Devon council could be forced to restructure an 18th century bridge over the River Torridge, following complaints by a local resident that it is causing serious flooding.
Torridge District Council have served an abatement notice on Devon council, the highway authority responsible for maintaining Taddiport Bridge in Taddiport. The latter council are challenging the notice in the North Devon Magistrates’ Court.
Flooding in the area is so severe that local resident John Robinson has allegedly been confined to living in the upstairs rooms at Buckingham House one of eight homes constructed in the flood plain immediately upstream of the bridge.
Robinson has been making representations to the council about the flooding for 25 years. Since 1969, seven floods have occurred, with the worst causing water to flood almost to the underside of the joists supporting the first floor of his home.
This week, the High Court in London refused to grant Robinson a declaration, in the lead-up to the magistrates’ court proceedings, that the plinths and arches of the bridge were capable in law of “choking” the proper flow of the river, thereby causing a nuisance under the Public Health Act 1936.
Hodge J said that, although parts of a bridge could be “artificial obstructions” that could choke a watercourse, whether that had occurred in this case was a “factual issue” not suitable for determination in a judicial review application.
The various parties will now appear in the magistrates’ court in June for a pre-trial review relating to Devon council’s challenge.
The Grade II listed Taddiport Bridge was constructed in the 17th or early 18th century, although a bridge has been present at the site since the 13th century. A strengthening of the arches was carried out in 1969.
R (on the application of Robinson) v Torridge District Council and another Administrative Court (Hodge J) 27 April 2006.
James Pereira (instructed by Toller Beattie) appeared for the claimant; Philip Coppel (instructed by the legal department of Devon County Council) appeared for the interested party; the defendants did not appear and were not represented.
References: EGi Legal News 27/04/06
