Find, save and share Public Notices that affect you in the area.
Search the Public Notice Portal What is the Public Notice Portal?What is the Public Notice Portal?
The Public Notice Portal carries statutory public notices published in local newspapers and is the fastest and most effective way of finding out what is happening in YOUR neighbourhood.
Search the Public Notice PortalCAMPAIGNERS have voiced their dismay that the Government will not revisit its decision to partly infill a disused railway tunnel.
Queensbury Tunnel campaigners were initially invited to a Westminster meeting so they could present their vision for the structure’s repurposing, but were later told the minister would not meet them.
The Department for Transport, and National Highways, plan to partially infill the 1.4-mile-long structure – but locals want it to become the centrepiece of a foot and cycle path connecting Halifax with Bradford and Keighley.
A Department for Transport spokesperson said: “Given the continued deterioration of Queensbury Tunnel and the absence of local funding to develop it, National Highways will carry out essential safety works to maintain public safety.
“We have done all we can to keep the tunnel as a feasible option for cycling and walking routes, but all decisions must ultimately balance safety and value for the taxpayer.”
Whilst not meeting with campaigners, Transport Minister Simon Lightwood did meet Labour MPs Naz Shah (Bradford West) and Judith Cummins (Bradford South).
Mr Lightwood said he had reviewed the evidence and backed his predecessor’s decision to commit to a scheme which is expected to see six per cent of the Victorian structure infilled, with the rest left to collapse.
“By refusing to meet us the minister seems to be running scared of the facts," says Queensbury Tunnel Society leader Dr Norah McWilliam.
“The case for abandoning the tunnel has been promoted by distant civil servants who’ve misrepresented the costs and risks associated with the structure.
“We intended to present Mr Lightwood with balanced evidence to set the record straight.”
According to the society, an abandonment scheme mitigating all the risks identified with the tunnel is likely to cost £12.6m. And creating an alternative active travel route via the surface would add around £3.8m.
The society argues that keeping the tunnel would be cheaper. It says a programme of repairs has an expected price-tag of £8.7m, with a further £1.9m needed for lighting and a path to connect with existing routes.
Dr McWilliam adds: "The Government has chosen to waste millions destroying a valuable infrastructure asset, rather than investing in the future of communities.
“There’s a big opportunity here to make a positive difference for towns and villages that have been persistently overlooked; instead, ministers seem determined to score an own goal, throwing away public money just before the local elections.”
Share