Killaloe & Ballina are having one of Waterways Ireland’s Discover Days on Sunday 29 April 2012.
Includes “visitor attractions, water activities, arts and crafts, face painting, live music, a historical walking tour, boat trips and other land and water activities”.
More info as it becomes available.
Posted in Ashore, Built heritage, Charles Wye Williams, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Forgotten navigations, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Irish inland waterways vessels, Irish waterways general, Operations, People, Politics, Scenery, Shannon, Sources, Steamers, The cattle trade, Tourism, Water sports activities, waterways, Waterways management
Tagged boats, bridge, canal, ESB, Ireland, Killaloe, lock, Operations, Shannon, waterways, Waterways Ireland
Folk trying to research stuff without being in universities may be interested in this.
From The Northern Ireland Peace Monitoring Report: Number One by Paul Nolan, published by the Community Relations Council, 6 Murray Street, Belfast BT1 6DN, on 29 February 2012, and downloadable here:
The North–South Ministerial Council sits at the apex of six cross-border bodies, the remit of which is to ‘develop consultation, co-operation and action within the island of Ireland’ on matters of mutual interest. In practical terms this means the management of overlapping concerns on areas such as trade, tourism, waterways, fisheries and transport. Very little political controversy attends the operations of these bodies, and for the most part their activities are conducted in a brisk and business-like way.
The general conclusions of the report are more depressing. The Council lists these ten key points:
1. The political institutions are secure
2. The level of violence is down
3. Paramilitarism still remains a threat
4. The policing deal is not secure
5. The recession is impacting upon the equality agenda
6. Youth unemployment is potentially destabilising
7. A new confident and neutral urban culture has emerged
8. Northern Ireland is still a very divided society
9. There is no strategy for reconciliation
10. No solution has been found for dealing with the past.
But then the southern state hasn’t managed 10 either.
The Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, Carál Ní Chuilín [Sinn Féin], reported to the NI Assembly yesterday on the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) inland waterways meeting held in Enniskillen on 14 February 2012, which I reported on here. The minister’s statement didn’t add anything to what the NSMC minutes [PDF] said, but some interesting points came up in the discussion afterwards.
[Karen] McKevitt [SDLP, South Down]: One of the four specific recommendations considered at the meeting was a change to the legislation for the disposal of a waterway or part of a waterway by Waterways Ireland. Why does Waterways Ireland need that power? Does it have any plans to make such disposals?
Ms Ní Chuilín: We want to give Waterways Ireland the authority to dispose of small areas of land without needing approval from both Departments. That provision will be de minimis and will cover the disposal of land that is worth less than £25,000. It will also allow for good practice and good governance, and will ensure that there is a clear understanding of what Waterways Ireland can and cannot do. The creation of such a provision has been raised before and we said that we would bring it forward. Therefore, this is progress and, through it, we are providing clarity.
This is sensible: WI shouldn’t have to bother ministers about such minor disposals.
Perhaps the penny is beginning to drop. Mr McCarthy [Kieran McCarthy, Alliance Party, Strangford] said:
I thank the Minister for her statement. The Minister said that the next NSMC waterways meeting will set out “options for advancing the Ulster Canal project.” Is there any hint that that project may be curtailed or that less will be done than was formerly envisaged?
The minister’s answer:
[…] Some time ago, the Irish Government made a statement that their budget for developing some of the capital works that they had committed to was under threat. The Ulster canal was mentioned in that statement.
At previous NSMC waterways meetings, we agreed to progress that project as much as possible. One of the first stages of the programme of work was to seek leave for planning permission, and that has happened. The project will be kept under constant review at each stage, and the Ulster canal project is firmly at the top of the agenda of NSMC waterways meetings and other meetings that I have with Minister Deenihan. Any progress on that project will be reported at the next NSMC waterways meeting in June.
The minister has shifted the focus to the planning application as the mark of progress. She did not tell Mr McCarthy that there is no money in Waterways Ireland’s budget for any substantive construction work before 2014.
Tom Elliott [Ulster Unionist Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone] asked about costings for the whole of the Ulster Canal:
[…] She mentioned the Ulster canal and, in particular, the Clones to upper Lough Erne portion of that canal. Will she give us details of the costings of the entire Ulster canal project and, in particular, the Clones to upper Lough Erne portion, for which planning permission has now been sought? Have those costings been reviewed recently?
The minister confirmed the figure of €45 million, reported here on 16 December 2011, for the Clones Canal, but note her inclusion of the word “currently”: there might be more increases before construction could begin in 2014. She provided no information about updated figures for any canal from Clones to Lough Neagh:
The 2006 business case indicated a capital cost of £171·5 million for the restoration of the entire canal. That included site navigation, an environmental impact assessment and project management and construction costs. The estimated costs to restore the Clones to upper Lough Erne section is currently €45 million. The construction costs for that section will be entirely funded by the Irish Government, and, when it is built, my Department will contribute ongoing operational costs that are estimated at £37,000 per annum.
If the same 29% increase were applied to the rest of the canal, the total cost would be £220.5 million, just under €350 million.
The other discussion of interest was about the proposal to have a board for Waterways Ireland. Robin Swann [Ulster Unionist Party, North Antrim] asked:
Can the Minister provide clarification on the option to set up a board that comprises fewer than 12 members to present proposals for consideration at a future NSMC meeting on inland waterways? Would that not be the establishment of a further North/South quango to advise the North/South Ministerial Council? If that board is established, what would it discuss, who would decide its remit, and who would be on it?
The minister replied:
[…] In my statement, I said that proposals are being brought forward on the board. Waterways Ireland is the largest of the North/South bodies, yet it does not have a board. Bringing forward proposals for a board does not suggest that there are any issues. However, for the largest body not to have a board is not in keeping with good practice in governance. To that end, it will have a board. Proposals for it will be brought forward at the next NSMC meeting. I am happy to share the outcome of that meeting with Mr Swann, other members of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure and, indeed, other Members.
And Jim Allister [Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim] asked:
[…] Is that for an advisory board or a management board? Given that Waterways Ireland has been running for many years without a board, why is it now thought necessary, or is it just jobs for the boys that will add to the expense of Waterways Ireland?
The minister replied:
I am sure that the Member heard the answer that I gave to Robin Swann about setting up a board. One of the recommendations of the St Andrews review report was that a 12-person executive management board be appointed to direct Waterways Ireland’s affairs. Waterways Ireland is the biggest of the North/South bodies with no board; therefore, it is in keeping with good policy, practice and governance that options and proposals to establish a board will be brought to the next NSMC meeting.
The minister is quite right: there should be a board.
Posted in Built heritage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Forgotten navigations, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Operations, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Tourism, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways management
Tagged Alliance, board, canal, Clones, disposals, Erne, Ireland, John Martin, Lough Neagh, Northern Ireland Assembly, property, SDLP, Sinn Fein, TUV, Ulster Canal, UUP, Waterways Ireland
I’ve done a precis of developments since Novemebr 2011. There is nothing much new on the page, but it may assist new seekers after truth.
I’ve also given the overview a mild update, but without making major changes to its structure.
I’ve been making three main points about the Clones Canal proposal:
Just in case anyone from Clones, or from the government, is looking in, I want to point out that I have been shown to be right on two of those points so far.
First, I said that the €35 million cost figure, which was widely used by the project’s proponents, was unreliable. Waterways Ireland has recently said that the cost is now expected to be €38 million + VAT, which I gather is about €45 million. So has the government reassessed the economic case? If it has, it’s not admitting it.
Second, I said that I could not see how the Irish government was going to fund the project. I wrote:
So where is the money to come from? I’ve tried asking the public bodies that should know the answer, but they won’t tell me.
The government now admits that funding was not provided and it is clear that there will be no significant funding (ie enough to pay for construction) before 2014. Incidentally, my appeal against the refusal of information is with the Office of the Information Commissioner: I don’t believe that government should be able to keep matters of funding secret, especially if potential investors might be misled.
We have no result yet that would cast light on the expected benefits, but we do know that the boat-hire business has declined drastically in recent years. If Clones is to prosper, as I hope it will, it will need development initiatives that are easier, faster, cheaper and more effective than the proposed canal.
Posted in Ashore, Built heritage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Forgotten navigations, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Operations, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Sources, Tourism, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways management
Tagged bridge, canal, Clones, department of arts heritage and the gaeltacht, Department of Community Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs, Erne, Ireland, lock, lost, Lough Neagh, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways Ireland
Big it up for An Bord Pleanála, which has turned down the proposal that a giant alien spaceship be allowed to land near the Blessington Street Basin, just off the Broadstone Line of the Royal Canal. The Irish Times and the Sunday Business Post have both used an artist’s impression of the ghastly object, which is intended to be a children’s hospital, but I can’t find who owns the image so I can’t ask for permission to use it.
If only we had a similar body assessing other investment proposals like those for, say, the Clones Canal. The proponents of both projects argue in similar ways: we have a report, we have experts, it’s time to move on, shut up and give us the money. That both projects are insane — because, apart from being unaffordable, they ignore likely user experiences — is irrelevant to the proposers: their strategy is not to come up with the best (or even a reasonable) allocation of public money but to force through their projects in their currently proposed form. Only German politicians can save us (and our money) from these people; perhaps Germany would like a seventeenth (or eighteenth, after Greece) Land?
Posted in Ashore, Built heritage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Foreign parts, Forgotten navigations, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Non-waterway, Operations, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Tourism, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways management
Tagged An Bord Pleanála, boats, bridge, canal, Clones, department of arts heritage and the gaeltacht, Dublin, Erne, hospital, Ireland, lost, Lough Neagh, Operations, Royal Canal, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways Ireland
Tender here. No mention of the engine shed amongst the heritage sites to be interpreted, alas. And the General description of proposed works document has a photo of the playground at O’Briensbridge in Co Clare, captioned as “Playground, Shannon Harbour, Co Offaly” even though Tom Burke’s boat is clearly visible in the background. Still, good to see that they’re not just waiting for a canal. And they intend to build a car park in the town park, which could be useful for the camper vans.
Posted in Ashore, Built heritage, Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Forgotten navigations, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Non-waterway, Operations, People, Politics, Rail, Restoration and rebuilding, Sources, Tourism, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways management
Tagged canal, Clones, department of arts heritage and the gaeltacht, Erne, Ireland, lost, Lough Neagh, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways Ireland
There was an important debate in the Northern Ireland Assembly on this subject yesterday. While the salmon received much of the attention, the state of the Lough Neagh eel fishery was also discussed.
Posted in Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Extant waterways, Foreign parts, Ireland, Irish inland waterways vessels, Irish waterways general, Natural heritage, Operations, People, Politics, The fishing trade, Tourism, waterways, Waterways management
Tagged eels, fisheries, Ireland, Lough Neagh, Northern Ireland Assembly, salmon, waterways
The Northern Ireland Assembly mentioned the Ulster Canal twice on 20 February 2012; the Lagan was mentioned too. Nothing new, really.
Posted in Economic activities, Engineering and construction, Foreign parts, Forgotten navigations, Industrial heritage, Ireland, Operations, People, Politics, Restoration and rebuilding, Sources, Tourism, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways management
Tagged belfast, canal, Clones, department of arts heritage and the gaeltacht, Erne, Ireland, Lagan, lost, Lough Neagh, Northern Ireland Assembly, Ulster Canal, waterways, Waterways Ireland
Irish waterways history