| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Navigation impediment | |
| Posted by: | Nigel Moore | |
| Date/Time: | 14/03/10 15:32:00 |
| Admirable depth of research to look up the Inspector’s report, but the Inspector’s own wooliness as to the evidence before her has obviously contributed to the confusion. There was only ever one ‘expert’ and that was the one originally employed by BW – i.e. Captain Capon. The first report of his was that commissioned by BW 7 years ago, relying on the information they supplied. The errors of fact relating to the width of the channel were BW’s. Even so, Captain Capon confirmed in his later 2008 report [for the Council] that despite updated information he stood by his first report as to its conclusions. With the explicit and detailed assessment of that first report, there was no need for us to put forward anyone different – the case was so much more powerful when we were able to rely on BW’s own man. It may enlighten the background to the commissioning of the first Report to learn that BW had already [in 2002] reached their own assessment that mooring in the entry was too dangerous to the public for them to allow it. A significant criticism that we have of the Inspector is that she refused to view that first 2003 Report, and so failed to recognise the consistency and basis of his assessments. Captain Capon’s final Report of January 14th 2009 backed down from his previous assessments on one basis only – acceptance of the Applicant’s own risk assessment! He relied entirely on their statements in that assessment “that the use of the Thames Lock . . . by freight vessels is negligible and that there are no freight facilities which currently use the river Brent for freight transport and there are no known proposals which would introduce freight use to the river.” The Inspector recognised the about-turn by BW on the matter, but simply said that she was bound to accept their latest position without inquiry into the reasons for their reversal of opinion. Her position entirely misinterpreted the relevant policies as being concerned with preserving a status quo instead of clearly concerning themselves with retaining potential for the future. The very wording of Captain Capon’s quoted sentence confirms his opinion that increased freight use and the moorings proposal were incompatible. Leaving aside that crucial planning consideration, what the rather pathetic attempt to regain favour with his erstwhile employers failed to cover was his penultimate assessment in the October 21st 2008 Report – “Even if commercial barges do not use the River we are not convinced that the safety of navigation is not compromised given the available width of the navigation that will remain and the size of the vessels intending to use the moorings and the River.” The developers are advertising the moorings as being suitable for barges of 40 metres length – that’s considerably larger even than “Courage”, the Dutch barge usually moored by the footbridge leading to Brent Way. The emphasis of the legal challenge in regard to freight traffic is by reason of the existing policy emphasis that was sidelined. It is perhaps too easy, because of the concentration on that part of the argument, to lose sight of the effect of the proposal upon pleasure cruising. The initial Report of 2003 did not take water freight into account at all; the extremes of traffic it considered postulated the simultaneous use of the channel by a specific river-bus BW had indicated would sometimes use the Brent, and “Courage”. In fact amongst the concerns he considered to be relevant was the relative lack of tideway experience of pleasure boat users – the overwhelming majority of present day users. It is a cold fact that any dangers arising from collision between towed dumb barges and pleasure cruisers moored in the entrance would [in human terms] be specific to the moored barges rather than those being towed. For pleasure boats on the other hand, collision with the ‘safety barrier’ that even BW demanded in order to mitigate the dangers, would endanger them rather than the moored boats. A further relevant item of interest in the proposal is, of course, that the permanent berths are all away from the danger zone, which is the space the developer has dedicated to visitor boats! So while I would back Alan’s suggestion of promoting further leisure use [as waterways enthusiasts always have of course], the same and indeed greater objections on the grounds of reduced safety remain as all the more pertinent to such a situation. As to smaller freight units using the canal – they do already. Small scale towing operations within the cut both above and below the Thames Locks does take place, as does passage by at least two regular narrowboat suppliers and occasional transits by Gerry Hewerd & Co. None of which takes into account the considerable traffic in and out of MSO’s yard by the many large barges and floating equipment for which they cater. |