Bridgewater Canal Breach

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, dmr said:

Its my understanding that there have been previous talks about CRT taking over the Bridgewater, they are maybe ongoing. I think the position was that CRT could possibly have the canal but would get none of the associated revenue generating land or property. If CRT did not want that then they will be even less keen to take it now that its broken.

Not exactly a good deal though -- you can take over the canal, but only the expensive-to-run bits not the generating-money bits... 😞 

[Mike Tee]

My main concern over the Bridgewater is that if Peel should eventually decide that they will not repair it due to cost, although it is not C&RT waters, it could be the thin edge of the wedge if the decision is not robustly challenged. Future large scale problems could be solved this way if C&RT thought they could get away with it.

I know Blisworth Tunnel is a major through route with no real alternative but the cost of repairing that now would be around £14 million - could C&RT afford that?

[David Mack]

Peel have no interest in the Bridgewater or the Ship Canal. They are a property company, plain and simple. They acquired the Ship Canal Company in order to get their hands on all of its developable land assets. For a century Manchester City Council controlled the company through having a majority on the Board, although they didn't own it. That made sense when the economic prosperity of the city was aligned with the level of traffic on the canal. But from the 1970s Ship Canal traffic plummeted, the Pomona and Trafford Docks closed, and the last regular traffic ceased when the city's sewage sludge could no longer be transported along the canal for dumping at sea. Peel then proposed to develop what is now the Trafford Centre on Ship Canal land. The city Council objected to the development but found itself conflicted. So, with the Ship Canal no longer important to the city, they agreed to give up their control in return for a chunk of money. And Peel built the Trafford Centre. That might have been the right time for the Bridgewater to be transferred to BW, but I am not aware it was considered at the time.

As a property company, if Peel were to transfer the Bridgewater they will want to keep any valuable assets. To my mind they can keep non-operational assets - property developed on former canal land and not used in connection with the canal for example. But if CRT are to take it on they should also get the land and property directly related to the canal, including all the online moorings and associated land, together with maintenance facilities (although I'm not sure what there are these days). Separately CRT would need a capital sum, either in cash or in (non operational) property assets to provide both an income to cover future running costs and to contribute at least substantially to the costs of repairing the breach.

To make this happen will require somebody to put the pressure on Peel. CRT may well support but I can't see them taking the lead. IWA and other user groups simply don't have the power and influence, local authorities, who came together last time the canal breached, are simply too stretched in many other directions to offer anything beyond token support, and central government will duck the issue completely given all the other political, financial and economic issues on their plate.

[magnetman]

Exactly. 

 

This is probably a general indicator of decline. I am not a betting man but if I was I would wager that the canal will never be open to through traffic. There could be some work for drainage and perhaps a path but reinstating the canal in the current economic climate seems very unlikely. 

 

It would be lovely if it did happen but over time priorities do change and everyone knows that Peel is a company who seek to make profit from land they own. That is what they do and they will continue to do this. 

 

For people who are local and use it it is terrible but zoom out and it becomes a minor irrelevant problem. 

 

Someone else on here @DandV I think it was earlier pointed out that this circumstance is an indicator. 

 

I think this is probably a correct diagnosis. 

 

 

[dogless]

I think it'll be opened ... concrete troughs in about 2 years.

 

All nonsense supposition of course  ... we may as well toss a coin, or better still wait and see.

 

As long as the licence holders and businesses are kept informed (as far as reasonably possible) I don't suppose we are owed any explanation.

 

Rog

[magnetman]

1 hour ago, dogless said:

I think it'll be opened ... concrete troughs in about 2 years.

 

All nonsense supposition of course  ... we may as well toss a coin, or better still wait and see.

 

As long as the licence holders and businesses are kept informed (as far as reasonably possible) I don't suppose we are owed any explanation.

 

Rog

 

It would be a bit odd if a letter sent to licence holders saying that the canal was going to be rebuilt never became a public document on a canal forum. 

 

Of course if it was written as a forward looking statement then it is a different story as those who received it may feel cheated and unwilling to publish. 

 

 

 

It seems quite high up for concrete troughs. 

[dogless]

It's as likely as yours (and others)  hypothesis that the canal will never be navigable again because Peel won't cough up the dosh and cannot be relied upon.

 

We shall see ... in about two or three years time I guess.

 

Rog

[StevieN]

Appreciate that taking on the Bridgewater would be a huge financial headache for C&RT, but someone explain to me how they cope when new sections of canal are opened up - the final section of the Chesterfield (which by all accounts is being championed by MPs,) whilst funding for the work is by a variety of private funds under the umbrella of the Chesterfield Canal Society, I assume once it's complete it'll be down to C&RT to maintain it?

If so where's the extra money coming from?

[MtB]

22 minutes ago, StevieN said:

I assume once it's complete it'll be down to C&RT to maintain it?

 

Why do you assume this? 

 

I assume they won't....  

 

 

[IanD]

3 hours ago, Mike Tee said:

My main concern over the Bridgewater is that if Peel should eventually decide that they will not repair it due to cost, although it is not C&RT waters, it could be the thin edge of the wedge if the decision is not robustly challenged. Future large scale problems could be solved this way if C&RT thought they could get away with it.

I know Blisworth Tunnel is a major through route with no real alternative but the cost of repairing that now would be around £14 million - could C&RT afford that?

But on what grounds could Peel be challenged if they refused to repair the breach and restore navigation?

 

If they own the canal and do not have any legal obligation to keep it navigable (which seems to be the case), how could they be forced to fix it?

[haggis]

11 hours ago, MtB said:

 

Why do you assume this? 

 

I assume they won't....  

 

 

I think you are right. When you apply for finding you have to give a commitment on how whatever you want funding got will be maintained . I think when funding was obtained for canal restorations in the past BW took on the long term maintenance but I don't see that happening now.

[magpie patrick]

13 hours ago, StevieN said:

 Chesterfield Canal Society, I assume once it's complete it'll be down to C&RT to maintain it?

 

 

CRT won't be involved - restoration at Staveley and Renishaw will be maintained by CCT

[Cheshire cat]

I guess we will see the reintroduction of stop locks to ensure CRT don't lose their water. It's already happened on the Ashby

[magpie patrick]

1 hour ago, Cheshire cat said:

I guess we will see the reintroduction of stop locks to ensure CRT don't lose their water. It's already happened on the Ashby

 

It happened on the Ashby because, prior to the stop gate being fitted the third party length burst and they couldn't get the stop planks in. That's a long length being drained!

 

The arrangement is now a single gate that is normally closed but a paddle in the gate is open, if a boat wants to pass the gate can be opened, if the third party length bursts then the paddle is closed. 

[ditchcrawler]

3 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

 

It happened on the Ashby because, prior to the stop gate being fitted the third party length burst and they couldn't get the stop planks in. That's a long length being drained!

 

The arrangement is now a single gate that is normally closed but a paddle in the gate is open, if a boat wants to pass the gate can be opened, if the third party length bursts then the paddle is closed. 

I think the Ashby canal Association fitted the planks when the breach happened 

[David Mack]

From the April IWA Bulletin:

"An update on the Bridgewater Canal. Our North West Region Chair Sir Robert Atkins penned a formal, assertive, but concerned letter to Peel Holdings, balancing constructive engagement with firm pressure to push for Peel to publish their plans.

Nobody doubts the massive scale of the works needed to re-open the canal, and further it is clear that the costs will be extremely high. While Peel Ports has committed to repair the breach and to re-open the canal, and their stated target date is September 2026, what we have been striving for is more transparency from the canal’s owners. They are deep-pocketed and even though they cannot be blamed for the heavy rains that caused the flooding and the subsequent breach on New Year’s Day, they are ultimately responsible for the repair.

We will continue to engage with them, knowing that they face a tough job, but that the public need to see greater transparency from them."

 

I am curious as to where Peel have committed to repair the breach and stated a reopening date of September 2026.

Edited April 8, 2025 by David Mack

[MtB]

32 minutes ago, David Mack said:

I am curious as to where Peel have committed to repair the breach and stated a reopening date of September 2026.

 

Me too. 

 

I'll be fascinated to read what Peel have actually said as "re-open the canal" could just mean the towpath as a foot and cycle through-route, with winding holes for boats each side of the breach. 

 

Is anyone here an IWA member able to ask the top brass there where Peel have made this 'commitment'? I fear it might just be wishful thinking, and turn out to have been heard from another Peel footsoldier on the towpath in a hi-vis jacket expressing his or her personal opinion about what ought to happen. 

[IanD]

Just now, MtB said:

 

Me too. 

 

I'll be fascinated to read what Peel have actually said as "re-open the canal" could just mean the towpath as a foot and cycle through-route, with winding holes for boats each side of the breach. 

 

Is anyone here an IWA member able to ask the top brass there where Peel have made this 'commitment'? I fear it might just be wishful thinking, and turn out to have been heard from another Peel footsoldier on the towpath in a hi-vis jacket expressing his or her personal opinion about what ought to happen. 

Or another case of people reading hearing they want to hear, rather than what was actually said. As @MtB said, "re-open the canal" is not legally the same as "re-open for navigation"... 😉 

[Jerra]

43 minutes ago, David Mack said:

I am curious as to where Peel have committed to repair the breach and stated a reopening date of September 2026.

Could it possibly be in the letter sent to their licence holders?

[MtB]

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

Could it possibly be in the letter sent to their licence holders?

 

The letter no-one can produce a photo of, you mean? 

 

 

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, MtB said:

 

The letter no-one can produce a photo of, you mean? 

 

 

Has who ever it was who said he had one and would share when back off the canal actually got home yet?   If he has then OK nobody can produce one if he hasn't we don't yet know.

 

Who else on the forum has a Bridgewater licence?

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Has who ever it was who said he had one and would share when back off the canal actually got home yet?   If he has then OK nobody can produce one if he hasn't we don't yet know.

 

Who else on the forum has a Bridgewater licence?

 

There must be hundreds of boats with Bridgewater licences so I'm deeply puzzled why no-one seems to actually put a copy up on the net somewhere. Not here, or even on FaceBook. 

 

 

Having had a google for this letter I've found nothing, other than a page on the Bridgewater site with a number of updates on it, the latest being dated 3/2/25.

 

https://bridgewatercanal.co.uk/latest-news/

 

 

[magnetman]

On 03/04/2025 at 21:10, magnetman said:

 

It would be a bit odd if a letter sent to licence holders saying that the canal was going to be rebuilt never became a public document on a canal forum. 

 

Of course if it was written as a forward looking statement then it is a different story as those who received it may feel cheated and unwilling to publish. 

 

 

 

 

Innit

 I think this letter may have been sent out for revenue protection reasons.

 

 

[Jerra]

13 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

There must be hundreds of boats with Bridgewater licences so I'm deeply puzzled why no-one seems to actually put a copy up on the net somewhere. Not here, or even on FaceBook. 

 

 

Having had a google for this letter I've found nothing, other than a page on the Bridgewater site with a number of updates on it, the latest being dated 3/2/25.

 

https://bridgewatercanal.co.uk/latest-news/

 

 

Which begs the question why would somebody post that they had a letter if such doesn't exist.

[IanD]

28 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Me too. 

 

I'll be fascinated to read what Peel have actually said as "re-open the canal" could just mean the towpath as a foot and cycle through-route, with winding holes for boats each side of the breach. 

 

Is anyone here an IWA member able to ask the top brass there where Peel have made this 'commitment'? I fear it might just be wishful thinking, and turn out to have been heard from another Peel footsoldier on the towpath in a hi-vis jacket expressing his or her personal opinion about what ought to happen. 

I've asked the IWA Sustainable Boating Group members if anyone has any knowledge of this.