Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Minister for Roads, Buses and Places
Huw Merriman MP
Chair of the Transport Committee
House of Commons
7 July 2021
Dear Huw,
Historical Railways Estate
Thank you for your letter of 16 June 2021 about the Historical Railways Estate
For your ease of reference, I have quoted in bold italics below the relevant sections of your
letter to which my response relates.
In 2016, Highways England stated its aim was to demolish 10-15% of the estate,
subject to securing the necessary funding. We would be grateful if you could
confirm whether this target remains in place, and, if not, whether any revised target
for demolition exists.
Highways England’s primary concern is the safety of the public. Noting the Committee’s
previous recommendations on this issue, Highways England’s approach is to transfer
responsibility of HRE structures so they can be repurposed and reused to support walking,
cycling or new heritage railway lines wherever possible. Where this is not possible, they
will be maintained and kept safe, sometimes by infilling. As outlined in my previous letter,
infilling is reversible.
Highways England will only demolish as a last resort. It has confirmed to me that it has no
target or aim to demolish any percentage of the HRE and will only look to do this where it
is necessary on safety grounds.
The suggestion that Highways England has an aim to demolish 10-15% of the HRE may
have arisen from a strategy and options discussion paper that was put forward to DfT
during dialogue over management of the Estate. As you know, such papers consider all
options, including a do minimum or do-nothing approach. I welcome the rigour that this
exploratory approach brings to any discussion. That paper highlights that 10-15% of the
estate could be demolished if there was no interest in them from other parties. It does not
state that this is the preferred option.
You told us 17 infilling schemes have been paused or adapted. We would like to
know why this was necessary when you told us Highways England “would not enter
a phase of works without clarity over the aspirations for potential re-use.”
Highways England was unaware of the local aspirations to repurpose and reuse the 17
structures. It sought consent under permitted development rights to undertake
maintenance to keep them safe. Upon receipt of feedback from those local planning
authorities regarding their future aspirations for these structures, it paused or adapted
schemes so that it could explore and, where possible, support these plans. We believe this
is the right approach, listening in the cases where there may be other viable aspirations for
these structures of which we were previously unaware.
We were pleased to read in the press that the number of bridges threatened with
infilling has been reduced from 115 to 69. We would be grateful if you could confirm
the basis upon which 46 bridges have been reprieved, given that Highways
England’s infilling programme was based on a risk assessment by expert engineers
and structures are only proposed for infilling if they are “unsafe”.
Highways England shared a list of 115 schemes that were in various stages of
development for maintenance in the interests of public safety. This list was released in
response to a freedom of Information request in December 20. In that list they highlighted
schemes that were the subject of potential infilling about which they had written to local
authorities. Suitable schemes for 46 bridges from that list are still under development and
will be shaped by any feedback Highways England receive regarding future plans to re-
purpose or re-use these structures.
We have been informed that Highways England is now routinely refusing to provide
any information to members of the public about the ongoing infilling and demolition
programme. We are concerned this may prevent community groups and other
interested parties from making representations about structures of importance to
them, particularly if no planning application has been submitted.
Highways England welcomes interest in the Historical Railways Estate and strives to be
open and honest about its plans and aspirations.
They have received unusually high volumes of freedom of information requests for
structural assessment reports. Before such reports can be shared, they have to be
reviewed to redact personal details. This has resulted in a significant amount of work and
some requests have had to be refused given the staff time required to deal with them, as
set out within the bounds of Freedom of Information legislation.
To address this and ensure transparency, Highways England has recently launched a
Historical Railway Estate page on its website. From August 2021, this web page will also
house an archive which will be used to make assessment reports publicly available using a
phased approach to publication to make this exercise manageable. I hope that this step is
another sign of Highways England’s constructive approach to its management of the
Estate.
We have also been informed that there has been no dialogue with officers from
either the Eden Valley or Stainmore railways about this bridge. We would be grateful
if you could confirm the extent of Highways England’s engagement with these two
important stakeholders.
Regarding the heritage railway companies, Highways England discussed the former
branch line with both Eden Valley Railway and Stainmore Railway. They had both raised
their long-term aspirations to connect their operations and provide a rail link between
Kirkby Stephen and Appleby-in-Westmoreland; however, it would be a heritage railway as
both towns are already connected by the Settle to Carlisle line operated by Network Rail.
Highways England welcomed these discussions. Both heritage railway companies readily
acknowledge the significant hurdles to overcome in the form of missing bridges, including
crossing the River Eden, land ownership, and Transport and Works Act Orders. Their
conclusion was that a connection, if it ever happened, was a long-term future aspiration.
They acknowledged that the additional impact of reversing the infilling of one bridge in
comparison to the other works required was negligible.
I appreciate the strong interest in this bridge, and it is important for me to note the many
views about this case, which I and my colleagues at Highways England respect. As you
would expect, beyond the heritage railway organisations Highways England has taken an
inclusive and sympathetic approach at Great Musgrave. They have gone to great lengths
to correct several inaccurate reports about their approach to this issue. I appreciate the
opportunity to do the same here.
In April 2020, it advised Eden District Council (EDC) of its intention to undertake infilling
work, to which the Council expressed no objection and confirmed that it would not require
a planning application. In June 2021, EDC asked Highways England for more information
regarding the work and it provided the reports and details, as requested. The bridge had
been assessed as being unsafe due to it having no weight restriction applied. A weight
limit is the responsibility of the local highways authority, in this case Cumbria County
Council. Furthermore, Highways England speak regularly to its counterparts in the bridges
team at Cumbria County Council and discussed with them as well as officers at EDC prior
to any work taking place.
As you would expect, Highways England also spoke to Sustrans, Railway Paths Limited
and the Railway Heritage Trust. They received no objections from any of these important
stakeholder groups before works began. Furthermore, as I set out below, Highways
England has also made a commitment to reverse the infilling at no cost should a feasible
heritage railway line start work and require the connection at Great Musgrave.
We have been informed that Highways England twice refused Eden District
Council’s request to pause works at the Cumbria bridge, despite not having
planning permission. We would like to know why infilling continued in these
circumstances and why the bridge presented an urgent risk to public safety.
Highways England proceeded based on advice given by Eden District Council (EDC) that
planning permission was not required. EDC then contacted Highways England once work
had started. When work to make the bridge safe was substantially complete, EDC
recommended that Highways England stop in order that they could conduct a more
thorough analysis of the work to re-check whether it qualified to be undertaken under
permitted development, that is without planning permission.
The context here is that the need to start work on the bridge was urgent. The structure was
weak, potentially causing the bridge deck to fall suddenly. A delay would have resulted in a
project delay to 2022 due to ecological constraints on construction, owing to the presence
of bats. Given the urgency, Highways England made the decision to proceed on the
grounds of public safety, it acted on the advice that EDC had given it, and the work was
progressed to a stage where a pause was no longer possible.
Moreover, Highways England has taken the pragmatic step of committing to reversing the
infilling at no cost should a realistic prospect of a heritage railway start work.
I am grateful to you and the Committee for your interest in the Estate, and in ensuring that
Highways England is acting properly in its management of it.
BARONESS VERE OF NORBITON