Local councillors have aired concerns over the impact on rural villages near Nantwich amid a new weight restriction on a bridge on the busy A530.
The 7.5T restriction came into force today on Baddington Old Railway Bridge on the Whitchurch Road just a few hundred yards after leaving Nantwich.
The bridge is owned by The Historic Railways Estate (HRE) spanning the old Nantwich to Market Drayton railway line.
Cheshire East said a recent inspection showed the bridge “cannot safely carry very heavy vehicles”.
It means heavy vehicles like lorries and coaches and buses will be diverted, with many fearing drivers will attempt ‘rat runs’ down narrow lanes through quiet villages.
There is no end date stated for the weight restriction, which could be in place for months if not years.
Cllr Rachel Bailey, of Audlem Ward, has joined Wrenbury Ward Cllr James Pearson in airing concerns at the impact the restriction will have.
She said: “The bridge sits within Sound and District Parish Council and the Cheshire East Audlem Ward.
“As its councillor I supported Sound PC in a recent site visit with Highways Officers at the Bridge, predominantly focussed on road safety but also raised concern as to ‘state of the bridge’ and potential impact of closure of the A530.
“Along with parish councillors, I have worked to ensure that, as far as possible, local logistic firms are notified of this limit in advance of its implementation.
“Both myself and James Pearson, Wrenbury Ward Councillor, have secured a meeting with CE Highways in the coming week.
“While the proposed diversionary route the A49 and A534 seeks to protect our rural villages and roads, we are concerned that a timely solution for the bridge is now actively sourced and seek assurance as to regular maintenance/attention to diversionary signage and how the proposed diversion route will be enforced.
“Also, how CE will protect the network of rural lanes including the risk of ‘rat runs’, how it will work with police and fire services in this regard to protect road safety, how CE will continue to engage with businesses and with local Parish Councils.
“I also hope to meet with representatives of affected Parish Councils this week to hear their views and thoughts, particularly as to how the likelihood of ‘rat runs’ can be mitigated.”
The Cheshire East Council diversion put in place takes vehicles along the A49 and then along the A534 via Faddiley and Burland and to the A51 at Reaseheath back into Nantwich.
But many fear despite this vehicles will use other routes like the A525 via Burleydam and Audlem, and A529 via Hankelow and Hatherton.
The Bridge was built in 1860, it had weight limit of 15 tonnes. There was a sign there in the 1960’s when we were train spotting stating that. We are now paying the price for the cuts made by Dr Beeching, all the cuts he made never saved any money. The frieght needs to go back on the railway, this would save millions of pounds because the motorways and highways wouldn’t need the atention that they are getting now. The freight can be moved on the railways at off peak times. A locomotive can pull a tremendous amount of freight quickly with very little effort. The A530 in general is not suitable for HGV’S if they meet each other on a bend, one has to give way to other or they will it each other.
The one thing this issue has done…..
Reduced dramatically HGVs using. A530 from A500 to the turning on park road.
Those who live along and just off this main route are enjoying a much quieter life.
Nantwich must have a southerly by pass from the A 500 to the main Whitchurch road. The volume of traffic that used this route can’t be sustainable.
I can assure readers that the weight restriction will not attract any increased enforcement and that overweight vehicles will continue to use the bridge.
Cheshire East Council might well have imposed a weight restriction but it has no enforcement powers whatsoever.
Its all well and good,but coming from Whitchurch you have signs up follow diversion namely the little triangle???
But there isn’t a diversion in site,
going toward this bridge.
Twice this week I was routed that way from 2 different destinations and it sent me over the bridge.
Not by choice, but there isn’t anywhere to turn round or even turn only maybe a really narrow lane which lgv can’t get down anyways.
Going over the bridge and thought town you then see diversion and cameras everywhere.
Or is this an easy money making scheme??
Please show me proof of the diversion.
I’ve been down and checked again and passenger video this and no diversion.
I will be taking this evidence to court if I get prosecuted.
Who is policing this weight limit…
40 ton trucks are still using this route over the weak bridge….. mainly going back and too … the feed mill at Aston…
Drivers and the company they work for should be prosecuted,
The weight restriction has been implemented – the A529 Nantwich to Audlem road is now a heavy goods rat run.
It is not safe to attempt to cross the road, noise pollution has increased dramatically and the children who walk to and from Brine Leas School and Broad Lane School are in danger. CEC has not considered putting in pedestrian crossings.
This redirection of heavy goods vehicles is an accident waiting to happen.
Who will be held accountable?
The weight restriction on Baddington Old Railway Bridge is a necessary safety measure, but it highlights a deeper, long-standing issue. The bridge has been deteriorating for years, and the surrounding road network —T junction at the end of Park Road and Peter Destapleigh Way— are already under strain. A southern bypass linking the A530, A529, A51, and A500 would offer a sustainable solution, easing pressure on Nantwich and protecting rural villages from increased traffic. When will Cheshire East stop these quick fixes and start to invest in a long-term infrastructure strategy.
Is this “ban” going to include all those thundering great agricultural tractor and trailers that weigh a lot more than 7.5 tons?
If you dismantle the bridge and tarmac the rail line, then you will be left with a 15 foot cliff edge either side. Like No stated, the entire road probably 100m or so either side would need to be lowered gradually sloping downward and back up again, that could cost a few million pounds maybe.
I would think that whoever owns the bridge should be liable for the full cost of immediate repairs or rebuilding. Just my thoughts, doesn’t mean I’m right of course 😁
It’s a disused railway line with a bridge… Surely it doesn’t even need to be there?
Its all well you saying just tarmac it all the bridge is listed and cant just be pulled down. And then the road whould need lowing whould it not you did not think your remake though befor u shouted pull it down. You have to redo the whole road where the bridge is how is the road ment to cross the old line huh bridge is there for a reson as one day the line might be reopened. So think befor u comment.
This is part of a much wider problem, the connection of the A530 to A51/A500 a number of years ago (in conjunction with the Cronkinson farm housing estates) brought an unprecedented increase in LGV traffic along the A530 on roads/junctions never designed for such volumes and categories. Either repairing or flattening the bridge will both be expensive options and perhaps outside of the immediate CEC budget?…….Plenty of time then for a much needed re-think of the local highway strategy!
Doesn’t common sense prevail within Cheshire East Council. This has been an ongoing issue for years with subsidence at Sound side of the bridge. If the owners can’t pay for it to be fixed, pull it down tarmac over the railway line, job done. You could always put a cattle crossing / traffic lights on it to allow the historic railway estate access. Don’t forget this is the council that had one of the worst rutted roads in Britain by Wrenbury Level crossing, now the Nantwich side of Baddington bridge road is quickly becoming their follow up act.
The A51 needs looking into by CEC, as that whole stretch of road is a nightmare as regards heavy goods vehicles, speeding traffic, road accidents, increasing road deaths etc etc. The list is not exhaustive.