Council in talks with MOD over bridge repair.

[quarella]

This bridge [gmap]https://goo.gl/maps/pvgQMccp2CT2[/gmap] has had an emergency weight restriction placed on it of 7.5tonnes with lorries now diverted through town and the sea front. The bridge is actually owned by the MOD, built in 1941 to access the factories operated by Westlands (aircraft) and Henlys (military vehicles) at the Western end of Weston airfield. Post-war development includes an industrial estate. According to the local paper https://goo.gl/maps/pvgQMccp2CT2 the cost of a replacement is £13 million. The MOD has earmarked £7 million.

[Big Nick]

I'm surprised to hear the MoD still own this bridge. They've sold off everything else they could in the last 20 years. You'd have thought it would have been transferred to the local council or another govt department by now.

I think this is the link Quarella meant to put up https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/loca ... se-2347613
Also - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-46699505

[c2R]

The council probably looked at it and said "not a chance are we taking ownership of that, it's a maintenance liaibility".

[KeithW]

Given that MOD have no facilities serviced by that bridge and that the development being served is all civilian and presumably paying rates MOD should simply gift it to the council and walk away. Defence of the Realm does not include subsiding access to new housing estates and supermarkets. Perhaps the council should have considered the site access requirements before granting planning permission. It is reasonable to ask MOD to contribute to any overdue repairs but that should be conditional on the council highways department assuming responsibility thereafter.

[Berk]

No, but this is another case where a bridge is “suddenly” at risk - probably after years, if not decades of no maintenance.

At least it hasn’t had to be demolished first, like the example in Scotland.

But is the general principle. You can’t have someone like the MOD whacking up a bridge in wartime, just to service one of their facilities, only to declaim all responsibility it for decades later.

The same with National Rail. Proper arrangements for supervision and maintenance should’ve been put in place.

[Phil]

The same with National Rail. Proper arrangements for supervision and maintenance should’ve been put in place.

Please note that unless the bridge is actually owned by Network Rail they have NO LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY to maintain the public highway nor ensure the it can still carry vehicles of any given weight. Just because it happens to span a railway does not mean the railway becomes liable for any non-railway aspects.

Ownership is key!

NR obviously inspect the structures over / under which their tracks pass (to fulfil their safety requirements to railway users) and will provide recommendations to the owners should things not be as they should - but its not NRs respectability to fix them.

All Network Rail have a responsibility for when it comes to structures owned by others is to ensure railway operations are not put in danger through periodic inspections etc. There is no responsibility to repair / maintain the structure unless that responsibility has been officially been accepted by NR - and any emergency works they might have to undertake to a 3rd party structure to ensure the safety of the railway can be billed to the structures owners.

However unless the structure is in immediate danger of collapse then, then NR is unlikely to step in and with respect to road over rail bridges any defects spotted by Network Rail can initially be mitigated by the owner putting a weight restriction on the highway over the bridge. If things get too bad then a complete closure to vehicular traffic may well have to be imposed by the bridge owner.

This may inclu

[Phil]

Given that MOD have no facilities serviced by that bridge and that the development being served is all civilian and presumably paying rates MOD should simply gift it to the council and walk away. Defence of the Realm does not include subsiding access to new housing estates and supermarkets. Perhaps the council should have considered the site access requirements before granting planning permission. It is reasonable to ask MOD to contribute to any overdue repairs but that should be conditional on the council highways department assuming responsibility thereafter.

You cannot unilaterally 'gift' infrastructure to anyone - as should be abundant to Road enthusiasts given the many spats that have a risen by developers and council over the 'adoption' of roads in newly built housing estates!

Case law is quite clear that councils can quite legitimately refuse to take on highways or highway structures if they believe to do so would land council tax payers with a large bill for remedial works

In the case of this bridge the MOD can say they have 'gifted it' as much as they like - legally the organisation at the receiving end of the 'gift' can always refuse to take it due to the financial liabilities that come with it (in this case the fact the bridge needs renewing).

The fact that the MOD have no need for the bridge is irrelevant - they are the owners unless someone else is willing (note the specific use of that word) to take it on. Thats why there are hundreds of dished railway structures languishing in the hands of Highways England a good 60 years after the railway was ripped up - nobody was willing to take on the liabilities that came with them so British Rail (and various other Government bodies since rail privatisation) have continued to be responsal for their upkeep.

Once this defective bridge is replaced by the MOD then its quite likely that the council will then agree to take it on - as being a new structure it is unlikely to cause them problems for a very long time.

[Berk]

At the very least we’ve highlighted the fact that communication between all the bodies is very poor.

That definitely could be improved by new laws. At the very least, NR or the highway authority should contact the owner once a year for a safety audit.

That would fix the “suddenly this bridge is gonna collapse” scenario.

If ownership is unknown, or disputed, the highway authority should act as liaison. Once enquiries have been completed, any work they have done but are not responsible for should be billed to the owner, as per the Highways Act.

[Phil]

That definitely could be improved by new laws. At the very least, NR or the highway authority should contact the owner once a year for a safety audit.

And how do you know for certain this did not take place?

Its all very well making sweeping statements on here, but the reality is probably considerably more complex and what gets printed in the press should never be assumed to tell the whole story.

I can quite imagine that the MOD, receiving reports of a bridge they own miles from any MOD site is deteriorating, over something that is not a public highway will feature highly among the priorities of the MOD and as such said reports were probably simply filed away with no further action taken.

Equally the local council as the highways authority could also have been firing off letters to the MOD telling them they needed to act on what NR were saying - but again the connection between this bridge and the MOD was probably not obvious to those receiving such communications.

It sounds as though it it took NR to publicly state they would be forced to suspend rail services before the MOD started to appreciate their liability.

If ownership is unknown, or disputed, the highway authority should act as liaison. Once enquiries have been completed, any work they have done but are not responsible for should be billed to the owner, as per the Highways Act.

Quite so - but you cannot suddenly design and build a bridge in a couple of days, nor put one in place over a live railway without many many moths of prep work. The law also look most unfavourably on organisations doing things with other peoples property unless it can be proved that the owners are continuing to neglect their responsibilities once they are made aware of them over an extended period (the duration of which will depend on exactly what the legal brigade at significant expense manage to dig out about who knew what and when from all parties).

In this case the MOD seem to have belatedly woken up to the fact they need to get on replacing the bridge ASAP - and as such from a legal perspective they must be given time to make good on their word.

[KeithW]

The fact that the MOD have no need for the bridge is irrelevant - they are the owners unless someone else is willing (note the specific use of that word) to take it on. Thats why there are hundreds of dished railway structures languishing in the hands of Highways England a good 60 years after the railway was ripped up - nobody was willing to take on the liabilities that came with them so British Rail (and various other Government bodies since rail privatisation) have continued to be responsal for their upkeep.

In fact of course I did clearly say that MOD should contribute its share to the repairs as part of the process. It makes no sense for the bridge to be owned by an organisation that has zero interest in its continued usage. Most railway bridges were of course put in place by the Railway companies that were absorbed by BR but I do know of old railway bridges that were simply removed by the council because the railway had become defunct before BR was created. East Cleveland had scores of old bridges built to haul ironstone to the steel plants most of which were closed by WW2 and have been just left to rot. Others have been taken over by the council such as.

[TheKeymeister]

Thinking along the same lines as disused railway bridges for this case, it's been mentioned it's not adopted highway and the bridge has no purpose to the MoD, could they be in a position to just knock it down and not replace it? Like has been done with various disused railway bridges once they become unstable/in the way?

[Berk]

Well if they did that, they would annoy a hell of a lot of locals in and around Weston.

Like I mentioned, this bridge was whacked up quickly in wartime, because there was a factory and an urgent need to build a link into it.

Now nearly 80 years later, the factory is long gone and replaced by supermarkets.

Why should it be right for the original owner to simply demolish a bridge because it is inconvenient to maintain, when it actually still performs a vital role in the local road network - if still unadopted??

[Bendo]

Equally why should it be right that the owner has to replace it when it is not needed by them. If its needed by supermarkets why can't they pay? Same for affected home owners.

Maybe the Mod could replace it with a nice toll bridge and make some cash out of it long term.

[KeithW]

Well if they did that, they would annoy a hell of a lot of locals in and around Weston.

Like I mentioned, this bridge was whacked up quickly in wartime, because there was a factory and an urgent need to build a link into it.

Now nearly 80 years later, the factory is long gone and replaced by supermarkets.

Why should it be right for the original owner to simply demolish a bridge because it is inconvenient to maintain, when it actually still performs a vital role in the local road network - if still unadopted??

Ultimately the original owner is at liberty to do whatever they wish with their property. If it performs a vital role then the correct thing for the local highways department to do is negotiate with the owner to adopt the bridge once it has been repaired. This is what seems to be happening. Frankly the council should have addressed this when the site was being redeveloped.

[WHBM]

The bridge, with the heavily-rivetted steel parapets, looks typical of a number that were put up by the old Great Western Railway pre-war. I suspect that in 1941, even if the military needed it, the railway engineers designed and built it for them (probably all in a few weeks, present day project managers take note).

The ownership and responsibility (not always the same) of road structures, and even the infrastructure underneath, is a whole chapter in one of our old university textbooks [still up in the attic], full of not only principles but also case law where it ended up in court. Basically the responsibility is whoever wants to put it over/under/across (level crossings), or update, someone else's existing structures. There have been some legal tidyups, such as when the old British Rail, with continuing responsibility for structures on abandoned lines, was finally wound up, Highways England ended up with them - basically all DfT, just a budget transfer and another team down the Whitehall corridor.

There was a particular longstanding wrangle, post-dating the book, about where the M25 passes through the old railway viaduct near J16 in Buckinghamshire, which reappeared when it was widened there, and in part is responsible for the substandard narrow lanes and clearances solution.

The MoD cannot walk away if it has become by common usage a Right Of Way (different chapter in the book). They can put a 3 ton weight limit and 2m width restrictors to enforce it, and to make a point. At the end of the day, whether it's the local authority, Network Rail, or the MoD, it's all central government money, and the local MP often gets involved in agreeing the division.

[Berk]

There was a particular longstanding wrangle, post-dating the book, about where the M25 passes through the old railway viaduct near J16 in Buckinghamshire, which reappeared when it was widened there, and in part is responsible for the substandard narrow lanes and clearances solution.

Although I’m familiar with the location, I’m not so much with the facts of the case. What was the eventual outcome??

The MoD cannot walk away if it has become by common usage a Right Of Way (different chapter in the book). They can put a 3 ton weight limit and 2m width restrictors to enforce it, and to make a point. At the end of the day, whether it's the local authority, Network Rail, or the MoD, it's all central government money, and the local MP often gets involved in agreeing the division.

That then begs the question “how is a right of way created”?? How does it diverge from trespass??

[WHBM]

Prominent notices on the bridge, visible in the Streetview link above,

state in the last line that it is owned by Network Rail.

[Berk]

Who is “the Rail Authority”?? Is that a shorthand for BRB Ltd??

[Glen]

Who is “the Rail Authority”?? Is that a shorthand for BRB Ltd??

Network Rail, they operate the railway.

state in the last line that it is owned by Network Rail.

I wouldn't assume anything regarding the bridge's ownership from signs that are just to tell the public who to contact in emergency.

[WHBM]

I would assume Everything if Network Rail themselves put up a notice that specifically states the bridge is owned by them.

"Rail Authority" is to enable the rail organisation to be known by whatever name, eg British Rail changing to Railtrack changing to Network Rail, without having to replace every sign.