Another Non-controversy

We have bollards on Pont Howkin. They've sprung up overnight and for the following three. The Rhuthun/Ruthin chattering classes are intrigued. 

They actually look quite elegant (in spite of being plastic) as they arc both sides of the bridge. It adds some 'heritage appeal' to the concrete and black top structure that, let's face it, looks bland and uninteresting. The bollards try to mimic those elsewhere in town and we'd say that there was obvious thought put in to the design.

The only issue I foresee is that there doesn't appear to be a listed building application. Yes, Pont Howkin is listed. Not that you'd know. Underneath, it's old. The decking and railings are decidedly not. 

But it seems needs must. The newer decking added in the early 1980s is weak at the haunches. I doubt anyone would deliberately drive on to the footway at this point but were a wagon to do so then there's a real concern over the weakness at the bridge's margins. 

Ironically, those planting the bollards had to park on the pavement!

Rather like the Cunning Green, the county council had to act, lest there be some injury. The Cunning Green footpath is closed for the very same reason: there's a risk because of the safety of the wall that is in private hands. 

Back to the bridge and it leaves the question of obstruction. There's no minimum width for a footway but ideally this should be no less than an unobstructed 4ft-ish (actually, 1.2m, though Boris would not approve of the metric measure). With the bollards, the distance is about that. 

There appear to be mixed messages about this preventing motorists parking. They never do park there. Cllr Emrys Wynne cleared this up when on Facebook he said, 

'Should a heavy vehicle mount the footway, that area of the bridge could be unstable and possibly dangerous. The bollards have been installed as a preventative measure and monitoring of the bridge will continue. The space between the bollards are (sic) wide enough to allow wheelchair users and prams to pass safely'.

An hour later, Cllr Huw Hilditch Roberts said, 

'Should a heavy vehicle mount the footway, that area of the bridge could be unstable and possibly dangerous. The bollards have been installed as a preventative measure and monitoring of the bridge will continue. The space between the bollards are (sic) wide enough to allow wheelchair users and prams to pass safely'.

Are our county councillors so in tune with each other that they came up with exactly the same statement, even including the howler where the subject-verb does not agree? As in, 'The space between the bollards are…'

I think rather than say that the space was wide enough to allow chairs and prams to pass (it isn't and pre-bollards never has been), I'd've been tempted to say that the footway width between bollards and back fencing was sufficient to allow for chairs and prams to use the pavement.