Weaver Bridge rumbles on
THE neglected condition of the swing bridge at Sutton over the Weaver has often been aired in narrowboatworld, but with little response from British Waterways other than it will cost too much to put right.
This started off as a 'simple' request to repaint an eyesore of a bridge whose maintenance has been neglected by British Waterways writes Tom Reynolds.
Galvanised into action
Thanks should go to a variety of local media for reporting on it, and since then Cheshire West & Chester Council were galvanised into action—except we just don't know what form that action took!
Cheshire West & Chester Council had to admit they had not 'checked' the British Waterways estimate of £4m for the repairs or the methodology of the proposed repairs or road diversions required to cope with a proposed crossing closure of six to nine months.
A bit 'odd'
Frodsham Council has written to British Waterways asking for waterway traffic details requiring the bridge to be opened. This is a bit 'odd' as Cheshire West & Chester Council 'should' have this information to hand—but (again) doesn't seem to have!
Cheshire West & Chester Council and British Waterways went to meet with Graham Evans, MP for Weaver Vale to ask him to approach Defra for the £4m that British Waterways admitted it didn't have for this job!
How the meeting went, I don't know. Does anyone? Has any feedback been given?
Trust status
The day before the Graham Evans meeting, Richard Benyon announced a 'funding' deal to allow British Waterways to move to Trust status in the form of the Canal & River Trust.
Personally, I am appalled at the way the transfer is being proposed and handled. In the period of 1985 to 1988 I was a management consultant who was involved with several transfer of Public sector assets to the Private sector.
In all cases the Public sector entity was brought into line with 'commercial' operating methodologies prior to transfer, with the Government responsible for any 'change-management' costs associated with this.
Not much chance of survival
From what I can see, the new entity is to come to 'life' with many such responsibilities (and liabilities) upon it, which I do not think gives it much chance of survival.
An example is the Sutton Swing Bridge.
Is it part of the £460m of 'assets' to be transferred from British Waterways to Canal & River Trust?
An asset?
If it is, why is it to be accepted by Canal & River Trust as an asset when it has an identified £4m repair bill trailing with it?
If it is not part of the £460m of assets to be transferred to Canal & River Trust, where is it to reside? I'm just concerned the community will end up with an unsafe and unusable bridge because no one knows who is accountable for its upkeep.
How many other such examples of 'toxic' assets are there within the £460m of assets, Richard Benyon has so 'graciously' bestowed upon Canal & River Trust?
Will British Waterways answer these questions?
Freedom of Information Act
Well, put it like this—it is strongly rumoured that the Information Commissioner is concerned that British Waterways wants to transfer to Canal & River Trust the policy British Waterways had in minimally complying with Freedom of Information legislation (narrowboatworld).
Personally, I cannot see Lynne Berry (CEO, Transitional Trustees) accepting this. Ms Berry is a well known and well respected voice of Human Rights. Such action would make her position untenable.