> >>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! > Snipped >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. > >The heritage protection laws/rules covering the building don't change >if BW sells it. They apply to the new owner just the same. > >So, if BW is disposing of a lot of (unneeded) historic buildings, that >sounds to me like a good thing for the waterways. > >Adrian
You have only to go along the Stratford canal to see what happens to lock cottages in private ownership. The only one that resembles the original is owned by National Trust. What is happening to the canal system is the equivalent of building flats on the lawns of Hampton Court. Sue nb Nackered Navvy
