Skip to main content

Planning – Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

19/02242/MAF | Securing and infilling of the shafts and entrances of Queensbury Tunnel | Queensbury Tunnel Queensbury Bradford West Yorkshire
  • Total Consulted: 23
  • Comments Received: 4978
  • Objections: 4892
  • Supporting: 77
  • View all comments icon

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 4,978|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|

Mr Vincent Rutland (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sat 14 Dec 2019

This tunnel could and should form a key part of the area's green transport strategy. There is no logical reason to pursue its permanent closure and this application should therefore be refused.

Mr Paul McNally (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 10 Dec 2019

It would be of greatest benefit to the area if Queensbury Tunnel were to be permanently opened up as a cycleway connection between Bradford and Halifax.
I totally oppose the proposal of filling it in.

Mr Richard Hill (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 10 Dec 2019

It says much about the state of our nation that we are prepared to sanction the destruction of a national asset at a cost exceeding 7M, when it can be repaired to play a valuable future use for 6.9M.

We need to invest in cycling infrastructure and Queensbury tunnel creates an important connection between Calderdale and Bradford District. The Council cannot allow its considerable potential to be lost in order to satisfy ignorant officials in Highways England.

It's not theirs to abandon. They should invest the money on reopening so the tunnel can repay it through benefits for future generations.

Mr Clive Holmes (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 10 Dec 2019

The tunnel needs to be put to good use as a cycleway, thereby encouraging greater independence from road borne traffic.

Dr Peter Smith (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 09 Dec 2019

The proposal is a serious waste of money that would be better spent repairing the tunnel for public uses. The financial benefit to the local economy would far outweigh the overall cost and that doesn't take into account the environmental and health benefits that would come from its use.

Mr Dennis Barnett (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 09 Dec 2019

I was born and raised in Bradford and I'm still a regular visitor to the Leeds Bradford area and also Howarth. I can see very little merit in spending 6 million on closing this tunnel when for a further 900,000 approximately the tunnel can be saved and converted to a walkway and cycle route for the general public.This clearly has Health and recreational benefits for the general public but also preserves an important piece of industrial architecture for the benefit of the nation. Additionally the tourist industry and the local economy will benefit greatly from the tunnel being reopened, as has happened in Derbyshire with the reopening of the Monsal Dale tunnel tunnel.

Mr Chris Willoughby (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 09 Dec 2019

I object to planning application 19/02242/MAF

The proposal is a distinct loss for the future.
We currently have a sizeable, extensive, bomb proof asset. Whilst relatively small sections are in need of extensive works, the greater part of the tunnel only requires cosmetic reparations. As with all buildings of this era, it is a construction whose life span can only be measured in geological terms.

In its current state there is no cycle traffic through it. If it were opened up cycle traffic would only but increase, and continue to increase with time.
When you go out cycling, you don't go to one place. One goes FROM somewhere TO somewhere. Reopening the Queensbury tunnel would create its own traffic. That is, people would use it, just because it is there.
Doing this would not only create business opportunities around the area, but also attracts people away from their games consoles, to an active pursuit which will only but improve their physical AND mental health.

So much so that West Yorkshire Health Authorities have already actually been issuing cycling on prescription. A trial that was so successful that it is now likely to be rolled out across the UK. BBC Look North carried the story, which then ran on national news:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-50302472

The Monsal Trail runs along a disused railway line in the Peak District from Bakewell almost to Buxton. The line closed in 1968 and all of the tunnels along it were sealed up. Need I say, there was little tourism along it. Walkers mostly, as it was only possible to walk short sections. A bike hire company at Monsal Head did not last long, because there was nowhere to go.

With just 2.25million FOUR tunnels were refurbished and opened to the public. The trail is now VERY popular and, amongst other things, supports TWO cycle hire companies. The trail gives people somewhere to go from, and to. Once opened, the trail created its own tourism, just because it was there.
https://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/visiting/trails/monsaltrail

When opening up one cycle route it can often be joined with another to attract further usage. The Monsal Trail now complements its elder, the nearby Tissington Trail.

Further south, here in Sheffield, there is a growing desire to get the Woodhead tunnels reopened, either for vehicular or cycle and foot traffic. The Chesterfield Canal trust is looking at reopening a tunnel to cross the M1.

Getting old tunnels reopened is not just a local whim, it is a national desire. These things are all over the place, they already exist, can be put to very good use once again, and at little cost.

Negating the 'problems' at Welcome To Yorkshire, the Tour de Yorkshire is now 'a thing'. An annual thing on the international cycling race calendar, with international media coverage. Imagine the exposure, the tourism, and the trade that would be attracted to the area if TdY were to go through the Queensbury tunnel! Get a move on this could be as soon as 2022. Piggy backing the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham perhaps?

In backfilling and abandonning the tunnel, everything will stay the same. In reopening the tunnel it will attract cycling traffic for the next century, and more. Cycling traffic = health benefits and tourism. Tourism = money.

In denying the application to abandon the tunnel, in restoring the tunnel, the greater Bradford area, and its inhabitants can only benefit as it attracts users and tourists from far afield.

Negating the recent "emergency" works, the tunnel is currently an open structure through the land. Therefore to fill in the tunnel, there must be an overwhelming reason to do so.

To say the projected cost for abandonment have varied over the years would be an understatement. It is usually the case that as time progresses build costs increase, partly as a function of inflation. Inversely, the costs for abandonment here have gone down, which either suggests someone doesn't know what they're doing with a spreadsheet, or does not know the actual cash value of works required. Do the authors of this application understand their own proposal?

Which ever set of figures one compares, refurbishing the tunnel is always less than the cost of closing it. Once again, reopening it will generate cash. Closing it will generate no cash.

Jacobs own concluding statement which proposes why the tunnel SHOULD be closed states "priority is to ensure that the tunnel's condition is stabilised, in the interest of safety, and does not continue indefinitely as a liability to the public purse"

That statement is not a reason TO close it.
That statement is also a reason to reopen it.
To reopen the tunnel will stabilise the tunnel and, not only ensure it does not continue as a liability to the public, but that it will CONTRIBUTE to the purse.
The key sentence in the justification for the application to close the tunnel, actually demonstrates the reason to reopen the tunnel.


I OBJECT to the application to infill and closure of the Queensbury railway tunnel.

Mr Neil Whitaker (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 09 Dec 2019

More walking and cycling infrastructure is needed and to abandon this amazing piece of engineering close it for ever and deny it to people in the future is wrong. There are also likely to be social, economic and tourism benefits to the region from making this tunnel available - especially as part of a cycling/walking route. Abandonment of the tunnel so there is no public benefit from it, or from the public money to be spent on it, is wrong

Mr Roger Wilkinson (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 09 Dec 2019

The tunnel is a valuable asset for future cycle path usage. The tunnel should not be abandoned.

Mr James Wilson (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sun 08 Dec 2019

I object to this scheme.

Showing 1-10 of 4,978|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|

an Idox solution