Jump to content

Orwellian

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    413

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Orwellian

  1. Orwellian
    Doubling the amount just announced for CRT wouldn't put much of a dent in this surplus.
  2. Orwellian
    Thanks for clarifying that Allan.
  3. Orwellian
    So it's what you believe to be the case not a proven fact.
  4. Orwellian
    Are you sure that expenditure figure is correct? The latest Annual Report & Accounts show it as £13.4. Not hugely different but it's best to be correct.
  5. Orwellian
    Except that Local Authorities barely have enough money to carry out their existing statutory duties. Why should they take on somebody else's problems?
  6. Orwellian
    Which canals are these?
  7. Orwellian
    When and where was this announcement made?
  8. Orwellian
  9. Orwellian
  10. Orwellian
    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.
  11. Orwellian
    Thanks for that comprehensive reply. I hope you are proven right.
  12. Orwellian
    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.
  13. Orwellian
    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'?
  14. Orwellian
    Look at section 2 Interpretation.
  15. Orwellian
    They could use Section 9 of the British Waterways Act 1983.
  16. Orwellian
    It already is.
  17. Orwellian
    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.
  18. Orwellian
    Thanks for the clarification.
  19. Orwellian
    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?
  20. Orwellian
    According to this https://narrowboatworld.com/14346-toddbrook-costs-soar-to-37-6-millions?highlight=WyJ0b2RkYnJvb2siXQ== the cost has risen to £37 million.
  21. Orwellian
    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?
  22. Orwellian
    Would you like to say that again in English?
  23. Orwellian
    Not the latter for sure. CRT/BW have spent the last 20 years selling most if their own stock of former operational houses.
  24. Orwellian
    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.
  25. Orwellian
    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.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.