DfT Plan to Demolish Disused Bridges and Tunnels

[WesternLancer]

Cumbrian councillors to vote on reversing infill of Victorian bridge | Cumbria | The Guardian

Planning officers advise committee to refuse road agency’s application for retrospective permission

amp.theguardian.com

Eden District Council planning officer(s) advising to vote against retrospective planning - thus removal of infill

This sounds like good news - tho presumably a different planning officer than the one who IIRC advised the govt body that wished to infill originally that planning permission was not required and they could do it under permitted development rights? (this may or may not have been when it was claimed the work was required 'urgently')

 

[Falcon1200]

I have to ask again, is there any realistic chance of the bridge ever being required for rail use again, ie the two heritage railways linking up ? If not, removing the infill would be just as much a waste of time and money as installing it was in the first place.

 

[WesternLancer]

I have to ask again, is there any realistic chance of the bridge ever being required for rail use again, ie the two heritage railways linking up ? If not, removing the infill would be just as much a waste of time and money as installing it was in the first place.

Possibly yes, but the planning consideration will also take into account its visual impact on the landscape etc - which from the published pictures is appalling. A different method of infill may have not resulted in such a negative visual outcome - but the commissioning body should have thought of that when they specified the job.

 

[Falcon1200]

Agree, it does look dreadful, but it could be covered, artificially or perhaps naturally, with plant growth.

 

[WesternLancer]

Agree, it does look dreadful, but it could be covered, artificially or perhaps naturally, with plant growth.

Maybe - but then those 'landscaping plans' should have been part of the planning application and I don't think they were. It's not up to the council to consider things the applicant has not done or not indicated they intend to do - they assess the plans that have been submitted, and approve or reject them. If the applicant does stuff without the necessary planning permission the law says they must remove it - same as if I built a massive extension to my house without permission. The fact that this then costs more money is tough luck on the offender (even if it is done with a budget paid for by the taxpayer).

 

[bramling]

Maybe - but then those 'landscaping plans' should have been part of the planning application and I don't think they were. It's not up to the council to consider things the applicant has not done or not indicated they intend to do - they assess the plans that have been submitted, and approve or reject them. If the applicant does stuff without the necessary planning permission the law says they must remove it - same as if I built a massive extension to my house without permission. The fact that this then costs more money is tough luck on the offender (even if it is done with a budget paid for by the taxpayer).

One would of course expect some level of accountability from those responsible for wasting taxpayers money in that way, though in this case it’s hard to see how that might realistically happen.

 

[WesternLancer]

One would of course expect some level of accountability from those responsible for wasting taxpayers money in that way, though in this case it’s hard to see how that might realistically happen.

Indeed - you have written the last line to my message that I should have added!

 

[hwl]

One would of course expect some level of accountability from those responsible for wasting taxpayers money in that way, though in this case it’s hard to see how that might realistically happen.

Highways England (as they used to be) was DfT's poster child for an organisation that could get things done with sensible cost time scales etc. so DfT tended to be fairly hands off and just let them get on with things without asking too many questions.
The reality was they were as secretive as possible and cut corners with this being exposed in several areas* which has potentially fed into the recent rebranding.

*e.g. Lower Thames Tunnel scheme development and TWAO prep - resulting in lots of delays (circa 2 years?) while they addressed the short comings for corner cutting by redesigning several parts of the scheme.
Smart motorways - only analysing safety of 3+1 and 4+0 lane options and conveniently leaving out 4+1 from comparisons despites being safer because they were so focused on cost minimisation.

 

[High Dyke]

Surely there should be room for comprise amongst relevant parties. For example a disused railway, that has potential to provide a suitable walkkng/cycling route could be retained at a bridge. Sympathetic infilling and provision of a acceptable height access through the structure could be achieved.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Some of the tactics used to put these structures beyond use have been underhand to say the least though. Using the lockdowns to infill the Queensbury Tunnels was downright crooked. Behaving in such a manner makes it seem like they have something to hide, or that they're afraid of bad press. This is not what we should expect from public bodies.

The costs for rectifying these actions should also come out of the pension pots of those that authorised it. Perhaps then they'll be encouraged to stay in their lane in terms of responsibility.

 

[bramling]

Some of the tactics used to put these structures beyond use have been underhand to say the least though. Using the lockdowns to infill the Queensbury Tunnels was downright crooked. Behaving in such a manner makes it seem like they have something to hide, or that they're afraid of bad press. This is not what we should expect from public bodies.

The costs for rectifying these actions should also come out of the pension pots of those that authorised it. Perhaps then they'll be encouraged to stay in their lane in terms of responsibility.

Yes the Queensbury preservation society have certainly exposed some dubious behaviours in regards to Queensbury Tunnel. A lot of money seems to have been spent with little to show for it.

 

[WesternLancer]

The costs for rectifying these actions should also come out of the pension pots of those that authorised it. Perhaps then they'll be encouraged to stay in their lane in terms of responsibility.

A very unwise precedent and a recipe for:

- employees seeking more pay as the risks of decisions they may take will need to 'insured against'
- none taking decisions on matter that need to be decided on as they are scared of the consequences to them individually.

Be careful what you wish for!

Should simply be subject to the normal sanctions in their workplaces for doing things wrongly.

However, I would refer back to my earlier post where it seems that the local council gave the scheme the 'green light' when first asked about ti - but then seemed to do a U turn on whether planning permission was needed to start with. This has not helped matter IMHO.

The civil servant concerned at the Highways body could justifiably say - I checked this and was advised no permission was required, but now someone at the local council has changed their mind and you are going to sanction my pension?

Do you really think that is fair or reasonable?

 

[Dougal2345]

One would of course expect some level of accountability from those responsible for wasting taxpayers money in that way, though in this case it’s hard to see how that might realistically happen.

I suspect the way this works though, is that Highways England have set up a separate department to manage the historical railways estate, and given it a budget of £xxx-million per year.

Now the head of that department needs to spend that money in the allocated time. If they make an effort to save money, it will actually count against them, as their little empire will shrink the following year and they might be out of a job. So they choose wasteful options, and if they then have to pay again to undo what's been done, it all just comes out of the same pot of money.

So if they spend their money infilling and then re-excavating the same bridges, it doesn't actually cost the taxpayer any more than if they successfully infilled double the number of bridges...

 

[bramling]

I suspect the way this works though, is that Highways England have set up a separate department to manage the historical railways estate, and given it a budget of £xxx-million per year.

Now the head of that department needs to spend that money in the allocated time. If they make an effort to save money, it will actually count against them, as their little empire will shrink the following year and they might be out of a job. So they choose wasteful options, and if they then have to pay again to undo what's been done, it all just comes out of the same pot of money.

So if they spend their money infilling and then re-excavating the same bridges, it doesn't actually cost the taxpayer any more than if they successfully infilled double the number of bridges...

I always got the feeling HRE is, or at least was, a continuation of the old BRB(R) team. Something seems to have changed over the last few years, though that may simply be the realisation that some of the structures are actually quite a serious liability.

Take Drewton Tunnel for example. A long tunnel, with at least one road over the top. As far as can be ascertained no one has been inside or carried out any form of inspection since the 1980s apart from urban explorer types, and the structure was known to be in a poor condition back then hence the lack of inspections. At some point “do nothing” ceases to become a viable strategy, especially if you’re a duty-holder whose name is on a piece of paper. Then there’s Bolsover Tunnel, which isn’t a HRE structure (but appears to have been owned by the coal authority so would appear that someone must ultimately own it), even more of a liability as it has housing on top.

In the majority of cases though presumably ongoing maintenance isn’t that costly, the cost of an infill scheme could no doubt fund quite a bit of repointing / patch repairs, which is likely to be all that some of these structures need. I do tend to be persuaded by the argument made by the Queensbury Society that if money is being spent on these structures then the public / taxpayer might as well get some beneficial use from them. In the case of tunnels, history shows that infilling isn’t always a complete solution because of settlement - once a tunnel is built it’s surprisingly difficult to “unbuild” it!

 

[XAM2175]

Then there’s Bolsover Tunnel, which isn’t a HRE structure (but appears to have been owned by the coal authority so would appear that someone must ultimately own it), even more of a liability as it has housing on top.

The tunnel itself was transferred to the National Coal Board in February 1971 and so presumably is the responsibility now of whoever got stuck with their residual liabilities, but the two remaining air shafts are still part of the HRE.

 

[WesternLancer]

The tunnel itself was transferred to the National Coal Board in February 1971 and so presumably is the responsibility now of whoever got stuck with their residual liabilities, but the two remaining air shafts are still part of the HRE.

I guess that is probably the Coal Authority

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-coal-authority

 

[snowball]

Deleted

 

[bramling]

I guess that is probably the Coal Authority

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-coal-authority

This vaguely rings a bell, so yes. Wonder if they actually realise they still have a liability there? In theory the tunnel was infilled, but for definite there’s a void still there, and we know that as people have managed to get in and get several hundred yards in until a collapse is reached. An example of how infilling isn’t always a permanent solution. I seem to remember the Clifton Hall (or “Black Harry”) tunnel has also made its presence felt over the years, despite having been infilled. That one is an HRE asset I believe.

 

[Furrball]

Burying of Victorian bridge in Cumbria must be reversed, says council​

National Highways to be forced to remove 1,644 tonnes of gravel and concrete used to infill bridge arch

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.

Eden district council’s planning committee resisted the offer by unanimously deciding to refuse National Highways (NH) retrospective planning permission for a crude infilling project at Great Musgrave, Cumbria, that was widely condemned as “cultural vandalism”.

Burying of Victorian bridge in Cumbria must be reversed, says council

National Highways to be forced to remove 1,644 tonnes of gravel and concrete used to infill bridge arch

www.theguardian.com

 

[HSTEd]

Well a huge amount of money spent for a bridge that will realistically never be used again.

 

[Dougal2345]

Well a huge amount of money spent for a bridge that will realistically never be used again.

But also a huge amount of money spent in doing the pointlessly expensive and wasteful infilling in the first place...

If anything good has come out of this, it's this quote from Highways England in the article:
“We will also no longer consider the infilling of any structures as part of our future plans, unless there is absolutely no alternative.”

 

[lammergeier]

Well a huge amount of money spent for a bridge that will realistically never be used again.

Yes, so the people who authorised this abomination in the first place should be held accountable for the colossal waste of time and money. "It will cost a lot to remove it" should not be a reason to grant retrospective planning permission. Otherwise people would just build whatever they liked then cry that it will cost too much to remove.

 

[WesternLancer]

"It will cost a lot to remove it" should not be a reason to grant retrospective planning permission. Otherwise people would just build whatever they liked then cry that it will cost too much to remove.

Absolutely correct point.

 

[zwk500]

Yes, so the people who authorised this abomination in the first place should be held accountable for the colossal waste of time and money. "It will cost a lot to remove it" should not be a reason to grant retrospective planning permission. Otherwise people would just build whatever they liked then cry that it will cost too much to remove.

100%

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

One wonders what the response would have been had the finished job been smart and presentable rather that looking like the worst possible piece of cowboy building.

 

[WesternLancer]

One wonders what the response would have been had the finished job been smart and presentable rather that looking like the worst possible piece of cowboy building.

Yes, another good point - I suspect considerably more chance of having got retrospective planning permission - but might have cost even more...

 

[MisterSheeps]

This vaguely rings a bell, so yes. Wonder if they actually realise they still have a liability there? In theory the tunnel was infilled, but for definite there’s a void still there, and we know that as people have managed to get in and get several hundred yards in until a collapse is reached. An example of how infilling isn’t always a permanent solution. I seem to remember the Clifton Hall (or “Black Harry”) tunnel has also made its presence felt over the years, despite having been infilled. That one is an HRE asset I believe.

Chris Booth's book on the LDECR (vol 1) said there was 200,000 gallons of water a day from springs in the tunnel, so needed a 3ft lining, though this subsequently caused problems due to water eroding voids. The railway didn't buy the coal rights under the tunnel, hence subsidence. It was 'filled' with colliery waste to with feet of the top (I've seen photos, can't remember where). I suspect, given the extensive mining history, that collapse of mined passages would be as significant as any tunnel deterioration, hence Coal Authority involvement.

 

[XAM2175]

It was 'filled' with colliery waste to with feet of the top (I've seen photos, can't remember where).

There are a couple here of the infilling process: http://www.forgottenrelics.co.uk/tunnels/bolsover.html
And a few here from a ballsy fellow who found his way in in 2010: https://www.flickr.com/photos/tunnelsuk/albums/72157624615495311/

 

[Ashley Hill]

And a video of Bolsover here:-

 

[Falcon1200]

"It will cost a lot to remove it" should not be a reason to grant retrospective planning permission.

No, but it should be a reason to consider whether there is any realistic prospect of the bridge ever requiring to return to its original purpose, ie to accommodate a railway.