Great Musgrave

File:StTheobaldsChurchGreatMusgrave(WilliamMetcalfe)Jul2006.jpg

The stone church of St. Theobald, located on the outskirts of the village, was constructed between 1845 and 1846. However, two earlier churches, with the first dating back to the 12th century, once stood nearby. Regrettably, their proximity to the river made them vulnerable to flooding. In 1822, floodwaters reached a depth of 3 feet (0.9 m) inside the church.

Leading up to the present church with its slate roof is a row of horse chestnut trees. The square church tower contains two bells. The interior has one small stained glass window, a 13th-century coffin lid, a brass of a priest dated 1500 and carved heads on the roof beam corbels above the windows.

The church has an annual rush bearing ceremony on the first Saturday in July. Girls wear garlands of flowers, and boys carry rush crosses in a procession through the village and to the church where a service of praise and thanksgiving is then held.

On 30 December 1894 the parish was abolished and merged with "Little Musgrave" to form "Musgrave".{{cite web|url=https://visionofbritain.org.uk/unit/10171313|title=Relationships and changes Great Musgrave AP/CP through time|publisher=A Vision of Britain through Time|accessdate=13 January 2022}}

The village was served by Musgrave railway station which opened in 1862 and closed in 1952.

File:Musgrave railway station bridge 09.08.2016R.jpg

In May and June 2021, the space under the B6259 road bridge at Great Musgrave, north of the former railway station, was filled with 1,600 tonnes of aggregate and concrete by Highways England, now known as National Highways.

The structure spanned a five-mile section of trackbed which local rail enthusiasts hoped to restore, linking the Eden Valley and Stainmore railways to create an 11-mile tourist line between Appleby and Kirkby Stephen.{{cite news |date=30 June 2021 |title=Highways England accused of rail heritage vandalism |work=The Construction Index |url=https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/highways-england-accused-of-rail-heritage-vandalism |access-date=17 June 2022}}{{cite news |date=1 July 2021 |title=Highways England accused of 'vandalism' after bridge infilled with concrete |work=ITV |url=https://www.itv.com/news/border/2021-07-01/highways-england-accused-of-vandalism-after-bridge-infilled-with-concrete |access-date=17 June 2022}} Highways England claimed to have consulted both railways prior to the work taking place, but this was denied by the two organisations who wrote a letter of complaint to Nick Harris, the company's Acting Chief Executive.{{Cite web |date=23 June 2021 |title=Cumbrian railways seek reparation in Highways England bridge row |url=https://railuk.com/heritage/cumbrian-railways-seek-reparation-in-highways-england-bridge-row/ |website=Rail UK}}

File:Great Musgrave bridge after infilling.jpg

The infilling was carried out under emergency development powers, colloquially known as 'Class Q',[https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/596/schedule/2/part/19/crossheading/class-q-development-by-the-crown-relating-to-an-emergency/made The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015]. Accessed: 4 July 2023 after officers from Eden District Council asked for the work to be paused whilst planning requirements were confirmed. Highways England's engineer refused, stating on 24 June 2021 that the works were required "to prevent the failure of the bridge and avert a collapse".{{Cite web |date=24 June 2021 |title=Email exchange between National Highways and Eden District Council |url=https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/766558/response/1843444/attach/2/07600%20Email%20Correspondence%20REDACTED.pdf |website=What Do They Know?}}

However, in May 2022, Bill Harvey Associates, a company specialising in masonry arch bridges, published an in-depth study reviewing engineering evidence and inspection reports about the bridge, sourced from Highways England.{{Cite web |title=Great Musgrave bridge documentation |url=http://thehregroup.org/evidence/pdf/GreatMusgraveDocumentation.pdf |website=The HRE Group}} The report concluded that:

• There is no evidence in the reports examined to suggest a current or developing risk of collapse.
• There is no evidence for a current or likely emergency.
• All evidence presented suggests that the bridge is, as stated by the 2021 examiner, "in fair condition".{{Cite web |last=Bill Harvey Associates |date=9 May 2022 |title=Great Musgrave EDE/25 |url=http://thehregroup.org/structures/pdf/2022-006-Great-Musgrave-review.pdf |website=The HRE Group}}

The backlash against the Great Musgrave infill scheme became national news and the government intervened to pause infilling and demolition schemes at dozens of other railway bridges across the country.{{Cite news |last=Marsh |first=Sarah |date=30 July 2021 |title=Britain's Victorian railway bridges may be saved in new green travel plan |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/jul/30/britains-historic-victorian-bridges-may-be-saved-in-new-green-travel-plan}} Many civil engineers expressed shame and embarrassment at the negative impact on their professional reputation.{{Cite magazine |date=15 July 2021 |title='Ashamed to be an engineer': NCE readers react to Highways England bridge infilling |url=https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/ashamed-to-be-an-engineer-nce-readers-react-to-highways-england-bridge-infilling-15-07-2021/ |magazine=New Civil Engineer}}

Highways England was forced to apply for retrospective planning permission for the infilling works,{{cite news |last1=Peskett |first1=Ted |title=Eden District Council say Highways England must apply to retain Great Musgrave Bridge infilling |url=https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/19465135.eden-district-council-say-highways-england-must-apply-retain-great-musgrave-bridge-infilling/ |access-date=17 June 2022 |work=News & Star / Cumberland News |date=24 July 2021}} with Eden District Council receiving 911 objections and only two expressions of support.{{cite magazine |last1=Horgan |first1=Rob |title=National Highways' bridge infilling application dealt blow by planning officials |url=https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/national-highways-bridge-infilling-application-dealt-blow-by-planning-officials-10-06-2022/ |access-date=17 June 2022 |magazine=New Civil Engineer |date=10 June 2022}}{{cite news |last1=Weaver |first1=Matthew |title=Cumbrian council may reverse concrete infilling of Victorian bridge |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/09/cumbrian-council-may-reverse-concrete-infilling-of-victorian-bridge |access-date=17 June 2022 |work=Guardian |date=9 May 2022}} Advised by planning officers to reject the application, the council's planning committee unanimously refused retrospective planning permission on 16 June 2022.{{cite news |title=Great Musgrave bridge: Concrete infill refused must be removed |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-61824392 |access-date=17 June 2022 |work=BBC News |date=16 June 2022}} Restoration of Great Musgrave bridge to its former condition, together with additional strengthening, could cost an estimated £431,000, in addition to the £124,000 spent on the initial infilling work.

National Highways agreed to abide by an enforcement notice issued by Eden District Council which required the infill to be removed and the surrounding landscape restored to its condition prior to the infilling works. This notice became effective on 11 October 2022 and the work had to be completed within 12 months of this date.{{cite web |title=Great Musgrave bridge: Concrete must be removed by October 2023 |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-63148929 |website=BBC News |access-date=6 October 2022 |date=6 October 2022}} In July 2023, National Highways' plans to restore the bridge and remove the infill were criticised by locals as they involved closing the bridge for three months, necessitating long local diversions for regular users of the B6259 which crosses the bridge.{{cite news |title=National Highways slammed again over Great Musgrave bridge fiasco |url=https://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/national-highways-slammed-again-over-great-musgrave-bridge-fiasco |access-date=4 July 2023 |work=The Construction Index |date=4 July 2023}} In August 2023, work began to remove the infill material, {{cite news |last1=Weaver |first1=Matthew |title=Roads agency starts to undo its 'vandalism' of Victorian bridge |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/14/roads-agency-starts-to-undo-its-vandalism-of-victorian-bridge |access-date=16 August 2023 |work=Guardian |date=14 August 2023}} with the final bill being confirmed at £352,000,{{Cite news |last=Hakimian |first=Rob |date=9 February 2024 |title=National Highways spent £352,000 removing infill from Great Musgrave bridge |url=https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/national-highways-spent-352000-removing-infill-from-great-musgrave-bridge-09-02-2024/ |work=New Civil Engineer}} almost three times the original infilling cost.

After the Great Musgrave outcry, National Highways developed a new way to determine the nature of major works to the disused railway structures it manages, with proposals reviewed by experts from heritage, environmental, planning and active travel organisations who collectively form the company's Stakeholder Advisory Forum.

{{NSEW|Langrigg|Waitby|Brough Sowerby|Bleatarn|||||}}

{{portal|Cumbria}}

• Listed buildings in Musgrave, Cumbria

{{Reflist}}

{{Commons category|Great Musgrave}}

• [http://www.cumbriacountyhistory.org.uk/township/musgrave Cumbria County History Trust: Musgrave] (nb: provisional research only – see Talk page)
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20070518090152/http://www.visitcumbria.com/pen/chp31.htm Illustrated information about its church]{{oscoor gbx|NY767135}}

{{authority control}}

Category:Villages in Cumbria

Category:Former civil parishes in Cumbria

Category:Westmorland and Furness