Flannel wrote:Back to the bridge and the £1,000,000 ransom demanded by United Utilities for their land. Mr Stephenson Smyth started off hinting that the value of the bridge was more than it appeared, but the thread is wandering off as usual.
Does anybody know why United Utilities demanded so much, were they trying to make Tescos share their profit, was it because of the very large and brittle cast iron pipes or is there other plans for the land that would push its value up? I heard from a man down the pub that they originally asked for a much smaller amount, when the bridge plan was first suggested.
Good afternoon to you Mr Flannel,
I apologise that I have not come back to you earlier on this subject.
The Green Gentleman came up with the absurd statement that bridges do not make profits; I attempted to steer him in the direction of the Stokes v Cambridge law ruling of 1961.
He is either incapable or unwilling to research that notable case which is now used on every occasion where the situation arises.
Basically it is what identified that which is now commonly known as a ransom strip.
If you apply this to the construction of a bridge which quite obviously goes from point A to point B then the land between those two points, if it is owned by someone or some body other than the person who wants access then that third party is in possession of a ransom strip.
Beneath the bridge may be a road, river, canal or anything similar but it will almost certainly belong to someone.
The owner theoretically owns the strip to the core of the earth and to the outer reaches of the atmosphere.
So you can neither go under it nor go over it without the owner’s permission.
Obviously some people do go over the ransom strip without asking the ransom strip owner; such things as telephone wires, and the ransom strip owner either doesn’t know or can’t be bothered with such minor infringements.
As an example, and I do not want to go into specific details here because it would be unfair on the people involved, the Stokes v Cambridge law was applied some years ago when an individual needed to make access across a piece of land approximately 3 feet across in Whaley Bridge.
This then became a ransom strip and the individual needed the access and had to construct a very simple concrete bridge to the liking and approval of the ransom strip owner.
The owner of the ransom strip then demanded many thousands of pounds for his trouble and he was paid before anyone could cross the bridge.
I know this to be the case because I was consulted and became part of the negotiations. I will not say for which side.
But the owner of the ransom strip did absolutely nothing but demanded and got a huge amount of money.
So when the Green Gentleman says “bridges don’t make profits” he simply does not know what he is talking about.
I do not know of the history of the second bridge or even where it is planned to be built but I’ll tell you what I wouldn’t mind owning the land beneath it and I’m sure after reading this the Green Gentleman would take the same view as me.
R. S-S
