Feasibility Study for the Restoration of the Dudley No.2 Canal (The Lapal Canal) Final Report JOB NUMBER: 5046582 DOCUMENT REF: 5046582/001 04 Final – incorporating client JT NS PM RDE 24/07/07 comments 03 Final draft JT NS PM RDE 06/06/07 02 Second draft JT NS PM RDE 03/05/07 01 Preliminary draft – for client JT - - RDE 05/02/07 comments Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date Revision Purpose Description Contents Section Page 1. Introduction 2-1 2. What Remains Today 2-1 West of Lapal Tunnel 2-1 The Lapal Tunnel 2-15 East of the Lapal Tunnel 2-15 3. Proposed Works and Costings 3-1 Route Options 3-1 Specifications for Restoration Works 3-2 Major Obstructions 3-6 Mooring Sites 3-16 Proposed Restoration Sequence 3-17 Water Management 3-20 Budget Costings 3-23 4. Key Projects 4-1 5. Policy Review 5-1 6. Ecology 6-1 7. Heritage 7-1 8. Socio-Economic Benefits 8-1 9. Funding 9-1 10. Executive Summary 10-1 P:\GBTFA\MandI\Public\504 Jobs\5046582 - Lapal Canal Feasibility\Reports\ISSUE 004 FINAL\Feasibility report ISSUE 004 070720.doc ii List of Tables Table 3.1 – Phasing of Restoration 3-19 Table 3.2 – Water Quantities Required 3-20 Table 3.3 - Canal Costs and Water Requirements to Consultants Proposal (Option A) 3-27 Table 6.1 – Relevant Legislation 6-1 Table 6.2 – SINC Sites 6-3 Table 6.3 – Timing for Species Surveys 6-7 Table 8-1 – Summary of spend by user type 8-3 Table 8-2 – Lock movements in local area 8-4 Table 8-3 – Breakdown of spend by towpath users 8-14 Table 8-4 – General areas of canalside development opportunity. 8-20 Table 8-5 – Summary of Economic Benefits 8-26 Table 8-6 – Domain Weights for the IMD 2004 8-26 Table 8-7 – Summary of costs and benefits 8-33 P:\GBTFA\MandI\Public\504 Jobs\5046582 - Lapal Canal Feasibility\Reports\ISSUE 004 FINAL\Feasibility report ISSUE 004 070720.doc iii The Lapal Canal Trust dedicates this report to the memory of the late Barry Henry. His legacy has contributed to the cost of commissioning this Feasibility Study. The Trust also acknowledges the grants and donations received from:- City of Birmingham, Bartley Green Ward Community Chest The Inland Waterways Association, 'Restoration Grants Fund' The Inland Waterways Association, Birmingham, Black Country & Worcestershire Branch The Inland Waterways Association, Lichfield Branch The Coombeswood Canal Trust The Birmingham Canals Navigation Society The Worcester and Birmingham Canal Society P:\GBTFA\MandI\Public\504 Jobs\5046582 - Lapal Canal Feasibility\Reports\ISSUE 004 FINAL\Feasibility report ISSUE 004 070720.doc iv 1. Introduction 1.1 This report has been prepared by Atkins in response to a commission from the Lapal Canal Trust. Atkins was appointed by the Trust on the 20th June 2006 to produce a feasibility study into the proposed restoration of the Dudley No.2 Canal (the Lapal Canal) 1.2 The Trust has specifically sought an appraisal of reopening the canal between Combeswood Basin and Selly Oak Junction. 1.3 The purpose of this study is to determine whether canal restoration is viable and worth embarking upon. It is within the consultant’s remit to recommend various proposals to best suit the canal’s circumstances and to attain greatest remunerations for the Lapal Canal and the local and regional economy. 1.4 The aims of the study as defined in the brief are as follows: ♦ Review previous work, particularly an Engineering Feasibility Study report by Gerard Pakes Consultants for the Lapal Canal Trust dated July 1999; ♦ Propose feasible and costed engineering solutions for restoring the canals to navigation; ♦ Identify and give an outline quantification of economic and other benefits arising from restoration; ♦ Identify key sites of local, regional, national and international significance of importance to the restoration; ♦ Identify the scope of the ecological impacts of restoration; and ♦ Demonstrate that the proposed solution provides for optimum planning and environmental benefits. 1.5 The consultant has drawn together several key disciplines to examine the potential for re-opening the whole canal. These include: ♦ Ecology ♦ Economics ♦ Engineering ♦ Planning & Environment ♦ Water Supply 1.6 Each is an established and professional discipline in its own right and by assembling them together in a co-ordinated and integrated approach the consultant can gain a holistic picture to assist in identification issues and proposals. HISTORY OF THE LAPAL CANAL 1.7 The following is a brief summary of the history of the canal, based on information in an article by J Ian Langford, first published in the newsletter of the Dudley Canal Trust in August 1998, and available online at http://www.lapal.org/lap-tun-2c.html. P:\GBTFA\MandI\Public\504 Jobs\5046582 - Lapal Canal Feasibility\Reports\ISSUE 004 FINAL\Feasibility report ISSUE 004 070720.doc 2-1 1.8 This canal was one of many built in the late 18th Century in order to move large quantities of raw materials and coal from one place to another, in this instance as a “by-pass” for the Birmingham network, linking Dudley and Selly Oak on the Worcester and Birmingham canal, without the need for any locks. As a consequence of the need for a level alignment, a 3,795 yard long tunnel (the “Lapal Tunnel”) was constructed between Halesowen and Selly Oak through the ridge line now traversed by the M5 motorway. The Dudley No 2 Canal enabling legislation received royal assent in 1792, and the canal was completed and open to traffic, after many difficulties in construction, by May 1798. 1.9 The canal became part of the Birmingham Canal Navigations network in 1846, after a period of improvements including straightening of the alignment and construction of a pumping system to speed the transit of boats through the long tunnel (the “Brewin Accelerator”). 1.10 The tunnel, which was very narrow and low, suffered intermittent falls almost from its opening. These were repaired and the canal re-opened after each fall, but after the opening of Netherton Tunnel in 1858 there was less incentive to maintain the tunnel. Traffic declined, and in 1914 the use of the Brewin Accelerator was discontinued. In June 1917, a further fall in the tunnel occurred which was not repaired, and the tunnel was abandoned. The tunnel was officially closed in 1926. 1.11 Boats continued to use the eastern end of canal to serve the brickworks at California from the Worcester and Birmingham Canal, until around 1960. This section was then abandoned, but only infilled in the vicinity of the brickworks. It exists today as a dry bed. 1.12 Various further tunnel collapses were reported after closure, until the portals and approaches were infilled: the western portal being used as a tip site for materials arising from the construction of Manor Way and the eastern portal for refuse and rubble. 1.13 Road improvements and changing land use have left the western end of the canal disused and abandoned beyond Hawne Basin, which is the current limit of navigation from the north and west. 1.14 The section of canal through Leasowes Park was restored in the 1990s, although there is no navigation as there is no slipway and the water level is currently reduced. REPORT STRUCTURE 1.15 The structure of the report is as follows: Section Two: What Remains Today – identifies the route, features and current status of the canal Section Three: Proposed Works and Costs – outlines the restoration and maintenance cost for each section of the canal; Section Four: Key Projects – a commentary of the key projects; P:\GBTFA\MandI\Public\504 Jobs\5046582 - Lapal Canal Feasibility\Reports\ISSUE 004 FINAL\Feasibility report ISSUE 004 070720.doc 2-2 Section Five: Policy Review – encapsulates the local, regional and national policy context that applies to the canal; Section Six: Ecology – provides an ecological appraisal of the proposed scheme; Section Seven: Heritage – outlines features of historical importance that will be of consequence to the restoration; Section Eight: Economic Benefits – outlines the economic benefits that may be expected as s result of restoration; Section Nine: Funding Sources – identifies possible opportunities for funding to aid implementation of the proposed restoration scheme; and Section Ten: Executive – summarises the findings from the report and outlines Atkins’ recommendations for further work required to take the project forward. P:\GBTFA\MandI\Public\504 Jobs\5046582 - Lapal Canal Feasibility\Reports\ISSUE 004 FINAL\Feasibility report ISSUE 004 070720.doc 2-3 2. What Remains Today 2.1 In order to allow comparison with costs presented elsewhere and to present the canal lengths in meaningful sections, the canal will be described from west to east, starting at Combeswood Basin and finishing at Selly Oak Junction. The Lapal Canal Trust’s website has been used as a basis for these descriptions, and the structure of the Trust’s restoration plan has been used to enable comparisons to be made. 2.2 The following descriptions are intended to give the reader an impression of the canals as they are today, including an indication of particular blockages. This does not constitute a formal engineering appraisal. For details of works required see section three: ‘Proposed Works and Costings’. WEST OF LAPAL TUNNEL The Hawne and Leasowes Sections (From the current head of navigation to the southern Leasowes Embankment stop gates) 2.3 The western extent of the study area is the head of current navigation adjacent to Hawne Basin, about 150 metres south west of Burton’s Bridge. The bridge leads the towpath over the entrance to Hawne Basin.