Shillingstone Bridge demolition - Appeal started and support required ASAP

[tingleytim]

Please see attachment.

Shillingstone bridge.docx

[DavidH]

Does the county have any obligations to remove low bridges from its roads?

[Joseph_Pestell]

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.

 

It's not much of a bottleneck.

 

DCC Highways seem to be on a bit of a Health & Safety overload at the moment since the tragic death of a couple at Beaminster Tunnel. Any structure that might be considered even slightly dangerous, they want to get rid of it.

 

Local to here, this has resulted in indefinite closure of the busy C13 which will be a real pain on the A350 during Steam Fair Week (another major tourism generator, many times more important than Shilllingstone Station)

[Joseph_Pestell]

Please see attachment.

 

Useful. But note that, as this will be DCC determining their own application (or quasi-application), it would not necessarily appear on the NDDC Planning List anyway.

 

NDDC planning list typically three weeks late in showing registrations anyway! I am just about to phone them about an application which has not been listed even though it was registered weeks ago.

[Andy Y]

Please see attachment.

 

 

I've extracted your attached document as you raise some pertinent points.

 

 

Thanks for drawing attention to this.  I notice from its website (http://countyplanning.dorsetforyou.com/ePlanningOPS/tabPage3.jsp?aplId=5267)

that DCC have applied not for planning permission but for a “determination” (from itself) as to whether prior approval will be required for the demolition.  Subject to legal interpretation of the planning regulations, this could mean that DCC would not need approval to remove the bridge and would not be legally obliged to take account of any objections. This explains why the proposal does not seem to appear anywhere on North Dorset’s planning website, even when inserting the reference number. The DCC notice proposes that demolition would commence early 2015.

                Digging a bit deeper, I have found that the 2013/14 Dorset Highways Capital Programme

included an inspection of the bridge (item 57) in summer 2013, though I didn’t find any results of this. The demolition must presumably be in the 14/15 programme though in the time available I couldn’t find this either.  There must be a report somewhere attempting to justify the expense which could be contested if we had it.

Blackmore Vale magazine’s website (http://www.blackmorevale.co.uk/LETTER-Speak-save-old-railway-bridge/story-22050929-detail/story.html) has useful information stating that DCC need to get big equipment past the bridge to do work on Haywards river bridge nearby; also that there is to be a public meeting about the demolition.

                 Presumably someone with the right contacts is getting North Dorset Council to object, perhaps starting with the councillors that represent Shillingstone. It’s worth informing Sustrans too who would surely object.

                I suspect that DCC’s bridge engineers may not have done much in the way of internal consultations before embarking on this one!

                Objection from me going in shortly.

[Joseph_Pestell]

I've extracted your attached document as you raise some pertinent points.

 

I am not sure that Sustrans would object. From their perspective, a bridge removed with the embankment modified to provide access from the road to the embankment improves access to the Trailway. I don't think they are that keen either on sharing the formation with a railway.

[Stubby47]

A quick view using Google Earth shows the bridge to be in a poor state of repair - water damage to bricks, lots of leakage streaks underneath.

 

Plus at a max height of only 12'9" I can see why the removal would be of benefit.

 

How far away from the bridge is the end of the railway ?  I also notice the old track bed is used for walkers, and there are several objects / premises which now straddle the track bed - are these also willing to be affected if a new track is put down ?

[Peter Kazmierczak]

I think the prime mover on this is mentioned in Andy's post #30 - the need to get heavy plant through to do work on Haywards river bridge.

 

I've objected on four accounts:

 

Shillingstone Project

Loss on amenity on trailway/danger to walkers

Bridge provides traffic calming

Loss of historic bridge

 

Please do submit an objection if you feel you can.

 

Thank you.

[br2975]

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.

 

As an uninformed outsider, methinks the D.N. & S. would be a better prospect for re-opening than the S. & D. J. R.

.

But then that's just my opinion.

.

Brian R

[bike2steam]

Hang on gents, before we get all emotional about this, I would not like to see Bere Marsh railway bridge demolished, BUT there is a matter of Bere Marsh House now standing on what is now levelled off old track bed just north of the bridge, along with a good deal of levelled off track bed now farm land further north. To be pragmatic, so who wants to pay for the upkeep of a bridge to nowhere ??

And with respect Peter, I do believe the residents of Child Okeford deserve better access to the A357 than what they already have ( and me access to The Saxon:-) )

Sustrans probably wouldn't object as the 'Trailway' doesn't use that bridge, but it's nice to know Andy reads our local paper, all be it by it's website.

And finally, the NDHT needs to up it's game.

[pete_mcfarlane]

So how definite are the plans to reopen the line over the bridge? Is knocking it down going to interfere with an actual reopening scheme, or just spoil someone's pipedream?

[bike2steam]

Want the truth - north thereof non-existant.

[tingleytim]

Paul,

Your post (No. 35) says that Bere Marsh House is in the line of the railway,  yet Google Earth would seem to show it off to the west side, with the only visible obstruction on the former route being a tennis court, unless I have seen it wrong.  Bere Marsh House has a B&B website on which it looks like it was built long before 1966. Or has something else been built since the Google photo?  Is it really a bridge to nowhere?

Wish I were handy enough for a site visit but thanks for your local knowledge.

Tim.

[bike2steam]

On checking Google Maps, it appears you are right, but it's still part of the Bere Marsh House property, part of the embankment that was levelled to the surrounding farmland for part of the length of Newmans Drove.

[The Stationmaster]

As an uninformed outsider, methinks the D.N. & S. would be a better prospect for re-opening than the S. & D. J. R.

.

But then that's just my opinion.

.

Brian R

Looking at it on Google Maps, and reading bike2steam's 'local report' I can't honestly see that the demolition of this bridge is going to make much difference at all to the railway going northwards - looks to me like a long lost hope.  Equally heading south you come across not only agricultural use but a  gaping hole over the River Stour.  If anyone really wants to restore some sort of railway line in this vicinity they face a very expensive job.

 

So let's look at an alternative scenario - instead of demolishing the bridge let's say its upkeep cost is transferred to the embryonic railway (well they do seem to want it so why not give it to them?).  Immediately they would be taking on what looks like a considerable structural liability - but they seem to want it anyway - together with a responsibility for signage and the future maintenance of both bridge and signage plus dealing with any bridge strikes.  Obviously this won't present a problem for them (they are the ones who want it) and presumably they have already costed its longer term future in their hands for whenever they happen to build a railway over it although I can appreciate they have a likely financial problem until they have a revenue stream.  But stepping forward from that just where is their railway going to run from/to - it looks obvious to me that they can't get very far either northwards or southwards without spending megabucks on bridges and probably on earthworks as well.  So what do their restoration and business plans say?

[RailWest]

As regards the C13 closure, I discovered that when I went to Wimborne recently, so I just went around via Zig-Zag hill and the road past the airfield and carried on - it seemed remarkably quiet on that diversion :-) Meanwhile, at Bath, where the Kelston road is closed until about Xmas, to the pain and grief of all concerned, a local landowner has just opened his own private toll-road across the fields to bypass it !!!

 

I agree that, at face value, Sustrans are unlikely to be too bothered provided that they can get down to and up from road level with ease. Yet having said that, as part of the Two Tunnels route at Bath two missing under-bridges were replaced by new foot/cycle bridges precisely so as to avoid the need for walkers and cyclists to have to cross busy local roads. Whilst the usage of the pathway and the roads are both probably much higher than is likely to be the case at Shillingstone, it might be a useful example to quote as a case where it has been necessary to replace - at great expense - that which had been removed years before.

[bodmin16]

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

I seem to recall that Chelfham viaduct on the L&B was the last asset that BRB was responsible for!

[woodenhead]

Standing back and putting a non emotional opinion, it's a restricted access bridge on an unused rail route. If the railway group was to extend north then they would have to pick up the liability for that bridge and the potential damage that could come if the arch was clobbered by a vehicle. Would the railway be better off if it did strike north to replace the arch with a straight girder bridge span which would be less of a risk? If that's the case then demolition in the short term would be fine as long as the option to reinstate remains with a straight span rather than an arch.

[TheWeatheringMan]

As an uninformed outsider, methinks the D.N. & S. would be a better prospect for re-opening than the S. & D. J. R.

.

But then that's just my opinion.

.

Brian R

Hi,

While i'd very much agree that the DN&S line would be useful today the problem with that is that the line left the SR main line at Shawford Junction, Winchester and so the traffic from Southampton Docks would still have to be fed through Southampton tunnel so the DN&S line would not offer the greater relief afforded by the 'Dorset.

Regards

[Captain Kernow]

And finally, the NDHT needs to up it's game.

I don't disagree with this statement, Paul, having been helping them find redundant PW and S&T equipment for the last few months, along with the very useful assistance from a fellow member of this forum, but I think they have got the message now about how to go about this task.

 

As such, I have also submitted a reasonably lengthy objection to the removal of the bridge. They'll never rebuild the whole S&D, but I think that in time, they can become a viable heritage railway, making a proportionate contribution to the local tourism economy.

[Captain Kernow]

Hi,

While i'd very much agree that the DN&S line would be useful today the problem with that is that the line left the SR main line at Shawford Junction, Winchester and so the traffic from Southampton Docks would still have to be fed through Southampton tunnel so the DN&S line would not offer the greater relief afforded by the 'Dorset.

Regards

Got to agree with you there, Mr Weatheringman. The DN&S is a shining beacon to the serious railway restoration basket cases, the S&D is by comparison, a mere apprentice!    Plenty of heritage railway tourism potential still untapped in Dorset, in my view!

[bike2steam]

, having been helping them find redundant PW and S&T equipment for the last few months, 

So that means you probably had dealings with John Drew, who I knew at Swanage Railway, talking of which they had plenty of spare S&T equipment, especially after we helped rip up all the spare stuff at Weymouth when it was 'thinned out' in the 1980's.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Got to agree with you there, Mr Weatheringman. The DN&S is a shining beacon to the serious railway restoration basket cases, the S&D is by comparison, a mere apprentice!    Plenty of heritage railway tourism potential still untapped in Dorset, in my view!

 

Put very diplomatically Tim....

When the powers that be transferred Bournemouth and Christchurch from Hampshire to Dorset in the early 1970s, what perhaps they didn't fully appreciate was that they were also transferring those towns into the South West Region.

 

Hence when attending meetings in places like Taunton, Exeter and Newton Abbot from Bournemouth, it isn't really practical to do it by train. Even for a rail enthusiast............

[bike2steam]

  Plenty of heritage railway tourism potential still untapped in Dorset, in my view!

 

I can't resist the temptation any longer Tim, please tell - where then, apart from Wareham to Norden ???? And it must be somewhere that is seriously/feasibly viable.

[Captain Kernow]

I can't resist the temptation any longer Tim, please tell - where then, apart from Wareham to Norden ???? And it must be somewhere that is seriously/feasibly viable.

I simply think - in general terms - that the Shillingstone group could, with the right type of support and approach from within the group, achieve greater things. It may take a while, most things worth having don't happen overnight, and it won't happen without the kind of local authority 'political' support that many of the larger railways now enjoy. Dorset is a lovely and under-rated county, in my view.