Georges shop

[twbm]

....but who is not operating a restaurant. Customers can ensure that the food they buy is hygienically cooked when they get it home.

 

That should probably be explained to EHO's who insist butchers spend thousands on refrigeration and correct food handling procedures.

[Hastings]

That should probably be explained to EHO's who insist butchers spend thousands on refrigeration and correct food handling procedures.

 

I can confirm that George's shop at Audlem bottom lock was inspected and approved by the local Environmental Health people. There is no handling of unpacked meat there - it arrives pre-packed from an approved butchery at their farm.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Hastings

[steve hayes]

CART Are still at, alienating boaters where ever they can

 

From Facebook

 

"Following lengthy discussions with Mr George, we are disappointed that together a solution hasn’t been found to the issues at Audlem Lock Hut on the Shropshire Union Canal.

 

We have bent over backwards to help, particularly in recent months. Despite being clear and telling Mr George what to do, he simply hasn’t done it.

 

Mr George entered into an agreement with the Trust in 2010 to lease a small 19th Century lock hut and land for storage and growing vegetables. Since then he has changed the focus of his business, now operating the shop at the site. Due to the location on the off side of the canal, non-boating customers can only access the shop by crossing the balance beam which is dangerous especially if they’re carrying heavy produce. Mr George has also erected sheds, all without consent.

 

Given that Mr George has been unable, and in some cases unwilling, to take down the buildings or secure suitable access to the site – both crucial to the terms of his lease - we are regretfully serving notice to end his lease.

 

We appreciate that Mr George’s business is used by some local residents and boaters, however, anyone responsible for a 200 year old piece of history has to ensure that there are guidelines in place to ensure the character and appearance is maintained, and for the safety of those who visit. It is important they’re applied to all people fairly and equally, and as such we are disappointed, having exhausted all avenues, that we have been left with no option but to take action on this occasion."

 

This comment from CART Facebook contains many inaccuracies !!!!!!!!

 

See Facebook Link

[Graham Davis]

So what are the inaccuracies?

[cloggy]

So what are the inaccuracies?

The one that instantly comes to mind is the road bridge below the lock, so there is no need to cross the lock

[steve hayes]

So what are the inaccuracies?

 

Sorry should have said, but have a look at the link

 

Ta

[Graham Davis]

Sorry should have said, but have a look at the link

 

Ta

 

Not everyone "does" FB!

[KenK]

I tried to help Dan with this issue and I have to say he is not an easy person to help.

This is not C&RT fault, it is the fault of Dan George, he has been given every opportunity to conform to the terms of his original lease. In repeated meetings with BW and then C&RT over a three year period he promised to resolve the problems but failed to carry out his promises.

There is no access over the road bridge because Dan fell out with the farmer who owns the land which allows access to that side of the lock.

Below is the e mail from Joanna Bryan C&RT Senior Estate Surveyor which I received yesterday.

 

GEORGE’S PORK & POULTRY SHOP Q&A’S

 

Why are we evicting Danny George?Mr George currently occupies the area on a simple licence. Now that he has turned the property into a shop this licence is no longer suitable, he would need a commercial lease of the premises. Unfortunately Mr George has not conformed to the terms of his agreement over the last three years. He has built sheds without consent, changed the use of the land, and cultivated areas which were outside the designated area. Therefore to ask him to sign a more comprehensive document with legal implications would be inappropriate.

 

What are the current terms of Danny George’s lease? He has a three year licence which can be terminated by either party at any time on giving one month’s notice in writing. He only pays the Trust £250 per year and was given six months’ rent free at the start.

 

Couldn’t we alter the lease so he can run a shop?Mr George has not shown that he is able to adhere to the terms and conditions of a simple licence agreement and therefore to grant him a commercial lease with legal implications would be irresponsible of the Trust.

 

 

Shouldn’t the Trust be supporting small businesses that are an attraction on the canal not putting them out of business? The Trust is committed to helping small businesses and we try to offer flexible and affordable agreements to encourage small businesses along our waterways. This is one of the reasons for granting Mr George the licence in the first place. He was given a simple licence on very reasonable terms, and offered the first six months’ rent free.

We have been trying to assist Mr George since last May in solving the issues. We have tried to reopen negotiations with the neighbouring farmer to get alternative access to the site but he was not cooperative. We have had quotes for the installation of electricity to the site and we have met Mr George to discuss any concerns. Unfortunately he has failed to meet any sensible timeframes which were agreed and the unauthorised structure and the vegetable beds still remain.

 

 

 

 

Why has it taken nearly three years to realise that the lock hut isn’t a suitable place to have a shop?Mr George applied to us to have a barrow on the cut from which to sell his produce, and to simply use the hut for storage purposes. After only two months we noticed that he had cultivated vegetable beds outside the agreed area and he was notified of this. However these areas were not reinstated and we noticed in August 2011 that he was using the hut as a shop.

 

Mr George was notified about these issues in August 2011 and asked to do something about them. Due to his personal circumstances we have given him numerous extended deadlines and opportunities to resolve them. Unfortunately these deadlines have never been met, and Mr George has not shown any commitment to dealing with the problems.

 

When will the eviction notice take effect?

Mr George has been given a months’ notice to vacate the premises.

 

If the problem with the lock hut being on the off side is such a Health & Safety issue why did we give the lease agreement to him in the first place?Mr George was under the impression that a gate could be reinstated in the boundary of the offside. We understand that this gate was installed. However Mr George later fell out with the land owner and the gate removed.

 

There are several examples across the network where the Trust is leasing properties on the off side which the public can only access by crossing the lock beam. Why is it different at Audlem?Our concern was that customers would be crossing the lock with bags of heavy produce. We also do not want to publically encourage people to cross the locks.

 

Apparently Danny has provided the Trust with examples of new storage he would like at the hut as you requested, why isn’t this suitable?Mr George provided one example of something which he was unable to afford. We have had no further proposals from him to date.

 

Ken

[Tuscan]

Thanks for posting this , it gives some balance.

[jenlyn]

I tried to help Dan with this issue and I have to say he is not an easy person to help.

This is not C&RT fault, it is the fault of Dan George, he has been given every opportunity to conform to the terms of his original lease. In repeated meetings with BW and then C&RT over a three year period he promised to resolve the problems but failed to carry out his promises.

There is no access over the road bridge because Dan fell out with the farmer who owns the land which allows access to that side of the lock.

Below is the e mail from Joanna Bryan C&RT Senior Estate Surveyor which I received yesterday.

 

GEORGE’S PORK & POULTRY SHOP Q&A’S

 

Why are we evicting Danny George?Mr George currently occupies the area on a simple licence. Now that he has turned the property into a shop this licence is no longer suitable, he would need a commercial lease of the premises. Unfortunately Mr George has not conformed to the terms of his agreement over the last three years. He has built sheds without consent, changed the use of the land, and cultivated areas which were outside the designated area. Therefore to ask him to sign a more comprehensive document with legal implications would be inappropriate.

 

What are the current terms of Danny George’s lease? He has a three year licence which can be terminated by either party at any time on giving one month’s notice in writing. He only pays the Trust £250 per year and was given six months’ rent free at the start.

 

Couldn’t we alter the lease so he can run a shop?Mr George has not shown that he is able to adhere to the terms and conditions of a simple licence agreement and therefore to grant him a commercial lease with legal implications would be irresponsible of the Trust.

 

 

Shouldn’t the Trust be supporting small businesses that are an attraction on the canal not putting them out of business? The Trust is committed to helping small businesses and we try to offer flexible and affordable agreements to encourage small businesses along our waterways. This is one of the reasons for granting Mr George the licence in the first place. He was given a simple licence on very reasonable terms, and offered the first six months’ rent free.

We have been trying to assist Mr George since last May in solving the issues. We have tried to reopen negotiations with the neighbouring farmer to get alternative access to the site but he was not cooperative. We have had quotes for the installation of electricity to the site and we have met Mr George to discuss any concerns. Unfortunately he has failed to meet any sensible timeframes which were agreed and the unauthorised structure and the vegetable beds still remain.

 

 

 

 

Why has it taken nearly three years to realise that the lock hut isn’t a suitable place to have a shop?Mr George applied to us to have a barrow on the cut from which to sell his produce, and to simply use the hut for storage purposes. After only two months we noticed that he had cultivated vegetable beds outside the agreed area and he was notified of this. However these areas were not reinstated and we noticed in August 2011 that he was using the hut as a shop.

 

Mr George was notified about these issues in August 2011 and asked to do something about them. Due to his personal circumstances we have given him numerous extended deadlines and opportunities to resolve them. Unfortunately these deadlines have never been met, and Mr George has not shown any commitment to dealing with the problems.

 

When will the eviction notice take effect?

Mr George has been given a months’ notice to vacate the premises.

 

If the problem with the lock hut being on the off side is such a Health & Safety issue why did we give the lease agreement to him in the first place?Mr George was under the impression that a gate could be reinstated in the boundary of the offside. We understand that this gate was installed. However Mr George later fell out with the land owner and the gate removed.

 

There are several examples across the network where the Trust is leasing properties on the off side which the public can only access by crossing the lock beam. Why is it different at Audlem?Our concern was that customers would be crossing the lock with bags of heavy produce. We also do not want to publically encourage people to cross the locks.

 

Apparently Danny has provided the Trust with examples of new storage he would like at the hut as you requested, why isn’t this suitable?Mr George provided one example of something which he was unable to afford. We have had no further proposals from him to date.

 

Ken

 

I totally agree with you. I have been involved with this as well, albeit from a distance. Dan has not helped himself with his actions and attitude, therefore, this was always going to be the outcome. It is a shame but in my opinion not wholly CRT's fault.

[Gillie]

anyone responsible for a 200 year old piece of history has to ensure that there are guidelines in place to ensure the character and appearance is maintained,

 

See Facebook Link

 

As an aside from the main issue of Georges shop I have to take exception to this part of the statement from C&RT..the defacing of the said 200 year old pieces of history, namely the poetry on the lock gates at Hillmorton, seems to me not maintaining character & appearance...

[PiRSqwared]

As an aside from the main issue of Georges shop I have to take exception to this part of the statement from C&RT..the defacing of the said 200 year old pieces of history, namely the poetry on the lock gates at Hillmorton, seems to me not maintaining character & appearance...

But the gates aren't 200 years old are they?

[ditchcrawler]

I tried to help Dan with this issue and I have to say he is not an easy person to help.

This is not C&RT fault, it is the fault of Dan George, he has been given every opportunity to conform to the terms of his original lease. In repeated meetings with BW and then C&RT over a three year period he promised to resolve the problems but failed to carry out his promises.

There is no access over the road bridge because Dan fell out with the farmer who owns the land which allows access to that side of the lock.

Below is the e mail from Joanna Bryan C&RT Senior Estate Surveyor which I received yesterday.

 

GEORGE’S PORK & POULTRY SHOP Q&A’S

 

Why are we evicting Danny George?Mr George currently occupies the area on a simple licence. Now that he has turned the property into a shop this licence is no longer suitable, he would need a commercial lease of the premises. Unfortunately Mr George has not conformed to the terms of his agreement over the last three years. He has built sheds without consent, changed the use of the land, and cultivated areas which were outside the designated area. Therefore to ask him to sign a more comprehensive document with legal implications would be inappropriate.

 

What are the current terms of Danny George’s lease? He has a three year licence which can be terminated by either party at any time on giving one month’s notice in writing. He only pays the Trust £250 per year and was given six months’ rent free at the start.

 

Couldn’t we alter the lease so he can run a shop?Mr George has not shown that he is able to adhere to the terms and conditions of a simple licence agreement and therefore to grant him a commercial lease with legal implications would be irresponsible of the Trust.

 

 

Shouldn’t the Trust be supporting small businesses that are an attraction on the canal not putting them out of business? The Trust is committed to helping small businesses and we try to offer flexible and affordable agreements to encourage small businesses along our waterways. This is one of the reasons for granting Mr George the licence in the first place. He was given a simple licence on very reasonable terms, and offered the first six months’ rent free.

We have been trying to assist Mr George since last May in solving the issues. We have tried to reopen negotiations with the neighbouring farmer to get alternative access to the site but he was not cooperative. We have had quotes for the installation of electricity to the site and we have met Mr George to discuss any concerns. Unfortunately he has failed to meet any sensible timeframes which were agreed and the unauthorised structure and the vegetable beds still remain.

 

 

 

 

Why has it taken nearly three years to realise that the lock hut isn’t a suitable place to have a shop?Mr George applied to us to have a barrow on the cut from which to sell his produce, and to simply use the hut for storage purposes. After only two months we noticed that he had cultivated vegetable beds outside the agreed area and he was notified of this. However these areas were not reinstated and we noticed in August 2011 that he was using the hut as a shop.

 

Mr George was notified about these issues in August 2011 and asked to do something about them. Due to his personal circumstances we have given him numerous extended deadlines and opportunities to resolve them. Unfortunately these deadlines have never been met, and Mr George has not shown any commitment to dealing with the problems.

 

When will the eviction notice take effect?

Mr George has been given a months’ notice to vacate the premises.

 

If the problem with the lock hut being on the off side is such a Health & Safety issue why did we give the lease agreement to him in the first place?Mr George was under the impression that a gate could be reinstated in the boundary of the offside. We understand that this gate was installed. However Mr George later fell out with the land owner and the gate removed.

 

There are several examples across the network where the Trust is leasing properties on the off side which the public can only access by crossing the lock beam. Why is it different at Audlem?Our concern was that customers would be crossing the lock with bags of heavy produce. We also do not want to publically encourage people to cross the locks.

 

Apparently Danny has provided the Trust with examples of new storage he would like at the hut as you requested, why isn’t this suitable?Mr George provided one example of something which he was unable to afford. We have had no further proposals from him to date.

 

Ken

Mr. George has now published his side of the story on Facebook on his page if anyone is still interested.

Edited February 7, 2013 by ditchcrawler

[PiRSqwared]

Mr. George has now published his side of the story on Facebook on his page if anyone is still interested.

 

Don't do facebook! Any danger of copying it over here?

[Chloe]

Don't do facebook! Any danger of copying it over here?

 

Just click on See Facebook Link on Steve Hayes reply dated 05 February 2013 at top of page

 

You don't need to log in to facebook, Mr. George's page should come up once you have clicked on the link!

 

Also have look at www.narrowboat.com 'CaRT Reneges on George's'.

 

My link

 

I hope this link works! Never used the link icon before.

 

Chloe

[IanM]

Ok People, Dan has just called me CRT have given him 1 Month notice on his lease.

The reason he's not complied with their requests. I would like to put the facts straight before CRT's PR and smear campaign kick in.

 

1) They objected to Mr Georges Shed (notice the word Shed, there were never two sheds) Mr George sent in a new proposal for a shed which he was led to believe was in keeping with what CRT wanted This was submitted 29th Jan 2012. Here a quote from the email sent to Mr George explaining what the shed should be like this was received on the 9th Jan. Its taken Mr George 20 days to get quotes for the new shed that meets environmental health requirements and security,

 

"We would therefore still like to see some sort of plans and proposals which we can agree to, preferably showing the layout, the materials and the intended use of the structure. I have thought about how this could be simply provided, and have seen many ‘off the shelf’ sheds available, many of them suitable for your requirements. Similarly there are second hand portacabins available on the market."

 

Notice Portacabins!! I thought they were concerned about heritage.

 

2) The main stumbling block has been access. They are saying that they cant allow the general public to cross the lock to access Mr Georges Shop. We submitted several examples of where this happens on the rest of the system.

 

he's a quote from the email:

 

"The only access to the site over the balance beam. This obviously gives us cause for concern, as by granting the new agreement to you for retail purposes, we CRT are condoning the use of this unsafe access for your customers. We would therefore look for indemnity from any responsibility for your customers crossing the balance beam."

 

I have submitted several examples for Danny where this is already in use. Public access across the lock to access facilities. Mr Georges Insurance will not accept this type of liability because its not Mr Georges responsibility. I cant see CRT signing the maintenance of the lock over to him!!

 

Looks like they have run out of issues that they can use as an excuse to satisfy the general public as to why they had to shut George's down. They have just decided to go for it while the boating population is distracted by the SE Visitor mooring Consultation. So much for the CRT statement :

 

The Trust will continue to support Mr George to ensure his shop, which is a popular attraction on the canal, continues to operate.

[PiRSqwared]

Just click on See Facebook Link on Steve Hayes reply dated 05 February 2013 at top of page

 

You don't need to log in to facebook, Mr. George's page should come up once you have clicked on the link!

 

Also have look at www.narrowboat.com 'CaRT Reneges on George's'.

 

My link

 

I hope this link works! Never used the link icon before.

 

Chloe

 

Sorry, you don't understand. I don't do facebook - it is horrible to look at for one thing! I don't do NBW either. Guess I'll have to rely on what people say here for the time being.

[jenlyn]

Mr. George has now published his side of the story on Facebook on his page if anyone is still interested.

Not really, its got silly and turned into a power struggle avoiding the facts.

[Graham Davis]

Chloe,

as others have said, we don't all do Facebook, and it is impossible to read Mr Georges' comments without "doing Facebook"!!

If you want us to read his version of the story then cut-and-paste it here!!

[IanM]

Chloe,

as others have said, we don't all do Facebook, and it is impossible to read Mr Georges' comments without "doing Facebook"!!

If you want us to read his version of the story then cut-and-paste it here!!

 

I quoted above what was posted on Facebook. Doesn't really say very much and to be honest it is less "his side of the story" and more "yeah but, no but..."

 

In the quote he seems to be using as a defence the bit about how they asked him to provide brief plans of a shed but at no point does he actually say he supplied them with any.

[Doorman]

I would be very wary of buying meat products, especially burgers, from somewhere that has little chance of keeping the food at the required temperature.

 

Hi Dave,

 

Personally, I would be more concerned about buying burgers from Tesco or Findus.

 

We know Danny quite well and used to buy both fresh and frozen produce from him. Over the past year, he has had many problems outside of his business interests and to be honest we don't know how he has survived any of this without it affecting his health.

 

Without (wishing to know) knowing all of the facts, it is difficult to make an accurate judgement on what has transpired, both from Danny's perspective and that of C&RT'S. I can only say that his presence will be missed if this situation cannot be ultimately resolved.

 

Mike

[Chloe]

Sorry, you don't understand. I don't do facebook - it is horrible to look at for one thing! I don't do NBW either. Guess I'll have to rely on what people say here for the time being.

 

Sorry didn't get what you meant first time round. I do understand that not everybody luvs social networking sites.

 

Chloe

[Chloe]

Chloe,

as others have said, we don't all do Facebook, and it is impossible to read Mr Georges' comments without "doing Facebook"!!

If you want us to read his version of the story then cut-and-paste it here!!

 

As I have said, in reply to the guy who originally posted got the wrong end of the stick! I do understand not everyone does facebook and won't want to read all the posts to gain an insight into what's going on with Mr. George, so I thank IanM for posting summary and won't repeat what's been said.

[PiRSqwared]

Sorry didn't get what you meant first time round. I do understand that not everybody luvs social networking sites.

 

Chloe

No problem.

[KenK]

I posted C&RT's side of the story earlier and it's only fair to post Dan George's side.

 

Ken

 

 

Mr George has written a statement detailing his side of the story:

 

Statement from Daniel George:

There are always two sides to every story and it may be helpful if someone at C&RT heard mine. The person from BW, as was then, who set up this contract with me is no longer in the same department; this may be where the confusion started. She first came to meet me and see the building as it apparently wasn't on any BW plans or deeds. I explained my "big idea". This included the possibility of sheds for tool storage/toilet and a shed for a bigger shop. We talked in brief about size but I said it was all dependent on how trade went. The veg plots were agreed on location but I said it would take time to clear rubbish and all the scrub. Contracts were to be drawn up. You can't imagine how excited I was. If only I had known then what I know now!

 

Veg Plots

The first contract I received to sign was a little funny really. The page with a map, and a key attached showed that if I signed I “owned” the canal from lock 1-15 for planting vegetables. I advised this may need changing and a new one was sent. The second was also inaccurate. I highlighted this and was informed it was only for the veg plots and she was mindful to get the contract done quickly due to annual leave up coming. She advised it was able to be updated at a later date. It never was. I've not overstepped what we verbally agreed, in fact I've stopped over 12 feet short as I think it looks better, and gives the boaters and my customers more room around my shop and the lock.

 

The contract says storage not retail.

This is because the lady doing the contract said due to the size of the hut and lack of amenities it would be unfair to put it on a retail lease due to how BW contract templates worked on costing. It would mean a much more complicated contract that she felt would be unnecessary and overkill for such a small concern. She did advise if the business prospered it could be modified or re-written should it become an issue. I think it's important to remember this is a building that is 6ft square externally and was in a bad state of repair. This is why I was given 6 months free rent. She advised me it would be quicker if I did it myself due to health and safety regulations within BW.

The Building It's roof was leaking, its walls cracked, used condoms and even needles around the back, the door was in a very bad way. The roof was even braced with off cut wood to stop it splaying and damaging the walls further. With all this in mind BW named the price and I accepted.

 

Why has it taken so long to get a new contract?

You tell me? I've done all that I could to secure the new contract when it was first highlighted to me that I required one back in 2011. I've phoned/emailed and generally begged for it. On one email, which I thankfully still have, it took nearly four months to get a reply. I made many phone calls before and between. Things were understandably busy for BW who were in the process of becoming C&RT, so I was trying to be patient as I accepted that I was a small concern. I received emails saying carry on as you are until the new contract is sorted out. I was told on the phone "don't worry it will all be ok", there is a lot of supporting evidence of this, thankfully, which I can supply to the ombudsman and my legal team.

Electricity supply I first raised this with BW nearly 2 years ago. I wanted a bigger, reliant, more permanent and cheaper supply. I started with a tiny petrol generator. This original cheap generator was frankly rubbish and I have spent a fortune on petrol/gas and generators over the last almost 3 years, hence the need for mains electricity. The neighbour behind my hut plugged me into his mains supply for a time, until his landlord was arrested for attacking me and made him unplug it. This meant back to generators.

 

I have submitted plans to BW / C&RT from the electricity board on several occasions.

I was first told they were not detailed enough from said electricity board. Then they said they would look into it. Then they said they had not received any plans. So much time passed the quote didn't stand anymore from the electricity board so they had to visit again. Still BW said they were not detailed enough, this is why in a meeting at which Alison Tuck was present, I again suggested maybe C&RT should take over and deal with the electricity board and could ask them for more detailed plans to help alleviate any concerns they may have. They agreed and have now done this, and I was to pay for it and leave supply if I ever vacated.

 

Why are the sheds still there?

There is and has only ever been one shed. I can only think that when C&RT keep referring to 2 sheds/buildings that the other is meant to be the gazebo? I've always had a gazebo. Last year I got a bigger one to hopefully last more than one season and stop me and the produce getting wet. It had detachable side panels to also keep out sideways rain and the sun from perishing picked vegetables, and shining directly on fresh eggs. The shed is still there as was agreed. It could remain until the design of the new was confirmed and built. This was to help facilitate and expatiate the process.

Do you have liability insurance? Yes, and I always have. I've offered on many occasions to produce copies and yet to date no one has looked at them. I've taken them to all the recent meetings. I offered copies in an email in late 2011, and the 4 month later reply to that email never mentioned them in any way. I'm with the National Farmers Union and they also offer great legal advice in landlord disputes!

 

Your building is in a conservation area and is a listed building.

No its not, nor has it ever been. C&RT suddenly told me these things and I know them to be untrue. The conservation area stops at the lock cottage, and my building is not listed. I've used original materials to maintain the hut, some were even supplied by BW/C&RT ground staff - they knew of some roof tiles "lying about somewhere". I also took advice from a building friend who has vast experience with listed buildings.

 

Is Environmental Health aware you are trading at lock 15?

Yes they are. They have been registered from the start. They have been very helpful offering advice I've requested regarding any alterations I've made. They have also been patient on occasions with the delays I've had awaiting BW/C&RT decisions allowing me to carry out necessary improvements. The inspector was even present when I contacted them on one occasion. I was trying to get a deadline for when I'd get an answer. I got a dead line from BW/C&RT but they didn't meet it. He was also in contact giving advice about the new shed. Indeed, he was due to visit so I could start the internal building, but I had to cancel as I was told by C&RT management to stop immediately, which I did.

 

Crossing a lock with groceries is dangerous!

So is crossing a busy road outside any shop. You don't expect the shop to be responsible if you get run over. C&RT asked me to sign an indemnity clause agreeing to be responsible for people crossing the lock and I explained that my insurance would not allow me to be responsible for something they maintain, and how could we work out who was their customer and who was mine, as most tend to be boaters. I also explained that first time boaters, whether hiring or purchased, all crossed a lock for the first time. I also explained I helped people with larger amounts of shopping. The few customers that are more frail sit on the benches opposite and I serve them from there. I don't have many frail non-boating customers due to the fact it is a 1/3 mile walk to my hut.

Some say I'm a good sales man, however I have failed to date to sell a single customer more sausages and veg in weight in one go than say a bag of coal, or a full cassette toilet, and yet boaters up and down the country somehow have survived and are indeed not drowning all over the place. Most people buy a pack or two of sausages and a bit of veg, this weighing no more than a heavy windlass. There are many examples of residential mooring like this all over the country, like lock 14 in Audlem and a few others on the flight. Also lock 15 gate has a wide foot board, 12", and a hand rail top and bottom, and there's not many safer than that.

 

What do you want?

I would like to move forward with C&RT and construct a new retail contract. This to include my new shed with electricity supply for my stock, my vegetable plots to remain as they are, and a tiny shed for a toilet located anywhere they wish on my leased land to put a cassette toilet in, because unlike a bear I will be arrested for exposure in the woods. I have crones and ulcerative colitis, this coupled with feet I keep having operated on leaves me a bit slow in the running department, and it's a long way to the village for the nearest toilet.

 

How can this be done?

I think this could be done quite easily. C&RT know what I want, and I'm willing to work with them. I understand that they have a difficult job. They are responsible for one of Britain's best assets that cover most of England, with unique problems and character. I think that mistakes have been made on both sides and maybe we can both see our own errors. I would like to meet C&RT and sit around a table to sort out the new contract so that I can begin trading again. The new shed could be designed to suit both parties, if they don't like the current design, and built in 4-6 weeks. They must see that not just I but many boaters and the general public alike think that George’s Pork And Poultry being there is doing no harm. I feel it enhances the canal side and shows a prosperous canal side business which is in keeping with our canal's heritage and traditions. I can only see a win win for all concerned.

However this turns out I hope C&RT succeed in preserving and enhancing our canals along with their communities. I'd like to say a big thank you all for your friendship over the last few years. I would also like to say an enormous thank you for all the support in messages, phone calls and in setting up the petition and the shed fund. You have been a great strength to me when I might have otherwise given up. Thank you