Canal Street Fence Update

[MartinClark]

As reported here a few weeks ago, Manchester City Council is proposing to construct a safety fence along the side of Canal Street in Manchester, to stop the drunks from falling into the Rochdale Canal. The fence would block access on foot for lock-wheelers to Lock 86.

 

Because the council did not post notices correctly, the date of the decision on this plan has been put back to July 23rd, and so there is still time to submit a comment up until June 19th.

 

I have put a detailed write-up about the situation here:

www.penninewaterways.co.uk/news/canalstreet.htm

This includes links to the pages on the council web site where you can see the plans and comment on them.

 

British Waterway is insisting that there is no need for boaters to access the lock on foot. They are now saying that continued use of the steps that have been used for 200 years is not a safe activity for its customers.

 

The planners won't listen to boaters because they are being given what they think is expert advice from BW. How will boaters let down water if the pound below is low? How will someone get off the bow of a traditional working boat in the lock entrance? How will a horse-drawn boat stop if the gates are shut? It needs to be stopped with a rope on the strapping post or a lockside bollard.

 

Yet, as a result of BW's input, the planning committee are being told "the fence will not hinder or interfere with the ability of canal users to navigate the canal".

 

There have been around 50 objections so far and now there is a further 2 weeks to make comments.

 

 

You can read the report prepared for the planning committee here.

You can read my write-up about it here.

[Hairy-Neil]

The planners won't listen to boaters because they are being given what they think is expert advice from BW.

 

Aren't we just wasting our time objecting then?

[MartinClark]

Aren't we just wasting our time objecting then?

 

Not at all. There are several people who have been trying to get across to the planners that the people they are dealing with at BW do not have expertise in boating and that opinions from, say IWA, should also be taken into account. The more comments received expressing similar views on the possible problems for navigation, the more chance they will take notice.

 

Meanwhile there are people who are working to persuade BW's officers that there are factors that have not yet been taken adequately into account in the hope that they can be persuaded to modify their advice to the planners.

[Guest]

Surely it's as simple as adding a small gated gap in the fence, this will reduce the risk to those who can't control their alcohol intake considerably. Or am I over simplifying it.

 

Is there role for the local branch of the IWA here??

 

Edited to add - I see from your simultaneous post the IWA should have a role,

Edited June 7, 2009 by MJG

[denboy]

does this mean i need to object again?

[Guest]

Sorry Martin - should have read your excellent article on this you'd linked to before I posted.

 

It does seem as if the solution is very simple though - problem is here is that planners tend to be very risk averse and to gap the fence where those steps are will (even though there isn't an alternative) 'force' boaters to use those ancient steps - they'll worry about the litigation claim coming from the first boater who injures themselves using the steps they've been 'forced. to use by the design of the fence.

 

Sad as I am to say it, it may be the only compromise is the construction of a set of steps constructed to modern construction stds. - leave the originals in place for posterity but construct something to modern build stds. further along.

[MartinClark]

Sad as I am to say it, it may be the only compromise is the construction of a set of steps constructed to modern construction stds. - leave the originals in place for posterity but construct something to modern build stds. further along.

 

I am led to believe that such a set of steps has indeed been talked about but, of course, BW doesn't have the funds for that at present. Strange, though, that they have apparently found funds to contribute part of the cost of the fence.

 

In my opinion the cost of the fence should have included the additional cost of new steps to the lockside. I suspect the council will just want a quick fix in the form of rubber-stamping the existing proposal.

 

Perhaps it would help if several people suggested that the fence should only be approved if it included new steps to the lockside?

 

does this mean i need to object again?

No - not unless you want to raise some new points.