In October 2010, Victoria Bridge was closed to pedestrians and cyclists in the interests of public safety. This closure followed a scheduled periodic inspection of the bridge’s structural condition by Bath & North East Somerset Council. Since this time, independent structural engineers have conducted further regular detailed inspections to ascertain its condition.
The most recent set of inspections have resulted in concern about the deterioration in the condition of the bridge. The Council has acted swiftly to respond to these recent inspections to maintain public safety and protect the bridge.
Current Situation
We took the decision last week to temporarily close the River Avon path which runs under the bridge to allow emergency works to take place to prop-up the bridge on both sides of the river. Whilst the tow path on the south side will remain closed due to the Bath Riverside works, we had planned to re-open the path on the northern side once the propping-up works were completed and tow path was considered safe.
Regrettably, the further test results received on Friday 11th November 2011 revealed further deterioration of the structure, especially on one of the central hangars. This is a serious issue as any weakness in the central area of the bridge increases the risk to the structure. Because of the problem on the central hangar, the temporary closure on the northern side of the river remains.
We reported these issues to British Waterways (BW) who took the decision to close the River Avon in the vicinity of Victoria Bridge. The Council fully supports this decision and is keeping BW informed of our actions. Alongside BW, we urge river users to observe the restriction in place in the interests of their safety.
Next Steps
The Council recognises that the bridge is a key route in the city and it has a significant heritage value to the city. Engineers are making significant efforts to find a solution to protect this highly complex structure. Our approach consists of three phases.
Phase One – Emergency Works
These consist of propping-up the bridge either side of the river – already complete – and temporarily strapping the bridge to support the structure. The straps were manufactured on Tuesday 15th November 2011 and will be applied this week. It may take up to several days to complete this operation.
Although the works will help address the effects of the deterioration of the structure, these works are highly unlikely to be able to allow the tow path to re-open or BW to make a decision to open the River Avon on this stretch. Continuous weekly inspections of the structure will go on.
Phase Two – Temporary Works
In approximately one month, work will start on constructing a temporary truss that will also provide the necessary support to safeguard the bridge and also enable the permanent restoration of the bridge. Upon completion of these works anticipated to take up to 6 weeks, BW can make a decision on whether or not it is safe to re-open this stretch of the River Avon.
We researched the options extensively and this design was developed from a proven solution used by Scottish Heritage in the conservation and repair of the Bridge of Oich, in Scotland and is a very similar bridge by the same Bath bridge builder, Thomas Dredge.
This temporary works solution provides both an early protection to limit the risk of collapse and also serve as an efficient, safe working platform on which to undertake permanent refurbishment.
Phase Three – Full Restoration
We are proactively developing potential permanent solutions to permanently fix the problem and have been liaising with English Heritage on the permanent restoration of this technically complex, listed structure to re-open the bridge to the public. It is envisaged that this third phase of work could be completed by winter 2013.
Clarification on Bath Riverside Section 106 planning agreement
Under the existing agreement between the Council and Crest Nicholson as part of the Bath Western Riverside planning agreement, Crest will provide funding for works to Victoria Bridge and Victoria Bridge North.
This money can only cover works of a non-structural nature, for example the re-decoration of the superstructure, graffiti removal and masonry cleaning and re-pointing and paving, lighting and hard landscape improvement. In other words, they cannot be used to repair the structure. There is no possibility of this money being used for this purpose in any circumstances under the terms of the current agreement.
Further Information:
CONDITION OF THE BRIDGE
1. The report that prompted the closure in October 2010 was an assessment of the structural condition of the bridge. This report does not provide any suggestions about what repairs are needed to fix the problem. It was necessary to take swift action to close the bridge because we could not guarantee the safety of people crossing it. Regular, additional monitoring by our independent structural engineers began immediately.
We then started two pieces of work simultaneously. First, understanding what we needed to do to permanently restore the bridge taking into account a range of challenges:
a) Victoria Bridge is a technically complex, very old structure which is Grade II* listed;
b) Any solution would require a co-operation and approval from a number of organisations, such as English Heritage;
c) The structure will soon be used by potentially thousands of extra people going to and from their homes at Bath Riverside and by the general public going to the recreational open space at the south of the development – it is essential that it meets modern day safety requirements.
Second, we investigated a wide range of temporary measures including a Bailey Bridge or a support system. Due to the lack of available land and the required clearance above the tow path and river neither was possible.
2. In respect of the permanent restoration, inevitably such detailed work addressing both these issues and the paramount need to protect public safety is going to take a significant amount of time.
For example, much more information about the bridge’s condition was needed, so the Council appointed an independent structural engineer – and subsequently one of the country’s most experienced engineers specialising in the restoration of old bridges – to undertake a detailed investigation and report involving parts being stripped from the bridge and being tested.
As with any other potential multi-million pound project, this information/ analysis was needed to create a workable, feasible solution so that time and money wasn’t wasted on developing a scheme which did not address our challenges. By November 2011, significant progress had been made towards a workable permanent solution and both a project plan with costings – this will be presented to Cabinet in January 2012.
3. Whilst the development of a permanent restoration was taking place, our additional monitoring revealed a very rapid deterioration of the structure at each end of the bridge and subsequently in the centre. Upon receipt of the results we took swift steps to protect public safety by closing the tow path and presenting information to British Waterways who closed the river.
These latest problems only started very recently and resulted in us undertaking Emergency Works (Phase One). These problems did not begin in October 2010 and steadily get worse.
A more rigorous maintenance regime would not have significantly changed the work we are now planning in Phases Two and Three. In order to restore the bridge to good working condition and re-open it to the public, an extensive range of works are needed to increase the strength and stiffness of the bridge to modern safety standards – the bridge is simply getting old. In other words, any quick fix we had made following the bridge closure in October 2010 would not have prevented the situation we are in today.
In response to the very sudden deterioration, the work is now being accelerated – for instance, Phase Two of the work will be complete in February 2012 rather than summer 2012.
4. Regarding the University of Bath report, although this was of interest to the Council it focused on the bridge’s ability to withstand the weight of pedestrians and cyclists – it gave little indication of the overall integrity of the structure which is now apparent only after the detailed investigation the Council commissionned.
5. The closure points to the tow path were determined by identifying the most likely points where the public access the path. These were picked to avoid people getting on the path, meeting a closure point much nearer to the bridge and needing to turn around and go all the way back. However, the Council is flexible on where the closure points should be and we will listen to people’s feedback to Council Connect.
SECTION 106 AGREEMENT
With regard to the Section 106 agreement:
a) The lion’s share of the £480,000 is for paving and hard landscape improvements at Victoria Bridge North – the non-structural refurbishment of the bridge is a relatively small part of this sum.
It would be unlawful for the Council to attempt to secure money through a Section 106 Agreement for the structural repair of the bridge as it was a pre-existing part of the highway network. A Section 106 Agreement can only be used to secure payments or works that arise directly from the new development under consideration;
b) The agreement was signed on the basis of the condition of the bridge as was known at the time, and the serious deterioration of the structure has only come to light very recently. The flexibility on timescale was deliberate allowing an opportunity for the Council to review its work programme and to repair the bridge. Money secured under a S106 Agreement can only be spent by the Council on the specified works, and would have in any event to be returned to a developer if it is not spent.
Crest is not the owner of the bridge and therefore has no ‘right’ to undertake works to it. It has always been the case that the works could only be undertaken when and if the Council (as owner) permits them to. This means that the Council would always have been able to agree a programme with Crest that would avoid abortive expenditure by either party;
c) The package of contributions to be made by Crest was calculated some years ago with assessment by independent advisors DTZ. The negotiations have proceeded slowly because:
i) The project had come under scrutiny from the European Commission (EC) because of a complaint about a potential breach of EU procurement rules – this forced the structure of the Section 106 Agreement to be changed, including many of the detailed cost items being transferred into Planning Conditions resulting in the amount of money included in the Section 106 Agreement being reduced accordingly;
ii) The downturn in the economic situation forced the Council and Crest to review the overall potential of the scheme to make financial commitments. A new balance sheet was considered by DTZ having regard also to the reduced availability of Government grant assistance.
In this review process, the sum provided for the works was reduced, but this was part of the review of overall costs.
More information will be released by the Council about the progress of the works as it becomes available.
PHOTO COPYRIGHT BATH & NEWS MEDIA GROUP