Jump to content

BW Planning Application - Marsworth Yard demolition!

hughc

By hughc
in General Boating

 Share

Featured Posts

alan_fincher Veteran II

alan_fincher

Posted
Posted (edited)
Also, and more importantly, from the plans it looks like we would lose the water, elsan and rubbish facilities for boaters with the nearest alternative being Cowroast (17 locks away)

 

<name removed from original quote>

We must get "your informant" to tell us where BW plan to put an additional 10 locks between Marsworth Watery Lane and Cow Roast, by the way.

 

Currently there are only the seven in the Marsworth flight!

 

Being pedantic, there are other rubbish facilities for boaters in Marsworth, (next bridge northwards IIRC). Also there is a water point at Bulbourne, and another at Slapton.

 

But that takes nothing away - loss of the Marsworth depot facilities would be a big thing for local boaters, particularly the Elsan point.

 

Also BW were advertising a recent Marsworth mooring vacancy as fully residential - pretty odd to have no facilities nearby, surely ?

 

Finally, :lol: , is it correct that the Leighton Buzzard one is currently locked out of use, then, as has been suggested elsewhere ?

 

EDITED: To remove name of person notifying Lawrence from the original quote

Edited by alan_fincher
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Big John Community Regular

Big John

Posted
Posted
Being pedantic, there are other rubbish facilities for boaters in Marsworth, (next bridge northwards IIRC). Also there is a water point at Bulbourne, and another at Slapton.

But that takes nothing away - loss of the Marsworth depot facilities would be a big thing for local boaters, particularly the Elsan point.

Also BW were advertising a recent Marsworth mooring vacancy as fully residential - pretty odd to have no facilities nearby, surely ?

The supporting documentation talks about "a relocated boat users pumping station" but has no detail that I could see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alan_fincher Veteran II

alan_fincher

Posted
Posted
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.

 

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.

 

 

Its not the BW heritage department, but a large consultancy based in Derby. The 'experts' of such consultancies often know little about canals and can be unsympathetic in their assessments because of that. Some get a bit shy when you point out that they have mis-interpreted structures, though there are others who are open to criticism and like to learn. I don't know who was involved here, but the heritage interpretation seems a little basic to me, without any in-depth knowledge.

Yes - accepted that BW have commissioned a so-called "independent" report into the historical value of the site, (I wonder what that cost!).

 

However, I was referring to the following, in which, although referring to that report, the "the Heritage & Environment Manager for British Waterways South East" throws his own weight behind the idea that there is nothing at the site worth saving from a heritage perspective.

 

Link to BW Document referred to.

 

I think I was right to criticise BW, even if, (or because!), they have used a 3rd party to support their case for taking anything waterways connected away from this site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Derek R. Veteran

Derek R.

Posted
Posted (edited)
(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.

Edited by Derek R.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WillC Engager

WillC

Posted
Posted

I have just objected with:

 

This planning application will have an impact on the wider community of people that enjoy the inland waterways - for example, many of the nearly 35,000 boat owners on the inter-connected canal system of British Waterways will have a vested interest in ensuring that this application protecting the heritage of the waterways. Accordingly, we submit that the application should be the subject of a much wider consultation than just the local community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hughc Proficient

hughc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Derek R. Veteran

Derek R.

Posted
Posted
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

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alan_fincher Veteran II

alan_fincher

Posted
Posted

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. :lol:

 

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. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fender Rising Star

fender

Posted
Posted (edited)

Mayb off the point but wouldn't the 'closure' of BW's information boat at Paddington this week have anything to do with that they didnt want hordes of people visiting to protest against the plans - after (if one reads the literature carefully) it is BW Paddington who are responsible for this new attempt at further erasure of historic waterways sites.

 

PS I've just seen on the H20 site the enticingly generous 'invite' to 'introduce' new sites for redevelopment - let me think.... how about the entire Stoke Bruerne stretch - it doesnt fit in with BW's philosophy at all does it - heres a good candidate for sum hi-rise dwellings and take-aways and a multi-screen cinema.

Edited by fender
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Derek R. Veteran

Derek R.

Posted
Posted
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. :lol:

 

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. :lol:

 

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

Link to comment
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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • 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.