Hi, I own an old railway property too. And luckily have the original deeds from 1897, luckily, as land registry sometimes do not have the complete information. And in those deeds it mentions that the railway company does have and will have access to my land if required for various reasons. There has been no station here since 1927 but if they so wish they can enter to cut the trees on the sliver of land left behind my property, where the station used to be. This is not mentioned on the present modern deeds. I have had them legally checked and even though the original railway company is no longer in existence, network rail holds the rights to do so. On the plus side, when the present owner of the office unit next door tried to block off the end of the private road, out come said deeds as it mentions I have right of access at all times around the original station entrance. So maybe worth seeing if you can find the historical documents. Kew in London is a good place to start at the public records office. Carry on the good work
And this is why sales involving railway deeds can be a nightmare. They usually have restrictions and rights of easement in them all geared towards the railway companies benefit. I suspect that the Old Station has deeds containing them. As I've said elsewhere they need to go back to their purchase solicitor and confirm the exact legal position BEFORE they can talk to any third party who carried out the work. Once a condition appears in deeds it is there for ever regardless as to what happens to the land further down the line.
@@maureentaphouse5206 But don't later deeds supersede earlier ones? If not, someone could bring in a deed issued to one of their ancestors in the 1800s and possibly evict the current "owners" whose deed is from 2002.
@@theoldstationrenovation Hi guys. Thank you for amending the video title. Hope you're doing OK and not thinking of giving up on YT from one blip. You've been doing fantastic sharing your journey with us and few realise just how tough a job this is. ❤
Ah, the old land ownership problem - just because you own a piece of land does not mean that you are exempt from Statutory Authorities coming onto your land to carry out work and they do not need your permission. I would have checked whether or not the bridge was yours in total or that you owned land adjacent and under the structure. Frankly I think you should be glad that the bridge is not your responsibility because the maintenance costs can be horrendous. As to the removal of the trees you have to remember that a silver birch has a wide canopy and the roots extend beyond the diameter of that canopy. Be thankful that you have no oak trees near the bridge otherwise they would have been removed. Additionally, I would check with your local County Council to see if there are any Statutory Footpaths that have access through your land - just because no one has walked it does not mean that there is not one. In that event you would be required to maintain the footpath.
Almost certainly wouldn't be classified as trespassing if it's maintenance for the bridge. You may actually be required to keep this area cleared yourself if you move in (or be held liable for damage your plants cause the bridge).
I can empathise with your initial feelings of offence. Statutory authorities seem devoid of common courtesy. What would it have cost them to run a few checks first? If they had liased with you first how different this week's bulletin would have been. Have you checked your Deeds to see if there is an Easement on your land? Even if there is, what would have been wrong with a little bit of well-placed courtesy towards you who mean nothing but good towards the Old Station?
I don't believe the tree was overhanging, from the footage shown. Regardless, contractors only had the right to trim back any overhanging branches. Not climb the fence and trespass. Any need to remove a tree perhaps thought to be a risk of roots undermining the bridge should have been discussed with the landowners.
@@lemonladyYTmunicipalities and rail way companies often have right of way on land adjacent to bridges and roads. If that is the case, no permission or discussion is required. Luckily, shrubbery and trees grow back.
@@deineadam2240 she might say that but it’s not true or the reality. Anything that has a right to access is subject to rules that allow for maintenance. If she has an issue with it, she can attempt to purchase the bridge for the highways agency and she how far she gets. Same if you have a right of access for ramblers, a railway bridge, aqueduct or canal. It ain’t yours and if you damage it, say hello to your cell mate
Do you have a bridge authority that handles maintenance on their roads or something? This looks exactly like they do in the US to keep overgrowth from destroying the bridges, power lines, etc. We have "right of ways" here, not sure what you guys may have, but that protects the bridge authority in what they do to clear things out that are on someone's property.
I was going to say the same thing. It just looks like a county maintenance job. I do think they could've notified you they were going to come onto your property though. I think it looks good and they saved you from having to clear out!
There might be a covenant or bylaw that the landowner must keep the area around the bridge clear or that the council have legal access to keep the area clear.
The highways authority is empowered by law (Sections 289 and 291 of the Highways Act 1980) to enter private land for the purposes of survey and maintaining bridges. You should now check with them to see if they have plans to infill the space under the bridge as they have been doing, quite controversially, across the country.
@@lemonladyYT So in your world the rail services to Edinburgh for example could be suspended because the rail authorities cant find Mrs Brown, who has a bridge for the national rail network over her property and they cant raise her on the phone to let her know they are popping over to use the gate on her property to access and perform critical bridge maintenance after the recent rains. Ok.
I agree with both here. I don’t think it’s vandles, it’s a maintenance crew. If the object was to protect the bridge then accessing the land beside it makes sense. Still they should have contacted you first. Maybe it’s a heritage entity. I would also do some research on the tree they cut down. Maybe its root structure is larger than you think and the roots would endanger the bridge’s integrity making it necessary to go.
@@lemonladyYT Not neccessarly. It woiuld depend on the bylaws and the terms around the purchase of the land. The council or agency responsible for the bridge just can't stop everything in the world, because some people expect a phone call every time something needs doing. Clearly there is an easement in place around the bridge. All the owner needs to do is find out what the easement conditions are and remember to wave and perhaps offer the workers a cuppa next time they are on site. Its a lot of drama about nothing and thats made obvious in they didn't even know it had been done until they were out there trying to tame some of the undergrowth themselves.
I would send them a “thank you” note. The clearing up of the bushes and brambles makes the bridge look so much better. I love the pathways on both sides of the bridge.
Be glad you didn’t receive a notice asking you to cut down the trees that could be seen as a risk to the bridge and road users. Tree surgery can get expensive real quick. It’s also likely that while the trees are within your property boundary they could also lie within an easement area where the authorities have jurisdiction to manage as they see fit.
I was going to say to check with the council. It would have been done to keep the road way and bridge clear for maintenance. Don't be an arse about it though because they may charge you for the work xD
This clearing was a huge job. Honestly it looks better. But, as you don't own the bridge, or the road above you may not have a say in how it's trimmed and cleared. This looks like a professional job. This is NOT vandalizing at all, it's just simple clean up and clearing. This "is" a legit job and it looks so much better. I would be grateful for the help.
Vandals wouldn't hav done that.if it was the council it probably to make sure the bridge wont get damaged. Definitely not vandals or everyone would want wandals like that lol.looks better now to me
You’re right about the side of the bridge, looks much better. Just feels a bit of a liberty to do it unannounced and to have it down a large section of our boundary bushes to get access. If they’d told us they could have come down the drive and been given a cup of tea!
>"Whoever did it did you a favor." Right! I'd be sending a thank-you card, some flowers and a bottle or two of wine to whatever entity that did this. The implication of vandalism is preposterous and that of tresspassing is only slightly less so. To The Old Station folks: get in touch with the authority who did this and have a nce polite talk about who's responsible for what around that area. I'd recommend keeping any attitude in check, at least for the time being.
@patriciakeogh5008 really not everyone knows the terms and conditions of highway maintenance unless you are looking for it. OK the thumbnail was a bit ott. Most people who own land on properties with bridges and towpaths wouldn't think of looking at the laws of highway & Bridge maintenance.
I'll have to find my question re bridge ownership from an earlier video. I believe the response was 50/50 landowners either side, which would mean Highways/Council are only responsiblefor the road surface over the bridge and the verges and any overhanging foliage. Maybe the deeds need checking.
@@lemonladyYT Council cant just maintain the roadway and ignore the infrastructure supporting it. Are you arguing the land owners must maintain the bridge to code? The bridge is clearly still in use as a public access way.
That would be my interpretation too -- perhaps a contractor with an over-enthusiastic idea of what needed to be done. "Never attribute to malice what might reasonably explained by incompetence," particularly when dealing with a government bureaucracy.
@@lemonladyYT There was surely miscommunication involved. I don't know for how long it was not inhabited, but it looks like it was decades. Maybe someone had his/hers whole work life only one information - it's abandoned, no one to notify.
2:03 That bridge number plate is definatly an old one… would be nice to clean up, repaint and leave it in situ… have a look on the opposite side, there maybe one there too.
It looks like Network Rail has been clearing up the bridge, because they are the people who maintain rail bridges throughout the country. The only thing I’m a bit concerned is you didn’t see or hear anything. If I were you I would give Network Rail a call just to check and see and if there is a clause in your contract about the bridge? Keep up the good work looking forward to seeing your progress on the old station renovations.
Won't be network rail as it hasn't been a railway for decades it will be the council clearing vegetation so they can inspect or carryout work on the bridge.
This would have been very loud and taken several hours. So it is concerning no one heard it. And tree roots do all of the damage and are hidden so you don't always see how big they are
The Historical Railways Estate (HRE) is a forms of over 3,100 structures-predominantly bridges, viaducts, tunnels and other works-associated with former railways in the United Kingdom. The structures are owned by the Department for Transport (DfT) and managed by National Highways (NH).
Yes, and in all probability, National Highways has access to private property much in the way that Network Rail has access to private property to maintain structures associated with the live railway. Various parliamentary acts going back to the 1840s assert Network Rail's rights
Agreed that is would be the local council. And depending on the council and their policy etc they may have it worded that in instances where they are required to maintain accessible roads and maintenance they have an obligation to not necessarily inform the land owners of essential works and have assured access regardless in the completion and compliance of said maintenance. So although technically trespass, they have rights of access.
@@lemonladyYT not all the time especially if it's in respect of maintaining a public road. In my experience they have an invisible line of up to 10ft around the structure where they don't need to inform the landlord. Especially with smaller hand held powered tools. If they need access with a digger or tractor then it would be different
I think the railroad landscaper probably thought he was being kind and helping out seeing that you're remodeling and sprucing up the property. He probably thinks it's an overwhelming task and he was helping out.
@@davidwoods7720 not sure you know how clickbait works. Look at the thumbnail and title. If it was just a picture of a bridge with the title “standard council foliage maintenance” that wouldn’t entice people to watch it, people love a bit of drama c’mon ! Even a “trimming bush” title would get a few more views now wouldn’t it David ?
@Camera-Lego-Bird-Feeder But a less clickbaity title would still have regulars watching out of interest. "Who cut down a tree in the bridge garden without our permission?" (Wordy, but you get the idea.)
@@lemonladyYT true, but if only your regular viewers watch you don’t grow as a channel, it’s the passing traffic scrollers you need to catch the eye of, the clickbait title and thumbnail drags people In from suggestions on their feed
If it were here in the U.S., I would say the county roads department was clearing their right of way around the road and bridge. The bridge is part of the road, not part of the old railway line. Good luck getting your answers!😊
I believe that any bridge crossing a railway that the rail company are responsible for its maintenance however this is a closed line and it depends who actually owns the bridge itself. As others have sugested probably cleared to access for an inspection, bridge vandalism ie filling in with concrete underneith has happened a number of times with the work carried out by the Highways Agency for which they have been taken to court for in recent months for damaging historic structures. I would contact Highways Agency first , then local council then Network Rail however be cautious you don't end up with a big maintainance invoice. I think I saw an oval plaque this should have the bridge number on it although looks worn but they are usually cast numbers and I think one on each side
I believe it's National Highways that are responsible for maintaining all the bridges, i imagine they have access alongside to keep it clear of trees so that roots can't get into the foundations. Might be worth calling them to clarify the situation.
Your visitors are National Highways, who took over responsibilty for railway structures in September 2013. Their actions have been the subject of much debate and legal action over the past few years. They have reasonable rights of access to their property, but like everone else, they require planning permission to undertake any structural work. Check your property deeds cand boundaries carefully. It would seem your neighbour has erected a fence outside the bridge span. I dont think that any previous owner of the station would have been reckless enough to accept ownership or responsibilty for the bridge structure. This would include the space under it. To avoid further vandalism, you could speak to your local tree preservation officer for advice. You may consider applying for protection orders for certain trees, after which the National Higways would need to seek planning permission to cut down or even prune branches.
Definitely the council did it. It would have been to allow a periodic inspection of the bridge which they are required to do to make sure it is safe to use as the bushes etc would have been needed to get cleared so it could be inspected. The council should have sent you a letter but it is possible they didn't know it was part of your property.
I'd have to agree with Stewart that it's probably the local roads dept./authority. There is probably a small right-of-way immediately surrounding the bridge so that they can do maintenance and upkeep. Contact your local road authority and let them know the property is being upkept. Gil really needs a proper brush hog to get all that overgrowth taken care of.
If this was the USA, I would assume whoever owns that bridge also has a easement around it for maintenance. I know you do things differently on your side of the pond. But that wasn't vandalism, that was maintenance. Over here any easement would show up with the deed. I would start with talking to the city or next level of government to find out who maintains the bridge. I also suspect your property line end a bit shy of the bridge, but that is just a guess. Have you had a survey to lay out the actual property lines?
The trees that are 6 ft away The roots could undermine the bridge footings. So I believe the local municipal maintenance crew has the obligation to protect the bridge and may have an easement access to do exactly that.
They aren’t “complainers” they have a right to be angry. Those trees were on their land. If you take a tree down on municipal land you will face consequences, so same should apply to land owners.
While you DO own the property, there is a government entity that oversees easement rights around roadways, bridges, rail lines, public utlility lines, etc. The crews were only doing their job and most likely were chastised by superiors for NOT doing it earlier. If anything they did you a favor by clearing that land so you have easier access to it so be careful what you wish for. Plus, they did a good job. You need to learn and understand what went on and also post your property perimeter with "Private Property" and "No Trespassing" signage to disuade actual trespassers and snoopers. BTW: That's the kind of work a good brush hog mower does.
You must realise by now what so many have said already - this isn't vandalism, this is carefully implemented maintenance by an authorised body. It would be sensible to seek them out and start a conversation. Great series. Thanks. Simon T
Who owns the bridge and who is responsible for its upkeep. Maybe they have right to access the side of the bridge on your land to inspect and maintain the said bridge,Need to get the deeds out.
No trespassing here. Just the municipal doing their job to keep the bridge clear and their easement maintained. They don’t need your approval to clear their easement. Really looks nice now that you can see the bridge. If it were me I would be thanking them.
Don't know how it works in the UK but in the US the roads, bridges, power lines etc have easements that allow for maintenance and work to be done on such things. Check your real estate documents.
Same in the UK but usually give you notice of any impending, we have a 500,000 volt Pylon going across one of our fields and an hedge by a road and we had 6 months notice of that they were trimming the hedging 20 metres either side of the pylon cables as they had grown within 15 metres of the cables I said carry on they were very good as they had to close the road saved me a job with the tractor, which I did the other 200 metres when they did close the road.
Irritating as it is the who & why are almost certainly the people responsible for the bridge and a periodic inspection. Those inspections, on a low use bridge can be many years apart. Most of what has gone could well have grown between inspections. Normally you would expect the responsible authority to have notified the land owners, Network rail will even tell local residents that they are going to work on nearby embankments that are 100% railway land. It is possible that they didn't realise that the old station was more occupied and would like/need a notification. A couple of 'private property no trespassing' signs might help. Local authority responsible for the road and Network rail would seem good starting points.
I'm with the others who have stated that it's not vandalism, rather some 'entity' such as the municipal owners of the bridge maintaining their property and the easement around it. If it were vandalism, where's the spray painted graffiti?
Tidy vandals...they can come and clear my land any time. Itll be highways agency or similar, responsible for the bridge, most probably have an agreed access to a certain amount of land around the bridge for maintenance. They cleared it because you or your predecessors didnt!
The title of this video is garbage. I work for a state government in Australia that maintains roads and bridges and there is a what we call a road corridor that is an area on either side of the road/bridge that is maintained by the government, I would assume that the UK has the same. You may not actually own this area, best to check. But going back to the title what a load of rubbish, a little less complaining and judging by other comments others feel the same.
You have a lot of supportive followers who are genuinely interested in what you’re doing at the old station. This post has not been one of your best. You’ll get far more quality subscribers by making positive posts with positive titles rather than what appears to be very close to click bait.
We’re really, really grateful for people who are following and supporting us, I guess we were just a bit shocked that they came in without speaking to us. If they’d spoken to us we’d have given them unrestricted access down the drive so they wouldn’t have had to shred a large chunk of our boundary hedge to get in. Thanks for the honest feedback 😊
Surprised you made a whole video regarding the cleared land surrounding the bridge, even a complete novice should have realised that either; the Network Rail or the Highways Agency have a responsibilty to keep the bridge in good order. My personal opinion is, it would not be unreasonable to charge you 'the property owner' for the clearing the offending undergrowth...
Please don’t start using clickbait like this 😠 The local council highways department have done this to protect the bridge structure as you’ve acknowledged yourself, the station and railway line may be disused but the bridge is still in use. The felled tree may have been 6 feet away from the bridge but the roots will have extended much further under the bridge footings, you wouldn’t plant a tree that size 6 feet from a house wall 🤷🏼♀️
You’re almost certainly right. We’ve no problem with them coming in to do maintenance but if they’d told us we could have given them full access down the drive (and made them tea). As it is they’ve needlessly gone ahead and shredded a chunk of our boundary hedge which will takes years to grow back.
@@theoldstationrenovation unfortunately as the garden hasn’t been maintained in years it looks like an overgrown wilderness rather than a boundary hedge. As you’ve shown in your film clips, the fence wasn’t visible due to the overgrowth and the surveyors from whichever authority is responsible for the bridge structure probably thought that the land was disused. You may own the land up to the bridge but you’ll probably find that they have a right of access to periodically inspect the bridge structure which will include cutting down the vegetation.
@@ChristineJackson-o3w also trespassing is a civil offence so the police won’t take any ownership meaning you need to file a case that takes months. Your sign idea is as good a chocolate teapot
We should have been clearer in the video really, fair point. The problem was not that they came in and cut away at the side of the bridge it’s that they shredded a chunk of our boundary hedge to get access whereas if they asked we would have happily told them to come in through the drive and do it from inside the boundary.
@@theoldstationrenovation that is totally fair. You just need to be more careful with your words and descriptions otherwise you will lose a large amount of followers because people do not like being tricked and manipulated into watching shows. I believe you want to share and have people follow your journey so keep it positive and free of drama and your number of viewers will increase as they delight in watching a positive and light show. With so many problems in this world we need positive. I am not saying you can’t ever mention something that goes wrong but just be careful with your words and also bring it around to a positive. There is a positive out of everything. I am watching you from Nebraska USA so that shows how far you can have an influence. Let’s have fun. I will watch again to give another go. Thanks for listening.
Local authority highways team very probably. However, they've transgressed on to your property. Check with them first. If it is, you'd be entitled to compensation, though that's of little consolation at present. You need to signpost the land as Private Property.
This looks like what our city does for fire abatement. Every year, the city comes along and cuts down trees near the road, cuts wild grasses, and clears anything which becomes a fire break for emergency services to access properties in case of fire. You probably need to contact your municipal government and let them know that the property is no longer abandoned and they should contact you if further future abatement is required. They'll probably ignore you, but you can only try. There is usually a department that takes care of "municipal works" and you were probably on a list somewhere as unoccupied land. We all know government departments never talk to each other, so they've no idea you own the land.
Frankly they did a better job at clearing than you're doing, it most certainly isn't vandalism they probably cleared to do a bridge inspection. this was a clickbait whinge fest and a good way to lose subs
It’s a fair point that they’ve done a better job than us, I just wish I had whatever equipment they have! What we’re unhappy about is that they’ve cut away a chunk of our boundary hedgerow to gain access instead of speaking to us so we could have given them complete access down the drive. We probably should have been clearer in the video as to what the issue was.
Common courtesy is any authorities planning to work on the bridge should have had multiple formal communications with adjoining property owners. People would rather ask forgiveness than “permission”, which they likely don’t even have to do to inspect and maintain it. I think that’s crumby.
It's probably the council doing maintenance and providing access to the bridge for inspection. Feel free to ask them about it, but don't complain or they may charge you for the work as you are the owner of the land, maintenance is your responsibility.
You’re almost certainly right and we’ve no issue with them clearing along the side to inspect but I would have expected to be consulted first, bad form to just turn up and start shredding I feel.
@@theoldstationrenovation They should have given notice, because they have to step on private land. I have the same with electric company keeping land under wires clear. I have no choice but to allow it due to bylaws, but they do give notice when I am to expect them.
@@theoldstationrenovation I believe you told me on a very early video that you are 50% responsible for bridge maintenance. The landowner the other side also 50% responsible. Maybe you need to check your Deeds again if th Council/Highways believe the structure falls under their jurisdiction as well as the road surface. Yes, absolutely, you should have been given written notice, if not consulted and maybe asked to clear the slope yourselves. We're you all at work/school from early to late all week to not see or hear anything?
Kind of a clickbait title and a mountain out of a molehill when it´s obviously the county or whoever is in charge of the bridge/road that has done it and they probably have the right to remove anything in the near region to the bridge to be able to inspect the bridge safely. But they could have sent out information to you about what they where going to do so you could have told the crew not to cut down the trees but come on it´s not that big of a deal in the bigger picture.
You’re almost certainly right but our big issue is that if they’d spoken to us we’d have given them unrestricted access through the drive so they would not have had to shred our boundary hedge. They could have come down the drive and we’ve have made them a nice cup of tea while they were working!
😂😂😂 that clearly is not "your bridge", nor are the easements that surround it. I'll cheer you on if you want to get out your measuring tape. I'll send you a hug too because I know it can be a hard lesson to learn. I really thought you'd have learned that before this. Good or bad it doesn't matter- Its ok. Let it go and be happy. Try to remember people don't usually trespass on 'your' property to work for free...that's is what your interest is- not theirs.
You haven’t hd vandals. You don’t own the bridge, it will be owned by either Network Rail or the National Highways. Whoever it is they have an obligation to maintain the structure to allow the road to stay open. However, the owner may well have a contract with other subcontractors to inspect and maintain the bridge. Check your deeds as there may well be a covenant that’s states they have the right to keep the structure clear from growth up to a certain distance from it. I doubt your land goes all the way to the bridge. If that’s the case you can insist they fence the boundary to prevent incursion onto your land which, I assume is freehold? The oval plate on the bridge does it have a number on it? All bridges Network Rail own do have. So you need to contact the highways department of your local council. If not them they may be able to help with ownership or ring Network Rail infrastructure maintenance because although it was originally railway owned and built it may well have been given to the local council decades ago. Where I live in NW England we have several old bridges that were over a railway line but, British Rail gave them to the council but, kept the right to maintain the structure under road level, so, stonework and under the bridge. They did this so that if one day there was ever a plan to reopen the line or build a cycle path, or just a path then the bridges were safe and secure. I would also check the exact amount of land you actually own as it’s rare for the trackbed to be sold. Your solicitor who handled the sale of the station should be able to dig up documents about the track bed. If nothing has ever been built on the old line it may well still be Network Rail land. You do need to know exactly where you stand with this.
This! The video is absolutely pointless, like how dumb would you have to be to think this was trespassers and vandals? And why wouldn't you have checked for easements crossing your land when a structure that you dont own exists?
It was most likely Historical Railways Estate - National Highways, as they have an obligation and right to access and clear old railway infrastructure and they own the bridge.
In my view, this was cleared to examine the structure of the bridge which would come under the jurisdition of the local authority, who would be responsible for its maintenance. Good on them too. Just proves that not all local councils are crap !.
Yes in US they have an easement of about 8ft from the road, they can do what they want but most of it is cutting trees, because of power lines or infringing on roadway, that ppl can't see around corners & such. I usually end up keeping it maintained so they don't come back for another 5yrs lol
it was network rail or railtrack. they used to come every year or so to maintain the bridge. but they always used to notify when. they repointed the bridge about 3 years ago.
I dare say you need to find out who maintains the road that cross's the bridge and then the bridge itself as to owns it , I expect you will have to fence it off more and perhaps plant some trees further back from it to preserve your privacy and deter passing inquisitive people sneaking down to have a look.
Looks a lot better, saved you a lot of time and effort, probably railway workers you'll probably find they have legal access to that strip of land either side of railway corridor for general maintenance.
I'm out. The bridge authority is just doing maintenance on their property and you are making it sound like your property that is under attack by vandals. Shameful. There is not even a Private Property sign on your place. Check your deed, the authorities probably have a clause allowing access for clearing.
You’re probably right, they must have some rights of access but there is nothing in the deeds and (we should have made this clearer) what we’re not happy about is that they’ve shredded a section of our boundary hedge to get in whereas if they’d called ahead we’d have let them in through through the drive and left our boundary hedge undamaged.
Vandals would not have been that thorough. I would put in a security gate and steps into the garden. You've got a better view of the bridge from the station. Call the department that maintains roads and infrastructure.
Old railway bridges and other structures used to be maintained by the British Railway Board, this eventually became the Historical Railway Estate National Highways. That is clearly not vandalism .
There is probably a 6 foot easement allowing the council to carry out clearing & maintenance work. I suspect they went overboard knowing they won’t be back for years. Keep the videos coming. 👍
In Australia 🦘 council would have done the same and billed you for it. Your job is to clearly maintain around the bridge in your clearly neglected yard.
Do you own the bridge ? Are you in charge of maintaining the bridge ? I very much doubt that that you own the land just a few feet from the bridge that land is the public bridge . Look at your land survey.
In my humble opinion you may want to contact your local government and find out who is responsible for bridge maintenance, chances are that they are responsible. As always, thanks for taking us along.
Your property purchase lawyers would/should have explained to you before signing contracts that the highway authority benefit from an easement to carry out their statutory duty to maintain the bridge unless that duty is a burden upon RAIL TRACK . I would have through there is a requirement to notify the land owner of their intention to carry out their duty.
I think it was the Local Council or Railway Company. If they have the responsibility for the Bridge Upkeep they would have "Right Of Access" over your property!!! Clearance of the area around the bridge would be for "Bridge Inspection" The Local Planning office or Your Purchase Docouments for Your Property would have these details. I think the Council or the Railway Company should have Contacted You First. Best Wishes. 🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀🍀
Looks like 1 meter from the right of way of the roadway of the bridge. The municipality most likely cleared it for access to maintain the bridge itself BUT they could have ay least cleaned up after themselves.
