Manchester Ship Canal: a Case Study of Floodplain Development
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The University of Manchester Research Manchester Ship Canal: a case study of floodplain development Document Version Final published version Link to publication record in Manchester Research Explorer Citation for published version (APA): Woodward, J. (2016). Manchester Ship Canal: a case study of floodplain development. Geography Review, 29(2), 14-16. Published in: Geography Review Citing this paper Please note that where the full-text provided on Manchester Research Explorer is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Proof version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the Research Explorer are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Takedown policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please refer to the University of Manchester’s Takedown Procedures [http://man.ac.uk/04Y6Bo] or contact [email protected] providing relevant details, so we can investigate your claim. Download date:09. Oct. 2021 investigating place changing places Manchester Ship Canal A case study of floodplain development This case study highlights some of the complex issues Peel Holdings, the largest property developer in the UK, has been the driving surrounding the assessment of flood risk by setting out a recent force behind much of this development. conflict between a commercial property developer and the When Peel purchased The Manchester Ship Environment Agency Canal Company in 1993, it acquired over 100 hectares of land adjacent to the canal. he Manchester Ship Canal was opened containerisation from the 1960s, international Flood-risk mapping by Queen Victoria in May 1894. It trade became dominated by vessels that were A core responsibility of the Environment Tconnected the newly founded Port too large for the canal and it fell into decline. Agency (EA) is to manage the risk of flooding of Manchester to the Irish Sea, allowing Salford Docks — at the end of the canal — across England from rivers, reservoirs, Manchester’s merchants to bypass the Port closed in 1982. estuaries and the sea. The creation of flood- of Liverpool. Within just a few decades, the Over the last two decades, the upper risk maps is a key part of this role (Box 1). Port of Manchester became the third busiest reaches of the canal have been the focus The Manchester Ship Canal drains a in Britain. of one of the largest urban regeneration catchment area of more than 3,000 km2. It When it was opened, the ship canal was the projects in Britain. Salford Quays is now receives runoff from various large catchments largest river-navigation canal in the world. It home to flagship multi-million pound including the Irwell, the upper Mersey and remains a striking feature in the landscape of developments including Media City, The the Bollin. northwest England. Lowry gallery and theatres, and the Imperial ■ The upper section of the canal follows War Museum North. Waterside development the old course of the lower River Irwell Recent history — commercial, cultural and residential — downstream of Manchester city centre. The amount of freight passing through the is now big business at the old docks and ■ The central section follows the Mersey canal peaked in the late 1950s. With the rise of along the canal. valley between Irlam and Widnes. Air photo of the Manchester Ship Canal looking towards Warrington and the M6. Note the truncated channel of the Mersey on the right. The canal cuts across the old channel of the Mersey at various locations 14 Geography Review November 2015 GR 29_2 print.indd 14 26/09/2015 15:34 R Leigh ter Can I iv gewa al rw e Ashton-in- Brid e r Crosby Makerfield ll Kirkby Salford 1 Bootle 2 Stretford St Helens Newton-le- Culcheth Irlam MANCHESTER Willows Urmston 3 River M er se y Wallasey Prescot Carrington LIVERPOOL Birchwood Partington Sale a l Woolston a n R. B Warrington C oll i p in S h r 4 s t e Lymm Birkenhead c h e al Altrincham Widnes Canal a n ter Can M ewa dg Bri River Mersey Runcorn 5 1 Mode Wheel Locks W ea N 2 Barton Locks ve r 3 Irlam Locks N Knutsford a Latchford Locks v 4 igation 0 km 10 Eastham Locks Frodsham 5 Ellesmere Port Figure 1 Map of the Manchester Ship Canal showing the main rivers draining into the canal and the five major locks and sluices. ■ The canal joins the Mersey estuary at This designation was immediately the failed appeal a spokesman for the EA Eastham Locks (Figure 1). A series of large challenged by The Manchester Ship Canal commented: ‘The High Court and Court of locks enables the 18 m drop in elevation Company (MSCC) and its parent company Appeal judgements highlight the complexity between Salford and Eastham. Peel Holdings. Such a designation would of the decisions we make in relation to flood When the EA carried out flood-risk not only reduce the value of land along the mapping. At this stage we have decided mapping of the Irwell and Mersey catchments length of the canal — planning restrictions on that we will not be taking further legal it designated much of the land adjacent to land in the high-risk category would severely proceedings.’ the Manchester Ship Canal as a high-risk reduce future opportunities for canal-side flood zone (Flood Zone 3, Box 2). In other development. The EA refused to change the The Ocean Gateway words there was a 1% chance of a floodplain high-risk designation and the dispute went The High Court judgement was critical for inundation each year. The EA’s flood risk- all the way to the High Court. future investment plans along the Ship assessment methodology obliged it to assess Canal corridor between Manchester and the flood risk on the basis that the Ship Canal The High Court judgment Liverpool. The stakes could not be higher. The locks/sluices would fail, despite the fact that In June 2012, the High Court ruled in Peel Group’s Ocean Gateway project (www. this had never happened. favour of Peel Holdings and the MSCC. The oceangateway.co.uk) is currently the largest EA was ordered to downgrade the flood- development project in the UK. This is a long- risk designation from high (Zone 3) to low term investment in the economy of northwest Box 1 Who uses the EA (Zone 2) (see Box 2 and Figure 2 on page 16). England that will create thousands of jobs. EA flood-risk assessments are partly based It has been billed as: ‘50 years, 50 projects, flood maps and why? on the assumption that any infrastructure 50 billion pounds of investment’. The Ocean A key aim of the EA flood maps is to such as sluice gates, locks etc. will, at some Gateway web pages set out the vision: ‘increase awareness among the public, local stage, fail. Peel Holdings strongly contested this by pointing out that since the opening authorities and other organisations of the Over the next 50 years, Peel’s Ocean likelihood of flooding, and to encourage of the MSC in 1894, the land adjacent to the canal had never been flooded. In other Gateway concept will deliver an people living and working in areas prone unprecedented scale of co-ordinated to flooding to find out more and take words, the designation of Flood Zone 3 was not appropriate for land that had not been private sector investment. It is a appropriate action’ (www.environment- truly pioneering approach to the agency.gov.uk). inundated for well over 100 years. Most crucially, it pointed out that the locks and renaissance of a strategic corridor Flood maps also feed into the risk- encompassing the City Regions assessment protocols used by insurance sluices on the canal were never intended to be flood-defence measures — they were built of Liverpool and Manchester and companies and play a key role in the adjacent areas within Cheshire and planning process. It is much more difficult to maintain water levels for shipping and therefore fell outside the EA’s own rules. Warrington to secure planning permission for a www.peel.co.uk/projects/oceangateway commercial or residential project if the The judge agreed and ruled that the EA proposed development is in a high-risk was incorrect in treating the main sluices as zone. formal flood defences. The EA appealed the If the EA had been successful in designating decision in 2013 but again lost the case. After much of the land in the Manchester Ship www.hoddereducation.co.uk/geographyreview 15 GR 29_2 print.indd 15 26/09/2015 15:34 Box 2 Flood-risk zones Areas at risk of flooding are shaded light blue (low risk) or dark blue (high risk) on Environment Agency flood maps. It is important to appreciate that ‘These two colours show the extent of the natural floodplain if there were no flood defences or certain other manmade structures and channel improvements’ (www. environment-agency.gov.uk). The EA approach to flood-risk assessment is to assume that any artificial structures will fail, and map the areas liable to inundation accordingly. For rivers, the following categories are used: • Dark-blue shading indicates Flood Zone 3 — it shows areas of the floodplain that are at risk from a flood that has a 1% (1 in 100) or greater chance of happening each year. • Light-blue shading indicates Flood Zone 2 — it shows areas with a much lower risk of flooding.