NBI OPEN MEETING AT BRIDGNORTH TO DISCUSS PROGRESS TO DATE ON THE BRIDGNORTH DEVELOPMENT PROJECT – held 25th January 2014 The background David Postle outlined the background behind the work on the Bridgnorth project during the last eleven months, with the establishment of the Conservation and Heritage Committee, the re-emphasis on the heritage aspects of future projects, and the processes that all future major projects would now have to go through. He also set the financial and administrative parameters within which the Bridgnorth development would have to operate. Ian Baxter then went through in detail the work the project team had been preparing. He talked of access, accommodation, both for public and volunteers/workers, the public realm, operational potential, and the listed station building which is considered to be the ‘jewel in the crown’ and which should be the centre of attraction for all visitors. Ian broadly explained the financial performance of the relevant departments since 2007, the trend in passenger figures over the same period, and talked of the business cases for catering, retail and pub activities. The situation regarding the possible acquisition of both the Apley estate fields at the back of the works, accessed by using Station Lane, and the former Inchcape site on Hollybush Road was outlined. Both of these sites are regarded to have potential for not just car parking but a number of other uses as well. Ian’s presentation then outlined the various options regarding the provision of catering, retail, pub, car parking and access facilities and showed briefly the sort of design and footprint that these might entail. In summary it was stated that the present position is:- 1. that work is continuing on the possible designs for the proposed new buildings, and in particular a new block at the south end of the station and an accommodation block behind the current shed/works. This will result in the drawing up of a tight design brief for architects to prepare final detailed plans. 2. that estimates of the costs of these developments are currently being sought so that sensible decisions can be made on the way forward and bids put in for resources from the Company to implement the plans 3. that work is continuing on other aspects of the overall Bridgnorth development project – for example on access issues, car parking (including the Apley and Inchcape sites), the public realm and the listed building. 4. that a phased programme of development is currently being prepared because the nature of the project is such that the individual components of the scheme are so inter-dependent that the timing of each component is critical to the success of the whole scheme. 5. that before development can go ahead, consultation with Shropshire Council will be necessary and planning permission sought and granted for the whole project. This will need special listed building consent for the changes to be made to the main station building which is listed Grade II, is within a Conservation Area and is in close proximity to Pan Pudding Hill which is a Scheduled Ancient Monument. This could be a process that takes some time. Points raised at the meeting 1. Two options had been shown in the presentation with regard to the uses of the proposed new building at the south end of the station – a) toilets and catering and b) toilets and station uses. In answer to the question, it was stated that the footprint and costs of that building would be more or less the same whichever scheme was finally chosen. 2. One of the audience who had put money into the recent share issue said that he wanted his money to go to the Bridgnorth project and not anything else. However, it was pointed out that the share issue documents listed many uses to which the money would be put such as Hagley Hall and the GW carriage set, and infrastructure projects, and that there was no ring fence in place. It was also pointed out that there would be competition for money between the various schemes the Company would support. 3. The pedestrian access from the Inchcape site was raised, and if the site were to be acquired, it was stated that there would be immediate improvements made to access to the Donkey Gallop, and that in the longer term there would be potential for more elaborate means of access to the station such as lifts, subject to finance being available. 4. If the Inchcape site were acquired it would give an opportunity to build multi-storey to create space to enable the pressure to be taken off the main station site. This point was noted and would be subject to detailed consideration and available finance. 5. The point was made that the performance of the retail department would be improved if the shops were to stock products which appealed to the customers. 6. The question of public access to the MPD was raised. It was explained that the original proposal for a viewing gallery was not under consideration, particularly with the cost of such a scheme being so high. The possibilities of a controlled conducted visit at certain times to suit operations was thought to be more of a possibility, mirroring old practice in the days of steam. There were also some concerns expressed about visiting the works in terms of security, particularly following the theft of materials. There were also concerns expressed in terms of safety. 7. The problems of access around the site were also raised. It was stated that ‘access for all’ would be aimed for, although it is very difficult at times to reconcile heritage elements with total access throughout the Bridgnorth site and to this extent, it is unlikely that the final proposals will incorporate the provision of lifts. 8. The relationship with the town was mentioned, with the town authorities keen to develop Bridgnorth as a tourist centre. It was suggested that there should be closer links with both the Town Council and the County Council It was also pointed out that coaches bringing visitors into the town find parking is difficult and the acquisition of the Inchcape site might benefit the town as well. 9. The view was expressed that the provision of toilets for the pub and /or buffet should be in the same building and not in a new block where you had to walk outside to get to them, or at the very least there should be a covered walkway between the two. There was then discussion about the balance to be had between the heritage of the listed building and any new development, and whether or not a covered walkway or link of some sort is desirable. It is still under consideration by the project team. 10. The possibility of the footbridge being moved was raised but is likely to be an expensive scheme to implement. The main reason for considering it would be to improve the pedestrian flow along the platform and into the proposed new building at the south end of the station. 11. The point was made that the current image of the station is not very appealing to the public and that a new café and toilets are essential as immediate projects. They should be the top priority as the café would produce an income, and they should be started as soon as possible. The inter-relationship of the various elements of the whole Bridgnorth project was explained but it was noted that there is a need to start work as soon as possible (see also later comments). 12. The question of whether every possibility of grant aid had been examined was raised. It was stated that the question of funding would be looked at once the project was further advanced and likely costs of all the elements of the project were known. It was also stated that it was the desire of the project team to produce an agreed final plan which met the identified needs of Bridgnorth before actively engaging some of the funding agencies if needed. This was so that the influence of the funding agencies was more concentrated on supporting the approved scheme rather than trying to impose their own ideals on matters of design and facility provision. The recent sad case of Bletchley Park was raised as an example of how the relationship between the attraction and funding agencies can go wrong in terms of the use of volunteers and inappropriate development. It was also noted that while grant aid might be available for heritage related project, it was unlikely to be provided for what are essentially commercial operations (ie bar, buffet and shop). 13. The meeting was reminded that there used to be a building on the top of Pan Pudding Hill, this in response to the earlier presentation where it had been noted that the views of English Heritage were that no development should take place within the vicinity of the ancient monument, which might then have a bearing on the proposals for the Apley fields. 14. There was significant support from the meeting to push for the acquisition of the Inchcape site. It was explained to the meeting some of the difficulties, particularly finance and affordability, which were instrumental in the position we are now in, but the project team were urged to pursue this option vigorously as the potential that this site offered to the railway is considerable. Equally the potential to other possible purchasers might be detrimental to the railway. It was explained that possible business cases were being developed and the possibility of a partnership arrangement currently being looked at. It was later suggested that a closer relationship with the Councils and the Company should be sought and possibly see if there was any grant provision that could be had in regard to the Inchcape site as its use would benefit the town too. 15. It was felt that the overall trends in retail and catering in Bridgnorth might have been affected by the opening of the Engine House and the provision of further catering and retail facilities in 2007. These two activities should be looked at railway-wide rather than just Bridgnorth therefore. 16. The desire to open up the view from the town of the station had been mentioned in the presentation, and the question of whether the trees on the embankment in front of the station building are subject to preservation orders was raised. It was also confirmed that the embankment had been purchased by the Company and with it the third party liability incumbent on landowners. 17. There was an element of frustration expressed by a long-standing working member that over the years there had been a lot of talking and very little had been achieved, and that he wanted to know when something would be done as a result of the current proposals. The process of the project and the financial aspects of the project were discussed, and the comments noted. It was also stated that the Holdings Board had approved work to be undertaken on the bar extension, and that it had approved further work to be continued on the drawing up of sustainable proposals for the station site. This would include meetings with Shropshire Council and English Heritage. (Please also see my closing remarks about this subject.) 18. The possibility was raised of closing the retail department at Bridgnorth in the short term to allow space for work to start on the listed building – say for a period of two or three years and then re-open it in new premises. There was one body of opinion that thought trade once lost would not come back again, but the example of the Bluebell Railway was quoted as an example where this happened successfully whilst they were undertaking major building works. 19. The possibility of using Platform 2 waiting shelter as a temporary giftshop was raised, but it was not generally supported on account of the narrow and restricted access in the building and the fact that there is no heating or insulation in there to prevent damage to stock. 20. On the question of architects, it was requested that any architect employed to draw up final details should talk to those who dealt with passengers to understand the issues involved more closely. It was pointed out that the Assistant Station Master is an essential member of the team which is drawing up the proposals, and he regularly provides information on such matters. However, there will be further consultation by the project team over proposals as they develop and before the tight design brief goes to an architect to prepare detailed drawings from the agreed proposals. A personal summary Over 50 people attended this meeting in less than ideal surroundings and if nothing else it amply demonstrated the urgent need for better facilities for such activities at Bridgnorth! The comments made at the meeting and recorded here provided very welcome feedback on what had been presented and will be taken on board by the team in their future work. There is a clear desire by all to see something done in the near future. I share the frustration that has been felt by many at the proportion of talking to direct action. It is the view of both Ian Baxter and myself, and the project team as a whole, that the first stage must be to ensure the final proposals are right for Bridgnorth in the context of the site, the needs of all those working at and those using the station, and heritage and conservation considerations. It is also essential that there is a viable business case for any development and that any investment of Company resources is sustainable in the long-term. All this is a tall order but one we are striving to achieve. At the meeting we did say that we would hope to have firm proposals and costs ready by the summer of this year, and it will not be for the want of trying by the team if that is not achieved. I would endorse the opinions of everybody at the meeting who said that they wanted to see something happen, and it is our earnest intention that this should be the case during this year. Some preliminary works could easily be carried out in the very near future. The two main issues, however, are to finalise the proposals to everyone’s satisfaction, and to obtain the financial commitment from the Company for the project to happen. Neither of these of course is easy, but the current team is committed to making it happen so that Bridgnorth station becomes the centre of attraction its heritage clearly deserves. I would also just like to remind everyone reading this of one thing Ian said at the meeting. Since the team started work about ten months ago, it has achieved a lot and it has not cost the Company one penny for the hours that have been given by the team members. I am grateful to those who have given their time freely, often under severe pressure on time by other commitments. Should anyone wish for further information or to make any further points, they are welcome to get in touch with me at Kidderminster Railway Museum. With regard to further communication, it is intended to have more open meetings and Notice Board Issues as the project progresses. It is at these, or NBIs from Holdings Board meetings, that a true picture is given. As Ian pointed out in his presentation, you cannot believe everything you read, as he highlighted an issue of Rail magazine which reported that detailed plans for Bridgnorth would be published in early 2014. The true position of where we are at is on the first page of this NBI, and what was presented to this meeting. Detailed plans will be published when they are ready, having gone through the due process of consultation and decision making. David Postle Chairman Conservation & Heritage Committee @svrwmofficialsite
Posted on: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 13:12:17 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015