Please help save this unique boaters' schoolhouse

[Athy]

It seems like pointless irrelevant pedantry to me.

 

 

Or "historical accuracy" as it is sometimes known.

[Speedwheel]

It's always incredibly difficult posting anything on CanalWorld as NBTA London. Regardless of the subject, there will always be people who just want to argue about the name of the organisation. I didn't choose it. And, for what it's worth, I didn't write the petition either.

 

I don't know what the Shippy People were called by the Housey Folk and I don't really see why it is fundamental to anything. It seems like pointless irrelevant pedantry to me.

 

If it doesn't matter to you what the building becomes, the answer is simple, don't sign the petition. Some people will care, and I think it would be nice if they could sign it.

 

Surely you see the double standards of your post? On one hand stating that you want to retain the buildings historical importance and social history, then you completely dismiss important points made regarding the social history as 'irrelevant pedantry".

 

For what it's worth I support the principle of your cause, but if those involved are not able to portray their cause accurately, then those who know will wonder how knowledgeable the people involved really are about it or how much research they have actually undertaken. If there are things that are clearly incorrect, no matter how irrelevant they may seem to you, people will doubt the other information you provide.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Speedwheel

[Athy]

 

Surely you see the double standards of your post? On one hand stating that you want to retain the buildings historical importance and social history, then you completely dismiss important points made regarding the social history as 'irrelevant pedantry".

Wheel wheel wheel, a wee greenie for ye.

 

NBTA, I have no idea what your initials mean. I would like to see the building survive, and I wish you well with your efforts in that direction. But I really don't mind if it becomes a family home, a cultural centre, a Spud-U-Like take-away or a knocking shop, as long as it isn't demolished.

[NBTA London]

 

Surely you see the double standards of your post? On one hand stating that you want to retain the buildings historical importance and social history, then you completely dismiss important points made regarding the social history as 'irrelevant pedantry".

 

We are concerned with saving a project that a lot of people have worked on over a considerable period of time. That is about a meeting of Hackney Council's Planning Committee on 11th March. What one group of people called another group of people in 1846, although no doubt important from a historical perspective, is not relevant to that meeting.

For what it's worth I support the principle of your cause, but if those involved are not able to portray their cause accurately, then those who know will wonder how knowledgeable the people involved really are about it or how much research they have actually undertaken. If there are things that are clearly incorrect, no matter how irrelevant they may seem to you, people will doubt the other information you provide.

 

 

Reading back through the thread, you should be able to see that we didn't even get such basics as "from" and "to" right.

 

As I said, we were doing the best we could with no prior knowledge (I had to travel 30 miles by public transport to get there and last night was the first time I had even seen the building. We needed to get something up and running straight away, so we simply didn't have the luxury of employing planning experts, social historians or whatever.

 

I have made it clear that I am getting my information second hand so I have made no claims that it is anything more than the gist of what is going on. We are doing our best to publicise this at very short notice and under conditions that are very far from ideal.

 

And to answer a couple of other points, no CRT is not the freeholder. They are not involved in this in any way. And yes, it sounds as if CAT's plan is to turn it back into a school, at least as far as the layout goes. It seems it will involve modern interactive displays but be in a setting akin to the original schoolhouse

 

(And NBTA is National Bargee Travellers' Association)

Edited March 1, 2015 by NBTA London

[Laurence Hogg]

(And NBTA is National Bargee Travellers' Association)

 

Is that for the people who live in tin box floating housing estates cluttering up the cut on licences that are for continuous cruising but don't go anywhere?

[luctor et emergo]

I have the popcorn, who's bringing the drinks?

[Ray T]

Laurence, for bravery, if nothing else, have a greenie.

[NBTA London]

(And NBTA is National Bargee Travellers' Association)

 

Is that for the people who live in tin box floating housing estates cluttering up the cut on licences that are for continuous cruising but don't go anywhere?

As I said:

 

It's always incredibly difficult posting anything on CanalWorld as NBTA London. Regardless of the subject, there will always be people who just want to argue about the name of the organisation. I didn't choose it. And, for what it's worth, I didn't write the petition either.

 

Thanks for bumping the thread. Don't forget to sign the petition, people. And thanks to those who already have

[Wanted]

Sadly this is has become an anti NBTA thread instead of trying to safeguard a piece of the cuts history.

 

This is why I seldom feel like getting involved with canal groups. To many people ready to knock down ideas.

 

Thank you NBTA for raising this issue. I wonder if the Travellers School (FB group) might have some interest? I shall share.

[Laurence Hogg]

A really full and descriptive reply - Hmm and btw your nbtalondon.wordpress.com if clicked leads to this sites homepage. Really impressive.

[Athy]

Sadly this is has become an anti NBTA thread instead of trying to safeguard a piece of the cuts history.

 

 

 

Certainly not from this fellow - as I mentioned, I wasn't aware of the NBTA. My point was that the survival of the structure was paramount and that its use was of secondary importance. If, of course, it could revert to its original use as a school, that would be a bonus, but tiny schools (and it looks fairly small from the photos) are unviable - look how many little village schools have closed down in the last few decades.

[stickleback]

I think that as long as the building remains, there's no reason not to turn it into two flats. It will look much the same. And the owner will at least have got a sensible price for the property rather than , perhaps , sod all. Might even be able to buy a nice narrow boat from the proceeds.

[Machpoint005]

For much the same reasons as some who have already posted, I will not be signing. Moreover, if NBTA wants to get its act together shouldn't it be recording its objections with the council, as this is a planning matter?

 

I'm not sure what the OP means by the "very short notice" -- is this just an indication that they were very late finding out about it? Planning applications are posted on council web sites these days, and weekly lists are available online.

I have no problem with the building becoming two flats instead of a derelict eyesore.

[David Mack]

It isn't clear why this has suddenly become an urgent issue.

 

The planning application was submitted on 7 June 2013, with a comments deadline of 16 August 2013. Unfortunately the Hackney planning website, unlike others I have looked at, doesn't list the objections received, so we can't see who objected at the time, and on what grounds.

 

The Clapton Arts Trust Facebook page reports the award of HLF funding for a feasibility study into using the building as a River Heritage Centre on 22 November 2014, but doesn't seem to say anything about the outcome of that study (or indeed any progress with it). It sounds to me that this is too little too late to stop the planning process going through in the normal way.

[magpie patrick]

In planning terms, I would say there should be concern if the principle of residential use is accepted that it does not then become easier for the would be developer to go back and ask for more. If two flats, why not demolish the building and build a new block of ten? In areas of London where development pressures are intense, the refusal of residential consent at all is a valuable tool to resist wholesale redevelopment.

 

There seems a fundamental couple of errors here.
NBTA use the term "Bargee" which in real waterway terms was and is a derogatory term used by non waterway persons do describe people that lived principly on narrow boats or the former wider beam London area equivalent narrow boat styled craft (12ft ish beam).

They are boaters not "Bargees"

 

Good god Laurence, you really do take the biscuit sometimes. Here is a poster, representing a group. who want to preserve a piece of canal heritage, and all you can do is have a rant about their name! The National Bargee Travellers Association represent people living on boats NOW, not those living on boats 100 years ago! Presumably the NBTA's members do not object to being called "Bargee Travellers" because if they did they wouldn't join!

 

They may have chosen the name in all innocence, or they may have joined a long tradition of taking a derogatory name and wearing it with pride. Whatever, it's their name, get over it.

 

To London NBTA, thanks for making me aware of a bit of canal heritage I knew nothing of.