Jump to content

Shillingstone Bridge demolition - Appeal started and support required ASAP


Recommended Posts

Evening All,

 

The over bridge just north of Shillingstone station has been designated for demolition by Dorset CC Highways Dept. This will seriously hamper the North Dorset Railway Trust's immediate ambitions to extend North.

 

An appeal has been started to lobby Dorset CC to get them to hopefully change their mind and see the importance of the bridge. More details can be found on the Shillingstone Project website:

 

http://www.shillingstone-railway-project.org.uk/news.php

 

A sample letter has been placed on the website that can be sent as is or changed to the senders preference.

 

Time IS of the essence here, so for the cost of a stamp and an envelope, a letter sent over the next few days could make a big difference!

 

 

Cheers,

 

Stephen

Edited by Stephen Lacey (92245)
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

Please, I urge you most strongly (Peter being serious for once) to object to the proposal by Dorset County Council to demolish Lamb House Bridge in Shillingstone.

 

It's demolition is wrong on so many counts.

 

You can object online; no need for a envelope or stamp.

 

Go to https://www.dorsetforyou.com

Click "planning application search" on the home page

Scroll down the next page to "search Dorset County Council planning applications"

 

The application number is PL\1671\13 of 30th June 2014; the case officer being Christopher Stokes.

 

The online form allows you to make your objection, giving your reasons.

 

Thanks in anticipation.

 

Peter

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Evening All,

 

The over bridge just north of Shillingstone station has been designated for demolition by Dorset CC Highways Dept. This will seriously hamper the North Dorset Railway Trust's immediate ambitions to extend North.

 

An appeal has been started to lobby Dorset CC to get them to hopefully change their mind and see the importance of the bridge. More details can be found on the Shillingstone Project website:

 

https://www.shillingstone-railway-project.org.uk/news.php

 

A sample letter has been placed on the website that can be sent as is or changed to the senders preference.

 

Time IS of the essence here, so for the cost of a stamp and an envelope, a letter sent over the next few days could make a big difference!

 

 

Cheers,

 

Stephen

Hi,

This is just typical of the short sighted morons at Dorset County Council.

They must know of the aims of the Shillingstone Group and they profess (lie) about wanting to support tourism in this County.

If anyone wants proof of how these morons get away with their total stupidity then look at a few of the road schemes these morons have forced on the residents of Dorset.

 

A few years ago they threw a lot of public money away by buying several class 117 dmu's for a commuter service from a preserved railway that never happened. The dmu's stood in sidings at Winfrith and rotted away - who was held to account for this.

 

If this bridge is allowed to be demolished it will cause a disaster for the aims of the Shillingstone Group. The cost of its replacement in order to extend the line will be astronomical.

I urge all right thinking enthusiasts, whatever your railway preferences, to support the group on trying to prevent this lunacy by the morons of Dorset County Council.

Regards

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling the elected members morons isn't going to win support from the council, a simple outline of why the bridge should remain as a bottleneck on the road because of the benfits brought by tourist attractions should be sufficent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling the elected members morons isn't going to win support from the council, a simple outline of why the bridge should remain as a bottleneck on the road because of the benfits brought by tourist attractions should be sufficent.

Who said my comments refered to elected members.

These idiotic ideas come from the overpayed faceless people behind desks.

The elected members are often simply led by these unelected people who are always trying to come up with ideas so they look busy and preserve their own jobs.

It is to be hoped that these people will be made to justify why this proposal has been made in view of the damage this demolition will do to a preservation project.

Also as I personally know the bridge well i'll say here and now that it does not cause any real problems on what is a quiet minor road between two villages.

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

These idiotic ideas come from the overpayed faceless people behind desks.

 

 

Some of whom may be planning officers determining the outcome of the application; as others have said please keep it appropriate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

Rather than argue over minor points, can we just fill in the online objection form please?

 

We need to save this rather fine Dorset Central (later S&DJR) bridge.

 

The local parish council has objected to its demolition, citing (amongst other things) that the bridge helped traffic calming at the junction.

 

Thank you.

post-6880-0-58662900-1407101196.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree with TheWeatheringMan's sentiments I also agree with skipepsi. We need to keep such objections in a civil tongue.

There are a very great number of people in this County that will agree with me.

We have to live with the stupidity on a daily basis as regards traffic schemes and this crackpot idea os as I said just typical of DCC.

We were fed clap trap from local government here about how the 2012 Olympics were going to be the making of Dorset - as is now historical fact the whole thing was a washout and ruined a number of businesses.

Dorset County Council MUST be stopped from going ahead with this totally unnecessary demolition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of whom may be planning officers determining the outcome of the application; as others have said please keep it appropriate.

Do you really think that the so called planning officers 'deciding' this application have any creditability.

DCC is applying to give itself permission to demolish the bridge.

They will not go against the wishes of another council dept as has been proved many times in the past.

The application from DCC  should be decided not by another employee of the same council but by a Minister at central government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you get any accident stats for the junction, to help prove the traffic calming measures ?

 

Obviously a lack of such stats would also support the case for not spending a large amount of money on an unnecessary demolition.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dorset County Council MUST be stopped from going ahead with this totally unnecessary demolition.

 

I agree, but the tone of the objections need to be kept civil in nature. I've submitted mine via the link Peter provided just now, and kept it civil and to the point.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really think that the so called planning officers 'deciding' this application have any creditability.

DCC is applying to give itself permission to demolish the bridge.

They will not go against the wishes of another council dept as has been proved many times in the past.

The application from DCC  should be decided not by another employee of the same council but by a Minister at central government.

 

I don't wish to prolong any distractions but it's imperative to correct inaccuracies.

 

The application is submitted by Dorset County Council but the planning authority is at Borough Council level with North Dorset District Council so it's absolutely nothing to do with granting its own application. If you don't understand local government structure and responsibilities it's probably best you don't go around insulting people, especially if you don't know who you're shooting at.

 

If you make further insulting or inaccurate posts I'll remove your access to the topic.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought, but isn't the bridge the responsibility of the BRB (Residuary)?

 

I don't know for fact but I would imagine responsibility has been divested to the relevant Highways Dept (that would then have responsibility for upkeep and repair) some time back as in many other areas, that responsibility will be the real driver for the demolition application.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said my comments refered to elected members.

These idiotic ideas come from the overpayed faceless people behind desks.

The elected members are often simply led by these unelected people who are always trying to come up with ideas so they look busy and preserve their own jobs.

It is to be hoped that these people will be made to justify why this proposal has been made in view of the damage this demolition will do to a preservation project.

Also as I personally know the bridge well i'll say here and now that it does not cause any real problems on what is a quiet minor road between two villages.

Regards

If anything it the elected members are a problem NOT those who are actually tasked with implementing said persons decisions. Don't forget those "overpaid faceless people" as you rather condescendingly call them are in most cases the ones with the specialist knowledge of the areas they deal with be it child protection or highways. True they don't always get it right but they are far better than elected councillors or MPs who frequently can only see as far as the next election and have very little specialist knowledge other than in the fields of law, finance or politics itself. If you don't believe me then a quick look through history, particularly regarding infrastructure will reveal a whole host of councillor / ministerial statements that are nonsense.

 

Anyway in this case I would suggest it's simply a case of the highways department not being particularly aware of the bridges importance - from pictures it looks like an unwelcome obstruction to the highway. If you are not a railway enthusiast AS IS THE CASE WITH MOST OF THE POPULATION then unless someone has specifically drawn your attention to the bridges importance to the Shillingstone group* it is entirely plausible that the highways department could start the process of getting it removed.

 

* despite what some on the net might say the SDJR is not a railway we will ever see reinstated in the mannor of the Waverley route so none of its remaining infrastructure will fall under the "safeguarding railway alignments" planning rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know for fact but I would imagine responsibility has been divested to the relevant Highways Dept (that would then have responsibility for upkeep and repair) some time back as in many other areas, that responsibility will be the real driver for the demolition application.

 

It will probably have been divested in perpetuity for a nominal sum, to be maintained in good order. Unfortunately such clauses are easy to overlook once ownership has been transferred, and the authority has a dwindling budget and a demanding public.

 

Mike

 

P.S. I am supportive, but realistic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It will probably have been divested in perpetuity for a nominal sum, to be maintained in good order. Unfortunately such clauses are easy to overlook once ownership has been transferred, and the authority has a dwindling budget and a demanding public.

 

Mike

 

P.S. I am supportive, but realistic.

However now that the highways department have been made aware of the issue (in a reasonable way of course - calling them 'morons' on a public forum definitely isn't), then there is a very good chance that an arrangement can be made and the bridge retained for use by the Shillingstone group in the fullness of time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

It is regretable but as another poster has said the former Somerset and Dorset line is extremely unlikely to ever be reopened and so its remaining infrastructure will not come under the protection rules.

 

One cannot but wonder just how useful the line would have been today had it survived or indeedif it were realistically possible to rebuild the line.

Look at the vastly increased traffic now comming in via Southampton Docks. This increasing traffic has to be funnelled via Southampton tunnel and a very busy main line towards the north via Basingstoke etc.

Now what if it were possible to send the freight west from the docks and via Poole and the S and D line to the north.

Yes the old line had restrictions but some wngineering work would have added capacity without too much trouble. I'm not suggesting doubling the Devonshire and Combe Down tunnels but a bit of extra double line in the open would have been possible.

Traffic interchange for the west of England at Templecombe of course and, perhaps, a new south to north spur at Bath to avoid reversal as of old. Perhaps even a connection to the Western just north of Cole and at Bath too.

All of course a wild pipe dream now and almost certainly never going to happen.

But, and i'm sure many will agree, in the light of todays increasing rail traffic, the loss of the old line seems so much the worse ahen you think of the extra capacity we would have had - and that capacity would have been just where it would be so usefull.

Todays traction would have coped with the profile of the old line and a passenger service worked by HST's or Voyagers would have overcome much of the old operating inconveniences.

 

Looking at it, it really is a lost opportunity - but of course the same is so true in many other places.

If only those responsible for closing so much in the 1960's had only have known.

 

Interestingly, whilst looking at something else a few weeks ago I found out that the former Woodhead route (or whats left of it) is protected by the rules on railway routes - I wonder if we will once again see trains going over Woodhead - I fear not hauled by EM1 and EM2 locos though!. I noted that it was mentioned that the Woodhead route is seen as a potential for speeding up trans-Pennine travel times. Nothing new under the sun is there.

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was my impression that, in general, the railways always looked after under-bridges (such as this one) because they were vital to the 'support' of the railway, whereas they left over-bridges to the local Highway Authority. So I am little surprised if this bridge now 'belongs' to the latter.

 

As regards the 'left-hand v right-hand' syndrome here, I am reminded of the situation in Bath where the old S&D bridge over the ex-GWR line was recently refurbished and re-opened as an extension of the Linear Path/Two Tunnels path. This was done in co-operation with NR in order to get the necessary engineering possession over the main line. Yet it is reported that another bit of NR, in complete ignorance of all that activity, was busy planning to knock it down in readiness for the forthcoming 25KV electrification!

 

So it IS possible that, once the (perhaps not so) 'obvious' is pointed out to DCC that this contradicts their tourism/Trailway plans, then they might have a re-think. But...you need to get the local councillors engaged to ensure that the matter goes before the relevant Committee for consideration and is not simply left to the Planning Officer to make a delegated decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.