Download Original Attachment

Photograph 21 Section Marker: 30 (approx. CH460m) Location: UP stone masonry sidewall Description: Refuge with calcide ingress

Photograph 22 Section Marker: 30 to 31 (approx. CH450m - CH465m) Location: DOWN brick haunch and crown Description: Lining replaced with blue engineering brick

Photograph 23 Section Marker: 33 to 34 (approx. CH495m - CH510m) Location: Brick crown Description: Inspection Hatch in crown surrounded by spalling brickwork, soot covered

Hinge Crack

Photograph 24 Section Marker: 33 to 34 (approx. CH495m - CH510m) Location: Brick crown Description: Hinge crack in crown, disbondment of constriction joints

Photograph 25 Section Marker: 33 to 34 (approx. CH495m - CH510m) Location: UP brick haunch Description: Iron ingress through tunnel lining

Photograph 26 Section Marker: 33 to 34 (approx. CH495m - CH510m) Location: UP stone masonry sidewall Description: Significant calcide deposits on lining; iron present in drainage channel

Photograph 27 Section Marker: 34 to 35 (approx. CH510m - CH525m) Location: Invert Description: Indicative catch pit with cover removed

Photograph 28 Section Marker: 42 to 43 (approx. CH630m - CH645m) Location: UP brick haunch Description: Open construction joint surrounded by spalling brickwork, soot covered

Photograph 29 Section Marker: 44 to 45 (approx. CH660m - CH675m) Location: DOWN brick haunch Description: Fresh spalling brickwork; construction joint (L) staining on sidewall(R)

Photograph 30 Section Marker: 47 to 48 (approx. CH645m – CH705m) Location: Down brick haunch Description: Indicative elevated risk 5m2 missing brickwork, 1 leaf deep

Photograph 31 Section Marker: 47 to 48 (approx. CH645m – CH705m) Location: Down stone masonry sidewall and invert Description: Indicative elevated risk brickwork in tunnel invert

Photograph 32 Section Marker: 53 to 54 (approx. CH795m - CH810m) Location: UP brick haunch Description: Indicative elevated risk 4m2 major spalling

Photograph 33 Section Marker: 54 to 55 (approx. CH810m - CH825m) Location: UP stone masonry sidewall and invert Description: Discarded canisters containing an expanding foam

Photograph 34 Section Marker: 63 to 64 (approx. CH810m - CH825m) Location: UP stone masonary haunch and brick sidewall Description: Evidence of expanding foam testing behind lining and replacement of lining with blue engineering brick, localised deformation at test location

Photograph 35 Section Marker: 65 to 66 (approx. CH975m - CH990m) Location: Brick crown Description: Localised spalling at construction joint

Photograph 36 Section Marker: 69 to 70 (approx. CH1035m - CH1050m) Location: Invert Description: Exposed damaged drainage pipe

Photograph 37 Section Marker: 70 to 71 (approx. CH1075m - CH1090m) Location: Tunnel Profile Description: Insubstantial scaffolding 10m long

Photograph 38 Section Marker: 70 to 71 (approx. CH1075m - CH1090m) Location: DOWN haunch Description: Major bulge/deformation in haunch

Hinge crack

Photograph 39 Section Marker: 73 to 74 (approx. CH1117m - CH1132m) Location: Brick crown Description: Longitudinal crack in centre of crown, soot covered

Photograph 40 Section Marker: 75 to 76 (approx. CH1150m - CH1165m) Location: Brick crown Description: Major spalling in crown

Photograph 41 Section Marker: 80 to 81 (approx. CH1227m - CH1242m) Location: Shaft Description: Shaft

Photograph 42 Section Marker: 81 to 82 (approx. CH1227m - CH1242m) Location: Shaft Description: Shaft

Bulging

Photograph 43 Section Marker: 74 to 77 (approx. CH1132m – CH1192m) Location: UP haunch Description: View looking south of bulging in haunch at section marker 77

Photograph 43 Section Marker: 102 (approx. CH1538m) Location: Tunnel profile Description: View of collapse from exclusion zone

Photograph 44 Section Marker: 102 to 103 (approx. CH1538m – CH1553m) Location: Crown Description: Fresh spalling in crown, soot covered

Photograph 45 Section Marker: 104 to 105 (approx. CH1568m – CH1582m) Location: Down stone masonry sidewall Description: Bulging sidewall, location of drummy brickwork

Photograph 46 Section Marker: 105 (approx. CH1582m) Location: Brick lined refuge Description: Indicative brick lined arch refuge, spalling in back of refuge

Photograph 47 Section Marker: 105 (approx. CH1582m) Location: Brick lined refuge on UP side Description: Circumferential crack in front face (L) and inside wall (R) of refuge

Photograph 48 Section Marker: 105 (approx. CH1582m) Location: Invert taken from 105 facing South Description: Rubble in invert e

Photograph 49 Section Marker: 104 to 105 (approx. CH1567m – CH1582m) Location: Sidewall and haunch Description: Brick – Stone masonry interface

Photograph 50 Section Marker: 105 to 106 (approx. CH1582m – CH1597m) Location: Crown Description: Shaft

Photograph 51 Section Marker: 106 to 107 (approx. CH1598m – CH1613m) Location: Stone masonry side wall and haunch Description: Indicative stone masonry lining of sidewalls and arch, opening of construction joint missing mortar

Photograph 52 Section Marker: 107 to 108 (approx. CH1613m – CH1628m) Location: DOWN sidewall refuge Description: Tactile survey conducted on stone lined refuge

Hinge crack developing

Photograph 53 Section Marker: 109 to 110 (approx. CH1658m – CH1673m) Location: Brick crown Description: Fresh spalling, hinge crack developing, soot covered

Photograph 54 Section Marker: 110 to 111 (approx. CH1673m – CH1688mm) Location: Brick UP haunch Description: Major spalling, 2 leafs brick deep, soot covered

Photograph 55 Section Marker: 110 to 111 (approx. CH1673m – CH1688mm) Location: Brick crown Description: Moderate spalling

Photograph 56 Section Marker: 113 to 114 (approx. CH1673m – CH1688m) Location: UP brick haunch and stone sidewall Description: Bulge in haunch and sidewall

Photograph 57 Section Marker: 114 to 115 (approx. CH1688m – CH1703m) Location: UP brick haunch Description: Localised cracking of brick haunch, stained wet

Photograph 58 Section Marker: 116 to 117 (approx. CH1751m – CH1766m) Location: brick crown Description: Minor spalling, damp

Stepped crack

Photograph 59 Section Marker: 120 to 121 (approx. CH1813m – CH1828m) Location: DOWN brick haunch Description: Construction joint (L), Lipped longitudinal crack stepped along brickwork (R)

Photograph 60 Section Marker: 120 to 121 (approx. CH1812m – CH1828m) Location: UP sidewall and invert Description: Deteriorating concrete footing for steel frame.

Photograph 61 Section Marker: 120 to 121 (approx. CH1813m – CH1828m) Location: DOWN brick haunch Description: Rusted deteriorating steel frame designed to provide support to deformed sections of tunnel

Photograph 62 Section Marker: 120 to 121 (approx. CH1813m – CH1828m) Location: brick crown Description: Rusted deteriorating steel frame designed to provide support to deformed sections of tunnel

Photograph 63 Section Marker: 121 to 122 (approx. CH1828m – CH1833m) Location: UP invert and stone masonry sidewall Description: Discarded bath in tunnel indicative of waste left in tunnel

Photograph 64 Section Marker: 122 to 123 (approx. CH1844m – CH1859m) Location: Down haunch and sidewall Description: Bulge in sidewall, damp Hinge Crack

Vegetation Growth

Photograph 65 Section Marker: 123 to 124 (approx. CH1844m – CH1859m) Location: DOWN brick haunch Description: Hinge crack with vegetation growth(L)

Photograph 66 Section Marker: 125 to 126 (approx. CH1889m – CH1905m) Location: DOWN brick haunch Description: Silt ingress through open joints in haunch and crown

Photograph 67 Section Marker: 126 to 127 (approx. CH1889m – CH1905m) Location: UP sidewall Description: Lining replaced with blue engineering brick at invert

Photograph 68 Section Marker: 127 to 128 (approx. CH1905m – CH1920m) Location: UP stone masonry sidewall Description: Failure of sidewall lining, missing blocks

Photograph 69 Section Marker: 129 to 130 (approx. CH1951m – CH1966m) Location: Down brick haunch and crown Description: Circumferential crack and iron staining on side wall

Photograph 70 Section Marker: 130 to 131 (approx. CH1966m – CH1981m) Location: Down brick haunch Description: Isolated spalling in lower section of haunch

Photograph 71 Section Marker: 139 to 140 (approx. CH2104m – CH2119m) Location: UP brick haunch and crown Description: Blue engineering brickwork lining,

Photograph 72 Section Marker: 143 to 144 (approx. CH2104m – CH2119m) Location: DOWN sidewall refuge Description: Unlined back of refuge

Photograph 73 Section Marker: 143 to 144 (approx. CH2104m – CH2119m) Location: Crown Description: Shaft #1

Photograph 74 Section Marker: 148 to 149 (approx. CH2104m – CH2119m) Location: UP brick haunch Description: Missing brickwork

Queensbury Tunnel Project number: 60582061

Appendix D – Geoterra Point Cloud Cross-Sections

Prepared for: City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council AECOM

© Geoterra Ltd 2018 A0 This survey has been produced at the survey scale detailed below with its accuracy commensurate with the indicated scale and should only be used for its original intended purpose. Any scaling should only be undertaken using a stable media print produced using the original data The plotted scale may differ (for presentation purposes) from the survey scale.

It is for the use only of the party to whom it has been addressed and no responsibility is accepted to any third party for the whole or part of its contents. This survey has been prepared on the basis that all information and facts, which may affect the survey, have been disclosed to Geoterra Ltd by all parties concerned and no liability, nor responsibility can be accepted, unless full disclosure has been made.

All ground features that were visible at the time of the survey have been located, however there may have been items obscured. Pipe sizes and flow direction have been visually assessed from the surface and should be considered as approximate only.

All data remains in the ownership of Geoterra Ltd and any discrepancies between this survey and any other information should be reported to Geoterra Ltd.

Grid & Datum

Survey Grid: Local Grid Nat. Grid (OSGB36) Nat. Grid (Graph. Fit) Existing Grid Survey Datum: Local Datum Nat. Grid (OSGB36) Nat. Grid (Spot Level) O.S.B.M.

The survey grid & level datum relate to the Ordnance Survey active GPS network (OSGB36) established via Leica SmartNET, plotted with no scale factor applied.

Section AA (0m South Entrance) Section BB (100m South Entrance) Section CC (200m South Entrance) Section DD (300m South Entrance) Section EE (400m South Entrance) Section FF (500m South Entrance)

Section GG (600m South Entrance) Section HH (700m South Entrance) Section II (1200m North Entrance) Section JJ (1100m North Entrance) Section KK (1000m North Entrance)

Section LL (900m North Entrance) Section MM (800m North Entrance) Section NN (700m North Entrance) Section NN (700m North Entrance) Section OO (500m North Entrance)

Rev Date Description CAD Client Aecom

T +44 (0)1606 75755 E [email protected] W www.geoterra.co.uk

Laser Scan Survey: Sections

Queensbury

Tunnel

Surveyed:MH CAD: NB Checked: MH Rev:

Section PP (400m North Entrance) Section QQ (300m North Entrance) Section RR (200m North Entrance) Section SS (100m North Entrance) Section TT (0m North Entrance) Date of Issue: August 2018 Reference: G18137_S:100:1:1 Queensbury Tunnel Project number: 60582061

Appendix E – Extracted 2D Cross Sections

Prepared for: City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council AECOM

NORTH SECTION

Cross-Section 1 Location: CH62m

Cross-Section 2 Location: CH520m

Cross-Section 3 Location: CH540m

Cross-Section 4 Location: CH785m

Cross-Section 5 Location: CH1025m

Cross-Section 6 Location: CH1043m

Cross-Section 7 Location: 1048m from North Portal

Cross-Section 8 Location: CH1060m

Cross-Section 9 Location: CH1090m

Cross-Section 10 Location: CH1095m

Cross-Section 11 Location: CH1100m

Cross-Section 12 Location: CH1105m

Cross-Section 13 Location: CH1120m

Cross-Section 14 Location: CH1125m

Cross-Section 15 Location: CH1165m

Cross-Section 16 Location: CH1170m

Cross-Section 17 Location: CH1175m

Cross-Section 18 Location: CH1180m

Cross-Section 19 Location: CH1190m

SOUTH SECTION

Cross-Section 19 CH1588

Cross-Section 20 CH1664

Cross-Section 21 CH1818

Cross-Section 22 CH1828

Cross-Section 23 CH2118

Cross-Section 24 CH2278

Cross-Section 25 CH2283m Collapsed Refuge

Side closest to south Portal Side of Refuge closest to North Portal

Cross Section of a Refuge

Queensbury Tunnel

Project number: 60582061

aecom.com

Prepared for: City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council AECOM 40

From: [email protected]] Sent: 09 May 2019 13:31 To: [email protected]> Cc: [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]> Subject: RE: Correspondence from Philip Davies MP - Email 02

Hi XXXX

Please see the attached.

Kind Regards

XXXX Historical Railways Estate (on behalf of Department for Transport) Highways England | 37 Tanner Row | York | Y01 6WP General Office: XXXX Mobile: XXXX Web: http://www.highwaysengland.co.uk

From: [email protected]] Sent: 09 May 2019 12:13 To: [email protected]> Cc: [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]> Subject: RE: Correspondence from Philip Davies MP

XXXX,

Please let me know if you have any comments on the below draft reply to Philip Davies MP.

“Thank you for your letter of Thursday 4 April 2019, enclosing correspondence from the Queensbury Tunnel Society about the engineering advice associated with the safety works planned for the Queensbury Tunnel.

Highways England (who manage the tunnel on behalf of the Department for Transport) have advised the Department that, in a report on the condition of the tunnel produced in the autumn of 2018 by independent consultants appointed by the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (CBMDC) there is contained within that CBMDC report (which post-dates the last inspections used by the Queensbury Tunnel Society for their own report) the following statement:

“Based on the investigative work carried out and the type and extent of defects recorded, it is clear that the condition of Queensbury Tunnel has declined due to lack of ongoing maintenance since the inspections conducted by QTS in 2016 and Carillion in 2017. Evidence of fresh brick-fall and the development of longitudinal cracks, was noted during the inspection”.

Highways England also advise that their contractors are currently delivering Phase 1 of the safety works inside of the tunnel and also advise that they have photographic evidence that the previous collapses are still active, with evidence of falling masonry (within the mesh system which they have installed to capture such material) and significant deformation of the brick lining of the tunnel. Given the advice of Highways England as reported above and their view that there is an urgent public safety need to take action the Department must act on the professional technical advice of Highways England and support their view that they must proceed with the safety works.”

Thank you

XXXX | Group Property, Corporate Finance, Department for Transport XXXX | XXXX Post to: Great Minster House, 33 Horseferry Rd, London SW1P 4DR

From: XXXX Sent: 09 May 2019 12:02 To: [email protected]> Cc: [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]> Subject: Re: Correspondence from Philip Davies MP

XXXX,

As discussed just now please send me a copy of the report (in several emails if necessary).

Thank you

XXXX Group Property XXXX / XXXX

On 8 May 2019, at 11:37, [email protected]> wrote:

Hi XXXX

I would perhaps refer the MP to the report on the tunnel’s condition drawn-up by Bradford Council’s independent consultants in the autumn of 2018. Within that report, which post-dates the last inspections used by the society for their report, is the following statement:

In addition, our contractors who are currently delivering Phase 1 of the safety works inside of the tunnel, have also provided photographic evidence that the previous collapses are still active, with evidence of falling masonry within the mesh system they have installed to capture such material, and significant deformation of the brick lining of the tunnel.

Kind Regards

XXXX Historical Railways Estate (on behalf of Department for Transport) Highways England | 37 Tanner Row | York | Y01 6WP General Office: XXXX Mobile: XXXX Web: http://www.highwaysengland.co.uk

From: [email protected]] Sent: 08 May 2019 10:22 To: [email protected]> Cc: [email protected] >; [email protected]> Subject: Correspondence from Philip Davies MP

XXXX,

I would be grateful for any comments you might have on the attached. It was originally marked as ‘no response needed’ by Private Office but I have now been advised that the MPs office have asked for a reply.

Many thanks

XXXX Group Property, Corporate Finance Windsor House 50 Victoria Street Westminster, London, SW1H 0TL XXXX XXXX Follow us on twitter @transportgovuk

Post to: Great Minster House, 33 Horseferry Rd, London SW1P 4DR

This email may contain information which is confidential and is intended only for use of the recipient/s named above. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any copying, distribution, disclosure, reliance upon or other use of the contents of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and destroy it.

Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. ______This email has originated from external sources and has been scanned by DfT’s email scanning service. ______From: [email protected]] Sent: 09 May 2019 14:10 To: XXXX Cc: [email protected]>; [email protected]>; '[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]>; [email protected]> Subject: RE: Station Road, Queensbury

XXXX

Yes he is.

Kind Regards

XXXX Historical Railways Estate (on behalf of Department for Transport) Highways England | 37 Tanner Row | York | Y01 6WP General Office: XXXX Mobile: XXXX Web: http://www.highwaysengland.co.uk

From: [email protected]] Sent: 09 May 2019 14:00 To: [email protected]> Cc: [email protected]>; [email protected]>; '[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]>; [email protected]> Subject: RE: Station Road, Queensbury

And yet, despite the DfT’s edict, you felt sufficiently empowered on 7th May to point an accusing finger at the residents, completely disregarding the role played by AMCO-Giffen in carrying out patch repairs, many of which have subsequently disintegrated.

We do not regard ourselves as “arbiters” on anything; it is simply that we care and are prepared to stand up for what we believe in.

I am very happy to write to the DfT regarding Highways England’s performance in respect of Queensbury Tunnel. My last letter was copied to XXXX; is he the appropriate person to address such a letter?

Regards

XXXX XXXX, Queensbury Tunnel Society

From: XXXX @highwaysengland.co.uk] Sent: 09 May 2019 13:28 To: XXXX Cc: XXXX, XXXX; XXXX; XXXX @amcogiffen.co.uk; XXXX; XXXX; XXXX @gmail.com; XXXX @hotmail.com; ' XXXX; XXXX @dft.gov.uk Subject: RE: Station Road, Queensbury XXXX

Thank you for your further letter on this subject. Once again the contents are noted. Two points.

Firstly, determination of the performance of Highways England against the HRE Protocol rests solely with DfT as our client. Certainly it is not for the QTS to self- appoint themselves as the arbiter on such matters. However, if you or other parties have any views on the matter then you must share them with DfT. In the spirit of being helpful I have forwarded your latest letter to the DfT to save you the trouble of doing so. I will leave it to the DfT to see if they wish to respond to the points that you raise.

Secondly, as you are aware Highways England has been instructed by DfT to have no unilateral discussions with the QTS. So again it would be a matter for DfT to lead on any response to the points that you raise.

Kind Regards

XXXX Historical Railways Estate (on behalf of Department for Transport) Highways England | 37 Tanner Row | York | Y01 6WP General Office: XXXX Mobile: XXXX Web: http://www.highwaysengland.co.uk

From: XXXX @queensburytunnel.org.uk] Sent: 09 May 2019 12:26 To: XXXX @highwaysengland.co.uk> Cc: [email protected]>; [email protected]>; '[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]>; [email protected]> Subject: RE: Station Road, Queensbury

XXXX

Please find attached a follow-up letter about Station Road in Queensbury.

Regards

XXXX XXXX, Queensbury Tunnel Society

From: XXXX @highwaysengland.co.uk] Sent: 07 May 2019 11:15 To: XXXX Cc: XXXX, XXXX; XXXX @amcogiffen.co.uk; XXXX; XXXX @gmail.com; XXXX @hotmail.com; ' XXXX XXXX' Subject: RE: Station Road, Queensbury

XXXX You will note from my email that I made no such suggestion.

Kind Regards

XXXX Historical Railways Estate (on behalf of Department for Transport) Highways England | 37 Tanner Row | York | Y01 6WP General Office: XXXX Mobile: XXXX Web: http://www.highwaysengland.co.uk

From: XXXX @queensburytunnel.org.uk] Sent: 07 May 2019 11:04 To: XXXX @highwaysengland.co.uk> Cc: XXXX @highwaysengland.co.uk>; XXXX jacobs.com>; XXXX @amcogiffen.co.uk>; XXXX @amcogiffen.co.uk; XXXX @bradford.gov.uk>; XXXX @bradford.gov.uk>; XXXX @gmail.com; XXXX @hotmail.com; XXXX @aol.co.uk> Subject: RE: Station Road, Queensbury

XXXX

My letter asserts that you are “successors” in “assuming responsibility for the Historical Railways Estate” (through your Protocol arrangements with the DfT); I did not state that you own the ~3,200 disused railway structures. If however you are suggesting that the rights and obligations set out in the 1970 title deeds for land around the former Queensbury Station site only apply specifically to the SoS/DfT (not to Highways England and its contractors), that would be extremely helpful in terms of us moving this matter forward.

The vegetation work at the top of Station Road was carried out some months ago. I will have another look at the adjacent section of road over the next couple of days and consider your apparent proposal that associated damage is exclusively responsible for the current condition of Station Road and disintegration of many of AMCO-Giffen’s recent repairs.

Regards

XXXX

XXXX, Queensbury Tunnel Society

From: XXXX @highwaysengland.co.uk] Sent: 07 May 2019 10:08 To: XXXX Cc: XXXX; XXXX; XXXX @amcogiffen.co.uk; XXXX; XXXX @gmail.com; XXXX @hotmail.com; XXXX Subject: RE: Station Road, Queensbury

XXXX Thank you for your email and the attached letter. The contents are duly noted.

As you are aware Highways England is not the successor to BRBr Limited. That honour belongs to the Secretary of State for Transport. In order to be helpful I have forwarded your letter to the Department for Transport to see if they may wish to respond to the points that you raise about any legal obligations. You may also wish to write to them separately.

Our contractor and agent have also taken a look along the length of Station Road and noticed that near the top on the left-hand side someone has recently been undertaking some vegetation clearance adjacent to the wall and made an attempt to repair the road. This has clearly caused a large channel to be gouged out next to the roadway which extends for over 40 – 50m (see attached pics) down Station Road. Those photos would seem to support our stated view that some XXXX of XXXX have undertaken work affecting the surface.

Kind Regards

XXXX Historical Railways Estate (on behalf of Department for Transport) Highways England | 37 Tanner Row | York | Y01 6WP General Office: XXXX Mobile: XXXX Web: http://www.highwaysengland.co.uk

From: XXXX @queensburytunnel.org.uk] Sent: 03 May 2019 11:30 To: XXXX @highwaysengland.co.uk> Cc: XXXX @highwaysengland.co.uk>; XXXX @jacobs.com>; XXXX @amcogiffen.co.uk>; XXXX @amcogiffen.co.uk; [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]> Subject: Station Road, Queensbury

Hi XXXX

Please find attached a letter about Station Road in Queensbury.

Regards

XXXX XXXX, Queensbury Tunnel Society

Mobile: XXXX Post: XXXX, Queensbury, Bradford, West Yorkshire BD13 1BN

Highways England Company Limited | General enquiries: 0300 123 5000 |National Traffic Operations Centre, 3 Ridgeway, Quinton Business Park, Birmingham B32 1AF | https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/highwaysengland | [email protected] Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. ______This email has originated from external sources and has been scanned by DfT’s email scanning service. ______Our ref: Your ref: XXXX Historical Railways Estate XXXX 3rd Floor 37 Tanner Row City of Bradford MDC YORK City Hall BRADFORD YO1 6HP BD1 1 HY Direct Line: XXXX Sent via Email ?? May 2019

Dear XXXX

Queensbury Tunnel

I am writing further to previous correspondence with the Council on this matter, including the letter from the Department for Transport (DfT) dated 1st August 2018.

You will be aware that Highways England are currently delivering Phase One of our proposed safety works to close the tunnel. Although this has taken longer than anticipated at least the previous collapsed areas of the tunnel are now safe for access. As a result, Highways England has been in contact with your engineering colleagues to facilitate access for your them and your consultants to inspect those sections of the Tunnel to which access was not permitted during their surveys in the summer of 2018. Such access would allow your engineering colleagues the opportunity to see the works undertaken during Phase One and provide them with an opportunity to review their costs for reopening the tunnel.

For the avoidance of doubt, the completion of Phase One is not viewed by Highways England or DfT as a long-term solution to the risk that the current poor condition of the tunnel presents to the local community. That will only be addressed by delivery of Phase Two of the safety works which involves the infilling of the ventilation shafts and both portals.

Having liaised further with various agencies, Highways England is now going to submit the planning application, and associated Environmental Impact Assessment, that will explain the significant engineering works proposed to deliver the majority of Phase Two of the safety works.

It is noted that the Council have still not responded to the letter from the DfT dated 1st August 2018. As a result, it must be our working assumption during the planning application process and the final planning and delivery of Phase Two of the safety works that the Council has no intention of taking ownership of the Tunnel.

Unlike the delivery of Phase One of the safety works, the delivery of Phase Two will be prejudicial to any plans to reopen the Tunnel after that point.

Registered office Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford GU1 4LZ Highways England Company Limited registered in England and Wales number 09346363 As during Phase One, your engineering team will be kept fully appraised of the progress and methodology used during Phase Two of the safety works.

Yours sincerely

XXXX Historical Railways Estate Email: [email protected]

cc: XXXX – DfT XXXX – Highways England XXXX – Highways England XXXX – City of Bradford MDC XXXX – City of Bradford MDC XXXX – City of Bradford MDC

Registered office Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford GU1 4LZ Highways England Company Limited registered in England and Wales number 09346363 From: [email protected]] Sent: 09 May 2019 16:52 To: [email protected]> Cc: [email protected]> Subject: Queensbury Tunnel - Proposed Letter to Bradford Council

XXXX

The time has come to submit the planning application for Phase Two of our safety works. However, we reserve the right to progress with the works if our contractors advise that the condition of the tunnel requires immediate further works as they complete Phase One based upon the remaining risk to the community and/or the risk presented to their staff by re-entering the tunnel at a later date to complete those works required on the inside of the tunnel.

Highways England is of the opinion that, as Phase Two will require significant engineering works (e.g. many heavy vehicle movements around the tunnel portals and the ventilation shafts to deliver the infill material) and the fact that an Environmental Impact Assessment has been requested by the planning authority, any works outside of the tunnel will require planning permission before commencement.

Those factors having been considered the attached letter to the Council has now been drafted. DfT may wish to comment on its content and consider if they may wish to send such a letter instead.

Kind Regards

XXXX Historical Railways Estate (on behalf of Department for Transport) Highways England | 37 Tanner Row | York | Y01 6WP General Office: XXXX Mobile: XXXX Web: http://www.highwaysengland.co.uk

Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. ______This email has originated from external sources and has been scanned by DfT’s email scanning service. ______From: XXXX Sent: 09 May 2019 17:41 To: [email protected]> Cc: XXX>; [email protected]> Subject: Queensbury

XXXX

The position of the Department is that since you have advised that the tunnel is not safe if XXXX (based on XXXX Opinion) is of the view that it would be lawful for all or some of the works to proceed in advance of Planning Permission then please do so. It is important to be in the right side of the law. However as advised by Counsel if there is a dangerous structure which requires urgent attention on safety grounds then if the law permits then those works are to be done without delay.

XXXX XXXX Department for Transport

Post to: 5/22 Great Minster House London SW1P 4DR

XXXX Our ref: Your ref: XXXX Historical Railways Estate XXXX 3rd Floor 37 Tanner Row XXXX YORK YO1 6WP City of Bradford MDC City Hall BRADFORD Direct Line: XXXX BD1 1 HY 10 May 2019

Sent via Email

Dear XXXX

Queensbury Tunnel I am writing further to previous correspondence with the Council on this matter, including the letter from the Department for Transport (DfT) dated 1st August 2018.

You will be aware that Highways England are currently delivering Phase One of our safety works to close the tunnel. Although this has taken longer than anticipated at least the previous collapsed areas of the tunnel are now safe for access. As a result, Highways England has been in contact with your engineering colleagues to facilitate access for them and your consultants to inspect those sections of the Tunnel to which access was not permitted during their surveys in the summer of 2018. Such access would allow your engineering colleagues the opportunity to see the works undertaken during Phase One and provide them with an opportunity to review their costs for reopening the tunnel.

Having liaised further with various agencies, Highways England is now going to submit the planning application, and the associated Environmental Impact Assessment, that will explain the significant engineering works proposed to deliver the majority of Phase Two of the safety works.

We were fully mindful of the Council’s consideration to take ownership of the tunnel during the delivery of Phase One of the safety works. It is noted that the Council have still not responded to the letter from the DfT about future ownership dated 1st August 2018. As a result, it will now be our basic working assumption during the planning application process and the final planning and delivery of Phase Two of the safety works that the Council does not intend to take ownership of the Tunnel.

Registered office Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford GU1 4LZ Highways England Company Limited registered in England and Wales number 09346363 Unlike the delivery of Phase One of the safety works, the delivery of Phase Two will be clearly prejudicial to any plans to reopen the Tunnel after that point.

As was the case during Phase One of the safety works, your engineering colleagues will be kept fully appraised of the progress and methodology used during Phase Two of the safety works for future reference if required.

Yours sincerely

XXXX Historical Railways Estate Email: [email protected]

cc: XXXX– DfT XXXX– Highways England XXXX– Highways England XXXX– City of Bradford MDC XXXX– City of Bradford MDC XXXX – City of Bradford MDC

Registered office Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford GU1 4LZ Highways England Company Limited registered in England and Wales number 09346363 From: [email protected]] Sent: 10 May 2019 10:58 To: [email protected]> Cc: [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]> Subject: Queensbury Tunnel

Dear XXXX

We are now at a critical point in respect of our safety works to close Queensbury Tunnel. Despite comments to the contrary neither the DfT or Highways England have had any communications from the Council about the future ownership of the tunnel. So we are now in a position where we must submit the planning application which covers the majority of engineering works required for Phase Two and complete the detailed planning of the same.

The attached letter, agreed with the DfT as the current owner of the tunnel, explains the current position.

Kind Regards

XXXX Historical Railways Estate (on behalf of Department for Transport) Highways England | 37 Tanner Row | York | Y01 6WP General Office: XXXX Mobile: XXXX Web: http://www.highwaysengland.co.uk

Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ

From: [email protected]] Sent: 10 May 2019 12:09 To: [email protected]>; [email protected]> Cc: [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]> Subject: RE: Poor Workmanship on Station Road by Amco-Giffen - Road in terrible (near impassable) condition

HI IF A MEETING TRANSPIRES PLEASE KEEP ME INFORMED AND HOPEFULLY I WILL TRY AND ATTEND. Kind Regards XXXX

From: [email protected]] Sent: 09 May 2019 22:37 To: [email protected]>; [email protected]> Cc: [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]> Subject: RE: Poor Workmanship on Station Road by Amco-Giffen - Road in terrible (near impassable) condition

Dear XXXX

Thank you for your further email. I spoke with our contractor again at lunchtime today about the issues at Station Road. Whilst they stand by their position they informed me that they had agreed to attempt to meet with the XXXX to discuss how this matter could now be moved forward. They will also, with our permission, discuss the element within their tender in respect of the remediation of Station Road during the current works.

Depending on the date and time of the proposed meeting I will endeavour to attend.

I will now leave it to colleagues at AMCO-Giffen to make the necessary arrangements for such a meeting. It would not be appropriate for me to pre-empt the outcome of the proposed meeting at this stage.

Kind Regards

XXXX Historical Railways Estate (on behalf of Department for Transport) Highways England | 37 Tanner Row | York | Y01 6WP General Office: XXXX Mobile: XXXX Web: http://www.highwaysengland.co.uk

From: [email protected]] Sent: 10 May 2019 12:09 To: [email protected]>; [email protected]> Cc: [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]> Subject: Re: Poor Workmanship on Station Road by Amco-Giffen - Road in terrible (near impassable) condition

Dear XXXX

Please find attached a response to your email below on behalf of the XXXX Queensbury.

I look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards

XXXX

Virus-free. www.avast.com

On Tue, 7 May 2019 at 08:45, [email protected]> wrote:

Dear XXXX

Further to my earlier email our contractor and agent have also taken a look along the length of Station Road and noticed that near the top on the left-hand side someone has been undertaking some vegetation clearance adjacent to the wall and made an attempt to repair the road. This has clearly caused a channel to be gouged out next to the roadway that extends for over 40 – 50m (see attached pics). This has sent large cobbles of debris and tarmac down the length of Station Road. You may wish to approach the XXXX in relation to the recent debris deposits towards the bottom of Station Road.

Kind Regards

XXXX

Historical Railways Estate (on behalf of Department for Transport) Highways England | 37 Tanner Row | York | Y01 6WP General Office: XXXX

Mobile: XXXX Web: http://www.highwaysengland.co.uk From: XXXX Sent: 02 May 2019 10:00 To: [email protected]> Cc: [email protected]> Subject: RE: Poor Workmanship on Station Road by Amco-Giffen - Road in terrible (near impassable) condition

Dear XXXX

Thank you for your recent email. I have raised the issue with both our agent and our contractor. They have confirmed that the material affecting Station Road in the videos was not brought to site by our contractors. For all of the reasons that they you raise in their email they would simply not use this material. Any infilling they undertake will use the correct gravel and concrete mix which they have previously.

Clearly if our contractors have not used this material or brought it to site then we are not in a position to know who did. It would appear that some other party may have attempted to remediate some sections of the road but they have not used the correct material or methods.

I am sorry that we cannot be more helpful.

Kind Regards

XXXX

Historical Railways Estate (on behalf of Department for Transport) Highways England | 37 Tanner Row | York | Y01 6WP General Office: XXXX

Mobile: XXXX

Web: http://www.highwaysengland.co.uk

From: [email protected]] Sent: 01 May 2019 18:09 To: [email protected]> Subject: Poor Workmanship on Station Road by Amco-Giffen - Road in terrible (near impassable) condition

Dear XXXX

I am writing on behalf of the XXXX at Queensbury - XXXX

The contractors who are conducting the current works to the Queensbury Tunnel, Amco-Giffen, have conducted several pothole filling in sessions over the past few weeks/month. This was due to the works to the Tunnel requiring heavy vehicles that would not normally come down Station Road to do so ( several per day on most days) and the condition of the road needs to be protected to avoid deterioration that would not occur at such a heightened rate under normal residential journeys up and down the road with domestic cars.

At first, the Amco work appeared to be high standard and the XXXX were pleased that they were taking some responsibility. The representative from Amco said that they were mixing postcrete/cement mix together with the gravel. You will see this better quality work on some of the shorter videos uploaded to Youtube. (This has survived as as well as concrete was smaller gravel rather than the big stuff used more recently)

However, the XXXX have had concerns about the more recent filling in works as they appeared to be using larger gravel/crusher run without the postcrete/cement mix. Although I am informed by one of the residents that when asked an Amco representative confirmed they were doing it all the same as before.

However, with the event of the recent heavy rainfall last week it became very apparent that the more recent works were indeed wholey substandard (without cement/postcrete) and most of the crusher run/gravel has simply been washed out of the potholes and the road is now bearly passable, with big piles of gravel and potholes that were filled in now empty or enlarged.

I guess they will have charged Highways England extra for this work and the material, unfortunately, in our opinion, this has been a waste of public funds! I have taken a video of the state of the road, comparing earlier work with new work and attach the link below (Youtube). I recommend that you pay a visit yourself to Station Road see how bad the road is as the video does not show what your eyes can see. The XXXX are convinced that the poor work conducted by Amco is the main contributor to the state of the road now as the gravel washed out of the poorly filled in potholes has acted as abrasion, ripping up more of the road than before they did any remedial works.

I will leave you to speak to your contractors and then confirm what action will be taken to rectify this matter at the earliest possible time?

https://www.youtube.comXXXX

I look forward to hearing from you shortly.

XXXX

Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

-- XXXX

Virus-free. www.avast.com

Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ

17th June 2019

Dear XXXX,

HERITAGE RAILWAY ESTATE: DRAFT AUDIT REPORT 2018/19

XXXX

Yours sincerely,

XXXX

XXXX 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. XXXX.

2 INTRODUCTION

XXXX

METHOD

XXXX

3 XXXX.

POLICY

4 XXXX

PROTOCOL KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

XXXX 5

1. XXXX.

XXXX

ORGANISATION 6 XXXX

1. XXXX

2. XXXX

3. XXXX.

4. XXXX

5. XXXX.

XXXX

FUNDING

XXXX 7

See Appendix 3.

8 EXAMINATIONS

XXXX X

1. XXXX

XXXX

WORKS PROGRAMME

XXXX

Major Works

XXXX

9 XXXX

• XXXX

Queensbury Tunnel

The Phase 1 work was due to complete by the end of March 2019. However the flooding of the tunnel, by the diversion of water from Strines Beck, caused a delay and this element of the work is expected to complete by mid-May. The delay increased the cost of the work to £1.4m.

Phase 2 is due to start in early autumn 2019. The works have been submitted for planning approval at Bradford Council although it is debatable whether such approvals are required. Further deterioration of the tunnel lining has been discovered between areas that have already collapsed in the locality of shafts; the haunches have flattened, and brickwork debris has built up again on the crash decking.

The anticipated cost of the Phase 2 work is £2.2m.

Minor Works

XXXX

ASSESSMENTS

XXXX

10 XXXX

XXXX

TRANSFERS

XXXX

ESTATES

XXXX

11 STRUCTURE RANKING

XXXX

1. XXXX

XXXX XXXX

HERITAGE

XXXX

SAFETY

XXXX

SUMMARY

XXXX

16 XXXX APPENDICES

XXXX Appendix 1

Results 2018/19 Appendix 2 Budget 2019/20 Appendix 3 Structure Ranking Appendix 4 BRB (Residuary) Limited Board Memorandum January 2011 Appendix 5 3 SRS Categorisations

XXXX

• XXXX • XXXX

XXXX

5 Strategy

XXXX

6 Recommendation.

XXXX Appendix 1

Structure Ranking Categories

XXXX XXXX XXXX Appendix 2

XXXX. From: [email protected] Sent: 17 June 2019 15:34 To: [email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]>; [email protected]> Subject: FW: Report

XXXX

Please find attached the draft annual HRE report for 2018/19.

Regards

XXXX

XXXX LCR T: XXXX M: XXXX

www.lcrproperty.co.uk

4th Floor, One Kemble Street, London WC2B 4AN T: +44 (0)20 7391 4300 | F: +44 (0)20 7391 4401

______This email has originated from external sources and has been scanned by DfT’s email scanning service. ______PHILIP DAVIES MP Member of Parliament for Shipley

HOUSE OF COMMONS LONDON SW 1 A OAA

Michael Ellis MP Minister of State for Transport Department for Transport 33 Horseferry Road London SW1 P4DR

12th June2019

Dear Michael

Re: QueensburyTunnel Society

Following my previous correspondence, I am enclosing a copy of an additional e mail regarding the above-named organisation, which you will find self-explanatory.

I would be most grateful for your comments.

Enc

YOUR INTERESTS, NOT SELF INTEREST Email: XXXX Website: XXXX Surgery appointments: XXXX XXXX

FW: Office of Philip Davies MP

Many thanks for forwarding Michael Ellis' letter.

It's clear from the abandonment planning application (recently submitted for Bradford Council's approval) that the permanent uncertainty being inflicted on Queensbury's residents is greater than we had previously expected. The greatest risk identified by Highways England comes from a collapsing shaft causing adjacent properties to be undermined. This is little more than a theoretical risk that they have not properly risk-assessed. However, in 2009 and 2018, they proposed to mitigate this risk by pouring mass concrete 'plugs' below the shafts to provide support. These plugs would last forever, just like abandonment. However the plugs were costed by AMCO-Giffen, Highways England's contractor, at £7M which is unaffordable. HE's budget for these works was £3.6M, although it's now looking like £SM. So, instead, they are now proposing to install ballast-filled steel baskets either side of each shaft and filling the void between them with a loose fill tipped from the surface. It will be impossible to establish with any confidence how much support these arrangements provide in the long-term and their durability - once the tunnel floods - will be a tiny fraction of that offered by mass concrete. Highways England's proposed abandonment scheme is a compromise, driven largely by constrained budgets.

It is only to be expected that a tunnel that has seen no maintenance for 60 years will continue to deteriorate over time. Small areas of loose brickwork do indeed fall every few months and longitudinal cracks have developed. You would find similar defects in many Network Rail tunnels hosting live railways. But suggesting that this supports the case for abandonment is risible. It's like identifying a hole in your guttering and deciding to rebuild the house!

It is incorrect to say that "the previous collapses are still active". Small falls of rock do periodically occur at the larger, northern collapse (2013); however the smaller, southern collapse is stable and has been so since it occurred in 2014. Here, there can be no "evidence of falling masonry within the mesh system which they have installed to capture such material" because it hasn't yet been installed.

This is another disappointing response, reflecting the poor nature of the 'professional advice' provided to the DfT by Highways England.

Many thanks for your continued efforts.

Regards

XXXX From: XXXX Sent: 18 June 2019 12:13 To: [email protected]> Cc: [email protected]>; [email protected]> Subject: Correspondence from Philip Davies MP Importance: High

XXXX,

I would be grateful for your comments on the attached.

Thanks

XXXX XXXX Windsor House 50 Victoria Street Westminster, London, SW1H 0TL XXXX Follow us on twitter @transportgovuk

Post to: Great Minster House, 33 Horseferry Rd, London SW1P 4DR From: [email protected]] Sent: 18 July 2019 14:30 To: [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]> Cc: [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]> Subject: RE: Post Debate Ministerial letter regarding Queensbury Tunnel [Deadline Weds 17th July]

Hi XXXX,

Our role with the HRE, and therefore Queensbury, is to discharge the requirements set to us from DfT. Any lines to take from us would be in that context, and therefore not necessarily what you are after.

XXXX, copied in, would probably be better placed to provide this on the basis he is our contact for these requirements.

Hope that makes sense, happy to discuss.

Thanks, XXXX

From: [email protected]] Sent: 18 July 2019 13:26 To: [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]> Cc: XXXXdft.gov.uk>; [email protected]>; [email protected]> Subject: RE: Post Debate Ministerial letter regarding Queensbury Tunnel [Deadline Weds 17th July]

Hi XXXX, XXXX and XXXX,

During a Backbench Westminster Hall Debate last Tuesday we received a question about the Queensbury Tunnel which I know is subject to a number of discussions with the various local bodies.

During the Debate the Minister agreed to The Minister agreed to write to Judith Cummins MP and Holly Lynch MP about the opportunities for the Queensbury tunnel in West Yorkshire.

I need to send a response up as soon as possible (ideally by close of play tomorrow) and I was hoping you might be able to help me with some lines to take for the letter?

Many thanks

XXXX

XXXX | XXXX, AAT, Department for Transport 2/16 | XXXX |

From: XXXX Sent: 15 July 2019 10:47 To: [email protected]>; [email protected]> Cc: XXXXdft.gov.uk> Subject: Post Debate Ministerial letter regarding Queensbury Tunnel [Deadline Weds 17th July]

Hi XXXX and XXXX, Just wanted to check whether you seen the action below as I need to send up a response by Weds.

The Minister agreed to write to Judith Cummins MP and Holly Lynch MP about the opportunities for the Queensbury tunnel in West Yorkshire (XXXX, I know this is a live issue could you provide lines for a response from the Minister?)

Many thanks

XXXX

XXXX | XXXX, AAT, Department for Transport 2/16 | XXXX |

From: XXXX Sent: 09 July 2019 14:47 To: [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]> Cc: [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]>; XXXXdft.gov.uk>; [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]> Subject: Readout and actions - General Debate on Active Travel and Local Walking and Cycling Infrastructure

Hi everyone,

Myself, XXXX and XXXX were in the box for a very well attended Westminster Hall debate with 28 MPs speaking and a packed public gallery.

There are two actions following the debate:

- The Minister agreed to write to Judith Cummins MP and Holly Lynch MP about the opportunities for the Queensbury tunnel in West Yorkshire (XXXX, I know this is a live issue could you provide lines for a response from the Minister?) - Wera Hobhouse MP grabbed myself and the Minister and asked whether Bath and North East Somerset was receiving any LCWIP support (XXXX/XXXX, do you have details I can e-mail to Wera?)

Many thanks

XXXX

XXXX | XXXX, AAT, Department for Transport 2/16 | XXXX |

The information in this email may be confidential or otherwise protected by law. If you received it in error, please let us know by return e-mail and then delete it immediately, without printing or passing it on to anybody else. Incoming and outgoing e-mail messages are routinely monitored for compliance with our policy on the use of electronic communications and for other lawful purposes. This email may contain information which is confidential and is intended only for use of the recipient/s named above. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any copying, distribution, disclosure, reliance upon or other use of the contents of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and destroy it.

Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ

Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. ______This email has originated from external sources and has been scanned by DfT’s email scanning service. ______From: XXXX Sent: 19 July 2019 16:55 To: [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]> Cc: [email protected]>; [email protected]> Subject: RE: Post Debate Ministerial letter regarding Queensbury Tunnel [Deadline Weds 17th July]

XXXX– thank you

This looks good from my perspective

XXXX

XXXX | XXXX, RIS Client, Department for Transport 3/24 | | XXXX

From: [email protected]] Sent: 19 July 2019 15:47 To: [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]> Cc: [email protected]>; [email protected]> Subject: RE: Post Debate Ministerial letter regarding Queensbury Tunnel [Deadline Weds 17th July]

Hi XXXX, XXXX and XXXX,

Please find attached draft letter attached for your comments.

XXXX, whilst I understand any opportunities are for DfT and Ministers to decide would you mind checking that my interpretation of your lines below are factually correct. In particular that I have used the correct terminology in terms of phrases such as “structure” and “liability”.

XXXX, cc’ing you in to make you aware from a place perspective.

If everyone could confirm they are content or make suggested changes by close of play Monday that would be great.

For background, the Minister offered to write back in response to the following questions from last Tuesday’ Westminster Hall Debate on Active Travel (transcript below- https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2019-07-09/debates/C1FCA47F-DCB1-428B-9C9E- B3EF56A3E2F1/ActiveTravel

10.31 am - Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Bailey, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) on securing this debate and on his passionate and articulate opening remarks. As the MP for Halifax, right in the heart of Yorkshire, I am truly blessed because our cycling routes and footpaths have so much to showcase. They featured in the Tour de France, and the now annual Tour de Yorkshire—my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) has been a passionate advocate for that. Today I wish to advocate one infrastructure scheme—the Queensbury tunnel. The campaign proposes to convert a disused railway tunnel that was constructed in 1878 but closed in the 1950s into a cycle route to connect Bradford with Calderdale. The tunnel is a magnificent feat of Victorian engineering. It is about one and a half miles long, and at the time it was the longest tunnel on the Great Northern railway. We are the masters of up-cycling our heritage in Yorkshire, and restoring and repurposing that historic tunnel for the modern world as part of a regional cycle route would offer a positive environmental impact, as well as an economic one, as there would be yet another Yorkshire gem for cyclists, and visitors more broadly, to come and see. Despite all that promise, however, the tunnel is currently slated for abandonment by its custodian, Highways England’s historical railways estate. The campaign therefore has a sense of urgency. We could soon find that the tunnel is lost for ever, and that that incredible example of Victorian engineering is scheduled to be filled in with concrete. To restore the route would cost around £16 million. That sounds like a lot, but the tragedy of the abandonment proposal is that such work is likely to cost in the region of £5 million pounds—money that would be funded by the taxpayer but provide no local benefit at all. Latest extensive research suggests that to invest in the tunnel’s restoration would return £2.31 for every £1 invested. An alternative future for the tunnel would be transformational. Restoring the tunnel with a cycle path would place it at the centre of a cycle network that connects Halifax to Bradford and Keighley, and would boost sustainable travel. It would add another landmark structure to the Great Northern railway trail, making it one of the most spectacular foot and cycle paths anywhere in the country. It would further enhance our area’s cycling credentials, becoming both the longest continuous incline in England, and the longest re-used railway tunnel. I encourage the Minister to come and visit that tunnel if at all possible. I have no doubt that if he spends five minutes with the wonderful campaigners, XXXX and XXXX, whose passion for the tunnel is infectious, he will be left with little option but to consider investing in it and in its future at the heart of Yorkshire’s cycling heritage.

10.6am - Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) Queensbury tunnel is a 1.4 mile long former railway tunnel in my constituency that links Queensbury to Halifax. This vital piece of infrastructure is threatened with abandonment by Highways England. Given the wide range of support from across the House, including from all five Bradford MPs, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), will the Minister agree to meet us and to step in so that this can be stopped? It is directly at odds with the Government’s cycling and walking strategy. Michael Ellis I am happy to explore that issue. I will ask my officials to liaise with Highways England about it, and I will write to the hon. Lady.

Many thanks

XXXX

XXXX | XXXX, AAT, Department for Transport 2/16 | XXXX |

From: XXXX Sent: 18 July 2019 15:33 To: [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]> Cc: [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]> Subject: RE: Post Debate Ministerial letter regarding Queensbury Tunnel [Deadline Weds 17th July]

Hi XXXX and XXXX

Many thanks for getting back to me so quickly. The lines are extremely useful and confirm my own understanding of where we are with the tunnel at the moment and the challenges associated with it.

XXXX and XXXX, I will draft a letter to the MPs concerned based on this information. Best wishes

XXXX

XXXX | XXXX, AAT, Department for Transport 2/16 | XXXX |

From: [email protected]] Sent: 18 July 2019 14:23 To: [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]> Cc: [email protected]>; [email protected]>; [email protected]> Subject: RE: Post Debate Ministerial letter regarding Queensbury Tunnel [Deadline Weds 17th July]

XXXX

HE cannot comment on opportunities for the tunnel as that is not within our remit. That is for colleagues at DfT.

From a HE perspective I can offer the following context.

We inspect and maintain 3200 former railway structures on behalf of DfT, the owner. We use a risk-ranking system to prioritise our interventions and allocate budgets. The ranking system looks at structure condition and risk to the public from its location. The tunnel has held the risk ranking of all of these 3200 structures since the abolition of BRBr in September 2013. Some sections are in poor condition, there have been two partial collapses and there are ventilation shafts which come out at ground level close to residential and commercial properties and other local infrastructure. DfT has made clear since that time any plans to reopen the tunnel for public use, it has been closed operationally since 1958 and not used by the public in any sense since that time, must first see it transferred to another statutory body (see recent letter from the minister in that respect).

DfT has agreed with HE that based upon the long held risk ranking the structure should be closed as Bradford Council have not responded to their offers to take ownership by DfT. On that premise Bradford Council were notified in September 2018 that Phase 1 of the safety works to close the tunnel would commence that month but would not be prejudicial to the future reopening of the tunnel. Phase 1 is now almost complete and a planning application for Phase 2 has been submitted. Over 3500 objections have been received although the majority are simply against closure with a wish towards reopening which is not a material matter when the council determine the application. The application will be decided by their planning committee in September 2019 and given the weight of public opinion is at high risk of being rejected or very heavily conditioned as a result.

Despite commentary to the contrary, Bradford Council have never formally asked HE to suspend their works or withdraw their planning application whilst they consider the option to take ownership. They have also recently launched their advocacy document (see attached). Whilst it is not for HE to comment on the document, as it is aimed at central government, it does alarmingly fail to recognise that the 2016 Sustrans Report into the proposed Keighley-Bradford Greenway did identify several routes that did not go through the tunnel, which were cheaper to construct and which also had higher Cost Benefit Ratios. They seem to consider only creating the Greenway through the tunnel when other better options have been identified and seemingly dismissed.

Should any formal request to suspend Phase 1 of our works or withdraw our planning application have been made we would have politely refused. Whilst HE does not own the tunnel it does carry ALL liabilities in the event of collapse or injury to people or property. So HE would at least expect those liabilities to be transferred to the Council as equitable recognition whilst they consider their options. Likewise if DfT were to instruct HE to stop its works then we would expect that in writing as confirmation that the tunnel stops being our responsibility at that very point as we could not be fairly instructed to stop work that we judge to be necessary and still carry all liabilities.

Kind Regards

XXXX Historical Railways Estate (on behalf of Department for Transport) Highways England | 37 Tanner Row | York | Y01 6WP General Office: XXXX Mobile: XXXX Web: http://www.highwaysengland.co.uk

Hi XXXX, XXXX and XXXX,

During a Backbench Westminster Hall Debate last Tuesday we received a question about the Queensbury Tunnel which I know is subject to a number of discussions with the various local bodies.

During the Debate the Minister agreed to The Minister agreed to write to Judith Cummins MP and Holly Lynch MP about the opportunities for the Queensbury tunnel in West Yorkshire.

I need to send a response up as soon as possible (ideally by close of play tomorrow) and I was hoping you might be able to help me with some lines to take for the letter?

Many thanks

XXXX

XXXX | XXXX, AAT, Department for Transport 2/16 | XXXX | From: XXXX Sent: 15 July 2019 10:47 To: [email protected]>; [email protected]> Cc: XXXXdft.gov.uk> Subject: Post Debate Ministerial letter regarding Queensbury Tunnel [Deadline Weds 17th July]

Hi XXXX and XXXX,

Just wanted to check whether you seen the action below as I need to send up a response by Weds.

Many thanks

XXXX

XXXX | XXXX, AAT, Department for Transport 2/16 | XXXX |

Hi everyone,

Myself, XXXX and XXXX were in the box for a very well attended Westminster Hall debate with 28 MPs speaking and a packed public gallery.

There are two actions following the debate:

Many thanks

XXXX

XXXX | XXXX, AAT, Department for Transport 2/16 | XXXX | The information in this email may be confidential or otherwise protected by law. If you received it in error, please let us know by return e-mail and then delete it immediately, without printing or passing it on to anybody else. Incoming and outgoing e-mail messages are routinely monitored for compliance with our policy on the use of electronic communications and for other lawful purposes.

Registered in England and Wales no 9346363 | Registered Office: Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 4LZ

Queensbury Tunnel Estimating the economic impact of reopening walking and cycling routes around Queensbury Tunnel

June 2017

About Sustrans Sustrans makes smarter travel choices possible, desirable and inevitable. We’re a leading UK charity enabling people to travel by foot, bike or public transport for more of the journeys we make every day. We work with families, communities, policy-makers and partner organisations so that people are able to choose healthier, cleaner and cheaper journeys, with better places and spaces to move through and live in. It’s time we all began making smarter travel choices. Make your move and support Sustrans today. www.sustrans.org.uk

Head Office Sustrans 2 Cathedral Square College Green Bristol BS1 5DD

Queensbury Tunnel June 2017

Table of contents 1 Executive summary ...... 1 2 Introduction ...... 3 Study area ...... 3 Existing evidence and BCRs from comparative case studies ...... 7 3 Methodology for economic appraisal ...... 9 4 Estimating baseline annual usage ...... 10 Methodology for estimating the baseline annual usage - commuting ...... 10 Methodology for estimating the baseline annual usage - leisure ...... 12 Baseline annual usage estimate ...... 14 5 Estimating post intervention annual usage ...... 15 Methodology for estimating post intervention annual usage - cycling ...... 15 Methodology for estimating post intervention annual usage - walking ...... 16 Post intervention annual usage estimate for each route ...... 17 6 Combining multiple routes into scenarios ...... 18 Accounting for double counting – baseline AUEs ...... 18 Accounting for double counting – post intervention AUEs ...... 18 Post intervention annual usage estimate for each scenario ...... 19 Sensitivity testing ...... 19 7 Costs ...... 21 8 Estimating the economic value of benefits and BCRs of seven scenarios ...... 23 Other inputs used in our economic appraisal ...... 23 Benefit Cost Ratios (BCR) ...... 23 Tourism model ...... 25 Benefit Cost Ratios (BCR) including tourism benefits ...... 26 Direct job creation ...... 28 Increased population ...... 28 9 Summary...... 29 10 Appendix ...... 31 11 Responses to stakeholder comments on the first draft of the report ...... 38

Queensbury Tunnel June 2017

1 Executive summary Queensbury Tunnel is a 1.4 mile long tunnel beneath the village of Queensbury, between Bradford and Halifax in West Yorkshire. There is local interest in reopening the tunnel as a walking and cycling route. If reopened, the Queensbury Tunnel would be the second longest underground cycle route in Europe. Sustrans’ Research and Monitoring Unit (RMU) were commissioned to produce this report to appraise the benefits and value for money of a number of options, and generate benefit to cost ratios (BCRs). The study area looks at combinations of seven proposed routes around the Queensbury area that could form links between Bradford, Halifax and Keighley (see page 3), including reopening the Queensbury Tunnel itself. The baseline cycling and walking annual usage is estimated for each route, before estimating post intervention usage based on uplift seen in comparable previous Sustrans interventions. Routes are then combined into 11 scenarios (see page 5). This allows for a modular approach to network development and helps appraise relative value for money of different scenarios when using the Sustrans RMU WebTAG Appraisal Tool. Scenarios are split by inclusion or exclusion of Queensbury Tunnel, and the main findings are: • The scheme type (predominantly on-road or off-road) affects the BCR; scenarios containing the off-road valley floor route 3a between Bradford and Queensbury triangle have consistently higher BCRs than the on-road Thornton Road route 3b • There is a range of estimated costs for Queensbury Tunnel; from £4.3 million to £35.4 million. This means there is a wide range of BCRs for scenarios containing this route. BCRs are dependent on accurate costs, so more accurate BCRs cannot be calculated until more defined costs for reopening Queensbury Tunnel are collected • This report is a preliminary piece of work and it is intended that the preliminary conclusions drawn will need to be revisited once more feasibility work has been undertaken and accurate costs have been obtained for Queensbury Tunnel • As with any economic appraisal there are many assumptions and caveats stated throughout the report • Estimates of cycle tourism benefits are not WebTAG compliant, but for this appraisal have been combined with WebTAG benefits to give a more holistic estimation of the economic impact of scenarios including Queensbury Tunnel (the route is expected to draw in cycle tourists due to its heritage and history) • When tourism spend is included, the scenarios that return the highest BCR that include the tunnel are scenario A min and scenario D min, both with a BCR of 3.2 to 1, and scenario C min with a BCR of 3.1 to 1. All three ‘min’ scenarios use the minimum cost option for Queensbury Tunnel: o Scenario A min is the most extensive scenario, developing a full network between Halifax, Bradford and Keighley including an off-road valley floor route between Bradford and Queensbury triangle o Scenario D min is a network from Halifax to Bradford, including Queensbury Tunnel and an off-road valley floor route between Bradford and Queensbury triangle o Scenario C min is a network from Halifax to Keighley, including Queensbury Tunnel

1 Queensbury Tunnel June 2017

• The scenarios that return the highest BCR that exclude the tunnel are scenario G and scenario I, both with a BCR of 3.8 to 1, and scenario F with a BCR of 3.7 to 1: o Scenario G is a route from Bradford to Queensbury along an off-road valley floor route between Bradford and Queensbury triangle o Scenario I is a route from Bradford to Keighley via Queensbury, along an off-road valley floor route between Bradford and Queensbury triangle o Scenario F is a route from Keighley to Queensbury village

• It’s necessary to consider all impacts presented here as conservative. This is the standard approach to minimise the impact of optimism bias, as some high performance schemes could distort expectations. Estimations however do point towards a positive impact for a number of scenarios listed above.

2 Queensbury Tunnel June 2017

2 Introduction Queensbury Tunnel is a 1.4 mile long tunnel beneath the village of Queensbury, between Bradford and Halifax in West Yorkshire. Queensbury Tunnel is currently the responsibility of Highways England, who plan to spend around £3 million1 to close and make safe the tunnel. There is local interest in reopening the tunnel as a walking and cycling route. If reopened, the Queensbury Tunnel would be the second longest underground cycle route in Europe. In 2015 Jacobs (commissioned by Highways England) estimated a cost of £35.4 million2 to restore the tunnel and shafts. In 2016 the Queensbury Tunnel Society commissioned an independent assessment of the tunnel and estimated a much lower cost of £4.3 million3 to repair the tunnel to make it safe (including creation of a cycle path and lighting). Sustrans’ Research and Monitoring Unit (RMU) were commissioned to produce this report by Bradford Metropolitan District Council on behalf of Calderdale Council, Highways England and local group Queensbury Tunnel Society (QTS), to appraise the benefits and value for money of a number of options, and generate benefit to cost ratios (BCRs). The report will begin by defining the study area and identify comparative studies to demonstrate the economic benefits evidenced from past interventions. We will then look at how we have modelled demand on the proposed routes and how we have valued the benefits. The report concludes with a summary and discussion of BCRs for each route for each scenario. This analysis will inform a business case on why reopening Queensbury Tunnel as part of a network of routes is good for the local economy, including overcoming barriers and linking communities, creating jobs and boosting tourism. By looking at the economic and social impacts of similar infrastructure projects (notably Bath Two Tunnels), the possible economic impact of reopening Queensbury Tunnel can be estimated. Study area Queensbury Tunnel runs from north-east to south-west beneath the village of Queensbury, between Bradford and Halifax. Reopening of the tunnel is considered alongside further development of existing cycle routes in the surrounding area. The seven routes that are considered in this report are listed in Table 1 and mapped in Figure 1 below. Table 1 – Potential cycling and walking routes around Queensbury

Route name & number Details

Great Northern 1 Proposed completion of the Great Northern Railway Trail (GNRT) Railway Trail between the north end of Queensbury Tunnel and Cullingworth, mostly off-road along a dismantled railway, including refurbishment of a 605m tunnel. Please note that part of the GNRT also considers linking Bradford and Keighley, but for the purposes of this report the stretch between Queensbury Tunnel and Cullingworth is referred to as the GNRT

Cullingworth to 2 Proposed route between Cullingworth and Keighley, mostly off-road Keighley

Valley floor 3a

1 Queensbury Tunnel – Proposal for economic appraisal, Sustrans, May 2016 2 HQU_3D Queensbury Tunnel, Queensbury Tunnel Options report, Jacobs, February 2016 3 http://www.queensburytunnel.org.uk/reports/QueensburyTunnelReport(October2016).pdf

3 Queensbury Tunnel June 2017

Thornton Road 3b These are two options for routes between Bradford and Queensbury triangle. The mostly off-road route follows the valley floor and the other is on-road alongside the existing Thornton Road.

Queensbury Tunnel 4 Mostly on-road route between the south end of Queensbury Tunnel to Halifax and Halifax centre

Station Road 5 Existing steep on-road route connecting Queensbury triangle to Queensbury village, currently in poor condition

Queensbury Tunnel 6 Refurbishment and reopening of an existing railway tunnel beneath Queensbury village

Figure 1 - Map showing the location of the seven proposed routes around Queensbury

2 1 6 4 5 3b 3a

4 Queensbury Tunnel June 2017

These routes are combined into 11 different scenarios to be appraised, listed in Table 2 and visualised in the schematic in Figure 2 below. Appraising each of these 11 scenarios allows for a modular approach to network development, and helps appraise relative value for money of different scenarios. Scenarios are defined by inclusion or exclusion of Queensbury Tunnel, and by which of the two Bradford routes is included (valley floor or Thornton Road).

Table 2 – Potential cycling and walking scenarios around Queensbury

Scenario Details

Including A Most extensive Great Northern Railway Trail + Cullingworth to tunnel scenario developing Keighley + Bradford valley floor + Queensbury Tunnel a full network to Halifax + Queensbury Tunnel between Halifax, B Bradford and Great Northern Railway Trail + Cullingworth to Keighley Keighley + Bradford Thornton Road + Queensbury Tunnel to Halifax + Queensbury Tunnel

C Developing a Great Northern Railway Trail + Cullingworth to network from Halifax Keighley + Queensbury Tunnel to Halifax + to Keighley Queensbury Tunnel

D Developing a Bradford valley floor + Queensbury Tunnel to Halifax network from Halifax + Queensbury Tunnel to Bradford E Bradford Thornton Road + Queensbury Tunnel to Halifax + Queensbury Tunnel

Excluding F Developing a Great Northern Railway Trail + Cullingworth to tunnel network from Keighley + Station Road Queensbury to Keighley

G Developing a route Bradford valley floor + Station Road from Bradford to H Queensbury Bradford Thornton Road + Station Road

I Developing a Great Northern Railway Trail + Cullingworth to network from Keighley + Bradford valley floor + Station Road Bradford to J Keighley, via Great Northern Railway Trail + Cullingworth to Queensbury Keighley + Bradford Thornton Road + Station Road

K Developing a route Great Northern Railway Trail + Station Road from Cullingworth to Queensbury

5 Queensbury Tunnel June 2017

Figure 2 – Schematic showing how the network routes combine into scenarios

6 Queensbury Tunnel June 2017

Existing evidence and BCRs from comparative case studies Physical barriers, whether natural or man-made, can strongly influence the extent to which people are willing and able to travel by bike. Local travel can be transformed by overcoming these barriers to enable cycling to become part of everyday life for more people. Reopening tunnels in the UK is relatively rare so there are few examples to draw on, so examples of new bridge schemes of similar costs that connect communities are also used. The benefit cost ratios (BCRs) associated with four of these type of schemes delivered by Sustrans are listed below, alongside two combined BCRs for successful applications to Department for Transport walking and cycling funding streams. A 2013/14 Highways Agency technical note4 provides guidance on the value for money categories of BCRs for schemes: • BCR of less than 1 = poor value for money • BCR between 1 and 1.5 = low value for money • BCR between 1.5 and 2 = medium value for money • BCR between 2 and 4 = high value for money • BCR above 4 = very high value for money

BCRs for Queensbury Tunnel scenarios are referenced throughout this report, and can be compared to these guidelines and other similar projects as outlined below, to understand the relative benefit of each scenario. Bath Two Tunnels (Connect2) No adequate cycling and walking link existed between rural North East Somerset and the centre of Bath. A four-mile stretch of the former Somerset and Dorset railway line was transformed, including renovation of two tunnels (one the longest cycling tunnel in Britain) and a viaduct. The Two Tunnels Greenway has become a well-used route for local people and also a tourist attraction in its own right. As the second longest walking and cycling tunnel in Europe, the Queensbury Tunnel opening could be expected to have considerable impact as a tourist attraction. The Bath Two Tunnels project has realised the following benefits: • Scheme cost: £5,158,000 • 131% increase in total route usage after the opening of the route – 366% increase in cycling, and 50% increase in walking • Estimated BCR over 30 years - 3.4 to 1

Shoreham harbour bridge (Connect2) For many years, the aging and narrow drawbridge that crossed the River Adur and linked Shoreham town centre to the nearby beach had been difficult to cross, especially for cyclists and people on foot. Sustrans worked with partners to build a new walking and cycling bridge, including a dramatic transformation of East Street in the town centre into a pedestrian area. Conditions for cyclists and walkers on roads in the area have been further improved by installing new safer crossings. The project has realised the following benefits: • Scheme cost: £11,126,835

4 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/361412/PS_2013-15_- _4.19_The_Percentage_of_Major_Project_Spend_which_is_Assessed_as_Good_or_Very_Good.pdf

7 Queensbury Tunnel June 2017

• 16% increase in total route usage after the opening of the route – 65% increase in cycling, and 10% increase in walking • Estimated BCR over 30 years - 3.6 to 1

Pont y Werin bridge, Cardiff (Connect2) This bridge (translated as the People’s Bridge) was constructed to provide a pedestrian and cycle link across the River Ely between Cardiff and Penarth. The bridge enabled the creation of a 10.5km circular trail around Cardiff Bay, which is accessible for both walkers and cyclists. The circular loop links all the key attractions of Cardiff Bay, including the International Sports Village, Cardiff Bay Barrage and the Norwegian Church. The project has realised the following benefits: • Scheme cost: £4,893,237 • 86% increase in total route usage after the opening of the route – 115% increase in cycling, and 78% increase in walking • Estimated BCR over 30 years - 3.0 to 1

Bretons Bridge, Havering (Connect2) This bridge is the centrepiece of a walking and cycling route that links Dagenham in east London to green spaces such as Ingrebourne Valley. The bridge connects to new and existing paths on either side of the river. The project has realised the following benefits: • Scheme cost: £4,481,932 • 20% increase in total route usage after the opening of the route – 10% increase in cycling, and 21% increase in walking • Estimated BCR over 30 years - 3.3 to 1

Cycle City Ambition schemes (DfT)5 The Cycle City Ambition (CCA) Grant was created to support the Government’s commitment to promote cycling and walking. Funding was awarded to eight successful cities in 2013. Bids were judged on five criteria, one of which is the economic case. The combined BCR across all eight successful cities as estimated in their bids is outlined below: • Total DfT funding for the eight schemes: £77 million • Estimated combined BCR across all eight schemes - 5.1 to 1

Cycling in National Parks schemes (DfT)5 The Cycling in National Parks Grant was created to support cycling and walking in rural areas. Funding was awarded to four of the nine National Parks in England. Bids were judged in the same way as CCA schemes, and the combined BCR across all four successful National Parks as estimated in their bids is outlined below: • Total DfT funding for the four schemes: £17 million • Estimated combined BCR across all four schemes – 7.4 to 1

5 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/348943/vfm-assessment-of-cycling-grants.pdf

8 Queensbury Tunnel June 2017