Jump to content

Views wanted on possible safety fence on Marple Aqueduct


frangar

Featured Posts

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!!

It would seem to me to be risky to have a railing manufactured before you have got any kind of consent. It could turn out to be a waste of money.

Indeed, personally while I would be very interesting in the outcome of the findings, from what I have seen I find it hard to see how it come out as other than a unanimous plea to reconsider.

 

 

Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It would seem to me to be risky to have a railing manufactured before you have got any kind of consent. It could turn out to be a waste of money.

 

Particularly given that for listed building consent/SAM consent the detail will matter. I'm working on a scheme in Frome that is acceptable in principle but the detail has had to be changed twice and is likely to have to be changed a third time.

 

When it comes to conservation, the devil really is in the detail

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, personally while I would be very interesting in the outcome of the findings, from what I have seen I find it hard to see how it come out as other than a unanimous plea to reconsider.Daniel

Apologies, there was a presentation just after I posted that originally from one of the partnership - 69% were not in agreement of any sort of fence, but they, CRT, were of the opinion that a fence of sorts has to be constructed due to the fact that someone wrote a letter to Heritage England saying it was unsafe!

However, I am not hopeful of any publication after going to Whaley Bridge hoping to see the result of that consultation and getting the usual'local community' spiel from the project manager. The concept of boaters being involved in local communities an anathema. I will wait to be proved wrong, but although I do feel CRT is getting the 'service' element somewhere, the rest is rooted firmly in times past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies, there was a presentation just after I posted that originally from one of the partnership - 69% were not in agreement of any sort of fence, but they, CRT, were of the opinion that a fence of sorts has to be constructed due to the fact that someone wrote a letter to Heritage England saying it was unsafe!

However, I am not hopeful of any publication after going to Whaley Bridge hoping to see the result of that consultation and getting the usual'local community' spiel from the project manager. The concept of boaters being involved in local communities an anathema. I will wait to be proved wrong, but although I do feel CRT is getting the 'service' element somewhere, the rest is rooted firmly in times past.

There are lots of things on the canals that somebody could write to Heritage England claiming they were unsafe. All locks for example since most major injuries/deaths on the canals happen here -- so surely they should all be closed, or at least have safety cages fitted both lockside and on the gates so nobody can fall in? And propellers on boats occasionally mangle or kill people, so they should be banned too.

 

Anyway far more people get killed every day by those nasty polluting metal boxes on the roads than die in a year on the canals, so they should be banned first...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 year later...

Today, 10th Jan 2017, there are lots of men in high viz jackets standing around on the Marple flight and near the aqueduct. Not much work going on - the excavator for removing the collapsed wash-wall seems to be inadequate.

 

A man was surveying the aqueduct with the latest laser and drone technology - and a workman revealed to me that the abseilers (who are supposed to be clearing the vegetation hadn't turned up yet, 11.30 am) AND THAT THE RAILINGS WERE GOING TO BE INSTALLED!

Edited by Bugsworth Tippler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A search of Stockport's planning website only shows approval for treework at Marple Aqueduct, a decision dated 17 October 2014, but seemingly only published on 15 July 2016.

 

No mention of any planning approval or listed buildings consent for railings!

 

A search of CTR's website produced this: https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/blogs/the-oldknow-project/work-starts-on-marple-aqueduct which says:

 

"The towpath is closed currently for your safety, we will let you know as soon as we can when we expect it to re-open. Stonework is being repaired and repointed with some of the trickier bits reached by abseiling! Daredevil pointing will start in January and we’d love to see any pictures you (safely) take. Please email them to Pamela.Pearson@canalrivertrust.org.uk and we’ll share the best on this blog."

 

 

Also https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notice/9858/peak-forest-canal-marple-aqueduct says

 

"From Date:
10th January 2017 at 08:00
To Date:
11th January 2017 at 17:00 inclusive
Type:
Navigation Closure
Reason:
Vegetation
Description:

Our contractors will be carrying out vegetation cutting at Marple Aqueduct on 10th and 11th January 2017. This will involve climbers abseiling over both sides of the Aqueduct where they will have to trail the ropes across the canal channel to abseil down the aqueduct walls. Because of this:

• The canal will be closed to boat traffic at Marple Aqueduct between 8am & 3:30pm on Tuesday 10th January 2017.

• There will be restrictions to navigation on Wednesday 11th January 2017 between 8am and 3.30pm. You shouldn’t be delayed by more than an hour.

This work is an essential part of our ongoing maintenance of the aqueduct. Please be cautious when approaching the aqueduct and follow the contractor’s instructions. "

 

 

No mention of railings in either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

In the CART Heritage Statement the SAM statement says the channel is 6ft wide so it must be closed to navigation already (insert irony emoticon here).

Cheers

David

Edited by Ace 01
Numpty edit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Tim Lewis said:

The planning application for the railings has now been submitted, you have till 8th June to comment:

http://planning.stockport.gov.uk/PlanningData-live/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=dates&keyVal=OPF953PJHF700

Tim

 

Bugger. Best get my comments in then.

21 hours ago, Ace 01 said:

In the CART Heritage Statement the SAM statement says the channel is 6ft wide so it must be closed to navigation already (insert irony emoticon here).

Cheers
David

Sigh!


Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Ace 01 said:

In the CART Heritage Statement the SAM statement says the channel is 6ft wide so it must be closed to navigation already (insert irony emoticon here).

Cheers

David

Maybe that is part of the reasoning they are giving for the fence,only a 6 foot channel so easy to hop over, now if they had said 9ft it would be a different matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ditchcrawler said:

Maybe that is part of the reasoning they are giving for the fence,only a 6 foot channel so easy to hop over, now if they had said 9ft it would be a different matter.

In that case, if people mention the actual width in their comments on the planning application, as well as the visual impact on a listed structure and the small number of self inflicted deaths over its 200 year plus history, it might influence the council to refuse the application. 

Edited by cuthound
To unmangle the effects of autocorrect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, cuthound said:

In that case, if people mention the actual width in their comments on the planning application, as well as the visual impact on a listed structure and the small number of self inflicted deaths over its 200 year plus history, it might influence the council to refuse the application. 

I have commented, emphasising the 9ft moat that should keep the hundreds of extra people away already, the lack of evidence for any accidental deaths in 200 years, and that the provision of a fence will increase antisocial behaviour (canal jumping), and will introduce new risks, particularly that with more people jumping the canal. more will fall short and hurt themselves, and bringing in the risk that canal jumpers may do so immediately ahead of a moving boat (playing chicken), and that if they fall short, the boat will be unable to stop, and they will be crushed (and probably die).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2017 at 20:01, Ace 01 said:

In the CART Heritage Statement the SAM statement says the channel is 6ft wide so it must be closed to navigation already (insert irony emoticon here).

Cheers

David

So , as I understand it,the planning application contains incorrect information either in error or designed to influence the planning department's decision. It is unlikely that the Stockport planning officers will have detailed knowledge of navigation dimensions and they would merely consider the "jump ability" of the channel .I  suggest the application should be permanently  withdrawn and the 99% fictional jumpers allowed to continue their death defying antics. A lot of money could be saved and put to better use improving the semi-derelict canal.

It all sounds like somebody's pet project to be pushed through no matter what to earn a gold star. Remember the square bollards or the 1970's vintage hydraulic paddle gear?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.