Policy NB9: Canal Network

Comment

Representation ID: 3995

Received: 23/11/2022

Respondent: Inland Waterways Association (IWA)

IWA is content with the policy and its supporting text on the development of canal side facilities, recognition of the heritage and recreational value of canals, and safeguarding the route for restoration of the Hatherton Canal.

However, Inset Plan 54 is labelled Lichfield Hatherton Canal Protection Line and the word “Lichfield” is superfluous and should be deleted.
Also, this plan does not cover the full extent of the protected route. The previous Inset Plan 50 of the 2018 Site Allocations Document was in landscape format and included its continuation west of Four Crosses to Hatherton Junction at Calf Heath.

Support

Representation ID: 4409

Received: 22/12/2022

Respondent: Historic England

Support the inclusion of this policy

Comment

Representation ID: 4791

Received: 19/12/2022

Respondent: Lichfield & Hatherton Canal Restoration Trust

The Local Plan identifies the benefits of a fully restored canal, which can make a contribution to the delivery of other objectives and policies listed with the local plan review. Consultant reports listed as key evidence indicate the canal restoration is technically feasible and confirm its benefits. Confirmation of viability is required. Evidence of availability of water supply has been confirmed in the Hatherton Canal Water Supply Study, which the Environment Agency were consulted on the required scope of. It is important that the route is protected as it provides certainty for restoration, supporting grant and funding bids.

Lichfield Haterton Canal Protection Line Inset Plan 54 doesn't recognise that the Lichfield and Hatherton canals are geographically separate and the plans show the Hatherton canal, so "Lichfield" should be removed from the title. The plan does not cover the full extent of the protected route. Part of the western section of the canal including its crossing of the M6 motorway and its termination at Hatherton junction is outside the plan extent, unlike the previous Inset Plan 50 for the 2018 Site Allocations Document. I request that this is corrected.