At-risk historic bridges offer acutheastern breaches
TWO-THIRDS of redundant railway bridges hit-listed for demolition or infilling should be retained for future “active travel” as part of walking and cycling routes.
That’s the outcome of a report by Sustrans, commissioned by the Department for Transport in September 2021 to investigate the potential of 75 at-risk railway bridges and viaducts.
It follows last summer’s intervention by the DfT to halt a major programme of infill or demolition of 102 structures, after the controversial burial of a bridge at Great Musgrave (Cumbria) despite it being needed for a link between two existing heritage railways. As a result, work on 75 structures was put on hold, pending the report.
Campaigners argue that there should be a culture change within the DfT, with the disused railway estate managed as an asset, not a liability.
Sustrans, custodian of the 12,763-mile National Cycle Network, has been awarded £52 million in England by the DfT for improvements to the network.
High-quality traffic-free routes form part of Sustrans’ ‘Liveable Cities & Towns for Everyone’ priority, as part of wider government efforts to reduce transport-related CO2 emissions.
The 173-page report includes an assessment (with maps and pictures) of each of the 75 structures. It found that 26 have identifiable value for existing or planned routes, while 24 could prove useful for local networks as part of medium-term plans. The remainder are unlikely to find any walking or cycling use within the next ten years. Of the 79 structures, two are in Wales, 14 in Scotland and 63 in England.
The Historical Railways Estate (HRE) of 3,250 disused former railway structures is owned by the DfT and managed on its behalf by its road agency, National Highways (NH). Although transport is devolved to the Scottish and Welsh governments, HRE’s structures are not.
Sustrans’ report will help to inform decision-making around maintenance of HRE’s railway bridges. This is subject to a new review process by NH, including input from its Stakeholder Advisory Forum. In future, all infilling and demolition schemes will require ministerial approval.
Campaigners from the HRE Group, which opposes demolition
and infill without proper assessment, welcomed the report.
Spokesman Graeme Bickerdike said: “It demonstrates the potential significance of under-threat structures, as we increasingly recognise the importance of developing an extensive network of local and national active travel routes as an alternative to carbonemitting transport.
“What’s needed is a change of culture where the HRE is managed as an asset, not a liability. The NH/ DfT Protocol Agreement must be reframed.”
The bridges’ future is wider than transport, argues Bickerdike: “When will these 75 structures also be evaluated for their heritage and ecological significance?
“At least one is in a conservation area. Another spans a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Most form crucial parts of established wildlife corridors.
“We need a holistic understanding of the role historic bridges and tunnels can and do play, before any decisions are made about their destruction.”
The bridge at Great Musgrave is about to have a retrospective planning application, after its infilling was carried out under powers that only permit emergency temporary works. However, the bridge was in good condition with only minor defects.
Eden District Council, the local planning authority, has told NH that it must obtain planning permission if the infill is to be retained beyond May 23.
A report from Sustrans has concluded that 50 of the 75 redundant bridges and tunnels at highest risk of being either demolished or infilled should be retained to facilitate active travel. They include these bridges at Hackney Bottom (Berkshire, left), Crows Castle (Gloucestershire, centre) and Fenton (east Lothian).