Letter: Tadcaster floods - Why isn’t a new bridge an option?

The bridge over the River Wharfe in Tadcaster on January 7
The bridge over the River Wharfe in Tadcaster on January 7

I was disappointed to read that NYCC have decided that building a new bridge in Tadcaster is not an option.

I may be wrong but I thought it was originally built in 1704. So the question is more than 300 years later, is this type of bridge suitable for our current climate?

When Backbarrow in Cumbria flooded in early December the flooding was worse than in 2009, even though the river level was lower. Reason - the newly built bridge held up this time acting as a very efficient dam and flooding more properties.

The Cumbrian Authority did not listen to the pleas of the local businesses at the time. The pretty bridges must be kept at all costs.

I found a report on the internet about the Cumbrian floods of 2009. All the flooding appeared to be on one side of a bridge but not the other.

However I have never read anywhere that bridges themselves are the cause of floods.

It does not make sense to me that NYCC have to make a decision in isolation. The problem should be addressed by the Department of Environment.

Where bridges are found to be unfit for the purpose in 2016 - in that they do not allow water to flow through quickly enough - then common sense would dictate that they should be replaced when destroyed by a bridge that allows water to continue to flow.

Simply rebuilding will not solve any flooding problems.

Since we are still a member of the EU at this moment in time, surely our Government could apply for a grant to help our country out in its hour of need. Probably with the delicate negotiations going on our present Government would prefer to deny we need any help.

Still it is nice to know that even though we are still being austere there is still enough money around to be sent up in smoke.

I refer to the New Year’s Eve fireworks in London which were televised to the nation.

Margaret Cyster

Sutton Grange Close,