Apart from the expense, the visual impact of these new structures brings tears to the eyes. Axminster has just such a structure (very convenient with cases and we all appreciate that) but alongside Tite's old station building, it is an eyesore and no mistake. Google maps street view link follows:
https://www.google.com/maps/@50.779...4!1svrwpcTg812WQ1kE2PmmwuA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
One wonders whether the old barrow crossings would be perfectly adequate, if equipped like protected level crossings. If you look at the webcam at Bishops Lydeard and see what happens when a train arrives, you will see what I mean (that could be automated). It is a great pity that planning restrictions did not enforce ensuring that these structures were made to be clad in more sympathetic materials and colours. The bridge structure at Honeybourne is just ghastly. Google maps street view link follows:
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.101...4!1s1ZgWVZyBvpwcUtpz6TmMiA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Funny you should mention both Axminster and Honeybourne - the latter bridge dates from the Cotswold Line redoubling scheme. There was much huffing and puffing on the Charlbury town website about the new bridge there, which has long ramps like Honeybourne, and about how Network Rail should have used lifts instead. Then someone posted a link to a picture of Axminster and it all went very quiet after that.
No wonder, as the station at Charlbury is in an AONB and the Brunel building is listed. But a bridge with lifts at Honeybourne would stick out like a sore thumb, as there is nothing taller than a two-storey house in the vicinity. The site did not allow the use of parallel ramps, as seen nearby at Moreton-in-Marsh (though it is still a big lump pf steelwork), while the law requires full access, hence what was built.
The policy is to do everything possible to get people and vehicles off level crossings of any kind and that's not going to change. We've seen too many instances of people being struck by trains that were hidden behind another one. The barriers at Bishops Lydeard are supervised by two people and the idea that everybody will behave themselves without that human presence, pay attention to 'traffic lights' and not try to dodge crossing barriers on railways is disproved on a almost daily basis across the country
Could the original bridge at Abergavenny be raised up on a plinth/base with concrete steps leading to the steps on the bridge (if I am making sense here) to provide clearance?
I doubt that would be acceptable. Sticking it on a plinth would partly defeat the object of it being listed, as you would be changing the setting from it having its feet anchored in the platform surface - and there is no prospect of electrification there anyway, so what would be the point?
Have a look at
Ipswich to see how compliant footbridges when suitably constructed, clad and painted can be made to fit in just fine.
It might 'fit in fine' in a large station in an urban setting but try plonking down something that size in more exposed location and it wouldn't fit in no matter what you clad it in. The new bridges at Twyford and Goring & Streatley dominate both stations.