Derek R.
-
Posts
5,189 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Store
Posts posted by Derek R.
-
-
Having just listened to the 'debate' available through the link Allan gave four posts back (thanks Allan) - the BW link - although an interesting collection of opinions, (I would not have called it a debate) it largely was overwhelmingly controlled by consultants, designers, and architects about what they saw the waterways as, and simply exchanging thoughts. The only contribution from the audience that I thought had any merit, was that of the only female speaker, whose question was not made available to the panel for comment, but passed over for another questioner.
The words 'Cherish' and 'develop' were used by one, and in terms of creating a financially viable development. I fail to see where any cherishing can fit in the same sentence when speaking of development, and this is waterways attitude toward Marsworth yard. They see nothing to cherish, and so it will be 'developed'. Ironically, there was considerable talk of how consultation should be handled. One speaker suggested that what often happens today is a plan is published by consultants, offered for consultation, at which point it becomes something to be defended at all costs - precisely what is being carried out with Marsworth. To rub salt into the wound, we are then told through the suggestion of Nigel Crowe in his pdf attachment, and seen in Martin Clarks post with the preface by Stuart Mills, the proposition of Tringford refurbishment being reliant on the Marsworth development. Sounds like a form of Blackmail to me!
In the AVDC online documentation (case notes unavailable at this instant, possibly due to weekend shut-down) consultation was with the Marsworth Parish Council back in April 2009, yet publication was not until October, and notice on site not placed until 4th November. I'll wager the waterways community would not have been present in April, nor even would have heard of same. One contributor in the audio debate rightly suggested that 'consultation' should be done at the pre-planning stage, so as not to waste more time and money than was absolutely necessary, and which suggests that any consultation taken 'after' plans have been drawn up, is merely a politically correct exercise to tick the right box in the books - all following objections back served with PR volleys. Moreover, the planning application as stands, does not mention any existing waterside facility for boaters, and only a cursory mention of that intended at Tringford. It also lays into AVDC, pointing out their obligation to housing requirements from government in no uncertain terms. Coercion is the name for that tactic.
Hypocrisy is rife, in the combined English Heritage/BW pdf 'England's Historic Waterways A working Heritage' the glossy facade is littered with gems like:
"In contrast, mediocre modern surroundings can harm this heritage almost as much as neglect. This document is intended as an antidote to the spread of mediocrity and neglect.
With a better understanding of the special nature of waterside environments, including what works well and why, developers, architects, local authorities and other stakeholders will be well placed to help create stimulating waterfront buildings, distinctive watersides and vibrant waterspaces."
The requirements of boaters must therefore be integral to any development proposals.
Consultation is a vital experience to learn from local community and historians - the details of a locality and the feelings towards it. Fundamentally, this should be done before the planning stage. To bring in plans then attempt consultation is tantamount to saying ' this is what we have planned – how do you like it?' Then take a 'publish and defend' position which is exactly what is happening at Marsworth. At what stage was consultation undertaken with the local community – including that community afloat, who may be more concerned with any historic heritage than some locals. The canal infrastructure attracts those who value the past, it is an escape from the hurly burly and frenetic activity that invades much of life. The dynamic and innovative become intrusions into this comparative step-back in time, and sit as compromises at best, and horrific at the worst - just as the monstrosity of an angle box that juts out beside the Lock Keepers house at Mile End lock. What is most valuable is what has always stood, anything that we add after sufficient time has passed, is inevitably contemporary, and out of time.
The relationship of the wharf to the water as at Marsworth is ended with the introduction of buildings that have no connection with the water and the waterway, and its community has lost another part of its heritage under our heritage 'managers' desire to 'cherish', yet 'develop' our waterways for the future.
Through BW's failure to consult correctly, they are now having to patch the leaks in the form of blather about alternative facilities at Red Lion Bridge and at Startopsend - where was that in the planning application? It doesn't exist. Will it ever.
Derek
-
Adjournment debate on Monday on funding British Waterways, if anyone's interested.
Yes. Who's adjourning, which debate?
Derek
-
Hi Derek,
Yes, you are (but we have never had a cruiser stern!).
Good Lord! How the memory fails!! It must 17 years at least since I saw either Daedalus.
To cap it all - I'm struggling to recall you good wife's name. I do remember she made most excellent curtains and cushions, or is the Alzheimers striking again?
Regards to both - Derek
Aaah! Is it Daphne?
-
Below is a statement from BW's property director, Stuart Mills.
Thanks Martin, just had the email and pdf. Between a rock and a hard place for all.
Does make me rather cross about lack of communication on one hand, and a seeming contradictory statement claimed for English Heritage on the other.
More like butter on burnt toast.
Derek
-
Whoopie. 14 houses out of character with the surroundings, with 44 car parking spaces and a potential for 68 inhabitants. A wharf that won't be, a refurbished and relocated crane never to be used, (there are no images in the developed site showing this) and from the supporting document 890556, planning statement - the elsan and refuse point to be moved to Tringford Pump House - seven locks up, and up the arm. Couldn't be better.
Bearing in mind the families taking residence will have children, their first concern maybe for secure fencing around the waters edge. Instantly this will create an isolated island with access by two narrow bridges. How soon will the locals be calling it 'Alcatraz' I wonder.
The site covers . 49hectares and the proposal is for 14 houses. This just falls below the 'affordable housing SPD (2007)' threshold, which demands .5 hectares and 15 houses. So it would seem this is the optimum number of dwellings that can be squeezed in without needing to meet SPD (2007). Any fewer and profits would lessen, any more, and they would have to cap prices. They're not silly. Unless I have that wrong - then I'm silly.
The concern over the old warehouse seems to be that it may not be so old, so no loss. I disagree. The fact that it is not of local stone seems to have raised this point about its legitimate heritage. But the Church is also (correct me if I'm wrong) not of local stone. So as the canal was built during the early part of the nineteenth century when Marsworth was considerably smaller, why should the 'not local stone' claim be of any consequence? It has been there a long time, and as such, is indeed a locally known 'historic' canal warehouse - despite that BW have bastardised it successively over the years.
It would be helpful if the source of this 'good news' were made available? Documented - or oral?
Derek
-
Souds fascinating; once I have finished my learned commentary on the works of Mr. Aitken 1957-1960 I'll dip into it!
Make sure you venture into the Kingsway underpass, and Down Street Station!
Here's my old patch Noel Park & Palace Gates.
And getting back to Riverside locations, do visit Crossness engine video just two and a half minutes, then log onto their website for an education in London's sanitation! Full of . . . surprises.
Derek
PS Just been looking at the home page, and public transport - this is worth a serious look into! Excellent stuff! And some of the comments - in the 'Green' outlook of building the Olympic 'village' 500 mature trees were/are being felled.
-
To be pedantic, Daedalus was based on some measurements taken from Kimberley (which was in Roger's shed while Daedalus was being built), so Saltley rather than Braithwaite - but it was never supposed to be a replica!
Chris G
Well you do surprise me. The fore end of Yarmouth was so admired by the owners (am I addressing that very same?) of the first Daedalus (cruiser stern) that it was copied by Roger at their request. Looking at the fore end of Kimberley as it was Enterprise in the Narrow Boat magazines article on passenger operations in Reading, looks nothing like how I remember the 'new' Daedalus.
Derek
-
Speaking of Antelope - just seen this on the HNBOC pages:
"Three cruisers, tied up in the new layby at Stone wharf, were gutted in the
fire. One of Canal Cruising's staff managed to get their fleet and at least 3
other boats, including the Antelope, away from the burning boats so the fire
didn't spread to the historic buildings nor (being selfish here) to Warbler,
which is on the top dock.
No lives lost, although all possessions gone for the 3 owners. The news
coverage centred on Terry Darlington on Phyllis May (the Carcasonne boat) but at
least one of the other boaters was residential, so he's lost absolutely
everything."
-
Did someone mention Braithwaite?
The fore end swim began about twelve or even fifteen feet back from the stempost:
I specified the back end swim to be 18' in length, and it started just forward of the engine room doors. It was an upright swim, but even so she would steer, stop, and slip through the water with barely a ripple:
Louise belting along through the fields. There's a privately owned boat in Berko - Daedalus - that was built to the same dimensions by Roger Farringdon, who also did the job on Yarmouth. Doesn't have that elegant sheer of Buffalo though.
Ian Kemp's Gazelle has the cabin I would have had if lack of finances hadn't got in the way. That's nice.The 1890 Antelope, sister to Buffalo, would almost certainly have been wider than the 6' 10" stated in the registry entry, and the second Antelope of 1914 also wide. It's believed the second one is the Sabey tug which went to Willow Wren and became Pullet. Later seen by Laurence Hogg at a Stoke rally in the eighties. All three were originally built as steamers, though the Sabey tug got a Perkins six pot and cabin shortened. 60' footer that was.
For nigh perfect dimensions I don't think Buffalo can be beat in the shot outside Bushell's after the 1906 refit:Derek
-
See the "Tug Gazelle" thread.
Thanks Alan - some funny looking boats over there . . .
Derek
-
Replied to wrong thread!
Your fault Alan!!
What happened to the pictures?? Gissalook.
Derek
-
Many thanks for the candid reply.
From my own viewpoint, I would be happy to sign up to the e-petition if I thought that the product portfolio was being used used to maintain the system. Since RE became chief executive this has not been the case.
And in what context do you see Robin Evans relating to your comment on the property portfolio please? No axe to grind here, but I am unclear about your statement and motive for not apparently wishing to sign. It would seem the portfolio is - and has in the past been used to maintain the system, by selling off Peter, to pay Paul.
I think it too diverse a reason for not supporting a general response from many people to stop what is perceived to be a simple 'sell-off' (media's words, and which is almost certainly more complex), when as seen at Marsworth and elsewhere, much that was historical artefact has been turned into a health and safety 'device' with little or no use to navigation, construction or use. Furthermore, there has been visibly no outward effort at turning former interchange basins, warehouses and other structures into historic waterways features, that even if not necessarily suitable for modern day 'big bucks' development requirements, could have had an alternative function suitable for many users - refreshment rooms, retail outlets for supplies and crafts and small business etc. - when all we see are colossal steel and glass edifices that overpower and dominate, setting the canal at odds with this 'new' environment. As such waterside land is 'valued highly' so come the big bucks developers with their sparkling wallets and our waterways are forever changed - seldom for the better - from a historical as well as aesthetic point of view. This is what people are signing for, few may have read and interpreted the final paragraph: - "We urge the Government to allow British Waterways to retain its property portfolio, protecting its essential source of revenue and ensure the sustainability of its work." You can sell the family Silver, but there will come a time when there's nothing left.
It would appear to me that it is British Waterways who are seeking to manage their portfolio by selling their property, but that does not count for what the petition seems to stand for as some see it, which is the Treasuries interest in grabbing it. Either way, whether BW or the Treasury have their greedy little fingers on everything, the one thing they have in common is greed. We may value the three dimensional heritage aspect, 'they' only value balancing books (regardless of PR hype).
Derek
PS in the last three hours, another 900 have signed.
-
Has anybody who has used the web-site to lodge objections actually had any kind of e-mail or communication acknowledging its receipt, please ?
I phoned AVDC this-morning and having got through to the planning department, and the department dealing with website responses, they were surprised that no auto-response had been received by applicants. However, a Mr. Holland went through the received emails for the day in question (23rd in my case) and did indeed find my objection and was able to read it to me. It will be acknowledged.
Both he, and Maggie Walsh in planning, stated that they had never had such a response to a planning application on what is a fairly small scale site site before. Hundreds have flooded in to the department, and though each and every one will be dealt with and replied to, the numbers involved will take some time to get through. It may be a week or more before we get an acknowledgement - they have been quite taken aback by the huge response to the application.
Still might be worth checking yours is received though.
Derek
-
I smell data 'loss'. Time for phone calls.
Derek
-
Yesterday evening when I logged onto the petition site there were 660 signatories. This morning at 11.40 - 2,514. At 18.52 a few minutes ago - 4,345.
The petitions site is an attempt by government to make the public believe they are 'listening' so as to gain favour, so there is a PR exercise there - and most of their 'response' at the end of the time period are pretty pathetic. However, it is also one way of feeling the pulse of the nation (if you believe they are concerned at all!), because as with the road charging petition that hit 1.8 million, it hit all the media outlets and made them back off - if only for a while, they know that one is hated.
But what such petitions can do most effectively - especially ones such as this where a national 'heritage' is 'threatened', and that everyone can avail themselves of - is the simple act of drawing the general public's attention to yet another gov.uk rip-off. Judging by the rapidity of signatories, this one could go high. We might ask what good will it do - but what harm can it do? The only harm would be - as has been stated already - is if it goes flat. So far, so good.
One thing people should do, is write to their M.P. and get them to ask the Secretary of State for the Environment exactly what plans are being considered regarding the publicised 'sell-off', and perhaps taking the likes of Marsworth Yard, Marple Yard, and the tenancy terminations on eleven Waterways houses in Sharpness, as points to underline the concern. Such questions put in the House are duty bound to receive a written reply from the Secretary - or a deputy - and that will be sent to the enquirer via the M.P. If you do not get your M.P. to ASK a question, they may fob you off with 'it's not in my constituency'.
Derek
-
Well I'm not usually that fired up on these things, but this one has got my goat.
Objection just submitted on every ground I can think of - given I'm not actually a Marsworth Resident.
Does anybody know if we need to replicate it all against BOTH applications ? So far I haved filed it on the "redevelopment" bit, but not the "demolition" bit.
In short - Yes. All 'i's dotted and 't's crossed in triplicate. You create the loopholes - and through they will dive.
It may be we can only trip them up on their paths, but all hands to the pumps.
Derek
-
Oooh! Mines dated 1973, but more like Orange than Red. Bought in the eighties I think, still with the price label - 90p, from the Waterways Book Service, Harrow. Doesn't mention a second edition or revised. Your not 'aving it either!
-
Ok Derek, link topic in the history forum.
LM
Thank you - N17 eh? I'm from up the road in N22. It's a viral world.
Derek
-
It may well be worth mentioning, as I have, in any objection to these proposals the effect on the twonarrow, vulnerable and historically important brick bridges on Watery Lane.
There is no other access to the site and I can't see construction traffic respecting their heritage value. Regards, HughC.
Granted, construction traffic may cause some damage, especially if drivers are unaccustomed to the site. But I wouldn't hang too much weight on that peg. The yard has for many years been the recipient of cement and aggregate for pile construction, which may weigh in favour of some increase in traffic, as 'IF' any alternative to dwellings turned into a popular venue for a shop and snack site - by vehicle or water - the argument that the bridges would not stand the traffic would evaporate.
Beware the two edged blade ;-)
Derek
-
(snip)
Having had a look at the Aylesbury Vale site that Tim posted a link to, I found the most depressing document was one from someone in a BW "heritage" department.
Peter Chowns; Heritage Manager, South East Waterways.
It describes why the former Carpenter's Shop is (in his view) no longer worth saving, because it has already been so trashed by modifications made to it over the years.Philistines!
Precisely.
(snip)
With reference to the duplicated thread(s):
Probably like Laurence, I had not realised there was another thread started, as I generally only look in History and Heritage which is where I would - by nature - have and did place such a post. Perfectly understandable to have it all under one wing, but surprised no link was added FROM History and Heritage to HERE. As co-ordinated efforts are essential when campaigning for such items when so little time is left, it behoves us all to be fully aware and active when so little time is left.
Can the moderators please see fit to correct this omission?
Derek
Ah! Touche Alan.
-
See case file HERE
There has to date been several written objection as logged on the Council website, and others are being advanced.
There is a correspondence from the Clerk to Marsworth Parish Council dated the 10th Nov. requesting a full discussion at a meeting held on 14th December 2009, as plans had not been received in time for a full discussion to be held on the 9th Nov., though it does appear the Parish Council are realising, and possibly may accept four or five dwellings as inevitable.
The Case Officer, a Mark Aughterlony, states notices were posted at six points on and around the site on 4th Nov. (File Note shows where). Expiry of site publicity - 25th Nov. Date of publication in the press - 10th Nov.
I would encourage the reading of the 'Heritage Assessment' document. It describes a "triangular pound lock". This would almost certainly be a side pond used twixt the upper and lower chambers of the riser.
There is also a nice 1935 postcard in sepia from a written representation from the Local Historic Archivist.
The conclusion of the Heritage Assessment document suggests retention of the crane and the wharf edge. All other buildings as presently exist will be demolished. Note: In all the associated 'drawings' of a finished development, no crane, nor 'wharf edge' are seen.
In the Conservation Area Consent Statement, P4 2.4 lends a clue to a possible desire to be finished with the site by BW, in that any possible future use of the site and its current buildings as a fallback position to a failed redevelopment option, there would be no control over use of the site.
The appraisal does not identify the existing wharf building as locally important. The unfortunate appearance of the old warehouse is I feel down to a succession of refurbishments and additions carried out with little consideration to its former purpose and appearance. Its 'Achilles Heel' is also the claim that as it is not constructed of local stone, it may not warrant historic status. This is generally born out and supported by Peter Chowns, Heritage and Environment Manager, South East Waterways.
What I find disappointing, is that seemingly no alternative to residential use is being considered. Not far from me there is a farm complex which has been turned into a thriving little retail outlet for a number of varied items; from stoves and hardware, to country produce and 'collectables', with a busy cafeteria. I don't know if the existing building at Marsworth would convert to such a use as a Tea shop, and a scattering of sensitively built units replace the pretty hideous concrete barns for other items. This would create some interest in Marsworth as a place to visit, sit by the canal, and maybe venture into the local Pubs. Or do Waterways just want a big buck payback and be done with it, and let the residents of Marsworth sort out the new house dwellers in their 'Monopoly Houses'?
My objection is in.
Derek
-
News from Marsworth:
British Waterways' agents have applied for Conservation Area Consent to demolish all of the buildings at Marsworth Yard, and for Full Planning Permission to build 14 houses. There has apparently been neither consultation with the local or waterways communities, nor any publicity given to the plans.
[Quite how this has been achieved without breaching some rule I do not know. Perhaps they have transgressed, perhaps otherwise. ]
The plans seem to be contrary to the guidance which BW have recently published, jointly with English Heritage, on waterside development ("England's Historic Waterways: A working heritage - Promoting high quality waterside development") and their guidance to planners ("Waterways & Development Plans"). [These documents can be downloaded from BW's website.] The plans can be viewed on Aylesbury Vale District Council's planning website:
http://eplanning.aylesburyvaledc.gov.uk/td...searchform.aspx
and enter application references 09/01945/APP and 09/01946/ACD.
Objections may be submitted online by clicking the "Submit Comments" button after the application reference has been selected.
The warehouse (stated as a former Carpenters' Shop in the planning documents) and adjacent crane and wharf, whilst not listed, are an integral part of the overall scene which includes the adjacent lock and lock cottage, both of which are listed buildings, and are significant elements of the Conservation Area. However, the former concrete pile works (until recently leased to concrete slab manufacturers Fencrete), whilst of relevance to the history of the canal, have no heritage or conservation value.
Please note that, if you wish to submit an objection, this must be done by 25th November. THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW!
Derek, with acknowledgement to Richard Booth for the news.
-
I'd have thought a 'Finished with Engines' signal would be a bit superfluous on something the size of a Narrow Boat steamer - unless of course there was a stict crew hierarchy which meant the Steerers didn't actually speak to the Engineers (wrong union, mate!), which seems improbable.
Tim
Superfluous? In truth, yes. But when playing with big toys nowadays, it might come as a bit of 'Gingerbread' practice, as well as a signal that the day is over, and shut down can begin. Perhaps it's the Pub bell code - someone shoots off to get them in.
Derek
-
If you rang 'Finished with engines' you would already be stopped and tied up - wouldn't you.
BW Planning Application - Marsworth Yard demolition!
in General Boating
Posted · Edited by Derek R.
That was the spark, but few noticed it would seem. Another rumour?
Planning states Parish Councillors were consulted in April. Publication in the press in November - small box bottom right of the page amongst other applications - and allegedly six notices placed on and around the site on 4th November, These would be the type A4 size, laminated, wind blown, often skewed and unreadable perhaps down to ground level, possibly ripped off. We've all seen the type. You have to be a bit of a planning 'anorak' to seek out some of them. But there we are.
Derek
Addendum: There is a correspondence from the Clerk to Marsworth Parish Council dated the 10th Nov. requesting a full discussion at a meeting held on 14th December 2009, as plans had not been received in time for a full discussion to be held on the 9th Nov.
So despite said 'consultation' in April, no plans had been laid before Council prior to the 9th of November in sufficient time for a full discussion. Clearly these brochures and plans were printed and published some time before, and indicate an indecent haste with which BW have acted. Can anyone suggest why that might have been so?