Barnsley Chronicle front page ...... Jumble Lane Bridge

It’s looking like the criticism that Barnsley Council Planning Department is getting regarding Sir Stephen Houghton’s Bridge at Jumble Lane has caused the council to put a glossy piece on the front of the Barnsley Chronicle.

The facts remain - the current Maccano Set Bridge was not given enough thought or consideration by this Labour controlled council.
And the consequences of this has resulted in plans that seem to suggest Barnsley Council is doing everything it can to make a visit to Oakwell as awkward as possible.

If I was a person that believed in conspiracies then I’d be saying that Barnsley Council are flexing their muscles and showing how disruptive they can be.
And all this is going on at the same time as Barnsley Football Club is negotiating to purchase Oakwell from Barnsley Council.

 

They should have got Boris it sort it. He's good with bridges.

 

It's not Steve Houghton's bridge. The bridge is Network Rail's bridge and, if it was left to them, we'd have a permanent Meccano set bridge, hence BMBC meeting some of the costs of providing a better long term facility. The benefits of closing the crossing at Jumble Lane is that we'll get more trains passing through Barnsley which will be to the benefit of the town because Dan Jarvis has identified that a number of London to Sheffield trains are parked up outside Sheffield Midland station for longer than it would take to get them up to Barnsley to start a London bound service. As for the diversions, BMBC have no control over the Interchange or the Alhambra Centre. If you believe another political party in control of Barnsley would or could have done things differently then vote for them at the next election. In the scheme of things any disruption is short term and let's not forget parking at Oakwell has been reduced not at BMBC's behest but because the Club have elected to put the fan zone in the East Stand car park thus reducing the number of places available there.

 

So is Jeff Bridges.

 

Top post.

 

The book stops with whoever gave permission for this planning application to go ahead.
And that is Barnsley Council Planning Department.

In the meantime - in the next 2 seasons or so - whenever you are made to go out of your way because a bridge has been allowed to be built with a Maccano Set - then just remember that Sir Stephen Houghton and his Merry men allowed this bridge to be built.

As for - do I believe that another political party could do better - I should imagine Mini Me’s Nursery could do better than this!!!

 

Excellently explained

 

If you believe that a new bridge can be built connecting two pavements - without the involvement of Barnsley Council Planning Department - then tha’s gunner accept owt - including egg under thi cap.

 

If its a free egg I'll take it...

 

I spend a lot of my free time walking in the Lakes, Peak District and the Dales, a diversion around Barnsley is nowt for two seasons. I suspect those who do have mobility issues will have parked closer to Oakwell before the crossing was built so won't be unduly impacted. Don't forget the bridge is open up to 60 minutes before kick-off, go up to Oakwell early and enjoy the wonderful entertainment in the fan zone. Hopefully the people at Oakwell will have seen a more permanent fan zone/social club is justified at Oakwell.

 

Network Rail don't need planning permission. The rules are different when it comes to railway issues and railway land.

 

How's that work then? The crossing was shut when a train came through and in any case, they're slowing down for the station 30 yards up the line. Can't for the life of me see how shutting the crossing would lead to more trains coming through

 

Yes, I believe this is the case, although the planning decision notification for the permanent bridge does state that an interim solution for pedestrian and traffic flow at the crossing (between now and opening of the permanent bridge) must be submitted in writing to the council prior to commencement of works.

I'd guess that the temporary bridge is a compromise solution, Network Rail would be under no obligation to put a temporary bridge in, the "solution" would have been the main station bridge and Schwabish Gmund Way.

What does puzzle me though is who has taken the decision to close it on match days. According to CML, the Civil Engineers who were commissioned to construct the temporary bridge, the requirement to cater for match day footfall was incorporated into the design.

https://www.cml.uk.com/news/tempora...ootbridge-installed-for-barnsley-town-centre/

 

https://www.wearebarnsley.com/mobile/news/article/11358/first-new-look-at-town-centre-footbridge

 

It's the disruption to road traffic which used to pass across Jumble Lane that was the impediment. Putting the barriers across to allow a train through meant traffic wanting to pass through would be held up. Those of us with long memories will no doubt remember when roads around the bus station were grid locked every time a train passed through. This was the reason that a better solution was required.

 

He’s burnt all his

 

Stop letting brilliant factual information getting a hold on this board. The OP has already worked out that the ConstipaTory theories are Right.

 

@Young Nudger You going to reply to this, this time?

 

It dosen't when dealing with public rights of way - eg connecting of pavements.
Yer trying to get Barnsley Council Planning Department off the hook.
Why ???
They are responsible for all this upheaval in TRYING to get to Oakwell.

BTW - why was Paul Conway catching the train after the Leeds match ???
A genuine journey - or was it a fact finding mission ???

 

Why shouldn't he catch a train poor bloke , without you suspecting him.of ulterior motives.

Bees and bonnets Nudger It's an extra 2 mins walk get a grip!