Forum Message

Topic: Navigation impediment
Posted by: Nigel Moore
Date/Time: 27/01/10 00:01:00

“ the new moorings look like fixtures that could be readily removed. They are floating pontoons not fixed structures. So if there is a future flurry of freight traffic then these can be moved to make way for the demand. No?”

Not quite that simple Alan. The pontoons are attached to large, heavy-duty steel poles driven deeply enough into the bed to withstand the currents and the weight of the pontoons and boats. In front of them will be a series of further piles with rigid cross-bracing serving as a buffer to protect the moored boats from the impact of passing craft trying to enter from the Thames in adverse conditions [part of the overt recognition that such impact will present a real danger to the boats moored at that point – which is designated as the space for visitors only!].

Of course they will be removable, in the same sense that a building can be bulldozed, but it not simply a case of “un-hitching” the pontoons and taking them away.

There is, of course, the other consideration that any boats that will by then have signed leases for the moorings will inevitably and understandably object to the removal of their berths unless nearby replacements were made available.

Another part of the problem is, always, that once anything is in place, it will act as a deterrent for any later activity that could raise conflicts – there is far too much conflict already, when new residents to a place object to activities such as commercial wharfage and boatyards that have been in place for centuries. Previous posts here amply illustrate such opposition. In Brentford, BW used that argument to suggest that their recent developments on the Island and alongside Brentford [Gauging] Lock already render commercial use of the waterway here unacceptable.

The BCC recommendation early in the application process was to install heavy duty vertical tensioned cables along the wall, allowing boats to be firmly attached while rising and falling with the tide. This is the system used, for example, in the largest locks on the system including Limehouse Locks. That provides safe mooring while taking up no space at all.

The other recommendation we made was to install pontoons against the wall where the north bank is recessed, so that any moored boats would not only be further from the entry, but would protrude no further than boats closer to the entry moored directly to the wall there. Interestingly enough, the BW expert also suggested that, in his second report, but it was Ferry Quays residents who objected to the proximity to their flats that would result.


“. . . a developer building a floating pontoon mooring that his experts and the relevant bodies claim will NOT impede use of the canal at ALL”

Not so.

There have been 5 risk assessments produced –

1)  2003 In February British Waterways assessed for themselves the suitability of the site for moorings and concluded that that it was unsafe and unsuitable – for the then current conditions, with no reference to increased use either private or commercial.


BW Patrol Officer, 20th February 2003


BW Legal Executive, 25th February 2003

2)  2003 In July British Waterways commissioned “Marine Enforcement Ltd” to produce an ‘independent’ risk assessment of the site. This was to include an assessment of the safety of the situation with the barges then moored to the wall, and also of 4 alternative BW proposals for pontoon mooring schemes. These pontoon schemes did not extend beyond the Soaphouse Creek entry [as the Hither Green scheme does], and the current traffic information relied upon was that supplied by BW.

The crucial point is the risk of contact with moored vessels during ebb tide; for that scenario the risk was assessed as presenting a ‘probable’ likelihood of a 3 day+ injury to people; minor damage to people and minor damage to the environment. [The relevant risk would be increased with the current Hither Green proposal because it extends closer to the Thames in the area of greatest risk.]





3)  2008 In October Hounslow commissioned the SAME expert from Marine Enforcement Ltd to update his risk assessment with reference to the Hither Green proposal. He began with the statement: “We are content that nothing in this report is inconsistent with any of the opinions we expressed in 2003.” Pertinent to Nic’s comment he makes the observation: “Obviously the narrowing of a navigational fairway will have an adverse impact on the ease of navigation . . .” [as distinct from ‘safety’ of navigation’] He noted the various conditions requested by BW and comments: “These are all reasonable precautions to reduce the risks. The question is whether they are enough?” His summary was clear enough -





An interesting further piece of information he supplied was : “The Port Marine Safety Code requires that the Navigation Authority consult with all stakeholders when assessing risks and this would include commercial river users.” Not a single canal freight operator on the canals has been consulted [even though it would be difficult for BW licensed operators to expose themselves to BW’s antagonism].

4)  2008 In December, Hither Green reacted to the MEL Report by producing their own Risk Assessment – and it is hardly surprising that they considered their scheme to be safe!

It is notable that the parameters that even they believed to be necessary for arriving at their figures required a  “Revised BW guidance for users of the Grand Union Canal to be disseminated at the Thames Lock and online.” Perhaps it might be possible to take that more seriously if they had included information as to what that new guidance would involve - one of the suggestions of BW’s expert was to regulate the traffic into a one-way system!

It is further notable that no canal to river freight operators were consulted. Instead, they consulted “representatives of users [Inland Waterways Association].” Estimable as it was to consult the IWA, they are not freight operators using the canal and river.

5)  2009  In January the MEL expert who at an IBAC meeting had been seen in furious concerned discussion with Hither Green’s architects [authors of the HG Rick Assessment] produced yet another Report. Somehow‘forgetting’ that his initial report based on BW’s information had backed that authority’s own assessment; overlooking the inconvenient comment in his second report that his ‘unsafe’ assessment was independent of whether freight use would happen or not, he revised that assessment – ON THE BASIS OF THE HITHER GREEN REPORT!





I personally find the inter-‘expert’ accommodations contemptible, but if that final report establishes anything of value, it is that IF BW’s expert was only able to re-assess his previous reports on the basis of assurances that current freight use is “negligible” with no prospect of future use, then the corollary is, inevitably, that such use IS incompatible with the proposed scheme.

At all events, it is patently untrue from reading those reports to say that the relevant bodies claim no impediment to the navigation AT ALL.


Entire Thread
TopicDate PostedPosted By
Brentford Waterways19/01/10 11:03:00 J. kenton
   Re:Brentford Waterways19/01/10 12:20:00 Alan Clark
      Re:Re:Brentford Waterways19/01/10 15:01:00 Adam Beamish
         Re:Re:Re:Brentford Waterways19/01/10 16:33:00 Nigel Moore
            Re:Re:Re:Re:Brentford Waterways19/01/10 18:47:00 Andrew Dakers
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Brentford Waterways20/01/10 19:30:00 Nigel Moore
            Re:Re:Re:Re:Brentford Waterways20/01/10 20:56:00 Jim Linwood
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Brentford Waterways20/01/10 21:44:00 Nigel Moore
                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Brentford Waterways20/01/10 23:12:00 Nigel Moore
                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Brentford Waterways21/01/10 09:14:00 Jim Linwood
   Re:Brentford Waterways21/01/10 08:41:00 Anthony Waller
      Re:Re:Brentford Waterways21/01/10 17:17:00 Nigel Moore
         Re:Re:Re:Brentford Waterways21/01/10 20:59:00 Nigel Moore
            Re:Re:Re:Re:Brentford Waterways21/01/10 21:31:00 Nigel Moore
               enough history, this is 201022/01/10 08:35:00 Nic Doczi
                  Re:enough history, this is 201022/01/10 11:44:00 Nigel Moore
                     Re:Re:enough history, this is 201022/01/10 15:04:00 Anthony Waller
                        Re:Re:Re:enough history, this is 201022/01/10 21:41:00 Nigel Moore
                           Re:Re:Re:Re:enough history, this is 201025/01/10 12:14:00 Alan Clark
                        Re:Re:Re:enough history, this is 201025/01/10 12:53:00 Nic Doczi
                           Navigation impediment27/01/10 00:01:00 Nigel Moore
                              Re:Navigation impediment27/01/10 08:26:00 Alan Clark
                                 Re:Re:Navigation impediment27/01/10 16:39:00 Nigel Moore
                                    Re:Re:Re:Navigation impediment09/03/10 12:04:00 Yola Dragon
                                       Re:Re:Re:Re:Navigation impediment09/03/10 14:30:00 Nigel Moore
                                          Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Navigation impediment11/03/10 09:40:00 Yola Dragon
                                             Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Navigation impediment12/03/10 13:23:00 Nigel Moore
                                                Rowers & Commercial shipping12/03/10 13:33:00 Nigel Moore
                                                Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Navigation impediment12/03/10 20:01:00 Yola Dragon
                                                   Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Navigation impediment13/03/10 11:25:00 Alan Clark
                                                      Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Navigation impediment14/03/10 15:32:00 Nigel Moore
                                                         Rower fatalities14/03/10 19:49:00 Nigel Moore
                                                            Re:Rower fatalities15/03/10 09:15:00 Yola Dragon
                                                               Re:Re:Rower fatalities15/03/10 13:11:00 Nigel Moore
                                                         Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Navigation impediment15/03/10 11:13:00 Yola Dragon
                                                            Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Navigation impediment15/03/10 13:15:00 Nigel Moore
                                                               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Navigation impediment15/03/10 13:37:00 Yola Dragon
                                                                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Navigation impediment15/03/10 15:56:00 Nigel Moore
                                                                     Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Navigation impediment15/03/10 18:04:00 Yola Dragon
                                                                        Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Navigation impediment15/03/10 21:33:00 Nigel Moore
                                                                           Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Navigation impediment16/03/10 09:35:00 Yola Dragon
                                                                              Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Navigation impediment16/03/10 11:01:00 Nigel Moore
                                                                                 Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Navigation impediment18/01/11 17:28:00 Yola Dragon
                                                                                    Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Navigation impediment21/01/11 12:38:00 Nigel Moore

Forum Home