Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 17:16:57 GMT
....and we do not know how much of the “track” has been sold off so far. That seems odd. Surely CRT would have to reveal that information if asked (via FOI request or whatever)? Maybe nobody has asked yet...
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 30, 2016 17:27:39 GMT
That seems odd. Surely CRT would have to reveal that information if asked (via FOI request or whatever)? Maybe nobody has asked yet... I know of 3 items sold off with SoS consent - the last being the strip of riverbed of the Lea in East London, that a developer wanted so that piling the bank would be cheaper and easier. Why not ask for the info yourself, if interested? Sign up to "WhatDoTheyKnow" and lodge the request.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 30, 2016 17:28:07 GMT
As to the assets, these are effectively divided into investment assets under CaRT’s sole control, and the essential BW infrastructure which is placed in trust as a national asset, which CaRT have the responsibility of managing. If CaRT the limited company was to be declared officially insolvent and placed into liquidation, the national assets would be turned over to a new body to manage. These “protected” assets which belong to the nation [nominally] are not supposed to be disposable by CaRT, except by consent of the Secretary of State. Sadly, as Jenlyn has observed, there has been no difficulty encountered by Parry in seeking such consents, and we do not know how much of the “track” has been sold off so far. this is the sticky bit that I can't get my head round. So it's not privatisation because crt nominally "manage" the assets owned by the nation. But effectively they can dispose of these assets "owned" by the nation as the property manager sees fit. How the hell did they get away with implementing this situation ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 17:31:49 GMT
That seems odd. Surely CRT would have to reveal that information if asked (via FOI request or whatever)? Maybe nobody has asked yet... I know of 3 items sold off with SoS consent - the last being the strip of riverbed of the Lea in East London, that a developer wanted so that piling the bank would be cheaper and easier. Why not ask for the info yourself, if interested? Sign up to "WhatDoTheyKnow" and lodge the request. Yes they have finished the piling on that bit of the Lea Navigation now. Its piled to about 6ft above the waterline so not somewhere you can moor (it was not a mooring previously anyway). It does seem a dodgy precedent as they apparently sold or transferred a one metre wide strip of the actual waterway. Its nice and wide there so not specifically a problem but a dodgy principle. It was IKEA who bought it (assuming they actually paid for it and it was not simply a transfer). IKEA are building a new residential district. Not just the furniture but the whole thing and they now own part of the waterway as well. I hate IKEA
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 17:32:32 GMT
That seems odd. Surely CRT would have to reveal that information if asked (via FOI request or whatever)? Maybe nobody has asked yet... I know of 3 items sold off with SoS consent - the last being the strip of riverbed of the Lea in East London, that a developer wanted so that piling the bank would be cheaper and easier. Why not ask for the info yourself, if interested? Sign up to "WhatDoTheyKnow" and lodge the request. May well do. I'm just very surprised that you or Tony haven't already done it seeing as you both seem to look for any opportunity to 'diss' CRT. Very odd in fact...must be a conspiracy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 17:33:16 GMT
As to the assets, these are effectively divided into investment assets under CaRT’s sole control, and the essential BW infrastructure which is placed in trust as a national asset, which CaRT have the responsibility of managing. If CaRT the limited company was to be declared officially insolvent and placed into liquidation, the national assets would be turned over to a new body to manage. These “protected” assets which belong to the nation [nominally] are not supposed to be disposable by CaRT, except by consent of the Secretary of State. Sadly, as Jenlyn has observed, there has been no difficulty encountered by Parry in seeking such consents, and we do not know how much of the “track” has been sold off so far. So it's not privatisation because crt nominally "manage" the assets owned by the nation. But effectively they can dispose of these assets "owned" by the nation as the property manager sees fit. How the hell did they get away with implementing this situation ? You've got it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 17:36:48 GMT
Going back to the point of the OP I always assumed that CRT was just a stepping stone between national and private ownership and that it is designed to fail as a system for managing a large waterways infrastructure.
I don't really know that much about it but for some reason I can't see the current arrangements lasting for long.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 30, 2016 17:38:46 GMT
this is the sticky bit that I can't get my head round. So it's not privatisation because crt nominally "manage" the assets owned by the nation. But effectively they can dispose of these assets "owned" by the nation as the property manager sees fit. How the hell did they get away with implementing this situation ? You haven't quite understood me for some reason [my prolixity no doubt to blame]. They cannot dispose of the 'protected' waterways assets " as the property manager sees fit". That applies only to the non-waterways specific investment portfolios of land and buildings. So, for example, they can flog off their investments on the Docklands, or their joint ventures into development of flats at Brentford etc, etc. They cannot [without Secretary of State consent] flog off bits of the waterway itself. The privatisation of the assets acquired by BW in expectation that returns on these would help them become financially independent, has therefore happened, but the waterways themselves are excluded from that privatisation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 17:45:46 GMT
So what happened with IKEA buying a one meter wide strip of the Lea Navigation?
I guess they got approval from the secretary of state.
Its interesting about docklands. 3 of the large barges moored in West India Quay have recently left. They were on CRT mooring licenses . Perhaps CRT is disposing of this property ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 17:45:59 GMT
this is the sticky bit that I can't get my head round. So it's not privatisation because crt nominally "manage" the assets owned by the nation. But effectively they can dispose of these assets "owned" by the nation as the property manager sees fit. How the hell did they get away with implementing this situation ? You haven't quite understood me for some reason [my prolixity no doubt to blame]. They cannot dispose of the 'protected' waterways assets " as the property manager sees fit". That applies only to the non-waterways specific investment portfolios of land and buildings. So, for example, they can flog off their investments on the Docklands, or their joint ventures into development of flats at Brentford etc, etc. They cannot [without Secretary of State consent] flog off bits of the waterway itself. The privatisation of the assets acquired by BW in expectation that returns on these would help them become financially independent, has therefore happened, but the waterways themselves are excluded from that privatisation. I didn't think he was referring to the waterway itself, (note to self, pay more attention).
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 30, 2016 17:47:11 GMT
I'm just very surprised that you or Tony haven't already done it seeing as you both seem to look for any opportunity to 'diss' CRT. Very odd in fact...must be a conspiracy. It would only be " very odd" if you were correct that I " look for any opportunity to 'diss' CRT".
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 30, 2016 17:48:52 GMT
this is the sticky bit that I can't get my head round. So it's not privatisation because crt nominally "manage" the assets owned by the nation. But effectively they can dispose of these assets "owned" by the nation as the property manager sees fit. How the hell did they get away with implementing this situation ? You haven't quite understood me for some reason [my prolixity no doubt to blame]. They cannot dispose of the 'protected' waterways assets " as the property manager sees fit". That applies only to the non-waterways specific investment portfolios of land and buildings. So, for example, they can flog off their investments on the Docklands, or their joint ventures into development of flats at Brentford etc, etc. They cannot [without Secretary of State consent] flog off bits of the waterway itself. The privatisation of the assets acquired by BW in expectation that returns on these would help them become financially independent, has therefore happened, but the waterways themselves are excluded from that privatisation. my miss understanding is not your fault Nigel. I think it is a very fine line protecting tne "nationally owned assests." As you yourself have said crt don't seem to have much problem getting the SOS to agree to disposal of anything.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 30, 2016 17:51:47 GMT
So what happened with IKEA buying a one meter wide strip of the Lea Navigation? I guess they got approval from the secretary of state. When challenged over this by the Regents network, Parry confirmed that he was seeking such consent, as he had done already on another couple of 'protected' properties. So yes, one has to hope that this was approved, and not that CaRT went ahead regardless.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 17:56:12 GMT
Parry has a bit of 'form' regarding a few things mentioned here.
Closing a section of railway but using 'Parliamentary Trains' to avoid the proper process.
The first suggestion about closing ticket offices - that I'm aware of. etc.etc.
I'll try to find some links later. I'm not suggesting anything illegal happened (I don't think it did), just letting you know a bit about his past so you can form an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Nov 30, 2016 17:58:52 GMT
Oh well there you go, I was wrong again! At least you are prepared to admit it.
|
|