EEC/06/55/HQ Executive 19 June 2006

Bideford Long Bridge: Results of Consultation and Formal Scheme Approval

Report of the Director of Environment, Economy and Culture

Please note that the following recommendations are subject to consideration and determination by the Executive (and confirmation under the provisions of the Council’s Constitution) before taking effect.

Recommendation: It is recommended that: (a) Executive notes Devon County Council’s obligation to protect the Longbridge as a Grade One listed structure and that action needs to be taken to ensure its continued safety; (b) the record of long and extensive public consultation be noted; (c) Executive approves the design and construction of a scheme based on Option One, estimated cost £6.5 million, as the solution to securing the long term safety of Bideford Long Bridge.

1. Summary

This paper reports on the outcome of the recent public consultation undertaken, and on the two viable options put forward to strengthen the Bideford Longbridge. Feedback from the consultation is presented and discussed.

2. Background

Bideford’s Longbridge is protected as a Grade 1 Listed Structure and the County Council as Highway Authority has an ongoing responsibility to maintain and preserve it.

The historic 13 th century masonry arches of the bridge are in a satisfactory condition. However, due to the condition and inherent weakness of the concrete widened sections of the bridge which carry the road and footways, a 3 tonne weight restriction was introduced in 2002.

A detailed investigation into the condition of the 1920s concrete and steel cantilevers was carried out in September 2005. The results indicated that generally the underlying steel is inadequately protected, due to insufficient concrete depth. There is clear potential for ongoing corrosion of the steel reinforcement and steel beams because of this, high levels of chloride contamination, and carbonation of the concrete. This situation exists in addition to the significant visible areas where concrete has cracked and spalled. Repairs to the existing fabric of the bridge are unlikely to be effective. Guarantees from specialist contractors for their effectiveness are available for only up to approximately 15 years. An option to repair the bridge can only be seen as a short term solution and is unlikely to be value for money due to the extensive areas requiring repair and protection. This involves significant investment on a regular basis over the whole life of the structure, the cost of which would have to be found from County Council resources. Repairing the weak areas of the bridge is considered not to be practicable or cost effective in the long term and would not strengthen the structure to be capable of carrying current traffic loading. There are concerns that if the condition of the bridge is allowed to deteriorate, it will be necessary at some stage, to restrict access further or close the bridge in order to protect the safety of the public.

The outcome of a consultation process undertaken in June 2003 regarding the bridge’s future, was presented to Executive on 15 July 2003, and it was resolved that further discussions take place with English Heritage and other key stakeholders and that the conclusions of those discussions be reported to a future meeting (Minute *496 refers). As a result, a wide ranging consultation process has recently taken place, and a further public exhibition held which canvassed the views on two options considered viable to strengthen the bridge.

This report details the results of discussions and summarises the findings of the recent public consultation.

3. The Consultation Process

Details of the consultation process undertaken in June 2003 where a total of nine options were considered was presented in a report to Executive on 15 July 2003. This is reproduced as Appendix I of this report. The consultation engaged all Bideford Town Councillors, and County and District Councillors from Torridge and representing Bideford and the adjacent communities. This was followed by a three-day public exhibition held in Bideford. As a result of the feedback received from this process a recommendation was adopted by Executive to undertake further discussions with key stakeholders and that the conclusions be reported to a future meeting.

Further consultations have since taken place culminating in a public consultation and exhibition held during March and April of this year. A Working Group, established in July 2004, consisting of Members and officers from Devon County, and Bideford Town Councils has discussed the consultation process in detail. Details of those involved in the Group are included in Appendix II of this report. The Group met on a total of six occasions to review options for the bridge’s future, agree viable options to strengthen the bridge, and to establish the process for a wider consultation with both the public and other key stakeholders. A representative from English Heritage attended one meeting at the invitation of the Group.

The Working Group came to a consensus that there are now only two viable options to strengthen the bridge. These options, which were subsequently illustrated and explained in the consultation leaflet (Appendix III) and at the public exhibition, were:

Option One Replace weak areas of concrete on the bridge using a similar combination of steel and concrete which would preserve the Grade One listed structure more or less in its present form and appearance.

Option Two Remove the weak concrete walkways and reinstate the bridge parapets closer to the original line, to expose more of the original historic masonry arches. Walkers and cyclists would be provided with separate safer access using lightweight stainless steel walkways designed to be as visually unobtrusive as possible.

The Working Group discussed, edited and agreed the content of a consultation leaflet developed by officers from the County Council and also agreed on the wider consultation process to be followed. The agreed consultation leaflet is included in Appendix III of this report.

This consultation process consisted of:

• The distribution of 10,000 leaflets to households in the Bideford area explaining the options for strengthening the bridge. • A preview exhibition held for Members of Torridge District, Bideford Town and local County Council Members on 26 March 2006. • A week long public exhibition from 27 March to 1 April 2006 held at two locations in Bideford and East the Water. • Seeking the views of key stakeholder organisations (19 in total). • Making detailed information available on the County Council’s website. • Publication of articles and features regarding the exhibition and consultation process through the press, local radio and television. • A presentation made to a public meeting convened by Torridge District Council and attended by Bideford Town and Devon County Council Members.

4. The 2006 Consultation Feedback

A total of 445 responses had been received via a combination of returns of the consultation leaflet tear off slips, letters, and e-mail responses, by 18 April 2006. The breakdown of preferences for each option was as follows:

Number % Supporting Option One (Strengthen as existing) 192 43.0%

Option Two (Strengthen with new walkways) 242 54.5%

Other 11 2.5% TOTAL 445 100%

The main themes of written comments received were:

85 responses preferred the appearance of the existing bridge (Option 1). 47 responses asked for the existing weight restriction to be retained in any event. 44 responses considered that Option 2 offered safety benefits for pedestrians and cyclists. 27 responses felt that Option 2 would increase the exposure of pedestrians and cyclists to the elements. 19 responses preferred the appearance of the Option 2.

Nineteen key stakeholder organisations having a potential interest in the future of the Longbridge were approached directly seeking their views. Responses were received from eight organisations - two expressing a preference for Option One, two expressing a preference for Option Two, and four giving no indication of preference.

The full list of those consulted is included in Appendix II of this report.

The views of both Torridge District and Bideford Town Councils have been received following the recent consultations. A public meeting was convened by Torridge District Council and attended by Bideford Town and County Council Members on 3 May 2006. Devon County Council officers made a presentation regarding the options under consideration.

Following that meeting on 3 May 2006:

Torridge District Council resolved:

"that the County Council be advised that this Authority support Option 1 detailed in the consultation process, being the strengthening of the existing bridge keeping the appearances as at present"

"before a decision is taken by the Devon County Council we ask for an unbiased mail shot to every house in Bideford with a prepaid envelope for reply"

"that the Council are implacably opposed to Option 2" (A copy is attached at Appendix IV.)

Bideford Town Council resolved:

1. That this Council calls on Devon County Council to consider more carefully the option of repairing the existing structure.

2. Before any of the decisions on major works are taken by Devon County Council, we ask for an unbiased mail shot to every house in Bideford with a prepaid envelope for reply.

3. Meanwhile, this Council is implacably opposed to Option 2.

The Bideford Regeneration Initiative have also responded but have expressed no view, requesting that Devon County Council works with them to "obtain the right result for Bideford" and a wish to remain involved in the ongoing consultation exercise surrounding the Bideford Long Bridge. A copy of the response is attached at Appendix V.

5. English Heritage

Given the Grade One Listed status of the Longbridge, English Heritage have a significant role in advising on what works or alterations will be permitted to be undertaken. Throughout all consultation processes undertaken so far, the views of English Heritage have been sought and taken into consideration. A representative of English Heritage attended a meeting of the Working Group in November 2004, and although stating that both proposed options may be acceptable if eventually proposed, Option Two offered a “once in a lifetime” opportunity to restore some of the original historic features of the bridge.

6. The County Council's Objectives

It is clear that any works carried out to the bridge will require a significant investment and the County Council has identified a number of objectives which it considers important to be taken into account if possible. These are to: • Protect public safety because the structure will soon become dangerous. • Protect the bridge as a Grade One Listed Structure. • Provide a minimum carriageway width of 6.0m allowing the safer passage of larger vehicles. • Provide improved and safer pedestrian facilities across the bridge. • Provide a bridge that can carry all classes of vehicles so that the bridge could be used as a temporary diversionary route in the event of closure of the A39 Torridge Bridge. • Provide a cycle route to improve the link between the Tarka Trail and Bideford Town Centre and the west side of the Torridge.

7. Financial Considerations

Preliminary estimates indicate that each option is likely to cost in the order of £6.5 million. Funding for the work has been sought and secured as part of the Bridge Assessment and Strengthening Programme through the Local Transport Plan bidding process.

8. Sustainability Considerations

Work to the Grade One Listed Structure will preserve and maintain the historic and current features of the bridge. Masonry retrieved from the site will be used to reinstate the features of the existing parapet walls. 9. Equality Considerations

An Equality Impact and Needs Assessment will be undertaken during the detailed design stage for the selected option to strengthen the bridge.

10. Discussion/Reason for Recommendations

A full and comprehensive consultation has now been carried out and every effort made by the County Council to engage the public and other key stakeholders. A number of issues raised during the initial 2003 consultation reoccurred during the current consultation. There is however now a realisation that there are only a limited number of viable options to pursue, and that doing nothing, carrying out superficial repairs, or building a new bridge upstream are neither practical, justified, nor a financial option at this time.

The public response to the consultation was disappointing despite the wide publicity and extended consultation, and indicated a marginal preference for Option Two. However, once again strong opposition was encountered to Option Two from Members of both Torridge District Council and Bideford Town Council, with both expressing a strong preference for Option One – to strengthen the Longbridge retaining its appearance on a like for like basis.

Option Two meets all of the County Council’s stated objectives in integrated policy terms, improving safety and encouraging use by pedestrians and cyclists, and in economic terms by providing the opportunity for links to the Tarka Trail. However, the majority of opposition for this option is focused on the appearance of the additional lightweight walkways and its perceived detrimental effect to the heritage of the bridge and of Bideford in general. It is clear that those objecting to Option Two opposed the addition of walkways to the external faces of the Longbridge in principle, and that no amount of design development will address those concerns.

Should the County Council decide to proceed against local political opposition and adopt Option Two, it is likely that this would be challenged as part of the process for obtaining Listed Building Consent, with the possibility that a public enquiry may be called to examine the proposals in detail.

Public opinion indicates no clear overwhelming preference and knowing the strength of opposition being expressed by the Local Councils, it is no means certain that Option Two would be upheld at a public inquiry. This process will further delay essential works necessary to maintain and preserve the Longbridge and to protect public safety.

Edward Chorlton

Electoral Division: Bideford

Executive Member for Environment, Councillor Margaret Rogers

List of Background Papers

Contact for enquiries: Edward Chorlton

Tel No: (01392) 382149

Background Papers Date File Ref

Consultation Responses June/July 2003 BM (3082) Bideford Longbridge Consultation Responses March/April 2006 BM (3082) Bideford Longbridge nb100506exa sc/bideford long bridge 8 hq 080606 Appendix I To ECC/06/55/HQ

ED/03/169/HQ

Executive 15 July 2003

Bideford Long Bridge: Results of Consultation

Report of the County Environment Director

Recommendation: It is recommended that further discussions take place with key stakeholders and the conclusions be reported to a future meeting.

1. Introduction

This report covers the consultation which was undertaken in Bideford on 5, 6 and 7 June 2003.

2. History

A report on Bideford Long Bridge was taken to Executive on 20 May 2003 and the Executive agreed the recommendation that an exhibition be arranged to outline the options for Bideford Long Bridge.

3. The Requirements and Options

Apart from the footways being assessed as being able to carry only 3T vehicles, the bridge has substandard parapets and carriageway width, as well as no facilities for cyclists. It is therefore felt that the opportunity should be taken to:

(a) provide a minimum carriageway width of 6.0m;

(b) provide a cycle route to link the Tarka Trail with Bideford Town Centre and the west side of the Torridge, together with improved pedestrian facilities;

(c) provide a bridge that can carry 40T vehicles. This bridge would be available as the diversion route in the event of a closure of Torridge Bridge A39. At present the diversion route for vehicles over 3T is about 25 miles.

Details of the Options are contained in Appendix I. The Options are explained in Appendix II. The exhibition questionnaire is shown in Appendix III.

4. The Consultation Process

The exhibition was held at the Barton Art Gallery and Museum in Bideford on 5, 6 and 7 June 2003 with the opening times being from 10.30 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. on 5 and 6 June and 10.30 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. on 7 June 2003. On the evening of 4 June 2003 a briefing meeting was arranged for all Bideford Town Councillors, those Torridge District Councillors who represent Bideford and the adjacent communities, the North Devon District Councillor for and the County Councillors who represent Bideford and the near neighbours to Bideford. In total over 30 invitations were sent with twelve Councillors from the various organisations attending. The evening took the form of a short description of the events leading to the imposition of the 3 tonne weight restriction and the various options followed by a question and answer session. The exhibition will be displayed at Executive.

At the exhibition itself there were over 400 leaflets taken indicating that this was the number of people attending. The exhibition was manned by Devon County Council staff who were there to answer questions and explain queries. Feedback was requested, either on paper or by email, and the questions asked were "what is your impression of the preferred option" and "other comments/suggestions". In addition the full script, plans and photographs were available on the County Council website.

In total 126 responses were received by the closing date of 16 June 2003 that gave the views of 141 people. A further 11 replies were received after 16 June, representing 11 people. These have been included in the analysis. Of those replying 53 were supportive of the appearance of the County Council's preferred Option No. 5. A further 11 agreed with the concept of Option 5 but not the appearance. Eighty-four were dissatisfied with the appearance of Option 5.

Option No. Description Number Supporting 2 Repair existing 6 3 Strengthen but retain widths as now 23 4 Strengthen and widen but with existing approach 4 5 Lightweight segregated footways 53 6 New upstream road bridge 26 7 New upstream footbridge 2 8 Footpath on one side only 2 9 Reinforced concrete widening with steel parapets 2 No preference expressed 34

One other significant outcome for those replying was that there were 51 responses asking for a permanent weight restriction on the bridge.

Bideford Town Council at their meeting on 18 June 2003 resolved: "That the Council rejects all the options put forward by Devon County Council and that the County Council undertake a proper consultation with the people of Bideford." In addition to rejecting all options for the refurbishment of the bridge, the Council "see merit in a scheme where a new vehicle bridge is built upstream from the Long Bridge with a road joining up to the new East-the-Water Link Road. This will have the effect of keeping heavy vehicles off the Long Bridge and out of the Town". Such a proposal does not address the need to carry out refurbishment of Long Bridge. It is in another scale altogether and would need to be justified separately on cost benefit grounds. Even were it to happen doing nothing at Long Bridge is not an option.

On 30 June 2003 Torridge District Council resolved:

"In response to the proposals from Devon County Council regarding Bideford Long Bridge this Council believes that:

1. The DCC consultation, both in terms of the length of time allowed and the manner in which the options were presented, was inadequate to establish a truly representative view on a major issue such as this.

2. Options which provide a new upstream road bridge have not been properly assessed in the context of overall economic and sustainability criteria.

3. This Council approach GOSW and the relevant Minister requesting that the County Council be required to prepare a full Environmental Impact Assessment in order that all options are properly appraised and adequate public consultation on these options is carried out.

4. This Council requests that the County Council prepare an information leaflet on the options to be distributed to all houses in Bideford, with a tear-off strip for responses."

The positions of both Bideford Town Council and Torridge District Council are unequivocal and do not bode well for any positive discussions about the refurbishment of the Long Bridge.

The consultation is a non-statutory consultation carried out by the County Council in accordance with its custom and practice. Legislation relating to Environmental Impact Assessments does not apply to such consultations. It is disappointing that the District Council is not aware of this and that its response is concerned with process rather than content. Once the preferred option has been decided a scoping report on the need or otherwise for an Environmental Impact Assessment will be prepared as part of the normal process to establish whether or not such an assessment is required.

All comment forms will be available for inspection at the meeting.

5. English Heritage

Two discussions have been held with English Heritage and while their preferred option would be Option 6, they have indicated that Option 5 might meet their approval as it would reveal more of the original masonry arches. Since the exhibition English Heritage have been shown the "horizontal rail" version of Option 5 and their reaction was that "it looks promising".

6. Discussion/Reasons for Recommendations

Doing nothing is not an option. Building a new bridge is neither a practical nor a financial option at this time. It is clear from the resolutions of the Bideford Town Council and Torridge District Council that they are unhappy with the proposed preferred scheme. In integrated policy terms, it makes sense for connections to the Tarka Trail to be improved as part of this work as such links would enable Bideford to profit from the economic benefits the Trail brings to northern Devon.

The County Council could press ahead against local political opposition with Option 5 or indeed could just reinstate the deteriorated parts of the bridge with a like for like replacement [essentially retaining the 1920's design]. It is considered, however, that further discussions with key stakeholders such as English Heritage and others should take place before deciding the way forward.

Meanwhile the LTP Annual Progress Report will include reference to the need to carry out major refurbishment of Bideford Long Bridge without including a supplementary funding bid.

Edward Chorlton Electoral Division: Bideford

Executive Member for Environment, Councillor David Morrish

Local Government Act 1972

List of Background Papers

Contact for enquiries: Edward Chorlton

Tel No: (01392) 382149

Background Paper Date File Ref

Consultation Responses June/July 2003 NM Bideford Bridge

nb100506exa sc/bideford long bridge 2 hq 070606 Appendix I To ED/03/169/HQ

Bideford Long Bridge: Options

Option 1

Do nothing. This is not an option as the bridge is in need of substantial repair works, particularly to the reinforced concrete section, and as highway authority the County Council are obliged to maintain this listed structure.

Option 2

Repair existing. It is not thought possible to repair the existing, as the concrete already tested shows significant contamination from chlorides, which would render repairs ineffective. If rebuilding were to be considered then perhaps the opportunity should be taken to strengthen the footway - see Option 3.

Option 3

Strengthen the footways retaining the same road and footway widths. This scheme would neither provide increased road width nor facilities for cyclists and improvements for pedestrians.

Option 4

Strengthen and widen bridge-keeping appearance as the existing bridge. This scheme would provide the minimum requirements but would enable less of the masonry arch bridge to be seen.

Option 5

Strengthen and widen by the removal of the reinforced concrete widening, which is relatively new, 1925, and is not considered to be important historically. Widening would be achieved by providing reinforced concrete beams at the edge of the existing masonry arches to support the road above. Then a lightweight steel cycleway/pedestrian walkway would be attached to these beams which could allow more of the original masonry to be seen. The walkway would be separated from the carriageway by reconstructing the original masonry parapets at the edge of the road. This proposal would provide the minimum requirement and the benefit of separation of pedestrians and vehicles, it is therefore recommended that this be adopted as the preferred scheme.

Option 6

Remove all reinforced concrete widening from the existing bridge and reinstate the bridge as a masonry arch structure for use by cyclist/pedestrian. A new road bridge would have to be built upstream of the existing bridge. This proposal would exceed the minimum requirements and would be much more expensive and would take several years to get to the construction phase as more processes would be involved without guarantee of funding.

Option 7

Remove reinforced concrete as in Option 6, but then use existing bridge for vehicles and construct a new footbridge/cycle bridge upstream of the existing bridge. Unless the old masonry bridge was widened this would not provide increased road width and the footbridge/cycleway would have to be built too far upstream for it to be used conveniently. This would also require additional funding that is not guaranteed.

Option 8

Strengthen and widen such that only one footway/cycleway is provided. This proposal has the benefit that it keeps the new bridge width to a minimum, but it is thought that people would still wish to use both sides of the bridge for viewing and fishing and would result in conflict between pedestrians and vehicles.

Option 9

Strengthening and widening by constructing new reinforced concrete cantilever slabs each side of the bridge to carry the footpaths. This scheme would meet the minimum requirements and would fall between Options 4 and 5 concerning the appearance of the masonry arches.

Appendix II To ED/03/169/HQ Appendix I To ED/03/121HQ

BIDEFORD LONG BRIDGE - OPTIONS

OPTION DESCRIPTION MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS MET? ESTIMATED ENGLISH HERITAGE VIEW COST LOAD ROAD CYCLES/ £/000 WIDTH PEDESTRIANS

1 Do nothing No No No £0 Not obtained

2 Repair existing No No No £3,000 Not obtained

3 Strengthen but retain existing widths Yes No No £3,000 Not obtained

4 Strengthen and widen keeping appearance as existing Yes Yes Yes £3,200 Not favoured by English Heritage

5 Strengthen and widen using reinforced concrete beams and masonry parapets with Yes Yes Yes £3,200 English Heritage may well a lightweight cantilever footway/cycleway construction outside the parapets. agree to this proposal

6 Reinstate masonry arch bridge for pedestrians/cyclists and build a new vehicular Yes Yes Yes £7,000 English Heritage's favoured bridge up stream option

7 Reinstate masonry bridge for use by vehicles and build a new pedestrian/cycleway Yes No Yes £6,000 Not obtained bridge up stream

8 Strengthen and widen such that only one footway/cycleway is provided Yes Yes No £3,000 Not obtained

9 Strengthen and widen using reinforced concrete cantilever slabs each side of the Yes Yes Yes £3,200 Not yet obtained bridge

Appendix III To ED/03/169/HQ

BIDEFORD LONGBRIDGE ANOTHER LEASE OF LIFE

Devon County Council welcomes your views

What is your overall impression of the preferred option …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… Other comments/suggestions …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………

Name : Address :

Closing date for comments Monday 16 June 2003

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP

ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP MATFORD OFFICES DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL COUNTY HALL EXETER, EX2 4QW

Alternatively email your comments to : [email protected]

Appendix II To EEC/06/55/HQ

Bideford Longbridge Working Group Members and Officers

Name Devon County Torridge District Bideford Town Council Council Council Councillor Barton Member Member Member (Chairperson) Councillor Isaac Member Member Councillor Clarke Member Member Councillor Powell Member Councillor Hadfield Member Councillor Leather Member Lester Willmington Officer Nick Bott Officer Andrew Seaman Officer Michael Dittman Officer

List of Directly Consulted Key Stakeholders

Organisation Comment Received

North Devon Chamber of Commerce No response Bideford Tourist Information Centre Option 1 preferred East the Water Residents Association Option 1 preferred Northern Devon Coast and Countryside Option 2 preferred Service Cyclists Touring Club Option 2 preferred English Heritage Either Option English Nature No specific comment made Road Haulage Association No specific comment made Sustrans No preference expressed Tourism Officer Torridge District Council No response North Devon Marketing Bureau No response Bideford Bridge Trust No response Freight Transport Association No response First Group Plc No response

First Devon and Cornwall No response National Express Group No response Bideford Regeneration Initiative No response Torridge District Council No response Bideford Town Council No response