'STEADY' progress is being made in removing 1,600 tonnes of stone and concrete from a Victorian railway bridge in Cumbria. 

The structure at Great Musgrave in Cumbria was controversially infilled under emergency permitted development rights in 2021.

The state-owned roads company was forced to submit a retrospective planning application to retain the infill material, but this was rejected by Eden District Council in June last year, after which an enforcement notice was issued requiring its removal by October 11. 

Whilst the work commences, National Highways has arranged a closure of the B6259 - which crosses the structure - for the three-month duration of the project, until October 18. 

National Highways’ Head of the Historical Railways Estate Hélène Rossiter said:  “We are making steady progress at Great Musgrave Bridge in Cumbria, where we are removing the fill material from under the bridge.

"This is a delicate process and, once complete, we will re-point the arch, assess the structure alongside the Highways Authority and carry out additional necessary strengthening work so the bridge can continue being used safely by the public.

"We’d like to thank the local community in Great Musgrave for their patience while we are working on the bridge.

"We’ll keep listening and responding to local community needs to inform our decisions on our management of the Historical Railways Estate," she said. 

Graeme Bickerdike, a member of The HRE Group of engineers, heritage campaigners and greenway developers, said whilst the work is 'welcomed', there are questions that still need to be addressed.  

"The re-emergence of Great Musgrave bridge is obviously very welcome, restoring a valued landscape asset that was embedded in the community’s history and might yet play a role in its future, spanning a proposed link between two heritage railways.

“But this saga leaves a bad taste and many unanswered questions.

"Why was £124K wasted on burying a bridge that presented no meaningful risks, according to National Highways’ own engineering reports?

"On what grounds were emergency permitted development rights exploited to force through the infill scheme after a planning officer asked for it to be paused?

"Who authorised the sweetener whereby £450K of taxpayers’ money would have been spent on legacy structures further up the Eden valley - for which NH had no responsibility - but only if local councillors approved the retrospective planning application for the infill’s retention?

“This was an organisation that lacked effective oversight and believed it could do whatever it liked in its own narrow interests, misrepresenting evidence and riding roughshod over those trying to make a positive difference.

"National Highways has implemented a new management process since the events at Great Musgrave prompted the government to intervene and halt the infill programme. But what about the culture that was driving it: has that been transformed?," he said.