Long stoppage planned for the Oxford

[Hairy-Neil]

All we need is the magic wand and here it is fixed :-)

Hmmmmm maybe that's a 2005 picture.

 

 

Makes you wonder what's been going on when a structure that's stood there for aproaching 250 years suddenly falls down.

[twbm]

Before we start a 'Stop the Demolition' campaign could we consider the consequences of sucess please: Bridge has been deemed unsafe, BW will feel obliged to close navigation indefinately whilst another lengthy argument with Punch takes place.

[carlt]

Before we start a 'Stop the Demolition' campaign could we consider the consequences of sucess please: Bridge has been deemed unsafe, BW will feel obliged to close navigation indefinately whilst another lengthy argument with Punch takes place.

Wouldn't want to inconvenience anyone, to save a bit of heritage, now would we?

 

It would probably take a similar length of time to deconstruct the bridge, as it would to demolish it, without damaging the fabric of the canal and, believe me, if they've handed the job over to some ham fisted groundworks company, who don't understand the complexity of taking down a bridge, such as this, then you could wave bye bye to boating that stretch for the whole summer, or beyond.

[twbm]

Wouldn't want to inconvenience anyone, to save a bit of heritage, now would we?

 

 

Easy to say when you're not directly affected.

 

Edited to add: and for what it's worth since January I've dedicated two full weeks holiday and about half a dozen weekends contributing to save the two bits of heritage I'm involved in.

 

What makes this bridge so special? Or is the heritage card just a means to try to stick it to the nasty pubco - who won't give a toss and can afford better lawyers than BW?

Edited April 21, 2011 by twbm

[canaldrifter]

The Oxford has quite a few dodgy bridges. Being one of our older

canals, I'm wondering whether its traditional brick arch bridges are

now life expired.

 

Will we see more bridges being rebuilt as flat, uninteresting

structures resting on the old foundations, which seems to be the

trend.... if they don't just get demolished?

 

tone

[carlt]

Easy to say when you're not directly affected.

 

Edited to add: and for what it's worth since January I've dedicated two full weeks holiday and about half a dozen weekends contributing to save the two bits of heritage I'm involved in.

 

What makes this bridge so special? Or is the heritage card just a means to try to stick it to the nasty pubco - who won't give a toss and can afford better lawyers than BW?

What makes you think I'm not affected?

 

I wasn't having a dig at you personally so you leaping to ""defence mode is pointless. Just because you think you've done your bit doesn't mean you're right, to dismiss something you have no interest in.

 

I don't know if the bridge is special but it is worth finding out, before leaving yet another pair of stumps, where a nice bridge used to stand.

 

As for "sticking it to Pubco" that's of no interest to me. As a civil engineer, with an interest in architecture from the industrial revolution, I think it is worth preserving, if it is possible.

 

The Oxford has quite a few dodgy bridges. Being one of our older

canals, I'm wondering whether its traditional brick arch bridges are

now life expired.

 

Will we see more bridges being rebuilt as flat, uninteresting

structures resting on the old foundations, which seems to be the

trend.... if they don't just get demolished?

 

tone

That is what we'll end up with, if people are not prepared to ask questions.

 

It seems that any bridge that is not on the public highway, is at more risk, because there is nobody who is accountable, to maintain it.

[canaldrifter]

 

 

It seems that any bridge that is not on the public highway, is at more risk, because there is nobody who is accountable, to maintain it.

 

Who is responsible for accommodation bridges? BW or the local landowner?

 

I known it varies.

 

If it's the landowner, is he bothered?

 

Maybe, if BW is to become a Trust, it might be time to accept responsibility for canal rural bridges to preserve their heritage status?

 

Maybe pigs might fly?

 

tone

[carlt]

Who is responsible for accommodation bridges? BW or the local landowner?

 

I known it varies.

 

I became embroiled in a row between BW and two landowners, over an accommodation bridge.

 

I was pretty much elected "King Solomon" because the public highway stopped at the foot of the bridge in question.

 

One of the landowners (who I believe owned the bridge but it was not certain) thought he had BW over a barrel because if his tractor went into the cut it would force a stoppage, so BW should fix it.

 

BW thought that the Ist landowner should fix it as his land was at one side of the bridge and the landowner, on the other side was, yes indeed, a Pubco, who were leaving everything in the tenant's hands (he was pretty bewildered at it all).

 

Eventually I took the unorthodox step of getting my bridge expert in who confirmed that there was nothing structurally wrong with the bridge and, being unable to broker an agreement, between the various parties, got one of my gangs to sling some tarmac at it, and had it resurfaced myself.

 

If I was involved in the Ansty bridge, though, I would be getting the council lawyers to make sure it was nothing to do with the highways authority and extricating myself, smartly.

[canaldrifter]

I wonder how, historically, Punch became responsible for the bridge.

 

Does that mean that it days of yore, the owners of the inn constructed the bridge for the convenience of working boaters?

 

Does it mean they owned land on t'other side of the canal that the bridge gave them access to?

 

Or is it BW doing a slopy shoulders job, claiming that nobody uses the bridge unless they are going to the pub?

 

Just asking.

 

tone

[carlt]

I suppose it depends on the history of the pub and, if it wasn't always a pub, what was before.

 

Inns were frequently associated with farms so it may have been snuck in, when the pubco/brewery bought the pub.

 

In the 70s/80s there was such a feeding frenzy of breweries and caterers getting into the pub owning game that they might not have noticed a bridge getting in on the deal.

[twbm]

There was a case a couple of years ago on local TV where a couple bought a cottage and found they had inherited the obligation to maintain a nearby church - which needed a new roof.

 

As CarlT suggests the pub may even have been a farm originally, with the bridge providing access to fields cut off by the newfangled rapid transit system that had cut a swathe through the land behind it. I expect there would have been placards on the lane outside saying 'Noe to ye hye speede lynke'. Canal companies could be a bit ruthless so it's conceivable that the farmer paid for his own bridge so he could be sure it would stay there.

 

Todays eyesore - tomorrows heritage.

[Guest]

What makes this bridge so special?

 

For me it's not at all about what makes 'this' particular bridge special but what makes any or all them special.

 

This one is clearly lost, so do we just sit by now and watch similar bridges fall apart??

 

This stoppage has certainly awakened my interest in preserving similar structures - taking in an interest in who owns what, who is responsible for what.. hopefully asking the question early enough will prevent the same situation.

 

I'd always previously assumed BW were responsible for all bridges and structures over our canals.. just shows how wrong you can be....

[Top cat]

I'm passing under that bridge on Sunday, I will wear my hard hat

 

TC

[canaldrifter]

I'm passing under that bridge on Sunday, I will wear my hard hat

 

TC

 

Please take some photos.... if you make it.

 

Tone

[RLWP]

I'm passing under that bridge on Sunday, I will wear my hard hat

 

TC

 

I can't help thinking with your user name it should be a top hat

 

Richard

[Slim]

I'm passing under that bridge on Sunday, I will wear my hard hat

 

TC

 

 

What worries me is that I went under it a couple of weeks ago and didn't notice!!

[ditchcrawler]

I have looked online at OS maps and cant see any footpath over the bridge, I think the only people who use it are boaters going to the pub. For those that don't know the location it is here

[ymu]

I have looked online at OS maps and cant see any footpath over the bridge, I think the only people who use it are boaters going to the pub. For those that don't know the location it is here

Not all right of ways are marked on the maps. You can apply for a regularly-used route to be registered as such. I stuck up a ramblers' association link earlier.

[ditchcrawler]

Not all right of ways are marked on the maps. You can apply for a regularly-used route to be registered as such. I stuck up a ramblers' association link earlier.

Well put it this way, last time we were there the only use I could see was for boaters to get to the pub, definitely not a "regularly-used" route.

edited for Spelling problems

Edited April 30, 2011 by ditchcrawler

[ymu]

Well put it this way, last time we were there the only use I could see was for boaters to get to the pub.

Doesn't matter. If a boater wanted to have it recognised as a public right of way and marked on the maps, they could apply to do so on the basis of an established pattern of use. There are far more right of ways in existence than are marked on the maps, and one way of protecting them is to get them marked as such on the official maps.

Edited April 30, 2011 by ymu

[canaldrifter]

I have just remembered that the UK waterway newsgroup first met at Ansty. Anyone recognise themselves?

 

UKWNG

 

Tone

[Mac of Cygnet]

Well, here I am, and here are the pics.

 

 

 

 

It's still a substantial structure, and 24 hours, as someone suggested, would be a no-no, what with H&S and all. 'Keep Out' barriers erected, so couldn't cross, but it's only an extra 5 mins by the bridges either side.

 

The pub is OK, no more. Indifferent beer £3.30 a pint. I wouldn't stop again. It would be relatively easy to create moorings on the pub side:

 

 

but whether the pubco would think it worth the effort, I don't know. I presume there are expensive hoops to jump through to create new pub moorings these days.

 

Mac

[churchward]

For me it's not at all about what makes 'this' particular bridge special but what makes any or all them special.

 

This one is clearly lost, so do we just sit by now and watch similar bridges fall apart??

 

This stoppage has certainly awakened my interest in preserving similar structures - taking in an interest in who owns what, who is responsible for what.. hopefully asking the question early enough will prevent the same situation.

 

I'd always previously assumed BW were responsible for all bridges and structures over our canals.. just shows how wrong you can be....

For me what makes them all special is that they are part of the fabric and infrastructure of the original canal. The character of any pound would change significantly without them. Many of these bridges whether accommodation, road or rail are listed structures. Although that doesn't help if it can be proved unsafe and a danger to the public.

 

Personally a loss of one is important and I am sorry to see that the Ansty bridge is to go. I would rather a stoppage to repair/rebuild than destroy. There are at least two other bridges on the Oxford between Brinklow and Braunston that are in very poor condition I don't want then going the same way.

 

Perhaps under the new organisations management we can have some adopt a bridge schemes to help save these structures.

Edited May 1, 2011 by churchward

[mayalld]

There was a case a couple of years ago on local TV where a couple bought a cottage and found they had inherited the obligation to maintain a nearby church - which needed a new roof.

 

 

Aston Cantlow IIRC?

 

Now there is a whole different kettle of fish!

 

Chancel Repair liability is a strange (and potentially ruinous) liability which falls upon those who purchase Glebe land from an ancient parish church.

 

As the Glebe was endowed to provide an income to maintain the parson's part of the church (the chancel, as opposed to the nave which was the people's bit), those who bought it inherited a liability to maintain the chancel.

[PeterScott]

I've sent an email off to the local branch of the IWA

Richard

Great. You'll probably get a response.... about next Michaelmas. ...

tone

Well, I'm not the local IWA branch, but I did do a site visit on 26th and write to BW as they are disrupting my boating plans. Response was very prompt (blue below) but doesn't take us much further. We can't agree how long 9th May to 19th May is: I say 11 days and BW say 10. _sigh_ Anyway, I did take some more pictures, and they show the same things as those already posted: there are fences preventing pedestrian access.

 

I do accept that any short term notice of closure will disrupt boating plans and for this we do apologise. This situation has not appeared overnight of course , it has been the subject of review and discussion for some time now – but, the time has now arrived where some action has to be taken and in conjunction with our own engineering teams an agreed course of action has been confirmed and agreed with the bridge owners. ... if anything is not clear then please do come back directly

 

Safety:

How safe is the bridge? By what scale of risk is it being measured?

 

The bridge has a failure mechanism present, there are 3 of the 4 failure points present on the arch and the forth appears immediately prior to failure. The arch is flattening and movement is active. British Waterways Head of Bridges has confirmed that in his expert opinion the bridge could fail at any time.

 

According to the notice it is safe for canal users today, and tomorrow, and every day for three weeks from the date of the stoppage notice until 9th May, when we need a so-called *emergency* closure to demolish it. BW seem to be confident to entrust their customers' safety to the Punch Tavern's daily monitoring regime described in the notice. Why would it fail to be safe until November when a planned closure could be made to deal with the problems?

 

The bridge is being monitored by the owner on a daily basis and should any further movement occur the canal will need to be closed immediately. The bridge has been closed to all traffic including pedestrians in the interim. The owner has requested an immediate closure however in order to minimise inconvenience to our customers over the Easter Period we have agree the above approach to manage the risk in the interim period.

 

Heritage:

What assessments of the heritage value of this bridge have been carried out? What responsibility do BW accept for maintaining the heritage of the canals in relation to assets not owned by BW?

 

The bridge is not listed and is not contained within a conservation area. Rugby Borough Council have been contacted and have advised that they have no objection to the demolition. I have also consulted Nigel Crowe as Head of Heritage, and based upon the information presented to him he is satisfied that demolition is the only option. We have requested that the owner ensures that the remain coping stones are removed for reuse and if possible the original bricks are salvaged although given the poor condition of the brickwork I do not expect that much will be salvageable.

 

And in what circumstances would BW advocate heritage protection(listing) for them, and similarly when would BW take the initiative in this?

 

This structure is not listed and as such the local authority do not believe the bridge to be historically significant. This bridge is typical of Oxford Canal brick arch bridges and which ideally we would preserve the bridge the failure mechanism makes this impractical without a prolonged closure of the navigation which would generally be unacceptable to our customers.

 

What has caused the bridge to fall down now, rather than at any other time during the last two hundred years?

 

The bridge foundation appears to be moving as the ground conditions change summer to winter, in addition the bridge has been in use for vehicle access. The bridge was originally designed for a horse and cart and over the years overloading has adversely affected the structure.

 

What consideration has been given to *requiring* the owners to repair the bridge, or failing that, to build a look-alike replacement?

 

Various option have been investigated including supporting the arch from below, however no other options can be achieve without closing the canal to navigation.

 

Navigation:

How and by what criteria have BW considered the risks to the customers and the benefits of keeping the canal open?

 

As listed above BW believe there is a very real risk of failure. This risk can be removed entirely by removing the bridge.

 

How has the proposed stoppage been justified at eleven days?

 

This is the programme provided by the promoters contractor. Whilst it is hoped to complete the work early, we do not want to raise false expectations with our customers.

 

What is the realistic best estimate of actual closure, and why is this information not made available?

 

The programme is 10 days, accordingly this is the information shared with our customers.

 

What other methods were considered, including a series of overnight closures?

 

None, once demolition commences the structure will be unsafe, reopening would require temporary propping which in itself would restrict navigation.