Chi Ship Canal to Re-open to the Sea.

[Mark-1]

More in the Chichester Observer today:

http://www.chichester.co.uk/news/to...er-swing-bridge-on-chichester-canal-1-5228553

The plan as a PDF:

http://www.westsussex.gov.uk/idoc.ashx?docid=8e061a97-66c5-4fde-a3e1-8c9de88f837a&version=-1

I hope it happens but I find it hard to logically counter Cllr Clementson's comment: "too ludicrous to contemplate."

 

[Bru]

Did the Wilts and Berks have to cope with a four lane A-road bridge, with rugger-ball headroom where it crosses the canal?

Easy peasey, have a lock at the Rochdale Canal restoration for one of several solutions to such minor problems

British Waterways (as was), the Waterway Recovery Group (aka WRG pronounced "Werg" being the restoration subsidiary of the Inland Waterways Association) and various local canal societies have tackled and overcome far more difficult challenges than the Chichester Canal. Kennet & Avon, Stratford, Rochdale Canal, Montgomery Canal etc.

The technical side of canal restoration is rarely if ever the problem (there is always a solution), it's the political will, funding and public support that is sometimes hard to come by. Rebuilding locks from scratch can even be done by (and has indeed frequently been done by) volunteer labour (especially in respect of WRG, don't confuse volunteer with "amateur", the entirely voluntary and voluntary funded WRG operation would put many professional civil engineering outfits in the shade)

The sea lock at Chi just needs some new gates and a bit of remedial work to the chamber from what I could see (it's ostensibly operational but I wouldn't put much faith in the gates lasting five minutes in serious use)

I'm guessing the reference to "a lock underneath the road in the Witterings" refers to a sump lock to get under the A286 (the Witterings confuses me as the only Witterings I can find are East and West Wittering and that would mean miles and miles of new canal which would be a nonsense)

A new moving bridge at Donnington is no problem technically, local opposition might get in the way though

Looking at photos on the net of the bypass bridge, it's no lower than a lot of canal bridges. OK, so mast up small yachts, large yachts and flybridge mobos aren't going to be going all the way up into the basin but assuming they put in a winding 'ole (turning point for you non-canal types) t'other side of the bridge we'll still be able to get close

In fact, it looks pretty straightforward from a technical perspective (I've been involved with a lot worse) but whether it's worthwhile is another matter

 

[Bru]

Aha, thanks to Mark-1 have now perused the detailed plans and it's more than feasible, it's a piece of cake (technically)

There's not even a dreaded sump lock involved (they're evil things to be avoided at almost any cost) since the plan is to build a new lock "upstream of the A road crossing and use that and the restored existing lock downstream of it to create a new intermediate pound which, coupled with a new fixed road bridge, will give an unspecified but presumably usable air draught (I'll put money on it still being too low for mast up yachts and big mobos though)

My two negative impressions ...

The estimated budget of £5m is laughable. It'll cost more than that for either one of the two new road crossings.

The wildlife could well get in the way. We've jumped through hoops to get around that one (even building an entire stretch of new "canal" into which the wildlife could be moved before restoring the original line of the canal - didn't have to move the wildlife, it migrated of its own accord - only to be told afterwards by the wildlife lobby that it was a "unsuccessful" experiment which they wouldn't support again. Cobblers, it worked a treat. Wasn't the restoration lobby's fault that the conservation lobby failed to meet it's agreed obligations on the upkeep of the new nature reserve)

And then there's the ongoing finance and maintenance. At a brief glance, 'cos I've got stuff to do before going to work, I'm mildly sceptical of the figures quoted

But I would say that the finance isn't a show stopper. Funds can probably be found if there's a drive behind the project and local political and public support

 

[Mark-1]

the political will, funding and public support that is sometimes hard to come by.
In fact, it looks pretty straightforward from a technical perspective (I've been involved with a lot worse) but whether it's worthwhile is another matter

I've snipped a bit but you sum it up. There's no money, huge opposition from anyone using the roads concerned (which is everyone on the manhood peninsular) and when completed it would only allow access to a small minority of sea going boats. Also a significant chunk of work would need to be funded by Premier Marinas on their stretch of the canal and it's hard to see why they'd do that, especially if bringing the canal back into use means they can no longer rent out houseboat plots.

I wonder if the most practical thing would be to have a number of volunteers over the weekends to to assist with carry rounds at all the blocked points to allow people staying at the Marina or Birdham Pool to take their tenders as far as the Basin. They could do that tomorrow without having to find 3.5 million, but they may be concerned about the legal implications of people breaking legs or getting run over doing it. (Incidentally, I think the Canal Trust won't allow outboards, presumably to protect the clay lining, so that's an 8 mile round trip row, not ideal in an inflatable!)

 

[Mark-1]

I have very strong doubts if this is possible since two causeways would need to be replaced by bridges.
Also to get to the basin you'd need to get under the M27 bridge, which is so low I can touch it with my hand - so no Sunseekers!
Nice if it happened though:
http://www.chichester.co.uk/news/lo..._chichester_ship_canal_with_the_sea_1_3481149

Well, a couple of years on nothing has happened...