eugenebastonbw wrote: > Neil wrote: >> Great...when BW sell them off "on the quiet", like the Tipton Guaging >> Station, by Factory Locks on the BCN, with out telling the new > owners > of its >> historic significance. > > > I couldn't let that one pass. TGS hasn't been sold off. It's on a > 150 > year lease with additional protective covenants to those already > attached because of its Listed status.
I am sure that we are all glad that this is now the case that there are more restrictive covenants to preserve the character. > I'm not sure of not "...telling the new (LEASE) owners of its (sic) > historical significance". Apart from it being blatantly obvious to > anyone who saw the building that it clearly had historical > significance, I'd have thought it was down to the new leaseholder to > follow up the historical significance aspect of the building. That's > what happens when anyone purchases a building isn't it? > > I agree more should have been made about the lease, but considering > it > was advertised in Waterways World and another magazine when it was > being offered, I don't think BW was being underhand. In fact, > considering the building's incresingly dilapidated state (see my > comments in my other post about BW having only finite resources to > care > for everything), surely something that gives it a viable use is to be > applauded? > > Protective covenants aren't rare either, so I'll reject the following > too: > > "It would appear that BW want to "dump" extraneous historic > buildings, > so > they don't have to manage them, with little regard to what happens to > them > after they are sold. As you say there are heritage protection > laws/rules but > these are rather easily got round, especially when BW does not > know?! / > does > not want to know about their historical significance." > > And as for this comment... > > "BWB have a long, nasty history of destroying historic buildings and > artifacts. In the old days they used to be able to get away with just > letting them decay, so they had to be demolished ....." > > I agree Neil. I can think of those lovely brick built bridges > sprayed > in concrete. There's one or two on the Hatton flight near BW's > offices, just to remind us. Admittedly, on that occasion it didn't > get > demolished, but it did get ruined with the spray concrete, a vain > attempt to minimise what needed to be spent on maintaining it in the > future. > > "....now they have this new method of shifting the blame." > > Eh? These days the bridges don't get sprayed, they get repaired. My > comments on property elsewhere and its value to being able to this > with > BW's operational estate, i.e. properly maintain the network and all > of > those buildings and structures that make it work are poignant here > too. > > Apart from that, I don't understand the blame comment for another > reason. Would you rather have TGS standing derelict, torn to shreds > by > the local low life, or put to (protected) use, earning BW money to > maintain those bridges? Perhaps those of you who are not members of the BCNS would like to look at the following: http://www.bcn-society.co.uk/news.php The initial plan for the Guaging Station was for it to be turned into 4 independent town houses, so because of the Leasehold Reform Act, within a couple of years it would be within the rights of the owners to buy the lease off BW. ISTR that the advert included the TGS with all the BW land as a development site, so the TGS would be in the hands of developers...not the kind of people that read WW? ..or want any heritage use to spoil their housing estate? The TGS should have first been offered for a heritage use, it would appear the the DCT is now interested....but then as others have said this would not maximise the profit. If this kind of thing keeps on happening, then perhaps BW should have its heritage property portfolio restricted and listed? Your analogy of operational structures is a bit removed from what I was thinking of - the many lock cottages and wharfside buildings that have been demolished (some not that long ago). The reason that many of these structures were in a ruinous state is a historic BWB problem and is yet another reason that BW itself should be using to argue for more government grant, perhaps directly from DCMS. This does come under BW's statutory duties: 1) As a navigation authority it has a duty to maintain the safety and structural integrity of waterway infrastructure, water supply, discharges and drainage, waterway management and maintenance operations, including maintaining water levels for navigation. 2) To protect and safeguard the natural environment and landscape character of waterways. 3) To encourage public access to and recreation use of the inland canal and river navigations. 4) Provide transport for commercial freight. I thought that all the bridges on the Hatton Flight were reinforced concrete, put in during the 1930's widening? To repair these with rotting steel reinforcing and crumbly concrete, then the final finish could well be sprayed on. Talk of Hatton Flight, has BW gone into racehorses?...it seems like a non-runner to me! :-) http://guardian.sportinglife.com/GU_Racecards/0,14883,229808,00.html > > "Who is left in the beleaguered BW to manage Heritage? BW should be > actively be monitoring the historic environment around their > waterways, > not just that left in their control." > > Plenty of people. We produce a State of our Waterways Heritage > report > each year. This is from our Head of Heritage, Nigel Crowe, widely > appreciated as an expert on waterways heritage, and ex English > heritage. Yes, and Nigel produces good work. One starts to wonder if he is at odds with some of BW's management, who's background is in property. > We do actively monitor the use of the adjoining land to BW's > property, > and make comments just like anyone or any other group can do. The > democratic planning process is just that; BW doesn't (sadly, in my > view) have any special say in it. Maybe not in Scotland, but in England and Wales the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment) Order 1997 gave BW statutory consultee status. BW are also meant to be involved with any development plans that effect a BW waterside area. In Ireland Waterways Ireland does not have a rich property portfolio, because it only owns operational land...the TNC jury is still out on whether this is the best approach...what do others think? -- Neil Arlidge - NB Earnest - Shannon Reg 7410...not here anymore. Follow the truly independent TNC at : http://www.tuesdaynightclub.co.uk Visit this site and help save our waterways from the DEFRA cuts http://www.saveourwaterways.org.uk/
