The evidence below has been submitted by Steve Davis following an appearance at the Select Committee meeting in Gloucester.

1  LOCAL AUTHORITY FUNDING

  1.1  During the meeting on 16 April I was asked if I thought a funding partnership between local authorities and Government would be useful. I said I thought it could be of benefit.

  1.2  Since that meeting I was reminded of the Basingstoke Canal which is funded by a partnership of several local authorities and County Councils. The Basingstoke Canal is in a poor state of repair and consistently suffers from water shortages. The net effect is that it is barely navigable and often closed for large parts of the year.

  1.3  Although the councils had pledged money for maintenance, they ran into financial difficulties and failed to provide the promised money. As a result, last year it seemed highly likely that the Basingstoke Canal would permanently close for navigation.

  1.4  Since then additional funds have been found but the canal remains in great danger of closure. On this basis, I now consider that local authority funding suffers the same disadvantage as the current grant based funding from Government. In both cases the supply of funds cannot be relied on and are likely to suffer from political expediency.

  The following two sections relate to discussions at the session in Gloucester regarding British Waterways attitudes to navigation versus its property portfolio and also to its commercial competence.

2  BRITISH WATERWAYS PRIORITISATION BETWEEN NAVIGATIONAL ISSUES AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ASPIRATIONS

  2.1  Over the past three years on the Gloucester & Sharpness Canal I have seen some evidence that Ian Jarvis, British Waterways South West Regional Manager, seems more focussed on developing his property portfolio than in maintaining the navigation.

  2.2  During the fourth quarter of 2006 Ian became a Director on the joint venture company set up between British Waterways and Peel Holdings to develop Gloucester Docks. This despite Ian already having a full time job managing three geographically dispersed waterways (the Severn Navigation, The Bridgewater Canal and the Kennet and Avon Canal). Both the K&A and Severn present significant challenges in terms of maintenance.

  2.3  Paul Coupe (probably the best waterways engineer in BW SW Region) has been permanently assigned to the Gloucester Docks regeneration project despite this project seemingly having little impact on the navigation.

  2.4  In May 2006, BW SW Region sold the bucket dredger, "Thomas Fletcher" for less than £20,000. The dredger was built in 1981 and was in good working order. The replacement cost is well in excess of £500,000. The G&S Canal has not been dredged for over 20 years and at some point this will become necessary. The only way to dredge the canal effectively is by bucket dredger. It seems strange that a navigation authority would sell such a vital asset for "track" maintenance at a bargain price.

  2.5  Signage on the River Severn has been a cause for complaint by local boating groups for several years. Danger signs for weirs are often obscured by vegetation in summer and some are badly faded. The entrance to Gloucester Locks requires craft to change station and pass "starboard to starboard". Such a procedure is normally signed with an internationally recognised symbol. Despite these safety related complaints, the approach to Gloucester Lock remains unsigned and a tardy programme of replacing one weir sign per year has only just commenced.

  2.6  The instances above lead me to believe navigation issues are lower in priority than property development.

3  BRITISH WATERWAYS COMMERCIAL COMPETENCE

  3.1  The sale of the Thomas Fletcher mentioned above does not seem to be commercially sound. British Waterways would probably claim they could buy in external services. However in the session on 16 April the Select Committee were told that British Waterways had said they would no longer dredge the Parting in Gloucester to 10 feet on cost grounds. Dredging the Parting is done by sub-contractors and costs upwards of £200,000 per year.

  3.2  I was a member of a boater's working party who met BW SW Region in November last year to find ways of reducing the impact to boaters of cost cutting on the G&S Canal. During that meeting we suggested that BW should look at additional ways of increasing revenue rather than concentrate on cutting costs and reducing services.

  3.3  British Waterways said they had 200 boats waiting for a mooring on the G&S. One obvious suggestion was to increase the number of moorings on the G&S Canal. British Waterways' response was that putting in more linear moorings was against national policy.

  3.4  The working party thought there were opportunities for just over 100 additional moorings giving an annual revenue of at least £100,000. The boating view was that the G&S was untypical due to its depth and width and, unlike narrow canals, passing boats caused virtually no disturbance to moored boats. The working party thought most boaters would be in favour of such a move if it helped maintain existing service levels.

  3.5  Despite this, British Waterways remained very resistant to the idea and in April this year announced they were closing the moorings waiting list.

  3.6  In the meantime local boating groups have continued working with British Waterways and have done a survey of local boaters. This shows 70% of local boaters are in favour of additional moorings.

  3.7  I am surprised that given its poor financial position, British Waterways is prepared to quote national policy rather than put some energy into an obvious and low risk revenue earning opportunity.

Steve Davis

May 2007