Goring Heath Parish Council

Goring Heath Parish Council objects to the application for an increase of tolls on Whitchurch Toll Bridge as the Company has been in breach of the 1988 Whitchurch Bridge Act, has not examined other options for extending the life of the current bridge, and has not examined other options for funding a replacement bridge.

The reason given for the increase in tolls is to provide funding for the cost of a replacement bridge.

This was the same reason for a previous toll increase, on the basis that the bridge would need to be replaced by 2005.

Clearly the bridge was not rebuilt in 2005, and the rationale for the previous toll increase was flawed, and has simply enabled the bridge company to pay increased dividends to its shareholders.

The Company now claims that its return on the existing bridge is inadequate at 2.3%, basing this return, not on the investment made by the shareholders in the bridge, but on the value of assets held or used in connection with the bridge.

In the year to June 2008, dividends paid out by the company to its shareholders, under section 4 of the 1988 Act amounted to £49,350.

The Accounts of the Company state the value of the fixed assets of the bridge company as £757,812.

The return of £49,350 on these assets is 6.5%.

However, the fixed assets include the old toll keeper’s house, which is no longer used in  direct connection with the bridge, its function as part of the bridge infrastructure having been superseded by the erection of the toll booth, also included in the assets at depreciated cost of £109,711.

The Old Toll House is now occupied as a private dwelling, and as such no longer falls within the definition of assets “being held or used in connection with that bridge”. In any event, the toll house is included at a valuation of £500,000, which clearly reflects its value as an independent dwelling and not a part of the operating infrastructure of a transport undertaking.

The recent move by the Environment Agency to dispose of surplus lock keepers cottages is a move that should have been adopted by the Bridge Company.

Excluding the value of the Old Toll House, the return on investment rises to 19.2%

The Application for Increase Tolls should be refused on the grounds that the Company has made an excessive return contrary to the 1988 Whitchurch Bridge Act

Alternative Options

The Bridge Company has failed to adequately examine alternative options, in particular the reduction of the weight limit to 3 tonnes. This would give a substantially increased life to the existing bridge.

However, under the 1988 Act, the higher the value that can be attributed to the bridge, the higher dividends can be justified by the company.

The proposed rebuilding of the bridge is as much a case of financial engineering as civil engineering.

Alternative methods of Funding a Replacement Bridge

If a replacement bridge is required, then shareholders should provide the funding from their own resources, as is the case for other infrastructure projects such as the Channel Tunnel or the M6 Toll Road. 

The Bridge Company has power under Section 6 of the 1988 Act to borrow money, and, given the projected 120 year design life of the new bridge ( Oxford County Council ),  and the reasonable certainty of continuing traffic flows and income generation, the funds for a replacement bridge should be provided by the shareholders or by borrowIng by the company, as is the case for any other infrastructure project and as indeed was the case in 1792.