Lead Works Bridge - the full story

Reference has been made in past issues of CUTTINGS to the new bridge installed in the centre of St Helens, which has sadly created a fresh obstacle to the restoration of the Sankey. Peter Keen here tells the full, sorry story.

Early in 2008 SCARS learned that the St. Helens Chamber of Commerce was to build a new headquarters on the site of the old lead works between the railway and the Sankey Canal alongside Chalon Way East. As a consultee in any planning application on land adjacent to the canal, the Society was asked to comment on the plans. They were quite acceptable, apart from the proliferation of trees which the artist had 'planted' along the canal bank. It was pointed out that since the council had some years previously rebuilt the canal and tow path it was not advisable to start planting trees which over the years might damage these previous works.

Next came the proposals for the new stadium for the Saints Rugby Club, to be built on the site of the old UGB works. In order to allow the free passage of fans from the bus and train stations to the new stadium, a new road was planned, past the World of Glass, below the railway bridge and across a new pedestrian bridge to be built across the canal, with another bridge across linkway east to keep traffic and pedestrians apart. Again SCARS was consulted and no objections were raised.

A major access problem for the Chamber was the low bridge under the railway line (right) outside the World of Glass which was inadequate to allow the passage of emergency vehicles in the event of a fire. Plans were draw up to enlarge the bridge capacity but this could only be done in such a way as not to interfere with the rail traffic passing overhead.

Time passed, no work was done on the bridge, but suddenly a new planning application was submitted, to upgrade the previously mentioned pedestrian bridge into one strong enough to carry emergency vehicles, this time from the linkway rather than under the railway bridge which had evidently proved to be too expensive, too difficult, or would take too long to adapt. There was a time factor involved, during which the Chamber had to be completed and it had to have its emergency cover in place.

Again SCARS was consulted and made no objection to the project other than a reasonable request that sufficient clearance be left between bridge and water level to allow the passage of boats when the canal is restored. Bearing in mind the fact that St. Helens Council has agreed to protect the line of the canal and prohibit any development which would hinder its future restoration, it had been assumed that this clearance would not be a problem. It was with disbelief that the Society learned that its request had been ignored and that the bridge was to be built with just enough room for a canoeist to get underneath if he lay flat on his craft. This is marked contrast to the time when the private developers who built the pedestrian bridge over the canal west of this point were compelled to build it with sufficient clearance for boats to pass beneath.

Six letters were sent to various council members and officers, asking that the decision be reconsidered. Only two were even answered and these responses indicated that the structure was to go ahead as planned and that if in the future the canal as restored the bridge could be raised to allow boats to pass below. This would however require the raising of the road as well, creating a more complicated and expensive job. If the bridge was installed at a higher elevation and the road built accordingly, this expense would be avoided. This was not to be, and the bridge was duly installed.

It was noted by Society members that the new Chamber building was up and running before the bridge was completed so was without the emergency cover the bridge was installed to provide for a period of time.

Now another problem emerged. There was a tow path on each side of the canal at the position of the bridge. The embankments carrying the approach road now blocked off those paths - and money has had to be spent building ramps from the canal bank up to road level and down the other side, on both banks of the canal. Had the bridge been higher, the tow paths would have remained, pedestrian access would have been preserved, and this expense avoided.

The whole sorry episode has done much to damage the hitherto excellent relationship which had grown up between the Society and St. Helens MBC. It is hoped that future dealings between the two organisations can be returned to the former high degree of confidence and trust.

The offending bridge - above from the West and, below, from the East
Pics: David Long

Index for this issue     Index of all Canal Cuttings issues      Home Page

Site design and content © 2002 - 2009 Sankey Canal Restoration Society
Canal Cuttings Editor: David Long Site design: Phil D.Long