Examination of Witnesses (Questions 18180
- 18199)
18180. Ms Lieven: Sir, I made most of
the points in opening but probably the single most important factor
here is the very, very low level usage of this bridge which has
two consequences. One in my submission is it is simply impossible
to justify the spending of £800,000 for the very few people
who walk across the bridge. This is public money we are talking
about and I am sure I have said this before—that although
Crossrail is an enormously expensive project it is important to
remember that £800,000 goes quite a long way in the public
purse to other things, and I am sure there is some level of usage
of this bridge but it is minimally low. Secondly, it is not a
public footpath; that seems unequivocally determined by the documentation,
and permission has been granted for it to be demolished in the
past. So, in my submission, the case is overwhelming for removing
the footbridge and not replacing it.
18181. The only issue, therefore, becomes should
a different footpath be reprovided? Now, sir, so far as the proposed
route by the Ramblers is concerned, there are two, perhaps three,
principal problems with that. First, it is going across somebody
else's land, land that has some development potential, or hope
value, it is not clear how much, it is only planning applications
that have been made, not permissions, but clearly there is some
hope value, and to put a footpath across there where there is
such a minimal level of usage, in my submission, would not be
justified.
18182. The British Rail Board Residuary Body
is nothing to do with Crossrail whatsoever; it is a profit-making
organisation which would seek to maximise any development potential.
The other point, which is quite important by this stage of the
Bill, is that to do so would require a new AP; it would further
delay this project for, again, a minimal number of people, and,
thirdly, it could not, in my submission, link into Iver station
footbridge. One would again incur the cost of extending the bridge
but I would suggest, even more importantly, you cannot put a footpath
across a closed part of a station which falls within a paid area.
To do so undermines the whole ticketing process for the whole
of that part of the Great Western.
18183. Sir, our footpath is not going to be
the world's most attractive footpath but one has to remember that
the minimal number of people who do at the moment walk across
Dog Kennel Bridge and go up 15A, if there are any of them, are
walking past the Bison site at the moment. We are not taking a
rural idyll and putting it next to an industrial site; we are
taking a footpath that goes past industrial land and putting it
past some more industrial land, so in my submission the replacement
is perfectly acceptable in the circumstances we find ourselves
in.
18184. Sir, I have kept it short but I would
urge the Committee, if there is any doubt on the issue, to go
back and re-read the original transcript where much more evidence
was given on this.
18185. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I think you
can take that as read. Mr Suggett, your final comments please?
18186. Mr Suggett: Sir, despite what
the Promoters have said about this path, and last time they described
its use as between "little and non-existent" and they
have not put it any higher today, your Petitioners do invite you
to find that Dog Kennel Lane is, in fact, a well-used, important
public local amenity. We do not say it is overrun with use and
we make no extravagant claims about its aesthetic merits; we do
say that local residents use it and it is important to walkers
from further afield as well. It is important, and they make significant
use of it. I dare say that if you stood by a path with a clipboard
even in some well-used walking area like the Peak or the Lake
District you would find many days where chance would have it that
that particular path was not used, as evidently happened when
the Promoter went there in this case.
18187. We say that what is important is the
evidence of local residents. Our local representative has testified
to the significant use of the path and the parish council's representative
has testified to it. The highway authority, Buckinghamshire County
Council supports the replacement of the bridge or else our alternative
route and South Buckinghamshire District Council supports the
Petition.
18188. Briefly I would like you to agree with
our witnesses that for the reasons they gave your Petitioners'
preferred route option should prevail over the alignment which
the Promoter has proposed. We know that the Promoter has said
to us that our preferred route falls outside the limits of the
Bill so there would not be powers to build a footpath along that
alignment, but we say that the powers are not necessary. Although
it turns out now that the land is owned by the British Rail Board
Residuary, not a Crossrail company, it still nonetheless ought
to be possible to negotiate a public path creation agreement over
the land. It does not need to be a company directly related to
Crossrail; any land owner can do it.
18189. Besides, the Promoter's reference to
"building" the footpath might mean that they think we
are requiring works to be done or something like that. We are
not. A right of way is an abstract concept. We are not asking
for surfacing, although I think there is one point where there
is a ditch which would need a bridge made by a couple of railway
sleepers or something of that order, so there are no major surfacing
works or anything of that sort.
18190. On that aspect, that is all I am going
to say. Could I turn straight to the point about replacing the
bridge.
18191. The Promoter says that no right of way
exists on the bridge itself. We say, and without prejudice to
an argument that a right of way subsists on the bridge, that Dog
Kennel Bridge should be replaced even if one does not. We submit
so for the reasons given by the witnesses; we submit so because
the local authorities wish it; and we submit so as well because
this kind of route was singled out by Parliament in its Rights
of Way Improvement Plan provisions that it introduced in the Countryside
and Rights of Way Act 2000 and issued statutory guidance about
as recently as 2002. Paragraph 2.22 of that guidance issued by
Secretary of State highlights certain categories of paths as being
of particular importance, and we urge you to find that this is
one of them. It includes routes from centres of population or
routes which can be used in conjunction with public transport
which allow people to gain easy access to the countryside from
where they live: well, that applies here. It includes routes linking
and creating circular walks and better facilities for walkers
including dog walkers and runners for leisure and health: well,
that applies here. It includes routes to help ameliorate the effect
on people's enjoyment of the countryside of a motorway or other
major road or development: that might be said to apply here, and
it includes routes through or around developed areas to ensure
that such development does not prevent or disrupt the continuity
of the network: well, that applies here.
18192. In closing I would like to make the point
that each year very many orders are made by councils to divert
or extinguish public rights of way and something like 75 or 80
per cent of them go through unopposed either by the Ramblers'
Association or the Open Spaces Society or by anybody else. I mention
that possibly unexciting statistic to try and show that our present
petition is not some predictable knee-jerk reaction by pressure
groups to any closure of any old public path. We are petitioning,
and we ask you in good faith to accept this, because we do identify
this particular path on its own individual merits as a singularly
important local resource which should be saved, and we promise
you we would not be taking up our own resources in petitioning,
never mind your time or the Promoter's, if we did not believe
in the strong case for replacing this bridge.
18193. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Mr Binley?
18194. Mr Binley: Just one question.
Iver Parish Council says it recognises the importance of retaining
the footpath, and indeed you have made some comment yourself about
the viability of the limited surveys carried out by the Promoters.
I wondered why Iver Parish Council, if they were in dispute with
that evidence, did not carry out surveys themselves?
18195. Mr Suggett: I wish I had an answer
to that question, sir.
18196. Mr Binley: Thank you.
18197. Mr Liddell-Grainger: I think the
point is well made, Mr Suggett. Thank you very much for coming
today and presenting your evidence.
18198. Mr Suggett: Thank you.
The Petition of the Great Western Allotment Association.
Mr Simon Brewster appeared on behalf of the Great
Western Allotment Association.
18199. Mr Liddell-Grainger: Ms Lieven,
please start, and I think we have been here before, so you can
paraphrase quite a lot.
| 
