Shasterian Noble

This is sound advice. You will be absolutely stunned at how much effect the flowing water or wind can have on a long shallow boat. Don't forget there's way more above water to catch the wind than below to counter it. My best advice from years of navigating rivers with rowing eights (even more pronounced effect than a narrow boat, and only a credit-card for a rudder) is to think well ahead of what you want to do. In heavy winds or currents you want to be thinking three steps ahead of your actual tiller movements! When it comes to flowing water, it's like a pencil in a stream - long and thin so as soon as you turn away from centre the stream will have an amplified effect: turning is faster with the stream against you, and steering will be more sluggish if you are travelling with the stream (not to mention you are travelling faster at lower revs than you might expect so things can happen faster. Obviously this is far more noticeable on rivers than canals, but in lock streams it's the same principle. Mark

You do realise that under the latest EU rulings, this is no longer an acceptable way of referring to those of the shorter stature... I believe we must now be referred to as 'altiophobic'.

I'll be very interested indeed to hear how you get on with this! I'm moving onto a boat in the summer and have been known to spend the odd rainy evening playing online games!

How much data are people generally using in a month out of interest? (Obviously depends on the usage, but would be interested to hear how far a Gb goes!)

That's just brilliant. Some may say that's a touch of genius in that you are able to view the world in a completely different way to the rest of us... that the tint is in the glasses is subjective, and just like Schrodinger's Cat maybe it was both that the world was tinted and the glasses were tinted at the same time... Damn, confused myself again... what's this boating lark we're talking about?

ah! I'm with you now. There's a six week notice rule on demolition of a building which was introduced to allow authorities to spot list and request English Heritage consider formal listing. It came in after the firestone factory disgrace in the late 80s but if the building's not nominated for listed during that period it lapses and there's no restriction. Pullin this back on topic, the buildings on this site were notified for demo, nominated for listing, rejected by EH, and so now there's no restriction remaining. I think a full 12 month period with no other applications on the site has to elapse before the 6 week rule is enforceable again. I think the quote is from a Local authority FAQ site so tries to make it a bit more black and White. You have to inform them but strictly speaking it's not that you 'need their permission'.

That is correct, though I'm not familiar with that rule myself? Either that was before my time or for a specific circumstance?

Yes, developers are urged to exhaust all other avenues first, but that doesn't mean it's actually an offence to demolish it. Additionally having a structure on the site to start with can make a difference to the amount of development that will be acceptable under the policies for that area - I'd suggest that is the only reason the developer in your village kept that building for so long. Eventually the stalling was costing them more than it was worth so they got rid of it. Anyone, Parish, individual or organisation can potentially throw up an obstacle (which has to be based on planning reasons) and I agree that it can be quite possible to stall the process for substantial lengths of time (e.g. state there are bats living there - takes another few months to get the survey to prove there aren't) but ultimately you won't stop them demolishing it if they are set on it. Fire's are all too convenient methods of achieving this but ultimately amount to the same thing. There are a number of good reasons to keep the building on site until permission is granted, but that won't stop them if these reasons pose less problem and therefore cost, than the hundreds of people who keep objecting and stalling their operation. **** Just to clarify, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I happen to know the planning system from the inside but I'm not suggesting that I agree with the proposals in this case. Also: it's English Heritage who list structures, not Local Authorities. Anyone (even you or me) can request a building be considered for listing (form on EH website).

That's true, but only for the replacement, not the demolition. The only other thing that can potentially be used is an argument which maintains that demolition is not acceptable until a suitable replacement has been approved, but this usually only relates to sites in urban areas to prevent the site becoming wasteland attracting undesireables, and has a very patchy history of success as an argument at appeal in case law. EDIT: And even that argument only applies in a Conservation Area. In fact, having racked my brains, and a few documents to hand, the demolition could potentially be undertaken tomorrow if the occupants moved out. It's not listed, and I doubt it's in a Conservation Area. As such, I wouldn't think that demolition requires consent in this instance. 2nd EDIT: Having said all this, I think it's a great shame to lose the site, and I'm positive that in BWs heritage protection statements it would identify this kind of site as being those they would try to protect, but they will obviously push this to one side if the profits are tempting enough for them.

Great idea this. As long as the varnish is tough enough to withstand the give in the cork I'd imagine this gives a nice enough finish with some give and warmth (provided one avoids the dubious practice of covering every possible surface and going for the 70's love nest look!!).

I have to agree with the majority of this. Unfortunately it IS down to money, even where heritage is involved. (Idealistically this shouldn't be the case, but c'est la vie.) If brownfield contaminated sites aren't 'viable', i.e. after clearing the contamination they are cutting their profits below the c.200% profit margins, they won't do it. (And yes I do realise that their profits would still be ridiculously huge, but they won't accept less untill there are no other options.) This is clearly a site that would attract some kind of development interest - desireable location, low perceived intensity of use, and previously developed land (i.e. not greenfield). I stress the 'percieved' because not many councillors or general public for that matter will appreciate the nature of canal usage. To them, a few people loading the odd bag of coal and emptying a porta-potty don't even make the needle on their dial move. As for the planners, if BW tell them that they have an alternative site for the operations, present a case to show it (however sham it might be), then the law dictates that you have to accept them at their word. Ergo, no reason to object to the loss of the warehouse etc. Conservation professionals at local authorities are not allowed to protect things without designation if there are clear benefits above the starting position presented by BW. If the situation above is put in front of them, they therefore can't do much at all about stopping the warehouse being demolished. (Though I would imagine they would fight tooth and nail to stress the importance of the Wharf structures like the crane and older buildings on the site capable of conversion or reuse*.) *Incidentally it's very hard to argue that it would be desireable to re-use a warehouse when its of this age and there is a case to say anything inside can be relocated. I would also imagine, though it's true that I don't know the site, that it's not a great location on paper for an employment site.

this sounds brilliant! What manufacturer are the solar panels produced by? They must be pretty high efficiency! I have thought about solar but was hesitant about just how effective it would be for what can be a significant outlay initially.

ahem, TAXI FOR ONE!

hi there, thanks for the post. I can find almost zero info on the agenda 21 moorings. They sound ideal but info is either non existent or rather closely guarded. @lady_muck don't worry, it's interesting debate anyway. When I used to holiday with family as a kid it surprised me that they didn't charge actually. You think of the pretty tourist places by car and parking charges are astronomical. However, I'm not for a second saying that it's right but I can't see them dropping it as it will make easy money.

surely as a part of this they would impose a limit on the maximum extension? Otherwise an awful lot of people as you say would fork out £3.5k per annum happily for what is in effect a convenient permanent mooring!?