“By the way - and in all honesty - I really feel sorry for council_spoke. It must be a rotten job defending the indefensible, which isn't your fault, and yet we all have a go at you. In your shoes, I'd be tempted to throw caution to the winds and say: You're absolutely right. We made a total male-chicken up here which has now blown up in our faces. And the name of the person who put up those ill-advised hoardings is XYZ.

Go on - go for it. I dare you.”

“Well said, Dave_Weston - summed up to perfection. But it's beginning to look like an FoI is going to be the only way to find out the truth about the addition of the hoardings.”

“Quote - "A more rigorous maintenance regime would not have significantly changed the work we are now planning in Phases Two and Three"

I wouldn't dispute that there were always going to be parts of this bridge that would need serious attention simply due to age - that happens in any iron/steel fabrication - especially where parts are exposed to the elements and where preventative coating is hard to apply. (for example there will be parts of this bridge that move slightly so will rub off paint etc).

However the reality is surely that this bridge has received nothing more than token inspection rather than properly planned and monitored maintenance. It is also definitely the case that the current works - inevitable or not - have not come into being as a result of a planned systematic scheme of long term conservation, but as a panic knee jerk reaction to the bridge almost collapsing. Had a more rigorous maintenance regime been in place one thing about phase 2 and 3 would certainly have changed - they would have been done some years ago as preventative maintenance rather than as crisis management.

Beyond that I simply don't buy the suggestion that a bridge which has been properly maintained goes from being perfectly fine with no need to schedule serious work in 2008 (prior to the Bath Uni report) to being on the verge of collapse in 2011. Metal and masonry simply don't deteriorate that quickly. So the questions there are, when was this bridge last properly examined, what were the plans for its ongoing maintenance and conservation, and what practical maintenance has it received in the last 10 years? Hopefully our helpful spokesman can provide answers without a FoI request.”

“So, in a nutshell and according to council_spoke, the deterioration is due to the "management" of expectations and requirements of: The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Independent Advisors DTZ, The European Commission (EC), The University of Bath, Crest Nicholson, St James' Investments, English Heritage and British Waterways.

And so the buck is passed and never stops...

Is it significant there is no mention made of the expectations and requirements of the public of Bath who the council are paid to serve?

Again, I agree with Pompeybelle. Unsatisfactory answers create yet more questions.”

“Poor old council_spoke! Every time another statement goes up, Council_spoke just digs a bigger hole. Firstly, there is still a deafening silence over the little matter of the failure to remove the foliage, and the addition of the hoardings.
Secondly, it can be shown that the terms of the S106 altered after the Griffiths report - prior to it, all the planning documents refer to complete restoration - in one case to bridge strengthening and refurbishment. Only post-Griffiths did the terms change.
Thirdly, the report quite clearly draws attention to corrosion - there is even a photograph. To a competent local authority, this should have been enough to trigger an inspection. It appears it was not. I am also puzzled by the comment that the report 'focused on the bridge's ability to withstand the weight of pedestrians and cyclists', as though that was in some way trivial - isn't that what this is all about?
Fourthly, we are still not told how periodic the periodic inspection was. We are told it is a very old bridge - as iron bridges go it is, but does that mean we should write it off? Because I fear that that is the subtext of what is going on here. But it's worth pointing out that when Victoria Bridge was built, the cost was, in today's terms, £4.5 million - so restoration looks better costwise, than demolishing this one and building a new one - which may then have its own problems. Remember the Millennium Bridge - which still wobbles, by the way.

Engineers consider this bridge - not really a suspension bridge but using a kind of cantilever - an important development. No one would allow Clifton Suspension Bridge or Ironbridge to get into this state - so why did B&NES allow this one to fall into this appalling condition. Answer me that question, Council_spoke.”

“They still appear to think Day 1 of this problem was in Oct. '10.

"it gave little indication of the overall integrity of the structure which is now apparent only after the detailed investigation the Council commissionned."

What rubbish. Months previously, I could spot the lack of integrity - the hole in the decking at the northern abutment through which I watched the ducks & walkers pass by & the continuing corrosion of the structural members.”

“Under the provisions of the 1961 Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and subsequent Highways legislation the local authority has a duty to ensure that highways are safe and fit for ordinary traffic. Council_Spoke reminds us that the bridge is part of the highway network and so would presumably be covered by the legislation. That being the case, since 1964 when the Act came into force, regular inspections should have been made and reports recorded, as a defence against any claim against the authority by persons injured through poor maintenance. The "sudden deterioration" should have come as no surprise, least of all to the Council.

radstockjeff”

“"A more rigorous maintenance regime would not have significantly changed the work we are now planning in Phases Two and Three"

That's *such* nonsense. The bridge isn't "simply getting old", it's been neglected and the price we have to pay now is a prolonged closure and a big bill. There are plenty of comparable structures – both in terms of age and construction – in this country that are in the rudest of health.”

“And thirdly, the 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.”

“Secondly, 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.”