Tag Archives: lost

Thon Cavan Sheugh

Thanks to Kildare Street for this, which came up in Dáil written answers on Wednesday 22 May 2013.

Brendan Smith [FF, Cavan-Monaghan]: To ask the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht the position regarding the feasibility study that has been underway for some time in relation to the proposed extension of the Erne Navigation from Belturbet to Killykeen and Killeshandra; when this study will be completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24538/13]

Jimmy Deenihan [FG Kerry North/West Limerick]: I am informed by Waterways Ireland that the current position is that work is continuing on the collection of data relating to this project and Waterways Ireland is currently preparing draft options for the project. At that point consultants will then assess the environmental implications of the options. It is expected that the feasibility study will be completed as planned by the end of 2013.

That’s Lough Oughter they’re talking about. If thon Monaghan boys are getting a sheugh, Cavan boys need one too. And, of course, consultants are having a hard time so they could benefit by earning a few bob. The net benefit to the economy will be pretty well nil (any spending will simply be displaced from elsewhere).

I think that Killykeen is a forest park; it is not clear how the local economy would benefit from the arrival of a few boats. If the folk of the area want a unique water-based attraction that might bring foreign tourists, they would be better advised to have the lake made an engine-free zone, open only to boats rowed, paddled or sailed, and with safe places to camp on the banks.

You can read here about how to get a boat from Belturbet to Lough Oughter.

The drums, Carruthers

I pointed out recently that some newspapers seemed to have reproduced, unquestioningly, what may have been press releases about the Clones Sheugh. On 25 April the Irish Independent, and other media, had a story, attributed to the Press Association, beginning:

Part of the cross-border Ulster Canal which has not been used for 80 years is to reopen, it has been revealed.

That followed the granting of planning permission, in Northern Ireland, for those portions of the proposed canal to Clones that lie with HM Realm. A couple of weeks earlier, Sinn Féin had been calling for taxpayers’ money to be spent on the project. And Brian Cassells was quoted in the Belfast Telegraph on 27 April 2013 in praise of walking in the country. I wondered whether there was a coordinated campaign to put pressure on the Irish government to come up with the loot for the Clones Sheugh: whether the jungle drums were being orchestrated.

Paying the piper

But none of those stories made it clear that the Irish taxpayers, who had been volunteered to pay for those sheugh, could not afford it. Then, last week, we had several stories making that very point — but without any reference to the stories of the previous week:

The Indo gives the cost of the Clones Sheugh as €35m and the BelTel as £29.6m; it is not clear whether they are repeating an outdated estimate or whether Waterways Ireland’s engineers have provided a new estimate.

Please put a penny

Both stories repeated the current Irish government’s current rather confusing story about where the money was to come from:

  • sale of Waterways Ireland assets (which Irish ministers are not empowered to sell)
  • annual budgetary allocations to Waterways Ireland
  • income from commercialisation of Waterways Ireland assets, which (as I interpret it) is not the same as revenue from the sale of assets.

But it is the journalism that concerns me again here. Newspapers have printed a story saying that there is no money for the Clones Sheugh but they have ignored their own stories, of only a week earlier, saying that the project was going ahead.

Given that, I find it difficult to believe that the newspapers (and the Press Association) have anyone taking an active interest in the Clones Sheugh: researching, investigating and reporting. I suspect — and I accept, of course, that I may be entirely wrong — that on both occasions the journos were simply presented with press releases, probably pre-digested.

Calling the tune

I think it would be interesting to know who has been issuing these various press releases and why they have been doing do. So I’d like journos to tell us the context and the background: that would be more interesting to read, and more worthy of the journos’ efforts, than the reproduction of the releases’ contents.

I don’t know who sent out the first set of releases, saying that the Ulster Canal was to go ahead, but I suspect that the second set was a damage-control effort by the current Irish minister. I suspect that he wanted to dampen down unrealistic expectations without actually the Clones enthusiasts to get stuffed (whether for the short or for the long term). What happened in between the two sets of releases was that a member of the minister’s own party, Heather Humphreys [FG Cavan-Monaghan], asked a Useful Question in the Dáil. That was no doubt entirely coincidental, and not in any way prompted by the minister or by the FG managers, but it allowed the minister to get his story out.

South of the border

The occasion was a Topical Issue Debate on Cross-Border Projects on 1 May 2013. Ms Humphreys was able to associate herself with the views of the local supporters of the project (who are not paying for it), to say how important it was and to claim that getting planning permission was a significant step forward. Which it might be, but it doesn’t help the project to get past the financing obstacle, although she did say that the government was hoping to nick some Euroloot (from PEACE IV; here’s some stuff about PEACE III) for the project.

The minister responded with a history of the proposed rebuilding; then he said [I’ve added extra paragraph breaks]:

The planning applications for this project are now likely to be determined in May 2013. The compulsory purchase order, CPO, land maps are well progressed. It is estimated that the CPO process will take approximately 12 months and, depending on the funding in place, the CPO process may proceed incrementally.

A decision on the construction of the project and on whether to have a single large contract or a number of smaller contracts will also have to be made.

As the project is above the EU procurement threshold the tender process will be required to comply with the EU procurement process and will take approximately six months to complete. Taking that into consideration the earliest the contract could be awarded would be late 2014 with a contract period of 24 months giving a completion date of spring 2017. If the project is to proceed in a more piecemeal fashion the completion date could be some years later, depending on the number and timing of individual contracts. Funding for the project very much depends on the availability of funding from the Exchequer. Deputy Humphreys referred to the possibility of funding from a European source. The Taoiseach referred to a similar possibility.

I established an inter-agency group comprising county managers from Monaghan and Cavan, the director of leisure, development and arts from Fermanagh, representatives from the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, Fáilte Ireland, the Strategic Investment Board, Waterways Ireland and senior officials from the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, Northern Ireland and the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. The inaugural meeting was held on 20 September 2012 and the next meeting will take place shortly. Its challenge is to find alternative sources of funding. I again thank the Deputy for raising the matter. With the planning permission process completed, the next stage is to acquire the land and we will proceed with that immediately.

I feel sorry for the poor folk from the NI Strategic Investment Board, who barely mention the Ulster Canal in their Investment Strategy for Northern Ireland 2011–2021: building a better future [PDF], and who take care to mention the Unionist Lagan Navigation along with the Republican Ulster Canal. They must be wondering how their involvement is expected to help the southern government to meet its commitment to pay for the Clones Sheugh.

Along the banks

Anyway, back to the Dáil. Heather Humphreys, who may not have seen many canals, responded, saying (inter alia):

The canal is an iconic, achievable project that is worthy of support.

Naturally, I disagree about the “worthy of support” bit, but even “iconic” is nonsense. The Ulster Canal was a relatively minor, small, uninteresting waterway carrying insignificant cargoes, and there is little to attract the tourist. The Royal Canal is much more “iconic”, and even that pales by comparison with some canals elsewhere.

The minister finished by saying:

Potential funding from the €150 million PEACE IV programme is very important. If we could source funding from it that would give a greater possibility of the project progressing in the near future. I hope that having completed the CPOs we can make a start on the project in 2015 or 2016. As Deputy Humphreys indicated, it is an iconic project and it would give a major boost to that part of the country which has suffered considerably from rural depopulation. The farming community is under a lot of pressure as well.

Certainly, this project would be seen to be a major asset to the local community and local economy.

It seems that the rural seclusion of the area between Lough Erne and Clones will not be broken by the sounds of JCBs just yet.

The Limerick Navigation: lock sizes

Here is a table showing the sizes of the locks on the (now abandoned) Limerick Navigation.

Mystery solved

Nobody tried the Spot the canal I set the other day, so I must now reveal that the eel weir shown is at the upper end of the Cong Canal. There are many photos and maps on that page.

Errina Bridge

I remarked in November 2012 that Waterways Ireland had parked a canteen trailer and some pontoons at Errina Bridge, the uppermost bridge on the Plassey–Errina Canal, which is part of the old Limerick Navigation.

WI pontoons

WI pontoons

WI canteen

WI canteen

I wondered what was to be done; I noted that a stone at the top of one of the stop-plank grooves under the bridge had been removed (the stone on the far side was removed some time ago).

So I asked Waterways Ireland what was happening. They said:

The works in Clonlara are Flood relief works to protect Errina Lock from catastrophic failure. After the flooding in 2009, during which the dam in Errina Lock was overtopped by approximately 0.5 metres, it was decided to protect it from this happening again.

It has happened before too: in February 1809 the lock was destroyed by floods when heavy snows melted.

Errina Lock (looking upstream)

Errina Lock (looking upstream)

I asked WI about the nature of the works. They said:

Stop logs are to be put into the grooves under the bridge forming a dam with the same size opening as that in the concrete dam in Errina Lock. As for the stone which is removed to facilitate the installation of the timbers, this will be replaced once the timbers are in place.

That is good to know.

Errina Bridge stop-plank grooves (towing-path side, with uppermost stone removed)

Errina Bridge stop-plank grooves (towing-path side, with uppermost stone removed)

Errina Bridge stop-plank grooves (off side)

Errina Bridge stop-plank grooves (off side)

An authority on waterways has suggested that the curious shape of the grooves was designed to allow planks to be inserted from boats rather than from land.

 

Boats to return to Corbally Branch

Well, canoes, but better than nothing.

PS for “upstream” read “downstream”, as far as I can see.

Errina

Waterways Ireland has parked a canteen trailer and some pontoons at Errina Bridge.

The compound, with Official Notices signed Rabbit

Pontoons

The canteen trailer

 

Another view of the canteen trailer

Evidence of tree cutting above Errina Lock, but that may not have anything to do with Waterways Ireland

The guardians of the lock

 

Political parties: update

I said that I had asked many political parties whether they had asked the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs [now the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht] for costings for the Clones Sheugh (aka the Ulster Canal). Those I asked were:

Christian Solidarity Party
Fianna Fáil
Fine Gael
Fís Nua
Green Party
Labour
People before Profit
Sinn Féin
Socialist Party
South Kerry Independent
Workers and Unemployed Action Group [WUAG]
Workers’ Party

I have so far had responses from Fís Nua, the Green Party and Labour; it seems that none of them made the request. I have emailed a reminder to the others and I await their responses.

Bring back the Black

The Black Bridge at Plassey has been closed since the floods of November 2009. Its reopening seems to have a low priority; I suspect that is because the importance of the bridge in Ireland’s technological, economic, entrepreneurial and political history is not widely appreciated. Here is a page explaining some of the background and suggesting a context within which reopening might be justifiable.

Northsouthery latest

The joint communiqué issued after the June 2012 plenary meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council is available on the NSMC website. The waterways bits:

5. The Council noted the Progress Report prepared by the NSMC Joint Secretaries on the work of the North South Bodies and in the other NSMC areas for co-operation and welcomed the following key developments: […] preparation by Waterways Ireland of options for advancing the Ulster Canal project […].

I have asked Waterways Ireland for a copy of the options document ….

ST. ANDREWS AGREEMENT REVIEW

10. Ministers endorsed the following recommendations concerning North South Bodies:

Waterways Ireland

  • sponsor departments to consider options around the setting up of a Board that would deliver the benefits of improved accountability and governance for Waterways Ireland but comprising less than twelve members and to present proposals for consideration at a future NSMC Inland Waterways meeting;
  • sponsor departments to implement as appropriate, through changes to the legislation or other administrative means, a de minimis provision for dealing with Waterways Ireland disposal of a waterway or part of a waterway;
  • sponsor departments to review the current provisions in relation to Waterways Ireland’s commercial activities to ensure that these are adequate and to report to a future NSMC Inland Waterways meeting; and
  • taking account of the current economic and fiscal circumstances, no further action is taken at this time to extend the remit of Waterways Ireland.

So the Newry and Portadown folk will be disappointed and those on the Lagan will be relieved. WI will get a bit more freedom in property and commercial operations but will have a Board (whose relationship with the sponsor departments will be interesting).

The communiqué also says:

11. Ministers noted that work is progressing on a review of the Financial Memoranda of the North/South Bodies with the aim of having the review completed by end-December 2012. In relation to shared services, it was noted that work has commenced on exploring the potential for providing efficiency savings within the North/South Bodies with a view to a report to the NSMC in Autumn 2012.

That will be nice, though the southern government seems to have ignored the provisions of the existing memorandum in its proposal (which ran aground in the property crash) to grab some of WI’s assets to pay for the canal to Clones.

Finally, the communiqué says:

12. The Council noted that the First Minister, deputy first Minister, Taoiseach and Tánaiste will reflect and consult on Terms of Reference 2 and 3 with a view to decisions being taken at the November 2012 Plenary meeting.

That’s about another part of the St Andrews Agreement Review. The report that made the four recommendations discussed earlier was a report on the first of three terms of reference; the other two have not yet been tackled. They are:

2. To examine objectively the case for additional bodies and areas of co-operation within the NSMC where mutual benefit would be derived; and
3. To input into the work on the identification of a suitable substitute for the proposed Lights Agency of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission.

The review was agreed upon five years ago, so speed doesn’t seem to be of great importance in these matters.