How much is an accommodation bridge worth?

[MoominPapa]

You don't have to travel far on the canals to find the sites of accommodation bridges which are no more. Either a swing bridge rusting away in the offside undergrowth, or a narrows with the stumps of abutments on either side of it. 

 

My understanding is that the original canal promoters and their successors, all the way CRT in the present, have a legal obligation to provide these bridges arising from the original canal act, and I'm interested in how some have managed to disappear, presumably legally. I'm imagining a process in which the land-owner waives the right to the bridge in return for a payment. The discounted cost of maintaining a bridge in perpetuity must be quite substantial. There must be a tendency over time for the two halves of a land holding which was bisected by the line of the canal to move into different ownerships, and a payment for removing a bridge could add to the incentive for doing that.

 

Is this a thing that can happen, in law? Where would I go about researching such things?

 

 

MP.

 

[Murflynn]

yes, it is a rainy day, isn't it 

[Athy]

8 minutes ago, MoominPapa said:

There must be a tendency over time for the two halves of a land holding which was bisected by the line of the canal to move into different ownerships,

 

This is probably the crux of the answer. Canal companies had to link bisected land which was in the same ownership. However, if the land on one side of the canal changed ownership, there was no longer any such obligation, and the bridge became surplus to requirements.

[MoominPapa]

10 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

yes, it is a rainy day, isn't it 

It is, but I'm moored at the top of Hack Green, as much entertainment is to be had from gongoozling the workers fixing No. 2.

 

MP.

2 minutes ago, Athy said:

This is probably the crux of the answer. Canal companies had to link bisected land which was in the same ownership. However, if the land on one side of the canal changed ownership, there was no longer any such obligation, and the bridge became surplus to requirements.

It would be interesting to know if the acts provide for the obligation to cease if the land on each side is no longer in the same ownership.

 

MP.

[Heartland]

I fail to recall an example of an act of parliament sanctioning a side cut for a basin, at present, but I suspect there were some. An accommodation ( or side) bridge for a junction with another canal is a different matter. With the closure, or alteration, of canals junction have been lost. It would be of interest to test a case in Wolverhampton where the original line of the BCN went under the station and was filled in. The north end is retained as a basin for Broad Street Depot, but the other end has been filled into the towpath and that side bridge removed. On this piece of the canal there remains a half demolished building. This structure was the annexe to Nortons Mill and boats used to load there on the arm with flour.

 

The view of the arm in water is in the Britain from Above Collection

 

 

 

 

The bridge is seen at the bottom of this view. The original building is covered by the plant associated with loading canal boats. The original building on that wharf dates back to the earliest days of canal carrying in the BCN and the wharf was established for coal transport in 1771, before the BCN was completed to Aldersley.

 

Edited October 21, 2020 by Heartland

[Tacet]

In the modern era, the roots of which go back centuries so may provide a useful indication, a promoter of an act of parliament  for compulsory powers will seek to remove the objections and thus give undertakings, such as a private bridge, to the objectors to that end.  Even if it does not satisfy the objectors, the reasonableness of the undertaking can influence the decision.  Who maintains the crossing and in what circumstances will vary.

 

More commonly, for routine schemes, a compulsory purchase order will be made pursuant to the Highways Act or Planning Act, for example.  The bisected owner will then have a claim for the value of the land taken and severance and, quite possibly injurious affection for the retained land, all of which are capable of being compensated.  As the claimant is under a duty to mitigate its loss, it can be expected to accept the offer to bridge the gap and thus reduce its claim.  Again the offered deal on the bridge will vary - but who is responsible for future maintenance will bear upon probable compensation.