The whole problem with this protection etc. is that even if BW wanted to do
a perfect job would they need to know which bits are in need of protection. We
know they do very expensive surveys of historic canal structures but often
these seem to rely on brought in experts while leaving out local knowledge and
even what might seem to be the bleeding obvious to a boater or similar lesser
mortal.
A case in point was an old lift-bridge on the Caldon near Engine lock which
was swept away in a BW modernisation/Health and safety/Using up surplus
hydraulic gear bridge replacement job in the 1990s. That bridge was unique in
that it was opened by climbing up stone steps onto a wall and then using the
wall to hang over the top bridge beam and so float down while raising the
bridge. This might sound dodgy but the best mate loved it and it was much
easier than chain hanging. (This bridge, of course, did not have a chain to let
you hang on - a fact that puzzled us until an old boy demonstrated the method
of opening - and indicted he enjoyed the motion too!) His demo revealed the
stone steps and from the depressions ground into them by countless bridge
openers boots the method had been used for a very long time. Now, on this spot,
just a bit of the old wall remains and the bridge is modern, safe and not at
all historic.
In the above example one assumes the local BW men in blue knew about the
bridge just as the local people did. But did the people who planned and
replaced the bridge know about it - I doubt they did. As for any person listing
the historic objects would they even notice that the bridge lacked any obvious
means of being opened and wonder why?
In this way history just disappears - our local village did not exist before
1796 but was developed around the canal wharfs built for local trade - BWs one
contribution to the history of the area was to dump a horrible looking modern
toilet block (with water, showers but no refuse disposal) right in the centre
of the best picture-postcard view of the village. Given this I bet they don't
realise that the next road bridge along is one of the few, so far unspoiled
original (1796) bridges, on the whole original Shropshire Union network - so if
the council who maintain the roads...
I could go on but...
David Cragg
Steve Haywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 16/03/07, Mack, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Mike Stevens reminded us that BW's duties include:
>
> > "(b) to have regard to the desirability of protecting and
> > conserving buildings, sites and objects of archaeological,
> > architectural, engineering or historic interest;"
> >
> >
> "Having regard to the desirability" is perhaps not as strong as we would
> wish, but any absolute obligation to protect and conserve would mean
> that BW was obliged to spend resource on this to the detriment of its
> other, less strongly worded, duties.
'Not as strong as we would wish.' How's that for understatement? It's not
strong at all. In fact, its practically meaningless. I could have 'due
regard for the desireability of protecting and conserving' the contents of
my lavatory pan before flushing them away. It's the sort of meaningless
gobblegook that allows public corporations to get get away with doing
nothing while pretending to a spurious concern.
Steve
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
---------------------------------
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
---------------------------------
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
