Orwellian
-
Posts
378 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Everything posted by Orwellian
-
Government Decision, but C&RT fight to overturn it
Orwellian replied to Alan de Enfield's topic in General Boating
-
Government Decision, but C&RT fight to overturn it
Orwellian replied to Alan de Enfield's topic in General Boating
No it's not. It was announced 2 years after Blair left. So 1 year of Labour and 13 years of support and renewed funding from the Tories. -
Thanks for that comprehensive reply. I hope you are proven right.
-
I've worked for decades to try and maintain and improve our waterways but I think it is wishful thinking to believe that freight will ever return to our waterways, even the Aire & Calder so, while I admire the optimism of fanshaft, I do not believe his vision of ' Port Leeds' will ever happen. I'm sure there are many who will disagree but let's come back to this in a year and see how much progress has been made.
-
Given the uncertainty over future Government funding £1 million seems an awful lot of money for CRT to spend on what is still a very speculative venture. By the time the site of Stourton is ready - if it ever is- the canal will probably need dredging again. Who's going to pay for the creation of 'Port Leeds'?
-
Look at section 2 Interpretation.
-
They could use Section 9 of the British Waterways Act 1983.
-
It already is.
-
My understanding is that the two London marinas plus Diglis (Worcester) were not sold freehold because they are an integral part of the original waterway/dock infrastructure rather than built separate from it with a connection structure. I also think the freehold of Hull is still with the local authority and was always held on lease by BW when they first took it on.
-
Thanks for the clarification.
-
Is this correct as according to the relevant section of the Annual Report & Accounts for 2021/22 total Property & Investment Income was £51.4 millions? Or are these two different things?
-
According to this https://narrowboatworld.com/14346-toddbrook-costs-soar-to-37-6-millions?highlight=WyJ0b2RkYnJvb2siXQ== the cost has risen to £37 million.
-
No need because they're not. They're just peurile.
-
Oh FFS!!
-
Stop digging!
-
Your reply only serves to confirm that you really don't have a clue what you're talking about.
-
What property development company would want to take on an organisation where only 22% of the income came from property? And if as you say 'the DEFRA thing is torpedoed' where would the capital come from to 'move even more to real estate'? Property development or investment companies would only be interested in acquiring CRT's property assets but without the massive liability of looking after the waterways.
-
What's your evidence for this statement?
-
I'm not. There is little point in saying or writing anything unless it can be understood by those to whom it is addressed. Did you understand it?
-
Would you like to say that again in English?
-
Not the latter for sure. CRT/BW have spent the last 20 years selling most if their own stock of former operational houses.
-
It is a requirement of the original Grant Agreement that figures on housing are included in the Publication Data. Quite why this should be is anyone's guess.
-
Several boats set to be removed from Bridgwater & Taunton Canal
Orwellian replied to Paul C's topic in General Boating
It's a 'Remainder Waterway' so CRT don't and never have had a duty to maintain it for navigation whether there are boats on it or not. -
No existing marina was compelled to have a NAA. Don't forget that most marinas prior to the introduction of the NAA in 2005 had ' connection agreements'. The NAA was introduced following consultation with the trade body and was aimed at consistency and to be attractive to investors. The Yardley Gobion case already referred to was prior to NAA.
-
Shardlow Marina is connected directly to the River Trent so CRT have no legal basis to require an NAA or any other form of agreement. If they have concerns re harm to their statutory interests all they can do us object to any planning application as a statutory consulted
