Mike Stevens reminded us that BW's duties include: > "(b) to have regard to the desirability of protecting and > conserving buildings, sites and objects of archaeological, > architectural, engineering or historic interest;" > > That may not be the only place where it occurs in > legislation, but it is one such, even though it doesn't > actually mention the word 'heritage' and is not as rigorous > as we might like.
Not sure I agree with the last comment. The term "heritage" is very general and I doubt that it has any specific legal significance, whereas the wording of the act specifies those respects in which the canal infrastructure should be protected. "Having regard to the desirability" is perhaps not as strong as we would wish, but any absolute obligation to protect and conserve would mean that BW was obliged to spend resource on this to the detriment of its other, less strongly worded, duties. But anyone is free to challenge BW to demonstrate that, in any particular case, they have considered the desirability, and documented the decision reached and the reasons for it. David Mack
