From S Callanan
In response to: National Trust Announce Funding Secured, At Last, for Weir Bridge Repair
The response given to The Dragon following the question raised by the chair of the Guildford Society is typical National Trust.
Funding has been “secured” to reinstate the bridge at Tumbling Bay Weir. I take it the funding comes from the Trust, so it was always effectively “secured”.
Let’s not forget that despite NT always asking for money it’s actually a wealthy organisation. Members like me are not interested in the internal bureaucracy of bidding to “secure” funds. And I doubt the Trust is prepared to explain.
There’s not a word of apology for wasting years arguing about whether or not NT should pay. Whose idea was that? How has it benefitted the membership? How much did the argument cost the Trust in lawyers and consultants?
I don’t know the nature of the permissions the Trust has now to obtain, the identity of the “agencies” through whom the NT has to work to mitigate flood risk intrinsic to the project (why not name them?), or the detail of the tendering process for the construction phase. But I can’t help thinking that some of this could have been done in 2024 so that construction could start earlier than is now planned.
Overall, I think the National Trust should be extremely embarrassed rather than astonishingly relaxed about the time this project will have taken from the date of the collapse to its eventual completion.
This website is published by The Guildford Dragon NEWS
Contact: Martin Giles mgilesdragon@gmail.com
Log in- Posts - Add New - Powered by WordPress - Designed by Gabfire Themes
Jim Allen
January 12, 2025 at 11:24 am
One could ask how much extra money would have been saved had the sluice operators had the practices of the previous 350 years been continued preventing the vortex undermining of multiple weirs along the navigation (despite claims practices haven’t changed its all down to climate change). Delay costs money. How much money would have been “saved” had the repair occurred on immediate failure rather than years of spending time, which also costs money, pontificating.
I did warn everyone.
S Callanan
January 13, 2025 at 12:19 pm
In February of 2023 GBC – having spent £440,000 on the temporary repair to the weir structure – called time and made it clear they’d spend no more. Since there was nothing anywhere to show the council had any beneficial interest in the structure, I think that decision was absolutely right. On reflection, it’s a bit of a shame the “temporary” replacement (which seems to be having a longer life than anyone predicted) didn’t incorporate a bridge.
The GBC record shows that Surrey County Council, the Environment Agency and Thames Water were also involved with GBC and the NT in the discussion. But only GBC and the NT put their hands in their pockets. With GBC out of the picture the trust has done nothing until very recently, apart from finally accepting financial responsibility.
So it may be that the “agencies” the NT mentions are just the Environment Agency. Can that be right? And are we seeing Parkinson’s Law in operation here? The whole thing is far less complex than the NT would have us think but “the work expands to fill the time available for its completion”?
Editor’s response: We are unaware of any other organisations, other than those mentioned, being involved in the meetings held to discuss the Tumbling Bay Weir repair.