What Next?
Tolls increase to 40p: a turning point?
The Secretary of State for Transport has announced that the tolls on the Whitchurch Toll Bridge will double to 40p. The objectors have lost and we will all have to pay the extra tolls. But is that the end of the matter? Has the increase come about because, to quote Geoff Weir, “the objectors didn’t have any good arguments”? Or will the increase lead to more demands for the bridge’s current status to change?
The inquiry back in June 2009 covered a lot of the issues in detail. The Whitchurch Bridge Company was obliged to reveal much information that had previously been kept secret. The parish, district, county councillors and both local MPs, as well as TollFreeze.com, all made their case. But in the end, for the objectors, it came down to one problem: the Whitchurch Bridge Act of 1988.
This was a private Act of Parliament, put through by the Whitchurch Bridge Company, which made a number of significant changes in the way the 300-year-old bridge was run. The biggest change was that the shareholders could take a dividend based on the total value of the operation, not just on the money they had invested, as was the case before the Act. This means that despite the fact that their main asset is now near the end of its life, and the cost of the replacement is soaring, the Whitchurch Bridge Company shareholders get a larger and larger return on their investment – funded by the increased tolls.
The inquiry inspector’s report states that he agrees with the objectors, in that the current law is illogical. But the inspector had to apply the law as it stands.
The current situation was foreseen right back in 1988, when the Act was before Parliament. The Whitchurch-on-Thames Parish Council objected to the bill. Unfortunately, rather than ask for a change to the bill, the Parish Council accepted a compromise. They agreed instead, to a discount for local residents and the right to be consulted on future toll increases. This agreement, though, lasted only to the next toll increase. At that point the Whitchurch Bridge Company insisted on further compromises to continue the agreement. And then again, at the next increase, the same thing happened. Now there is no such agreement. The Whitchurch Bridge Company has the full benefit of the Act unencumbered by concessions.
Since 1988, the people who are unhappy with the Whitchurch Bridge Company have been split into two camps: those wanting a bigger local discount, and those wanting Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) to take over the bridge. That no long applies. The local discount is dead. The Whitchurch Bridge Company refuses to allow it. Therefore there is only one way to change the current situation: for OCC to step in.
Furthermore, there is another reason why OCC should act. Part of the reason for the current large increase in tolls is that the plans to rebuild the bridge have been drawn up so late, leaving little time to raise the money. OCC Bridge Department has acted as a paid consultant, advising on the future rebuilding. The fact that the estimates have shot up so late in the day, too late to pay for them without the big toll increase, is entirely their fault. At the inquiry the OCC engineer admitted that detailed plans could have been drawn up sooner. The council has acted for the Whitchurch Bridge Company rather than discharge its legal or democratic responsibility.
Our local OCC representative, David Sexon, has said he supports our case. So has our MP, John Howell. It is now time for all to unite to press the case to OCC. Make no mistake, this will not happen overnight. Councils act slowly, with five-year plans. So we must make our case now, and keep it up over several years.
The Whitchurch Bridge Company may have won the right to raise the tolls to 40p, but they have also united the opposition to the toll bridge. People will look back to the 2009 inquiry, and say that this was the day the tide turned.
Colin Cooper, TollFreeze.com
Correspondence with the Council for your information. Scroll to the bottom of this message to see the start of the thread. Mr Mitchell’s comments are in quotation marks.
Dear Mr Mitchell
Thank you for your replies to my questions. With respect to your comment:
“Effectively, you are asking all of Oxfordshire’s council tax payers to pick up the burden of the present tolls on this bridge. Even in the most beneficial of financial times, I would find it hard to justify this action to tax payers across the county.”
I would reply that as a taxpayer, I pay for all the other roads in Oxfordshire, even the ones I don’t use. I also pay for schools and hospitals and social services that I don’t use. That is the principle of taxation, common ownership and common responsibility by everyone for essential infrastructure which is needed for only some of us. The road infrastructure is generally in public hands because it is seen to be a public good. Transport links lubricate the economy. So I’m afraid your argument that council tax payers should not pay for this bridge is pretty much spurious and I reject it completely.
I look forward to Mr Hudspeth’s repsonse.
Yours sincerely
Dr Judi Sutherland MBA
——————————————————————————–
Subject: RE: Whitchurch Toll Bridge
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:40:18 +0000
From: leader@Oxfordshire.gov.uk
To: judithlynn@hotmail.co.uk
CC: Ian.Hudspeth@Oxfordshire.gov.uk
I am forwarding this to the Cabinet Member for Growth and Infrastructure but I have provided my own answers to your questions below.
As ever
Keith R Mitchell
Keith R Mitchell CBE
Leader of the Council
County Hall, Oxford OX1 1ND
(Tel: 01865 815283
(Fax: 01865 815390
*leader@oxfordshire.gov.uk
——————————————————————————–
From: Judi S [mailto:judithlynn@hotmail.co.uk]
Sent: 26 October 2009 16:46
To: Cllr Keith Mitchell
Subject: Whitchurch Toll Bridge
Dear Mr Mitchell
I am writing in support of the campaign to take the Whitchurch Toll Bridge into the ownership of Oxfordshire County Council. I do not believe that the current arrangements incentivise the Whitchurch Toll Bridge Company to act in the responsible way that befits a provider of a public service, and I am concerned that they have no interest in the upkeep and replacement of the Bridge. The fact that, due to the Act of 1988, an asset nearing the end of its life can command an increased toll, increasing the value to shareholders who then seem to have no responsibility to rebuild the crossing at a reasonable price, backs up my view that the Company is unfit to run the bridge. I also notice that in a part of the country where property commands a premium, the Toll House seems to be derelict, which is an indication that the Company is not incentivised to maximise the use of its assets.
Unlike the larger toll bridges at the Humber, Severn or Dartford crossings, this bridge divides a natural community. As long as people are restricted by tolls from crossing the Thames freely, there will be disadvantages to local people and the local economy.
1. Why won’t the council step in and remove the toll from this bridge, like all the hundreds of tolls that were removed from the county in the 1870s? “My Cabinet colleague may need to correct me but I suspect achieving this would require the County Council to purchase the bridge from the present owners. Buying out the presrnt income stream that this bridge produces would have a considerable cost which would have to be funded from our capital programme. I understand there are substantial future costs in refurbising the bridge and this would similarly have to come from our capital programme. You would then expect us to anbolish the source of income that might repay the capital cost. Effectively, you are asking all of Oxfordshire’s council tax payers to pick up the burden of the present tolls on this bridge. Even in the most beneficial of financial times, I would find it hard to justify this action to tax payers across the county but, given the financial stringency we anticipate because of the national economic and finncial position facing the country I can see absolutely no hope of funding what you ask.”
2. Why has OCC’s bridge department continue to make money advising the bridge company, whilst all the rest of us have to pay the higher toll? “I am sorry you take exception to our bridges department recovering the costs of providing advice to the bridge company. If we were to make all of our advice free to all of the comercual operators in the county, our costs would be significantly higher and this would be reflected in a higher council tax or in a lower level of services. I believe neither of these would be acceptable to our county electors.”
3. Why has OCC’s bridge department have given such bad advice, that the estimated cost of construction of the bridge has more than trebled in a few years, far too late for the tolls to pay for it without this massive increase? “I take some exception to your challenging the quality of the advice our bridges depafrtment has given. Might the problem not be failure to implement advice on the part of the commercial organisation that owns the bridge? I will defer to my Cabint colleague who will be better briefed than me on this subject.”
I think Oxfordshire Council Tax Payers have a right to know the answers to these questions. I use this crossing every day to get to work in Basingstoke.
Yours sincerely
Dr Judi Sutherland
The Chapel House
The Green
Nettlebed
RG9 5AX
I was really shocked that the Whitchurch Bridge company could be so shamelessas as to renege on it\’s committment regarding the level of discounted tolls so soon after the public enquiry.
I wrote to John Howell MP and asked that he petition Oxford Council to use powers available under the Highways Act to remove the right to collect tolls from the Bridge, as is suggested here. He responded :
\"I do not believe that the County Council has the right to remove ability to charge tolls as this is surely conveyed by the two bridge acts of parliament.\"
\"The county council have already made it clear that they will not do this and that they won\’t spend the money on this. This was the message we got in the early days of the campaign.\"
Put another way, they are happy that you and I fund the capital cost of the new Bridge and allow Mr Weir and friends profit from our investment !