Coalisland Canal pathway plans agreed at council with ‘tarmac option’ abandoned​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

The pathway is a prime destination for walkers who love the serene setting of the towpath. The aim of the scheme is to enhance ease of access in all weather conditions, however the plans also generated fierce opposition from local stakeholders who were concerned over the impact of any further tarmacking on local wildlife.

They also feared tarmacking the lower part of the pathway – from Moor Bridge to the Reenaderry Road – would make the path more hazardous for walkers when there is ground frost.

The Coalisland Canal Regeneration and Active Travel Project, funded under the Covid Small Settlement Regeneration Scheme, secured £467,200 from the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) and £51,911 from Mid Ulster District Council towards that scheme, totalling £519,111.

Mid Ulster District Council have also been engaging with DfI to lobby for safety improvements to the road crossing at both the Gortgonis Road and Moor Road junctions, to improve accessibility.

The local community was extensively consulted on the plans, with stakeholders including the Neighbourhood Renewal Partnership, Coalisland Town Centre Forum, Coalisland Canal IWI branch, and the Friends of Coalisland Canal.

Given the importance of community buy-in for any improvement or regeneration scheme, Mid Ulster District Council officers hosted a public engagement and information session at Craic Theatre, Coalisland, on March 25.

Engagement Event

The engagement event was attended by over 70 individuals and representatives of community/voluntary sector organisations. Feedback on the evening showed that the room was split in relation to what was proposed on the stretch from Moor Road to Reenaderry Road.

Further community engagement was undertaken via a community survey, which confirmed that local residents were split on whether the section of pathway from Moor Road to Reenaderry Road should be included within the resurfacing scheme.

Based on community feedback, Mid Ulster District Council came up with three options. A further public event was hosted in Craic Theatre on July 8. The majority of the participants at the event were not in support of the proposed bituminous re-surfacing along the stretch from the Moor Road to the Reenaderry Road, and therefore not supporting the proposals included under options 1 and 2.

There was some support displayed for option 3. As there was no community consensus for all aspects of the project, four ‘fine-tuned’ options were tabled:

• Option 1: Proceed as per original scheme with a bituminous finish along the Moor Road to Reenaderry Road.
• Option 2: Remove all the proposed works along the Moor Road to Reenaderry Road stretch of the pathway, and seek to re-divert any underspend to further enhance the Coalisland-to-Moor Road stretch and/or other Small Settlement Schemes.
• Option 3: Proceed to improve the surface along the Moor Road to Reenaderry Road stretch on a like-for-like basis (stoned surface), with any remaining underspend being used across other elements of the project and/or other Small Settlement Schemes.
• Option 4: Delay progressing the Coalisland Canal Regeneration & Active Travel Project in its entirety under this current round of Small Settlement funding, to allow further community engagement to take place, and re-divert the funding to another project within the Mid Ulster Regeneration Plan.

The matter was discussed at Thursday’s (September 12) Development committee meeting of Mid Ulster District Council, and a clear consensus emerged that Option 3 was the option favoured by a majority of respondents – although that option will have to be formally adopted at the next monthly meeting of the local authority.

Addressing committee members, Ryan Black, strategic director of Communities & Places, stated: “This project has been discussed on numerous occasions at this committee. The community consultation engagement has resulted in the fact that there’s not a community consensus in terms of how this project should be moved forward.

“Therefore, and to try and get a decision to ensure that we can protect this investment under the Covid Small Settlement [Regeneration Scheme], there are four options that members are being asked to consider this evening.”

Practical Thing

Cllr Nuala McLernon (Sinn Féin, Torrent DEA) said: “I would like to acknowledge all the hard work that the council officers have done with regard to this project, and also everyone across the community in Coalisland for engaging with the consultation process.

“In the interest of moving the project on, I think we should move forward with Option 3, and I’d also like to make the point that the vital element of this project is the safe crossings on the Gortgonis and Moor Road. I think we need to continue to work with DfI to ensure delivery on those.”

Cllr Dominic Molloy (Sinn Féin, Dungannon DEA) said: “I’m happy to second the couple of points Cllr McLernon said about the bridges and safety of the crossings there.

“Hopefully the project will now move forward. Obviously there will be a reduction in the original spend on the surface [as initially envisaged], so it would be good to see that invested into the stretch that isn’t going to be Bitmacked under this proposal, and [for it] to be invested into both maintenance, the street furniture, whatever might be provided along that stretch of the route.

“In future terms, I’d also like to see the rivers and waterways opened up from the Reenaderry Road to the actual Blackwater river, so that there’s a clear run from Coalisland to the river, and that water users can use and access the lock then from that route.”

Referring to the other seven projects approved as part of a Regeneration Plan for Mid Ulster, Cllr Molloy asked if these would now be able to proceed, now that a decision had been made in relation to the Coalisland Canal plans.

The senior council officer replied: “The seven [other] projects under the Covid Small Settlement Scheme are all independent, so the Coalisland Canal Project wasn’t holding back the others, but now that we’ve got a decision we’ll be able to move forward in terms of the implementation.

“In relation to the greenways and blueways [i.e. routes on waterways for recreational use], there is work going on in the background around an Active Travel masterplan for this, so over the next number of months, hopefully, that’ll be coming in front of members for consideration.”

Sensible Decision

Cllr Malachy Quinn (SDLP, Torrent DEA) explained he had been heavily involved in talks, as a member of the Friends of Coalisland Canal Group: “I support Option 3. We’re finally here, which seems like a few years. I think it has come to a sensible decision.

“Certainly the crossings are a massive issue with access to the canal, and I took a walk along it yesterday, when I got a chance. It’s still one of the most quiet and peaceful places to have a walk and gather your thoughts, and it is particularly an area that does need developed in a certain way.

“I’m part of the Canal Group and we met there on Tuesday night [September 10], and they are very keen, once this decision is reached, to have discussions with officers about how they enhance things going forward.

“It’s a massive area and certainly something that the locals are very protective of. They want to keep it for future generations. I’m very excited to move forward with it. We had meetings with the fisheries and different things.

“We had spills in the canal two years ago. A lot of fish have now returned to it, which is great to see. It’s got a lot more use, from photographers, from fishermen, from people just walking up and down it.

“As Cllr Molloy pointed out, one of the things we’d love to see is reopening that part of the canal from the Reenaderry Road down. Obviously we’d love to see it all the way up to Coalisland town, but one step at a time.”

Cllr Trevor Wilson (UUP, Cookstown DEA) admitted he had been unaware, until recently, of the strong local views on the issue: “I wasn’t aware of the feelings about this tar on the canal until I started to get a pile of emails. If Option 3 means no tar, then it is.

“Within the report it is mentioned that there was private landowners that were involved in this. Where are we with those private landowners as regards working with them and things like that?”

Agricultural Vehicles

Mr Black replied: “There are a number of private landowners who have acquired or have rights over the canal to access their land, and that access is sometimes through the use of agricultural vehicles.

“The advice that we have got is we obviously want to engage with as many landowners as possible, so that we can talk them through what it is that we are planning to do, but as long as we don’t impinge on the rights that they’ve got, there’s no legal requirement for us to consult or engage with the landowners, and none of the options that are proposed will impinge on those rights.”

Cllr Wilbert Buchanan (DUP, Cookstown DEA) commented: “I have also received a number of emails all week about ‘no tar’, however I just want to point out that a few people have contacted me as well [to argue that] a tarmac surface would be much more suitable for wheelchair users and disabled access.”

Cllr Kyle Black (DUP, Carntogher DEA) said: “Like other members, I wasn’t aware of the strength of feeling until there have been quite a number of emails received in recent days.

“It’s important that everybody has the opportunity to let their feelings be heard, and I think that is a valid point, to be fair, that due consideration does be given, whenever this is being progressed, to the accessibility for those with disabilities, where they can enjoy the facility whenever it is rolled out.

“So I think something like that needs to be borne in mind whenever this moves forward.”

The strategic director of Communities & Places explained the equality screening would take care of access issues: “Any of the options that are chosen will be subject to an equality screening.

“Tarmac, as a surface, is much more accessible, however there are pros and cons with all of the options that have been presented, and we have been engaging with all of the partners.

Join the hundreds of people who have signed up for a Northern Ireland World newsletter

“As some of the members have already alluded to this evening, there are accessible restrictions along the pathway that fall outside of the responsibility of the council, particularly in relation to the Gortgonis Road and the Moor Road crossing.

“The option that has been agreed will be subject to an equality screening, so we will look at all of those accessibility issues.”

Cllr Quinn wondered if there was still time to improve plans under Option 3: “Obviously we vote on this tonight and it’ll be ratified by full council. Is there still room for chatting about how we proceed now?

“The reason to say that is the likes of upgrading the lights that are only two or three year old, to me is pointless and I think that money could be spent better along the canal, and I know in the canal Group we’re keen to have a conversation with how things go forward and what we’re going do.

“Is there still opportunity for that, or is the plan set in motion and we can’t go outside that?”

The senior council officer explained there was very limited scope at this stage for any last-minute amendments to Option 3: “What I would say in response is that after the agreement tonight, it goes to council and we have a very short window to submit a revision to the business case for DfI approval, to ensure that we can spend the money within the funding constraints.

“There would probably be an opportunity between now and the end of September, to consider how that portion of money can be spent in relation to the section between Coalisland and Moor Road, but it would be very limited.”

François Vincent, Local Democracy Reporter