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
|