|
Post by thebfg on Feb 10, 2018 14:42:31 GMT
Some things have to be taken on trust, it's just a bit of fun after all. A rule for 2018 pics only does start everyone on an equal footing? I think that is what I feel as well, that was the reason I chose that particular photo for the last competition, as it was taken that summer I voted 2018 for similar reasons but it will have to be unofficial and in true thunderboat style up to the poster to decide to follow or not. My entry last year was taken on a Samsung phone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2018 14:44:58 GMT
I think that is what I feel as well, that was the reason I chose that particular photo for the last competition, as it was taken that summer I voted 2018 for similar reasons but it will have to be unofficial and in true thunderboat style up to the poster to decide to follow or not. My entry last year was taken on a Samsung phone. I will just have to ensure our old boat isnt in my entry...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2018 14:51:29 GMT
I voted 2018 for similar reasons but it will have to be unofficial and in true thunderboat style up to the poster to decide to follow or not. My entry last year was taken on a Samsung phone. I will just have to ensure our old boat isnt in my entry... Has it been scrapped?
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 10, 2018 14:52:43 GMT
kris said: I'm sure the new residents won't like boats. Don't know why that got messed up. That is a given. MSO are convinced that their tenure will inevitably cease sometime over the next 10 years, as their operations become ever more restricted. They have already had to restrict operating times and cease shotblasting work since complaints were raised by the Brentford Dock Estates residents some years back. Ballymore have claimed that the immediately adjacent buildings will concentrate on non-residential uses, and will incorporate sound-mitigating design features. Rumour has it that Ballymore themselves in fact actively seek removal of all boats in the vicinity, though that is not evident from public protestations. Certainly, they have said that they will control their own moorings alongside the old Marvin Architectural buildings and at Town Wharf, with terms and conditions that many boaters are not happy with. They were all offered £10,000 re-location contributions if they chose to leave, or £1,000 towards compliance costs if they chose to stay. Quite a few have decided to take the £10,000 and run. Interestingly also, part of the towpath nearest Brent Way is included in the CPO, against which a couple of barges are moored, though no plans to remove them have been disclosed. I have been personally assured that they have no plans to interfere with those boats, for what that is worth.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 10, 2018 14:56:28 GMT
That's cheating. That's not your photo 😁😁😂 Mea culpa. It is not even a photo!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2018 14:58:28 GMT
kris said: I'm sure the new residents won't like boats. Don't know why that got messed up. That is a given. MSO are convinced that their tenure will inevitably cease sometime over the next 10 years, as their operations become ever more restricted. They have already had to restrict operating times and cease shotblasting work since complaints were raised by the Brentford Dock Estates residents some years back. Ballymore have claimed that the immediately adjacent buildings will concentrate on non-residential uses, and will incorporate sound-mitigating design features. Rumour has it that Ballymore themselves in fact actively seek removal of all boats in the vicinity, though that is not evident from public protestations. Certainly, they have said that they will control their own moorings alongside the old Marvin Architectural buildings and at Town Wharf, with terms and conditions that many boaters are not happy with. They were all offered £10,000 re-location contributions if they chose to leave, or £1,000 towards compliance costs if they chose to stay. Quite a few have decided to take the £10,000 and run. Interestingly also, part of the towpath nearest Brent Way is included in the CPO, against which a couple of barges are moored, though no plans to remove them have been disclosed. I have been personally assured that they have no plans to interfere with those boats, for what that is worth. Big black dutch barge are scary
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 10, 2018 15:02:46 GMT
Where is that island? Is it the one by where the big black dutch barges are a couple of hundred yards up from the Thames locks? That is going to be a huge change to the area if its where I visualise it being. I'm not that familiar with the area but I remember a boat called 'dreadnought' and a little boatyard tucked away there. Derelict now. There is no island there in the artists rendition. It is a view into Workhouse Dock, my old boatyard which has been stripped of everything and all buildings demolished, and allowed to remain derelict as part of the justification for re-development [with BW/CaRT's active support]. The 2 Dutch barges [one small, one huge] are just out of sight to the left of the picture, and yes, it is a couple of hundred yards upstream of Thames Locks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2018 15:06:51 GMT
I didn't think it was an island but have not looked into there before - where the boatyard was.
Does CPO mean Compulsory Purchase Order? I didn't realise that property developers had this tool at their disposal. That's very bad if they do !!
I went through Thames lock a few days ago inward bound for GU. Did not seem any change from when I last was there last summer.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 10, 2018 15:24:07 GMT
I didn't think it was an island but have not looked into there before - where the boatyard was. Does CPO mean Compulsory Purchase Order? I didn't realise that property developers had this tool at their disposal. That's very bad if they do !! I went through Thames lock a few days ago inward bound for GU. Did not seem any change from when I last was there last summer. Yes - Compulsory Purchase Order. The developer does not have that as a tool of their own, but in practical terms, they do of course - they just need to convince the LPA that it is necessary to allow the scheme to proceed. It went to Public Inquiry some months ago; I do not know whether a decision was made, but would expect it to be approved. CaRT will have negotiated their own terms prior to the CPO, as have others, but the entire scheme area was included, to cover not only property titles, but also rights over property not included otherwise [as in crane oversailing rights, and rights of way].
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2018 15:27:10 GMT
I didn't know about that but then I know nothing about land owner laws at all.
I just assumed CPO was for purchase of land required for things like roads, railways etc.
So even if someone owns a property they can be forced to leave if a big scheme turns up?
Makes me glad I have never and will never own any property !
It also means that demonizing CRT for selling off land may not actually be valid if they don't have a choice in the matter ?
It seems to me that the system is screwed and skewed towards the money too much. Nothing surprising about that i suppose. my grandfather owned a large factory in the 60s sold it as an ongoing concern in the 70s with employees - the new owner sold it for housing. Now there's a development there with my surname on the road sign !
I hate that sort of thing.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Feb 10, 2018 15:33:46 GMT
Thanks very much for your interesting posts on this Nigel. Whilst I nderstand the need for more housing in our country, I think it's a real shame that it's always at the cost of the original residents and their neighbourhood. Developments like this never seem to include the indigenous culture of an area in their plans for the future of the area which in my opinion is criminal. Obviously I'm more concerned when it's a waterside development like the one in this thread, but it seems all big property developments are like this. It's amazing that profit comes before people all the time, CaRT have got their noses in the trough of developers.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Feb 10, 2018 15:38:15 GMT
It also means that demonizing CRT for selling off land may not actually be valid if they don't have a choice in the matter ? I hate that sort of thing. If you mean does Richard parry have a choice? No he doesn't he's just doing what he's instructed to do. But surely the navigation authority aught to be protecting the waterways users from the adverse consequences of a development like this one?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2018 15:38:56 GMT
I didn't know about that but then I know nothing about land owner laws at all. I just assumed CPO was for purchase of land required for things like roads, railways etc. So even if someone owns a property they can be forced to leave if a big scheme turns up? Makes me glad I have never and will never own any property ! You obviously don't watch Emmerdale.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2018 15:41:54 GMT
Thanks very much for your interesting posts on this Nigel. Whilst I nderstand the need for more housing in our country, I think it's a real shame that it's always at the cost of the original residents and their neighbourhood. Developments like this never seem to include the indigenous culture of an area in their plans for the future of the area which in my opinion is criminal. Obviously I'm more concerned when it's a waterside development like the one in this thread, but it seems all big property developments are like this. It's amazing that profit comes before people all the time, CaRT have got their noses in the trough of developers. Found a map Its been happening in a lot of canal side locations and doesn't really look like stopping.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2018 15:43:30 GMT
I didn't know about that but then I know nothing about land owner laws at all. I just assumed CPO was for purchase of land required for things like roads, railways etc. So even if someone owns a property they can be forced to leave if a big scheme turns up? Makes me glad I have never and will never own any property ! You obviously don't watch Emmerdale. Have no TV and I never use online TV except illegally to watch world champ snooker on my phone
|
|