FOI request (FOI-99155453)

In a reply to a question to full council on 15/02/2017 Cllr Chowney stated (his reply is in italicized):

 

11. What progress has been made by HBC in pursuing the goals referred to in point 11? Namely:

 

Working with its engineers to make the glen accessible through an engineered solution

Point 11 actually says:  "The Council will therefore work with its engineers to see if Ecclesbourne Glen can be made accessible through an engineered solution.  Our geotechnical contractors have reviewed this and advised against either trying to realign the route of the closed path through this part of the Glen, or an engineered solution such as a suspended walkway.

Establishing costs of such works

Our geotechnical contractors considered 2 options for realigning the path on the ground.  They estimated that one would cost £12k and the other £17k.  Again they considered 2 options for a suspended walkway, and estimated the cost of both could be between £250 and £500k.

Securing a design that offers long term stability

Our geotechnical contractors don't think there is such an option for this site.  All options are expensive, and the path realignments, and suspended walkway options are all considered to be vulnerable to the impact of future landslips.  Therefore, as the paths are closed and a diversion in place, they recommend that the Council leave the paths closed and allow the landslide to continue to move without having to plan for construction of footpaths, removal of trees from a SSSI and the associated ongoing maintenance.

Obtaining external funding

The Council has not identified any external funding for the work that would be required, and given the advice from our geotechnical contractors, it would be irresponsible to seek such funding, as there is every likelihood that the works could be destroyed by future landslips.

 

Please provide me with all supporting documents and correspondence referred to by Cllr Chowney in his reply. This includes the following:

 

The review and advice provided by the geotechnical contractors against either trying to realign the route of the closed path through this part of the Glen, or an engineered solution such as a suspended walkway.

 

All documents and correspondence that consider the 2 options for realigning the path on the ground including the costings.

 

All documents and correspondence that consider the 2 options for a suspended walkway including the costings.

 

All documents and correspondence that explain why the contractors do not consider there is a design that offers long term stability.

 

All documents and correspondence that explain why the land is considered vulnerable to the impact of future landslips.

 

All other advice given by the geotechnical contractors referred to in this reply.