Forum Topic

Neil, the planning office of Hounslow continue to pretend that I do not exist, and have never replied to any of my communications, which is distinctly odd.That said however, I received a letter from Tony Arbour this morning, (our GLA Assembly member), who “after some prodding”, has elicited from LBH a response to some of the points I had raised with him. His prompt assistance in this regard is certainly an example for others!The enclosed letter from the Planning Department was most interesting on various counts I shan’t go into for now. Suffice to say that they have acknowledged that “at the outset formulation of proposals by the developers… had not given sufficient import to the activities on the canal”; “it was flawed in not treating the whole of this stretch of the canal”; “it was clear that the detail for the waterside strategy was ill-conceived”, and that many issues have been raised “that BWB and the content of the application needed to address.”The Council have apparently made implementation of a satisfactory waterside strategy one of the heads of the legal agreement for approval of the main development, and this letter dated 28th January concludes by saying “the revised waterside strategy has not been submitted and the main town centre development as a consequence not progressed.”So it would seem that LBH are not as insensitive to the issue as might be concluded from their silence in respect to myself.Doesn’t quite gel with BTC Ltd’s declaration that they’d be starting work in the summer does it?In fact the Council have been misled in believing that there has been any consultation with the boatyards. Neither myself nor MSO (who will also be adversely affected by the Town Centre proposal), have ever been approached by BW for example, who are leading the waterside strategy. I am endeavouring to engage them, but I’m guessing it will take awhile yet.

Nigel Moore ● 7385d

Thanks Jim, a couple of crunch times are coming up, but in respect of the High Court battles, I can't see what anyone could do to help. It was on the cards that the Appeal would be stifled, as the developers managed to persuade a judge that he should order Security for their Costs. The judge didn't believe my "full & frank disclosure" because he couldn't understand how it could be possible for anyone to live on as little as I do!However at the nth hour, a very good customer of Brentford Marine Services sent a cheque for the required amount, so the Appeal WILL go ahead. Whether the might of the Inland Revenue resources will suffice to turn the balance of probable outcomes, remains to be seen. Matching QC's against what they can afford is way out of the question. We just have to hope that the spirit of the Limitation Act is upheld, which basically is that it is inequitable for anyone to have actions against debts held over their heads for indefinite periods, for whatever reasons.The strongest assistance will come from massive public outcry on the planning front. These "developers", (only middlemen really), weren't funding the original plan anyway, it would take so little to re-draw the scheme to accommodate a boatyard. At the very least, they'd only need to sacrifice one restuarant, and the rest they intend to hand over to British Waterways anyway.I did draw up a petition for any to sign who were interested in retaining the boatyard, perhaps if I ran off some copies, some of you could traipse around with them? I have several hundred signatures already. Talking to the "Cutty Sark" people at their stand at the last Thames Festival, they had a system whereby people could email in support, - perhaps that is another avenue? I don't know how such things work.Meanwhile I'm corresponding with the GLA, but the Mayor seems to have more pressing priorities at the moment than backing up his BRN policies.

Nigel Moore ● 7451d