Council officials told Highways England that it must seek retrospective planning permission after infilling a Victorian bridge which two heritage railways need for a connecting line between their operations.
Highways England says that it did not apply for planning permission for the Great Musgrave bridge in 2019 due to advice given by Eden District Council.
Campaign group Historical Railways Estate (HRE) says that the council twice asked Highways England to halt its work to fill the bridge with tonnes of aggregate and concrete but they did not stop the work.
Bridge work was urgent
The deteriorating condition of the bridge meant that “the need to start work was urgent”, Highways England said.
HRE says that the bridge is one of 134 that highways plan to infill or demolish over the next five years.
Campaigners claim that Highways England’s own inspection reports recorded only minor localised defects.
The bridge presented “No significant risk” to public safety, with a “Low” likelihood of any problems occurring and “No action [was] required”, according to the company’s engineer.
Heritage railway plan in jeopardy say campaigners
The Stainmore Railway Company has the long-term goal of uniting its operation with the Eden Valley Railway by relaying five miles of track between Kirkby Stephen and Warcop.
But campaigners say the plan is now in jeopardy after the infilling of the bridge by Highways England.
Highways England says that if the bridge is needed for any future rail projects that it will work with groups to restore it at no extra cost.
Highways England said: “The condition of the bridge has deteriorated over time. We last repointed the arch in 2012, however, in 2020 we identified mortar loss up to 170mm in the bridge arch (previous assessments showed a loss of 40mm) and increasing downward movement of the masonry forming the arch.
“The need to start work on the bridge was urgent. The structure was weak, potentially causing the bridge deck to fail suddenly.”
Highways England has been dishonest claim campaigners
Mike Thompson, project manager for the Stainmore Railway Company, said: “For weeks now, Highways England has been misrepresenting our views – both in the press and to Ministers – on the basis of dialogue which never happened. Their dishonesty has been shocking.
“We’re now delighted to learn that the council has told them to retrospectively follow due democratic process so this unwarranted scheme can be scrutinised. We look forward – finally – to making our real views on the matter heard loud and clear.”
Highways England Historical Railways Estate director, Richard Marshall said: “We needed to carry out this work for safety reasons. The bridge was deteriorating, and no weight restriction was in place, meaning it could be used by vehicles of any weight.
“The support provided by infilling the arch removes the risk of the bridge deck failing. This means a weight limit is no longer required and the bridge will remain safe for everyone who wishes to use it.
“Our work has preserved the structure. The bridge remains intact and supported. If the land and Eden River crossing issues get resolved, then we would be delighted to work with any rail groups and the local authority to remove the infill at no cost to them.”
Highways England added: “They (Eden District Council) have since reviewed this information and have written to us stating that they now consider that the work requires planning permission and asked that we apply within 12 months of work commencing, which we will do.”
An Eden council spokesman said: “Following Highway England’s initial enquiry, the agency produced a report confirming that their works were necessary to prevent an emergency. These works therefore had Permitted Development Rights, as per Part 9 and Part 19 (Class Q) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.
“At this time, planning permission was not required, as Permitted Development Rights allowed the works to be carried out.
“Part 19 (Class Q) provisions allow works to be undertaken in connection with an emergency, but where such works are intended to be retained, retrospective planning permission must be sought. Highways England has confirmed its intention to make such an application within 12 months.
“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.”
