Hi all I'm unsure who's said what so far so my apologies right now if I attribute anything to anyone that isn't 'theirs'.
Neil seems to be saying that historic buildings can leave BW's ownership through disposal and give valuable income for long term maintenance. Property sales don't remove the planning conditions placed on buildings of true heritage value. They still apply, and as a result, the building remains. In fact, the building remains in probably a better maintained state than it would have done if BW had continued to maintain it. A private buyer has more at stake, some would argue. But I'm not saying that BW doesn't care 'as much' as a private buyer would. The simple fact is BW doesn't have the pot of money needed to maintain buildings to 'that' standard. Not when it has the channel and towpath to maintain, for a start. I don't want to duck the issue, so I'm going head long into this by using the pretty lock keeper's cottage just down the way from here as an example. If I had a dog I'd walk past it and admire it every day. It's no longer operational, it hasn't been since the 60's. It's got a tenant in it, and BW earns some rent from it, but the building needs constant repairs and the rent soon goes. BW sells the cottage for a small fortune and guess what - if I had a dog I'd walk past it and admire it every day. That small fortune goes into BW's bigger pot of money and is used to keep the track up to scratch, for example that lovely grade II listed aqueduct (operational property!) just down the way from the old lock keeper's cottage. The pot of money is also used to buy further property - parcels of land alongside existing BW land holdings, for example. Grwoing a pot of derelict land in this way makes a future regeneration scheme all the more profitable, and guess what - more money for looking after that aqueduct 30 years from now when it'll need more moeny spent on it. I'm not sure who wrote "Isn't maintaining and getting income from it (property) what they should be doing, not just selling it to get capital that - once spent - has gone forever." More accurately, this is what happens. Maintain the property required for operational purposes, including the heritage artefacts that make up that estate, and dispose of that which is not needed and costs BW valuable resources. Use the money earned to maintain the track and speculate on other property areas, with a view to disposing of these property areas once long term deals deliver long term income. This is already happening now - BW's property estate delivered nearly £30m in income over the last year. Eugene (not off to walk the dog - it's raining!) --- In [email protected], Nick Atty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 09 May 2007 09:18:01 +0100, you 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! > > > >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. > > > >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. > > Hang on a mo. I thought you were the one who wanted BW to get a large > property portfolio. Isn't maintaining and getting income from it what > they should be doing, not just selling it to get capital that - once > spent - has gone forever. > > >> 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. > > Surely this ought to include buildings that contribute to what the > waterways look like, not just be new developments. > > After all, if the private sector want them, they must be worth money, so > BW should be able to realise that for their use as part of "maximizing > revenue". > > > -- > On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk > > (Waterways World site of the month, April 2001) > My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon >
