Protection of Great Musgrave Bridge, Cumbria

In June 2021, National Highways (‘NH’), the government body responsible for the Historical Railways Estate, that once made-up Britain’s rail network, infilled Great Musgrave Bridge with concrete without planning permission. The local council required NH to apply for retrospective permission for the infilling.  We were instructed by Historical Railways Estate Group (‘HRE Group’) to oppose the application.

The Great Musgrave Bridge was constructed in 1862 over the former Eden Valley Railway. It is a non-designated heritage asset which benefits the local historic environment, landscape and biodiversity.    In June 2021, the bridge was infilled with approximately 1,600 tonnes of concrete and gravel.

The infilling of Great Musgrave Bridge was part of a wider nationwide government programme to reduce the long term cost of maintaining former railway bridges and tunnels.  As with other structures, the work was carried out on the basis that it was permitted development based upon disputed claims about the structural condition and safety of the structure.

Our clients, the HRE Group, have campaigned for the reversal of these works and the cessation of the national infilling programme.

We argued that the application breached both national and local policies which set out to conserve and enhancement the historic environment, heritage assets and their setting, as well and protect and enhance landscape and biodiversity. Furthermore there was no justification for the infilling works. HRE Group commissioned reports which showed that any deterioration of the bridge was minor and that repair and strengthening was an adequate alternative.

NH argued that there would be savings to the ‘public purse’ by infilling but the cost calculations were disputed and we objected to this being a relevant planning consideration.

One of the issues was that the infilling of the bridge would prevent the reopening of the former railway line.  To meet this concern, NH stated that the infilling would be reversed by them should the plans to reopen the line come to fruition.

Eden District Council refused permission on the grounds that the infilling resulted in “…considerable harm to the visual appearance of the bridge as a single span structure…” and “harm to a non-designated heritage asset.” Several local policies were breached and the stated public benefit, in terms of reduced cost to the public purse in the long term, compared to more sympathetic repair and reinforcement, is not considered sufficient to outweigh this harm.

As a result of this decision, the infilling will be removed and the bridge restored to its previous condition.  NH has said that it will not challenge the decision and that future works would be judged on “heritage or ecological value” and HE would “no longer consider the infilling of any structures unless there is absolutely no alternative”.