| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Navigation impediment | |
| Posted by: | Yola Dragon | |
| Date/Time: | 12/03/10 20:01:00 |
| I am not sure who you are referring to as British Waterways' employed expert; as I understand it from reading the Inspector's decision the evidence on navigation and risk was provided by British Waterways themselves together with the PLA Harbourmaster and LB Hounslow's navigational expert Captain Capon; All three seem to have been in agreement that the proposed moorings in the Brent would not be a hazard to navigation. I understand that Captain Capon did prepare earlier reports where he came to a different opinion but didn't he have his measurements of the width of the channel wrong in those reports? If, as seems to be the case, the Inspector based her decision on the combined expert view of the PLA, BW and Captain Capon, who were all in agreement that the navigational risks were acceptable, then how can she have acted improperly? The objectors to the scheme, of whom you were one, did not put forward any expert in navigation to argue the contrary case so the Inspector's findings, at least on the matter of navigational risk, are entirely logical. She concluded that the navigational risk of the scheme was acceptable in accordance with the unanimous view of the navigational experts! With respect to your final paragraph and the economics of transport by water in small units; if, as you claim, it is economic to barge materials to Brentford why is the market not doing it? |