Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Navigation impediment | |
Posted by: | Nigel Moore | |
Date/Time: | 15/03/10 21:33:00 |
The Inspector was referring to the BCC statement as to what was said in the 2003 Report; she refused to look at the Report itself. You are correct, the relevant question is indeed how applicable the Report was to the Hither Green scheme. Without reference to the Report and to the originally proposed layouts, there was no way the Inspector could judge that, and she didn’t attempt to. She took at face value Captain Capon’s last assessment without acknowledging his careful ass-covering basis. Although very tempted to fully agree with your characterisation of his consistency [and he does read as inconsistent] he was nonetheless at extraordinary pains to find a way to reverse his opinion while ensuring that it was presented strictly on the basis of others’ opinions holding true while simultaneously insisting that his previous assessments were not inconsistent with that. The fact remains that any element of inconsistency ought to have been carefully examined – and that could not be done in the absence of all the Reports. As the ONLY supposedly independent expert it was vital to get that clear. The mooring layouts he considered back in 2003 are these [and note that none of them protrude beyond the Soaphouse Creek entrance as does the Hither Green scheme]: The PLA are gentlemen compared to the BW players, for all their deserved bad publicity of recent date - but it wasn’t a matter of their harbour master giving consent, he effectively just shrugged his shoulders. There is a complicated web of interdepartmental sensitivities operating within the PLA and some of their finest are effectively gagged from expressing opinions contrary to others within the same organisation. Goodness knows why, but there are contradictory internal policies affecting things that outsiders can only ever glimpse. The new harbourmaster’s job was never in danger simply because he saw no reason to assess properly a situation that was outside his area of jurisdiction, even though the result was at odds with the careful and successful promotion of planning and freight matters that had been achieved by longer standing officers of admirable integrity and aspirations. There will have been considerably more to it than financial considerations, but no-one is going to find their job at risk by acting in a way that increases income for their bosses. I’m tempted to wonder quite what real financial consideration from BW there was in order to persuade the PLA to ‘sell’ their claim on the river Brent bed ownership – it had to be more than the single pound declared to the Land Registry – but we’ll never know. Perhaps the PLA are walking away from it all with a smug satisfied smile on their faces? |