Long Horse Bridge, Derwentmouth, River Trent Shardlow
Chris N Deuchar
As most of you will be aware, there is a break in the towpath which
follows the bank of the upper Trent across to the Trent & Mersey
Canal since British Waterways decided the old concrete '1932 Bridge'
was unsafe and demolished it a few years ago. If you already know the
background then skip to the paragraph further down which starts "So
why am I writing to you all now?".
There were a number of retrospective objections to this - including
complaints to the Waterways Ombudsman about poor consultation by BW -
but these were all discounted. The real surprise was that BW were not
planning to replace the original horse bridge on the original site
but that they were planning a much wider 3m bridge 140 metres
upstream on the Trent. The reasons for this were that the bridge
could be achieved at a narrower point in a single span using a
'bowstring construction' (!) and that the wider bridge could then
accomodate a 'multiuser' path - ie cyclists and horse riders.
Quite why it was BW's responsibility to do this is not clear, and I
won't bore you with all the details of all the different costings at
different times, but BW seemed to want to take advantage of some
Derbyshire County Council money which was available if they built a
wider bridge - notwithstanding the fact that they more or less had
the money for a replacement narrower bridge on the original site!
So, why is the original site important? Firstly because it *is* the
original site (give or take 5 feet from an earlier wooden bridge) and
it was origninally built to enable boat horses to tow craft onto the
Trent in and out of the Trent & Mersey Canal. This is therefore a
heritage issue. More recently the main users have been towpath
walkers, the occasional cyclist, or lockwheeler, and recreational
horse riders. Apart from lockwheelers, the main boating use is in
case of emergency where it would be necessary to tow ones boat from
the bank back into the Trent & Mersey Canal. This would be impossible
with the proposed bowstring construction and also with the bridge 140
metres away! So, apart from the dubious safety question of high
speed cyclists (and anyone who has tried to walk any so-called
multiuser path will know exactly what I mean), horses and pedestrians
on the same bridge, there is also the safety question of what boats
in distress are supposed to do?
There is a good case for significantly separating the multiuser path
from the towpath. The present proposal puts the MUP just behind the
towpath hedge and if experience from elsewhere is anything to go by,
many users will decide the towpath is more visually interesting and
use that instead.
The other issue of course is the gap in the Midshires Way. This is
where BW's and DCC's plans take a bit of a silly turn because there
isn't a gap at all really! At the eastern end of Long Horse bridge is
Leicestershire. There is no mention of LCC in BW or DCC's plans but a
couple of years ago LCC widened the footpath along the B6540 between
its junction with the B5010 from Shardlow and Sawley as a multiuser
path for cyclists and horse riders. This goes all the way to Sawley
Bridge. The B5010 carries little traffic since the opening of the A50
and the B5010/B6540/A50 junction has separate underpasses to keep
cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders safe and well away from the
traffic.
In addition, there is a public footpath (shown on the DCC site map)
all the way along the south side of the river from Cavendish Bridge
in Shardlow to Derwent mouth. There are therefore already TWO
EXISTING routes from Shardlow to Sawley which do not need a new,
wider, multiuser bridge! They just happen to be in Leicestershire - a
significant cost saving opportunity for Derbyshire? This map shows
the whole area and also reveals how silly it will be to create a
major new river crossing:
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=447500&y=331500&z=120
&sv=sawley&st=3&tl=Map+of+Sawley,+Derbyshire+[City/Town/Village]
&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srf
So why am I writing to you all now? Well Derbyshire County Council
have put in a planning application
http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/applications/old/esplanningapps/app-
details.asp?AppCode=CD9/0808/69&AppType=2
(that should all be on one line - if necessary go to the Council
site, planning and then search for application CD9/0808/69). This is
for the proposed new route of the Midshires/Derwent Valley Heritage
Way between Shardlow and Derwentmouth. I am asking you all to object
to this. Use whatever grounds you like, but the use of terms such as
'inappropriate', 'safety', 'heritage', liberally scattered are the
ones that score points.
DCC will still have another hurdle to cross before this can go ahead
in that there is a public enquiry due over the compulsory purchase of
some land needed for the project. This is likely to have a very
narrow mandate. However, if enough people object to the above
planning proposal maybe DCC will decide it is all too much trouble
and offer BW a bit of extra cash for a sensible replacement bridge on
the original site? The long and short of it is that a new towpath
bridge is definitely needed (I miss it too!) but the grand structure
proposed by BW and DCC is overkill and has a number of health and
safety implications.
Thanks for reading. Please act. The plans are due to go before
committe on 9-3-09 but the planning notice I saw (dated 26th January)
gives 16th February for online comments. I am sure it is a
coincidence that these dates almost exactly tally with one major
objector being on holiday - although the website does say it will
accept comments up to three days before the committee date - but that
is still not long.
Chris D
--
ch...@deuchars.co.uk http://www.Deuchars.co.uk
Author & Publisher: "A Boaters Guide to BOATING" 5.00GBP
Mixing old and new waterway techniques. ISBN 9780953151202
Details: http://www.deuchars.co.uk/publication/
Pete Stockdale
"Chris N Deuchar" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.2401ff113...@news.individual.net...
> Dear all,
>
I am asking you all to object
> to this. Use whatever grounds you like, but the use of terms such as
> 'inappropriate', 'safety', 'heritage', liberally scattered are the
> ones that score points.
>
> Author & Publisher: "A Boaters Guide to BOATING" 5.00GBP
> Mixing old and new waterway techniques. ISBN 9780953151202
> Details: http://www.deuchars.co.uk/publication/
I hope we are all with you on this Chris.
I will digest it a bit more later.
In the meantime - here is your map url tidied up to assist all.
Regards
Pete
www.thecanalshop.com
Peter Neville
> Author & Publisher: "A Boaters Guide to BOATING" 5.00GBP
> Mixing old and new waterway techniques. ISBN 9780953151202
> Details:http://www.deuchars.co.uk/publication/
John Cooke wrote to the group about it in June 2007 ( 29th)
http://www.google.com/url?url=http://groups.google.co.uk/g/da87ff06/t/68ae743794a2b1fc/d/4c532bb32fd351ef%3Fq%3D%234c532bb32fd351ef&ei=0iGYSeueBpDS-AH2qPiXDg&sa=t&ct=res&cd=6&source=groups&usg=AFQjCNHwEYNn3uUlM0IiJ0imcpA4o4SPhQ
He has a web site which has much information about the topic.
http://homepages.which.net/~shardlow.heritage/lhbdocuments.html
I'm quite sure they'll do what ever they want to anyway in the end,
seems to be the norm today. It will come down to an allocation of
funding only accessible under certain terms etc. I do wholeheartedly
endorse the sentiment of whether or not multi-user footpaths work.
Canal towpaths IMHO should be for horses, people and the occasional
ordinary cyclist. It should not be the domain of the Geo-caching,
lycra clad GPS enabled arsehole of whatever gender sporting a piss
taking designed piece of dubiously beneficial headgear.
Peter Neville
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 06:33:14 -0800 (PST), Peter Neville
>
> <pe...@toadstone.com> wrote:
> >Canal towpaths IMHO should be for horses, people and the occasional
> >ordinary cyclist. It should not be the domain of the Geo-caching,
> >lycra clad GPS enabled arsehole of whatever gender sporting a piss
> >taking designed piece of dubiously beneficial headgear.
>
Why not indeed but it's just so much more fun than saying they're just
total tossers, don't you think? ;-))
Chris N Deuchar
m...@privacy.net says...
> So why am I writing to you all now? Well Derbyshire County Council
> have put in a planning application
> http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/applications/old/esplanningapps/app-
> details.asp?AppCode=CD9/0808/69&AppType=2
> (that should all be on one line - if necessary go to the Council
> site, planning and then search for application CD9/0808/69). This is
> for the proposed new route of the Midshires/Derwent Valley Heritage
> Way between Shardlow and Derwentmouth. I am asking you all to object
> to this.
And here is my response...
Dear sir/madam,
I wish to object to the application CD9/0808/69 on the following
grounds:
1. It is an unnecessary duplication of no less than three existing
routes between the Wilne Lane/B5010 junction in Shardlow and Sawley
Bridge. These routes already cater for a mixture of pedestrian,
bicycle and horse traffic. Two of these routes lie in Leicestershire
along, or just to the south of, the River Trent.
2. It is an inappropriate use of Derbyshire County Council finances -
which could be used to better effect (see further below)
3. The planning application states that none of the land is likely to
be contaminated (Items 15 and 24). This may not be true and complete
investigations should be made of the field land between Derwentmouth
Lock on the Trent and Mersey Canal and the site of Long Horse Bridge.
A considerable swathe of these fields were used in the late
1970s/early 1980s for the disposal of dredgings removed from the
canal through Shadlow village. This was obviously prior to the waste
disposal controls now in place and assessment of their content (known
to include metals and other rubbish) is unlikely to have taken place.
The widened section of towpath between lock and bridge site, referred
to in the application, also comprises dredgings of uncertain origin.
4. Elsewhere (for example in the Erewash valley and on the High Peak
and Tissington trails), 'Multi User Paths' have been problematic in
that the combination of high speed cyclists and horse riders cause
distress to pedestrians - to the point that pedestrians are actually
deterred. I therefore particularly object to any notion of a
cycleway/horseway being combined with a public footpath at any point.
This is particularly relevant to the proposed section from
Derwentmouth Lock up to, and including, the bridge site. Elsewhere,
because the designations of each trackway are likely to become
'confused' in the minds of users, it is important that MUP and
towpath are not merely separated by a hedge but also need to be
separated by a significant distance.
5. The narrowness of the previous bridge made it very difficult for
any accident to occur because cyclists and horse riders were forced
to dismount and pass each other with care. This narrowness was
therefore an inherently good thing. Historically this bridge was
actually built wide enough for heavy horses used to pull barges and
narrowboats across the Derwentmouth junction of the River Trent with
the Trent and Mersey Canal. This was its prime function. Whilst there
might need to be some notional improvement to take into account
modern legislation. I see no need for the considerable expenditure
needed to create a wide 'multi -user bridge' when other options are
available (see further below).
6. Moving the bridge the proposed 140m upstream from the original
bridge site completely negates any heritage value which might be
claimed by a replacement - primarily because its original function
will become none viable, but also because of the proposed
'bowstring' bridge design. Even though horse towage is rare these
days, there is an active organisation (The Horseboating Society)
which is seeking to retain all facets of this practice and we should
not place new obstacles in their way. The other prime use for a
towpath bridge is of course that even modern vessels break down
occasionally and need to be towed from the bank. In the current
application I therefore object to the proposed compulsory purchase of
this part of the land as unnecessary. I also see re-siting the
bridge as a Health & Safety issue - which has unfortunately been
played down by British Waterways, along with the heritage issues, to
their great discredit.
7. Using the proposed new route as an access for plant and materials
to build a new bridge is not a sensible option. A far shorter route
would be to do this via the south bank of the Trent - either through
the gravel workings near to the former site of the Long Eaton Sailing
Club, or preferably through the existing road access through the
angling club entrance adjacent to the M1 overbridge. This already has
a hard road surface almost the whole distance to the bridge site.
8. The application makes reference to the proposed new road being
'surfaced' but it is unclear what this surface is to be. Limestone is
commonly used for multi user paths elsewhere but this is now finding
disfavour amongst users because of its tendency to degenerate to
sludge or dust depending on the weather. As the surfacing material is
unstated, I therefore also object to this section of the application
too.
9. Since the opening of the A50, and the downgrading of the former A6
through Shardlow to B5010, there is relatively little traffic along
this route. Horse and cycle traffic therefore have similar options in
travelling from the junction of Wilne Lane and London Road to either
the proposed start of the new MUP at the Wilne Lane car park or
across Cavendish Bridge to either the start of the riverside footpath
alongside the Trent or to the newly created wide multi user path
alongside the B6540 which continues all the way to Sawley Bridge to
the east. Even at the A50 interchange there are specially created
underpasses for all users which totally remove the risk of them
coming into the proximity of motor traffic. Therefore, I would
recommend that the Derwent Valley Heritage Way should follow one of
these routes or, alternatively, pedestrians should use the canal
towpath and a new pedestrian Long Horse bridge, cyclists should use
the B5010/B6540 and horse riders should use the riverside path which
should be upgraded to a bridleway - although historically this too
would be a horse towing path for river traffic and therefore ought to
be a bridleway in any case already!
10. Although the environmental statements associated with the
application suggest there is no particular value to the woodland and
other growth which will be lost near Cow Way Drain, this gradual loss
is insidious, and continual, countrywide and so I must object to the
loss here too.
Finally, I am unsure of the current financial arrangements between
the relevant Leicestershire councils, British Waterways and DCC
regarding the replacement of Long Horse Bridge. My view is that as
the proposed new site for the bridge fulfils no navigation or
heritage function then British Waterways should not be contributing
to it. On the other hand a towpath bridge should not be used as a MUP
but I can see the wisdom of combining your resources so that a single
bridge can not only replace the gap in the towpath but also complete
appropriate rights of way. However, I cannot agree that the current
plan is the best way to achieve this and must object to this proposal
for a fourth route between Shardlow and Sawley and strongly feel that
the money should be applied instead to better maintenance, and or new
works, on the three that already exist .
Yours faithfully
Chris N Deuchar
Martin Clark
>and horse riders should use the riverside path which
>should be upgraded to a bridleway - although historically this too
>would be a horse towing path for river traffic and therefore ought to
>be a bridleway in any case already!
Most towing paths are not bridle ways and many are not suitable for
riding horses along, because of factors such as the headroom and width
under bridges. Horses towing boats were not normally ridden!
Just a spot of nit-picking, Chris. Excellent letter.
--
Martin Clark
Pennine Waterways Website http://www.penninewaterways.co.uk