The government’s roads agency has been told it must reverse its burial of another Victorian railway bridge, or seek permission for it, as the extent of the agency’s “cultural vandalism” has emerged.
Selby district council has told National Highways (NH) it must apply for planning permission if it wants to retain hundreds of tonnes of aggregate and concrete the agency used to submerge the arch of a 175-year-old bridge over Rudgate Road near Newton Kyme, North Yorkshire.
Campaigners say the bridge is one of 51 historic railway bridges infilled by the agency since 2013 on questionable grounds at a cost of more than £8m.
They include the controversial infilling of the 1862 bridge at Great Musgrave in Cumbria, which prompted a national outcry and condemnation of NH for “cultural vandalism”.
In June, Eden district council’s planning committee unanimously decided to refuse NH retrospective planning permission for burying the bridge. The decision means NH must remove the concrete by October next year.
NH now faces the prospect of also being forced to reverse the infilling of the Rudgate Road Bridge – which spans a disused railway line between Wetherby and Tadcaster – and is now part of a proposed cycle path extension.
Like the Great Musgrave project, the Rudgate Road Bridge was filled in by contractors for what was then Highways England in spring 2021. The £133,000 project was conducted under so-called permitted development rights, which are intended only as temporary fixes to urgent problems.
A 2018 inspection report recommended just £1,000 worth of minor repairs to fencing on the approach to the bridge, according to documents uncovered by the HRE Group – an alliance of engineers, walkers and cyclists who campaign to safeguard historical railway structures and routes.
The bridge, which carries a narrow lane prohibited to traffic of more than 3 tonnes (3,000kg), was assessed as having the capacity to support 32 tonnes. In an attempt to justify the infilling, NH claimed the bridge presented an “ongoing and increasing risk to public safety”.
The infilled bridge blocks the likely preferred route of a proposed extension of a national cycle network path from Wetherby to Tadcaster. The current cycle path from Wetherby along the old railway line ends in Newton Kyme, 340 metres north-west of the bridge.
Last month NH claimed there was no requirement for it to seek separate planning consent for the infilling. But Selby district council confirmed it had told NH it must seek planning permission if it wants to keep the infill. NH has until next month to respond.
Graeme Bickerdike, a member of the HRE group, said: “This is what happens when an agency with a questionable culture is allowed to pursue its destructive policy of liability reduction without proper scrutiny: it believes it can act with impunity, misusing laws for its own convenience.
“The value of legacy infrastructure is increasing as we develop more safe active travel routes – encouraging people on to foot and bike both for exercise and connectivity – and tackle the implications of soaring inflation whereby new structures are becoming less affordable.
“We need to care for what we already have, not inflict the kind of damage that inevitably comes with transporting huge amounts of quarried material and dumping it in often sensitive landscapes.”
The agency is responsible for maintaining 3,100 disused railway bridges. Its bridge infilling programme was paused last year, and then replaced with a system to review each proposed scheme.
Hélène Rossiter, the head of the Historical Railways Estate at NH, said the bridge was infilled because it was “viewed as a public safety risk”.
She added: “We consulted with the local authority, which confirmed it had no objections or comments relating to the scheme. Following our recent approach to the local authority to ensure a shared understanding of the most appropriate way forward regarding any remaining formal consent that may be required, we are discussing options that include seeking planning permission to retain the works at Rudgate Road Ridge to ensure the public and the structure remain safe.
“Our constructive dialogue with Selby district council continues, and we are meeting again tomorrow.”
