On Sunday, May 13, 2007 1:58 PM [GMT+1=CET], eugenebastonbw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Neil seems to be saying that historic buildings can leave BW's > ownership through disposal and give valuable income for long term > maintenance. Property sales don't remove the planning conditions > placed on buildings of true heritage value. They still apply, and as > a result, the building remains. In fact, the building remains in > probably a better maintained state than it would have done if BW had > continued to maintain it. A private buyer has more at stake, some > would argue. > > But I'm not saying that BW doesn't care 'as much' as a private buyer > would. The simple fact is BW doesn't have the pot of money needed to > maintain buildings to 'that' standard. Not when it has the channel > and towpath to maintain, for a start. I don't really disagree with what Eugene has said, but I'm not convinced that BW is always getting it right. Where a building is listed, there is strong protection. But not all important canalside sites are listed. And some of them that are crucial elements in the local canalside environment will never qualify for listing because they're not of any significant historic interest. To me one of the crucial documents is PPG13 (if I get the reference right), a Government document giving guidance to local Planning Authorities. This specifies that for sites that have been in waterway-related use there should be a planning presumption in favour of their staying in such use. Unfortunately it adds "where that is viable" - without defining "viable". I came across this recently in a planning appeal I gave evidence to (neither a BW-owned site nor a listed one, but one with great significance for the local canal environment). This viability reference makes it easier for a developer to persuade a Planning Authority to let them do other things with the site. Where BW is selling-off a canalside site, it could protect it by putting a restrictive covenant on the site which would restrict what the buyer could do with it - that the fabric of a building should be maintained or that the site should remain in waterway-related use. The fiscal purists would argue that such a covenant would reduce the market price of the site and so BW couldn't do it because of its duty to maximise what it gets out of its assets. Buty it also has a duty under a section 22 of the 1995 Act "to have regard to the desirability of protecting and conserving buildings, sites and objects of archaeological, architectural, engineering or historic interest", which could, and I feel should, be set against its fiscal duty in such cases. Mike Stevens narrowboat Felis Catus III web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk Defend the waterways. Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk
