On 25/08/2010 17:09, [email protected] wrote: > [email protected] wrote: >> On 25/08/2010 13:06, Adrian Stott wrote: >>> But surely you should do the tunnel first! Otherwise, no matter how >>> close navigation gets to Uttoxeter, few boats are going to make the >>> trip. >> Sorry maybe I wasn't being clear. I think most people would agree with >> this, but what I was saying is that I'm not convinced we can make the >> financial case for resolving the problem right now, before we have the >> next section of the Uttoxeter under restoration, much as I'd like to. > > Indeed, and similarly it's going to be tricky making the financial case for > external funding to restore the next section (a few hundred yards from > Froghall is a tricky main road crossing job which may cost several million) > in the short term. On the other hand I gather that the Trust feels that > restoring a much easier length some distance further down (initially as an > isolated tripboat/trailboat section), using a high proportion of volunteer > labour to bring costs down to what the Trust can raise, may well help to make > the case for external funding for the Froghall road crossing in due course. > > Is that still the current thinking?
Indeed it is. The Crumpwood/Bridge 70 area is an section where much can be achieved with volunteers. I suspect that the redevelopment of the very last section may also happen as part of the Uttoxeter Gravel Pits redevelopment (which has just been put back for a few more years to allow more extraction to take place first.) The section immediately after Froghall Basin down to the A52 is potentially the most challenging of all because we still don't know how the former industrial area which spans almost the whole valley will be redeveloped. We will continue to press to ensure that the canal is accommodated in any plans but in the absence of specific proposals all we can do for now is to continue to lobby the District Council at every opportunity. Steve
