Deckscrubber Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 Yet again Peel holdings have extended this stoppage . No doubt even more boaters will have their Summer cruise disrupted.. NOTICE No. 01/2017 NAVIGATION CLOSURE REVISED PROGRAMME Notice is hereby given that due to the proposed replacement of Vicars Hall Bridge, (situated approximately 1.4 Km west of Boothstown Marina on the Bridgewater Canal in Boothstown) the Canal will be closed to all navigation during the course of the works. From: Monday 13th February 2017 at 08.00am To: Friday 16th June 2017 at 12.00 noon Location of closure: Approximately 1.4 Km West of Boothstown Marina The canal towpath will be diverted during the course of the works, however please remain vigilant and obey any instructions posted locally. Works to replace the bridge are programmed to be completed within the specified period of time. However, due to the nature of the work the Company cannot guarantee completion on the published date. For further information or updates concerning progress of the works please visit the Bridgewater Canal website during the period of the closure. The Bridgewater Canal Company regrets and apologises for any inconvenience that these necessary works may cause. This replaces notice number 32/2016. The Bridgewater Canal Company Peel Dome The Trafford Centre Manchester M17 8PL Email bridgewatercanal@peel.co.uk Telephone (between 2pm 4pm Mon-Fri) 0161 629 8432 Website www.bridgewatercanal.co.uk Notice 01 Dated 5th January 2017 on behalf of Bridgewater Canal Email: castlefieldmarina@peel.co.uk Web: www.peel.co.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenA Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 Its not like its a huge heavy bridge: http://canalplan.org.uk/gazetteer/ergu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightwatch Posted January 5, 2017 Report Share Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) Just my thoughts. Why don't people read other threads before starting more threads concerning the same subject. There's now at least three threads running. Edited to add just two. Edited January 6, 2017 by Nightwatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesWoolcock Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 Well it is their canal and a privilege to use, albeit Rights of Navigation etc etc James 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGoat Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 Nightwatch, on 05 Jan 2017 - 10:17 PM, said: Just my thoughts. Why don't people read other threads before starting more threads concerning the same subject. There's now at least three threads running. Edited to add just two. It's all modern web access by folks on 'phones rather than a good old fashioned PC. On the latter it's easy to scroll through posts - on a phone you war your finger out..... JamesWoolcock, on 06 Jan 2017 - 12:21 AM, said: Well it is their canal and a privilege to use, albeit Rights of Navigation etc etc James Don't think any one has a 'right' to navigate - only a permission to access when it suits the owner (??) On the face of it - without any real details the stoppage does seem OTT just to replace a steel bridge.... However, are they going to replace the old bridge abutments completely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightwatch Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 I am led to believe, yes they are. But as mentioned earlier, temp dams could be set up whilst one side is being done and Vicky Versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmr Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 Together with the recent heavy handed enforcement and navigation charges it does look like Peel are trying to convey some sort of message to us boaters. There is quite a bit of info on the www suggesting that Peel are a company who like to get their own way, there is a rumour that they have a whole section dedicated to overturning planning refusals. I suspect here they are just reminding us boaters that they are the boss. It is also said that Peel have almost zero interest in navigation, their interest in the Bridgewater is the property development opportunities that it provides. Rather than taking over the Thames it would be much better if CaRT took over the Bridgwater. ................Dave 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightwatch Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 Together with the recent heavy handed enforcement and navigation charges it does look like Peel are trying to convey some sort of message to us boaters. There is quite a bit of info on the www suggesting that Peel are a company who like to get their own way, there is a rumour that they have a whole section dedicated to overturning planning refusals. I suspect here they are just reminding us boaters that they are the boss. It is also said that Peel have almost zero interest in navigation, their interest in the Bridgewater is the property development opportunities that it provides. Rather than taking over the Thames it would be much better if CaRT took over the Bridgwater. ................Dave I agree. Whole heartedly. Who's decision would it be. I suppose Peel have to sell and someone has to buy. What about just running and managing the Bridgewater in line with the rest of the system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGoat Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 dmr, on 06 Jan 2017 - 09:50 AM, said: Together with the recent heavy handed enforcement and navigation charges it does look like Peel are trying to convey some sort of message to us boaters. There is quite a bit of info on the www suggesting that Peel are a company who like to get their own way, there is a rumour that they have a whole section dedicated to overturning planning refusals. I suspect here they are just reminding us boaters that they are the boss. It is also said that Peel have almost zero interest in navigation, their interest in the Bridgewater is the property development opportunities that it provides. Rather than taking over the Thames it would be much better if CaRT took over the Bridgwater. ................Dave Definitely - Hands off 'My' Thames - I don't want CaRT anywhere near.... (Controversial) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymondh Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 Its not like its a huge heavy bridge: http://canalplan.org.uk/gazetteer/ergu It may be that the existing bridge does not fit in with Peels housebuilding plans in this area Ray 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmr Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 I agree. Whole heartedly. Who's decision would it be. I suppose Peel have to sell and someone has to buy. What about just running and managing the Bridgewater in line with the rest of the system? I suspect that Peel would happily sell the Bridgewater to CaRT for more than its worth but without any of the associated property and land so its hard to see how it could happen. Remember there was a big breach a while ago and Peel proposed to close the canal. It was only the work of a pressure group who actually raised some of the funding for the repair that kept it open. The public had to donate money to the mega rich Peel empire!! ................Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightwatch Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 I've been looking at Peel Group of companies. It's massive. All run by the mega rich John Whittaker. Lots of speculation that tax is an issue. Peel say they are paying what is required. Mr Whittaker lives in/on the Isle of Man. Very aggressive business practices. Nowt wrong with that I suppose. But if they own an asset like a canal they should run it as such. I don't believe for one minute that the land either side of the canal is negotiable. The waterway? It's a pain in their side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard10002 Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 On the one hand I'd agree that Peel are in this for the money, and waterside property is obviously very attractive as an earner for them. However, actually running a canal will not be a money maker, and will likely be a bit of a drain on resources. Having said that, I think it's a bit of a conspiracy to suggest that Peel have actually engineered this situation to deliberately annoy, mislead, and inconvenience, boaters. I'd guess that the contractors will have met with issues that have resulted in the delays, and Peel merely wont be too bothered about the fact that boaters may suffer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
journeyperson Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 There are one or two recent projects that suggest Peel at least expects the continued use of the Bridgewater for boating and other leisure pursuits. They have participated in the towpath upgrade for walkers and cyclists and they have improved mooring facilities at Barton Square for the Trafford Centre and at Old Trafford football ground. They have also licenced the water taxi service which is currently trying to establish itself. The recent crackdown on visiting boaters should at least make it easier to moor in Castlefield for a day or two. In the past a lot of people were just taking the mickey. P.R. is not Peels strong point and they are certainly not a social service but I expect the canal will still be there for boating in the forseeable future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbacka Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) On the one hand I'd agree that Peel are in this for the money, and waterside property is obviously very attractive as an earner for them. However, actually running a canal will not be a money maker, and will likely be a bit of a drain on resources. Having said that, I think it's a bit of a conspiracy to suggest that Peel have actually engineered this situation to deliberately annoy, mislead, and inconvenience, boaters. I'd guess that the contractors will have met with issues that have resulted in the delays, and Peel merely wont be too bothered about the fact that boaters may suffer. I think waterside properties are worth a lot more if next to a colourful, clean and active waterway rather than one which looks abandoned. So they will want a good condition towpath with lots of walkers and pretty boats chugging past as it keeps the 'undesirables' away and looks nice. That said they will not want boaters that burn wet, smoky wood and have stuff spilling onto the towpath. So ideally boats will just go by without stopping for long in the posh bits. Edited January 6, 2017 by Chewbacka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frangar Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 The crack down at castlefield just means more space so they can sell permanent moorings there that make the place look pretty at the expense of boaters in transit. Gareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pie Eater Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 The crack down at castlefield just means more space so they can sell permanent moorings there that make the place look pretty at the expense of boaters in transit. Gareth That explains the new email address on the stoppage notice i.e. castlefieldmarina@peel.co.uk Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jam Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 Remember there was a big breach a while ago and Peel proposed to close the canal. It was only the work of a pressure group who actually raised some of the funding for the repair that kept it open. The public had to donate money to the mega rich Peel empire!! ................Dave And if I remember correctly following the breach repairs the Bridgewater Canal Trust was formed to handle the day to day operation. What a toothless wonder this turned out to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmr Posted January 6, 2017 Report Share Posted January 6, 2017 The crack down at castlefield just means more space so they can sell permanent moorings there that make the place look pretty at the expense of boaters in transit. Gareth hope your wrong, suspect your right. Really sad as we really like visiting Castlefield. ..............Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frangar Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 hope your wrong, suspect your right. Really sad as we really like visiting Castlefield. ..............Dave I hope I'm wrong too. But with Peel it's all about money it seems. I expect they will leave a couple of token visitor moorings over by the YHA which will be a real shame. I too enjoy mooring in Castlefield when we are passing through. Gareth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbacka Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 I hope I'm wrong too. But with Peel it's all about money it seems. I expect they will leave a couple of token visitor moorings over by the YHA which will be a real shame. I too enjoy mooring in Castlefield when we are passing through. Gareth Peel are running a business with the aim of making a profit. CRT on the other hand, whilst under pressure to not require additional public money have less pressure to make a profit with the objective running the system to meet it's charitable status and objectives. It will be interesting to see how this develops, as CRT with all their faults may be preferable to the Peel business model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Todd Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Peel are running a business with the aim of making a profit. CRT on the other hand, whilst under pressure to not require additional public money have less pressure to make a profit with the objective running the system to meet it's charitable status and objectives. It will be interesting to see how this develops, as CRT with all their faults may be preferable to the Peel business model. It bis also a business model based on squeezing the best return out of under utilised, or even disused, assets. I doubt if they make anything out of the canal on an indirect basis but it, together with several now redundant docks (inc a large swathe at Liverpool as well as in Manchester and Salford, was the basis on which they acquired that land, I suspect at a time when its latent value was not appreciated. It might be worth bearing in mind some of the tactics used by the railway companies when they decided that they wanted to take out the competition from the canals. It could be important to ensure that, when there is an extended closure, there is a sufficient clamour for re-opening in order to avoid the claim that navigation is no longer required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbacka Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 It bis also a business model based on squeezing the best return out of under utilised, or even disused, assets. I doubt if they make anything out of the canal on an indirect basis but it, together with several now redundant docks (inc a large swathe at Liverpool as well as in Manchester and Salford, was the basis on which they acquired that land, I suspect at a time when its latent value was not appreciated. It might be worth bearing in mind some of the tactics used by the railway companies when they decided that they wanted to take out the competition from the canals. It could be important to ensure that, when there is an extended closure, there is a sufficient clamour for re-opening in order to avoid the claim that navigation is no longer required. Agreed as the value of a filled in canal for development is probably worth more than a navigable canal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard10002 Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 Agreed as the value of a filled in canal for development is probably worth more than a navigable canal. Nearby water adds lots of value to property. They will be fully aware of the value of the canal to their development ambitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnEW2912 Posted January 7, 2017 Report Share Posted January 7, 2017 It strikes me that Peel should consider an agreement with CRT whereby the latter run the canal navigation for them whilst Peel retain the land for development. For Peel running the canal is a pain they could do without, only really leading to bad publicity. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now