National Highways have responded to the rejection of a retrospective planning application for the concrete infil on the Great Musgrave Bridge.
Councillors voted unanimously against the planning application, meaning National Highways is now required to remove the infill.
The decision is in line with official guidance offered to the council by planning officials. Last week, the council’s assistant development director recommended that the application be refused as it causes “considerable harm” to the structure’s appearance and “fails to complement or enhance the area”.
National Highways (NH) carried out the work at Great Musgrave, Cumbria, in July 2021 to stabilise the structure.
The government's road agency said the reinforcement was essential for public safety but critics branded the move "cultural vandalism".
NH will not appeal against Eden District Council's refusal.
Speaking about the decision, National Highways’ Head of the Historical Railways Estate programme, Hélène Rossiter, said:
“We respect Eden District Council’s decision regarding our planning application to retain the works at Great Musgrave, and will not be appealing.
“We have listened to the feedback on this issue and earlier this year amended our processes to ensure full planning permission is sought before carrying out work like this in the future.
“Our new process of managing the estate, which has full stakeholder engagement, means we will review each structure against a range of criteria, not only for repurposing but also for heritage or ecological value.
“We will also no longer consider the infilling of any structures as part of our future plans, unless there is absolutely no alternative.”
How the bridge looks now
More than 800 people had raised objection to the work.
Phil Dew, chairman of Upper Eden Railway Heritage Partnership, described it as a "case of cultural vandalism and desecration of a highly valued structure".
Ali Ross, a Green Party councillor on the council's planning committee, said the loss of a "wildlife corridor" beneath the bridge was a major concern.
The plan had been recommended for refusal by planning officers and committee chairman William Patterson said he thought that was the "right decision".
He told BBC Radio Cumbria there were "a couple of main reasons" for refusal, including "ecological and visual" ones.
He said the work had been done "without prior consent" and posed "harm to the surrounding environment", including bats that had been roosting beneath the arch.
NH previously said that if the 1,500 tonnes of concrete had to be removed the bridge would still need strengthening at an estimated cost of £431,000.
Comments