Getting moved on by CRT

[MoominPapa]

16 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

In general, a long and tedious environmental licencing process. As I understand it, most dredging material has to be considered as undesirable waste and so comes under the waste disposal regulatory environment, as with any other industrial waste. The difficulty arise when ten material is moved off CaRT land. So, whenever possible, it is deposited alongside where the land is owned, sometimes levelling up the towpath (albeit with a short term horrid condition!) I have spotted several places where a larger area is owned by CaRT and available for their own use (eg at the top end of the Trent and Mersey close to the tunnels) Saves a shed load of money if they can use that facility as taking it to someone else I think also involved landfill tax, or maybe that is my imagination.

There are quite a few dredging disposal sites signposted around the system: there's one between Bunbury locks and Carverly on the Shroppie, for instance. I don't think I've ever seen evidence of their use. Spreading dredging on adjoining fields, by contrast, I've seen often.

 

MP.

 

 

[cheshire~rose]

When they dredged a section near Ranby on The Chesterfield Canal last year they moved the dredgings to a nearby plot of land they owned. The dredgings were being sampled constantly to check for the levels of differnet mineral deposits (and toxins) it might contain but as this is a very rural stretch of canal and the canal was mostly known for the movement of coal and stone there is not too much to have made a toxic cocktail in the dredgings over the years.

The team was asked by CRT to collect up any rubbish they found to make a display of old trolleys, bicycles and traffic cones for their open day towards the end of the dredging session. CRT were disappointed, the team only found one tyre!

The other plus point was the survey that was done to guage the amount of dredgings thay would need to remove suggested the plot of land was going to be pretty full by the time that section was done but they had not realised that part of the canal bed is bedrock in that area with a channel cut into it so the profile was not quite what they thought and they had to remove far less waste than they originally thought.

This means they will continue to move dredgings to the same piece of land when they do another stretch later this year and with what they plan for next year too

[Mike Todd]

9 hours ago, cheshire~rose said:

When they dredged a section near Ranby on The Chesterfield Canal last year they moved the dredgings to a nearby plot of land they owned. The dredgings were being sampled constantly to check for the levels of differnet mineral deposits (and toxins) it might contain but as this is a very rural stretch of canal and the canal was mostly known for the movement of coal and stone there is not too much to have made a toxic cocktail in the dredgings over the years.

The team was asked by CRT to collect up any rubbish they found to make a display of old trolleys, bicycles and traffic cones for their open day towards the end of the dredging session. CRT were disappointed, the team only found one tyre!

The other plus point was the survey that was done to guage the amount of dredgings thay would need to remove suggested the plot of land was going to be pretty full by the time that section was done but they had not realised that part of the canal bed is bedrock in that area with a channel cut into it so the profile was not quite what they thought and they had to remove far less waste than they originally thought.

This means they will continue to move dredgings to the same piece of land when they do another stretch later this year and with what they plan for next year too

If you are referring to the work at Ranby, we passed that (once in each direction!) last year.