Examination of Witnesses (Questions 16760
- 16779)
16760. Ms Lieven : Just one or two points,
sir. First of all, I would suggest that there are two separate
issues here. One is whether the existing building should be preserved
and the other is whether a replacement should be provided. As
far as the existing building is to be preserved, sir, it is not
a point being taken expressly by the Ramblers but I do want to
stress that this is a matter that the Promoters have looked at
incredibly carefully. We have had many, many meetings with English
Heritage and other concerned bodies about it. We have had many,
many conferences about it. A huge amount of effort has been put
into this subject and agreement reached with English Heritage.
I am sure the Committee are well aware there are lots of issues
on Crossrail that are enormously important that have hardly touched
the Committee's concerns and this is one of them. So I would not
want for a moment the Committee to think we are going round knocking
down listed structures or Brunel bridges generally without having
done everything we reasonably could to preserve them.
16761. I would ask the Committee to remember
what Mr Berryman said, there are something like 100 of these bridges
still existing. We were at a point where English Heritage appeared
likely to appear in Committee on this ready to call an historic
buildings expert to deal with the matter in detail. We obviously
did not feel it was appropriate to do that today, but (i) I would
urge the Committee to take into account the amount of thought
and effort that has gone into this matter; (ii) the fact that
English Heritage are now content having been deeply interested
in this; and (iii) that none of the local authorities concerned—and
it is not just Buckinghamshire, there are district councils all
the way along with these bridges—have chosen to bring it
to Committee, nor perhaps more importantly have SAVE chosen to
bring it to Committee even though it was a matter that was raised
in their Petition. So I would suggest, sir, that the position
on that is really quite clear.
16762. As far as reprovision is concerned, perhaps
in the light of the Committee's questions we should just put up
the Petitioner's exhibit number 8.[47]
I think this one sets out the position clearest. Clearly we are
not stopping people who want to walking across the bridge on the
footpath. To get round back on to the footpath route is undoubtedly
longer, undoubtedly less convenient, but there is a way of doing
that, either by coming west or by going east, so this is not a
complete break, although that is not to diminish the fact tat
people would have to walk longer and walk on roads.
16763. In my submission, there are two key points
of re-provision. First, there is no doubt in law that it is not
a public right of way, no possible doubt. It is not on the definitive
map. British Rail have for years asserted their right over the
bridge and that has never been contested by the local authority
that has statutory duties in this respect. Associated with that
is the fact that Parliament has already granted power to knock
down the bridge and not re-provide in the 1992 British Railways
Act.
16764. Equally important, in my submission,
is the very, very low level of usage. The Committee should not
get the wrong impression, we are not for one moment saying that
Mr Graham is lying when he says he used it or that nobody uses
it. I would agree that the photograph shows that some people have
at some point been along that footpath because one can see the
slightly different level of growth. There is no contest that once
in a blue moon somebody uses it, but what the evidence very clearly
shows is that the level of usage is absolutely minimal. That is
not just from the photographs. Yes, June is a particularly lush
month and photographs could be deceptive, but we went to the trouble
of getting four surveys all day on two consecutive weekends and,
although June is overgrown, if we had done it in February we would
have been told that nobody walks in February because of the weather,
so we did it in what would probably be the month when there are
likely to be walkers if there are walkers using these paths. On
very pleasant days, very typical days, yes, there are football
matches but football matches do not go on all day, and we saw
no usage whatsoever, which is quite startling for a footpath relatively
close to urban areas.
16765. In my submission, and to some degree
it comes back to a point that perhaps Mr Hopkins made on the earlier
petition, £1.1 million in the context of £10 billion
or £12 billion, or however many billion it is, does not seem
like very much money, but it is a heck of a lot of money in my
submission to throw at a bridge that perhaps one or two people
a week maximum are using, a heck of a lot of money, which could
be better spent by the public purse. That is really the way to
look at these additional costs that people want to latch on to
Crossrail. The real issue is not what percentage of 10 billion
is it; the real issue is spending 1.1 million of taxpayers' money
on something which is of so little public benefit.
16766. I think that is all I need to say except
that on the list of footbridge replacements there are, I am now
instructed, four in the Bill and the Committee yesterday asked
us to make further provisions in respect of the Westbourne Park
footbridge, so that will make five. I think that is all, sir,
thank you.
16767. Chairman: May I just ask one question
of Mr Berryman. It was a failing on my part not to do so earlier.
There were gates on that, I presume it was built initially for
a farmer, and there were gates with locks on them. How will the
access for the farmer or whoever it is be dealt with there?
16768. Ms Lieven: I can answer and I
will get it wrong. Why does Mr Berryman not answer and he will
get it right?
(Mr Berryman) The farmer
is a Mr Rayner, who is a very large industrial farmer in that
area, he owns a large number of farms in the area. We have discussed
the matter with him and he has several alternative routes that
he can use and he has not raised any objection to the bridge's
removal.
16769. Chairman: The whole of the access
for the owner is dealt with, or being dealt with?
(Mr Berryman) Yes.
The witness withdrew
16770. Ms Lieven: He has been informed
all the way along and he chose not to petition. Unless there is
anything else, sir, thank you.
16771. Chairman: Mr Suggett, you have
the last word.
16772. Mr Suggett: Thank you very much.
Sir, in the light of what your Petitioners have been saying about
the importance of Dog Kennel Lane and its bridge in the local
highway network, I grant you that it would have looked rather
better if on the occasions when the surveyors went down there
with their clipboards and so on that there had been a good few
more users of this path instead of nobody on three occasions,
and I think from the count on a survey that was done in April
one user. Bold as it might seem for us to do, the Ramblers Association
and the Open Spaces Society's evidence is that this is an important
path and we ask you to accept that, and that it is well used even
if no use chanced to coincide with the surveys that were done.
16773. Sir, if we were seeking to protect an
urban or suburban path and were arguing that it was an important
utilitarian link well used by commuters getting to work or children
going to school and pensioners getting to the shops, the surgery
or the post office, and then no public use was made of it on the
days when the surveyors came we might look well and properly embarrassed.
Sir, this is a rural location and the use is primarily recreational
and recreational use does not necessarily occur every day. However
strategic a path may be, recreational use can fluctuate in its
frequency. One of the visits by the surveyors, the one that is
mentioned in the Promoter's response, was between seven and 10
o'clock in the morning and between seven and 10 o'clock in the
morning is not necessarily a time of day when you would expect
much use of a rural path used chiefly for recreation. Mr Berryman's
own visit was there on the Saturday when I think I understood
him to say that England was playing, to which I suppose the entire
nation was glued to its television sets for, and I think he said
he went the following day as well when, as far as I could make
out, the entire nation had an hangover, so it is not entirely
surprising that that was not the busiest of weekends with regard
to that path.
16774. Could I turn to the point about overgrowth.
Clearance of overgrowth of a public right of way is the duty of
the highway authority and if they have not complied with it, as
here apparently, it does not follow that use of the way is minimal
nonetheless. People can be deterred from using rights of way during
the growing season and by bushes, briars, nettles and so on. Our
experience is there has to be fairly intensive use of a path before
it has a significant effect on overhanging vegetation. We do not
claim that there is massive intensive use of this way. Here is
the growth that you would expect on a narrow path in a rural location
in the growing season. The photograph does show that there has
been, I would like to venture to ask you to find, quite significant
use. There is a path there and in one of the other photographs
showing nettles there was a clear course through nettles on the
right-hand side of the photograph. You can just about make out
on the right-hand side of that the patch of nettles disappears
and there is a way through. That is more or less what you would
expect at this time of the year on very many paths.
16775. Could I mention the locks. We are not
sure how long these locks have been there but there has clearly
been use of the path despite those. No doubt there would be more
use but for the fact that they are there. In a sense, the overgrowth
and the locks almost add to the case for retaining the route.
If there is use of this sort in these conditions then what more
use might there be if the path was more favourable in its aspect
to users.
16776. Anyway, recreational walking is on the
increase. I wish I had brought the statistics to show you that.
Things like the General Household Survey and the Day Visits Survey
show that more and more people are taking up recreational walking.
Even if it was shown that this path was no use now, it could still
be vital in the future. We urge that it should be protected for
that reason. In Part 2 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act
2000, Parliament shows that it considers certain categories of
paths to be of special importance, and we submit this is one of
them. I am talking about sections 60 and 61 of the Countryside
and Rights of Way Act to do with rights of way improvement plans.
In preparing the rights of way improvement plan the highway authority
is supposed to have regard to the extent to which the network
meets the present day needs of the public and also the likely
future needs. To quote from the statutory guidance that goes with
these rights of way improvement plans: "Local highway authorities
should consider the adequacy of routes from centres of population
or routes which can be used in conjunction with public transport
which allow people to gain easy access to countryside from where
they live". Also in the context of rights of way improvement
plans: "Highway authorities are supposed to consider the
adequacy of links which create circular routes and better facilities
for walkers, including dog walkers, runners and cyclists".
16777. This path is close to the residential
community of Slough, particularly its easternmost suburb of Langley,
and to the west Drayton and to Richings Park and to Iver, and
it fits those criteria about circular routes and access to the
countryside fairly and squarely, but without Dog Kennel Bridge
this way will become redundant, useless and an awful waste. People
will have to use roads instead in places without pavements and
the walk down a country road or lane these days is no longer the
pleasurable experience it once was with the road holding capabilities
of modern cars which enable them to go at massive speeds on winding
lanes so that a walker is passed by vehicles going at 60 miles
an hour or more literally only inches away. The figure for pedestrian
deaths on the road averages out at 14 pedestrians a week and the
removal of this bridge will not do anything to lower that figure.
16778. The point about whether a right of way
exists may not be absolutely crucial, but although it is not on
the definitive map, the evidential effect of section 56 of the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is that the definitive map is
definitive in what is included on it, it is not definitive in
its omissions, so the omission of a path from it is without prejudice
to the fact that a right of way may exist over it. It cannot really
be said that there is no right of way over it, it can simply be
said that there is no record of a right of way. A right of way
might have come into existence before the definitive map was drawn
up. If, as the witness suggested, there was use without let or
hindrance prior to 1950 when it is believed that the science first
appeared and before the definitive map was drawn up then a right
of way may well exist by prescription, notwithstanding omission
from the definitive map.
16779. Finally, we were going to say it will
cost £100,000 to provide a replacement bridge which certainly
correspondence with the local authorities back in 1989 or 1990
suggested might be the figure. I wish the rather higher figure
that has appeared today had not been quoted. It has taken us a
bit by surprise. Even so, we would like to submit that this is
a bridge, for the reasons we have given, that should be saved
and that is still not the most enormous of sums within the context
of the whole Bill.
47 Committee Ref: A185, Open Spaces Society and the
Ramblers Association-Dog Kennel Bridge and surrounding footpath
network (LINEWD-9105-008). Back
|
