The Chair welcomed John Monks,
Chair of Friends of Exeter Ship Canal. Mr Monks gave a presentation
on the A379 Bridges and the Exeter Ship Canal, making the following
points:
- replacing the existing bridges would
make a huge difference for the canal, especially if it allowed for
freight traffic on the water;
- changes needed to be made soon, or
the opportunity would be lost for 60 years, as that was the
expected lifetime for a new bridge;
- there were two bridges over the
canal, a steel bridge and a bascule bridge. It was the steel bridge
that was in need of renewal;
- the A379 was a major road and
carried up to 37,000 vehicles a day, as well as acting as a
strategic diversion when the M5 was closed;
- the bridges were opened fewer than
100 times a year, for boats and maintenance;
- the current bridge was so low that
only canoes could fit through, and people using the tow path must
go to road level to pass;
- Devon County Council (DCC) had
presented five options to stakeholders but only two were being
considered;
- option two would make no difference
to users on the canal or the tow path;
- option four would enable use of the
tow path, but not boat users;
- water for freight transport has been
recognised as part of the future;
- commercial use of the canal would be
beneficial for the reputation of the city;
- Regents Canal in London was used for
deliveries of goods and materials;
- the Exeter Ship Canal could be used
in conjunction with the Councils new Materials Reclamation Facility
in Marsh Barton;
- officers from DCC had suggested that
each 0.1m of air draft would had an
additional £1million to the cost;
- public consultation preliminary
bridge design would begin in spring, so it was important to get
involved now before proposals were finalised; and
- a three-metre air draft was a
responsibility to the environment, the community, and the
economy.
In response to questions from
Members, Mr Monks provided the following answers:
- none of the options offered the
three-metre air draft;
- option four, raising the road level
and lowering the tow path by 0.7m was still 0.85m below the
three-metre air draft;
- he had not had a direct response
from DCC officers;
- the main
focus of discussion so far had been the road;
- he had approached the University of
Exeter to discuss research into the benefit of the city and had a
meeting planned with staff; and
- he felt a response from the Harbour
Board was more likely to get an answer than responses made by
individuals.
The Harbour Master responded to
questions from Members in the following terms:
- the right of navigation of the canal
was more important that the road;
- if two bascule bridges were used the
footprint would be wider, and computer modelling would be needed to
ensure the widest boats would fit;
- raising the height of the bridges
would be beneficial and could increase the use of the canal;
and
- the canal could be used to deliver
materials for the Water Lane site.
The Head of Service –
Operations made the following points:
- the business case would not be going
to the Department of Transport until the end of the year;
- the public consultation was due to
start in spring;
- the current proposal met the minimum
requirements for the canal;
- officers would put representations
in during the public consultation to increase the air draft as far
as practicable; and
- Exeter City Council was a statutory
body so could make a representation when the matter went to
planning.
The Chair advised that she
would write to the appropriate
Councillor at Devon County Council on behalf of the Harbour Board,
and that the letter would be drafted in consultation with officers
and circulated to Board Members for comments.