City of Westminster
Item No.
Decision-maker
Date
Title of Report
Cabinet Member for
Economic Development
and Transport
November
2003
Interim safety measures for Lord Hills
Bridge, Paddington following bridge
assessment and risk analysis.
Classification
Report of
For General Release
Director of Planning and Transportation
Wards Involved
Bayswater, Westbourne
Policy Context
To maintain the City’s highway network through
planned maintenance and improvements.
Financial Summary
The estimated cost of proposals in this report for which
financial approval is sought amounts to £150,000. These
proposals are fully funded by Transport for London.
1.
Summary
1.1. This report provides:

Details of the results of the Feasibility Study for identifying interim
measures in respect of Lord Hills Bridge in Paddington following a Bridge
Assessment and Risk Analysis.
And seeks approval to: 
2.
2.1.
Implement the recommendations of the Feasibility Study for Interim
Measures at Lord Hills Bridge.
Recommendations
That approval be given to capital expenditure of £150,000 to enable a central
reserve to be installed over Lord Hills Bridge. These works are fully funded by
Transport Grant from Transport for London being available in 2003/04.
1
2.2.
3.
That the Director of Planning and Transportation be authorised to create a
temporary shared cycle tracks on the footways of Lord Hills Bridge, subject to
the receipt of no objections to the statutory consultation required.
Background Information
3.1
Lord Hills Bridge in Paddington is owned and maintained by Network Rail. The
bridge has been assessed by Network Rail as part of the national assessment
and strengthening programme and rated at 7.5 tonnes, considerably below
the 40 tonne EU loading requirement. There is therefore an urgent need to
implement either a weight restriction and/or interim measures to safeguard the
structure and public safety.
3.2
The responsibility for upgrading bridges owned by Network Rail to the new
standards falls to the City Council. A legal agreement was entered into with
Network Rail (or Railtrack as it was at the time) to enable the assessment to
such bridges carrying public highway to be undertaken.
3.3
The agreement provides for the City Council to closely monitor the
management and control of the work that is being undertaken by consultants
instructed by Network Rail. Network Rail commenced the assessment
programme in November 1998 and it was originally programmed that their
work would be completed by August 2000. However a combination of
operational difficulties, delays in obtaining possession of the railway tracks for
access to carry out structural inspections, and project management issues ,
resulted in major slippage to their programme.
3.4
Council Officers have been particularly mindful throughout the assessment
process that Lord Hills Bridge is on the proposed diversion route associated
with the closure of Bishops Bridge Road as part of the Paddington Bridge
Project. Any Interim Measures arising out of the assessment process
therefore need to be implemented before the closure of Bishops Bridge Road.
As such, Council Officers have been pressing Network Rail for some
considerable time to complete the assessment process to determine whether
interim measures are needed to protect the structure.
3.5
The assessments are now complete. It was intended that Network Rail would
manage the next phase which includes undertaking both a ‘Feasibility Study
for Interim Measures’ and a ‘Feasibility Study for Strengthening’. However,
due to difficulties with the assessment work, it was agreed that the City
Council would directly manage the further work thus regaining control of the
programme.
3.6
The City Council obtained Network Rail’s approval to directly employ the
consultant used in the assessment work to carry out the feasibility studies.
These studies are essential to determine the extent of any work required and
the financial liabilities to the City Council. This information also enables the
City Council to bid for grant funding from TfL
3.7
The Departmental Contracts Board (DCB) granted a waiver to the Contracts
Code and Consultant WSP Ltd have been appointed to undertake the
Feasibility Studies for Interim Measures and Strengthening. Financial approval
for this work has already been granted and is fully funded by TfL.
2
4.0
Results of the Feasibility Study for Lord Hills Bridge
4.1
WSP Ltd has now completed a risk analysis as part of their Feasibility Study
for Interim Measures on Lord Hills Bridge. The results of the study
recommend a reduction in the carriageway width over the bridge to reduce the
‘live load’ and improve the load carrying capacity of the structure.
Implementing these measures prior to the closure of Bishops Bridge Road will
obviate the need to apply a weight restriction and safeguard the proposed
diversion route for all types of vehicle.
4.2.
The consultants' report recommends that the carriageway width reduction
measures should take the form of a central reservation as this provides the
optimum increase in the live load capacity of the bridge, by avoiding loading
the centre of the bridge.
4.3.
The central reservation works are to be in the form of a double row of barriers
approximately 1.5m apart, which look very similar to road safety barrier. The
barriers are to be in place for the duration of the closure of Bishops Bridge
Road and until permanent measures are developed to increase the strength
of the bridge. A plan showing the location of the bridge and the extent of the
works is shown in Appendix 1.
Traffic Implications
4.4.
To install the barriers safely in the central reservation, a closure of Lord Hills
Bridge over a single weekend will be required. Traffic Orders to temporarily
close the road have been applied for in advance. Because of the short time
scale available to implement the works it is anticipated that a full road closure
will be required. However, a closure in one direction only is also being
investigated. Subject to Cabinet Member approval it is anticipated that the
works will take place over the weekend of 29/30 November or 6/7 December
2003.
4.5.
A consequence of reducing the carriageway width on the bridge is that only
two lanes of traffic will be able to use the bridge at any one time. At the
moment it is possible for three lanes of traffic to pass on the bridge. This is
particularly helpful as vehicles can negotiate buses using the bus stop on the
bridge outside the Royal Oak Tube Station without interrupting traffic flows in
the opposite direction. If the carriageway width reduction is implemented this
will no longer be possible. If the carriageway width reduction scheme is
implemented it will no longer be possible for Network Rail or London
Underground contractors to park vehicles at night on Lord Hills Bridge when
undertaking works at the station on the railway line. Officers are in discussion
with Network Rail and London Underground about alternative arrangements.
4.6.
Officers are mindful that any additional traffic congestion on Lord Hills Bridge
is likely to result in tail-backs onto the Harrow Road.
3
4.7.
To avoid additional traffic congestion as a result of vehicles not being able to
negotiate buses using the bus stop, it is proposed that the bus stop outside
the Royal Oak (Hammersmith and City Line) tube station be temporarily
relocated. This will result in bus passengers either having to walk
approximately 75 metres further to reach the tube station or remain on the bus
for a few extra minutes (at no extra cost) to Paddington Station. From there
they can make more extensive connections with the London Underground
network. Approval in principle to re-locate the bus stop has been received
from Transport for London - London Buses.
4.8.
The erection of barriers in the centre of the carriageway, and the difficulty
vehicles may have if they want pass cyclists on the bridge, has been
considered. The footways on both sides of the bridge are wide enough to
accommodate cyclists and pedestrians it is therefore proposed to create a
temporary cycle lane in one or both footways on the bridge. If objections are
received following statutory consultation, then it may be appropriate to require
the cyclists to remain in the carriageway.
5.
5.1.
Other Network Rail Bridges in Paddington
It must be noted that Network Rail have assessed other bridges crossing the
railway lines out of Paddington, these are:
 Westbourne Terrace Bridge
 Ranelagh Bridge
 Westbourne Park Bridge (Great Western Road)
5.2
There are some concerns regarding their load carrying capacity and minor
protection measures to the footway to prevent vehicles overloading
substandard beams beneath on both Westbourne Terrace and Ranelagh
Bridges may be necessary. If required these would be easily implemented and
would not affect traffic flow.
5.3.
In respect of Westbourne Park Bridge (Great Western Road) the current view
is that some carriageway restriction may be necessary, although these should
not affect overall traffic flow.
5.4.
A further report to Cabinet Member will be made in respect of these structures
on completion of the consultants' work.
6.
Financial Implications
6.1
Provision exists within the Capital Programme as follows:
Interim Measures for Lord Hills Bridge
4
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
TOTAL
£000
£000
£000
£000
130
10
10
150
This is a provisional amount which is fully funded by TfL Transport Grant.
6.2
The total capital expenditure as a result of this report is £150,000, for which
financial approval is sought.
6.4
The revenue implications of the capital expenditure of £150,000 assuming an
asset life of 10 years over the next four years would be as follows:
Capital
Charges
£000s
7.
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
18
19
20
20
Legal Implications
7.1.
There are no direct legal implications arising from the issues discussed in this
report.
7.2.
The Council has powers to create shared use cycle paths from footways using
powers contained in section 65 HA80 of the Highways Act 1980.
8.
8.1.
9.
9.1.
Staffing Implications
There are no staffing implications arising from the issues discussed in this
report.
Performance Plan Implications
There is no specific reference in the Transportation
Performance Plan.
& Infrastructure
10. Consultation
10.1 This report relates to Westbourne and Bayswater wards.
10.2 Ward Members have been briefed on the measures set out in this report and
any views received will be forwarded to the Cabinet Member.
5
11. Health and Safety Issues
11.1 All works undertaken will be closely monitored and carried out to the
requirements of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 etc and the
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations, 1994.
12. Co-operation with Health Authorities
12.1 There are no significant implications for the health and welfare of residents
arising from the issues discussed in this report.
13. Conclusion
13.1 The implementation of a central reserve over Lord Hills Bridge is considered
essential to safeguard the structural integrity of the bridge, particularly as the
bridge is likely to carry increased traffic once Bishops Bridge Road is closed
on 11 January 2004. The proposed measures are temporary and will stay in
place whilst Bishops Bridge Road remains closed and until a permanent
strengthening solution can be implemented.
13.2 The central reserve must be installed and operational prior to the closure of
Bishops Bridge Road.
13.3 The introduction of the central reserve over Lord Hills Bridge will require the
re-location of the bus stop currently located outside the Royal Oak Tube
Station and Transport for London – London Buses has given its support for
relocation.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUERIES ABOUT THIS REPORT OR WISH TO INSPECT
ANY OF THE BACKGROUND PAPERS PLEASE CONTACT ANDREW FOSTER
ON 020 7641 2541; fax 020 7641 2658; email afoster1@westminster.gov.uk
Background Papers
The documents used or referred to in compiling this report were:
1
Maintenance Management of Bridges and Other Highway
Structures – March 2003.
6
For Completion by Cabinet Member

Declaration of Interest
I have no interest to declare in respect of this report
…………………………………….. Signed
……………………..………… Date
I have to declare an interest
State nature of interest …………………………..……………………………..
………………………………………..…………………………………………….
…………………………………….. Signed
……………………..………… Date
(N.B: If you have an interest you should seek advice as to whether it is appropriate to
make a decision in relation to this matter.)
For the reasons set out above, I agree to the recommendation(s) in the report and
reject any alternative options which are referred to but not recommended.
Signed
………………………………………….
Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Transport
Date
……………………………………………..
NOTE: If you do not wish to approve the recommendations, or wish to make an
alternative decision, it is important that you consult the report author, the Director of
Legal and Administrative Services, the Director of Finance and, if there are staffing
implications, the Head of Personnel (or their representatives) so that (1) you can be
made aware of any further relevant considerations that you should take into account
before making the decision and (2) your reasons for the decision can be properly
identified and recorded as required by law.
Note to cabinet Member: The decision will now be published and copied to the
Members of the relevant Overview & Scrutiny Committee and may not be
implemented until five working days have elapsed from publication to allow
the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to decide whether it wishes to call it in.
7
Appendix 1
Location Plan and Extent of Works
8