The Boyne Bridge case – key points for heritage charities 

The Boyne Bridge case in Northern Ireland has had significant press attention, with the case highlighting several important charity law points for heritage charities to consider when defending heritage assets. 

What is the case about? 

The Boyne Bridge in Belfast is scheduled to be demolished as part of the redevelopment of the area for the new Belfast Grand Central Station.  

Translink, the company behind the project, first proposed dismantling the bridge in 2017 in order to facilitate the completion of the new transport hub. Translink stated the bridge would be “sensitively dismantled” and committed to “preserving and celebrating the history and heritage of the area and [continuing] to work closely with the local community to repurpose key elements of the bridge for significant artworks.”  

Demolition was scheduled for 2024. However, in an attempt to stop the demolition, the charity Ulster Architectural Heritage Society (UAHS) sought an injunction from the Belfast High Court, arguing that the bridge is an integral part of Belfast’s heritage and should be preserved. 

Prior to the hearing on 11 October 2024, Translink’s lawyers wrote to the charity stating that “Any delay in removing the Boyne Bridge will have significant financial implications for the project, currently estimated at approximately £100,000 per week” and that “Therefore, any attempt by UAHS to seek an injunction will be met with an application for a cross undertaking in damages.” 

UAHS’s application did delay the removal of the Boyne Bridge but ultimately failed, with demolition of the bridge starting on 12 October 2024. 

What is special about the Boyne Bridge? 

The current structure of the Boyne Bridge was built in 1936 and is a local landmark.  According to UAHS vice-chair John Anderson: “The construction of the deck of this bridge has hundreds and thousands of rivets. Every rivet set by two men and a boy, Harland and Wolff workers.” (Readers may remember that Harland and Wolff built the Titanic.) He added “The top of the bridge has an art deco design, and beautiful cast iron. It has everything that merits keeping.”   

According to local tradition, King William III (William of Orange) rode over the original bridge on his way to fight the Battle of the Boyne against his father-in-law, the deposed King James II. 

Local campaigners therefore say the bridge should be preserved and the new station development should be built around it. 

Key charity law takeaways from the case 

Although this case relates to Northern Ireland, there are principles which are relevant to charities established in England and Wales. 

Charitable purpose and advocacy 

Charities (like UAHS) are established for specific charitable purposes, such as the preservation of heritage and historical sites, and the charity trustees are responsible for ensuring that the activities which the charity engages in furthers those purposes for the public benefit. 

Whilst some charity trustees are cautious about expending charitable assets on campaigning and advocacy, the Charity Commission’s guidance (CC9) is clear that such activities are entirely acceptable ways for a charity to further its purposes. In this case, UAHS engaged in advocacy to protect the Boyne Bridge and that was a legitimate charitable activity given its charitable purpose of preserving architectural heritage. 

A charity may use any reasonable method to campaign or advocate in respect of its charitable purposes and this extends to seeking legal remedies, such as injunctions, where the charity considers that such is necessary to protect their interests and the interests of the public they serve. 

As the vice chair of UAHS, John Anderson, stated: “Sometimes we just have to take a deep breath and challenge authority. We have done it in the past with judicial reviews and so on. We are a charity, we have a charitable purpose.” 

Financial implications and risk management 

However, of course engaging in legal battles can have significant financial implications for charities. In this case, Translink’s warning that it may seek substantial financial damages from UAHS highlights the financial risks involved. Charity trustees have a duty under charity law to act in the best interests of the charity and are, therefore, often considering and balancing different risks (for example, reputational risk, financial risk, and legal and regulatory risk) to determine what is, in their view, in the charity’s best interests and to ensure that the charity’s resources are managed effectively, safeguarding the charity’s assets not just for current beneficiaries but also for the future. 

Conclusion 

The Boyne Bridge case serves as an example of the complexities that heritage preservation charities can face in fulfilling their missions. It highlights the tension between heritage preservation and urban development, as well as the often difficult exercise for charity trustees of balancing competing risks. Charities can find themselves at the intersection of interests, advocating for the protection of historical sites while navigating the realities of modern development needs. 

Birketts’ Charities Team has specialists with an interest in heritage property matters, so please do contact us if you have any issues you would like to discuss.