested interests in that community. Each community Watch would link with the local navigation authority through the existing user group network.
Central to the idea is the use of state-of-the-art web technology to provide a central point of focus and communication. A central portal would link together all active WW groups and thereby facilitate a constant exchange of ideas and contacts which could also be the source of donations and increased access to philanthropic, lottery and European funding.
We see members of existing waterway support groups as having the potential to form a Watch in their community and invite anyone who is attracted to this idea to contact us via campaign@saveourwaterways.org letting us know how you would like to help.
We also welcome your comments - positive or negative - and any suggestions you may have. If you have an idea of how a local community can improve the way or reduce the costs of something that is done on the waterways, please let us know.
Showing posts with label Canals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canals. Show all posts
Friday, 26 March 2010
Monday, 7 December 2009
BW to keep Property and go "Mutual"?
There has been a lot of head-scratching over the weekend following an article in The Guardian reporting on an interview with Liam Byrne, the chief secretary to the Treasury. The article reads:
A total of £16bn will be saved by pressing ahead with the sale of public assets from April. Assets for sale will include the Dartford crossing, the Tote, the student loans portfolio, Ordnance Survey and the Land Registry. In some cases ministers will wait for assets to recover their value after the recession. "This is not a firesale," Byrne says. "But this is stuff we will bring to the market when the price is right over the next two to three years." Assets such as British Waterways will be reorganised as mutuals.
So what did this mean? On the face of it, BW is not being lumped in with other assets to be sold off, but it does not promise that BW won't be separated from its property assets, which is a current concern of many people, as witnessed by the Online Petition, now in the "top ten" of current petitions on the Downing Street website.
"Mutual" status suggests something that is paid for or owned by those who benefit from it. How could this idea be reconciled with the fact that only a small percentage of waterway users (boaters and anglers) contribute any money to them directly? The only practical way that the other 95%+ of users can contribute is through taxation.
Perhaps the term "mutual" is misleading and this is just another way of describing the "third sector" model that BW has said it wants to become?
The mystery may have been solved this morning, as the Government has issued a report called "Putting The Front Line First" which outlines how the Government hopes to "drive up standards by strengthening the role of citizens and civic society, to free up public services by recasting the relationship between the centre and the frontline, and to streamline the centre of government, saving money for sharper delivery".
The report states: "We are publishing now a portfolio of assets to discuss ownership options with the private sector, including full or partial sale or mutualisation. We will consider new ownership structures that release value from the government estate by creating one or more public property companies".
A chapter of the report's Asset Portfolio (pages 5 to 7) is specifically about British Waterways and includes the section:
"At Budget 2009, it was announced that BW would transfer its property activities (including
joint ventures) into a wholly-owned property subsidiary – in order to ensure clear separation
of, and focus on, both maximising gains from its property and best management of the waterways.
"This process is being taken forward by BW in consultation with HM Treasury, the Shareholder Executive and Defra. However, the Government recognises that there may be benefits in considering alternative structures for BW’s business as a whole, including its property portfolio. We will therefore consider alternative models for the business as a whole, such as mutual or third sector structures. As part of any such future structure for BW, therefore, there may be opportunities for the private sector to invest in the portfolio.
"Under any scenario, ensuring the continued maintenance and protection of the waterways will continue to be an important objective for the Government."
BW has taken this to mean an end to the speculation about a property sell-off [link]. Many waterway users will find this re-assuring although the property portfolio only contributes a part of BW's income. There would still be the problem of obtaining enough additional funding to maintain our waterways adequately.
And reading between the lines the report does not rule out the possibility of some of the property being sold off over time...
[Click below to add your own opinion.]
.
A total of £16bn will be saved by pressing ahead with the sale of public assets from April. Assets for sale will include the Dartford crossing, the Tote, the student loans portfolio, Ordnance Survey and the Land Registry. In some cases ministers will wait for assets to recover their value after the recession. "This is not a firesale," Byrne says. "But this is stuff we will bring to the market when the price is right over the next two to three years." Assets such as British Waterways will be reorganised as mutuals.
So what did this mean? On the face of it, BW is not being lumped in with other assets to be sold off, but it does not promise that BW won't be separated from its property assets, which is a current concern of many people, as witnessed by the Online Petition, now in the "top ten" of current petitions on the Downing Street website.
"Mutual" status suggests something that is paid for or owned by those who benefit from it. How could this idea be reconciled with the fact that only a small percentage of waterway users (boaters and anglers) contribute any money to them directly? The only practical way that the other 95%+ of users can contribute is through taxation.
Perhaps the term "mutual" is misleading and this is just another way of describing the "third sector" model that BW has said it wants to become?
The mystery may have been solved this morning, as the Government has issued a report called "Putting The Front Line First" which outlines how the Government hopes to "drive up standards by strengthening the role of citizens and civic society, to free up public services by recasting the relationship between the centre and the frontline, and to streamline the centre of government, saving money for sharper delivery".
The report states: "We are publishing now a portfolio of assets to discuss ownership options with the private sector, including full or partial sale or mutualisation. We will consider new ownership structures that release value from the government estate by creating one or more public property companies".
A chapter of the report's Asset Portfolio (pages 5 to 7) is specifically about British Waterways and includes the section:
"At Budget 2009, it was announced that BW would transfer its property activities (including
joint ventures) into a wholly-owned property subsidiary – in order to ensure clear separation
of, and focus on, both maximising gains from its property and best management of the waterways.
"This process is being taken forward by BW in consultation with HM Treasury, the Shareholder Executive and Defra. However, the Government recognises that there may be benefits in considering alternative structures for BW’s business as a whole, including its property portfolio. We will therefore consider alternative models for the business as a whole, such as mutual or third sector structures. As part of any such future structure for BW, therefore, there may be opportunities for the private sector to invest in the portfolio.
"Under any scenario, ensuring the continued maintenance and protection of the waterways will continue to be an important objective for the Government."
BW has taken this to mean an end to the speculation about a property sell-off [link]. Many waterway users will find this re-assuring although the property portfolio only contributes a part of BW's income. There would still be the problem of obtaining enough additional funding to maintain our waterways adequately.
And reading between the lines the report does not rule out the possibility of some of the property being sold off over time...
[Click below to add your own opinion.]
.
Thursday, 3 December 2009
What's going at Marsworth?
A couple of weeks ago someone noticed that two planning application had been submitted by to demolish the Marsworth yard and build 14 houses on the site. On closer investigation it turned out the applicant was H2O one of BW's property development partners. (To view the applications and submissions visit http://tinyurl.com/yepu8c2 and search for references 09/01945/APP and 09/01946/ACD).
At the time of the discovery just a couple of days remained before the deadline for objections but the reach of the internet ensured within a few hours the word had spread and a number of people and stakeholders put in their objections.
As one might expect, the objections express a mix of concern about the loss of part of our heritage, appearance, style and number of the proposed new buildings and whether the current boating facilities would be retained. One respondent complained about a local press feature which reported a BW representative as saying 'demolition was expected to start on Nov 30th.'
A few of us made the point that the planning process should halt until BW had performed its obligations to consult with its stakeholders on what is clearly a sensitive issue. It wasn't long before Stuart Mills, BW Property Director published an informative clarification in which he apologises for not consulting with a 'wider range of stakeholders' and states that boaters facilities will be relocated (see http://tinyurl.com/5abxc). This was followed by an invitation to local boaters to attend an open meeting on Dec 10th with BW and the developers H2O. The date clashes with the local IWA Chiltern Branch Christmas celebration but at least the proper consultation process is starting.
Ed Fox, PR Officer from BW, added that it's going to be all right anyway because BW have already got 'plans' to sort out the boaters issues and preserve the odd crane and bit of the wharf. But good intentions aside, the fundamental issue is that NONE of this is written into the current planning application(s). BW don't have any planning approval to construct alternative boaters facilities, nor is there any way to legally enforce the preservation of any parts of the old yard based on the current planning application. Some commentators have observed that the suggested site for the replacement boater facilities is itself in a conservation area which, if true, may mean that the chances of getting permission granted are minimal if not zero.
What people don't seem to realise is that the outcome of the planning application dictates only what must happen; anything else can be and usually is avoided. IF the current planning applications are allowed, then neither BW or the developers are under ANY obligation to provide relocated facilities or preserve any heritage, so no amount of bolting of stable doors will change anything.
Our hope is that someone will raise these points at the meeting on December 10th.
At the time of the discovery just a couple of days remained before the deadline for objections but the reach of the internet ensured within a few hours the word had spread and a number of people and stakeholders put in their objections.
As one might expect, the objections express a mix of concern about the loss of part of our heritage, appearance, style and number of the proposed new buildings and whether the current boating facilities would be retained. One respondent complained about a local press feature which reported a BW representative as saying 'demolition was expected to start on Nov 30th.'
A few of us made the point that the planning process should halt until BW had performed its obligations to consult with its stakeholders on what is clearly a sensitive issue. It wasn't long before Stuart Mills, BW Property Director published an informative clarification in which he apologises for not consulting with a 'wider range of stakeholders' and states that boaters facilities will be relocated (see http://tinyurl.com/5abxc). This was followed by an invitation to local boaters to attend an open meeting on Dec 10th with BW and the developers H2O. The date clashes with the local IWA Chiltern Branch Christmas celebration but at least the proper consultation process is starting.
Ed Fox, PR Officer from BW, added that it's going to be all right anyway because BW have already got 'plans' to sort out the boaters issues and preserve the odd crane and bit of the wharf. But good intentions aside, the fundamental issue is that NONE of this is written into the current planning application(s). BW don't have any planning approval to construct alternative boaters facilities, nor is there any way to legally enforce the preservation of any parts of the old yard based on the current planning application. Some commentators have observed that the suggested site for the replacement boater facilities is itself in a conservation area which, if true, may mean that the chances of getting permission granted are minimal if not zero.
What people don't seem to realise is that the outcome of the planning application dictates only what must happen; anything else can be and usually is avoided. IF the current planning applications are allowed, then neither BW or the developers are under ANY obligation to provide relocated facilities or preserve any heritage, so no amount of bolting of stable doors will change anything.
Our hope is that someone will raise these points at the meeting on December 10th.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
