C&RT Dredge Unnavigable Canal

[Alan de Enfield]

From Narrowboat world.

 

Surely this cannot be true ?

 

Could be better spent

 

'Stabilisation work' is being carried out on Stainton Aqueduct on the Lancaster Canal, that we are told started last year at a cost of £250,000, and must be a fairly big job as we are further told the navigation is still not open.

But it won't be open—it's the other side of where the Lancaster is cut-off by the M6 Motorway, and it's unnavigable!

So why bother? There is little chance of crossing the M6 with the Highways Agency dead against it. Surely the money could be better spent elsewhere.

 

This too

 

More wasted money that could be better spent is Cart now dredging the Pocklington Canal, that started last Thursday 12th January.

All well and good you might think, after all the lack of dredging is causing no few problems these days especially for deep draughted boats, but alas not well and good at all.

For once again work is taking place on an unnavigable canal! Yes, my friends, you cannot cruise that part of the Pocklington.

But would you believe what Cart tell us? Here it is:

'Dredging is taking place in this non-navigable section of the Pocklington Canal (between Coates Bridge and Bielby Arm)'

'Advice notice: Pocklington Canal, Navigation: Open'

Good eh? Navigation open on a non-navigable canal!

 

More

But worse is to come—the dredging on the Pocklington is 'to improve the habitat for nature conservation'.

How the hell dredging improves nature conservation I just do not know.

So it would seem that dredging for nature conservation on an unnavigable canal is obviously more important that dredging for boats on a navigable one...

I give up.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Alan de Enfield

[Naughty Cal]

Got the navigation notice last week for this, so it would appear to be true.

[nicknorman]

What is not mentioned is who is paying for the work. Perhaps it is not CRT's own money, but grant money from one of the many sources of green/eco/conservation/wildlife grants, in the same way that most of the towpath upgrades are not paid for by CRT.

[magpie patrick]

Also what is not mentioned is that the Lancaster Canal is a remainder waterway, and CRT are responsible for maintenance "in the interest of public safety", so they have to spend some of their own money on it for that reason.

 

Edited to add, same is true of the Pocklington Canal, and both canals are navigable (in their "unnavigable" reaches) by canoes and other portageable boats

Edited January 16, 2017 by magpie patrick

[magictime]

Oh, for goodness' sake. If CRT had decided against repairing Stainton Aqueduct - a Grade II listed structure left close to collapse after flood damage - no doubt Narrowboat World would in due course have published an article about how CRT's appalling dereliction of duty in protecting our industrial heritage had led to a catastrophic breach, left CRT open to expensive compensation claims relating to resulting flood damage, set back the cause of restoration of the Lancaster Canal, etc.

 

And why do some people find it so hard to grasp the fact that CRT are going to spend some of their money on enjoyment of the waterways - including unnavigable waterways - by the 99.9% of people who are not boat owners? Even setting aside concerns about breaches etc., should they really just be letting this structure collapse into the river beneath, severing a towpath that is presumably used by walkers to enjoy a section of canal that boaters sadly can no longer reach?

[Alan de Enfield]

Also what is not mentioned is that the Lancaster Canal is a remainder waterway, and CRT are responsible for maintenance "in the interest of public safety", so they have to spend some of their own money on it for that reason.

 

Edited to add, same is true of the Pocklington Canal, and both canals are navigable (in their "unnavigable" reaches) by canoes and other portageable boats

 

Thank you that makes it a little clearer.

 

To be controversial - as C&RT are operating with insufficient funding to maintain the whole system, what would be the process for them to have the 'unnavigable' remainder waterways 'de-classified' ?

 

Would it be 'better' to have (say) 80% of the 'system' reasonably 'usable', and allow 20% to wither and die, or (maybe) 50% of the system 'usable with difficulty' due to lack of maintenance ?

 

Every business has to prioritise its spending but it seems as if C&RT may be legally constrained into maintaining 100% of the system.

[Jerra]

 

Thank you that makes it a little clearer.

 

To be controversial - as C&RT are operating with insufficient funding to maintain the whole system, what would be the process for them to have the 'unnavigable' remainder waterways 'de-classified' ?

 

Would it be 'better' to have (say) 80% of the 'system' reasonably 'usable', and allow 20% to wither and die, or (maybe) 50% of the system 'usable with difficulty' due to lack of maintenance ?

 

Every business has to prioritise its spending but it seems as if C&RT may be legally constrained into maintaining 100% of the system.

As a de-classified waterway would CRT not still be responsible for the upkeep of Grade 11 listed items?

[andy3196]

From Narrowboat world.

 

Surely this cannot be true ?

 

 

More wasted money that could be better spent is Cart now dredging the Pocklington Canal, that started last Thursday 12th January.

All well and good you might think, after all the lack of dredging is causing no few problems these days especially for deep draughted boats, but alas not well and good at all.

For once again work is taking place on an unnavigable canal! Yes, my friends, you cannot cruise that part of the Pocklington.

But would you believe what Cart tell us? Here it is:

 

'Dredging is taking place in this non-navigable section of the Pocklington Canal (between Coates Bridge and Bielby Arm)'

'Advice notice: Pocklington Canal, Navigation: Open'

Good eh? Navigation open on a non-navigable canal!

 

 

More

 

But worse is to comethe dredging on the Pocklington is 'to improve the habitat for nature conservation'.

How the hell dredging improves nature conservation I just do not know.

So it would seem that dredging for nature conservation on an unnavigable canal is obviously more important that dredging for boats on a navigable one...

I give up.

The stoppage notice ( https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notice/9921/dredging-coates-bridge-to-bielby-arm ) also includes a link to https://www.facebook.com/pocklingtoncanal where this information leaflet can be found

[magpie patrick]

 

Thank you that makes it a little clearer.

 

To be controversial - as C&RT are operating with insufficient funding to maintain the whole system, what would be the process for them to have the 'unnavigable' remainder waterways 'de-classified' ?

 

Would it be 'better' to have (say) 80% of the 'system' reasonably 'usable', and allow 20% to wither and die, or (maybe) 50% of the system 'usable with difficulty' due to lack of maintenance ?

 

Every business has to prioritise its spending but it seems as if C&RT may be legally constrained into maintaining 100% of the system.

 

As a remainder waterway it's as close to declassified as it can get, the classification is, at face value "wither and die". However these waterways often have a drainage function or similar that CRT are still obliged to meet. Possibly the most bizarre remainder waterway is Lapal Tunnel, CRT's ownership is entirely underground!

 

CRT would need to persuade someone else to take on the responsibility. Logically it could be the local authority but they haven't got any money either.

 

I could get mildly irritated about the Pocklington Canal, the nature conservation people have objected to restoration for years and now seem to expect CRT to maintain it for them as well! That could be a classic handover to another interest (although it would mean giving up hope of restoration)

[FadeToScarlet]

 

Thank you that makes it a little clearer.

 

To be controversial - as C&RT are operating with insufficient funding to maintain the whole system, what would be the process for them to have the 'unnavigable' remainder waterways 'de-classified' ?

 

Would it be 'better' to have (say) 80% of the 'system' reasonably 'usable', and allow 20% to wither and die, or (maybe) 50% of the system 'usable with difficulty' due to lack of maintenance ?

 

Every business has to prioritise its spending but it seems as if C&RT may be legally constrained into maintaining 100% of the system.

Exactly the same argument that drove Rolt and Aickman apart and led Rolt to leave the IWA!

[Machpoint005]

 

>> ... these waterways often have a drainage function or similar that CRT are still obliged to meet. <<

 

Or a water supply function, which might be improved or at least maintained by dredging? There are many other plausible reasons.

 

But CRT don't award contracts without reason even though the marine Daily Hatemail that is NB World is always looking for a stick to beat the Trust with.

I see that the quoted piece says: How the hell dredging improves nature conservation I just do not know.

 

Exactly, He does not know, and should keep his counsel until he knows what he is writing about.

[BruceinSanity]

Exactly the same argument that drove Rolt and Aickman apart and led Rolt to leave the IWA!

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

 

Or, I want my money back, and so does my Mum

[Naughty Cal]

Do we know what percentage of the cost of the dredging has been provided by the Lottery Heritage Fund?

[Iain_S]

Lose Stainton aqueduct, and do you not lose a fair bit of the Lancaster's water supply?

 

I wish I could lay my hands on the photos I took when we visited the Pocklington Canal quite a few years ago.

Below Thornton Lock was clear water,with a lot of fish and other wildlife. Above could possibly be described as a wetland habitat, but defaced by abandoned chemical drums and assorted agricultural scrap. Guess which bit was looked after by English Nature!

[Bod]

 

Or a water supply function, which might be improved or at least maintained by dredging? There are many other plausible reasons.

 

But CRT don't award contracts without reason even though the marine Daily Hatemail that is NB World is always looking for a stick to beat the Trust with.

I see that the quoted piece says: How the hell dredging improves nature conservation I just do not know.

 

Exactly, He does not know, and should keep his counsel until he knows what he is writing about.

 

Fishermen's fish need water to float in. Simples.

 

Bod

[Athy]

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

 

 

Not only French, but with the accents too! Cor wotta poser scholar.

[Grebe]

Back in the early 1980s BW dredged, the then derelict, summit pound of the Chesterfield Canal. The entire remainder canal from Morse Lock to Kiveton Park was retained in BW ownership as it was the water supply channel for the cruiseway. Hence we had a route for restoration that had beenmaintined and protected from development.

 

The Worksop based team had a great boss at that time who was keen to see restoration, so he ensured that his team did more than the basic maintenance tasks.

 

So yes water supply is probably the main reason.

[BruceinSanity]

Not only French, but with the accents too! Cor wotta poser scholar.

Pretentious, moi?

 

[Mike Todd]

 

Thank you that makes it a little clearer.

 

To be controversial - as C&RT are operating with insufficient funding to maintain the whole system, what would be the process for them to have the 'unnavigable' remainder waterways 'de-classified' ?

 

Would it be 'better' to have (say) 80% of the 'system' reasonably 'usable', and allow 20% to wither and die, or (maybe) 50% of the system 'usable with difficulty' due to lack of maintenance ?

 

Every business has to prioritise its spending but it seems as if C&RT may be legally constrained into maintaining 100% of the system.

Be careful - be very careful - what you wish for . . . .

[NigelMoore]

The let “wither and die” argument was one that BW seriously considered at their start-up, and did an in-depth analysis of comparative costs of doing so rather than maintaining for navigation, or even just maintaining for drainage.

 

The general conclusion was that the price differential was not particularly significant, although the eventual 1968 Act meant that no compulsion for maintenance could be applied to the “remainder waterways”.

 

BW’s 1965 “The Facts About The Waterways” estimated the cost of complete elimination of rural narrow canals at £6,000 per mile, and £9,000 per mile for wide canals. It comments that:

 

“There will be certain cases where elimination would not be necessary and where the canals could be allowed to sink to a gentle “existence” level. These cases, however, are few. A number of conditions have to be fulfilled; for instance the original construction must have been such that there are no special land drainage or embankment problems; the general area must be extremely rural, otherwise a decaying canal will become a nuisance. The small number of cases where “mere existence” (and relatively low expenditure) would be practicable are noted case by case in Appendix 5 – see for instance the Grand Western Canal and the Pocklington Canal.”

 

The survey concluded that in some ways it was like grabbing a tiger by its tail; you could not afford to let go. The survey:

 

“enables us to compare present minimum running costs with the various alternatives – either complete elimination, or reduction to tidy water channels (unsuitable for any boats save light unpowered craft such as canoes), or maintenance in whole or part for pleasure cruising.

 

This survey establishes, in our minds, that –

 

(iii) the most serious and over-riding fact emerging is that, even if the whole of the “rest of the system” were to be ruthlessly treated (without any regard to social welfare) and every possible canal were to be either eliminated altogether or reduced to minimum water channelling flow – whichever was the cheaper – the exchequer would still be saddled with a bill equivalent to about £600,000 a year. And this, the survey reveals, is not an optional “subsidy” but an inescapable minimum exchequer charge.

 

(iv) it follows that in hard reality the field open to discussion on “amenity” grounds of pleasure boating and leisure use lies between ( a ) a rock-bottom starting point not of zero but of £600,000 a year; and ( b ) a figure for using most of the non-commercial system as it is for pleasure boating, which is some £300,00/£350,000 a year higher. The true room for manoeuvre (subsidy, use of volunteer monies, etc) lies in that latter range. The £600,000 is not optional!”

 

At its simplest, a certain minimum maintenance was sometimes a cheaper option than elimination, and maintenance to navigable status sometimes insignificantly higher than a minimal water-channel maintenance [with the additional hope for pleasure boating that this could provide some income rather than none].

 

It is all a book-keeping exercise, which at times has superficially ridiculous results that are nonetheless economically sound.

[NigelMoore]

 

Every business has to prioritise its spending but it seems as if C&RT may be legally constrained into maintaining 100% of the system.

 

CaRT cannot be legally constrained into maintaining ANY part of the system; if they do not have the funds, they are freed from obligation to spend it. They can successfully plead poverty as a defence against any High Court action under s.106 of the 1968 Transport Act.

[Alway Swilby]

The unnavigable bit of the Lancaster Canal is part of the feeder system that supplies water to the rest of the navigable bit. Didn't it get blocked a year or two ago causing the whole Lancaster Canal pound to lower by a foot or so?

[sandgrown]

Station Aquaduct was damaged in last years storms, Alway is right the feed for the Lancaster canal comes in on this top section above the three M6 blockages and allowing it to become a weedy ditch has caused water supply problems for the whole canal even though there has always been plenty of water in Killington lake. The other point is that its not only boaters who use this section, canoe groups, and trailboats use it along with many walkers on the towpath which has now reopened due to the work carried out, I.m sure the residents of Stainton would want it repairing in case of future flooding too.I heard CRT have just been awarded a grant of half a million from the flood relief fund to help which is a good thing..