Good observations Anthony. There IS apparent inconsistency and there is no good reason why freight use of the waterways should be supported at one end of London and not the other. The short and simple answer is the usual – it boils down to what produces most profit to whom. There are quite different scenarios between east and west London in terms of how British Waterways and their directors see a way to maximise income.
Curiously, for all the millions spent on the massive new lock on the Lea, it will not really increase the traffic potential that much more than was possible if the existing system had been properly refurbished. The difference the new lock DOES make, is keeping so much more of the rivers at a minimum level, instead of having the channel dry out. It has the same effect, writ larger, that the Thames Lock has here in Brentford. It means that barge traffic can move around the waterways above the lock even when they can’t transit to the Thames, but more significantly, the appearance is enormously enhanced [no more muddy exposed banksides and foreshore] and most importantly of all for BW, it means that the environment becomes perfect for building a ‘floating city’ of houseboats and ‘business barges’ in the Bow Back Rivers which would otherwise be impractical. The potential income on that for BW and its London Director is huge.
For Brentford, on the other hand, BW saw that the maximum financial returns would be realised through land-based development of high-class residential blocks alongside the canal. The use of the waterways for freight would arguably [as suggested in the first post] militate against that scenario, so BW have consistently argued against any resurgence of freight use of the waterways here. Having succeeded in getting permission for the Island development and the Lock surround developments, they had a stronger case to argue that those residential schemes had rendered freight use of the waterway no longer compatible with its surroundings. That was precisely the argument that they presented in the last appeal against the Council’s decision on Commerce Road.
In fact, unusually, the Island residents supported continued commercial use of the site and renewed freight use of the canal, but the situation illustrates the mentality driving BW’s approach.
You are quite right of course, a network of trans-shipment sites is needed for the practical use of the waterways, which is why losing the potential here is so important. The initial Report commissioned by Transport for London with some contributions from BW, into freight potential on London's canals, did not embrace within its remit any consideration of transfer between the canals and the Thames [the consideration that makes the east end scenario so attractive]. Even so, according to that Report -
Given BW's long term aspirations to continue developing Commerce Road into high density, high class residential units, it is understandable that they were alarmed at the result of the survey and promptly took over the project, making sure that the original researchers were not involved in producing the Phase 2 report. The eponymous head of the consultancy firm was subsequently roped in to give evidence for BW at the Public Inquiry to the effect that freight in Brentford was not viable.
Even within the parameters of both Reports, that was not justified, but significantly, as Peter Brett admitted under cross-examination, the Reports toook no account of business studies for freight transfer between the canal and the Thames.
I hope the above goes some way towards explaining the genesis of the "huge contradiction".