‘Investing in destruction': campaigners attack plans to fill Yorkshire tunnel with concrete
Earlier this month ministers decided to award several million pounds to permanently shutter the Queensbury tunnel built in the 1870s for a railway between Halifax and Keighley in West Yorkshire, despite spending £7.2m to shore up the structure less than four years ago.
The government has agreed to fund plans to infill the tunnel for safety reasons, by the roads agency, National Highways, (NH) which is responsible for maintaining the historic railway estate.
The decision comes after the agency was widely criticised for 'cultural vandalism' over the infilling of Victorian bridges on the railway estate. In 2023 it was forced to reverse burying in concrete a Victorian bridge in Great Musgrave, Cumbria on the route of a scheme to join two heritage railway lines.
The mayor of West Yorkshire, Tracy Brabin, who backed calls to reopen the 1.4 mile tunnel which was closed to railway in 1956, has expressed disappointment at the government's decision. In 2021, while standing at the entrance of the tunnel, she described plans for a subterrain cycle path linking Bradford and Keighley to Halifax as a 'great facility for our community.'
Campaigners accused the government of 'investing in destruction' and ignoring the views of 8,000 planning objections to the plan to infill the tunnel. They are due to meet Lilian Greenwood, the minister for the future of roads, next week to urge her to reverse the decision.
In a letter to campaigners, Greenwood said converting the tunnel for cycling would be too costly in 'the challenging fiscal environment' and that 'safety risks need to be addressed.'
Today we welcomed West Yorkshire mayoral candidate @TracyBrabin and Bradford South MP @JudithCummins to the tunnel to discuss the benefits of a #BradfordHalifaxGreenway with a tourist spur to Haworth/Keighley.If we're serious about #ActiveTravel, we have to make this happen. pic.twitter.com/oRSGFSiQOj
NH's contractors estimate it would cost £26.4m to convert the tunnel. But campaigners have dismissed this figure as 'gold-plated' and claim the tunnel could be brought back into use as a greenway for only £13.7m – not much more than the £7.2m spent to shore it up from 2018 to 2021 including at least £3.3m now required to infill the structure.
They also point to a study by the charity Sustrans published earlier this year which found the proposed route would generate £3 in social, economic and tourism benefits for every £1 spent on it.
Norah McWilliam, the leader of the Queensbury Tunnel Society, said: 'The government is making and investment in destruction to satisfy the needs of a roads body that only cares about its own narrow interests. Community aspirations to bring positive benefits from our fabulous historic asset mean nothing to these spreadsheet shufflers.'
She added: 'These new millions and the seven lost in a black hole four years ago could have paid for the tunnel's repair, safeguarding it for a role at the heart of an inspiring and sustainable active travel network - something Bradford and West Yorkshire could be proud of.'
Graeme Bickerdike, the engineering coordinator for the society, said: 'The minister claims that her decision is based on a 'full view of the facts', but the evidence seems to have come exclusively from National Highways which has a proven track record for exaggerating risk, misrepresenting condition evidence and frittering away public funds.
'There is no justification for another costly tunnel intervention at this time as the 2018-21 works have reduced what was already a low risk profile.'
Brabin said she shared the disappointment of campaigners, but said she understood the government's decision. She said: 'To ensure everyone's safety the government had to act quickly to secure the site, and the realities of public finances meant a difficult decision needed to be made.
'We remain committed to helping support alternative routes for walking, wheeling and cycling between Bradford and Calderdale.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
9 minutes ago
- BBC News
Newcastle City Council bullying investigation costs reach £74k
An unfinished investigation into a bullying complaint made against a former council leader has so far cost more than £74,000.A senior local authority director made the allegation last September against Nick Kemp, who was leader of Newcastle City Council at the investigation into the complaint, which was commissioned by the council last November and is being carried out by an external law firm, is yet to were told on Tuesday its findings were now expected to be delivered in August, following concerns about the length of time it was taking to complete, and that the probe had already resulted in a bill totalling tens of thousands of pounds. Mr Kemp, who resigned as leader in September and later quit the Labour Party, has denied any complaint against the Byker councillor was made by Michelle Percy, the council's director of investment and growth. 'Far too long' Council solicitor Helen Wilson confirmed the current running cost of the investigation was £74,632.50, plus said the inquiry into the bullying complaint had been a "significant undertaking" requiring interviews with multiple individuals and a "large amount of information" being gathered, and said she hoped a final report would be issued to the council's monitoring officer in a breach of the council's code of conduct was found, then the matter would be referred to a special hearing in front of the audit and standards committee to decide what action to take, she added. The committee's independent chair, Les Watson, said the situation had "gone on far too long" and that he wanted to move quickly once the final report is Kemp, who was replaced by Karen Kilgour in the leader role, said at the time of his resignation that he "strenuously" refuted any allegations of long-serving councillor and five colleagues all quit Labour in November 2024, in doing so wiping out the party's majority in the council chamber, and now sit as members of an East End and Associates Independents group. Follow BBC Newcastle on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.
The Guardian
9 minutes ago
- The Guardian
High water bills, filthy rivers – and now drought. This is England's great artificial water crisis of 2025
For a rich and fairly stable country, we are staggeringly ill-prepared for climate shocks. We respond to predictable crises as if we had had no warning. Lessons from previous disasters go unlearned, mistakes are recycled, failures lodged so deeply that they come to define the system. This is not because of a deficiency in the national character, but because of a deficiency in the ideology of government: an elite belief, shared by scarcely any citizens, that public intervention should be used only when all other measures have failed. Until that point, our problems should be addressed by the private sector. As drought rolls across the country once again, England's privatised water system guarantees an irrational response. Nothing undermines climate resilience in this country as much as the private ownership of our water system, and nothing reveals the drought of political ambition like the refusal to renationalise it. Once again we find ourselves confronting simultaneously both the climate crisis and the political crisis. Climate breakdown is the result of a global failure to address the power of private capital. Labour's response to its impacts reflects the same timidity. As successive governments have stood and watched, we have been comprehensively rinsed by the water companies. The current administration seems prepared to go to any lengths not to break this pattern. Margaret Thatcher promised that water privatisation would deliver higher investment. But a detailed analysis by the public service union Unison found that, between 1990 and 2023, there was no net investment at all. 'Investors' spent £3.6bn buying shares in 1989 and 1990, but by March 2023 total shareholder equity across the water sector amounted to £3.4bn. In real terms (taking inflation into account), that means a 60% reduction in shareholder capital. Over that period, shareholders managed to extract £77.6bn (in 2023 prices) in dividends from the water companies. Add this to the withdrawal of equity, and you discover that they have squeezed £82.4bn out of public assets. Much of this money was obtained through loading the companies with debt. Instead of borrowing to pay for infrastructure improvement, water companies borrowed to pay for dividends. They knew that if the enterprise one day became insolvent as a result, it would be someone else's problem. Ultimately, as we now discover in the case of Thames Water, it becomes our problem. Just as the water companies dump their sewage in the rivers, they have also dumped their liabilities on the public. The country becomes their dustbin. For 36 years, these companies have acted as dispensers of free money to their owners, most of which are foreign, some of which are foreign states. In fact, the only government not permitted to own England's water supply is the UK's. They must see us as total suckers, giving away our national infrastructure, land and assets … for less than nothing. Any investments have been funded not by shareholders but by their customers, through our water bills. These rose in the same period by 360%, more than twice the general rate of inflation. The rise has since accelerated. Every year, we pay £2.3bn more for our water and sewerage bills than we would if the suppliers were publicly owned, according to research by the University of Greenwich. High bills, impossible debts, filthy rivers, minimal investment and no resilience: that is the gift of privatisation. One of the results of this asset-stripping model is that leakage rates remain disgracefully high. While the hosepipe bans now being introduced around the nation are likely to save between 3% and 7% of the water we would otherwise use, 19% of the water piped through the network is lost through leakage. Compare this with the publicly owned Dutch system, which loses 4%. For the same reason, no major reservoir has been completed here since 1992. Demand management has been just as hopeless, with the result that, without further action, water demand will exceed supply by 2034. Given that their profits from metered customers depend on the amount we use, the water companies have a powerful incentive not to address the problem. Instead, as supplies become critically low, they insist that they must be allowed to extract even more from our rivers and aquifers, with dire impacts on wildlife and water quality. For similar reasons, they resist imposing hosepipe bans until the last possible moment. It seems crazy that this decision should be left to the water companies, with their perverse incentives and conflicts of interest, rather than being taken by public bodies; but this is yet another outcome of the public-bad, private-good elite ideology. Even senior Tory MPs expressed frustration that government could not simply decide what needed to be done; but that's the system they built, working as designed. As for the regulators, they too are useless by design. Ofwat, which is meant to protect the public interest, has succumbed to full-scale regulatory capture, as senior staff circulate between the water companies and the agency supposed to hold them to account. The Environment Agency, chronically underfunded and demotivated, almost halved its water use inspections in the five years to 2023: a classic example of deregulation by stealth. The rules might remain on the statute book, but without monitoring and enforcement they might as well have been deleted. Throughout its history, water privatisation in the UK has been deeply unpopular. In 1986, a year after Thatcher proposed the policy, a poll showed 71% opposed and only 21% in favour. Since then, opposition has only hardened: a poll a year ago revealed that only 8% of people believed water should still be run by the private sector, while 82% wanted to see it renationalised. But two months later, the government ruled this out. Why? Because, according to the environment secretary, Steve Reed, it would cost too much. Really? A series of analyses show that the government could renationalise these companies for next to nothing, not least because their real value is less than zero. There would be some administrative costs, but these are likely to be far smaller than the annual expense of sustaining the current system. It's a simple test: does the government operate in the interests of the country, or in the interests of private capital? This shouldn't be a difficult choice for Labour to make, yet, as with so many such tests, it flunks it. Why? Because it is terrified of any measure that might alienate even the most parasitic and extractive forms of capital. Strangely, however, it seems to have no qualms about alienating the rest of us. George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist On Tuesday 16 September, join George Monbiot, Mikaela Loach and other special guests discussing the forces driving climate denialism, live at the Barbican in London and livestreamed globally. Book tickets here or at
BBC News
9 minutes ago
- BBC News
Equal pay claim could cost Bradford Council millions, says union
Equal pay claims involving hundreds of council staff could end up costing a cash-strapped local authority "millions of pounds", a union has Union said staff at Bradford Council had been in touch about claims the authority was reportedly paying staff in mainly male departments more than staff in mainly female departments. The union accused the council of "burying their heads in the sand" and said if the complainants were successful, their pay claims could be backdated for up to six years. A Bradford Council spokesperson said it was in discussions with the union and staff. Lou Foster-Wilson, GMB Organiser, called the situation "shameful" and said that members were angry at being "short-changed". She also said hundreds of claims were "piling hundreds more to follow". "The longer it takes to settle these claims the bigger the bill Bradford Council will have to pick up," Ms Foster-Wilson added. The dispute relates to claims staff in female-dominated roles, such as teaching assistants, have historically been underpaid in relation to those in male-dominated positions. 'Right thing' According to the Local Democracy Reporting Service, a council spokesperson said: "People are at the heart of what we do in Bradford, and our commitment to equality and inclusion is a big part of that. "We have well established procedures for discussing many matters with the trade unions and we continue in discussion with them to understand any issues their members may have."Ms Foster-Wilson added: "I urge the council to do the right thing by our members and its workforce and get round the negotiating table, so we can sort out a settlement for our members as soon as possible."In 2024 Birmingham City Council agreed to pay 6,000 of its workers a settlement after an unequal pay row. It was said to be one of the key factors in the authority declaring effective bankruptcy the year before when it said it was facing a bill of £760m to settle the claims. Listen to highlights from West Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North.
