The first stone bridge over the river in the city was built after a grant was awarded on October 22, 1411. Construction took 25 years and was completed in 1436. Most descriptions of the bridge give its length as 384 ft (117 m), although the 1847 publication described it as 423 ft (129 m) long. Similarly disputed is the number of arches the bridge had – accounts by John Leland describe either 12 or 16. The Gentleman's Magazine listed 13, Celia Fiennes referred to his 14 arches, which William Borlase sketched, the National Heritage List for England States listed 15, and Thomas Bond specified 18. The arches varied in width from 9 to 22 ft (2.7 to 6.7 m); the wider spans allowed the passage of timber rafts. The bridge was 6 ft 8 in (2.03 m) wide at its narrowest point and 10 ft 3 in (3.12 m) at its widest. In the middle of the bridge was a chapel dedicated to Saint Anne; the first record of the chapel is from November 18, 1436, when the chaplain received a license from Edmund Lacey to hold a wedding there. It is possible that the chapel was demolished at the time of the Reformation, although some traces of it still existed when the bridge was torn down. By 1689, the bridge was "in general disrepair," and repairs were carried out by the county commissioner. Granite slabs were installed at each end of the bridge, of which the west slab still exists. In 1478, William of Worcester referred to the bridge as Low Brygge and described it as maximal pons – the largest bridge in Cornwall. In 1508, the wealthy Cornish merchant Thomas Yogge bequeathed a hundredweight (112 pounds or 51 kg) of salt for repairs to the bridge, provided that the town of Looe brought it from Plymouth at its own expense. A notice published in 1847 declared the intention to petition Parliament to improve and maintain the port of Looe and "to take the bridge over the said port and instead construct a new bridge, with appropriate approaches and associated works on or near the site of the present bridge." The following year, the East and West Looe Harbour and Bridge Act was passed, which stated that "the present bridge over the harbour is dilapidated and poorly constructed." A similar description of the old structure stated that it was a "narrow, time-consuming bridge which had become ruinous and dangerous." Conversely, a more contemporary account described it as "a very fine medieval bridge."