Replacement of two missing hangers and one fractured hanger
Location
The Union Chain Bridge, Berwick-upon-Tweed
Expiry Date
07-Aug-2007
Recommendation
Approve subject to conditions
Reasons for Approval/Refusal
ii) By virtue of scale, design and materials, the proposal is acceptable as a temporary repair of the Grade 1 Listed Building, in association with an agreed programme of Conservation Repair, including, in the first instance a Conservation Management Plan, as advised by English Heritage.
Conditions (if applicable)
iii) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 51 of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
iv) The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details.
v) The external surfaces of the development hereby approved shall be of the materials detailed in the County Council's Design Statement received with the application, and no other materials shall be used without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that only the approved materials are used.
vi) Any original castings, hangers, or other features which are to be replaced in replica or removed during works and then reinstated must be recorded by photograph and copies of photographs lodged with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure satisfactory preservation of this Listed Building.
vii) Future Repairs: a strategy for future urgent component repairs shall be instigated immediately and should include a timetable for regular maintenance checks as part of a Conservation Managment Plan which will lead to a comprehensive repair programme. The strategy, timetable and Conservation Management Plan shall be agreed in writing with English Heritage and shall be copied to the Local Planning Authority within three years of the date of Listed Building Consent, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: to ensure satisfactory preservation of this Listed Building.
Informatives (if applicable)
viii) The applicant is reminded that this permission does not convey approval for works affecting any third party rights which may exist on the land or any adjoining. The applicant is therefore advised to seek the approval of any parties having an interest in any land affected by this permission.
Background
This is a Listed Building Consent Application for the replacement of two missing hangers and one fractured hanger on the Union Chain Bridge, Loanend, Horncliffe, Berwick-upon-Tweed.
Site Description
North of the road between Loanend and Horncliffe. This impressive bridge links Northumberland with the Scottish Borders, just south of Paxton House.
The building is of national importance and is a significant landmark of aesthetic beauty in an area of high landscape value. The adjacent riverside is also marked by being a Special Area of Conservation and a Site of Special Scientific Interest.
Public Footpaths run adjacent to the site and this is a popular destination for tourists to the area.
List Description
Address: Loanend, Horncliffe.
Union Suspension Bridge (that part in England).
Listed Grade 1. Listed Building no. 1/63.
Description:
Suspension bridge. 1819 – 20 by Capt. S. Brown R.N. Sandstone ashlar piers. Iron with wood roadway.
On Scottish side tall battered, rusticated pier with round arch for the roadway, bold dentil cornice and high blocking course carrying the cables. In the blocking course an iron inscription VIS UNITOR FORTIOR 1820, with intertwined roses and thistles.
The pier at the English end is built into the cliff. It has similar rustication and 2 stages. The lower stage contains an aedicule with modillion cornice surrounding a bronze plaque of 1902; this stage has a modillion cornice. Battered upper stage has dentilled cornice and a high blocking course bearing a similar iron inscription.
The roadway is suspended from 3 pairs of wrought-iron chains with elongated bars connected by bar links. The upper steel table is a later strengthening.
This ‘bar link’ was the invention of Samuel Brown and was used here for the first time. When it was built this was the longest suspension bridge in the world. It was remarkable also for costing only £5,000 instead of an anticipated £20,000 for a stone bridge. It remains Britain’s oldest suspension bridge in road use.
NB: Until recently the Bridge was also a Scheduled Ancient Monument. English Heritage has recently advised the Borough Council (on 4/7/07), that it has been de-scheduled (date of de-scheduling not known) on both the Scottish and English sides. It remains a Grade 1 Listed Building with its future “best managed through Listed Building controls”.
Entry in Pevsner - The Buildings of England
The following information is taken from the entry in Pevsner’s ‘The Buildings of England – Northumberland’. The bridge is also thought to be described in the Pevsner book covering the Scottish Borders.
Loan End: 1m. NE of Horncliffe
Union Chain Bridge. 1819-20, to the design of Captain Samuel Brown R.N., who later designed the chain piers at Newhaven and Brighton as well as other bridges. John Rennie advised on the abutments and the design of the tower. It was the first suspension bridge in Europe to carry vehicular traffic, for although Telford had completed his design for Menai in 1818, using Brown’s suspension chain link patent of 1817, Menai was not completed until 1826. Large iron suspension bridges were first built in America … but the next developments took place in Britain and France. What makes Brown’s contribution technically important is his invention of the wrought-iron chain link; its application brought about the beginnings of long-span suspension bridges in Britain. In the Union Bridge the link bars are no more than five centimetres (two inches) in diameter, and so from a distance they are almost invisible against the darker waters of the Tweed… The span of the suspension chains is c. 146 metres (480 ft) – several times larger than any existing spans of any sort then in Western Europe … The original suspension hangers were replaced in 1870 -1, and in 1902 additional wire suspension ropes and suspension hangers were provided. General refurbishment has continued in the C20.
Proposals
The current proposal would replace two missing hangers and one fractured
hanger with temporary, mild steel bar and threaded stainless steel bar
supports.
A previous repair was undertaken (prior to 2000) which provides the
photograph which can be seen at the end of this report.
Applicants Supporting Statement
The following supporting statement (Design Statement for Hanger Repairs) was received with the application:
Two missing hangers and one fractured hanger are to be replaced. The method of repair / replacement is to enable the bridge to be re-opened to vehicular traffic as soon as possible.
The existing hanger caps are to be removed and placed in safe storage. The fractured hanger is to be removed and sent for metallurgical examination.
The replacement hangers are to comprise of threaded stainless steel bar. At the top of the hanger a mild steel bar will support the threaded bar in lieu of the hanger cap. At the bottom of the hanger the existing support detail will be utilised. Double lock nuts (secured with thread locking compound) will be utilised at both ends of the hanger.
This method of replacement replicates those repairs undertaken previously as shown on the attached photograph. The replacements are not intended to be a permanent solution but represent a cost effective method of medium term repair. The ultimate intention is to replace all such repairs with reproduction historically correct components at a future date when the structure will undergo an extensive refurbishment.
Relevant Policies
Policy F3: Tweed Valley Area of High Landscape Value.
Policy F17: Special Architectural or Historic Interest of Listed Buildings.
POLICY F3
Within the boundaries identified on the Proposals Map, the Tweed Valley and Kyloe Hills and Glendale are designated as Areas of High Landscape Value within which special policies to protect the countryside will apply. Development will be permitted where it is compatible with the principal objective of conserving or enhancing the natural beauty of these areas, and, in particular:
ix) it is located within or immediately adjoining an existing settlement; and/or,
x) it will expand the Borough's infrastructure for tourism, compatible with the area's existing tourism role and its primary attractions of the natural and built environments;
xi) it relates to and accords with Policies C12, C14, C23, C24, C26 or C27 and provided that the developer can satisfy the Borough Council of the need for such a development to be located outwith an existing settlement,
xii) it accords with its surroundings by virtue of its scale, density, height, massing, layout, materials, hard and soft landscaping including indigenous species, means of enclosure and access;
xiii) it relates to and accords with Policies S4, W2, W4, W8 or C5, associated with agricultural developments, or Policies R7 or R9; and
xiv) it accords with Policies elsewhere in the Plan.
POLICY F17
The Special Architectural or Historic Interest of Listed Buildings will be preserved. Development or other works to a Listed Building will be permitted, provided that:
xv) the essential architectural or historic elements of the building will not be altered or weakened;
xvi) any previous alterations or extensions that have altered or weakened the architectural or historic interest of the building will be remedied, wherever reasonable, where the permitted works relate to those parts of the building;
xvii) the works will respect the character, design, materials, colour and scale of the building; and,
xviii) the works are required to safeguard the future use of the building which otherwise might fall into disuse and disrepair.
Full detailed drawings at an appropriate scale which clearly show all proposed works will be required to enable the application to be considered.
Consultation Summary
Horncliffe Parish Council: Objection received. See below.
English Heritage: Recommendation Received. See below.
Scottish Borders Council Conservation Officer: No response received.
Horncliffe Parish Council: The Parish Council would agree to the temporary repair to the Union Chain Bridge to allow it to be re-opened as soon as possible on the condition that the permanent repair is completed within 5 years. Also the Parish Council would like a full maintenance check to be carried out to prevent a re-occurrence of this situation in the future.
English Heritage:
EH Summary:
English Heritage accepts this very limited hanger replacement proposal given the difficult circumstances that require an urgent repair to this working road bridge. However, further repair of this nature will not be endorsed in the future and strategies for replicated hanger repairs and a comprehensive repair programme for the whole bridge must be brought forward with the same degree of urgency.
EH Advice: (summarised)
… We are acutely aware of the difficulties that the current bridge closure places on local residents and appreciate the need for the repairs to be carried out urgently.
We have … benefited from discussions with (the) Historic Buildings Officer for Northumberland, who has described the very limited hanger replacement using contemporary materials … he has assured us that the proposals have no physical impact on the historic fabric beyond the removal and storage of the defective hangers. Specifically, he has assured us that the installation of the new hangers needs no modification to the hanger seating and fixings, and that a future restoration of replicated hangers can be easily achieved.
This is a modest repair considering the bulk of the historic fabric in the bridge structure, but it employs a method we would not normally endorse and further urgent repairs of this kind will not be accepted. It is important that once these repairs are executed, further longer-term work is essential to ensure there is no repetition of this application.
EH Recommendation:
English Heritage accepts this proposal with the strong recommendation to Northumberland County Council that strategies for future urgent component repairs be put in place now and that a comprehensive repair programme be initiated, beginning with the production of a Conservation Management Plan.
Representation Summary
One joint letter of objection on behalf of 8 local residents has been received and is summarised thus:
Whilst, in principle, we welcome Northumberland County Council’s proposal to carry out repairs to the Union Chain Bridge … we believe that the application for an open-ended consent for temporary repairs is inappropriate and unacceptable.
The Bridge is of considerable importance locally, nationally and internationally … a tourist attraction as well as a vital local communication link.
The application … is justified … as “a cost effective method of medium term repair. The ultimate intention is to replace all such repairs with reproduction historically correct components at a future date when the structure will undergo an extensive refurbishment”.
We have highlighted the phrases that cause us concern… “Medium term” in the context of a 187-year-old bridge, requires much clearer definition; “all such repairs” suggests that the County Council suspects that others will follow before a proper programme of repair is implemented; while “at a future date” is equally vague.
The historic and architectural status of this unique Grade 1 listed Bridge requires that such temporary works are permitted for as short a period as is reasonably possible and for this reason we ask that the local planning authority consider approving the application subject to a condition requiring the temporary repairs to be replaced by authentic components within five years, thereby encouraging the County Council to meet their responsibilities for the structure within a proper timescale.
(NB: Previous work referred to in the above objection may include the existing hanger repair (see photographs below) and the work undertaken some years ago to re-surface the timber road platform - now in bitumen type material).
Relevant Planning History
None known.
Main Issues
Impact - building of significant national, historic and architectural importance.
Traffic Movements – need to maintain the vehicular route: To meet the requirements of residents and visitors to the Borough, to travel to, from, through, and within, the Borough.
(Berwick-upon-Tweed Local Plan, Adopted 1999; MOVEMENT; 7.0.6 / 1)
Amenities of adjacent occupiers and residents of neighbouring settlements
The amenities of adjacent occupiers and neighbouring settlements would be affected by this application if the County Council were to decide to keep the Union Bridge closed to vehicular traffic. Representations to this effect have been received by the County Council and by this Council.
It is understood that the proposed repairs are necessary in order to maintain vehicular access, as in the County Design Statement, “to enable the bridge to be re-opened to vehicular traffic as soon as possible”.
Design / visual appearance.
The following photographs give examples of an original hanger and of the previous mild-steel temporary replacement, which this application proposes to use for the short term repairs.
Recent repair with Mild Steel Bar Example of Original Cast Iron Hanger Cap
Officer Observations material considerations
The proposed materials:
Although they could be described as being ‘honest repairs’, the proposed works are not compatible with the quality of the original structure, or with the original materials and would detract from the appearance of the original design if they were to be used extensively.
However, the current proposal would replace only a very small percentage of the numerous hangers to be found on the bridge, and, this application is for ‘temporary’ replacement, to be followed at a later stage by more permanent and historically robust repairs, using castings to match the original.
In addition, the repairs would not in themselves require additional or unnecessary removal of sound historic fabric, other than to remove the bulk heads, which would be retained by County Council as evidence for reproduction at a later date.
The merits of a temporary approval have been discussed. However, the County Council (Structures Team Manager) would be concerned about this approach for the following reasons:
“There is a potential downside to the granting of a temporary listed building consent. At the end of the specified time limit, if the works remain, the County Council as owner would technically have committed a criminal offence and could therefore be prosecuted and made to remove them”.
The need for repairs:
The Bridge is an important historic and architectural landmark and a valuable link between England and Scotland over the River Tweed. It is currently open only to pedestrians and cyclists, whilst the proposed repairs are being considered. However, the bridge is also a vehicular route, providing access for local traffic and for tourists.
It is understood that the repairs are not essential to the use of the bridge for pedestrian purposes, but are essential to keep the road open to traffic. Ultimately, the decision as to whether the road will be kept open is a matter for County Council, as Highways Authority, and not for the Borough Council.
Bridge Inspection Report
The current application to undertake repairs is understood to have come about as a result of an Inspection Report commissioned by Northumberland County Council, dated April 2007. A CD copy of this report has been submitted with the application and could form the basis of further work, such as has been recommended by English Heritage.
CONCLUSIONS
The importance of the Chain Bridge historically and architecturally is reflected in its Grade 1 listing and it is, therefore, extremely important that any repairs to the bridge do not compromise its integrity in this regard. However, it is also an important link in the highway network of the area and a permanent repair using historically correct components is not possible in the immediate term. Consequently, a compromise is necessary and it is considered that repairs using modern components are acceptable provided that these are approved on the basis that the applicant also develops a comprehensive repair programme for the future maintenance of the bridge using components and materials which accord with the original design. This programme would include the replacement of modern components used for emergency repairs, such as those which are the subject of this application, and similar previous repairs. The timely provision and agreement for a Management Plan for the bridge should negate the need for historically incorrect repair in the future.
