Neath and Tennant Canal Restoration: Economic Appraisal, Stage … Neath and... · 2015-04-24 · Part 3C Restore Neath Canal from Giant’s Grave to original terminus at Briton Ferry

Neath and Tennant Canal Restoration:

Economic Appraisal, Stage 1 Study

Final Report

Prepared by

Bridge Economics and Hyder Consulting

August 2008

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

This document has been prepared for Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, the City and County of Swansea and the Welsh Assembly Government, in accordance with the Terms of Reference and subsequent discussions. The document is an economic appraisal of the restoration of the Neath and Tennant Canals and has been prepared by Bridge Economics in collaboration with Hyder Consulting. As completed restoration projects have shown how economic benefits can be realised, waterways restorations have been taking place across the country. Significant restoration efforts have been made in respect of the Neath and Tennant Canals in recent years and both canals retain a small staff of workers for maintenance purposes. The work of these staff, together with that of volunteers and others who have been involved in specific restoration projects since 1986, has helped to ensure that navigation along parts of each canal has been maintained. Significant lengths of the former routes remain un-navigable, in places the canal routes have been lost, elsewhere whilst in water boats are unable to pass along the canal. The current study was therefore commissioned to ‘assess the economic returns that might be achieved through the restoration of the Neath and Tennant Canals, in order to provide a fully navigable route from Glynneath in the Neath Valley, down to the Prince of Wales Dock, Swansea, on the Tennant Canal, and to Briton Ferry, on the Neath Canal’. The appraisal considers the impact of restoring individual sections of each canal, through examining a ‘full scheme’ restoration option and several ‘partial scheme’ options. The options are compared to a reference case, and the appraisal itself is guided by HM Treasury’s Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government as well as the European Commission’s Guide to Cost Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects. ECONOMIC AND STRATEGIC CONTEXT

The Neath and Tennant Canals pass through a range of landscapes – both urban and rural – and communities within both Neath Port Talbot and Swansea. The communities in these areas vary in their socio-economic circumstances. Within the canal corridors, there are significant contrasts in terms of occupational mix, employment and deprivation, with these differences partly reflecting the different recent experiences of the north and south of the study area – the south having been the focus of the majority of private investment reflecting its closer proximity to the M4 corridor and Swansea. Neath and its immediate environs nevertheless include both the least and the most deprived areas within the study area – with examples of both the top and the bottom 10th percentile SOAs in Wales.

i

The various strategies and policies for these areas clearly acknowledge the current de-graded condition of the canals and also their potential to contribute positively to the future of their surrounding localities and communities, were they to be restored. The canals are perceived as important and valued assets. Their heritage status is widely recognised as is their close integration with the high quality environment which comprises much of their hinterland. It is these characteristics, together with an emphasis on a new renaissance for the Western Valleys spearheaded by sustainable tourism and regeneration, which ensure that the reinstatement of navigation along either canal directly contributes to, and is wholly consistent with, the stated objectives of the various strategies comprising this study’s policy context. VISITOR AND PROPERTY DEMAND

Tourism trends are upwards and positive, both for the sub-region and study area, and the opportunity for further growth is available. There is a strong policy aspiration for future growth, focusing on packaging existing products into complete ‘experiences’, with an emphasis on encouraging short stay trips. The emphasis on the short stay market reflects the picture as a whole in Wales where short holidays of 1-3 nights are more popular than those of 4+ nights. Strategic thinking behind tourism development in the study area focuses on the industrial heritage of the Vale of Neath, and makes use of the ‘hub and cluster’ approach with common themes being cultural and industrial heritage. Of the five main valleys in the county borough, the Vale of Neath is thought to offer the strongest opportunity to create a new geographically based visitor experience. The concept emphasises the opportunities to embrace outdoor pursuits, heritage, and water based assets and accommodation all focusing on the physical environment. The Vale of Neath offers clear potential for the establishment of a second hub in the County Borough, to complement and balance the existing focus of the Afan Forest Park in the neighbouring Afan Valley. The property markets – residential, employment and retail / leisure – in the area are differentiated by their proximity to the M4. Demand from occupiers and developers in the southern portion of the canal corridors is in marked contrast to the less accessible Vale of Neath area, notwithstanding the A465 dual carriageway that leads from the M4 to the ‘Heads of the Valleys’ road. There are few development opportunities that directly abut the canal, other than the Canal Green regeneration area close to Neath town centre, but at this location developer interests would be aligned with those seeking to reinstate navigation. Similarly, there are indications that given a flexible approach to planning and regulatory issues, latent leisure and visitor development interest in the Vale of Neath may be encouraged by the progressive improvement of the Neath Canal corridor.

ii

OPTION DEVELOPMENT

While the stated objective is the full restoration of both canals, providing a navigable link between Glynneath, Swansea and Briton Ferry, it would be possible to implement a partial scheme in the first instance, with safeguarding retained on the full scheme. To examine the full Neath and Tennant ‘system’, and gain an understanding of what partial scheme(s) might be plausibly implemented, we defined ten component elements of the whole network, labelling them Part 1A, 1B, Part 2A, 2B, Part 3A, 3B etc (see Table 1 overleaf). The parts labelled Part 1A, 1B and 1C refer to sections of the Neath Canal heading progressively north west from Bridge Street, Neath, towards Glynneath; the four parts labelled Part 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D refer to sections of the Tennant Canal heading progressively south west from Aberdulais to the Prince of Wales Dock, Swansea; while the three parts labelled Part 3A, 3B and 3C refer to sections of the Neath Canal heading progressively south west from Bridge Street, Neath to Briton Ferry. A schematic map of these route sections is included on page 32 of the main document. On one level, these route sections or ‘building blocks’ can be seen simply as sub-options that could be implemented as stepping stones on the way to full restoration of the Neath and Tennant Canals. All of them together comprise the full proposal - restoration of navigation from Glynneath in the north to Swansea and Briton Ferry in the south. Alternatively the ‘building blocks’ can be used to assemble ‘restoration packages’ each of which can be costed as an option and appraised. In preparing the list of options, our assessment considered the existing navigable stretches of canal, and the abandoned sections north of Ysgwrfa, south of Giant’s Grave and west of Jersey Marine, to ensure that the options considered would be practicable and realistic. We also drew on the views expressed to us by various stakeholders. This preparation suggested that the minimum components required for the restoration to give realistic economic outputs would be either Part 1A and/or 2A; the Part 3 components could also be worthwhile if Parts 3A and 3B were pursued together. These are the logical ‘minimum’ options to proceed with because they allow the currently navigable lengths of canal (taking into account progress made during previous restorations) to be joined together, thereby helping to achieve early critical mass. The separate options appraised, and the separate adjacent parts or canal route sections that make up these options, are shown in Table 1.

iii

Table 1 Neath and Tennant Canals: Component Parts and Options Route Section

Description of work required

Neath Canal (North) from Bridge Street, Neath to Glynneath

Part 1A Restoration of Neath Canal at Abergarwed, addressing Commercial Rd crossing at Resolven, providing navigation from Bridge Street, Neath to Ysgwrfa

Option 1A

Part 1B Restoration of Neath Canal between Ysgwrfa and Lamb and Flag, Glynneath

Part 1C Neath Canal from Lamb and Flag to Centre of Glynneath

Tennant Canal, from Aberdulais Aqueduct to Prince of Wales Dock, Swansea

Part 2A Restore Aberdulais Aqueduct, upgrade Tennant Canal from Aberdulais to Neath

Option 2A

Part 2B Restore Tennant Canal from Neath to Jersey Marine

Part 2C Restore Tennant Canal from Jersey Marine to Port Tennant

Part 2D Restore Tennant Canal from Port Tennant to Prince of Wales Dock, Swansea

Neath Canal (South) from Bridge Street, Neath to Briton Ferry

Part 3A Restore Neath Canal between Bridge Street (including addressing Bridge Street low bridge) to Green Street, Neath

Option 3A

Part 3B Restore Neath Canal between Green Street, Neath and Giant’s Grave, includes restoration of navigation at The Green bridge in Neath

Part 3C Restore Neath Canal from Giant’s Grave to original terminus at Briton Ferry

Option 2D

Option 2B Option

2C

Option 3B

Option 3C

Option 1B Option

1C

Option

A Full Scheme option was also appraised, to assess the economic viability of restoring all sections of the Neath and Tennant Canals together, and a Do Minimum option was appraised, to provide a reference case for comparison. Finally three partial options were appraised, each being a ‘package’ or combination of the options in the table above. Each of the partial options examined offers a credible improvement on the current situation but falls short of the Full Scheme. The partial options appraised are:

iv

• Partial Scheme A (comprising Options 1B, 2C and 3B only); • Partial Scheme B (comprising Options 1A, 2C and 3B only); and • Partial Scheme C (comprising only Options 1A, 2B and 3B.

These Partial Schemes were developed to appraise the value of pursuing less than a full restoration; should available resources be limited. QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS

The quantifiable analysis examines the measurable costs and benefits (known as Cost-Benefit Analysis or CBA) of the investment over 25 years. The estimated discounted costs and benefits of the project are then compared to produce the Benefit Cost Ratio, which is the benefit of the project, relative to its cost, expressed in monetary terms. A project is generally deemed worthy of public sector support if it returns a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) greater than one; in which case the project will also return a positive Economic Net Present Value (ENPV). Quantitative results from the CBA are summarised in Table 2 below.

Table 2 Overall Comparison of Economic Costs and Benefits

Scheme Options

Scheme Capital Cost

(£m)

Economic Net Present Value of scheme options

(ENPV)

Benefit Cost Ratio of scheme options (BCR)

Neath to Glynneath Option 1A from Bridge St Neath to Ysgwrfa 13.8 £3.1m 1.2 Option 1B from Bridge St Neath to Aberpergwm 10.2 -£3.2m 0.9 Option 1C from Bridge St Neath to Glynneath 9.4 -£9.9m 0.7 Aberdulais to Prince of Wales Dock Option 2A, from Aberdulais to Neath 2.5 £2.1m

1.4

Option 2B from Aberdulais to Jersey Marine 0.3 £4.0m 1.6 Option 2C from Aberdulais to Port Tennant 1.4 £2.8m 1.3 Option 2D from Aberdulais to Prince of Wales Dock 5.7 £5.6m 1.4 Neath to Giant’s Grave Option 3A From Bridge St inclusive to The Green bridge 2.2 -£1.9m 0.1 Option 3B From Bridge St to Giant’s Grave 1.2 -£0.1m 0.98 Option 3C From Bridge St to Briton Ferry 3.3 -£2.6m 0.6 Combined scheme options Full Scheme (ie all of the above) 49.9 -£4.7m 0.9 Partial Scheme A (including 1B, 2C & 3B only) 31.5 £1.6m 1.1 Partial Scheme B (including 1A, 2C & 3B only) 21.3 £8.0m 1.3 Partial Scheme C (including 1A, 2B & 3B only) 19.9 £9.3m 1.4 Source: Bridge Economics Overall, for the Full Scheme the measurable economic benefits are short of returning a positive EPNV, instead producing a negative ENPV of -£4.7m and resulting in a BCR less than 1, in this case 0.9. This result demonstrates that, based on the information

v

available and in the absence of any reductions in capital costs or increase in benefits, the quantitative economic case for the Full Scheme is not proven. Within the Full Scheme there are segments of the route that display higher economic measurable benefits, and these segments are illustrated by the Partial Schemes A, B and C, all of which return a positive ENPV and BCRs of 1.1, 1.3 and 1.4 respectively. This result illustrates that there are partial schemes that can make a positive economic contribution to the local economy and can offer better value than the Full Scheme. The poorer overall performance of the Full Scheme’s economic assessment, as compared to the Partial Schemes, is due to the nature of the higher costs and /or lower quantifiable benefits of certain parts of the Full Scheme, especially the following segments:

• as the route progresses towards Glynneath from Ysgwrfa (Parts 1B and 1C) where significant costs are incurred to tackle physical barriers;

• within Neath at The Green and Bridge St (Parts 3A and 3B) to replace low

bridges; and

• from Port Tennant to the Prince of Wales Dock, Swansea (Part 2D) where the potential non-water based benefits tail off due to the nature of the route.

Sensitivity Testing and Private Sector Leverage

Sensitivity testing showed that the results are fairly robust to changes in capital costs and visitor spending of a 10% magnitude, with the BCR of all of the Partial Schemes being maintained at or above 1. A sensitivity test was also run to assess the effect of securing a private sector contribution of some £2m on Partial Schemes A, B and C. The (positive) impact was to increase the BCR to 1.2, 1.4 and 1.6 respectively. Such a private sector contribution might be achieved to fund bridge works within the Canal Green area, which would be necessary as part of a potential Canal Green redevelopment scheme. Similarly, the Tennant Canal corridor represents an important public open space opportunity close to the major development area of Coed D’Arcy. A restored Tennant Canal corridor may well represent a valuable open space facility within easy access of Coed D’Arcy and to the extent that the restoration could be set against the need for on-site open space provision, developer funding may be attracted. Such private sector investment in the canals, if achieved, will not only improve the rate of return on the public sector investment but also release resources that would otherwise have to be invested by the public sector. QUALITATIVE FINDINGS

In the qualitative (non-monetary) appraisal, each option was examined in respect of estimated regeneration, social and environmental impacts. From a regeneration

vi

vii

perspective, key locations are at Canal Green (Neath), Glynneath and the Prince of Wales Dock. The qualitative appraisal found investment in the canal network at Neath (under Options 3A and 3B) would provide maximum influence and potential leverage for the wider development at Canal Green. Based on the views that stakeholders shared with us, the leverage of canal investment at the Prince of Wales Dock (Option 2D) and Glynneath (Option 3C) was more limited. Social benefits were found to be maximised under Options 1A, 1C, 2A and 2B, while environmental benefits were greatest under Options 1C, 2A, 3A and 3B. In terms of the Partial Schemes, the qualitative benefits were found to be similar; this is because each partial scheme included all the higher scoring individual route sections, or ‘parts’. CONCLUSIONS

We are appreciative of the policy objectives to establish the Vale of Neath, an area that has faced structural change to its economy and which is at a locational disadvantage to the M4 corridor, as a prospective leisure and recreational destination. A restored canal network represents a one-off opportunity to ‘pump prime’ strategic change, equivalent to the introduction of mountain biking in the nearby Afan Valley. Arguably, without the canal it may be that much harder for the Vale of Neath (despite its visual beauty) to similarly establish itself as a visitor destination in the face of intervening leisure opportunities, such as the nearby Brecon Beacons National Park and the various coast opportunities. On the basis of the information currently available, the Full Scheme falls short of achieving the necessary economic outputs to permit its recommendation. In order to reduce the costs of the scheme and increase its benefits, we would recommend a value engineering exercise to ensure that maximum value is obtained during construction. Secondly, as the proposed project in its current form has very limited development benefits, economic impacts are almost entirely driven by tourism spend. To increase the potential for realising development driven benefits, and thus overall positive impacts, we would recommend adopting a combination of a more flexible approach to the planning regime and a review of potential development sites alongside the Neath Canal. These recommendations are applicable to all options – even the options already producing positive returns – as they could enhance estimated returns for all options. The appraisal of the Partial Schemes does however confirm that the canals’ restoration, as a key asset to support both rural and town centre development, can make a positive economic contribution to the local economy. In particular the Neath Canal provides a particular opportunity to assist in distinguishing the Vale of Neath in the tourism marketplace as a visitor destination that complements the current aspirations for the future economic development of the valley. So long as the canal corridors continue to be protected in emerging local development plans, implementation of solely a Partial Scheme would also not preclude the future restoration of the remaining stretches of the canal system at a later date, subject to alternative funds being secured or in the light of additional opportunities to generate economic benefits.

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 2 1.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE ....................................................................................................2 1.2 REPORT STRUCTURE .......................................................................................................2

2 PROJECT BACKGROUND................................................................................... 4 2.1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................4 2.2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................4 2.3 CURRENT OPERATIONS ...................................................................................................4 2.4 EVOLUTION OF THE PROJECT ..........................................................................................5 2.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES......................................................................................................8

3 STRATEGIC AND ECONOMIC CONTEXT....................................................... 9 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................9 3.2 STRATEGIC CONTEXT......................................................................................................9 3.3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT.........................................................................................17 3.4 CONCLUDING REMARKS ...............................................................................................18

4 VISITOR AND PROPERTY DEMAND ASSESSMENT .................................. 20 4.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................20 4.2 TOURISM.......................................................................................................................20 4.3 RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY MARKET ................................................................................23 4.4 COMMERCIAL PROPERTY MARKET ...............................................................................26 4.5 CONCLUDING COMMENTS.............................................................................................27

5 PROJECT DELIVERY AND OPTION DEVELOPMENT................................ 29 5.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................29 5.2 SCHEME COMPONENTS .................................................................................................30 5.3 COSTS ...........................................................................................................................37 5.4 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF SCHEME OPTIONS..............................................................38 5.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS ...............................................................................................41

6 ECONOMIC APPRAISAL................................................................................... 43 6.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................43 6.2 APPRAISAL METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................43

7 SCHEME OPTION COSTS AND BENEFITS.................................................... 48 7.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................48 7.2 RESULTS OF THE QUANTIFIED ECONOMIC APPRAISAL ..................................................48 7.3 NON QUANTIFIABLE BENEFITS .....................................................................................52 7.4 PUBLIC EXPENDITURE IMPLICATIONS ...........................................................................56 7.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS ...............................................................................................57

8 RISK AND SENSITIVITY TESTING .................................................................. 59 8.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................59 8.2 DELIVERY RISKS...........................................................................................................59 8.3 SENSITIVITY TESTING ...................................................................................................60 8.4 CONCLUDING REMARKS ...............................................................................................62

9 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS................................................................. 63 9.1 CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................63 9.2 TAKING A SCHEME FORWARD ......................................................................................65

1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 TERMS OF REFERENCE

This document has been prepared for Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, the City and County of Swansea and the Welsh Assembly Government, in accordance with the Terms of Reference dated June 2007 and subsequent discussions. The document is an economic appraisal of the restoration of the Neath and Tennant Canals, in Neath Port Talbot and Swansea, and has been prepared by Bridge Economics in collaboration with Hyder Consulting. This economic appraisal comprises the first phase of potentially a two-phase project. The second phase, if commissioned, will focus on the preparation of a costed proposal for further stages of work, culminating in a phased programme of works in order to develop the project. Reflecting the requirements of the Terms of Reference, it has been prepared in accordance with Guidelines as set out in the 2003 Green Book and the Guide to Cost Benefit Analysis of Major Projects.

1.2 REPORT STRUCTURE

The document is set out in the following sections:

• Section 2, Project Background; • Section 3, Strategic and Economic Context; • Section 4, Visitor and Property Demand Assessment; • Section 5, Project Delivery and Canal Components; • Section 6, Economic Appraisal; • Section 7, Option Costs and Benefits; • Section 8, Risk Assessment and Sensitivity Testing; • Section 9, Conclusions.

In addition, there are five Annexes to this report:

• Annex A contains excerpts from the UDP of Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council (CBC) and from that of the City and Council of Swansea showing relevant policy wording;

• Annex B provides supporting information on the socio-economic

background of the study area;

• Annex C includes a spreadsheet showing the tourism, boating and trip-driven impacts, with acknowledgement to BW who have permitted us to apply their model in this instance;

• Annex D is the spreadsheet including wider economic impacts, Net

Present Values, Economic Rates of Return;

2

• Annex E shows the bibliography.

3

2 PROJECT BACKGROUND

2.1 INTRODUCTION

This section briefly summarises the early history of the Neath and Tennant Canals and describes their main current operations. The section also explains the evolution of the current project and puts it into context with other relevant work which has been carried out on the two canals. This relevant work has included economic and engineering studies as well as feasibility reports. Finally the objectives of the present commission are presented in Section 2.5.

2.2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Work began on the Neath Canal in 1791 and the navigation opened in 1795, being subsequently extended to Giant’s Grave in 1799 and onward to Briton Ferry in 1842. The canal has been a major feature of the Neath Valley since its opening, originally navigating from Giant’s Grave to Glynneath via 19 locks. Following the opening of the Vale of Neath railway the canal, like many others, struggled to compete. The canal closed in 1934 and has had little traffic since. For its part, the Tennant Canal has its origins in a navigation which was planned to transport coal from a colliery at Glan-y-Wern to the River Neath. It was acquired and developed by George Tennant in 1817. A subsequent extension opened in 1824 taking the Tennant Canal to Aberdulais where it was linked with the Neath Canal via a lock and a ten arch 340ft long aqueduct. Apart from a lock immediately adjacent to the Aberdulais Aqueduct, the Tennant Canal is lock free along its length to its current terminus at Port Tennant. As with the Neath Canal, commercial traffic on the Tennant ceased in the mid-1930s.

2.3 CURRENT OPERATIONS

Both canals are privately owned. The whole of the Tennant Canal remains in the hands of the Tennant family while the Neath Canal is operated by the Neath Canal Navigation Company. The company, originally established to build the Neath Canal, owns the greater length of the canal, and though some small sections of the canal have been sold, the right of navigation over the complete line still exists. The company’s majority shareholder is BP Chemicals which holds approximately 80 percent of shares. Other shares in the company are held by Neath Port Talbot CBC and the Neath and Tennant Canals Trust. A key source of revenue in recent years for both canals has been water sales. In the case of the Neath Canal, the key customer was BP, which relied on the provision of water from the Neath, in exchange for which it provided a revenue stream to the Neath Canal Navigation Company. BP withdrew from the area in 2005, ceasing to become a client for water supply, but retains its share capital in the company. The Neath Canal is now turning to Lafarge at Briton Ferry, which

4

requires water for aggregates washing, however this business is not sufficient to replace that previously provided by BP and the Neath is looking to diversify through increasing rental income as well as through securing other income streams including mooring and licensing fees from canal users. In the case of the Tennant, industrial water has been supplied to the petro-chemical industry at Llandarcy and Baglan Bay. The Tennant Canal is currently supplying high quality water to General Electric for use in the operation of its power station at Baglan Bay and recently (early 2008) secured a long term contract to continue to do so. Since the Tennant relies on this income to fund continued maintenance, it has to safeguard the quality of the water in order that it continues to be of the quality required for industrial users. Thus, any activity on the canal would need to be carefully controlled, though in principal the owners back a proposed restoration. In addition to the Tennant family, their representatives, and the Neath Canal Navigation Company, which have been and continue to be active in the development and restoration of the canals, the cause of both waterways is being championed by the Neath and Tennant Canals Trust. The Trust, originally formed in 1974, is a private, non-profit making organisation dedicated to the restoration and preservation of the Neath and Tennant Canals in South Wales. Neath Port Talbot CBC have also been active in recent years in supporting restoration and operation activities.

2.4 EVOLUTION OF THE PROJECT

Empirical evidence demonstrates that significant economic benefits can be achieved through investment in waterways. These benefits include:

• providing the catalyst for recycling brownfield, disused land and redundant buildings along the canal or river corridor;

• promoting sustainable tourism through the development of new tourism,

leisure and service sector opportunities;

• creating jobs through regeneration and tourism;

• providing a waterside premium to the owners of commercial and residential canal side property; and

• enhancing sustainable development and encouraging modal switch in

transport towards sustainable modes such as walking and cycling. Potential measures of these economic impacts are shown in Table 2.1.

5

Table 2.1 Potential Outputs from a Waterway Development Project

Project Theme Output Waterway assets Waterway infrastructure improved or repaired (number) Walking/cycling routes upgraded (km) Boating facilities created/upgraded (number) Land and buildings Public space created or improved (hectares) Hectares of land reclaimed for public use Hectares of land improved for development Housing Private sector dwellings completed Private sector dwellings improved Business premises Area of new/improved commercial floorspace provided (sq m) Area of new/improved leisure floorspace provided (sq m) Area of new/improved retail floorspace provided (sq m) Employment Employment supported by waterway based tourism and leisure Employment supported by commercial use of waterside land and property Construction employment Land and property values Change in property prices (‘waterside premium’) Economic growth and vitality

Income generation through waterway based tourism and leisure

Number of towpath users Number of commercial and recreational boats Public and private investment attracted into the waterway corridor Source: Association of Inland Navigation Authorities and Consultants’ additions As completed restoration projects have shown how economic benefits can be realised, waterways restorations have been taking place across the country, led by groups of interested parties including local canal preservation societies, canal, waterways and riparian land owners, economic regeneration agencies, heritage and funding groups, government agencies and local authorities. In successful cases the interests of these groups coincide and project champions are able to work towards a common goal of full or partial canal restoration, though the process is usually difficult and often takes place through a phased programme over a number of years. This has been the experience of stakeholders concerned with the restoration of the Neath and Tennant Canals and in furthering their goals of restoration and research a tranche of work has already been completed which explores the opportunities and costs of restoration. Completed studies thusfar include:

• a 2002 feasibility study of the ‘Restoration of the Neath, Tennant and Swansea Canals’, carried out by Atkins for the Vale of Neath and Swansea Valley Integrated Waterway Partnership (a partnership including the two local authorities, the (then) Neath and Tennant Canal Preservation Society, Neath Canal Navigation Company, British Waterways, Waterways Trust and others);

• a subsequent 2006 ‘Neath Canal Condition Survey’ also by Atkins, reporting

on the condition of the Neath Canal, and estimating the costs and benefits of restoring the Abergarwed - Resolven section, the ‘missing link’ required to enable navigation from Neath to the end of the current navigation in Ysgwrfa;

6

• a 2007 study for British Waterways, entitled ‘Waterways in Wales:

Economic Costs and Benefits of the Welsh Waterways Network’, carried out by ECOTEC and estimating the economic impacts of canals in Wales, with a section dedicated to the Swansea, Neath and Tennant canals;

• a WDA study to estimate costs of restoring the Aberdulais – Swansea link

via the Tennant canal. Apparently known as the ‘Water Group Study’ we have not been able to obtain a copy of this work.

The listed but now disused Aberdulais Aqueduct, which in former days provided the only direct link between the Neath and the Tennant canals, is the subject of much interest at present for environmental, heritage and economic reasons. Following discussions with a number of agencies, representatives of the Tennant Canal (in partnership with others) are shortly to commission a study to explore the feasibility of restoring the aqueduct. This is expected to report around the summer of 2008.

2.4.1 Previous Restoration Projects on the Neath and Tennant Canals

Previous restoration projects have been carried out on the Neath Canal with initial major works being carried out by Neath Borough Council at Rheola in 1986. In 1990, around £4m worth of funding was secured from the (then) Welsh Office and the Prince of Wales Trust which permitted the full restoration of 6km of the canal above Resolven. This included dredging and other works on the route section between Granary and Aberclwyd locks, and improvements to both locks. Further south on the Neath canal, general improvements were made to the south of Tonna between 1999-2002, and the restoration of Tonna Lock was carried out in 2005. Significant dredging works were undertaken between 2003-2005 on the section between Abergarwed and Ynysarwed. We understand that the focus of this £2.7 million project was to clean up this polluted section of canal, and that nearly 65,000 tonnes of polluted material was dredged from the canal and removed. Current works continue with a major restoration project due to open on the Neath Canal at Ynysbwllog where a new 34m single span aqueduct is under construction – together with remedial and other works – and is due to open by the summer of 2008. Funded by Structural Funds (Objective 1), Neath Port Talbot CBC and WAG the aqueduct replaces a structure previously destroyed by flood water and will reduce the blockages to navigation on the Neath Canal to three. Turning to the Tennant Canal, though some restoration works have been carried out, IWAAC note that no restoration of the Tennant Canal has been achieved since 2000/01 (Inland Waterway Restoration and Development, December 2006).

7

The Neath Canal and Tennant Canal each retain a small staff of workers for maintenance purposes and their work, together with that of volunteers and the major projects listed above, has helped to ensure that navigation on both canals is maximised. That said, with the exception of one trip boat on the Neath Canal (a second has recently been removed due to vandalism), the only craft currently using either canal are dredging boats, weedcutting boats and unpowered vessels such as canoes. The opening of the Ynysbwllog Aqueduct anticipated in summer 2008 is however expected to lead to considerable interest amongst enthusiasts and despite its currently limited stretches of navigation, we are informed that there is a regular trickle of interest from canal boat owners interested in both temporary and permanent moorings on the Neath.

2.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The Terms of Reference clearly outlines the objectives of this project which has been commissioned to ‘assess the economic returns that might be achieved through the restoration of the Neath and Tennant Canals, in order to provide a fully navigable route from Glynneath in the Neath Valley, down to the Prince of Wales Dock, Swansea, on the Tennant Canal, and to Briton Ferry, on the Neath Canal’. The outputs, as stated in the ToR, are:

• A full socio-economic cost benefit analysis report (in line with EU Convergence funding criteria);

• Updated indicative costs, and provision of new indicative costs where

applicable, on restoring strategically identified stretches of the canals;

• An executive summary to the client advising on the findings of the socio-economic cost benefit analysis, detailing the impacts of restoring parts, or all of, the canals.

The work is being commissioned in the context of the ongoing 2007-2013 EU convergence funding programme. The agreement by the European Council and the European Parliament on the EU budget for 2007–2013 means that West Wales and the Valleys, which includes Neath Port Talbot and Swansea, will benefit significantly from European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and European Social Fund (ESF) investment. The ‘convergence’ funding is estimated at some £158m per annum (2004 values) over the time period and is the highest level of support available under the next round of Structural Funds programmes. The aim of the funding is to reduce inequalities across Europe by creating high quality jobs and supporting economic growth in recipient areas. Amongst other things, the outputs of this study are intended to inform decisions about potential bids for EU convergence funding in respect of the restoration of the Neath and Tennant Canals as a focus for wider regeneration.

8

3 STRATEGIC AND ECONOMIC CONTEXT

3.1 INTRODUCTION

It is important that the objectives of any proposed project should follow clearly from an underlying policy or strategy. Publicly funded projects should be strategically relevant and contribute to the achievement of policy. Reference is made below to the relevant statutes and strategic policy documents which provide the context for this project.

3.2 STRATEGIC CONTEXT

3.2.1 Wales Spatial Plan Update, Welsh Assembly Government, 2008

The Wales Spatial Plan (WSP) provides a wide-ranging spatial strategy for Wales; it is used to guide development in Wales and to inform both the private and public sector in the development of policy and action and is also intended to help inform local community planning. The WSP provides strategies and objectives for various areas identified in the plan. According to the plan, the study area falls within the Swansea Bay- Waterfront and Western Valleys area; tourism and leisure are identified as important activities in this area and are considered activities that will contribute to the regeneration of the area, and for improving the health and quality of life for local people. The WSP asserts that tourism could help connect outdoor activities in the waterfront to outdoor activities in the valleys. The Plan identifies the area north from Neath up to Glynneath as an area with inland tourism potential (illustrated in Figure 3.1 overleaf).

3.2.2 Planning Policy Wales, Welsh Assembly Government, 2002

Planning Policy Wales (PPW) provides national planning guidance on land use planning policies in Wales, with Technical Advice Notes (TANs) providing greater detail on specific issues to be read in conjunction with the policy document. Chapter 11 of PPW provides guidance on tourism, sport and recreation; it discusses the importance of tourism to the economy and asserts that tourist activities should also be encouraged in non-traditional destinations. The guidance promotes the provision of safe cycle routes and walking paths, but also stresses the importance that where recreational use alongside canals is proposed that there are no adverse affects upon adjoining users, to wildlife or to flood defences.

9

Figure 3.1 Wales Spatial Plan Local Area Designations

Source: Wales Spatial Plan 2008 Update

3.2.3 Waterways for Tomorrow, British Waterways, 2000

This followed on from the then Transport White Paper A New Deal for Transport by setting out the Government’s proposals for the future of inland waterways in England and Wales. The objectives are to maximise the opportunities that waterways can offer for leisure and recreation, as a catalyst for regeneration, education and for freight transport. These objectives have been borne in mind in the current study, in particular the opportunities for the Neath and Tennant Canals to contribute to the economic regeneration of the area as a focus for leisure and recreation.

3.2.4 Waterways for Wales, the Way Forward, British Waterways, 2004

Waterways for Wales, the Way Forward built on the 2003 consultation exercise Waterways for Wales. The earlier exercise had emphasised canals’ roles in stimulating economic regeneration; in acting as a catalyst for rural recovery; in developing sustainable living; in promoting the vitality of Welsh cultural heritage, and finally in promoting Wales within the wider world. The Way Forward document raised awareness of the above opportunities and benefits offered by the waterways of Wales and drew on project examples. It noted that the major capital projects identified in Waterways for Wales (which include the Neath, Tennant and Swansea Canals) aim to effectively transform the corridors of the inland waterways of Wales, adding ‘As strategic initiatives they can provide a critical mass and maximise the ‘multiplier effects’ of individual local and regional schemes’.

10

3.2.5 Tourism Strategy for South West Wales, 2004 - 2008

The South West Wales Tourism Partnership document Open all Year – A Tourism Strategy for South West Wales 2004-2008 provides a vision and objectives for the tourism sector in SW Wales. The main approach is to:

• focus on generating more business outside the main summer season; and • attract higher spending/higher value markets.

The stated means of achieving these goals are to ‘capitalise on the region’s unique environmental and cultural strengths, raise product and service quality and develop new marketing initiatives aimed at carefully selected target markets’. The strategy recognises that ‘the region’s fine natural environment, coupled with elements of cultural and historic heritage, is its main strength as a tourist destination’ and recommends the development of ‘a new activity holidays theme, taking account of the strength of the regional produce, environmental impact and WTB [Welsh Tourist Board] activities within this area’. As part of the initiative to encourage off-season visits, activity based holidays should be encouraged, together with environmental improvements, better management and maintenance of public areas, and promotion of local distinctiveness through cultural heritage. Many initiatives in these areas, the strategy points out, will benefit local residents as well as visitors.

3.2.6 The Western Valleys Strategy, Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council, 2006

The Neath Port Talbot Western Valleys Strategy aims to address the significant challenges facing the valleys within the County Borough area, including the decline of traditional industries, an ageing population, economic inactivity, the need to attract new businesses and the need to improve people’s health. The initiative aims to ‘modernise the valleys’ whilst retaining their essential charm and character, and in doing so, make them more vibrant and sustainable places. There are seven key themes within the document, namely: economic prosperity; sustainable communities; environmental enhancement; improving education; better health; better communications; and implementation. The Vale of Neath, through which the Neath Canal winds, is one of five valleys in the strategy. The particular objectives for the Vale of Neath include the commitment to:

• promote jobs by focusing on accessibility (including the A465) and making better use of the valley’s natural beauty and attractions;

• create a hub for tourism activity and a driver for economic growth; • capitalise on water, ‘green’ and activity based tourism and the industrial

heritage of the valley; • promote and support employment opportunities at key valleys sites (eg

Glynneath, Resolven, Rheola); • promote social enterprises.

11

The current study has given consideration to how, by re-opening the Neath and Tennant Canals to navigation, these objectives might be furthered.

3.2.7 Vale of Neath Supplementary Action Plan, Neath Port Talbot CBC, 2006

This Plan includes 11 actions under the headings of economic prosperity, building sustainable communities and enhancing the environment. Of these there are three which are most relevant to the proposal to the Neath and Tennant Canal project:

• Outcome 5, ‘utilise the natural beauty of the Vale of Neath as a driver for economic prosperity whilst sustaining the valleys natural character’;

• Outcome 6, ‘further investment in tourism related activities. In particular, a new strategy linked to the walks, waterfalls and the heritage of the Vale of Neath and water related tourism’; and

• Outcome 7, ‘finance will be sought to restore the canal to the north of Abergarwed and to reopen the canal to navigation potentially as far as Glynneath, if European monies become available during the period 2007/13’.

3.2.8 Tourism Strategy, Neath Port Talbot CBC

Time to Deliver, Investing in Tourism in Neath Port Talbot, was published by Neath Port Talbot CBC. Building on the first tourism strategy for the County Borough, this 2006-2009 strategy identifies two main development opportunities for the tourism sector. The first of these is ‘packaging of existing products into complete experiences’. This would include target marketing to extend the season, business tourism development (conferences and events) and water sports including the attraction of new, complementary facilities. The strategy highlights ‘new tourism opportunities’ as the second main development opportunity for the tourism sector. Within these new tourism opportunities three key ones are picked out: ‘equestrian tourism’, ‘industrial heritage’ and ‘a geographic focus on the Vale of Neath’. The equestrian strategy for the County Borough encompasses the Vale of Neath but horse-riding is not generally accommodated on canal towpaths. The industrial heritage element looks to focus on ‘traditional heritage attractions’ while the Vale of Neath element is ‘embracing outdoor and artistic pursuits, heritage and water based assets, and using the physical environmental and a ‘back to basics’ concept as a common inspiration’, both of which are more directly related to the proposed canal restoration project, and the contribution that it might make to leisure and tourism along the Vale.

3.2.9 Unitary Development Plan, 2001-2016 Further Modifications, Neath Port Talbot CBC

The County Borough Council is in the latter stages of preparation and adoption of its Unitary Development Plan (UDP), which sets out to guide development, conservation and the use of land within the County Borough for the fifteen years up to mid 2016. The UDP is progressing towards adoption, and the final stage of public consultations, into the Further Modifications, was held in January and February 2008.

12

The Neath, Tennant (and Swansea) Canals are recognised with the UDP as currently only available for navigation in part, but nevertheless are viewed as forming part of a potential network of canals which offers great tourism and leisure opportunities, and which already provide important local recreational resources within the County Borough – sections of the canals are ‘used for boating and draw visitors from a wide area’. Much of the route of the Neath Canal is along the Vale of Neath which the UDP acknowledges has long been recognised as a tourist attraction, and future effort will be focused on ‘green tourism and recreation’. The UDP goes on to state that this action is likely to include ‘the use of the forests, Neath Canal and the complex of lakes at Rheola above Resolven’. The Neath Canal also passes close to the town centre of Neath, although separated from it to a degree by the railway line, on its route to Briton Ferry. The UDP recognises that Neath is both the largest centre of population in the County Borough and has the largest town centre, enhancement of which will be encouraged to better meet shopping, leisure and other needs of the residents of the town and its surrounding areas. The UDP also aims to improve the town centre’s attractiveness and accessibility for motorists, public transport, cycling and walking. Within Neath, opportunities for the redevelopment of sites for housing and other uses will be promoted during the life of the UDP. As the UDP notes, however, there is little scope to create new sites for business and industry within the town itself, such that improvements to access to the major nearby new developments (at Baglan and Llandarcy – see below) are to be promoted. Thus the majority of new housing development to serve the area will be located at Llandarcy, the site of a former refinery located just to the west and north of the route of the Tennant Canal. Llandarcy will be developed as Coed D’Arcy, a mixed–use urban village which will also embrace employment uses. Development beyond an initial phase at Coed D’Arcy is subject to the creation of a southern access over the Tennant Canal – approximately at the position of a pipe bridge that served the former refinery operations, but which is now redundant. To the south of Neath, the Neath Canal reaches Briton Ferry; recognised in the UDP as a district centre serving the immediate community’s needs but one whose attractiveness and accessibility requires to be improved. To the west of Neath, the UDP acknowledges the important wildlife habitats (including Crymlyn Burrows and Crymlyn Bog which are located along the route of the western portion of the Tennant Canal, as well as Pant-y-Sais Fen and the Neath estuary) as worthy of protection and, where feasible, enhancement. Given the current and potential importance of the canals to the local area, the UDP safeguards the potential to restore the existing canal network, as set out in Policy RO6 – Canals (reproduced for ease of reference in Annex A).

13

3.2.10 Local Development Plan, 2008-23, Neath Port Talbot CBC

The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the local authorities in Wales to prepare a Local Development Plan (LDP) setting out the authority’s strategy, objectives, policies for the use and development of land for their area. In the case of Neath Port Talbot, the LDP will cover the 15 year period to 2023. Steps have been taken to undertake the LDP following the adoption of the UDP, starting in September 2008, leading up to anticipated adoption in spring 2013. Preparatory work has been commissioned to inform the preparation of the LDP, including the Milland Road Regeneration Strategy (under preparation by Knight Frank and Arup) looking at the options and feasibility for the area that straddles the Neath Canal along its course to the west of the town centre of Neath. A range of mixed uses is being considered for this area, its relationship to the canal and the needs and opportunities to re-open this section of the canal to navigation.

3.2.11 Unitary Development Plan (to 2016), City and County of Swansea

The western portion of the Tennant Canal, broadly from near its junction with the defunct Glan-y-Wern Canal to Port Tennant, is located in the City and County of Swansea. From Port Tennant, the canal extends via a covered culvert to the Prince of Wales Dock. The intervening area, Swansea Waterfront or SA1, is recognised in the Swansea UDP as a major development opportunity; indeed redevelopment is underway with the active participation of the WAG. As in Neath Port Talbot, the Swansea UDP recognises the potential of the canal if restored to contribute to water based recreation and leisure. For this reason the UDP requires that care be taken to minimise the visual and physical impact of any proposed land uses/developments and to ensure the proposed canal route corridor is safeguarded. However, whilst the UDP requires a line for the canal to be protected, this is a re-alignment of the route of the current culvert and the physical reinstatement of the canal has not been a requirement of the development now taking place at SA1. Abstracts of the UDP are presented in Annex A for further reference.

3.2.12 EU Convergence Funding Strategic Frameworks, 2007 - 2013

The Convergence programmes for West Wales and the Valleys comprise funding from two separate European Structural Funds, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF). Around £856 million of ERDF funds will be channelled through the Welsh Assembly Government to help progress the region’s transformation into a sustainable and competitive economy by investing in the knowledge economy and helping new and existing businesses to grow. It will also focus on regenerating Wales’ most deprived communities, tackling climate change and improving transport.

14

Strategic Frameworks are operational strategies that focus on the types of interventions that will best deliver on the Priorities in the Operational Programmes. The primary purpose of Strategic Frameworks is to improve the effectiveness of the next round of structural fund Programmes. They take as their starting point the relevant priorities/themes in the programmes. Strategic Frameworks are intended to:

• improve impact on growth and jobs; • strengthen strategic alignment between EU and WAG policies; • encourage more ‘joined up’ action • assist in reducing the overall volume of projects; and • help to shape and balance programme delivery

A need has been identified, in the next funding round, for a greater concentration of funding through fewer and sometimes longer projects, for more strategically effective partnership and for better operational links and co-ordination between projects. Of the nine strategic frameworks (these are innovation, R&D and Technology, ICT infrastructure, enterprise, business finance, sustainable transport, climate change, materials efficiency, sustainable regeneration and community economic development) the closest fit to the Neath and Tennant Canals restoration project is within sustainable regeneration. The Sustainable Regeneration framework covers three themes in the Convergence ERDF Operational Programme. These are:

• Priority 3 Theme 2 Strategic Infrastructure (focused on strategic employment sites);

• Priority 4 Theme 3, Environment for Growth; and • Priority 5, Theme 1, Physical Regeneration.

The project has a strong fit with the second of the above three themes and is also closely allied to the third. The two latter themes are explored in more detail below. Environment for Growth The Theme aims to realise the economic potential of the natural environment by:

• promoting the enhancement and protection of the natural, built and heritage environment; and

• increasing the economic potential of the environment. The overall aim is to develop Swansea Bay and Western Valleys as a year round visitor destination based on the provision of quality facilities and through strengthening the conservation and interpretation of the natural and built heritage. The heritage and environmental attractions of the Western Valleys are specifically mentioned and key interventions include (direct quotes):

15

• ‘focusing on the Western Valleys, improving physical access using the network of former tramways, railways and canal towpaths to create cycling and walking trails with associated interpretation and artworks which link the heritage sites, support for communities preparing local interpretation plans, and training of local guides’;

• ‘phased improvement and restoration of the canal network including improving

interpretation, facilitating access through boat trips and use of trails, and restoration of those stretches with the greatest heritage and landscape interest subject to avoiding any negative impacts on bio diversity’;

• ‘support investment in the improvement or development of attractions which

have clear visitor appeal, link to the area’s heritage and have a significant off season opening; subject to market and financial feasibility’; and

• ‘develop the potential of the Western Valleys for activity and heritage tourism

based on the landscape and heritage assets’. The proposed project is closely associated with this Theme the indicative budget for which was identified in WEFO’s Sustainable Regeneration Framework Swansea Bay: The Waterfront and Western Valleys Spatial Plan Area document dated November 2007 (see http://www.wefo.wales.gov.uk/resource/sbay-sr-framework-051207.pdf, Section 4 The Financial Context). This indicates an approximate budget of some £51m, which would double when matched funding is added. Between the time that this indicative budget was published and the present time of writing (July 2008) the position of the pound has strengthened against the Euro. The effect of this currency movement if maintained would be to increase the available budget when expressed in sterling. Physical Regeneration This Theme aims to support the physical regeneration of communities, as part of an integrated regeneration strategy and where it can be demonstrated that focused intervention will produce sustainable economic, environmental and social benefits. This will be achieved by:

• supporting the integrated regeneration of the most deprived towns and villages by physical improvements to the urban fabric and the wider natural and built heritage; and

• developing and delivering effective ways of engaging local communities

and developing local networks with the aim of finding and implementing local solutions for regeneration activity.

Of most relevance to the Neath and Tennant Canals project are the framework’s references to Neath. The framework notes that the Neath town centre area and surrounding travel to work areas include many of the most deprived wards in Wales such as Briton Ferry West, Neath East and the Dulais Valley communities of Seven Sisters and Onllywn (WIMD 2005). The further development of this historic market town whilst recognising its conservation area status is therefore identified as a priority. This, it is noted, should take place through continued

16

http://www.wefo.wales.gov.uk/resource/sbay-sr-framework-051207.pdf

http://www.wefo.wales.gov.uk/resource/sbay-sr-framework-051207.pdf

regeneration and development of the town centre, and in particular, through the improvement of derelict public spaces in the town centre and its surrounding communities, a course of action which will provide a catalyst for training, employment and skills opportunities. The Neath Port Talbot CBC’s Western Valleys Strategy and Neath Town Centre Strategy are both identified as having been put into place to address these issues.

3.3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT

A review of the key socio-economic characteristics of the Neath and Tennant Canal corridors has been undertaken to provide a context to the economic appraisal. Full details are set out, for reference, in Annex B with key messages being summarised in the following paragraphs.

3.3.1 Area of Interest

The data has been collected and analysed with regard to an ‘area of interest’ defined in terms of those local authority wards along the canal route. These are presented in Figure 3.2 below.

Figure 3.2 Study Area

Wards 14 to 18 are considered to form a ‘northern’ area, approximately equivalent to the rural Vale of Neath, with the remainder forming the more urban, ‘southern’ area – extending across Neath and its environs, the Llandarcy area and the Swansea Gate eastern approaches to Swansea itself.

17

3.3.2 Population

According to National Statistics’ 2005 Mid-year Estimates, the combined total population of these wards at that time was 65,400. The great majority of the population was to be found in the ‘southern’ portion, this had a population of some 51,400 compared to 13,200 in the northern area (ie 78%).

3.3.3 Economic Activity

Overall economic activity rates (at 58%) in the canal corridor are broadly similar to the averages for the two county boroughs (namely 56% and 59%) but below the Wales average (of 61%). A similar situation applied to unemployment rates in the 2001 Census. The unemployment rate along the northern portion canal corridor was however higher than in the southern portion: 4.3% compared to 3.7%. No more recent figures are available which show ‘unemployment’ but the number of people claiming job seekers allowance can be used as a proxy. According to this measure the north of the study region still lags behind the south: In June 2008 2.7 percent of the resident working age population along the northern part of the canal corridor was claiming job seekers allowance, compared to 2.3 percent in the southern part. These figures are slightly higher than the UK average of 2.2 percent (source, NOMIS, June 2008). No robust small area data is available for earnings, but it is noteworthy that average earnings across the sub-region (Neath Port Talbot, Swansea and Bridgend) have been below the Wales average. Within the canal corridor area, a greater proportion of the employed population in the south are in professional and managerial positions and in the north, the occupational mix is skewed towards skilled trades and operative roles.

3.3.4 Deprivation

The Wales Index of Multiple Deprivation is based around ‘super output areas’ (SOAs) that sum to electoral wards, but most wards are made up of two or more SOAs – the 19 wards in the canal corridors comprise 44 SOAs. Of the 44 SOAs in the study area, six are in the most deprived 10th percentile in Wales and these six are located around Neath and Briton Ferry, at the southern end of the Neath Canal. The south of the canal corridors however also includes some of the least deprived in Wales, with three SOAs in the top 10th percentile. Whilst the northern section has only one SOA in the worst 20th percentile (in Glynneath) the majority of the SOAs in the north are below the Wales average (ie in the lower 50th percentile).

3.4 CONCLUDING REMARKS

The Neath and Tennant Canals pass through a range of landscapes – both urban and rural – and communities within both Neath Port Talbot and Swansea. The communities in these areas are varied in their socio-economic circumstances.

18

Typically however they reflect the wider disadvantage faced by much of Neath Port Talbot County Borough, relative to the Wales average, and to that across the nearby City and County of Swansea. Within the canal corridors, there are significant contrasts in terms of occupational mix, employment and deprivation; with the north typically disadvantaged compared to the south. These statistical differences reflect the different recent prospects of the two areas – the south has been the focus of the majority of private investment reflecting its closer proximity to the M4 corridor and Swansea. Neath and its immediate environs nevertheless include both the least and the most deprived areas within the study area – with examples of both the top and the bottom 10th percentile SOAs. The various strategies for these areas clearly acknowledge the current de-graded condition of the canals and also their potential to contribute positively to the future of their surrounding localities and communities, were they to be restored. The canals are perceived as important and valued assets. Their heritage status is widely recognised as is their close integration with the high quality environment which comprises much of their hinterland. It is these characteristics, together with an emphasis on a new renaissance for the Western Valleys spearheaded by sustainable tourism and regeneration, which ensure that the reinstatement of navigation along either canal directly contributes to, and is wholly consistent with, the stated objectives of the various strategies comprising this study’s policy context. It is in this context that the remaining study has looked to assess the impact that the restoration of these canals to navigation might be.

19

4 VISITOR AND PROPERTY DEMAND ASSESSMENT

4.1 INTRODUCTION

Key potential direct benefits of the reinstatement of the two canals to a navigable quality relate to the leisure and recreational use of the canals themselves, and the betterment of land values and an improvement in development perceptions across the canal corridors. Consequently, our study has sought to assess the scope of such benefits that might accrue as a result of the improvement of the canals and as far as is practicable to quantify these benefits. In addition we are aware of the ‘announcement effect’ that the improvement of the canals can be expected to have upon the perceptions of the canal corridors as a place to visit and enjoy, and as a place in which to invest. In other words, the investment in the canal improvements is likely to raise the profile of the wider area and thereby support the pursuit of the various regeneration and tourism strategies. In the sections below we report on the key messages we received in the course of our desk research and our consultation with various stakeholders. The results have been key inputs to our economic modelling.

4.2 TOURISM

4.2.1 Location and Tourism Offer

At a sub-regional level the study area is located within South West Wales, one of four tourism regions in Wales. The sub-region stretches from North Pembrokeshire to Swansea Bay and ranks the quality of its coastal landscapes as its primary strength. High quality coastal landscapes are complemented by attractive inland countryside throughout the sub-region. The positive environmental attributes of South West Wales and also of the specific study area offer exceptional opportunities for a wide range of outdoor activities including water sports, walking, cycling and riding and cultural, heritage and natural history pursuits. The restoration of the Neath and Tennant Canals would therefore complement the current tourism strengths of the study area and wider sub-region. The sub-region as a whole is perceived as remote, however Neath and Swansea are at the gateway to the region (some 185 miles from London) and well serviced by the M4 and A465. Proximity to the main markets is not unfavourable when compared to some English regions, particularly when considering the West Midlands.

20

Both the sub-region as a whole and the study area have few individual attractions of genuinely iconic status, instead the focus is on clusters of smaller attractions surrounding ‘hubs’ which act together to provide the tourism offer. Within the study area such smaller scale attractions include:

• Aberdulais Falls, a National Trust property close to the Aberdulais Aqueduct at the junction of the Neath and Tennant Canals, which has a recently upgraded visitor centre;

• Pontneddfechan Falls, just to the north of Glynneath on the southern edge of the Brecon Beacons National Park;

• The towns of the Vale of Neath, principally Neath itself and also Glynneath, the latter the subject of a current investment plan for its development;

• Neath Abbey, dating back to the 12th century; • The Neath Canal, and to a lesser extent, the Tennant Canal; • Neath Abbey Ironworks, the Neath Museum and local attractions.

Overall in the sub-region there is a lack of sizeable and good quality accommodation and with the exception of the Tower Hotel at Jersey Marine, this is especially true of the study area. The subregion has a total of some 145,000 bedspaces provided by some 5690 operators. This represents around half of the accommodation enterprises in Wales but only 28% of the bedspace stock, underlining the comparatively small size of tourism enterprises in the region. Though no information has been provided for the study area in particular, it is expected to reflect the sub-regional picture.

4.2.2 Demand

On average, occupancy rates are low, with the exception of Swansea where there is a strong commercial base to demand. The strength of Swansea’s accommodation market has been cited as detrimental to tourism accommodation in the study area and there is anecdotal evidence suggesting that many visitors overnight in Swansea rather than the study area, preferring to visit the Vale of Neath as a day trip or series of day trips. These issues have contributed to a relatively low average occupancy rate (see Table 4.1), which itself has a restraining effect on the ability to invest in the product. This is evident from the number of apparently poorly maintained establishments seen in many locations in the study area and the wider sub-region.

21

Table 4.1 Average Accommodation Occupancy Rates, Neath Port Talbot CBC, 2000-2007

Year Average Occupancy Rates (%) 2000 28 2001 30 2002 35 2003 40 2004 40 2005 38 2006 39 2007 (to June only) 33 Source: Neath Port Talbot CBC

At both the sub-regional and district level the STEAM model (Scarborough Tourism Economic Activity Monitor) is used to examine tourism data and predict spending and visitor patters within local tourism markets. The model is a supply side model which depends on input from local hotels, guesthouses, attractions and visitors to Tourism Information Centres to estimate demand from the tourism sector. It provides a useful benchmark for monitoring trends in the tourism market against other districts, sub-regions and areas which commission STEAM analysis for their geographic areas, though naturally the model relies on robust data inputs to produce accurate outputs. The STEAM model for Neath Port Talbot district shows a steady rise in the contribution that the tourism industry has made to the local economy since 2001. Results for tourism expenditure, tourist days and tourist numbers are shown in Table 4.2 below.

Table 4.2 Tourism Demand in Neath Port Talbot, 2001-2007

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Tourism expenditure (£m)

53.6 57.1 62.9 63.9 66.9 68.2 73.9

Tourist days (000s) 1,400 1,511 1,665 1,677 1,742 1,754 1,770 Tourist numbers (000s)

1,056 1,170 1,307 1,297 1,338 1,347 1,344

Employment 1,078 1,134 1,259 1,292 1,365 1,396 1,459 Source: STEAM Report, 2007 for Neath Port Talbot CBC

Key figures are an increase in direct and indirect employment (shown in the employment row) of some 35% between 2001 and 2007, and a rise of 288,000 tourist numbers (27%) over the same period. Putting these healthy but gradual rises into context, the example of tourism development along a theme in the neighbouring Afan Valley shows how partnership working and a strong product can generate significantly increased tourism interest. Neath Port Talbot CBC and its partners have recently begun promoting the Afan Valley as a destination for mountain biking, walking and other outdoor activities. Improvements to the Afan Forest Park, coupled with a marketing push, have succeeded in increasing visitor numbers to the Afan Forest

22

Park Visitor Centre from 25,273 in 2004 to 112,526 – an increase of some 87,000 in two years.

4.3 RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY MARKET

4.3.1 Owner Occupiers

From our enquiries with locally active residential estate agents and from consideration of Land Registry data on residential sales, it would appear that overall the housing market along the canal corridors is driven primarily by local factors. Demand from commuters and second home owners has to date been modest. Anecdotally, it has been suggested that immediate proximity to the canal in its current condition is not viewed as enhancing house prices locally – adverse perceptions of flood risk and vermin were mentioned – but conversely views to the restored canal in the Resolven area were also reported as having improved the levels of interest in certain properties. Indirectly, returning the canals to navigation might mitigate the adverse perceptions and reinforce the positive perceptions insofar as such activity would ensure the more deliberate management of the canal and its immediate surroundings. Otherwise, local agents were unable to acknowledge a direct link to house values and the canal improvements. The housing market is generally stronger along the M4 corridor and around Neath – the southern portion of the canal corridors, as defined in paragraph 3.3.1 above. Local agents report that the market in the Vale of Neath has been quite weak in the not too distant past, but prices and demand have steadied more recently. There is reportedly only limited new housing development along the Vale and few signs of people moving out from Swansea and Neath into the Vale to commute daily into the town and city. Second home ownership is reportedly very limited across the area as a whole. The above impressions are confirmed by Land Registry data which show average prices in Neath are persistently lower than in Swansea (see Figure 4.1).

23

Figure 4.1 Property Prices in Neath and Swansea, 2002-2007

Source: Land Registry Sales volumes, as recorded by the Land Registry, had been subdued pretty generally across the canal corridors but have in more recent times picked up somewhat in the southern area, but to a lesser extent in the towns in the Vale. As an indication of the modest levels of demand in Glynneath, reference was made by one local property contact to an unnamed six dwelling brownfield scheme that had struggled to find purchasers after the initial two units were sold. In addition, Land Registry data suggests that settlements in the Vale have shown marked volatility in prices during the past three years in particular, another indicator of market fragility. Evidence for Resolven and Glynneath is presented in Figure 4.2.

24

Figure 4.2 Property Prices in Resolven and Glynneath, 2002-2007

Source: Land Registry

4.3.2 Development Market Sentiment

The Neath Port Talbot UDP allocates sufficient land to meet anticipated needs for housing in County Borough to 2016. The largest component of this land supply is to be provided by the redevelopment of the former Llandarcy refinery to create a mixed use urban village: Coed D’Arcy. In all, over the next 25 years, some 4000 dwellings are anticipated at this location, subject to a new southern link road, crossing the Tennant Canal once the initial phase of development has been completed. St Modwen’s have recently been appointed as the lead development partners. Analysis of past and present planning applications submitted within the canal corridor area over the past five years have been used to provide an indication of the level of private sector development interest in the study area. Fuller details of the applications that have been analysed are set out in Appendix C of Annex B to this report. This data indicate that, not surprisingly given its key role in residential land supply across the County Borough, developer interest has been concentrated in the south of the canal corridors – at Llandarcy, Neath and Briton Ferry – with just two schemes being promoted in Glynneath in the north. Local agents have advised that despite residential allocations in the north (eg Morfa Glas in Glynneath) having been confirmed for several years, developer

25

interest has been muted. As described above, even modest scale infill developments have proved less than easy for developers to sell. There is, we understand, some emerging interest in the development of new build ‘second homes’ – in the form of residential development that can only be occupied for a maximum of 11 months in a year. Such restrictions on occupation prevent residential use becoming established outside the defined settlements, but afford the opportunity for visitor accommodation in rural settings that can be considered, on their merits, by the planning authority. Whilst ideas (including on two canal-side sites in the Vale of Neath at Abergarwed and Rheola) have reportedly been explored with the local planning authority, as yet no formal applications have been submitted.

4.4 COMMERCIAL PROPERTY MARKET

Soundings have been taken of a number of locally active commercial agents. These have confirmed that employment-related development is very limited away from the M4 corridor, other than to meet existing local needs. With the M4 corridor, new investment is taking place locally at Baglan Bay and at Swansea Gate – the latter around the new Amazon facility, just to the south of the Tennant Canal but separated from it by the railway lines leading to Swansea. New industrial and distribution development beyond the M4 corridor is reportedly occasional and particular to a specific enterprise’s needs. Allocations at Rheola have failed to attract development interest. WAG has serviced industrial development land in the Vale of Neath on the outskirts of Glynneath and of Resolven, sufficient to meet any emerging requirements. The County Borough Council operates several industrial estates around Neath Abbey and elsewhere. New office development with Neath Port Talbot is almost wholly concentrated on Baglan Bay, other than traditional town centre office space meeting local professional needs. Indeed, it has been suggested to us that local office rent levels are judged insufficient to give a commercial rate of return on the development of new accommodation in traditional edge of centre locations. The SA1 scheme, previously referred to in Section 3.2.11, is to be found at the western end of the Tennant Canal and is bisected by a protected corridor for the potential future reinstatement of the canal between Port Tennant and the Prince of Wales Dock. Development is underway, supported by WAG, but whilst the corridor is protected for the canal no actual reinstatement works have been included in the scheme – strongly suggesting that any value enhancement that might accrue from proximity to the canal is less than the cost of re-establishing the canal at this time. Leisure and retail developments, according to recent planning applications, are also concentrated in the southern portion of the canal corridors. As discussed in Section 3.2.10, feasibility studies are under preparation that are exploring the potential for the redevelopment of the Canal Green area, to the

26

west of Neath Town Centre; a location that the Borough Council is promoting for urban living, local facilities and small scale industrial and related facilities. We are advised that the presence of the canal is considered an asset for the area (and that the proposed working title for the area is ‘Canal Green’) but that any future developer would wish to maximise the contribution to be achieved by improved public realm around the canal and to seek replacement bridges at Bridge Street and at The Green. In other words the interests of the canal and any developer are likely to be closely aligned.

4.5 CONCLUDING COMMENTS

Tourism trends are upwards and positive, both for the sub-region and study area, and the opportunity for further growth is available. There is a strong policy aspiration for future growth, focusing on packaging existing products into complete ‘experiences’, with an emphasis on encouraging short stay trips. The emphasis on the short stay market reflects the picture as a whole in Wales where short holidays of 1-3 nights are more popular than those of 4+ nights. Strategic thinking behind tourism development in the study area is around focusing on the industrial heritage of the Vale of Neath, and making use of the ‘hub and cluster’ approach with common themes being cultural and industrial heritage. Of the five main valleys in the county borough, the Vale of Neath is thought to offer the strongest opportunity to create a new geographically based visitor experience and the concept would focus on the opportunities to embrace outdoor pursuits, heritage, and water based assets and accommodation all focusing on the physical environment. The Vale of Neath offers clear potential for the establishment of a second hub in the County Borough, complementing and balancing the existing focus of the Afan Forest Park in the neighbouring Afan Valley. The property markets – residential, employment and retail / leisure – in the area are differentiated by the impact of the M4. Demand from occupiers and developers in the southern portion of the canal corridors is in marked contrast to the less accessible Vale of Neath area, notwithstanding the A465 dual carriageway that leads from the M4 to the ‘Heads of the Valleys’ road. To date limited visitor accommodation, including second homes, has been developed in the Vale, but there are reportedly early signs of interest from at least one landowner, while developers have also made approaches for residential housing. There are few development opportunities, other than the Canal Green regeneration area, that directly abut the canal, but at this location developer interests would be aligned with those seeking to reinstate navigation at this point. Similarly, there are early signs that latent leisure and visitor development interest in the Vale of Neath may be encouraged by the progressive improvement of the Neath Canal corridor. More generally, improvements to the canals, such that they can be assured of being well maintained into future will in no way compromise developer and

27

occupier interest in the area, but by themselves are less likely to stimulate measurable increases in investment or values.

28

5 PROJECT DELIVERY AND OPTION DEVELOPMENT

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this commission is to explore the costs and benefits of implementing the objective, as set out in the Terms of Reference (ToR), which is to: ‘restore and integrate the Neath and Tennant Canals in order to provide a fully navigable route from Glynneath in the Neath Valley, to the Prince of Wales Dock, Swansea, on the Tennant Canal, and to Briton Ferry, on the Neath Canal’. The objective is at once bold and innovative, and offers the opportunity to provide Neath Port Talbot and Swansea with an integrated and restored heritage attraction offering social, economic and environmental benefits. However such benefits are only achievable at a price and because of the expense and ambition involved in fully restoring canal systems, it has been common for canal restoration schemes across the UK to be implemented in a piecemeal fashion, with restoration often proceeding on a section by section basis as funding and resources become available. Indeed the restoration of the Neath Canal has been progressing in this manner for a number of years, as briefly described in Section 2.4.1. We have followed this approach in our appraisal, considering the comprehensive restoration of the canals but also looking at the key individual projects that, based on our extensive consultations with various stakeholders, would appear to be the key ‘building blocks’ to the achievement of the ultimate objective. This approach is wholly consistent with the ToR of the current study which requires that the consultants ‘identify key strategic stretches of the Neath and Tennant Canals which are central to the proposal for restoring full navigation from Glynneath to the Prince of Wales Dock’ and in examining the full Neath and Tennant ‘system’, we have broken it down into its component parts. To explore the issues, and attain a better understanding of the economics which underlies both the whole scheme and its component parts, we have prepared an analysis of the respective costs and benefits of restoring each one of the component parts making up the Neath and Tennant ‘system’. The purpose of this Section is to identify and describe these component parts and their restoration costs, and secondly to use them as the basis for option development. The first part of the Section therefore focuses on the canal ‘parts’ or ‘building blocks’, with the latter part of the Section developing these into options for appraisal.

29

5.2 SCHEME COMPONENTS

From our consultations with the client team as well as the two canal operators, our understanding is that at present there are several free-standing stretches of the overall canal system that, due to past restoration efforts, are in water and are able to be navigated, albeit in some cases still able to be further improved. These stretches are separated by specific infilled sections or other breaks in navigation, the restoration of which has for one reason or another not been achieved. It is this analysis that has defined for us the various ’building blocks’ that need to be addressed, either progressively or concurrently, to restore the overall system to its full extent. The ‘navigable’ sections are as follows:

• The Neath Canal from Ysgwrfa to the impassable culverted Commercial Road bridge near Resolven;

• The Neath Canal between the Ynysbwllog aqueduct (at the time of writing the aqueduct is in the process of restoration) and the impassable low bridge at Bridge Street in Neath;

• The Neath Canal from the low bridge at Green Street in Neath to Giant’s Grave on the outskirts of Briton Ferry; and

• The Tennant Canal from the lock at Aberdulais to the bridge at Jersey Marine.

Navigation on these stretches is possible but limited to powered craft operated by the two canal companies and to canoes etc. There are no public boatyards and no commercial hire craft operating. Casual use is made of the towpaths for walking and angling and, on the Neath Canal alone, for cycling. The ‘breaks’ between the above stretches of canal, and the abandoned sections north of Ysgwrfa, south of Giant’s Grave and west of Jersey Marine define the component projects to be addressed if the system is to be re-established in full. These component projects comprise the following (in no order of priority):

• Part 1A – the Neath Canal, around Abergarwed and the culverted bridge at Resolven (ie where the line of the canal and three locks have been lost) plus re-opening navigation under the Commercial Road bridge at Resolven; these breaks are all contained on the section of the Neath canal from Bridge Street bridge, Neath, to Ysgwrfa;

• Part 1B – the Neath Canal, north of Neath, from Ysgwrfa to Lamb and Flag, just outside Glynneath (ie where the route of the canal is still visible on the ground);

• Part 1C - the Neath Canal, north of Neath, from the Lamb and Flag, to the centre of Glynneath, at the point of the original terminus (here the line of the canal has been wholly lost through Glynneath);

• Part 2A - the Tennant Canal, from the Aberdulais Aqueduct, and going south towards Neath (ie that portion that ends around the footbridge that crosses the River Neath at Bridge Street and affords a short pedestrian link between the Tennant Canal and the Neath Canal);

30

• Part 2B - the Tennant Canal, approximately parallel to the Bridge Street bridge in Neath to Jersey Marine (ie the remainder of the canal that is currently passable);

• Part 2C – the Tennant Canal, from Jersey Marine, past Crymlyn Bog, to Port Tennant (ie that section that has not been dredged for several years and is severely weed choked);

• Part 2D – the Tennant Canal, from Port Tennant to the Prince of Wales Dock, Swansea (ie that portion now in a culvert, but for which an alternative route has been reserved in the Swansea UDP);

• Part 3A – the Neath Canal from and including the Bridge Street, Neath, low bridge through the Canal Green area, south to The Green low bridge;

• Part 3B – The Green low bridge, Neath, to Giant’s Grave • Part 3C – the Neath Canal, from Giant’s Grave to the original terminus at

Briton Ferry (ie the narrow section also known as the Jersey Canal that is beyond the low bridges at Giant’s Grave).

A schematic showing these component parts is shown as Figure 5.1 overleaf. They are described in more detail after the Figure presentation. In addition to these component parts or ‘building blocks’, which fall within the scope of the study, an additional route section - Part 3D – has been raised with us by stakeholders, but has been excluded from our detailed consideration. This section, if built, would take the Neath Canal beyond its original terminus at Briton Ferry to Brunel Dock, adjacent to the River Neath. The original canal was never built this far south but the proposal has been suggested in the past as a means to promote regeneration benefits to Brunel Dock and to provide access to the River Neath. Clearly its value is predicated upon the achievement of Parts 3A, 3B and 3C, above. Some of these ‘building blocks’ could be restored independently while others could only be realistically justified if certain other sections were also returned to navigation. The relationship between these route sections and their independent status with respect to each other is shown in Table 5.1.

31

Table 5.1 Neath and Tennant Canals: Matrix of Component Parts and Likely Interdependency

Route Section Description of work required Dependent on Part 1A Restoration of Neath Canal at Abergarwed,

addressing Commercial Rd crossing at Resolven, providing navigation from Bridge Street, Neath to Ysgwrfa

Could proceed independent of other route sections as links two existing navigable stretches


Likely to yield better outcomes if Part 1A completed


Parts 1A, 1B


Could proceed independent of other options


Part 2A


Parts 2A, 2B


Parts 2A, 2B, 2C


Could complement Canal Green redevelopment area. However unlikely to be justified without restoration of Part 1A


Part 3A


Parts 3A, 3B

The Part 1 headings focus on improvements to the Neath Canal heading north up the Vale of Neath towards Glynneath, the Part 2 sections focus on the Tennant Canal heading south and west towards Port Tennant and Swansea, while Part 3 components focus on extending the Neath Canal south through Neath and beyond towards Briton Ferry. Each of the component parts are described in greater detail below with estimates of the capital costs associated with their restoration being presented towards the end of this Section. Part 1A - Neath Canal from Bridge Street Neath to Ysgwrfa

This 15.3km section between Bridge Street and the B4242 at Ysgwrfa (including the previously restored section to the north of Resolven and north of Neath) contains 14 of the 20 locks originally on the two canals, as well as the Ynysbwllog Aqueduct (currently the subject of restoration works). To restore this section the key remaining obstacles to navigation between Neath and Ysgwrfa (the current limit of navigation) would need to be addressed. These are the infilled section at Abergarwed and the culvert carrying the canal under Commercial Road at Resolven.

33

This option would require restoration/reconstruction of three locks, Locks 5, 6 and 7 (respectively, Abergarwed Lower Lock, Abergarwed Higher Lock and Farmers Lock), the diversion of Stagg Brook, the excavation of approximately 1000m of canal channel, a road crossing at Abergarwed to allow access over the restored canal, and finally, the replacement of two 1.2m diameter concrete pipes carrying the canal under Commercial Road, Resolven, with a navigable bridge. Part 1B: Neath Canal, Ysgwrfa to Lamb and Flag, Glynneath

The Part 1B section of the Neath Canal runs from Ysgwrfa to the Lamb and Flag, Glynneath, close to St Cadoc’s chapel. This section, in water at present but in poor condition, takes the canal past the Aberpergwm mine (to which access would need to be provided by a new bridge) and would include the development of a modest terminus in Chapel Fields which would provide for boat turning as well as mooring facilities for visitor and trip boats. We understand that the bridge providing access to the Aberpergwm mine is the subject of an agreement between the Neath Canal Navigation and the mine, under which, should navigation on this section be restored, responsibility for reconstruction of the bridge providing access, would fall to the mining company. Alternatively access rights to the mine would be relinquished within three years. Restoration of this section would require a new navigable bridge under the B4242 at the point of the existing end of navigation at Ysgwrfa, together with the restoration of locks 15 (Ysgwrfa), 16 (Chain Road) and 17 (Lamb and Flag). Part 1C: Neath Canal, from Lamb and Flag, Glynneath, to original Terminus in the Centre of Glynneath

This section runs from the Lamb and Flag to the original terminus at the centre of Glynneath adjacent to the River Neath (which we are advised provided the water source at this the highest level of the canal). The route is currently entirely infilled. The missing link could be provided either via a wholly navigable canal or partly in the form of a culvert (to provide a water supply to the highest section of the canal) and could, if open rather than enclosed, confer waterside amenity benefits to any proposed adjacent development. Restoration of this part of the Neath Canal requires a further road crossing of the B4242 beyond the Lamb and Flag at Glynneath, together with the excavation of approximately 900 metres which has been infilled. To reinstate the canal to its original line (navigation rights have been retained) would require the removal of a now redundant road embankment, relocation of an existing community centre and restoration/reconstruction of Locks 18 (Mill Terrace Lock) and 19 (Maes Marchog lock). The original head of the canal, now infilled, is immediately adjacent to the A465 flyover and is currently in use as an area of hardstanding for coaches. Reinstatement would take the canal across a site east of the B4242 road at Morfa Glas, allocated under UDP policy H1/16 (Lamb & Flag) for housing, with an estimated capacity of 60 dwellings. The site comes with an obligation to retain the canal corridor, which is currently buried underneath the redundant road

34

embankment. The existence of the road embankment would present engineering challenges and significant costs for the project. Discussions with representatives of the owners of the Morfa Glas site suggest that while they are content to make provision for the canal in future development plans, they do not see it as adding a premium value to the site. Part 2A – Tennant Canal, Restore Aberdulais Aqueduct, upgrade Tennant Canal from Aberdulais to Neath

Restoring this section of the system would require the restoration of the listed ten arch Aberdulais Aqueduct which links the Neath and Tennant canals, and upgrade of the Tennant Canal from Aberdulais to Neath (including the only lock on the Tennant Canal). The Tennant Canal is navigable (at least for dredging, maintenance and weeding purposes) along this route section but would require upgrade (including of the towpath) to allow for increased public use, eg through trip and visitors’ boats. This option would also need to provide mooring facilities at the upgraded existing basin. Implementing the proposed works to this route section would allow boats to navigate north on the Tennant Canal starting from a point parallel to Bridge Street, Neath, across the Aberdulais Aqueduct and then to return to Neath on the Neath Canal, finishing just north of the Bridge Street bridge, Neath, or vice versa. The start/destination points are about 150m apart separated by the River Neath, conveniently traversed at this point by an existing footbridge. Work would also be needed to upgrade towpaths where necessary, providing access to pedestrian users. Part 2B –Tennant Canal, from Neath to Jersey Marine

This part of the Tennant Canal runs from Neath south and west to Jersey Marine. From discussions with representatives of the Tennant Canal, we understand that the canal is currently navigable along this route section to a standard sufficient to allow for dredging, maintenance and weedcutting. However upgrades are likely to be necessary to allow usage by trip and/or visitor boats and to make parts of the towpath more accessible. A full restoration of this route section is expected to provide improvements to both the canal and associated towpaths. Part 2C –Tennant Canal from Jersey Marine to Port Tennant

This component part of the Tennant Canal runs from the Crymlyn Bridge (Jersey Marine) to Port Tennant. Navigation has not been maintained on this route section for at least 10 years, and nor is a functioning towpath in place for much of the route. On this section, there is a junction with the Glan-y-Wern Canal, which is in a similar degraded condition, though its dredging has been discussed in the past by CCW to facilitate educational trip boats. Throughout most of this route section, the canal passes through the sensitive Crymlyn Bog, a designated RAMSAR site.

35

The restoration of this section, assuming it is accompanied by the restoration of Parts 2A and 2B, would provide unbroken navigation to a standard sufficient to accommodate trip and other boats, on a route section of some 13km, plus associated towpaths, on the Tennant Canal alone. Part 2D –Tennant Canal from Port Tennant to Prince of Wales Dock, Swansea

This route section of the Tennant Canal runs from Port Tennant to the Prince of Wales Dock, Swansea. Beyond Port Tennant, the Tennant Canal passes under several railway lines and then the dual carriageway A483 Fabian Way. The former route of the canal to Swansea is lost from sight at this point though we understand that the canal continues in an underground culvert and empties into the Prince of Wales Dock. The Swansea UDP has preserved an alternative route from Port Tennant to a new point of connection with the Prince of Wales Dock. Restoring this section would entail restoring the canal from Port Tennant, taking it under the railway lines and A483 dual carriageway. The canal would then proceed along the new (safeguarded) route between King’s Dock and the Prince of Wales Dock before entering the Prince of Wales Dock. Part 3A –Neath Canal, Bridge Street to Green Street, Neath

This is a short section of a few hundred metres that starts at the Bridge Street bridge, Neath, and finishes at The Green bridge, Neath. In order to restore this section, there would first be a need to address the low bridge at Bridge Street Neath, and in doing so, restore navigation beyond this point. It would also be necessary to improve the canal where necessary through the Canal Green area of Neath to The Green bridge crossing, at the southern end of the Canal Green regeneration area. While restoring this component part would only add a short distance of navigable route to the Neath/Tennant Canals, it would complement the proposed regeneration of the Canal Green area of Neath. This is a 16 hectare site to west of Neath town centre bounded by the railway line to the north and east, the River Neath to the west and the A474 to the south. The site includes a number of industrial premises, retail units, Neath railway station, Neath cattle market, some residential properties, a night club, rugby club and public house. The site is currently the subject of a feasibility study, at the time of writing only stage one has been completed. The Neath Canal runs north south through the middle of the Canal Green site and is seen as a key asset by the strategists preparing the options for the site’s redevelopment. Four options have been presented at this stage, one residential-led, one employment-led and two mixed schemes. All feature a restored canal as well as significant new public green space, and improvements to the existing canal bridges. At this stage, one of the mixed use options has been identified as the preferred option, this also features two new canal turning circles/winding holes.

36

The canal is seen as complementary to the site and the contribution a restored Neath canal could make to the redevelopment is reflected in the proposed name for the regeneration of the Milland Road area, namely Canal Green. Part 3B – Neath Canal from The Green Bridge, Neath, to Giant’s Grave

This route section covers the Neath Canal from The Green bridge, Neath, and runs south to Giant’s Grave. At the northerly (Neath) end of this section is the low bridge at The Green, which is at the southern end of the Canal Green site. In the event of restoration of this section, The Green bridge would need to be raised to facilitate navigation. Beyond the bridge, works would be required along the route of the Neath Canal to Giant’s Grave, a distance of some 3km. We understand from discussions with Neath Canal Navigation that this route section is already navigable, though some improvements including dredging works to the whole route would also be desirable. It would also be necessary to improve an existing electric lift bridge currently providing a road crossing. A winding hole/turning circle would be provided at Giant’s Grave, which would provide a destination point and turning place. A location for this would be close to the Ship Inn site on the eastern side of the existing canal before the existing two low bridges at Owen’s Pill Terrace. Part 3C, Neath Canal from Giant’s Grave to Briton Ferry

The final route section extends from Giant’s Grave to the original terminus of the Neath Canal at Briton Ferry. On the bend at Giant’s Grave, there are two low bridges, which give access to an operating wharf servicing the Neath River, operated by Briton Ferry (Shipping Services) Ltd. The canal (some mapping names it the Jersey Canal after this point) narrows to a single boat width and runs south adjacent to a large works building. A couple of hundred metres later the canal is crossed by numerous service and utility pipes and a low bridge (Church Street). Immediately beyond is a large pipe crossing the canal, the A48 flyover and a low bridge carrying an industrial access road. Ten or 20m beyond this is an original stone bridge which would have lead into the original canal basin. The site of the original basin is now a Lafarge plant, receiving and treating (we understand) sea dredged aggregates landed at the nearby river wharf. The plant, and indeed the vicinity described, is located immediately adjacent to a large electricity pylon and a very short distance from the M4 flyover. The restoration of navigation through this section which would require engineering works to at least four low bridges, redirection of utility facilities and reconstruction of the terminus on an existing employment site.

5.3 COSTS

The different parts described here which together make up the ‘building blocks’ which comprise the full project provide for a project on a varying scale depending on the scale of improvements they propose. The scale of

37

improvements naturally affects both capital costs and estimated maintenance costs. Estimated capital costs (2008 prices) for each component part are shown in Table 5.2 below.

Table 5.2 Estimated Capital Costs of Restoration by Route Section, £000s

Option Capital Cost of Works

Site Clearance & General Repairs

Project Overheads

Total Capital Costs

Do Minimum - - - - Part 1A, 10,505 209 3,056 13,770 Part 1B 8,194 126 1,837 10,157 Part 1C 7,568 120 1,746 9,434 Part 2A 2,000 31 459 2,490 Part 2B 215 3 49 267 Part 2C 939 27 391 1,357 Part 2D 4,554 72 1,057 5,683 Part 3A 1,800 28 414 2,242 Part 3B 970 14 209 1,193 Part 3C 2,370 58 850 3,278 Full restoration 39,115 688 10,068 49,871 Source: Hyder Consulting

These capital costs are best described as feasibility stage cost estimates. They have been prepared with care and professional judgement but because work has been largely desk-based, new evidence and/or a more detailed cost assessment may result in some cost revisions. Maintenance costs have also been estimated and these are set at £16,500 per annum per route kilometre.

5.4 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF SCHEME OPTIONS

5.4.1 Introduction

A Do Minimum option was appraised, to provide a benchmark or ‘reference case’ against which the other options could be judged. Secondly a Full Scheme option was appraised, to assess the economic viability of restoring all sections of the Neath and Tennant Canals together. Finally a range of other options was appraised, each of which offers a credible improvement on the current situation but falls short of the Full Scheme. A description of the options appraised is presented below.

5.4.2 Do Minimum

At present a significant restoration project is in progress on the Neath Canal. This is the reconstruction of the Ynysbwllog aqueduct which previously partly collapsed and is currently being replaced by a dramatic steel aqueduct spanning 34m across the River Neath. This work is being funded by Neath Port Talbot CBC, WAG and the European Union (Objective 1) and is expected to be

38

completed by summer 2008. The work is to proceed regardless and is therefore included as part of the Do Minimum reference case against which the other project options will be appraised. Also included in this option would be annual maintenance expenditure incurred by:

• Neath Canal Navigation Company; • Tennant Canal Company; and • Neath Port Talbot CBC

to retain the canals in their existing state, though the carrying out of a programme of weedcutting, structures maintenance, litter picking and removal of trees and other debris from the river, bank repair, and limited dredging as required. They draw upon volunteers as well as paid staff.

5.4.3 Full Scheme or Comprehensive Restoration

This is the ‘full project’ option reflecting the proposal as set out in the Terms of Reference. It examines the costs and benefits of pursuing the wholesale restoration of the Neath and Tennant Canals from a restored link with the River Neath in Glynneath, all the way to the Basin at Briton Ferry and, via a restored Aberdulais aqueduct, along the entire length of the Tennant Canal to the Prince of Wales Dock in Swansea. The Full Scheme option comprises the restoration of all of the parts listed in Section 5.2 above.

5.4.4 Partial Restoration

On one level, the route sections or ‘building blocks’ set out in Section 5.2 can be seen simply as sub-options that could be implemented as stepping stones on the way to full restoration of the Neath and Tennant Canals. All of them together comprise the full proposal - restoration of navigation from Glynneath in the north to Swansea and Briton Ferry in the south. Alternatively the ‘building blocks’ can be used to assemble ‘restoration packages’ each of which can be costed as an option and appraised. In preparing suitable options for appraisal, our assessment considered the existing navigable stretches of canal, and the abandoned sections north of Ysgwrfa, south of Giant’s Grave and west of Jersey Marine, to ensure that the options considered would be practicable and realistic. We also drew on the views expressed to us by various stakeholders. This preparation suggested that the minimum components required for the restoration to give realistic economic outputs would be either Part 1A and/or 2A; the Part 3 components could also be worthwhile if Parts 3A and 3B were pursued together. These are the logical ‘minimum’ options to proceed with because they allow the currently navigable lengths of canal (taking into account progress made during previous restorations) to be joined together, thereby helping to achieve early critical mass. The options appraised under this heading consider in turn the incremental costs and benefits of progressively implementing the staged restoration of the canal

39

network by means of pursuing a series of discrete and realistic projects, continuing on the practice of the restoration to date. The separate options appraised, and the separate parts or canal route sections that make up these options (each ‘option’ comprising a combination of a number of adjacent ‘parts’ of the canal network) are shown in Table 5.3 overleaf. Finally three Partial Scheme options were appraised, each being a ‘package’ or combination of the options in Table 5.3. The Partial Scheme options appraised are:

• Partial Scheme A (comprising Options 1B, 2C and 3B only); • Partial Scheme B (comprising Options 1A, 2C and 3B only); and • Partial Scheme C (comprising only Options 1A, 2B and 3B.

These Partial Schemes were developed to explore the impact of implementing sensible combinations of options which could also maximise potential benefits in the absence of the Full Scheme.

40

Table 5.3 Neath and Tennant Canals: Component Parts and Options Route Section

Description of work required

Neath Canal (North) from Bridge Street, Neath to Glynneath

Part 1A Restoration of Neath Canal at Abergarwed, addressing Commercial Rd crossing at Resolven, providing navigation from Bridge Street, Neath to Ysgwrfa

Option 1A



Tennant Canal, from Aberdulais Aqueduct to Prince of Wales Dock, Swansea


Option 2A




Neath Canal (South) from Bridge Street, Neath to Briton Ferry


Option 3A



Option 2D

Option 2B Option

2C

Option 3B

Option 3C

Option 1B Option

1C

Option


The assessment of options considered the canal system both as a whole and as a set of component parts and identified which route sections are currently navigable. In the cases where blockages, infilled sections or obstacles were apparent, the analysis identified what likely work would be required to return the canal sections full navigability. The work carried out informed an assessment of the interdependency of component parts and in so doing helped to establish which restorations were more logical in terms of maximising the existing navigable lengths. It also provided indicative capital and maintenance costs

41

likely to be associated with the return to full navigation of each part of the canal system. The analysis by component section allows a better understanding to be gained of the economic rationale of the system and its parts, thus strengthening the process of option development prior to the formal appraisal process beginning. This robust platform benefits the formal appraisal because it ensures detailed, specific and relevant outputs which can more effectively inform decision making.

42

6 ECONOMIC APPRAISAL

6.1 INTRODUCTION

The appraisal comprises a quantitative assessment and a qualitative assessment. The quantitative assessment addresses capital costs, maintenance costs, tourism and leisure spending, together with certain wider economic impacts including land drainage, recreational use values, non-use values and health impacts. Assumptions underlying the quantitative appraisal are presented below and findings are shown in the following section. The qualitative assessment considers intangible benefits associated with the options that are not easily valued in monetary terms. These include the project’s impact on regeneration, social and community issues and many environmental and ecological issues. A discussion of qualitative impacts appears in Section 6.2.5.

6.2 APPRAISAL METHODOLOGY

6.2.1 Capital Costs

The economic capital costs of the options are assumed to be the same as financial costs and are presented at 2008 prices. Capital costs have been estimated by Hyder Consulting, and as well as professional judgement and experience, these have been informed by the 2007 Neath Canal Condition Survey and discussions with the Neath Canal Navigation Company and representatives of the Tennant Canal.

6.2.2 Maintenance Costs

Maintenance costs are included for all options at 2008 prices. These have been estimated by Hyder Consulting, based on information provided by Neath Port Talbot CBC and discussions with the Neath Canal Navigation Company. Long term maintenance costs are estimated at £16,500 per km for all options.

6.2.3 Impact Area

The impact area considered in the appraisal is shown in Figure 3.2, ie the appraisal has been carried out focusing at a geographical area level based on wards along the canal corridor within Neath Port Talbot and Swansea rather than at the regional or sub-regional level.

6.2.4 Tourism and Leisure Use Assumptions

The model used to estimate the economic impacts of the various options is based on British Waterways (BW) Economic Impact Model (2007), with adaptations. Each of the ‘with project’ options is expected to have a financial and economic effect through attracting additional visitors to the area, relative to the do

43

minimum option. These visitors will bring in more money to the local economy that will be spent on accommodation, food and drink, shopping, transport, recreation and so on. The categories of visitors attracted will include boaters, cyclists, day trippers (local and inbound) and holiday makers, each of which will have different spending patterns. A full list of the different types of visitors expected is shown in Table 6.1, together with their associated average spending level and the source of the average spend figure used for each visitor type.

Table 6.1 Assumptions of Visitor Spending Employed

Category of visitor Daily spend (£) Source Non cruising boaters 14.03 Inland Waterways Day Visit Survey, 2005 Cruising trips on private boats 14.03 Inland Waterways Day Visit Survey, 2005

Cruising trips on hire boats 21.35 BW Hire Boat Survey, 1990

Anglers 7.41 BW Survey of Individual Anglers, 1996, includes current cost of Tennant Canal permit of £5

Cyclists 3.28 Inland Waterways Day Visit Survey 2005 Local day trippers (used for informal towpath walkers)

5.14 BW Informal Visitor Survey 2000

Inbound day trippers 9.80 UK Day Visits Survey, 2002/03, 'visits to countryside, Wales', category

Visitor spend/day (holiday visitors) 67.45 Star UK - UK expenditure on holidays in Wales, per

night, 2004 Notes: All figures updated to 2008 prices Source: Various as listed above Additional spending is a function of both the average spending figures shown in the table and the estimates of additional visitors attracted. Estimates of the numbers of additional visitors to be attracted by the project depend on the option being modelled. However in each case figures have been estimated using a ‘bottom up’ approach based on the proposed degree of restoration and the likely ‘draw’ in tourism terms that this might provide. Resulting estimates of additional tourism numbers have then been reviewed against existing tourism levels in Neath Port Talbot and available bed spaces, to ensure that forecasts are reasonable. The experience of the neighbouring Afan Valley which has recently been the subject of improvement and investment has been used as a benchmark for cross checks.

6.2.5 Wider Benefits

There is a range of evidence highlighting the importance of canal and waterways investment in providing social, economic and environmental benefits (see Section 2.4). Many of these are quantifiable in a standard sense (jobs, expenditure etc) while for certain wider benefits different techniques can be employed. In assessing the project options, we have adopted the wider benefits framework developed for British Waterways as part of their study into the economic costs

44

and benefits of the canal network in Wales (Waterways in Wales: Economic Costs and Benefits of the Welsh Canal Network, British Waterways, July 2007). Table 6.2 summarises the categories of wider benefits, the specific benefits and the values attributed to these benefits from the British Waterways study. These benefit parameter values have been adopted for estimating the wider benefits of the options, adjusted as required to accord with the local context. Where a monetary value has been estimated this is combined with the economic impact values to generate an overall benefit cost ratio (BCR) and economic rate of return (ERR).

Table 6.2 Wider Benefits and Benefit Transfer Values

Wider benefits Nature of benefit & measurement issues Quantified value Environmental impacts Land drainage

Canals aid land drainage & mitigate flood risk. Estimate of value based replacement cost (RC) method.

£13,800 per km

Carbon sequestration

Trees & plantation within canal corridors help mitigate climate change. However, given limited volume the monetary values are likely to be limited.

Negligible

Landscape

Canal improvements provide enhanced amenity value for visitors and local people. This value is captured within the use non -use estimates.

See below

Biodiversity

Canals provide positive biodiversity benefits, although increased usage needs to be managed. This value is captured within the use and non- use estimates -designated sites should be identified.

List sites

Heritage Canals form an important part of the heritage of the country and provide an educational resource. This value is captured within use and non use estimates. Relevant sites should be listed

List sites

Social Impacts

Recreational use values

Canals provide a range of user benefits (walking, & water based recreation) that can be captured by non-market valuation techniques. Contingent Valuation and Travel Cost Studies (Garrod & Willis 1991, GHK 2005) on canal use have identified value ranges that can be applied to the number of canal users.

£0.70 to £1 per towpath user & £2 to £5 for water based leisure user per annum.

45

Wider benefits Nature of benefit & measurement issues Quantified value Non use- values

Research shows that people value the amenity qualities of waterways including visual amenity, biodiversity and heritage. Contingent valuation has been used to capture this value and a study by Adamowicz (1995) estimated a Willingness to Pay (WTP) of £10 per household per annum (updated for inflation) to preserve the canal system. ECOTEC estimated that for non-use values this equated to £2.5m to £5m per annum for the 175km Welsh network (BW 2007).

£14k to £28k per km per annum.

Health

Canal towpath monitoring reports for Welshpool and Preston identify that 47 to 77 % of respondents agreed that the presence of the canal helped them increase their regular exercise activity. Using Cabinet Office research on the benefits of increased exercise to the economy, BW (2007) estimate that the cost saving to the Welsh Economy is up to £3.2m per annum.

Up to £18,286 per km.

Community

Restoration of canal systems provides the opportunity for community involvement through volunteer activity. The extent of volunteering in Wales has been estimated at 370 days per annum with an annual value, using HLF volunteer rate of £50 per day, of £18,600.

£50 per day per volunteer

Education & training

The canal environment provides opportunities for both formal and informal learning.

Document planned activity.

Wider Economic Impacts

Property values

Property market analysis has shown that canal/waterways provide uplifts in housing values for housing and commercial property in the vicinity. This premium is greater for new properties compared to existing. Premiums of up to 18% recorded for new properties (LSH 2003) with 3 to 5% for existing properties (Garrod & Wills 1993). Across Wales applying this uplift to residential property produces a value of £44m to £74m (BW 2007). The evidence from local property agents is that waterfront premiums are likely to be at the lower end of the edge of that achieved elsewhere.

9% adopted for new property assessed as benefiting from canal investment and 3% for existing property within 200 meters of the improved canal corridor.

Regeneration

Canals act as a catalyst for development through raising the value of land and property in the vicinity. Research undertaken by Rural Solutions for BW has identified a low level of corridor development activity across the Welsh network, but also a potential role in opening up waterfronts for visitor attractions and supporting economic activity.

Document value of indirect economic activity influenced by new investment

Source: British Waterways June 2007

46

Where a monetary value cannot be estimated such benefits are examined by way of their quantitative output and/or qualitative descriptions and assessed as part of a relative scoring process (see Section 7).

6.2.6 Assessment of Net Effects

Deducting deadweight, leakage and displacement from the gross impact allows an estimate of the net additional impact of the project on the economy to be made. Deadweight is modelled in the analysis as the Do Minimum option, which shows what would took place were it not for the project’s intervention. The analysis approach is to compare with-project options against the Do Minimum to assess performance relative to the reference case. Leakage is the proportion of project outputs that benefit those outside of the project’s target area. Displacement is the extent to which the extra economic activity in one area leads to a reduction in activity, output and employment in another. The assumptions made in reaching an estimate of the project’s net output are shown in Table 6.3.

Table 6.3 Gross to Net Assumptions

Item Displacement Notes

Boating activity Zero All cruising and non-cruising visits to moored boats are assumed additional

Cruising trips on hire boats Zero All expenditure on hire boats assumed additional

Anglers Zero All angling activity assumed additional Local and inbound cyclists 80% Based on towpath responses from BW surveys

Cyclists on holiday visits 85% Based on towpath responses from BW surveys

Local day trippers (used for informal towpath walkers)

90% More conservative than standard BW Informal Visitor Survey (80%) due to large local use around Neath for travel to work, shopping trips etc

Inbound day trippers 80% Based on towpath responses from BW surveys Informal visitors on holiday visits 80% Reflecting market of canal enthusiasts

Source: Bridge Economics estimate The economic impact of a project (jobs, expenditure or income) is multiplied by knock-on effects in the local economy. These effects are associated with supplier purchases and additional local income. The purchases driven by the project help result in further purchases associated with linked businesses along the supply chain (causing the supply multiplier effect) while the income effect is associated with changes in local expenditure as a result of those who derive incomes from the direct and supply linkage impacts of the project. These two multipliers combine to produce a ‘composite multiplier’ which in accordance with the British Waterways economic demand model has been retained at 1.3 for the purpose of this analysis.

47

7 SCHEME OPTION COSTS AND BENEFITS

7.1 INTRODUCTION

This section presents the findings of the economic appraisal reflecting on the likely output from the implementation of a full restoration scheme and the key stages. It includes: • results of the quantified economic appraisal (the Cost-Benefit Analysis); • results of the non-quantifiable assessment; and • the implications of the analysis for the delivery of the scheme and the

public expenditure implications. More detailed information supporting the quantitative economic appraisal in the form of the spreadsheet models are appended at Annex C and Annex D.

7.2 RESULTS OF THE QUANTIFIED ECONOMIC APPRAISAL

The approach to the quantifiable analysis examines the measurable costs and benefits (known as Cost-Benefit Analysis or CBA) of the investment over 25 years. For this scheme both costs and benefits are discounted at the UK HM Treasury Social Discount Rate of 3.5%. The discount rate is designed to reflect the value society attaches to present, as opposed to future, consumption. The estimated discounted costs and benefits of the project are then compared to produce the Benefit Cost Ratio, which is the benefit of a project or proposal, expressed in monetary terms, relative to its cost, also expressed in monetary terms. The Benefit Cost Ratio is derived by dividing the discounted project benefits by the discounted project costs. A project is generally deemed worthy of public sector support if it returns a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) greater than one; in these cases the project will have a positive Economic Net Present Value (ENPV). To carry out the quantified economic appraisal, the options as set out in Section 5 were examined. To recap, these were:

• Do Minimum;

• Full Scheme;

• Option 1A, which is Part 1A, as described in Section 5, namely the Neath Canal from Bridge Street to Ysgwrfa;

• Option 1B, which is Part 1A and Part 1B, namely the Neath Canal from

Bridge Street to Aberpergwm;

• Option 1C, which is Parts 1A, 1B and 1C, namely the Neath Canal from Bridge Street to Glynneath;

48

• Option 2A, which is Part 2A, namely the restoration of the aqueduct at Aberdulais and of the Tennant Canal to Neath;

• Option 2B, which is Parts 2A and 2B, namely the Tennant Canal from

Aberdulais to Jersey Marine;

• Option 2C, which is Parts 2A, 2B and 2C, namely the Tennant Canal from Aberdulais to Port Tennant;

• Option 2D, which is Parts 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D ie. the whole of the Tennant

Canal;

• Option 3A which is Part 3A, as described in Section 5, namely the restoration of the Neath Canal south from Bridge Street to Green Street;

• Option 3B which is Part 3A and Part 3B, namely the Neath Canal from

Bridge Street to Giant’s Grave;

• Option 3C, which is Part 3A, 3B and 3C, namely the Neath Canal between Bridge Street and Briton Ferry.

• Partial Scheme A (comprising Options 1B, 2C and 3B together);

• Partial Scheme B (comprising Options 1A, 2C and 3B together); and

• Partial Scheme C (comprising Options 1A, 2B and 3B together).

The quantitative appraisal takes into account the capital and maintenance costs of each option, the associated tourism spend brought in by each option, the options’ measurable environmental impacts, and social impacts such as recreational use values, non-use values and health impacts. A more detailed discussion of these aspects is given in Section 6.2. Table 7.1 summarises the results of the cost benefit analysis setting out the economic NPV and the BCR of restoration of all of, and parts of, the Neath and Tennant Canals. The Table shows the cumulative cost-benefit of each part of the restoration of the canal route network.

49

Table 7.1 Overall Comparison of Economic Costs and Benefits (£)

Scheme Options Economic Net Present

Value of scheme options (ENPV)


Neath to Glynneath Option 1A from Bridge St Neath to Ysgwrfa £3.1m 1.2 Option 1B from Bridge St Neath to Aberpergwm -£3.2m 0.9 Option 1C from Bridge St Neath to Glynneath -£9.9m 0.7 Aberdulais to Prince of Wales Dock Option 2A, from Aberdulais to Neath £2.1m

1.4

Option 2B from Aberdulais to Jersey Marine £4.0m 1.6 Option 2C from Aberdulais to Port Tennant £2.8m 1.3 Option 2D from Aberdulais to Prince of Wales Dock £5.6m 1.4 Neath to Giant’s Grave Option 3A From Bridge St inclusive to The Green bridge -£1.9m 0.1 Option 3B From Bridge St to Giant’s Grave -£0.1m 0.98 Option 3C From Bridge St to Briton Ferry -£2.6m 0.6 Combined scheme options Full Scheme (ie all of the above) -£4.7m 0.9 Partial Scheme A (including 1B, 2C & 3B only) £1.6m 1.1 Partial Scheme B (including 1A, 2C 3B only) £8.0m 1.3 Partial Scheme C (including 1A, 2B& 3B only) £9.3m 1.4 Note: The EPNV & BCR figures show the cumulative impacts for the three partial sections Source: Bridge Economics Overall, for the Full Scheme the measurable economic benefits are short of returning a positive EPNV, instead producing a negative ENPV of -£4.7m. This is associated with a BCR less than 1, in this case 0.9. This result would suggest that in its current format, implementation of the full scheme is not viable in economic terms unless value engineering can reduce the costs, or a weighting towards qualitative wider and strategic benefits can increase project benefits. The Table also shows the cumulative ENPV and BCR for each stage of the restoration. The cost benefit appraisal highlights a number of issues about the economic value generated along the canal corridor:

• in restoring the Neath Canal line from Bridge St Neath to Glynneath the quantifiable economic benefits are strongest for the section from Bridge St to Ysgwrfa (Option 1A), where the ENPV is a positive £3.1m and the BCR is 1.2. As the following two stages are added into the analysis (reflected in Options 1B and 1C) the overall economic value is reduced by adding significant incremental capital costs with relatively few compensating quantifiable benefits;

• investment in the Tennant Canal route from Aberdulais to the Prince of

Wales Dock, Swansea (reflected in Options 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D) shows an overall positive EPNV in each case, with a reduction in incremental benefits on the last two stages of the restoration as the relatively low marginal benefits are eclipsed by rising capital costs; and

50

51

• the investment in and around Neath and on to Briton Ferry overall returns a slightly negative quantifiable monetary benefit, impacted by the poorer measurable economic contribution of the first stage (Option 3A) and the last stage (reflected in Option 3C).

Within the overall scheme there are segments of the route that display higher economic measurable benefits than the Full Scheme, and these segments are illustrated by the Partial Schemes A, B and C, which return a positive ENPV with a BCR of 1.1, 1.3 and 1.4 respectively. This illustrates that there are partial schemes that can make a positive economic contribution to the local economy and can offer better value than the Full Scheme. The poorer performance of the Full Scheme economic assessment, as compared to the Partial Schemes, is due to the nature of the costs and quantifiable benefits in particular for the following segments:

• as the route progresses towards Glynneath from Ysgwrfa where significant costs are incurred to tackle physical barriers;

• within Neath at The Green and Bridge St to replace low bridges; and

• from Port Tennant to the Prince of Wales Dock, Swansea where the

potential non-water based benefits tail off due to the nature of the route. The quantifiable analysis has incorporated monetary values of key benefits that may arise from the proposed restoration of the Neath and Tennant Canals. This includes water based leisure and tourism, general tourism as well as those wider benefits where monetary values can be estimated. However, the analysis does not capture all potential benefits from investment along the corridor and it is important to incorporate these into the overall economic assessment of the restoration options.

7.2.1 Employment Impacts

Project implementation will be associated with direct and indirect employment impacts. These have been estimated and are shown (net of those expected under the Do Nothing scenario) in Table 7.2. In all cases, employment is generated through the additional tourism spend associated with the project. In accordance with the standard approach used in the British Waterways economic impact model, a multiplier of 1.3 is assumed. A multiplier of this size would typically be associated with a geographical area smaller than regional level but larger than that of a standard project working at ‘district’ level. This is commensurate with a linear project of this nature having an impact at a ‘corridor’ level.

Table 7.2 Estimated Net Employment Impacts, FTE Equivalent

Scheme Options Direct employment

Indirect employment Total

Neath to Glynneath Option 1A 16 5 21 Option 1B 18 6 24 Option 1C 19 6 25 Aberdulais to Prince of Wales Dock Option 2A 6 2 8 Option 2B 8 3 11 Option 2C 8 3 11 Option 2D 12 4 16 Neath to Giant’s Grave Option 3A 0 0 0 Option 3B 3 1 4 Option 3C 3 1 4 Combined scheme options Full Scheme (ie all of the above) 34 11 45 Partial Scheme A (1B, 2C & 3B only) 29 10 39 Partial Scheme B (1A, 2C& 3B only) 27 9 36 Source: Bridge Economics

The total level of net additional employment which is expected to be generated by implementing the project (36 – 45 jobs) compares with an estimated total level of tourism related employment (direct plus indirect) in Neath Port Talbot CBC of some 1400 in 2006 (see Table 4.2). Other employment would be generated through the impacts of capital spending on the project (not quantified, however an indicative figure of one job per £70,000 capital spend would provide an estimate of gross employment created).

7.3 NON QUANTIFIABLE BENEFITS

7.3.1 Introduction

In Section 6 the approach to estimating the wider benefits of the options was outlined. It was noted that not all of the potential benefits that arise from the restoration of the canal can be quantified or a monetary value estimated. Where there are important non-quantifiable benefits it is necessary to recognise them. Three categories of such impacts have been identified in connection with the proposed project which are:

• regeneration impacts; • social impacts; and • environmental impacts.

These issues are addressed in turn below.

52

7.3.2 Regeneration Impacts

It is generally recognised that canals can act as a catalyst for development. Although in the context of the Welsh canal network there has been limited development in the canal corridors, this is expected to change with plans for further restoration projects which will provide greater potential to open up locations adjacent to canals and to influence surrounding development. The Neath and Tennant Canals pass through a mixture of rural and urban areas providing an important asset to build upon to underpin the expansion of the tourism and leisure economy. Whilst much of this corridor is limited in terms of the canal-side development that can take place (as much of the canal corridor is outside the defined settlement boundaries), the canals nonetheless can influence development activity in certain key locations. Where there is an identifiable direct relationship this has been taken into account in the quantifiable analysis. However, there are a number of locations where although the relationship is positive it is harder to quantify. The development assessment undertaken as part of this appraisal has identified a number of potential opportunities where the canal investment could influence the pace and quality of development. The primary locations are:

• Canal Green Development, Neath: this redevelopment area, centred around the Milland Road area, provides an opportunity to extend the town centre and to integrate this with the canal to enhance the overall quality of the town centre. The current preferred option for the development has identified the canal as a key element shaping and underpinning the success of the development. Any investment in the restoration of the Neath Canal through Neath in advance of the Canal Green proposals being taken forward would contribute to regeneration objectives in Neath and support the Canal Green development. Moreover, public sector support to the canal project would potentially lever private sector funding and augment the quality of the canal side infrastructure (eg lift bridges and other works).

• Glynneath Town Centre: extending the canal to the edge of the town centre

combined with a basin would provide a new focus for the town and contribute to its emerging role as a gateway to the Beacon Beacons National Park. However, in our view this would need to be part of a wider town regeneration strategy given the associated capital costs and delivery issues;

• Rheola Estate: the current owners of the Rheola Estate own three separate

areas of land that would be influenced by the restoration of canal navigation. These are the Rheola estate itself and two sites in Abergarwed. One of the Abergarwed sites is proposed for a basin, shop and the location of 11 holiday homes, subject to the restoration of the canal (under Options 1A, 1B and 1C). As this produces quantifiable outputs and levers in private sector funding, this development is included as part of the quantified economic appraisal. However the second

53

Abergarwed site is proposed for the development of a pub and residential housing, for which we understand the restoration of the canal under Option 1A will be a catalyst. This development is therefore likely to be directly influenced by investment in the canal;

• Prince of Wales Dock: the current development taking place at SA1 with

the support of WAG is progressing without reference to the canal, indicating a weaker relationship between development activity and canal restoration at this location. This, coupled with declining quantified outputs for restoration of this section relative to other parts of the Tennant Canal (Options 2A and 2B) suggest that restoration efforts should be concentrated elsewhere to realise benefits on other sections first. Should financial or other opportunities change for the better, restoration of the Tennant Canal at this location could be explored and perhaps implemented, at which point integration with future development activity will be important in maximising benefits and securing network expansion. For now the canal route is being safeguarded and this requirement should be retained.

Overall from a regeneration perspective, investment in the canal network at Neath (under Options 3A and 3B) would provide maximum influence and potential leverage for wider development at Canal Green. The leverage of canal investment at the Prince of Wales Dock (Option 2D) and Glynneath (Option 3C) is in our view more limited. However, the continued protection of a canal route within local development plans along the full length of the corridors is important to ensure that in future the canal could support wider regeneration.

7.3.3 Social Impacts

The economic assessment has incorporated a number of the potential social benefits that arise from investment in canal infrastructure. However, not all the benefits are quantifiable and this applies to community and educational benefits. Community benefits are likely to be applicable to all options and stages – an example can be seen in the extension to Giant’s Grave which would provide a ‘linear park’ recreation space for local residents, and it is this part of the canal is closest to the existing concentrations of population. Positive educational impacts are likely to be added to these community impacts for certain options. In respect of education benefits for example, we understand that interest has been expressed by CCW in the idea of operating educational boat trips. The purpose of these would be to enable school children (amongst others) to benefit from boat trips through the Crymlyn Bog which has environmental designations including that of a RAMSAR site. Other proposals have been the subject of discussions with the Tennant Canal representatives relating to similar heritage themed trips exploring the industrial heritage of Neath including the old copper works and Neath Abbey.

54

55

It will be important to develop a supporting strategy to maximise the community and educational benefits alongside a delivery plan for the restoration of the canals.

7.3.4 Environmental

The Neath Canal Condition Survey 2006 identifies a schedule of 17 listed structures (bridges, locks, workshops and sluices) along the Neath Canal sections running to Glynneath. Of the total eight listed structures are on the Glynneath section (Option 1C), five at Tonna, three at Resolven and one at Clyne. The Aberdulais Aqueduct also holds significant heritage value. Though these ‘heritage’ elements have not been formally quantified their intrinsic value is significant and any restoration activity where required is likely to have qualitative impacts. The ecology of the canals has also been reviewed and significant plants and habitats have been identified on the Neath to Glynneath Canal (Options 1A, 1B and 1C). The project proposals for the Neath Canal have been assessed and mitigation measures have been recommended to protect plants and the habitat. Moreover the Crymlyn Bog has special environmental designations and the Tennant Canal passes through the southern portion of the bog. For the RAMSAR site at Crymlyn Bog sensitivity is such that there is expected to be restrictions on the public use of towpaths and boating. There may also be issues regarding the potential ingress of salt water via the (locked) Prince of Wales dock which, if it occurred, would have detrimental effects on the bog’s ecology. This has been the subject of a previous study, a copy of which we were not able to obtain to inform our own assessment. Though it has been stated to us that such ingress of salt water is unlikely to take place, the matter would require further investigation to confirm this point of view as part of any preparation to implement Option 2D. The land drainage benefit of the investment proposals have been monetised, reflecting the fact that canals are part of the local area’s hydrology and provide opportunities for the management of run-off and drainage. However if not maintained there can also be adverse impacts that may lead to costs being incurred. Current proposals and discussions regarding the restoration of the Aberdulais Aqueduct illustrate this. Finally the Canal Green area has experienced flooding in the past and we understand is subject to some flood risk through water joining the Neath Canal upstream and flowing down the canal to give a few inches inundation at Canal Green. This is a negative ‘side effect’ of a canal in close proximity to a town centre site though in economic terms since the risk also applies under the Do Minimum scenario, the choice of option implemented (Do Minimum or with project) is not expected to make a qualitative difference to risk.

7.3.5 Qualitative Impact Assessment

The non-quantified impacts identified above are set out in Table 7.3 in a simple matrix form. The impacts are scored according to the following codes:

• - - - implies a strongly negative impact; • - - implies a negative impact; • - a weak negative impact; • +/- neutral; • + weakly positive; • ++ positive; and • +++ strongly positive.

As a simple means of comparison an average score for each option has been assessed. Because of the difficulty in robustly weighting (for example) environment relative to safety, non-monetary impacts have not been weighted, as is appropriate for this sort of appraisal.

Table 7.3 Qualitative Impacts (Cumulative Impacts for each Canal Segment) Option Regeneration Social Environmental Neath to Glynneath Option 1A

+++

+++

+ Option 1B + ++ ++ Option 1C ++ +++ +++ Neath to Prince of Wales Dock

Option 2A +++ +++ +++ Option 2B ++ +++ ++ Option 2C + + + Option 2D + + + Neath to Giant’s Grave Option 3A +++ + +++ Option 3B ++ + +++ Option 3C + ++ ++ Source: Bridge Economics

7.4 PUBLIC EXPENDITURE IMPLICATIONS

The project objective is to restore the Neath and Tennant Canals from Neath to Glynneath, from Aberdulais to the Prince of Wales Dock and from Neath down to Briton Ferry. The estimate of the total cost of the delivery of the project is £49.871m. Lower cost partial schemes, which also offer better economic returns, are available and these are shown in Table 7.4.

56

Table 7.4 Capital Costs and Economic Costs and Benefits

Scheme Options

Estimated capital cost

£m, 2008 prices

Economic Net Present Value

of scheme options, £m

Benefit Cost Ratio of scheme options

Full Scheme (ie all of the above) 49.87 -4.7 0.9 Partial Scheme A (including 1B, 2C & 3B only) 31.48 1.6 1.1 Partial Scheme B (including 1A, 2C 3B only) 21.32 8.0 1.3 Partial Scheme C (including 1A, 2B& 3B only) 19.96 9.3 1.4 Source: Hyder Consulting/Bridge Economics The economic appraisal result for the Full Scheme at this time is marginal, just failing to meet the benchmarks for public sector investment. This is due to the relationship between the canal and tourism, leisure and the limited development activity promoted along the corridor. To increase the benefits that can be realised there is a need to fully integrate the canal with development activity and town centre regeneration. Looking at the returns on investment for component projects, there is a more positive outcome, particularly for a partial scheme focused on addressing the missing links at Abergarwed, Resolven, at Neath Town Centre and for the early segments of the Tennant Canal. Certain of these component projects offer the prospect of leveraging private sector investment directly into the canal renovation – for example, it has been signalled that developers at Canal Green will have an interest in seeing the canal bridges and the canal environs in the regeneration area being improved. Such private investment, if achieved, would not only improve the rate of return on the public sector investment but would also release public sector resources for investment elsewhere. Similarly the necessity may arise for developer contributions to meet open space needs within the wider local area from the development of Coed D’Arcy, in particular given that the necessary southern access improvement requires a new bridge across the Tennant Canal to the west of Jersey Marine. The Tennant Canal corridor will be within easy recreational access of Coed D’Arcy and if appropriately renovated may reduce the need for on-site open space provision. Given that the reinstatement works of the canals will take a number of years, it would be prudent to phase the works to maximise the opportunity to attract private sector investment – both from Canal Green and from Coed D’Arcy. Such contributions may release public sector resources to be applied to other parts of the canal network that, given the private sector investment that could be secured, may be sufficient to bring the economic return on the comprehensive scheme within target ranges.


This section has set out the quantifiable and non-quantifiable impacts of the restoration of the Neath and Tennant Canals. The analysis shows that there are issues to be addressed in order to maximise the benefits of a full restoration of the

57

Canals. However, it is clear that a partial scheme approach to restoration can be identified as part of a longer term implementation plan of the full restoration scheme. The above analysis can help define the most appropriate delivery plan for the restoration of Canals, along with consideration of the planning policy, engineering and funding availability. In the next section we consider the sensitivities of our findings along with the scheme deliverability issues and comment further on the robustness of this conclusion.

58

8 RISK AND SENSITIVITY TESTING

8.1 INTRODUCTION

This section presents the results of sensitivity tests carried out on capital costs and other key variables likely to affect project viability and the order of the options. Before examining the sensitivity of the economic benefit analysis we summarise the delivery issues for the restoration of the Canals.

8.2 DELIVERY RISKS

In conducting our review of the canal restoration options a number of delivery issues have been identified. The main delivery issues, the canal segments affected and the significance on the delivery of the overall scheme are as follows:

• Option 1C, Neath Canal route into Glynneath: reinstatement would take the canal across a site east of the B4242 road at Morfa Glas. The line of the canal is buried under a redundant road embankment, the flattening of which would present engineering challenges and significant costs for the project. Delivery of this segment therefore faces several challenges, namely:

(i) relative cost and complexity of the additional earthworks

needed to address the existing embankment and excavate the infilled section of canal;

(ii) cost of rebuilding the two lost locks; (iii) unattractiveness of the Glynneath basin, located immediately

adjacent (and below) the present A465 flyover, would make it an inappropriate destination location; and

(iv) discussions with representatives of the owners of the Morfa Glas site suggest that while they are content to make provision for the canal in future development plans, they do not see it as adding a premium value to the site.

• Options 2B and 2C: Neath to Jersey Marine, Jersey Marine to Port Tennant, the

Tennant Canal in these two options passes through the Pant-y-Sais Fen and Crymlyn Bog respectively, both of which are the subject of nature conservation designations. Although this is not a ‘show-stopper’ (indeed opening the canal into the Crymlyn Bog has been backed by CCW) special care would nonetheless need to be taken to mitigate risks to habitat.

• Option 2D, Port Tennant to the Prince of Wales Dock: restoring this section

would entail restoring the canal from Port Tennant, taking it under multiple railway lines and the A483 dual carriageway. The canal would then proceed along the new (safeguarded) route between King’s Dock and the Prince of Wales Dock before entering the Prince of Wales Dock There are significant engineering risks involved in this and despite the

59

additional contingency set aside for this option some further engineering study will be necessary in order that these risks can be more effectively mitigated.

This suggests that implementation of a Full Scheme would need to be part of a longer term restoration plan which sought to tackle some of the above delivery issues. In the short to medium term implementation of a partial scheme could proceed, seeking to build on historic and current investment, maintaining the momentum of restoration works and establishing a critical mass of navigable canal.

8.3 SENSITIVITY TESTING

Sensitivity testing alters an assumption, recalculates the present value of each option, and considers the impact on both the total net benefits, and on the balance of advantages between the options. The variables subject to sensitivity analysis are:

• 10% increase and reduction in capital works costs (by c£6m in nominal values);

• 10% increase and decrease in visitor related expenditure; • private sector contribution of £2m towards bridge related works

undertaken as part of Options 3A and 3B thus reducing the public sector cost.

Sensitivity testing was carried out excluding any optimism bias, which has not been included in this analysis. Results of the sensitivity tests for each of the two variables examined are presented below.

8.3.1 Sensitivity Test Results

The results of the sensitivity analysis are presented for the Full Scheme and the Partial Schemes A, B and C.

60

Table 8.1 Sensitivity Analysis & Impact on Cost Benefit Analysis Results (£)

Scheme options Economic Net Present

Value of scheme options (ENPV)


Combined scheme options (Base results) Full Scheme -£4.7m 0.9 Partial Scheme A (including 1B,2C & 3B only) £1.6m 1.1 Partial Scheme B (including 1A,2C& 3B only) £8.0m 1.3 Partial Scheme C (including 1A,2B & 3B only) £9.3m 1.4 Combined scheme options (10% increase in costs) Full Scheme (ie all of the above) -£10.3m 0.8 Partial Scheme A (including 1B,2C & 3B only) -£2.5m 0.9 Partial Scheme B (including 1A,2C& 3B only) £4.9m 1.2 Partial Scheme C (including 1A,2B & 3B only) £6.3m 1.3 Combined scheme options (10% decrease in costs) Full Scheme £0.4m 1.0 Partial Scheme A (including 1B,2C & 3B only) £5.3m 1.2 Partial Scheme B (including 1A,2C& 3B only) £10.7m 1.5 Partial Scheme C (including 1A,2B & 3B only) £12.0 1.6 Combined scheme options (10% decrease in visitor revenue) Full Scheme -£7.5m 0.8 Partial Scheme A (including 1B,2C & 3B only) -£1.0m 0.97 Partial Scheme B (including 1A,2C& 3B only) £5.6m 1.2 Partial Scheme C (including 1A,2B & 3B only) £6.9m 1.3 Combined scheme options (10% increase in visitor revenue) Full Scheme -£1.7m 0.95 Partial Scheme A (including 1B,2C & 3B only) £4.2m 1.1 Partial Scheme B (including 1A,2C& 3B only) £10.4m 1.4 Partial Scheme C (including 1A,2B & 3B only) £11.7 1.5 Combined scheme options (Private sector contribution of £2m to Option 3A/3B) Full Scheme -£2.9m 0.94 Partial Scheme A (including 1B, 2C & 3B only) £3.3m 1.2 Partial Scheme B (including 1A, 2C and 3B only) £9.8m 1.4 Partial Scheme C (including 1A, 2B & 3B only) £11.0m 1.6 Source: Bridge Economics

The Table shows that the options are fairly robust to changes in cost-benefit parameters of a 10% magnitude, with the BCR of the partial options being maintained at or above 1. A secured private sector contribution of c£2m would have a positive impact on a Partial Scheme A, B and C increasing the BCR. Based on the estimated costs and the measurable benefits the switching value for the whole scheme (ie the percentage by which capital works costs would need to fall to result in a BCR of 1) is 10% or £5.5m by nominal value.

61


This section has highlighted that there are a number of delivery risks which undermine the delivery of a full scheme. This tends to reinforce the position that a partial scheme should be defined within the context of the overall objective of a full scheme restoration programme. The sensitivity analysis illustrates the challenge in bringing the costs and benefits into line across the network and thus the need to tackle identified delivery and development issues to ensure that the canals can be used to the maximum to secure economic development.

62

9 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS

9.1 CONCLUSIONS

9.1.1 Objective

The objective of this study was to ‘assess the economic returns that might be achieved through the restoration of the Neath and Tennant Canals, in order to provide a fully navigable route from Glynneath in the Neath Valley, down to the Prince of Wales Dock, Swansea, on the Tennant Canal, and to Briton Ferry, on the Neath Canal’. The study was commissioned in the context of the ongoing 2007-2013 EU Convergence Funding programme for the benefit of West Wales and the Valleys area, which includes Neath Port Talbot and Swansea. The outputs of the study are intended to inform decisions about potential bids for EU Convergence Funding in respect of the restoration of the Neath and Tennant Canals as a focus for wider regeneration.

9.1.2 Full Scheme

Overall, for the Full Scheme, comprising the restoration of the Neath and Tennant Canals between Glynneath, Briton Ferry and Swansea, the measurable economic benefit is short of the usual threshold indicators; namely returning a positive EPNV (compared to an estimated -£4.7m) and a BCR greater than 1 (compared to an estimated 0.9). This result demonstrates that based on the information available and in the absence of any reductions in capital costs or increase in benefits, the quantitative economic case for the full scheme is not proven. Based on the estimated costs and the measurable benefits, the switching value for the Full Scheme (ie the degree by which capital works costs would need to fall to result in a BCR of 1 or above) is 10%, or £5.5m by nominal value. In other words a combination of a reduction in cost and / or an increase in measurable benefits would be required to justify in quantitative terms the scheme’s implementation by means of public funding. In order to realise these reduced costs and/or increased benefits, we would recommend a value engineering exercise to ensure that maximum value is obtained during construction. Secondly, as the proposed project in its current form has very limited development benefits, economic impacts are almost entirely driven by tourism spend. To increase the potential for realising development driven benefits, and thus overall positive impacts, we would recommend adopting a combination of a more flexible approach to the planning regime and a review of potential development sites alongside the Neath Canal. The objective would be to revisit whether sites might, in the light of the restoration of the canal, be acceptable for development and if so how/if this could be encouraged. Some of these sites have been the subject of enquiries from developers in the past (eg at Rheola and Abergarwed) while the Canal Green site

63

offers significant economic opportunities for Neath – though as elsewhere achievement of the right market conditions here will be critical. We are very mindful that the results of our appraisal are predicated upon the existing cost estimates made available to us at this time. These costs are necessarily preliminary in that they are essentially desk-based revisions to cost estimates made by an earlier study. Furthermore any investment decision of public sector funding for the Full Scheme should take into consideration the inherently non-quantifiable strategic potential of a restored canal system as well as the results of our economic appraisal. At present however, in the absence of shifts in costs and/or benefits, the quantitative economic outputs arising from the Full Scheme are insufficiently strong to recommend its implementation.

9.1.3 Partial Schemes

We are appreciative of the policy aspirations to establish the Vale of Neath, an area that has faced structural change to its economy and which is at a locational disadvantage to the M4 corridor, as a prospective leisure and recreational destination. A restored canal network represents a one-off opportunity to ‘pump prime’ strategic change, equivalent to the introduction of mountain biking in the Afan Valley. Arguably, without the canal it may be that much harder for the Vale of Neath (despite its visual beauty) to establish itself in the face of intervening leisure opportunities, such as the nearby Brecon Beacons National Park and the various coast opportunities. As was noted in the earlier (2002) study undertaken by Atkins, to exploit this opportunity requires the achievement of sufficient critical mass. It is uncertain that the restoration of parts of the Neath Canal alone will be sufficient, in which case a canal system that also includes a partially restored Tennant Canal would be more likely to meet the need, in terms of raising profile, awareness and providing an attraction with sufficient tourism draw. Although restoration of the Full Scheme does not yield attractive Net Present Values, there are segments of the route that display higher economic measurable benefits. This is shown by the three Partial Schemes appraised, Partial Schemes A, B and C, which return a positive ENPV with a BCR of between 1.1 and 1.3 and 1.4 respectively. These Partial Schemes therefore confirm that the canals’ restoration, as a key asset to support both rural and town centre development, can make a positive economic contribution to the local economy. In particular the Neath Canal provides a particular opportunity to assist in distinguishing the Vale of Neath in the tourism marketplace as a visitor destination that complements the current aspirations for the future economic development of the valley. Implementation of solely a Partial Scheme would also not preclude the future restoration of the remaining stretches of the canal system at a later date, subject to alternative funds being secured or in the light of additional opportunities to generate economic benefits.

64

For such reasons, it will be important that the line of any unrestored portions of the canal system should continue to be protected in future development plans for the areas concerned.

9.1.4 Latent Opportunities

The poorer performance of the Full Scheme economic assessment, as compared to the Partial Schemes, is due to the nature of the costs and quantifiable benefits in particular to the following segments of the overall restoration:

• as the route progresses towards Glynneath from Ysgwrfa – where significant costs are incurred to tackle physical barriers;

• within Neath – where low bridges at The Green and Bridge St need to be

replaced at significant cost; and

• from Port Tennant to the Prince of Wales Dock, Swansea – where the potential non-water based benefits tail off due to the nature of the route.

However, certain of these component projects offer the prospect of leveraging private sector investment directly into the canal renovation. For example, any developers at Canal Green will have an interest in seeing the canal environs of the regeneration area, including the two low canal bridges, being improved. Likewise, despite the relatively low (or negative) quantifiable return on those options which include the Canal Green regeneration area, there is strong complementarity between the restoration of the Neath Canal here and the redevelopment of a key site within Neath’s town centre. This complementarity produces potential qualitative benefits that do not appear in the quantitative appraisal. Similarly, the Tennant Canal corridor represents an important public open space opportunity close to the major development area of Coed D’Arcy. Given that the necessary southern access improvement requires a new bridge across the Tennant Canal to the west of Jersey Marine, a restored Tennant Canal corridor may well represent a valuable open space facility within easy access of Coed D’Arcy and may reduce the need for on-site open space provision. Such private sector investment in the canals, if achieved, will not only improve the rate of return on the public sector investment but also release resources that would otherwise have to be invested by the public sector.

9.2 TAKING A SCHEME FORWARD

In taking the canal development forward there are a number of critical next steps for the partners:

65

66

• establish a discussion programme between the partners, identify a lead individual or individuals to take the scheme forward, and consider a preferred scheme to implement;

• carry out a funding review and in doing so establish a dialogue with

potential funders, including WEFO and others. The project offers a close fit to the aspirations set out for the Environment for Growth theme in particular and we recommend discussions with WEFO should be opened to explore whether in principal support for realising the project’s objectives can be achieved;

• ensure other project stakeholders and interested parties are consulted and

engaged, this should include liaison with those currently leading on the development of Canal Green and the Aberdulais Aqueduct feasibility study, with project champions from proposed relevant WEFO projects, and with other agencies including the Environment Agency;

• carry out a value engineering exercise and planning review to establish the degree to which the economic rate of return on the identified Partial Schemes might be increased;

• put in place a funding strategy/plan and develop a delivery programme

and proposal for further work consistent with this; and

• ensure that emerging development plans continue to protect the alignment of the canals and, as far as practicable, develop a supportive policy stance that permits appropriate canal-side and canal-related development that might facilitate the canals’ restoration and / or capitalise on the regeneration potential of the restored canals.

Annex A

Key Excerpts from the Neath Port Talbot and Swansea UDPs

ABSTRACT OF NEATH PORT TALBOT UDP: PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS, JUNE 2007: POLICY RO6 – CANALS

A. Proposals which would prejudice the conservation, restoration and operation of the Swansea, Neath and Tennant Canals will not be permitted. This will include: -

a) development which would adversely affect the setting of the canals; b) development which would prevent or discourage the use of the canals for recreation and water supply.

B. The following routes are protected to enable the restoration of the Canal network:-

a) the protection of a route … of the Swansea Canal …; b) the protection of a route at Abergarwed to enable the restoration of the Neath Canal (as indicated on the Proposals Map); c) protection of the route of the former canal between Ysgwrfa Bridge and Oddfellows Street, Glynneath (as indicated on the Proposals Map).

14.10.1 The Neath Canal extends from Briton Ferry to Glynneath and has a statutory right of

navigation. The line of the canal is largely intact and restoration for recreation and navigation is progressing. Navigation is available between Neath and Tonna and Resolven and Glynneath and for unpowered boats between Briton Ferry and Neath. The canal between Tonna and Abergarwed was seriously contaminated by minewater but de-contamination works will be complete by spring 2005. Restoration of Tonna Lock is completed and grant funding has been secured to restore navigationto Abergarwed including a replacement aqueduct at Clyne and the restoration of three locks. A short length of the canal has been infilled at Abergarwed, while at Glynneath an isolated section retains its navigation rights although it is buried beneath an embankment.

14.10.2 The Tennant Canal extends from a junction with the Neath Canal at Aberdulais to

Port Tenant. The canal is privately owned and there is no public right of navigation. There is potential to construct a link in the City and County of Swansea from Port Tennant via Swansea Docks, the River Tawe and sections of new canal to link with the existing Swansea Canal at Clydach. This would create a local waterway network comprising some 35 miles of canal which would provide local leisure and tourist opportunities. The canal passes through the Crymlyn Bog which is a Special Area of Conservation and restoration proposals would need to take any impacts on the ecology of the SAC fully into account.

14.10.3 The Swansea Canal … . 14.10.4 Much of the towpath system on the canals is available for walkers, although there is

no right of way along the Tenant Canal towpath. A Public Access Agreement allows permissive access but permits the canal owners to close the towpath during maintenance works.

14.10.5 As a consequence of the commercial disuse of the canals since the 1930’s, other than

for water supply, lengthy sections are of interest as habitats for nature conservation. Not withstanding that the Neath Canal is protected by Acts of Parliament which guarantee the rights of navigation, restoration work should take into account the opportunity to retain habitats and the need to recognise the status of protected

species such as water vole and otters. Nature Conservation interest will be of particular importance in terms of the Tenant Canal where it passes through Crymlyn Bog which is designated as being of international wildlife importance.

ABSTRACT OF SWANSEA UDP: PRE ENQUIRY MODIFICATIONS, JULY 2006

Policy EC2

A major redevelopment area is identified at SA1 Swansea Waterfront for mixed employment and residential development together with supporting leisure, tourism, community uses and ancillary services. The development of the site will be required to:

(i) … and (ix) Safeguard the potential canal route corridor.

Amplification

The development of an integrated regional waterway, based on the 35 miles of Neath, Tennant and Swansea Canals and linked via the Docks and Swansea Basin, is considered a unique tourist and recreational opportunity within the area. Development within SA1 will be required to safeguard the route linking the Tennant Canal to the Prince of Wales Dock and Tawe Barrage basin. Policy HC20

The further development of the Swansea Urban Woodland will continue, based on … the Crymlyn Bog and Tennant Canal Basin areas. Amplification

The Swansea urban woodland includes forest, recreational areas, wetland and heathland. Crymlyn Bog has a number of significant national and international designations, including NNR, SSSI, SAC and Ramsar site. Further development of the project will involve:

(i) The creation of new native woodland and habitat, and protection of existing habitats/woodlands, (ii) Provision of appropriate recreational facilities, including improved access and visitor facilities, (iii) The restoration of the former Crymlyn Bog waste disposal area (Tir John) as a landscaped sports/recreation area, (iv) Environmental enhancement of the Tennant Canal and Basin surrounds.

Policy AS12

Development proposals that enhance the viability of the port, extend the use of the ferry terminal facilities and increase employment and business opportunities will be permitted provided that such proposals … safeguard the potential canal route corridor. Amplification

Development within the port must safeguard the canal route protection corridor, which aims to link the Tennant Basin with the Prince of Wales Dock.

Annex B

Socio Economic and Planning Context

Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council

Neath and Tennant Canal

Socio-economic and Planning Analysis

Author: Raoul Tufnell, Claire Pugh

Checker: David Jones

Approver: David Jones

Report no: 02 Date: 07 March 2008 This report has been prepared for Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council in accordance with the terms and conditions of appointment for dated January 2008. Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited (2212959) cannot accept any responsibility for any use of or reliance on the contents of this report by any third party.

Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited 2212959 HCL House, St Mellons Business Park, St Mellons, Cardiff CF3 0EY, United KingdomTel: +44 (0)870 000 3001 Fax: +44 (0)870 000 3901 www.hyderconsulting.com

Page i Neath and Tennant Canal

Hyder Consulting (UK) Limited2212959

Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Study Area.................................................................................................................... 1

2 Socio-Economic Context.......................................................................................... 3

2.1 Population .................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Households .................................................................................................................. 4 2.3 Employment ................................................................................................................. 4 2.4 Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation ............................................................................. 7 2.5 Residential Property Market ....................................................................................... 10

3 Planning History...................................................................................................... 12

3.1 Coedffranc West......................................................................................................... 13

Appendix A

Population and Household Statistics

Appendix B

Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation

Appendix C

Planning Application History

1 Introduction The following sections provide a contextual understanding of the Neath and Tennant Canal and surrounding environment. Analysis of population, employment and deprivation statistics, a summary of the domestic property market and an interrogation of the planning register for Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council indicates the level of development interest, employment opportunities and community activity within the study area.

1.1 Study Area Following discussions with the client team it was agreed that the Study Area should cover the wards which include or are immediately adjacent to the Neath and Tennant Canal. This is considered to represent an ‘area of interest’ along the length of the canal corridor from its starting point to the north of Glynneath settlement, to its termination adjacent to Briton Ferry. Figure 1.1 shows the location of these and Table 1.1 lists them:

Figure 1.1 – Study Area

For the benefit of this analysis the study area has been split into two sections (North and South) as indicated in the following table. These are areas of equivalent land mass and broadly separate the coastal area with the land locked valley section.

Page 1 Neath and Tennant Canal




Table 1.1: Study Wards

Map Ref. Electoral Ward Name Local Authority Section

A St. Thomas SCC South

1 Coedffranc West NPTCBC South

2 Briton Ferry West NPTCBC South

3 Briton Ferry East NPTCBC South

4 Neath East NPTCBC South

5 Coedffranc Central NPTCBC South

6 Coedffranc North NPTCBC South

7 Neath South NPTCBC South

8 Bryn-Coch South NPTCBC South

9 Dyffryn NPTCBC South

10 Bryn-Coch North NPTCBC South

11 Cadoxton NPTCBC South

12 Neath North NPTCBC South

13 Cimla NPTCBC South

14 Tonna NPTCBC North

15 Aberdulais NPTCBC North

16 Resolven NPTCBC North

17 Glynneath NPTCBC North

18 Blaengwrach NPTCBC North



2 Socio-Economic Context A variety of different data sources including both 1991 and 2001 Census data, mid-year population estimates and land registry data have been used to contextualise the surrounding area of the Neath and Tennant Canal. Wherever possible the local environment has been compared to both the wider local authorities (namely Swansea City Council and Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council) and Wales as a whole.

In instances where it has not been possible to use data for the immediate locality, the study area has been expanded to the smallest spatial area that data is available.

2.1 Population Population estimates for 2005 indicate that the population of the study area was 65,384. Whilst the population of Wales as has a whole has increased between 1991 and 2005, the study area has experienced a greater rate of population increase during this period, though with a noticeably slower rate of growth in the north than in the southern part of the study area.

Area 1991 2001

Mid- 2005 (estimates)

% change 1991-2005

Wales 2,797,174 2,903,085 2,958,600 5.5%

NTPCBC 136,919 134,468 135,600 -1.0%

SCC 220,161 223,301 226,148 +2.6%

Study Area 63,135 64,444 65,384 +3.4%

Study Area North 13,138 13,069 13,191 +0.4%

Study Area South 49,997 51,375 52,193 +4.2%

Source: Census Data, www.nomis.co.uk and Census Area Statistics (CAS) Ward population estimates for England and Wales, mid 2001-2005 (experimental statistics), www.statistics.gov.uk

It is however noticeable that the population is concentrated around the more southerly wards such as St Thomas and Briton Ferry West. These wards have strong strategic links with the existing local road network and the strategically important M4 motorway. The wards covering Neath town also contain a significant proportion of the study area’s population and the greater growth, reflecting the important service role of the town centre for the surrounding population. Further away from the coast and M4 motorway in the northern section of the study area in wards such as Resolven, Blaengwrach and Glynneath, the population is significantly lower. A full list

http://www.nomis.co.uk/



of population figures for wards within the study area and the mid-year population estimates is detailed in Appendix A.

2.2 Households Whilst the population of the study area increased during this period, as identified in the previous section, the percentage increase in the number of households is more consistent with the increase for Wales as a whole. This indicates a higher than average increase in the number of small person households within the study area.

Area 1991 2001 % change 1991-2001

Wales 1,119,879 1,209,048 7.9%

NPTCBC 54,343 57,603 5.9%

SCC 89,382 94,399 5.6%

Study Area 25,716 27,598 7.3%

Study Area North 5,586 5,780 3.4%

Study Area South 20,130 21,818 8.3%

Source: Census Data, www.nomis.co.uk

This table indicates the majority of additional households are located within the Southern section of the study area (an 8.3% increase in households in comparison to just a 3.4% increase in the North).

2.3 Employment The proportion of people who are economically active in the study area is comparable to activity levels for Swansea County Council but significantly lower than the average for Wales as a whole. Unemployment does appear to vary significantly between the Northern and Southern areas of the study area. 58.2% of the population in the South are economically active and of those 3.7% are unemployed. Conversely, in the North, 57.6% of people are economically active and 4.3% are unemployed. (Census 2001)

Area Pop of Working Age (2005 in brackets)

Economically Active (%)

Unemployment 2001

(in brackets Unemployment in 1991)




Wales 2,075,346 60.9% 3.5% (10.13%)

NPTCBC 96,217 56.2% 3.9% (10.13%)

SCC 161,419 58.6% 3.6% (10.58%)

Study Area 46,384 58.1% 3.9% (10.00%)

Study Area North 9,405 57.6% 4.3% (9.6%)

Study Area South 36,979 58.2% 3.7% (10.14%)

Source: 2001 Census Data, www.nomis.co.uk

These figures from the 2001 Census contrast the unemployment figures for 1991 shown in brackets. In 1991 the Northern part of the study area had the lowest level unemployment. Whilst unemployment was much higher at this time throughout Wales, this table does indicate that the majority of economic growth has more recently been focussed in the South of the study area and consequently the Vale of Neath has above average unemployment rates.

2.3.1 Earnings In terms of average earnings for the study area, the following chart shows average wage levels in SCC, NPTCBC and Bridgend County Borough Council (BCBC) combined. Due to the sample sizes, Statistics Wales state it is not advisable to make year-on-year comparisons at a local authority level. The solution has been a set of aggregations of local authorities, for which comparisons over time can be considered more robust.

400

410

420

430

440

450

460

470

480

Ave

rage

gro

ss w

eekl

y ea

rnin

gs

(£s)

2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Wales

SCC, NPTCBCand BCBC

Figure 2.1: Average Earnings of SCC, NPTCBC and BCBC combined.

Source: StatsWales




Figure 2.1 indicates that whilst wage levels have increased annually, reflecting economic growth and consistent with growth across Wales as a whole, wage levels have consistently been below the national average.

2.3.2 Occupation Figure 2.2 and 2.3 compares the occupations within the North and South of the study area. The following observations can be made between the two areas:

• A significantly greater proportion of the population in the North work in process, plant and machine operative roles than in the South.

• Similarly, a greater proportion of skilled trades people are located in the North.

• A marginally greater proportion of the population in the South are ‘Associate Professional and Technical’ persons and ‘Managers and Senior Officials’.

Figure 2.2: Employment by Occupation of the Study Area North

Managers and Senior Officials

Professional Occupations

Associate Professional and TechnicalOccupationsAdministrative and SecretarialOccupationsSkilled Trades Occupations

Personal Service Occupations

Sales and Customer ServiceOccupationsProcess, Plant and MachineOperativesElementary Occupations

Figure 2.3: Employment by Occupation of the Study Area South



Managers and Senior Officials

Professional Occupations

Associate Professional and TechnicalOccupationsAdministrative and SecretarialOccupationsSkilled Trades Occupations

Personal Service Occupations

Sales and Customer ServiceOccupationsProcess, Plant and Machine Operatives

Elementary Occupations

Source: Census Data 2001, www.nomis.co.uk

Full details of employment by occupation for the study area are detailed in Appendix A.

2.4 Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation Deprivation in Wales is measured according to the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation using specific spatial statistical areas known as ‘super output areas’ (SOA’s). Whilst a review of existing data has begun this year (2008), currently the most up to date figures were produced in 2005. The boundaries of SOAs correspond with electoral ward divisions however many of the nineteen wards detailed within the study area include more than one SOA. St Thomas Ward, for example, includes four SOAs and so whilst there are a total of 19 wards in the study area, there are 44 SOAs within the same area. A full list of these SOAs and corresponding deprivation data is provided in Appendix B.

Discussing deprivation is in terms of the rank for each SOA measured against all 1,896 SOAs in Wales. If the SOA is within the top 10% most deprived areas in Wales, the SOA will rank between 1 and 189 out of 1,896. Similarly, if the SOA is within the least deprived 50% in Wales this means the SOA is ranked between 948 and 1896 out of 1896.

The overall score compiles seven different domains and discussions in relation to the study area will cover both the overall scores and where suitable these contributing domains listed as follows:

Domain Indicators used

Income Income Support claimants (and their children and partners)

Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance




Working Families’ Tax Credit

Disabled Person’s Tax Credit

Employment Claimants of unemployment related benefits .

Claimants of Incapacity Benefit

Severe Disablement Allowance (for women under 60 and men under 65)

Participants on New Deal for Young People and Intensity Activity Period (for New Deal 25+)

Health Limiting long-term illness

Deaths

Cancer incidence

Education, Training and Skills

Key Stage 2,3 and 4 average point scores

Proportion of adults with low or no qualifications

Secondary school absence rates

Proportion of 17 and 18 year olds not entering

Further or higher education

Housing Lack of central heating

Overcrowding (excluding student households)

Physical Environment

Air quality

Air emissions

Living within 1 km of a waste disposal site

Proportion of people living within 1 km of an Environment Agency regulated industrial source

Proportion of people living in an area with a significant risk of flooding

Access to Services

Access to food shop (10 minutes)

Access to public library (15 minutes)

Access to GP surgery (15 minutes)

Access to leisure centre (20 minutes)

Access to primary school (15 minutes)

Access to NHS dentist (20 minutes)

Access to post office (15 minutes)

Access to secondary school (30 minutes)

2.4.1 Overall The overall scores show that 6 of the 44 SOAs included within the study area are within the 10% most deprived areas of Wales. As shown in Figure 2.4 these are focused around Neath itself and at the southerly end of the Neath and Tennant Canal around Briton Ferry. In the Northern part of the study area ‘Glynneath 1’ SOA is within the most deprived 20%.

Significantly, the majority of the Northern section of the study area is within the most deprived 50% of the whole of Wales and whilst the Southern section includes some of the most deprived SOAs in the whole study area as already mentioned, it also includes the a number of the least deprived, for example ‘Bryn-Coch North 2’ and ‘Neath South 1’ and ‘Bryn-Coch South 1’, ranked 1,717, 1,749 and 1,793 out of 1,896 respectively.

----- Study Area Boundary

Figure 2.4: Overall WIMD



2.4.2 Contributing Domains Of the seven domains that contribute to the overall scores already detailed, the following conclusions can be drawn:

• In terms of ‘Access to Services’ the most deprived SOAs are predominantly located in the North of the study area, indicative of a less developed local road network and absence of any significant town centres.

• 8 of 44 SOAs located within the study area are ranked within the most deprived 20% in terms of ‘Education, Skills and Training’. The worst performing includes ‘St. Thomas 1’, ‘St. Thomas 2’ and ‘Briton Ferry West 1’ within the South part of the study area.

• 4 of the 44 SOAs are within the most deprived 5% in terms of ‘Health’. With the exception of ‘Tonna 1’, these are all within the boundaries of Neath town itself.

• In terms of the ‘Physical Environment’ the most deprived 50% of Wales include predominantly those SOAs from the Southern section of the study area.

• In terms of ‘Income’ the 5 worst performing SOAs within the study area are all located in proximity to or within Neath itself, with ‘Briton Ferry West 1’ ranked as low as 21 out of 1,896.

2.5 Residential Property Market Data from Land Registry indicates there is a significant difference between property values within the study area, portraying a diversity of locations and contrasting housing demand levels.

As the following graph shows, there is a significant difference between the average property prices for Neath and the average for Swansea indicating the relative desirability of both settlements as a place to live.

Source: Land Registry Data





Another significant observation of the existing property market in the study area is that whilst property prices rise consistently over longer periods, certain settlements are prone to greater price fluctuations than others. For example, Glynneath and Resolven as indicated in the following chart.


In terms of actual sales, the following table summarises the total sales within the past four years obtained from Land Registry Data for some of the main settlements identified within the study area.

Year : July -June Llandarcy Neath Aberdulais Tonna Resolven Glynneath 2006/2007 217 1224 114 332 51 117

2005/2006 209 1014 73 255 47 123

2004/2005 110 767 86 219 32 95

2003/2004 163 1115 132 336 38 105

2002/2003 207 1361 126 423 73 157


Significantly, all of the settlements detailed experienced a reduction in the number of houses sold between 2003 and the first half of 2005.

More recently however property sales have increased significantly, particularly for settlements within the southern section of the study area. Perhaps the sharpest increase in sales was in Llandarcy, in the St. Thomas ward. Here the annual number of sales doubled between 2004 and 2007. Neath continues to be the most vibrant residential property market, reflecting the greatest concentration of housing stock.

In stark contrast however has been the slow growth in property sales in some of the more northern settlements for example Resolven. In Glynneath there has actually been a net reduction in the number of residential sales between 2005/2006 and 2006/2007.



3 Planning History Analysis of past and present planning applications submitted within the study area provides an indication of the level of private sector development interest in the study area. Searches have been limited to between 2003 and the present date, focussed on the following development types, representing the main sectors of the private sector developer market:

• Residential (more than 10 dwellings)

• Business- B1, B2 and B8

• Leisure-sport, hotel and recreation

• Retail- new development

• Restaurants/Public Houses

A full list of the planning applications gathered is detailed in Appendix C including details on the year of application, ward reference, and any additional related comments. However, the following points summarise the search findings:

• In 2007 and 2008 the highest level of private sector interest has been in Coedffranc West (within the southern part of the study area) with residential and leisure related developments being the most common type. There were two residential applications received in the Glyn-Neath ward (within the northern part of the study area).

• 2007 also saw the application for another significant development within the study area, for open cast mining operations in Blaengwrach. Should this application be approved this may have significant implications on employment opportunities within the northern section of the study area and potentially increase the demand for local housing, and community infrastructure.

• In 2006 there was a high number of residential planning applications received in Coedffranc West; this can largely be attributed to the major redevelopment of the former Llandarcy site into an urban village, which will provide approximately 4000 homes when built. In addition to this ward, there was also a high level of residential applications received in the wards of Briton Ferry East and Neath East. (Both located within the South of the Study Area.

• In 2005, there was a high level of leisure related planning applications made in the ward of Coedffranc West.

Generally over the past five years, the main trends are-

• There has been a high level of business related planning applications including B1 and B2 uses in Coedffranc West and Neath North (both within the southern part of the study area).



• There has been a high number of leisure related planning applications received, including hotel, entertainment and sport in the ward of Coedffranc West – again in the Southern area

• There has been a higher level of residential planning applications submitted in the wards of Coedffranc West, Briton Ferry West, Neath East all in the South and Glyn Neath – in the north.

• There has been a higher number of retail related applications in the ward of Bryn Coch South and in Neath North

3.1 Coedffranc West The planning application search revealed a high level of development interest, particularly in the Coedffranc West ward within the past five years. Two of these developments are considered particularly important within the study area, firstly the Llandarcy Urban Village, which will provide a combination of homes, businesses space, retail and community facilities. Secondly, the development of a new distribution centre being built in Jersey Marine; the centre will be occupied by Amazon- the online retailer and is likely to provide 1,200 jobs in Wales, therefore providing a significant economic boost to the area.

Both sites have been developed with involvement from the former Welsh Development Agency (WDA) and now the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG), Department of Economy and Transport. The Llandarcy Urban village will provide up to 4,000 new homes, and sustainable linkages with both the new Amazon distribution centre and the SA1 development off Fabian way, (an important link road to the M4) in Swansea. This has been led by WAG, with an injection of European Funds to redevelop the former Swansea docks area into a mixed use scheme, comprising offices, residential and leisure space.



4 Conclusions Scrutiny of the variety of data sources has identified that the socio-economic conditions of the study area reflect the wider poor conditions within Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council but largely contrast with the average statistics for Swansea City Council and Wales as a whole.

Comparing the northern and southern sections of the study area itself, there are significant contrasts in terms of occupational spread, employment statistics, and the number of households. The southern area has been the focus for the majority of private sector investment, reflecting the growth along the M4 corridor and its relative proximity to Swansea City itself. Aside from deprivation pockets focussed within and around Neath town, the southern area contains the least deprived portions of the study area. (WIMD 2005)

Finally, it is important to note the variety of data sources used to capture the socio-economic context of the study area. Whilst population census data is clearly the most robust information available, the updated population totals to 2005 are an estimated figure only. The Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation on the other hand is a more recent data set and although it still includes components of the Census Data it also uses other administrative data updated much more regularly. It is hoped that through using a combination of both sources the most accurate representation of the study area has been enabled.



Appendix A Population and Household Statistics



1991 census - small area statistics

Area S27:31 (1991 population base : Total households )

2001 population base : Total Households

country:Wales 1,119,879 1,209,048ualad:Neath Port Talbot 54,343 57,603ualad:Swansea 89,382 94,399ward91:63UCFA Aberdulais 728 795ward91:63UCFB Blaengwrach 840 819ward91:63UCFC Briton Ferry East 1,342 1,364

ward91:63UCFD Briton Ferry West 1,241 1,196

ward91:63UCFE Bryn-coch North 903 930ward91:63UCFF Bryn-coch South 1,398 2,202ward91:63UCFG Cadoxton 562 713ward91:63UCFH Cimla 1,546 1,624ward91:63UCFJ Coedffranc Central 1,665 1,682

ward91:63UCFK Coedffranc North 878 961

ward91:63UCFL Coedffranc West 842 889ward91:63UCFN Dyffryn 1,208 1,357ward91:63UCFP Glynneath 1,475 1,488ward91:63UCFQ Neath East 2,593 2,743ward91:63UCFR Neath North 1,729 1,836ward91:63UCFS Neath South 1,867 1,967ward91:63UCFW Resolven 1,335 1,321ward91:63UCFY Tonna 837 1,013ward91:63UEFT St.Thomas 2,727 2,698Study Area 25,716 27,598Study Area North 5,586 5,780Study Area South 20,130 21,818 2001 census - small area statistics

Area S27:32 (1991 population

base : Total persons (1991) )

2001 population base : Total persons 2001

country:Wales 2,797,174 2,903,085ualad:Neath Port Talbot 136,919 134,468ualad:Swansea 220,161 223,301ward91:63UCFA Aberdulais 1,988 1,939ward91:63UCFB Blaengwrach 2,070 1,983ward91:63UCFC Briton Ferry East 2,994 2,892

ward91:63UCFD Briton Ferry West 3,056 2,856

ward91:63UCFE Bryn-coch North 2,341 2,293

ward91:63UCFF Bryn-coch South 3,422 5,275ward91:63UCFG Cadoxton 1,362 1,627ward91:63UCFH Cimla 4,272 4,175



ward91:63UCFJ Coedffranc Central 3,949 3,898

ward91:63UCFK Coedffranc North 2,262 2,331

ward91:63UCFL Coedffranc West 1,971 2,067ward91:63UCFN Dyffryn 2,957 3,191ward91:63UCFP Glynneath 3,735 3,531ward91:63UCFQ Neath East 5,977 5,930ward91:63UCFR Neath North 3,994 3,837ward91:63UCFS Neath South 4,617 4,634ward91:63UCFW Resolven 3,279 3,137ward91:63UCFY Tonna 2,066 2,479ward91:63UEFT St.Thomas 6,873 6,369Study Area 63,135 64,444Northerly Section 13,138 13,069Southerly Section 49,997 51,375

Area 2005 (population estimates)

country:Wales 2,958,600ualad:Neath Port Talbot 135,600ualad:Swansea 226,148ward91:63UCFA Aberdulais 2194ward91:63UCFB Blaengwrach 2034ward91:63UCFC Briton Ferry East 2907

ward91:63UCFD Briton Ferry West 2977

ward91:63UCFE Bryn-coch North 2293ward91:63UCFF Bryn-coch South 5808ward91:63UCFG Cadoxton 1785ward91:63UCFH Cimla 4148ward91:63UCFJ Coedffranc Central 3836

ward91:63UCFK Coedffranc North 2354

ward91:63UCFL Coedffranc West 2141ward91:63UCFN Dyffryn 3238ward91:63UCFP Glynneath 3472ward91:63UCFQ Neath East 5919ward91:63UCFR Neath North 3791ward91:63UCFS Neath South 4815ward91:63UCFW Resolven 3069ward91:63UCFY Tonna 2422ward91:63UEFT St.Thomas 6181Study Area 65,384Northerly Section 13,191Southerly Section 52,193

mid-year population estimates



Date Wales Neath Port Talbot Swansea

2002 2,919,800 134,800 224,0002003 2,931,100 135,800 224,8002004 2,946,400 136,600 225,8002005 2,953,600 136,700 226,4002006 2,965,900 137,100 227,100% change 2002-2006 1.58% 1.71% 1.38%

2001 census - standard tables

Proportion of Working

Age in Study Area


Age in Study Area

North


Age in Study Area

South


Age in Neath


Age in Swansea


age in Wales

Managers and Senior Officials 9.41 8.72 9.58 9.36 11.77 12.24Professional Occupations 8.53 7.27 8.84 8.67 11.60 10.43Associate Professional and Technical Occupations 11.81 11.09 11.99 11.53 13.75 12.80Administrative and Secretarial Occupations 13.35 11.58 13.78 13.04 13.92 12.15Skilled Trades Occupations 13.14 14.50 12.80 13.54 11.30 13.44Personal Service Occupations 7.87 9.13 7.56 8.12 7.07 7.44Sales and Customer Service Occupations 9.55 8.17 9.89 8.42 9.65 7.98Process, Plant and Machine Operatives 12.23 15.56 11.42 12.97 8.03 10.20Elementary Occupations 14.11 14.01 14.14 14.35 12.92 13.33



Appendix B Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation



Overall Index Rank

Lower Layer Super Output Area:

Study Area Region Deprivation

53 Briton Ferry West 1 South

72 Neath North 2 South

144 St. Thomas 1 South

147 Neath South 2 South

153 Neath East 2 South


Most Deprived

10% 197 Neath South 1 South

213 Coedffranc Central 3 South


265 Glynneath 1 North




Most Deprived

20% 415 Bryn-coch South 4 South

455 Briton Ferry East 2 South

477 Tonna 2 North

511 Cimla 1 South

515 Briton Ferry West 2 South

544 Blaengwrach North

569 Resolven 1 North

601 Dyffryn 1 South


630 Aberdulais North


866 Briton Ferry East 1 South


900 Coedffranc North 2 South


1045 Coedffranc North 1 South

1052 Glynneath 2 North

1077 Resolven 2 North

1168 Bryn-coch North 1 South

1293 Bryn-coch South 2 South

1318 Coedffranc West South


1390 Dyffryn 2 South

1562 Cimla 2 South

1566 Cadoxton South

1628 Tonna 1 North


1683 Cimla 3 South

1717 Bryn-coch North 2 South

1749 Neath South 3 South


Least Deprived

50%



Income domain Rank Lower Super Output Area:

Code Name Study Area Region Deprivation

21 W01000896 Briton Ferry West 1 South

153 W01000936 Neath East 3 South

169 W01000939 Neath North 2 South

170 W01000942 Neath South 2 South

180 W01000849 St. Thomas 1 South

Most Deprived

10% 190 W01000914 Coedffranc Central 3 South



212 W01000925 Glynneath 1 North 244 W01000941 Neath South 1 South

257 W01000907 Bryn-coch South 4 South




Most Deprived

20%

428 W01000895 Briton Ferry East 2 South


522 W01000893 Blaengwrach North

533 W01000909 Cimla 1 South


552 W01000922 Dyffryn 1 South

612 W01000887 Aberdulais North

698 W01000970 Tonna 2 North

712 W01000912 Coedffranc Central 1 South

769 W01000953 Resolven 1 North



866 W01000915 Coedffranc North 1 South


1001 W01000926 Glynneath 2 North 1119 W01000905 Bryn-coch South 2 South



1262 W01000954 Resolven 2 North 1310 W01000902 Bryn-coch North 1 South

1339 W01000923 Dyffryn 2 South 1354 W01000917 Coedffranc West South


1472 W01000908 Cadoxton South 1545 W01000910 Cimla 2 South 1580 W01000969 Tonna 1 North 1677 W01000943 Neath South 3 South

1764 W01000903 Bryn-coch North 2 South

1769 W01000911 Cimla 3 South 1849 W01000904 Bryn-coch South 1 South

Least Deprived

50%



Employment domain Rank Lower Super Output Area:









Most deprived

10%






309 W01000925 Glynneath 1 North



Most deprived

20%




















1001 W01000917 Coedffranc West South


1057 W01000923 Dyffryn 2 North

1089 W01000908 Cadoxton South

1124 W01000911 Cimla 3 South



1309 W01000969 Tonna 1 North



Least Deprived

50%



Health domain Rank Lower Super Output Area:









Most deprived

10%




355 W01000940 Neath North 3

South

Most deprived

20%


























1109 W01000910 Cimla 2 South


1169 W01000911 Cimla 3 South

1191 W01000969 Tonna 1 North





Least Deprived

50%



Education domain Rank Lower Super Output Area:





Most deprived 10%



302 W01000925 Glynneath 1 South




Most deprived

20%





























1442 W01000911 Cimla 3 South

1536 W01000969 Tonna 1 North

1592 W01000910 Cimla 2 South





Least Deprived

50%



Access to services domain Rank Lower Super Output Area:





526 W01000917 Coedffranc West North

528 W01000926 Glynneath 2 South





















1131 W01000909 Cimla 1 South



















Least Deprived

50%



Housing domain Rank Lower Super Output Area:


215 W01000849 St. Thomas 1

South Most deprived 20%



















1260 W01000970 Tonna 2 North




1383 W01000909 Cimla 1 South












1685 W01000910 Cimla 2 South

1692 W01000969 Tonna 1 North




1778 W01000911 Cimla 3 South




Least Deprived

50%



Physical environment domain Rank Lower Super Output Area:





Most deprived 20%




































1798 W01000909 Cimla 1 South

1827 W01000970 Tonna 2 North


1831 W01000969 Tonna 1 North

1832 W01000911 Cimla 3 South

1837 W01000910 Cimla 2 South

Least Deprived

50%



Appendix C Planning Application History



Ward Type of Development

Year of Application Comment

1 Coedffranc West Leisure/Entertainment 2005 2 Coedffranc West Leisure/Sport 2005 3 Coedffranc West Offices B1/B2 2003 4 Coedffranc West Residential 2005 5 Coedffranc West Motor cycle college 2005

6 Coedffranc West Sport-professional training 2003 7 Coedffranc West Business B2 2003 8 Coedffranc West Leisure-cultural 2003 9 Coedffranc West Leisure- hotel 2005

10 Coedffranc West leisure-sport 2007 11 Coedffranc West Business B2 2006 12 Coedffranc West Business B1 2003 13 Coedffranc West Residential 2005 14 Coedffranc West Leisure-hotel 2004 15 Coedffranc West Residential 2008 at Llandarcy site 16 Coedffranc West Residential 2006 at Llandarcy site 17 Coedffranc West Residential 2006 at Llandarcy site

18 Coedffranc West Residential 2006on former BP oil refinery site

19 Coedffranc West Residential 2006on former BP oil refinery site

20 Coedffranc West Mixed use 2005 Llandarcy Urban Village 21 Coedffranc West Business B1 2005 22 Coedffranc West car sales 2005 23 Coedffranc West Residential 2007 24 Coedffranc West Business B1/B2 2005 25 Coedffranc West leisure-sport 2005 26 Coedffranc West Residential 2007 27 Coedffranc West leisure-hotel 2007 28 Coedffranc West Residential 2004 29 Coedffranc West Business -vehicle depot 2006 30 Coedffranc West car sales 2003 31 Briton Ferry West Business B1 2006 Baglan Energy Park 32 Briton Ferry West employment-B1/B2 2005 Baglan Energy Park 33 Briton Ferry West Residential 2006 34 Briton Ferry West Residential 2006 35 Briton Ferry West Business-B2 2007 Baglan Energy Park 36 Briton Ferry West Business B2 2004 37 Briton Ferry West Residential 2007 38 Briton Ferry East Retail-commercial 2004 39 Briton Ferry East Residential 2004 40 Briton Ferry East Residential 2004 41 Neath East Residential 2006 Redrow 42 Neath East Residential 2007 43 Neath East Residential 2006



44 Neath East Residential 2008 Redrow 45 Neath East Residential 2005 46 Neath East A3-café 2005 47 Coedffranc Central Residential 2005 48 Coedffranc Central Residential 2008 49 Coedffranc Central Residential 2007 50 Coedffranc Central residential- nursing home 2006 51 Coedffranc Central Business B2 2003 52 Coedffranc Central Business- B1 2006 53 Coedffranc North car sales 2004 54 Coedffranc North residential 2006 55 Coedffranc North residential 2005 56 Neath South residential 2007 57 Bryn Coch South residential 2004 58 Bryn Coch South retail-supermarket 2004 59 Bryn Coch South residential/retail 2006 60 Bryn Coch South residential/retail 2007 61 Dyffryn residential 2003 62 Dyffryn residential 2003 63 Dyffryn leisure-sport 2007

64 Bryn Coch North leisure-log cabin accommodation 2005

65 Cadoxton residential 2006 66 Neath North retail 2004 67 Neath North Business B1 2007 68 Neath North Business B1 2003 69 Neath North Business- B8+B2 2005 70 Neath North retail 2005 71 Neath North restaurant/hotel 2005 72 Cimla none 73 Tonna none 74 Aberdulais Leisure-sport 2003 75 Aberdulais leisure-hotel 2004 76 Aberdulais Business B2 2005 77 Aberdulais residential 2004 78 Aberdulais residential 2006 79 Resolven residential 2008 80 Resolven residential 2004 81 Glyn Neath Business B1 2008

82 Glyn Neath expansion of open cast mine 2005

83 Glyn Neath residential 2007 84 Glyn Neath residential 2006 85 Glyn Neath residential 2003 86 Glyn Neath leisure-offices B1 2008 87 Glyn Neath residential 2007

88 Glyn Neath warehouse to private residential house 2007

89 Blaengwarch open cast mine- coal 2007 90 Blaengwarch residential 2003

Annex C

Tourism and Boating Economic Impact Analysis

Econ

omic

Impa

ct A

naly

sis,

Nea

th a

nd T

enna

nt C

anal

s

At 2

008

pric

esU

pdat

e fa

ctor

from

200

6 pr

ices

to 2

008

pric

es1.

044

Upd

ate

fact

or fr

om 2

004

pric

es to

200

8 pr

ices

1.1

Upd

ate

fact

or fr

om 2

002

pric

es to

200

8 pr

ices

1.15

8U

pdat

e fa

ctor

from

199

0 pr

ices

to 2

008

pric

es1.

65Se

nsiti

vity

ass

essm

ent

1.00

Do

Min

imum

Opt

ion

1AO

ptio

n 1B

Opt

ion

1CO

ptio

n 3A

Opt

ion

3BO

ptio

n 3C

Opt

ion

2AO

ptio

n 2B

Opt

ion

2CO

ptio

n 2D

Add

ition

al to

wpa

ths

rela

tive

to D

N1.

613.

244.

120.

000.

000.

001.

694.

844.

846.

84U

sabl

e to

wpa

ths

22.7

024

.30

25.9

326

.81

22.7

022

.70

22.7

024

.38

27.5

327

.53

29.5

3

Tota

l len

gth

of n

avig

able

can

al (k

m)

13.6

815

.29

16.9

117

.79

13.9

816

.917

.86

17.0

523

.35

26.5

528

.55

Brit

on F

erry

-Ysg

wBrid

ge S

t-Ysg

wrfa

Brid

ge S

t-Lam

b &B

ridge

St-G

lynn

eB

ridge

St-G

reen

SBrid

ge S

t-Gia

nts

Brid

ge S

t-Brit

on F

Abe

rdul

ais-

Nea

thA

berd

ulai

s-Je

rsey

Abe

rdul

ais-

PT

Abe

rdul

ais

- PoW

doc

kA

dditi

onal

nav

igab

le c

anal

rela

tive

to D

N1.

613.

234.

110.

303.

224.

183.

379.

6712

.87

14.8

71.

MO

OR

ED B

OA

TS

Num

ber o

f priv

ate

moo

red

Tota

l priv

ate

moo

red

boat

s on

rout

e se

ctio

n0

1515

170

44

66

66

boat

s

Boa

t-rel

ated

Ann

ual b

oat r

unni

ng c

osts

(exc

l. lic

ence

fee

& m

oo£1

,120

£1,1

20£1

,120

£1,1

20£1

,120

£1,1

20£1

,120

£1,1

20£1

,120

£1,1

20£1

,120

expe

nditu

reA

nnua

l lic

ence

fee

£400

£400

£400

£400

£400

£400

£400

£400

£400

£400

£400

Moo

ring

fees

p.a

. £9

00£9

00£9

00£9

00£9

00£9

00£9

00£9

00£9

00£9

00£9

00To

tal a

nnua

l boa

t run

ning

cos

ts£0

£2,4

20£2

,420

£2,4

20£0

£2,4

20£2

,420

£2,4

20£2

,420

£2,4

20£2

,420

Ave

rage

est

imat

ed p

urch

ase

cost

per

boa

t£3

5,00

0£3

5,00

0£3

5,00

0£3

5,00

0£3

5,00

0£3

5,00

0£3

5,00

0£3

5,00

0£3

5,00

0£3

5,00

0£3

5,00

0A

vera

ge le

ngth

of b

oat o

wne

rshi

p (y

ears

)12

1212

1212

1212

1212

1212

Ann

ualis

ed b

oat p

urch

ase

cost

s£2

,917

£2,9

17£2

,917

£2,9

17£2

,917

£2,9

17£2

,917

£2,9

17£2

,917

£2,9

17£2

,917

Ann

ual b

oat p

urch

ase

cost

s£0

£43,

750

£43,

750

£49,

583

£0£1

1,66

7£1

1,66

7£1

7,50

0£1

7,50

0£1

7,50

0£1

7,50

0

Non

-cru

isin

g vi

sits

Non

-cru

isin

g vi

sits

per

boa

t per

yea

r6

66

66

66

66

66

subs

iste

nce

spen

dD

urat

ion

of n

on-c

ruis

ing

visi

ts (m

an-d

ays)

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

Non

-cru

isin

g vi

sits

- sp

end

per h

ead

per d

ay£1

4.03

£14.

03£1

4.03

£14.

03£1

4.03

£14.

03£1

4.03

£14.

03£1

4.03

£14.

03£1

4.03

Ave

rage

per

sons

invo

ved

in n

on-c

ruis

ing

visi

ts p

er

22

22

22

22

22

2N

on-c

ruis

ing

spen

d £0

£3,7

88£3

,788

£4,2

93£0

£1,0

10£1

,010

£1,5

15£1

,515

£1,5

15£1

,515

Trav

el c

osts

All

trave

l to/

from

boa

ts a

ssum

ed b

y ca

r.Tr

avel

cos

ts fo

r trip

s le

ss th

an 2

0 m

iles

assu

med

spe

nt lo

cally

.%

trip

s le

ss th

an 2

0 m

iles

46%

46%

46%

46%

46%

46%

46%

46%

46%

46%

46%

Veh

icle

cos

t/mile

(ful

l car

cos

ts)

£0.3

8£0

.38

£0.3

8£0

.38

£0.3

8£0

.38

£0.3

8£0

.38

£0.3

8£0

.38

£0.3

8A

v di

st. t

rave

lled

(rou

nd tr

ips

- trip

s le

ss th

an 2

0 m

1515

1515

1515

1515

1515

15C

ruis

ing

plus

non

-cru

isin

g vi

sits

per

yea

r0.

031

.031

.031

.031

.031

.031

.031

.031

.031

.031

.0Tr

avel

spe

nd fo

r boa

t vis

its£0

£1,2

19£1

,219

£1,3

82£0

£325

£325

£488

£488

£488

£488

Tota

l spe

nd -

moo

red

boat

sTo

tal s

pend

p.a

. all

moo

red

boat

s£0

£51,

178

£51,

178

£57,

679

£0£1

5,42

2£1

5,42

2£2

1,92

3£2

1,92

3£2

1,92

3£2

1,92

3

2. C

RU

ISIN

G B

OA

TS

Boa

t tra

vel a

sses

smen

t To

tal l

ocks

1414

1619

140

01

11

1To

tal n

avig

able

can

al le

ngth

(km

)13

.715

.316

.917

.814

.016

.917

.917

.123

.426

.628

.6

Mea

n bo

at s

peed

(km

/hr)

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

Tim

e ta

ken

to p

ass

a lo

ck (h

ours

)0.

250.

250.

250.

250.

250.

250.

250.

250.

250.

250.

25Ti

me

take

n to

nav

igat

e ca

nal s

ectio

n (h

ours

)3.

43.

84.

24.

43.

54.

24.

54.

35.

86.

67.

1Ti

me

take

n to

pas

s al

l loc

ks o

n ca

nal s

ectio

n (h

our

3.5

3.5

4.0

4.8

3.5

0.0

0.0

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

Tota

l tim

e to

nav

igat

e se

ctio

n6.

97.

38.

29.

27.

04.

24.

54.

56.

16.

97.

4H

ours

cru

ised

per

day

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.6

Day

s to

cru

ise

all c

anal

1.9

2.0

2.3

2.6

1.94

1.2

1.2

1.3

1.7

1.9

2.1

Tota

l cru

isin

g da

ys s

pent

on

cana

l, pe

r boa

t25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

Mea

n sp

end/

pers

on/d

ay

£14.

03£1

4.03

£14.

03£1

4.03

£14.

03£1

4.03

£14.

03£1

4.03

£14.

03£1

4.03

£14.

03A

vera

ge o

f num

ber p

eopl

e pe

r boa

t 3.

53.

53.

53.

53.

53.

53.

53.

53.

53.

53.

5To

tal c

ruis

ing

spen

d pe

r yea

r - c

anal

-bas

ed b

oa£0

£18,

416

£18,

416

£20,

871

£0£4

,911

£4,9

11£7

,366

£7,3

66£7

,366

£7,3

66

3. H

IRE

BO

ATS

Est

imat

ed n

umbe

r of s

hort

term

hire

boa

ts0

34

40

22

00

00

Econ

omic

Impa

ct A

naly

sis,

Nea

th a

nd T

enna

nt C

anal

s

At 2

008

pric

esU

pdat

e fa

ctor

from

200

6 pr

ices

to 2

008

pric

es1.

044

Upd

ate

fact

or fr

om 2

004

pric

es to

200

8 pr

ices

1.1

Upd

ate

fact

or fr

om 2

002

pric

es to

200

8 pr

ices

1.15

8U

pdat

e fa

ctor

from

199

0 pr

ices

to 2

008

pric

es1.

65Se

nsiti

vity

ass

essm

ent

1.00

Do

Min

imum

Opt

ion

1AO

ptio

n 1B

Opt

ion

1CO

ptio

n 3A

Opt

ion

3BO

ptio

n 3C

Opt

ion

2AO

ptio

n 2B

Opt

ion

2CO

ptio

n 2D

Av.

cost

/hire

(£s)

£500

£500

£500

£500

£500

£500

£500

£500

£500

£500

£500

Hire

s pe

r yea

r26

2626

2626

2626

2626

2626

Leng

th o

f hire

23

33

0.25

0.50

0.50

1.50

1.00

2.00

2.00

Indi

cativ

e cr

uisi

ng s

pend

per

per

son

per d

ay21

.35

21.3

521

.35

21.3

521

.35

21.3

521

.35

21.3

521

.35

21.3

521

.35

Ave

rage

num

ber o

f peo

ple

per b

oat

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.1

4.1

Boa

t day

s pe

r ann

um0

234

312

312

026

260

00

0H

ire s

pend

Tota

l£0

£59,

484

£79,

312

£79,

312

£0£2

8,27

6£2

8,27

6£0

£0£0

£0

4. T

RIP

BO

ATS

No.

of b

oats

12

22

11

12

22

2P

asse

nger

s pe

r boa

t20

2020

2020

2020

2020

2020

Occ

upan

cy ra

te0.

600.

600.

600.

600.

600.

600.

600.

600.

600.

600.

60U

se L

evel

sN

umbe

r of t

rips

per y

ear

280

280

280

280

280

280

280

280

280

280

280

Tota

l num

ber o

f pas

seng

ers

carr

ied

3360

6720

6720

6720

3360

3360

3360

6720

6720

6720

6720

Ave

rage

cos

t per

trip

£2

.00

£3.5

0£3

.50

£3.5

0£3

.50

£3.5

0£3

.50

£3.5

0£3

.50

£3.5

0£3

.50

Trip

spe

ndTo

tal

£6,7

20£2

3,52

0£2

3,52

0£2

3,52

0£1

1,76

0£1

1,76

0£1

1,76

0£2

3,52

0£2

3,52

0£2

3,52

0£2

3,52

0

5. C

AN

OEI

NG

E

stim

ated

num

ber o

f vis

itors

per

yea

r0

00

00

00

00

00

Vis

itor s

pend

per

vis

it£6

.82

£6.8

2£6

.82

£6.8

2£6

.82

£6.8

2£6

.82

£7.8

2£8

.82

£9.8

2£1

0.82

Tota

l spe

nd

£0£0

£0£0

£0£0

£0£0

£0£0

£0

6. A

NG

LER

SV

isits

p.a

.67

0374

9282

8687

1768

5082

8187

5183

5511

442

1144

212

422

Vis

itor s

pend

per

trip

(inc

l. tra

vel/p

erm

its)

£7.4

1£7

.41

£7.4

1£7

.41

£7.4

1£7

.41

£7.4

1£7

.41

£7.4

1£7

.41

£7.4

1To

tal s

pend

£4

9,68

7£5

5,53

1£6

1,41

8£6

4,61

5£5

0,77

6£6

1,38

2£6

4,86

9£6

1,92

7£8

4,80

9£8

4,80

9£9

2,07

3

7. C

YCLI

NG

Fact

or o

f nat

iona

l ave

rage

for v

isito

rs0.

501.

401.

401.

401.

201.

001.

001.

300.

600.

000.

60Vi

sits

p.a

.11

,915

14

,280

16,6

7617

,970

11,9

1511

,915

11,9

1511

,915

11,9

1511

,915

11,9

15

Loca

l Day

trip

pers

Loca

l cyc

lists

on

day

trip

visi

t10

,485

12,5

6614

,675

15,8

1310

,485

10,4

8510

,485

10,4

8510

,485

10,4

8510

,485

Afte

r dis

plac

emen

t20

%20

%20

%20

%20

%20

%20

%20

%20

%20

%20

%V

isito

r spe

nd p

er tr

ip (i

ncl.

trave

l)£3

.28

£3.2

8£3

.28

£3.2

8£3

.28

£3.2

8£3

.28

£3.2

8£3

.28

£3.2

8£3

.28

Tota

l day

cyc

ling

visi

t spe

nd -

by lo

cals

£6,8

74£8

,239

£9,6

21£1

0,36

8£6

,874

£6,8

74£6

,874

£6,8

74£6

,874

£6,8

74£6

,874

In

boun

d da

y tr

ippe

rsN

o. o

f cyc

lists

on

day

trip

visi

t1,

191

1,42

81,

668

1,79

71,

191

1,19

11,

191

1,19

11,

191

1,19

11,

191

Afte

r dis

plac

emen

t20

%20

%20

%20

%20

%20

%20

%20

%20

%20

%20

%V

isito

r spe

nd p

er tr

ip (i

ncl.

trave

l)£3

.28

£3.2

8£3

.28

£3.2

8£3

.28

£3.2

8£3

.28

£3.2

8£3

.28

£3.2

8£3

.28

Tota

l day

cyc

ling

visi

t spe

nd -

inbo

und

visi

tors

£781

£936

£1,0

93£1

,178

£781

£781

£781

£781

£781

£781

£781

Hol

iday

vis

itsN

o. o

f cyc

list d

ays

on h

olid

ay v

isit

238

28

6

334

35

9

238

23

8

238

23

8

238

23

8

238

Afte

r dis

plac

emen

t15

%15

%15

%15

%15

%15

%15

%15

%15

%15

%15

%V

isito

r spe

nd p

er d

ay (i

ncl.

trave

l/acc

omm

odat

ion)

£39.

56£3

9.56

£39.

56£3

9.56

£39.

56£3

9.56

£39.

56£3

9.56

£39.

56£3

9.56

£39.

56To

tal h

olid

ay c

yclin

g vi

sit s

pend

£1,4

14£1

,695

£1,9

79£2

,133

£1,4

14£1

,414

£1,4

14£1

,414

£1,4

14£1

,414

£1,4

14

Tota

l - C

yclin

g£9

,070

£10,

870

£12,

694

£13,

679

£9,0

70£9

,070

£9,0

70£9

,070

£9,0

70£9

,070

£9,0

70

9. IN

FOR

MA

L VI

SITO

RS

Fact

or o

f nat

iona

l ave

rage

for v

isito

rs0.

501.

400.

801.

001.

201.

001.

001.

300.

600.

000.

60Vi

sits

p.a

.32

2,54

1

386,

569

423,

634

448,

647

322,

541

322,

541

322,

541

384,

804

438,

525

438,

525

472,

634

Loca

l day

trip

pers

No.

of i

nfor

mal

vis

itors

on

day

trip

visi

t26

7,70

932

0,85

235

1,61

637

2,37

726

7,70

926

7,70

926

7,70

931

9,38

736

3,97

636

3,97

639

2,28

6A

fter d

ispl

acem

ent

10%

10%

10%

10%

10%

10%

10%

10%

10%

10%

10%

Vis

itor s

pend

per

trip

£5

.14

£5.1

4£5

.14

£5.1

4£5

.14

£5.1

4£5

.14

£5.1

4£5

.14

£5.1

4£5

.14

Loca

l day

trip

pers

day

vis

it sp

end

£137

,496

£164

,790

£180

,590

£191

,253

£137

,496

£137

,496

£137

,496

£164

,037

£186

,938

£186

,938

£201

,478

In b

ound

day

trip

pers

No.

of i

n bo

und

day

tripp

ers

on d

ay tr

ip v

isit

41,9

3050

,254

55,0

7258

,324

41,9

3041

,930

41,9

3050

,025

57,0

0857

,008

61,4

42

Econ

omic

Impa

ct A

naly

sis,

Nea

th a

nd T

enna

nt C

anal

s

At 2

008

pric

esU

pdat

e fa

ctor

from

200

6 pr

ices

to 2

008

pric

es1.

044

Upd

ate

fact

or fr

om 2

004

pric

es to

200

8 pr

ices

1.1

Upd

ate

fact

or fr

om 2

002

pric

es to

200

8 pr

ices

1.15

8U

pdat

e fa

ctor

from

199

0 pr

ices

to 2

008

pric

es1.

65Se

nsiti

vity

ass

essm

ent

1.00

Do

Min

imum

Opt

ion

1AO

ptio

n 1B

Opt

ion

1CO

ptio

n 3A

Opt

ion

3BO

ptio

n 3C

Opt

ion

2AO

ptio

n 2B

Opt

ion

2CO

ptio

n 2D

Afte

r dis

plac

emen

t20

%20

%20

%20

%20

%20

%20

%20

%20

%20

%20

%V

isito

r spe

nd p

er tr

ip

9.8

9.8

9.8

9.8

9.8

9.8

9.8

9.8

9.8

9.8

9.8

In b

ound

day

trip

pers

spe

nd£8

2,54

4£9

8,93

0£1

08,4

16£1

14,8

17£8

2,54

4£8

2,54

4£8

2,54

4£9

8,47

8£1

12,2

27£1

12,2

27£1

20,9

56

Hol

iday

vis

itsN

o. o

f inf

orm

al v

isito

rs o

n ho

liday

vis

it12

,902

15,4

6316

,945

17,9

4612

,902

12,9

0212

,902

15,3

9217

,541

17,5

4118

,905

Afte

r dis

plac

emen

t10

%20

%20

%20

%10

%20

%20

%20

%20

%20

%20

%Tr

ip d

urat

ion

(day

s)1.

002.

002.

002.

001.

001.

001.

001.

501.

501.

502.

00V

isito

r spe

nd p

er d

ay (i

ncl.

trave

l/acc

omm

odat

ion)

£67.

45£6

7.45

£67.

45£6

7.45

£67.

45£6

7.45

£67.

45£6

7.45

£67.

45£6

7.45

£67.

45

Info

rmal

vis

itors

' hol

iday

spe

nd£8

7,02

4£4

17,1

98£4

57,2

00£4

84,1

94£8

7,02

4£1

74,0

48£1

74,0

48£3

11,4

70£3

54,9

53£3

54,9

53£5

10,0

82 H

olid

ay c

otta

ge v

isito

rsN

ew h

olid

ay c

otta

ges

(ele

ven

mon

th le

t at A

berg

ar0

1111

110

00

00

00

Occ

upan

cy ra

tes

45%

45%

45%

45%

45%

45%

45%

45%

45%

45%

45%

Letta

ble

days

334

334

334

334

334

334

334

334

334

334

334

Act

ual d

ays

let,

est

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

150

Afte

r dis

plac

emen

t80

%80

%80

%80

%80

%80

%80

%80

%80

%80

%80

%A

vera

ge p

eopl

e pe

r hol

iday

cot

tage

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

3.5

Hol

iday

cot

tage

s vi

sito

r spe

nd£0

£312

,251

£312

,251

£312

,251

£0£0

£0£0

£0£0

£0

Tota

l hol

iday

vis

it sp

end

£87,

024

£729

,449

£769

,451

£796

,446

£87,

024

£174

,048

£174

,048

£311

,470

£354

,953

£354

,953

£510

,082

Tota

l - in

form

al v

isito

rs£3

07,0

64£9

93,1

69£1

,058

,457

£1,1

02,5

16£3

07,0

64£3

94,0

88£3

94,0

88£5

73,9

85£6

54,1

18£6

54,1

18£8

32,5

16

10. S

UM

MA

RY

OF

DIR

ECT

EXPE

ND

ITU

RE

P.A

.

Priv

ate

boat

s ba

sed

on th

e ca

nal

-£

51,1

78£

51,1

78£

57,6

79£

-£

15,4

22£

15,4

22£

21,9

23£

21,9

23£

21,9

23£

21,9

23£

Cru

isin

g bo

ats

-£

18,4

16£

18,4

16£

20,8

71£

-£

4,91

1£

4,

911

£

7,36

6£

7,

366

£

7,36

6£

7,

366

£

H

ire b

oats

-£

59,4

84£

79,3

12£

79,3

12£

-£

28,2

76£

28,2

76£

-£

-£

-£

-£

Tr

ip b

oats

6,72

0£

23

,520

£

23

,520

£

23

,520

£

11

,760

£

11

,760

£

11

,760

£

23

,520

£

23

,520

£

23

,520

£

23

,520

£

C

anoe

ing

-£

-£

-£

-£

-£

-£

-£

-£

-£

-£

-£

Ang

ling

49,6

87£

55,5

31£

61,4

18£

64,6

15£

50,7

76£

61,3

82£

64,8

69£

61,9

27£

84,8

09£

84,8

09£

92,0

73£

Cyc

ling

9,07

0£

10

,870

£

12

,694

£

13

,679

£

9,

070

£

9,07

0£

9,

070

£

9,07

0£

9,

070

£

9,07

0£

9,

070

£

In

form

al v

isito

rs30

7,06

4£

993,

169

£

1,

058,

457

£

1,10

2,51

6£

30

7,06

4£

394,

088

£

39

4,08

8£

573,

985

£

65

4,11

8£

654,

118

£

83

2,51

6£

TOTA

LTo

tal v

isit-

rela

ted

spen

d37

2,54

0£

1,14

2,57

4£

1,

235,

401

£

1,28

3,64

1£

37

8,67

0£

504,

576

£

50

8,06

3£

668,

502

£

77

1,51

6£

771,

516

£

95

7,17

9£

To

tal b

oat-r

elat

ed s

pend

-£

69,5

94£

69,5

94£

78,5

50£

-£

20,3

33£

20,3

33£

29,2

90£

29,2

90£

29,2

90£

29,2

90£

Tota

l spe

nd37

2,54

0£

1,21

2,16

8£

1,

304,

995

£

1,36

2,19

1£

37

8,67

0£

524,

909

£

52

8,39

6£

697,

791

£

80

0,80

6£

800,

806

£

98

6,46

8£

MU

LTIP

LIER

EFF

ECT

AN

D L

EAK

AG

EC

ombi

ned

inco

me/

supp

ly m

ultip

lier

1.3

1.

3

1.3

1.

3

1.3

1.

3

1.3

1.

3

1.3

1.

3

1.3

D

irect

+ in

dire

ct +

indu

ced

visi

t spe

nd48

4,30

2£

1,48

5,34

7£

1,

606,

022

£

1,66

8,73

4£

49

2,27

1£

655,

949

£

66

0,48

1£

869,

052

£

1,

002,

971

£

1,00

2,97

1£

1,

244,

332

£

D

irect

+ in

dire

ct +

indu

ced

boat

spe

nd-

£

90

,472

£

90

,472

£

10

2,11

5£

-£

26,4

33£

26,4

33£

38,0

76£

38,0

76£

38,0

76£

38,0

76£

Gro

ss d

irect

& in

dire

ct v

isito

r spe

nd48

4,30

2£

1,57

5,81

8£

1,

696,

493

£

1,77

0,84

9£

49

2,27

1£

682,

382

£

68

6,91

4£

907,

129

£

1,

041,

048

£

1,04

1,04

8£

1,

282,

409

£

N

et a

dditi

onal

rela

tive

to D

o M

inim

um-

£1

,091

,516

£1,2

12,1

91£1

,286

,546

£7,9

69£1

98,0

79£2

02,6

12£4

22,8

26£5

56,7

45£5

56,7

45£7

98,1

06

11. E

MPL

OYM

ENT

ESTI

MA

TES To

tal E

mpl

oym

ent G

ener

ated

(FTE

's) -

vis

its7

2325

268

1010

1315

1519

Tota

l Em

ploy

men

t Gen

erat

ed (F

TE's

) - b

oats

01

11

00

00

00

0D

irect

Tota

l7

2426

278

1010

1416

1620

Net

1618

190

33

68

812

Tota

l Em

ploy

men

t Gen

erat

ed (F

TE's

) - v

isits

1030

3233

1013

1317

2020

25To

tal E

mpl

oym

ent G

ener

ated

(FTE

's) -

boa

ts

01

11

00

01

11

1D

irect

, ind

irect

& in

duce

dTo

tal

1031

3335

1013

1418

2121

25N

et2 1

2425

04

48

1111

16

Econ

omic

Impa

ct A

naly

sis,

Nea

th a

nd T

enna

nt C

anal

s

At 2

008

pric

esU

pdat

e fa

ctor

from

200

6 pr

ices

to 2

008

pric

es1.

044

Upd

ate

fact

or fr

om 2

004

pric

es to

200

8 pr

ices

1.1

Upd

ate

fact

or fr

om 2

002

pric

es to

200

8 pr

ices

1.15

8U

pdat

e fa

ctor

from

199

0 pr

ices

to 2

008

pric

es1.

65Se

nsiti

vity

ass

essm

ent

1.00

Do

Min

imum

Opt

ion

1AO

ptio

n 1B

Opt

ion

1CO

ptio

n 3A

Opt

ion

3BO

ptio

n 3C

Opt

ion

2AO

ptio

n 2B

Opt

ion

2CO

ptio

n 2D

12. V

ISIT

S P.

A.

Priv

ate

boat

s ba

sed

on th

e ca

nal

027

027

030

60

7272

108

108

108

108

Cru

isin

g tr

ips

013

1313

1314

880

350

350

525

525

525

525

Hire

boa

ts0

959

1279

1279

010

710

70

00

0Tr

ip /

busi

ness

boa

ts33

6067

2067

2067

2033

6033

6033

6067

2067

2067

2067

20C

anoe

ing

00

00

00

00

00

0A

nglin

g67

0374

9282

8687

1768

5082

8187

5183

5511

442

1144

212

422

Cyc

ling

1191

514

280

1667

617

970

1191

511

915

1191

511

915

1191

511

915

1191

5In

form

al v

isito

rs32

2541

3865

6942

3634

4486

4732

2541

3225

4132

2541

3848

0443

8525

4385

2547

2634

Hol

iday

cot

tage

use

rs0

5787

5787

5787

00

00

00

0To

tal v

isit-

days

p.a

.34

4519

4233

8946

3964

4909

1334

4666

3466

2634

7096

4124

2646

9235

4692

3550

4324

Net

Add

ition

al R

elat

ive

to D

o M

inim

um78

,870

119,

445

146,

394

147

2,10

62,

577

67,9

0712

4,71

512

4,71

515

9,80

4

Annex D

Economic Appraisal Spreadsheets

Full

Sche

me

(£s)

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

Opt

ion

cost

s1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

1819

2021

2223

2425

Cap

ital c

ost 1

03,

501,

667

4,50

1,66

76,

516,

667

5,69

3,00

010

,708

,000

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0C

apita

l cos

t 20

209,

000

157,

000

80,0

0016

1,00

013

0,00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Cap

ital c

ost 3

01,

528,

000

1,75

7,50

01,

562,

000

1,51

8,50

03,

653,

000

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0C

apita

l cos

t 40

00

2,73

1,33

32,

731,

333

2,73

1,33

30

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Sub

tota

l 0

5,23

8,66

764

1616

6.67

1089

0000

1010

3833

.317

2223

33.3

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0R

even

ue m

aint

enan

ce c

ost

00

00

340,

890

340,

890

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

Sub

tota

l0

5,23

8,66

76,

416,

167

10,8

90,0

0010

,444

,723

17,5

63,2

2338

2,14

038

2,14

038

2,14

038

2,14

038

2,14

038

2,14

038

2,14

038

2,14

038

2,14

038

2,14

038

2,14

038

2,14

038

2,14

038

2,14

038

2,14

038

2,14

038

2,14

038

2,14

038

2,14

0To

tal c

ost

05,

238,

667

6,41

6,16

710

,890

,000

10,4

44,7

2317

,563

,223

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

382,

140

Opt

ion

bene

fits

Con

stru

ctio

n em

ploy

men

t Fr

om c

ost d

ata

= ex

clud

e fr

om m

ain

ERR

Use

r ben

efits

Boa

t Hire

From

BW

mod

elP

rivat

e bo

ats

From

BW

mod

elTr

ip b

oats

From

BW

mod

elC

anoe

ists

From

BW

mod

elA

nglin

gFr

om B

W m

odel

Cyc

ling

From

BW

mod

elTo

w P

ath

user

s/to

uris

tsFr

om B

W m

odel

(WTP

of t

owpa

th &

wat

er u

sers

est

imat

ed b

elow

)su

b to

tal

00

00

1,52

2,31

11,

967,

015

2,04

5,90

32,

287,

264

2,28

7,26

42,

287,

264

2,28

7,26

42,

287,

264

2,28

7,26

42,

287,

264

2,28

7,26

42,

287,

264

2,28

7,26

42,

287,

264

2,28

7,26

42,

287,

264

2,28

7,26

42,

287,

264

2,28

7,26

42,

287,

264

2,28

7,26

4W

ider

impa

cts

('Qua

lity

of L

ife')

Env

ironm

enta

l ben

efits

E1.

Lan

d dr

aina

ge0

00

031

9,60

831

9,60

831

9,60

831

9,60

831

9,60

831

9,60

831

9,60

831

9,60

831

9,60

831

9,60

831

9,60

831

9,60

831

9,60

831

9,60

831

9,60

831

9,60

831

9,60

831

9,60

831

9,60

831

9,60

831

9,60

8 E

2. C

arbo

n se

ques

tratio

nB

W W

ales

stu

dy fo

und

to b

e lim

ited

so n

o va

lue

estim

ated

E3.

Lan

dsca

peA

ssum

ed to

be

incl

uded

in u

se a

nd n

on u

se v

alue

s E

4. B

iodi

vers

ityA

ssum

ed to

be

incl

uded

in u

se a

nd n

on u

se v

alue

s E

5. H

erita

ge

Ass

umed

to b

e in

clud

ed in

use

and

non

use

val

ues

E6.

Tra

ffic

Ass

umed

to b

e ne

utra

lS

ocia

l im

pact

s S

1. R

ecre

atio

nal u

se v

alue

s0

00

014

6,34

513

2,75

714

6,34

514

6,34

514

6,34

514

6,34

514

6,34

514

6,34

514

6,34

514

6,34

514

6,34

514

6,34

514

6,34

514

6,34

514

6,34

514

6,34

514

6,34

514

6,34

514

6,34

514

6,34

514

6,34

5 S

2. N

on u

se v

alue

s0

00

031

6,37

631

6,37

632

8,87

232

8,87

232

8,87

232

8,87

232

8,87

232

8,87

232

8,87

232

8,87

232

8,87

232

8,87

232

8,87

232

8,87

232

8,87

232

8,87

232

8,87

232

8,87

232

8,87

232

8,87

232

8,87

2 S

3. H

ealth

ben

efits

00

00

330,

977

330,

977

347,

068

347,

068

347,

068

347,

068

347,

068

347,

068

347,

068

347,

068

347,

068

347,

068

347,

068

347,

068

347,

068

347,

068

347,

068

347,

068

347,

068

347,

068

347,

068

S4.

Com

mun

ity im

pact

sD

escr

ibe

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te S

5. E

duca

tion

& le

arni

ngD

escr

ibe

whe

re a

ppro

pria

teW

ider

Eco

nom

ic Im

pact

s W

1. P

rope

rty v

alue

s (e

xist

ing)

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0 W

2. P

rope

rty v

alue

s (n

ew)

00

00

027

7,20

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

W3.

Reg

ener

atio

n im

pact

sLi

st p

oten

tial a

ctiv

ity to

be

influ

ence

d

Tota

l ben

efits

00

00

2,63

5,61

63,

343,

933

3,18

7,79

63,

429,

157

3,42

9,15

73,

429,

157

3,42

9,15

73,

429,

157

3,42

9,15

73,

429,

157

3,42

9,15

73,

429,

157

3,42

9,15

73,

429,

157

3,42

9,15

73,

429,

157

3,42

9,15

73,

429,

157

3,42

9,15

73,

429,

157

3,42

9,15

7N

et c

ost a

nd b

enef

its0

-5,2

38,6

67-6

,416

,167

-10,

890,

000

-7,8

09,1

07-1

4,21

9,29

12,

805,

656

3,04

7,01

73,

047,

017

3,04

7,01

73,

047,

017

3,04

7,01

73,

047,

017

3,04

7,01

73,

047,

017

3,04

7,01

73,

047,

017

3,04

7,01

73,

047,

017

3,04

7,01

73,

047,

017

3,04

7,01

73,

047,

017

3,04

7,01

73,

047,

017

NPV

(at 3

.5%

)-£

4,67

4,34

5PV

cos

t£4

9,17

4,12

8PV

ben

efits

£44,

499,

783

BC

R0.

9

Part

ial S

chem

e A

(£

s)20

0820

0920

1020

1120

1220

1320

1420

1520

1620

1720

1820

1920

2020

2120

2220

2320

2420

2520

2620

2720

2820

2920

3020

3120

32O

ptio

n co

sts

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

25C

apita

l cos

t 10

3,50

1,66

74,

501,

667

6,51

6,66

71,

909,

000

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Cap

ital c

ost 2

020

9,00

015

7,00

080

,000

41,0

000

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0C

apita

l cos

t 30

1,52

8,00

01,

757,

500

1,56

2,00

01,

518,

500

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Cap

ital c

ost 4

00

02,

731,

333

2,73

1,33

32,

731,

333

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0S

ub to

tal

05,

238,

667

6416

166.

6710

8900

0061

9983

3.33

2731

333.

330

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Rev

enue

mai

nten

ance

cos

t0

00

029

2,05

029

2,05

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

0S

ub to

tal

05,

238,

667

6,41

6,16

710

,890

,000

6,49

1,88

33,

023,

383

318,

780

318,

780

318,

780

318,

780

318,

780

318,

780

318,

780

318,

780

318,

780

318,

780

318,

780

318,

780

318,

780

318,

780

318,

780

318,

780

318,

780

318,

780

318,

780

Tota

l cos

t0

5,23

8,66

76,

416,

167

10,8

90,0

006,

491,

883

3,02

3,38

331

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

031

8,78

0

Opt

ion

bene

fits

Con

stru

ctio

n em

ploy

men

t Fr

om c

ost d

ata

= ex

clud

e fr

om m

ain

ERR

Use

r ben

efits

Boa

t Hire

From

BW

mod

elP

rivat

e bo

ats

From

BW

mod

elTr

ip b

oats

From

BW

mod

elC

anoe

ists

From

BW

mod

elA

nglin

gFr

om B

W m

odel

Cyc

ling

From

BW

mod

elTo

w P

ath

user

s/to

uris

tsFr

om B

W m

odel

(WTP

of t

owpa

th &

wat

er u

sers

est

imat

ed b

elow

)su

b to

tal

00

00

1,52

2,31

11,

967,

015

1,96

7,01

51,

967,

015

1,96

7,01

51,

967,

015

1,96

7,01

51,

967,

015

1,96

7,01

51,

967,

015

1,96

7,01

51,

967,

015

1,96

7,01

51,

967,

015

1,96

7,01

51,

967,

015

1,96

7,01

51,

967,

015

1,96

7,01

51,

967,

015

1,96

7,01

5W

ider

impa

cts

('Qua

lity

of L

ife')

Env

ironm

enta

l ben

efits

E1.

Lan

d dr

aina

ge0

00

089

,010

89,0

1089

,010

89,0

1089

,010

89,0

1089

,010

89,0

1089

,010

89,0

1089

,010

89,0

1089

,010

89,0

1089

,010

89,0

1089

,010

89,0

1089

,010

89,0

1089

,010

E2.

Car

bon

sequ

estra

tion

BW

Wal

es s

tudy

foun

d to

be

limite

d so

no

valu

e es

timat

ed E

3. L

ands

cape

Ass

umed

to b

e in

clud

ed in

use

and

non

use

val

ues

E4.

Bio

dive

rsity

Ass

umed

to b

e in

clud

ed in

use

and

non

use

val

ues

E5.

Her

itage

A

ssum

ed to

be

incl

uded

in u

se a

nd n

on u

se v

alue

s E

6. T

raffi

cA

ssum

ed to

be

neut

ral

Soc

ial i

mpa

cts

S1.

Rec

reat

iona

l use

val

ues

00

00

105,

617

132,

427

132,

427

132,

427

132,

427

132,

427

132,

427

132,

427

132,

427

132,

427

132,

427

132,

427

132,

427

132,

427

132,

427

132,

427

132,

427

132,

427

132,

427

132,

427

132,

427

S2.

Non

use

val

ues

00

00

251,

340

274,

344

274,

344

274,

344

274,

344

274,

344

274,

344

274,

344

274,

344

274,

344

274,

344

274,

344

274,

344

274,

344

274,

344

274,

344

274,

344

274,

344

274,

344

274,

344

274,

344

S3.

Hea

lth b

enef

its0

00

014

7,56

814

7,56

814

7,56

814

7,56

814

7,56

814

7,56

814

7,56

814

7,56

814

7,56

814

7,56

814

7,56

814

7,56

814

7,56

814

7,56

814

7,56

814

7,56

814

7,56

814

7,56

814

7,56

814

7,56

814

7,56

8 S

4. C

omm

unity

impa

cts

Will

nee

d so

me

volu

ntee

ring

info

rmat

ion

from

rest

orat

ion

grou

p S

5. E

duca

tion

& le

arni

ngC

an d

escr

ibe

whe

re a

ppro

pria

teW

ider

Eco

nom

ic Im

pact

s W

1. P

rope

rty v

alue

s (e

xist

ing)

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0 W

2. P

rope

rty v

alue

s (n

ew)

00

00

027

7,20

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

W3.

Reg

ener

atio

n im

pact

sLi

st p

oten

tial a

ctiv

ity to

be

influ

ence

d

Tota

l ben

efits

00

00

2,11

5,84

62,

887,

564

2,61

0,36

42,

610,

364

2,61

0,36

42,

610,

364

2,61

0,36

42,

610,

364

2,61

0,36

42,

610,

364

2,61

0,36

42,

610,

364

2,61

0,36

42,

610,

364

2,61

0,36

42,

610,

364

2,61

0,36

42,

610,

364

2,61

0,36

42,

610,

364

2,61

0,36

4N

et c

ost a

nd b

enef

its0

-5,2

38,6

67-6

,416

,167

-10,

890,

000

-4,3

76,0

37-1

35,8

192,

291,

584

2,29

1,58

42,

291,

584

2,29

1,58

42,

291,

584

2,29

1,58

42,

291,

584

2,29

1,58

42,

291,

584

2,29

1,58

42,

291,

584

2,29

1,58

42,

291,

584

2,29

1,58

42,

291,

584

2,29

1,58

42,

291,

584

2,29

1,58

42,

291,

584

NPV

(at 3

.5%

)£1

,651

,432

PV c

ost

£32,

755,

917

PV b

enef

its£3

4,40

7,34

9B

CR

1.1

Part

ial S

chem

e B

(£

s)20

0820

0920

1020

1120

1220

1320

1420

1520

1620

1720

1820

1920

2020

2120

2220

2320

2420

2520

2620

2720

2820

2920

3020

3120

32O

ptio

n co

sts

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

25C

apita

l cos

t 10

3,50

1,66

74,

501,

667

6,51

6,66

71,

909,

000

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Cap

ital c

ost 2

020

9,00

031

,000

80,0

0041

,000

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Cap

ital c

ost 3

01,

528,

000

1,75

7,50

064

3,50

060

0,00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0C

apita

l cos

t 40

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Sub

tota

l 0

5,23

8,66

762

9016

6.67

7240

166.

6725

5000

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0R

even

ue m

aint

enan

ce c

ost

00

00

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

Sub

tota

l0

5,23

8,66

76,

290,

167

7,24

0,16

72,

842,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

Tota

l cos

t0

5,23

8,66

76,

290,

167

7,24

0,16

72,

842,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

292,

050

Opt

ion

bene

fits

Con

stru

ctio

n em

ploy

men

t Fr

om c

ost d

ata

= ex

clud

e fr

om m

ain

ERR

Use

r ben

efits

Boa

t Hire

From

BW

mod

elP

rivat

e bo

ats

From

BW

mod

elTr

ip b

oats

From

BW

mod

elC

anoe

ists

From

BW

mod

elA

nglin

gFr

om B

W m

odel

Cyc

ling

From

BW

mod

elTo

w P

ath

user

s/to

uris

tsFr

om B

W m

odel

(WTP

of t

owpa

th &

wat

er u

sers

est

imat

ed b

elow

)su

b to

tal

00

00

1,52

2,31

11,

846,

340

1,84

6,34

01,

846,

340

1,84

6,34

01,

846,

340

1,84

6,34

01,

846,

340

1,84

6,34

01,

846,

340

1,84

6,34

01,

846,

340

1,84

6,34

01,

846,

340

1,84

6,34

01,

846,

340

1,84

6,34

01,

846,

340

1,84

6,34

01,

846,

340

1,84

6,34

0W

ider

impa

cts

('Qua

lity

of L

ife')

Env

ironm

enta

l ben

efits

E1.

Lan

d dr

aina

ge0

00

066

,654

66,6

5466

,654

66,6

5466

,654

66,6

5466

,654

66,6

5466

,654

66,6

5466

,654

66,6

5466

,654

66,6

5466

,654

66,6

5466

,654

66,6

5466

,654

66,6

5466

,654

E2.

Car

bon

sequ

estra

tion

BW

Wal

es s

tudy

foun

d to

be

limite

d so

no

valu

e es

timat

ed E

3. L

ands

cape

Ass

umed

to b

e in

clud

ed in

use

and

non

use

val

ues

E4.

Bio

dive

rsity

Ass

umed

to b

e in

clud

ed in

use

and

non

use

val

ues

E5.

Her

itage

A

ssum

ed to

be

incl

uded

in u

se a

nd n

on u

se v

alue

s E

6. T

raffi

cA

ssum

ed to

be

neut

ral

Soc

ial i

mpa

cts

S1.

Rec

reat

iona

l use

val

ues

00

00

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

S2.

Non

use

val

ues

00

00

251,

340

251,

340

251,

340

251,

340

251,

340

251,

340

251,

340

251,

340

251,

340

251,

340

251,

340

251,

340

251,

340

251,

340

251,

340

251,

340

251,

340

251,

340

251,

340

251,

340

251,

340

S3.

Hea

lth b

enef

its0

00

011

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

5 S

4. C

omm

unity

impa

cts

Will

nee

d so

me

volu

ntee

ring

info

rmat

ion

from

rest

orat

ion

grou

p S

5. E

duca

tion

& le

arni

ngC

an d

escr

ibe

whe

re a

ppro

pria

teW

ider

Eco

nom

ic Im

pact

s W

1. P

rope

rty v

alue

s (e

xist

ing)

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0 W

2. P

rope

rty v

alue

s (n

ew)

00

00

027

7,20

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

W3.

Reg

ener

atio

n im

pact

sLi

st p

oten

tial a

ctiv

ity to

be

influ

ence

d

Tota

l ben

efits

00

00

2,06

3,86

72,

665,

096

2,38

7,89

62,

387,

896

2,38

7,89

62,

387,

896

2,38

7,89

62,

387,

896

2,38

7,89

62,

387,

896

2,38

7,89

62,

387,

896

2,38

7,89

62,

387,

896

2,38

7,89

62,

387,

896

2,38

7,89

62,

387,

896

2,38

7,89

62,

387,

896

2,38

7,89

6N

et c

ost a

nd b

enef

its0

-5,2

38,6

67-6

,290

,167

-7,2

40,1

67-7

78,1

832,

373,

046

2,09

5,84

62,

095,

846

2,09

5,84

62,

095,

846

2,09

5,84

62,

095,

846

2,09

5,84

62,

095,

846

2,09

5,84

62,

095,

846

2,09

5,84

62,

095,

846

2,09

5,84

62,

095,

846

2,09

5,84

62,

095,

846

2,09

5,84

62,

095,

846

2,09

5,84

6N

PV (a

t 3.5

%)

£8,0

49,2

45PV

cos

t£2

3,55

7,47

3PV

ben

efits

£31,

606,

718

BC

R1.

3

Part

ial S

chem

e C

(£

s)20

0820

0920

1020

1120

1220

1320

1420

1520

1620

1720

1820

1920

2020

2120

2220

2320

2420

2520

2620

2720

2820

2920

3020

3120

32O

ptio

n co

sts

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

25C

apita

l cos

t 10

3,50

1,66

74,

501,

667

6,51

6,66

797

0,00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0C

apita

l cos

t 20

209,

000

31,0

0080

,000

14,0

000

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0C

apita

l cos

t 30

1,52

8,00

01,

757,

500

643,

500

209,

000

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Cap

ital c

ost 4

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0S

ub to

tal

05,

238,

667

6290

166.

6772

4016

6.67

1193

000

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Rev

enue

mai

nten

ance

cos

t0

00

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

0S

ub to

tal

05,

238,

667

6,29

0,16

77,

240,

167

1,43

2,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

0To

tal c

ost

05,

238,

667

6,29

0,16

77,

240,

167

1,43

2,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

023

9,25

0

Opt

ion

bene

fits

Con

stru

ctio

n em

ploy

men

t Fr

om c

ost d

ata

= ex

clud

e fr

om m

ain

ERR

Use

r ben

efits

Boa

t Hire

From

BW

mod

elP

rivat

e bo

ats

From

BW

mod

elTr

ip b

oats

From

BW

mod

elC

anoe

ists

From

BW

mod

elA

nglin

gFr

om B

W m

odel

Cyc

ling

From

BW

mod

elTo

w P

ath

user

s/to

uris

tsFr

om B

W m

odel

(WTP

of t

owpa

th &

wat

er u

sers

est

imat

ed b

elow

)su

b to

tal

00

00

1,52

2,31

11,

846,

340

1,84

6,34

01,

846,

340

1,84

6,34

01,

846,

340

1,84

6,34

01,

846,

340

1,84

6,34

01,

846,

340

1,84

6,34

01,

846,

340

1,84

6,34

01,

846,

340

1,84

6,34

01,

846,

340

1,84

6,34

01,

846,

340

1,84

6,34

01,

846,

340

1,84

6,34

0W

ider

impa

cts

('Qua

lity

of L

ife')

Env

ironm

enta

l ben

efits

E1.

Lan

d dr

aina

ge0

00

066

,654

66,6

5466

,654

66,6

5466

,654

66,6

5466

,654

66,6

5466

,654

66,6

5466

,654

66,6

5466

,654

66,6

5466

,654

66,6

5466

,654

66,6

5466

,654

66,6

5466

,654

E2.

Car

bon

sequ

estra

tion

BW

Wal

es s

tudy

foun

d to

be

limite

d so

no

valu

e es

timat

ed E

3. L

ands

cape

Ass

umed

to b

e in

clud

ed in

use

and

non

use

val

ues

E4.

Bio

dive

rsity

Ass

umed

to b

e in

clud

ed in

use

and

non

use

val

ues

E5.

Her

itage

A

ssum

ed to

be

incl

uded

in u

se a

nd n

on u

se v

alue

s E

6. T

raffi

cA

ssum

ed to

be

neut

ral

Soc

ial i

mpa

cts

S1.

Rec

reat

iona

l use

val

ues

00

00

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

105,

617

S2.

Non

use

val

ues

00

00

205,

900

205,

900

205,

900

205,

900

205,

900

205,

900

205,

900

205,

900

205,

900

205,

900

205,

900

205,

900

205,

900

205,

900

205,

900

205,

900

205,

900

205,

900

205,

900

205,

900

205,

900

S3.

Hea

lth b

enef

its0

00

011

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

511

7,94

5 S

4. C

omm

unity

impa

cts

Des

crib

e w

here

app

ropr

iate

S5.

Edu

catio

n &

lear

ning

Des

crib

e w

here

app

ropr

iate

Wid

er E

cono

mic

Impa

cts

W1.

Pro

perty

val

ues

(exi

stin

g)0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

W2.

Pro

perty

val

ues

(new

)0

00

00

277,

200

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0 W

3. R

egen

erat

ion

impa

cts

List

pot

entia

l act

ivity

to b

e in

fluen

ced

Tota

l ben

efits

00

00

2,01

8,42

72,

619,

656

2,34

2,45

62,

342,

456

2,34

2,45

62,

342,

456

2,34

2,45

62,

342,

456

2,34

2,45

62,

342,

456

2,34

2,45

62,

342,

456

2,34

2,45

62,

342,

456

2,34

2,45

62,

342,

456

2,34

2,45

62,

342,

456

2,34

2,45

62,

342,

456

2,34

2,45

6N

et c

ost a

nd b

enef

its0

-5,2

38,6

67-6

,290

,167

-7,2

40,1

6758

6,17

72,

380,

406

2,10

3,20

62,

103,

206

2,10

3,20

62,

103,

206

2,10

3,20

62,

103,

206

2,10

3,20

62,

103,

206

2,10

3,20

62,

103,

206

2,10

3,20

62,

103,

206

2,10

3,20

62,

103,

206

2,10

3,20

62,

103,

206

2,10

3,20

62,

103,

206

2,10

3,20

6N

PV (a

t 3.5

%)

£9,3

29,3

61PV

cos

t£2

1,67

4,97

0PV

ben

efits

£31,

004,

332

BC

R1.

4

Annex E

Bibliography

ANNEX E - BIBLIOGRAPHY British Waterways (2000), Waterways for Tomorrow. British Waterways (2007), Waterways in Wales: Economic Costs and Benefits of the Welsh Canal Network, prepared by Ecotec. British Waterways / Norfolk Broads Authority (undated), An Economic Analysis in Waterway Maintenance. British Waterways (2007), Economic Impact Analysis Model. British Waterways (2004), Waterways for Wales, the Way Forward, consultation response to the 2003 Waterways for Wales consultation. European Commission Evaluation Unit (1997), Guide to Cost Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects. Grosvenor Waterside Group (2001), Assessment of Potential for Amending Canal Reservation – Swansea Docks, prepared by RPS Chapman Warren. HM Treasury (2003), The Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government. IWAAC (2006), Inland Waterway Restoration and Development. Neath Canal Navigation (2006), Neath Canal Condition Survey, Final Report, prepared by Atkins. NPTCBC (undated), Neath Port Talbot Tourism Strategy, 2006 - 2009, prepared by Atkins. NPTCBC (2006), The Neath Port Talbot Western Valleys Strategy, Positive Futures. NPTCBC (2006), Vale of Neath Supplementary Action Plan. NPTCBC (2007), Milland Road Regeneration Strategy Stage One Report – Executive Summary, prepared by Knight Frank & Arup. NPTCBC (2007), Afan Forest Park Visitor Survey Report, August – September 2007, prepared by Beaufort Research. NPTCBC (2007), Neath Valley Tourism Paper, unpublished. NPTCBC (2008), Canal Green Regeneration Strategy, Neath, Stage Two Report – Executive Summary, prepared by Knight Frank.

NOMIS (2008) on-line official labour market statistics, www.nomisweb.co.uk, Office for National Statistics. NOMIS on-line Census Area Statistics: Ward Population Estimates for England and Wales, mid 2001-2005, www.nomisweb.co.uk NOMIS online, 2001 census data, www.nomisweb.co.uk Northern Reaches Restoration Group (2003), Lancaster Canal Northern Reaches Restoration, Options Appraisal Study, prepared by ERM. Scarborough Tourism Activity Monitor (STEAM) (2006 & 2007) for Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council. South West Wales Tourism Partnership (2004), Open All Year: A Tourism Strategy for South West Wales, 2004-2008. Unitary Development Plan, 2001-2016 Further Modifications, NPTCBC. Unitary Development Plan, Pre-Inquiry Modifications (2006), City and County of Swansea. Vale of Neath and Swansea Valley Integrated Waterway Partnership (2002), Restoration of the Neath, Tennant and Swansea Canals, Feasibility Study, Final Report, prepared by Atkins Consultants Ltd. Welsh Assembly Government (2002), Planning Policy Wales. Welsh Assembly Government (2008), Wales Spatial Plan. Welsh European Funding Office, various documentation including EU Convergence Funding Strategic Frameworks 2007-2013.

Documents

Neath and Tennant Canal Restoration: Economic Appraisal, Stage … Neath and... · 2015-04-24 · Part 3C Restore Neath Canal from Giant’s Grave to original terminus at Briton Ferry