Good to see people, taking a stand

True of my own boatyard in Brentford, long since overgrown with Japanese knotweed and the like, and schedules for commencement of work being delayed year by year.

I noticed the other day that the clearing of Watermans park "gas works" moorings in Brentford has begun in earnest. Seems quite a lot of the abandoned boats have been removed. Probably sensible as they posed a risk to vessels moored nearby if and when the ropes parted and a boat drifted along on the tide.

That's another place where there are fancy plans for moorings but I'm sure it will remain empty once cleared.

That fiasco was driven by BW, who had already by then laid out plans for converting boatyard sites into residential development, and who fended off all criticism with sprious nonsense about the value the increased revenue would add to the waterways.

I have relayed this before, but the classic insular intransigence of BW was never more vividly demonstrated than with the cross-examination of their Mr Green (I took part in the first BW appeal supporting the Council's rejection of BW's developer buyer's planning application, so was an incredulous observer). The barrister for Oxford was trying to make the point that BW were not entitled to sell off the 'track' and vital supporting infrastructure such as boatyards; Mr Green responded by saying that BW had determined that the boatyard was unnecessary, so it did NOT form part of protected assets - and internal memo between departments of some years prior was quoted in support.

The barrister asked: "Are you saying that an internal memo within British Waterways suffices to overturn an Act of Parliament?" The astonishing reply was "Yes, because the memo was of a later date than the Act." That floored the barrister as much as any of us! He sat back in his chair saying only - "So BW have declared UDI have they?"!!!

Thankfully the PINS Inspector was unimpressed, and upheld the Council's decision, but of course the the saga has rumbled on with new buyers and new plans etc, etc.

What about the fact the boats will be sitting in mud half the time? Is there some sort of plan for an impounded basin or dredging or does someone think people want to pay good money for mud berths.

To be fair if one was looking at spending some money and doing a proper job it might be feasible to damn the lower end of the moorings and put some sort of tidal lock gates at the top end.

Or is it a PRN area.

(giggle)

No impounded basin, levelling of the bed and possibly a grid system for the boats to rest on is as far as it goes. It will not make much difference to the desirability of the moorings for houseboats - witness the long term appeal of the Chelsea Yact & Boat tidal moorings along the Embankment. Mike Barnes is also doing nicely with his mud-berths around Lot's Ait (yet another wanton destruction of splendid boat maintenance facilities such as slipways and covered dry docks).

It IS all, of course, a PRN area, although subject to the effective removal of public access via utilisation of the PLA riverworks licence.

Destruction of the Lot's Ait drydocks and slipways was an assured outcome of the Council's myopic approval of the footbridge, which I vehemently opposed for the very reason that its only purpose was to ensure desirable dry-shoe access to proposed houseboats, and nothing whatever to do with boatyard needs.

The Council took note of my objections to the point of placing conditions against residential moorings there, but as usual the developer just kept coming back every few years asking for residential permission, which eventually wore them down (and after years of fait-accompli in fact, there seems little point in refusal to grant paper permission for the done deal).

This was yet another of the boatyards listed in the Hendry Report, for all the good that did, as with Gallions.