On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 23:22:54 +0100, Steve Wood <[email protected]> wrote:
>absorbing BW in its entirety into an >enlarged EA would intuitively have the biggest cost saving (though would >seem to rule out any third sector move.) > > From my perspective an interesting opportunity would come if the whole >lot merged as EA are going to have a huge say in whether or not the >Uttoxeter Canal restoration succeeds or not. (It crosses an EA managed >river and passes along the edge of an EA monitored flood plain.) A >navigation authority might look on us more sympathetically :) > >Steve Navigation is a tiny part of the EA empire. As a result, its needs tend to be given a very low priority. EA Navigation has difficulty fighting its corner, and has in the past been kept quiet when other parts of EA would prefer to prevent awkward questions being raised (I well remember the meeting where a non-Navigation EA rep got up at a meeting about extending navigation up the Avon to Warwick, to express strong opposition, after EA Navigation in Reading had said it was strongly in support). OTOH, BW is focused on navigation, and fights to get the resources that function needs. Also, EA is basically a regulatory body. Such bodies are not designed to be operational. BW is an operational outfit, which is what the waterways needs. The Uttoxeter example shows why BW should be the navigation body. It can then fight the waterways corner, pushing for the needed permits etc. from EA. EA Navigation would probably just be told by its larger brother sections in EA that the restoration is a loser, and to keep its mouth shut. On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 22:31:20 +0100, "Strudwick.Family" <[email protected]> wrote: >The problem with merging navigation authorities is it leaves all other >navigation bodies such as the Broads, Middle Level, etc. out on the >cold. They are also suffering cuts and reduced maintenance. We need to >start from the ground up building a national Inland Waterways navigation >body. Cobling something together from the failed BW and EA organisations >is unlikely to produce a viable long term solution to the maintenance >and preservation of the UK's inland waterways. > >Paul I agree that adding the Broads' etc. navigation functions to the National Inland Navigation Authority (NINA) makes sense. However, I think the way to achieve such integration is gradually. Transfer the EA navigations to BW first, and let the result settle down. Only then do the same for the other public navigation bodies, one by one. You might want to leave the non-public ones (such as ANT) in place, though. However, NINA could look after navigation on the Wey, leaving NT as the owner of the estate, in the same way BW does for its rivers now. Economies of scale, and NINA's greater experience and specialised resources, would make that arrangement much more efficient than having NT do it all itself. Adrian Adrian Stott Tel. UK (0)7956-299966
