The Railway Magazine

Cumbrian infill was a bridge too far

National Highways must unblock portal after retrospect­ive planning permission was refused.

- By Graeme Pickering

INFILL consisting of around 1540 tonnes of stone and over 100 tonnes of concrete must be removed from the portal of a former railway bridge in Cumbria after retrospect­ive permission for it was refused.

National Highways (NH) completed the work on the structure in summer 2021, which carries the B6259 over a disused section of the Eden Valley line at Great Musgrave, citing it as emergency action exempt from the normal planning process. As the infill was not a temporary measure, however, it was informed by Eden District Council that a planning applicatio­n would be required.

Meeting on June 16, the council’s planning committee voted unanimousl­y to reject NH’s applicatio­n.

Damning report

Recommendi­ng refusal, a report by the authority’s assistant director of developmen­t, said that when compared to “more sympatheti­c repair and reinforcem­ent”, NH’s claim of the work reducing future costs to the public purse was insufficie­nt to outweigh the harm caused to the bridge.

At the time it was carried out, it was described by the Eden Valley Railway and Stainmore Railway Company (which have heritage operations at the northern and southern ends of the route respective­ly) as “deeply detrimenta­l” to their shared long-term aim of restoring the rail link between Appleby East and Kirkby Stephen East stations.

The report concluded that, in this respect, however, it was not considered a breach of planning policy as NH had offered to remove the infill if it became the “final issue” preventing reopening of the line.

The situation, highlighte­d by the HRE Group which campaigns for the better utilisatio­n of former railway assets, gained nationwide attention.

In total, Eden District Council received 913 representa­tions regarding the planning applicatio­n, only two of which supported it.

No appeal

NH said it respected the committee’s decision and would not be appealing against it. An NH spokesman added it was awaiting Eden District Council’s formal report before working with it and Cumbria County Council, the local highways authority, on next steps.

In April, NH announced a new approach, including considerin­g the heritage and ecological value of such structures, as well as potential for repurposin­g, before work is carried out.

Hélène Rossiter, head of

HR’s Historical Railways Estate Programme, said that processes had been amended to ensure full planning permission is sought in future before carrying out work similar to that at Great Musgrave.

She added: “We will also no longer consider the infilling of any structures as part of our future plans, unless there is absolutely no alternativ­e.”

 ?? HRE GROUP ?? The eyesore that is the infilled bridge at Great Musgrave, Cumbria, for which planning permission has now been refused and so it must be removed.
HRE GROUP The eyesore that is the infilled bridge at Great Musgrave, Cumbria, for which planning permission has now been refused and so it must be removed.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United Kingdom