Examination of Witnesses (Questions 18120
- 18139)
18120. Ms Lieven: It would cost £800,000.
18121. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Thank you
very much indeed, Ms Lieven. I now call Mr Suggett.
The Petition of Open Spaces Society and Ramblers'
Association.
Mr Eugene Suggett appeared on behalf of Open
Spaces Society and Ramblers' Association.
18122. Mr Suggett Thank you, Sir. Good
morning. As before, I am acting as agent for the Petitioners of
the Open Spaces Society and the Ramblers' Association. I am obliged
to Ms Lieven for setting the scene so clearly. I am afraid that
will make some of what I am about to say rather repetitious. We
were last here in the sweltering heat on 26 July, that was the
very last Petition you heard before you adjourned for the summer
recess. You will recall on that occasion we were concerned principally
about the fate of Dog Kennel Bridge at Iver in Buckinghamshire.
The Crossrail Bill proposes to demolish that bridge without any
replacement, which is a means for users of footpaths 15 and 15A
in Iver to cross the railway line. Although it is alleged by the
Promoter that there is no right of away across the bridge itself,
the bridge has nonetheless been used for many years as part of
a public footpath route, and it is a necessary part of a chain
of paths which enables walkers to make a circular walk and avoid
retracing their steps or walking on roads. Without the bridge,
the paths each side of it will become redundant and will effectively
be lost. After you heard the evidence last time, the Committee
announced that you had not closed the decision that we may retain
a foot access over this line. You asked the Promoter and your
Petitioners to go away and see if we could seek solutions. Discussions
have been held and the Promoter has proposed an alternative footpath.
In a few minutes the two witnesses who I propose to call will
speak about it. Essentially today our position is this, we continue
to ask for a replacement bridge. The Highway Authority supports
us in that by their Petition, so does the District Council and
so does the Parish Council whose representatives will testify
later. The Parish Council also agrees with us that the route offered
by the Promoter, in the event of the bridge not being replaced,
is not adequate by way of compensation and that a different proposed
route proposed by the Petitioners would be preferable, that is
if the bridge is not to be replaced. What your Petitioners request
first and foremost is the replacement of Dog Kennel Bridge so
that the paths which lead to it can continue to be used and are
not rendered redundant. May I briefly mention a formal assurance
that the Promoter gave on this subject to Buckinghamshire County
Council, the highway authority. The undertaking that I mean appears
in the first draft of Crossrail Undertakings and Assurances Register.[2]
Can we see entry 68 in the Crossrail Undertakings and Assurances
Register? Buckinghamshire County Council had petitioned about
Dog Kennel Bridge and the resulting assurance in the Register
reads thus: "The Promoter is prepared to work with the Petitioner
to facilitate the provision of an alternative bridge should the
Petitioner wish to promote and fund a suitable structure".
Sir, while the Open Spaces Society and the Ramblers' Association
will be urging Buckinghamshire County Council as highway authority,
to enter into negotiations about that, we suppose any such negotiations
may not, or could not, be concluded before this Bill is passed.
Your Petitioners therefore respectfully urge your Committee to
require an amendment to the Bill to provide for this replacement,
without prejudice to any financial settlement which may or may
not be reached between the Promoter and the highway authority.
It has been said by the Promoters that there is a problem about
providing the path, which is your Petitioners favourite option,
in the event of the bridge being demolished without replacement.
Perhaps if we could see the rough map which we sent in which shows
our proposal.[3]
Can that go up, please? I am afraid our colours have not shown
up as well as they should have. The Promoter's proposed route
is that line which goes along there the green line, and our preferred
option is a path which leaves that footpath there and goes down
there and so to connect with either railway station ideally. The
problem about our preferred option is said to be that our preferred
alternative route falls outside the limits of the Crossrail Bill,
so the Promoter would not have the powers to build a footpath
along that line, but we contest that. Could we have displayed,
please, the deposited plan, sheet 103, which shows Dog Kennel
Lane and the bits of footpath leading to it.[4]
It may be that it is not absolutely necessary for this to be shown;
I think you have got the idea of the situation anyhow. The paths
15 and 15A are described in the book of reference at pages 701
and 702 at south-box number 35, footpath 15A on the north-south
side, south-box 41 on the southside, footpath 15. I was going
to ask next if we could have a look at page 62.
18123. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Mr Suggett,
take it as read, we have been through this before; we know that.
What I want you to tell us is what has changed. We have heard
the arguments before. Can you come to the point. What has changed?
What and why do you want us to change our minds?
18124. Mr Suggett: The burden of what
I am trying to say is the land over which our preferred route
would go is owned by a Crossrail related company, so there need
not be a problem about dedicating a right of way over that, even
though it might be outside the limits of deviation of the Bill.
Any landowner can create or dedicate a right of way over land,
and all we hear is since this land is owned either by Crossrail
or possibly by the British Rail Residuary Board or by Network
Rail, then there ought to be no problem as a matter of law about
the footpath being dedicated there along the line of our preferred
route. That is the background. We think that no further compulsory
powers would be required given that the land is in the ownership
of a Crossrail related company. Sir, I would like to call the
first of our two witnesses, Mr Paul Graham.
Mr Paul Graham, Sworn
Examined by Mr Suggett
18125. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Thank you,
Mr Graham.
18126. Mr Suggett: Mr Graham has a copy
of his statement.
18127. Mr Liddell-Grainger: If we could
call Petition 83 Doc 13 as A201.
(Mr Graham) My name is Paul Michael Graham.
I live at Grovehurst, Langley Park Road, Iver, in Buckinghamshire.
I have lived in Iver since 1980 and in nearby West Drayton for
four years before that. You will know from my appearance before
you on 26 July 2006 that I am Footpath Secretary of the Iver and
District Countryside Association and was formerly its General
Secretary. I have organised group walks and footpath maintenance
parties in Iver and the immediately surrounding area for over
two decades. I have used Dog Kennel Bridge many times on walks
and seen other people using it and the footpaths either side of
it. I am presenting evidence on behalf of the Open Spaces Society
and the Ramblers' Association in support of their Petition against
the Promoter's official response to their earlier Petition insofar
as it relates to Dog Kennel Bridge. This is the bridge which takes
Iver public footpath numbers 15 and 15A over the railway. Put
more precisely, this footpath is shown on the definitive map leading
up to the railway on either side. Though it is disputed whether
the bridge itself is a public right of way, it is plainly an essential
link in the local network of paths. If the bridge is demolished,
it will mean a one and a half km diversion for would-be users
of the path, and they would have to go on busy roads, one of which
in part has no footway. I will not repeat today all the factors
which make this an important path but I urge you to accept that
it is so. The view your Committee took when we gave evidence on
26 July against the closure of the bridge was that the parties
should go away and examine other ways that might facilitate the
solution of the problem. Since then, the Promoter has helpfully
been in touch and a meeting was held. The Promoter has made a
formal response by letter dated 14 December 2006. Could a copy
of that, in particular the bullet points on its second page, be
displayed?[5]
18128. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Do you have
the number of the evidence?
18129. Mr Suggett: Yes.
(Mr Graham) The Promoters
say the bridge is too expensive and have proposed an alternative
route which would commence at the termination point of footpath
15A, north of the bridge, and would run easterly between the railway
line and the Bison Industrial Site, and which would involve walking
along the access-road to the Bison Works, finally connecting with
Thorney Lane. We would prefer a different alternative route, if
the bridge must be demolished, and I will give our reasons for
that preference in a few moments.
18130. But first I would like to urge the Committee
to require a replacement bridge. We ask you to find that even
the highest cost estimate made by the Promoter for a replacement
bridge is a small amount in the context of a large transport scheme
of this kind.
18131. Would it be possible for page 62 of the
Bill to be displayed?[6]
This is part of Schedule 3 and it concerns highways. In the table
at the top of that page, the second item from the top was to require
the replacement of the Thorney Lane Bridge. But the Promoter has
now abandoned the replacement of the Thorney Lane Bridge. So the
stopping up and highway works provided for in the table are no
longer required, and that constitutes a considerable saving of
costs, and I ask the Committee to bear that saving in mind when
assessing the issue of expense of a replacement for Dog Kennel
Bridge.
18132. We ask the Committee to note as well
that a significant factor in the Promoter's estimates is the cost
of possession of the track while the works to build the new bridge
were carried out, such as the compensation payable to the Train
Operating Companies and the Freight Operating Companies. But I
ask you to note that Crossrail will need to possess the track
and compensate those companies in any case, so that they can demolish
the bridge in the first place, realign the rails, and erect the
overhead cable gantries which are the cause of the demolition.
We believe that the costings have been arrived at in isolation,
and that in the context of the entire local works the figure is
not prohibitive.
18133. But even their highest estimate is a
small amount in this overall massive scheme. And I should add
that Crossrail have not supplied any really detailed costing for
a replacement bridge in such a way that would enable the costing
to be looked at critically.
18134. We were troubled by one item of evidence
by the Promoter last time. In seeking to argue that the path is
less well used than I know it to be, the Promoter produced a couple
of photographs showing a gate across the path to be padlocked.
Could photograph one be shown, please.[7]
This may have caused the Committee to suppose that pedestrians
would have to climb the gate in the manner being shown here, if
we could have photograph two, please.[8]
In fact, although it slipped my mind last time, this gate has
a stile to the side of it, as you can see here, if we could have
this new photograph three, and then photograph four, please.[9]
I have spoken to the farmer, Colin Rayner, who tells me that he
rarely locks the gate, only occasionally at weekends; and then
only to prevent vehicular use, not to stop use by pedestrians.
He began doing this only as recently as March 2006, hence my slight
unfamiliarity with the scene when the Promoter's photograph of
the locked gate was presented to the Committee in July. So the
padlocking is not quite the obstacle that the Promoter's evidence
may have made it appear, since pedestrians are accommodated by
a long-established stile if the gate is locked.
18135. Circular or through walks in the locality
south of Iver and surrounding area would be severely limited as
a result of the demolition of this bridge, and I reiterate that
the replacement of this bridge and the dedication of its replacement
as a public right of way is your petitioners' massively strong
preference.
18136. If in the end your Committee decides
that it cannot order the replacement of the bridge, your petitioners
urge that there should be some sort of replacement route. As I
said, the Promoters have helpfully proposed one. Could my map
be shown, please?[10]
We ask the Committee to find that it is not an acceptable replacement
and that our own proposed alternative route is more appropriate
by way of quid pro quo.
18137. We say that because the existing route
is an important recreational route, especially the section south
of the bridge, where there are far-ranging open views, including
Windsor Castle in the distance. With the Promoter's proposal,
a walker proceeding south along footpath 15A beside the Bison
Works will have to turn eastwards and walk in a channel between
the railway and the Bison Works. There is no footway and it seems
to be well used by heavy vehicles associated with the Works, which
makes it a safety issue as well. No walker, other than a fanatical
train-spotter, would derive any pleasure from using this way.
It is not at all comparable to the route along footpaths 15 and
15A in terms of recreational amenity. It would not meet the statutory
criteria to do with convenience and enjoyment if this diversion
were proposed in the standard routine way for diversion under
section 119 of the Highways Act 1980.
18138. What would be more acceptable is the
creation of a path on the line shown by red dashes from the junction
of footpaths 15 and 17, the canal, to connect with Iver Station
on its northern side. This is over an area of grass and scrub
which is of open aspect and is altogether more pleasurable to
walk. In connection with these proceedings I have walked this
route with the Rights of Way Team Leader at Buckinghamshire County
Council, who expressed satisfaction at the prospect of this path
becoming a public right of way, either diagonally across the land
or around its perimeter. Ideally this would connect direct with
Iver station at its northern side, so that walkers could cross
the line via the station footbridge and not have to use the footbridge
to the east over Thorney Lane. We believe that this station footbridge
is going to have to be extended in any case; we believe that it
should be used as a footbridge for non-rail users so as to make
a pedestrian connection between the network of footpaths to the
north of the line so that, using the pavements and quiet side
roads of Richings Park, walkers from the north of the railway
can access footpath 24 to Colnbrook and join the Colne Valley
Way by that means. We recognise, as does the Promoter, that this
option of ours means that footpath 15A would become redundant.
But we submit that the net amenity gain to the walker in terms
of quid pro quo is significantly better with our preferred
option than what the Promoter has proposed.
18139. We recognise that provision of the route
for which we ask, if Dog Kennel Bridge is not to be replaced,
is outside the powers of the present Bill. But that is why we
are asking for the Bill to be amended, if that is necessary. It
is believed that the land is already in the ownership of Railtrack
or a company associated with it, and if that is so then no compulsory
powers would be needed and there ought to be no difficulty in
negotiating a public path creation agreement to bring that public
right of way into existence. Crossrail have not made any attempt
to talk to the British Rail Board or Railtrack or whichever company
it is who owns the land.
2 Committee Ref: A200, Crossrail Register of Undertakings
and Assurances, Buckinghamshire County Council-Dog Kennel Bridge
(LINEWD-UA-006). Back
3
Committee Ref: A200, Open Spaces Society and Ramblers' Association
map of Dog Kennel Bridge and associated footpath network (SCN-20070125-001). Back
4
Committee Ref: A200, Open Spaces Society and Ramblers' Association
proposed route (SCN-20070125-001). Back
5
Committee Ref: A200, Correspondence from CLRL to Open Spaces
Society and Ramblers' Association, 14 December 2006 (SCN-20070125-002). Back
6
Committee Ref: A200, Crossrail Bill-Schedule 3 Highways (LINEWD-EXH01-066). Back
7
Committee Ref: A200, View of gate at Dog Kennel Bridge (LINEWD-AP3-13-05A-003). Back
8
Committee Ref: A200, Alternative view of gate at Dog Kennel Bridge
(LINEWD-AP3-13-05A-004). Back
9
Committee Ref: A200, Further views of gate at Dog Kennel Bridge
(LINEWD-AP3-13-05A-005 and -006). Back
10
Committee Ref: A200, Open Spaces Society and Ramblers' Association
proposed route (LINEWDAP3-13-05A-001). Back
|
