Jump to content

Councilor Dirir is buying a bridge


boris1066
 Share

Recommended Posts

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 ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :wink::lol:  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...