In Response to Worcestershire County Council - Tenbury Bridge Refurbishment

View 01

View 02

Proposed New Bridge - Views:
[Click each to enlarge]

Clr Pollock and WCC have issued a statement that responds to Tenbury Futures' suggestions for an additional new, modern alternate bridge which would help secure the town's vitality well into the future... Having given consideration to this our response as a group reads as follows:

Much speculation is developing about the prospect for a new second bridge for Tenbury, apparently to save a million pounds expenditure on restoring the existing bridge. However, there are a number of key considerations that bring a reality to the approach being proposed by the County Council.

The key reason for a new bridge is simply that Tenbury needs a bridge that is fit for 21st Century conditions; a bridge that is wide enough and straight enough for today's traffic, allowing two trucks to pass without driving on the pavement, causing traffic chaos and endangering pedestrians. A second bridge would obviate the need to strengthen the existing bridge, avoid needless interference with a Scheduled Ancient Monument and allow some funds to be transferred to the new bridge programme - although this saving is not the key factor.

Worcestershire County Council as custodian of a Scheduled Monument is obliged to keep the structure in good order and along with other structures included Teme Bridge in the five year major maintenance programme of strategic river crossings which will be drawing to a close next year.

It is one thing '"to keep the structure in good order", it is a different matter to alter a Scheduled Ancient Monument so that thousands of heavy lorries can pour across it each year.

Furthermore, as Highway Authority the County Council is bound by the national code of practice for the management of highway structures and compliance therewith ensures that important infrastructure remains available and safe to use.

Tenbury Futures has never proposed that highway infrastructure should be unavailable or unsafe. It is the Council that is proposing to make the bridge unavailable while strengthening it for 44 tonne trucks – and it is the Council that is proposing removing one of the footways, forcing pedestrians to cross moving traffic. Proposals for a new bridge will ensure that the County Council abide by the national code of practice – as opposed to making do with the current bridge where the safety of pedestrians is endangered.

County Councillor Ken Pollock – Local Member for Tenbury said; "Refurbishing the existing bridge is not only an obligation, in terms of both heritage and good housekeeping, but is also the most cost effective and will give the best return on expenditure in these difficult financial times"

Can Cllr Pollock provide evidence that the Council's plan is, overall, the most cost-effective? How much trade would Tenbury lose while the bridge is closed? Driving round the diversion routes would add a substantial mileage and every mile costs money. What is the Council's proposed total cost to people and businesses affected by the closure: not just loss of business and extra mileage, but also including a reasonable allowance for the extra time and extra accidents?

Knightwick and Stanford Bridges, both of which have been bypassed were literally single lane roads. Engineers are looking to ease the pinch-point at Tenbury as part of the refurbishment which will improve traffic flows."

For large trucks the Teme Bridge is effectively a single lane road. When two large trucks pass, one or both drives on the pavement. This is unsafe and unacceptable. If the Council is improving traffic flows elsewhere in Tenbury, a new bridge will become even more appropriate.

The concern about the proposed temporary closure of the existing bridge to vehicular traffic at the start of 2012 and the effect that this might have on the businesses in the town is recognised by the County Council who are working hard to put measures in place to keep the town as vibrant as it can throughout the essential works. There will always be access for disability scooters, pedestrians, and cyclists throughout the works.

We do not believe that it will be possible to keep Tenbury vibrant while Teme Bridge is closed. Will the Council please provide details of the measures it will introduce to keep the town vibrant – and the costs involved (for use in comparing the overall costs of building a new bridge against repairing the old one).

Richard Attwood – Worcestershire's Engineering Project Manager said; "We are working hard to ensure that the essential repairs to the bridge are undertaken in the most efficient way possible to reduce the impact on the town. The invasive structural investigations undertaken in May this year have provided valuable data from the fabric of the bridge which is being used to design the refurbishment.

The bridge works are not mere "essential repairs". The works are partly to strengthen the bridge, to make it able to bear 44 tonne trucks on an ongoing basis. We do not think 44 tonne trucks should be encouraged to drive over a Scheduled Ancient Monument – and we note that no reference of the views of English Heritage on the matter have been sought by the Council.

The costs of providing a second bridge need to be put into perspective and refurbishment costs will pale into relative insignificance when the cost of a new construction over a river enjoying SSSI [Site of Special Scientific Interest] status and land purchase costs are taken into account.

The costs of a new bridge do need to be put in perspective; that is to say, they need to be compared to other major capital projects in Worcestershire. A new bridge would cost more than the planned work on Teme Bridge, but a 'solution' should not be selected simply because it is the cheapest. The Council's plan would not provide Tenbury with a bridge that is fit for today's traffic; Futures' plan would. As Mr Attwood knows, our cost investigation specifically used the example of a recently-constructed bridge across a river that is an SSSI. Mr Attwood has been provided with the costs of a comparable bridge; we challenge him to disclose the overall costs of the proposed work on the existing bridge so that the public can decide which is the cheaper option overall.

The diagrammatic plan accompanying the Tenbury Futures proposals is simply that and it is unlikely that highway standards could be achieved without the demolition of at least one building to provide an acceptable junction with Teme Street.

The launderette is not shown on the visualisation because the proposal allows for its demolition, providing an easy turn and wide clearance, for traffic to flow from the existing Teme Street onto the link route to the new bridge. We are concerned that Mr Attwood may have dismissed the details of the proposal without even understanding it.

The cost of the bridge and the approaches will run into several millions of pounds.

Mr Attwood needs to provide details of the costs of the current proposals for the existing bridge, the measures being taken to support the town during its closure, the costs to businesses in the town and the costs to residents and visitors in terms of additional travel time and costs. He also needs to quantify the costs for the communities on the proposed alternative routes during the closure – and the costs of resulting road repairs to those routes – including routes paid for by other Councils. Overall we believe that a new bridge is a relatively cheap scheme with huge benefits. The cost has been considered and detailed; details of how the money can be found from within the budgets of both the County Councils affected, as well as the District Council, will be released in due course.

The final consideration is whether the County Council can justify adding a further bridge to its structural maintenance obligations for years to come."

Maintaining a medieval bridge in modern traffic conditions is costly; adding one purpose-built may actually reduce the overall future maintenance obligations – not increase them. Again, Mr Attwood needs to provide the figures so that Council Tax payers can judge his statement here on the basis of facts.

It is the Council's duty to provide a highways network that is fit for the 21st century. The Council cannot shirk its responsibilities simply by claiming that meeting them costs money – particularly when they have provided no support for that claim. There have been many major investments elsewhere in the County and it is time that the Council invested in Tenbury.