Examination of Witnesses (Questions 18160
- 18179)
18160. Mr Suggett: No further questions,
unless the witness would like to hand to the Committee a copy
of the Parish Council resolution.
18161. Mr Liddell-Grainger: No, that
will go to the Clerk to be photocopied and taken as evidence.
Ms Lieven?
18162. Ms Lieven: No, sir, no questions.
18163. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Thank you,
Mrs Collins. Ms Lieven?
The witness withdrew
18164. Ms Lieven: Thank you very much,
sir. If I can proceed to call Mr Berryman.
Mr Keith Berryman, Recalled
Examined by Ms Lieven
18165. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Mr Berryman,
if during the course of your evidence you want to stop at any
time would you please let me know straight away.
18166. Ms Lieven: Mr Berryman, I want
to focus on matters since you last appeared n the Committee on
this issue. Before we do that, I have just one question. Can you
briefly summarise the surveys that Crossrail carried out in respect
of the usage of this bridge?
(Mr Berryman) Yes. After
the famous trip, of which we have seen so many photographs today,
I had a look myself there for a few hours and did not see anyone
crossing the bridge at all or even using the footpaths. The following
weekend we arranged for a comprehensive survey to be done from,
I think, eight in the morning to seven at night on the Saturday
and Sunday and the weekend after that we arranged for the same
again. During that period there were no users of the bridge. Previously
we had arranged for surveys to be carried out during the week
and, again, detected no users of the bridge at all. I have to
say the two weekends when we did have a comprehensive survey were
two weekends which would have been very attractive for walkers:
the weather was good, it was in June, they were nice days for
walking, but there was nobody there.
18167. Thank you. Can we turn to what has happened
since the last Committee hearing. Can you just explain what steps
the Promoters have taken to try to resolve this issue?
(Mr Berryman) Yes. We looked
at a number of options as to how the matter could be dealt with.
One option would be to take the footpath to the west from the
existing Dog Kennel Bridge and underneath the Chequer Bridge and
then come out back to North Park where footpath 15 joins North
Park. There are a number of problems with that. Chequer Bridge
would have required traffic light treatment and it is quite a
long route. My understanding is that the petitioners were not
particularly in favour of that, they did not think that was a
particularly good idea. We considered an easterly diversion from
the end of Dog Kennel Bridge, which has the advantage from our
point of view of being within our limits of deviation, so it is
something we could do relatively easily, and then to go as far
as Iver Station and cross over the existing footbridge at Iver
Station. We did not propose to link on to the footbridge station
because the footbridge station does not go over all the tracks
and it would have to be extended if we were to do that. The possibility
of a footpath as shown on that diagram, a diagonal footpath across
that piece of land, was considered, albeit rather late in the
day. We know that this land is the subject of planning applications
and is likely to be developed in the relatively near future. It
is quite likely that such a footpath running diagonally would
be difficult to deal with. I do not think a path running alongside
the Bison Works north-south is very much different in aspect from
one running east-west, it is a big brick house concrete works
and it will not go away whatever you do with the footpath.
18168. While we are looking at the options,
in terms of one of the Ramblers' suggestions, which is that we
use the footbridge over Iver Station, you have mentioned the fact
that it would have to be extended in any event and there is obviously
a cost associated with that, but what is the other problem with
doing that? How would Network Rail be likely to feel about it?
(Mr Berryman) There is an
issue of control of entrance to the station, of course. In future
that bridge will be on the paved side of the station and if you
have a public footpath going across it is impossible to control
and I think there would be extreme unhappiness, not just from
Network Rail but also from the Train Operating Company.
18169. Mr Suggett suggested that the land just
to the north where the Ramblers would like to put the footpath
across was owned by a company associated with Crossrail. Can you
just explain what the position is there?
(Mr Berryman) Would that
it were so. There are a number of places on the project where
we deal with this organisation, which is the British Railways
Board Residuary Body, which is responsible for leftover real estate
from privatisation of the railways. I can assure you there is
absolutely no connection between them and us.
18170. Finally on this point, if the Committee
were to say that we should promote a footpath across this land,
a diagonal footpath, what would be the consequence in terms of
the process of this Bill?
(Mr Berryman) Well, because
it is outside the limits of deviation it would require a further
additional provision which would require, as usual, a petitioning
period and would require the Committee to come and sit again.
18171. Thank you. Then the only other thing
I want to ask you about is cost. We have quoted a cost of £800,000
for replacing Dog Kennel Bridge which I think is slightly less
than last time because we have slightly lowered the specification
for the bridge. Is that costing based on the same principles as
costings along the rest of the Crossrail route?
(Mr Berryman) Yes, it is.
The reason we have reduced the price slightly is because we have
reduced the width of the bridge from 3.5 metres to 2.5 metres,
which should be adequate.
18172. Mr Suggett suggested that we were making
a saving at Thorney Lane Bridge because we were not now demolishing
that bridge and, therefore, somehow the money could be hypothecated
across to replacing Dog Kennel Bridge. Just on the principle of
the saving, is it right to say we are making a saving of a significant
sum at Thorney Lane Bridge?
(Mr Berryman) We will be making
some saving but by no means the kind of sum that was suggested
in evidence. The reason is that because we are not demolishing
the bridge we have to lower the tracks and that needs to be done
over quite a long length of track to maintain the gradients and
so on of the railway. It is still quite a big job even though
it does not involve replacing the bridge. Secondly, of course,
we are always looking for cost savings on the project anyway.
It is a natural part of design as things proceed; we are looking
to bring the costs down, not put them up.
18173. Ms Lieven: Those are all my questions.
Thank you, Mr Berryman.
18174. Mr Binley: I do not wish to prolong
this in any sense but could you give us very briefly a history
of the bridge so we can get that into context?
(Mr Berryman): The bridge was built when the
Great Western Railway was built. The first two tracks were built
in the 1830s and then in the 1870s the railway was expanded from
two tracks to four tracks, so the northern arch was built in the
1870s.
18175. So the footbridge has been there for
some considerable time?
(Mr Berryman): The bridge has been there for
a long time, yes, since the railway was built, in fact. We believe
it was built as a farmers' accommodation bridge but actually it
is a very minor stretch in the context of the Great Western Railway,
and we have not really found any records of it.
18176. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Mr Suggett,
do you have any questions?
18177. Mr Suggett: No, thank you.
18178. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Thank you,
Mr Berryman. It was nice to see you again.
The witness withdrew.
18179. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Anything
else, Ms Lieven?
| 
