Bedford Milton Keynes Waterway Park blocked by new road scheme

[rusty69]

Link:-

http://www.b-mkwaterway.org.uk/bedford-milton-keynes-waterway-park-blocked-by-new-road-scheme/

[1st ade]

Looks like the proposed new canal link between Bedford and MK is under threat as part of the by-pass work on the A421 link road. A shame if so as the A421 near Marston Mortaine had a culvert built into it specifically for the new canal.

[rusty69]

I posted something similar on Thursday

 

[1st ade]

5 hours ago, rusty69 said:

I posted something similar on Thursday

 

Sorry - my mistake - I'll report it and see if a helpful mod will merge...

[StephenA]

Maybe if we all post to Grayling's Facebook account asking why he's allowing a bypass to destroy a community asset he'll react...though he probably wont... I suspect offers of directorships etc have swayed his decision.

[1st ade]

3 hours ago, StephenA said:

Maybe if we all post to Grayling's Facebook account asking why he's allowing a bypass to destroy a community asset he'll react...though he probably wont... I suspect offers of directorships etc have swayed his decision.

But we could post to Grayling asking why, having spent money on a culvert under the A421 near Marston Mortaine, the expenditure is rendered null and void by not making the same expenditure on the new works.

In both cases, the argument should be that a (relatively) tiny sum spent during construction removes the need for a much larger expenditure later if the canal link is actually built.

[furnessvale]

1 hour ago, 1st ade said:

But we could post to Grayling asking why, having spent money on a culvert under the A421 near Marston Mortaine, the expenditure is rendered null and void by not making the same expenditure on the new works.

In both cases, the argument should be that a (relatively) tiny sum spent during construction removes the need for a much larger expenditure later if the canal link is actually built.

You do realise you are talking about a man who, to save expenditure, has stopped the overhead line electrification of the railway line from Paddington to Bristol a few miles short of Bristol itself.  This will mean that every electric train on that line will also have to have diesel engines fitted to complete the last few miles!

And you are asking for a rational economic decision from him!

George

[mark99]

I pass this chap Graylings' house on my commute to work. Twice I've seen batman or similar on his roof. Lol.

Edited April 7, 2018 by mark99

[Mike Tee]

On ‎05‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 22:55, rusty69 said:

Link:-

http://www.b-mkwaterway.org.uk/bedford-milton-keynes-waterway-park-blocked-by-new-road-scheme/

I think someone is moving the goalposts on what has been said. All the plans and comments acknowledge that the new canal will pass under the new A421, yet the spokesperson from the Bedford - MK Trust is stating the new road will block the route.

Yet the recent update shows plans that show the canal route passing under the new road. At a meeting on 10 October 2017 the following was said in answer to a question regarding this crossing point -

 

'The Executive considered a report from the Executive Members for Community Services and Regeneration that sought approval to award a contract for the A421 Dualling, M1/J13 to Milton Keynes, Magna Park.

 

In response to a question, the Director of Community Services explained that the waterway route would be protected, but that the works did not include the construction of the culvert.'

 

So, the route of the new canal is protected but the road builders will not build the culvert - sounds reasonable. It does not state that they will build a bridge over the route, but if the route is protected, that is the only way they can protect it.

I've emailed Bedford - MK Waterway asking for clarification on where their information comes from regarding blocking the route.

[1st ade]

9 hours ago, Mike Tee said:

All the plans and comments acknowledge that the new canal will pass under the new A421, yet the spokesperson from the Bedford - MK Trust is stating the new road will block the route.

In cynical mode (after years of dealing with developers in North MK) the two statements are not completely mutually exclusive: -

[Developer] "...the new canal will pass under the new A421..." (because the alternative is to go over or use some form of teleportation)

[Bedford - MK Trust] "...will block the route..." (because tunnelling under a live dual carriageway post construction is way over our budget)

It's the kind of statement where, if it was in our neck of the woods, we'd be watching the building works daily to make sure the culvert went in and that the developer didn't attempt to add a few grand to their profit margin by "accidentally" leaving it out*. If the latter, they'd probably only get fined if there was a complete canal in place and the missing culvert was the only blockage between MK and Bedford.

 

[ * - In a development in Wolverton, the developer "accidentally" demolished a building adjacent to their site which might have been part of their next development. They were told to ask for retrospective planning permission for the demolition; which they were granted]

[magpie patrick]

10 hours ago, Mike Tee said:

I think someone is moving the goalposts on what has been said. All the plans and comments acknowledge that the new canal will pass under the new A421, yet the spokesperson from the Bedford - MK Trust is stating the new road will block the route.

Yet the recent update shows plans that show the canal route passing under the new road. At a meeting on 10 October 2017 the following was said in answer to a question regarding this crossing point -

 

'The Executive considered a report from the Executive Members for Community Services and Regeneration that sought approval to award a contract for the A421 Dualling, M1/J13 to Milton Keynes, Magna Park.

 

In response to a question, the Director of Community Services explained that the waterway route would be protected, but that the works did not include the construction of the culvert.'

 

So, the route of the new canal is protected but the road builders will not build the culvert - sounds reasonable. It does not state that they will build a bridge over the route, but if the route is protected, that is the only way they can protect it.

I've emailed Bedford - MK Waterway asking for clarification on where their information comes from regarding blocking the route.

That (the bit in bold) is not protecting the line - retrofitting a bridge is way more expensive than doing it at the time of construction - even if it can be a thrustbore culvert without closing highway lanes, which is very unlikely unless it's on a colossal embankment, it will be expensive. Closure of highway lanes costs money, not on the scale of railway possessions, but there is still a cost. 

[furnessvale]

1 hour ago, 1st ade said:

[ * - In a development in Wolverton, the developer "accidentally" demolished a building adjacent to their site which might have been part of their next development. They were told to ask for retrospective planning permission for the demolition; which they were granted]

Happens all the time.  Near me a pedestrian footbridge over a busy main road was a condition of planning permission for a housing estate.  After building his estate, with no sign of the bridge, the developer stated HE was reviewing whether the bridge was necessary.

Needless to say HE decided the bridge wasn't required and the council sat on its hands.

George

[magpie patrick]

1 hour ago, 1st ade said:

In cynical mode (after years of dealing with developers in North MK) the two statements are not completely mutually exclusive: -

[Developer] "...the new canal will pass under the new A421..." (because the alternative is to go over or use some form of teleportation)

[Bedford - MK Trust] "...will block the route..." (because tunnelling under a live dual carriageway post construction is way over our budget)

It's the kind of statement where, if it was in our neck of the woods, we'd be watching the building works daily to make sure the culvert went in and that the developer didn't attempt to add a few grand to their profit margin by "accidentally" leaving it out*. If the latter, they'd probably only get fined if there was a complete canal in place and the missing culvert was the only blockage between MK and Bedford.

 

[ * - In a development in Wolverton, the developer "accidentally" demolished a building adjacent to their site which might have been part of their next development. They were told to ask for retrospective planning permission for the demolition; which they were granted]

Might be time to suggest to MK that unless they take this sort of thing seriously they can expect mass non-compliance on windows in conservation areas etc

I think that might be my next line with Mendip (and I do this sort of thing for a living)

 

[matty40s]

Perhaps if they had got a couple of spades out and started to dig somewhere out in the last 10 years.......a focal point lock in Milton Keynes might have been a good idea......then they might have been taken more seriously.

 

At least you can see that the Stafford link crew are doing something about their stretch.

Edited April 8, 2018 by matty40s

[1st ade]

1 hour ago, furnessvale said:

Needless to say HE decided the bridge wasn't required and the council sat on its hands

HE (the developer) or Highways England?

[BEngo]

I have never understood the practicalities of the MK link.  The proposed solution to Brogborough hill is surely a joke.  Buildable?  Possibly.  Affordable and maintainable for the long-term?  Fat chance.  Developers promising canals and money?  Every time.  Developers delivering?  Not much hope- they can even avoid delivering affordable housing.

Then who will maintain the link?  David Fletcher might have been keen for BW to take it on once built, but I can't see CRT wanting it without a substantial endowment and some long-term financial commitments by the Councils.

I think DfT know all this and more and  are not going to waste money on a hole under their new road.

 

N

[ditchcrawler]

It cost money for Councils to take developers to court and quite often developers have enough resources to lose where as Councils don't, its a big risk

 

[GUMPY]

It was fantasy anyway, never a hope of being built. Besides which most of the locks on the upper Gt Ouse have only 10ft wide gates so no widebeams down there.

[john6767]

1 hour ago, Loddon said:

It was fantasy anyway, never a hope of being built. Besides which most of the locks on the upper Gt Ouse have only 10ft wide gates so no widebeams down there.

I did not realise that.  I thought that the Bedford/MK link plus the Fenland link was supposed to give a North/South widebeam link.  If it does not then the motivation for doing this a surely much less.

[magpie patrick]

I think a lot of you are missing the point - the line is protected, the case has been made and won, and yet still no bridge or culvert. What next? If this level of protection doesn't count for anything, then very few routes are safe

[1st ade]

4 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

It cost money for Councils to take developers to court and quite often developers have enough resources to lose where as Councils don't, its a big risk

 

This.

51 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

If this level of protection doesn't count for anything, then very few routes are safe

Virtual Greenie

Emails sent to an MP and Ward Councillors from two districts. One can but try.

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, magpie patrick said:

I think a lot of you are missing the point - the line is protected, the case has been made and won, and yet still no bridge or culvert. What next? If this level of protection doesn't count for anything, then very few routes are safe

Greenie

 

[furnessvale]

12 hours ago, 1st ade said:

HE (the developer) or Highways England?

Sorry.  HE was an emphasis on he the developer, nothing to do with Highways England!

George

[RLWP]

I can't see this being the last example of this. There are several canal projects that are failing to make noticeable progress.

[David Mack]

7 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

I think a lot of you are missing the point - the line is protected, the case has been made and won, and yet still no bridge or culvert. What next? If this level of protection doesn't count for anything, then very few routes are safe

After a similar debacle on the Thames and Severn, the then government strengthened policy guidance so that new and improved roads had to provide navigable crossings where the relevant local authority policies safeguarded restoration. But an early action of the coalition government was to loosen the guidance, and the requirement was dropped. So little chance any appeals to Grayling will bear fruit, unfortunately.