CaRT to sell section of River Lea to developer

[NilesMI]

I must admit that Nigel's original post, referring to a section of the River Lea, conjured up an image of a considerably reduced waterway, but then I saw the plan. It may well be that even if it is part of the waterspace, selling the narrow strip to a developer is a sensible thing for CRT to do. Even if that bank is already piled, if the developer becomes responsible for maintaining a new wall, CRT would swap an ongoing maintenance lability for a suitcase full of cash.

 

However, if under the terms by which CRT was established, the consent of the Sec. of State is required before assets can be sold, that should be obtained. As what has been notified is just a proposed sale at the moment, perhaps it's not worth bothering the Sec of State unless and until a sale is agreed.

 

edit: spelling

Edited December 5, 2015 by NilesMI

[GillianOlcay]

Really need to know the extent of how much land (and how much is covered by the water..........) before can really decide if CRT have been in the wrong here. If its just the ransom strip, it could be viewed as a positive thing. If its half the river.......you get the drift.

 

The application and plan describes a strip of waterspace. It is an average 1.1 metres in width along 380 mtrs of bank. Just over half a narrowboat width.

 

To add to the mix of legal and social issues, the proposal is directly contrary to the Blue Ribbon Network Policies of the London Plan, which insist that the waterspace should NOT be used as an extension of developable land.

 

Well done and thanks to those who have alerted ‘should-be’ interested parties. I share the lack of confidence that anything will be done, but at least something has been tried!

[Jerra]

I must admit that Nigel's original post, referring to a section of the River Lea, conjured up an image of a considerably reduced waterway, but then I saw the plan. It may well be that even if it is part of the waterspace, selling the narrow strip to a developer is a sensible thing for CRT to do. Even if that bank is already piled, if the developer becomes responsible for maintaining a new wall, CRT would swap an ongoing maintenance lability for a suitcase full of cash.

IT must also be kept in mind the possible changes to mooring a development might bring.

[NigelMoore]

An update on this is now possible, owing to a belated response from Parry. The reasons given for CaRT’s approval is long term improvement of expected life of the pilings from 50 to 120 years, and mitigation of possible environmental disasters if the work was carried out any other way.

 

“The intention of the proposed transfer is to allow the construction of a new river wall along the edge of the land which Vastint is developing. Vastint are planning to develop their land, which has an area of approximately 22 acres, to provide approximately 1,200 new homes, office and retail accommodation, a hotel, and local community facilities.”

 

The plans have been worked on for a long time now, it seems, with the EA involved.

 

"The overall proposal was granted planning permission by the LLDC on 5 August 2015, and it also has a Flood Defence Consent from the Environment Agency. The Trust has carefully considered its decision to transfer the land in the light of the Blue Ribbon Network policies, in particular Policy 7.28 and 7.30 of the adopted London Plan. It is acknowledged that the land transfer and the development would result in a small net loss of waterspace, and this is not a position that the Trust would normally support. However, in this instance, it is considered that the wider public benefits arising from the construction of a new river wall with enhanced structural integrity of the flood defence (for an estimated 120 years), minimising the risk of any contaminants polluting the water, and improving its visual appearance, as well as improving public access to the water’s edge and mooring facilities for operational craft, justify the loss in this instance."

 

What IS clear, is that the SoS has yet to give consent - though CaRT are preparing the requisite application - with the disturbing revelation that CaRT have already, apparently, made an unknown quantity of applications to the SoS; presumably successfully.

 

"The Trust realises that the property which is the subject of the public notice is held by it as trustee of the Waterways Infrastructure Trust, and that this means that the consent of the Secretary of State will be required before the proposed disposal may be made, in accordance with the terms of the Trust Settlement for the Waterways Infrastructure Trust. The Trust is currently preparing that application to the Secretary of State. This is one of a number of such submissions that we have made under this aspect of the Settlement so it is not without precedent." [my bold].

 

I wonder how much of the nation's entrusted assets have been quietly thus disposed of? A recent Private Eye article tied that question in with an discussion on the topic of EA navigations being taken over by CaRT, mentioning this particular riverbank sell-off amongst other identified asset sales, including the £50 million Campden Town property.

[NigelMoore]

It is important to understand the basis on which the national property is dealt with by CaRT; the British Waterways (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012 does not deal with the property angle; that is contained within the “Waterways Infrastructure Trust Settlement” –

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/183234/Canals-rivers-trust-settlement.pdf

 

The property is divided into: a) “Waterways Property”; b ) “Protected Assets”; c) “Infrastructure Property”.

 

The first two are bizarrely undefined, but the Infrastructure Property is defined in the Schedule paragraphs 1 & 2, which includes in particular 2(a) “the navigation channel of a waterway extending to the rear of the towpath waterway wall and the rear of the offside waterway wall, where one exists.”

 

Paragraph 7.1 provides that: “The property and funds of this Settlement must only be used for promoting the Objects”. [my bold]

 

You need to read the explanatory notes –

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1659/pdfs/uksiem_20121659_en.pdf

 

Note especially 7.7 “The Transfer Scheme is made under section 23 of the Public Bodies Act 2011. It transfers the property, assets rights and liabilities of British Waterways in England and Wales to CRT (as distinct from the Transfer Order which transfers the statutory functions).” [original emphasis]

 

It is paragraph 7.9 that is most pertinent: “A very important role of CRT will be to safeguard the infrastructure of the waterways in perpetuity for the nation. We want the canals, towpaths, locks and other parts of the waterways to be looked after for the benefit of future generations. The document which will ensure this is the Trust Settlement. A draft of this document is at Annex I. The Trust Settlement places the waterways infrastructure in a Trust (called the ‘Waterways Infrastructure Trust’), which the Secretary of State will settle on CRT as first trustee. The Trust Settlement ensures that all of the waterways infrastructure (as defined in the Trust) is held as permanent functional endowment. This means that the CRT will not be able to sell any part of the waterways infrastructure without gaining the Secretary of State’s and in some cases the Charity Commission’s prior consent. Before granting such consent, the Secretary of State will hold a public consultation;” [my bold]

 

The “Charitable Objects” is yet another linked document, which in draft form appear as an annex to the explanatory document.

 

So you have the Public Bodies Act, giving rise to the BW (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012; the Trust Settlement under the Transfer Scheme, and the Charitable Objects. The explanatory document lists other docs such as the Memorandum of Understanding, but the important documents are those which provide for protection of the assets from being sold off without the engagement of public opinion. Not even the Secretary of State can unilaterally approve sales of the infrastructure – legally.

 

Quite a lot of such property has, however, been sold off under [according to Parry] the appropriate process. If these parcels were consulted on, where are the records? I can easily have missed out on notice of such, but if that lack of awareness is widespread amongst boaters, then few will have managed to stick their oar in [supposing they wished to of course]..

[matty40s]

 

I think you should start billing Allannarrowmindedworld for your knowledge and expertise Nigel.....

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/8608-cart-selling-the-waterways

[NigelMoore]

The wording of the Notice suggests that CaRT think only adhering to the Charities Act requirement is necessary. They have been asked whether SoS consent has been given, and remain silent.

 

The justification for selling the riverbed was given as this being the cheaper option for the developer. Tellingly, the Crown Estates made no such concession, and alongside the Crown land the developer is having to build the new wall on their own land. If they can do it there, they can do it alongside the trust's land also.

 

Extract from DEFRA Policy paper

2010 to 2015 government policy: access to the countryside

"The Waterways Infrastructure Trust Settlement was signed on 28 June 2012. This makes sure that the canals and rivers, and associated infrastructure required to manage them (which were previously operated by British Waterways) will remain in trust on behalf of the nation. It ensures that they cannot be sold and that free pedestrian access to the towpaths is maintained, except in the tightly controlled circumstances set out in the trust." [my bold]

 

Boris Johnson has been informed, only to respond with Parryy's justification saying that CaRT have considered the BRN policies. No one in officialdom seems bothered at all.

[Jerra]

Boris Johnson has been informed, only to respond with Parryy's justification saying that CaRT have considered the BRN policies. No one in officialdom seems bothered at all.

Has anybody tried Rory Stewart - I believe he is waterways minister.

[tidal]

All I've had is an acknowledgment

[Jerra]

All I've had is an acknowledgment

From Rory Stewart? How long ago?

[tidal]

From Rory Stewart? How long ago?

No

Sorry I didn't bother with him.

[Jerra]

No

Sorry I didn't bother with him.

It is just that I often email Rory (he is my MP and I like to keep him on his toes) and while he isn't the quickest to reply he always does.

[NigelMoore]

Someone has since written to him, and received a stock reply affirming the enthusiam for incorporating EA navigations into CaRT !?

[Jerra]

Someone has since written to him, and received a stock reply affirming the enthusiam for incorporating EA navigations into CaRT !?

Do you mean Rory the Tory? Has the selling of the part of the river been raised with him?

 

I doubt he will take notice as I have an email from him about the gagging law where he admits he had hundreds of people at surgeries and by letter objecting to the law but he still felt he had to vote for the bill.

 

Then they say MPs represent a constituency!

[NigelMoore]

Do you mean Rory the Tory? Has the selling of the part of the river been raised with him?

Yes to both. I doubt he even read the letter; the response had nothing to do with it, and will have been one of the stock (in this case highly inappropriate) responses sent by an underling.