Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Navigation impediment | |
Posted by: | Nigel Moore | |
Date/Time: | 15/03/10 15:56:00 |
You have extrapolated too much from too little and taken insufficient notice of what I actually said. So far as the 2003 Report was concerned [my post of 27.1.2010] I observed that “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.” [my emphasis] The scanned copy that I then posted of the table of risk factors from that Report is headed “Proposed Mooring Layouts” - relevant to those 4 alternative BW proposals. It is NOT relevant to the then current situation as you saw on the Google Earth photos, which was assessed separately on another table of results. Insofar as that ‘live’ situation was different from the BW proposals, the most telling part of the 2003 Report is that the existing situation entailed far LESS risk than BW’s proposed pontoon layouts. The reason was because the real danger lay not so much in the reduction of navigable width, but in reducing that width where it most mattered - IN THE ENTRANCE to the Brent. The 5 or more boats taking up fully half of the navigation at the mid-way point that you have observed did not present anything like the danger [according to Captain Capon] of the couple of boats moored right at the entry. The reason why the assessment concluded that ALL of the proposed pontoon schemes presented even greater risk still, was simply that they inevitably pushed the boats in the entry even further into the channel than if they had been moored to the wall. Even so, if the pontoons had been placed further back from the entrance the result would have been very different. Insofar as the Hither Green version differs from any of the 4 variants suggested by BW and assessed as unsafe, the Hither Green version projects EVEN FURTHER into the entry so as to partly obstruct the Soaphouse Creek entry as well. I noted that in the same post – “These pontoon schemes did not extend beyond the Soaphouse Creek entry [as the Hither Green scheme does]” The above comparisons show why it was so important for the Inspector to have considered that first report for herself, in addition to the commentary on it as supplied to IBAC and outlined in our Statement. As you have now so aptly demonstrated, making assumptions as to content without bothering with verification can lead one into conclusions the very opposite of the facts. That was one of the Inspector’s bad mistakes. As to BW’s support, that is compromised by the fact of their pecuniary interest – as was the PLA’s. Another all too obvious and material consideration [given BW’s reversal of opinion] that the Inspector nonetheless dismissed out of hand. Aside from the hoped-for income to the PLA that will not now arise by reason of closet negotiations with BW, the PLA have in practice virtually washed their hands of Brentford, which has been the case for some time now. Even at the time of the application, the PLA repudiated any notion of responsibility for the river Brent. They certainly undertook no formal risk assessment whatsoever, they simply said they would offer no objections. |