'Vandalised' Cumbria railway bridge reopens two years after filled in with concrete

A Victorian railways bridge has finally reopened two years after National Highways filled it with concrete. The act was branded 'cultural vandalism'.

The Great Musgrave Bridge near Warcop was filled in by the highway agency in July 2021. The decision was made after fears the bridge could collapse.

Thousands of tons of concrete were poured into the 161-year-old bridge costing a whopping £124,000. But opponents said the work was taken "without justification" and the filling in would stop the bridge being used by walkers and cyclists.

This is just one of dozens of bridges that campaigners argue were infilled or demolished with no consideration taken about their heritage value. More than 800 people objected and Eden District Council issued an enforcement notice in September last year after refusing retrospective planning permission.

After listening to campaigners, work to remove the concrete started in July and the archway has been restored to was it once one. The bridge opened on Friday at 6pm.

National Highways scrutinised over four more historic bridge infills

National Highways is under pressure over four more controversial bridge infills which were carried out to historic structures before the infamous Great Musgrave fallout.

Campaigners claim that National Highways failed to obtain relevant planning consents for work on four historic bridges which were infilled using emergency powers between January 2019 and May 2021. National Highways disputes the claims and believes it does have the necessary consents for the infillings.

The HRE Group – an alliance of engineers, sustainable transport advocates and greenway developers – claims that the infillings have “questionable legal status” and is urging the four respective local authorities to assess whether National Highways should be ordered to reverse the work.

If the councils do issue enforcement orders for the infills to be removed, costs are likely to run into the millions.

The government’s road agency will be forced to remove hundreds of tonnes of concrete it used to bury a Victorian bridge arch despite offering a £450,000 sweetener to allow the controversial scheme to stay.
...
The planning committee’s decision means the agency will be required to reverse a project that submerged the 1862 bridge arch near Kirkby Stephen in 1,644 tonnes of gravel and concrete at a cost of £124,000. The council said it will now serve NH with an enforcement notice to restore the bridge to its previous state.

failed an engineering assessment to carry 44-tonne

National Highways awarded 14 contracts in five weeks as preparatory works gather pace to infill or demolish dozens of Victorian bridges.

Contracts are being let despite ministers pausing the infilling programme in July.

National Highways says that it has indeed paused work as instructed – on site, that is, but not it seems in the planning. It is still pressing ahead with contract awards on the basis that it will be able to resume works in due course.

From The Guardian

Other key measures included in the Summer of Cycling and Walking include plans to publish a new road safety strategic framework and commitments to help train hundreds of new Bikeability instructors and explore how historic railway structures can be converted into cycle routes.

The government has also announced today that the new Active Travel England (ATE) commissioning body, which will hold the national cycling and walking budget, will begin work later this year.

Victorian railway bridges that were due to be filled in with concrete in an act previously decried as “cultural vandalism” will be repurposed as part of a scheme to encourage walking and cycling, the UK transport secretary has announced.

The government is halting the demolition of historic train lines in the hope that they can be remodelled as routes which encourage greener means of travel.

Grant Shapps unveiled the summer of cycling and walking strategy on Friday, which proposed to improve related infrastructure around the UK – supported by a £338m budget.

It comes after a Highways England decision to pour concrete in a railway arch provoked anger from local residents, with the government-owned firm being told it may have to reverse the move.

“Whilst the provisions allow initial works to be undertaken in connection with an emergency, where such works are intended to be retained, retrospective planning permission must be sought. […] The Council’s acceptance of Highways England’s Permitted Development Rights does not constitute permission for the infilling to be retained. Planning processes will be followed and due consideration given to any future application in respect of the infilling of Great Musgrave Bridge.”

From The Guardian

In relation to whether these works require planning permission, it is important to note that Highways England do have permitted development rights to carry out certain works, without the need for the prior grant of planning permission. These rights would be covered in Part 9 and Part 19 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.

Eden District Council’s Planning Service has opened a dialogue with Highways England to understand the full extent, nature and reasoning for the proposed works at Great Musgrave, to ascertain whether the works do fall within Permitted Development Rights.

This is an ongoing matter and discussions have not yet concluded.

Once sufficient information has been provided by Highways England, the Planning Service will be able to judge whether these works do constitute a Permitted Development, or if they require the prior granting of planning permission. This information will inform what action, if any, can be taken in relation to these works.

The government’s roads agency could be forced to remove hundreds of tonnes of concrete it used to fill in a Victorian railway arch in a project that was condemned as the first act of “cultural vandalism” in a nationwide plan.

Eden district council told Highways England (HE) this week that it needs to apply for retrospective planning permission for a scheme that involved pouring an estimated 1,000 tonnes of concrete and aggregate under the bridge at Great Musgrave, Cumbria, at the start of nationwide programme to infill scores of historic structures.

If planning is refused, the agency will be obliged to restore the bridge to its state before the infill began at the end of May.

and that Highways England have emergency powers.

Class A – railway or light railway undertakings

Permitted development

A.  Development by railway undertakers on their operational land, required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail.

Development not permitted

A.1  Development is not permitted by Class A if it consists of or includes—

(a)the construction of a railway;
(b)the construction or erection of a hotel, railway station or bridge; or
(c)the construction or erection otherwise than wholly within a railway station of—
   (i)an office, residential or educational building, or a building used for an industrial process, or
   (ii)a car park, shop, restaurant, garage, petrol filling station or other building or structure provided under transport legislation.

Interpretation of Class A

A.2  For the purposes of Class A, references to the construction or erection of any building or structure include references to the reconstruction or alteration of a building or structure where its design or external appearance would be materially affected.

Development relating to roads

Class A – development by highways authorities

Permitted development

A.  The carrying out by a highway authority—

(a)on land within the boundaries of a road, of any works required for the maintenance or improvement of the road, where such works involve development by virtue of section 55(2)(b) F177 of the Act; or
(b)on land outside but adjoining the boundary of an existing highway of works required for or incidental to the maintenance or improvement of the highway.

Class B – development by the Secretary of State or a strategic highways company under the Highways Act 1980

Permitted development

B.  The carrying out by the Secretary of State or a strategic highways company of works in exercise of the functions of the Secretary of State or the company under the Highways Act 1980 F178, or works in connection with, or incidental to, the exercise of those functions.

Interpretation of Class B

B.1  For the purposes of Class B, “strategic highways company” means a company for the time being appointed under Part 1 of the Infrastructure Act 2015 F179.

Class C – tramway or road transport undertakings
...
Class D – toll road facilities
...

But do you need planning permission to infill a bridge? I doubt it, unless it was listed by English Heritage.

Highways England says that the bridges concerned are among 200 to have failed an engineering assessment to carry 44-tonne lorries and, in the absence of weight restrictions, will have to be infilled or demolished on “urgent safety grounds” to “prevent an emergency arising.”

From Change.org


I wonder if Highways England is to bridges as Network Rail is to level crossings ...

possibly from a government point of view if they consider it is far enough down the administrative food to hopefully not cause too much bad press and be deniable.

12 JUN 2021 —

It's looking increasingly likely that the battle to save Great Musgrave bridge in Cumbria will be lost.

Highways England started to infill this bridge on 24 May. It does not have planning permission and the local authority has twice asked it to stop. But it has continued with this vandalism regardless, citing Permitted Development powers which only facilitate temporary works in emergency situations presenting a risk of death or injury.

Great Musgrave bridge is (or at least 'was') in fine condition and repointing of open joints in the arch barrel would have delivered a capacity of 40 tonnes. It is crossed by a narrow and lightly-used country lane. But Highways England chose instead to infill it.

It is fair to say that the state-owned roads company has been guilty of deceit and dishonesty over the past three weeks. Yet, despite this, a bridge that is needed for a future connection between two heritage railways is now substantially infilled. Concrete will be pumped into the void between the crown and compacted aggregate early next week.

It has never been more important to raise awareness of this issue and gather more support. 130 other structures are under threat, including bridges needed for railway reopenings and active travel schemes. One of the feats earmarked for infilling was engineered by Isambard Kingdom Brunel. This assault on our great railway heritage has not apparent limits.

Please share our petition with your family, friends and colleagues, and encourage them to sign it.

British Railways Board (Residuary)

Is Highways England the best guardian for rail heritage and dormant resource?

The Historical Railways Estate (HRE) is a collection of around 3,200 legacy structures, owned by the Department for Transport (DfT) and managed on its behalf by Highways England (HE). Around 30% of these bridges, tunnels, culverts and viaducts are located in Scotland and Wales, responsibility for them not having been devolved.

Over the years, many of the structures have been rehabilitated to carry parts of the National Cycle Network. In the late Nineties, a large portfolio was transferred to Railway Paths Ltd, sister charity to Sustrans, as a means of quickly and simply delivering new routes. HE’s predecessor, British Railways Board (Residuary), also granted leases for the use of their structures within active travel schemes.

The results of this collaboration can be seen and enjoyed through an expanding collection of routes, many of them benefiting from iconic viaducts and tunnels.

Regretably, Highways England’s management agreement with the DfT now frames the Estate as a liability, the risks from which have to be minimised. Structures can only be brought back into positive public use upon transfer to another statutory body. Given the financial plight in which many local authorities find themselves, this policy has generally had the effect of condemning the Estate to decline.

In January 2021, it was revealed that Highways England intends to infill 115 bridges and tunnels, and demolish a further 15 over the next five years. As many as 480 structures could ultimately be under threat of demolition according to the company’s 2016 Strategic Plan for future management of the Estate.

As this document illustrates, this programme of damaging interventions could thwart the development of active travel routes, railway reopenings and extensions to heritage lines, with 41 of the at-risk structures already intended for incorporation within such schemes or having identified future potential. All of the featured bridges and tunnels are under threat of infilling or demolition.

Given the Government’s stated commitment to a green transport revolution, The HRE Group believes these plans are unsustainable and must be challenged before irreparable damage is inflicted.

The HRE Group
thehregroup@forgottenrelics.org
facebook.com/theHREgroup
twitter.com/theHREgroup
www.change.org/theHREgroup (ePetition)
© The HRE Group 2021

I don't subscribe to Twitter so either through a lack of full access or a lack of knowledge on how to work with their system I haven't found a way to access the narrative about the sites.

more information here

https://twitter.com/paulwhitewick/status/1346437769258741761?s=21

Highways England is 'finishing off what Beeching started'

PLANS by Highways England to demolish more than a hundred structures on disused railways have been condemned for potentially preventing future railway reopenings.

Responsibility for non-operational railway land was transferred to the Department for Transport?s Highways Agency and then to Highways England after the British Railways Board had been finally wound up in 2013.

Many structures, particularly bridges, must still be maintained for safety reasons, even though they are no longer on active railway routes, and Highways England is currently planning to remove 134 of these structures to reduce the risks they present.

But the plan has been criticised by campaigners because it could make future reopenings less likely and also block heritage trails used by cyclists and walkers.

The campaigners say Highways England has already been infilling some bridges since it took over responsibility for the Historical Railways Estate. One of them, at Chilcompton in Somerset, has blocked a future extension to a line operated by the Somerset & Dorset Railway Heritage Trust despite, it is claimed, Mendip District Council having a policy that protects the former trackbed.