Jump to content

Railings for Marple aqueduct - whats next?


Laurence Hogg

Featured Posts

Just in from CRT:

<<

PRESS RELEASE

CANAL & RIVER TRUST PLANS TO INSTALL SAFETY RAILINGS AT MARPLE AQUEDUCT

The Canal & River Trust plans to install safety railings at England’s highest aqueduct, Marple Aqueduct, following a major conservation and repair project to the Grade I listed landmark, and a public consultation on the most suitable form for any safety measures to take.

There are currently no protective railings to prevent people from falling from the aqueduct if they step off their boat onto the flat surface on the off side, across from the towpath. In recent years recorded incidents, observation and reported anecdotes have indicated that both adults and children have put themselves at risk, perhaps inadvertently, by stepping onto the unfenced area with a sheer drop of roughly 90 feet (27.4 metres) down to the River Goyt.

The aqueduct, which carries the Peak Forest Canal, is one of three historic sites to be opened up to the public as part of a £2.3 million ‘Revealing Oldknow’s Legacy’ heritage project. The Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) is contributing £1.5 million towards the project, with the remainder funded by public donations to the Canal & River Trust and Mellor Archaeological Trust.

The Trust has carried out a safety review of the site and invited members of public to comment on proposals to make the aqueduct safer.

David Baldacchino, from the Canal & River Trust, said: “Marple Aqueduct is a fabulous structure and the renovation programme is really allowing it to be seen at its best. There is a stone parapet on the towpath side of the canal but no fencing on the opposite side.

“This is the highest aqueduct in England and although warning signs discourage access to the unfenced side, it is clear that the lack of any fencing masks the significant risk that anyone stepping onto this area is facing.

“We’ve had to weigh up the risks to public safety whilst making sure any safety measures are sympathetic to the heritage of the structure. I understand that not everyone will be supportive of the installation of railings because of the important heritage aspects at the site. However, in addition to our public consultation, we have also sought expert advice from the Trust’s navigation and heritage advisory groups, who both support action being taken, provided that we carefully develop a suitable design.”

Designs for the railings are now being prepared, guided by a majority preference outlined in the public consultation for traditional vertical iron rails. The timetable for installing the new railings is subject to Listed Building and Scheduled Ancient Monument consent.

ENDS

For further media requests please contact:

Lynn Pegler / Clive Naish on 07717 760284

Lynn.pegler@canalrivertrust.org.uk

>>

Remember the three wooden bollards at every lock? Who uses them in reality?

Ok so no one has fell off the aqueduct for over 200 years, so why put them up now? This will set a precedent for a lot of other "safety" moves.

I wonder what's next?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just in from CRT:

<<

 

>>

 

Remember the three wooden bollards at every lock? Who uses them in reality?

Ok so no one has fell off the aqueduct for over 200 years, so why put them up now? This will set a precedent for a lot of other "safety" moves.

I wonder what's next?

The topic was discussed at length prior to this announcement:

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=72824&hl=

 

Tim

Edited by DHutch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'm most dischuffed to put it mildly.......so much for a consultation and listed planning consent.....never even got a reply from CRT or the local council officer concerned for listed buildings.

 

Anybody got a petrol cut off saw?

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst CRT seem to have made up their minds, as per their info, scheduled monument consent is required. Having checked Stockport Council planning application database there is currently no application pending yet. As and when one does appear it is perfectly in order to object, and I would suggest anyone opposed to this does so, stating the grounds for the objection are that there has never been an incident. Given that other places on the system have encountered real incidents ie lock drownings etc and the fact CRT are not proposing to fence around all the locks, their arguement of this is needed as a preventative measure would I suggest fall way short of the level required to achieve scheduled monument consent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely it is not the highest aqueduct in Britain - though it may be the tallest.

 

It actually says England - and assuming they mean tallest they are trying to evade the issue of Pontcysyllte, where I think people have fallen off even though the non-towpath side is about three inches wide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'm most dischuffed to put it mildly.......so much for a consultation and listed planning consent.....never even got a reply from CRT or the local council officer concerned for listed buildings.

I must say, having written a letter to them which specifically requested a reply, and spoken to them since via both phone and email including have a call back to be told it was still ongoing, I find it quite disappointing not only to be reading that the outcome appears to be to go ahead anyway, but also to have not had a reply to my letter. Maybe that will follow shortly?

 

No where in the above press release does it mention anything of the consultation process other then the preference for them to be cast iron if installed.

 

Whilst CRT seem to have made up their minds, as per their info, scheduled monument consent is required. Having checked Stockport Council planning application database there is currently no application pending yet. As and when one does appear it is perfectly in order to object, and I would suggest anyone opposed to this does so, stating the grounds for the objection are that there has never been an incident. Given that other places on the system have encountered real incidents ie lock drownings etc and the fact CRT are not proposing to fence around all the locks, their arguement of this is needed as a preventative measure would I suggest fall way short of the level required to achieve scheduled monument consent.

Indeed so, I certainly will be putting in an objection. If 'reported antidotes' of people doing slightly risky but likely quite controlled things is a reason to put up a fence on the grounds of heath and safety then not only had the world gone mad, we are totally screwed.

 

If we tried to fence off every possibility of someone doing something very with slight risk and the possibility of death, we would literally unable to do anything, not even putting up the required fences would be possable as it would be too risky and would need fencing off.

 

The whole thing is that stupid I have even checked its not Friday the 13th. They should have waited till the second week in November.

 

 

Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst CRT seem to have made up their minds, as per their info, scheduled monument consent is required. Having checked Stockport Council planning application database there is currently no application pending yet. As and when one does appear it is perfectly in order to object, and I would suggest anyone opposed to this does so, stating the grounds for the objection are that there has never been an incident. Given that other places on the system have encountered real incidents ie lock drownings etc and the fact CRT are not proposing to fence around all the locks, their arguement of this is needed as a preventative measure would I suggest fall way short of the level required to achieve scheduled monument consent.

 

Phil -- Scheduled monument consent is obtained from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. That's what CRT has to have. Planning permission may also be needed from Stockport MBC, but I suspect the railings may not necessarily have to have PP, especially with the present government being so intent on removing stuff from the Planning ambit generally . A close watch needs to be kept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worth noting that some 3-4 years ago, BW wanted to put railings on top of the existing lowish stone parapet on the towpath side of the Blackpit Aqueduct on the Rochdale Canal, as part of a project to resurface and improve the towpath. The justification given was that cyclists could fall over the parapet. There was much opposition locally, and planning consent for the scheme was only given on condition that no railings were to be fitted.

 

The work was completed some time ago, the towpath is much better, and the parapet remains as before.

 

I have not heard of any reports of cyclists tumbling into the Calder.

Edited by David Mack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Phil -- Scheduled monument consent is obtained from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. That's what CRT has to have. Planning permission may also be needed from Stockport MBC, but I suspect the railings may not necessarily have to have PP, especially with the present government being so intent on removing stuff from the Planning ambit generally . A close watch needs to be kept.

It also states listed building consent is required as well as scheduled monument consent, who issues that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It also states listed building consent is required as well as scheduled monument consent, who issues that?

 

Looking at the Historic England website they have this to say

 

http://historicengland.org.uk/advice/planning/consents/err-act-2013/

Listed Building Consent Orders

 

"...A national Listed Building Consent Order allows the Secretary of State to grant LBC for routine or minor changes to any identified listed buildings in England, which, if done correctly, will not harm the special interest of those buildings. The order grants LBC for these works over an extended period of time, and they can go ahead whenever convenient for owners.

This means that works which are well understood and perhaps repeated often in buildings of a similar type, or in the ownership of a body such as the Canal and River Trust, will not require multiple applications for LBC. ..."

 

Local Listed Building Consent Orders

 

"...A Local Listed Building Consent Order allows the LPA to grant LBC for routine or minor changes to any identified listed buildings in their area, which, if done correctly, will not harm the special interest of those buildings.

The order grants LBC for these works over an extended period of time, and they can go ahead whenever convenient for owners.

This means that works which are well understood and perhaps repeated often in buildings of a similar type in the area, will not require multiple applications for LBC. ..."

Edited by churchward
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The press release doesn't say what the majority of responses said about installing railings, only that the majority preferred traditional iron ones. Presumably that was in response to a specific question.

 

Has there been a CRT consultation where they actually took any notice of the respondents?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what the other two sites are that are going to be "opened up to the public" and if there are any plans to mess about with them too. I also wonder whether this would be done at all if it was not to be funded by the HLF and the public. CRT just keeps doing this, why not say now where the other two sites are, why so coy?

 

CRT cannot be held to account because they don't publish stuff, like who responded to the consultation and was against it but they want to do it so they will anyway.

 

Val

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a structure is a listed building and scheduled monument (it can be both) the law is quite clear that it is the law relating to scheduled monuments that takes precedence. I am not sure who has the final say regarding this so unless someone posts info before tomorrow I will be phoning Stockport council planning dept. to find out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad I'm not the only person who is miffed at this....It's times like this I love how the collective knowledge of the forum can come together and know how stuff like planning works......please do keep us posted and if possible let us know who to write to.

 

I really do wonder where this safety culture will end.....it's madness!

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely these railings won't be safe. Someone could climb them and fall to their deaths, surely? If the design prevents climbing over them that might lead to someone making the attempt to seriously injure themselves. Could they then sue CRT?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst CRT seem to have made up their minds, as per their info, scheduled monument consent is required. Having checked Stockport Council planning application database there is currently no application pending yet. As and when one does appear it is perfectly in order to object, and I would suggest anyone opposed to this does so, stating the grounds for the objection are that there has never been an incident. Given that other places on the system have encountered real incidents ie lock drownings etc and the fact CRT are not proposing to fence around all the locks, their arguement of this is needed as a preventative measure would I suggest fall way short of the level required to achieve scheduled monument consent.

Presumably they will also be needed on Pontcysllte just in case boaters try to step off onto the off side?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IWA says

 

CRT has announced that it intends to install a fence along the offside of Marple Aqueduct following its consultation on the issue but contrary to IWA’s suggestions.

The majority of responses to the consultation, including IWA’s, expressed concerns over the proposals. IWA disagreed with the installation of a fence, believing that it could give the impression that it was ok to access the offside making it more dangerous. Instead, IWA suggested that if additional safety measures were necessary, alternatives such as better signage and/or alteration of the offside surface, so that it looks more like an out of bounds area, should be utilised. Despite this CRT believes that the safety risks are too great to decide against installation of a fence, citing reported incidents and anecdotal reports of near misses at Marple Aqueduct in recent years. In addition, CRT has argued that its investment in the aqueduct will attract more visitors to the area, which will increase the risk of a fatal fall occurring.

IWA hopes that CRT will therefore address its and others concerns around the design of the fence, which should be as sympathetic as possible to the Grade I Listed aqueduct. In addition, the positioning and material of the fence should be chosen carefully so as not to endager boaters or the view from the aqueduct, more details on IWA’s suggestions can be found in its full consultation response

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to wonder what a 'near miss' on the aqueduct might be. Someone standing on the edge giving the impression of a pair of badly adjusted windmills as they try to keep their balance perhaps?

 

If this aqueduct is unsafe, and locks have already been mentioned, how about the whole of the unprotected canal network? During 3 or 4 months each year the water temperature is such that a fall into the canal doesn't give you long to get changed and warmed up before death from hypothermia. Perhaps then the canal should be fenced off in its entirety. Access gates would be provided, locked of course. All of this would be paid for by a steep increase in licence fees. After all, boats would then be secure, would they not? And then, each gate could be numbered to end the uncertainty that ccers, cmers, bridge hoppers etc. have to endure over what is a place and what isn't. Clear and concise regulation, at long last.

 

Win win innit.

Edited by Ricco1
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.