The controversial infill of Great Musgrave bridge must be removed:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/16/burying-of-victorian-bridge-in-cumbria-must-be-reversed-says-council
planning report here:
https://democracy.eden.gov.uk/documents/s18507/FINALAgendaGREENPages_16June2022.pdf

The amusing part is this bit:

"In a last-ditch offer to try to avoid the embarrassment and estimated
£431,000 cost of removing the infill, NH offered to fund £450,000 to repair
other structures on another stretch of disused railway near Great Musgrave
if the concrete infill was allowed to remain.

The head of NH’s historical railways estate programme, Hélène Rossiter, told
the committee that if it approved the application, NH would ringfence the
money that would have been spent on removing the infill to improve other
legacy structures in the Eden Valley.

She also claimed infilling Great Musgrave Bridge had been necessary to make
it safe, and said it could be removed if a viable use for the disused line
under the bridge could be found.

The cash offer was supported by David Pemberton, the director of Railway
Paths, the charity that owns the structures and would be the main
beneficiary of the donation. Pemberton said the money would help reopen
seven miles of disused track north between Warcop and Appleby."

Seems like National Highways have got their politics spectacularly wrong.
The trackbed is owned by Railway Paths Ltd, the commercial arm of Sustrans.
The permanent way on top of the trackbed is owned by the Eden Valley
Railway. At least, the other parts of the trackbed to which NH are
referring.

By all accounts the relations between the two are... strained.
Originally the plan was to have a single track railway and a parallel
cyclepath, but turns out there's insufficient space for that. Hence
deadlock.

The quote from RPL is telling: "reopen seven miles of disused track" doesn't
say 'as a railway' - they are interested in opening as a cyclepath. NH are
making an offer to Sustrans which actually pushes a heritage operation
further away, not making it easier. Hence the offer was actively
counterproductive, as far as the railway folks are concerned.

(which is not to say that had sway at the planning meeting, given the
constraints under which the planning process can make decisions. The
minutes will be interesting.)

Theo