I put a question on the failing timber footbridges to my MP (Jack Rankin) who passed it on to DEFRA. Below is a view of Ashford Lane footbridge over the Jubilee River.
I passed the DEFRA response to Claude (Ai) for analysis
Claude (Ai) Conclusion:
This is a textbook case of how lack of candour and transparency in communications can mask deeper structural and governance failures.
This response is technically honest but lacks candour (avoids the difficult realities) and transparency (no actual information about plans or costs).
This fragmented responsibility across multiple authorities likely contributes to the systemic failures you’ve identified.
The question and DEFRA answer is below:
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (80999):
Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps she is taking to repair and restore footbridges along the Jubilee River; and what estimate she has made of the associated cost to the taxpayer. (80999)
Tabled on: 10 October 2025 Answer:
Emma Hardy: The Jubilee River is part of the Maidenhead, Windsor and Eaton Flood Alleviation Scheme which is operated and maintained by the Environment Agency. Footbridges along the Jubilee River are the responsibility of the respective local authorities including Buckinghamshire Council, Slough Council and the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. The Environment Agency works closely with these councils; however, questions relating to plans to repair and restore these footbridges should be directed to the respective local authority, not the Environment Agency. The answer was submitted on 15 Oct 2025 at 14:30.
After an initial briefing session – I passed the question and the DEFRA answer over to Claude (Ai) for analysis, debate and report.
The concluding response from Claude:
Thank you for sharing this parliamentary response. This is very revealing about the governance and accountability issues surrounding these bridges.
Key points from the answer:
1. Responsibility is fragmented – the Environment Agency operates the Jubilee River itself, but the footbridges are the responsibility of three separate local authorities: Buckinghamshire Council, Slough Council, and Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead
2. No central oversight – DEFRA/Environment Agency are deflecting responsibility back to local councils, despite the bridges being integral infrastructure for a flood alleviation scheme managed by the Environment Agency
3. No cost estimate provided – the minister didn’t answer the question about estimated costs to taxpayers
4. No repair plans disclosed – the answer provides no information about what steps are actually being taken
The problem this highlights:
This fragmented responsibility across multiple authorities likely contributes to the systemic failures you’ve identified.
When accountability is divided:
• Coordination becomes difficult
• No single body has oversight of the full picture
• Strategic planning and learning from failures across all bridges is hampered
• It’s easier for each authority to avoid taking action
This connects directly to your earlier questions about honesty, openness, transparency and candour – this response is technically honest but lacks candour (avoids the difficult realities) and transparency (no actual information about plans or costs).
What’s your view on this fragmented governance structure?
Retry
EL
Good question – end for now
Thank you for the interesting discussion. You’ve identified a significant issue – the combination of:
• Systemic design/maintenance failures across multiple timber footbridges
• Fragmented governance with no clear overall accountability
• A parliamentary response that deflects rather than addressing the substance of the problem
This is a textbook case of how lack of candour and transparency in communications can mask deeper structural and governance failures.
If you decide to pursue this further, the framework you mentioned earlier would be very relevant for analysing how the public has been engaged (or not) about these bridge failures and safety risks.
Good morning, and feel free to return if you want to explore this further
END
One significant point that has been overlooked is that the design and specification of all Jubilee River Bridges had been under the EA . The EA together with their design professionals have approved the designs, materials, and construction and signed off their approvals. The public request to view these documents.
The EA must confirm the intended lifespan of the above structures .This can be achieved through the manufacturer, the public request to see this confirmation document. Including any relative maintenance instructions/programme.
The EA must by law provide their inspection timescales and condition/times reports. Re public safety and liability, and name the inspecting company.
Q. What time elapse after construction sign off did the EA transfer the bridges to local authorities relative to design life time re Manufacturer , as clearly the lifespan had clearly been exceeded beyond reasonable expectation. Or has the EA transferred structures with known defects to burden local authorities to alleviate their responsibilities.
It must be remembered that the EA dismissed the Jubilee River Designers, and received , I believe £2.5 m in professional indemnity costs. Maybe someone can confirm this sum.
I have recovered the following report from the New Civil Engineer and dated 14 September 2006
The Environment Agency has reached an out of court settlement with the designers of the failed Jubilee River flood defence channel in Berkshire. After going through mediation, the Environment Agency announced on Tuesday that scheme designer Lewin Fryer & Partners had agreed to pay substantial compensation of £2.75M towards the repair and improvement work undertaken since the channel suffered severe damage in January 2003.
The original extract can be found here