Background
A timber bridge that crosses the entrance channel of Holloway’s Dock has been present on site since the early 1980s. This bridge links the northern shoreline of Hengistbury Head with Mudeford Sandbank, creating a ‘dry’ waterside route between these two areas. This route is popular with dog walkers, joggers, day trippers, watercraft users and some beach hut owners. Survey work* suggests that in the summer, usage averages at 40 people/hour and in the winter, at 30 people/hour. This is an alternative to the main route, which uses the ‘train road’ tarmac path and remains fully accessible.
The bridge has required occasional repairs in the years since construction but appears to have remained relatively stable over this period. However, a series of powerful storms since 2021 have gradually weakened and warped the bridge. A structural survey was carried out in-house in January 2023, following Storm Eunice, which lifted part of the bridge. The survey determined that the structure was still fit for use but had a limited lifespan. Further minor and repairable damage took place during 2023, but during Storm Henk in December, most of the structure was washed away and it became irreparable. For safety reasons it was necessary to then remove the above ground parts of the remaining structure.
Options
Following removal works and subsequent tidal movements most of the remaining structure is now buried and not visible. Access across the channel is therefore only possible during low tide conditions and involves wading through shallow water. This is possible in wellies or (in warmer conditions) in bare feet/beach shoes etc During high tide conditions, it is not currently possible to cross the channel. The Council is receiving queries about what the plan is, regarding a replacement for the bridge and what the timescale may be. There are various factors that need careful consideration in coming to a decision:
- Financial – we estimate that construction costs are likely to be in the region of £25k, although given the logistical complexities of getting materials and equipment to site, need to create a robust storm proof structure, necessary licencing and impact assessments/surveys, this figure is hard to calculate. The current financial position of the Council means that there is no revenue funding available for non-essential works and a new bridge would fall within this category. Even with external funding we would need to carry out a cost-benefit analysis regarding both the construction and ongoing maintenance.
- Ecological – the channel sits within a highly designated and sensitive landscape (SSSI, SPA) and designations have changed/been strengthened since first construction and now we have a statutory duty to take these into account. Whilst ongoing repairs to an existing structure have not required consents we are now in a position where we would have to request permission for a new bridge. We would also need to demonstrate to the relevant statutory agencies (Marine Management Organisation/Natural England) that the bridge itself and its construction would not impact the special features of the landscape. This alone is a detailed piece of work that would take time to pull together. We also need to consider the likely reduced access to this area, and a reduction in people and dog disturbance of harbour foreshore, is likely to be advantageous for wildlife in general and wading birds in particular. This in turn supports the Council-declared ecological and climate emergency.
- Archaeological – the channel sits with the wider Scheduled Monument and this area is known to be a site of an Iron Age dock, based on previous excavation. Any construction works which penetrate the ground, not least new pilings for a bridge, require Scheduled Monument Consent (SMC) from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, overseen by Historic England. This is another process that takes time to complete.
- Suitability – it is accepted that this is a well-used route but it is not the only route and not the most accessible. On the highest tides this route is not passable, even with a bridge in place, due to flooding of adjacent ground. The exposed and tidal location of the bridge has been shown to be vulnerable in stormy conditions and there is a risk, that any new structure in this location will be subject to ongoing damage, not least as our climate continues to change. An assessment of other options is therefore required.
- Staff resource – the required above processes, in addition to arranging procurement and contracts of work, carry a considerable cost in terms of staff time, which is already at capacity.
Conclusion
Having made the structure safe and given: the above complexities, lack of available Council financing and other resources required to take forward a replacement bridge alongside ecological considerations; our position is to not take any immediate action in 2024 on a bridge replacement. In this period, we will engage with statutory bodies alongside other teams involved in the management of Hengistbury Head and seek wider opinion on feasibility, consents required, timescales and constraints. We would then be better informed on whether a replacement is feasible and until we reach that point, we cannot comment further on a particular course of action.
Robin Harley
Countryside Officer (Conservation)
Greenspace & Conservation
T. 01202 817605
robin.harley@bcpcouncil.gov.uk
bcpcouncil.gov.uk
Thank you for the update.
As an advocate of ensuring join up of the paths, walkways and, where permitted, cycle ways across HH and join up to Stour path and wellbeing walks I would very much like the bridge to be rebuilt. I am sure legacy funds could be secured for the footbridge. I appreciate dire state of Council funding but am keen to ensure as much open and accessible space is available and we do not constrict to a few hardcore routes. Would it be possible to see an overall plan of council priority and funding plans for HH? Thank You
For the bridge to have lasted forty years (with some maintenance and repair)is amazing given its exposed location. My family and I were so sad to see it had been removed as we like to walk that way regularly to enjoy the inside of the harbour which is such a special area of beauty.
I am sure that even if the council cannot fund the repair, a campaign to raise funds from the public would be well supported by those who value its use. Perhaps at the Visitor Centre there could be a collection box or electronic means of contributing to the cost? I understand the need for ecological and historical assessments but fear this could bog the whole thing down for so long that nothing ever gets done. After all, it is a case of replacing something that was already there rather than seeking to build from new, which I would imagine to be far more laborious a process. Perhaps if the archaeological and ecological surveys could be performed (soon) the finances will be found to be available. I hope so!
I find it totally unbelievable that so many problems are being manufactured to provide reasons for not replacing the Holloways dock bridge. For the life of it’s existence it has been damaged and repaired numerous times. Why, suddenly, are so many difficulties being found. There will be absolute chaos in the holiday season along the Land Train road. All the pedestrians who normally love to walk along the harbour shore, cyclists, families with babies in buggies, dogs, people in wheel chairs all having to cope with the Land Train travelling backwards and forwards to the beach huts.
Yes, there is a route on the top of the Head but how are people with reduced mobility, people with young families, wheelchair users, people with health problems supposed to climb up the steep path to get there.
For goodness sake get a grip and replace the bridge as soon as possible.
Frances
We use this bridge a couple of times a month throughout the year and find the walk to be an idyllic getaway from the crowds. Surely just replacing a like for like bridge that people enjoy using is the right course of action. More and more people access Hengistbury as the population increases and we certainly shouldn’t be left with less access to beautiful places. I urge you to stop putting unnecessary obstacles in the way and replace the bridge.
David
What a lovely place and now you want to keep people away from enjoying it, by finding an array of (mostly) ridiculous reasons why you can’t replace a tiny bridge. What sort of people are you? By the way, on the last walk I only saw lots and lots of pigeons, and one lonely heron, so much talk of rare birds, they were obviously in hiding!
Gabriela
I echo previous comments, with the amount of “ traffic” on the land train route including fast cyclists, a peaceful walkers route is important. I am sure fundraising efforts could be made to cover the cost. What action is required from BCP to move this forward in 2024, assuming funding would be come from outside of the council?
I feel very strongly that this bridge should be rebuilt as soon as possible. It does appear that its demise is heralded as a relief to all the wildlife community but with little evidence as to the effect on wildlife going forward.. No thought has been given to the enjoyment of many locals and visitors who derive much pleasure in seeing the wildlife associated with this area. The excuses which have been made are somewhat opaque and inadequate, and the view of one small set of people. This area has been used for decades by the general public, and as long as Holloways Dock is kept secure no harm has come to this area. This should be put out as a public consultation. I am certain that funds could be raised and enough for a maintenance programme to be set up.
I just want to say how much we miss the bridge. It’s the only way to really enjoy the harbour if you don’t have a boat. Also seeing the cows “Kevin” and his mates which are only visible from this route. The road traffic is extremely busy – e-scooters also add to the traffic. We love being able to get away from the crowds along this beautiful walk. We just wanted it repaired – now just a simple replacement is needed
I also echo the comments above stop making excuses and rebuild, a peaceful scenic route taking some footfall from the land train route, if the huge tax we pay for our beach huts cannot stretch maybe we could try a fundraiser and go half’s with BCP
Frances said it all- get a grip and replace the bridge- spurious excuses just don’t wash
BCP using their execrable handling of finances as an excuse to replace a bridge that’s been there 40 plus years.
It would seem that it would now constitute a right of way, in which case they must by law, reinstate it and at about £600 a year, I’d consider it a cheap investment!
Stop obfuscating BCP and get on with it!
The removal of the bridge has significantly reduced footfall on the shore line of the harbour reduced erosional pressure. As many of the walkers are dog walkers this has also reduced the impact of dogs on this area. (impact being wild bird disturbance, aquatic life disturbance, fouling, noise etc). I am of the opinion that this is beneficial to the SSSI and therefore do not believe the bridge should be reinstated. For those that wish to enjoy the harbour etc the lack of bridge does not prevent enjoyment of the area as the area is still accessible in both directions, once the river is reached you have two options 1. return the way you came 2. wade. In fact i think for those that do enjoy the harbour the removal of the bridge is actually beneficial its quieter, more peaceful there now.
I must congratulate BCP on the number of reasons they have come up with to avoid spending our money on a facility that so many have enjoyed over the years.
From what Robin Harley says, the foundations of the bridge still exist, does that not mean the new structure could utilise this footprint to rebuild, without all the obstacles put in the way by BCP?
This bridge has to be reinstated, the Harbour Walk is just as much part of Hengistbury Head as the Sand Martin colony. There are decision makers at BCP who know the Cost of everything, but not the Value.
The bridge needs replacing, hopefully a public right of way will be established which will override BCP’s endless list of excuses to delay building a replacement.
They’re giving mixed messages re crabbing at the creek, one hut owner threatened with a fine if he didn’t stop, another told it’s fine to crab there, the orange fence is just a deterrent
Surely, as the bridge has been there so long it is now a right of way and must be reinstated by law! Well being is the buzz word and walking in an area of such lovely scenery should be prioritised. No more excuses please from the the council.
I vote for the bridge to be rebuilt. As a dog walker, in summer months when the main access road down to the spit is traffic heavy with walkers, the road train and cyclist’s, having a more quiet walking route is preferably, and that said the harbour side walk is beautiful all year round.