SUMMARY

  1.  Proposals to continue and extend the role of income from real estate in the funding of British Waterways (BW), consistent with recommendations in my submission, have attracted a small but vociferous body of opposition.

  2.  Representatives of this body are scheduled to appear at the Sub-committee's hearings at Gloucester. This is of concern, as:

—  Various damaging public allegations made by members of this body have been misleadingly presented, or are contrary to fact.

—  The status of some leading members of the body is questionable.

  3.  This supplementary document provides background to the Sub-committee with respect to these concerns.

INTRODUCTION

  4.  The increasing need for BW to secure sources of funding other than government grant has led to its growing focus on achieving additional income from its real estate, and on its establishment of market prices for its services (including particularly rents for its real estate).

  5.  This focus has produced a review of many of BW's properties and arrangements concerning them, which has revealed many cases of under-use or inefficient use of properties and significantly sub-market charges for their occupancies. This in turn has led in a number of cases to actions by BW to dispose or redevelop properties, or increases in prices to their occupants.

  6.  This pattern of events appears entirely proper, as BW cannot justify holding assets producing inadequate returns, or subsidising (especially due to neglect or historical accident) preferred users or tenants. This would be the case in general, but is particularly so now BW is under severe financial pressure.

  7.  However, some outcomes of BW's improvement of its management have been unwelcome to some parties, which are objecting (and, in some cases, campaigning) in response.

  8.  The objections generally fall under one of two headings. These embody claims that:

—  Heritage. BW is allowing, or participating in, property developments that are inconsistent with valued characteristics of the waterways.

—  Arrogance. BW is failing to consult in good faith with those affected by its changes and plans.

  9.  However, the objections tend to fail to recognise that BW is subject to the same regulations (eg Local Authority planning) for protecting heritage as other property owners and developers, and that it has a substantial mechanism for public consultation and for dealing with public complaints. This latter includes as a final step referral to a completely independent Waterways Ombudsman.

  10.  Moreover, on closer examination, it appears that many of these objections are being made by people who are basing their views on misleading, but well publicised, information. Further, rather than being motivated by policy concerns, those who have originally distributed that information seem often to be directly affected by the termination of their use of BW property as a result of its redevelopment, or by increases in BW's prices for such use, or have other previous perceived grievances against BW.

  11.  Two leading parties in this latter respect are:

—  The Regents Network, led by Del Brenner.

—  The British Waterways Action Forum, led by Nicholas Macwhirter.

  12.  In addition, the campaign against one particular redevelopment, that of the Castle Mill boatyard at Oxford, a cause espoused by the latter party, has particularly involved John Keyes.

  13.  All three of these individuals are scheduled to appear before the Sub-committee at its Gloucester session. Some background concerning them, and their claims, may thus help Sub-committee members in their questioning of these witnesses.

1.  THE REGENTS NETWORK

  14.  This organisation was apparently formed in about 2004, and is based in London (its name seems to be drawn from the Regent's Canal). However, it has been difficult to find out much about it.

  15.  Its spokesman appears always to be Del Brenner, who has made a number of presentations and contributions to public bodies on its behalf.

  16.  However, Mr Brenner has proved reluctant to respond to queries about the Network. In particular, the following information does not appear to be available:

—  How does one join the Network?

—  How many members does it have?

—  When and where are its meetings held?

—  How are its policies and positions formed?

—  How are its officers chosen, and who are they currently?

—  What is its financial position?

  17.  The non-availability of this information has led to the suspicion that the Network is little more than a name under which Mr Brenner presents his personal views. There is apparently also little public knowledge concerning Mr Brenner's own background with respect to the waterways or BW, so facts to confirm or refute this suspicion would be very welcome.

  18.  The Network has issued several documents with respect to the London waterways and BW's management of them. An example is "Are The Waterways Of The Lower Lea Valley In Good Hands?" (Good Hands). This was issued in 2005, at the time BW was proposing the construction of a new lock (Prescott Lock) in the Lea delta in east London, to enable carriage by barge of building materials and spoil associated with the London Olympics and related developments. This proposal was aimed at very substantial environmental benefits, related to avoiding major increases in truck traffic on congested London streets.

  19.  Good Hands was widely distributed. It strongly opposes Prescott Lock. However, it is largely based on incorrect information and assumptions of both waterways engineering and BW's property development plans. Yet, despite this being pointed out to Mr Brenner, including via review of its claims by a number of knowledgeable people (including professional waterway engineers) and public support of the Prescott Lock scheme by national waterways organisations, the document was neither corrected not retracted by Mr Brenner or the Network. Further, requests by BW for discussions with Mr Brenner, including its offer of a meeting with BW's chief executive, were refused by Mr Brenner.

  20.  Good Hands did considerable damage to the campaign for Prescott Lock, as funding for the scheme was difficult to secure and had to come from several sources. The funding bodies were naturally unfamiliar with the technicalities of waterways, and thus could be alarmed by allegations of functional flaws in the plans for the Lock.

  21.  Fortunately, the needed funding was eventually received, and the scheme is now moving into construction.

  22.  A copy of Good Hands, and of a detailed critique of it, are attached as appendices to this document.[1]

2.  BRITISH WATERWAYS ACTION FORUM

  23.  The Forum has appeared in the last few months. Its principal activity appears to be its web site (www.britishwaterways-squanderingourinheritance.com).

  24.  Its spokesman is Nicholas Macwhirter. As for the Network, further information concerning it is difficult to obtain. A request via its web site for basic data has not been responded to. Answers to questions as posed above concerning the Network would be welcome.

  25.  Mr Macwhirter is or was the Managing Director of Intermodal Solutions Ltd. This company was heavily involved in a proposal for using the Lee Navigation to carry rubbish generated in Hackney (east London) to an incinerator, which included the design and construction of new waterway vessels and road vehicles for this task. Although the scheme showed promise, in the end it did not go ahead. The principal reason for this appears to be that Hackney, a borough well-known for its financial problems, could not make the expenditure required as its contribution. However, Mr Macwhirter appears to feel that, despite BW's ongoing support of the scheme, deliberate action by BW caused the scheme to fail. In fact, BW could not justify subsidising the scheme, so non-contribution by Hackney made the scheme unviable with respect to BW.

  26.  The Forum's web site contains numerous allegations of inappropriate actions by BW, with respect to several schemes in addition to the Hackney waste one. However, many of these allegations are either false, incomplete, or obsolete.

  27.  One of BW's initiatives which is covered on the web site is the redevelopment of the Castle Mill boat yard at Oxford. This has become a cause ce[acute]le"bre, largely as a result of publicity about it distributed by some boaters who used to moor there, and their actions at the yard. One of these boaters is John Keyes.

  28.  At BW's request, many of the site's allegations are now moving through BW's complaints process, so cannot be fully discussed here. However, a detailed criticism of the Castle Mill case, which is in the public domain, is attached to this document.

CONCLUSION

  29.  BW currently has insufficient annual income to maintain the waterways sufficiently to prevent their decline. It is therefore vitally important for the waterways that it can make the best of its assets, and of the potential income available to it from them.

  30.  There can certainly be legitimate disagreements with the choices by BW of paths to follow in this respect. However, the dissemination of misleading or incorrect information which can damage BW itself, and through it the waterways, is a matter of concern.

  31.  In particular, opposition in this manner to the establishment of alternative and more secure sources of income for BW, such as a larger property portfolio in particular, could remove from BW its best hope for achieving the financial security it and the waterways need.

  32.  It is suggested that the Sub-committee closely examine any negative allegations about BW that are presented to it in this respect, and the background and motives of those presenting them.

  APPENDICES ATTACHED[2]

  Are The Waterways Of The Lower Lea Valley In Good Hands? Regents Network 2005

  Critique of Good Hands by the Author

  The Death Of Castle Mill Boatyard BW Action Forum 2006

  Critique of Castle Mill by the Author

  Sir Adrian Stott Bt

  April 2007

2   Not printed. Back