Comments on: 13-week road closure needed to remove Great Musgrave bridge concrete infill https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/13-week-road-closure-needed-to-remove-great-musgrave-bridge-concrete-infill-05-07-2023/ Civil engineering and construction news and jobs from New Civil Engineer Fri, 14 Jul 2023 11:03:44 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.0 https://www.newcivilengineer.com/wp-content/themes/mbm-mops-2017/images/logo.gif New Civil Engineer https://www.newcivilengineer.com 125 75 Civil engineering and construction news and jobs from New Civil Engineer By: tony Blewett https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/13-week-road-closure-needed-to-remove-great-musgrave-bridge-concrete-infill-05-07-2023/#comment-4316 Fri, 14 Jul 2023 11:03:44 +0000 https://www.newcivilengineer.com/?p=263522#comment-4316 Looking at Google Earth there seems to be plenty of open land plus a large hedge to the south west of the infilled bridge. If there is a willing owner of that field they could offer to rent a suitable strip of land to build a temporary road or a “steel military type bridge” around the infilled arch bridge. Starting at a modest rent and after 13 weeks a vastly increased one. If the County Highway Authority refuse to grant a closing order until, a satisfactory negligeable extra distance diversion is available, this would put National Highways in a double bind. Either NH pay up for the short diversion or be prosecuted by the Planning Authority. If NH fail to do the work the Local Planning Authority could remove the infill at NH expense, this is what has happened to a number of people who have built houses without Planning Permission. It would also set a precident to keep NH in check.

This would not be the first time a temporary diversion has been built on private land by agreement. Many years ago when the A303 through Wiltshire was being improved the contractor (I think it was Southern Counties) leased sufficient land next to their work site site for a complete new temporary full trunk road standard carriageway immediately adjacent whilst they carried out their contracted major road realigment It was very successful with only very slight road user delays whilst the ends were connected to the existing road.

]]> By: phil@pja.co.uk https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/13-week-road-closure-needed-to-remove-great-musgrave-bridge-concrete-infill-05-07-2023/#comment-4304 Mon, 10 Jul 2023 07:12:28 +0000 https://www.newcivilengineer.com/?p=263522#comment-4304 In reply to Philip Alexander.

NH is unaccountable and out of control. Radical reform is needed.

]]> By: Philip Alexander https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/13-week-road-closure-needed-to-remove-great-musgrave-bridge-concrete-infill-05-07-2023/#comment-4295 Wed, 05 Jul 2023 07:04:04 +0000 https://www.newcivilengineer.com/?p=263522#comment-4295 That’s absolutely deliberate by NH to make the locals and local council pay for their temerity in insisting that the infill should be removed. Just simply bloody-minded. A classic lesson by government to remind us serfs who is in charge. It’s positively disgraceful.

]]>