Public inquiry into infilling of Congham Bridge by National Highways draws to conclusion
A decision on the future of a historic West Norfolk bridge is due next month after a public inquiry concluded today.
Closing arguments regarding the filling in of the St Andrew’s Lane bridge at Congham were heard this morning, with disagreements rife on issues such the heritage significance of the structure.
The rare concrete bridge, which spanned the dismantled Midland & Great Northern Joint Railway at Congham, was infilled with concrete by National Highways in 2021 under permitted development rights which relate only to emergency works remaining in place for no longer than 12 months.
However, the infilling was intended to be permanent, resulting in the scheme becoming unauthorised.
Although retrospective planning permission was sought, the application was refused by West Norfolk Council last October, and an enforcement notice was issued for the infill to be removed.
However, the state-owned company submitted an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, leading to the public inquiry which spanned the past few weeks - including a site visit yesterday.
Graeme Bickerdike, a campaigner with The HRE Group, said in his closing statement that he believes National Highways “acted unlawfully, and that needs to be put right otherwise trust in our public bodies will be undermined”.
But Martin Carter, the barrister representing National Highways, argued that Mr Bickerdike has “no relevant experience in the subject” and had readily admitted he had “no reason to be objective” during the inquiry.
Timothy Leader, the barrister instructed by the borough council, argued that the infilling had “almost completely destroyed” the bridge.
He also highlighted its connection to William Marriott, an engineer of the Midland and Great Northern Railway who pioneered a type of rail bridge design featuring curved wingwalls.
But Mr Carter said that the council had “misunderstood the heritage significance” of the bridge, and said evidence suggests it was built after Marriott had retired.
LEAD-UP TO THE INQUIRY
Ahead of the event, inspection reports relating to the bridge were uploaded to the council’s planning website, as well as financial documentation, background information and an exchange of letters between the council and National Highways.
In spring 2021, the state-owned roads company infilled the bridge - 17 months after telling the council that the project would be carried out under permitted development rights.
This cost more than £126,000 and sparked concerns from nearby residents and local heritage groups.
The historic railway bridge structure once carried the Lynn to Fakenham railway line.
The line closed in 1959 but the bridge has remained in use, carrying a quiet country road, St Andrews Lane, across the now-abandoned track.
National Highways previously said that the bridge was in “very poor condition” and stated that it had safety concerns about the volume of traffic it could support.
‘A NEGATIVE IMPACT DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE BENEFITS’
Those were the words used by Mr Bickerdike during his concluding statement this morning.
He argued that National Highways carried out the work in a bid to save money in the long term, and that “it was not about safety”.
He said a traffic survey should have been carried out to determine what volume of traffic the bridge could handle.
Mr Bickerdike said that, should the Planning Inspectorate order National Highways to undo the infilling, there would be “no meaningful obstacles to the reinstatement of the bridge”.
He added that Congham Bridge has “regional significance” and that the work caused it “fundamental harm”, and stated that National Highways has changed its approach to infilling following this matter.
Meanwhile, he said that the use of taxpayer money to “put it right” would be “unfortunate but necessary”.
NON-DESIGNATED HERITAGE ASSET
Mr Leader said the borough council has classed Congham Bridge as a non-designated heritage asset.
He insisted that National Highways’ belief that some planning regulations are “out of date” are futile because they are “a matter of law”.
The barrister also said that Norfolk County Council plans to create a cycle route on the old Fakenham to Lynn railway line could have led to the Congham area becoming a “gateway into Lynn”.
He added that the nature of the bridge has now been changed to an “embankment”, and that arguments that the infilling helped to preserve it are “perverse, as archaeological interest is in what you can look at”.
Mr Leader argued that because the National Highways work does not preserve, enhance or protect the bridge, planning permission should be refused.
‘WHOLLY OVERSTATED’
Mr Carter said Mr Bickerdike’s campaign group was like something out of a “spy novel” due to the fact he refused to divulge fellow members’ identities during the inquiry.
He therefore urged planning inspector Laura Renaudon to take “considerable caution” when analysing his evidence, slamming Mr Bickerdike’s claim that National Highways had been attempting to mislead the inquiry.
Mr Carter said issues around the financial decisions taken regarding the scheme should not form part of any planning considerations, and repeatedly described many council points of view as “unhelpful” and “wholly overstated”.
He also argued that the council’s heritage valuation of the bridge has been “seriously flawed”, and suggested its historic significance is “low”.
“It is located where it is through necessity, not choice,” he said. “It had to be built where it was.”
The barrister said the county council has never offered any suggestion that it would need to direct any potential cycle or footpath over the bridge.
“Infilling it does conserve it in a way that is proportionate to its low level of significance,” Mr Carter added.
WHAT NEXT?
Planning inspector Ms Renaudon, having completed a site visit to Congham Bridge yesterday, listened carefully to the closing statements this morning.
She will now consider all of the evidence, and said she expects to announce her decision on the bridge’s future shortly after next month’s general election.
