New Preston tram bridge will be higher than the one it replaces

The design detail was revealed at a Lancashire County Council meeting where the authority agreed to take on responsibility for maintaining the surface of the new structure.

The exact difference in height was not set out, but the new arrangement will require ramped access points. However, the Lancashire Post understands it will not represent a significant change to the current level.

The reason for the increase is so that the replacement bridge - which will follow exactly the same path as its predecessor - meets the requirements for its new status as a bridleway.

It was that reclassification of the cross-river connection, between Avenham Park and Penwortham, which the county council’s regulatory committee had met to discuss.

As the Post revealed last month, Preston City Council - the freehold owner of the bridge - had agreed to dedicate the surface of the new route to the county authority. The move was designed to ensure there was a clear delineation between the two organisations of their responsibilities for different elements of the new structure.

When the current bridge was closed after it was found to be at risk of sudden collapse five years ago, there was confusion as to where the buck stopped when it came to re-establishing the link.

Under the new agreement, the city council will be responsible for everything but the surface, which will become a bridleway - and so open to horses, as well as pedestrians and cyclists - that is “maintainable at public expense”.

Regulatory committee member Ron Woollam - who represents the Preston North division at County Hall and also used to sit on the city council - asked how it could be guaranteed that County Hall would not be held liable for any major repair work if a future issue arose that was “connected to [both] the structure of the bridge and the road surface”.

Lancashire County Council highways officer Jane Turner said she would “hope we're talking a long time into the future” before any structural problems occured with the new bridge, but said the aim was to ensure “enough clarity as to exactly what the involvement of [the] county [council] will be”.

The committee unanimously agreed to the proposal, with authority being delegated to the director of environment and planning to finalise and enter into the agreement with the city council.

A previous recording of part of the bridge as a bridleway in 2003 has since been found to have been made in error.

Last month, the city council said it expected a trio of potential designs for the bridge to be put to the public in the coming weeks.