logo
North Wales bridge swept away in storm won't be replaced over water supply fears

North Wales bridge swept away in storm won't be replaced over water supply fears

Plans to replace a bridge destroyed in a storm have been scrapped. Denbighshire County Council cabinet yesterday voted to abandon plans to replace Llanerch Bridge which was destroyed during Storm Christoph in 2021, when the River Clwyd burst its banks.
Council officers warned that if they drilled into the riverbed, it could contaminate a water supply to 85,000 homes.
That's because the old bridge, which connected Trefnant and Tremeirchion, was above a vital freshwater aquifer that Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water uses to supply drinking water to residents.
Councillors heard how drilling into sandstone layers could create fissures, contaminating the lake.
Paul Jacksons, the council's head of highways and environmental services. said: 'There's not been a design solution that has been found that completely removes the risk to that water asset.
Sign up for the North Wales Live newsletter sent twice daily to your inbox.
'Therefore, the detailed design stage has concluded that it is not possible to construct a new bridge without the required foundations penetrating the weathered section of sandstone and putting a potential fissure in the aquifer, and again, interrupting that water supply.
'Welsh Water has stated that drilling into the aquifer would ultimately create a pathway for the risk of the water supply being contaminated, and that could lead to several factors, including risk and safeguarding their customers.
'It is a public health risk, and Welsh Water has stated that should the risk come to fruition, rectifying the issues created by drilling into the ground would be far from straightforward and extremely costly to resolve. It may not even be feasible to repair if we drill a physical pathway into the aquifer.'
He added: 'They consider this to be extremely high risk, and they would suggest we don't go ahead with this project.'
Mr Jackson said every design possible had been considered.
Last week, backbench councillors Chris Evans and James Elson argued about the inconvenience and extra cost to residents, raising the solution of a temporary bridge.
The pair said not building a bridge drastically affected the lives of residents in Tremeirchion, Rhuallt, Bodfari, Cwm, as well as those in Trefnant, Denbigh, Henllan, and Ruthin, particularly with the rise in the cost of fuel.
£1.5 million of Welsh Government funds has already been spent on the design work of the project.
Speaking at the meeting, Cllr Alan James also raised the matter of building a temporary bridge.
But Mr Jackson said a temporary bridge would still require the same foundations, so the risk would remain, arguing the proposal was unfeasible.
'Residents want a bridge'
Leader Cllr Jason McLellan warned the cabinet: 'If we go ahead and start construction, knowing the risk to the damage to the aquifer, we essentially owe a duty of care to Welsh Water's customers that their water supply won't be affected, and quite clearly the advice is that it might be, so that chain of events would mean that we would be negligent and liable.
'We haven't got insurance, so we wouldn't be able to go through the insurance route. We would be liable, and it could potentially be millions. You think what the number of days without water looks like, without the ability to run a tap, boil the kettle, flush your toilet, have a shower. What does that look like for 85,000 homes after two days, three days, four days a week. Our liability would be off the scale.'
Mr Jackson said the council would improve the road network, with £950,000 already secured from Welsh Government to upgrade 'alterative routes' and the diversion to make it 'more pleasurable for commuters'.
But Cllr James Elson said the council had promised the residents a bridge.
'We must deliver on that promise,' he said.
He added there must be a solution such as a single-track bridge or a temporary 'pre-fabricated' bridge set on benches without drilling. He said the cost of such a bridge would be less than the £1.5m Denbighshire had already spent, claiming he had been given a quote by a construction company two years ago.
Mr Jackson reiterated a temporary bridge wasn't possible, explaining a bridge without foundations could present a danger to 'life and limb' during a flood.
Cllr Chris Evans then echoed Cllr Elson's comments.
'There has been very little engagement from Denbighshire Council, which has had a detriment to this project,' he said.
'This again has had a massive impact on residents, feeling the bridge is not going to get built. It has been gone for four-odd years, and we have spent, or Welsh Government have spent, £1.5m to get to a set of drawings. I think that issue alone needs to be taken to the audit and governance committee.'
Cllr Evans then claimed that a local building contractor had indicated to him a bridge was possible.
'We have not looked with conviction at the temporary bridge,' he said.
'I don't mean to be disrespectful, but Jones Brothers builds motorways. He is the person that does the job. He is the knowledgeable chap that has looked at that.'
He added: 'The residents want a crossing.'
Cllr Evans added residents and businesses were suffering and children couldn't get to school.
He asked the cabinet to defer the decision so the matter could go to full council.
But Cllr McLellan said that would put Denbighshire in the 'line of fire' for future litigation.
Corporate director Tony Ward said officers couldn't win, having been criticised for spending £1.5m on designs, with it also being suggested they hadn't done enough.
Cllr Gwyneth Ellis questioned whether a smaller bridge would need the same foundations, but Mr Jackson explained the foundations needed were due to the water pressure, not the weight on any bridge.
The cabinet voted unanimously in favour of ceasing work on the project.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Denbighshire criticised for not being tough on fly-tipping
Denbighshire criticised for not being tough on fly-tipping

Rhyl Journal

time17 hours ago

  • Rhyl Journal

Denbighshire criticised for not being tough on fly-tipping

Cllr Chris Evans has urged the local authority to take stronger enforcement action against fly-tippers. He separately called on them to address concerns over rubbish accidentally spilling from council bin wagons. Cllr Evans says some residents are dumping household rubbish next to public bins, only for seagulls and foxes to tear open bin bags, harming both wildlife and farm animals. The Tremeirchion councillor said he has sent emails to Denbighshire Council's heads of service, reporting problems in the village, as well as at St Asaph, Rhuallt, Denbigh, Sodom, on a rural lane between Clawdd-Newydd and Pwllglas, and Moel Famau. 'What we are having a problem with, especially around Rhuallt and rural areas, is that people haven't got enough room in their bins. 'We're seeing people putting household waste in bags by the public bins, and foxes or seagulls are ripping the bags open,' he said. 'Somebody has dumped three mattresses down by the roadside in a rural area. 'Two people were prosecuted from Ruthin. The bin bags are full of rubbish, one of the worst things for rural areas. 'It's disgusting. It is mostly household waste: bread wrappers, cartons. 'A couple of farmers have come to me complaining that their animals are actually digesting the rubbish.' MORE NEWS: Darren Millar: Clwyd West MS to appear on episode of BBC Question Time Prestatyn Pride to be held for first time this weekend: what to expect Rhyl's Queen's Market 'starting to take shape' as signage installed Cllr Evans called on Denbighshire to get tough on offenders. 'We need better enforcement of this, to stop animals ripping the bags open and to find the till receipts to identify the people who are doing this, because it is not right,' he said. Cllr Evans said he found multiple debit and credit card receipts in one bin bag for the same household after it had been ripped open by seagulls. 'When I looked, there was a receipt in one of the bags,' he said. 'What are your receipts doing in the bin bag? OK, it might be a fluke finding one receipt in the bag, but two or three?' Cllr Evans also raised concerns about council bin wagons and recycling trucks. 'I've also been seeing a lot more bin wagons and recycling trucks contributing to rubbish falling out of recycling trucks,' he said. 'I've written to the heads of environment at Denbighshire County Council. 'What's happening is they're driving from village to village at 50mph, and the wind is blowing all the rubbish out the back.' He added: 'I had a resident follow a recycling truck from Henllan all the way back to the station in Denbigh a couple of months ago, and the back doors were open.' Denbighshire County Council was contacted for a comment.

Trump's war against the law
Trump's war against the law

New European

time2 days ago

  • New European

Trump's war against the law

The earliest source is the newspaper editor and publisher Horace Greeley's book The American Conflict (1865), which reports Old Hickory's alleged declaration on the basis of a former congressman's recollection. According to Jackson's best biographer, Jon Meacham, the claim was 'historically questionable but philosophically true'. As far as historians can tell, President Andrew Jackson never uttered the threat to the chief justice that is still so frequently attributed to him. In 1832, after the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Cherokee nation in Worcester v Georgia, Jackson supposedly said: 'John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.' What Jackson did say to his longtime associate, John Coffee, was: 'The decision of the Supreme Court has felt still-born, and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate'. All of which matters because the spirit of Jackson is now routinely invoked by the MAGA movement as Donald Trump wages a fast-escalating war with the courts. As far back as 2021, JD Vance said that his advice to his future boss would be to fire all civil servants: 'And when the courts – because you will get taken to court – and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say: 'The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.'' More recently, on February 9, the vice president posted on X: 'Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power'. In a podcast released on May 21, he warmed to his theme in conversation with Ross Douthat of the New York Times. 'I know this is inflammatory, but I think you are seeing an effort by the courts to quite literally overturn the will of the American people'. Chief justice John Roberts, Vance continued, was failing in his supervision of the judiciary: 'You cannot have a country where the American people keep on electing immigration enforcement and the courts tell the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for. That's where we are right now.' The Democratic Party is in a state of aphasic shock, paralysed by the electoral disaster of November 5. Both houses of Congress are controlled by the Republicans, who, with a tiny number of exceptions, are craven in their obedience to Trump. That leaves journalists, a great many of whom continue, valiantly, to speak truth to power; but do so in the face of increasing intimidation and, in some cases, knowing that their proprietors have business exposure outside the media sector that makes them fearful of Trump. So – in practice – the line that stands between the republic and authoritarianism is judicial. At the time of writing, there have been 251 legal challenges to this administration, whose actions have been halted in at least 181 cases. Time and again, Trump and his senior officials have found themselves obstructed by judges from all over the country whose orders have nationwide force. As the solicitor general, D John Sauer, has complained, this means that the government has 'to win everywhere, while the plaintiffs can win anywhere'. Last Wednesday, the US Court of International Trade ruled against the president's tariff regime, finding that 'the Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive powers to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises' and that 'any interpretation of IEEPA [the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act] that delegates unlimited tariff authority [to the president] is unconstitutional.' Helpfully reposting photos of the three trade court judges, Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, claimed on May 29 that 'We are living under a judicial tyranny'. A federal appeals court last week granted a suspension of the order, meaning that, for now, Trump can pursue his deranged tariff strategy, pending further legal action. On Truth Social, he posted that he hoped 'the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY.' But will it? On Friday, the highest court in the land gave the administration interim approval to revoke a Biden-era humanitarian programme to grant temporary residency to more than 500,000 migrants facing political turmoil or warfare. This 'humanitarian parole' system is intended to help people from countries like Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba and Haiti. On May 19, the supreme court also gave emergency approval to the government to lift the separate 'Temporary Protected Status' from nearly 350,000 Venezuelan migrants. The case is still subject to appeal. But immigration officials may now proceed with mass deportation – perhaps to the Salvadoran gulag. Yet the president and his allies remain furious with the general response of the judiciary to MAGA's egregious 'remigration' plan. On April 7, the supreme court ruled that the government must give 'constitutionally adequate notice' to individuals before their removal under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act; 12 days later, it intervened again, this time in the middle of the night, to block deportations of Venezuelans from Texas under the same antiquated legislation. The court has also ruled that the administration must 'facilitate' the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the 29-year-old migrant who had been living in Maryland for 13 years, sent back to El Salvador after what the government has admitted was an 'administrative error'. In this case, as in many others, Trump and his team have opted for what the US legal scholars Leah Litman and Daniel Deacon refer to aptly as 'legalistic noncompliance': quibbling over what 'facilitate' means precisely, resorting to pedantry and slow-walking action mandated by the courts. With characteristic indifference to the responsibilities of his office – not to mention the oath that he took – the president himself has become an expert in non-expertise, claiming to have insufficient legal knowledge to offer an opinion on even the most basic juristic questions. Asked on NBC's Meet the Press on May 4 whether citizens and non-citizens alike deserved due process, Trump said, 'I don't know. I'm not, I'm not a lawyer.' Pressed by Kristen Welker on the substance of the Fifth Amendment which refers to the rights of the 'person', the president replied: 'It might say that – but if you're talking about that, then we'd have to have a million or two million or three million trials.' In an interview with the Atlantic to mark the first 100 days of his second presidency, Trump insisted that he would abide by any supreme court ruling – but went on to complain that 'we have some judges that are very, very tough. I believe you could have a 100% case – in other words, a case that's not losable – and you will lose violently. Some of these judges are really unfair.' His language was less restrained in a special Memorial Day post on Truth Social in which he attacked 'JUDGES WHO ARE ON A MISSION TO KEEP MURDERERS, DRUG DEALERS, RAPISTS, GANG MEMBERS, AND RELEASED PRISONERS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD, IN OUR COUNTRY SO THEY CAN ROB, MURDER AND RAPE AGAIN – ALL PROTECTED BY THESE USA HATING JUDGES WHO SUFFER FROM AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS SICK, AND VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY'. Which shows that this is a temperamental as well as a constitutional clash. Trump demands instant gratification; the courts exist to deliberate. This incompatibility is now becoming perilous for the republic. Miller, meanwhile, has said that the administration is 'actively looking' at suspending habeas corpus for migrants – the individual's fundamental legal right to challenge his or her detention. In this context, it is worth noting that Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, revealed in a senate committee hearing on May 20 that she completely misunderstood this most basic legal doctrine, defining it as 'a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country.' Even more revealing was what Miller went on to say: 'Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not.' In other words, the government will abide by judges' decisions – as long as they do what the administration wants. Suggested Reading Why do they hate us so much? Jay Elwes In Federalist No 78 (1788), Alexander Hamilton, writing as 'Publius', expressed fears that have rarely seemed more pertinent. The judiciary, he said, was by far the weakest of the three supposedly co-equal branches of government (the other two being the executive and the legislature); having 'no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment'. What were once abstract issues for constitutionalists to debate in the lecture hall are now all too practical and menacing. To start with, Mike Johnson, the House speaker, threatened in March to use the congressional 'power of funding' to 'eliminate an entire district court'. Founded in 2019, the Article III Project (A3P) mobilises thousands of phone calls, emails and social media messages to members of Congress to back Trump against the judiciary and is supporting bills introduced by senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and representative Darrell Issa of California to stop federal district judges from issuing nationwide court orders. More alarming is the surge in outright intimidation of the judiciary. Since Trump's return, unexplained pizza deliveries have been made to federal judges and their families – a way of telling them that their enemies know where they live. Deplorably, many have been made under the name of Daniel Anderl, the son of a federal judge who was murdered in 2020 while protecting his parents from a furious litigant. Judges considered hostile to Trump have also been 'swatted', where a hoax call is made to summon a SWAT team to a particular address – in the hope that heavily armed police officers, following procedure, will inadvertently traumatise whoever is at the location in question. On April 25, Hannah Dugan, a Wisconsin circuit court judge, was arrested and has now been indicted for allegedly assisting an undocumented immigrant in evading arrest. On Friday, 138 former judges filed a legal argument warning that Dugan's indictment 'threatens to undermine centuries of precedent on judicial immunity, crucial for an effective judiciary.' Pam Bondi, the attorney general, takes a different view. 'The [judges] are deranged is all I can think of,' she said on the day of Dugan's arrest. I think some of these judges think that they are beyond and above the law. They are not, and we are sending a very strong message today. If you are harbouring a fugitive, we will come after you and we will prosecute you. We will find you.' Most shocking of all are the formal discussions among senior judges, revealed by the Wall Street Journal, about forming their own armed security force. At present, the Supreme Court is protected by a special police service which it also oversees; other courts, in contrast, deploy US marshals. Notionally, these officers have a statutory duty to follow the judiciary's instructions. In practice, they work for the Department of Justice, and therefore for Bondi. What, in practice, would happen if the Trump administration flagrantly defied the Supreme Court? Thanks to the court's own landmark ruling last July, the president himself enjoys immunity; he could also pardon officials accused of criminal contempt. Another option is civil contempt, which seeks to enforce future compliance (the person in contempt of this kind is said to 'hold the keys to his own cell'). The advantage here is that the courts can deputise other agencies to enforce their rulings. But which agencies, precisely? Which, in this climate of fear, would be willing to risk retribution from MAGA? Chief Justice Roberts is an 'institutionalist' which means that his highest allegiance is to the preservation of the system that protects the constitution. In the words of his biographer Joan Biskupic, 'he elevated the institutional integrity of the Court above all'. And, to be fair to Roberts, he wrote in his most recent end-of-year report: 'Within the past few years… elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the spectre of open disregard for federal court rulings'. When Trump posted in March that a judge frustrating his deportation plan 'should be IMPEACHED!', the chief justice issued a direct rebuke, declaring that this was 'not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.' Yet it is precisely this value-system that may deter Roberts from a direct confrontation with the president. For the institutionalist, the prospect of the Supreme Court appearing impotent before an autocratic president is intolerable. Paradoxically, because such a defeat would shatter his worldview, he will postpone the moment of reckoning as long as he possibly can. But he cannot do so indefinitely. High Noon is approaching, and only one of the gunfighters – president or Supreme Court – can prevail. The outcome of that contest depends on a question of global consequence: whether the US remains, as it has long been, a nation of laws; or becomes something altogether more dangerous.

Go-ahead to demolish outbuilding at St Asaph primary school
Go-ahead to demolish outbuilding at St Asaph primary school

Rhyl Journal

time4 days ago

  • Rhyl Journal

Go-ahead to demolish outbuilding at St Asaph primary school

The proposal, concerning Ysgol Cefn Meiriadog, was granted consent by Denbighshire County Council's planning committee on May 27. Submitted by council officer Andrew Ward, the plans involve the demolition of an existing open-plan unheated building used to store equipment at the school, and replace it with a more substantial building occupying an equivalent area. In total, the site area measures 6,300 square metres. Extracts from a preliminary roost assessment, submitted as part of the application, read; 'The building is accessible all around via a gap between the walls and the roof, just beneath the eaves. 'Consequently, it is used by breeding birds associated with buildings, and three Swallow Hirundo rustica and one House Sparrow Passer domesticus nests were observed within the building. 'The building is not heated, and is lit by overhead strip lighting. 'The building to be demolished has minimal potential for roosting bats, due to it being well-lit and affording no secure roost sites internally. 'However, there is some potential for roosting bats beneath ridge capping.' The school garden is to be protected by temporary Heras fencing while the work is carried out. Cefn Meiriadog Community Council was also consulted on the plans, but raised no objections. In May, Ysgol Cefn Meiriadog celebrated its 90th birthday, and marked the occasion with a special event attended by pupils, staff and parents, past and present.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store