restoration priorities 2001

A Second Waterway AgeReview of waterway restoration and development priorities

Report June 2001

A Second Waterway AgeReview of waterway restoration and development priorities

Report June 2001

INLAND WATERWAYSAMENITY ADVISORY COUNCIL

Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory CouncilCity Road Lock38 Graham StreetLondonN1 8JX

Telephone 020 7253 1745Fax 020 7490 7656Email [email protected]

Chairman The Viscountess Knollys DL

This report is available in large print. Please telephone 020 7253 1745 for a copy.Front cover photos (top to bottom): St. Cyr’s Church on the Stroudwater Navigation, The new lift bridge on the Lichfield Canal,Waterway Recovery Group working on the Droitwich Junction CanalLocks, Moira Furnace on the extension of the Ashby Canal

This report may be freely reproduced for charitablepurposes. Additional copies may be purchased fromthe Council.

Contents

Foreword by IWAAC Chairman . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Summary table of Council’s assessment of progress of projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

2 Developments since 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

3 Review of projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

4 Recommendations on main issues inrestoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Main schedule explanatory notes . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Annex A: main schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A1

Annex B: working group members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B1

5

This review takes stock of progress on waterwayrestoration and development since our 1998 ReportWaterway Restoration Priorities. A dynamic across-the-board look at the restoration scene, it is a snapshot ofprogress showing a wealth of information. It has been acomplex and demanding task to draw the data together,and inevitably the picture will be out of date already insome respects, but I believe it will be invaluable for thebroad-ranging perspective it offers the reader.

We record spectacular recent progress, building on yearsof sustained voluntary effort, on the four MillenniumLottery projects. The Millennium Link (Scottish LowlandCanals) and the Huddersfield Narrow Canal are substan-tially open again to navigation; the Rochdale Canal and theRibble Link are both likely to open in 2002/3. There hasalso been progress on key projects such as the AndertonBoat Lift, but limited or no apparent progress on a long listof other projects.

From our research we have drawn a number of lessons asa basis for recommendations and advice on the restorationprocess. We highlight, among a variety of factors:

• the importance of taking an overall professional view ofthe restoration process, particularly by involving themajor navigation authorities able to tackle large-scaleengineering work;

• the importance of broad-based partnerships reflectingmultiple benefits to underpin any restoration scheme;

• the value of obtaining local authority support fromthe outset;

• the practical merit in progressing via discrete stagesin line with realistic funding possibilities, and

• the need to maximise the appeal of restoration projectsto potential funding partners by promoting otherbenefits, in particular urban and rural regeneration,community access and social inclusion, environmentalenhancements, and where appropriate water transferpossibilities, over and above the recreational gains fromextensions to the navigable system.

We also underline, much more than we did in 1998, thecrucial importance of including nature conservationopportunities and taking account of water supply factorsto achieve sustainable restorations.

Waterway restoration continues to bring significantregeneration and recreational benefits throughout thecountry. Waterways for Tomorrow (June 2000) confirmedGovernment support for the partnerships that will make

further progress a reality. The promised guidance toprevent road building schemes severing restorationprojects is now in place.

British Waterways has a strategic remit to pursuewaterway restoration nationwide, and it is already pushingahead with assessments of further major projects beyondits current commitments.

The newly formed Waterways Trust has already shown itsvalue in facilitating completion of the restoration of theRochdale Canal and Anderton Boat Lift and constructionof the Ribble Link, and now has a schedule of futureprojects where it could play an enabling role. It could offera funding source dedicated to waterway-basedregeneration that has long been needed. There is amplescope for the Trust to develop a positive role in assistingpromoters, especially in supporting the work of thevoluntary sector.

The challenge, for all of us, is now to ensure that theincreasingly professional approach to restoration activity atthe end of the twentieth century is maintained into thetwenty-first. I believe that the recommendations andadvice in this review will help us all to achieve that goal.

Finally, I wish to thank everyone, and particularly those inthe voluntary sector who responded to our questionnaireand requests for information and advice, members of theCouncil Working Group who have given unstintingly oftheir time and knowledge, and the Heritage Lottery Fundfor their generous grant towards our research andpublication costs.

The Viscountess Knollys DLChairman

Foreword by IWAAC Chairman

New report

This report reviews the state of play on just over 100projects to restore disused inland waterways or waterwaystructures and to develop new waterways. The totalestimated capital costs involved are approximately £700million, a large figure but one that could in return generatebenefits to economies and communities across the countryfor decades ahead. The report also reviews (SSeeccttiioonn 22)major developments, national and local, which have hadan impact on the restoration process since 1998 andchanges affecting the main sources of funding.

Findings

The Council’s assessment of the progress of all theprojects for which responses were made to the May 2000questionnaire is summarised in TTaabbllee 11, and in set outdetail in the MMaaiinn SScchheedduullee (Annex A). Further progressup to June 2001 is also recorded where such informationhas been forthcoming. A comprehensive updatingquestionnaire was simply not feasible, but it should beborne in mind that further progress would have also beenmade in a number of other cases in the period. SSeeccttiioonn 33provides a further commentary. The project locations areshown on the MMaapp.

This year and next sees the culmination of a dramatic burstof waterway restoration and development largelyfacilitated by the availability of National Lottery funding,with a number of key projects reaching completion andlengths of waterway re-opened to navigation afterdecades of disuse and neglect. Such progress is seen,rightly, as evidence of a "second waterway age".

The new assessments

This report assesses those projects that will follow onbeyond these completed or near-complete restorations. It departs from the 1998 Waterway Restoration PrioritiesReport in that it looks not at the estimated time-scale formain funding but at the funding stage that each projecthas reached. There are four categories – AAddvvaanncceedd,,SSuubbssttaannttiiaall pprrooggrreessss,, IInntteerrmmeeddiiaattee aanndd EEaarrllyy ssttaaggee. Eachproject has also been assessed, as in 1998, for its existingheritage and wildlife importance, and in terms of factorssuch as the contribution to extending or linking thenational system and potential for urban and ruralregeneration. These assessments of NNaattiioonnaall//RReeggiioonnaall//LLooccaall importance are applied uniformly across projectswhether in England, Wales or Scotland. The majority ofthe 1998 assessments are unaltered but there are a fewchanges noted in the commentary. Some projects –notably the Chesterfield Canal, the Lichfield and

Hatherton Canals (jointly), the Neath, Tennant andSwansea Canals (collectively), the South Forty Foot (orBlack Sluice) Drain and the Wilts & Berks Canal – havebeen upgraded from Regional to National status.

Interim funding

Where promoters have supplied details of the nextstage(s) of work needed to progress their project, theseare included. These stages are all candidates for short-term funding regardless of the funding stage of the project overall.

Keys to success and further progress

After years of committed effort by the voluntary sector,the key to the successful completion of the current majorprojects and to maintaining this scale of progress is thework of British Waterways, in partnership with TheWaterways Trust and other voluntary sector and publicorganisations, to plan, manage and secure funding forprojects and make provision for longer-term managementand maintenance.

These projects include the Scottish Lowland Canals, theHuddersfield Narrow Canal, the Anderton Boat Lift, theRochdale Canal and the Ribble Link, as well as the Kennet& Avon Canal post-restoration work of British Waterways(which is outside the scope of this review, as it was of the1998 Report).

The Council expects, therefore, to see the most rapidprogress in the next few years on those projects in whichBritish Waterways and its partners are already activelyinvolved. In particular, the Bedford-Grand Union Link, theCotswold Canals, the Droitwich Canals, the FoxtonInclined Plane, the Grantham Canal, the Lancaster CanalNorthern Reaches, the Monmouthshire Canal, theMontgomery Canal and the Pocklington Canal.

Local authority support should also make possible thecompletion of the Ashby, Burslem Port, Chelmer andDerby projects and substantial progress on the Lichfield,Hatherton and the canal projects in the Vale of Neath andSwansea Valley. There is a developing role, too, for theEnvironment Agency, for example building on earlierinitiatives for the Anglian waterways and the subsequentFens Tourism Project, whereby navigation developmentsare part of a wider strategy to bring benefits to areas somedistance from the waterways.

Beyond these much will depend on the longer-termstrategies of British Waterways and The Waterways Trust,acting in partnership or independently, as well as nationaland regional development agencies and local authorities,

6

Executive summary

to assist the on-going efforts of local voluntaryrestoration societies. The review offers a wide choice ofprojects, especially but not exclusively those assessed asof National and Regional significance from which theywill be able to choose whether to help and what formthat help could take.

New recommendations

The Council fully acknowledges the commitment anddedicated efforts of the voluntary sector but remainsconcerned at the significant number of projects thatappear to have made little or no progress since 1998.The recommendations in SSeeccttiioonn 44 are offered in thehope that they will help the promoters of these projectsin particular, by identifying what they need to do andwhere advice and support can be obtained. There arealso recommendations on a number of other issuesidentified as relevant to the main players since the 1998 Report.

7

PLYMOUTH

SWANSEA

L

W A L E S

CARDIFF

99

44

20

83

56

97

102101

100

PAISLEY

EDINBURGHGLASGOW

S C O T L A N D103

4

104

Ref Waterway or structure no

Projects completed or withfunding for completion (in alphabetical order)

1 Anderton Boat Lift2 Basingstoke Canal - backpumping to locks 1-6 (Woodham Locks)3 Great Ouse Relief Channel (see also Nar – Great Ouse Link

ref no 64)4 Forth & Clyde and Union Canals - “Millennium Link” 5 Huddersfield Narrow Canal 6 Ribble Link7 Rochdale Canal

Other projects (in alphabetical order)

England8 Ancholme Rase Link9 Ancholme-Witham Link

10 Ashby Canal11 River Avon (Warwickshire) - Upper Avon Extension12 Aylsham Navigation13 Barnsley and Dearne & Dove Canals and branches14 Basingstoke Canal - Western End15 Bedford-Grand Union Canal Link16 Blyth Navigation17 Bottisham Lode18 Bourne Eau 19 Bow Back Rivers 20 Bude Canal : Barge and Tub Boat sections21 Caldon Canal - Foxley Arm (Robert Heath’s Canal)22 Caldon Canal - Norton Green Arm (Sparrow & Hales Canal)23 Caldon Canal - Leek Branch Extension24 Caldon Canal - Froghall Tunnel water levels25 Chelmer Navigation26 Chesterfield Canal - completion and Rother Link27 Chichester Ship Canal28 Cotswold Canals - Stroudwater Navigation 29 Cotswold Canals - Thames & Severn Canal30 Cromford Canal - Northern Section31 Cromford Canal - Southern section32 Derby Canal 33 Dorset & Somerset Canal - Frome Branch34 Driffield Navigation 35 Droitwich Canals36 Dudley No 2 or Lapal Canal 37 Earith to Ramsey Link39 Foxton Inclined Plane41 Grand Union Canal -Buckingham Arm42 Grand Union Canal - Slough Arm link to River Thames at Eton43 Grand Union Canal -Wendover Arm 44 Grand Western Canal - Tub Boat Section 45 Grantham Canal46 Hatherton Canal 47 Herefordshire & Gloucestershire Canal48 Horncastle Navigation 49 Ipswich & Stowmarket Navigation (River Gipping)50 Ivel Navigation 51 Lancaster Canal - Northern Reaches52 Lark Navigation 53 Leeds and Liverpool Canal Extension - Liverpool Link54 Leven Canal55 Lichfield Canal56 Liskeard & Looe Canal57 Little Ouse Navigation58 Llangollen Canal - Whitchurch Arm59 Louth Navigation60 Macclesfield Canal to Caldon Canal Link61 Manchester, Bolton & Bury Canal62 Melton Mowbray Navigation and Oakham Canal 63 Montgomery Canal (also Wales)64 Nar - Great Ouse navigation link65 North Walsham & Dilham Canal 66 River Ouse (Sussex)67 Pocklington Canal 68 Portsmouth & Arundel Canal71 Sankey Canal72 Sankey Canal to Leeds & Liverpool link73 Shrewsbury & Newport Canals74 Sleaford Navigation 75 Sleaford Navigation - Grantham Canal link76 Soham Lode77 Somersetshire Coal Canal78 South Forty Foot Drain (Part Witham - Nene link) (See also

Welland Nene link, ref no 90)80 Stamford Canal (Welland ‘System’)81 Stour Navigation 82 Stourbridge Canal - Fens Branch 83 Stover Canal 84 Swaffham Bulbeck Lode85 Thames & Medway Canal86 Trent & Mersey Canal - Burslem Arm “Burslem Port Project”87 Uttoxeter Canal - first lock and basin88 Waveney Navigation 89 Weaver Navigation - Frodsham Cut 90 Welland - Nene Link (see also South Forty Foot Drain ref no 78)91 Wey & Arun Canal92 Wilts & Berks Canal and North Wilts Canal93 River Wissey94 Witham Navigable Drains - East Fen Lock95 Worsley Delph & Underground Canals

Wales 97 Glamorganshire Canal - Nantgarw Pottery Museum98 Monmouthshire Canal (incl Crumlin Arm)99 Montgomery Canal (also England)

100 Vale of Neath and Swansea Valley Canals - Neath Canal 101 Vale of Neath and Swansea Valley Canals - Swansea Canal 102 Vale of Neath and Swansea Valley Canals - Tennant Canal

Scotland103 Ardlui to Inverarnan Canal104 Monkland Canal

Footnote - Projects not assessed: Ref nos 38, 40, 69, 70, 79 and 96 in Main Schedule have not been assessed for reasons set out there and are not shown on Map.

ST HELENS

CHESTERFIELDLINCOLN

WIDNES

BOLTONWIGAN

NEWCASTLE-UNDER-

LYME

NUNEATON

PETERBOROUGH

HINCKLEY

CANNOCK

TAMWORTH

RUNCORNELLESMERE

PORT

CHESTER

NORWICH

LOWESTOFT

KEIGHLEY

HALIFAX

BURNLEYPRESTON

BLACKBURN

YORK

DONCASTER

ROCHDALE

OLDHAM

WARRINGTON

CHORLEYWAKEFIELD

ROTHERHAM

HUDDERSFIELD

STOCKPORT

READING

SLOUGHSWINDON

BATH CHATHAMWOKING

WATFORD

NEWPORT

GOSPORT

BASINGSTOKE

PORTSMOUTH

MAIDSTONE

GUILDFORD

GILLINGHAM

RUGBY

NORTHAMPTON

SOLIHULL

KIDDERMINSTER

STAFFORD

BEDFORD CAMBRIDGEWORCESTER

OXFORD

MILTONKEYNES

GLOUCESTER

ROCHESTER

GRAVESEND

COLCHESTER

CHELMSFORD

HEMELHEMPSTEAD HARLOW

DERBY

NOTTINGHAM

SHEFFIELD

KINGSTONUPON HULLBRADFORD

COVENTRY

BRISTOL

STOKE-ON-TRENT

LEICESTERWOLVERHAMPTON

MANCHESTER

LEEDS

LONDON

BIRMINGHAM

IVERPOOL

BURY

E N G L A N D

IPSWICH

60

23

2487

22

2186

51

6

71

891

95

617 5 13

67

34

54

8

9

59

48

26

30 31

3245

75

78

90

18

94

72

806210

46 55

39

37

64

3

57

5276

17

84

65

12

88

16

49

81

25

82

36

35

11

4115

50

43

19

42

2

85

14

9166

27 68

58

6373

47

2829

77

33

98

74

93

92

53

0 10 20 30 miles

0 10 20 30 40 50 kilometres

This map has been prepared to assist readers of the report to identify the approximate location of the waterway or structure, restoration project or proposed new waterway. The only projects shown are those responding to the IWAAC questionaire. Some projects are shown out of scale for ease of identification and the alignment of some proposed link canals is provisional.

Projects listed in the IWAAC report are identified by a red line ( ) in order to differentiate them from the main navigablesystem which is shown in blue ( ).

© GEOprojects (UK) Ltd.

Inland Waterways Amenity AdvisoryCouncil

REVIEW OF WATERWAYRESTORATION AND

DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIESREPORT JUNE 2001

Projects listed in Main ScheduleAssessment of May 2000 questionnaire

responses

1 Due to open Spring 2002 with funding from EH, HLF and voluntary sector

2 HLF funded post-restoration work. Further back pumping required for remaining 25 locks

3 Opening July 2001. Progress needed now on Nar - Great Ouse Relief Channel link

4 Following funding package including Millennium Lotterygrant, Forth & Clyde opened May 2001 and Union Canalsubstantially open. Formal opening of Falkirk Wheel link scheduled for May 2002

5 Reopened to through navigation May 2001 with Millennium, EP, RDA and LA funding

6 Millennium and LA funded strategic link begun April 2001 will open in 2002. Enhances need for progress on Lancaster Canal Northern Reaches (no 51)

7 Due to reopen to through navigation in 2002 with Millennium, EP and LA funding

10 Snarestone to Measham ready for funding on approval of draft Transport & Works Act 1992 Order. Northernmost section to Moira partially complete

25 Welcome LA- led initiative to extend existing navigation into town centre

32 Positive support shown by LAs welcome. Momentum needs to be maintained to progress project

35 Real progress being made at last for achievable scheme with welcome strong support from LAs. £2m funding now committed from LAs with further support expectedfrom RDA and HLF All interests involved should treat this project as a priority for completion

39 Council is pleased to see comprehensive progress madewith feasibility work since the 1998 Report. Vital that restoration and construction work respects integrity of important former structures

10

Anderton Boat Lift

Basingstoke Canal -backpumping locks 1-6(Woodham Locks)Great Ouse ReliefChannel (see also Nar –Great Ouse Link no 64)Forth & Clyde and UnionCanals - "MillenniumLink"

Huddersfield NarrowCanal

Ribble Link

Rochdale Canal

Ashby Canal

Chelmer Navigation

Derby Canal*

Droitwich Canals

Foxton Inclined Plane

North West

South East

Eastern

Scotland

North WestYorks &HumberNorth West

North WestYorks &Humber

EastMidlands

Eastern

EastMidlandsWestMidlands

EastMidlands

NN

LL

LL

NN

NN

NN wwiitthhLLaann--ccaasstteerrCCaannaallNNoorrtthheerrnnRReeaacchheessNN

LL

LL

RR

NN

NN

Table 1 Summary - Progress of ProjectsSource: responses to May 2000 questionnaire

Ref noAs Annex A

Waterway or structureAn individual scheme at nextkey stage identified in MainSchedule (Annex A) ismarked with asterisk

EnglishregionWales orScotland

Strategicsignif-icanceFordefinitionsof N/R/LseeExplanatoryNotes toMainSchedule(Annex A)

Commentary

PPrroojjeeccttss ccoommpplleetteedd oorr wwiitthh ffuunnddiinngg ffoorr ccoommpplleettiioonn ((lliisstteedd aallpphhaabbeettiiccaallllyy))

AAsssseessssmmeenntt ooff ootthheerr pprroojjeeccttss bbyy ffuunnddiinngg ssttaaggee rreeaacchheedd ((lliisstteedd aallpphhaabbeettiiccaallllyy))

AAddvvaanncceedd ((11)) –– wwhheerree aallll pprreelliimmiinnaarryy wwoorrkk hhaass bbeeeenn ddoonnee

10

11

45 Council welcomes commitment of LAs and other agencies in making progress with this project. This should be maintained particularly with regard to early resolution of Trent Link, which is crucial for key benefits to be realised

43 Phase 1 fully funded to enable completion by voluntary labour by 2004. BW/Local Trust working to raise further funding for completion of Phase 2

51 Lancaster Canal of high heritage importance. Restoration to former northern terminus at Kendal a major enhancement for South Cumbria tourism and rural regeneration. Potential will be enhanced by completion of Ribble Link. Priority for funding

63 Montgomery Canal Partnership formed 1999 requires & support of HLF, Regional Development Agencies, 99 European Funds and National Assembly for Wales to

deliver restoration. Currently funding required from HLFfor management plan, LIFE Environment for demonstration project and West Midlands RDA for Phase 3 work. Major wildlife conservation issues

98 Council welcomes progress made by Partnership and LTC, New Deal and ERDF funding for restoration of first section. Also Caerphilly CBC's recent commitment to restoration of Crumlin Arm, and planned initial studies to explore this

67 Development of strategic plan and EN/BW conservationand restoration agreement at advanced stage, both welcome steps towards securing funding. Canal and structures/ buildings of high importance.

86 Valuable local regeneration project to be funded as part of large scale redevelopment scheme

15 Progressing this strategically important corridor project, which has support of LAs and Eastern RDA, subject to studies now in hand, is valuable in its own right and vitalto opening up Anglian waterways to wider range of visitors

27 Apparent lack of progress since 1998 Report on relatively straightforward project is disappointing. Council hopes completion of restoration will be vigorously pursued by local authorities and others involved

Grantham Canal*

Grand Union Canal -Wendover Arm*

Lancaster Canal -Northern Reaches

Montgomery Canal (inboth England & Wales)

Monmouthshire Canal(inc. Crumlin Arm)

Pocklington Canal

Trent & Mersey Canal -Burslem Arm "BurslemPort Project"

Bedford-Grand UnionCanal Link

Chichester Ship Canal

EastMidlands

South East

North West

WestMidlandsWales

Wales

Yorks &Humber

WestMidlands

Eastern South East

South East

RR

LL

NN wwiitthhRRiibbbblleeLLiinnkk

NN

RR

NN

LL

NN

LL

Ref noAs Annex A




Commentary

SSuubbssttaannttiiaall pprrooggrreessss ((22)) –– wwhheerree mmoosstt pprreelliimmiinnaarryy wwoorrkk hhaass bbeeeenn ccoommpplleetteedd oorr iiss iinn hhaanndd

12

28 Combined strategic corridor project. Council & commends forward thinking approach driving 29 restoration, welcomes new partnership including TWT,

BW and South West RDA and looks forward to sustained progress on this key waterway link

55 Project to link northern BCN via Lichfield Canal has important potential benefits. Partnership of LAs and BWneeded if more rapid progress to be shown. Resolution of BNRR crossing issue welcome. Upgraded to National from Regional taken together with Hatherton

78 Council welcomes preliminary work undertaken by FensTourism and EA decision to lead full restoration studies.It also hopes high priority will be accorded to progressing this straightforward project which has potential for opening up Anglian waterways bringing major benefits. Upgraded to National from Regional

81 Council is pleased to note significant progress made with underpinning studies with EA support. National ranking reflects value of historic structures and landscape importance

100 Category 2 ranking understates progress made with & preparatory work. Economic and social benefit analysis102 now commissioned by partners to promote project

benefits to funders. Both projects upgraded to National from Regional when taken together with Swansea Canal (101)

20 Very high level of historical importance. Preparatory work welcome. Council would like to see restoration progressed in light of studies, and further thought givento possibility of making navigable Tub Boat Section and treatment of the inclined planes

21 Modest local project with benefits for community

22 Modest local project with benefits for community

24 Council welcomes moves to increase range of craft able to reach end of navigation

Cotswold Canals -Stroudwater Navigation*and Thames & SevernCanal*

Lichfield Canal*

South Forty Foot - orBlack Sluice - Drain (PartWitham - Nene link) Seealso Welland - Nene link,no 90

Stour Navigation

Vale of Neath andSwansea Valley Canals -Neath Canal and TennantCanal

Bude Canal: Barge andTub Boat sections

Caldon Canal - FoxleyArm (Robert Heath'sCanal)Caldon Canal - NortonGreen Arm (Sparrow &Hales Canal)Caldon Canal - FroghallTunnel water levels

South West

WestMidlands

EastMidlands

Eastern

Wales

South West

WestMidlands

WestMidlands

WestMidlands

NNttooggeetthheerr

NN wwiitthhHHaatthheerr--ttoonnCCaannaall

NN

NN

NN wwiitthhSSwwaannsseeaaCCaannaall

NN

LL

LL

LL

Ref noAs Annex A




Commentary

IInntteerrmmeeddiiaattee ((33)) –– wwhheerree tthheerree iiss ccoonnssiiddeerraabbllee pprreelliimmiinnaarryy wwoorrkk oouuttssttaannddiinngg

13

26 Intermediate ranking understates progress made on BWowned section east of Norwood Tunnel, where restoration plans well advanced and should have high priority from statutory and funding agencies. HLF funding secured for listed locks in BW's Rotherham Section. Completion of remaining restoration and studies to enable navigable link to Sheffield via Rother Link should now be vigorously pursued. Upgraded to National from Regional

37 Council welcome initiative showed by Fens Tourism in promoting new waterway

46 Project to link Staffs & Worcs, northern BCN and Coventry via Hatherton Canal has important potential benefits. Partnership of LAs and BW needed if more rapid progress to be shown. Resolution of BNRR crossing issue welcome. Upgraded to National from Regional taken together with Lichfield

47 Real progress now being made. More formal working group of LAs along line needed to accelerate rate of restoration further

49 Public sector support needed to help project move forward. Feasibility and other preparatory studies along length of navigation should be priority

53 Important leisure and tourism project which, subject to current studies, offers potential for urban waterfront regeneration

77 HLF funding secured for some structural preservation work. Looking forward to further work

74 Lack of progress towards completion disappointing. LAs and other agencies should give greater priority to securing funding to complete this relatively straight-forward restoration

82 Disappointing to see no progress since 1998 Report

83 Teignbridge District Council's initiative and prospective acquisition from Railtrack plc welcome. Would like to see feasibility of full restoration considered to allow sea-going craft to visit Canal

90 Dependent upon restoration of South Forty Foot (or Black Sluice) Drain (no 78), and connection to River Glen. Council welcomes studies undertaken by Fens Tourism and EA's recent decision to lead full feasibility study

Chesterfield Canal -completion and RotherLink

Earith to Ramsey Link

Hatherton Canal*

Herefordshire &Gloucestershire Canal*

Ipswich & StowmarketNavigation (RiverGipping)Leeds & Liverpool CanalExtension - LiverpoolLinkSomersetshire CoalCanalSleaford Navigation

Stourbridge Canal - FensBranch Stover Canal

Welland - Nene Link (seealso South Forty FootDrain no 78)

EastMidlandsYorks &Humber

Eastern

WestMidlands

South WestWestMidlandsEastern

North West

South West

EastMidlands

WestMidlandsSouth West

Eastern

NN

RR

NN wwiitthhLLiicchhffiieellddCCaannaall

RR

LL

RR

RR

RR

LL

LL

RR

Ref noAs Annex A




Commentary

14

91 Progress welcome on interim stage. Council hopes to see overall sustainability addressed via more strategic and co-ordinated approach from Trust, LAs and other agencies

92 Council welcomes formation of new Restoration Trust appointment of Project Officer and setting up of partnership as positive steps towards restoration. Much overall work done but detailed studies needed. Upratedto National from Regional

95 Three distinct sites with studies at different stages of development. Highly important for industrial archaeology

8 No progress since 1998 Report. Requires feasibility etc studies and firm plans if project to proceed

9 No progress since 1998 Report. Project has considerable potential to add to inland waterway benefits in Northern Lincolnshire. LAs and EA should setin hand initial studies to determine viability and practicality

103 Potentially useful extension to navigation on Loch Lomond. A more significant project (Loch Lomond link to Clyde) also being explored

11 Potentially valuable scheme but very controversial. Work needed to assess environmental acceptability and viability should be set in hand

12 Further investigation warranted of restoration sensitive to nature conservation interests

13 Major project with considerable hurdles to be overcomeand much preparatory work required, needing support of LAs and other agencies. They need to recognise regeneration and other gains which could ensue and consider lessons learned from Huddersfield Narrow and Rochdale Canal projects (see nos 5 and 7). Upgraded to Regional from Local

14 No progress since 1998 Report, Council suggests options for restoration/new navigation in area should be re-examined

16 No physical progress since 1998 Report although new local support now evident. Requires re-examination and initial feasibility studies

Wey & Arun Canal*

Wilts & Berks Canal andNorth Wilts Canal*

Worsley Delph &Underground Canals

Ancholme - Rase Link

Ancholme-Witham Link

Ardlui to InverarnanCanal

River Avon(Warwickshire) – UpperAvon ExtensionAylsham Navigation(Norfolk Broads)Barnsley and Dearne &Dove Canals andbranches

Basingstoke Canal -Western End

Blyth Navigation

South East

South WestSouth East

North West

EastMidlandsEastMidlands

Scotland

WestMidlands

Eastern

Yorks &Humber

South East

BlythNavigation

NN

NN

NN

LL

LL

LL

NN

LL

RR

LL

LL

Ref noAs Annex A




Commentary

EEaarrllyy ssttaaggee ((44)) –– nneeeeddiinngg nneecceessssaarryy ssttuuddiieess aanndd tteecchhnniiccaall wwoorrkk ttoo ddeevveelloopp aann oovveerraallll ssttrraatteeggyy bbeeffoorree tthheeyy ccaann mmaakkee pprrooggrreessss

15

17 Modest local project could benefit rural community18 Becomes viable on completion of South Forty Foot Drain

(no 78 also known as Black Sluice Drain)

19 Major regeneration proposal for Bow Back River network on back of Channel Tunnel Rail Link into Stratford and subsequent development of ‘Stratford City’. BW working with LA and railway partners to progress works for rail link and regeneration of waterways in area. Plans could include new stretchof canal

23 Present terminus on outskirts of Leek detracts from Canal's potential, and town loses tourism income as result. BW and LAs should review project to assess costs and benefits

30 Northern Cromford Canal and associated Arkwright's Mill included in World Heritage Site nomination for Derwent Valley. Restoration of Northern Section of Canal to agreed management plan is strong heritage funding candidate in this context

31 Condition of Butterley Tunnel requires restoration of Cromford Canal to be carried out in two parts. Council suggests that BW and LAs now review Southern Sectionto assess costs and benefits of project

33 Archaeological preservation of Canal's remains is first priority

34 Relatively modest progress on ostensibly straight-forward restoration is disappointing. Greater support needed from LAs and other agencies to ensure more timely completion

36 Reinstatement of part of Canal included in Battery Park redevelopment expected within three years. Process of securing local political and funding support for further extension ongoing. Upgraded to Regional from Local

41 Feasibility and other basic studies needed to progress project

42 Strategic link between Grand Union Canal/Slough Arm and non-tidal Thames at Eton would open up navigation route between two of the most significant waterways in country. Outline feasibility completed by BW. This should be taken forward jointly by BW and EA with LAs

Bottisham LodeBourne Eau (see alsoSouth Forty Foot Drainno 78)Bow Back Rivers

Caldon Canal - LeekBranch Extension

Cromford Canal -Northern Section

Cromford Canal -Southern Section

Dorset & Somerset Canal- Frome Branch Driffield Navigation

Dudley No 2 or LapalCanal*

Grand Union Canal –Buckingham ArmGrand Union Canal -Slough Arm link to RiverThames at Eton

EasternEastMidlands

GreaterLondon

WestMidlands

EastMidlands

EastMidlands

South West

Yorks &Humber

WestMidlands

South East

South East

LLLL

RR

LL

NN

LL

LL

LL

RR

LL

NN

Ref noAs Annex A




Commentary

16

44 Overview study now commissioned by partners to assess feasibility and benefits of full restoration. Council would like to see faster progress for historically important waterway and structures, including important canal lift remains

97 Site of heritage merit but need for comprehensive approach to Glamorganshire Canal potential

48 Feasibility and cost/benefit studies required to progress project. LAs and EA should move together to get studies underway

50 No progress since last Report. Feasibility study and careful consideration of nature conservation implicationsneeded before project can proceed

52 Feasibility study needed to make progress. Potentially relatively straightforward restoration that could benefit local community. LAs and EA should combine with voluntary sector to move project forward

54 Designated SAC. No progress since last Report. Assessment of restoration prospects needed

56 Council welcomes completion of initial studies as basis for progressing limited restoration

57 Potentially relatively straightforward restoration which could benefit local community. Detailed feasibility study required to make progress. LAs and EA should combine with voluntary sector to move project forward. Flash lock should be reinstated

58 Project has significant potential benefits for town. No apparent progress since 1998 Report. LA assistance needed for project to be driven forward

59 Restoration of historic Riverhead warehouse welcome but LAs, EA and voluntary sector should combine to prepare necessary feasibility and other studies

60 Potentially useful link. Full feasibility and other studies needed to progress project

61 Much of original Canal to Bury still in place with historic and interesting features. Restoration is large undertaking, requiring major investment. However, development opportunities exist at Salford end of Canal.Renewed interest by BW, LAs and voluntary sector in study of costs and benefits of complete restoration to assess whether greater priority should be accorded to this is welcome

Grand Western Canal -Tub Boat Section*

Glamorganshire Canal -Nantgarw PotteryMuseumHorncastle Navigation

Ivel Navigation

Lark Navigation

Leven Canal

Liskeard & Looe Canal*

Little Ouse Navigation

Llangollen Canal -Whitchurch Arm*

Louth Navigation

Macclesfield Canal toCaldon Canal Link

Manchester, Bolton &Bury Canal

South West

Wales

EastMidlands

Eastern

Eastern

Yorks &HumberSouth West

Eastern

WestMidlands

EastMidlands

North WestWestMidlandsNorth West

NN

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

RR

RR

Ref noAs Annex A




Commentary

17

62 Professional studies needed to make greater progress

104 Potential for reopening further stretch of canal, as part of residential development, 3-4 years ahead

64 Proposed scheme put forward by IWA no more than idea at present. Studies not yet considered. Hope to seeprogress made on a link

63 Would like to see rapid decisions to protect historic structures, while taking account of nature conservation sensitivities

66 Interest in restoration welcome. All parties should work together to assess feasibility and viability

68 No progress since 1998 Report. Would wish to see more priority being given to studies necessary for advancement alongside Chichester Ship Canal (no 27) and Wey & Arun Canal (no 91)

71 Comprehensive study needed of this important historic waterway to examine the options and benefits of full-scale restoration and linkage to connected system

72 No progress since 1998 Report. Dependent on Sankey Canal restoration (no 71)

73 New Trust welcome. Council wishes to see more rapid progress towards appropriate studies of restoration possibilities for this important historic Canal and its outstanding listed structures via the new Restoration Trust. First step should be to seek funding for survey, engineering and wildlife report and for security of listed structures

75 No change since 1998 Report. Dependent upon Grantham Canal (no 45) and Sleaford Navigation (no 74)

76 Apparently straightforward, modest restoration which could bring benefits to local community. Greater priorityshould be given to taking it forward to feasibility stage

80 No progress since 1998 Report. Dependent upon connection of Welland system to River Witham via South Forty Foot (or Black Sluice) Drain (no 78)

84 Should be straightforward local project with benefits for rural community

85 LAs and other agencies should review project to determine how greater progress can be made

87 Welcome project to improve facilities at Caldon Canal terminus

Melton MowbrayNavigation and OakhamCanal*Monkland Canal

Nar - Great Ousenavigation link

North Walsham &Dilham Canal

River Ouse (Sussex)

Portsmouth & ArundelCanal

Sankey Canal

Sankey Canal - Leeds &Liverpool LinkShrewsbury & NewportCanal

Sleaford Navigation –Grantham Canal linkSoham Lode

Stamford Canal (Welland'System')

Swaffham Bulbeck Lode

Thames & Medway Canal

Uttoxeter Canal - firstLock and Basin

EastMidlands

Scotland

Eastern

Eastern

South East

South East

North West

North West

WestMidlands

EastMidlandsEastern

Eastern EastMidlandsEastern

South East

WestMidlands

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

RR wwiitthhWWeeyy &&AArruunnCCaannaallRR

RR

NN

RR

LL

LL

LL

LL

LL

Ref noAs Annex A




Commentary

18

101 Welcome LA support now obtained and further work needed to progress this project has been set in hand. Uprated to National from Regional when taken together with Neath and Tennant Canals (nos 100 and 102)

88 No progress since 1998 Report89 Careful restoration needed to maintain early features.

Small clean-up projects to identify and interpret these features would raise profile of this good project, which could give new destination to lower end of River Weaver. Would like to see consideration of recreation ofWeaver-Bridgewater Canal link for small craft via restoration of Weston Canal and Runcorn Locks, avoiding Manchester Ship Canal

93 Modest new project to extend navigation 94 Ought to be priority for funding subject to current Fens

Tourism Study in view of length of navigation which would be regained

Vale of Neath andSwansea Valley Canals -Swansea Canal

Waveney NavigationWeaver Navigation -Frodsham Cut

River WisseyWitham NavigableDrains - East Fen Lock

Wales

EasternNorth West

EasternEastMidlands

NN wwiitthhNNeeaatthhaannddTTeennnnaannttCCaannaallssLLLL

LLLL

Ref noAs Annex A




Commentary

19

About this review

1.1 This report updates and replaces the first WaterwayRestoration Priorities Report published in June 1998.The latter provided an overview of restorationactivity nation-wide and assessed the "readiness forfunding" of 80 projects throughout the UK. Itfollowed the Government’s request to the Councilfor an impartial study in order to make sense of therestoration scene, given the fierce competition forfunds, complexity of the development process andunpredictability of funding sources.

1.2 However, individual projects develop and evolve andtheir situation can readily change. This review, like itspredecessor, has two purposes: to illustrate thecurrent restoration scene activity (compared with the1998 picture) and to offer to external bodies andpromoters further recommendations and advice onrestoration issues.

The process of restoration

1.3 A central message of the Council’s 1998 Report wasthe need for a high degree of professional input anda more systematic approach to project implemen-tation in restoring waterways. Where major fundingis needed, the process remains a long (up to 30 yearsor more) and complex one. For all but the smallestprojects, it typically embraces the following:

• securing local political and public support (e.g. forprotecting the line and structures);

• gaining the agreement of British Waterways, theEnvironment Agency or other navigation authorityand/or land owner(s) concerned;

• establishing, via professional studies, engineeringand water-supply needs, environmental impactsand other issues of feasibility, and the financialcosts of the work;

• identifying the social, economic and environ-mental benefits to provide justification forpotential sources of capital funding;

• consulting/negotiating with those affected;

• raising funding for these and any otherpreliminary studies;

• establishing a body with the managementcapability and financial probity to deliver theproject;

• obtaining all statutory approvals for the works,including planning and other approvals from the

local authority, and consents from theEnvironment Agency (England and Wales),theScottish Environment Protection Agency andother national built heritage and nature conservation agencies such as English Heritage,CADW, Historic Scotland, English Nature,Countryside Council for Wales, Scottish NaturalHeritage and so on;

• ensuring that any necessary land can be acquired;

• preparing a business plan to show how therestoration will be pursued, managed and funded;

• preparing a conservation management plan toshow how the built and natural assets of thewaterway will be cared for and enhanced duringboth the restoration phase and by subsequentlong-term monitoring and maintenance;

• drawing-up an ‘exit strategy’ covering all thearrangements for future management andmaintenance.

In the context of these processes and the number ofplayers involved in them, it is a tribute to theenthusiasm and dedication of the restorationmovement that so much is currently being achieved.

What is covered?

1.4 This review covers around 100 projects in England,Wales and Scotland whose promoters responded in2000 to the Council’s questionnaire. Against thebackground of cross-border changes (see followingsection), projects in Northern Ireland are no longercovered. As before, the focus is on restoration forleisure cruising of un-navigable waterways or un-navigable lengths of waterways, but restorations ofhistoric waterway structures and some newwaterway links are also included. The projectlocations are shown on the map and listed in theMain Schedule.

1.5 The projects listed are either

• on their way to completion (some have alreadyopened to navigation this year) with fundingsecured; or

• at varying other stages of progress definedaccording to funding requirements (rather thanreadiness for funding as previously).

1.6 The stages range from "Advanced", where funding isrequired either for final completion or for asignificant next phase of an overall project through to"Early" where funding needs are for preliminary

1 Introduction

technical or other work to establish feasibility orprovide justification for the project. All have beenassessed against the same published criteria asbefore (see Explanatory Notes preceding MainSchedule Annex A).

1.7 In response to views expressed about the 1998Report, the next step in an overall restoration projecthas been identified where so done in the relevantquestionnaire response. The general presentation ofthe findings has also been reviewed to try to makethe document more accessible to readers and users.

1.8 The Council’s assessments of existing heritage meritand nature conservation interest have been reviewedand some revisions made to the definitions used.

After the review

1.9 The Council welcomes comments on this review andwill consider in due course, and in the light ofresponses and available resources, whether a furtherreview would be useful. Meanwhile it plans tocontinue to monitor changes in funding regimes andto liaise with key statutory bodies and fundingagencies.

20

21

1998 Report findings

2.1 The 1998 Report presented an assessment of 80restoration projects across the full range of stagesreached from those about to start to those not evenat the planning stage. The aims were to make senseof the restoration scene, provide an independentassessment for funding agencies in developing theirpolicies and programmes and to assist restorationpromoters in formulating their applications.

2.2 At that time, National Lottery funding was a noveland key factor enabling spectacular restorationprojects to be initiated and progressed but theReport warned that continued funding for large scalerestoration might well prove difficult to sustain.Promoters would need to be ready to respond tonew policy priorities, criteria and regional fundingboundaries by exploiting the strengths of theirprojects, particularly the range of benefits provided.

2.3 The Council advocated action by Government, thevarious statutory agencies involved, funding bodies,and all promoters of restoration projects to addressissues, problems and weaknesses identified in theReport. These included action on the planning frontto safeguard the lines of disused waterways and toprotect them from being severed by roadimprovement schemes, as well as key heritagefunding criteria and good practice on the built andnatural heritage in order to increase the prospects ofdelivering successful restoration projects.

Restoration progress

2.4 Up to the end of 2000, only a handful of projectsincluded in the 1998 Report had been completed.The most significant of these was the nationallyimportant Bugsworth Basin heritage site. Postrestoration work is still needed, however, and thisproject is to be taken over by The Waterways Trust.

2.5 However, unprecedented progress is now beingmade on the restoration of Britain’s canal heritage,with seven major projects on their way to completionfacilitated in particular by the approval of Millenniumor Heritage Lottery grants, matched by regionalregeneration and other funding and completed, inthe main, under partnerships initiated by BritishWaterways, either directly or with the support of TheWaterways Trust. They include, in England, twoTrans-Pennine projects (the Huddersfield Narrow andRochdale Canals), a new waterway (the Ribble Link)and the restoration of the Scheduled AncientMonument Anderton Boat Lift; and, in Scotland, theMillennium Link (restoring and reuniting the Forth &

Clyde and Union Canals). Outside the scope of thisreview, as it was of the 1998 Report, but nonethelesshighly important, is the progressing of the HLFfunded Kennet & Avon Canal post-restoration projectby British Waterways.

2.6 In the pipeline are many other projects that havemade great strides forward since last looked at in the1998 Report (for example the Foxton Inclined Plane,the Lancaster Canal Northern Reaches and theChesterfield Canal), and new entries such as the fast-moving Bedford-Grand Union Canal Link proposal.The interest and burgeoning support of the newRDAs for corridor projects such as the CotswoldCanals and the Bedford- Grand Union Link may beseen as a harbinger of a new era in the support ofregional funding agencies for waterway projects withbenefits for a wider area. They are not onlyextending the recreational waterway network butalso providing significant benefits for local andregional economies, urban and rural communities,the environment and the built heritage.

2.7 Many other projects are also in train (see Section 3and Main Schedule) but continued funding – even iffor discrete phases of large longer-term projects orfor complete smaller schemes rather than forcomprehensive major restorations/developments – isthe critical factor if momentum is to be maintained. Itis not, however, the only factor.

Review of key changes

2.8 The major developments, national and local, whichhave an impact on the restoration process are noted below.

• IInnccrreeaassiinnggllyy ppoossiittiivvee GGoovveerrnnmmeenntt ssuuppppoorrtt ffoorrwwaatteerrwwaayy rreessttoorraattiioonn as a means of extending thebenefits of waterways more widely, culminating inWaterways for Tomorrow (June 2000)1 . The policiesof Waterways for Tomorrow, which applies to canalsand navigable rivers and lakes in England and Wales,were foreshadowed in the new framework for BritishWaterways2. They are now evident in endorsementfor the role of The Waterways Trust, increased grant-in-aid for British Waterways and the EnvironmentAgency, and the issuing of the long-awaited

2 Developments since 1998

1 There were changes to departmental responsibilities followingthe general election in June 2001, including the transfer of the former DETR inland waterways functions to the new Departmentfor Environment, Food and Rural affairs (DEFRA) and newDepartment for Transport, Local Government and the Regions(DTLR) formed.2 Unlocking the Potential and Framework for British Waterways,DETR, February 1999.

22

guidelines to protect currently unrestored waterwaysfrom severance by road improvement schemes3.PPG13 Transport has also been revised4 andincreases the protection for waterways not yetrestored. The Scottish Executive will shortly beissuing their own policy document covering inlandwaterways in Scotland.

• IImmpplleemmeennttaattiioonn ooff ddeevvoolluuttiioonn mmeeaassuurreess, giving theScottish Executive direct responsibility for waterwaysin Scotland, the National Assembly for Wales a voicein the management of waterways in Wales, andcreating in Ireland a new cross-border implemen-tation body, Waterways Ireland, with effect fromDecember 1999. The last now has responsibility forthe management, maintenance, development andrestoration of the inland navigable waterway systemthroughout the island of Ireland5.

• TThhee nneeww ffrraammeewwoorrkk ffoorr BBrriittiisshh WWaatteerrwwaayyss, whichencourages it to assist and promote restorationactivity beyond its own navigations and which hasalready led to strategically important initiatives forrestoration and the creation of new waterways toenhance the national system and to generateeconomic, social and environmental benefits for localcommunities. The 1999 DETR document Frameworkfor British Waterways refers to "BW’s unrivalledexpertise in the management, enhancement andconservation of navigation on inland waterways” andstipulates that it “should take the lead in consultingand co-ordinating with other UK navigationauthorities to offer the benefit of its expertise… forthe good of Britain’s inland waterways and theirusers". British Waterways’ more recent Our Plan forthe Future 2001-05 refers to "scope for a three-phaserolling programme of restoration and newconstruction over the next 15 years". Some 25projects in this review concern their waterways,structures or proposed waterways. British Waterwaysannounced in August 2000 six studies to test theviability of new links and the completion of some keyrestoration projects, all included in this review, viz(reference numbers as in the Main Schedule)

- the construction of a new Bedford to Grand UnionLink (15), connecting the Anglian waterways withthe national canal network

- the restoration of the Cotswold Canals,comprising the Stroudwater Navigation andThames & Severn Canal (28, 29)

- the restoration of the Droitwich Canals (35)

- the reconstruction of the Foxton Inclined Plane (39)

- the restoration of the Lancaster Canal NorthernReaches to Kendal (51)

- completion of the restoration of the MontgomeryCanal in Wales (99).

• TThhee eemmeerrggeennccee ooff TThhee WWaatteerrwwaayyss TTrruusstt, a newindependent charity, formed at the instigation ofBritish Waterways in 1999, to manage the EllesmerePort, Gloucester and Stoke Bruerne Museums, as animportant partner in the delivery of waterwayrestoration and as a fund raising organisation andwhich in only two years has had a major impact onrestoration activity. The arrangements adopted forfacilitating the restoration of the Rochdale Canal andthe construction of the Ribble Link, have enabledBritish Waterways to bring its expertise in majorrestoration/construction, and subsequent waterwayoperation and maintenance, to waterways outside itsstatutorily defined portfolio and could well provide amodel for future restorations. The Trust is developinga scheme to prioritise its involvement in futurerestorations, which will be published later in 2001.

• TThhee iinnfflluueennccee ooff ssuussttaaiinnaabbiilliittyy iissssuueess oonn aallll aarreeaass ooffppuubblliicc ppoolliiccyy, particularly (in respect of waterwayrestoration) those relating to the supply and conser-vation of water and the protection of wildliferesources by the responsible statutory agencies.

- The EEnnvviirroonnmmeenntt AAggeennccyy (England and Wales)6

published in June 2000 its Navigation andEnvironmental Appraisal: A Guidance Note, whichsets out the range of environmental factors whichrestoration promoters should take on board. TheNote includes a particularly welcome commitmentto incorporate all Council-listed restorationprojects in its Local Environment Agency Plans(LEAPs).

- In addition, the new EEuurrooppeeaann WWaatteerr FFrraammeewwoorrkkDDiirreeccttiivvee (which came into effect in December2000), aiming in part to achieve greater regulationof water quality by integrated river basinmanagement, may also affect supply aspects insome restoration projects. The Directive requires

3 See DTLR/DEFRA Press Release of 17 July 2001.4 Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 Transport DETR, March 2001.5 A newly-established Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) tookover from April 2000 custodial responsibility for those abandoned NorthernIreland waterways in Government ownership with a strategic objective todevelop their recreational potential. (Against this background, DCAL decided not to participate in this review which no longer therefore coversany Irish projects. DCAL will continue to act as co-ordinators in ongoingrestoration efforts in Northern Ireland).6 The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), which is accountableto the Scottish Parliament, is the body responsible for protecting land air andwater in the area. The management structures for Scotland’s waters differfrom those in England and Wales, are not based on river basin planning andthere are no abstraction controls. Unlike the Environment Agency, SEPA’sfunctions do not include water recreation responsibilities.

23

the Environment Agency and the ScottishEnvironment Protection Agency to produce RiverBasin Management Plans within the next threeyears. It remains to be seen what effect thesevarious changes will have on the progress offuture restoration. The Council has argued thatthe generally non-consumptive, non-pollutingnature of water use in navigation should be takeninto account in all decision-making.

- Taking possible impacts of climate change intoaccount, the Environment Agency has nowpublished its national water resources strategyWater Resources for the Future (March 2001).Legislation is proposed, following consultation ona 1998 review of the Water Abstraction Licensingsystem, including the intention to bring watersupplies for navigation within the Agency’sabstraction licensing regime for the first time.

- In the near future, implementation of the WaterFramework Directive will also set ecologicalobjectives for river and canal channels. TheEnvironment Agency and Scottish EnvironmentProtection Agency will be responsible for definingthese objectives, which will then have to be takeninto account in restoration proposals.

- Two further recent changes have been thestrengthening of protection for statutorilydesignated wildlife conservation sites and,perhaps more importantly for waterwayrestoration, the development of locallycustomised conservation plans based on theconcept of biodiversity. Thus the CCoouunnttrryyssiiddee aannddRRiigghhttss ooff WWaayy AAcctt 22000000 (which does not apply inScotland although broadly equivalent legislation isbeing proposed there) increases both protectionfor Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) andthe range of bodies with a duty to maintain thatprotection. Several waterways that are the subjectof restoration proposals are proposed as SpecialAreas for Conservation (SACs) under the 1992European Species and Habitats Directive becausetheir conservation is an international priority. Theyreceive greater protection than that provided inthe 2000 Act.

- As a signatory to the 1992 Rio Convention theGovernment committed itself to ‘developstrategies, plans or programmes for the conser-vation and sustainable use of biodiversity’.Biodiversity, which is the totality of living thingsand their habitats in a particular location, is nowthe subject of a national plan and a network ofLocal Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs), which are

led by partnerships between Local Authorities andWildlife Trusts. There is a parallel system forconserving rare or endangered plants andanimals, which are termed ‘priority species’.

- LBAPs now give restoration promoters a clearreference standard for their locality, against whichexisting wildlife and the potential for itsenhancement can be judged. The LocalBiodiversity Partnerships provide promoters withconvenient contacts with those concerned withwildlife issues and their management.

• TThhee eennhhaanncceedd rroollee ffoorr llooccaall aauutthhoorriittiieess iinn eeccoonnoommiiccaanndd ccoommmmuunniittyy ddeevveellooppmmeenntt, both of which providepotential opportunities for local political and fundingsupport for waterway restorations. While traditionalresponsibilities, such as planning and conservationremain vital (e.g. for protecting the lines of currently-unrestored waterways from threats of developmentor for protecting historic structures), the LLooccaallGGoovveerrnnmmeenntt AAcctt 22000000 has placed a new duty on alllocal authorities in England and Wales to prepare acommunity strategy to promote the economic, socialand environmental wellbeing of their area andcontribute to sustainable development. This is a coretask for the new Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs),referred to in the recent Urban White Paper (seebelow). The Government published guidance onthese in March 2001. Well-planned and sensitivelydesigned waterway restorations, which secure thebacking of the local authority and its residents, couldoffer ideal projects for inclusion in these new plans.Local authorities also have a particular responsibilityfor implementing the Government’s policies on socialinclusion. The Council published this year its ownadvice to Government in Inland Waterways: TowardsGreater Social Inclusion (IWAAC 2001).

• TThhee iinnccrreeaasseedd eemmpphhaassiiss oonn rruurraall,, aalloonngg wwiitthh uurrbbaann,,rreeggeenneerraattiioonn, as shown by the Government urbanand rural White Papers issued in November 20007

and the recent initiatives of the Countryside Agency(CA) in England8. The CA was established in April1999, from a merger between the CountrysideCommission and those parts of the RuralDevelopment Commission (RDC) not dealing withregeneration. CA initiatives particularly relevant towaterway restoration and development are:

7Our Towns and Cities: Delivering an Urban Renaissance and OurCountryside: The Future A Fair Deal for Rural England8 See CA strategy document Towards Tomorrow’s Countryside(Spring 2001).

- the CCoouunnttrryyssiiddee oonn yyoouurr DDoooorrsstteepp pprrooggrraammmmee9

for which canal towpaths are obvious candidatesas traffic-free routes;

- the MMaarrkkeett TToowwnnss pprrooggrraammmmee designed to helprevitalise declining market towns, working inpartnership with the RDAs, local authorities, thelocal community and other partners which mightinclude promoters of waterway restoration anddevelopment;

- the LLooccaall HHeerriittaaggee IInniittiiaattiivvee ((LLHHII)) is a nationalgrant scheme, supported by the Heritage LotteryFund (up to £15,000) that helps local groups toinvestigate, explain and care for their locallandscape, landmarks, traditions and culture.Canal society applications are welcomed andthree have so far been successful.

• TThhee sshhiifftt iinn tthhee ppaatttteerrnn ooff ffuunnddiinngg ooppppoorrttuunniittiieess (seeRReevviieeww ooff ffuunnddiinngg below) in that Millennium Lotteryfunding has ended, leaving a gap which is notexpected to be made good for large scale capitalworks by the NNeeww OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess FFuunndd ((NNOOFF)). Whilethe HHeerriittaaggee LLootttteerryy FFuunndd ((HHLLFF)) continues to assistheritage projects, its contribution could beconstrained by its strict historic importance criterion.This leaves policies and programmes with a regionalimpact such as the SSiinnggllee RReeggeenneerraattiioonn BBuuddggeett ((SSRRBB))10 and the EEuurrooppeeaann RReeggiioonnaall DDeevveellooppmmeennttFFuunndd ((EERRDDFF)) delivered through the RReeggiioonnaallDDeevveellooppmmeenntt AAggeenncciieess ((RRDDAAss)) (previously EnglishPartnerships),11 12 as the principal possible fundingsource for waterway projects pursued throughpartnerships and as part of wider regeneration plans.The LLaannddffiillll TTaaxx CCrreeddiitt ((LLTTCC)) scheme overseen byENTRUST remains available for approved environ-mental bodies, although relatively underused byrestoration promoters other than British Waterways,but the Government is reviewing its future andopportunities will narrow further if it should cease.

Review of funding developments

2.9 The developments affecting key sources of fundingand principal agencies delivering them since last timeare noted below. (See also the CA initiatives referredto above, including LHI grants.)

2.10 The HHeerriittaaggee LLootttteerryy FFuunndd ((HHLLFF)) published itsrevised Canals Policy in March 1999, followingcompletion of the Trustees’ review after the Council’s1998 Report. The Fund believes that the new policyframework provides a fair set of priorities andexclusions, consistent with the main priorities

outlined in its Strategic Plan 1999–2004 and takingthe Council’s concerns and former recommendationsinto account. The HLF also now emphasises muchsmaller grants disbursed through its regionalcommittees. Some do usefully include revenue aswell as capital funding. (See also LHI initiative, above)

2.11 The BBuuiillddiinnggss aanndd MMoonnuummeennttss GGrraanntt SScchheemmeeoperated by English Heritage (EH)13 targets buildingsat risk and wider regeneration projects. Its value forwaterway restoration has been limited but grantshave been provided for the Anderton Boat Lift andthe Sea Lock at Bude and English Heritage couldhave a role in plans for the reconstruction of theFoxton Inclined Plane.

2.12 The NNeeww OOppppoorrttuunniittiieess FFuunndd ((NNOOFF)) was establishedin July 1998 as a new Lottery distributor. It makesgrants for health, education and environmentalprojects under initiatives specified by Government. Itworks with national, regional and local partners frompublic; private and voluntary sectors to fundspecified initiatives across the UK with particularfocus on the needs of the most disadvantaged. Itremains to be seen how useful its initiatives so farannounced14 will prove to be for waterways restoration funding.

24

9 In Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) is theGovernment’s statutory advisor on wildlife, countryside and mar-itime conservation matters, accountable to the Secretary of Statefor Wales. In Scotland the equivalent body is Scottish NaturalHeritage (SNH) a government body established by the NaturalHeritage Scotland Act 1991 and responsible to the ScottishExecutive and Scottish Parliament.10 The Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) begun in 1994, providesresources to support regeneration initiatives in England, carriedout by local regeneration partnerships, and brings together anumber of programmes from several Government departmentswith the aim of simplifying and streamlining the assistance avail-able for regeneration.11 The Welsh Development Agency (WDA) is the public body,sponsored by the National Assembly for Wales, promoting theeconomic prosperity of Wales.12 In Scotland there are two Government sponsored developmentagencies both accountable to the Scottish Executive. ScottishEnterprise (SE) is the main economic development agency forScotland covering 93% of the population from Grampian to theBorders. Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) covers the north-ern part of Scotland. Both Scottish agencies have regionalEnterprise Companies.13 English Heritage (EH) now combines its functions for manage-ment of the historic environment with the responsibilities forrecording exercised formerly by the Royal Commission onHistoric Monuments in England (RCHME). In Wales the relevantbody is CADW, part of the National Assembly for Wales. and inScotland, it is Historic Scotland which is directly accountable toScottish Ministers14 Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities and TransformingCommunities.

2.13 EEuurrooppeeaann SSttrruuccttuurraall FFuunnddss In 1999 the regulationsgoverning the deployment of Structural Funds whichsubsume the European Regional Development Fund(ERDF) were negotiated for programmes starting in2000 and lasting for seven years. A regionalprogramming document sets out the prioritiesrequired for a project to be supported. Two newCommunity initiatives supported by ERDF areINTERREG (concerned with international co-operative projects and made use of by BritishWaterways) and URBAN concerned with urbanregeneration. The areas to be covered by theseinitiatives have yet to be agreed at the date of thisReport15 .

2.14 RReeggiioonnaall DDeevveellooppmmeenntt AAggeenncciieess ((RRDDAAss)) The eightRDAs set up in April 1999 to improve the economicprosperity of the English regions were joined by aninth RDA (for London) in July 2000. The RDAsadminister the SRB (see above). The Deputy PrimeMinister wrote in August 2000 to all RDA Chairmento impress on them the need to take account of thebenefits of waterway projects in their strategies andaction plans and urging them to support worthwhileproposals. The Council is also continuing to pressthem to do so.

2.15 TThhee RRuurraall CChhaalllleennggee FFuunndd operated by the formerRDC (see under CA above) has been merged withthe SRB funds administered by RDAs and the SRBfunds expanded to include a guaranteed rural element.

2.16 TThhee NNeeiigghhbboouurrhhoooodd RReenneewwaall FFuunndd ((NNRRFF)) with£900m in 2002/03 – 2003/04 is designed to assistregeneration in the 88 most deprived English areas.A key requirement for this funding is theestablishment of the Local Strategic Partnershipsreferred to above. RDAs will have a role in thesepartnerships. The National Assembly for Wales hasintroduced Communities First funding targeted at themost deprived areas of Wales, as well as a LocalRegeneration Fund accessed through localauthorities. Restoration projects which demonstratebenefits in tackling social exclusion andneighbourhood renewal, and have local authoritysupport, should be able to tap into these newfunding opportunities.

2.17 The funding categories required by the Landfill TaxRegulations 1996 for the LLaannddffiillll TTaaxx CCrreeddiitt ((LLTTCC))scheme, for which ENTRUST is the regulatory body,changed slightly from the funding viewpoint from 1January 2000. British Waterways has madeexceptionally good use of the system. Other

restoration promoters have not so far benefited tothe extent that they might, apparently because theyare too small on their own, have too low a profilewith the landfill trade or fail to address adequatelythe relevant environmental issues. The Chancellor’sMarch 2001 Budget Statement stated that theGovernment was attracted to abolishing all or part ofthe LTC scheme, which could be replaced with otherpublic spending on, for example, increasingrecycling. The scheme remains of great value to anumber of restorations and the Council is concernedat the implications of its demise. Meanwhile thescheme continues but the uncertainty appears to beaffecting the availability of funding.

2.18 Part of the role of TThhee WWaatteerrwwaayyss TTrruusstt is fundraisingand it is currently contracted by British Waterways towork with partners to raise funds for the MillenniumLink and the Anderton Boat Lift projects. A generalfundraising programme has been launched this yearfor a small grants scheme to support waterway-basedprojects. In its first full year of fundraising activity, theTrust expects to raise a total of £2m principally fromvoluntary sources, individuals, companies andcharitable trusts.

The current scene

2.19 In general, therefore, the climate for waterwayrestoration has become more favourable in recentyears. There is today very positive Government andBritish Waterways support, much more widespreadinvolvement by local authorities, the advent of TheWaterways Trust, the opportunities to contributetowards what is valuable in the natural and builtenvironment and a widening range of fundingpossibilities. Against these positive factors must beset the gap inevitably left by the ending ofMillennium Lottery funding for major capital costs ofwaterway restoration, and the fact that the need forlong term revenue funding for future maintenance ofcompleted projects is still not addressed by all thefunding agencies or by all local authorities for theareas where projects are located.

25

15 Other Structural Funds managed by various Governmentdepartments such as the European Social Fund (ESF), EuropeanAgricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), andFinancial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) could supportinitiatives relevant to waterway restoration projects located in theareas covered.

2.20 Notwithstanding the availability of funding opportu-nities both old and new, the competition for furtherinvestment in waterway restoration has been, andwill remain, intense. If they are to convince the keyagencies, above all those involved in regenerationinitiatives, of the benefits to be obtained fromrestoration, promoters must become even moreprofessional in formulating, developing andpresenting their projects and in putting togetherproposals tailored to the particular criteria of those agencies.

26

The new assessment

3.1 The full results are contained in the MMaaiinn SScchheedduullee atthe end of this report. The EExxppllaannaattoorryy NNootteess to theSchedule provide more on the assessment processand details of the definitions used.

3.2 The basis of these assessments has been thequestionnaires returned since May 2000. As timedoes not stand still, and this report has taken longerthan expected to prepare, further progress up toJune 2001 is also recorded where such informationhas been forthcoming. A comprehensive updatingquestionnaire was simply not feasible, but it shouldbe borne in mind that further progress would havealso been made in a number of other cases in theinterim. The caveats about the information providedto the Council (see under IImmppoorrttaanntt IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn inthe Explanatory Notes) should be noted.

3.3 Assessments have not been done for those projectscompleted in 2001 or with funding for completion in2002/3 although they are shown at the beginning ofthe Main Schedule and the Summary Table 1.

3.4 The main methodological change since the 1998Report is in the basis of the assessment rankingswhich are now structured according to what, foreach project, is needed to be funded next viz:

- AAddvvaanncceedd ((11)) i.e. project requires funding forcompletion or the next major stage and for whichall preliminary work done;

- SSuubbssttaannttiiaall pprrooggrreessss ((22)) i.e. project beingdeveloped within an overall strategy and wheremost preliminary work completed or in hand;

- IInntteerrmmeeddiiaattee ((33)) i.e. project being developedwithin an overall strategy but where there isconsiderable preliminary work still outstanding;

- EEaarrllyy ssttaaggee ((44)) i.e. funding required for allnecessary preliminary work such as basic studiesand technical assessments in order to develop anoverall strategy and begin project development.

3.5 All project promoters were asked to identify the workneeded in the next stage of the whole project.Where this information was supplied, it has beenidentified in the Main Schedule for the attention ofthe appropriate funding agencies.

3.6 The assessments of eexxiissttiinngg iimmppoorrttaannccee in terms ofbbuuiilltt hheerriittaaggee and wwiillddlliiffee value have been reviewed.The former have been made more systematic in anattempt to reduce appearances of subjectivity. Thelatter were objectively based on legislative criteria in

1998 and have been adjusted slightly to take accountof legislative changes. The assessments of ssttrraatteeggiiccssiiggnniiffiiccaannccee of the project as National, Regional orLocal follow the 1998 format, i.e. assessing the valueof the waterway in built heritage and wildlife termsand the potential contribution of each restoration ordevelopment to the existing navigable system and tothe economic and social regeneration ofcommunities. As before, this remains the mostsubjective of the assessments. Where such anassessment has been changed since 1998, it isidentified below. The Council reiterates the point itmade in 1998 that the designation ‘Local’ is not a slur.Indeed, some ‘Local’ projects may well in the futureperform better than others because much of thefunding trend (see Section 2) is towards greateravailability and targeting of criteria to smallercommunity-based projects.

Table 2: Projects assessed by funding category

FFuunnddiinngg ccaatteeggoorryy

Number of projects England Wales Scotland All

CCoommpplleetteedd oorr wwiitthh 6 0 1 7ffuunnddiinngg ffoorr ccoommpplleettiioonn

AAddvvaanncceedd ((11)) 11 2 0 13

SSuubbssttaannttiiaall 7 2 0 9pprrooggrreessss ((22))

IInntteerrmmeeddiiaattee ((33)) 18 0 0 18

EEaarrllyy ((44)) 47 2 2 51

TToottaallss 8899 66 33 9988

Projects completed or with funding for completion

3.7 Four of these projects assessed as of National significance. Restoration of the Forth & Clyde andUnion Canals, the Huddersfield Narrow and theRochdale, together with the construction of theRibble Link, are adding c.200km of waterway to thenavigable system, preserving outstanding examplesof canal heritage, and generating new recreation andemployment opportunities for local communities.

27

3 Review of projects

Other projects in Categories 1-4

National projects

3.8 There are 26 projects ranked in the rest of the MainSchedule as of National significance. The higherfigure than in 1998 is accounted for by the retentionof all the projects accorded this ranking in the firstReport together with the upgrading/inclusion of thefollowing:

BBeeddffoorrdd--GGrraanndd UUnniioonn LLiinnkkCChheesstteerrffiieelldd CCaannaall ((wwiitthh RRootthheerr LLiinnkk))CCrroommffoorrdd CCaannaall NNoorrtthheerrnn SSeeccttiioonnGGrraanndd UUnniioonn CCaannaall –– SSlloouugghh AArrmm lliinnkkLLiicchhffiieelldd aanndd HHaatthheerrttoonn CCaannaallss ((jjooiinnttllyy))NNeeaatthh,, TTeennnnaanntt aanndd SSwwaannsseeaa CCaannaallss ((ccoolllleeccttiivveellyy))WWiillttss && BBeerrkkss CCaannaall aanndd NNoorrtthh WWiillttss CCaannaall

3.9 The National projects comprise both key waterwayassets in the built heritage and wildlife fields with awide range of benefits to the national waterwaysystem and to communities in urban and rural areason completion of restoration. In a number of cases,as TTaabbllee 33 shows, these assets and benefits will be multiple.

3.10 Of the Category 1 National projects, restoration ofthe DDrrooiittwwiicchh CCaannaallss, the FFooxxttoonn IInncclliinneedd PPllaannee, theMMoonnttggoommeerryy CCaannaall iinn bbootthh EEnnggllaanndd aanndd WWaalleess, theLLaannccaasstteerr CCaannaall NNoorrtthheerrnn RReeaacchheess, the SSoouutthh FFoorrttyyFFoooott DDrraaiinn and the PPoocckklliinnggttoonn CCaannaall should all beachievable in the next few years (see Table 3). Theywill all offer significant benefits. Most are nowmaking good progress.

3.11 Completion of the RRiibbbbllee LLiinnkk should give a freshimpetus to the restoration of the NNoorrtthheerrnn RReeaacchheessooff tthhee LLaannccaasstteerr CCaannaall, an outstanding heritagewaterway with considerable scope for ruralregeneration. Progress on the MMoonnttggoommeerryy has,however, been somewhat disappointing since the1998 Report and the Council hopes to see asustained effort to attract funding to complete thisvery important restoration.

3.12 Of the Category 2 National projects, the Councilexpects to see equally rapid progress on theBBeeddffoorrdd--GGrraanndd UUnniioonn CCaannaall LLiinnkk and the CCoottsswwoollddCCaannaallss in the light of the active support BritishWaterways and The Waterways Trust are giving tothese projects. The LLiicchhffiieelldd (jointly with theHHaatthheerrttoonn CCaannaall) has been upgraded from Regionalto National to reflect their potential contribution tothe regeneration of the northern stretches of theBCN. Its progress will be materially helped by the

resolution of the crossings issue. The three canals inSouth Wales (NNeeaatthh,, TTeennnnaanntt aanndd SSwwaannsseeaa) are notall in Category 2 but have collectively been givenNational status because of their regenerationpotential and heritage value in a Welsh context andto encourage support for their restoration from theNational Assembly for Wales and the responsiblelocal authorities. The SSoouutthh FFoorrttyy FFoooott DDrraaiinn project(uprated from Regional) should be a high priority inimplementing the Fens Tourism Strategy.

3.13 The Category 3 National projects comprise the BBuuddeeCCaannaall where the Council is looking forward torestoration and management proposals following therecent consultants’ report; the CChheesstteerrffiieelldd((iinncclluuddiinngg tthhee RRootthheerr LLiinnkk)) which has been upgradedto National since 1998 but where the categorisationreflects what remains to be done and understateshow much has already been achieved by BritishWaterways east of Norwood Tunnel; the WWeeyy && AArruunnCCaannaall where interim progress is welcomed but wherea more co-ordinated strategic approach is needed;the WWiillttss && BBeerrkkss CCaannaall, also upgraded to Nationalbecause it will significantly extend the navigablesystem and promote rural and small townregeneration, and the WWoorrsslleeyy DDeellpphh aannddUUnnddeerrggrroouunndd CCaannaallss project which is makingprogress on one of the most significant industrialarchaeology sites in the country.

3.14 The Category 4 National projects include the RRiivveerrAAvvoonn ((UUppppeerr AAvvoonn EExxtteennssiioonn)), a key proposed link inthe national system but one urgently needingassessments of environmental acceptability; theCCrroommffoorrdd CCaannaall NNoorrtthheerrnn SSeeccttiioonn associated with aWorld Heritage site nomination; the GGrraanndd UUnniioonnCCaannaall –– SSlloouugghh AArrmm lliinnkk ttoo tthhee TThhaammeess, another keyproposed link which needs to be explored jointly byBritish Waterways and the Environment Agency; theGGrraanndd WWeesstteerrnn CCaannaall TTuubb BBooaatt sseeccttiioonn whereprogress is needed on the conservation of veryimportant heritage structures, and the SShhrreewwssbbuurryy &&NNeewwppoorrtt CCaannaall, where a new Trust offers thewelcome prospect of progress on the restoration ofthis important heritage waterway.

28

Table 3: Nationally significant projects – key assets and benefits promised from restoration

Nationally significant projects Key assets Key benefits

HHiigghh bbuuiilltt HHiigghh wwiillddlliiffee SSttrraatteeggiicc lliinnkk RReeggeenneerraattiioonnhheerriittaaggee vvaalluuee vvaalluuee aanndd//oorr

eexxtteennssiioonn ttoo nnaattiioonnaall ssyysstteemm

UUrrbbaann RRuurraall

Bedford-Grand Union Link • • •Bude Canal • • • •Cotswold Canals (Stroudwater Navigation/ • • •Thames & Severn Canal) • • •Chesterfield Canal (with Rother Link) • • • •Cromford Canal - Northern Section • •Droitwich Canals • • • • •Foxton Inclined Plane • •Grand Union Canal – Slough Arm Link •Grand Western Canal (Tub Boat section) • •Lancaster Canal Northern Reaches • • • •(with Ribble Link) • • • •Lichfield and Hatherton Canals (jointly) • •Montgomery Canal (England and Wales) • • • •Pocklington Canal • • •River Avon (Upper Avon Extension) • •Shrewsbury & Newport Canal • • • •South Forty Foot (or Black Sluice) Drain • •Stour Navigation • • Vale of Neath & Swansea Valley Canals - • •Neath, Tennant and Swansea Canals (collectively) • •Wey & Arun Canal • •Wilts & Berks Canal and North Wilts Canal • • •Worsley Delph & Underground Canals • •

29

30

Regional projects

3.15 The Category 1 Regional projects – the DDeerrbbyy,,GGrraanntthhaamm aanndd MMoonnmmoouutthhsshhiirree CCaannaallss – are alldistinguished by strong local authority support forrestoration and should be able to complete theremaining work within a few years once additionalfunding is secured. Their strategic status remainsunchanged since 1998.

3.16 In Category 3, projects include two new East Anglianwaterways – the EEaarriitthh ttoo RRaammsseeyy and the WWeellllaanndd--NNeennee LLiinnkkss – which the Fens Tourism Strategy ispromoting and which merit the fuller feasibilitystudies that are being led by the EnvironmentAgency in partnership with local authorities, and athird new length, the LLiivveerrppooooll LLiinnkk, extending theLeeds & Liverpool Canal through the docks toenliven the City waterfront. Other projects are theSSoommeerrsseettsshhiirree CCooaall CCaannaall, another historicallyimportant waterway where funding has beensecured for further restoration work and the SSlleeaaffoorrddNNaavviiggaattiioonn where, in contrast, progress towardscompletion has been limited.

3.17 There are eight Regional projects in Category 4, all ofwhich require basic technical and economicfeasibility studies before their prospects can beproperly assessed. One of the most ambitious is theBBaarrnnsslleeyy aanndd DDeeaarrnnee && DDoovvee CCaannaallss project wheremore co-ordinated local authority support is vital ifrestoration is ever to be achieved. The BBooww BBaacckkRRiivveerrss project in East London could prove a strategicregeneration focus for this part of London. TheDDuuddlleeyy NNoo 22 or LLaappaall CCaannaall has been upgraded fromLocal status in 1998. The MMaacccclleessffiieelldd CCaannaall -- CCaallddoonnCCaannaall LLiinnkk is a new project and potentially important.The MMaanncchheesstteerr,, BBoollttoonn && BBuurryy CCaannaall is of highhistoric importance and the renewed interest in acomprehensive restoration by British Waterways,local authorities and the voluntary sector is verywelcome. The PPoorrttssmmoouutthh && AArruunnddeell CCaannaall is a longterm aspiration and will need to be considered inrelation to the Chichester Ship and Wey & Arunprojects. The SSaannkkeeyy CCaannaall is also of great historicalimportance and an investigation into its restorationpotential will assist in assessing the potential value ofa SSaannkkeeyy CCaannaall//LLeeeeddss && LLiivveerrppooooll LLiinnkk. A SSlleeaaffoorrddNNaavviiggaattiioonn--GGrraanntthhaamm CCaannaall LLiinnkk is similarlydependent on progress on the restoration of thewaterways it is designed to connect.

Local projects

3.18 These occur, inevitably, in all categories andcomprise a very heterogeneous group of projects.The distinguishing feature of those in Category 1,such as the AAsshhbbyy CCaannaall, the CChheellmmeerr NNaavviiggaattiioonn,the WWeennddoovveerr AArrmm, and the BBuurrsslleemm PPoorrtt PPrroojjeecctt, isthe pro-active support of the responsible localauthority/navigation authority. In contrast, theCChhiicchheesstteerr SShhiipp CCaannaall, in Category 3, has not movedforward since 1998 and needs more sustained localauthority support for what should be a relativelystraightforward project.

3.19 In the remaining categories are a number of newentrants to the assessment for example, the variousCCaallddoonn--UUttttooxxeetteerr CCaannaallss projects, the AArrddlluuii ttooIInnvveerraarrnnaann CCaannaall in Scotland, the RRiivveerr OOuussee inSussex and the RRiivveerr WWiisssseeyy project. At least two of the Caldon projects already have local authority support.

3.20 The bulk, however, were rated medium and longer-term projects in 1998 and many appear to have madelittle or no progress since then despite the evidentrecreational and other community benefits theywould appear to offer to their local communities.There is clearly an urgent task in promoting theserestorations to win local political support.

3.21 A distinct group, as was noted in the 1998 Report, isin East Anglia and the Fens. They include theAAnncchhoollmmee--RRaassee LLiinnkk, the AAnncchhoollmmee--WWiitthhaamm LLiinnkk,the AAyyllsshhaamm NNaavviiggaattiioonn, the BBllyytthh NNaavviiggaattiioonn,BBoottttiisshhaamm LLooddee,, BBoouurrnnee EEaauu,, HHoorrnnccaassttllee NNaavviiggaattiioonn,,IIvveell NNaavviiggaattiioonn,, LLaarrkk NNaavviiggaattiioonn,, LLiittttllee OOuusseeNNaavviiggaattiioonn,, NNoorrtthh WWaallsshhaamm && DDiillhhaamm CCaannaall(regraded to Local from Regional), SSoohhaamm LLooddee,,SSttaammffoorrdd CCaannaall ((WWeellllaanndd ''SSyysstteemm'')),, SSwwaaffffhhaammBBuullbbeecckk LLooddee,, WWaavveenneeyy NNaavviiggaattiioonn,, RRiivveerr WWiisssseeyy,,WWiitthhaamm NNaavviiggaabbllee DDrraaiinnss -- EEaasstt FFeenn LLoocckk. Some, e.g.the Aylsham Navigation and the North Walsham &Dilham Canal, may have difficult nature conservationissues to resolve but the majority do not appear topresent any very great difficulties in the way ofrestoration/development and should be looked at asa priority by the relevant authorities. Construction ofthe Bedford-Grand Union Canal Link may wellstimulate greater interest in expanding the navigablesystem to the east but it is to be hoped that in theinterim the outcome of the Fens Tourism study willencourage a more pro-active approach by theresponsible authorities.

3.22 A few local projects are showing what can beachieved – the assessment notes the success of the

31

DDoorrsseett && SSoommeerrsseett CCaannaall -- FFrroommee BBrraanncchh in tappingHLF funding, the local authority interest in the SSttoovveerrCCaannaall and the LLiisskkeeaarrdd && LLooooee CCaannaall, and theprogress on the MMoonnkkllaanndd CCaannaall in Scotland. Thegains to their communities are no less important forbeing local in scale and could well be emulated elsewhere.

Regional and sub-regional approachesto restoration

3.23 The example in South Wales of the approachadopted to the restoration of the Neath, Tennant andSwansea Canals, whereby an integrated sub-regionalinitiative is being pursued under the umbrella of the‘Vale of Neath and Swansea Valley Canals’, may wellbe a useful model elsewhere. The isolated waterwaysin South West England, for example the Bude Canal,the Grand Western Canal, the Liskeard & Looe Canal,the Somersetshire Coal Canal and the Stover Canal,are difficult restorations and could benefit from astrategic approach to put together a basket ofwaterways in the region. A similar strategic approachcould yield dividends for the Wey &Arun/Portsmouth & Arundel Canals projects inrelation to the (existing) Wey Navigation andBasingstoke Canal.

Summary

3.24 The review has identified three very clear groupsamong the hundred projects – a group of twenty orso which have made and are making significantstrides towards completion; another, no more than15 or so, which are making respectable progress, andthe remainder where progress is limited, evenminimal or indeed which are, at the present time, nomore than aspirations for the long term. What distinguishes the first two from the third is thecommitment, professionalism, planning and politicalwill which is being brought to bear on the restorationprocess and the public support they have generated.

4.1 In evaluating the progress of projects since the 1998Report, the Council has identified a number of issuesof relevance to the main players in the restorationprocess and makes the following recommendations,repeating, where it is still considered useful andappropriate, some of the earlier advice.

4.2 The relevant issues for developing viable andsuccessful projects are

•• pprroojjeecctt bbeenneeffiittss,, ppaarrttnneerrsshhiipp aanndd pprrooffeessssiioonnaalliissmm•• tthhee rroollee ooff kkeeyy ffuunnddiinngg bbooddiieess•• tthhee rroollee ooff nnaavviiggaattiioonn aauutthhoorriittiieess •• tthhee rroollee ooff llooccaall aauutthhoorriittiieess•• rreessttoorraattiioonn aanndd wwaatteerr ssuupppplliieess•• ccoonnsseerrvviinngg tthhee hhiissttoorriicc eennvviirroonnmmeenntt•• ccoonnsseerrvviinngg tthhee nnaattuurraall eennvviirroonnmmeenntt•• lloonngg tteerrmm ssuussttaaiinnaabbiilliittyy

4.3 These are considered in turn, identifying the mainplayers involved, the nature of the issue and then therecommendations.

• PROJECT BENEFITS, PARTNERSHIP AND PROFESSIONALISM

MMaaiinn ppllaayyeerrss:: aallll bbooddiieess pprroommoottiinngg rreessttoorraattiioonn pprroojjeeccttss bbuutt pprriinncciippaallllyy llooccaall vvoolluunnttaarryy oorrggaanniissaattiioonnss

4.4 Successful projects are built on the basis of oftencomplex partnerships that bring together consortia ofthe relevant riparian local authorities, local andnational waterway societies, voluntary sector specialinterest organisations (for example, those concernedwith public access, transport, education,environment and heritage) and funding agencies(drawn from the statutory and voluntary sectors), todeliver projects that generate multiple benefitsacross the social, economic and environmentalagendas.

4.5 There is no doubt that design and implementation ofprojects in this modern context requires a veryprofessional approach. It is clear from the responsesto the Council’s questionnaires that progress is beingmade in this matter but there are still a number ofprojects where improvements in approach areneeded. This is particularly so where an organisationis in the early stages of the process or where it hasnot so far been able to secure the active support of aprofessional navigation body or local authority.

4.6 Such organisations need help and encouragement.There are extensive mutual self help links betweenrestoration groups, with backing from the Inland

Waterways Association and the Waterway RecoveryGroup, but links with navigation authorities, partic-ularly British Waterways, remain the key to obtainingthe professional help which is needed (seeRecommendations below to navigation authorities).The British Waterways/The Waterways Trustpartnership is showing what can be achieved inhelping other promoters. The Council looks to theEnvironment Agency to be proactive in advisingrestoration promoters, encouraging them to makecontact at an early stage in their project.

Recommendations

4.7 All restoration proposals and projects shoulddemonstrate popular local support for their visionand the benefits to be obtained if they are to besuccessfully achieved.

4.8 Promoters should cultivate, encourage anddemonstrate the active support of elected membersand professional officers in the relevant localauthority(ies) to progress their projects and shouldestablish meaningful partnership arrangements withthem and other relevant bodies.

4.9 Possible conflicts of interest, an overall forwardprogramme, a conservation management plan andthe strategy to provide for future management andmaintenance should be considered from the outset,in liaison with the local authority, waterwayauthorities, statutory agencies, local Wildlife Trustsand other built and wildlife conservation organisations.

4.10 All promoters should identify at an early stage thescope of the preparatory work (i.e. engineeringwork, water supply, environmental impact, costs andpotential sources of funding, land ownership, legalconsiderations, consents and licences etc). The DTLRTransport & Works Act (TWA) 1992 Order guidance1

provides a useful reference list of steps required.

4.11 Unless, exceptionally, a single funder is likely, largerprojects should be broken down, whereverpracticable, into discrete phases on the basis ofwhich funding organisation(s) might be willing tofund each part.

32

4 Recommendations on main issues in restoration

1 A Guide to TWA Procedures, subtitled "Guidance on the proce-dures for obtaining orders under the Transport and Works Act1992, relating to transport systems, inland waterways and worksinterfering with rights of navigation", published by DETR inFebruary 2001 but not yet printed. It is however on the DTLR website

4.12 Promoters should take the widest possible view of thepublic benefits of restoration (including economic,environmental, wildlife conservation, educational,community access and social inclusion) to beobtained, not only from the restoration itself but alsowithin the wider waterway corridor, so as tomaximise local support and funding opportunities.

4.13 The general Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)format, suitably adapted to local circumstances,should be used in all cases, even if a formal EIA is notrequired. In addition to the Environment Agency’sguidance in Navigation and Environmental Appraisal:a Guidance Note (June 2000), a range of moregeneral guidance is available, such as The Institute ofEnvironmental Assessment’s Guidelines forEnvironmental Assessment (1995).

4.14 All funding applications should be closely focused onthe objectives and eligibility criteria of the fundingbody in question, and demonstrate verifiablefinancial control systems and capacity to implementthe project.

4.15 For all except the smallest projects, funding shouldbe allocated for the employment of a competentproject development officer and not be consideredan unwarranted diversion of resources from activerestoration on the ground.

4.16 If the Landfill Tax Credit (LTC) scheme continues(and the Council considers that it should do so - seeabove), local restoration organisations shouldconsider ways of forming an association with otherpromoters, raising their profile with the landfill trade and so better addressing relevant environmental issues.

• THE ROLE OF KEY FUNDING BODIES

MMaaiinn PPllaayyeerrss:: NNaattiioonnaall GGoovveerrnnmmeenntt,, NNaattiioonnaall AAsssseemmbbllyy ffoorr WWaalleess,, SSccoottttiisshh EExxeeccuuttiivvee,, EEnngglliisshh RReeggiioonnaall DDeevveellooppmmeenntt AAggeenncciieess,, WWeellsshh DDeevveellooppmmeenntt AAggeennccyy,, SSccoottttiisshh EEnntteerrpprriissee aanndd HHiigghhllaanndd aanndd IIssllaannddss EEnntteerrpprriissee,, NNaattiioonnaall LLootttteerryy ffuunnddiinngg bbooddiieess,, TThhee WWaatteerrwwaayyss TTrruusstt,, llooccaall aauutthhoorriittiieess,, EENNTTRRUUSSTT,, CCoouunnttrryyssiiddee AAggeennccyy

4.17 In part the issue is one of getting worthwhile projectsto the attention of key funders; in part it is a matter ofgood practice by funders themselves in the way theyhandle applications for funding. Fund holders shouldencourage a much greater dialogue with potentialapplicants. Too often, restoration promoters have putforward applications to inappropriate funding organi-sations, i.e.ones whose criteria do not match the

project, while other good sources of funding gountapped. The absence of any co-ordination ofapplications for funds and funding provision withinthe waterway movement wastes scarce resources(see Recommendations to navigation authorities below).

4.18 The role of the national/regional developmentagencies will be crucial. In England, RDAs assuccessors to English Partnerships are assisting theHuddersfield Narrow Canal and Rochdale Canalrestorations and Scottish Enterprise is a partner in theMillennium Link project. The partnershipinvolvement of the Eastern and South West RDAs inthe Bedford-Grand Union Link and Cotswold Canalsprojects respectively is a very welcome sign ofcommitment for the future. Much more, however, isneeded at both feasibility and implementation stage.All English RDAs must be encouraged to giveprominence to the revitalisation of waterwaycorridors in their strategies and action planning,because it is imperative that they fill the gap left bythe former English Partnerships’ Land ReclamationProgramme. This, like its predecessor Derelict LandGrant, provided an essential source of funding forrestorations in the past. RDAs need to be shown thatrestoration is not just for boating but for economic,social and environmental regeneration, linking to awide range of other policies and programmes acrossthe entire waterway corridor.

4.19 There is a view that the Heritage Lottery Fund’s(HLF) grant activity for waterway restoration hasbeen disappointing since the very generous grant tothe Kennet & Avon Canal. However, the allocation tothe heritage sector which includes waterways,remains large and there is no reason why sound well-constructed proposals (again embracing the widerwaterway, environment and community, access andeducational benefits) should not succeed. The Fundstill looks first for clear evidence of historicimportance (as with the Anderton Boat Lift and themore recent grant to the Chesterfield Canal), but thefocus is on major structures and there is uncertaintyover the extent to which, under the new CanalsPolicy, the line of an historic waterway is in itselfregarded as having heritage importance and/orwhether new lengths or replacement structures willbe accepted for grant aid. The Council would wish tosee the Fund clarify its position on these issues as away of assisting applicants.

33

Recommendations

4.20 National Government, the Welsh Assembly and theScottish Executive should ensure that RDAs (andtheir Welsh and Scottish equivalents) and otheragencies include worthwhile waterway restorationprojects in their strategies and plans for urban andrural regeneration, in line with national governmentpolicy.

4.21 The RDAs, as they develop action plans within theirstrategies, should be encouraged to reflect the valueof investing in waterway restoration to enhance theirregional economies.

4.22 Funding agencies should recognise and cater for thevaried funding requirements of projects throughouttheir lives, from the feasibility studies and technicalinvestigations needed to establish an overall strategy,through to the work needed to make substantialphysical progress towards completion.

4.23 Funding agencies should also provide applicants withclear descriptions of their eligibility criteria and anychanges to them, give applicants the views ofassessors and offer them the opportunity to modifyapplications before they are subjected to finalassessment. Secure submission and decision datesshould be provided especially where matchingfunding is involved. Feedback on assessment ofapplications, whether successful or not, should beopen and clear.

4.24 The HLF should make clearer its willingness torecognise the intrinsic heritage merit of a waterwayas a whole and consider establishing, within theappropriate heritage sector, a specific inlandwaterway programme to assist mainstreamrestoration projects. Greater efforts should be madeby the Fund to reach out to prospective applicants, toensure that they are aware of the funding available,and how to construct successful proposals.

4.25 The Waterways Trust should publish a longer-term 5-10 year strategy defining its proposed role inwaterway restoration, identifying the projects that itwill assist and the means by which it will achieve itsobjectives. The Council would particularly welcomeTrust involvement in progressing restoration andconservation work on those waterways which are ofhigh historical value and which this review identifiesas of national and regional importance in this respect.

4.26 The Government should consider introducingalternative funding for general environmentalprojects as a replacement for the Landfill Tax Credit

(LTC) scheme if the latter should cease and in anycase consider whether existing regimes andresources are adequate.

• THE ROLE OF NAVIGATION AUTHORITIES

MMaaiinn PPllaayyeerrss:: BBrriittiisshh WWaatteerrwwaayyss,, EEnnvviirroonnmmeenntt AAggeennccyy,, AAssssoocciiaattiioonn ooff IInnllaanndd NNaavviiggaattiioonn AAuutthhoorriittiieess

4.27 The agreement of the navigation authority, if any, andconsultation with the body responsible for managingany adjacent navigable waterway, are prerequisitesfor any restoration project. All projects concerningthe waterways operated by British Waterways andthe Environment Agency should seek theirendorsement as owner or manager. Restoration ofwaterways outside their control - the majority ofthose currently active – but which interconnect withtheir systems may also have implications for theiractivities and raise water resources or other issues.

4.28 Section 2 above makes clear that British Waterwayscan and does do much more than merely discussproposed restorations affecting its own navigations.As part of its current activities, British Waterways (inpartnership with The Waterways Trust and othervoluntary organisations) is investigating the feasibilityof completing six further major projects (see Section2) but additional projects beyond these will thenneed to be considered. The involvement of BritishWaterways, along with the Trust and others, is nowthe key to continuing significant extensions of thenavigable system.

4.29 The Association of Inland Navigation Authorities,which has among its membership both BritishWaterways and a range of other organisationsinvolved in restoration activity, should be a usefulforum for disseminating good practice amongst itsmembers and the Council would like to see it domore in this respect. AINA’s document A Vision forthe Strategic Enhancement of Britain’s InlandNavigation Network, due for publication later in2001, is the latest contribution to the debate on thelonger term future of the inland waterways.

34

35

Recommendations

4.30 Beyond its own substantial current restorationprogramme, and the six feasibility studies set out inSection 2, British Waterways should draw up alonger term 10-15 year plan for restoration whichidentifies, through partnerships with the WaterwaysTrust and others, those projects which would bestassist its own business strategy and its goals for thefuture development of the national system. In thisrespect, the Council commends to British Waterwaysthose further projects involving restoration ofnavigation or developing new waterways that havebeen assessed in this review.

4.31 British Waterways should continue to assistvoluntary groups and The Waterways Trust with itsadvice and expertise (for example in engineeringfeasibility and project management, commercialevaluations and promotion, conservationmanagement planning, funding applications andmanagement agreements), and consider help withfeasibility and other studies where restorationproposals will impact on its own waterways.

4.32 The Environment Agency should similarly facilitatethe improvement and extension of its own navigablesystem, wherever practical and environmentallyacceptable, and consider help with feasibility andother studies where restoration proposals will impacton its own waterways. The Council particularlywelcomes the Agency playing a lead role in theimplementation of the Fens Tourism Strategy.

• THE ROLE OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES

MMaaiinn ppllaayyeerrss:: LLooccaall AAuutthhoorriittiieess

4.33 The increasing interest on the part of local authoritiesin waterway restoration has already been noted.Their statutory planning powers and responsibilitiesare essential for the protection of the line of disusedwaterways pending restoration and the safeguardingof areas or features of both the built and naturalenvironment associated with historic waterways.Statutory development plans and the new LocalTransport Plans can also play an important part inidentifying, safeguarding and promoting water-sideregeneration opportunities. The even newer LocalStrategic Partnerships will provide other fundingopportunities from which restoration projects maywell be able to benefit if they demonstrate tangiblebenefits to the local community.

4.34 Local authorities can also be a valuable source ofadvice on many issues relevant to waterwayrestoration, including local advice on economicdevelopment, tourism, recreation, communitydevelopment, nature conservation, landscape, builtconservation and local consultation/partnershipissues. Local authority support is often crucial for thefunding of preliminary studies and for the co-ordination of funding packages. Where restoredwaterways can demonstrably offer significanteconomic, social and environmental benefits, there isthe basis for a successful partnership between localauthorities, restoration groups and others.

Recommendations

4.35 As far as practicable, restoration projects included inthis report should be supported by the appropriatelocal authorities, using the full range of theirstatutory powers and scope for advisory and fundingsupport.

4.36 Local authorities should ensure that action is taken torecord, protect and conserve any significantarchitectural, engineering, landscape or ecologicalassets associated with projects in this report, takingaction to designate landscape and townscapeconservation areas, serve building preservationnotices and tree preservation orders as appropriate.They should also seek the advice of national conser-vation agencies on the preparation of conservationmanagement plans.

4.37 Within their statutory development plans, localauthorities should incorporate policies and proposalsthat protect both the line of currently unrestoredwaterways and their corridors from any form ofdevelopment that would obstruct restoration or limitthe regeneration potential of the waterway corridor.These plans should be used as a pro-active means ofidentifying programmes of economic, social andenvironmental regeneration along waterwaycorridors.

4.38 Local authorities should play an active part in thedevelopment and maintenance of effectivepartnerships with local restoration groups, waterwayauthorities and other interested parties, providingprofessional support for such partnerships from thewide range of expertise available within theauthority.

4.39 Local authorities should give favourable consid-eration to the co-funding of essential feasibilitystudies and subsequent project planning, and to

the implementation of physical works compatiblewith an overall restoration plan. Support forvoluntary activity can achieve early low-cost results.

4.40 Serious consideration should be given by localauthorities to the inclusion of waterway restorationprojects within the new Local Strategic Partnershipsbecause of their contribution to improving theeconomic, social and environmental well being oflocal communities.

• RESTORATION AND WATER ISSUES

MMaaiinn PPllaayyeerrss:: EEnnvviirroonnmmeenntt AAggeennccyy ((EEnnggllaanndd aanndd WWaalleess)),, SSccoottttiisshh EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall PPrrootteeccttiioonn AAggeennccyy ((SSEEPPAA))

4.41 These agencies (with some exceptions in SEPA’scase) have an interest in all restoration activity byvirtue of their statutory responsibilities for theregulation of the water environment, including waterresources, flood defence, fisheries, water quality,conservation the recreational use of water space. Toassist with the key issue of water resource allocation,it is necessary to know about projects and proposedprojects for waterway restoration and development.It is very important that all projects are discussedwith them from the beginning of their development.

4.42 In England and Wales, the Environment Agency hasundertaken, within its regulatory role, to work withrestoration projects in all its regions through its LocalEnvironment Agency Plans (LEAPs) and CatchmentAbstraction Management Strategies (CAMS)processes. These should identify water resourceissues at an early stage and the Agency will then beable to discuss possible ways forward. In Scotland, itis likely that water licencing will be added to SEPA’sexisting responsibility for water quality.

Recommendations

4.43 As national water resources have to be managedincreasingly carefully, any water supply aspects ofrestoration should be set in the context of theintegrated catchment management processesmanaged by the Environment Agency and anyforthcoming processes managed by SEPA inScotland. All project promoters should contact theirlocal Agency office about this if they have notalready done so.

4.44 All restoration and development projects in Englandand Wales listed in this report should be included inthe Environment Agency’s Local EnvironmentAgency Plans and CAMS.

4.45 In allocating water resources, the Agencies shouldtake account of the non-consumptive non-pollutingnature of navigational needs and the often consid-erable economic, social and indeed environmentalvalue of completed restoration projects.

4.46 Restoration promoters should always include waterissues in their Environmental Impact Assessment andshould recognise that, in some cases, maintenance ofnavigation may have to be secondary to maintenanceof the biodiversity interest of a site, or of adjacentsites from which water might be taken or to whichwater might be supplied, during periods of low flow.Any potential changes in flood control characteristicsshould be clearly identified and, if adverse,mitigation proposals agreed with the responsibleauthority.

• CONSERVING THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

MMaaiinn ppllaayyeerrss:: EEnngglliisshh NNaattuurree ((EENN)),, CCoouunnttrryyssiiddee CCoouunncciill ffoorr WWaalleess ((CCCCWW)),, SSccoottttiisshh NNaattuurraall HHeerriittaaggee ((SSNNHH)) ttooggeetthheerr wwiitthh WWiillddlliiffee TTrruussttss ((WWTTss)) aanndd LLooccaall BBiiooddiivveerrssiittyy PPaarrttnneerrsshhiippss ((LLBBPPss))

4.47 These three statutory agencies have a duty to notifyany part of a waterway that is of interest for its flora,fauna or natural features as a Site of Special ScientificInterest (SSSI). A list of operations likely to damagethe special interest is provided by them. Owners oroccupiers must give notice of their intention to carryout such operations. Management prescriptions canonly be agreed which maintain or enhance thespecial interest. The agencies have to be consultedover restoration proposals affecting an SSSI by thewaterway owner(s). It is incumbent on restorationgroups to liaise through owners if any restorationproject involves an SSSI. Each case needs to beassessed individually and, through negotiation,measures agreed to prevent damage to an SSSI.

4.48 The Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act2000 (see Section 2) requires sensitive and positivemanagement of SSSIs to maintain their conservationinterest, in addition to strengthening the responsi-bility not to damage which was in the older Wildlifeand Countryside Act. If an SSSI is damaged byneglect, EN or CCW can impose management on thesite to restore those features for which it was

36

originally notified. The CROW Act also places a dutyupon public bodies, including all local authorities,BW and EA, to positively manage SSSIs. As localauthorities are partners in nearly all restorationprojects and BW and EA are also often involved, thisduty will be relevant wherever an SSSI is present.The Act also recognises that the integrity of an SSSIoften depends on the state and management ofadjoining areas, by requiring those Public Bodies toconsider indirect impacts on the site. This mayinfluence the assessment of projects on waterwayswhich are themselves undesignated, but are in thevicinity of SSSIs.

4.49 Exceptionally an SSSI may be given internationalstatus, for example as a Special Area of Conservation(SAC). This will apply directly to a waterway only if ithas priority habitats or contains notable populationsof priority species. SACs or other internationaldesignations relating to bird interest (Ramsar Sites orSpecial Protection Areas) may apply to areas adjacentto a waterway. The statutory agencies will advise onthe special conditions relating to sites with interna-tional designations and their influence on anyadjacent waterways.

4.50 EN, CCW and SNH are also the lead organisationsfor a large number of priority species in the NationalBiodiversity Action Plan and should be consulted ifany of these species are present in the area of theproposed project. Lead organisations for otherpriority species are various but EN, CCW and SNHmaintain a register of these.

4.51 The local Wildlife Trusts, together with their headoffice in Newark, have a wealth of information onflora, fauna, habitats and their management forconservation. Many offer wildlife survey services ona consultancy basis. The establishment of a positivecollaboration with the Trusts should be an earlypriority in the development of all waterwayrestoration projects. Inputs from Trusts can addconsiderably to the quality of applications to fundingbodies, as the latter are placing increasing emphasison the demonstration of properly founded wildlifeconservation and enhancement components inproject proposals. The British Trust for ConservationVolunteers can also offer technical and practical assistance.

4.52 The Inland Waterways Association’s (1999) TechnicalRestoration Handbook, Chapter 15 WildlifeConservation provides detailed further guidance. InEngland, EN’s Peterborough office (Tel 01733455000) will give contact details for local EN offices,

the WT’s Newark office (01636 677711) will providecontacts for local WTs, and BW (01452 318011)holds the register of LBPs.

4.53 The development and implementation of LocalBiodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs) are being led bypartnerships between local authorities and WildlifeTrusts. LBAPs are the mechanism by which nationalplans for species and habitats are translated intoaction at a local level. The CROW Act provides legalendorsement for BAPs by stipulating thatGovernment departments, and through them PublicBodies such as BW and EA, must have regard to thepurpose of conserving and enhancing biodiversity inaccordance with the Rio Convention. In many cases,waterways feature prominently in these plans, forhabitats, species or both. Project promoters shouldcontact the LBPs which cover their proposed area ofoperation. LBP arrangements differ betweenlocalities, but BW maintains a list of the Partnerships,which can be consulted. The LBPs will be able toadvise on the parts of the Local Plans relevant to theproject area, including aspirations for biodiversitygain. These features can then be incorporated intoproject planning, with the aim of producing a schemethat is in harmony with and, ideally, advances therelevant Local Biodiversity Action Plans. Via a holisticview of local projects, LBPs are well placed tomaximise opportunities for local biodiversity gain, forexample by cross linking several related projects.

4.54 British Waterways is committed to conservingbiodiversity and has a framework for developingbiodiversity planning on individual waterways overthe next few years. The Association of InlandNavigation Authorities’ strategy document Steering aFresh Course also commits its members to thedevelopment of biodiversity plans. This planning willlink into the appropriate LBPs.

4.55 Biodiversity criteria are also important in landscapeenhancement and management and in therestoration of historic landscapes, along thewaterway itself and in its wider corridor. An exampleis long-term tree management to replace alienspecies, such as sycamore, with ecologicallyappropriate native species.

4.56 Clearly wildlife conservation has become anincreasingly prominent issue in recent years, suchthat there are now a considerable legislativeframework, a number of key players and somespecialist technical information to be taken intoaccount in project development. Nevertheless,needs can be summarised as

37

38

(1) to design each project to harmonise with and,where possible further, Local Biodiversity ActionPlans;

(2) to take account of any statutory designationsoperative in or near the location of the project.

Recommendations

4.57 Environmental and biodiversity issues should beconsidered from the very start of project planningand throughout project development, with clearevidence of professional advice being taken whereneeded. Essential components should include:

- baseline assessment of the existing ecologicalresource (including habitats, biodiversity and anypriority species);

- assessment of likely impacts on this resource andassociated biodiversity interests ;

- development of measures to prevent or at leastmitigate, adverse impacts;

- maintenance and enhancement of biodiversity, inline with national and local Biodiversity ActionPlan (BAP) targets;

- ensuring long-term sustainability specifications, inboth the construction and the subsequentmanagement phases of the project;

- a management plan for the construction andmaintenance phases which incorporates clearprocedures for monitoring and auditing theachievement of the objectives specified above.

4.58 The statutory agencies, Wildlife Trusts and LocalBiodiversity Partnerships should be consulted fortheir knowledge, advice and, where applicable,permissions. Other non Governmental organisations(NGOs), such as the RSPB, the British Trust forOrnithology, the BTCV and the Pond ConservationGroup, may also be useful. These organisationsshould provide prompt and open access to relevantinformation in their possession and should helpproject promoters to understand any conservationissues raised by their proposals. They should alsoassist promoters in any work they undertake todetermine the extent to which those conservationissues could be resolved within the aims of theproject. Specific statutory issues, such asmaintenance of the special interest of any SSSIs,proposals for safeguarding priority species andharmonisation of proposals with Biodiversity ActionPlans, should be set out clearly.

4.59 Firm proposals for biodiversity, and their specificrelevance to LBAPs and Waterway Biodiversity Plans,should be regarded as a basic requirement. Theseare especially valuable where previously degradedsites, urban or rural, are being proposed forrestoration. Gain is quite rapid in aquatic habitats, sothat channel and waters’ edge plantings made at theend of an engineering phase can be expected toestablish good vegetation after only one full growingseason, especially if not stressed by immediateintroduction of boat traffic. Phasing of projectsshould take account of these matters. Opportunitiesshould also be taken, where land ownership permits,to construct anew habitats largely lost over the lasttwo centuries, notably ponds, marshes and wetwoodlands. This may be feasible for example wherewater is periodically or constantly weired out of anavigation for level control purposes.

4.60 Re-instatement of lost vegetation types and historiclandscapes should normally be with native species oflocal provenance and vegetation compositionsappropriate to the locality and site conditions.

4.61 Features such as restored biodiversity, habitats orlandscapes and especially interesting species shouldbe interpreted to the public by lively and innovativemeans or readily available literature.

• CONSERVING THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT

MMaaiinn PPllaayyeerrss:: EEnngglliisshh HHeerriittaaggee,, CCAADDWW ((WWaalleess)) aanndd HHiissttoorriicc SSccoottllaanndd

4.62 A core component of all restoration projects is theconservation of the historic environment. In England,Wales and Scotland the statutory responsibility forthe management of the historic environment restswith the above agencies and with local authorities inthe case of listed buildings and conservation areas.The agencies are also principal advisers to theHeritage Lottery Fund.

4.63 The Council has taken the advice of English Heritagein offering these recommendations for conservingthe historic environment in restoration projects.

Recommendations

4.64 Preparing a conservation plan (or conservationstatement) should be the essential first step in anyrestoration project. Conservation Plans for HistoricPlaces (HLF 1998) is a useful source of generalguidance and Conservation Plans in Action (EH

1999) contains a model brief for commissioningconservation plans. EH’s Power of Place (2000)should also be consulted. BW’s Conservation Planfor the Kennet & Avon restoration is the mostdeveloped example so far for a waterway. Theprocess of research, assessment and consultation inpreparing a conservation plan is an invaluable meansof achieving consensus and reconciling anycompeting objectives. It also helps to buildconfidence in collaboration among all thestakeholders in a restoration project. Conservationplans are a pre-requisite for most fundingapplications to the HLF and are particularly relevantwhere it may be necessary to reconcile the conser-vation of historic fabric (or natural habitats) withproposals to restore waterways and make themusable and accessible again. Some of the maincomponents of a plan are set out below.

4.65 Conservation plans should evaluate the significanceof the waterway in terms of historical importance, thenatural environment, landscape archaeology andother values that may be particularly evocative forlocal communities (based on input from communityand voluntary bodies). Only a small proportion of thelandscapes/structures/habitats may be statutorilyprotected. The plans should cover the entirewaterway, its component features and the characterof related landscapes, and should assess sensitivityand vulnerability to change. They should also includeconservation policies to safeguard the specialcharacter and significance of the waterway, therebyproviding a framework within which to developdetailed restoration proposals.

4.66 Assessments of significance in the conservation planshould be made in consultation with local authorities(and national agencies where relevant) in order todetermine whether there would be merit indesignating a conservation area, or whether anyhistoric structures deserve statutory protectionthrough listing or scheduling. Early consideration ofthe potential for statutory designation allows time forprogramming the necessary consultations andapplications for statutory approvals (listed buildingconsent and scheduled monuments consent, andconservation area consent for any demolitions thatmay be justified within conservation areas). Advicefrom local authority conservation officers and fromthe national agencies where necessary will also behelpful in formulating and supporting fundingpartnerships and grant applications.

4.67 Drawn, written and photographic records should bemade of historic structures where necessary in order

to understand their significance and as the basis forspecifying repairs. Ground works and othersubstantial interventions may require archaeologicalinvestigation and recording in accordance withplanning policy guidance on Archaeology andPlanning (PPG16). Technical guidance and modelbriefs for archaeological recording are published bythe Institute of Field Archaeologists and theAssociation of Local Government ArchaeologicalOfficers.

4.68 Restoration projects should seek the sustainablereuse of waterway buildings in accordance with theguidance on Planning and the Historic Environment(PPG 15), and decisions on the recreation of loststructures should be informed by the availability ofsuitable evidence (documentary sources,photographic archives etc), for adherence to highstandards of authenticity.

4.69 New structures should be of good modern design, indurable materials, respecting the scale and characterof the waterway and should be dated whereappropriate. Pastiche detailing should be avoided.

4.70 Restoration projects should also seek to preserve andwhere necessary enhance the historic character ofthe waterway environment including the conser-vation of waterway structures (locks, lock cottages,bridges, aqueducts, weirs etc) and buildingsassociated with the waterway (warehouses, canalworkers’ housing, pubs etc). Cherished features suchas mile posts, bollards etc that are the hallmarks oflocal distinctiveness should be retained, andtraditional surface materials such as cobbling andpaving deserve sensitive repair rather thanreplacement.

4.71 Where historic structures need repair, like-for-likereplacement should be specified both for materialsand where possible for construction techniques.Repairs should be specified and overseen by aconservation architect, engineer or surveyor withrelevant experience and expertise in the treatment ofhistoric structures and work should be carried outsensitively by craftsmen trained in the use oftraditional materials and experienced in thetechniques of building conservation. Relevant adviceis available from British Waterways’ heritage centre at Hatton.

4.72 Consolidated proposals for waterway restoration canusefully be developed through a management plan,drawing upon the conclusions of conservation plansand articulating the specific timely actions of relevantstakeholders for the restoration objectives to be

39

achieved. A formal process of monitoring and reviewwill enable progress to be assessed in accordancewith measurable targets that are likely to bedetermined in accordance with relevant funding regimes.

4.73 Lively and innovative interpretation for visitors toappreciate the history, former use and conservationof restored waterways should always be provided asa lasting public benefit befitting the investment ofeffort and resources in restoration.

• LONG TERM SUSTAINABILITY

MMaaiinn PPllaayyeerrss:: PPrroojjeecctt ffuunnddeerrss,, wwaatteerrwwaayy oowwnneerrss,, BBrriittiisshh WWaatteerrwwaayyss,, TThhee WWaatteerrwwaayyss TTrruusstt,, EEnnvviirroonnmmeenntt AAggeennccyy

4.74 Long term management of a restored waterwayraises issues of sustained management expertise andcompetence, waterway ownership and revenuefunding. Project design must address all these issuesto satisfy the funding agencies as well as projectsponsors and partners who recognise without properconsideration of these issues the restoration projectwill ultimately fail.

4.75 Waterway management represents a long termcommitment and requires the involvement of organi-sations which are focussed on sustaining waterwaysfor public benefit over extended periods of time,who have the competence to deal with the long termmanagement, and have an appropriate constitutionand financial strength to maintain their involvementover timescales which span generations rather thanyears or decades. The objective should therefore beto ensure the restored waterway is in the long termownership of an appropriately constituted waterwayorganisation and that long term management isprovided by an organisation with suitable expertise.

4.76 Major management expertise is available in organi-sations like British Waterways, but they and the otherstatutory waterway agencies are constrained(although not precluded) by their enabling legislationfrom taking ownership of waterways outside theirportfolio and from taking on management liabilities.They are however able to become involved inoperation and maintenance as a contractor toanother body under a fully funded term contract,subject to a full engineering and technical risk assessment.

4.77 Long term ownership presents a further challenge, asit is difficult for the public sector navigationauthorities to assume ownership of waterways

outside their current portfolio. However TheWaterways Trust has been established to fulfil thisrole and has already taken ownership of twowaterways conditional on back to back operation andmaintenance contracts with British Waterwaysfunded by the project.

4.78 Project partners will look for expert involvement inlong term management of the waterways to protectthe investment, to ensure risks and liabilities areproperly managed, and to ensure that ownership ofthe waterway is secure and sustainable in the longterm. In all but the smallest restoration projects, longterm arrangements of the type described will be acondition for not only the capital funding, but alsothe revenue funding vital to secure public benefit fora generation or more.

Recommendations

4.79 Long term operation and maintenance should bevested in a competent organisation familiar with theday to day operational requirements, management ofusers, safety management, cyclical maintenancerequirements and with the capability to deal withexceptional conditions and emergencies.

4.80 Project design must include an assessment of thelong term maintenance costs, usually on a minimum25 year view and identify the sources of funding,including self generated income, direct revenuefunding from local authorities and funding agencies,and capital invested, that can be applied to meet ongoing costs. Assessments should be validated by acompetent organisation.

4.81 Long term ownership of the restored waterwayshould be vested in an appropriately constitutedorganisation with a long term commitment tosustaining waterways for public benefit, with thecompetence to procure operation and assetmanagement services, and the financial strength tosustain its involvement into the long term.

40

41

Annex A: Main schedule explanatory notes

Introduction

The approach and process

The review work was carried out between June 2000and June 2001. The focus is on what had changed inthe past two years, progress made on existingprojects, those entering the field for the first time,and funding regime changes. As in 1998, and withthe exception of the assessments of historical andnature conservation importance (which have beencompletely reviewed independently by the Council),the Council’s assessment of projects is based entirelyon the responses to the May 2000 questionnaires(supplemented by information about furtherprogress up to June 2001 where forthcoming). Whileevery effort has been made to arrive at assessmentswhich are defensible and fair to all parties, anelement of subjectivity in the findings is unavoidable.Projects with funding in place (or substantially so) forcompletion have been included to record progress,but they are not assessed.

CCoonnssuullttaattiioonn wwiitthh iinntteerreesstteedd oorrggaanniissaattiioonnss A series of meetings was held with interested organi-sations including the Environment Agency (EA),English Heritage (EH), English Nature (EN), theHeritage Lottery Fund (HLF), ENTRUST and TheWaterways Trust (TWT) to establish their policies anddiscuss aspects of the review. The Council has alsoliaised with British Waterways throughout in view ofits extensive involvement in projects on its ownwaterways and those on other waterways (which arethe majority).

WWhhaatt iiss iinncclluuddeedd??The report covers predominantly projects to restorenavigation for recreational use, or to conservehistoric waterways and individual structures, andsome proposals for new links. Proposals for environ-mental and access improvements, howeverworthwhile in other respects, were only included inthe study if they included plans for restoringnavigation on, or conserving structures on, orassociated with, a waterway. (For instance theSandwell project, which has received a HLF grant,did not.) In the case of the publicly funded networks,work was not eligible for inclusion which could beconsidered part of their statutory day to daymaintenance responsibilities for operationalwaterways.

QQuueessttiioonnnnaaiirreeA questionnaire to update the information providedon projects included in the 1998 Report was issuedunder cover of the Chairman’s letter of 26 May 2000,to around 100 active project promoters. An amendedversion was sent to projects entering the field for thefirst time, or from whom no response had been, forone reason or another, received in 1998. The focus ineach case was on how the scheme was beingimplemented and on the progress made in suchareas as funding, conservation plans, futuremanagement, local authority support andinvolvement and (a new question) any links withBritish Waterways and/or The Waterways Trust.There has been a virtually 100% response. Individualresponses (which are not confidential) are availablefor inspection at the Council’s London Office.

LLiiaaiissoonn wwiitthh EEAA aanndd EENN The Council has set out since 1998 to develop closerliaison with both the EA and EN. The EA’s regionaloffices have provided initial comments, rangingacross the Agency’s various environmental responsi-bilities, on the projects assessed in this review. ENtoo, has advised the Council on the wildlifedesignations applicable to the listed projects. Thesehave both been of great value as checks on theCouncil’s assessment of the nature conservationimportance of project locations.

IImmppoorrttaanntt nnootteessFactual data and assessments are based oninformation supplied in the responses to thequestionnaires. It is impossible for the Council tovouch for the accuracy of the responses made to thequestionnaires. The information supplied has had tobe accepted in good faith. Funding agencies andothers will wish to satisfy themselves in each casethat individual applications meet eligibility criteria,that statutory bodies have been consulted and thatany necessary consents have been or will beforthcoming. Neither the Council nor any of itsindividual members or staff accept any responsibilityfor, or imply any endorsement of, any otherconclusions drawn from this material. The Counciloffers no assessment of the financial competence ofany organisation to receive, manage or disburse funds.

42

Definitions used in Main ScheduleTaking each column/heading in turn these are as follows:

Col. Headingno.

11 RReeffeerreennccee nnuummbbeerrA new consecutive numbering system has replaced that used in the 1998 Report as so many projects have been added, deleted or regrouped.

FFAACCTTUUAALL IINNFFOORRMMAATTIIOONN

22 WWaatteerrwwaayy oorr ssttrruuccttuurreeName of the waterway or structure for which restoration proposed or new link, grouped alphabet-ically for projects in England, Wales and Scotland respectively.

The Council treats individual sections of certain waterway restoration projects in their own right because they constitute discrete projects. In the caseof some ambitious projects, complete realisation of the objective of restoration to full navigation will onlybe achieved by progressing a series of interimstages. If applicable, individual scheme(s) at the nextkey stage within the overall restoration strategy areidentified in Col 12 (see below).

33 PPrroojjeecctt lleennggtthh ((kkmm))For a waterway listed in Col 2, the length to berestored, or constructed. (Not applicable (N/A) forstructures).

44 LLooccaattiioonn//eexxtteenntt Descriptive information to help locate projects listed in Col 2.

55 EEnngglliisshh rreeggiioonn,, WWaalleess,, SSccoottllaanndd For English projects, the DTLR region is quoted tohelp locate projects and because some key fundingagencies are structured on a regional basis (althoughnot, unfortunately, using a consistent definition ofregions).

66 LLooccaall aauutthhoorriittyy aarreeaa((ss))The county, district or unitary authorities for the areathrough which the project passes.

77 CCuurrrreenntt wwaatteerrwwaayy mmaannaaggeerr oorr oowwnneerr ((iiff aannyy)) The navigation authority if there is one, other bodywith which responsibility currently rests formanagement of the existing waterway or structure. Awaterway described as a "BW Remainder" waterwayis one which BW has no duty under the TransportAct 1968 to maintain in a navigable condition. (NotApplicable N/A.)

88 LLiinnkk wwiitthh ootthheerr nnaavviiggaattiioonn aauutthhoorriittyy ((iiff aannyy))The navigation authority (if one exists) for anyadjacent inland waterway with which the projectwould link. (Not Applicable N/A.)

99 RReessttoorraattiioonn pprroommootteerr((ss))The organisation(s) identified from the questionnaireresponse.

1100 PPrroojjeecctt ddeessccrriippttiioonn//oobbjjeeccttiivvee The Council’s summary based on the questionnaireresponse.

1111 EEssttiimmaatteedd pprroojjeecctt ccoosstt ££mm ((eexxcc.. VVAATT))The capital cost of the work remaining to be fundedas given (with any qualifications) in thequestionnaire response at May 2000.

1122 NNeexxtt pphhaassee((ss))//ccoosstt ££mm ((iiff kknnoowwnn)) ((iiff aapppplliiccaabbllee)) Individual scheme(s) at the next key stage within theoverall restoration strategy e.g. partial restorationworks, preliminary restoration studies or otherprojects intended in the relatively short term (1-3years). Projects underway or about to commence atthe time of the survey may now be complete. Alsosee Col 2 above.

AASSSSEESSSSMMEENNTT

1133-- EExxiissttiinngg iimmppoorrttaannccee1144 Assessment of importance of waterway in existing

state in two fields:

1133 HHeerriittaaggee mmeerriitt Assessment by Council Members (Tony Hirst OBE, former Director of the Boat Museum, Ellesmere Port, and John Hume OBE, former Chief Inspector of Historic Buildings, Historic Scotland), with the assistance of others experienced in the history of the inland waterways, of aspects of heritage merit of the waterway, and integral structures taking account of structures not part of the waterway itself but forming a context for it) and of its built environment.

In the 1998 report, consideration was given to thehistoric importance of the canal and the remainingstructures, as part of, and, as well as, those alongsidethe waterway connected to its operation. Theselevels were confirmed as broadly accurate havingbeen checked with others experienced in the historyof the inland waterways, for example the RoyalCommission on Historic Monuments. However, forthe purposes of the present report the assessmentshave been more structured, measuring particularparameters and taking into account the recommen-dations of other agencies. A matrix was designed toapply to each project, to identify a number of criteria

43

which would enable those assessing the heritagemerit to consider all the relevant aspects and tojustify their decision as to the overall historicimportance of the waterway and its structures.

The aspects considered relevant were:

- design of the waterway (innovative and/or groundbreaking)

- construction (use of new techniques)

- development and economic impact subsequent toconstruction on the areas passed through orconnected by the waterway

- importance of the operation of and the traffic thatused the waterway to the land passed through bythe waterway

- historic importance of the operating structures(such as locks and bridges)

- historic importance of other structures alongsideand associated with the waterway (such aswarehouses and housing)

- extent and importance of archaeological remainsof structures part of or associated with thewaterway

Conservation areas and the number of listed andscheduled structures gave further guidance to theoverall historic classification. Evidence has beentaken from standard books on inland waterways (seeSelect Bibliography below1 ), individuals with localknowledge and relevant organisations. The finaljudgements as to the heritage value of eachwaterway and its related structures are, even with allthe above information, bound to be to some extentsubjective.

The assessment produced the following categories ofhistoric importance:

HHiigghh ((HH)) two or more assessed features that arerated as being unique and/or of significantimportance

MMeeddiiuumm ((MM)) a minimum of one high or twomedium individual assessments

LLooww ((LL)) less than above are assessed as lowimportance

UUnnkknnoowwnn ((UU)) where there is insufficientinformation to assess the heritage merit

NNoott aapppplliiccaabbllee ((NN//AA)) proposals for new waterwaylinks/structures where there is by definition nohistorical interest although there may well befeatures of heritage interest on the proposed route

1144 NNaattuurree ccoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn Assessment by Dr John Eaton MBE, Senior Lecturerin the School of Biological Sciences, University ofLiverpool, with advice from EA, EN, County WildlifeTrusts and other external sources, to defineimportance of project sites as:

HHiigghh ((HH)) sites designated as being of interna-tional/national nature conservation importance(nature includes biological and/or geologicalfeatures). Habitats crucial to the integrity of suchsites. Habitats listed in Annex 1 of the EuropeanHabitats Directive (92/43/EC). Populations ofspecies fully protected within Schedules 1, 5 and8 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (asamended). Species listed in Annex 2 of theHabitats Directive and in Annex 1 of the EuropeanBirds Directive (79/409EC). National BiodiversityAction Plan (BAP) priority species and keyhabitats. Species recognised as nationally rare ornationally scarce

MMeeddiiuumm ((MM)) non-statutory designated sites (notincluding habitats listed in Annex 1 of the HabitatsDirective – see above). Populations of speciespartially protected within Schedules 1, 5 and 8 ofthe Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (asamended). Local BAP priority species and key habitats

LLooww ((LL)) sites not as above, although likely to haveexisting or potential wildlife value

IInnddiirreecctt ((II)) the project site itself appears to be ofLow or Medium interest, but implementation ofthe project may create significant impacts (whichmay be positive or negative) upon a connectedwaterway or other site of SSSI or higherdesignation

UUnnkknnoowwnn ((UU)) the Council has insufficientinformation to assess this site

KKeeyy ccrriitteerriiaa How the projects measure up to the first four of thesix agreed key strategic criteria relating topreliminary work. (These remain the same as thoseused in 1998, on which the Council consulted initiallyin October 1997 and are included at the end of thesenotes for ease of reference.) The final two criteria arerelevant to the overall findings (cols. 28 -29).1 Select BibliographyNigel Crowe - Canals (1994)Charles Hadfield – British Canals : An Illustrated History (andassociated regional studies) (1973)Hugh McKnight – The Shell Book of Inland Waterways (1975)E W Paget Tomlinson – The Complete Book of Canal and RiverNavigations (1993)P J G Ransom – The Archaeology of Canals (1979)

15-27

44

Preliminary workThe Council view as to extent to which initial surveys,technical audits and feasibility studies or other work are:

- Completed (C)- Progressing (P)- Outstanding (O)

For the categories of:

FFeeaassiibbiilliittyy

1155 EEnnggiinneeeerriinngg1166 WWaatteerr rreessoouurrcceess1177 EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall iimmppaacctt aasssseessssmmeenntt1188 LLaanndd oowwnneerrsshhiipp && lleeggaall ppoowweerrss1199 OOtthheerr rreelleevvaanntt wwoorrkk

BBeenneeffiittss//ddiissbbeenneeffiittss Demonstrable benefits and evidence that, disbenefits– if any have been identified – can be mitigated,reduced to an acceptable level or are outweighed bythe gains in terms of

2200 HHiissttoorriicc//bbuuiilltt hheerriittaaggee2211 WWaatteerrwwaayy rreeccrreeaattiioonn2222 EEnnvviirroonnmmeennttaall2233 EEccoonnoommiicc2244 SSoocciiaall ((iinncc.. aacccceessss))

SSuussttaaiinnaabbiilliittyy The viability of what is proposed in financial andenvironmental terms as shown by preparation of a

2255 BBuussiinneessss ppllaann2266 CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn mmaannaaggeemmeenntt ppllaann2277 EExxiitt ssttrraatteeggyy

FINDINGS

2288 FFuunnddiinngg ssttaaggee rreeaacchheedd ((IImmpplleemmeennttaattiioonn))

The overall judgement (based on informationsupplied in the promoters’ responses to thequestionnaire) in respect of active projects inEngland, Wales and Scotland is in terms of theCouncil’s current judgement on the work done onproject development and so the readiness of eachproject, or stage of project, for funding, divided intofour categories as follows:

– AAddvvaanncceedd ((11)) – where all preliminary work has been done

– SSuubbssttaannttiiaall pprrooggrreessss ((22)) – where most preliminarywork has been completed or isin hand

– IInntteerrmmeeddiiaattee ((33)) – where there is considerablepreliminary work outstanding

– EEaarrllyy ssttaaggee ((44)) – preliminary work outstanding ieneeding necessary studies and technical work todevelop an overall strategy before they can make progress

2299 SSttrraatteeggiicc ssiiggnniiffiiccaannccee ((VViissiioonn))The Council’s view of the significance of the projectin UK terms for its potential contribution to theexpansion of the inland waterway system, and/or itsintrinsic built and natural heritage merit, and/or itspotential importance for economic and socialregeneration:

NNaattiioonnaall ((NN)) RReeggiioonnaall ((RR)) LLooccaall ((LL)

Assessment of a project as of Local significanceshould not be taken to denote a lack of intrinsic value.

3300 CCoommmmeennttaarryyAdditional points which the Council wishes to bringto the attention of promoters and/or interestedbodies e.g. concerning future direction of the projector funding.

KEY STRATEGIC CRITERIA

FFEEAASSIIBBIILLIITTYY ((CCooll 1155--1199))Can it be demonstrated that the restoration of thewaterway/structure(s) is possible in practical terms (i.e.engineering work, water supply, acceptable environmentalimpact, costs and potential sources of funding etc); and inother terms (i.e. land ownership, legal considerations,consents and licences etc)?

BBEENNEEFFIITTSS ((CCooll 2200--2244))Can the estimated capital costs (shown by any feasibilitystudy) be justified by the economic and other benefits,direct and indirect, to the built and natural environment,employment and the local economy, property values,tourism, leisure and recreation, and education?

DDIISSBBEENNEEFFIITTSS ((CCooll 2200--2244))Can it be shown that any disbenefits (e.g. environmentaldamage, adverse effects on neighbours etc) will beproperly mitigated, reduced to acceptable levels or beoutweighed by the benefits?

SSUUSSTTAAIINNAABBIILLIITTYY ((CCooll 2255--2277))Can it be demonstrated (e.g. via a business plan) that therestoration and the future management of the waterwaycan be sustained and will be financially viable (withsupport if necessary), and is there clear evidence (e.g. viaconservation plan) to show how both the built and thenatural components of the restoration will be approachedand the restored waterway will be cared for aftercompletion?

IIMMPPLLEEMMEENNTTAATTIIOONN ((CCooll 2288))Can it be demonstrated that there is or will be an adequatestructured organisation and sufficient support frompartners with the strength and skills necessary to complete the restoration project and manage the assets inthe future?

VVIISSIIOONN ((CCooll 2299))Will what the project plans to achieve make a significantcontribution - nationally, regionally and locally - to therestoration and expansion of the national waterway systemby virtue of the strength, purpose and imaginativeness ofits overall objectives and will it provide significant benefitsto users and local communities?

GLOSSARY

BA Broads Authority

BCA Basingstoke Canal Authority

BW British Waterways

CPNCN Company of Proprietors of the Neath Canal Navigation

CPSN Company of Proprietors of the Stroudwater Navigation

EA Environment Agency

EH English Heritage

EN English Nature

EP English Partnerships

ERDF European Regional Development Fund

EAWA East Anglian Waterways Association

GOBA Great Ouse Boating Association

HLF Heritage Lottery Fund

LTC Landfill Tax Credit

NT National Trust

NOF New Opportunities Fund

SRB Single Regeneration Budget

TCC Tennant Canal Company

TWT The Waterways Trust

45

Ref no

1

2

3

4

5

6

Waterway orstructure

AndertonBoat Lift

BasingstokeCanal - back pumpingto locks 1-6(WoodhamLocks)

Great OuseReliefChannel (seealso Nar -Great OuseLink no 64)

Forth & Clydeand UnionCanals -"MillenniumLink"

HuddersfieldNarrow Canal

Ribble Link

Project length(km)

N/A

N/A

17

110

32

6

Location/extent

Link betweenWeaver Navi-gation and Trent& Mersey Canal

Restored Basingstoke Canal

Flood relief channel fromDenver to nearKing's Lynn

Glasgow (RiverClyde) to Falkirkand Falkirk toEdinburgh

Ashton Canalnear Manchesterto Huddersfield(includes completedstretches)

Savick Brook,Preston, betweenLancaster Canaland River Ribble

Englishregion, Wales,Scotland

NorthWest

SouthEast

Eastern

Scotland

NorthWestYorks &Humber

NorthWest

Localauthorityarea(s)

Cheshire,Vale RoyalDistrict

Surrey,RunnymedeBorough,WokingBorough

Norfolk,King’s Lynn& WestNorfolkBorough

City ofGlasgow,West Dun-bartonshire,East Dun-bartonshire,NorthLanarkshire,Falkirk,WestLothian,City ofEdinburgh

KirkleesBorough,OldhamBorough,TamesideBorough

Lancashire,PrestonBorough

Currentwaterwaymanageror owner(if any)

TWT (formerlyBW)

BCA

EA

BW

BW

Link withothernavigationauthority(if any)

BW

NT

EA

BW

BW

Projectpromoter(s)

TWT (formerlyAndertonBoat LiftTrust/BWlead)

BCA/Surrey& HampshireCanalSociety

EA

BW

HuddersfieldCanal Co -partnershipof LAs, BWand CanalSociety

Ribble LinkTrust/BW

Est cost£m(exc VAT)

6.9 (incl newvisitor centre)

0.47

1

78.4

30

5.6

Annex A: Review of waterway restoration & development priorities report 2001 Main Schedule

FACTUAL INFORMATION

Projectdescription/objective(summary based on questionnaire response)

Restoration of lift to original1875 hydraulic operation,retaining much of 1908 version as static monument

Improvement of water supplyfor navigation by providingbackpumping for first six lockspost restoration of Canal(52.25 km)

Making navigable waterwayto provide non tidal access toKing's Lynn

Restoration of navigation andlink between Canals by eliminating blockages andconstructing boat lift and newtunnel under Antonine Wall,so creating a sea to sea/city tocity passage and new tourismattraction for LowlandScotland; stimulating economic regeneration in corridor

Removal of 5km of blockagesat 20 locations to reopen canalfor navigation, create newPennine link and ring, openvisitor/heritage centre at tunnel end and create regeneration catalyst forPennine valleys

Canalisation of Savick Brookto create a new navigationlinking the Lancaster Canal,isolated at present fromnational system, with nationalcanal network via RiverRibble. Millennium projectpromoting economic andleisure opportunities in area

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Projects completed or with funding for completion (in alphabetical order)

WATERWAY RESTORATION PROJECTS IN ENGLAND, WALES AND SCOTLAND INCLUDED IN REVIEW

A1

Existingimportance

Her

itag

e m

erit

H/M

/L

Nat

ure

cons

erva

tion

H/M

/L/I

/U

Next phase(s)(if applicable)/cost £m/k (if known)

Engi

neer

ing

Wat

er r

esou

rces

Envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

asse

ssm

ent

Land

ow

ners

hip

&le

gal p

ower

sO

ther

rele

vant

wor

k

His

toric

/bui

lt he

ritag

e

Wat

erw

ay re

crea

tion

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Econ

omic

Soci

al (

inc.

acc

ess)

Bus

ines

s pl

an

Con

serv

atio

n m

anag

emen

t pl

anEx

it s

trat

egy

Assessment of May 2000 questionnaire responses (Please see Explanatory Notes) Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council

ASSESSMENT FINDINGS COMMENTARY

Key criteria

Preliminary work: Completed (C) Progressing (P) Outstanding (O)

Feasibility Benefits/ Sustainabilitydisbenefits

Strategicsignifi-cance National(N) Regional(R) Local (L)

Fundingstagereached: Advanced(1)Substantialprogress(2) Inter-mediate(3) Early (4)

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

H

H

N/A

H

H

N/A

L

H

L

H

H

M,I

N

L

L

N

N

N with 51

Due to open Spring 2002 withfunding from EH, HLF and voluntary sector

HLF funded. post restoration workFurther back pumping required forremaining 25 locks

Opening July 2001. Progress needed now on Nar - Great OuseRelief Channel link

Forth & Clyde opened May 2001.Funding package includingMillennium Lottery grant. Formalopening of Wheel/Link scheduledfor May 2002

Open to through navigation May2001 with Millennium, EP and RDAfunding

Millennium and LA funded strategiclink begun April 2001. Will open in2002. Enhances need for progresson Lancaster Canal NorthernReaches (no 51)

A1

Ref no

7

8

9

10

11

12


RochdaleCanal

Ancholme -Rase Link

Ancholme -Witham Link

Ashby Canal

River Avon(Warwick-shire) - Upper AvonExtension

AylshamNavigation

Project length(km)

51.5

14.4

25.6

12.9

22.5

15.3

Location/extent

BridgewaterCanal atManchester toCalder & HebbleNavigation atSowerby Bridge(includes completedstretches)

New navigationon course of River Rase

New navigationconnecting RiversAncholme andWitham

Head of currentnavigation atSnarestone toMeasham andthen on to Moira

Navigable Avon atAlveston toRadford Semeleon Grand UnionCanal(Leamington)

Navigable RiverBure at Coltishallto Aylsham


NorthWestYorks &Humber

EastMidlands

EastMidlands

EastMidlands

WestMidlands

Eastern


CalderdaleBorough,RochdaleBorough,OldhamBorough,City ofManchester

Lincoln-shire, WestLindseyDistrict

Lincoln-shire, WestLindseyDistrict

Leicester-shire,North WestLeicester-shireDistrict

Warwick-shire,WarwickDistrict,Stratford-on-AvonDistrict

Norfolk,BroadlandDistrict


TWT (formerlyRochdaleCanal Co))

Ashby CanalTrust tobecomenavigationauthority


BW

EA

EA/BW

BW

BW andBW viaLowerAvon NavTrust

BA

Projectpromoter(s)

TWT (formerlyRochdaleCanal Trust)

IWALincolnshireBranch


Ashby CanalRestorationProject

Upper AvonNavigationTrust

EAWA


23.8

Not yet costed

Not yet costed

10

8

Not yet costed

FACTUAL INFORMATION


Restoration of remaining 25.5 km in Rochdale, Oldhamand Manchester to restorethrough navigation across thePennines, so creating newcruising ring. Promote regeneration of canal corridor,transform environment, stimulate recreation andtourism, and conserve andenhance special historic features

Construction of new navigation to expand theleisure potential of the RiversAncholme and Rase and soimprove the local economy

Part enlargement of existingchannel and part constructionof new channel to create newleisure navigation link tonational waterway system

Restoration of canal as catalystfor regeneration of formermining area. Encourageinvestment and employment,create green corridor andincrease biodiversity

New river navigation complet-ing shorter route from RiverSevern to Grand Union Canaland hence to River Thamesand River Trent. Creation ofnew Midland cruising ringswith boost to local economy.Niche freight potential

Restoration of full navigationon River Bure to former riverhead at Aylsham soextending Broads navigations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Other projects (in alphabetical order) England



A2

A2

Existingimportance

Her

itag

e m

erit

H/M

/L

Nat

ure

cons

erva

tion

H/M

/L/I

/U


Snareston toMeasham usingTransport &Works Act 1992Order. Extensionto Moira

Engi

neer

ing

Wat

er r

esou

rces

Envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

asse

ssm

ent

Land

ow

ners

hip

&le

gal p

ower

sO

ther

rele

vant

wor

k

His

toric

/bui

lt he

ritag

e

Wat

erw

ay re

crea

tion

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Econ

omic

Soci

al (

inc.

acc

ess)

Bus

ines

s pl

an

Con

serv

atio

n m

anag

emen

t pl

anEx

it s

trat

egy


Key criteria





12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

H H N Due to reopen to through navigation in 2002 with Millennium,EP and LA funding

No progress since 1998 Report.Requires feasibility etc studies andfirm plans if project to proceed

No progress since1998 Report.Council considers project has considerable potential to add toinland waterway benefits inNorthern Lincolnshire. LAs and EAshould set in hand initial studies todetermine viability and practicality

Snarestone to Measham ready forfunding on approval of draftTransport & Works Act 1992 Order.Northernmost section to Moira partially complete

Potentially valuable scheme but verycontroversial. Council hopes workneeded to assess environmentalacceptability and viability will be setin hand

No progress since 1998 Report.Project warrants further investigation of restoration sensitiveto nature conservation interests

N/A H O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 L

M L,I C P P P C C C C C C C C C 1 LLandCLegal

N/A H O N/A O O O O O O O O O O O 4 N

L H O O O O O O C O O O O O O 4 L

N/A L O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 L


Ref no

13

14

15

16

17

18


Barnsley andDearne &Dove Canalsand branches

BasingstokeCanal -Western End

Bedford-Grand UnionCanal Link

BlythNavigation

BottishamLode

Bourne Eau(see alsoSouth FortyFoot Drain no 78)

Project length(km)

44.8

10.5

27.4

7.25

4

5.6

Location/extent

Aire & CalderNav. at Wakefieldto Sheffield &South YorkshireNav atMexborough viaBarnsley (plusbranches toElsecar andWorsborough)

Eastern end ofGreywell Tunnelto Basingstoke

Bedford to MiltonKeynes

Halesworth tonavigable tidalsection atBlythburgh

River Cam toLode village

River Glen toBourne (WellandSystem)


Yorks &Humber

SouthEast

EasternSouthEast

Eastern

Eastern

EastMidlands


City ofWakefield,BarnsleyBorough,RotherhamBorough,DoncasterBorough

Hampshire,Basingstoke& DeaneBorough

BedfordshireMid Bed-fordshireDistrict,BedfordBorough,Bucking-hamshire,AylesburyVale District,Milton Key-nes Borough

Suffolk,WaveneyDistrict

Cambridge-shire

Lincoln-shire, SouthKestevenDistrict


HampshireC C

EA

EA?


BW

BCA

BW, EA

EA

EA

Projectpromoter(s)

BarnsleyDearne &Dove CanalsTrust

Surrey &Hants CanalSoc andBasingstoke& Deane BC

BW/Bedfordto MiltonKeynesWaterwaysTrust

EAWA

EAWA/IWACambridgeBranch

EAWA


41.8

Not yet costed

60-80

Not yet costed

Not yet costed

Not yet costed

FACTUAL INFORMATION


Restoration to full navigationof both Canals (including newchannels) to create 112kmcruising ring in south andwest Yorkshire and extendnational network; promoteinvestment, economic revitalisation and environmental gains forblighted industrial area

Restoration of navigationincluding Greywell Tunnel and4 kms west of Tunnel andrestoration of two listed structures

Creation of new broad beamwaterway linking BW Midlandcanal network with Angliansystem, including Fens andMiddle Level waterways

Extension of historic river navigation from Blythburgh toformer terminus atHalesworth

Restoration of navigation toLode village

Restoration of short waterwayto create natural river headand focal point for under-utilised River Glen

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11



A3

A3

AccessO0ther

Existingimportance

Her

itag

e m

erit

H/M

/L

Nat

ure

cons

erva

tion

H/M

/L/I

/U


Engi

neer

ing

Wat

er r

esou

rces

Envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

asse

ssm

ent

Land

ow

ners

hip

&le

gal p

ower

sO

ther

rele

vant

wor

k

His

toric

/bui

lt he

ritag

e

Wat

erw

ay re

crea

tion

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Econ

omic

Soci

al (

inc.

acc

ess)

Bus

ines

s pl

an

Con

serv

atio

n m

anag

emen

t pl

anEx

it s

trat

egy


Key criteria





12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Major project with considerable hurdles to be overcome and muchpreparatory work required. Unlikelyto be achieved without support oflocal authorities and other agencieswho need to recognise regenerationand other gains which could ensuefor areas concerned and considerlessons learned from HuddersfieldNarrow and Rochdale Canal projects(see nos 5 and 7). Upgraded toRegional from Local

No progress since 1998 Report.Council suggests options forrestoration/new navigation in areashould be re-examined

Council welcomes BW taking initiative in progressing, with support of two RDAs and LAs, thisstrategically important corridor project which, subject to currentstudies is vital to opening upAnglian and Fens waterways towider range of visitors, and will provide water park corridor andurban and rural regeneration

No physical progress since 1998Report although new local supportnow evident. Requires re-examina-tion and initial feasibility studies

Modest local project could benefitrural community

Becomes viable on completion ofSouth Forty Foot Drain (no 78 alsoknown as Black Sluice Drain)

N/A U P P P P P P P P P P P P P 2 N

L H O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 L

LandOLegal?

L L O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 L

M M,I O O O O O C C C C C O O O 4 R

M H O O O C C O O O O O O O O 4 L



Ref no

19

20

21

22

23

24


Bow BackRivers

Bude Canal:Barge andTub Boat sections

Caldon Canal -Foxley Arm(RobertHeath's Canal)

Caldon Canal -Norton GreenArm (Sparrow& HalesCanal)

Caldon Canal -Leek BranchExtension

Caldon Canal -FroghallTunnel waterlevels

Project length(km)

10

59.6

2.6

2.8

0.8

N/A

Location/extent

Network of navigable riversimmediately adjacent to LeeNavigation

Eastern end ofGreywell Tunnelto Basingstoke

Barge section(Bude toHelebridge) andcruciform tub-boat systeminland reachingTamar Lake /Holsworthy/Druxton, nearLaunceston

From junctionwith CaldonCanal to FordGreen Farm

From junctionwith CaldonCanal to NortonGreen

At Leek end ofLeek Branch

Froghall


GreaterLondon

SouthWest

WestMidlands

WestMidlands

WestMidlands

WestMidlands


LondonBorough ofNewhamLondonBorough ofTowerHamlets

Cornwall,NorthCornwallDistrict,Devon,TorridgeDistrict

Stoke-on-Trent CitySuffolk,WaveneyDistrict

Stoke-on-Trent City

Stafford-shire,Stafford-shireMoorlandsDistrict



Part BWRemainder,LA,RestorationTrust, private owners

Barge:NorthCornwallDC. Inland:Bude CanalTrust (part)/privatelandowners

Part BW

BW

Part BW

BW


BW

BW

BW

BW

Projectpromoter(s)

BW

NorthCornwallDistrictCouncil lead-ing partner-ship (LAs,Bude CanalTrust andBude Canal& HarbourSociety)

Caldon CanalSociety/BW

Caldon CanalSociety/BW

Caldon CanalSociety

Caldon CanalSociety


Est 10

Not yet costed

Not known

Not known

Not known

Not known

FACTUAL INFORMATION


Regeneration/revitalisation ofnetwork of non tidal/semitidal rivers within StratfordTunnel Rail Link area of eastLondon to link with landbased regeneration (due forcompletion 2006/7).Providing new boating destinations/routes, links withproposed new stretch of canal(part of "Arc of OpportunityInitiative" in Newham).Creating new access routes,upgrading towing paths, creating new wildlife habitats

Securing line of Canal againstdetrimental development.Precise restoration proposalsawaiting outcome of consultants' strategic studies.(Consultation on Phase 2report August 2001)

Full restoration of formerCanal Arm including newalignment

Full restoration of Arm alongoriginal line

Restoration of original aqueduct and then new lineto Leek

Lower water levels of poundto enable bigger boats to be turned

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11



A4

A4

Existingimportance

Her

itag

e m

erit

H/M

/L

Nat

ure

cons

erva

tion

H/M

/L/I

/U


Engi

neer

ing

Wat

er r

esou

rces

Envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

asse

ssm

ent

Land

ow

ners

hip

&le

gal p

ower

sO

ther

rele

vant

wor

k

His

toric

/bui

lt he

ritag

e

Wat

erw

ay re

crea

tion

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Econ

omic

Soci

al (

inc.

acc

ess)

Bus

ines

s pl

an

Con

serv

atio

n m

anag

emen

t pl

anEx

it s

trat

egy


Key criteria





12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Major regeneration proposal forBow Back River network on back ofChannel Tunnel Rail Link intoStratford and subsequent develop-ment of ‘Stratford City’. BW working with LA and railway partners to progress works for raillink and regeneration of waterwaysin area. Plans could include newstretch of canal

Very high level of historical importance. Preparatory work welcome. Council would like to seerestoration progressed in light ofstudies, and further thought givento possibility of making navigableTub Boat Section and treatment ofthe inclined planes

Modest local project with benefitsfor community

Modest local project with benefitsfor community

Present terminus on outskirts ofLeek detracts from Canal's potential,and town loses tourism income asresult. BW and LAs should reviewproject to assess costs and benefits

Council welcomes moves to enablemore visitors to reach end of navigation

L H P P P P P P P P P P P O O 3 L

H M O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 R

H H P P P P P P P P P P P P P 3 N

L H P P P C P P P P P P P O O 3 L

L H P P P P P P P P P P P O O 4 L



Ref no

25

26

27

28

29


ChelmerNavigation

ChesterfieldCanal - completionand RotherLink

ChichesterShip CanalCaldon Canal -Norton GreenArm (Sparrow& HalesCanal)

CotswoldCanals -StroudwaterNavigation

CotswoldCanals -Thames &Severn Canal

Project length(km)

0.17

74

2.8

13.8

45

Location/extent

Springfield Basinto River Chelmer,Chelmsford

Staveley,Derbyshire toShireoaks,Nottinghamshireand throughRother ValleyCountry Park

Chichester to seaat ChichesterHarbour

River Severn atFramilode toCapel Mill Stroud

Capel Mill Stroudto River Thamesat Lechlade


Eastern

EastMidlandsYorks &Humber

SouthEast

SouthWest

SouthWest


Essex,ChelmsfordBorough

Derbyshire,Chester-fieldBorough,North EastDerbyshireDistrict,RotherhamBorough,Nottingham-shire,BassetlawDistrict

WestSussex,ChichesterDistrict

Gloucester-shire,StroudDistrict

Gloucester-shire,CotswoldDistrict,Wiltshire,North WiltsDistrictStoke-on-Trent City


ChelmsfordBC

Staveley toeast ofNorwoodTunnel:mixed publicand private.East ofNorwoodTunnel toShireoaks:BW

West SussexCC

CPSN


Chelmer &BlackwaterNav

BW

BW

EA

Projectpromoter(s)

ChelmsfordBorough

PartnershipofChesterfieldCanal Trust,BW and LAs

ChichesterCanalSociety

CotswoldCanals Trustwith CPSNCaldon CanalSociety/BW

CotswoldCanals Trust


1.2

26.13

2.6

14.5

44

FACTUAL INFORMATION


Proposed new canal cut withmooring areas etc

Restoration of remaining, central sections of Canal eastand west of Norwood Tunnel,from Staveley to Shireoaks;and construction of new linkto Sheffield & South YorkshireNavigation (SSYN) inRotherham, via River Rother.Conserving built and naturalheritage, securing employ-ment, regeneration and environmental improvements

Restoration of through naviga-tion, preservation of line andstructures, development ofrecreation and amenity

Completion of restoration ofthe whole length for econom-ic regeneration, heritage andenvironmental enhancement,and new local facilities. WithThames & Severn Canalreopening of key cross-country link

Complete restoration of thewhole length to secure her-itage and environmentalenhancement, rural develop-ment and regeneration andnew facilities for local commu-nities. With StroudwaterNavigation reopening of keycross-country link

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11



A5

A5

Existingimportance

Her

itag

e m

erit

H/M

/L

Nat

ure

cons

erva

tion

H/M

/L/I

/U


Ryford - Ebleyexcavate infill(£700k);Ryeford Ebleyflood managementpreliminarydesign (£9k);M5 - A38 Routelocation/Floodmanagement

Latton - EiseyCanal bed clear-ance (£200k);Siddington - EiseyWater ResourcesStudy (£25k);KempsfordRoute location(£3k) LattonRoute location(£3k)

Engi

neer

ing

Wat

er r

esou

rces

Envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

asse

ssm

ent

Land

ow

ners

hip

&le

gal p

ower

sO

ther

rele

vant

wor

k

His

toric

/bui

lt he

ritag

e

Wat

erw

ay re

crea

tion

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Econ

omic

Soci

al (

inc.

acc

ess)

Bus

ines

s pl

an

Con

serv

atio

n m

anag

emen

t pl

anEx

it s

trat

egy


Key criteria





12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Welcome LA-led initiative to extendexisting navigation into town centre

Project in three parts (see descrip-tion, col 10), although seen aswhole by promoters, but intermedi-ate ranking understates progressmade on BW owned section east ofNorwood Tunnel, where restorationplans well advanced and shouldhave high priority from statutoryand funding agencies. Pleased tosee HLF funding secured for listedlocks in BW's Rotherham section.Completion of remaining restorationand studies to enable navigable linkto Sheffield via Rother Link shouldnow be vigorously pursued.Upgraded to National from Regional

Apparent lack of progress since 1998Report on relatively straightforwardproject disappointing. Councilhopes completion of restoration willbe vigorously pursued by localauthorities and others involved

Combined strategic corridor project.Council commends forward thinkingapproach driving restoration, welcomes new partnership includ-ing TWT, BW and South West RDAand looks forward to sustainedprogress on this key waterway link

Combined strategic corridor project.Council commends forward thinkingapproach driving restoration, welcomes new partnership including TWT, BW and South WestRDA and looks forward to sustainedprogress on this key waterway link

M H C C C C C C C C C C O O O 2 L

N/A L P C C P C C C O P C P P C 1 L

H M P O O C O P P P P P P O P 2 N with 29

H M P P P P P P P P P P P O P 2 N with 28

LandOLegal

H H O/P P O O P C O O O/P O O P P 3 NKive-tonPark


Ref no

30

31

32

33

34


CromfordCanal -NorthernSection

CromfordCanal -SouthernSection

Derby Canal

Dorset &SomersetCanal - FromeBranch

DriffieldNavigation

Project length(km)

8

6.4

18.5

17.7

22

Location/extent

Cromford andAmbergate

Erewash Canal atLangley Mill toButterley Tunnel

Trent & MerseyCanal to Derbythen to ErewashCanal

Frome toNettlebridge

Great Driffield toAike Beck onRiver Hull


EastMidlands

EastMidlands

EastMidlands

SouthWest

Yorks &Humber


Derbyshire,AmberValleyBorough,DerbyshireDalesDistrict

Derbyshire,AmberValleyBorough

Derbyshire,SouthDerbyshireDistrict,ErewashBorough,City ofDerby

Somerset,MendipDistrict

East Ridingof Yorkshire


Part BWRemainder

DriffieldNavigationTrust


BW

BW

Hull City

Projectpromoter(s)

DerbyshireCC

GroundworkTrust/Erew-ash CanalPreservation&DevelopmentAssociation

Derby &SandiacreCanal Trust

Dorset &SomersetCanal StudyGroup

DriffieldNavigationTrust


Not known

6

35

Not yet costed

0.75

FACTUAL INFORMATION


Restoration of canal fabric toagreed management plan

Restoration to reach ButterleyTunnel and make contact withsmall gauge railway ofMidland Railway Trust to promote regeneration of area

Restoration of through naviga-tion as close as possible tooriginal route, creating new40km cruising ring and re-connecting Derby to nationalsystem, maximising sustain-able employment, tourism,heritage, nature, leisure andeducational benefits to area

Conservation of line of canaland surviving structures andinterpreting them to public inarea without canals. Alsoconstruction of the 78.85 kmmain line

Completion of through navigation on remaining 50%of length to Driffield; promot-ing tourism development andan educational resource

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11



A6

A6

Existingimportance

Her

itag

e m

erit

H/M

/L

Nat

ure

cons

erva

tion

H/M

/L/I

/U


Borrowash Topand Bottom LocksSandiacre Topand Bottom Lockrebuild, excavateand rebuild.Swark- stone toDerby.Surveys etc(£25k). Environ-mental Report(£9k). Purchaseallprivatelyownedowned land(£600k).SandiacreSpondon MultiUser Trail

Engi

neer

ing

Wat

er r

esou

rces

Envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

asse

ssm

ent

Land

ow

ners

hip

&le

gal p

ower

sO

ther

rele

vant

wor

k

His

toric

/bui

lt he

ritag

e

Wat

erw

ay re

crea

tion

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Econ

omic

Soci

al (

inc.

acc

ess)

Bus

ines

s pl

an

Con

serv

atio

n m

anag

emen

t pl

anEx

it s

trat

egy


Key criteria





12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Northern Cromford Canal and associated Arkwright's Mill includedin World Heritage Site nominationfor Derwent Valley. Restoration ofNorthern Section of Canal to agreed management plan is strongheritage funding candidate in thiscontext

Condition of Butterley Tunnelrequires restoration of CromfordCanal to be carried out in two parts.Council suggests that BW and LAsnow review Southern Section project to assess costs and benefitsof project

Positive support shown by LAs welcome. Momentum needs to bemaintained to progress project

The original scheme not completedand never opened. Archaeologicalpreservation of Canal's remains isfirst priority

Council is disappointed at relativelymodest progress made on ostensi-bly straightforward restoration.Greater support needed from LAsand other agencies to ensure projectcompletion in more timely manner

L L P O P O O C C P C C P P P 1 R

H H O O P ?O P O O O O O O P O 4 N

L M O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 L

M H O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 L

M L,I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 L

Up-dating

Up-dating


A7

Ref no

35

36

37

38

39

40

41


DroitwichCanals

Dudley No 2or LapalCanal

Earith toRamsey Link

Fletchers'Canal

FoxtonInclined Plane

Gloucester &SharpnessCanal - CamBranch

Grand UnionCanal -BuckinghamArm

Project length(km)

11.66

8.5

21

N/A

19.2

Location/extent

River Severn toWorcester &BirminghamCanal

Worcs &BirminghamCanal at Selly Oakto Dudley No 2Canal atHalesowen

New link alongMiddle Leveldrains and GreatOuse

Site of formerplane adjacent toFoxton Locks,Grand UnionCanal LeicesterSection

Grand UnionCanal atCosgrove toBuckingham


WestMidlands

WestMidlands

Eastern

NorthWest

EastMidlands

SouthWest

SouthEast


Worcester-shire,WychavonDistrict

City ofBirmingham,DudleyBorough

Cambridgeshire,FenlandDistrict,Hunting-don District

Leicester-shire,HarboroughDistrict

Bucking-hamshire,AylesburyValeDistrict,Northamptonshire,SouthNorthantsDistrict


DroitwichCanals Trust

Part BWRemainder

Part EA

BW

Part BWRemainder/private


BW

BW

MiddleLevelCommiss-ioners/EA

BW

BW

Projectpromoter(s)

Partnershipof DroitwichCanals Trustand LAs withBW

Lapal CanalTrust

Fens TourismGroup

Foxton LocksPartnership(LAs, BWand others)

BuckinghamCanalSociety


7.5

c.28

10.5

8

Not yet costed

FACTUAL INFORMATION


Restoration of Barge andJunction Canals to full cruisingstandard creating new shortcruising ring, preserving heritage and giving social andeconomic benefits to town

Restoration and conservationof Canal including LapalTunnel to provide lock-freecruising ring and alternativethrough navigation, andsecure additional develop-ment opportunities for urbanregeneration

Construction of new link fromEarith on Great Ouse toRamsey on Middle Level

Authentic reconstruction ofworking plane; establishingfeasibility of developing thesite for major tourism; protect-ing, enhancing, interpretingmajor industrial archaeologicalsite; promoting employmentetc for locality

Restoration to navigableorder, making fullest use of allwater-related activities anddeveloping waterway as educational resource

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11



A7

Existingimportance

Her

itag

e m

erit

H/M

/L

Nat

ure

cons

erva

tion

H/M

/L/I

/U


Engi

neer

ing

Wat

er r

esou

rces

Envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

asse

ssm

ent

Land

ow

ners

hip

&le

gal p

ower

sO

ther

rele

vant

wor

k

His

toric

/bui

lt he

ritag

e

Wat

erw

ay re

crea

tion

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Econ

omic

Soci

al (

inc.

acc

ess)

Bus

ines

s pl

an

Con

serv

atio

n m

anag

emen

t pl

anEx

it s

trat

egy


Key criteria





12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Real progress being made at last forachievable scheme with welcomestrong support from LAs. £2m fund-ing now committed from LAs withfurther support expected from RDAand HLF. All interests involvedshould treat this project as a priorityfor completion

Reinstatement of part of Canalincluded in Battery Park redevelop-ment expected within three years .Process of securing local politicaland funding support for furtherextension ongoing. Upgraded toRegional from Local

Council welcome initiative showedby Fens Tourism in promoting newwaterways

No response

Council is pleased to see compre-hensive progress made with feasibility work since 1998 Report.Vital that restoration and construction work respects integrityof important former structures

No response

Feasibility and other basic studiesneeded to progress project

N/A U C O O O P P C P C C O O O 3 R

M M C C P C P P P P P P P P P 1 N

M L C C O O O O O O O O O O O 4 R

H L,I C C O C P C P C P C O C C 1 N


LandPLegal

Roadaccess


Ref no

42

43

44

45


Grand UnionCanal -Slough Armlink to RiverThames atEton

Grand UnionCanal -WendoverArm

GrandWesternCanal - TubBoat Section

GranthamCanal

Project length(km)

2.4

8.3

21.7

49.3

Location/extent

From mid point ofSlough Arm andRiver Thames atEton Playing Fieldvia part ofMaidenheadFlood ReliefChannel

Wendover toTringford

Taunton to navi-gable section atLowdwells

River Trent nearNottingham toGrantham


SouthEast

SouthEast

SouthWest

EastMidlands


SloughBorough,Windsor &MaidenheadBorough

Bucking-hamshire,AylesburyValeDistrict,Hertford-shire,DacorumBorough

Somerset,TauntonDeaneBorough

Nottingham-shire,RushcliffeBorough,Leicester-shire,MeltonBorough,Lincolnshire,SouthKestevenDistrict


BWRemainder

BW


BW, EA

BW

BW

Projectpromoter(s)

BW

WendoverArm Trust(partnershipwith BW)

GrandWesternCanal Trust

GranthamCanalPartnership(inc BW),GranthamNav Assn,GranthamCanal RestSoc


26

8.3

Not yet costed

35

14.5

FACTUAL INFORMATION


New, safe, non tidal widebeam route from Grand UnionCanal to River Thames with800m tunnel beneath sensi-tive areas and innovative boatlift or steel lock flight/stair-case up to Slough Arm atBloom Park. Would createstrategic link, open up/revi-talise Slough Arm, providenew business opportunities,attract visitors, link Thamesand Grand Union footpaths

Phased restoration to naviga-tion of piped/isolated lengthsso eliminating use/cost ofelectric pumping for GrandUnion Canal

Restoration of approx 4 kmsin 3 key locations. No aim forthrough navigation. RestoreNynehead Lift; improveaccess to whole canal;demonstrate and interpretheritage importance of canalfor local and tourism benefit

Restoration for full navigationof further 49.3 kms to restoreconnection with national sys-tem, promote leisure, recre-ation and tourism in Vale ofBelvoir, help to revive localcommunities and generateemployment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11



A8

A8

Existingimportance

Her

itag

e m

erit

H/M

/L

Nat

ure

cons

erva

tion

H/M

/L/I

/U

Next phase(s)(if applicable)/cost £m/k(if known)

Relining first200m (£150k).Little TringBridge rebuild-ing (£245k)

Study/survey inpreparation forSomersetCounty Council

Trent Link

Engi

neer

ing

Wat

er r

esou

rces

Envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

asse

ssm

ent

Land

ow

ners

hip

&le

gal p

ower

sO

ther

rele

vant

wor

k

His

toric

/bui

lt he

ritag

e

Wat

erw

ay re

crea

tion

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Econ

omic

Soci

al (

inc.

acc

ess)

Bus

ines

s pl

an

Con

serv

atio

n m

anag

emen

t pl

anEx

it s

trat

egy


Key criteria





12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Strategic link between Grand UnionCanal/Slough Arm and non-tidalThames at Eton would open up navi-gation route between two of mostsignificant waterways in country.Outline feasibility completed by BW.Strategically useful subject to pro-posed studies. These should betaken forward jointly by BW and EAwith LAs

Phase 1 fully funded to enable completion by voluntary labour by2004. BW/Local Trust working toraise further funding for completionof Phase 2

Overview study now commissionedby partners to assess feasibility andbenefits of full restoration. Councilwould like to see faster progress forhistorically important waterway andstructures, including important canallift remains

Council welcomes commitment ofLAs and other agencies in makingprogress with this project. Thisshould be maintained particularlywith regard to early resolution ofTrent Link, which is crucial for benefits to be realised

H M O P P O O/P O O P O P O O O 4 N

N/A U P O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 N

L H C C P C C C C P C C C O P 1 L

M H C C C C O O C C C C C P P 1 RHeri-tageCOther

Access


A9

Ref no

46

47

48


HathertonCanal

Herefordshire& Gloucester-shire Canal

HorncastleNavigation

Project length(km)

10.4

54.7

17.6

Location/extent

Staffordshire &WorcestershireCanal to Cannock

Hereford to RiverSevern atGloucester viaLedbury

River Witham atTattershall toHorncastle


WestMidlands

SouthWestWestMidlands

EastMidlands


Stafford-shire, SouthStaffsDistrict,CannockChaseDistrict

Hereford-shireCouncil,Gloucester-shire,Forest ofDeanDistrict,TewkesburyBorough

Lincoln-shire, EastLindseyDistrict


Part BWRemainder


BW

BW

BW

Projectpromoter(s)

Lichfield &HathertonCanalsRestorationTrust

Hereford-shire &Gloucester-shire CanalTrust



13

Costing inhand

8(incl floodprotectionworks)

FACTUAL INFORMATION


Restoration for public use, recreation of through route toopen up new cruising ringsand revitalise 67 kms ofunderused northern BCN andhelp improve West Midlandsregional economy

Full restoration of whole canalas important extension ofwaterways system, to pro-mote economic revitalisationincluding tourism, and pro-vide enhanced environmentaland recreation corridor

Restoration of navigation;refurbishing old river loopsand water meadows toincrease biodiversity; creationof long distance walk; tourismand job gains

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11



A9

Existingimportance

Her

itag

e m

erit

H/M

/L

Nat

ure

cons

erva

tion

H/M

/L/I

/U

Next phase(s)(if applicable)/cost £m (if known)

Calf Heath toA460, Cannock(BW Section):Dredging etc(£250k),Replacementbridges/newlock (£1.7m).A460 to Church-bridge includingBirminghamNorthern ReliefRoad (BNRR)Surveys etc renavigable cul-verts for motor-way (£2,500k),diversion chan-nel & new bridges(£5,800k).Churchbridge toCannock ExtensionCentre NewCanal link route(£2,700k)

Over atGloucester CanalWharf/Slipway/Storm over-flow/Majorbackpumping(c£1m).Feasibility stud-ies (£51k),Former School ofFarriery site.Advance workson Canal diver-sionary route etc(£1.5m)

Engi

neer

ing

Wat

er r

esou

rces

Envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

asse

ssm

ent

Land

ow

ners

hip

&le

gal p

ower

sO

ther

rele

vant

wor

k

His

toric

/bui

lt he

ritag

e

Wat

erw

ay re

crea

tion

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Econ

omic

Soci

al (

inc.

acc

ess)

Bus

ines

s pl

an

Con

serv

atio

n m

anag

emen

t pl

anEx

it s

trat

egy


Key criteria





12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Project to link northern BCN viaHatherton Canal has importantpotential benefits. Partnership ofLAs and BW needed if more rapidprogress to be shown. Resolution ofBNRR crossing issue together withguidance to prevent highway projects severing restoration pro-jects welcome. Upgraded toNational from Regional takentogether with Lichfield Canal (no 55)

Council is pleased to see realprogress now being made andnotes good ideas on sustainability(eg securing right to work on thirdparty land). LAs along line shouldconsider forming more formal work-ing group to accelerate rate ofrestoration progress

Feasibility and cost/benefit studiesrequired to progress project whichcould bring substantial benefits torural corridor, but needs to takeaccount of flood defence and envi-ronmental concerns. LAs and EAshould move together to get studiesunderway

M M P P P P P P P P P P P P P 3 R

L L,I O O O O O C C O O O O O O 3 N with 55


Access


A10

Ref no

49

50

51

52

53


Ipswich &StowmarketNavigation(RiverGipping)

IvelNavigation

LancasterCanal -NorthernReaches

LarkNavigation

Leeds &LiverpoolCanalExtension -Liverpool Link

Project length(km)

27.4

24.15

22.5

4.6

0.7

Location/extent

Ipswich toStowmarket

Great Ouse atTempsford toShefford

NavigableLancaster Canal at Tewitfield toKendal

Navigable sectionat Judes Ferry toMildenhall

Liverpool Citycentre


Eastern

Eastern

NorthWest

Eastern

NorthWest


Suffolk,Mid SuffolkDistrict

Bedford-shire, MidBedfordshireDistrict

Cumbria,SouthLakelandDistrict,Lancashire,WyreBorough

Suffolk, StEdmunds-buryBorough,ForestHeathDistrict

LiverpoolCity


EA

BWRemainder


EA

BW

EA

BW

Projectpromoter(s)

IWA IpswichBranch

IWA CambsBranch/EAWA/GOBA

NorthernReachesRestorationGroup (part-nership ofLAs, BW,IWA, LCT)

IWACambridgeBranch/GOBA

BW


11

Not yet costed

c.20

35

Not yet costed

15

FACTUAL INFORMATION


Restoration of navigationstructures to working orderand eventual restoration ofnavigation

Restoration of through navigation

Restoration of Remainderwaterway for navigation (tonew northern limit of nationalconnected system) and recre-ation; preserving and re-usingindustrial heritage in originalsetting; creating new recre-ation and economic resourcefor Kendal/rural corridor

Extension of navigation frompresent limit another 4.6 kmto Mildenhall

Extension of Leeds &Liverpool Canal throughLiverpool Docks as part ofrenaissance of Liverpoolwaterfront, to provide newdestination for and bring vitality to southern dockswaterspaces

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11



A10

Existingimportance

Her

itag

e m

erit

H/M

/L

Nat

ure

cons

erva

tion

H/M

/L/I

/U


Engi

neer

ing

Wat

er r

esou

rces

Envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

asse

ssm

ent

Land

ow

ners

hip

&le

gal p

ower

sO

ther

rele

vant

wor

k

His

toric

/bui

lt he

ritag

e

Wat

erw

ay re

crea

tion

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Econ

omic

Soci

al (

inc.

acc

ess)

Bus

ines

s pl

an

Con

serv

atio

n m

anag

emen

t pl

anEx

it s

trat

egy


Key criteria





12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Project has considerable volunteersupport. Commensurate public sec-tor support needed to help it moveforward. Feasibility and otherpreparatory studies along length ofnavigation should be priority(together with completion of worksneeded to enable trip boat operation)

No progress since last report.Feasibility study and careful consid-eration of nature conservation impli-cations needed before project canproceed

Lancaster Canal of high heritageimportance. Restoration to formernorthern terminus at Kendal a majorenhancement for South Cumbriatourism and rural regeneration.Potential will be enhanced by com-pletion of Ribble Link. Priority forfunding

Feasibility study needed to makeprogress. Potentially relativelystraightforward restoration thatcould benefit local community. LAsand EA should combine with volun-tary sector to move project forward

Council welcomes BW taking initia-tive in progressing this importantleisure and tourism project which,subject to current studies, offerspotential for urban waterfrontregeneration

H M C P P P C C C C C C P P P 1 N with 6



N/A I P P P P P P P P P P P P P 3 R



A11

Ref no

54

55

56

57


Leven Canal

LichfieldCanal

Liskeard &Looe Canal

Little OuseNavigation

Project length(km)

4.8

11.3

9.7

14

Location/extent

River Hull toLeven

Coventry Canalnear Lichfield toBirminghamCanal Navigations(BCN) nearBrownhills

Liskeard to sea at Looe

Navigable sectionat Brandon toThetford


Yorks &Humber

WestMidlands

SouthWest

Eastern



Staffordshire,LichfieldDistrict

Cornwall,CaradonDistrict

Norfolk,BrecklandDistrict,Suffolk,ForestHeathDistrict


Trailer &Marina(Leven) Ltd

Part BWRemainder

MostlyRailtrack plc


Hull City

BW

EA

Projectpromoter(s)

Trailer andMarina(Leven) Ltd

Lichfield &HathertonCanalsRestorationTrust

CaradonDistrictCouncil

EAWA/GOBA


0.5

12 + landcosts

Not yet costed

Not yet costed

FACTUAL INFORMATION


Restoration of remaining 1.8km for navigation, preservebeauty and improve publicaccess, additional moorings etc

Reconnection of BCN toCoventry Canal to revitalisenorthern BCN, encouragetourism in Lichfield and contribute to regeneration ofnorthern parts of WestMidlands through estimatedtourism spend of £3m pa

Restoration and conservationof surviving features, inter-preting industrial heritage,enhancing bio-diversity, andimproving recreation and localservices

Restoration of historic rivernavigation to former head atThetford

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11



A11

Existingimportance

Her

itag

e m

erit

H/M

/L

Nat

ure

cons

erva

tion

H/M

/L/I

/U


DarnfordWatering initialsection - due forcompletion2000 (£10k).Tamworth RoadLock 26 (£20k).Tamworth RoadHeritage Trailpath surveys etc(£15k).BirminghamNorthern ReliefRoad crossingaqueduct andtwo replace-ment locks andany land purchase

Landlooe Bridge- Conservation& public access.Lock 21 - Arch-aeological dig &restoration.Further surveyon all projectsites to specifyworks requiredand write projectbrief. Interpretation.Public access

Engi

neer

ing

Wat

er r

esou

rces

Envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

asse

ssm

ent

Land

ow

ners

hip

&le

gal p

ower

sO

ther

rele

vant

wor

k

His

toric

/bui

lt he

ritag

e

Wat

erw

ay re

crea

tion

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Econ

omic

Soci

al (

inc.

acc

ess)

Bus

ines

s pl

an

Con

serv

atio

n m

anag

emen

t pl

anEx

it s

trat

egy


Key criteria





12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Designated Special Area ofConservation. No progress since lastreport. Assessment of restoration prospects needed

Project to link northern BCN viaLichfield Canal has important potential benefits. Partnership ofLAs and BW needed if more rapidprogress to be shown. Resolution ofBNRR crossing issue together withguidance to prevent highway pro-jects severing restoration projectswelcome. Upgraded to Nationalfrom Regional taken together withHatherton Canal (no 46)s

Council welcomes completion ofinitial studies as basis for

progressing limited restoration

Potentially relatively straightforwardrestoration which could benefit localcommunity. Detailed feasibilitystudy required to make progress.LAs and EA should combine withvoluntary sector to move project forward. Flash lock should be reinstated

L H O O O O O O C O O O O O O 4 L

L L C C C O C C C C C C O C C 2 N with 46

H M,I P P P P P P P P P P P P P 4 L

M M O O O O O O N/A O O O P O O 3 L

Pro-pertyvaluesOOther


A12

Ref no

58

59

60

61


LlangollenCanal -WhitchurchArm

LouthNavigation

MacclesfieldCanal toCaldon CanalLink

Manchester,Bolton & BuryCanal

Project length(km)

1.6

19.3

18.5

25.1

Location/extent

Llangollen Canalto Whitchurch

The Humber atTetley to Louth

Between Bosleytop lock and headof navigation atLeek

River Irwell(Salford) to Burywith branch toBolton


WestMidlands

EastMidlands

NorthWestWestMidlands

NorthWest


Shropshire,NorthShropshireDistrict

Lincoln-shire, EastLindseyDistrict

Cheshire,W. Maccles-field Borough,Stafford-shire,Stafford-shireMoorlandDistrict

BoltonBorough,BuryBorough,City ofSalford


WhitchurchWaterwayTrust (part)

Part BWRemainder


BW

BW

Man-chesterShip CanalCo viaIrwell

Projectpromoter(s)

WhitchurchWaterwayTrust

LouthNavigationTrust

MacclesfieldCanalSociety

Manchester,Bolton &Bury CanalSociety


4

11.4

Not yet costed

Est 25

FACTUAL INFORMATION


Construction of unique newworking inclined plane to takeCanal into Whitchurch, regen-erating small market town,improving recreation and preserving green wedge

Restoration of navigation tocreate sustainable economicand recreational develop-ment, preserving built heritage and natural environ-ment and stimulating ruralregeneration

Proposed new canal.Resurrection of historic routeto provide new cruising ring,improved water managementand new footpath links

Progressive restoration ofwhole canal for multi-userrecreation, developing NobEnd site for heritage interpretation and creatinggreen route in heavilyurbanised area

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11



A12

Existingimportance

Her

itag

e m

erit

H/M

/L

Nat

ure

cons

erva

tion

H/M

/L/I

/U

Next phase(s)(if applicable)/cost £m (if known)

ChemistryBridge to newculvert: prepa-ration of foot-path to town(£20k). Repairsto Bridge -Surveys etc(£5K). Excavateto footpath level(£9k)

Engi

neer

ing

Wat

er r

esou

rces

Envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

asse

ssm

ent

Land

ow

ners

hip

&le

gal p

ower

sO

ther

rele

vant

wor

k

His

toric

/bui

lt he

ritag

e

Wat

erw

ay re

crea

tion

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Econ

omic

Soci

al (

inc.

acc

ess)

Bus

ines

s pl

an

Con

serv

atio

n m

anag

emen

t pl

anEx

it s

trat

egy


Key criteria





12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Project has potential benefits fortown. No apparent progress since1998 Report. LA assistance neededfor project to be driven forward

Council welcomes restoration of historic Riverhead warehouse, butconcerned that little progress apparently being made to restorenavigation. LAs, EA and voluntarysector should combine to preparenecessary feasibility and other studies

Potentially useful link. Full feasibilityand other studies needed toprogress project

Much of original Canal to Bury stillin place with historic and interestingfeatures. Restoration is large under-taking, requiring major investment.However, development opportuni-ties exist at Salford end of Canal.Renewed interest by BW, LAs andvoluntary sector in study of costsand benefits of complete restorationneeded to assess whether greaterpriority should be accorded to thisis welcome

L L P O P P P P P P P C P P O 4 L

M L,I O O O O O O C? O O O O O O 4 L

H M O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 R

N/A U O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 R

AccessOOther


A13

Ref no

62

63

64


MeltonMowbrayNavigationand OakhamCanal

MontgomeryCanal (alsoWales)

Nar - Great OuseNavigationLink

Project length(km)

48.3

17.1 inEngland

4.83

Location/extent

River Soar nearLeicester toOakham viaMelton

Llangollen Canalnear Oswestry toNewtown (wholescheme)

River Nar diversion sluice


EastMidlands

WestMidlands(alsoWales)

Eastern


Leicester-shire,CharnwoodBorough,MeltonBorough,RutlandDistrict

Shropshire,OswestryBorough

Norfolk,King's Lynn& WestNorfolkBorough


BWRemainder


BW

BW

Projectpromoter(s)

Melton &OakhamWaterwaysSociety

MontgomeryWaterwayRestorationTrust (in part-nership withBW)

IWA/EA/LA


39

9.5 inEngland

Not yet costed

FACTUAL INFORMATION


Restoration of waterways forrural diversification, wider jobopportunities, encouragingcontrolled access to country-side and preserving andenhancing heritage and eco-logical aspects of waterways

Restoration to navigation ofthe only unrestored canal inWales that can be linked tonational system; rural regener-ation whilst balancing conser-vation of the nationally impor-tant natural and built heritageof the waterway

Link Great Ouse ReliefChannel (see above no 3) viadiversion sluice to enable non tidal navigation to King's Lynn

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11



A13

Existingimportance

Her

itag

e m

erit

H/M

/L

Nat

ure

cons

erva

tion

H/M

/L/I

/U


New JunctionBridge, Syston(£17k). Landpurchase,Melton (£10k).Feasibility studies:Syston/Ratcliffe(£10k), MeltonTown (£10k).Dredging/bankimprovements,Melton Town.Environmentalstudy, MeltonMowbray (£10k).Towpath diver-sions - newWreake EyeWay (£1k). Eye- Kettleby Lockrestoration

Engi

neer

ing

Wat

er r

esou

rces

Envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

asse

ssm

ent

Land

ow

ners

hip

&le

gal p

ower

sO

ther

rele

vant

wor

k

His

toric

/bui

lt he

ritag

e

Wat

erw

ay re

crea

tion

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Econ

omic

Soci

al (

inc.

acc

ess)

Bus

ines

s pl

an

Con

serv

atio

n m

anag

emen

t pl

anEx

it s

trat

egy


Key criteria





12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Council welcomes initiative andenthusiasm of promoters in raisingprofile of project but professionalstudies needed to make greaterprogress

Council regrets relative lack ofprogress since failure of HLF bid forwhole scheme, voluntary sectoreffort notwithstanding.Montgomery Canal Partnershipformed 1999 requires support ofHLF, Regional DevelopmentAgencies, European Funds andNational Assembly for Wales todeliver restoration. Currently fund-ing required from HLF for manage-ment plan, LIFE Environment 2000for demonstration project and WestMidlands RDA for Phase 3 work.Major wildlife conservation issues

Proposed scheme put forward byIWA no more than idea at present.Studies not yet considered. TheCouncil would hope to see progressmade on a link

L H P O O P O O O O O C O O O 4 L

N/A H O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 L

H H C C P P C C C C C C C C C 1 N

AccessOOther

LandCLegal


A14

Ref no

65

66

67

68

69

70


NorthWalsham &Dilham Canal

River Ouse(Sussex)

PocklingtonCanal

Portsmouth &Arundel Canal

Royal MilitaryCanal

SandwellProject

Project length(km)

10

30.6

6.4

15.75

Location/extent

River Ant atDilham toAntingham

Lewes toBalcombe Viaduct

Navigable sectionat Melbourne toCanal head

River Arun at Fordto ChichesterShip Canal atHunston


Eastern

SouthEast

Yorks&

Humber

SouthEast

SouthEast

WestMidlands


Norfolk,NorthNorfolkDistrict

EastSussex,Mid SussexDistrict,LewesBorough,WealdenDistrict


WestSussex,ArunDistrict,ChichesterDistrict

Gloucester-shire,


N Walsham& DilhamCanal Co, J Paterson(Properties)Ltd

BWRemainder

Part WestSussex CC


BA

EA

WestSussex CC

Projectpromoter(s)

EAWA

Sussex RiverOuse Trust

PocklingtonCanalAmenitySociety

ChichesterCanalSociety

IWA


11

Not known

2.2

Not yetknown

FACTUAL INFORMATION


Restoration of 10 kms oflocked waterway potentiallyconnecting with Broads fornavigation and creating walk-ing, angling, general amenityand environmental benefits

Restoration of Sussex OuseNavigation for benefit of allwho have interest in River

Completion of remainingrestoration of unspoilt andunaltered rural canal and soprovide navigable, leisure andeducational facility withimproved access while con-serving wildlife interest

To restore to through navigation

Extension of Leeds &

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11



A14

Existingimportance

Her

itag

e m

erit

H/M

/L

Nat

ure

cons

erva

tion

H/M

/L/I

/U


ChemistryBridge to newculvert: prepa-ration of foot-

Engi

neer

ing

Wat

er r

esou

rces

Envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

asse

ssm

ent

Land

ow

ners

hip

&le

gal p

ower

sO

ther

rele

vant

wor

k

His

toric

/bui

lt he

ritag

e

Wat

erw

ay re

crea

tion

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Econ

omic

Soci

al (

inc.

acc

ess)

Bus

ines

s pl

an

Con

serv

atio

n m

anag

emen

t pl

anEx

it s

trat

egy


Key criteria





12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Council pleased to see an overallrestoration strategy in hand for thishistorically important waterway.However, there appears to be a lackof progress towards establishingfeasibility and sustainability andCouncil would like to see rapid deci-sions to protect historic structures,while taking account of nature con-servation sensitivities. Downgradedto Local from Regional

Council welcomes interest inrestoration and encourages all par-ties to work together to assess feasi-bility and viability

Canal structures/buildings of highimportance. Development of strate-gic plan and EN/BW Conservationrestoration agreement at advancedstage both welcome steps towardssecuring funding.

No progress since 1998 Report.The Council would wish to see morepriority being given to studies nec-essary for advancement alongsideChichester Ship Canal (no 27) andWey & Arun Canal (no 91)

No response. HLF funding under-stood to be secured by ShepwayDC - unclear how far restoration fornavigation involved

No response. Not included in 1998Report because outside remit asrestoration to navigation notinvolved. HLF funding since secured

M H O C O O O O O O O O O O O 4 L

L M,I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 L

L U,I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 R with 91

AccessOOther


H H C P P P C P C O C C N/A P N/A 1 N

A15

Ref no

71

72

73

74


Sankey Canal

Sankey Canalto Leeds &LiverpoolLink

Shrewsbury &NewportCanal

SleafordNavigation

Project length(km)

26.6

12

41.1

7.4

Location/extent

Tidal Mersey to St Helens

New navigationfrom St Helens toLeeds & LiverpoolCanal

Newport Branchof ShropshireUnion Canal fromNewport toNorbury andShrewsbury Canalfrom Newport toShrewsbury

Upper sectionfrom near SouthKyme to Sleaford


NorthWest

NorthWest

WestMidlands

EastMidlands


HaltonBorough,WarringtonBorough, St HelensBorough

St HelensBorough,KnowsleyBorough,WestLancashireDistrict

Stafford-shire,StaffordDistrict,Shropshire,Telford &WrekinCouncilShrewsbury& AtchamBorough

Lincoln-shire, NorthKestevenDistrict


Part BW, rest threeLAs

Part Telford& WrekinCouncil, part BWRemainder,part private


BW

BW

BW

Projectpromoter(s)

Sankey CanalRestorationSociety

Sankey CanalRestorationSociety

NewRestorationTrust

SleafordNavigationTrust


42

35

Not yet costed

4

FACTUAL INFORMATION


Phased complete restorationof canal for navigation, pro-viding amenity for leisure andrecreation, clearance of dereliction and pollution andso achieving major environ-mental improvements

Construction of new naviga-tion to increase value ofRemainder section of Leeds &Liverpool Canal, the RibbleLink Millennium project (seeabove no 6) and restoredSankey Canal (no 71) and promote economic and leisureopportunities in area

Restoration to navigation generating jobs and tourism;preservation and restorationof historic artefacts; creationof linear park

Restoration of final 7.4 km ofnavigation, increasing boatcruising and mooring oppor-tunities, improving publicaccess and local prosperityand preservation of historicwaterway and buildings aslocal resource

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11



A15

Existingimportance

Her

itag

e m

erit

H/M

/L

Nat

ure

cons

erva

tion

H/M

/L/I

/U


NewtonCommon toBradley Lock(EarlstownViaduct section)(£2.8m - ofwhich £300k.SingleRegenerationBudget (SRB)funding). HayLock (£40K - ofwhich £20kEuropeanRegionalDevelopmentFund Grant(ERDF) funding)

Engi

neer

ing

Wat

er r

esou

rces

Envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

asse

ssm

ent

Land

ow

ners

hip

&le

gal p

ower

sO

ther

rele

vant

wor

k

His

toric

/bui

lt he

ritag

e

Wat

erw

ay re

crea

tion

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Econ

omic

Soci

al (

inc.

acc

ess)

Bus

ines

s pl

an

Con

serv

atio

n m

anag

emen

t pl

anEx

it s

trat

egy


Key criteria





12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

The progress since last time- thoughlimited - is welcome. However,piecemeal approach to date doesnot appear to take advantage offunding availability in this ERDFObjective 1 area. Comprehensivestudy needed of this important historic waterway to examine theoptions and benefits of full scalerestoration and linkage to connected system

No progress since 1998 Report.Dependent on Sankey Canalrestoration

New Trust welcome. Council wishesto see more rapid progress towardsappropriate studies of restorationpossibilities for this outstandinglyimportant historic Canal and its outstanding listed structures via thenew Restoration Trust. First stepshould be to seek funding for survey, engineering and wildlifereport and for security of listedstructures

Council finds lack of progresstowards completion disappointing.LAs and other agencies should givegreater priority to securing fundingto complete this relatively straight-forward restoration

H M O O O O O O O O O C O O O 4 R

H H O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 N

N/A U O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 R

AccessOOther

M M O C P O O O O O O O O O O 3 R


A16

Ref no

75

76

77

78

79

80


SleafordNavigation -GranthamCanal Link

Soham Lode

SomersetshireCoal Canal

South FortyFoot - or BlackSluice - Drain(Part Witham -Nene link)(See alsoWelland -Nene link, no90)

StaffordBranch - SowNavigation

StamfordCanal(Welland'System')

Project length(km)

25.6

6.8

29

33.8

21.7

Location/extent

New navigationfrom Sleaford Navto GranthamCanal nearGrantham

Between RiverGreat Ouse andtown of Soham

Kennet & AvonCanal at LimpleyStoke to Paultonwith branch toRadstock

River Witham atBoston to RiverGlen at GuthramGowt

Stamford toDeeping St James


EastMidlands

Eastern

SouthWest

EastMidlands

WestMidlands

EasternEastMidlands


Lincoln-shire, NorthKestevenDistrict,SouthKestevenDistrict

Cambridgeshire, EastCambridge-shireDistrict

Bath &North EastSomersetDistrict,WestWiltshireDistrict

Lincoln-shire,BostonBorough,SouthKestevenDistrict,SouthHollandDistrict

Lincoln-shire,Cambridgeshire


EA

EA


BW

EA

BW

EA/BW

EA

Projectpromoter(s)

SleafordNavigationTrust

EAWA

Somerset-shire CoalCanalSociety

IWALincolnshireBranch/EAWA

EAWA


Not yet costed

Not yet costed

Not yet costed

7.1

Not yet costed

FACTUAL INFORMATION


Construction of new naviga-tion to connect the GranthamCanal to the SleafordNavigation and so create newcruising ring

Restoration to full navigationof the Lode between GreatOuse and Soham for localregeneration

Protection of remaining canalstructures (3 aqueducts, 2tunnels, 22 locks, 3 bridges, 1workshop) and line of canalfrom decay, dereliction andvegetation. No aim of restora-tion for navigation

Restoration of Drain and con-struction of small new link toconnect the River Glen andWelland Navigations to thenational system via the RiverWitham

Extension of present head ofnavigation from near Deepingto Stamford

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11



A16

Existingimportance

Her

itag

e m

erit

H/M

/L

Nat

ure

cons

erva

tion

H/M

/L/I

/U


First 1000mstretch from theOuse to Barway- creation ofturning pointupstream ofBarway Bridge

MidfordAqueduct(£700k).Survey(£50k).Both HLF fund-ed. Further preliminarywork subject tosurvey

Engi

neer

ing

Wat

er r

esou

rces

Envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

asse

ssm

ent

Land

ow

ners

hip

&le

gal p

ower

sO

ther

rele

vant

wor

k

His

toric

/bui

lt he

ritag

e

Wat

erw

ay re

crea

tion

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Econ

omic

Soci

al (

inc.

acc

ess)

Bus

ines

s pl

an

Con

serv

atio

n m

anag

emen

t pl

anEx

it s

trat

egy


Key criteria





12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

No change since 1998 Report.Dependent upon Grantham Canal(no 45) and Sleaford Navigation (no 74)

Apparently straightforward, modestrestoration which could bring benefits to local community. Greaterpriority should be given to taking itforward to feasibility stage

The Council congratulates promot-ers on securing HLF funding forsome structural and preservationwork and looks forward to furtherwork

Council welcomes preliminary workundertaken by Fens Tourism and EAdecision to lead full restoration stud-ies. It also hopes high priority willbe accorded to progressing thisstraightforward project which haspotential for opening up Anglianwaterways bringing major benefits.Uprated from Regional to Nationalsince 1998

No response - understood to be nolonger live

No progress since 1998 Report.Dependent upon connection ofWelland system to river Witham viaSouth Forty Foot (or Black Sluice)Drain (no 78)

N/A H O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 R

L M C C P O O P P P P P O O O 2 N


L H O P P P O O O O O O O O O 4 L

H U O O O O O O O O O O O O O 3 R


A17

Ref no

81

82

83

84

85

86


StourNavigation

StourbridgeCanal - FensBranch

Stover Canal

SwaffhamBulbeck Lode

Thames &Medway Canal

Trent &Mersey Canal- BurslemArm "BurslemPort Project"

Project length(km)

26.4

1.6

3.2

5.3

4.5(exclud-ingStroodTunnel)

1

Location/extent

Sea atManningtree toSudbury

Branch ofStourbridge Canal

North east ofNewton Abbottfrom RiverTeign

River Cam toSwaffhamBulbeck

Gravesend toHigham

Branch of Trent &Mersey Canal inStoke on Trent


Eastern

WestMidlands

SouthWest

Eastern

SouthEast

WestMidlands


Suffolk,BaberghDistrict,Essex,BraintreeDistrict,ColchesterBoroughTendringDistrictCambridge-shire, EastCambridge

DudleyBorough

Devon,TeignbridgeDistrict

Cambridge-shire

Kent,GraveshamBorough

Stoke-on-Trent City


EA

BW

Railtrack plc

EA

Railtrack plc


BW

EA

Port ofLondonAuthority

BW

Projectpromoter(s)

River StourTrust

StourbridgeNavigationTrust, Staffs& WorcsCanalSociety, IWABirminghamBranch

TeignbridgeDistrict

EAWA/GOBA

Thames &MedwayCanalSociety

Burslem PortProject


6

Est 0.25

1.5

Not yet costed

Not yetcosted

3

FACTUAL INFORMATION


Restoration of navigationalong the remaining 26.4 kmof one of earliest river naviga-tions for public benefit forrecreation, sport, amenityconservation and industrialarchaeology

Restoration of branch back tooriginal terminus, preservingrural enclave in urban area

Conservation and partialrestoration to provide historicinterest whilst conservingwildlife/natural habitat

Restoration of navigation toSwaffham Bulbeck

Restoration of Canal frombasin eastwards for use byleisure craft and associatedleisure activity

Restoration and some limitednew construction to create"safe haven" with facilities forboaters using City canals andreuse of wharf buildings tostimulate social and economicregeneration of area

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11



A17

Existingimportance

Her

itag

e m

erit

H/M

/L

Nat

ure

cons

erva

tion

H/M

/L/I

/U


Stratford Locknew gates,dredging, land-ing stages, pub-lic access(£100k). Wholewaterway feasi-bility study(£30k)

Engi

neer

ing

Wat

er r

esou

rces

Envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

asse

ssm

ent

Land

ow

ners

hip

&le

gal p

ower

sO

ther

rele

vant

wor

k

His

toric

/bui

lt he

ritag

e

Wat

erw

ay re

crea

tion

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Econ

omic

Soci

al (

inc.

acc

ess)

Bus

ines

s pl

an

Con

serv

atio

n m

anag

emen

t pl

anEx

it s

trat

egy


Key criteria





12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Council is pleased to note significantprogress made with underpinningstudies with EA support. Nationalranking reflects value of historicstructures and local landscapeimportance

Council is disappointed at lack ofprogress since 1998 Report for verysmall project

Council welcomes TeignbridgeDistrict Council's initiative andprospective acquisition fromRailtrack plc and hopes feasibility offull restoration to allow sea goingcraft to visit Canal will be considered

Should be straightforward local project with benefits for rural community

LAs and other agencies shouldreview project to determine howgreater progress can be made

Valuable local regeneration projectto be funded as part of large-scaleredevelopment scheme

H H P P P P P P P P P P P P P 2 N


M L C C O O O P P P P P P P P 1 L

L H C O O P O P P P P P O O O 3 L

M H P P P P P P P P P P P P P 3 L



A18

Ref no

87

88

89

90

91


UttoxeterCanal - firstLock andBasin

WaveneyNavigation

WeaverNavigation -Frodsham Cut

Welland -Nene Link (seealso SouthForty FootDrain no 78)

Wey & ArunCanal

Project length(km)

N/A

6.76

1.6

34.4

37.1

Location/extent

Connection toCaldon Canal atFroghall

Upper section ofriver fromGeldeston toBungay

Lock cut onWeaverNavigation nearto Runcorn

River Nene atPeterborough toRivers Wellandand Glen

River Wey atGuildford to RiverArun atPallingham


WestMidlands

Eastern

NorthWest

Eastern

SouthEast



Norfolk,SouthNorfolkDistrict,Suffolk,WaveneyDistrict

Cheshire,Vale RoyalDistrict

Lincoln-shire,Cambridge-shire, SouthHollandDistrict,City ofPeter-borough,FenlandDistrict

WestSussex,ChichesterDistrict,HorshamDistrict,Surrey,WaverleyBorough,GuildfordBorough


BW

EA


BW

BA

BW

EA

EA, NT

Projectpromoter(s)

Caldon CanalSociety

EAWA

RiverWeaverNavigationSociety

FensTourism/EAWA

Wey & ArunCanal Trust


Not known

Not yet costed

Est < 0.25

17.4

17.9

FACTUAL INFORMATION


Restore first part of Canal toenable moorings and visitorattraction

Restoration of historic rivernavigation as extension toBroads

Partial restoration of one lockand one bridge to improveboat access to Weaver viararely used tidal water andimprove access to Frodsham

Provide navigable linkbetween Welland and Nene

Progressive restoration ofremaining 60% for throughnavigation from Wey to sea.Creation of sustainable low-cost heritage and tourismamenity in populated areawith few inland waterwaysand amenity benefit for localcommunity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11



A18

Existingimportance

Her

itag

e m

erit

H/M

/L

Nat

ure

cons

erva

tion

H/M

/L/I

/U


Frodsham Cutsouth of Lock -rebuild swingbridge & pro-vide visitormoorings(£100k).Frodsham Lockrestoration(£150k)

Loxwood LinkExtension pro-ject road bridge(£303k), aqueduct£500k). DigDeep Rownerto Newbridge(£120k)

Engi

neer

ing

Wat

er r

esou

rces

Envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

asse

ssm

ent

Land

ow

ners

hip

&le

gal p

ower

sO

ther

rele

vant

wor

k

His

toric

/bui

lt he

ritag

e

Wat

erw

ay re

crea

tion

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Econ

omic

Soci

al (

inc.

acc

ess)

Bus

ines

s pl

an

Con

serv

atio

n m

anag

emen

t pl

anEx

it s

trat

egy


Key criteria





12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Council welcomes project toimprove facilities at Caldon Canalterminus

No progress since 1998 Report

Careful restoration needed to main-tain early features. Small clean upprojects to identify and interpretthese features would raise profile ofthis good project which could givenew destination to lower end ofRiver Weaver. Would like to seeconsideration of recreation ofWeaver-Bridgewater Canal link forsmall craft via restoration of WestonCanal and Runcorn Locks, avoidingManchester Ship Canal

Dependent upon restoration ofSouth Forty Foot (or Black Sluice)Drain (no 78), and connection toriver Glen. Council welcomes studies undertaken by Fens Tourismand EA's recent decision to lead fullfeasibility study

Progress welcome on interim stage.Council hopes to see overall sustain-ability addressed via more strategicand co-ordinated approach fromTrust, LAs and other agencies


N/A U C C C C C P P P P P O O O 3 R

H L O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 L


M H,I C C O O O O O O O P O O O 3 N


A19

Ref no

92

93

94

95


Wilts & BerksCanal andNorth WiltsCanal

River Wissey

WithamNavigableDrains - EastFen Lock

Worsley Delph&UndergroundCanals

Project length(km)

97

5

20(relatestolengthmadeaccessi-ble)

22.4

Location/extent

RiverThames atAbingdon toKennet & AvonCanal atMelksham viaSwindon with linkto CotswoldCanals

Present head ofnavigation atStoke Ferry toweir nearWatermill Farm

North east ofBoston

BridgewaterCanal at Worsleyto Farnworth


SouthEastSouthWest

Eastern

EastMidlands

NorthWest


Oxfordshire,Vale ofWhiteHorseDistrict,Wiltshire,North WiltsDistrict,West WiltsDistrict,SwindonBorough

? Norfolk,BrecklandDistrict,Suffolk,ForestHeathDistrict

Lincoln-shire

City ofSalford


EA

WithamFourthInternalDrainageBoard

BridgewaterCanal Trust


BW/EA

EA

WithamFourthInternalDrainageBoard

BW

Projectpromoter(s)

Wilts & BerksCanal Trustwith Wilts &Berks CanalAmenityGroup

GOBA


Steam, Coaland Canal


107.4

Not yet costed

0.07

6.5 (1mwaterwayrelated)

FACTUAL INFORMATION


Restoration of through naviga-tion (including diversionswhere necessary), promotingfullest use for transport, recreation (will create multiplecruising rings), local amenityand tourism for public benefitand securing environmentalenhancement

Provision of new lock andweir to allow small boats toprogress as far as weir nearWatermill Farm

Restoration of derelict lock toregain navigation of 20 kms ofHobhole and other Drains

Restoration of navigation toWorsley Delph. Project alsoincludes restoration/preserva-tion of buildings and machin-ery, improved access asHeritage Trails, environmentimprovements, permanentexhibitions, all as part of CanalLinear Industrial Heritage Park

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11



A19

Existingimportance

Her

itag

e m

erit

H/M

/L

Nat

ure

cons

erva

tion

H/M

/L/I

/U


Fundingrequired forWater SupplyStudy (£167k),EngineeringStudy relatingto whole canal/phase 1 only retopographicalsurvey, geot-echnical investi-gation and engi-neering design(£52+31+314k),Environmentalassessment(£94k). Routeround Melkshamto new junctionwith Kennet &Avon CanalEngineering survey (£5k)

Engi

neer

ing

Wat

er r

esou

rces

Envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

asse

ssm

ent

Land

ow

ners

hip

&le

gal p

ower

sO

ther

rele

vant

wor

k

His

toric

/bui

lt he

ritag

e

Wat

erw

ay re

crea

tion

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Econ

omic

Soci

al (

inc.

acc

ess)

Bus

ines

s pl

an

Con

serv

atio

n m

anag

emen

t pl

anEx

it s

trat

egy


Key criteria





12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Council welcomes formation of newRestoration Trust appointment ofProject Officer and setting up part-nership as positive steps towardsrestoration Much overall work donebut detailed studies needed.Uprated to National from Regional

Modest new project to extend navigation

Council considers this ought to bepriority for funding subject to cur-rent Fens Tourism Study in view oflength of navigation which would beregained

There are three distinct sites withstudies at different stages of devel-opment. National ranking reflectshigh importance of industrialarchaeology

M L P O P O P C C C C C P P P 3 N


L M P O O O P P P P P P P P P 4 L

H M P O P ? O C C P P P O P C 3 NAccessOOther


A20

Ref no

96

97

98

99

100


Abertaf Canal -Abertaf/Heritage projects

Glamorgan-shire Canal -NantgarwPotteryMuseum

Monmouth-shire Canal(incl CrumlinArm)

MontgomeryCanal (alsoEngland)

Vale of Neathand SwanseaValley Canals-Neath Canal

Project length(km)

0.33

14.5

37.7 inWales

16

Location/extent

Beside NantgarwPottery Museum

Monmouthshire& Brecon Canal atCwmbran toNewport,Newport to 14Locks on CrumlinArm

Llangollen Canalnear Oswestry toNewtown (wholescheme)

Briton Ferry toGlynneath


Wales

Wales

Wales

Wales(alsoWestMidlands)

Wales


RhonddaCynon TaffCBC

Monmouth-shire,TorfaenCBC,NewportCBC,CaerphillyCBC

Powys

Neath PortTalbot CBC


RhonddaCynon TaffCBC

BWRemainder

Co ofProprietorsof the NeathCanalNavigation(CPNCN)


BW,NewportHarbourCommiss-ioners(future)

BW

TennantCanal Co(TCC)

Projectpromoter(s)

Friends ofNantgarwPotteryMuseum

Monmouth,Brecon &AbergavennyCanalsPartnership(BW, LAs)

MontgomeryWaterwayRestorationTrust (in part-nership withBW)

Neath PortTalbotCBC/CPNC/Neath &TennantCanals PresSoc


Not known

35

28.2 inWales

7.5

FACTUAL INFORMATION


Restoration of Canal toenhance Museum setting

Opening up the canal for navi-gation and public access; pro-tecting environment and bio-diversity; protecting &enhancing heritage anddeveloping local history andeducation. Providing sub-regional tourist network for SEWales with new Newport ter-minus basin with urban regen-eration benefits and link toRiver Usk for river/estuarycruises

Restoration to navigation ofthe only unrestored canal inWales that can be linked tonational system; rural regener-ation whilst balancing conser-vation of the nationally impor-tant natural and built heritageof the waterway

Restoration of 16 kms of navigation for recreational andleisure use and stimulatingurban regeneration in valley.Part of proposed regionalwaterway system

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Monmouth-shire,TorfaenCBC,NewportCBC,CaerphillyCBC



Wales

A20

Existingimportance

Her

itag

e m

erit

H/M

/L

Nat

ure

cons

erva

tion

H/M

/L/I

/U


Newport to Ty-Coch Lock &Bridge restora-tion (£3.5m).Newport -Cwmbran tow-path/cycleway(£5k). Newport- GilwernEcological/environmentalevaluation(£1.2k)

Engi

neer

ing

Wat

er r

esou

rces

Envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

asse

ssm

ent

Land

ow

ners

hip

&le

gal p

ower

sO

ther

rele

vant

wor

k

His

toric

/bui

lt he

ritag

e

Wat

erw

ay re

crea

tion

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Econ

omic

Soci

al (

inc.

acc

ess)

Bus

ines

s pl

an

Con

serv

atio

n m

anag

emen

t pl

anEx

it s

trat

egy


Key criteria





12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Outside remit of restoration for navi-gation etc. However, present piece-meal approach to GlamorganshireCanal unsatisfactory - need seen fora comprehensive look at overallstrategy

Site of heritage merit site but needfor comprehensive approach toGlamorganshire Canal potential

LTC, New Deal and ERDF fundingsecured for incremental restorationof first section. Council welcomesprogress made by Partnership AlsoCaerphilly CBC's recent commit-ment to restoration of Crumlin Arm,and planned initial studies toexplore inclusion of Crumlin Arm

Council regrets relative lack ofprogress since failure of HLF bid forwhole scheme, voluntary effortnotwithstanding. MontgomeryCanal Partnership formed 1999requires support of HLF, RegionalDevelopment Agencies, EuropeanFunds and National Assembly forWales to deliver restoration.Currently funding required fromHLF for management plan, LIFEEnvironment 2000 for demonstra-tion project and West MidlandsRDA for Phase 3 work. Majorwildlife conservation issues

Category 2 ranking understatesprogress made with preparatorywork. Economic and social benefitanalysis now commissioned by part-ners to promote project benefits tofunders. Both projects uprated toNational from Regional when takentogether with Swansea Canal (no 101)

H M,I C C P O P C P C C C C P C 1 R

M L O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 L

H H C C P P C C C C C C C C C 1 N

H H O O C O P C C P C C P O 2 N with 101and 102

LandCLegal

LegalLand not re-quired

Not re-quired


A21

Ref no

101

102

103

104


Vale of Neathand SwanseaValley Canals-SwanseaCanal

Vale of Neathand SwanseaValley Canals-TennantCanal

Ardlui toInverarnanCanal

MonklandCanal

Project length(km)

16.8

14.6

1.6

24.2

Location/extent

Near Abercraveto Swansea

Swansea to NeathCanal atAberdulais

Northern extremity of LochLomond

Forth & ClydeCanal in Glasgowto near Airdrie


Wales

Wales

Scotland

Scotland


SwanseaCity, Neath& PortTalbot CBC

SwanseaCity, NeathPort TalbotCBC

Argyll &Bute

City ofGlasgow,NorthLanarkshire



CPNCN

BW

Projectpromoter(s)

SwanseaCanalSociety/BW/Neath PortTalbot CBC/Swansea City

Neath PortTalbotCBC/TCCand Neathand TennantCanals PresSociety

LochLomond &TrossachsInterimCommittee

NorthLanarkshireCouncil


14.5

5

Not known

Not yet costed

FACTUAL INFORMATION


Restoration of 16.8 kms toassist urban regeneration ofvalley communities, provideleisure and recreation facilityfor local residents, createmajor tourist attraction ofregional significance in WestWales of a linked waterwaycomprising Swansea, Neathand Tennant canals, to beknown as the "Regional water-way"

Restoration of 16 kms of navi-gation for recreational andleisure use by locals and visi-tors and stimulating urbanregeneration in valley. Part ofproposed regional waterwaysystem

Restoration of short length ofCanal

Restoration of as much ofcanal as possible for tourismdevelopment, economicdevelopment, leisure andrecreation

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Part BWRemainder/Neath &Port TalbotCBC

TennantCanal Co(TCC)

LochLomond &TrossachsInterimCommittee

Part BWRemainder/LA

Scotland



A21

Existingimportance

Her

itag

e m

erit

H/M

/L

Nat

ure

cons

erva

tion

H/M

/L/I

/U


Engi

neer

ing

Wat

er r

esou

rces

Envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

asse

ssm

ent

Land

ow

ners

hip

&le

gal p

ower

sO

ther

rele

vant

wor

k

His

toric

/bui

lt he

ritag

e

Wat

erw

ay re

crea

tion

Envi

ronm

enta

l

Econ

omic

Soci

al (

inc.

acc

ess)

Bus

ines

s pl

an

Con

serv

atio

n m

anag

emen

t pl

anEx

it s

trat

egy


Key criteria





12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Welcome that LA support nowobtained and further work neededto progress this project has been setin hand. Uprated to National fromRegional when taken together withNeath and Tennant Canals (no 100and 102)

Category 2 ranking understatesprogress made with preparatorywork. Economic and social benefitanalysis now commissioned by part-ners to promote project benefits tofunders.Both projects uprated toNational from Regional when takentogether with Neath Canal andSwansea Canal (no 100 and 101)

Potentially useful minor extension ofnavigation on Loch Lomond. A further project (Loch Lomond link toClyde) also being explored

There is understood to be potentialfor reopening further stretch ofcanal as part of residential develop-ment, but implementation 3-4 yearsahead

H H P P P P P P P P P P O O O 4 N with 100 and 102

H H O C O C C C O P O C P O O 2 N with 100 and 101

L U O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 L

M M O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 L

Partial AccessO Other


IIWWAAAACC CCoouunncciill MMeemmbbeerrss

TThhee RRtt HHoonn VViissccoouunntteessss KKnnoollllyyss DDLL (Chairman) also Chairman, the Broads Authority; Member, pastChairman and former Planning Committee Chairman,South Norfolk District Council; Chairman, NorwichArea Tourism Agency; Council Member, Universityof East Anglia

DDrr JJoohhnn EEaattoonn MMBBEE -- BBSScc,, ((HHoonnss)) PPhhDDSenior Lecturer, School of Biological Sciences,University of Liverpool

TToonnyy HHiirrsstt OOBBEE Former Director, The Boat Museum; Member,Council of the Association of Independent Museums;Chairman, The Waterways Craft Guild; VicePresident, Inland Waterways Association; Vice-President, Shropshire Union Canal Society

JJoohhnn HHuummee OOBBEE -- BBSScc ((HHoonnss))Hon FRIAS, FSA, FSA Scot Former Chief Inspector of Historic Buildings, HistoricScotland; Honorary President, Seagull Trust;Chairman of Scottish Archaeology Panel andMember, Industrial Archaeological Panel, EnglishHeritage; Member, The Waterways Trust; HonoraryProfessor, St. Andrews University

PPrrooffeessssoorr IIaann MMeerrcceerr (until 31st March 2001) CBE LL.D DSc FRAgS Former Secretary General, Association National ParkAuthorities; Honorary Professor, Rural ConservationPractice, University of Wales

DDrr AAnnnnee PPoowweellll OOBBEE -- BBSScc ((HHoonnss)),, PPhhDD,, MMBBAAAcademic Biologist

OOtthheerr MMeemmbbeerrss ooff tthhee GGrroouupp

EElliizzaabbeetthh BBrraaddlleeyyFormer Head of Inland Waterways Branch, Department of the Environment (now Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

GGrraahhaamm DDaavveeyyDirector of Planning, Economic Development & Regeneration, Powys County Council

NNeeiill EEddwwaarrddssExecutive Director, Inland Waterways Association; Elected Member of the Council of The National Trust

CCoouunncciill SSttaaffff

DDeerreekk GGoowwlliinngg BA (Hons) Dip TP, MRTPIPolicy Manager

MMaarryy--JJaannee DDoonnnneellllyyOffice Manager

B1

Annex B: Waterway restoration & development priorities working group membership as at 30 June 2001

restoration priorities 2001

Documents

restoration scene

stock of progress

apparent progress

waterway recovery group

development priorities

spectacular recent progress

development prioritiesreport

lichfield canal