InYourArea News

Llanelli railway station refused Grade II status ahead of new footbridge and lifts

The civic society is disappointed that the Victorian bridge is being torn down and replaced

Ian Lewis

By Ian Lewis

Efforts by campaigners to safeguard what they claim are historically important parts of Llanelli railway station have failed.

Llanelli and District Civic Society sprang into action over recent weeks urging Cadw to give Grade II listed status to the station's Victorian footbridge, ticket office, platforms and canopies.

The society made the urgent appeal after plans were lodged by Network Rail for a new footbridge and two new lift towers either side of it.

The plans were approved by Carmarthenshire Council last month and the Victorian bridge will now be demolished as part of the work.

Cadw in an email responding to the society - which the Llanelli Star has seen - said the station "lacks definite quality and character."

It is the third time listed status has been refused for the station, firstly in 1992, then 2015 and again earlier this year.

However, Cadw has pointed out that the station does have some good features.

Built in the 1870s, points of detail are the Bath stone dressings, platform canopies with cast iron brackets and the linking covered footbridge, which despite some recent and historic repairs and patching up, most of it seems original, said Cadw.

Secretary of Llanelli and District Civic Society, Frederick Hughes, said he was disappointed that the plans will now go ahead to "demolish the pedestrian bridge and build an ugly modern bridge and two lift towers."

He also argued the society hadn't had time to lodge its objections with the county council over the footbridge and lifts plan, claiming the planning application was submitted and decided upon swiftly.

Mr Hughes added:

"We totally disagree with the grounds for refusal, it is the centrepiece of the entire railway complex and as good as the nearby Grade II signal box and Goods Shed. Cadw obviously has selective appreciation of Llanelli's architecture and history."

"We don't consider buildings for submission for spot listing lightly.

"Bridgend and Cardiff stations have been altered considerably over the years and we are surprised that they are listed, especially with the more recent lifts and bridge works at Bridgend."

An artist impression of the new bridge and lifts (Image: Network Rail planning application)
An artist impression of the new bridge and lifts (Image: Network Rail planning application)

Cadw had considered whether Llanelli railway station could have “group” value with the Grade II listed Goods Shed (built in 1852, it belongs to the initial phase of the mainline railway and has a historical connection to Isambard Kingdom Brunel), as well as the signal box.

However, in its letter to the society, Cadw said "the lack of overwhelming special character in the station itself, makes listing on group value grounds alone difficult."

Another body in the town, which did lodge an objection to the new bridge and lifts plans was Save Llanelli's Heritage and Buildings.

Jade Carpenter from the group said in a letter to the council that the new bridge and lifts were "unnecessary, but will also ruin the appearance of Llanelli railway station.

"I am speaking for the majority of Llanelli residents when I say we do not want the Victorian bridge demolished, or this new footbridge to be built, it will be an eyesore."

A Cadw spokesperson, said: “Llanelli railway station has previously been considered, and rejected, for listing.  

"It was assessed in 1992 when Cadw re-surveyed the community of Llanelli for historic buildings, and again in 2015.

"In identifying buildings on the South Wales Railway Line for listing, the focus was on structures of the original phase of the railway or on particularly good later structures.

"Cadw most recently reconsidered the station in early 2023 following a spot-listing request.  

"This was reviewed in light of recent information provided, but there was no new evidence to suggest that the previous decision was incorrect.”