| 
At the Annual General Meeting of the Trust on Wednesday March 17th 2010 a presentation was made putting forward several options for the further extension of the canal towards the town. Existing and prospective members were invited to attend the meeting to hear the presentation and discuss the options. The Option selected was Option C.
The Options discussed were: .......
A. Do nothing
B. Extend through two bridges and create new basin
C. Extend through two Bridges and Create new Basin but allowing for the extension in the future to carry on towards the town using a lock or inclined plane. (Similar to above drawing but adjusted to allow space for lock or inclined plane)
D. Create Water Park but leaving possibility of connecting to the canal network
E. Create Water Park and connect to the main canal network
A detailed review of these options, (as presented in 2010 and not since updated) is set out below. Note that the most expensive option has a cost of about ten times the Canal Basin Option.
Whitchurch Waterway Trust: Comparison of Options
Options List
A. Do nothing
B. Extend through two bridges and create new basin
C. Extend Through two Bridges and Create new Basin but allowing for the extension in the Future to carry on towards the town using a lock or inclined plane.
D. Create water park but leaving possibility of connecting to the canal network
E. Create water park and connect to the main canal network
Option A: Do nothing
Considerations:
o No cost but does not provide additional income needed to ensure long term maintenance of the canal arm.
o Leaves possibility of other options when economic climate improves.
o Shropshire Council to be encouraged to create an informal nature park on the donated land, and then to maintain it properly.
Option B: Extend through two bridges and create new basin
Considerations:
o Capital cost may be between £250,000 to £350,000 (More accurate estimates soon) of which about £20,000 would be spent before planning permission obtained. (These are based on rough estimate of soil volumes to be moved and the same figures for banks etc as used for other options)
o Small extra annual running cost may be covered by rent from extra permanent moorings but this will depend on how all moorings on the arm are used and the detailed design.
o Relatively straightforward engineering — bridges already exist.
o Accords with Trust’s objectives.
o Brings visitor mooring closer to town centre and nearer bus stop.
o Over half the cost is wasted if the decision is ever taken to adopt Option E.
o Shropshire Council to be encouraged to create an informal nature park on the donated land, and then to maintain it properly. The Local community and the council are free to manage the valley without the constraints of having to allow for the canal in the future.
Option C: Extend Through two Bridges and Create new Basin but allowing for the extension in the Future to carry on towards the town using a lock or inclined plane.
Considerations:
o Capital cost may be slightly higher than B.
o Making space for adding locks or inclined plane may reduce space for moorings. (To be investigated)
o Small extra annual running cost may be covered by rent from extra permanent moorings but this will depend on how all moorings on the arm are used and the detailed design.
o Relatively straightforward engineering — bridges already exist.
o Accords with Trust’s objectives.
o Brings visitor mooring closer to town centre and nearer bus stop.
o Less of the cost is wasted if the decision is ever taken to adopt Option E as the design would allow for the moorings to still be used and reworking would be minimised.
o Shropshire Council and the local community would be constrained in any changes to the donated land in the valley by the possibility of the canal extension in the future. This would make it much less likely that any improvements would be made.
Option D: Create Water Park but leaving possibility of connecting to the canal network
Considerations:
o Capital cost about £1,400,000, of which about £130,000 would be spent before planning permission obtained.
o Annual cost about £35,000; negligible annual income.
o Agreement needed with Shropshire and/or Whitchurch Councils to meet the annual costs.
o Relatively straightforward engineering.
o Significant local environmental asset created: wide variety of aquatic wildlife encouraged, making the water park an attractive and interesting place to visit, a suitable location for schools’ nature studies, and a good body of water for fishing.
o Leaves the possibility of Option D pending further funding.
o Consistent with the decision of the Extraordinary General Meeting in March 2006.
o Creating and managing a water park is not within the Trust’s current formal objectives as set out in its Memorandum of Association.
Option E: Create Water Park and connect to the main canal network
Considerations:
o Capital cost about £4,100,000 (assuming inclined plane), of which about £270,000 (Note 1) would be spent before planning permission obtained.
o Annual cost about £220,000 (Note 2); partially offset by net income from catering, room hire & other sources, say £20,000.
o Agreement needed with Shropshire and/or Whitchurch Councils, with perhaps a contribution from British Waterways, to meet the annual costs.
o Complex engineering not undertaken before in Britain, so cost more uncertain.
o Inclined plane would be a unique operational feature on a British canal but may not be such as regional tourist attraction as had previously been thought.
o Substitution of locks for inclined plane would save considerable capital and running costs but take away much of the special interest.
o Visiting boats would moor in a quieter and more attractive location than Option B. This is about ½km closer to the town centre which would reduce the walking distance to about ¾km (about ten minutes), but is further from a bus stop.
o The lake to the west of Greenfield Rise would be an environmental asset, with boating restricted to a channel to& from the inclined plane. Wide variety of aquatic wildlife encouraged, making the water park an attractive and interesting place to visit, a suitable location for schools’ nature studies, and a good body of water for fishing. However, much smaller area than Option C, and slightly more disturbed because of the boating access. The lake to the east of Greenfield Rise would be mainly for boating though it would also have environmental benefits.
o If Option D were done first and Option E proposed at a later date, there could be objections from people who had become accustomed to the whole of the water space being used solely for environmental purposes.
o Option E fulfils the Trust’s objectives.
Notes
1. As Option D (£127,100) plus site investigations (£12,300), feasibility studies & test modelling (£61,500), statutory fees (£24,600) and a quarter of general & M&E design (£43,075).
2. As Option C (£35,000) plus staffing of inclined plane (£50,000), staffing for building cleaning, grounds maintenance & general caretaking (£25,000), and power, maintenance & other costs of inclined plane & buildings (10% of capital cost of £1,096,000 = £109,600). This does not take account of long-term replacement costs.
3. All costs are at 2009 prices and exclude VAT. Contingency of only 10% for unforeseen costs allowed.
Based on PJB\projects\WWT\Options 21 December 2009
This draft compiled by D Torrens February 18th 2010.
