Select Committee on Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 16720 - 16739)

  16720. Can you briefly describe the proposals in the Bill for Dog Kennel Bridge?

   (Mr Berryman) Yes, it is very brief. The intention is to demolish it and remove it completely.

  16721. That is because of overhead line electrification?

   (Mr Berryman) There are two reasons, the first one you mentioned, the overhead line electrification. Secondly, we are proposing to put a fifth track there. You may recall when we were hearing evidence from the freight interests we spoke at some length about the additional infrastructure we were providing to accommodate freight to make sure that it was not disadvantaged by the Crossrail scheme and one of those things is a long loop in this area which will mean putting a fifth track in. The solution which we have adopted at some of the other Brunel bridges of lower the track would not be very helpful here for the simple reason that it would not accommodate that fifth track.

  16722. I do not believe that this Petitioner is arguing that we should retain the existing bridge so I do not intend to ask you for the detailed justification on that but can you re-assure the Committee as to whether we have given consideration to that option?

   (Mr Berryman) We have given consideration to putting a light weight bridge up—

  16723. Sorry, retaining the existing bridge first.

   (Mr Berryman) We have given consideration to that option, yes. That would be quite expensive, about £4.5 million, mainly because it would require this additional span to be constructed to go over the fifth track. It also would be quite problematic in terms of disturbing the existing structure.

  16724. Can we then turn to why we are not providing a replacement bridge. Firstly, again briefly, what evidence have you seen that supports the position that there is no public right of way over Dog Kennel Bridge?

   (Mr Berryman) There is written evidence, of course, which I think has already been discussed but the main thing is the plaque on the side of the bridge which says quite specifically there is no public right of way on the bridge.

  16725. That is exhibit 005.[39] Has there been any suggestion that plaque, through legal mechanisms, has been challenged, in other words the statement by British Rail, then Network Rail, and Railtrack that there was no public right of way, has that been challenged by anybody to your knowledge?

  (Mr Berryman) Not to my knowledge, no.

  16726. Then perhaps the crucial issue for your evidence, why are we not providing, even if there is not a right of way, can you tell us your own observations as to the state of and usage of the bridge and then we will come to the surveys.
  (Mr Berryman) Yes. I was particularly interested in this bridge, it is one of the more difficult ones to get to and I had not seen it with my own eyes until June this year when I went on a trip to have a look at it and if we could see number one, please.[40] I noticed that across the route that leads to the bridge there is a substantial gate with a padlock on it which is photographed there and it may be old or new but it was certainly there on 4 June, I saw it there. Notwithstanding that, Mrs Berryman is on picture two, she decided that there was a path there and she would make her way along it.[41] The unfortunate woman's only source of recreation is visits to points of interest on the Crossrail route.



  16727. I have to say we very deliberately produced this photograph at this stage, a bit of light relief at the end of summer term.
  (Mr Berryman) As you can see she is dressed for a hike but we will not dwell on that. Then we went further up the path if I could look at number three, please.[42] That is the bottom end of the path which was mentioned. It clearly looked as if no-one had walked on it, notwithstanding what was just said a few moments ago. Then, can we look at the next slide after that which I think is number four.[43] That is a slide you have already seen. It does not look as if anybody had walked along it for quite some time. The branches were intermeshed at the top and it would need significant maintenance for someone to walk along it. Therefore, I arranged for counts to be done of the number of pedestrians who use this bridge over a couple of weekends, if I could have number seven please.[44] This was the count for 10 June, now it has been pointed out by learned counsel that this was a day when England were playing football and so there might not have been many walkers that day but it was a lovely sunny day. There was not a single user of the bridge. We arranged for a count to be done the next day, that is slide number eight, please.[45] I can bore you by showing you lots of these but they have all got zero on them. We had four counts done in all on good sunny weekends and there was nobody using the footpath at all, not a single person. In addition, I did not, as you will gather from the state of the path, I did not go to the north end of the path because it was too overgrown but a member of my staff did go to path during the week and she had great difficulty finding it because the steps which lead up from the canal bank had been broken down and clearly they are not easily usage by walkers, you have to be quite a determined person to get up there. She found again great difficulty in using the path indicating that it had not been used for some time?





  16728. Thank you. I think the last point you need to cover is the cost. Why does putting up a very simple pedestrian bridge cost as much as £1.4 million?

   (Mr Berryman) It needs foundations. Basically, it would have to be founded on some kind of structure, probably a pile structure. It is a busy mainline railway, the piling would have to be done during possession. Its foundation would be a significant proportion of the total cost. The actual bridge superstructure would probably not be more than £0.5 million or so or that kind of range. We estimate the total cost to be approximately £1.4 million.

  16729. I would not want the Committee to have any concern that we bumped this up in order to support our case. Has this figure been reached using the same quantity surveyor processes, whatever they may be, as other parts of the Crossrail scheme?

   (Mr Berryman) Indeed. Our quantity surveyors are responsible for all cost estimates and they are all done on the same basis.

  16730. Things like contingencies are the same?

   (Mr Berryman) Yes, exactly.

  16731. I think that is everything I wanted to ask you, Mr Berryman.

  16732. Mr Hollobone: Would we be having this discussion if there were demonstrable public right over the railway?

   (Mr Berryman) No.

  16733. There would be no question at all of building a replacement bridge?

   (Mr Berryman) If there is no public right of way there would be no question.

  16734. Who owns the bridge?

   (Mr Berryman) Network Rail.

  16735. They would be responsible for the padlock we see in the picture?

   (Mr Berryman) No, the farmer, Mr Rainard, is responsible for that.

  16736. Does he just lock it on Sundays?

   (Mr Berryman) I do not know. I have only been there myself in recent weeks. I presume that he locks it when he is not going backwards and forwards across the bridge.

  16737. I notice on one of your counts on Sunday 11, for example, the day of the British Grand Prix, that there was nobody on the bridge. Presumably if it is locked on Sundays, people would know that it is not the best day to cross the bridge?

    (Mr Berryman) Well, we have looked at Saturdays as well.

  16738. Is it weekends it is locked at or is it just Sundays?

   (Mr Berryman) I do not know the days it is locked. We would have to arrange to full week of observation.

  16739. What kind of foundations does the existing bridge have? Would it be possible to use those for the basis of a replacement?

   (Mr Berryman) It would be quite difficult. It will be spread footings in the bottom of the cut. The difficulty would be when you demolish the existing bridge.


39   Crossrail Ref: P117, Dog Kennel Bridge Highways Act Notice [en rule]Western Parapet at Southern End (LINEWD-9104-005). Back

40   Crossrail Ref: P117, Dog Kennel Bridge-Locked gate to south of bridge, June 2006 (LINEWD-9104-001). Back

41   Crossrail Ref: P117, Dog Kennel Bridge-Access from Public Footpath 15, June 2006 (LINEWD-9104-002). Back

42   Crossrail Ref: P117, Dog Kennel Bridge Links-Public Footpath 15A, Bucks County Council way mark at southern end (LINEWD-9104-003). Back

43   Crossrail Ref: P117, Dog Kennel Bridge Links-Public Footpath 15A, mid point walking north (LINEWD-9104-004). Back

44   Crossrail Ref: P117, Pedestrian and Cycle Count-Dog Kennel Bridge Links, 10 June 2006 (LINEWD-9104-007). Back

45   Crossrail Ref: P117, Pedestrian and Cycle Count-Dog Kennel Bridge Links, 11 June 2006 (LINEWD-9104-008). Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 14 November 2007