05:00, 01 Nov 2025Updated 05:56, 01 Nov 2025<\/p>\n
![\"Corporation](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/0_291025-CorporationBridgeGrimsby.jpg\")
Corporation Road Bridge, Grimsby, shut to motorists since February 2023. (Image: LDR)<\/p>\n
The former main contractor for the refurbishment of Corporation Road Bridge in Grimsby<\/a> has disputed claims over its performance on the project. During a council scrutiny panel meeting on Wednesday (October 29), it was claimed Spencer Group had proposed a design for span four, covering the lifting span mechanism, that would have resulted in limits on HGV use of the bridge.<\/p>\n It was also heard that disagreement over an alternative design led to the end of the firm’s involvement with the project. North East Lincolnshire Council<\/a> terminated its contract<\/a> with Spencer Group, also known as C Spencer Limited (CSL), in May, with “unacceptable delays” and costs cited.<\/p>\n Following the meeting this week, Spencer Group responded saying the company’s design would have accommodated HGVs and it was “viable, buildable, and ready for implementation”. It added claims made in the meeting that there are repairs required on the bridge in relation to its earlier work are “entirely unfounded”.<\/p>\n During the scrutiny panel, a project presentation was given by the council’s assistant director of infrastructure, housing, highways and transport, Paul Evans. He said Spencer Group’s proposed design for span four that would have raised the carriageway level and HGVs unable to use it “would have had a diversion route in place for them”.<\/p>\n A council spokesperson has stated the design would have impacted “some HGVs”. They said: “We can confirm that Equans commissioned CSL to generate a new design for Span 4 of the bridge once we knew more about the condition of the steelwork. We can also confirm that the recommended option provided from CSL would have removed the ability for some HGVs to access over the bridge, due to height restrictions that would have been created as a result of the new design.” The scrutiny panel was informed in February 2025, the spokesperson added.<\/p>\n Pell Frischmann, third-party advisors hired by the council, raised concern about the span four design, said Mr Evans. “They believed that they could maintain the HGV access.”<\/p>\n Pell Frischmann agreed to do a redesign and “provided the concept out of their own costs”. The subsequent design’s “big win” was “reducing the complexity of the build of span four”, said Mr Evans.<\/p>\n Talks followed with Spencer Group on creating this new span design. Pell Frischmann did shadow costing and optimisation prices.<\/p>\n Mr Evans stated negotiations collapsed. “It left us in a position of carry on as we are with a cost that we didn\u2019t think was value for money, or terminate the contract.<\/p>\n “We did that under a no blame case,” he said, to allow procurement of a new contractor as soon as possible. The contract was terminated on May 19.<\/p>\n A scoping report then highlighted “some, what we consider to be defects” with repair work, Mr Evans said. Councillors heard the authority is committed to pursuing legal recourse, if necessary.<\/p>\n Spencer Group response<\/p>\n A Spencer Group spokesperson said it was with regret it felt compelled to comment on statements “repeatedly relayed” by the council “that support the assertion that the termination of our contract results from our performance on Corporation Bridge”. It has worked on historic bridges for the past 30 years, receiving industry accolades and awards, and prides itself on supporting clients on how best to approach projects like Corporation Bridge, the spokesperson said.<\/p>\n “Regrettably, in this instance, North East Lincolnshire Council (NELC) chose to disregard our professional recommendations, instead electing to follow advice from parties who, in our opinion, lack relevant experience and understanding of this type of work. This decision and advice led to the abrupt termination of our contract without any engagement, prior notice or justification.<\/p>\n “It is a matter of fact that no explanation was provided to us for the reason for termination, which was executed immediately,” the spokesperson claimed. “The consequences of these misinformed choices are now being felt by the residents of Grimsby, who continue to endure unnecessary delays and disruption.”<\/p>\n The Spencer Group spokesperson said, at the council’s request, “we developed a design that would have safely accommodated pedestrians, vehicles, and HGVs. This design was viable, buildable, and ready for implementation.”<\/p>\n Despite involvement in the design process, the spokesperson claimed the council “ultimately chose to pursue an alternative design for reasons that were never made clear to us”. The Spencer Group spokesperson continued: “Furthermore, any suggestion that there is a ‘vast amount of repair work’ required is entirely unfounded.<\/p>\n “We remain committed to upholding the integrity of our work and the standards of our profession. Any assertions that prove to be inaccurate or misleading that bring our professional standing into question will be challenged vigorously and appropriate compensation pursued.”<\/p>\n Equans, who until this summer oversaw the project, were reached out to for comment opportunity over supporting the originally proposed span four design.<\/p>\n The bridge’s new expected reopening date is December 2026<\/a>.<\/p>\n