Link to SOB's comments sent to Babergh DC Planning Committee relating in particular to the applicant’s ‘Clarifications relating to alternative proposals’ in the new submissions.
CONSEQUENCES OF DISREGARDING ALTERNATIVES FOR THE REPAIR OF BOXTED BRIDGE
'Clarifications relating to alternative proposals’ refers to the alternative proposal by The Morton Partnership which has been dismissed as ’risky and needing extensive high risk investigations'. This beggars belief: Ed Morton is an eminent Chartered Civil Engineer specializing in works to historic buildings and structures with 30 years experience, he has assessed over 100 bridges for the National Trust. He was surprised that the existing deck structure had not been opened up to fully investigate and the only trial holes drilled were either side of the abutments to investigate soil conditions. Having spent vast sums on studies and investigations, it is remarkable that Highways have no hard evidence one way or the other regarding the actual condition of bridge elements. The 2018 Ringway Jacobs Principal Inspection (PI) report found no problem with the abutments so there is no reason to believe that necessary repairs are major or unfeasible. One more example of Highways strong cognitive bias, suggesting EH is able to see only the evidence that supports its own interpretation of the situation.
We urge you to write to Babergh planning with your own comments on the new plans by the DEADLINE NOV 22ND. Please write to Babergh DC to OBJECT and if you have objected earlier say that your earlier objection still stands despite these new submissions. Copy your letter to the other two planning authorities making sure to change the different Ref numbers accordingly.
Write to:
Babergh DC planninggreen@baberghmidsuffolk.gov.uk Ref: Boxted Bridge DC/22/00050
Also send a copy to:
Colchester BC planning.services@colchester.gov.uk Ref Boxted Bridge Ref 220059
Essex CC mineralsandwastedm@essex.gov.uk Ref Boxted Bridge CC Ref CC/COL/106/21