Canal Street Fence - a Victory for Health and Safety

[MartinClark]

Readers will probably not be surprised to hear that the proposal for a steel and glass safety fence alongside Canal Street in Manchester to stop drunks from falling into the canal has been approved unanimously by the city's Transport and Planning Committee.

 

What surprised me was that it was approved at a meeting on June 25th. I had been led to believe that it would be decided at a meeting on 23rd July. Other people who would have wanted to be present were also under that impression.

 

I know that some of you submitted objections to the plan and that others at least looked at the proposals on the council's website. Can I ask whether anyone can recall seeing the date 23rd July on the website as the day of the committee meeting? I checked today and it says 25th June, of course, but I feel sure it previously said 23rd July, as I remember thinking that it was rather a long time.

 

The date of the decision was deferred from the May meeting because notices hadn't been put up. If you can recall seeing the date of the meeting at which the decision was to be made on the council website (back at the start of June when I mentioned here that there was more time to send in objections) please let me know!

 

A comment was made to me by a council official that, while over 80 objections had been received, nobody turned up at the meeting to speak on the issue. Hmmm.

 

You can read the revised version of the document prepared for the committee here: [non-porno linky].

You may find pages 11 to 13 (Objectors' Concerns) interesting.

[Janet S]

I too was also under the impression that it was late July, but I don't have anything to prove it.

 

They don't appear to very good with dates...a quote from one of the PDF's that I read tonight....

 

Introduction

Members will recall that this application was due to be brought before the Committee on 28th May November 2009

 

I've waded through all the PDF's relating to the original application, but I can't find anything to suggest the July date.

 

I was also slightly surprised that there was no submission from the Rochdale Canal Society....and nobody at all turning up for the meeting? 80 people objected and not one made the effort to attend?

 

Strikes me as a little odd.

 

Janet

[MartinClark]

I was also slightly surprised that there was no submission from the Rochdale Canal Society....and nobody at all turning up for the meeting? 80 people objected and not one made the effort to attend?

 

Strikes me as a little odd.

 

I know of three people (including self) who would have attended the meeting with a view to one of us speaking. All three of us were (separately) led to believe that the meeting was in July.

[magpie patrick]

I'm saddened and to be honest somewhat p***ed off, as a professional town planner, among other qualifications.

 

I have ranted at BW on many occassions, professionally. They try to be too "reasonable". When was the last time you heard a wildlife trust say "well, the great crested newt will suffer, but overall, this is sensible". BW have NEVER worked out that no one else has a statutory right to stand up for the canals. They also haven't worked out, that, as a statutory consultee, that is the only role they have. It isn't for them (even legally) to judge the greater good, it is for them to speak as navigation authority, defending the navigation interest, not to go all namby pamby and co-operative. It is for the planning committee to decide what the "balanced" view, not BW.

[cheshire~rose]

Is it possible to search for the details and view the cached pages via google to see "old pages" which may show previous dates?

[MartinClark]

Is it possible to search for the details and view the cached pages via google to see "old pages" which may show previous dates?

 

Good idea. However, Google's cached version shows 25/06/2009. I don't know how long ago the page would have been cached. Probably later than June 7th which was when I looked at them. I feel sure the site must have shown 23/07/2009 when I first looked because that was where I got the information from originally. And that is the actual date of the next planning committee. I would guess that it was originally entered incorrectly and then later corrected.

 

I have also tried to find the pages on http://www.archive.org but to no avail.

 

That's why I am wondering if anyone here remembers seeing a July date for the meeting when they looked at the council's website.

[mayalld]

I know of three people (including self) who would have attended the meeting with a view to one of us speaking. All three of us were (separately) led to believe that the meeting was in July.

 

Had I known it was June, I would have attended, and spoken.

 

Looks like sharp practice to me

[Pluto]

I'm saddened and to be honest somewhat p***ed off, as a professional town planner, among other qualifications.

 

I have ranted at BW on many occassions, professionally. They try to be too "reasonable". When was the last time you heard a wildlife trust say "well, the great crested newt will suffer, but overall, this is sensible". BW have NEVER worked out that no one else has a statutory right to stand up for the canals. They also haven't worked out, that, as a statutory consultee, that is the only role they have. It isn't for them (even legally) to judge the greater good, it is for them to speak as navigation authority, defending the navigation interest, not to go all namby pamby and co-operative. It is for the planning committee to decide what the "balanced" view, not BW.

I have to say that there are people within BW who are trying to stand up for their obligations to canals. I am currently writing a paper for an international conference looking at the problems at the interface of conservation of the built and natural environment. My particular example is Bingley 5-rise and the need to cut down trees to open up the view of the locks. BW staff are well aware of the problem and hopefully we will be able to make a joint representation to the local authority's tree conservation staff to make them appreciate that other aspects of conservation are important. I do feel that one of the problems today is that we have too many experts who are only interested in their own particular area, be it trees, or the health & safety of drunks. (How's that for getting back on topic) The world needs more generalists who can appreciate problems within a much broader view of a particular subject.

[furnessvale]

I have to say that there are people within BW who are trying to stand up for their obligations to canals. I am currently writing a paper for an international conference looking at the problems at the interface of conservation of the built and natural environment. My particular example is Bingley 5-rise and the need to cut down trees to open up the view of the locks. BW staff are well aware of the problem and hopefully we will be able to make a joint representation to the local authority's tree conservation staff to make them appreciate that other aspects of conservation are important. I do feel that one of the problems today is that we have too many experts who are only interested in their own particular area, be it trees, or the health & safety of drunks. (How's that for getting back on topic) The world needs more generalists who can appreciate problems within a much broader view of a particular subject.

 

Whilst a nice thing to have, an open view of Bingley 5 rise is not critical to the effective operatimg of a canal boat on the network.

 

What you have actually provided is a typical example of the distorted priorities of BW.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Pluto]

Whilst a nice thing to have, an open view of Bingley 5 rise is not critical to the effective operatimg of a canal boat on the network.

 

What you have actually provided is a typical example of the distorted priorities of BW.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

Bingley 5-rise is one of the few grade 1 listed structures on the canal system, and its conservation is an important aspect of BW's remit. Other restrictions created by green environmentalists need challenging, such as the prohibition of tar and creosote for preserving lock gates, something I am sure you are concerned about. Tree roots can also damage the bank and cause leaks, something which suggests that the control of trees is important for navigation. You may not have been over the L&LC recently, but if you use a traditional short boat, there is a definite problem with overhanging trees. The control of trees is a big problem for maintaining a navigation, and I am looking at just one aspect of the problem, but in the hope that it opens out a wider discussion. It does come down to men on the bank. In 1900, the L&LC Engineer thought that he needed one man per mile for proper maintenance, and that was without counting men in the various workshops. There were around 200 men employed then, the figure today is more like twenty.

[FadeToScarlet]

I'm sure that the meeting was properly advertised.

 

Downstairs, in a basement, at the back of a filing cabinet, behind a sign saying, "beware of the leopard"....

[furnessvale]

Bingley 5-rise is one of the few grade 1 listed structures on the canal system, and its conservation is an important aspect of BW's remit. Other restrictions created by green environmentalists need challenging, such as the prohibition of tar and creosote for preserving lock gates, something I am sure you are concerned about. Tree roots can also damage the bank and cause leaks, something which suggests that the control of trees is important for navigation. You may not have been over the L&LC recently, but if you use a traditional short boat, there is a definite problem with overhanging trees. The control of trees is a big problem for maintaining a navigation, and I am looking at just one aspect of the problem, but in the hope that it opens out a wider discussion. It does come down to men on the bank. In 1900, the L&LC Engineer thought that he needed one man per mile for proper maintenance, and that was without counting men in the various workshops. There were around 200 men employed then, the figure today is more like twenty.

 

You didn't tell me that the true reason for cutting down the trees was to stop bankside damage and overhanging of the navigation. If that is the case I am with you but I will be very surprised if BW is also with you on such frivolous use of scarce resources when so many fences need erecting, towpaths tarmaccing etc.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[mayalld]

I'm sure that the meeting was properly advertised.

 

Downstairs, in a basement, at the back of a filing cabinet, behind a sign saying, "beware of the leopard"....

 

You forgot the disused lavatory

[Cheshire cat]

Only 20 men on the L&L but each one has 10 chainsaws they can call upon.

 

And as for the vegetation, I bet they didn't have ride on mowers in Victorian times.

[Ike]

...It isn't for them (even legally) to judge the greater good, it is for them to speak as navigation authority, defending the navigation interest, not to go all namby pamby and co-operative. It is for the planning committee to decide what the "balanced" view, not BW.

Just to play devils advocate for a second couldn't it be argued that people falling to their deaths would be bad for the future of the navigation and what they are doing is actually protecting our (as users) long term interests?

[Chris J W]

Just to play devils advocate for a second couldn't it be argued that people falling to their deaths would be bad for the future of the navigation and what they are doing is actually protecting our (as users) long term interests?

 

It's the manner and implementation of the Protection that's the issue.

[mayalld]

Just to play devils advocate for a second couldn't it be argued that people falling to their deaths would be bad for the future of the navigation and what they are doing is actually protecting our (as users) long term interests?

 

Perhaps they should have thought about that before they granted licences to so many premises that border a street that is also a canal towpath.

[kiki]

 

Boy falls off cliffs in cornwall

 

Here's a suggestion , why don't the councils glass off all the cliffs along our coasts as well, cant have drunken revellers falling over the edge can we.

 

Ok tried the hyperlink, messed it up as I don't know how to insert a hyperlink but its on BBC website today.

Edited July 10, 2009 by kiki

[RobinJ]

Here's a suggestion , why don't the councils glass off all the cliffs along our coasts as well, cant have drunken revellers falling over the edge can we.

Unfortunatley the number of drunks falling over far exceeds the number of boaters drowning!

The criteria always seems to be based on statistics these days and you know the famous saying about them

Edited July 10, 2009 by RobinJ

[Iain_S]

 

Boy falls off cliffs in cornwall

 

Here's a suggestion , why don't the councils glass off all the cliffs along our coasts as well, cant have drunken revellers falling over the edge can we.

 

Fencing off the cliffs was seriously suggested on the radio yesterday.

Iain

[WotEver]

I too was also under the impression that it was late July, but I don't have anything to prove it.

 

I'm aware that I'm resurrecting an old thread here, but I just stumbled across this:

http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk/news/new...m#huddersfield9

 

Scroll down to "Fence will block access to lock" and you'll see that it STILL states that the meeting will be held on July 23rd. Perhaps this page is where y'all were mislead about the date.

 

Tony.