Archived decisions

BASINGSTOKE CANAL

1. The Executive Member for Recreation and Heritage considered a report on a review to appraise options for the future management of the Basingstoke Canal. The review, which had been instigated in 2005 by the County Council working in conjunction with Surrey County Council and the partner authorities, arose from the need to ensure the long-term financing of the Basingstoke Canal Authority.

2. The Canal was acquired jointly by Hampshire and Surrey County Councils in the 1970s and since that time has been restored and developed for recreation and nature conservation purposes. The Canal is managed through a partnership agreement between the two County Council owners and the six riparian local authorities along its length (32 miles from Greywell to the M25 in Surrey). It is operated through a Joint Management Committee and Joint Advisory Group including the Surrey and Hampshire Canal Society which has provided immense voluntary support to the restoration and development of the Canal.

3. Detailed feasibility work was undertaken following the compilation of a shortlist of options by the Basingstoke Canal Joint Management Committee with the key aim of putting the Canal in a position where it would have long term financial sustainability. The shortlisted options were Unchanged Management; Management by a Third Party; and Stop or Limit Use of the Canal. Approaches were made to British Waterways, the National Trust and the Wildlife Trusts during this time but none were in a position to take over the management of the Canal. The possibility of transferring the Canal into charitable trust status was also considered. The status quo was not deemed to be an option as it would only contribute to the present slow decline of the Canal and would not solve the current funding constraints.

4. The Executive Member took into account the views of the Culture and Communities Policy Review Committee, which covered the following aspects:

    · The need for a full condition survey of the Canal to establish what structural maintenance was required.

    · The fact that the Canal represented a major corporate risk for the County Council.

    · The need to encourage developer contributions where possible to assist with work on the Canal.

    · The valuable recreational role played by the Canal for many tens of thousands of people living nearby, and consequently the way the Canal fitted in with the County Council's corporate aims.

    · The need to encourage innovative means of income generation.

    · The necessity of obtaining full commitment to the future of the Canal at senior member level in Surrey County Council and the six riparian district councils.

    · The vital partnership with volunteers, especially the Surrey and Hampshire Canal Society.

    · Further development of links with other restored Canals.

    5. The Executive Member therefore endorsed the following recommendations agreed by the Joint Management Committee that:

      · All the Authorities accept their ongoing obligations to the Canal on the current basis until an alternative funding model and contractual framework can be agreed;

      · The principle that any future option for the future management of the Canal would require long term guaranteed funding from all local authorities involved - the two owners and the riparian partners;

      · Officers develop alternative funding formula models and a formal funding agreement using a service level agreement format, including required performance measures;

      · Senior elected Members then agree the principles of a long term rolling three or five year funding commitment for the Canal to be effective from the financial year 2008/09 to ensure that the actual running costs would enable the Canal to operate as a safe, navigable waterway and the towpath remain open for recreation, meeting minimum legal requirements;

      · Surrey and Hampshire County Councils (as the two owners) develop an updated joint protocol for their respective responsibilities in terms of supporting the operation and management of the Canal;

      · Further discussions be held with Surrey Wildlife Trust, Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust and the Canal Society to develop the potential for partnership working;

      · Further work be undertaken by the Canal Director in reviewing the potential to reduce current operational costs and realise further income streams;

      · The Income Generation Sub-Group continues its work in developing the most viable additional sources of income;

      · Whilst the formula allocation and funding agreement are being developed, the options of creating a Charitable Trust and possibly Outsourcing to a Private Company are pursued further;

      · The Regional Park Authority option is not pursued further given the lack of support for this option as a viable way forward for the future management of the Canal;

      · Given the cost implications set out in the Structural Engineering Report the closing of the Canal to navigation is not pursued further at this time;

      · The two owners commission a Condition Survey for the Canal, which will lead to the production of an Asset Management Plan for the Canal; and

      · The Project Plan developed to achieve these objectives is taken forward as quickly as possible.

                Margaret Snaith

              Executive Member

              for Recreation and Heritage