Replacement overbridge, Station Bridge, Kibworth, railway reference SPC3/19, 88 miles 1650 yards

Transcription

1 Bradford (Ilkley).doc Network Rail Floor 3A/59 George Stephenson House Toft Green York YO1 6JT Tel : Head of Development Control Built Environment Services Harborough District Council Council Offices, Adam & Eve Street Market Harborough Leicestershire LE16 7AG TP/LNE/ th April 2013 Dear Sir/Madam, Replacement overbridge, Station Bridge, Kibworth, railway reference SPC3/19, 88 miles 1650 yards Please find enclosed details of the provision of a replacement railway bridge over the Midland Main Line railway at Station Street/Church Road, Kibworth (in Beauchamp parish). The proposal represents advance works in relation to the forthcoming electrification of the Midland Main Line, but is more specifically related to linespeed improvements on the route (a separate project, but the requirement for gauge clearance means the works to this structure will have dual benefit if brought forward now). The existing structure comprises 3 square masonry arch spans springing off intermediate piers and abutments, constructed in blue engineering brick with red brick detail to the springer arch. The track layout beneath the structure consists of the Up main and Down main lines running east to west through the centre arch. Cutting and track access continues through the north span. A redundant brick cabin is located beneath the south span. Highway alignment over the bridge is straight with steep vertical alignment over the three spans. There is access to private properties immediately off the north approach (Station Hollow). A footway runs along the east side of the bridge with a kerbed narrow verge along the west side of the bridge. There is no existing impact protection on any approach to the structure. The existing brickwork parapets are substandard Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd Registered Office King s Place 90 York Way London N1 9AG Registered in England and Wales No

2 2 for electrification. The bridge is in fair condition throughout. There are a number of buried services in the carriageway over the bridge, including electric, gas and water mains. The highway consists of a single m wide carriageway with a m wide footway to the east side and a 0.44m wide raised verge to the west side. The longitudinal profile is a hump-back with reasonable inter-visibility. The bridge is located within a 30mph speed limit area, and speed cushion traffic calming is present just to the north of the bridge where Station Street changes to Church Road. Surfacing to the carriageway and footway is bituminous and in good condition. The raised verge is formed from in-situ concrete and is a fair condition. Double yellow lines are present across the bridge but no centre line is present. The requirements of linespeed improvement and subsequent electrification demand a height of 5.1m from track level. Therefore the bridge has to be re-built to accommodate the revised headroom (track lowering and bridge jacking are not valid options here on grounds of topography and prohibitive cost). However as the bridge lies in the Kibworth Conservation Area the proffered re-construction seeks to retain the design principles of the original bridge. The three arch profiles will be retained, with the two side arches infilled with matching brick. The central arch will be re-constructed in re-inforced concrete albeit at a slightly different profile to accommodate the required headroom. For safety reasons the bridge parapets have to be upgraded to H4a standard (in accordance with TD19/06 Requirements for Road Restraint Systems clause 4.7) at a height of 1.5 metres but again these will be in brick sandwich form, but the top concrete coper has to be pyramidal in shape to prevent people from walking on them. The preferred option for the approach walls (in agreement with Leicestershire County Council) is to run solid walls with brick finish upto the main span. However we also are seeking to retain the end pilaster features and sandstone cap at the end of the walls, again to give a continuity of design and retain elements of character. The importance of the route as a link between the two villages means that pedestrian access will need to be maintained. This is proposed to be on the east

3 3 side of the bridge which will require some temporary land take adjacent to the former station to the south east and in the allotments to the north east. This bridge will also be used for the temporary diversion of the services. Highway Considerations The existing carriageway alignment on Station Street/Church Road is significantly below standard; currently the road has a crest curve of approximately 161m, maximum approach gradients are approximately 5%. To demonstrate safe stopping distances within TD9/93 Highway Link Design we would require a crest curve of 650m, assuming that 2 steps below desirable minimum would apply for a design speed of 60kph. Initial reviews of the highway alignment and proposed conarch design indicate that the crown of the carriageway will need to be raised by somewhere in the region of 550mm. This is a significant lift which is difficult to tie in to existing without some detrimental effect on the carriageway alignment. Applying the minimum standard above would require carriageway lifts at the ends of the existing bridge in the region of 800mm, which is clearly not possible. The usual means of resolving lifts would be to use a similar crest curve to that present with the maximum current gradient on the approaches. If this approach is taken it would result in lifts to the carriageway at the end of the bridge in the order of 475mm. However, the access and Station Hollow at the north-west corner of the bridge poses a significant problem. The existing vertical alignment along the top section of Station Hollow shows an average gradient in the region of 14.4% and the junction where it joins Station Street is significantly below standard. The lift to Station

4 4 Street above will increase an already undesirable gradient on Station Hollow to approximately 17.4%. Furthermore, any changes to the access will result in the closure of the only means of access to the properties, raising the likelihood of objections. Given the proximity of Station Hollow to the bridge we have sought a small dispensation to the 5.1m requirement, which can be allowed in exceptional circumstances. A reduction to 4.8m span height will not make the existing situation any worse; however it does limit the alterations to the structure and approach roads to the minimum whilst still maintaining a safe access to Station Hollow, and has the minimal impact possible on the conservation area. Please find enclosed the following plans: Drawing no. W80160/SPC3-19/01 Existing General Arrangement Drawing no. W80160/SPC3-19/02 Topographical Survey Drawing no. W80160/SPC3-19/04 Proposed General Arrangement Drawing no. W80160/SPC3-19/05 Proposed Approach Barrier Drawing no. W80160/SPC3-19/06 Proposed Road Alignment Drawing no. W80160/SPC3-19/PLAN Proposed Elevation (planning drawing) Location Plan 1:1250 Ecology Survey Tree Location Plan Landscape Proposals/Arboricultural Report Planning consent for the structure has already been given by virtue of Part 11 to Schedule 2 of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, subject to certain conditions. As there is a material change to the appearance of the station our permitted development privileges under Part 17a of the GDO do not apply, hence the use of the prior approval process. However the removal of the bridge parapets and adjacent fencing/hedgerow (though not the remaining bridge structure) requires Conservation Area Consent as it is a means of enclosure over 1m high adjacent to a highway. Therefore the requisite forms are attached as part of this application. I would draw your attention to the provisions of Part 11 which states that permitted development applies when it is authorised by (a) a local or private Act of Parliament (i.e. the original Act of Parliament that allowed the construction of the railway) which designates specifically the nature of the development and the land upon which it may be carried out. Development is not permitted (for specific items identified, such as buildings or bridges) unless the Prior Approval of the appropriate authority to the detailed plans and specifications is first obtained.

5 5 However the Prior Approval is not to be refused nor are conditions to be imposed unless they are reasonably satisfied that - (a) the development.ought to be and could reasonably be carried out elsewhere on the land; or (b) the design or external appearance of any..bridge or building.would injure the amenity of the neighbourhood and is reasonably capable of modification to avoid such injury. The original Act specifying this stretch of railway states that the railway undertaker can, from time to time, alter, repair, or discontinue the before mentioned works or any of them and substitute others in their stead, and do all other acts necessary for making, maintaining altering, repairing or using the railway. This general power is provided for in Section 16 of the 1845 Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, and it is this Act which is incorporated in all railway Acts since The decision of the Court Of Appeal in Emsley v North Eastern Railway Company (1896) l Ch 418 confirmed that these powers are not restricted to the period of construction but can be invoked from time to time. The use of the original Act of Parliament as a means of using permitted development rights has also been upheld in a 2000 English Ministerial appeal decision, the reference number being APP/X/98/X5210/ The siting of the bridge is axiomatic; the question is therefore whether the proffered design is acceptable in terms of the amenity of the neighbourhood. The location is within the Kibworth conservation area. The new bridge design retains the overall character of the existing bridge, and at street level there will be little alteration to appearance save for the new parapet and top coper, and length of approach containment walls as agreed with the highway authority. No significant trees are to be lost. There are no other matters of acknowledged importance that should preclude the grant of Prior Approval. In terms of the conservation area consent the sense of enclosure and visual appearance of the structure will be retained. It is acknowledged that there will be an initial loss of beech hedge on the SW side of the bridge approach, and the green palisade fence on the SE side, but there may be opportunities to re-plant as appropriate in addition to the loss of modest trees resulting from the bridge re-construction. The hedge itself will be replanted as far as possible to its original location but there will be an inevitable visual effect on a temporary basis until the hedgerow is fully reestablished. Please note the landscape proposals are in sketch form only but we would have no objection to a condition relating to landscaping whereby the details of replacement planting would be specifically detailed and drawn to a proper scale prior to the commencement of the bridgeworks.

6 6 In the Kibworth Beauchamp conservation area character statement the railway is mentioned in passing reference to the development and function of the village, but the architectural merit of the railway bridge itself is not mentioned. The loss of fencing and hedges is dictated by the highways standards applicable to safety and parapet containment. Please note that this letter also constitutes the notice necessary for the removal of trees in a conservation area as per S.211 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990, specifically tree numbers T1-4, 5-9 and 10/11 (trees 12 to 18 lie outwith the conservation area boundary). Accordingly Network Rail hereby seeks the Prior Approval of the local planning authority to a new over bridge at Station Bridge, Kibworth (SPC3/19, NGR SP ), in accordance with the plans and specifications herein, in accordance with the provisions of Part 11 to Schedule 2 of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) order For the purposes of Part 11 the enabling Act in this instance is the Midland Railway (Leicester & Hitchin) Act 1853, incorporating the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act The extant powers apply within the limits of deviation of the Act and the relevant extract is enclosed with this application for Prior Approval. Please note that this request for Prior Approval is a statutory formal process and not an informal inquiry; we would expect a decision to be made within 8 weeks from the receipt and acknowledgement of the application. The right of appeal against non determination can be made if no consent is forthcoming before the end of the 8-week period. The Authority is familiar with the Prior Approval process, having granted such consent recently in respect of two bridges at Wistow and Thorpe Langton (reference 12/01256/FUL & 12/01383/FUL) Please note there is no fee payable in respect of a Prior Approval unde r Part 11, nor for an application for conservation area consent. Please let me know if you require any further information. Yours faithfully

7 Tony Rivero Senior Town Planner EM & LNE Network Rail 7