![\"\"](\"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/Musgrave_railway_station_bridge_09.08.2016R_RuthAS_Commons_Wikimedia.png\")
Highways England may be forced to reverse the infilling of a 159-year-old masonry arched bridge in Cumbria following a nationwide backlash, as Eden District Council has informed Highways England that it will have to apply for retrospective planning permission to cover the infilling work.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
New Civil Engineer<\/em> writes:<\/p>\n If the application is denied, Highways England could be required to remove the 1,000t of concrete poured beneath the Great Musgrave bridge arch.<\/p>\n Highways England carried out the work earlier this month under its Permitted Development Rights, after informing the council that infilling was needed to \u201cprevent further deterioration of the bridge from occurring and remove the associated risk of structural collapse and harm to the public\u201d.<\/p>\n The council accepts that Highways England acted appropriately under Class Q of its Permitted Development Rights; which effectively allows Highways England to carry out work without planning permission in cases of emergency.<\/p>\n However, an update circulated to Eden District councillors \u2013 and seen by\u00a0NCE<\/em>\u00a0\u2013 reveals that Highways England will now have to apply for retrospective planning permission within the next year.<\/p>\n The council update adds that a Highways England examination report from January provides \u201cevidence of a high risk in respect of the bridge\u2019s load capacity and the earlier reports evidence this risk increasing over time leading to action being necessary now\u201d.<\/p>\n The update adds that Highways England provided \u201csufficient reasons [\u2026] evidencing why infilling has been chosen over further repointing\u201d.<\/p>\n It continues: \u201cIt should also be noted that Highways England consider that the filling works are not being done in a permanent way, but in a manner which would allow for them to be reversed should organisations become interested in re-opening the structures in the future.\u201d…<\/p>\n The HRE Group and two local railway groups (the Eden Valley railway and Stainmore railways) claim that there were no real concerns about the Great Musgrave bridge\u2019s condition.<\/p>\n They add that while infilling the bridge cost \u00a3124,000, a \u00a35,000 repair job would have made it safe for all vehicles to pass over.<\/p>\n Read more….<\/a><\/p>\n For more background see the NewsBlog<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Highways England may be forced to reverse the infilling of a 159-year-old masonry arched bridge in Cumbria following a nationwide backlash, as Eden District Council has informed Highways England that it will have to apply for retrospective planning permission to … Continue reading \n\nIt adds: \u201cWhilst the provisions allow initial works to be undertaken in connection with an emergency, where such works are intended to be retained, retrospective planning permission must be sought. [\u2026] The Council\u2019s acceptance of Highways England\u2019s Permitted Development Rights does not constitute permission for the infilling to be retained. Planning processes will be followed and due consideration given to any future application in respect of the infilling of Great Musgrave Bridge.\u201d<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n