Last chance for your view to count - plus Xmas Quiz
You’ve missed the last posting day before Xmas. But, still worth posting it off. Likely it will still count if there just after Xmas. Every objection counts. Read the debate here then write your letter here.
If you’ve already sent one then thanks a lot. Have an extra mince pie and glass of port. And look forward to 2009.
For Christmas fun, we have just dug out the archives a list of the promises the WBC made in return for Whitchurch on Thames Parish Council not objecting to the Whitchurch Bridge Act 1988. Can you guess which former Parish Councillor, now WBC spokesperson, announced he had won the following “formalised assurances” from the WBC:
- WBC would publish their accounts
- The parish would always be involved in full consultations before toll increase applications
- A time-based season ticket would be introduced, to help people that cross several times a day.
First correct answer wins another mince pie. For bonus points, how many promises were kept?
by Colin Cooper |
December 21st, 2008 |
Uncategorized
Having read the very informative article I have one or two additional questions that widen the debate. I admit that I have not studied this subject at any length and I expect that some of my points below have been raised or are already in the minds of others. I give my whole hearted support for a public enquiry, not just on the subject of raising the toll but it is obvious to me that there is the need to have a wider debate to include the ongoing issues that will arise after the replacement of the Whitchurch Toll Bridge.
1. The implications of an increased weight limit on a replacement bridge would imply, to me, a
modern design that would be out of keeping with the traditional and characteristic design
of the existing structure. To preserve a more traditional, very characteristic appearance
and increase the weight limit would very likely increase the cost. If the cost is to be funded
by the bridge company then such a sympathetic design may be resisted.
2. Although, I believe, that there may be general regulation governing weight limits on new
bridge construction, possibly EU directives, surely there must be room for exception in cases
where the surrounding infrastructure will make such an increase both unnecessary and
potentially uncharacteristic of the surrounding environment.
3. No mention of whether a preservation order has been made on the existing bridge. Surely,
the bridge is of importance to the locality both from land and from the river. I would think
that such an order would be useful to ensure that any future replacement structure is
very much more likely to be in keeping with the area. As I understand it, although I could be
wrong, as owners of a listed property the Bridge Company would have some additional
responsibilities to ensure the bridge is kept in good order.
4. I think the above issues are more important than the general, dare I say, superficial issue of
an increase in toll. I would support a discounted toll for local residents along the lines of the
previous percentages together with a general non-resident toll higher than the 40p being
suggested. However, the toll bridge has been in use for 100 years; so most, if not all, of the
local residents live in the locality well aware of the toll to be paid for a Thames crossing as
well as the benefits of living in such a picturesque area.
5. Why does Oxfordshire County take such a large proportion of the income? Without
seeing previous levels that did not include extraordinary fees I cannot understand what the
contributions mean. I may have missed the point or misunderstood the information
presented in the article, but should not OCC contribute monies to the bridge company for the
provision of a piece of essential road infrastructure.
Overall, I believe there is a need for a wider debate regarding the future of the Whitchurch Toll Bridge by way of a public inquiry, that should encompass the much wider issues than just the increase in tolls.
I use the toll bridge twice a day every day of my working life and have little choice in the matter. Whilst I recognise the need to restore the bridge, I find it extremely hard to accept that those of us who have no choice about our route to work should have to fund what is essentially public highway repairs. Is it not possible for the bridge company to seek grants and also reduce/eliminate the dividend paid to shareholders for the duration of the rebuilding of the bridge?
Beryl M. Smart
Why has the Oxfordshire County Council been so unwilling to tell us why it is not prepared - perhaps in conjunction with Berkshire CC for Whitchurch Bridge - to take over that bridge and the Swinford Toll Bridge, and so put users of those bridges on a “no-toll” par with virtually every other road bridge in the British road system?
There is no Berkshire County Council - it would be West Berkshire Council.
That aside, I can’t see West Berks, Oxfordshire CC or South Oxon DC rushing forward to take over the bridge. At the moment it is paid for by the people who use it, regardless of where they live.
With the bridge in local authority ownership everyone would pay, even if they never used the bridge, so there is potentially lots of opposition from constituents who might register their disapproval at the next election!