New Civil Engineer Civil engineering and construction news and jobs from New Civil Engineer
National Highways infilled a 175-year-old Yorkshire bridge based on a capacity assessment carried out three years prior.
A Freedom of Information (FoI) request submitted by campaigners reveals that the Rugate Road Bridge was infilled in April 2021 despite the lack of a recent condition report.
National Highways confirmed to NCE that the infill was carried out based on the capacity assessment conducted in 2018. A spokesperson for the roads body added that while the 2018 report was used as grounds for infill, a detailed examination of the structure was also carried out in March 2021 during the work.
It was infilled using emergency powers known as Class Q permitted development rights, which allows National Highways to carry out temporary construction work without planning permission “to prevent harm to the public”. They are the same powers which were used to infill the Great Musgrave bridge in Cumbria which led to a nationwide backlash and eventual pause on National Highways’ bridge infilling programme (see box below).
Under the terms of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Act, Class Q permitted development rights allow a developer to carry out work without obtaining planning consent in cases of an “emergency”.
Campaigners claim that basing the works on a report from 2018 does not constitute an “emergency”. They also suggest that the findings of the 2018 report do not justify infilling.
The 2018 report describes the structure’s overall condition as “Fair”, with some minor defects. The examiner’s recommendation was to repair fencing at a cost of £1,000, but a note appended by National Highways’ engineer states “infilling preferable to repairs”.
Rudgate Road Bridge after infill
“The structure was fundamentally fine”, said Graeme Bickerdike, a member of The HRE Group which comprises engineers, sustainable transport advocates and greenway developers. “Without more-recent reports, National Highways had no evidence of deterioration and its claim that urgent work was needed is therefore unsustainable.
“This was decision-making by guesswork and suggests a destructive culture whereby infrastructure assets were being put beyond use - at great cost to the taxpayer - just to reduce liabilities, rather than on the basis of proportionate risk assessment and value for money.”
Dating from 1846, Rudgate Road Bridge spanned the dismantled Harrogate-Church Fenton railway line.
Jacobs acts as the “sole provider” (designer) for the Historical Railways Estate with six contractors supporting Jacobs in carrying out any work, including Dyer & Butler and Balfour Beatty.
National Highways head of the Historical Railways Estate programme Hélène Rossiter said: “We infilled Rudgate Road Bridge in April 2021 because we viewed it as a public safety risk following its failure of a capacity assessment we carried out in 2018. The bridge had already been partially infilled by a third party and there were ongoing issues with deteriorating brickwork caused by significant vegetation growth.
“Prior to carrying out the work we consulted with the local authority which confirmed it had no objections or comments on the proposed infilling.”
The infill took five weeks to carry out and cost £133,000.
How the Great Musgrave bridge infilling saga played out
National Highways Historical Railways Estate first hit the news at the start of 2021, after a group of transport campaigners and engineers wrote to the Department for Transport (DfT) to warn them that hundreds of historic railway bridges and tunnels faced infill and demolition under National Highways plans.
With no intervention from the DfT, National Highways continued with its plans and the infilling of Great Musgrave bridge was complete in June 2021.
It led to engineers expressing 'shame' in their profession. ICE fellow Judith Skykes also labelled it as "shocking" and called for better solutions to be implemented.
Eden District Council then informed National Highways (then called Highways England) that it would need to apply for retrospective planning permission to retain the infill at Great Musgrave and that it had a year to put in the application.
Despite the widespread criticism, National Highways internal review concluded that “works to the bridge were necessary to ensure public safety and to preserve the structure until a long term purpose is found”.
However, Eden District Council voted unanimously against National Highways retrospective planning application in June and last month issued an enforcement order for the infill to be removed.
National Highways has previously stated that it will cost up to £431,000 to remove the infill at Great Musgrave.
Following the Great Musgrave fallout, National Highways has drawn up a new way of assessing abandoned rail bridges and tunnels within its control. The new way of working will see decisions on major works planned for the Historical Railways Estate reviewed in collaboration with experts from across the heritage, environmental and active travel sector who have been selected to form a stakeholder advisory forum.
The forum includes the DfT, Sustrans, Railway Paths, Railway Heritage Trust, The HRE Group, Heritage Railway Association, Natural England, Historic England (also representing Cadw), Historic Scotland and ADEPT.
Like what you've read? To receive New Civil Engineer's daily and weekly newsletters click here.
Let us hope that these ugly and poorly executed works will be removed and the structure restored to its original condition. Many bridges are poorly maintained and allowed to degrade but few are as beautiful as these.
I agree with Mike. Infilling works such as these carried out without due consultation do not reflect well on our profession.
it is shocking and dissppointing to say the least that the infilling of this structure, with concrete no less (thinking in this new net zero era) was deemed a suitable and appropriate action to take. I do hope by now the infilling has been removed and lessons have been learnt and most importantly, implemented. This is a beautiful structure and so should be maintained with due care and respect, not just to the structure itself but also the environment.
This continuing unabated ‘legal vandalism’ needs to be continually challenged.
Apart from the unnecessary non legitimate costs of infill and non aesthetic way in which it is done, potential reopening of rail infrastructure is being unnecessarily obstructed.