The Sankey Canal -
its Last Years under British Waterways

The late John Freeman was a Maintenance Foreman for British Waterways from 1948 to 1983. His area included the Sankey, and he became increasingly concerned with the way in which the canal was being treated around the time of its official Abandonment in 1963. In 1991, in correspondence with Michael Handford, a long standing SCARS supporter, he expressed the concerns he had about the canal and the official vandalism that was carried out then in the name of economy. A copy of his letter was passed to SCARS for retention in its archives.

Sadly, John died recently but his wife has kindly agreed to the publication of extracts from his letter. John was always supportive of the waterway restoration movement, even though at that time this was against BW policy, but this did not stop him from standing up for his beliefs. SCARS would like to express its appreciation by printing the information below as a tribute to his efforts.

Whilst many of the problems outlined below still remain to be addressed, changing circumstances mean that not all of them will cause difficulty when restoration commences. In the years since John wrote his letter, there have been many changes in the waterway world, and the 1974 Local Government changes gave us very different Councils from those of 1963. There are now, fortunately, more enlightened authorities which are contributing to restoration all over the country with whom John would probably have been happy to work.

He first broached the matter of the name of the canal - should it be known as the Sankey, or the St. Helens, Canal? Initially known by the title in the enabling Act as the Sankey Brook Navigation, it had in fact never been a navigation and was a canal from the start. Once the Bridgewater and the Trent and Mersey Canals were built, and known as canals, the "Sankey Brook Navigation" was dropped in favour of the title "Sankey Canal". Only in the time of railway ownership was it known as the St. Helens Canal, but "Sankey" was again in use during the abandonment years by the then St. Helens Corporation.

He then moved on to many obstructions which were placed across the Canal after the 1963 Abandonment Act. 'The "St. Helens Corporation Main Drainage Scheme' began this process. It was planned as a culvert, for drainage and sewage underneath the canal, but the Corporation brought pressure to bear on BW through the "Ministry" on the question of the higher cost of going underneath the canal, rather than using an open channel across its course. Following this the Fiddlers Ferry Power Station used the argument that, as the canal was now severed by the Corporation Scheme, then why should they not cross the canal in a like manner with their pipe-work. The Newton Brook crossing followed.

From then on BW was under constant pressure to accept undesirable schemes by the local authorities, particularly Widnes, Warrington and St. Helens. "I find it ironical that those authorities who brought pressure to bear for BW to accept cheap and nasty solutions for their sewer and drainage schemes and would not countenance any arguments on environmental grounds, or the retention of amenities, as soon as the canal was useless, derelict and dangerous due to their actions they spent huge sums of money on ineffectual partial restoration schemes".

John them went on to list those items which he thought would require more detailed investigation:

"In the bank of the canal from Widnes to Winwick there is a gas main ( unless it has been abandoned since 1983). This main looped over the canal by Ferry Lock and at the time of the agreement with BW if ever BW required to restore the canal at this point the Gas Board would alter the pipe".

"The settling lagoons of the power station were never made watertight and at one time they caused the canal banks to collapse which endangered the gas main. Any restoration of the canal at this point would need the canal to be protected with heavy sheet steel piling to prevent movement of the bank and to retain the water. The cost of course should be borne by the CEGB, but whether they could be heldlegally liable after this lapse of time is debatable".

"At Sankey Bridges there is a multiple pipeline of gas, ethylene and water which was to be placed on the bed of the canal and come out again below Bewsey Lock. This would have to be removed, for although it was specified to the contractor to be on the bed at the original depth of the canal it was placed suspended above the bed".

"You refer to the meeting of Sankey Brook and Canal which was known in BW as 'waters meeting'. This was rather a complex arrangement whereby water from the brook could pass under the canal by means of two large pipes to keep the brook at the other side of the canal in water; and a series of sluices over the brook to divert water into the canal as required. On the side of the canal was a weir which allows water to discharge into the Sankey Brook in storm time, where the canal picked up water from sources other than the brook".

"The troubles arose when development took place upstream of Sankey Brook and huge discharges of water took place in storm time, such that neither the brook nor the canal could cope. For a long time the canal had acted as a flood relief course to the Sankey Brook and even then the Dallam housing estate and factory estate at Winwick Quay were flooded at storm time. Any restoration scheme would have to allow for the problems I have outlined because the canal as diverted by the Rivers Authority now acts totally as a flood relief scheme, as pointed out in your report".

"Old Double Lock Area : There was subsidence in the Havanah area and whilst this has long since stabilised nevertheless the canal bed levels were distorted and fissured, and extensive works would be required for the canal to retain water in this length".

"In your report on the Pocket nook branch you refer to the feeder. There were two feeders to the canal, one fed from Rainford Brook the other from Eccleston Mere. Pilkingtons operate the one, the other, which came to the canal through a culvert under the town has been severed in several places and is beyond reclamation. Whether the Pilkington sluice would provide sufficient water is doubtful".

"I am sorry not to be more helpful. I always regretted what happened to the Canal, and always regarded the local authorities and their officers as vandals with no vision of the future, for even as they were insisting on their crossing schemes, in other places on other canals the IWA, with enlightened authorities, were refurbishing and restoring waterways".

Index for this issue     Index of all Canal Cuttings issues      Home Page

Site design and content © 2002 - 2009 Sankey Canal Restoration Society
Site design by Phil D.Long