| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Navigation impediment | |
| Posted by: | Nigel Moore | |
| Date/Time: | 12/03/10 13:23:00 |
| I’m going to answer this in two parts for digestibility. I did not say that I have the support of government and planning law, I said that I supported the relevant government and planning policies; a very slight difference in emphasis perhaps. Yes, I am challenging the Planning Inspectorate’s decision to reverse Hounslow’s decision NOT to grant consent for the works. Neither Judges nor Inspectors always get it right, whether as to findings of fact or as to interpretation of the law – that is why we have avenues to appeal or judicially review what we consider to be wrong judgments. My view is that the Inspector’s decision was wholly irrational and failed to properly consider the evidence before her – both as to fact and law. It is slightly unfortunate that ELF drew up the case without my specific input so that my principal concern was omitted, but the public safety angle is straightforward enough and the Inspector clearly failed to properly assess the expert’s analysis of that. The installation of the mooring structure in the particular location objected to would, in the analysis of the British Waterways employed expert, obviate increased boat traffic and in particular freight use, on the basis that such increased use in conjunction with the moorings would present dangers that would no longer be as low as reasonably possible. The same proposal shifted further back from the Thames entrance would not have given rise to the same objections. Even so, without Parliamentary consent it would still constitute a criminal public nuisance and the Planning Inspectorate has no power to substitute for Statute in that case. In setting aside such considerations the Inspector rendered her decision entirely unsafe. The safeguarding of wharves was an extremely important element of the Blue Ribbon Network policy of encouraging increased freight use of the Thames – but it was not intended that the Thames only should benefit from those policies, nor that the safeguarded wharves should be restricted solely to those listed within GLA protection; Boroughs were enjoined to take up those same policies for themselves, as Policy 4C.9 [and most of the London Plan policies] begins with the words – “The Mayor will, and Boroughs should”. The Blue Ribbon Network policies formed a distinct class within the London Plan, being amongst the so-called “Cross-cutting Policies” in Section 4. Amongst the introductory objectives stated therein are these: “to make London a more prosperous city with strong and diverse economic growth, policies should exploit the potential for water-borne transport, leisure, tourism and waterway support industries” and “to improve London’s accessibility, use of the Blue Ribbon Network for water-borne transport of people and goods (including waste and aggregates) should be increased”. Policy 4C.6 Sustainable Growth Priorities lists as Reason 4.158 “Government initiatives to encourage the sustainable distribution of goods and services have led to renewed interest in using the waterway network to move goods and people. This can contribute to reducing congestion and minimising the environmental effects of heavy goods movements”. Policy 4C.8 deals with Freight Uses On The Blue Ribbon Network stating “The mayor will and boroughs should support new development and facilities that increase the use of the Blue Ribbon Network to transport freight and general goods, especially in areas of deficiency”. Reason 4.161 states “Increasing the use of the Blue Ribbon Network for freight transport is a widely supported objective as this is a more sustainable method of transport and can help reduce congestion and the impact goods vehicles on London’s roads. The Thames has many wharf facilities and there are a small number of discreet opportunities on the canal network. The use of water transport for freight is also encouraged in Policy 3C.25 and Chapter 3B”. Policy 4C.16 likewise promotes greater use of the Thames for transport, while Policy 4C.20 Development Adjacent To Canals states in Reason 4.187 “Any opportunities to increase their transport use should be encouraged”. All the above are, of course, the GLA’s initiative; the government’s principal measures for encouraging freight takes the form of published objectives and financial incentives. The economic case for water freight has been carefully and thoroughly analysed, with the caveat that comparative road transport figures do not take into account the massive funding involved in the road infrastructure that effectively subsidises this form of transport which has, further, considerable adverse side effects the costs of which are perhaps incalculable but real. Even without such more rounded costs comparisons however, the rapidly changing face of the economic and environmental climate will eventually turn the tables in favour of what will become the cheaper option. That will still never begin to compete in sheer bulk terms for the inland destinations, but every bit off the roads is a benefit to all. The size argument relating to costs is valid in part, but it remains the case for transport between Brentford and the lower Thames that barge sizes are sufficiently large to be economic even in the present state of the market. Nor does the argument always hold sway, any more than it is true that delivery vans of 1 tonne or less are uneconomic on the roads in the face of 44 tonners; it depends on the commodity and the market. |