Canal to be fenced off

[MartinClark]

A 3 ft 6 in high "safety fence" is to be erected alongside Canal Street in Manchester, next to the stone wall between the street and the canal. The fence will have stainless steel posts alongside the wall, curving to support a stainless steel rail above the wall, with the space between wall and rail filled by reinforced glass panels.

 

If the plan is approved, the fence will change the appearance of the historic canalside location. Unusually for a canal, the street itself forms part of the towpath.

 

I have written more about this here:

http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk/news/new...a.htm#rochdale1

I have included links to the plans, so that you can see exactly what is proposed, and to the place on the council's web site where comments on the application can be made.

 

The page includes a photo of a boat being horsedrawn along this stretch of canal, which would no longer be possible with the proposed fence in place.

[mayalld]

A 3 ft 6 in high "safety fence" is to be erected alongside Canal Street in Manchester, next to the stone wall between the street and the canal. The fence will have stainless steel posts alongside the wall, curving to support a stainless steel rail above the wall, with the space between wall and rail filled by reinforced glass panels.

 

If the plan is approved, the fence will change the appearance of the historic canalside location. Unusually for a canal, the street itself forms part of the towpath.

 

I have written more about this here:

http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk/news/new...a.htm#rochdale1

I have included links to the plans, so that you can see exactly what is proposed, and to the place on the council's web site where comments on the application can be made.

 

The page includes a photo of a boat being horsedrawn along this stretch of canal, which would no longer be possible with the proposed fence in place.

 

Thanks Martin.

 

Duly objected

[billh]

Martin,

I get an error, when I try to submit a comment on the Planning site. Conspiracy or C***-up? (Tried it from 2 different machines , same error.)

Isn't the towpath and wall the responsibility of Waterways Trust and/or BW? Can't think why the Manchester City Highways should have any input at all as it isn't a "Highway" How about filling in the canal up to the level of Canal St? It would make it a lot safer.Alternatively , to be really safe , fill in Canal St, leaving a six foot wide towpath.

How does the lockwheeler access the lock from the towpath in the new scheme?

Bill

[rjasmith]

Thanks Martin.

 

Duly objected

 

 

............and so have I. (my comments seem to have gone in OK - got the email from the council!)

 

Richard

[John Orentas]

Martin,

Isn't the towpath and wall the responsibility of Waterways Trust and/or BW? Can't think why the Manchester City Highways should have any input at all as it isn't a "Highway" How about filling in the canal up to the level of Canal St? It would make it a lot safer.Alternatively , to be really safe , fill in Canal St, leaving a six foot wide towpath.

How does the lockwheeler access the lock from the towpath in the new scheme?

Bill

 

 

It gets better than that, BW having totally ignored the Rochdale Canal Society and Sue Day's, Horseboat Society are in the process of consulting the local bar owners.. I happened to get wind of all this only via the Manchester Council planning department who have agreed to copy me with details of any developments which may affect the canal.

 

This stretch of canal is unique on the system in that Canal Street acts as the towpath and has always been this way since it was built 200 years ago, why a bunch of 'fly by night' bar owners or a crowd of BW engineers with similar attitudes should hold any sway over this situation beggars belief.

 

Yes, the Waterways Trust are the owners of the Rochdale Canal, BW are contracted to maintain the waterway for a defined period of time into the future.. As many of us will know there are some peculiar access problems for boaters in the area but most people regard them as being part of the charm and character of the canal, few I think would want to make significant changes.

Edited April 30, 2009 by John Orentas

[journeyperson]

Is this barrier being put up as a result of the "reveller" falling in along there and his would-be rescuer drowning?

 

Sorry, only just read the link. I was just thinking that it wouldn't reduce the risk much. I think it adds about 14" to the height of the wall. The reinforced glass will be an irrisistable challenge to vandals and will soon look a mess.

Edited April 30, 2009 by journeyperson

[DHutch]

Also objected

- I manyways it looks better than it could, its no a huge extension, and it doesnt damage the wall as its not actaully attached to it.

- However at the same time, while a death is a horrable thing, people do die. And for one death its a lot of money and eyesore imo.

 

 

Preposal

 

 

Daniel

[kbarber]

Thanks Martin.

 

Duly objected

 

Likewise

[tony collins]

Also objected; I have sent my comments to you in a PM for your record to use as you wish.

 

Tony.

[MartinClark]

I get an error, when I try to submit a comment on the Planning site. Conspiracy or C***-up? (Tried it from 2 different machines , same error.)

Hello Bill - I've not tried it myself yet, having been out all afternoon, but other people seem to have submitted comments successfully. Sorry - I don't know what to suggest.

 

How does the lockwheeler access the lock from the towpath in the new scheme?

 

I have just been reading the "Design Statement" which is here and in paragraph 1.3 it incorrectly states "There are no access points to any of these landing stages from Canal Street."

 

So, presumably, Manchester City Council along with the heritage officer of British Waterways are unaware that there are steps carved into a stone block allowing lock operators to climb up and down (see photo below). I hope some of you will point this out. I shall! It will be nearly impossible and certainly dangerous to climb over the proposed fence at this point to get to the steps down to the lock.

Edited April 30, 2009 by MartinClark

[charles123]

I usually support anything to prevent the waterways heritage to be altered but in this case I believe a fence is the right thing to do because this is a very popular spot with drinkers sitting on that low wall, it would be very easy to topple over. I assume the amount of money identified will be to provide a high quality barrier of some sort that fits in with the built environment

 

Regarding the steps I never thought them practical or safe if indeed they are meant to be access to the lock, the wall has no break in it for access to the lock and that looks to have been that way a very long time, so maybe these were once access steps but long since abandoned

 

Charles

[Smelly]

You've just reminded me of a conversation I overheard while sitting canalside in Brum waiting for my veggie burger...

 

A pair of ladies, part of the deluge heading for Dancing on Ice at the NIA last week were outraged that there was no safety fence between them and the canal. They actually started piping up while walking past a moored boat!

[sociable_hermit]

I usually support anything to prevent the waterways heritage to be altered but in this case I believe a fence is the right thing to do because this is a very popular spot with drinkers sitting on that low wall, it would be very easy to topple over.

Charles

So why not angle the top of the wall so that it slopes down sharply towards the street, or put a railing along the top, in such a way that no-one could sit on it? This would also make the wall a bit higher, thus removing both of your concerns, and in a relatively subtle way. Still a killjoy thing to do, but better than the real proposal. It certainly doesn't need to be 3'6" high or have the plastic panels. A narrow 'rail' would be enough, and could be designed in such a way that a rope would still slide along the top. Where there are cut-outs for access, the rail either side could act as a grab rail for those climbing up.

Edited April 30, 2009 by sociable_hermit

[mayalld]

I usually support anything to prevent the waterways heritage to be altered but in this case I believe a fence is the right thing to do because this is a very popular spot with drinkers sitting on that low wall, it would be very easy to topple over. I assume the amount of money identified will be to provide a high quality barrier of some sort that fits in with the built environment

 

So, the canal has been there in that configuration for hundreds of years, and just because some bars move into a street, and set up tables in a location that puts their customers into a dangerous position with respect to the canal wall, the wall has to be changed.

 

Regarding the steps I never thought them practical or safe if indeed they are meant to be access to the lock, the wall has no break in it for access to the lock and that looks to have been that way a very long time, so maybe these were once access steps but long since abandoned

 

Charles

 

So, you have never used them then?

 

Let me assure you that other boaters most certainly DO use these steps.

[Janet S]

Let me assure you that other boaters most certainly DO use these steps.

 

We've used them.

 

My objection is going in shortly.

 

Janet

[cheshire~rose]

I usually support anything to prevent the waterways heritage to be altered but in this case I believe a fence is the right thing to do because this is a very popular spot with drinkers sitting on that low wall, it would be very easy to topple over. I assume the amount of money identified will be to provide a high quality barrier of some sort that fits in with the built environment

 

Charles

 

 

I do not know the area personally but If adults choose to sit on a wall then they ought to be aware of the danger - if these adults happen to be under the influence of drink at the time then that is their own look out! Were they never warned when they were growing up that when under the influence of alcohol your judgment may become impared?

 

If it is children that are in danger then where are the parents?

 

The canal has been that way since it became a canal and so why should it be changed? People have always enjoyed a beer or three too many and there are tragedies as a result every day of the year somewhere in the country. I am sick of this nanny state trying to wrap us all in cotton wool for elf 'n' safety's sake!

 

As for the cost - I do not think it is ever safe to assume that a large amount of money means the barrier will be either high quality or in keeping with the environment!

[denboy]

Dutifully objected

[alan_fincher]

The canal has been that way since it became a canal and so why should it be changed?

How would you reconcile that remark with the comments you made about the adding of "keep off the cill" signs as a safety measure then, please, Rose ?

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php...st&p=253104

 

I don't favour the new fence, but I'm not sure I can see the difference from pointess signage put on every lock on the system, to be honest.

[Janet S]

I think there's a world of difference between sensible safety signs at danger points and a physical structure that would totally change the whole character of the area. You hardly notice the cill signs - you wouldn't be able to miss this monstrosity! I've looked at the plans - it certainly wouldn't be in keeping with the environment.

 

I've boated through the area, and hope to do so again. I would hate to see it ruined in this way, all in the interests of Elf'n'Safety gone mad.

 

I've submitted my objection, in the strongest possible terms.

 

Janet

Edited April 30, 2009 by Janet S

[Postcode]

I have registered my objection to this vandalism too

[cheshire~rose]

How would you reconcile that remark with the comments you made about the adding of "keep off the cill" signs as a safety measure then, please, Rose ?

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php...st&p=253104

 

I don't favour the new fence, but I'm not sure I can see the difference from pointess signage put on every lock on the system, to be honest.

 

 

A boat is a potentially dangerous piece of machinery which requires some basic knowledge to handle safely. The placing of a small sign on a balance beam may not be that successful in reminding untrained boaters of the potential danger but it is not that much of a disfigurement to the lock either nor are they causing any restriction to the movement of boats through the lock or the people operating the lock as would be the case with this wall.

 

People have always drunk too much and caused themselves harm by doing so. A wall will not stop that from happening. Perhaps we should provide every drinker with a hard hat to stop them having head injuries when they fall over or perhaps we can staple their feet to the ground?

[alan_fincher]

I think there's a world of difference between sensible safety signs at danger points and a physical structure that would totally change the whole character of the area.

I accept that up to a point, Janet.

 

The problem to me is when is it acceptable to tamper with the 200 year old structure of canals, and when is it not.

 

I don't know about your area, but around here most locks, for example can't be said to have "original" equipment. Ground paddles are tampered with so people are less likely to trap fingers when lowering them. Top gate paddles have heavy shuttering on them, rendering them almost useless in some cases, but not as useless as in the cases where they have been removed completely.

 

Locks in Central London have had barriers built between them and revellers who it is judged might drown themselves, (in some cases making boaters lives a lot more hazardous).

 

Don't even get me started on bollards.

 

All of these are in some way or another "Health and Safety", all might in some way be argued as potentially protecting people from themselves, and all without exception have changed to some degree historic features of the canals in question.

 

I am sympathetic about the campaign in this thread, but it looks like the proposal isn't even on canal property, unlike the kinds of thing I have mentioned above.

 

I do find it odd that measures ostensibly to protect boaters are vehemently defended by many on here, but that measures to protect the general public are not. Boaters after all should have some training to try and keep themselves safe, whereas the general public are not often savvy about canals.

 

I'm not disagreeing with any of you, (other than I think most recent health and safety signage is pointless!), but I find the differences in attitude surprising.

 

Alan

 

A final thought....

 

If people believe that people read signs, then just put some "danger deep drop" ones on the road facing side of the wall involved, and forget about the fence!

[Postcode]

I do find it odd that measures ostensibly to protect boaters are vehemently defended by many on here, but that measures to protect the general public are not. Boaters after all should have some training to try and keep themselves safe, whereas the general public are not often savvy about canals.

 

The wall in question has protected the general public for many years. The wall was built to keep them safe why is that not sufficient anymore?

 

May it be because the area is now an attraction for drinkers and the council gave planning permission to businesses that attract clientele that are as savvy as newts?

 

I detect a back covering exercise here to the detriment of historic structures.

[alan_fincher]

The wall in question has protected the general public for many years. The wall was built to keep them safe why is that not sufficient anymore?

 

May it be because the area is now an attraction for drinkers and the council gave planning permission to businesses that attract clientele that are as savvy as newts?

 

I detect a back covering exercise here to the detriment of historic structures.

I actually agree with you 100%

 

I don't think the area should be changed, and believe existing arrangements should remain unaltered.

 

It's just that I also feel it is wrong to tamper with many other heritage features of canals, but have repeatedly found myself criticised on the forum for taking that line. That's the bit I struggle to get my brain around, to be honest - it seems inconsistent.

 

But I agree, far too much is done to protect people from themselves, boaters and general public alike.

 

Sorry if my posts didn't make that adequately clear.

[Janet S]

but it looks like the proposal isn't even on canal property

 

You may have slightly misread the proposals here Alan? The proposed barrier is actually between the canal and the towpath. Any raise in height would be a real obstacle to ordinary boaters and the occasional horse drawn boat.

 

The low wall has been there for two hundred years or so...why not leave it as it is and let the canalside revellers take some personal responsibility for their own actions?

 

I like Rose's suggestion - staple their feet to the floor!

 

Janet