Design and Heritage Statement - Rossendale

Design and Heritage Statement

December 2013

Lumb Viaduct

Image 1 –general view of viaduct

This Report is prepared in support of the Planning and Listed Building Consent Applications for:

REINSTATEMENT OF PARAPET WALLS

Applicant: Paul Thomas

Bridge Engineer Railway Paths Ltd Hanover House 30-32 Charlotte St Manchester M1 4FD Agent: Chris Dent Architect and Town Planning Consultant 5 North Avenue Exeter EX1 2DU 01392 435434 [email protected]

Lumb Viaduct Design and Heritage Statement 11/12/13

Page 1 Chris Dent Architect & Planning Consultant 01392 435434 [email protected]

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction 2.0 The Site & History 3.0 Details of Construction Proposed 4.0 Discussion of Potential Impact of Development

5.0 Conclusions

APPENDIX 1 page 13 of PDF Copy of the listing description

APPENDIX 2 page 15 of PDF Information on stone used APPENDIX 3 page 16 of PDF Information on stone proposed

INFORMATION PROVIDED WITH THE PLANNING APPLICATION

• Design and Heritage Statement (this document with appendices listed above)

• Location Plan J 07/LB /01 1:1250 at A4 • Block Plan J 07/LB /02 1: 500 at A3 • Detail NW17-B58-DR-03 see drg at A3

This information is available either in PDF or paper format. If additional copies are required please contact the agent.



1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This statement explains the purpose of the application and what it entails at the

site. It will enable Rossendale Council to examine the potential impacts of the development enabling a decision to be made based on factual analysis of the constraints and opportunities.

1.2 This application consists of the first stage of what is hoped will be the

rejuvenation of the structure as part of the National Cycle Network enabling public access as part of the railway route. This application is not affected by any potential outcomes of future applications.

1.3 We have separated this part of the works out for three reasons. • It involves only reinstatement of previous structure • An opportunity has arisen for this to be done immediately • The full extent and details of the future works are unknown

1.4 Railway Paths Ltd (RPL) own the freehold for the viaduct and are happy to work

with the Planning and Conservation Officers of Rossendale Borough Council to ensure sympathetic and long lasting work .

1.5 As the viaduct spans a watercourse it will be necessary to seek consent for the

works from the Environment Agency. This is an entirely separate process from Planning and Listed Building Consent and the applicant is familiar with the requirements.

2.0 THE SITE AND BRIEF HISTORY 2.1 This viaduct over the River Irwell was built in 1846 to carry the Lancashire and

Yorkshire Railway between Bury and Accrington.

Image 2 – extract from Lancashire & Yorkshire Ra ilway Map (image: L & Y railway society)



2.2 This railway line was closed December 1966 and since then no public access has

been allowed. A metal fence was erected to prevent access. 2.3 The viaduct was listed in 1984 and a copy of the listing is in appendix 1. 2.4 The rails and sleepers have been removed and the trackbed has become

overgrown as shown in image 3. The structure is however in good condition and as part of the standard RPL engineering inspection regime its condition is closely monitored. Over last 20 years full scale condition surveys have been conducted by British Rail Property Board (2no.) and Lancashire County Council. The combination of these inspections and surveys give us a clear understanding of the existing defects to this structure and allows RPL to manage the future maintenance programme. These surveys can be made available.

Image 3 – shows the original stone along the cente r of the bridge deck 2.5 At some time in the past the stone parapets have been taken down and the

stones left along the center of the bridge deck (see image 3). This was to prevent further vandalism as the weak parapets could have been pushed outwards to very dangerous effect. The top of the string course on which the parapet was built has weathered slightly (see image 6) but remains a strong part of the structure on which the parapet walls can be rebuilt.

2.6 The ends of the parapets are extant and show what the construction used to be.

Historic photos of the viaduct in railway use show a horizontal parapet with a straight coping. It is therefore clear that the reconstruction will involve 3 courses of ashlar and an overhanging coping stone as shown in images 4 & 5.



Images 4 & 5 – existing end of parapet showing form er height

Image 6 – this is an indication of the reconstruct ed height



2.7 It is the aim of RPL to preserve the viaduct in such a condition that Sustrans could create a route for walkers and cyclists in the future using the viaduct as part of the National Cycle Network. This would then link in with the existing traffic free routes shown in green on image 7. However this does not form part of this application

Image 7 – Railway Paths Ltd assets in relation to Sustrans routes (map by RPL, OS license 100017916)

3.0 DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED

3.1 As indicated above the principle is to reinstate the parapets as they were when

the structure was built. This is shown in the extract from drawing in image 8.

Image 8 – General Layout Section (extract from desi gn drawing)



3.2 Although there are large amounts of the original parapet masonry on site it is

clear that there will be a need for new stone. It is believed that this will amount to about one third. The design decisions involved can be summarized in the following questions:

- Can suitable matching replacement stone for wall be obtained? - Can suitable matching replacement stone for coping be obtained? - Should the new material be evenly distributed or in one section? - Is the insertion of steel reinforcement to tie the wall into the existing

suitable? - What is the best match for mortar and suitable mix? - Should any accelerants be use to increase weathering of the new works?

3.3 Can suitable matching replacement stone for wall be obtained? We anticipate using the same quarry as the original construction – Fletcher Bank

Quarry Manchester Road, Ramsbottom, BL0 0DH. Full details of this stone are shown on the quarry website: http://www.stancliffe.com/uk-stone-types-and-colours/fletcher-bank-brown-sandstone

We will be engaging a suitably (CSCS Heritage) accredited stone mason to

undertake the work and will be able to provide samples at the appropriate time. 3.4 Can suitable matching replacement stone for coping be obtained?

The same stone as the walling was used for the coping. However the large size of the coping stones has various implications for site handling. We are currently looking at two options: 1) getting new coping stones cut from same stone 2) as an alternative we are investigating cast concrete

The material and finish can be conditioned by planning approval to ensure a

satisfactory appearance and performance.

Image 9 – Coping stone available for reuse



3.5 Should the new material be evenly distributed o r in one section?

The applicant is happy to discuss this issue with the conservation officer prior to the work once new material is on site available for comparison. Either option is possible as long as we are given clear instruction before. There is a preference to start with the original and use the new masonry when the original runs out because (a) can start before order arrives (b) better estimate available of the size of the order for new stone (c) less handling of stone).

Image 10 – This gap can be used as a test location to investigate the potential for exact matching

3.6 Is the insertion of steel reinforcement to tie the wall into the existing suitable? Metal cramps are a traditional method for some stone fixings. Steelwork reinforcement is necessary for stability of this parapet. Stainless steel is proposed so no corrosion or staining would occur. This is be internal and therefore will not be seen when the work is complete.

3.7 What is the best match for mortar and suitable mix? Our objective is to match the existing in appearance. We will ask the stonemason to test and match to the original as close as possible.

3.8 Should any accelerants be used to increase weat hering of the new works?

Whilst the intention is to make the new work not obvious it is clear that the nearby vegetation and the length of exposure to the elements has resulted in both weathering and green algal growth. It will be appropriate to clean off the base course to ensure bonding of the masonry but neither practical nor desirable to clean the whole viaduct. We suggest that once samples of the new stone are on site we can consider whether to use any of these techniques.



4.0 DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE DEV ELOPMENT 4.1 The visual form of the proposal can easily be assessed (see images 10,11,12 &

14). Since externally it is reinstatement, with 30-40 % new material, then this clearly is in accordance with paragraph 126 of “Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance” (English Heritage 2008)

4.2 Parts c and d of this guidance are particularly relevant. In the past the parapets

were considered a safety hazard and therefore dismantled. The design and appearance of the viaduct are harmed by their absence and therefore unless there is a good reason they should be reinstated. Part e relating to maintenance would guide the issue of strengthening the bond by use of steel ties and dowels.

Image 11 – The visual change can be assessed easily (red line indicates approx height of masonry)



Image 12 – The visual change can be assessed easil y (red line indicates approx height of masonry)

4.3 The case for reinstating the parapets is further strengthened by the fact that if the

viaduct is to be opened for public use in the future then some form of safety restraint along the sides would be necessary. The height of the parapets indicated would satisfy this purpose.

4.4 Although the appearance will change it will be reverting to the original. The

nearest adjacent buildings are shown in images 6 and 13. I suggest that with the distance involved the change will not have any negative impact on any other properties. The views from public and private locations will be improved as the design will reflect the original proportions of masonry above the crown of each arch .

4.5 The applicants have spoken to the residents at Aiken Court, Lower Calf Cote and

Lumb Old Hall about clearing the deck and reinstating the parapets. They expressed no strong feelings about the parapets but in general were not enthusiastic about opening the route to the public. Although as mentioned in section 1 that is a long term aspiration the opening of the route to public use would be subject to a separate later application.



Image 13 – View of viaduct with adjacent residenti al property

Image 14 – View of image 1 showing line of parapet reinstatement



5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 An opportunity has arisen to reinstate the parapet masonry in its original form. This

would respect the design intentions of the original engineer and also fulfill modern safety requirements.

5.2 This can be seen as the first stage in a process which hopefully will allow public

access to this beautiful structure. 5.3 The applicant would welcome discussion with the Council on potential conditions

on an approval and intends to work in close liaison with officers on this project. 5.4 If further information is required during the assessment of this application please

contact the agent. Chris Dent MRTPI Architect and Town Plannin g Consultant

Lumb Viaduct Design and Heritage Statement 11/12/13 Appendix 1 - Listing Record

Page A2/1 Chris Dent Architect & Planning Consultant 01392 435434 [email protected]

Lumb Viaduct Design and Heritage Statement 11/12/13 Appendix 1 - Listing Record


Lumb Viaduct Design and Heritage Statement 11/12/13 Appendix 2 - Record of stone use (extract from April 1993 British Rail Property Board report “Structural Report on Lumb & Ogden Viaducts”


Lumb Viaduct Design and Heritage Statement 11/12/13 Appendix 3 - Proposed stone data http://www.stancliffe.com/uk-stone-types-and-colours/fletcher-bank-brown-sandstone


Documents

Design and Heritage Statement - Rossendale