Forum Topic

Brentford Waterways

Though I am not at all a supporter of the developer, particularly the half century desolation of the area, the misinformed stance of the Brentford community council demands correction.To state my credentials, I knew the cut, as this part of the canal is known, when it was still working and I live aboard a barge in Brentford, When the cut was in use, no tugs navigated it, the lighters and barges were left, unmanned , to drift, either up or down with the appropriate tidal flow, to be collected at each end by either river or canal tugs, two very different machines, making the cut too dangerous for the narrow boats to 'overnight' in the cut. The lighters would crash and clatter up and down it.This is why all of the cut was a clear navigation, though there is more than adequate room for moorings and passage of the largest barges that can navigate the Grand Union canal.The way to 'develop' the Brentford waterways is to inhabit them but the constant resistance and enmity of the local authority, to residential boats, prevents and inhibits this. To cite 'future commercial use' of the canals, is wrong headed. to repeat my self, there is more than adequate room for both. I have talked to the British waterways Board (B.W.B) official in charge of commercial development of the canals; a very nice and well informed man and he confirmed that the only commercial activity these last few years, barring BWB maintenance, was the one passage a year of the narrow boat that supplies coal and heating fuel to the residential boats.The only income sources on the canals and the river is tourism or habitation.If the desire to reinstall commercial use of the canals is genuine, then there would have to be enormous investment in the infrastructure, the canals would have to be widened and there is no foreseeable future where that sort of investment would be viable.Were the navigation restricted, to a dangerous degree, by any development, the Port of London Authority (P.L.A.) and the BWB both have statutory authority to remove the obstruction and would do so, with costs being born by the 'obstructor'.Finally the thought of any skipper towing lighters, two abreast, up the cut, as pictured on the map is risible and pointless, the locks are not wide enough and he'd not get round the corner. What he would do, as his predecessors did,  is to leave the lighters on the roads in the river and transfer the  cargo to canal barges before entering the canal system.So many developments by the water have empty moorings that stay empty. This may be what the Brentford Community are really trying to achieve. If so they should come clean.

J. kenton ● 5680d43 Comments

Indeed. On a point of accuracy, it was not that I lost the appeal but was refused permission to appeal. That was based on certain legal principles that I still have not quite got my head around. Basically, the latitude granted to the Secretary of State’s planning inspectors is such that, according to Lord Justice Sullivan, regardless of whether, as I was arguing, she had made a bad decision, unless in doing so she had made an error in law, then that decision was unimpeachable. So for as long as she had acknowledged all the salient points made by all parties, then whatever she decided would have to stand, and no argument as to the perversity of that decision could be entertained.I did put forward an additional legal point claiming the irrationality of granting consent for an “inevitable nuisance” in obstructing a public navigable river. It was an argument the judge found “attractive”, but which he dismissed on the basis that whether a thing constituted an actionable nuisance was a matter for determination, and that the inspector’s acceptance that the pontoons were safe constituted such a finding that they were not a nuisance. I don’t believe that he is correct in his analysis, but I did not have the relevant case law to hand in the appeal bundle in order to demonstrate that. I do not believe either, that the inspector’s findings on safety constituted a relevant finding as to whether the pontoons were a statutory nuisance – but so far as any member of the public such as myself is concerned, this hearing was the end of the road.For any further action a statutory body would have to be involved, and thus far they have either been an interested party in favour of the pontoons, or otherwise disinterested. The only time a member of the public would be enabled now, to bring an action, would be in the event of an accident occurring by reason of collision with the structure. In that event an action would lie on the grounds of the criminal act of installing the structure absent Parliamentary approval [which has been the expressed intention], and the question of whether the structure amounted to an unauthorised obstruction and/or a nuisance would probably lie with a jury.What has been obscured by reason of the initial argument that was formulated by the Environmental Law Foundation [which concentrated on the planning policy issues to do with maintaining freight potential], is the fact that the safety issues affect any vessels using the navigation - which are primarily private pleasure boaters. They are the ones that will have to exercise even greater care entering the canal from the Thames from now on, with so much less manoeuvring room than hitherto.It is perhaps timely to remind people that the BCC did not disapprove moorings per se, nor even moorings along this stretch of the Brent – but was rather disapproving of the moorings extending so close to the confluence with the Thames, for reasons obvious to boaters experienced in making this passage. But once again, despite legitimate concerns for public safety, a property developer has successfully appropriated public domain for private profit; this final decision of the appeal court judge cannot gainsay that, nor does our failure to have the Council’s decision upheld mean that the attempt was not worthwhile.

Nigel Moore ● 5313d

I see that your legal challenge has now been determined and the result can be seen here http://www.planningresource.co.uk/Development_Control/article/1049686/court-appeal-rejects-brent-river-moorings-challenge/

Yola Dragon ● 5316d

I’m not a conspiracy theorist actually – most of the world’s ills do not require the undercover plotting and machinations of conspiring groups and individuals; they result from the actions of self interested parties; the response [if any] of lazy, ill-informed bureaucrats, and public desuetude and indifference. If my mention of the deal between BW and the PLA gave rise to the comment, that is not theory it is cold hard fact and I have seen the relevant agreements between them. Insofar as I have suggested that there is more to the deal than the one pound consideration recorded, I doubt if anyone would seriously suggest otherwise – the PLA were never going to walk away from such a potentially lucrative situation without commensurate recompense of some sort [pecuniary or otherwise].It is not obsession to take the Secretary of State to court over his Inspector’s decisions, it is backing conviction with action and is something that happens often enough, sometimes successfully and sometimes not [as is always the case with any litigation]. If everyone took the attitude that authorities always make the right decisions and should not be challenged, then such justice and democracy as still exists would sink into total oblivion. You may claim that I cannot succeed, but that is not the point.You have either not paid attention to the previous posts or choose to ignore them. It is simply not the case that moorings have always been here; even loading and unloading at this location was banned for the first 100 years of the canal’s operation. In more recent years, as has been illustrated above, BW themselves banned boats from mooring here on the grounds of public safety. I am claiming [inter alia] that the Inspectorate should have held BW to the necessity of consistency, and should not have illogically dismissed their policy reversal as having nothing to do with the increased income the scheme will provide for them. The essence of my case boils down to the fact that I am applauding and upholding the public spirit of concern underlying the decision on the matter that BW took 7 years ago.

Nigel Moore ● 5624d

Nigel - you're a conspiracy theorist! And an obsessive one (aren't they all?) to be taking the Secretary of State for the Environment to court for consenting a few moorings in a location where moorings have always been.

Yola Dragon ● 5624d

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?

Nigel Moore ● 5625d

The Inspector did, it would appear, consider the 2003 report as she says in paragraph 14 of her report: "I have noted, for example, that a 2003risk assessment of moorings in a similar position gave ratings of greater than12 in three out of seven scenarios. The level of risk identified at that time wasnot, therefore, as low as reasonably practical."She must also have considered the submissions of the various objectors but she nonetheless came to the conclusion that the risk of the Hither Green proposal was acceptable. The question is how applicable the 2003 report was to the Hither Green scheme. The Google image shows that the barges moored at that time projected further into the river than the Hither Green scheme with two abreast right at the mouth of the river. I do not know what the 4 mooring schemes Capon considered were or whether they projected more or less than the Hither Green scheme. Capon does not seem to have been the most consistent of experts and this must colour any judgement of his opinions.I understand your criticism of the PLA and I certainly agree that their charges for moorings, and particularly the recent increases, are indefensible. Having said that I have in the past had dealings with some of their harbourmasters and I have found each of them to be honest and professional in their work. I certainly do not believe that any PLA harbourmaster would give his consent to works that he thought were a hazard in order to benefit the PLA's finances. If he did so it could all too easily end his career.

Yola Dragon ● 5625d

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.

Nigel Moore ● 5625d

I have read the extracts from the 2003 report that you have posted to this forum and from the Google Earth images from that time it is obvious that the situation then was very different from what is now proposed by Hither Green.

Yola Dragon ● 5625d

I’d like a little clarification – have you read the 2003 Report, or have you simply made assumptions as to its content based only on the Google Earth image? Your emphatic comments that “it considered a very different situation to that which is proposed by Hither Green Developments” and “this was the situation that BW and Capon were concerned about” give the impression that they are based upon knowledge of the Report. I am hopeful that such is not the case and that you don’t know [in this case] what you are talking about. I say this while according you the respect due to someone who has evidently taken the trouble to be otherwise well informed on many aspects of the wider situation.

Nigel Moore ● 5625d

Agreed, swamping is possibly the greatest risk faced by rowers on the Thames, whether due to other boats or weather. Freight operators do not contribute much if any of that particular danger owing to the generally slower speeds at which they operate – I think particularly of the rubbish barge trains responsible for much of the tonnage moved in London. The greatest wash problem has always come from the river buses and trip boats when moving at speed; other than that there are the occasional errant pleasure boaters and, of course, the weather.Houseboat residents on the Thames are indeed sensitive to the wash problem from large fast vessels [though rarely from the weather] and their constant complaints were responsible for much of the difficulty faced by the river bus services. The problems are addressable by better boat design and a little more consideration, however the conditions are a part of living on an active river and efforts need to be made by both sides to accommodate each other. Without suggesting an exact analogy, the same argument gets put forward on the canals, where virtually no-one ever thinks to moor up properly, whether on a permanent berth or as an overnighter. As a result it used to be impossible to proceed even below the normal speed limit of 4 mph without having red-faced boaters shouting abuse at you as you passed. Such cases were down to ignorance and laziness on the part of the moorers, though such behaviour seems to have almost disappeared the last time I went cruising. The point is that if such people were to be heeded, there would be no recreational traffic whatsoever of any sort at any time – and the moorers simply needed to [literally] learn the ropes. Ignorance and carelessness, whether of houseboaters, rowers or any other class of river and canal user ought never to be the factor dictating which other users should be permitted to co-exist.As a point of accuracy regarding the comment “The main objections were all from houseboat owners” - I don’t know of a single houseboat owner who objected to the moorings application other than in discussion outside of the formal proceedings. Those on true houseboats in the sense that they do not move, will never have any reason to object anyway, because they will not be subjected to the increased navigational difficulty. Very few in fact ever move even if capable of doing so. Indeed, many would welcome the prospect of more houseboat sites opening up, although this proposal will only be offering such berths on a de-facto basis, same as with the Island moorers. Those who do travel are concerned, but none that I know of will ever voice those views publicly for obvious reasons. Some of the same rationale accounts for the freight operators, who discussed the matter with various parties involved in the objections but did not wish to be named parties. One in particular, however, was unconcerned in so far as any damage was unlikely to be significant on his side, and he felt that if events proved alarming for the moorers then the berths would be vacated soon enough; the developer would be held liable for any consequent damages and would, moreover, be subject to an action for nuisance.Of course, the developer’s liability would probably disappear altogether if the works were properly authorised, but they have stated their intention not to go that route.There may be those who would like to turn the clock back a century or so; I wouldn’t count myself among them – the congestion problems on the river in particular were worse then than our motorways today. The way forward is to embrace the extent to which the waterways CAN contribute towards easing the road traffic burden, and as noted previously, the Grand Union Canal to where it meets the Thames both east and west of London has been identified as one of the key waterways suitable for that. Policies supporting that objective are seeking to push the clock forward, to meet modern exigencies in more than purely immediate financial concerns.

Nigel Moore ● 5625d

The problem you have relying on Captain Capon's 2002 report is that it considered a very different situation to that which is proposed by Hither Green Developments. Back in 2002/3 there were many more boats moored in the river extending further across the channel than in the proposed scheme. If you look at the December 2003 Google Earth image (I regret that my IT skills are not up to posting a copy of it here) you can see the boats were moored up to 4 deep and this was the situation that BW and Capon were concerned about. Surely it was correct for the Inspector to disregard Capon's 2002 report, which did not consider the proposed scheme, in favour of his later report which did.You also seem to overlook the PLA's views. The PLA Harbourmaster's department is one of the most experienced organisations in the country when it comes to matters relating to navigational risk. Their advice to the Inspector that the proposed moorings would not present an unacceptable risk must have, rightly, carried great weight with her when she made her decision.

Yola Dragon ● 5625d

While thankfully it is the case that there have not been recent deaths of rowers on the Thames due to collision there have been many cases of swamping some of which have resulted in severe hypothermia. Since many of these events go unreported the available statistics do not fully represent the risks, this website http://www.leoblockley.org.uk/accident.asp does however give an indication of the level of risk that we as rowers face and the tidal Thames is, from the data, clearly hazardous for rowers. The danger is not just collision but also swamping by wash and both risks would be increased by increased freight operations above Wandsworth. I am not against freight on the Thames, indeed I am all for it but I am also in favour of realism and the reality is that navigation on the upper Thames is now leisure dominated and there is no realistic prospect of a return to significant freight operations there. We cannot turn the clock back 100 years to reproduce the transport economics of a different age; frankly the country cannot afford the subsidies that this would entail.Finally it is worth noting that no freight operator objected to the proposed moorings on the river Brent which they surely would have done if they felt the proposal adversely affected their existing or proposed freight operations. The main objections were all from houseboat owners such as yourself; it is ironic that Thames houseboats are a major nuisance to freight operators on account of their sensitivity to and complaints about wash.

Yola Dragon ● 5625d

A postscript to the previous posting regarding the safety of rowers on the Thames. While no-one should ever underestimate the dangers of venturing onto the tideway and should accord it all due respect while ensuring that the rules and regulations are known and practised, there have been very few actual fatalities that I know of in the past few years.The ARA compiles extensive incident records which it does not necessarily share with the authorities, but I'd have thought reporting deaths would be obligatory?According to the Marine Accident Investigation Branch, there were 2 deaths on the Thames between 2005 to 2008 – both of which involved Commercial passenger vessels while tied to piers. One was a would be passenger waiting to board who was killed by a flying bollard, the other a tipsy passenger falling into the gap between boat and pier while attempting to disembark. Neither of them were rowers so far as the record discloses. So statistically, it appears that the greatest fatality risk existing on the Thames is to be a passenger on a Class V commercial cruiser – not rowing, despite any assertions to the contrary.Difficult, I imagine, for even these genuinely at-risk individuals to campaign against increased freight use, seeing that they also are using commercial vessels and especially as both fatal incidents involved moored vessels.

Nigel Moore ● 5626d

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.

Nigel Moore ● 5626d

I'm guessing that since the initial post the aim of raising funds to make a legal objection to the proposed moorings has not been achieved. No surprise, there are better places to put ones money - and judging from this thread there are very few who relish the prospect of commercial traffic on the canal ... and many who doubt the viability of such a notion anyway.However, there is a case for encouraging more leisure traffic. Perhaps the proposed pontoons are actually a good idea.

Alan Clark ● 5627d

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?

Yola Dragon ● 5628d

I do not believe that any one class of river user should so operate as to exclude others, most especially over “free water” where public rights of navigation hold sway. It was a frequent refrain throughout the Salvage Association Report that the Thames was a “free river” with attendant obligations on all users to comply with regulations and have consideration for each other.The Report is remarkable for a constant recurring theme – that rowers themselves were mostly placing themselves in danger:“The apparent total lack of knowledge by the rowers of the COLREGS and poor awareness of the Rowing Rules by both parties was also criticised”.“Amongst the rowing community widespread confusion, ignorance and/or failure to apply this response in particular increases the appearance of conflict in the regulations and the level of risk.”“the importance of keeping an effective lookout receives limited visibility and emphasis”“The causes appear to be a mix of lack of situational awareness or awareness of  other  user  requirements,  combined  with  the  nature  of  rowing  (use  of  set  pieces, ending  and  resting  at  Bridges  etc),  but  also  on  occasion  wilful  non-compliance.” “Another unfortunate element is the level of verbal abuse encountered from elements of the rowing community. Whilst also not being a one-sided phenomenon complaints of abuse  by  rowers  have  been  a  common  theme  throughout  the  survey  process  and  an acknowledged problem within the rowing community.  This has affected the relationship between the various river users.”“We  believe  that  the  rowing  authorities  still  have  much  to  do  to  generate  sufficient attention amongst rank and file rowers to safety, knowledge of navigation rules, discipline and appreciation of other river users.”“The risk benefit of the Rowing Rules and wider set of regulations is reduced through non-application by rowers.  Examples include rowing abreast, baulking and otherwise impeding  the  passage  of other users,  some  occasions  of  crossing  and  proceeding down the wrong side of the fairway.” “Poor  lookout  is  a  fundamental  problem  that  recurs  within  accident  statistics  and reduces the benefit of any rules.”“Other witnessed and anecdotal transgressions from the Rules and lack of consideration for other river users included:• Poor lookout and awareness of other vessels and physical obstructions. • Proceeding along the “wrong” side of the fairway, particularly when rowing with the stream • Rowing three abreast and blocking the channel for other users • Overtaking at inappropriate locations (approaches to Bridges) • Holding and slowing at inappropriate places (approaching and under Bridges) • Collision with and close approaches to stationary fixed and floating objects • Excessive speed of coach boats whilst not actively escorting • Excessive wash of coach boats  • Lack  of  appreciation  of  the  needs  of  other  craft,  particularly  with  respect  to  deep draught requirements. • Failure to recognise or respond to sound signals • Failure to take any action to avoid risk of collision • Rowing at night or in poor visibility without adequate lights • Baulking of vessels in the main channel • Offensive  language  to  other  river  users,  including  Class  V  passenger  vessels crowded with passengers, motor cruisers and PLA Harbour Services launches”It doesn’t make especially edifying reading. The collision risks were not down to large numbers of other river users – in fact the contrary if anything, because rowers got used to having the river to themselves especially in winter and did as they pleased. The other point of note is that it was not any conflict with commercial operators that gave rise to the survey in the first place, but rather a pleasure boat incident, in Syon Reach.In fact, there seemed far less conflict between commercial craft and rowers than there was between pleasure craft and rowers, largely due to the high degree of professionalism and knowledge of the commercial operators. “Whilst  there  were  undoubted  instances  of  problems  between  rowers  and  Class  V vessels, and  varying degrees  of mutual  respect,  interaction of  these  two  types of  craft was  not  found  to  be  the major  concern  amongst  either  the  rowing  community  or  the commercial operators.” Rowers colliding with each other and with fixed obstructions seem to be the greatest problem, but “Other than rower on rower situations the interaction of powered leisure users and rowing vessels is the main area of concern. This is twofold e.g. risk of collision through incorrect avoiding action and excessive wash.” The greatest confusion in those circumstances arose by reason of special Rowers Rules additionally to standard COLREGS, with most pleasure boat users familiar only with the standard ‘Rules of the Road’ and too many rowers familiar with neither.The resulting new codes and buoyed reaches are not “further restrictions” on rowers but a welcome simplification of rules and provision of safer marked “lanes” for them. I’ve never heard cyclists whinge about analogous dedicated cycle lanes as being restrictive. Increased use of the “fairway” by commercial craft will make no difference whatsoever to those rowers who abide by the rules.I believe that all users of the river and those who simply spectate by its banks relish the activity that rowers lend to the scene; hopefully that won’t be spoiled by a resurgence of the old arrogance and selfishness of those who believe that they have the right to dictate who else may or may not share the river with them.

Nigel Moore ● 5628d

I’m going to answer this in two parts for digestibility. I did not say that I have the support of government and planning law, I said that I supported the relevant government and planning policies; a very slight difference in emphasis perhaps. Yes, I am challenging the Planning Inspectorate’s decision to reverse Hounslow’s decision NOT to grant consent for the works. Neither Judges nor Inspectors always get it right, whether as to findings of fact or as to interpretation of the law – that is why we have avenues to appeal or judicially review what we consider to be wrong judgments. My view is that the Inspector’s decision was wholly irrational and failed to properly consider the evidence before her – both as to fact and law. It is slightly unfortunate that ELF drew up the case without my specific input so that my principal concern was omitted, but the public safety angle is straightforward enough and the Inspector clearly failed to properly assess the expert’s analysis of that. The installation of the mooring structure in the particular location objected to would, in the analysis of the British Waterways employed expert, obviate increased boat traffic and in particular freight use, on the basis that such increased use in conjunction with the moorings would present dangers that would no longer be as low as reasonably possible. The same proposal shifted further back from the Thames entrance would not have given rise to the same objections. Even so, without Parliamentary consent it would still constitute a criminal public nuisance and the Planning Inspectorate has no power to substitute for Statute in that case. In setting aside such considerations the Inspector rendered her decision entirely unsafe.The safeguarding of wharves was an extremely important element of the Blue Ribbon Network policy of encouraging increased freight use of the Thames – but it was not intended that the Thames only should benefit from those policies, nor that the safeguarded wharves should be restricted solely to those listed within GLA protection; Boroughs were enjoined to take up those same policies for themselves, as Policy 4C.9 [and most of the London Plan policies] begins with the words – “The Mayor will, and Boroughs should”.The Blue Ribbon Network policies formed a distinct class within the London Plan, being amongst the so-called “Cross-cutting Policies” in Section 4. Amongst the introductory objectives stated therein are these: “to make London a more prosperous city with strong and diverse economic growth, policies should exploit the potential for water-borne transport, leisure, tourism and waterway support industries” and “to improve London’s accessibility, use of the Blue Ribbon Network for water-borne transport of people and goods (including waste and aggregates) should be increased”.Policy 4C.6 Sustainable Growth Priorities lists as Reason 4.158 “Government initiatives to encourage the sustainable distribution of goods and services have led to renewed interest in using the waterway network to move goods and people. This can contribute to reducing congestion and minimising the environmental effects of heavy goods movements”.Policy 4C.8 deals with Freight Uses On The Blue Ribbon Network stating “The mayor will and boroughs should support new development and facilities that increase the use of the Blue Ribbon Network to transport freight and general goods, especially in areas of deficiency”. Reason 4.161 states “Increasing the use of the Blue Ribbon Network for freight transport is a widely supported objective as this is a more sustainable method of transport and can help reduce congestion and the impact goods vehicles on London’s roads. The Thames has many wharf facilities and there are a small number of discreet opportunities on the canal network. The use of water transport for freight is also encouraged in Policy 3C.25 and Chapter 3B”. Policy 4C.16 likewise promotes greater use of the Thames for transport, while Policy 4C.20 Development Adjacent To Canals states in Reason 4.187 “Any opportunities to increase their transport use should be encouraged”.All the above are, of course, the GLA’s initiative; the government’s principal measures for encouraging freight takes the form of published objectives and financial incentives.The economic case for water freight has been carefully and thoroughly analysed, with the caveat that comparative road transport figures do not take into account the massive funding involved in the road infrastructure that effectively subsidises this form of transport which has, further, considerable adverse side effects the costs of which are perhaps incalculable but real. Even without such more rounded costs comparisons however, the rapidly changing face of the economic and environmental climate will eventually turn the tables in favour of what will become the cheaper option. That will still never begin to compete in sheer bulk terms for the inland destinations, but every bit off the roads is a benefit to all.The size argument relating to costs is valid in part, but it remains the case for transport between Brentford and the lower Thames that barge sizes are sufficiently large to be economic even in the present state of the market. Nor does the argument always hold sway, any more than it is true that delivery vans of 1 tonne or less are uneconomic on the roads in the face of 44 tonners; it depends on the commodity and the market.

Nigel Moore ● 5628d

Nigel, you claim to have the support of government bodies and planning law yet you are taking the Planning Inspectorate to Court over their approval of the River Brent moorings - some support!The reality is that the government's principal measure for encouraging freight on the Thames is the safeguarding of wharves as set out in the London Plan. It is no accident that the most westerly of the safeguarded wharves is Hurlingham wharf since the government and the PLA realise that the navigational difficulties of handling large freight vessels become much greater further upstream. 1,000t barges are currently taken up to Wandsworth but very much smaller barges would be needed for a service up to Brentford.As vessel size decreases the economic case for water transport rapidly disappears. It is very well harking back to the past when freight was carried in 100 ton capacity barges but that was in the days when road transport was much more expensive and a large truck carried 10 tons. Today we have 44 tonne trucks on the road; they are in plentiful supply, only require a single operator and, compared to a barge, are very cheap to run. Small freight vessels have therefore, for good economic reasons, had their day.The waterways however have not had their day, they are experiencing a renaisance for leisure use which started in the 1960s and continues today. On the Thames the key enabler for this change has been the cleaning of the river by diversion of sewage outfalls, a project which is still ongoing.Before the PLA's new rowing code was introduced they assessed the risk of collisions between rowers and powered vessels to be unacceptable (see Salvage Association 2005 report on PLA website). With the new code that risk is reduced but it still remains one of the highest rated risks to human life on the river. If freight operations were added to the narrow upper reaches then the collision risk could only be increased again requiring further restrictions on rowers.

Yola Dragon ● 5629d

Some of my best friends are rowers, and at a pinch I could conceivably even let one of my sisters marry one, but that is not to say that I find it anything other than preposterous for any of them to claim that their use of the river should be paramount and other users should be discouraged as ‘incompatible’.Have you read the above postings carefully enough? Increased freight use of the waterways is not “my” dream; it is the aspiration of governmental bodies here and abroad as reflected in the planning law and available grants. I simply support that aim, for a plethora of my own reasons. And I do not, as no river user possibly could, overlook the steady increase in rowing activity over the past years.Navigational concerns over rowers in the Thames are not one-sided. There is concern for their safety and there is concern for the safety problems they present to others. As a result of the past tendency for so many rowers both in teams and solo to act on the presumption that they “own” the river, on 6th October 2006 the PLA launched a new Code of Practice for Rowing on the Tideway. The PLA, in conjunction with the Thames Regional Rowing Council produced the code in booklet form and a detailed map in A0 size, and delivered one copy of each to each club in the Thames Region. I presume that you are a rower yourself and will be [certainly ought to be] fully familiar with the new buoyed channels that were set in place for the use of rowers.All rowers are expected to keep to these channels and obey, in common with all other boaters, the obligations of maintaining all reasonable care for others when navigating these public waters. The central channel [the "fairway"] up to and past Syon reach remains clear for all other classes of boat whether private pleasure craft or commercial, and there need never be any conflict whatsoever between those and rowers. Safety issues would only arise through disobedience of the rules by either class of user, same as has always applied.A short version of the new code is published at: http://www.thames-rrc.org/fileadmin/documents/safety_docs/Pocket_guide_colour_A4_spread.pdf Rowing opportunities would not become restricted with increased commercial traffic – the need to obey the rules would simply become more obvious. Any responsible club will already have attempted to drum those into their members even before the new regime of marker buoys along the outside margins. Outside of Rules, tolerance and happy fellowship is what ought to be the order of the day amongst river users – mostly, it is.

Nigel Moore ● 5631d

Nigel Moore's dream for increased freight use of the upper Thames overlooks the fact that the use of the Thames above Wandsworth bridge has dramatically changed in recent years with the growth of rowing as a sport. The upper river is now dominated by leisure use which is fundamentally incompatible with freight operations.There is currently no freight operation on the river above Western Riverside Waste Authority's Smugglers Way terminal adjacent to Wandsworth bridge and to reintroduce tugs and tows higher up would create major safety concerns for rowers and our rowing opportunities could become severely restricted. Remenber that a lot of schools use this stretch of water and many rowers there are of limited experience.The navigational concerns over the reintroduction of freight will be far greater in the Thames itself than they will be in the River Brent, with or without the proposed moorings.

Yola Dragon ● 5631d

“you've not addressed the other issues raised”One thing at a time Alan. So far as being able to remove the pontoon structure, I was just answering your point about their apparently demountable nature while acknowledging that they could of course be removed. But disregarding the issue I already noted re: rights of boat owners moored there, under what powers would you remove the moorings once having been built under consent? There are only two that I can think of off-hand: first being a compulsory purchase order or some such, and the second would be to apply to the criminal court for removal of the offence. Why buy into such future trouble?Regarding the comparative effort between creating space and creating infrastructure, we don’t need to put in structural effort to establish a freight traffic infrastructure for the Brent to Thames route – it is already in place at Commerce Road and just needs a little refurbishment. “Second, creating the possibility of freight (leaving lots of space) is different from creating demand for freight (lots of haulage firms vying to get use of the canal). There's enough puff about the former - but nought that I'm aware for the latter.” We don’t need to create the possibility of freight here in Brentford as it already exists, but we surely do need to preserve it. You are right of course in that in any event, that is entirely different from creating the demand, although that is one remove from the immediate discussion as to whether the potential should be preserved in the meantime. To pick up on the point regardless, in some senses the demand has already been created, in that government policy and London planning law demands it – and that in itself has responded to the circumstantial demands of both immediate and future environmental concerns. Greenhouse gases and global warming may be in the future but road congestion for example is very firmly here and now. Even if we laid aside the pollution issues, there is a desperate need to find alternatives to road transport.But you are presumably referring to direct demand from freight operators and/or the markets that could/should seek to use them. Of course that should be worked on – the difficulty will be overcoming the BW opposition. However the freight operators are there already, and obviously more than willing to expand into the market; the only area that really needs to be worked on is the customer base. As the report I showed earlier demonstrated, the financial argument alone for Hounslow and surrounding boroughs to use the well-tried Thames route for waste transfer is compelling, but it means getting committees to work together and agree on further pursuing it, and that is always a problem to even kick-start.Such bureaucratic inertia is the biggest hurdle of all, and that will probably not be overcome until sufficient government pressure and encouragement comes into play. Huge incentives are given for less deserving causes, it is past time our government woke up to the breadth of opportunity that we still have in this country. This is not a cry for a return to ‘olden days’, nor a suggestion that the canals can compete with or dislodge the established alternatives for all or most of the freight carriage market  - but they don’t need to. Transport demands these days are so huge that every avenue possible needs to be exploited. As I’ve shown before, the Grand Junction Canal alone was able to shift over a million tons per year in the mid-nineteenth century with the infrastructure as then built. The infrastructure has been improved upon since then in regard to the canal to Thames link. The totals physically moveable through Brentford alone would be, to say the least in my opinion, not an insignificant potential contribution.As to the amount of “puff” in that regard – there is plenty out there in trade and governmental circles. Specifically addressing canals, one article on the City Mayors website says: “The capacity of the London canal network is in excess of 10 million tonnes, equivalent to around two million heavy lorry trips a year. Although this represents a small percentage of total London road freight, the canal routes access inner London where the damage, congestion and pollution caused by heavy vehicles is at its greatest. Were the canal network to be used to capacity it could rival the quantities of freight currently carried on the rail network.” (  http://www.citymayors.com/transport/london-canals.html )See also:http://www.freightbywater.org/http://www.ciltuk.org.uk/pages/downloadfile?d=598C4F5A-4CEC-44C8-9625-310633D05079&a=stream http://www.pla.co.uk/display_fixedpage.cfm/id/2602/site/environmenthttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/microsites/freight/water_freight.aspxhttp://www.freightbywater.org/news/290/2006-07-31/sea-and-waterFinally, the government Department for Transport recently published a study [with multi-layered map] of inland waterways potential, noting in the intro:“The highlighted waterways represent those that the Department believes have the greatest potential for freight use because they can be used effectively by appropriate freight vessels in their existing condition. This does not mean that other waterways cannot be used, and in no way is intended to suggest that other waterways can be disregarded as of no use for freight.  In effect, the map is to alert potential users to selected inland waterways with the most potential for freight use.”http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/freight/waterfreight/mapkeyinlandwaterways/mapwaterwaysreport?page=2#a1000 They highlighted London’s Grand Union Canal as a “Key Core waterway” with regard to freight potential –The website helpfully gives many other relevant links for those interested.“Third, who exactly wants to see garbage being transported down the canal? The thought of smelly and unsightly refuge barges chugging up and down the canal is not an attractive one.”A fair question, with two sides to the answer. Anthony’s last comments are the immediate first reaction that many of us would have to any objection to industrial uses in an industrial environment to which residential occupants are newcomers. The resident view is thankfully not universally antagonistic, the Island development residents were unanimous in wishing industrial uses maintained at Commerce Road, and I know Ferry Quays residents who would welcome the greater waterways activity that would result. However the sad reality is that it usually only takes one objector to close down “incompatible” uses even when those are long established uses instead of re-instated ones.On a less confrontational note, the plain fact is that Health & Safety legislation, quite apart from anything else, would not allow a scenario such as you depict, nor would it ever be necessary. Modern design solutions that address efficiency matters simultaneously involve complete encapsulation of containers so that open rubbish barges are very much past history. The new designs of waste carrying barges would be neither smelly nor unsightly.“Fourth - what exactly is the basis of the environmental claims of the canal freight argument? I get the large truck engine versus the taxi engine size and fuel consumption concept; I do not get the 3 hours to drive to Brum compared to 2-3 days to chuck up the canal to Brum; let alone the 'we'll need to get another truck to get the goods from the canal basin to the warehouse / customer' issues. Why can we be certain that the barge is cleaner?”That one is best answered by specific analysis of the question by reports such as this:http://www.cboa.org.uk/downloads/pdf/environmental_impact_report.pdf

Nigel Moore ● 5672d

Nigel, fair enough about the difficulty in removing the structures i.e. not impossible but structural effort. Probably similar or less amount of structural effort required to establish one single goods docking and distribution point somewhere up the canal. You can't have it both ways - easy to establish freight traffic infrastructure, but difficult to remove a pontoon. And you've not addressed the other issues raised.So long and thorough answer on one point ... but an incomplete and unconvincing response.

Alan Clark ● 5672d

“ the new moorings look like fixtures that could be readily removed. They are floating pontoons not fixed structures. So if there is a future flurry of freight traffic then these can be moved to make way for the demand. No?”Not quite that simple Alan. The pontoons are attached to large, heavy-duty steel poles driven deeply enough into the bed to withstand the currents and the weight of the pontoons and boats. In front of them will be a series of further piles with rigid cross-bracing serving as a buffer to protect the moored boats from the impact of passing craft trying to enter from the Thames in adverse conditions [part of the overt recognition that such impact will present a real danger to the boats moored at that point – which is designated as the space for visitors only!].Of course they will be removable, in the same sense that a building can be bulldozed, but it not simply a case of “un-hitching” the pontoons and taking them away. There is, of course, the other consideration that any boats that will by then have signed leases for the moorings will inevitably and understandably object to the removal of their berths unless nearby replacements were made available.Another part of the problem is, always, that once anything is in place, it will act as a deterrent for any later activity that could raise conflicts – there is far too much conflict already, when new residents to a place object to activities such as commercial wharfage and boatyards that have been in place for centuries. Previous posts here amply illustrate such opposition. In Brentford, BW used that argument to suggest that their recent developments on the Island and alongside Brentford [Gauging] Lock already render commercial use of the waterway here unacceptable.The BCC recommendation early in the application process was to install heavy duty vertical tensioned cables along the wall, allowing boats to be firmly attached while rising and falling with the tide. This is the system used, for example, in the largest locks on the system including Limehouse Locks. That provides safe mooring while taking up no space at all.The other recommendation we made was to install pontoons against the wall where the north bank is recessed, so that any moored boats would not only be further from the entry, but would protrude no further than boats closer to the entry moored directly to the wall there. Interestingly enough, the BW expert also suggested that, in his second report, but it was Ferry Quays residents who objected to the proximity to their flats that would result.“. . . a developer building a floating pontoon mooring that his experts and the relevant bodies claim will NOT impede use of the canal at ALL”Not so.There have been 5 risk assessments produced – 1)  2003 In February British Waterways assessed for themselves the suitability of the site for moorings and concluded that that it was unsafe and unsuitable – for the then current conditions, with no reference to increased use either private or commercial.BW Patrol Officer, 20th February 2003BW Legal Executive, 25th February 20032)  2003 In July British Waterways commissioned “Marine Enforcement Ltd” to produce an ‘independent’ risk assessment of the site. 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. These pontoon schemes did not extend beyond the Soaphouse Creek entry [as the Hither Green scheme does], and the current traffic information relied upon was that supplied by BW.The crucial point is the risk of contact with moored vessels during ebb tide; for that scenario the risk was assessed as presenting a ‘probable’ likelihood of a 3 day+ injury to people; minor damage to people and minor damage to the environment. [The relevant risk would be increased with the current Hither Green proposal because it extends closer to the Thames in the area of greatest risk.]3)  2008 In October Hounslow commissioned the SAME expert from Marine Enforcement Ltd to update his risk assessment with reference to the Hither Green proposal. He began with the statement: “We are content that nothing in this report is inconsistent with any of the opinions we expressed in 2003.” Pertinent to Nic’s comment he makes the observation: “Obviously the narrowing of a navigational fairway will have an adverse impact on the ease of navigation . . .” [as distinct from ‘safety’ of navigation’] He noted the various conditions requested by BW and comments: “These are all reasonable precautions to reduce the risks. The question is whether they are enough?” His summary was clear enough -An interesting further piece of information he supplied was : “The Port Marine Safety Code requires that the Navigation Authority consult with all stakeholders when assessing risks and this would include commercial river users.” Not a single canal freight operator on the canals has been consulted [even though it would be difficult for BW licensed operators to expose themselves to BW’s antagonism].4)  2008 In December, Hither Green reacted to the MEL Report by producing their own Risk Assessment – and it is hardly surprising that they considered their scheme to be safe! It is notable that the parameters that even they believed to be necessary for arriving at their figures required a  “Revised BW guidance for users of the Grand Union Canal to be disseminated at the Thames Lock and online.” Perhaps it might be possible to take that more seriously if they had included information as to what that new guidance would involve - one of the suggestions of BW’s expert was to regulate the traffic into a one-way system!It is further notable that no canal to river freight operators were consulted. Instead, they consulted “representatives of users [Inland Waterways Association].” Estimable as it was to consult the IWA, they are not freight operators using the canal and river.5)  2009  In January the MEL expert who at an IBAC meeting had been seen in furious concerned discussion with Hither Green’s architects [authors of the HG Rick Assessment] produced yet another Report. Somehow‘forgetting’ that his initial report based on BW’s information had backed that authority’s own assessment; overlooking the inconvenient comment in his second report that his ‘unsafe’ assessment was independent of whether freight use would happen or not, he revised that assessment – ON THE BASIS OF THE HITHER GREEN REPORT!I personally find the inter-‘expert’ accommodations contemptible, but if that final report establishes anything of value, it is that IF BW’s expert was only able to re-assess his previous reports on the basis of assurances that current freight use is “negligible” with no prospect of future use, then the corollary is, inevitably, that such use IS incompatible with the proposed scheme.At all events, it is patently untrue from reading those reports to say that the relevant bodies claim no impediment to the navigation AT ALL.

Nigel Moore ● 5672d

Sorry Anthony , but these statements are bogus and argumentative:"so the functioning and remaining canal infrastructure should be ringfenced as should sites like Commerce road because it will sooner or later be needed.It's the same as the football ground, It's been there almost as long as the homes around it, The canal and it's associated industries have been there longer than those around it. If you don't like it or don't want it then you can choose to not live there."There has to be a good reason to turn the clock back a hundred years, you have not provided one.But furthermore, this whole thread is anti a developer building a floating pontoon mooring that his experts and the relevant bodies claim will NOT impede use of the canal at ALL. We all want to see the canal used appropriately.The fanciful hand drawn box images showing half the canal obstructed is bogus also. If you look at the actual plan shown below, you see the actual size of the proposed moorings.I have no interest in posting pages of "persuasive" argument and wonder at the motives of those that do.If there are no properly organised, financed and controlled moorings, then Ferry Quays water edges are  likely to turn into the junk heap eye sore that is Waterman s and Lots Ait "moorings"Its as simple as that.

Nic Doczi ● 5674d

I'm confused about a couple of points.First, from the plans the new moorings look like fixtures that could be readily removed. They are floating pontoons not fixed structures. So if there is a future flurry of freight traffic then these can be moved to make way for the demand. No?Second, creating the possibility of freight (leaving lots of space) is different from creating demand for freight (lots of haulage firms vying to get use of the canal). There's enough puff about the former - but nought that I'm aware for the latter. Third, who exactly wants to see garbage being transported down the canal? The thought of smelly and unsightly refuge barges chugging up and down the canal is not an attractive one.Fourth - what exactly is the basis of the environmental claims of the canal freight argument? I get the large truck engine versus the taxi engine size and fuel consumption concept; I do not get the 3 hours to drive to Brum compared to 2-3 days to chuck up the canal to Brum; let alone the 'we'll need to get another truck to get the goods from the canal basin to the warehouse / customer' issues. Why can we be certain that the barge is cleaner?

Alan Clark ● 5674d

Trying to keep all comments within the same thread – under the same headed post accidently duplicated, Anthony Waller has said: “I agree here as well, The canal should definitely be used fully one way or another or a bit of both. What it should not be is a lifeless ornament.”I’m not clear exactly what is being agreed with, Anthony, but the rest is something with which I believe most of us would concurr. I’ll pick up your point re: use involving “a bit of both” in the context of - “To cite 'future commercial use' of the canals, is wrong headed. to repeat my self, there is more than adequate room for both” I agree with the both of you. Our argument is not that there is not ‘room for both’ commercial and pleasure or even residential use of the waterways, it is over the placement of this particular scheme within the ‘turning circle’ of the 3-way entry into Thames, Brent and Soaphouse Creek. They are all public rights of navigation and anything that interferes with the use of them affects both commercial and pleasure craft. The pontoons and “lead-in structure” actually protrude across the entrance to Soaphouse Creek. That affects private pleasure craft use in and out of the ‘creek’ rather than commercial carriage up and down the main channel, but it remains a matter of concern as it affects the manoeuvring area within the entry point between Thames and Brent even more than if the pontoons etc had been kept immediately behind the creek entry.It needs to be recognised - which is not immediately apparent from current BW pronouncements - that the danger to future commercial use was specifically addressed by the expert originally employed by BW to examine the safety implications of moorings at this location. In fact the latest assessment of that expert following discussion with BW was that his previous assessment [that the proposed moorings risks were NOT “As Low As Reasonably Possible”] could be set aside, solely on the grounds that the APPLICANTS’ own ”Risk Assessment” claimed that commercial traffic was NOT going to happen. This was backed by BW London, who have been providing ever changing rationales for denigrating freight use of Brentford’s waterways!Once again, it needs to be kept in mind that he was not suggesting that commercial use by large barge trains was incompatible with such a mooring scheme – he had stated initially that, located as the scheme was at the river’s entrance, it created an unacceptable risk even without heavy freight traffic. He would have agreed with you that there was room for both – IF the location had been moved back to the middle of this length rather than at the junction with the Thames.

Nigel Moore ● 5677d

History is important. Brentford is at the head of the Grand Union Canal and it was always an industrial town.It's geographic location brought this about and this will always be a factor in what may happen in the future.What we do know is that the future of road haulage is limited within this lifetime and already road hauliers are looking into other methods, rail is the obvious but already so much of the rail freight handling infrastructure has widely been removed and redeveloped to the degree that it is no longer possible to reinstate it.Canals, long neglected, therefore do have a use for large volumes of haulage, aggregates being the foremost.The infrastructure is more or less intact and it is indeed the myopic vision of planners and fast buck mentality of developers that has led to building developments that are trendy but not practical.That's not to say they should not be built but they have to allow the space and acceptance of the potential return to heavier use or alternative heavier use.It could be in a worst case scenario that the canal network would be the only energy efficient method to distribute heavy haulage and if this became a reality then compulsory purchase and demolition of developments would become inevitable as the nations economy would be considered of far more importance.So the functioning and remaining canal infrastructure should be ringfenced as should sites like Commerce road because it will sooner or later be needed.It's the same as the football ground, It's been there almost as long as the homes around it, The canal and it's associated industries have been there longer than those around it. If you don't like it or don't want it then you can choose to not live there.

Anthony Waller ● 5677d

Hi Nic – it’s easy enough to answer; in this instance I represent the Brentford Community Council as their waterways advisor, and it’s simplest to just look up the website to find out about the group. Being a resident with your vested interest in the area, you are more than welcome to attend the meetings and present your views. As to importance, well we don’t pretend to be “grand”, but we have been influential in presenting the views of the community to the Council’s planning department on virtually all significant applications. We have also actively supported the Council’s defence against the most prominent planning appeals over the past 5 years, such as the Kew Bridge site and Commerce Road.In terms of impeding progress, well your viewpoint on that will be influenced by whether or not the progress is or is not perceived to be “in the best interests of” you and Brentford residents at large. If we and the Council had not defended its Commerce Road decision for example, the Island residents by now would be looking up at 15 story tower blocks directly opposite them. I doubt that they would consider the time and energy spent on the legal challenge wasted. The end result has been to force BW and their development partners to at least put on a show of consultation with the residents of Brentford, and allow community input into the future of the site.If you are a Ferry Quays resident directly affected by the moorings proposal, then the issue is far simpler – the residents association input [both directly and via the BCC] has been predominantly concerned with the Soaphouse Creek application that is not being challenged. Their main concerns over the River Brent scheme have been over the residential question and proximity to the lower floor windows at high tide. If nothing happens at all in this particular location, the residents would be perfectly happy so far as I can tell.I acknowledge that for those unfamiliar with the background, and with the capability of the canals, there will be agreement with Mr Kenton’s comments, which understandably sound as though they are the cold voice of reason opposing the “fanciful” dreams of minority enthusiasts. He says -“If the desire to reinstall commercial use of the canals is genuine, then there would have to be enormous investment in the infrastructure, the canals would have to be widened and there is no foreseeable future where that sort of investment would be viable.”But this is not so. The present access between Brentford pool and the Thames is more than adequate to the purpose, with enormously profitable business plans suggested for waste transfer between Brentford and Belvedere for example. Agreed, that is not really involving the canals [other than the portion affected by the moorings application], but the canals can cope with far more freight traffic than the modern era will ever see. There WOULD be considerable investment needed to address the backlog of maintenance requirements, but that is money that BW have always been obligated to expend on the purpose anyway. There is no question of the canals being widened in the way Europe treated their canals; the scale of the English system is just too small for that, and their appeal to the world’s tourists with their money would be lost entirely if that was ever undertaken and their essential character lost.The fact remains that the system we have is still capable of carrying very useful tonnages; it’s simply that a viable number of transhipment points have to be preserved in order for that capability to be taken advantage of. The Grand Junction Canal was designed to carry at least 100,000 tons per annum – and that, of course, was when literal horsepower was the only motive force available. By the time it had been fully completed in 1805, use of it had already outstripped that estimate by 40,000 tons. The quantities carried increased continually, so far as the records I’ve seen, up until the mid-19thC – and that was prior to duplication of the Thames and the Gauging Locks. Yes, it’s “just” history, but figures like those show what the canal system is capable of carrying. This being 2010, such intensive commercial use will never be seen again but that is not the point. The markets that could and should be using the waterways now, would have an ecological impact far beyond that of any other time. This being 2010 when we are being encouraged to refrain from leaving electrical equipment on standby because of the accumulative effect on the environment, every load that can be carried by water rather than by road makes a huge comparative difference. It takes only 1 taxi-cab engine to shift 50 tons on the canal – think how many HGV’s that takes off the road. BW, when trumpeting their freight encouragement credentials, still make reference to their research into waste transfer in Hackney – a successful pilot scheme run a few years ago. The consultant who initiated and ran that scheme has produced a report on Brentford, and has indicated his willingness to produce a detailed business study for the borough. His own words show the potential better than I could –The whole point of the planning policies that seek to preserve the network of essential waterways infrastructure is to ensure that the POTENTIAL remains for the future exploitation of this increasingly desirable option. The policies are not contingent upon whether any imminent freight proposal is in the offing. It is those policies, both of the Mayor’s London Plan and those of Hounslow Council that we are seeking to uphold. We may well not succeed, but that won’t make the effort not worthwhile.

Nigel Moore ● 5677d

Nigel,please, who exactly do you speak for? I would really like to know.We see these grand sounding titles for various organisations, but have they any real importance or support in this day and age?I have a vested interest as a resident who overlooks the canal and I just want the planning resolved (in the best way for me and fellow residents, of course)What i see is continual sniping and bickering (and legal challenges) that just impedes progress.I agree with Mr Kenton in the header for this thread. The idea of firms switching from road or rail to barges on the canal sounds completely fanciful.Nic

Nic Doczi ● 5677d

Fewer words, more picture –As can be seen from the people standing in the hold, the barge alongside what is now the Island development is most definitely a Thames size vessel! That’s why the two sets of locks here were built larger than those further up the canal – this area was always intended to take advantage of the Thames’ proximity.There was never any need to tranship between barges and narrowboats out on the Thames as suggested, because these barges could be and were regularly navigated along the tidal River Brent part of the canal. More large barges can be seen in the background underneath the overhanging warehouses.

Nigel Moore ● 5678d

Addressing a couple more of the original post’s points:“This is why all of the cut was a clear navigation, though there is more than adequate room for moorings and passage of the largest barges that can navigate the Grand Union canal.”  All of the cut up to the Boatman’s Institute was and is a public right of navigation to be kept clear for passage. That doesn’t preclude the exercise of rights to moor boats to private property so long as that does not impede the public right, but it does preclude building STRUCTURES into the navigation, which is the substance of the objection – not the mooring of boats per se. Even with no boats moored at all, the pontoons and “lead in” structure will remain permanent obstructions.The issue for the BCC is not even so much the degree of available space taken up, but the specific location; the expert reports made clear that even obstructing half the navigation closer to the Thames Lock was not much of a problem – the problem was, however, significantly acute when a lesser degree of obstruction occurred at the entering-in point at the Thames and Brent junction. It’s a matter of manoeuvring leeway where cross currents occur, exacerbated [so far as this scheme is concerned] during ebbing tides.“The way to 'develop' the Brentford waterways is to inhabit them but the constant resistance and enmity of the local authority, to residential boats, prevents and inhibits this.”  There is no enmity towards residential boats within the local authority, as any perusal of the newly adopted Brentford Area Action Plan will demonstrate. It is simply the case that the positioning of mooring sites whether residential or recreational is to be limited to those areas that will not interfere with other water uses such as pleasure or commercial navigation. Principally, the policy is to encourage ‘offline’ moorings to free up ‘online’ space. It is worth noting that that is in strict accord with the national policy and advice of British Waterways Board. It should also be recognised that two separate though nearby applications were submitted by Hither Green, and that the BCC recommended approval of the proposals within Soaphouse Creek [albeit with recommendations that the pontoons were overdone, which limited the boat numbers and manoeuverability].

Nigel Moore ● 5678d

Good observations Anthony. There IS apparent inconsistency and there is no good reason why freight use of the waterways should be supported at one end of London and not the other. The short and simple answer is the usual – it boils down to what produces most profit to whom. There are quite different scenarios between east and west London in terms of how British Waterways and their directors see a way to maximise income.Curiously, for all the millions spent on the massive new lock on the Lea, it will not really increase the traffic potential that much more than was possible if the existing system had been properly refurbished. The difference the new lock DOES make, is keeping so much more of the rivers at a minimum level, instead of having the channel dry out. It has the same effect, writ larger, that the Thames Lock has here in Brentford. It means that barge traffic can move around the waterways above the lock even when they can’t transit to the Thames, but more significantly, the appearance is enormously enhanced [no more muddy exposed banksides and foreshore] and most importantly of all for BW, it means that the environment becomes perfect for building a ‘floating city’ of houseboats and ‘business barges’ in the Bow Back Rivers which would otherwise be impractical. The potential income on that for BW and its London Director is huge.For Brentford, on the other hand, BW saw that the maximum financial returns would be realised through land-based development of high-class residential blocks alongside the canal. The use of the waterways for freight would arguably [as suggested in the first post] militate against that scenario, so BW have consistently argued against any resurgence of freight use of the waterways here. Having succeeded in getting permission for the Island development and the Lock surround developments, they had a stronger case to argue that those residential schemes had rendered freight use of the waterway no longer compatible with its surroundings. That was precisely the argument that they presented in the last appeal against the Council’s decision on Commerce Road.In fact, unusually, the Island residents supported continued commercial use of the site and renewed freight use of the canal, but the situation illustrates the mentality driving BW’s approach.You are quite right of course, a network of trans-shipment sites is needed for the practical use of the waterways, which is why losing the potential here is so important. The initial Report commissioned by Transport for London with some contributions from BW, into freight potential on London's canals, did not embrace within its remit any consideration of transfer between the canals and the Thames [the consideration that makes the east end scenario so attractive]. Even so, according to that Report - Given BW's long term aspirations to continue developing Commerce Road into high density, high class residential units, it is understandable that they were alarmed at the result of the survey and promptly took over the project, making sure that the original researchers were not involved in producing the Phase 2 report. The eponymous head of the consultancy firm was subsequently roped in to give evidence for BW at the Public Inquiry to the effect that freight in Brentford was not viable.Even within the parameters of both Reports, that was not justified, but significantly, as Peter Brett admitted under cross-examination, the Reports toook no account of business studies for freight transfer between the canal and the Thames.I hope the above goes some way towards explaining the genesis of the "huge contradiction".

Nigel Moore ● 5678d

Nigel> Thanks for the clarification. I assume that the EA opposed the proposals at the planning application stage on wider issues than flood defence and pollution over which they have powers of consent.JL

Jim Linwood ● 5678d

Seems to be something of a huge contradiction going on here.Over in East London, a certain large project involves massive regeneration and refurbishment of the canal network.Costing millions, this is under the complete assurance from the PLA, B.W, TfL and just about any other authority that this is going to return the canals to commercial as well as touristic use.I've seen it and what is being done is fantastic.  Right down to new locks and even new vessels for haulage.Some very interesting stuff here as well as some superb images.Such a shame that yet again the recommendations of an expert consultant were instigated, (probably to justify the fee).Banishing houseboats was wrong, both on the canal and the Thames.There were loads from Teddington to Vauxhall. Admittedly, they were quite ramshackle but then so was much of the terraced victorian housing at that time. No so now.It would have been far better to have had strict rules on presentation and order of houseboats (like a sort of conservation area arrangement) rather than  pricing residents out and removing the facility.Here in Brentford at the head of the Grand Union canal, the present situation could not be any more opposing.So, if it is the correct policy for the Olympic site and it's 'legacy' future thus justifying works of an unprecedented nature, with an attitude of can do in abundance, why are the very same authorities so silent, uncommitted and negative when it comes to this end of the canal network? After all it can only work if the entire network functions, not bits of it.

Anthony Waller ● 5678d

To balance the previous answer to Mr Kenton’s post, the shambolic picture that was painted is certainly true of the mid-60’s, when the newly formed BW understood the area to be outside their navigational control and the PLA who patrolled the area were mainly concerned with whether boats employed accredited watermen according to Union rules. In fact, unregulated chaos was the order of the day ever since the PLA’s predecessors [the Thames Conservancy] temporarily abandoned control of this section to BW’s predecessor [the Grand Junction Canal Company].Early 1960’s, barges drifting across and blocking the channel above Thames Lock, narrowboat half sunk below Johnson’s IslandBy way of demonstration, it was the Thames Conservators who licensed the construction of the relevant embankment in the first place – with the attached condition that access at either end from the water was prohibited. The Conservators actually had a sign up at the entrance to the canal/river Brent forbidding transhipment of cargo in the area. - It was only following fraudulent representations by the Grand Junction Canal Company in the first years of the 20thC that the Conservators shrugged their shoulders, removed the sign and let the GJCC take charge for the first time. The GJCC in their total inexperience allowed transhipment of cargo at the embankment, so that the entry was invariably clogged with moored boats from the turn of the century onwards, contributing significantly to the difficulties of commercial traffic navigating to and from the canal system. The moored barges in the illustration above are in the same position as the proposed scheme, effectively impeding free passage contrary to the Thames Conservancy policy and conditions of licence for the embankment.BW as successors to the GJCC continued in the same vein of leaving matters here unregulated – until 2001, when they acted on the advice of the expert they’d commissioned to report on the situation; refused to re-license the houseboats that had been moored there with Council planning consent, and ultimately forced them out.

Nigel Moore ● 5678d

Jim, there were several objections to the current proposal by the EA which were subsequently addressed by the proposers to the EA’s satisfaction – and as you indicate, those related to flood defence and pollution issues in addition to ecological issues. So as the scheme now stands, the EA have no objections. Apparently I didn't make it clear enough that the current proposal does NOT include residential moorings. The original application of some years back DID propose fully residential moorings, and it was the EA who refused to countenance that on the grounds that no more encroachment of the foreshore for ‘land-based’ uses was acceptable. The issue is an environmental one so falls within their remit, as explained in their Policy Number 222_06  “Encroachment Policy for Tidal Rivers and Estuaries” -“Confronted with a scenario of climate change and increased sea  levels, if the process of encroachment continues unchecked river levels will continue to rise and the foreshore will be lost. Most development in, over, under or beside tidal rivers and estuaries will require planning permission from the Local Authority and flood defence consent from the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency is consulted on riverside planning applications by Local Planning Authorities and can recommend approval or refusal of applications or request planning conditions and legal agreements to be attached to any planning permissions granted. Flood defence consents are determined by the Environment Agency for any works in, over or under the tidal river and within the byelaw margin of the tidal flood defences. In determining flood defence consents and providing advice in relation to planning applications the Agency is required to take into account land drainage, flood defence, conservation, archaeology, recreation, landscape, navigation and other environmental matters. It must also consider the costs and benefits involved in its decisions.”As DLG Architects [for Hither Green] wrote to me back in December 2007: “HGD would prefer there to be residential moorings here, but they recognise the EA’s non encroachment policy and perhaps more importantly the residents strong opposition against residential mooring (which has also coloured the Planning departments view on residential moorings at this location).”

Nigel Moore ● 5679d

Nigel Moore writes:>The comments thus far are deserving of more detailed replies, which I will attempt to furnish later, but for the present remember that residential moorings do not enter into the picture, and it is the Environment Agency who are firm that no more residential use of the foreshore will be countenanced by them.

Jim Linwood ● 5679d

“When the cut was in use, no tugs navigated it, the lighters and barges were left, unmanned , to drift, either up or down with the appropriate tidal flow, to be collected at each end by either river or canal tugs . . .” This is simply wrong. We know tugs towed barges between the Gauging Lock and the Thames, apart from anything else because we have photos of them doing so: Thames-scale barges above the Gauging Lock with river tug locking up to the pool.Tug pulling first of barge train from Gauging Lock, 2nd barge still in Lock The two barges below the Gauging Lock, getting towed out to the Thames. This was 1982.In earlier times Thames sailing barges would navigate the same stretch between the Thames and the pool above the Gauging Lock, even if they couldn’t proceed further.Thames sailing barges alongside footbridge in mid to late 19thC.

Nigel Moore ● 5679d

Just to add I find it particularly disappointing that British Waterways seems to have given up on the freight potential of the Grand Union.  If they were committed guardians of the waterways they should be considering its medium-long term contribution to tackling climate change as a low carbon form of transport.  I was staggered to discover when I recently met with British Waterways management that they were worried the water would run out in the canal if there was too much freight traffic on this stretch of the Grand Union.  This is due to a lack of funding from government, which has led to the Welsh Harp ‘top up’ reservoir not being dredged and thus having far less water than when the canal system was first built.  British Waterways should be shouting from the rooftops about the implications of this funding crisis.  Instead they are as quiet as mice.British Waterways also complain about the relative cost of labour given the slower speed of water borne freight versus road transport.  However as far as I am aware they have undertaken no robust studies to understand the impact of carbon taxes on different forms of freight and what goods do not need to be moved at great speed around the country.Best, Andrew

Andrew Dakers ● 5680d

There is obviously a shared misapprehension here, about the nature of the moorings scheme: it is NOT a residential one and in fact is conditioned to PREVENT any such use. The application is purely for use by non-live-aboard craft, which must be either recreational or visitor.Another key point is a seeming failure to appreciate that the BCC objection is very specific in location terms. The objection is to placing permanent mooring structures [regardless of the use of any boats moored to them] right in the entrance of the canal where all expert analysis [and, historically, British Waterways themselves] acknowledged a safety issue in mooring boats even without the extra width of pontoons.The BCC response to the planning application noted that objection would not be made if the mooring facilities did not involve a pontoon except where the canal widened, closer to the Thames Lock. This was ignored by the proposers and their backers, doubtless because a scheme amended along those terms would no longer be the commercial proposition wished for [as opposed to the S106 obligation relied upon to justify the scheme].The comments thus far are deserving of more detailed replies, which I will attempt to furnish later, but for the present remember that residential moorings do not enter into the picture, and it is the Environment Agency who are firm that no more residential use of the foreshore will be countenanced by them.

Nigel Moore ● 5680d

Nothing against residential moorings, in places they work very effectively, but one only has to take a wander into Watermans Park to see how, if not managed etc, the riverside becomes home to a motley crew of ramshackle boats, floating portacabins etc, which seriously detract from the visual amenities of the river and its surroundings.Not that I support the fund appeal either - absolute waste of time and money in my view, but I don't pretend to be anywhere near as well informed/historically knowledgeable as Nigel or BCC, so to a fair extent I know my view is pretty much an uninformed one.

Adam Beamish ● 5680d

I'm pleased that there is a response to the article on the TW8 web site where someone is asking for donations to fund an appeal - effectively to block the planning permission for residential moorings at the entrance to the canal.The response rightly questions the validity of commercial use of the canal. First, for what purpose would there be commerical traffic - moving goods from where to where? Second, why should residents along the canal - in houses or in house-boats - put up with unsightly, noisy (and if used for garbage movement) smelly commercial haulage boats?Would it