Supplementary Agenda Document Pack - Moray Council - 28/01/2026
Moray Council · 28 January 2026
Back to Moray Council — 28 January 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Moray Council Wednesday, 28 January 2026 The undernoted report(s) has been added to the agenda for the meeting of Moray Council at 09:30, in terms of Section 50B (4)(b) of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 by reason of special circumstances on the Chair accepting the report as urgent business. NOTE REFERRED TO:- 5a. Short to Medium Term Financial Plan Report by Chief Executive 3 - 16 9a. Spey Viaduct Report by Executive Director Economy, Enterprise and Operations 17 - 60 Page 1
Page 2
Page 2
Page 3
Report to: Moray Council Meeting Date: 28 January 2026 Report by: Chief Executive Author: Lorraine Paisey Contact Email: lorraine.paisey@moray.gov.uk Subject: Short to Medium Term Financial Plan 1. PURPOSE ☒ For Decision ☐ For Information 1.1 The purpose of this report is to update the Short to Medium Term Financial Plan for the period 2025/26 to 2027/28. 1.2 This report is submitted to Council in terms of Section III A (2) of the Council's Scheme of Administration relating to revenue and capital budgets. 2. REASON FOR URGENCY 2.1 This report is submitted to Council in terms of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, on the Chair certifying that, in her opinion it requires to be considered on the grounds of urgency in order to give early consideration. 3. SUMMARY 3.1 This report gives an update on the indicative budgets for 2026/27 and 2027/28 noted by Council on 26 February 2025, when the budget for 2025/26 was approved (paragraph 3 of the minute refers). At that point the budget for 2025/26 was balanced but a budget gap was forecast for 2026/27 and 2027/08. The Short to Medium Term Financial Strategy approved by Council on 26 June 2025 (paragraph 9 of the Minute refers) set out an approach towards closing this budget gap. This report follows that Strategy. 3.2 Amendments to the Council’s budget for 2025/26 and indicative budgets were approved by Council on 24 September 2025 (paragraph 10 of the Minute refers) and on 3 December 2025 (paragraph 12 of the Minute refers). The savings estimated to Item 5a. Page 3
Page 4
be required in 2026/27 were estimated at £2.4 million, less any savings which could be achieved in-year in 2025/26. 3.3 The report updates for the current estimated position regarding loans charges, as reflected in a separate report to this meeting, and shows the impact of the draft local government settlement announced on 13 January 2026. 3.4 Further recurring savings totalling £203,000 in 2026/27 are proposed. 4. RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 It is recommended that Council approve: i) Recurring savings of £203,000 in 2026/27 and one-off savings of £10,000 in 2026/27, as set out in paragraphs 6.1 to 6.12; ii) A review of the Music Centre with the objective of making this service fully cost recovered (see paragraph 6.13); and iii) An increase in budget in 2025/26 for Moray Integration Joint Board (MIJB) of £445,000 as the pro rata share of funding for the 2025/26 pay award. 4.2 It is also recommended that Council note: i) The impact of the provisional local government settlement; and ii) That risks and uncertainties about the budget for 2026/27 still remain and will be addressed in the budget setting report to Council on 25 February 2026 Lorraine Paisey Chief Financial Officer 5. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 5.1 This report gives an update on the indicative budgets for 2026/27 and 2027/28 noted by Council on 26 February 2025, when the budget for 2025/26 was approved (paragraph 3 of the minute refers) and updated on 24 September 2025 (paragraph 10 of the minute refers). A budget gap was forecast for 2026/27 and 2027/08. The Short to Medium Term Financial Strategy approved by Council on 26 June 2025 (paragraph 9 of the Minute refers) set out an approach towards closing this budget gap. This report follows that Strategy. 5.2 The Short to Medium Term Financial Strategy aims to hold in balance two main sources of financial change: the Council’s Transformation Strategy, which is recognised as the source of long-term change, and service redesign in response to Page 4
Page 5
short-term requirements. These short-term requirements could arise from changes in demand for service, inflation or other external cost impact or underlying overspends identified during review of the out-turn for 2024/45 and projected out- turn for 2025/26. 5.3 As a first step in implementing this strategy budget variances from 2024/25 were reviewed with heads of service to identify if any continuing underspends could be taken as savings. Further review has identified further savings and these are recommended in the report. 5.4 The Council has been making steady progress towards balancing the budget for 2026/27. APPENDIX 1 shows the current estimated budgetary position for 2026/27, including the overspend projected for 2025/26 reported to Council on 3 December 2025 as continuing into 2026/27 as part of the opening position for 2026/27 and a preliminary assessment of emerging budget pressures for 2026/27, which will be included in the budget proposals for Council on 25 February 2026. 6. PROPOSALS Savings Income 6.1 A more commercial approach to rent reviews for premisses on the Council’s Industrial portfolio was approved for the period 2022 to 2025. This has proved successful and a continuation of the approach is recommended for 2026/27. Market conditions, occupancy rates and payment rates will require to be monitored to ensure this policy does not start to have a detrimental impact on the performance of the portfolio. Staffing vacancies may reduce service capacity for this work but it is estimated that additional income of £65,000 should be achieved in 2026/27. 6.2 The Council levies charges for bulky items uplift by the Waste Management service. Income generated by these charges is currently outstripping the budget and it is proposed that the budget for bulky items uplift is increased to reflect current levels of income, making a budget saving of £18,000. The level of charge for 2026/27 is included for consideration in a further report to this meeting. 6.3 Building Standards fees are set by Scottish Government. There is an expectation that an element of fee income is invested in the service to maintain and improve service standards. A 12% increase in fees has been set by Scottish Government for 2026/27 and it is recommended that the budget for income uplift generated by Building Standards fees is increased by 6% (the level of fee increase abated by 50% for reinvestment in the service), generating a budget saving of £43,000. 6.4 The Environmental Health income budget has been reviewed and an increase in budget of £10,000 to reflect 2024/25 actuals and 2025/26 estimated actuals is recommended. Savings / service reduction Page 5
Page 6
Budget-led approach 6.5 A component of the funding for resettlement of refugees relates to housing allocation. It is proposed that the overheads associated with the staff time already charged to this funding are also charged and it is estimated that £25,000 could appropriate be recharged, delivering a saving to the General Fund. 6.6 The Community Safety operational budget has been reviewed and it is recommended that this is reduced by £8,000 to reflect the actual expenditure in 2024/25 and estimated actual expenditure in 2026/27. 6.7 Current costs of printer leasing give the opportunity to reduce budgets by £10,000 and this reduction is recommended. 6.8 A member of admin staff in the Growth, Planning and Climate Service has requested a reduction in hours and it is recommended that this is taken as a saving of £4,000. This will reduce resilience within the team but is considered to be operationally acceptable 6.9 A vacancy of 0.4fte in the Payments section of Financial Service is recommended to be removed, generating a saving of £6,000. This will reduce resilience within the team but is considered to be operationally acceptable. Best Value approach 6.10 Building Services have successfully delivered savings from a pilot of carrying out work in Milne’s High School Associate School Group (ASG) and it is recommended that this is extended to include Keith Grammar School ASG, with anticipated savings of £10,000. 6.11 The Procurement team have a vacant 0.3fte Procurement Officer post. It is recommended that the team is restructured to delete this post and replace with a 0.3fte Procurement Assistant post. The team are under increasing pressure to support procurements, particularly those for external funding which must be spent within restricted timeframes, and the proposed restructure gives some additional capacity within the team, enabling simpler procurements to be supported by the new assistant post and workloads of the Procurement Officers posts adjusted to allow them to support more complex procurements. A saving of £4,000 would be generated. Partnership working 6.12 A Shared Services arrangement with Highland Council has been entered into, with management and development support from Highland Council for the Trading Standards service, to enable a grow-your-own approach to the vacant Principal Trading Standards Officer post, which is planned to be advertised in August 2026. The contract with Highland Council plus temporary additional hours for the Fair Trade Officer’s post during the Principal Officer’s vacancy would release one-off savings of £10,000 in 2026/27. Page 6
Page 7
Further options for savings 6.13 Officers have identified a number of potential options for service delivery to make the Music Centre fully cost-recoverable. That would generate savings of £12,000. Any options would require to be consulted on with the parents and other responsible adults of the young people who make use of the service and approval to develop and consult on saving is sought. As an interim measure the charges for the use of the Music Centre will be proposed to be increased by the default increase for charges for services, which are the subject of another report to this meeting. Impact of draft Local Government Settlement 6.14 The draft Local Government Settlement for 2026/27 was issued on 13 February 2026, following the Scottish budget. The draft settlement is for £14,988.790 million, of which £211.671million remains undistributed in Finance Circular 1/2026. 6.15 Finance Circular 1/2026 states that the settlement includes: • Additional General Revenue Grant of £253.9 million “to support local priorities” • Additional £3 million to support the expansion of Free School Meals • Additional £160 million to support the payment of the Real Living Wage to social care workers in commissioned adult care services • Additional £11 million to support payment of the real Living Wage to workers in commissioned Early Learning and Childcare services • Additional £11 million to support payment of the Real Living Wage to people working in children’s social work commissioned services • £7 million to support Free Personal and Nursing care The letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to the President of COSLA makes no stipulations about the funding relating to adult social care, but the letter from the Interim Chief Finance Officer in the Directorate for Health and Social Care Finance in Scottish Government to Chief Executives of NHS Scotland states: “The funding allocated to Integration Authorities should be additional and not substitutional to 2025/26 budgets for services which are delegated. Therefore Local Authority social care budgets for allocation to Integration Authorities must be at least £167 million greater than 2025/26 recurring budgets.” 6.16 The £253.9 million “for local priorities” is not separately identifiable in the back-up information to Finance Circular 1/2026. Estimating Moray’s share as 1.65% (based on the council’s share of the Updated Service Provision, which is the main fund allocation in the finance circular) would give a “free” increase of £4,189,000. However, this includes funding for year two of the two year pay awards agreed in 2025/26. The baseline amount relating to pay in 2025/26 is £1.8 million (including teachers) and an estimate of the amount for local government employees (ie non- teachers) pay in 2026/27 is £0.65 million. Funding for teachers pay in 2026/27 remains undistributed but will be the subject of a report to COSLA Leaders in early course. £0.227 million relates to Council staff under the direction of MIJB, and this Page 7
Page 8
element is included under budget pressures on the assumption it will be passed to MIJB. Removing the pay award element leaves a residual balance of £1.739 million “for local priorities”. In the first instance this requires to be directed to reduce the estimated savings requirement for 2026/27. 6.17 The distribution of funding for the expansion of free school meals has yet to be agreed. As in previous years the allocation of funding for expansion of free school meals will be set aside for that purpose until the actual costs have been finalised. It is therefore assumed that there is no contribution towards the budget deficit for 2026/27 from this tranche of funding. There is no capital funding for expansion of free school meals in the 2026/27 settlement. 6.18 The Council’s share of the £160 million for the increase in Real Living Wage (RLW) in adult social care service is £2.927 million. As in previous years this sum is to be passported to MIJB. However, the funding is insufficient to cover the cost of fully funding the increase in RLW. The statutory increase in the National Living Wage has not been funded and therefore the funding amounts to an increase of 74p per hour rather than the full increase of 85p per hour, a shortfall of £0.435 million. 6.19 As with adult social care services the funding for the increase in RLW for commissioned Early Learning and Childcare (ELC) services is not calculated to fully fund the uplift but falls short by 11p per hour. The additional £188,000 funding for RLW is more than offset by a reduction in GAE due to falling ELC rolls. 6.20 Funding for RLW in commissioned children’s care services has been calculated on the same basis as in paragraphs 5.19 and 5.20 ie 11p per hour shortfall. There is no obligation imposed on the Council to pass this funding to MIJB. The Council’s funding for children’s services has been increased by £0.442 million. This is the Council’s share of a £24 million increase but this increase is more than will be included in the final settlement, which will be for an increase of £22 million. It is as yet unclear the extent to which any of the £11 million not related to RLW will be directed by Scottish Government. The assumption in APPENDIX 1 is that the full increase will be passed to MIJB. 6.21 Increased funding for Free Personal and Nursing Care is to be passported to MIJB. The distribution of this funding is yet to be agreed. 6.22 The settlement makes particular mention of expanding breakfast club provision, enhancing wrap-around childcare and developing sporting opportunities for young people. There is no mention of these in Finance Circular 1/2026 and as yet no indication of the role of local government, although the letter from the Cabinet Secretary (see paragraph 5.16) states that local government “will remain key partners in how these propositions are further developed and ultimately delivered”. COSLA is seeking further clarification and has received confirmation that there is Page 8
Page 9
no increased funding in the settlement for sport. The working assumption is that there is no implication for the financial provisions notified in finance circular 1/206. 6.23 The impact of the settlement as provisionally notified is a reduction in savings required in 2026/27 of £2.389 million, £1.739 million additional funding per paragraph 5.17 plus £0.65 million relating to pay awards which was not included in previous estimates of grant funding. Further revision 6.24 Capital The Overview on APPENDIX 1 has been updated to include the impact on loans charges of the current forecast capital expenditure for 2025/26 as reported in the report to this meeting on the capital plan for 2026 to 2029. There is a reduction in additional loans charges of £0.505 million but also a reduction in planned use of reserves to cover some specific capital expenditure where profiles have been amended (Moray Growth Deal and the Learning Estate) – this has been reduced from £3.668 million to £0.301 million. The accounting treatment of the PPP has been further reviewed following the implementation of IFRS 16 for the annual accounts for 2024/25 and life-cycle costs capitalised, generating revenue savings of £0.926 million in 2026/27. A revised estimate of Interest on Revenue Balances is £0.65 million above budget. The net impact is an increased savings target of £1.286 million. 6.25 Savings and other central provisions 2025/26 and 2026/27 The timing of some planned savings and required use of reserves in 2025/26 has been reviewed and this will be reported in detail along with quarter 3 budget monitoring to Corporate Committee on 17 February 2026. The net impact on 2026/27 is an increase in savings target of £0.2 million. The impact of pay awards in 2025/26 on the inflation provision required for 2026/27 is calculated to be £0.215 million increase, with this completely offset by the undistributed pay award funding in the settlement. A review of budget pressures (including brought forward recurring overspends) previously reported results in a provisional reduction of £1.526 million. Budget pressures in APPENDIX 1 include £2.927 million to be passported to MIJB and £0.442 million additional funding for children’s services. This figure is expected to be reduced as Scottish Government have confirmed an element of the funding is overstated. £0.227 million is included as a estimate of the MIJB share of funding for the 2026/27 pay award. 6.26 Non Domestic Rates revaluation and rate poundage Revaluation of Council properties resulted in an increase of rateable value. This is mitigated by the reduced rate poundage. The net impact is estimated as an increase in budget required of £0.3 million. 6.27 The net impact of these reviews is an increase on savings target of £0.275: Ref Increase £m Decrease £m Page 9
Page 10
Capital 5.24 1.286 Central provisions 5.25 0.215 1.526 NDR 5.26 0.300 Total 1.801 1.423 6.28 Revised savings target 2026/27 Ref £m £m Savings target reported 3/12/2025 2.387 Impact of settlement 5.23 (2.389) Impact of other changes 5.27 0.275 Savings recommended 5.1 – 5.12 (0.213) Balance 0.060 This is reflected in APPENDIX 1 to this report. 7. SUMMARY OF IMPLICATIONS 7.1 The table below shows whether risks and implications apply if the recommendations are agreed: SUBJECT YES NO Corporate Plan and 10 Year Plan (Local Outcome Improvement Plan) X Policy and Legal X Financial X Risk X Staffing X Best Value and Transformation X Property X Information Communications Technology/Digital X Equalities. Social Inclusion and Economic Impact X Climate Change and Biodiversity Impact X 7.2 Corporate Plan and 10 Year Plan (Local Outcomes Improvement Plan (LOIP)) Improved Collaborative Leadership, as part of continuous improvement through Best Value, will better enable the Council to fulfil the ambitions set out in its strategic plans. a) Links to Council Corporate Plan – The proposals in this report support and contribute to improved outcomes for communities as outlined in the following Council Plan strategic priorities: ☐ Tackle Poverty and Inequality. ☐ Build Stronger Greener Vibrant Economy. Page 10
Page 11
☐ Build Thriving, resilient, empowered Communities. b) Links to Local Outcomes Improvement Plan – The proposals in this report support and contribute to improved outcomes for communities as outlined in the following local Outcomes Improvement Plan priorities: ☐ Developing a diverse, inclusive, and sustainable economy ☐ Building a better future for our children and young people in Moray. ☐ Empowering and connecting communities. ☐ Improving wellbeing of our population 7.3 Policy and Legal There are no policy and legal implications arising directly from this report. 7.4 Financial Financial implications are discussed throughout the report. Assuming a 10% increase in Council Tax and prior to consideration of emerging budget pressures as part of the budget report, £60,000 further savings require to be found. One off Costs: Service Area Budget Budget Years Proposed Spend this Year Virement From Other Comments Annually Recurring Costs: Service Area Budget With Effect From Annual Net Impact Virement From (if applicable) Other Comments - - - - - - 7.5 Risk There settlement figures are provisional and changes to distribution are possible. Funding associated with new initiatives has not been clarified. Continuing overspends and areas of pressure continue into 2026/27. 7.6 Staffing No staffing implications arise directly from this report. 7.7 Best Value and Transformation There are no implications arising directly from this report. 7.8 Property Page 11
Page 12
No property implications arise directly from this report. 7.9 Information Communications/Technology/Digital No information communications/technology/digital implications arise directly from this report. 7.10 Equalities, Social Inclusion and Economic Impact There are no equalities, social inclusion or economic impacts arising from this report. 7.11 Climate Change and Biodiversity Impacts There are no direct climate change or biodiversity implications arising from this report. 8. CONSULTATION 8.1 This report has been prepared in consultation with the Corporate Leadership Team and any comments have been included in the report. 9. BACKGROUND PAPERS 9.1 None. Page 12
Page 13
APPENDIX 1 BUDGET OVERVIEW as at 23 JANUARY 2026 2026/27 2027/28 Revenue Expenditure £000s £000s Service allocations (assuming prior year savings are achieved) 300,966 311,469 Adjustments to brought forward figure: 1,421 34 Opening budget 302,387 311,503 Pay and price increases 7,615 7,660 Increase in Loan Charges per budget 545 2,409 New Burdens 0 0 Budget pressures: - Approved or noted for future years when budget set 161 (44) Approved since budget set 229 30 Emerging 4,461 - Approved to be met from reserves 298 66 Service developments - Approved 0 0 - Proposed 0 0 315,467 321,624 Revenue Funding General Revenue Grant / NDRI 243,463 243,463 LEIP funding 0 1,343 UKG funding for pEPR 3,359 2,500 Council Tax 63,590 67,802 Funding from Reserves: Funded from Ear-marked reserves: Transformation 756 187 MGD cash flow 379 Service concession retrospection 301 1,871 311,469 316,202 SAVINGS REQUIRED 3,998 5,421 Page 13
Page 14
Savings Summary Savings Approved: Approved when budget set 2,195 1,505 Temporary savings 117 50 Further savings approved 976 149 Indicative Savings from I&M Programme 447 0 Other savings proposed 203 Savings to be identified 60 3,717 3,998 5,421 Projected year end position: Free Balance on General Reserves 6,000 6,000 Estimated Balance on Transformation Reserve 3,631 3,444 Estimated balance on MGD cash flow reserve 3,699 2,604 Estimated balance from retrospective service concession saving 7,225 5,354 Page 14
Page 15
Page 15
Page 16
Page 16
Page 17
Report to: Moray Council Meeting Date: 28 January 2026 Report by: Executive Director Economy, Enterprise and Operations Author: Debbie Halliday Contact Email: debbie.halliday@moray.gov.uk Subject: Spey Viaduct 1. PURPOSE ☒ For Decision ☐ For Information 1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek authorisation to award a contract to remove spans of the viaduct from the River Spey and advise that officers will continue to engage with external bodies to identify potential sources of funding for reinstatement of the viaduct. 1.2 This report is submitted to Council in terms of Section III (F) (15) To exercise all functions of the Council as Roads Authority including safety, the detailed planning, design and construction, improvement, maintenance and lighting of roads, bridges and other structures and excluding street naming functions [see Section III (E)(6) above]. 2. REASON FOR URGENCY 2.1 This report is submitted to Council in terms of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, on the Chair certifying that, in her opinion it requires to be considered on the grounds of urgency in order to enable prompt decision making and works relating to the safety of the bridge structure. 3. SUMMARY 3.1 The Moray Coastal Line, including the Spey Viaduct, opened in 1886 and closed in 1968. The Local Authority, now Moray Council, took title to the viaduct in 1975. The viaduct is B Listed and forms part of the Moray Coastal Trail. On 15 December 2025 two spans of the viaduct collapsed. An investigation into the cause of the collapse has begun, however, a full investigation cannot be undertaken until the collapsed spans have been removed from the river. The cost of the investigation, including all surveys, is approximately £75,000, however, Transport Scotland has agreed to fund part of the investigation so the cost to Moray Council would be £33,000. The work to remove the spans from the river is currently out to tender with an estimated cost of £500,000. Officers have had discussions with external bodies to identify potential funding sources to reinstate the viaduct and provide alternative temporary routes for cyclist and walkers. 4. RECOMMENDATIONS Item 9a. Page 17
Page 18
4.1 It is recommended that Council: i) Delegate authority to the Chief Financial Officer and Head of Operations and Environment to award a contract to remove the collapsed spans from the River Spey at an estimated cost of £500,000, subject to the Chief Financial Officer confirming actual costs are within reasonable proximity to estimated costs as set out in paragraph 5.5 of this report and £38,000 to fully investigate the cause of the collapse and the structural integrity of the remaining structure as set out in paragraph 5.4 of this report; ii) Note that Officers will submit an application for Listed Building Consent to remove the collapsed spans; and iii) Agree Officers continue to engage with external bodies and the community to source potential funding to reinstate the walking and cycling route and investigate temporary alternatives, noting the grant funding awarded by Transport Scotland as referenced in paragraph 5.11. Debbie Halliday Service Manager Design Consultancy 5. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 5.1 In 1886 the Moray Coastal Line, which includes the Spey Viaduct, was opened to goods and passenger trains. This line closed in 1968 and in 1975 the Local Authority, now Moray Council, took title to the structure. The viaduct was B listed in 1981. This is an important route for pedestrians and cyclists and is part of the NCN1 (National Cycle Network) route from Dover to Wick. 5.2 The River Spey is a highly dynamic river system. The lower Spey is an actively braiding gravel bed river. Deposition of course gravel from the upstream catchment forms gravel bars, which causes the channel to move. Appendix 1 provides aerial photographs showing how the river has moved at the location of the viaduct over a period of years. Last year the main flow channel in the river moved towards the west bank of the river. 5.3 Since taking ownership of the viaduct the council has undertaken three inspections. A scour inspection and General Inspection were undertaken in 2010 and a General Inspection was undertaken in 2025. The work recommended in the General Inspection was to repaint steelwork, repairs to a lap-joint which has section loss, repair to a historic crack in the central pier, repair or replace decayed timber deck, investigate sediment movement around the east span. This work was identified as high priority for future funding. An informal scour assessment was undertaken in 2023 and this found that the structure is founded on rock and that scour was not considered a significant risk. On 30 September 2014, Economic Development and Infrastructure Services Committee agreed that work to replace damaged deck boards be carried out and that other works identified, including a structural survey of the viaduct be progressed through the council’s Asset Management Working Group as part of the council’s capital plan process (paragraph 10 of the minute refers). Work to replace the deck boards was completed in 2015 and a budget pressure for the other work identified was included in the capital plan. To date no budget has been allocated for this work. A bid for funding for a full structural survey was made to Sustrans in 2022 and is on its reserve list for future funding. Page 18
Page 19
5.4 In the early morning of 15 December 2025, 2 spans of the viaduct, to the west of the main span, collapsed into the River Spey. The cause of this collapse is currently being investigated. An initial inspection noted that the upstream column supporting these spans had collapsed and the downstream column is leaning. The other columns to the west and to the east appear to be in reasonable condition but access to inspect these structures below water level was not possible. A copy of the inspection report is provided in Appendix 2. To fully understand what caused the collapse will require inspection under the water level and it is currently not considered safe to do this using divers. A copy of the Spey Bridge Safety Report is provided in Appendix 3. The full investigation, including all surveys, is likely to cost in the region of £75,000. Transport Scotland has agreed to fund part of the investigation work (as it relates to future viability) so the estimated cost to Moray Council is £38,000. There is no budget allocation for this work, therefore, funding will need to be covered from general slippage in the capital plan for 2025/26 and 2026/27, which will result in increased financing costs. There is no revenue budget for this increase, therefore, savings will be needed in 2026/27 and 2027/28 to accommodate this. 5.5 The immediate priority has been to make the area safe and fencing has been installed at the east and west approach to the viaduct and at each end of the viaduct. A plan showing the location of the fencing is provided in Appendix 4. It has not been possible to put fencing to prevent access to the area beneath the viaduct as this would trap debris and potentially create a dam during flood events. Signage to warn the public of the risk has been installed at appropriate locations. 5.6 The next step to making the area safe is to remove the collapsed spans of the viaduct from the river. The structure is unstable and there is a risk of further collapse. There is also a risk that debris will build up around the spans putting additional pressure on the structure. Fencing has been installed to restrict access to the viaduct but it is still possible to access this area from the river and its banks. Signage has been installed to warn pedestrians and river users of the potential danger. If further collapse does occur this could destabilise the remaining structure. 5.7 Officers have had initial discussions with the council’s framework contractors to discuss safe methods of removing the spans. There are two options available to the council, either the spans can be removed in one piece or they can be cut into sections and removed. Both spans are resting on the remaining columns and there is a risk that these columns will suffer damage when the spans are removed. The collapsed span to the west has buckled and split and would not be salvageable for reuse. It is also unlikely that this span could be safely removed in one piece. It may be possible to salvage the other span but engineers have been unable to carry out a detailed structural assessment because the section cannot be safely reached. Given the age of the spans and the uncertainty regarding their condition there is a significant risk that they would break apart when moved, which would have serious safety implications for the contractor. If cut into smaller sections, this risk would be significantly reduced. Any removal attempt would require substantial heavy engineering works to provide a safe lifting solution. The cost of removing this span from the river in one piece would cost in excess of £1,000,000. To remove both spans in sections would carry less risk with regard to safety and potential damage to the remaining structure. The estimated cost of removing both spans in sections is in the region of £500,000. It is likely that there will be logistical challenges associated with both options due to the access routes through the village of Garmouth, however, transporting the spans through the village in one piece may not be possible. Based on the information Page 19
Page 20
above the preferred method of removal is to take the spans out of the river in sections. 5.8 As the structure is B Listed this work will require Listed Building Consent. Officers have discussed both options with planning officers and Historic Environment Scotland and both parties were generally supportive of the preferred methodology in principle, subject to provision of justification of this approach. 5.9 Officers have also contacted NatureScot, SEPA, the Spey Fisheries Board and Crown Estate Scotland to advise that Moray Council is likely to undertake work in this area to remove the collapsed spans. All agencies were supportive when contacted. All landowners that may be affected by proposed works have been advised and further meetings will be held with them in finalising the methodology and access arrangements for any works agreed. 5.10 As stated above this is an important route for walkers and cyclists and Officers are working with Walk Wheel Cycle Trust (formerly Sustrans) to identify alternative routes. A route has been identified for cyclists using a minor road but this has to be fully assessed before it can be agreed. As yet an alternative route for walkers has not been identified. Officers have also met with external bodies to discuss potential funding sources to help with the provision of alternative routes and at a very high level, reinstatement of the viaduct. To consider funding for reinstatement of the viaduct, details of the condition and serviceable life of the remaining structure will need to be provided. 5.11 Transport Scotland has agreed to fund some investigation work, which would reduce the cost of the investigation into the structure and cause of collapse by £37,000. Funding has also been made available for a high level economic assessment of the role of the bridge at £16,500 and for the provision of diversion routes at £60,000. The total amount of funding made available by Transport Scotland is £113,500. 5.12 It is understood that this is a much valued structure and route for local residents and the wider community. Officers met with representatives from the community on 22 January to hear their concerns and answer questions they had. It is clear, and understandable, that the strong community view is that reinstatement of the bridge should be pursued. There were a number of specific questions which will be answered in coming days and weeks. Any matter that requires council decision will be brought to an appropriate committee. 6. PROPOSALS 6.1 There are four areas of work currently under consideration: a) Making safe / removing the collapsed elements of the structure b) Rerouting active travel routes on a temporary (note this is more than short term) basis c) Understanding the cause of collapse and implications for the remaining structure d) Appraising the feasibility of reinstatement 6.2 Making safe / removing the collapsed elements of the structure The tender returns for the work to remove the spans from the river are due back week commencing 2 February 2026. If Council agrees, Officers will award this contract and work with the contractor to develop a safe and cost effective method of removing the spans. 6.3 An application for Listed Building Consent will be submitted to the Council as Planning Page 20
Page 21
Authority to undertake the work identified above. Historic Environment Scotland will be consulted on this application. 6.4 Rerouting active travel routes on a temporary basis The Transport Scotland funding of £60k will enable initial works on a diversionary route, including signage. At this stage it is still anticipated that further work would be needed to upgrade the diversionary active travel route to make it more suitable for medium term use whilst the bridge is unavailable. Officers will continue to work with external parties to identify potential funding sources for this work. 6.5 Understanding the cause of collapse and implications for the remaining structure If Council agrees, Officers will progress the investigation into the cause of the collapse and the condition of the remaining structure, as soon as it is safe to do so. The cost of this work, including all surveys, is estimated at £75,000. Transport Scotland has agreed to fund part of this work so the estimated cost to Moray Council is £38,000. 6.6 Appraising the feasibility of reinstatement At this point in time the council has been awarded £16.5k by Transport Scotland to carry out a high level economic appraisal in relation to the bridge. The outputs of the appraisal will be reviewed by officers in collaboration with the community to agree desired next steps and to seek funding sources. 6.7 The community has asked about the possibility of providing a temporary crossing. This can be investigated, however, it should be noted that the provision of a temporary crossing is likely to cost in the region of £1,500,000 to £2,000,000. It is proposed that this is considered alongside reinstatement given there will be interplays between the costs and timescales of different options set against the backdrop of limited funding options / affordability. 6.8 Community Engagement In line with discussions at the meeting with community representatives on 22 January, it is proposed that a Steering Group is established with representatives from the community, local businesses, landowners, contractor and the council to ensure sharing of views and information to inform decision making by the council going forward. The Steering Group would be chaired by the Council. Detailed arrangements will be established following this council meeting. 7. SUMMARY OF IMPLICATIONS 7.1 The table below shows whether risks and implications apply if the recommendations are agreed: SUBJECT YES NO Corporate Plan and 10 Year Plan (Local Outcome Improvement Plan) x Policy and Legal x Financial x Risk x Staffing x Best Value and Transformation x Property x Page 21
Page 22
Information Communications Technology/Digital x Equalities. Social Inclusion and Economic Impact x Climate Change and Biodiversity Impact x 7.2 Corporate Plan and 10 Year Plan (Local Outcomes Improvement Plan (LOIP)) Improved Collaborative Leadership, as part of continuous improvement through Best Value, will better enable the Council to fulfil the ambitions set out in its strategic plans. a) Links to Council Corporate Plan – The proposals in this report support and contribute to improved outcomes for communities as outlined in the following Council Plan strategic priorities: ☐ Tackle Poverty and Inequality. ☐ Build Stronger Greener Vibrant Economy. ☐ Build Thriving, resilient, empowered Communities. b) Links to Local Outcomes Improvement Plan – The proposals in this report support and contribute to improved outcomes for communities as outlined in the following Local Outcomes Improvement Plan priorities: ☐ Developing a diverse, inclusive, and sustainable economy ☐ Building a better future for our children and young people in Moray. ☐ Empowering and connecting communities. ☐ Improving wellbeing of our population 7.3 Policy and Legal The Council owns Garmouth Viaduct and has a responsibility to make safe the damage that occurred when the two spans collapsed into the River Spey. The council’s Bridge Maintenance Policy relates to network bridges. As Garmouth Viaduct is a non-network bridge it is not included in this process. A similar process of prioritisation is used for non-network bridges and this is based on condition and strategic importance. 7.4 Financial There are costs associated with the work required to remove the spans from the river and this is currently estimated at £500,000 plus risk. The estimated cost of investigating the cause of the collapse and the integrity of the remaining structure is £75,000, however, this has been reduced to £38,000 due to funding provided by Transport Scotland. There is no available budget for this work. Funding would need to be covered from general slippage in the capital plan for 2025/26 and 26/27, which will result in increased financing costs. There is no revenue budget for this increase, therefore, savings will be needed in 2026/27 and 2027/28 to accommodate this. One off Costs: Service Area Budget Budget Years Proposed Spend this Year Virement From Other Comments Bridges £538,000 2025/26 and 2026/27 £100,000 Page 22
Page 23
Annually Recurring Costs: Service Area Budget With Effect From Annual Net Impact Virement From (if applicable) Other Comments 7.5 Risk As owner of the Spey Viaduct, the Council has a duty to make it safe. If this is not done the Council could be held liable for injury to people or damage to property as a result of not undertaking this duty. The removal of the spans from the river carries significant risk and the total cost will not be known until a methodology has been developed and a quantified risk register has been agreed with the contractor. 7.6 Staffing Staff required to facilitate this work will be resourced from within the Design Consultancy Section. 7.7 Best Value and Transformation N/A. 7.8 Property The viaduct is in the ownership of the Council. 7.9 Information Communications/Technology/Digital N/A. 7.10 Equalities, Social Inclusion and Economic Impact Local businesses may be affected by the temporary closure of this route. 7.11 Climate Change and Biodiversity Impacts All licences and approvals from environmental regulators will be applied for before works are undertaken. Officers will try and recycle any salvageable material during the works. Page 23
Page 24
8. CONSULTATION 8.1 This report has been prepared in consultation with Executive Director for Economy, Enterprise and Operations, Head of Operations and Environment, Chief Financial Officer, Service Manager Legal Services, Services Manager People Management, Equal Opportunities Officer, Service Manager Democratic Services and Andrew Miller, Principal Planning Officer (Acting) and any comments made have been incorporated into the report. 9. BACKGROUND PAPERS Page 24
Page 25
Observed River Spey Channel Movement at Garmouth Viaduct though Time Page 25
Page 26
Observed River Spey Channel Movement at Garmouth Viaduct though Time OS Six Inch: 1888-1915 Source: Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of Scotland Page 26
Page 27
Observed River Spey Channel Movement at Garmouth Viaduct though Time OS 25 Inch: 1892-1905 Source: Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of Scotland Page 27
Page 28
Observed River Spey Channel Movement at Garmouth Viaduct though Time OS 1:1250/1:2500: 1944-1974 Source: Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of Scotland Page 28
Page 29
Observed River Spey Channel Movement at Garmouth Viaduct though Time OS 1/1000: 1949-1974 Source: Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of Scotland Page 29
Page 30
Observed River Spey Channel Movement at Garmouth Viaduct though Time 1985? Source: © Aberdeenshire Archaeological Service Page 30
Page 31
Observed River Spey Channel Movement at Garmouth Viaduct though Time 1993 Source© Crown Copyright: Moray Council Page 31
Page 32
Observed River Spey Channel Movement at Garmouth Viaduct though Time 1994 Source© Crown Copyright: Moray Council Page 32
Page 33
Observed River Spey Channel Movement at Garmouth Viaduct though Time 1997 Source© Crown Copyright: Moray Council Page 33
Page 34
Observed River Spey Channel Movement at Garmouth Viaduct though Time 2000 Source© Crown Copyright: Moray Council Page 34
Page 35
Observed River Spey Channel Movement at Garmouth Viaduct though Time 2009 Source: DP 075571 © Crown Copyright: HES Page 35
Page 36
Observed River Spey Channel Movement at Garmouth Viaduct though Time 2018 Source: © Crown Copyright: Moray Council Page 36
Page 37
Observed River Spey Channel Movement at Garmouth Viaduct though Time 2019 Source: © Crown Copyright: Moray Council Page 37
Page 38
Observed River Spey Channel Movement at Garmouth Viaduct though Time 2021 Source© Crown Copyright: Moray Council Page 38
Page 39
Observed River Spey Channel Movement at Garmouth Viaduct though Time 2022 Source: © Crown Copyright: Moray Council Page 39
Page 40
Observed River Spey Channel Movement at Garmouth Viaduct though Time 2023 Source: © Crown Copyright: Moray Council Page 40
Page 41
Observed River Spey Channel Movement at Garmouth Viaduct though Time 2024 Source: © Crown Copyright: Moray Council Page 41
Page 42
Observed River Spey Channel Movement at Garmouth Viaduct though Time 2025 Source: © Crown Copyright: Moray Council Page 42
Page 43
MORAY COUNCIL DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIRECT SERVICES Garmouth Viaduct Site Inspection Report B234M200-J-GAR-STR-REP-SIR-0001 Document History and Status Rev Date Description Prepared Checked Reviewed Approved P01 19 Dec 2025 Draft for Comment G. Dudgeon P. McKenna C. Coupar P. McKenna P02 22 Dec 2025 Final G. Dudgeon P. McKenna C. Cardno P. McKenna Page 43
Page 44
Garmouth Viaduct Site Inspection Report B234M200-J-GAR-STR-REP-SIR-0001 Ver P02 Page i MORAY COUNCIL Project No: B234M200 Document Title: Garmouth Viaduct Site Inspection Report Document No.: B234M200-J-GAR-STR-REP-SIR-0001 Revision: P02 Document Status:Final Date: 22 December 2025 Client Name: Moray Council Project Manager: Colm Smyth Author: Grant Dudgeon Jacobs UK Ltd 95 Bothwell Street, Glasgow, G2 7HX Scotland. T +44 (0) 141 243 8000 www.jacobs.com © Copyright 2025 Jacobs U.K. Limited. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright. Limitation: This document has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this document by any third party. Page 44
Page 45
Garmouth Viaduct Site Inspection Report B234M200-J-GAR-STR-REP-SIR-0001 Ver P02 Page ii Contents 1. Project Information ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background and Purpose of Visit .................................................................................. 1 2. Site inspection ............................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Viaduct History .............................................................................................................. 2 2.2 Site Inspection Observations ......................................................................................... 2 3. Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Short-term recommendations ........................................................................................ 4 3.1.1 Public Safety ................................................................................................................. 4 3.1.2 Bathymetric survey ........................................................................................................ 4 3.1.3 Trial Pit (Pier 1) ............................................................................................................. 4 3.1.4 Archive Records ............................................................................................................ 4 3.2 Longer-term recommendations ..................................................................................... 5 3.2.1 Coring ........................................................................................................................... 5 3.2.2 Intrusive investigations .................................................................................................. 5 Appendix A. Site photographs, 18 December 2025 Page 45
Page 46
Garmouth Viaduct Site Inspection Report B234M200-J-GAR-STR-REP-SIR-0001 Ver P02 Page 1 1. Project Information 1.1 Introduction Jacobs has been commissioned by Moray Council to provide engineering support in respect of the Garmouth Viaduct which suffered a partial collapse of two of the western approach spans. The structures carries the Speyside Way, a walking, wheeling and cycling route, which has now been closed to the public. This report presents the observations of an initial joint inspection carried out upon the old railway bridge spanning the River Spey at Garmouth on Thursday the 18 December 2025. In attendance were Kim McGowan (Moray Council), Ben Starkie (Water Rescue Scotland) and Grant Dudgeon (Jacobs). 1.2 Background and Purpose of Visit During the early hours of 13 December 2025, Span 2 and 3 on the viaduct’s western approach collapsed into the river Spey, Figure 1 refers. Figure 1: Garmouth Viaduct Collapse The purpose of the site visit was to approach the collapsed section of the bridge as closely as safety allowed and to visually inspect the intact piers where possible. The partially collapsed section is located either side of Pier 2 on the upstream side, as illustrated in Figure 2. Figure 2: Garmouth Viaduct naming Convention Page 46
Page 47
Garmouth Viaduct Site Inspection Report B234M200-J-GAR-STR-REP-SIR-0001 Ver P02 Page 2 2. Site inspection 2.1 Viaduct History Constructed between 1883 and 1886, the viaduct was originally designed to carry the Moray Coast Railway across the River Spey and its adjoining floodplains on a single track, approximately 1.6km south of the coastline. The structure has an overall length of about 290metres, with its central span formed by a wrought-iron lattice bow girder measuring approximately 107metres. This is flanked on each side by three parallel-sided lattice girder approach spans, also formed in wrought-iron. The historical records advise that the seven spans are supported upon piers comprising twin clad masonry columns, which in turn are supported upon cast-iron caissons filled with concrete and founded upon bedrock at depths ranging from 7.6 to 10.7metres. The caissons of the central Span 4 are thought to extend around 23metres. After the rail line was closed in 1968, the structure later became part of the Speyside Way, a walking, wheeling and cycling route linking Spey Bay in the northeast to Garmouth in the west. 2.2 Site Inspection Observations The observations under this section are supported by photographs in Appendix A. The bridge was approached from the western Garmouth side with access onto the river bank achieved by descending the side of the abutment. From there it was possible to walk to the two columns of the Pier 1. Close inspection of this pier noted it to be in good condition with no obvious signs of distress and continues to support both ends of the first collapsed span (Span 2). Between the upstream and downstream columns close to the water level, there was a mass concrete infill observed to be hexagonal in shape. This appeared to be non-structural and not physically connected to the columns, but instead filled the gap between them (Photos A-1, A-3, A-8 & A-15 refer). It is likely that the primary purpose of the infill may be to prevent debris building up between the columns. Below this hexagonal shaped concrete infill, there is a concrete plinth of unknown depth (Photos A- 5 & A-7 refer) which extends in plan beyond the footprint of the columns by approximately 300mm on each side. The plinth could not be seen beyond the upstream and downstream sides of the columns. It is presently unclear whether this plinth functions as a foundation between the caisson piles and the masonry clad piers, or is present to support the mass concrete hexagonal infill. Both the plinth and infill were observed to be made from similar concrete. It is possible that this mass concrete infill has been added after construction of the bridge. From Pier 1, it was possible to access the large island gravel bank immediately downstream of the bridge and from there, get close to the collapsed columns of Pier 2 (Photos A-9 & A-10 refer). The watercourse at this location was observed to be very deep and presently functions as a barrier to Page 47
Page 48
Garmouth Viaduct Site Inspection Report B234M200-J-GAR-STR-REP-SIR-0001 Ver P02 Page 3 reaching the downstream column of Pier 2. This element whilst still standing was observed to be inclining at an angle and continues to support the end of the fallen girder of Span 2 (Photos A-9 & A-10 refer). Structurally, this situation is extremely unstable, as any movement of the column or the partially supported girder could result in total collapse of both into the river Spey. The collapsed upstream column of Pier 2 was neither accessible nor visible during the inspection as it was below water level. Localised turbulence on the upstream side of the Pier 2, appears to indicate the approximate location of the fallen column. Walking further east along the downstream island gravel bank, it was possible to get closer to Pier 3 and the intact main arch span. Unlike Span 2, Span 3 was observed to be more stable given both ends by Pier 2 were within the watercourse and relatively level to one another (Photo A9 refers). The columns of Pier 3 were noted to be significantly larger than those of the western approach columns and appeared to be in reasonable condition whilst still supporting both ends of the fallen Span 3 (Photos A-9 & A-11 refer). A large crack in one of the masonry columns of Pier 3 was observed, however, this was previously identified during an earlier inspection carried out by Moray Council (Photo A-13 refers), and may therefore be considered longstanding and not contributing to the collapse of the approach spans. The water channel at this location was noted to be very deep and prevented a closer inspection. The inspection team moved to the east side of Garmouth Viaduct but as access was limited, observations could only be made from the river bank adjacent to the east abutment. A deep water channel prevented any crossing to Piers 6, 5 or 4. From the river bank the same construction details as noted on the West side of the structure were also observed, i.e. mass concrete infill between the each of the piers columns (Photos A-14, A-15 & A-16 refer). A visual inspection observed all the piers up to the main arch span to be vertical and true and the soffits of the girders to be in a horizontal in plane with no obvious deviation or displacement up to and including the main span. Some general observations: The flow rate of the river varies from span to span, from being almost still to rapid with turbulence (Photos A-14, A-17 and A-18 refer). The condition of the columns above the water level appeared to be good, although a close inspection within touching distance was only possible at Pier 1 on the western side The condition of the main structural elements of the remaining non collapsed girders appears to be good, although a close inspection within touching distance was only possible at the first and last spans by the abutments. Based upon the foregoing a number of short and long term recommendations are proposed under Section 3 of this report. Page 48
Page 49
Garmouth Viaduct Site Inspection Report B234M200-J-GAR-STR-REP-SIR-0001 Ver P02 Page 4 3. Recommendations 3.1 Short-term recommendations 3.1.1 Public Safety The site should be fenced off and secured to prevent access across and under the structure. Signage advising the public of the potential dangers should also be erected on the approaches to the Viaduct and at local parking sites frequently used by the general public. 3.1.2 Bathymetric survey It is recommended that a bathymetric survey of the area around the fallen Pier 2 should be carried out as soon as possible by a Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV) to capture detailed data using point cloud sonar survey. This should include the location of the fallen column and the river bed profile including below water foundation elements in a 50 metre radius from Pier 2. The results of this survey should assist in informing the cause of the failure and the strategy going forward, helping to identify options for the future of the structure. The inclined column of Pier 2 supporting the partially collapsed Span 2, should be considered as too dangerous for divers or manned surface vessels. A bathymetric survey should also be carried out on the remainder of the structure to determine the river bed profile and this should extend approximately 100 metres upstream and downstream of the bridge. The frequency of this survey should reflect the consistently changing flow paths of the river Spey at this location. 3.1.3 Trial Pit (Pier 1) Due to the unknown depth of the concrete plinth beneath the hexagonal infill concrete, a localised trial pit to determine the depth of this element would be beneficial. This is best undertaken on the accessible Pier 1. Once the soffit of this element is known, the pit should be back filled. In addition, the outline of this plinth at ground level should be exposed, measured and sketched, to inform its extent in plan and relative to the Pier 1 columns. 3.1.4 Archive Records It is understood that there are no “As Built” records to hand for Garmouth Viaduct, a search of the councils archives and alternative archive repositories such as but not limited to National Records of Scotland, Historic Environment Scotland, Network Rail, etc, should be carried out to obtain as much information as possible about the substructures columns and foundations. Page 49
Page 50
Garmouth Viaduct Site Inspection Report B234M200-J-GAR-STR-REP-SIR-0001 Ver P02 Page 5 3.2 Longer-term recommendations 3.2.1 Coring The pier columns are clad in ashlar masonry however the internal make up of the individual columns is unknown. It is recommended that following analysis of the bathymetric survey results, consideration should be given to extracting column cores, in order to determine the full make up of these elements. This should be undertaken by a specialist contractor. 3.2.2 Intrusive investigations It is not clear how the piled foundations interact with the columns or if there is a pile cap that supports them. Consideration should be given to investigating the accessible westernmost pier, to determine the full depth and make up of the plinth supporting the mass concrete infill between the columns. Page 50
Page 51
Garmouth Viaduct Site Inspection Report B234M200-J-GAR-STR-REP-SIR-0001 Ver P02 Appendix A Appendix A. Site photographs, 18 December 2025 Page 51
Page 52
Garmouth Viaduct Site Inspection Report B234M200-J-GAR-STR-REP-SIR-0001 Ver P02 Appendix A Figure A-1: Hexagonal concrete infill between Pier 1 columns Figure A-2: View of span 2 from behind Pier 1. Figure A-3: Pier 1 Hexagonal concrete infill Figure A-4: View of submerged concrete plinth. Page 52
Page 53
Garmouth Viaduct Site Inspection Report B234M200-J-GAR-STR-REP-SIR-0001 Ver P02 Appendix A Figure A-5: Photo of submerged concrete plinth. Figure A-6: Soffit of span 2 Figure A-7: Photo of submerged concrete plinth below hexagonal concrete infill. Figure A-8: Hexagonal concrete infill in direction of the West Abutment Page 53
Page 54
Garmouth Viaduct Site Inspection Report B234M200-J-GAR-STR-REP-SIR-0001 Ver P02 Appendix A Figure A-9: Elevation span 3 (LHS) and span 2 (RHS) from downstream. Figure A-10: Close up of the inclined pier 2 supporting the partially collapsed span 2 Figure A-11: General view of the top of Pier 3 taken from the downstream side. Figure A-12: Photo of the Pier 3 columns taken downstream. Page 54
Page 55
Garmouth Viaduct Site Inspection Report B234M200-J-GAR-STR-REP-SIR-0001 Ver P02 Appendix A Figure A-13: Photo of the 2023 cracked Pier 3 Figure A-14: Downstream view of the viaduct from the east embankment Figure A-15: Concrete infill between pier 6 Figure A-16:Turbulance by pier 5. Page 55
Page 56
Garmouth Viaduct Site Inspection Report B234M200-J-GAR-STR-REP-SIR-0001 Ver P02 Appendix A Figure A-17: General view of turbulence within the river Spey Figure A-18: View of the turbulence in the river Spey Page 56
Page 57
Page 57
Page 58
Page 58
Page 59
Page 59
Page 60
Installation of 1.8m h ig h palisad e fencing (or sim ilar approved ) b etw een th e b rid g e parapet w alls, approx. 4.6m in long . Installation of 1.8m h ig h palisad e fencing (or sim ilar approved ) b etw een th e b rid g e parapet w alls, approx. 4.6m in long . nstallation of 1.2m h ig h 3-rail post-and -rail fencing across th e railw ay em b ankm ent and extend ing 1.5m d ow n th e slope to prevent access along th e railw ay line tow ard s th e b rid g e nstallation of 1.2m h ig h 3-rail post-and -rail fencing across th e railw ay em b ankm ent and extend ing 1.5m d ow n th e slope to prevent access along th e railw ay line tow ard s th e b rid g e nstallation of 1.2m h ig h 3-rail post-and -rail fencing across th e railw ay em b ankm ent and extend ing 1.5m d ow n th e slope to prevent access along th e railw ay line tow ard s th e b rid g e Wife o' Beith Pottie Burn Railw ay Arch Pool Shing le Spey Viad uct Shing le Shing le Shingle -Location and T ype of Safety Fencing Garm outh Viad uct. 1:3,708 @ A3 © Crow n copyrig h t [and d atab ase rig h ts] 2025 OS AC0000806936 Moray Council. You are perm itted to use th is d ata solely to enab le you to respond to, or interact w ith , th e org anisation th at provid ed you w ith th e d ata. You are not perm itted to copy, sub -license, d istrib ute or sell any of th is d ata to th ird parties in any form . T h ird party rig h ts to enforce th e term s of th is licence sh all b e reserved to OS. Page 60