Jump to content

Featured Posts

5 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

As did BW ...

 

... and the problem has always been that CRT (and BW before it) put enormous effort into managing and growing that empire at the expense of discharging duties as a navigation authority.

 

 

 

Agreed, but having seen how successive UK governments decimated a perfectly good railway network, perhaps we should be grateful that there are still some waterways left to navigate . . .

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, NB Alnwick said:

 

Agreed, but having seen how successive UK governments decimated a perfectly good railway network, perhaps we should be grateful that there are still some waterways left to navigate . . .

That is certainly correct, as had canals not been nationalised, many would have disappeared in the 1950s as the private companies were wound up. The canal abandonment acts of the 1930s and 1940s show the way things were going.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Pluto said:

That is certainly correct, as had canals not been nationalised, many would have disappeared in the 1950s as the private companies were wound up. The canal abandonment acts of the 1930s and 1940s show the way things were going.

And later, the Derby Canal being a classic example. This was never nationalised, so the company was able to obtain an warrant of abandonment in 1964, even though parts of the canal were still navigable and despite the protests of IWA and others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

UPDATE AS PROMISED

 

I raised the sale of the historic property with the higher tiers of CRT management in a recent meeting. It seems they are looking towards moving more of the non bank staff to home working and therefore looking to reduce their need for traditional office space. I pointed out in the strongest terms that whilst it might be fine to vacate and sell a modern office block they are custodians of the historic buildings as much as a lock or waterway and these should not be sold off for short term gain. I also suggested that the historic buildings could be used as part of a network of "hubs" that might be used for both bases when their own staff need them and hired out for temporary meeting areas for outside companies.

 

I also pointed out that they need to retain waterside locations to allow them to actually talk to the public face to face when such things are allowed again not only for boaters to get pump out cards/Watermate keys etc but also to be able to be a contact point for the public just walking the towpath etc. There is good reason for such locations to be the existing buildings rather than a garden shed as at Hatton!

 

I was told that no decision has yet been made about the future of the Stop House or Red Bull "welcome station" (I hate that term!!)...so please do contact CRT to make your point if you think as I do that its important its kept as a CRT property.

 

Stuart Mills who is CRT chief investment officer is the guest speaker at the HNBC AGM on 13th March and the members have been invited to submit questions...so if you are a member please do send a question in...Ive sent several!! Sadly its an online meeting but Im sure the correct points will be raised.

 

CRT are aware of the strength of feeling from us about disposing of such buildings but please feel free to write to them to reinforce that its not just a few of us grumpy old traditionalists who are moaning. We might be banging our heads against a brick wall at times but my feeling is that if you make your feelings known directly rather than just ranting on social media or on here then at least you might make them think...otherwise if you say nothing then you cant complain when things happen you dont agree with. 

 

  • Greenie 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

HNBC have invited members to send questions to be put to Stuart Mills at the AGM . I and several others I understand have raised the closure and possible sale of the Stop House. Richard Parry recently confirmed to NABO that no decision had been made, but that does not fill me with confidence. As Franger states above if you think CRT should be preserving and making use of its canal side historical assets then please tell them. Can’t see the national trust acting in the same way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Tuscan said:

HNBC have invited members to send questions to be put to Stuart Mills at the AGM . I and several others I understand have raised the closure and possible sale of the Stop House. Richard Parry recently confirmed to NABO that no decision had been made, but that does not fill me with confidence. As Franger states above if you think CRT should be preserving and making use of its canal side historical assets then please tell them. Can’t see the national trust acting in the same way.

I believe from the reply I got from HNBC that he might be getting the idea that selling off historic property might not go down too well...I guess time will tell if this has any affect on CRT's actions....I wouldn't be so sure about the NT...I know someone that had worked for them and lived in a tied house....he wasn't very complimentary about their property management either....

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Tuscan said:

HNBC have invited members to send questions to be put to Stuart Mills at the AGM . I and several others I understand have raised the closure and possible sale of the Stop House. Richard Parry recently confirmed to NABO that no decision had been made, but that does not fill me with confidence. As Franger states above if you think CRT should be preserving and making use of its canal side historical assets then please tell them. Can’t see the national trust acting in the same way.

Do the National Trust still own New Haw lock house ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a PM that suggests that the basis of this rumour is that it is the sort of thing that might have happened when furniture was being removed from the Stop House rather than something that did happen.

My understanding is that CRT's Listed Building Consent Order is still at the proposal stage. I wonder if any safeguards exist that would prevent CRT making this sort of alteration to operational property to increase its sales value when they declare it non-operational.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • 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.