Views wanted on possible safety fence on Marple Aqueduct

[DHutch]

Last day and a half to submit your thoughts.

No doubt unlikely to be the finest written work, but this is what I submitted last night:

 

 

To whom it my concern.

 

 

It is great news that this iconic and spectacular aqueduct and the approach to it is being maintained, and appropriate to consider and assess the structure during this process. However it is my strong feeling, and the feeling of the majority of others than I have spoke with both in person and online that the addition of a 'safety fence' is not appropriate behaviour, both given the nature of the risk, and of the structure.

 

 

 

Minimal Risk

 

In order to access the far side or 'non-towpath' side of the aqueduct you must either access by boat, climb over the fencing at the ends, or swim/jump 8 feet of water. It cannot be access from the towpath by accident and there is no reason to access the area by boat.

Clear signage is present Boat users are exposed to potential danger at

 

Unintentional falls from boats

Due to the width of the none tow path side, it is highly likely that a person or persons falling or being force from a boat by the tiller would not fall over the side of the structure. They would have ample room fall there own hight and land firmly on the aqueduct.

 

Past history

As far as I am aware there are very few recorded incidents people falling from the aqueduct, hence there is no direct call for a change in arrangement.

Futhermore, looking at other areas of the canal which have recently had fences added, namely lock 86 at canal street in Manchester, the fence has not to my knowledge prevented falls from occurring.

 

 

 

Requirement of competence

 

There is a requirement to have a minimum level of competence in order to be safe on a boat in any situation, certainly on a canal or river. This includes the awareness that there is potential risks, and such a clear risk as that of falling from an unprotected edge is one of the more self evident risks on our canal network. Even is the persons are not aware of make up of the structure below them, there is a clear example of a similar structure in plan view, in the form of the railway viaduct over the same valley.

 

Given the above comments, I cannot in any way understand how is can be possible to find a safety barrier to be essential, while finding using the canal network in any way to be acceptable. There will always be risks, but these have to be accepted, and managed in a balanced, open minded, and rational method.

 

 

 

Cost and compromise

 

The cost of installing railings to the structure will be seriously large. There will be significant costs borne in the damage done to the historic structure, to the visual power of the aqueduct and its surroundings, and compromise the history that attracts so many to our canal heritage.

If railings where to be installed they would have to be substantial and in keeping with the surroundings which be a significant financial burden on the proposal, and at best I expect a large compromise would be have to made even with the best will in the world.

 

Maintenance commitment

 

Once installed the proposed fence would need regular maintain and inspection, if the fence was allowed to physically deteriorate it would be very likely to increase the very danger that it was intended to reduce. I very much expect a new fence would be constructed from steel as per the example shown on paddock aqueduct, not only does this fail to have the same aesthetic qualities from the outset, regardless of the protection system used will require more maintenance and have a shorter life expectancy than the iron example show on the towpath side of the Chirk aqueduct and will weather in a way which is not in keeping with the surroundings.

 

All of this money could be spent elsewhere on the system, improving other areas of the networks, and in cases, preventing accidents in other and more positive ways.

 

 

 

Prevention of intentional misadventure

 

The purposed barrier will not and can not prevent those who intentionally wish to seek danger or personal harm. If someone wants to jump from the aqueduct, even without the fence in place, the drop is far more accessible from the towpath side.

 

 

 

Summary

 

In short, it is my carefully and long considered opinion that if this consultation does not result in the proposal being reconsidered the system, and CRT as the guardians of our inland waterways, have failed.

Equally, if the outcome is a fence in any way similar to that seen on the towpath side of Paddock Aqueduct, Newmanley Aqueduct, Vyrnwy Aqueduct, or the access bridge at Pontardawe Aqueduct, or for a significant increase in signage to occur, I will be highly disappointed and again consider the system to have failed.

 

By all means renew the fence at each end of the aqueduct, between the non path side of the structure and the wider world, and replace the signs with similar replacement as part of the maintenance being undertaken. But please consider the above comments, and overwhelming response this consultation has generated.

 

 

 

##

 

 

Further to the above and other submissions view email, I would request anyone reviewing the outcome of this consultation to review the comments that have been made on various social media outlets, including as a minimum the four examples to which links are provided below.

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=72824 (125 comments to date)

 

http://waterwaynews.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/a-safety-fence-on-marple-aqueduct.html (15 comments to date)

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/canalsandrivers/search/?query=marple%20aqueduct (167 comments to date)

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/narrowboatusers/search/?query=marple+aqueduct (21 comments to date)

 

 

##

 

 

Thank you for your consideration of the above.

 

Please provide acknowledgement of receipt, and keep myself and the wider public informed of the consultation process as it develops.

 

 

Yours,

 

Daniel Hutchinson

M.Eng + DIS A.Mech.E

 

Mechanical engineer, canal enthusiast, canalworld.net site owner, custodian of snb emilyanne.

[frangar]

Well done Dan....far better put than my attempt!

 

Let's hope common sense prevails.

 

Cheers.

 

Gareth

[1st ade]

Nice one Dan - Well done.

[DHutch]

Took me maybe two hours to write on an off as writing is not my forte, but its something I feel passionately about. In this specific case, for other such decisions around or canal network, and in general in society in general.

 

I am not in anyway against removing unnecessary risks, or highlighting risks which are not clear or apparent, to reduce the number of avoidable injury and death. The fact that we do more of this now that we did 100 year ago has many bonuses, especially in the workplace and surrounding new equipment and methods where in the past there has been horrific and or repeat avoidable incidents.

 

However you cannot protect everyone from everything, and attempting do so would not only bankrupt any organisation that tried, but also make the world a miserable place in which to live.

 

The unprotected edge here is to my mind significantly less dangerous than an unfenced cliff, and I would very much be against a suggestion to fencing all cliffs!

 

 

 

Daniel

[Tim Lewis]

_{IWA response:}

 

_{https://www.waterways.org.uk/news/view?id=180&x%5B0%5D=news/list}

 

_Tim

[DHutch]

Thank you very much for posting that, I think the IWA have successfully captured the thoughts of many including myself.

 

 

Daniel

[GoodGurl]

great news, let's hope CRT have a change of heart.

[frangar]

Well done to the IWA....let's hope common sense prevails.

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[dccruiser]

Does someone trying to leap the cut from the tow-path side always appreciate that there is a greater isk than ending up in the cut, though?

 

We are all entitled to a view though. Obviously an accident is possible anywhere, but Marple encouages behaviours that simply can't happen on the ones that are trunks, with no "land area" on the offside.

 

Also, from a purely practical perspective, anything that made Pontcysyllte safer would have to stand several feet taller than anything that would make Marple safer, and hence be far more disfiguring of the structure. My logic is that even if stood on a counter stern you will already be a couple of feet above the edge. If stood on the roof, you would already be maybe 6 feet above the edge. I'm guessing that a barrier that prevented you going over the edge if you toppled from the roof would need to be at least 9 feet high, wouldn't it?

There is nothing that encourages dangerous behaviour just some people that are a waste of DNA like those that drown every summer swimming in rivers ... should all riverbanks be fenced off first as the occurrences of this happening are far greater than the amount of those that have ever fell from a lock or an aqueduct?

 

RIck

[Sabcat]

The problem C&RT have is the compensation culture which has developed in this country.

 

2 Twenty years ago a welder in Silvertown in London was working on top of a 50 foot storage tank, he slipped, fell and was killed. He was welding rings which are used to secure the safety harness required when working at height. His widow sued the company, her legal representative won the case and she was awarded £250,000. The welder was wearing a safety harness but has not clipped on, the companies regulations clearly stated that a safety harness must be worn when working at height, they even specified the height as above six feet, what they didn't say was that the harness must be clipped on. Any normal sensible person would think that common sense would prevail alas it is in short supply and unless every I is dotted and T crossed companies are always open to claims.

 

That's got all the ingredients of an urban myth.

[DHutch]

Anyone got an update on this? A few months ago I rang CRT to get an update and was told the process was on going but promised they would get in touch by the by.

 

I feel a call to chase that coming on, but wondered if others has an info.

 

*My letter did also include a request for a reply. Time will tell.

 

 

Daniel

[frangar]

Nope not heard anything.

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[billh]

Anyone got an update on this? A few months ago I rang CRT to get an update and was told the process was on going but promised they would get in touch by the by.

 

I feel a call to chase that coming on, but wondered if others has an info.

 

 

Daniel

There was no fence a few days ago and the contractors seem to have gone away. I must say that the new view from the river bank below the aqueduct is most impressive - accessed from the north side off the towpath- a good walking route has been built. I had fears that the top surfacing would be horrible but the black top , presumably to seal the structure from the weather, has been coated with a light coloured stone finish and looks ok.

Bill

[DHutch]

There was no fence a few days ago and the contractors seem to have gone away. I must say that the new view from the river bank below the aqueduct is most impressive - accessed from the north side off the towpath- a good walking route has been built. I had fears that the top surfacing would be horrible but the black top , presumably to seal the structure from the weather, has been coated with a light coloured stone finish and looks ok.

Bill

Sounds good. Not seen implimentation, but the various light finishs of tarmac are good arnt they.

[billh]

There was no fence a few days ago and the contractors seem to have gone away.

Update via towpath telegraph today reports new fencing in Marple Wharf yard ready for fitting

So it looks like consultations were ignored. Sorry.

Bill

[matty40s]

Update via towpath telegraph today reports new fencing in Marple Wharf yard ready for fitting

So it looks like consultations were ignored. Sorry.

Bill

it will be the same as the Worcester Bar fence- I wonder if they will stick a sign on the offside saying please do not interfere with boats or jump across like there is in Brum...

[frangar]

Update via towpath telegraph today reports new fencing in Marple Wharf yard ready for fitting:angry2:

So it looks like consultations were ignored. Sorry.

Bill

Well that's very depressing if true.

 

Cheers

Gareth

[StarUKKiwi]

There is some sort of shout out on Manchester on Thursday being run by crt, I shall see if I can garmner any further information

[frangar]

There is some sort of shout out on Manchester on Thursday being run by crt, I shall see if I can garmner any further information

If you can say that quite a lot of us aren't happy with it i for one would be grateful.

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[StarUKKiwi]

If you can say that quite a lot of us aren't happy with it i for one would be grateful.

Cheers

Gareth

Will do,

[David Mack]

They haven't applied for Listed Building consent or Scheduled Ancient Monument consent to carry out the work yet as far as I can see from Stockport's planning website.

[DHutch]

Well that's very depressing if true.

If you can say that quite a lot of us aren't happy with it i for one would be grateful.

Ditto.

 

They haven't applied for Listed Building consent or Scheduled Ancient Monument consent to carry out the work yet as far as I can see from Stockport's planning website.

Interesting.

 

We shall watch this space.

 

 

Daniel

[MHS]

Will they will suggest a railing on the offside of the Pontcysyllte next?

 

Sacrilege.

[StarUKKiwi]

I asked David Baldacchino at the Manchester & Pennine Annual General Meeting and he said that they will be publishing the findings in the next few months; apparently, they are committed to putting a rail up. However, at some point in the next 12 months, they will have to apply for planning consent and Ancient Building consent. So, look out for the published findings within the next Quarter year

[frangar]

I asked David Baldacchino at the Manchester & Pennine Annual General Meeting and he said that they will be publishing the findings in the next few months; apparently, they are committed to putting a rail up. However, at some point in the next 12 months, they will have to apply for planning consent and Ancient Building consent. So, look out for the published findings within the next Quarter year

Thank you for finding out....although I'm not quite sure why they have to be committed! I feel some more objections coming on once it's gets to planning consent stage...forewarned is forearmed as they say!!

 

Cheers

 

Gareth