Examination of Witnesses (Questions 16680
- 16699)
16680. Therefore, as far as the Open Spaces
and the Ramblers are concerned, the primary issue, as I understand
it, is the pedestrian access. Now, the reason why we are not reproviding
a pedestrian bridge here is two-fold. First of all, there is no
public right of way across this bridge. That is completely clear
in the documentation. There is a slightly strange situation in
which there is a footpath on either side of the bridge and if
Mr Fry can put up 006.[34]
One can see from that—this is the bridge here with a footpath
to the north and a footpath to the south—for reasons that
the Committee does not have to go into, there is no public right
of way across that bridge. It is not on the definitive map which,
as some members of the Committee may know, is the local authority's
list of all highways and footpaths. There is a notice on the bridge,
if Mr Fry can put up 005, which clearly states that there is no
right of way.[35]
There is an agreement effectively between Buckinghamshire County
Council and what was then British Rail by which part of the footpath
to the north was dedicated and it clearly follows from that agreement
that there is no right of way across the bridge. That in is, in
my submission, indisputable. The Committee may think, "Ah,
well, this is the Promoter being unduly legalistic" because
there may not be any right of way, but it is self-evident people
have to get from one side of the bridge to the other, and which,
I must admit, was my instinctive reaction.
16681. We then come to the evidence of Mr Berryman
and the Promoter's surveys. The Promoter has surveyed usage of
this bridge on four separate occasions on sunny weekends in June
and those surveys show not a single person used that bridge on
those days. Mr Berryman will produce some pictures that show the
state of the pedestrian access to the bridge on the day he visited,
which I hope will convince the Committee that pedestrian usage
is somewhere between little and non-existent. That is the reason
why the level of usage is simply so low that it cannot possibly
be justified to re-provide the bridge at this location. Of course
we do not say that nobody has ever used it, maybe they have, but
we have carried out extensive investigations and the level of
usage is, as I say, minimal. I hope that is enough to set the
scene for the Committee at this stage. I do intend to call Mr
Berryman because he has been there and can perhaps paint the position
more graphically to the Committee.
16682. Chairman: Mr Suggett?
16683. Mr Suggett: Sir, I am called Eugene
Suggett and I am the agent for your Petitioners, The Open Spaces
Society and The Ramblers Association. Our petition is number 91.
I am rather sorry to say that I am here at very short notice in
replacement of Mr Bernard Sullivan who until this week was meant
to be our parliamentary agent. Mr Sullivan is quite seriously
ill and in hospital today and cannot be here. Whereas Mr Sullivan
would have known both the Bill and the drill, so to speak, inside
out, I am afraid I have only had since the other day to acquire
anything like a knowledge of either. I am a Rights of Way Policy
Officer at the Ramblers Association. I am not a lawyer and I should
apologise in advance for what I am afraid will be a somewhat amateurish
presentation on my part. If I seem ill-prepared, please be assured
it is not through any intended discourtesy to your Committee.
16684. Unless the Committee wishes otherwise,
I will assume you are satisfied with the descriptions of the petitioning
organisations where they appear in paragraph H and paragraph I
in the Petition. Put briefly, both organisations seek to safeguard
the beauty of the countryside, to promote walking as a recreation
and as a means of transport and to protect and extend the network
of public footpaths and other ways used principally for walking.
As your Petitioners indicate in paragraph J, we support the long-term
advantages of this Bill, if passed, it will be beneficial to our
members and to all those travelling through and across London.
Sir, generally we are happy with what is proposed; we would be
happier still if, through the work of your Committee, there could
be sorted out certain significant misgivings which we have about
the effect of some of the Bill's detailed provisions. In a few
moments I would like to call one witness, Mr Paul Graham, and
he will deal with paragraph J8.
16685. Before I call Mr Graham, could I take
your Committee through the rest of the first provisions and comment
on them. First, paragraphs 12 and 15, we are pleased that the
Promoter has altered its proposals for tunnelling and its proposals
for Romford depot. That enables us to withdraw paragraphs 12 and
15.
16686. Secondly, we have noted the Promoter's
responses to our Petition. While of course we accept these are
given in good faith and the Promoter will do its best to keep
the detrimental effect of the works to a minimum, these effects
really are unavoidable during the years that it will take for
the works to be carried out and many people will be put to a great
deal of disturbance throughout that period. That being so, we
submit that it is important that the codes of practice for the
contractors to be agreed with the local authorities along the
local route are rigorously enforced and we hope the Bill, if it
is passed, will provide for the rigorous enforcements of those
codes of practice.
16687. Sir, the Bill affects a number of much
enjoyed and well-loved parks and other open spaces. Some of those
will be affected temporarily and some forever. Sir, your Committee
will have seen other petitions and other evidence concerning many
of these parks and open spaces. Our own Petition fully supports
them and we hope that Parliament will ensure this loss and damage
is kept to a minimum and that any such land unavoidably used will
be restored as swiftly as may be to its proper purpose with whatever
enhancements as may be practicable.
16688. Sir, paragraph 3 of this Petition sets
out several concerns about mainly temporary effects on highways.
Both your Petitioners, as organisations, are concerned with the
protection of public footpaths and the Open Spaces Society also
wishes to safeguard the rights of horseriders and cyclists. We
suppose there should not be too much difficulty in ensuring that
local residents are properly informed and warned about any diversions
or temporary stoppings-up of footpaths and similar ways during
the carrying out of the works. What troubles us is it is less
easy for non-locals, people casually out walking, riding or cycling
who are not residents of the area, to be kept informed of works
so they are not faced with unexpected extinguishments or diversions.
We urge that important information on this kind of closure is
made available as widely as possible and our organisations can
assist with that if they are consulted when the arrangements are
being worked out in detail and also if we are notified when they
are to be put into effect.
16689. Sir, we are not happy the with Promoter's
response to our paragraph 14, with regard to the Warren Lane shaft
but the Council of the London Borough of Greenwich has told us
they will take our views into account when they deal with that
site in detail. If the Committee is to accept the representations
of the London Borough of Greenwich on providing a station for
which we may have further comments to make—
16690. Chairman: Could I just stop you
there, because we did yesterday.
16691. Mr Suggett: Thank you.
16692. Chairman: Perhaps you could write
us a note about your further comments?
16693. Mr Suggett: Thank you. Finally,
before I call Mr Graham, we respectfully request the Committee
to approve the amendments which we have submitted with this Petition.
Our attempts will probably need to be more expertly drafted, but
we would be grateful if you could approve the amendments more
or less on those lines.
16694. The first of our proposed amendments
requires the replacement of Dog Kennel Bridge and the second of
them would enable the nominate contractor to seek a contribution
towards the cost of replacement even if it were to be accepted
that the bridge is not a highway at present, as seems to be contended
by the Promoters.
16695. Now with leave of the Committee, would
I like to call Mr Paul Graham, please. A map goes with Mr Graham's
evidence. Could that be put up on the screen, please.[36]
Mr Paul Graham, Sworn
Examined by Mr Suggett
16696. Mr Suggett: Mr Graham?
(Mr Graham) My name is Paul Michael Graham.
I live at Grove Hurst, Langley Park Road in Iver in Bucks. I have
lived in Iver since 1980 and the nearby West Drayton for four
years before that. I am the Footpath Secretary of the Iver District
Countryside Association and was formerly its General Secretary.
I have organised group walks and footpath maintenance parties
in Iver and the immediate surrounding area for over two decades.
I have used the Dog Kennel Bridge many times on walks and seen
other people using it and the footpaths on either side of it.
I am presenting evidence on behalf of the Open Spaces Society
and the Ramblers Association in support of their Petition relating
to the Crossrail Bill and the proposed amendments in Schedule
13/9 and Schedule 3, paragraph 14. The Petitioners urge, if the
Grade II listed bridge has to be removed, it should be replaced
and a provision should be made for its dedication of public right
of way. The summary of the history of the bridge, the associated
right of way, is appended to my evidence. I will not read that
out as you wish. The National Parks and Access to the Countryside
Act 1949 defined the route of walk path 36, henceforth known as
Iver 15 including the above deviations caused by Britannic Cradleworks
that are now the ground workings of the railway with a section
of footpath 15 between the canal and railway which did not appear
on the draft definitive map. In retrospect, this was a bad mistake.
However, the public has used the Dog Kennel Bridge without let
or hindrance ever since 1882 to the present day. In 1990, when
Crossrail was first proposed, an officer of recommendation that
the Buckinghamshire County Council reconstruct and maintain Dog
Kennel Bridge if necessary was agreed but not actioned. The rights
of way network is highlighted by the Petitioners of Buckinghamshire
County Council and South Bucks District Council. We understand
that these petitions have not been withdrawn but have not been
supported before your Committee solely on the grounds of costs
of representation. Under our voluntary bodies, local authorities
feel they must be represented by counsel if they appear. The demolition
of the bridge will cause a diversion of one and a half kilometres
for pedestrians. This is unacceptable, particularly as the two
alternatives involve using the entire lengths of the busy Thorney
Lane North and South or Market Lane; part of the latter has no
footwork. This part of Iver between Langley and West Drayton is
the narrowest part of the park; removal of the vital link at Iver
15 would leave only one right of way running north-south, Iver
16, and the far east of the park, circular or through parks in
the south of Iver and surrounding area would be severely limited
as a result, and the accompanying map shows this. In a document,
Actions and Visions, for the Coln Valley Regional Park
2006-09, one of the key objectives of the regional park authority
is to "maintain right of way and vehicle access over Dog
Kennel Bridge". We find paragraph 15 on page 21 of the Promoter's
response puzzling. They say: "an agreement was reached at
that time between the Petitioner and the British Railways Board"
and so on. It is puzzling because in the present Petition, the
Petitioner is The Open Spaces Society and The Ramblers Association,
with whom the British Railways Board entered into another agreement.
We think this may be a reference to Buckinghamshire County Council,
but we submit whatever agreement may have been made in the early
1990s between the Board and the Highway Authority nothing in it
detracts from our case. The replacement of the bridge is essential
and the rights of way network is not to be severed through the
removal of this important link. To my knowledge, no evidence exists
about the costs of either replacement or retention of the bridge.
Crossrail should be challenged to prove that neither option is
realistic. However, the cost of a replacement footbridge for pedestrians
only is likely to be in the order of £100,000, whereas the
total cost of the Crossrail scheme estimated by them to be £10
billion. The replacement bridge would, therefore, be about a 100,000th
of the total, a trivial amount. In a transport scheme of this
kind designed to have many benefits for the traveling public is
unconceivable and ludicrous that such an important part of the
rail-link should be severed permanently.
16697. Mr Suggett: I have no additional
questions. If there are questions from the Committee, Promoters
or elsewhere?
Examined by The Committee
16698. Kelvin Hopkins: Can I just ask,
you did not put the Grand Union Canal on your map?
(Mr Graham) The Grand Union
Canal, it runs through the middle. It has got the word "canal"
on it. It is also a public right of way, P17.
16699. Does that have a bridge over it?
(Mr Graham) There is, yes.
34 Crossrail Ref: P117, Dog Kennel Bridge-Pedestrian
Links (LINEWD-9104-006). Back
35
Crossrail Ref: P117, Dog Kennel Bridge Highways Act Notice [en
rule]Western Parapet at Southern End (LINEWD-9104-005). Back
36
Committee Ref: A185, Open Spaces Society and the Ramblers Association-Dog
Kennel Bridge and surrounding footpath network (LINEWD-9105-008). Back
|
