boris1066 Posted October 18, 2013 Report Share Posted October 18, 2013 Reported in this weeks WG that WBC are to purchase the bridge to Fidlers Marina that collapsed recently when a 20 ton lorry almost passed over it, the bridge has a 7.5 ton weight limit. Why am I/we buying a bridge that is on private property. It's reported/commented that it will cost £220,000. In these financially trouble, times how is it that WBC manage to find such a sum ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted October 18, 2013 Report Share Posted October 18, 2013 What I cannot quite get my head around is that WBC were going to do some work on the bridge this month anyway. If that is the case then why is not the owner being billed for any work the council has done to maintain the bridge in the past as they must have done some repair work over the years. I have been told that the people who currently own the bridge did not even know that they did. Can just imagine the conversation in the MD's office when they got the phone call. secretary "Sir it appears that the bridge has collapsed" MD "we own a bridge?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted October 18, 2013 Report Share Posted October 18, 2013 The Gruniard is a week behind this website with its news, the current owner is the Duchy of Lancashire (by default) as reported nine days ago on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted October 18, 2013 Report Share Posted October 18, 2013 Is it correct the bridge is the only way onto the trading estate ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted October 18, 2013 Report Share Posted October 18, 2013 Why are the insurers or owners of the lorry not paying for the repairs??????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted October 18, 2013 Report Share Posted October 18, 2013 It said in the Guardian that the weight limit sign had been removed . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted October 18, 2013 Report Share Posted October 18, 2013 Not relevent. The lorry caused the damage, those responsible for it should pay for it. Had the driver ever used the bridge before (in which case he knew all about its weight limit)? Was the weight limit sign removed before the damage occurred - or somewhat conveniently afterwards? Was the lorry in perfect mechanical condition, not overloaded? Were all the drivers and owners documents valid and up to date? Rather than just chucking thick end of a £1/4 million of my money at the problem WBC should be taking a much tougher line and asking exactly the questions the lorry driver, his employers and their insurers don't want to hear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockcutting Posted October 18, 2013 Report Share Posted October 18, 2013 I thought the problem was that HGV'S had been using this bridge Illegally for many years and then they are surprised that the bridge gave way under another over loaded lorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freeborn John Posted October 18, 2013 Report Share Posted October 18, 2013 It was an awful bridge, a couple of girders with some steel plate laid on top, I don't know how it lasted as long as it did. An entire industrial estate, with all the heavy traffic that that entails, has been forced to use it for its sole access for years, an industrial estate which pays its rates like anyone else, if the inevitable need for a new bridge has bitten the council on the backside that's just too bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffee Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 Not relevent. The lorry caused the damage, those responsible for it should pay for it. Had the driver ever used the bridge before (in which case he knew all about its weight limit)? Was the weight limit sign removed before the damage occurred - or somewhat conveniently afterwards? Was the lorry in perfect mechanical condition, not overloaded? Were all the drivers and owners documents valid and up to date? Rather than just chucking thick end of a £1/4 million of my money at the problem WBC should be taking a much tougher line and asking exactly the questions the lorry driver, his employers and their insurers don't want to hear. In order for the lorry owners to be liable for the damage the owners of the bridge need to prove negligence and if there was no sign it would be hard to prove. Also if that was the only entry to the industrial estate how can you have a weight limit on the only entrance? It was an awful bridge, a couple of girders with some steel plate laid on top, I don't know how it lasted as long as it did.An entire industrial estate, with all the heavy traffic that that entails, has been forced to use it for its sole access for years, an industrial estate which pays its rates like anyone else, if the inevitable need for a new bridge has bitten the council on the backside that's just too bad. I pay my rates too but if my driveway were to claps I doubt the council would pay for it to be repaired Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted October 22, 2013 Report Share Posted October 22, 2013 Sometimes the council can't win either way. For weeks there have been stories and complaints about the fact that nothing has been done to resolve it and today I read that the council have installed a new temporary bridge and now people are complaining about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffee Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 Sometimes the council can't win either way. For weeks there have been stories and complaints about the fact that nothing has been done to resolve it and today I read that the council have installed a new temporary bridge and now people are complaining about that. Yes that is possibly true but the council is cutting services, wages and increasing charges while maintain property that does not belong to it. It is not the councils job to maintain property that does not belong to it or raise funds for the Monarch. Ps just read the article (been away for four weeks) now I am undecided, who owns the industrial estate and how come the Dutchy of Lancashire became the owners? Anyone know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 the duchy holds the leasehold on the land but the bridge belonged to a firm that went out of business. the bridge then defaulted to the duchy which is why i put my comment in about the chairman and secretary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffee Posted October 24, 2013 Report Share Posted October 24, 2013 If the dutchy owns the leasehold I presume it also owns the industrial buildings and land, therefore it is in the interest of the dutchy to maintain the bridge because without the bridge the buildings and land loose a lot or most of its value? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted October 25, 2013 Report Share Posted October 25, 2013 It actually belongs to the reigning monarch and is the responsibility of a government minister appointed by the monarch under guidance from the prime minister. the reigning monarch gets the revenue profits after tax but cannot touch the capital profits or the capital itself. Three years ago it was valued at £350 million give or take a couple of million. So maybe a letter to her highness might get a result, like beheading or hanging or a few years in the tower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 25, 2013 Report Share Posted October 25, 2013 How on earth can an industrial estate with one crap, impassable entry be worth £350 million???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted October 25, 2013 Report Share Posted October 25, 2013 £350 million.. Well I suppose they could have advertised it as a large area of land being impassable to the minions by way of a moat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockcutting Posted October 26, 2013 Report Share Posted October 26, 2013 Dizzy, is that the best that you can do? Shame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted October 26, 2013 Report Share Posted October 26, 2013 the duchy of lancashire/lancaster total properties are worth £350 million but that was in 2011. might be worth a bit less with the recession. it covers quite a lot of manchester, lancashire, cheshire and merseyside. I always tend to forget that people interpret posts as read and not as intended still it makes for some interesting misunderstandings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 26, 2013 Report Share Posted October 26, 2013 It actually belongs to the reigning monarch Three years ago it was valued at £350 million give or take a couple of million. I always tend to forget that people interpret posts as read and not as intended still it makes for some interesting misunderstandings. We were talking about an industrial estate in Warrington.... there was no mention that you were referring to the total value of the whole estates owned by the monarch.... how else were we supposed to read it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted October 26, 2013 Report Share Posted October 26, 2013 Ahh I get it now Evils. I read it the same was as Baz did and thought you meant the industrial estate was valued at £350 million too hence my comment about the moat around it.... which RC didn't find amusing. PS RC yes it was Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted October 26, 2013 Report Share Posted October 26, 2013 As I said it was read as written and not as intended. A lot of things make sense when you write them but then once read by somebody else come out a pure gibberish. It's a case of I know what I meant but unfortunately it did not read as what I meant it to. Which is why proof readers are kept in employment and government forms are so complicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 26, 2013 Report Share Posted October 26, 2013 A lot of things make sense when you write them but then once read by somebody else come out a pure gibberish. I have that problem when I read most of Kije's posts :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted October 26, 2013 Report Share Posted October 26, 2013 I can't even understand my own half the time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 27, 2013 Report Share Posted October 27, 2013 I can't even understand my own half the time you aren't alone dear..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.