East Sussex – Protection of Railway Bridge

We were instructed to resist the proposed infilling of a disused railway bridge in East Sussex. Both heritage and ecological harm would be inflicted if the infilling was carried out. The proposed infilling of this bridge was merely one example of a number of similar projects across the UK. Points of resistance centred on technical interpretation of permitted development rights as exercised by statutory bodies.

The Bridge in question is owned by the Department for Transport and is managed by the Historical Railways Estate (HRE) team which in turn is part of National Highways. It supports an unclassified road over a former railway line. It is in a conservation area. It was built in circa 1882 and had undergone repairs in about 2004. Although the Bridge appeared to be in good condition there had been some cracking and in April 2020, engineers acting on behalf of HRE wrote to Lewes District Council notifying it of HRE’s intention to infill the Bridge. The letter suggested that infilling was needed “To prevent further deterioration of the bridge from occurring and remove the associated risk of structural collapse and harm to the public.”

The Council was informed that it was intended that the infilling would take place using Permitted Development rights ( Schedule 2, Part 19 Class Q) “in order to prevent an emergency arising.” A further letter, several months later, made no reference to an emergency but instead explained that infilling was required to prevent further deterioration of the bridge from occurring and remove the associated risk of structural collapse and harm to the public under different Permitted Development Rights (Schedule 2, Part 9 Class B).

We wrote to National Highways, Lewes District Council and East Sussex County Council expressing our view that in our view neither section of the GPDO permitted the infilling of the Bridge and that any such application should be the subject of a formal planning application. An FOI request was made for engineering and inspection reports relating to the Bridge and we threatened an application to the High Court to obtain injunctive relief if National Highways did not agree to withdraw the proposal or confirm that it would not be started without adequate notice being given. Alongside our involvement there was a local campaign group which ensured that the local Councils were aware of the strength of local feeling against the proposed work.

Just before the deadline, National Highways confirmed that no infilling works would be carried out to the Bridge without notice being given. This was followed shortly afterwards by confirmation that National Highways no longer intended to infill the Bridge and that it was engaging with East Sussex County Council and Lewes District Council to consider potential repurposing and the ecological value of the Bridge and the former railway line underneath.

As noted above, the proposed infilling of this Bridge was part of a wider nationwide programme. For the time being, on account of widespread opposition, particularly to the way that the work was being pushed through without planning applications/public consultation, that programme appears to have been “paused”.

We worked very closely with Graeme Bickerdike who is a member of HRE Group which is co-ordinating the campaigns to prevent further infilling and demolition. A number of engineers assisted on a pro bono basis. Counsel was Andrew Parkinson.