[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > "Neil Arlidge" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >It is indeed the historic arifacts that are at risk! > >BW waterways managers have a 4 year "asset disposal" program that must > >include a LOT of historic buildings within that portfolio...perhaps Eugene > >can elaborate on this for us? > If BW sells a historic building, all that happens is that the building > gets a new owner. That is not the same a demolition!
Whether or not that's true rather depends on BW's attitude to waterways heritage, I would say. If BW sells a historic building, it might well be the case that the building goes from being owned by an organisation with in theory a remit (or at least a stated aim) to protect the waterways' heritage (for example by attempting to ensure that such building is maintained and used in a way that is sympathetic to its history) to an owner who has no such remit or aim. Of course if BW is selling such buildings at all, that casts doubt upon whether it really has any interest in preserving the waterways' heritage in such a way. But at least we can occasionally remind BW of its policy on preserving the waterways' heritage. We can't do that with a private owner. > BW owns a lot of historic buildings. Historic buildings cost a lot to > maintain/operate. The money to do that must come from BW, i.e. it > gets spent on that rather than on running the waterways. Personally I would be happy for a little of my licence money / tax contribution to Government support for BW to be spent on preserving the entire waterways environment including historic canalside buildings rather than simply the track and operational structures. But each to their own. > If BW owns a historic building that it does not need (i.e. is not > required for the operation of the waterways), surely we are better off > if BW sells it? The buyer will want/need it, and BW will both be > relieved of the cost of maintaining it and get a capital sum from the > sale. > > After all Robin Evans did say heritage was safe in BW's hands > It sounds to me that that statement refers to buildings which remain > in BW's ownership. In which case the statement is pretty much worthless - unless you view waterways heritage in narrow (or broad, or wide) terms that only include the operational stuff that BW can't sell. > The heritage protection laws/rules covering the building don't change > if BW sells it. They apply to the new owner just the same. Indeed (and I would see more listings, conservation areas etc as being a possible way to preserve more heritage structures). But in addition to the statutory rules, there is also the possibility of a BW policy in favour of protecting the heritage. In the past, they had no such interest; in recent years it looked like BW was graduallay moving in the right direction (for example with a tendency away from standardised lock gear and a greater interest in matching original materials when carrying out repairs) but this may be faltering or being cut back thanks to the current financial problems - and there are suggestions that BW's increased interest in waterway restoration may be going the same way. > So, if BW is disposing of a lot of (unneeded) historic buildings, that > sounds to me like a good thing for the waterways. I'm not convinced either way. Martin
