Examination of Witnesses (Questions 18116
- 18119)
In the absence of the Chairman, Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger
was called to the Chair
Ordered: Council and Parties be called in:
18116. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Good morning,
everybody. We would ask Counsel for the Promoters to present the
first Petitioner which I believe is Open Spaces Society and the
Ramblers' Association. Ms Lieven, you are kicking off this morning?
18117. Ms Lieven: I am, Sir, yes. If
I can have the exhibit up.[1]
Some Members of the Committee may remember this one. The outstanding
issue with the Open Spaces Society is that of the provision at
Dog Kennel Bridge. If I can have the plan up, please. Dog Kennel
Bridge is a bridge that the Committee considered on the last day
before the summer recess last year. If I can remind the Committee
of its decision on that day. The Chairman, who on that day was
Mr Meale, said: "Can I just say, the Committee has had a
deliberation on this. We want to say we are not minded to apply
for extra provision to require a new bridge or replacement bridge
to be built, however, we are not minded either to make a decision
on the matter today. We want the parties to go away and examine
other ways that might facilitate the solution of the problem,
therefore we ask them to keep on discussing matters". We
have indeed done that, Sir, we have done what the Committee asked.
We have gone away and tried to come up with an alternative solution
which does not replace the bridge, because we continue to be of
the view that the cost of doing so is wholly excessive given the
very low level of usage, but it does provide a somewhat improved
footpath solution to the position before. If I can just, for those
Members of the Committee who either were not here or do not have
this matter embedded in their memory, very briefly go through
the issue again. Dog Kennel Bridge is where I am indicating on
the pointer. It is a bridge that crosses the Great Western Line
between Langley to the west and Iver Station to the east. There
was, at an earlier stage, issues as to whether there were heritage
reasons for keeping the bridge, those are not being advanced by
anybody any longer, so we do not need to worry about those. The
bridge has to be demolished for two reasons: overhead electrification
of the line along this whole stretch of line, and because we are
putting in a fifth track to make provision for freight traffic
up and down the line to ensure they are not disadvantaged. The
bridge, as Members of the Committee who were here before will
recall, is not a public footpath; that is not in serious dispute.
The British Railway Board had permission in a 1992 Act to demolish
it, but obviously did not take that up. The Committee will remember
the Promoters carried out quite extensive surveys as to the level
of usage of this bridge, but the position is there is a footpath
to the south (footpath 15) and there is a footpath to the north
(footpath 15A). We did carry out surveys on two weekends in June
and on a number of mornings during the week. The result of those
surveys is that we found no usage whatsoever. The survey showed
nobody using it. Mr Berryman and, indeed Mrs Berryman, went on
a site visit to this bridge and found no evidence of usage; it
was considerably overgrown at the time. If necessary we can go
back and show the Committee the photos. The Open Spaces will call
their witness Mr Graham who lives locally and said he used the
footpath, so where the evidence appears to get to is there is
a very, very low level of usage. I think that evidence was effectively
accepted by the Committee the last time. The cost of replacing
the bridge is something in the region of £800,000 so our
clear view is that replacing the bridge is wholly unjustified
for that extremely low level of usage. The solution we have come
up with, after discussions with both the Open Spaces and Ramblers'
Association and Bucks County Council who have a statutory responsibility
for footpaths in this location, is to provide a footpath along
the north side of the railway from Thorney Lane. It is still not
possible to see the names on the screen in front of you. Thorney
Lane is the road which runs north-south and crosses the railway
close to Iver Station. What we are proposing is where the green
is showing on this there would be a new footpath line just to
the south of the access to the industrial works here which are
known as the Bison Industrial Works. There would be a footpath
running along here and then it would link into the existing footpath
network. Nobody is suggesting it is an absolutely perfect solution,
but I think the Petitioners believe it is better than what was
originally being proposed. Indeed, we did discuss some form of
reprovision to the west, but the Open Spaces and Ramblers' Association
clearly prefer the current solution. I hope that covers the factual
situation. The Committee will remember that you can link into
the footpath. This is Grand Union Canal and you can link into
the footpath to the north, like that. Once people are here they
can go up to the north if they wish to do so. As I have said,
the evidence of the level of usage is that it is extremely low,
so how many people will benefit from this reprovision is perhaps
open to doubt. Obviously some Members of the Committee were here
the last time, some were not, so I do not know if there is anything
else I can help with in factual explanation.
18118. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Ms Lieven,
I do not think so. I think what we will do is move straight on
to questions.
18119. Mr Binley: Just one question.
We are talking about costs, that was the main reason for the Petitioners
not wanting to proceed, and it is a sensible reason. Can you remind
us of the cost again of replacing that bridge in this place?
1 Crossrail Ref: P135, Dog Kennel Bridge-Proposed
footpath diversion (LINEWD-AP3-13-04B-001). Back
|
