Forum Topic

I’ve now picked up all the bumpf and evidence for the coming Inquiry.ISIS have chosen the same firm to discount the value of the warehouses for freight as had published a survey noting the possibility that it COULD be used for freight! That should prove interesting under cross-examination.BW’s Ian Runeckles has given evidence to support this nonsense, and has further claimed that the overhang shouldn’t be used in the meanwhile for protected boat painting either. He says adequate facilities exist around here anyway.In listing the local boatyards, he somehow forgot our existence, but can you imagine what the cost would be for a narrowboat using MSO’s huge covered docks? Fine for the large barges they are designed for, but you’d need a fleet of narrowboats to agree to simultaneous use to be anywhere near cost efficient.And has any boater heard of the requirement for visitor mooring permits to be purchased? The towpath here is supposed to be free for up to 2 weeks.He also lied about the marketing of the excellent little Adelaide Dock boatyard. That’s a curious thing to do.Anyway, back to topic, anyone wanting to contribute their views to the Inspectorate should email or write to addresses given previously. The new occupants on the Island are going to be putting their oar in, I reckon the Syon Estate residents should be looking at this too, I don’t think they realise the impact 15 stories of flats will make to their privacy behind the old embankment.Lawrence, - you want to come along to a meeting at the Island next week? The residents Group will be discussing avenues for intercession that you might find useful for when the Cyclists’ group can get together on this. Send a message direct if you like.

Nigel Moore ● 6933d

Well spotted Jim. This is not actually a new application and the whole rigmarole Hepher Dixon are going through is perplexing. Even leaving aside the obvious drastic transformation of the canal into what one councillor described as a “wet street” between looming apartment buildings, there was a fundamental and critical failure in the first application, in that it lacked any appreciation of the special waterside characteristics of this location.As a result, the Environment Agency condemned it for not addressing potential flood issues, and amongst other relatively minor tweaks, the amended scheme raises the entire site by 300mm.It is unprecedented that an Inquiry should be heard on the basis of a scheme that is different from the one rejected by the Council after due public consultation, and despite representations to what was the ODPM, it remains unclear whether the amended scheme will be permitted a hearing by the Planning Inspectorate.Hepher Dixon have maintained that they will be conducting their Appeal on BOTH applications, and the Council are geared to defend on the same basis. The ad you saw is part of the unilateral effort of Hepher Dixon to show such compliance with planning law regarding consultation as is feasible within the now tight time limits. We may not know until the first day of the Inquiry whether this will be allowed.The procedure does mean however, that all those who wish to make comment on the scheme to the Inspectorate can now do so if they’re quick.To answer Keith, I accompanied the Council’s surveyors on a tour of the interior of the warehouses the other week, and the fact is that the buildings are perfectly sound, such renovation as is necessary is largely cosmetic and superficial. These buildings were erected in the very early ‘60’s to be state-of –the-art facilities following a pattern used throughout the canal system. They are based on steel framework that seems as good today as when they were built. Only cladding and entries would need much attention.The interiors are completely open with no dividers, and so the enormous space is remarkably flexible, complete with travelling 4 ton rated gantries that were put to constant use by Thames Valley Steel while they were in occupation. They are large enough for complete waste recycling facilities to be conducted entirely under cover, with the huge advantage of being able to load barges for transfer to the Thames, linking up with the operations of people like Coreys.Rumour has it that BW recently gave TVS only 30 days notice to quit without compensation, and following the resulting fire sale of 24,000 sq ft of stock and 24 employee redundancies, the company has now gone into receivership. They occupied only one quarter of the available space, think what could be done with the rest!If true, this despicable and totally unnecessary behaviour echoes the scenes in Oxford this last week. The national press both papers and TV have covered the eviction of boaters from the last boatyard in Oxford, even though planning consent for redevelopment had been denied, as is the case here.

Nigel Moore ● 6937d

Frankly, my own self interest (in terms of retaining the boatyard), would best be served by encouraging the Commerce Road redevelopment. A significant area of concern for councillors, and quoted as one of the reasons for refusal of the scheme, was the effect this development would have on prospects for the Town Centre development. That would take pressure off my situation, (which at first gave me pause for thought about becoming involved!)As for Brentford’s socio economic classification, there will always be a need in any self-sufficient healthy balanced town for a large proportion of C2DE people, yet alongside those we have always had a goodly proportion of “higher” classification people as well, notably in the Butts and the Docks Estate. Regenerating Brentford needs to cater for all, but really such comments belong to the “what people think” thread.Returning to the specific topic, I still fail to see a reason for leaving the towpath under the warehouse unimproved.The redevelopment scheme covers all the length of the Commerce Road canal frontage, not just the warehouses.Supposing the ISIS appeal was upheld and their development given the go-ahead, the canal walk would be as likely to suffer damage along the section already done as under the warehouses. The new surface now extends in width to the flood defence walls alongside, which would have to come down under the proposals.I’ll ask this question at the BWL User Group meeting tomorrow night. Interested in coming along as observer Lawrence? There might be questions you would like to put regarding the canal walk environs.

Nigel Moore ● 6948d

Well found Jim.They are over confidant of winning the Appeal in saying that Planning is “likely” this summer!“Brentford residents & businesses”? This might suggest that it’s for existing ones, but who could afford them? Of course new residents & businesses will be of Brentford once they come here!“A step-change in the quality of design”? What is that meant to indicate? Mind you, it must be difficult learning how to put one square block on top of another. As the local paper headed one of my letters on the subject – “Benidorm-on-Brent anyone?”“In excess of 900 homes, (including over 300 affordable)”. That is, over 600 luxury waterside flats, with a third again supposedly “affordable” tucked away behind looking over the industrial estate. These “affordable” units being largely studios and one bed apartments! What of local families and provision for children?The London Plan requirement (& Hounslow’s), is for 50% affordable, not 30%.“A new bus station” !!! This is a total con. They aim to DIMINISH the already existing bus depot area! Further, that’s only one possibility, they have left the way open to have that developed for alternative uses, should the rest of the scheme render continued depot use non viable.“creche, doctors surgery and a health and fitness centre.” Of which now, in the amended plans they have drawn up, only the crèche survives. Quite why is anyone’s guess, there will be no rooms in the new apartments for the intended customers.“Imaginative re-use of under utilised employment land”. Well of course it’s under utilised land, they have ensured that through 10 years of deliberate policy aimed at achieving just that situation!

Nigel Moore ● 6948d

For clarity Lawrence, I should emphasise the difference between BW’s PUBLISHED POLICIES and the principles upon which they act.It is also true, as Conal has pointed out, that a degree of autonomy lies between the various regions, though they all have to conform to directives from the top. It is comforting to hear that some regions can permit the sort of successes that Conal appears to have, but no such latitude is permitted in London, nor other regions I’ve been involved in.It’s from the top that the tensions between genuine, caring aspirations for the network and purely commercial aims arise. George Greener, the former Chairman was bad enough, - he wrote to me: “British Waterways is not able to alter the momentum of change in Brentford …. AND WOULD NOT WISH TO DO SO”. (my emphasis, and such nonsense, - they are DRIVING this change). But what of his replacement? – straight from the world of large scale property development!Robin Evans, CEO, claims great sympathy for the heritage and boating use of the canals, and assures us of his commitment to preserving the operational and historic infrastructure. But he adds a condition that is found in no Parliamentary Act of which I am aware – that such must be “viable”! Needless to say, he insists that no one other than BW are in a position to determine viability. As I’ve mentioned before, it is Robin Evans who has dictated that this area of Brentford is now no longer suited for commercial use, whether water-related or otherwise, and is fit only for “highly desirable waterfront residential”.Have you seen what they wish to convert Commerce Road into? The existing developments around the canal will be dwarfed by comparison. 4-5 story flats and shops right on the towpath, rising to a 15 story tower behind the demolished warehouses, all in a whitewashed concrete block architecture with pretensions to mod-mediterranean chic.Sorry for the diatribe, it might seem removed from your question. It points up however, the problem that has to be faced when any counter-action is mooted. To be really effective, the current BW mind-set needs to be attacked from Parliamentary level on down.Leaving that aside for the moment, there are a number of ways in which those concerned at ground level can raise their voice.First of all, especially for individuals, writing in to the local papers is far more effective than you might imagine, especially when that provokes a continuing debate. Publishers like to see interest stirred, and will often illustrate the points in articles.Second, send copies of all such letters whether published or not, to BW’s public relations office. Let them know what you do and do not want. One of the biggest cons in all unpopular planning applications is the use made of public failure to protest. That’s taken as affirmative approval!Third, use the canal specific magazines: Waterways World; Canals & Rivers; Canalboat & Inland Waterways.Fourth, post on the waterways websites. There are a bewildering number of these, some better and more active than others. Look up: http://www.narrowboatworld.com/ and: http://www.canalworld.net/  for a start.Fifth, - (this is tedious), check up on planning applications along the canal, check them out and write in with comments to the planning department. So many little applications slip through that committees cannot know the effect of, yet alter the environment you revel in for your lifetime.Sixth, in terms of the immediate hassle over Commerce Road, it’s strictly too late to write to the Planning Inspectorate, but it can be done anyway, and sometimes gets allowed as submissions. Another way around this is to write to the Council &/or the “Rule 6” parties, asking them to present your views as part of their evidence. Regardless of success in any of these avenues (Rule 6’s should prove amenable – especially the Brentford Community Council, and perhaps the Regents Network), turn up at the Inquiry when it starts at the Civic Centre. Inspectors are always impressed by numbers of the public demonstrating their interest. The problem of course is that the hearings are mostly during working hours, but there is often the opportunity to raise a hand to ask for your voice to be heard despite not having registered previous interest. An Inspector will often be flexible where proposals deeply affect the local populace.Seventh, it might be officially too late, but you should find that the Strategic Planning Department of Hounslow will still be prepared to take on board written submissions from locals on how they wish to see the canalside preserved/developed/improved. The “tick the box” questionnaires were obscure and limited, your own freely expressed views will actually be appreciated.Eighth, it is little known, but in the interests of public accountability, BW London hold two meetings a year for West London user groups. They do like to control this by insisting that only representatives of groups attend, but there is nothing to stop anyone just turning up. I’d suggest that if you are aware of “many others like” you who might perhaps be described as “Hounslow Towpath Users” or such-like, then you should get them all signed up to such a group and elect a representative to speak for you at these meetings. The next one is at Hillingdon on the 24th May at 7pm. I would strongly urge this approach on you. The meetings don’t have to be “BW bashing”, they can be opportunities for presenting positive wish-lists and suggestions as well as criticisms. Keep up to date: http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/accountability/local_and_national_meetings/london.html Ninth, especially if you have formed such a specific interest group, join the group up to the Brentford Community Council so that you can attend meetings and stick your oar in with your views where appropriate. You might consider doing the same with the Brentford Waterside Forum which is of almost equal antiquity. As either a group or as individuals, sign on to the wider Forum of the Thames and Waterways.Tenth, – arm yourself with the relevant documentation, such as I’ve already mentioned, and literally turn up on the new doorstep of BW’s local office, and ask for discussions with you, on what is happening and what you’d like to have happen. For example those ladies concerned at the safety aspect of the warehouses could point out the recommendations in Under Lock & Quay and ask for lighting etc. This procedure is probably best operated on an individual basis, the more individuals the better!Lastly for now, tomorrow night the new “Waterways Commission” will be holding their second meeting at City Hall at 6pm. You can go as an observer without participation (that can only come through the Stakeholder events promised), but you can get to meet the people concerned, especially amongst the other observers, and get to see a way to present your case to those with some small clout. As a group, it is also possible to join up with the Parliamentary Waterways Commission that meets several times a year, and this is an opportunity to present questions in front of MP’s interested in this area.Enough to be getting on with?

Nigel Moore ● 6963d

Mixed views obviously, as to the merits of the warehouses, and yet part of the fascination of the canal system, whether boating, cycling or walking its lengths, is the juxtaposition of the unexpectedly rural with the unabashedly industrial, and everything in between. It is a genuine world apart from the adjacent land it mostly lies hidden from. This variety, with reminders of its heritage, and the preservation of its potential for fresh contribution to our transport system in these more “green sensitive” times, is what I would personally urge all its admirers to protect and improve upon.If we the public don’t campaign for this, we will lose it. The canal will become inexorably developed into non-utilitarian uniformity, unfit for commercial and unappetising for recreational purposes. This is truer of the London region than any other, not because of any special locational problems, but because of the particular motivations of BW’s leadership here.For the record, BW claim to own the land and warehouses along Commerce Road. It is BW’s 49% owned company ISIS who have applied for Conservation Area Consent for demolition of the warehouses and who demand a change of use of the entire area. It is they who are taking the Council to Appeal in the effort to maximise the high-density luxury housing that BW wish to see replace this important local employment area.It is BW’s CEO who has declared that this area of Brentford is now only suitable for such residential-led mixed development, - in opposition to the Council and local feeling.Oh, and it is BW as landlords who have deliberately run the area down by refusing proper leases to the industries there for years, - precisely because they have always intended to re-develop it into housing! This is also why the warehouses have been encouraged to sink into gloomy disrepair with no effort to improve them, for all the thousands recently granted by TfL for towpath improvements. (I do like the new surfacing here, but wouldn’t it have been nice if some of that money had been spent on the overhangs? A lick of paint, a few replacement panels in translucent material, replacement bulbs in the existing lighting, perhaps with light-sensitive switches).They and those like them, are responsible for such dereliction and stagnancy as still afflicts us, even if it is true that earlier council authorities began the rot with ill-considered ideas of “improvement” from the post-war era. The resulting “under-utilisation” of the Commerce Road site is the argument BW used to persuade the Mayor to back the replacement of the area’s industrial use. Last year we were treated to the unedifying spectacle of BW’s Freight Executive writing to the local paper in support of  Brentford’s waterways being used for anything and everything but waterfreight.This year we will have to be spending public money in the effort to maintain the Council’s right to retain local employment sites and to uphold the waterside development principles adopted on BW’s advice, not to mention the Blue Ribbon Network Policies that the Mayor has advocated.It’s something more than sad that British Waterways and Mr Livingstone will be working hand in hand to persuade the Planning Inspectorate that these policies should be thrown out the window in the short term interests of massively high density housing.

Nigel Moore ● 6964d

Theres something called "safeguarded strategic wharves" Nigel.  I'm not sure if that wharf beside the sheds is one at all (it's possible that it isn't).  A Ministerial Bulletin was issued in 2005 in respect of safeguarding wharves for freight.  I see no reason why BW should not be making a case in response to any planning application to ensure the retention of any wharf nevermind safeguarded wharves.  Its simply good practice and does relate to the reconstituted powers of BW under the 1995 Act.Be careful here though, sheds themselves are not part of waterways infrastructure. BW wouldn't be able to claim the sheds are essential waterway infrastructure.  Waterways infrastructure is counted as slipways, dry docks (housed or not housed), wet docks (housed or not house), boat lifts, cranes, pumping stations, working boatyards, hard embankments as docks and locks (of course). I'm missing some of course. Industrial buildings that have perhaps used the canal as a service in the past are not counted as canal infrastructure and I don't think you could argue that they are in any case. The use of wharves in respect of planning application is really about sustainable construction in my own experience.  I myself have negotiated taking freight off transport by HGVs onto canals in order to avoid pressure on residential areas. This does need good policy on the part of the LPA I have to say, and things are going in the right direction as LPAs observe a fairly decent PPS from the ODPM.  There are several acts relating to BW that provide it varying levels of protection for infrastructure from useless negative development. I believe London has other slightly differing capabilities from the sticks.You raised an issue earlier about BW backing residential development next to canals.  It is simply following gov't policy in that in urban areas, waterside development can tolerate higher levels of density because the waterspace can be counted effectively as open space.  Weird I know, but that's our John Prescott for you. It is also because the capital receipts from development of such properties goes some way to manage the adjacent waterway.  What isn't part of a planning application are things like tow path access agreements which provide an annual charge and assist in paying for the upkeep of the towing path, there are many other planning application "spin-offs" that can pay for things that the general public take for granted in canal environments.  These do not necessarily form part of the planning application being largely the consequence of building adjacent to waterways.It is all a massive balancing act and it just seems to me that all this criticism of BW is unfair considering the financial constaints it works under.  Waterways cost money to run and in 1996 it cost something like £17,000 per year just to manage and maintain a single kilometre.  I've not seen any studies on this since then I'd anticipate that it is substantially more than that! With goverment contributions falling each year to the organisation BW has to make the best it can of its rescources.  I'm afraid boat licensing, transport on water, and angling permits don't quite cough up enough money to look after a 200 year old system.  BW has an aging asset, limited finance and resources, and a difficult convaluted planning system to work within. All that, and it is one of the few agencies that is expected to act commercially as well as being a statutory body.Its a tall order and a giant balancing act.  My personal opinion is that BW does a decent admirable job on this score. It's crammed full of people who love the waterways and are committed to them. Professionally, of course, I think its wonderful and that stuff as you'd expect. I'll be sad to leave it.

Conal Stewart ● 6980d

Conal, I remain seriously interested in suggestions for the Commerce Road canal warehouses that would be informed by your experience.Meanwhile one comment and a question relating to your previous response:“BW cannot enforce those private land holders who own sheds or other aspects of waterways furniture to participate in freight transfer.” Well of course I acknowledge this, and I wouldn’t agree that private owners ought to be forced into any particular usage, though I’d demand that planning departments should insist on retaining the usability of such essential infrastructure, - that would constitute a restriction on property usage that could & should be investigated by any potential purchaser of such property. The situation is no different from any other listed building or structure.“BW can however protect them and seek usage of wharves through planning applications as and when they happen.”This one I am particularly interested in, because I have been told often enough by BW people that they have no control over development of privately owned property (as respects filling-in basins, changing use to luxury apartments etc, and distinct from forcing them to use it you understand).How can BW protect essential infrastructure from deleterious development? I understand people like you informing councils of the need for protective policies, but does it go further than that?Or are you simply suggesting that BW could have, for example, advised retention of these warehouses in response to a planning application to the council, in their role as Statutory Consultee?

Nigel Moore ● 6989d

Thanks for the reply Conal. My figures were straight “cut & pastes” from year old sites that served to demonstrate the potentialities of water-freight and provide people like Sarah who raised the question, with a readily grasped concept of how much difference this could make in terms of heavy road traffic. I quite agree that there is far greater potential than those figures might indicate, and that a great deal is going on behind the scenes to ensure that as much as possible is made of the waterways for freight in the Olympic arena.Perhaps I should clarify the comment you understandably take objection to. British Waterways is a huge institution with multifarious departments of which the freight issues form but a part. BW were set up by Statute to preserve and improve the canal network, in the course of which they were to conduct themselves in as efficient and businesslike like a manner as possible, and in disposing of such assets as were not required for the operation and maintenance of “the track”, were to seek maximisation of receipts for same.This laudable statute has been, in my opinion and others, rather turned on its head under governmental pressure to become independent of the public purse. The result has been the unfortunate priority given to the maximising of receipts rather than to the end purpose of those receipts.I challenged your chief executive over this at a Parliamentary Waterways Group meeting a couple of years ago, specifically in relation to what was happening in Brentford. His reply was that “of course” viable boating use should have priority, but insisted that it was for BW to determine what constituted viability. His comment on this section of Brentford was that the very housing developments you’ve mentioned rendered any commercial use of the area untenable, so that it was only now suitable for more of the same.This directive of priorities from on high is what must necessarily constrain the efforts of those like yourself in seeking to make more freight use of the canals. Agreed, the pressures in London are greater than elsewhere, purely because the receipts obtainable from land for luxury housing is so much in excess of that obtainable for industrial use. This should not inform BW’s decisions as to disposition of land in their ownership, but it frankly does. Commendably, where other owners of land have suggested water-freight use for waste recycling plants such as at Old Oak Sidings, BW have seen no barrier to giving full support.You must take my comment as referring to the upper echelon of BW management rather than to divisions such as your own, and I deny that it is “rubbish,” being based on my personal knowledge and interaction with them, and with those freight operatives and consultants who have worked them in attempts to forward the promulgated aims. There was no intention of being unfair to your colleagues in the freight team. I have spoken with and exchanged letters in public with Tom Chaplin, BW’s chief freight executive, and I believe him to be as enthusiastic as you are, yet labouring under the constraints imposed in part by reason of BW’s efforts to increase income regardless of damage to the essential infrastructure of the system. For your masters, freight is to be encouraged, only so long as it does not interfere with their property development aspirations.Corinna is correct. The consultation day was enjoyable and I believe profitable, with increasing awareness being shown by Council members of the waterside issues. I should also mention again that this forum came in for special mention as a source of usefully informing comment and pictures. It is also true that views as to Commerce Road and the waterway were almost unanimously in line with your own, - sole dissenter being a spokeperson for the would-be developer wanting to build the 15 story tower I mentioned earlier!I’d be most interested to learn what practical ideas you might have for modern freight usage of the Commerce Road wharves, especially considering your background. What region do you operate in with your BW work?

Nigel Moore ● 6990d

Your latest figures from the quoted source are not up to date for freight transfer by water.  The figures for freight transfer are projected to increase dramatically within London as the Bow Back Rivers are regenerated and as a substantial proportion of the construction traffic of the 2012 Games preparations will be provided by the Lea Navigations.What is not true is that you claim BW is not enthusiatic about freight transfer.  That is simply rubbish Nigel, and extremely unfair to my colleagues in the freight team in Watford who work very hard to promote the use of the waterways for the uses they were created to provide.  I've worked in BW for almost five years although not within the London region I have to say, and of course the issues are different. However, I know full well that my London (Paddington) counterparts are doing the best that they can considering that high land values and accessibility of/through/by land it does NOT control impede the capabilities of BW to realise the full potential of freight transfer in the capital.I think the nature of freight transfer in London would be almost entirely different to my patch Nigel.  In London it will be mostly concerned with building supplies and building waste.  Out in the shires where people complain less the possibilities are endless.It's not for me to speak for London Region, but I can say that nationally BW has made it's position clear, we will do what we can within the confines of the system we operate.  What I will say for London is that accessibility to the waterways is highly limited by virtue of it being urban, expensive and a crammed city environment for the most part on the Regents Canal.My own personal view is that I can see no reason why Brentford shouldn't have some proper Canal docks and servicing for boats. Any local who whinges about the views from their window shouldn't bother living near a canal and move to Chiswick for a pretty view of the river if thats what they want. Theres money to be made for Brentford as a canal town. We are not making enough of our biggest asset as a community and our councillor candidates of all hues are proposing nothing about it. The Brentford Lock and Island development provided valuable money for BW. I really want to know what can be done about the future of the boat-cum-warehouses at the mouth of the Grand Union and I want them to be proper working wharves proving jobs and variety to the local work force.

Conal Stewart ● 6990d

Nigel I work for British Waterways and I deal with this issue.  That is not the truth at all.  BW cannot enforce those private land holders who own sheds or other aspects of waterways furniture to participate in freight transfer.  BW  can however protect them and seek usage of wharves through planning applications as and when they happen. BW London does not own the land the sheds are sited as far as I know.  Working whatves are few and far between and you can bet the sheds in question will be hard to use as a full working site these days because of sentiments of people that seem to think that waterspace is just there to look pretty from plush apartment windows.What BW can do is facilitate local authority decisions to require developers to take a pro-active approach.  I myself spend alot of time lobbying LPAs for policy that will push developers to take freight off roads onto water.  BW actually has targets in freight transfer and the vast majority is likely to be for minerals and aggregates transfer in the next few decades.I'm a bit disturbed by the original post on this thread it has to be said.  Waterways were created as working transport corridors, just because there are nice new shiny apartments built all round the canal in Brentford does not mean that this is how they should be.  I spend too much time trying to protect wharves, slipways, dry/wet docks and boatyards from the nimby occupants of such apartments who seek to turn the waterways into dead unused spaces. You'd be surprised how many people here complain about boats being moored on the canal... I mean how dare they!

Conal Stewart ● 6991d

Sarah, according to British Waterways (not the most enthusiastic supporters of Freight-by-Water despite their publicity), “as much as 3.5% of all road freight currently carried could be transferred to the waterways.” It may not sound much until you look at the numbers.Even an old-fashioned narrowboat pair could carry double the tonnage of a 25 ton lorry, though take much longer in doing so of course.Some interesting facts published by “Grownupgreen” –One single 600 tonne barge can move the equivalent of 24 twenty-five-tonne lorry loadsHeavy goods vehicles consume about one sixth of all tonnes of oil used by transportA proposed waste by water initiative could remove a third of a million dust cart miles from the streets of north London each year. The equivalent of 64,000 (25 tonne) lorry journeys is currently carried on British Waterways’ 2,000-mile network each year, earning the public corporation £0.74 million a year. British Waterways is committed to reversing the decline in freight traffic on its waterways and aims to double the amount carried by 2010.So the answer to your question is that at least an extra 64,000 HGV’s could be replaced by barges within the next few years. That has to be worthwhile!That isn’t the end of the story, the effects of all those lorries extends beyond the motorway congestion itself, as the organisation Sea & Water point out: “If transport costs included an amount of compensation for social damage caused, the pricing structure could be altogether different. For example, road haulage, in contributing to road congestion, causing more environmental damage, using more finite resource and often creating increased noise levels and accidents, would have a higher cost when such externalities are taken into consideration.”….” a modal shift to water could result in a more efficient transport system and a cleaner environment.”

Nigel Moore ● 6992d

Patricia, do you mean the warehouses that overhang the canal near the railway bridge?If so, then the reason they remain is first of all because they are within the Grand Union Conservation Area. They are also the last remnant of Brentford’s once busy transhipment depot north of the High Street, and as such are not only of heritage value but remain eminently suitable for re-use as a freight terminal if government encouragement to move more freight onto water bears fruit.Agreed, at present they have a gloomy aspect heightened by years of neglect by their owners, but this is easily remedied. Even so simple a task as replacing some of the side sheeting with translucent sheets would lighten up the interior considerably. They are actually a most interesting construction in their own right, and even now are not as bad to walk through as you might imagine looking on from afar!Last year a group of us painted over all the graffiti on the walls, as that always has a demoralising effect on any structure, though I haven’t checked it out recently. Don’t be put off, walk through and imagine how it must have looked when the doors into the warehousing were open, and loading bales of newsprint into the narrowboats below. Hopefully the wharf will sometime again be used for its original purpose in a revitalised waterway, which will add life to the local scene in a way that the “crap apartment buildings” can never hope to do.It takes all sorts naturally, and perhaps you and others might in fact prefer British Waterways’ vision of a 15-story apartment tower here, but I for one will continue to oppose that.

Nigel Moore ● 6993d