Agenda item

Philip Richardson, Bridges Manager, presented the report regarding North Yorkshire Council’s proposed bid to the Department for Transport Structures Fund for improvements to the Selby Toll Bridge (A19) and Selby Bypass Swing Bridge (A63).

The Committee was advised that the Fund is intended to support highway authorities with significant infrastructure schemes that could not reasonably be funded through existing budgets. Officers explained that North Yorkshire Council is proposing a package bid incorporating both Selby bridges due to their strategic importance as the only road crossings of the River Ouse in the immediate Selby area.

Officers outlined the condition of both structures and provided a series of photographs demonstrating key maintenance issues. It was noted that the Selby Toll Bridge is approaching the end of its design life and, whilst repairs remain possible, officers currently consider replacement to be the preferred long-term option. A replacement bridge would provide improved facilities for pedestrians and cyclists and reduce future maintenance requirements. Members were also informed of the ongoing issues affecting the Selby Bypass Swing Bridge, including the need for significant mechanical and electrical repairs and the current 20mph speed restriction.

Officers highlighted that a road traffic accident had recently occurred on the Selby Bypass Swing Bridge after a bridge deck plate became detached. Members noted that the incident had resulted in the introduction of the current 20mph speed restriction and demonstrated the need for investment in the structure.

During the discussion, Members raised the following points.

·         Members expressed concern regarding the condition of both bridges and the lack of resilience should either crossing become unavailable. It was noted that Selby relies heavily on the bridges and that disruption could affect residents, businesses, commuters and access to services.

·         A query was raised regarding whether the use of traffic signals could be introduced on the Toll Bridge to reduce the load on the structure. In response, officers advised that whilst this had been considered, the current focus is on delivering a long-term solution through replacement of the bridge and the use of more durable deck and surfacing materials.

·         Members sought clarification regarding the operation of the Selby Bypass Swing Bridge and whether vessels had been prevented from passing since the bridge ceased operating. Officers confirmed that they were not aware of any boats being turned away.

·         A query was raised regarding whether any warranties or other protections had been in place when responsibility for the Bypass Bridge transferred to the Council. Officers advised that this had been challenged previously, but that it had not been successful.

·         Questions were raised regarding the remaining lifespan of the Toll Bridge. Officers advised that the bridge had been inspected in June 2026 and there were no concerns regarding short-term safety, however, concerns remain regarding the long-term condition of several components.

·         Members asked what alternative options would be available should the bid be unsuccessful. Officers advised that discussions are ongoing regarding other funding sources and it was noted that maintenance would be required irrespective of the outcome of the bid.

·         Support was expressed for proposals to improve pedestrian and cycle provision on the Toll Bridge. Members highlighted that the existing facilities are inadequate and welcomed proposals to improve access for non-motorised users.

·         Members sought further information regarding the anticipated programme for the works and stressed the importance of ensuring that disruption is carefully managed around other highways work. Concerns were raised regarding the impact any prolonged closure could have on residents, businesses and visitors. During the discussion, officers highlighted some of the challenges associated with programming the works, including differing stakeholder requirements. It was noted that the Canal and Rivers Trust would prefer works to take place during the winter months when boat traffic is lower, whilst the Environment Agency would prefer work to avoid winter periods due to fish migration. Officers confirmed that works would be programmed to avoid major disruption to both bridges at the same time. Members welcomed this approach and highlighted the importance of restoring the Bypass Bridge to full operation as soon as possible.

·         Members stressed the importance of maintaining suitable pedestrian and cyclist access throughout any construction period. Concerns were raised that some temporary crossing locations under consideration would be too far from the existing bridge and would not be practical for many users, particularly school pupils, older residents and those travelling on foot into Selby town centre. Particular concerns were raised regarding the impact of flooding on potential temporary pedestrian routes and the need to ensure that any alternative route is accessible throughout the year. It was suggested that officers discuss this further with Members in the future.

·         Members highlighted the importance of maintaining public transport connectivity during any works. Concerns were raised regarding the impact on the 405 bus service and the wider consequences any disruption could have.

·         Concerns were raised regarding the limited diversionary routes available should either bridge become unavailable and regarding heavy goods vehicles using unsuitable routes during any closures. Members noted that Cawood Bridge is subject to weight restrictions and therefore cannot provide a practical alternative route for heavy goods vehicles and they stressed the importance of ensuring that any diversion arrangements and weight restrictions are actively monitored and enforced.

·         Members emphasised the need to future-proof any replacement bridge and ensure that the design accommodates future traffic demands, growth in the area and changing transport requirements. It was also suggested that future maintenance requirements should be minimised.

·         A query was raised regarding whether a lift bridge could be considered as an alternative to a swing bridge. Officers advised that alternative bridge types would be considered as part of the design process, although each option would bring different technical, operational and maintenance considerations. Members also discussed the higher construction and ongoing maintenance costs associated with retaining an opening bridge mechanism. It was noted that North Yorkshire Council is under a legal obligation to maintain the bridge in a condition that enables it to operate and open for river traffic.

·         Members highlighted the importance of ensuring that any replacement bridge reflects the character of Selby and suggested that engagement should take place with local organisations, including Selby Civic Society, as proposals develop.

Members reiterated the economic importance of maintaining reliable access into the town and stressed that the needs of residents, businesses and public services should remain central to the development of the project. They agreed that every effort should be made to secure backing for the funding bid.

The Committee expressed unanimous support for the proposed Department for Transport Structures Fund bid and welcomed the opportunity to secure long-term investment in both bridges.

Resolved

a)    That the report be noted.

b)    That the Selby and Ainsty Area Committee formally supports North Yorkshire Council’s bid to the Department for Transport Structures Fund for the Selby Bridges Project.