ROTHERHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL – REPORT TO MEMBERS 1. Meeting: Economic and Development Services Delegated Powers Meeting 2. Date: 3rd October 2005 3. Title: Chesterfield Canal 4. Programme Area: Planning and Transportation 5. Summary This Report updates and seeks confirmation of support from the Borough Council for the Chesterfield Canal Partnership in the current development and future restoration of the Chesterfield Canal. 6. Recommendations 1. the Borough Council, whilst recognising it is currently not Council priority, supports without financial commitment the ‘2020 Vision for the Chesterfield Canal (revised 2005)’ - including its proposals for restoration of the historic route of the canal; extension of the canal into, and creation of marina facility on, the former Kiveton Colliery Site (as envisaged in the “Waterspace Masterplan” developed to inform the site’s restoration); and exploration of the potential for development of a Rother Valley Link; 2. the Borough Council explores with partners for further grant-aid funding for further restoration of the canal including that for the proposed Kiveton to Killamarsh Engineering Feasibility Study; 3. the Borough Council engages with all relevant Regional Development Agencies, Local Authority and Government Agencies to promote the cross-regional regeneration opportunities arising from the “Northern Way” and other sub-regional agendas; 4. The Borough Council reimburses the Partnership for the direct activities of the Development Manager where these activities are associated with grant funded projects subject to prior agreement of the Borough Council. 5. The Borough Council supports the revised Constitution of the Chesterfield Canal Partnership, subject to clause 5.1.2 of the constitution , which states that;” The mechanism for agreement is dependent upon reaching mutual agreement and the production of advice in the form of documents which that all participating partners can recommend, without alteration or modification, to their formal policy committees. 7. Proposals and Details Appendices to this report provide background information in respect of the following: • Historic Background to the Chesterfield Canal. • The Chesterfield Canal Partnership. • Rotherham MBC Policy. • Canal restoration to date. • Chesterfield Canal Partnership “2020 Vision for the Chesterfield Canal” Current Issues for the Borough Council The past work of the Chesterfield Canal Partnership has achieved many successes (see Appendix A). Canal restoration works have been completed in Nottinghamshire and Rotherham Borough westwards as far as Kiveton Park. The Derbyshire local authorities are actively seeking further eastwards restoration to build upon the already restored stretches, from Chesterfield to Staveley. Complete restoration of the historic remaining sections of the canal between the present heads of navigation (Kiveton Park in Rotherham and Staveley in Derbyshire) will require major engineering works and considerable expense, support and commitment from all members of the Partnership. In addition to restoration of the historic route of the canal, the Partnership’s ‘2020 Vision’ introduces as a future goal for the Partnership the possible creation of a ‘Rother Valley Link’ from the Rother Valley Country Park into the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation (see Appendix B). The Rother Valley Link would provide an additional 7 miles of navigation and, if provided in conjunction with a fully restored Chesterfield Canal, would open up a nationally important route, of approximately 93 miles, for canal boating. A link would include direct access into the emerging Rotherham waterfront regeneration areas. There are a number of inter-related issues affecting the course of further canal restoration in Rotherham: (a) The Potential for Further Restoration and Creation within Rotherham Borough The engineering challenges for restoration of the ‘missing link’ of the historic route of the canal (including that within Rotherham Borough which is also mainly within private ownership), appear formidable and include (from east to west): • Passage into and across the former Kiveton Park Colliery site, including possible new locks up and down (in and out of the Norwood Tunnel fragments) together with the potential development of a new marina facility. • Passage under the M1 Motorway either using part of the original Norwood Tunnel or an alternative route using a farm culvert. • Restoration of the Norwood Flight of Locks - 13 locks, some now substantially damaged. Achieving sufficient water supply for the operation of any restored Norwood Flight would be essential - the original flight was perennially short of water so some form of back-pumping would be required. • An economically more feasible option to lock restoration, in order to allow descent into the Rother Valley, might be the development of a ‘landmark’ engineering project, such as an ’inclined plane’, which although costly to maintain could potentially generate revenue as a tourist attraction in its own right. Comparisons could be made to the ‘Falkirk Wheel’, now the second most visited tourist attraction in Scotland. Maintenance liabilities from both existing and any future restoration is a significant issue for the Council and will be recognised as an important consideration with regard to any future projects with the need to negate liabilities wherever possible. Rotherham’s length of canal, and its associated relatively narrow corridor, is largely rural with limited contact to urban areas. Given that the area is also statutorily designated Green Belt the opportunities for built development along the canal to realise economic benefit, from both the existing and any future restored canal, are limited. However, a significant issue affecting further restoration in Rotherham is the need to secure economic benefit from both the existing and any future works. The economic benefits arising from investment to date have not yet been measured but are considered minimal. Although the Borough has gained an attractive environmental and recreational corridor the impact of this resource needs to be maximised. The extension of the canal into, and creation of a marina on, the former Kiveton Park Colliery site, is perhaps the greatest opportunity for the Borough to realise economic benefit from canal restoration to date – this was envisaged in the “Waterspace Masterplan” developed to inform the site’s current restoration. If no further restoration is undertaken, this would serve as a terminus to the canal; alternatively it would provide a focal point along the canal for tourism and localised economic regeneration. The cost of restoration to complete the “missing link” of the canal’s historic route is not known but it is clear considerable multi-million pound investment would be required. Previous Partnership estimates of the cost of restoration from Staveley through to Kiveton Park are at least £35m. As planning for restoration progresses in Derbyshire, the Partnership has recognised the pressing need to examine the uncertainties over potential costs and benefits of canal restoration between Kiveton to Killamarsh. To this end, Yorkshire Forward has offered to fund a study, at a cost not exceeding £75,000, to establish an engineering solution to the problem of linking Killamarsh to Kiveton and to accurately establish the costs and benefits of restoration. It is recommended this be pursued as it will assist the Authority in setting its priorities. By itself, Rotherham MBC could not meet the considerable investment that would be required for further restoration of the historic route or possible creation of a Rother Valley link to the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation. Significant funding from cross-regional partners would be required, noting that the Chesterfield Canal crosses two regions and six local authorities. With this in mind, the Canal Partnership Development Officer believes that it is for the wider Partnership, and not the Borough Council alone, to secure funding for any future restoration work. Although, the Borough Council would need to give high priority to supporting such work, this would be based on a clear understanding that the funding would be from external (i.e. non Rotherham MBC available) sources, including any requirement for match funding until the project is given prioritisation within the Council’s Regeneration Plans. However, the view must be expressed that whatever funding sources are available to the Partnership, that they would equally accessible to Rotherham MBC and must be considered to directly, or indirectly, affect the available pot to the Borough. Only “clean” monies from unknown new or non governmental sources may suit this criteria, and these would be likely to require some form of match funding. It is important to note that the East Midlands Development Agency (EMDA) currently supports further onward restoration of the canal given the potential for economic benefit from canal related development that could arise, particularly in Derbyshire. Economic benefit in Derbyshire will arise with or without full reinstatement of the Canal – it is arguable what level of additional economic benefit will arise. From Partnership discussions, EMDA are keen to see reconnection back to the national network as they recognise the substantially increased benefits which will arise across the entire region However, Yorkshire Forward, the equivalent agency covering Rotherham, is not currently actively supporting or recognising the potential economic benefits,