“Could someone let me know if there is a planning application being submitted for the proposed demolition of the bridge? If there is what is the application number? I suspect that the work may not consitute development under the current planning provisions and hence only a road closure order may be required for the duration of the demolition. If an application is required I assume that it would be determined by the local council's development control committee and not the County Council's (for obvious reasons); indeed a decision amounting to more than a recommendation to the local council's dc committee by Derbyshire CC could well be 'ultra vires'. I was also surprised by Mr Joyce's conclusion about what is now referred to as a 'non-designated heritage asset'. I therefore wonder if an impartial factual assessment of the bridge exists which Mr Joyce based his comments upon. One last point, if the bridge costs £150k to remove and then a change of circumstances opens up the route more readily to walkers and cyclists, the cost of reinstating a bridge crossing is likely to be considerable, potentailly a seven figure sum, in addition to the amount proposed to be spent now. I urge DCC to give very careful thought to all the issues both now and for the future.”

“My major gripe is that all of a sudden the Council wants to demolish the bridge at a time when public finances are under great pressure. One wonders why they have chosen this time is someone presurising them? The roads in the area of the bridge are in a shocking state, full of pot holes and on Crich Lane the edges of the road are crumbling. These are a far greater hazzard to far more people so should have priority over the bridge that has an average of one strike a year. The reason we have the road deterioration is heavy lorries, which by removing the bridge will be able to get bigger and cause even more damage to a fragile road surface thus necessitating more expenditure on road repairs.
As for using the bridge as a crossing, there is plenty of room to exit the end of the bridge with a ramp without going onto Network Rail land. I have witnessed so many near misses when local children get off their school bus and dart across the road which can take more than 5 minutes of waiting before crossing. The money should be spent on protecting them. Throw the book at any driver who collides with the bridge, if they fail to obey the signs, they are unfit to be behind the wheel of of a vehicle. If this were to happen, word would soon spread around the lorry driving community and they would avoid the bridge. Paint it Yellow and black just in case. As for Badgers! how many accidents happen because people swerve to miss one crossing the road? Ours are bright, they have found a safe way to cross.”

“RE Davids commennts below, whilst I agree that some of Councillor Blakes constituents who reside along the A610 would like to see the bridge go rather more of them would prefer to see it remain.

With regard to the use of the bridge as a pedestrian crossing , ther seems to be more than enough space at the eastern side of the bridge to provide a ramp/steps for access and egress without the need to encroach on Network Rails property.
PS earlier this pm a lorry ,having ignored the signs and after triggering the overheight warning device, only managed to negotiate the bridge by lowering his suspension and scrapeing the roof of his trailer.

PPS bridges don't hit lorries , lorries hit bridges !!”

“The bridge cannot be used to restore the railway line to Ripley because Lockwoods have infilled several hundred metres of the cutting when they expanded their factoy.

The bridge cannot be used for the Cromford canal crossing - It's at the same level as the mainline railway so how are the narrow boats supposed to cross this?

The bridge cannot be used as a footpath/bridleway because the land is owned by Network Rail who won't allow public access through their maintenance yard.

With little else that can be done to prevent HGV drivers that ignore the numerous warnings, and no viable alternative use for the bridge, it needs to be removed before someone is seriously hurt.”

“If the bridge is removed this will inevitably lead to more lorries using the A610 as a way to the A6. Assuming that the lorries will fit under the Four Arches Bridge (the main Derby to Sheffield line ) they will have to use the middle of the road because that is where the clearance is. This will involve the vehicle slowing down on the approach to acheive good visbility. The oncoming traffic will have to stop to give priority to the LGV hence a considerable reduction in the free flow of traffic on an already congested road .
On the plus side the resultant stationary traffic will give the local pedestrians a safer chance to cross the road, something sadly lacking at the moment. The £150,000 saved by leaving the bridge could provide one or two pedestrian crossings and still have a considerate amount of change. As the council freely admit there have been no injuries caused by the bridge strikes, however in the same period of time there have been several people injured trying to cross the road .A side point, the council has recently provided a safe road crossing point for otters within 300 yards of the aforementioned bridge. Perhaps otters have more clout than council tax payers and pedestrians.”

“All the lorry drivers should have to go to spec-savers.Then that would save the cash starved local residents another council tax reduction instead of freezing it this April if you are driving a lorry and cannot see the bridge then you should not be driving AMEN.”

“Not sure about the heritage value of this bridge but the people looking at reopening the Ripley to Derby line included looking into reopening the Ambergate to Ripley line in the future.
Is it a coincidence that after many years, the council suddenly decide its time it was demolished.
There is also talk of using it for the Cromford Canal to cross the A610 if they manage to restore it.
The council should be looking at keeping it at least till these proposals have run their course.

There are plenty of signs & a system of flashing lights but drivers just ignore them.

I met a delivery driver near the bridge who phoned to say he couldnt get under it but even though I told him to wait at the flashing lights, he was right up to the bridge. They seem to think its going to grow a little before they get to it.

Trouble is, there is another low bridge just round the corner so you only reduce the problem, not get rid of it.”

“It is a shame there are no figures for lorries backing up, one idiot getting stuck a year doesn't sound too bad, as a non local.
Having looked at street view may i suggest painting the bridge to increase visibility as has been done here.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=52.915592,-0.648695&spn=0,0.004128&z=19&layer=c&cbll=52.915639,-0.648818&panoid=Lt0Cj4oBftWS6MzhdHgXHA&cbp=12,99.74,,0,-0.56”

“Mister Viv,I wouldn't be surprised.”

“If I ignore a Give Way sign and cause a collision ( no such thing as an accident anymore) I will be reported fro diving without due care and attention. Can anyone from DCC or Derbyshire Police let the public know how many drivers and or operators have been prosecuted for ignoring signs and striking this bridge? Or perhaps have the vehicle operators and or drivers been billed for the clean up operations? HGV drivers need to buy proper HGV Satnavs that give details of height, width and weight restrictions, not rely on car versions. It'll be great fun when all those LB Plastics lorries come down Ridgeway Lane and turn right onto the A610 to get to the A38 and M1.”