CONTROVERSIAL proposals to double the toll to cross a North Yorkshire river are hanging in the balance after they came under fire - and were robustly defended - at a public inquiry.

An inspector will recommend the Transport Secretary to either approve or block the hike in the toll for Aldwark Bridge, near Boroughbridge, from 40 pence to 80 pence.

Aldwark Toll Bridge LLP has said previously that the increase was needed to fund major repairs to the bridge over the River Ure, which saves people a 25-mile round trip to use the next nearest crossing.

But the head teacher of a local school has warned that the increase would mean some families having to pay over £600 a year just to bring their child to and from school.

John Topliss, chair of Aldwark Area Parish Council, told the inquiry that the firm had failed to establish a justifiable business case for the proposed increase in line with the requirements of a 1954 Act.

He said: "All parties have acknowledged that the bridge is in need of repair and refurbishment, however, the evidence of the applicant himself, as well as the accountancy and traffic evidence, is

disputed."

He claimed the applicant had purchased the bridge, 'almost seemingly at a whim, without conducting appropriate due diligence to establish the condition of the structure.'

He claimed the applicant paid the full asking price of just over £1 million without an independent valuation, aware of significant issues with the bridge but with no allowance made in the price

agreed to pay.

Another objector, Kaye Carl, claimed the statutory requirements in the 1954 Transport Act had not been followed, and said: "There is no justification for the doubling of the toll which would provide an annual tax-free income of approximately £620,000, which is substantially more than adequate to meet expenditure on the working, management and maintenance of the undertaking."

But barrister David Hardy, representing the applicant, said it had 'clearly satisfied' the statutory conditions in the 1954 Act and as far as the applicant was aware, there had been no examples of a toll bridge operator being denied an application for an increase in tolls under the Act.

He said the firm's directors were in an 'unenviable position,' with a conflict of duties and responsibilities.

"As long term owners, they accept that they have a moral duty to help the community and to keep this important link available," he said.

"The bridge carries a public right of way and there is a statutory duty not to obstruct it.

"On the other hand, all company directors have a duty not to let a company become insolvent and pursuant to the legislation are entitled to make a reasonable return."