Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Watermill Threatened if Avon is Opened to Navigation

  1. #1
    Administrator Lex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Stratford
    Posts
    4,216

    Default Watermill Threatened if Avon is Opened to Navigation

    It'll be a real shame if the mill is forced to close just because the local councils want to get more tourists into the area: http://www.leamingtoncourier.co.uk/n...head-1-8098951

  2. #2
    rebbonk
    Guest

    Default

    It will be a great shame.

    I remember that place being renovated, but I'd have thought 80s rather than 70s?

  3. #3
    Administrator Lex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Stratford
    Posts
    4,216

    Default

    It's a great piece of heritage, it'll go because the navigation trust wants to capitalise on extending the theme park beyond Stratford's borders.

  4. #4
    Administrator Lex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Stratford
    Posts
    4,216

    Default

    The campaign to save Charlecote Mill is well under way. If you can lend any support, get in touch with Karl, the owner: http://www.charlecotemill.co.uk/prot...cote-mill.html

  5. #5
    Administrator Lex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Stratford
    Posts
    4,216

    Default

    I got an email from Karl, who runs the mill, today as I'm signed up as a supporter. He's had a meeting with a local councillor and the Avon Navigation Trust; the ANT seem to want the Avon opened up, and damn what everyone else thinks:

    Secondly, and of more note, we had our meeting today with Cllr Peter Richards of Stratford District Council and The Avon Navigation Trust. The meeting went surprisingly well and it quickly became clear that Peter has been poorly advised and misinformed to this point. He listened very carefully and without bias and was very surprised by some of the revelations, not least the claim that this scheme would bring 650m of revenue to the area. He has firmly denied that this number can be substantiated and is insistent that it will not be used in future. He was also shocked by our revelation that the scheme is for boats with a beam of up to 12 feet, something he was not aware of.

    ANT by contrast were as belligerent as we would expect them to be, but Cllr Richards was very good at keeping them on a listening brief and ensuring it was our voice that was heard. ANT insist that any past scheme proposals are no longer valid and that they are starting this with a "blank sheet of paper", but we still find it hard to believe that they will not just come back with the same proposals. After all, the route of the river and all of the obstructions along its way have not changed in the past 30 years or more (arguably in the past couple of hundred years). Listening still does not seem to be their strong point, but we are getting very good at pushing the message in their faces.

  6. #6
    rebbonk
    Guest

    Default

    650m? PMSL

    When these figures are bandied about they need fully justifying, and then underwriting by those using them. If the figure doesn't materialise, they pay!

    The problem that you have with ANT is that they are essentially a committee. Committees are notorious for getting involved in group-think and taking risky decisions because no one person is held accountable. Change that accountbility and you usually see a change of attitude.

  7. #7
    Administrator Lex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Stratford
    Posts
    4,216

    Default

    Cllr. Richards seemed to be clueless about the details of the plan, which is worrying seeing as Stratford District Council are involved & the story's been all over the local press for the last couple of weeks.

  8. #8
    rebbonk
    Guest

    Default

    Councils are mainly committees aren't they? LOL

  9. #9
    Administrator Lex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Stratford
    Posts
    4,216

    Default

    Good point!

  10. #10
    rebbonk
    Guest

    Default

    My own experience of councillors is that they are not only useless, but lazy with it. If you want anything doing you need to do all of the research and associated work and provide them with a complete case to present for you.

    Most councillors are 'in it' for the wrong reasons.

    In fact, I've found this in many walks of life. The legal profession are the same, you need to do everything for them (including wiping their butts!) and then they have the temerity to charge you exorbitant fees for what they have done for you!

  11. #11
    Administrator Lex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Stratford
    Posts
    4,216

  12. #12
    rebbonk
    Guest

    Default

    Good. Fingers crossed.

  13. #13
    Administrator Lex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Stratford
    Posts
    4,216

    Default

    Midlands Today did a report on the mill yesterday. I didn't see it, but apparently Aunty Beeb didn't get its facts quite right: (quoting from Karl, the mill owner's latest email)

    Quote, "It would cost about 35m". Fact, there is no fully costed or reliable estimate of the cost and no full engineering study has ever been released.

    Quote, "Potentially generate 100's of millions in tourism". Fact, This claim originally published on SDC's website was declared by Cllr Peter Richards to be unsubstantiated and without foundation. In fact, that figure is wildly exaggerated.

    Quote, "In the times of Charles 1, you could take a boat right up to within a mile of Warwick." Fact, there is no evidence that it has ever been possible to navigate this stretch of the river with anything larger than a canoe, coracle or small rowing boat. Indeed, in many areas the river is just not deep enough.

    Quote, "Abandoned as a means of navigation in 1877". Fact, It was not navigable, so could not have been abandoned. The weir for the mill existed long before then which would have made navigation impossible, as indeed did the Mill Weir at Barford.

    A map was then shown with a straight dotted line bypassing the river altogether, so maybe there is a further even more obtrusive plan not being openly discussed?

    The quote then shown of me was not actually a full sentence of mine, it was bits of a couple of sentences spliced together and did not actually portray what I said!!

    Quote, "Charlecote Park would have to put up high fences to stop the deer herd swimming away". Fact, this is not the position of Charlecote Park. They have booms across the river at both ends of the park to keep the deer in, but more importantly to keep wild deer or other animals such as badgers from getting in and introducing disease. High fences have never been mentioned in any meeting I have attended with Charlecote Park.

  14. #14
    rebbonk
    Guest

    Default

    Sad to see what the BBC has come.

  15. #15
    Administrator Lex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Stratford
    Posts
    4,216

    Default

    It is. Over the last couple of years, I've come to believe the Daily Mail's claims that the BBC is just a mouthpiece for left-wing propagandists and apologists more and more.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •