Report and Recommendation Following a Village Survey January-February 2008
Table of Contents
The Authors of This Survey Report
Attitude towards the Authorities
The Authors of this Survey Report
This survey is one of the initiatives taken by a small group of like-minded residents of Colwall, who are concerned about the problems associated with Colwall Railway Bridge.
The group is non-elected, and therefore non-representational. Though membership has varied, a core number has been constant over time. As a non-elected group, its activities are not political except in the sense of a commitment to influence decision makers responsible for the Bridge. We have no Party Political bias, nor agenda.
The Group’s only goal therefore is:
To influence decision makers in any way possible in order to speedily resolve the CRISIS that exists in Colwall caused by the deterioration of the Bridge over the railway.
The group is clear about its place within the democratic process, and consistently keeps our locally elected body, the Parish Council, informed of our activities, through the Chair of Colwall Parish Council.
For the purpose of identity only, we refer to ourselves as “The Bridge Action Group.”
A simple questionnaire consisting of three key questions, and allowing space for written comments to be added, was designed and published. Survey forms were planned to seek anonymous contributions, the feeling behind this being to encourage openness.
One thousand forms were published. In addition, around two hundred and fifty forms were circulated electronically using an existing network.
The Printed version was distributed via the following centres:
- The Village Primary School - Just Desserts - Newman’s of Colwall - Village Library - The Crown Inn - The Pharmacy - Goodwin’s - Peter Peddlingham’s - Provisions of Colwall - Colwall Park Hotel
Each centre was able to display a Poster, and a collection Box. A Poster was also placed on the Main Village Notice Board.
The Survey was conducted between 19th January and 5th February 2008.
Collation consisted of a simple number count for the Questionnaire responses, the totals being reported in the Results section of this report.
Where written responses have been returned, these have been analysed for recurring themes. Once identified, each response was analysed in terms of (a) frequency of response to a theme, and (b) the level of intensity of the response. Thus results include both quantitative data as illustrated from the three questions and the recurrence of a theme; and qualitative data, as ascertained from the written comments.
The reader, especially anyone who is an influencer or decision maker regarding Colwall Bridge, needs to recognise that some of the comments received are not necessarily based upon factual information. Nonetheless, perception is real for the perceiver and, as such, influences the strength of feeling conveyed. In addition, lack of factual information is itself a contributor to these comments, and is a major bone of contention amongst the Villagers. The Report is written without prejudice.
The written responses were analysed and the following themes emerged:
- Safety – sub-divided into: * Pedestrians and cyclists * Hairpin Bends on The Wyche * The Lanes and Diversion Routes * The Chicane on the Bridge
- Local Businesses
- Attitude to the Authorities – sub-divided into: * Colwall Parish Council * Herefordshire Council * Network Rail
- Suggested Solutions
- Suggested Actions
Some residents have used the opportunity to raise areas of concern other than related to the Bridge. These have been included under:
- Other Issues Raised (Appendix 3.)
Further sections to conclude are
- Conclusions and - Recommendations
Results: General Synopsis
The total number of respondents is 476. Given that there are approximately 1200 dwellings in Colwall, this represents a very high return rate of almost 40%. In a survey of this kind, a return of 25%, or 300, would be considered high.
The known youngest commentator is eight, and the oldest known, ninety two years of age. This demonstrates that concerns are spread across a wide spectrum of residents.
The total number of written responses is 261 – over half of all returned. One return was deemed as “spoilt”, on account of the manner in which it was completed, and the language used!
Results generally are indicative of strong negative views concerning the past and present predicament. A highly significant number of responses indicate a widely spread sense of anger and resentment at what has occurred. Comments also reveal a pessimistic view of the future, first in terms of an early solution and secondly, the impact upon the quality of life in the village.
The person who commented: - “You are killing Colwall, its shops and village life” portrayed the same sentiments of many others.
For one respondent, “….enough is enough.” and he is planning accordingly: -
“Mismanaged, misguided and miserable in their dealing with rural requirements…. No, I’ll look elsewhere for premises for my business and think more about moving on to somewhere without a road block in the centre of my daily comings and goings.”
It is interesting to note that many respondents’ comments are based upon events covering a two-, or as in most cases, a four-year period. One respondent, and ex-Parish Councillor, provides evidence covering a longer period: -
“When the bridge failed its inspection in 2002, Herefordshire Council informed us that we would need a new bridge as soon as possible. They paid us a visit to let us know that they would construct a footbridge (to solve the safe children to school problem), then knock down the old bridge and replace it. We should be prepared for 3 to 5 weeks with no road transport; they assured us that the relief roads (e.g. Flapgate Lane) would be upgraded so that they could cope.”
This is a very revealing statement, and if true, throws an even greater level of incredulity on the whole saga of the bridge. The Authors have not yet had time to research this further, but intend to do so.
For information, our current version of the Timeline can be seen at Appendix 2.
Results: Question 1 How acceptable is the current arrangement on the bridge?
Responses reveal: -
220 Totally unacceptable 143 Not reasonable 107 O.K. for now 3 Reasonable 3 Totally acceptable
Of those recording “O.K. for now”, a significant number added written responses clarifying what they meant by “now”. These ranged from “a couple of weeks” to “one or two months at most”. Related comments include “it’s better than nothing”
Results: Question 2 We do not have a definite timetable either for the temporary Bailey bridge, or for a new replacement bridge. What are your views about this?
Responses were: - 440 Totally dissatisfied 27 Slightly dissatisfied 5 No view either way 1 Slightly satisfied 3 Totally satisfied
The majority of those who had no view either way indicated that they were not residents of Colwall, but either visited on a regular basis, had children attending school in the village, or worked here.
Results: Question 3 Herefordshire County Council has pledges about “Putting People First” and “Providing for Our Communities”. How well do you think these pledges are being met in our village?
327 Not met at all 132 Not really met 9 No view either way 8 Slightly met 0 Totally met
Interestingly, one of the three respondents who reported Totally acceptable and Totally satisfied to Questions 1 and 2, felt pledges were Not met at all.
Results of Questionnaire – Discussion
As previously mentioned, results indicate that villagers have strong negative views concerning the consequences brought about by the deterioration of the bridge. The responses to Question 2 are highly significant, there being a 92% return on “Totally dissatisfied” that there is no definite timetable.
It is our view that this contributes to the feelings of frustration, suspicion and doubt that is contained in the written responses: -
“Pledges given by responsible people at the bridge meeting have not been met”
“…little confidence in the desire of HCC to resolve the situation.”
“What can POSSIBLY be the problem??????” “This is an appalling mess.”
Overall, of 476 returns, 90% indicated that they were dissatisfied, scoring negatively on all three questions. Of this 90% overall, the overall percentage indicating total dissatisfaction was 69%.
The composite bar chart below showing all results illustrates the point that villagers hold strong negative views on the subject of the bridge.
Results: Written Responses
Of 476 returns, 261 respondents elected to contribute written comments – more than half.
We were profoundly impressed by these accounts. They were thoughtful, and in many cases passionate. The Villagers care about Colwall.
Safety
Safety issues include complaints about arrangements, and include a number of sub-components. These are reported in no particular order.
Perhaps the most vociferous comments relate to
The Chicane On The Bridge
The following themes were often repeated: -
“Height restriction ridiculous”
“Small gaps means many still use the lanes”
“Totally unacceptable and unnecessary …Bottleneck at school time”
“It is a blight on our village”
“We require a safe bridge that will give access to the Ambulance Service and tradesmen’s vans.”
“The footpath is totally unsafe for users, especially children”
“……..accident waiting to happen”
“Pedestrian route too narrow and uneven for wheelchairs”
“I am one (of the many Colwall Residents) who has seriously damaged my car whilst driving over the bridge.”
“One has the clear impression that the current arrangement was provided under protest and only to avoid complete outrage and without any intention to provide more than bare minimum in terms of access and safety.”
One respondent takes up the last point in detail. We reproduce a significant part of this in the event of others deciding to follow suit.
“The bridge was recently opened to light traffic and whilst signage states a weight limit, it does not state max width or just how tight a chicane one needs to manoeuvre around this, whilst crossing the bridge.
Once through the initial portion one is then committed to keep going forward!
This structure is totally unsatisfactory and is clearly causing damage to vehicles on a regular basis. Indeed when I took my car to the local garage for damage assessment I was advised that that garage alone had seen four other vehicles that week with similar damage caused by the bridge. This was the FIRST week of the bridge reopening. One wonders how many other garages are also having visits from unwary drivers for the same reason.
There is much talk in the village about how ridiculous and difficult the bridge is to negotiate and it appears that a good number of cars have now suffered damage trying to negotiate this chicane.
The reasons why I am therefore holding the Council responsible are as follows:
1 There are NO warnings as
to the width or difficulty of the bridge structure
2 It is foreseeable by any normal individual that the layout and
structure of the chicane is going to result in damage to a great many
vehicles, and therefore the council is negligent in the design of
chicane.
3 They have left no room for reasonable manoeuvrability or margin for
error.
4 Once committed to the bridge there is no possibility of backing out
and one is forced to go on, by the layout, the traffic light system and
cars behind.
5 The chicane is of an unforgiving construction.
6 Warning signs about the sheer difficulty in manoeuvring the crossing
are none existent.
7 Small cars have been seen struggling to cross, the larger cars such
as my Jaguar have therefore little chance of success.
I have taken photos of the bridge layout, which shows the lack of warning signs and the tight chicane.
I am sure that the Council will receive compensation claims from other drivers and insurers; therefore you may wish to share your statistics with other insurers.”
The author included his name.
Another respondent writes: - “The current route over the Bridge has not been assessed and reported on by a Road Safety Advisor which is an appalling oversight and leaves the Council open to claims.”
A significant number indicate that they dare not cross the bridge, and resort once again to using the lanes.
Hairpin Bends on The Wyche
A significant number of responses recorded concern about Heavy Goods Vehicles having to negotiate the hairpin bends.
Some of these include residents adjacent to these bends, and who are distressed at the prospect of an H.G.V. falling onto their property. Other concerns include:
“….lorries blocking the route for over seven hours.”
“Blocked Hairpin bends makes Colwall Stone inaccessible to emergency vehicles except by a long detour.”
“There will be a serious or fatal accident or accidents on the hairpin bend or elsewhere on the H.G.V. diversion. It could happen any day, and affect someone’s life for ever.”
The Lanes and Diversion Routes
These comments were concerned about the impact on the environment as well as safety.
Numerous comments referred to personal harrowing experiences whilst taking the lanes detour when the bridge was closed. A pregnant Mother with two young children in the car was forced off the road by lorries in Flapgate Lane and became stuck in mud until rescued.
Further comments include:
“I feared deeply for the safety of my family and myself, and for everybody in the village. (Resident of Flapgate Lane)”
“………..large increase in traffic (Evendine Lane)”
“Very large vehicles – not made for small roads.”
“Please do not close the bridge because driving on the back roads was very dangerous.”
Another commented on the increase in traffic along Chase Road, especially buses that are forced to use that route. This report praised the bus drivers. A bus driver comments that the Council does not seem to put a value on the extra time it takes folk from Colwall to travel to Ledbury
Residents of Flapgate Lane, Chase Road and Evendine Lane all report a considerable deterioration in quality of life because of the increase in traffic, and the deterioration of the road surfaces, and the verges.
others write:
“The Council seems to have forgotten the commitment to inspect the condition of the alternative route monthly, since the partial re-opening.”
“Large vehicles do most damage and they are still using Church Lane, Chase Road and Colwall Green Eastside.”
“I am afraid the sight of several huge “Eddie Stobart” lorries in succession, ‘forcing’ themselves up Flapgate Lane and by my little cottage – will be a lasting memory……………the whole lane is in a terrible condition….almost as if “TANK PRACTICE” has taken place.”
Considerable concern has been shown toward the Farmers and local business people who have to cope with the proliferation of traffic, and deteriorating road surfaces.
Several commented on the inevitable increase in Colwall’s carbon footprint.
Pedestrians and Cyclists
Numerous comments were received concerning these issues, the most obvious area of concern involving disquiet about the bridge chicane.
“The footpath is totally unsafe for users, especially children.”
“It is only a matter of time before a child is hit on the bridge. With people (drivers) watching their inside wing to avoid scrapes their attention is diverted from the children on the pavement only inches in front of the car.”
“………….force a sensible solution through before that one (who is responsible for the chicane) has a death to think about for the rest of their life.”
“Yet again cyclists have been marginalised: required to push their bikes on the pavements, in awkward conflict with pedestrians, push chairs etc.”
Frequently respondents recorded being unable now to walk or cycle along the lanes around Colwall because of the increase in traffic, deterioration of the mettalling of the road, and the amount of mud that is spread across the surface.
Local Businesses
A major concern of villagers is the plight of local businesses
Clearly, any community requires the facilities of local businesses.
Over the years, Colwall has witnessed a gradual reduction in the services available. We no longer have a bank, petrol station nor post office.
The railway station is seen as an important resource, as is the Coca Cola factory.
The bridge problems, in addition to personal disruptions has also raised the concerns of villagers who support local businesses, and view them as an essential ingredient of a thriving community.
The consequences of these concerns are reflected: -
“Mayhem for the community …… suffer, especially the shops.”
“… not serving our village businesses. What are you doing about our local businesses? The traders have been very let down.”
“…dreadful effect on the village economically, socially and psychologically.”
“The situation, at present, is still deterring people from using Colwall shops and businesses.”
Within the returns, Council tax rebate for businesses has strong support.
Business people themselves report very considerable “down-turn” caused by the “bridge fiasco”.
At least one business has decided to re-locate. (As reported in the General Comments Section).
Some business folk have received a far from sympathetic hearing from County Councillors (as reported in the Attitude to Authorities Section).
Actual figures show an average 30% decrease in revenue generation. Even Colwall Surgery has been impacted.
Yet another small business, dependent upon seasonal visitors reports total losses in 2007 over 2006 amounting to around £17,500, seeing many group bookings cancelled over that period.
A Bed and Breakfast owner reports “… zero visitors since the Bridge fiasco started.”
Attitudes to Authorities
Of all the themes analysed for this report, by far the most frequent, and most intensive response, relate to attitudes towards the Authorities.
These amount to around 70% of the written responses.
The authorities identified were: - - Colwall Parish Council - Herefordshire Council - Network Rail
A small number refer to the local MP.
Some respondents refer to more than one authority in their comments: -
“Throughout, the attitude of and response of the authorities, rail and local, has been truculent and unresponsive.”
“One can have little confidence in the authorities’ ability or willingness to tackle the future any better than the past or present.”
“Confidence in those paid and appointed to guard and further our interest is nil.”
“Their failure (NR and HCC) to monitor the decay more closely after its initial discovery some years ago borders on the verge of criminal neglect.”
“The HCC along with NR have had years to plan ahead, and to consider the effect on the Colwall community.”
“The problem appears to be a total lack of planning by the Council, together with absence of co-ordination with Network Rail.”
“The inability of Network Rail and Herefordshire County Council to resolve this issue is totally unacceptable.”
“Network Rail are displaying a total lack of social responsibility, and Herefordshire County Council a total ineptitude.”
Attitudes toward Colwall Parish Council were generally positive, but not universally so: -
“…Colwall is a dying village, and it seems to me that our Parish Council and a few of the more prominent and community-concerned residents are the only people working on behalf of the village.”
“…we need all the Parish Councillors to get behind this, and the recent press coverage reporting some councillors not in favour of a Bailey bridge was disappointing.”
On a very supportive note, on 17th January 2008, Mathon Parish Council agreed that “The present situation regarding the Bridge at Colwall is totally unacceptable. Mathon Parish Council would support any initiative to persuade the authorities to re-open the bridge so that it is once again fully operational.”
Herefordshire Council
Attitudes toward Herefordshire Council however, around 60% of written responses, were universally negative. Statements frequently mentioned: -
“… poor communication”
“Delay unacceptable”
“Don’t care about Colwall”
“Taking too long – no solution in sight”
“It’s time there was a deadline”
“No sense of urgency”
Many returns indicate how well informed villagers are: -
“While H.C. documents, e.g. [agenda note for a Cabinet Meeting of 13th December 2007] seem to indicate they now grasp the impact of the closure of the bridge on the community (and, maybe more tellingly, on their credibility), it has taken far too long.”
“’Herefordshire Council is dysfunctional and fractured.’ (Crookall Report)”
The following comments indicate the general feeling toward Herefordshire Council: -
“This is the only route through a large village – surely it can’t be beyond the wit of the Council to keep it open.”
“Herefordshire County Council are completely incompetent. This mostly seems to be caused by useless management. Our representatives appear to be incapable of getting any action in favour of Colwall.”
“What we have to put up with is a mixture of mendacity, inefficiency and time wasting.”
“If anyone votes for the current H.C.C. members representing this Ward again, they need their heads examined.”
“Hereford(shire) Council are pathetic! How do we know when if ever, the bridge is going to be fixed?”
“It concerns us that Hereford County Council will drag their heels unless they are constantly ‘hounded’”.
“Initial inspection and subsequent total closure recommendation was made by an individual engineering consultant, and the following survey and report by the same person – very slow progress, and conclusion supporting the initially inspection very likely!”
“I find the inability of the Council to be effective and deliver such a basic infrastructure project amazing.”
“I am a business owner in Colwall and have had very negative feedback from local “County Councillors”, and in one instance was told I should “get on my bike …… and stop making so much fuss about the closure of the bridge.”
Attitudes to Network Rail, while less vociferous than those aimed at Herefordshire Council, are negative. The following give a general indication of the content: -
“…dragging their feet. The whole matter is a total disgrace.”
“Our village is being torn apart by the so-called Council and Network Rail.”
“Why wasn’t the structural fault repaired two years ago?”
“…fear that if Network Rail are pushed too hard they will close the line.”
The remarks about the structural failure were also linked on some occasions with queries about Network Rail’s social responsibility.
Member of Parliament
The small number of comments regarding our local M.P. recognise his efforts in attempting to remedy the situation. Some however feel that less talk and more action would be appropriate.
Solutions and Actions
The frustrations of many villagers are reflected in the numerous proposals for Solutions and Actions.
Since these will be the subject of discussion at our Village Meeting, many (but not all) examples are included here.
“I for one would be very happy to pursue the local authorities should any person(al) injuries be caused to a member of the local community.”
“Does the M of T have an emergency fund? Can we raid that?”
“If HCC can’t manage to keep our highways maintained …… they should be replaced by an organisation which can …… and NO compensation to the incompetent.”
“…people in Colwall cancel Direct Debit mandate for Council Tax – send 12 equal instalments instead.”
“Coca Cola should also bear part of the blame and should be looking to help find a solution.”
“…Schweppes – use a railway siding.”
“All withhold Council Tax”
“Mass parade and occupy Council offices”
“Spray Council offices with liquid manure”
“Find out where Councillors live and find ways to make their local travel difficult”
“Apply to be affiliated to Malvern and become part of Worcestershire”
“Don’t vote for Councillors / M.P. next time.”
“Organise a “sit-in” at the railway station to stop a train leaving and have sufficient publicity to raise the whole issue to a national level.”
“Unmanned level crossing.”
“You have my full support for anything you wish to instigate to resolve our present predicament.”
“No point in spending half a million pounds (on a temporary solution).”
“Get the Army in.”
“About time a permanent solution put in place.”
“Bailey bridge a waste of time.”
“Absolute nonsense – just build a replacement NOW.”
“Open up the railway sidings for Coca Cola freighting.”
“Level crossing, i.e. no bridge, with warden controlled crossing for people at school times.”
“A Bailey bridge is crucial.”
“Can I withhold Council Tax until the bridge is up and running?”
“Get the road haulage lobby onto this in some way.”
“Claim against HCC for damage to car.”
“Village sit-in at the railway station.”
“The whole Herefordshire Council management team are incompetent and need to be sacked.”
“Rate and Council Tax rebates.”
“NOT dropping loose masonry onto the railway line.”
“Refuse to pay full Council Tax.”
“Everybody ring HCC on a daily basis.”
"Complain to the Ombudsman.”
“Major rally in Hereford city centre, with a march to disrupt Council activities and calling for dismissals.”
It is obvious from these examples that feelings are indeed running high. Frustration and susceptibilities can be witnessed from such remarks as “NOT dropping loose masonry onto the railway line”. The author recognised that this action would be dangerous and foolhardy, yet was seemingly consumed by the desire to do something that would precipitate action.
Conclusions
We set out with the intention of discovering how people were feeling following “The Great Meeting on the Bridge” in October 2007.
A simple questionnaire was designed, with the option to add unstructured written comments. The survey forms were dispensed, and later collected, from various centres throughout Colwall village. Though planned as anonymous, many returns included names, and in some cases, addresses.
The questionnaires, when collated, clearly indicate a high level of dissatisfaction with the current situation. Out of 476 returns, 363 found this to be Not reasonable (143), or Totally unacceptable (220).
That no timetable exists stimulated an even greater response: 467 reported Slightly dissatisfied (27) or Totally dissatisfied (440).
In relation to Herefordshire Council’s pledges about “Putting People First” and “Providing for Our Communities”, 459 reported either Not really met (132) or Not met at all (327).
These results indicate strong negative views concerning events following “The Great Meeting on the Bridge.”
The option to contribute unstructured written responses was designed to investigate major themes that villagers might have. Not surprisingly, given the results of the questionnaire, these turned out to be negative also.
This data has been analysed to see what the major themes were, the frequency with which they recurred, and the level of intensity experienced.
The most significant theme was “Attitudes to the Authorities”; around 70% of respondents commenting on this theme.
The level of intensity too was highly significant, as can be deduced from the comments included in this report. These were samples, not selections.
Villagers and business people alike are angry, frustrated and perplexed. In compiling this report we have many such comments as, “I have no expertise in weight loading on the bridge, but…”. Further respondents, however, do have expertise.
An ex-Assistant County Surveyor, who has had responsibility for Bridge Design and Maintenance, writes: -
“I cannot understand why Colwall Railway Bridge was left 2 1/2 years (after imposing one-way loading under traffic lights) before re-inspection or planning for its repair, strengthening or replacement …… I cannot accept that it was because of joint responsibilities ……. This is not a big engineering problem, and I understand that the money is available.”
These remarks by an expert are echoed by a highly significant number of non-experts, and can be summarised as: -
“Why has this been allowed to happen?”
“Why wasn’t something done ages ago?”
“What of the future? The village is being torn apart.”
Recommendations
These recommendations, aimed at Key Influencers and Decision Makers in relation to the Bridge in Colwall, are based upon due considerations of the results of the Village Survey, and also further anecdotal evidence from previous public meetings.
1. We require a climate of co-operation with and between the Authorities concerned. The Villagers of Colwall have a right to be “Served”, not simply told what might or might not happen.
2. We recommend a Crisis Meeting be called to include all relevant authorities involved, to facilitate a solution to be implemented immediately, namely: -
3. A safe and practical route for cars and pedestrians over the existing bridge.
4. The construction of a NEW Bridge that is both functional for unrestricted two-way traffic and aesthetically fitting to this beautiful area of Herefordshire; this in addition to: -
5. A footbridge for the schoolchildren as a temporary measure whilst construction is ongoing; and: -
6. An improvement to signage, and repair to the lanes that would be used during the construction period.
We expect a New Bridge to be in place by the end of May 2008 at the latest.
7. Immediate compensation to local businesses to cover the 30% decrease in business, back-dated to 15th August 2007 (the date when the Bridge was totally closed to all traffic).
8. A public apology, particularly from Herefordshire Council, to the Villagers of Colwall, and the
9. surrounding villages such as Mathon, for the disruption that has occurred.
In the event of these recommendations not being met, continuing public protests and demonstrations are inevitable, and, as a significant number of Villagers have indicated, voting at the next election will bring about a change in representation.