Category Archives: Ulster Canal

The NI Assembly discusses waterways

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.

Disposals

[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.

The Clones Canal

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.

Tha Boord o Watterweys Airlann

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.

 

 

 

Clones Canal update

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:

  • the expected costs are understated
  • the expected benefits are overstated
  • there is no funding available.

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.

An Bord Pleanála

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?

The campaign to improve Clones

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.

UC@NIA

The Northern Ireland Assembly mentioned the Ulster Canal twice on 20 February 2012; the Lagan was mentioned too. Nothing new, really.

Value for money

Regular readers will be aware that I think the proposed canal to Clones is a bad investment. I thought it might be useful to look for information about other Irish canal restorations to see what they cost and what the return on investment has been. I understand that there was a study of the Shannon–Erne Waterway, but I can’t find a copy on tinterweb (if anyone has one to lend, please get in touch).

I therefore asked Waterways Ireland about the restoration of the Royal Canal:

I would be grateful if you could tell me the cost of the restoration of the Royal Canal, the annual cost of running it and the revenue it generates.

The reply (for which I am, as always, grateful) said:

Restoration of the Royal Canal commenced in 1987.

€37m Capital Expenditure on the restoration project funded through (1) Operational Programme for Tourism 1994-1999 (2) National Development Programme 2000 – 2007 and (3) National Development Plan 2007-2013.

The Maintenance Cost for 2012 is €2.46m.

The revenue generated by the canal in 2011 is not available.

I didn’t really expect that there would be a meaningful figure for revenue. A full assessment of the benefits would cover far more than the (probably minimal) direct revenue; I think such an assessment should be done, but that’s not what really got my attention.

According to Waterways Ireland, the Main Line of the Royal is 146 km long and has 46 locks and many bridges, some of them newly built as part of the restoration. Harbours have been improved, slipways have been provided and service blocks have been built. And all of this was done for €37 million (I don’t know whether that’s in constant prices and, if so, at which year’s rates: I’ve asked a supplementary question).

A canal to Clones would be 13 km long and, according to WI’s final restoration plan [PDF], would have one double lock (staircase pair). Some dredging would be needed on the River Finn and a new canal 0.6 km long would have to be provided; the work at the Finn end would cost €8.5 million altogether. On the line as a whole, work would be required on up to 17 bridges, some major and some minor or private bridges. And there would be a cost for land acquisition, although the Updated Economic Appraisal put that at a mere £1,268,280, a very small portion of the total cost. And then there would be the pumps and pipes to take water from the Erne, pump it to Clones and let it flow back down; it is not clear whether WI would have to pay for the water. And the total cost of this lot would be €38m + VAT, which I am told is about €45 million altogether.

Now, even allowing for the facts that there had been some voluntary and FÁS scheme work on the Royal, that no land had to be acquired and that parts of the canal were in water, I still find it difficult to see how a 13 km canal with one double lock can cost more than a 146 km canal with 46 locks. I have asked WI for a comment, but perhaps readers — especially if any of them are engineers or accountants — would be able to help to explain the mystery. Maybe it’s something simple like a mistake in the figures or maybe I’m missing something about the nature of restorations …. Enlightenment welcome.

 

A note for a councillor

Councillor Pat Treanor is a Sinn Féin member of Monaghan County Council. According to the Clones Regeneration Partnership’s website,

Cllr Treanor referred to the recent economic appraisals carried out by Fitzpatrick Associates on behalf of the Government and made reference to the large job creation and physical regeneration that would flow from the [Clones] canal proposal.

As far as I know, the most recent Fitzpatrick study was published in 2007. It said (Ch 10):

In terms of formal quantified economic appraisal, all restoration options involve significant net costs over benefits.

In other words, the Clones canal is a waste of money.

Clones folk might like to have a large wodge of public money spent in their area; Waterways Ireland might like to be able to keep engineers in employment. But neither of those wishes should weigh with those charged with the care of the state’s finances. If proposals like this are seriously considered by Irish government departments, then the sooner Angela Merkel appoints an official to run the place, the better.

Perhaps, though, a household tax in Monaghan could be used to pay for this, er, investment?

 

Unrealistic expectations

1818

It has not been shown that sobriety increased in Co Leitrim after the canal to Lough Allen was built.

1845

The waterway, completed in 1859, closed in the 1860s. It is not clear that any Killaloe slates ever reached Ulster by the waterway.

2007

The Clones canal today, a united Ireland tomorrow?

 

Show me the money

The Clones dudes have got Jimmy Deenihan to say that the canal to Clones is a great idea.

They haven’t got him to fund it. Or to say where money is to be found (perhaps the Monaghan gold mines?)

Is it kind to keep these chaps hanging on in this way? I blame the department. I begin to suspect that its northsouthery section fears that it will never gain fame and fortune from Tha Boord o Ulster-Scotch (whatever about its companion, Foras na Gaeilge) and is reluctant to kill off its chance of getting its photo in the papers at the ceremonial turning of a sod. Brendan Howlin might usefully direct his department‘s attention to the matter.

A slight delay

Keeping up with Waterways Ireland’s corporate publications is a bit of a chore: there doesn’t seem to be any system allowing interested citizens to sign up for alerts, so you have to troll on over to the relevant web page and check for new stuff (I’ll see whether Page2RSS works).

Anyway, I don’t know when the WI Corporate Plan 2011–2013 [PDF] was uploaded, so it may be that everybody has already read it, although it wasn’t approved until October 2011:

This Corporate Plan 2011 – 2013 was approved by the North/South Ministerial Council on 12th October 2011 subject to budgetary considerations by the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Naturally, I had a look for mentions of the Ulster Canal. It’s still there in Business Objective 2, which includes this:

Progress restoration of the Ulster canal from Upper Lough Erne to Clones.

But what isn’t there is any money (other than small change). Annex B shows these amounts of expenditure:

  • 2011: €390,000
  • 2012: €140,000
  • 2013: €390,000

With an expected total cost of €45,000,000, it seems that there won’t be much progress in the next few years.

Thank goodness.