UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 235-iv

HOUSE OF COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

taken before the

COMMITTEE

on the

CROSSRAIL BILL

DAY SIXTY-SEVEN

Thursday 25 January 2007

Before:

Mr Brian Binley

Mr Philip Hollobone

Mrs Siān C James

Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger

John Pugh

Sir Peter Soulsby

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. 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 are able 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 consider 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 (indicating). 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 bride 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 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 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 (indicating) there would be a new footpath line just to the south of the access to the industrial works here (indicating) which are known as the Bison Industrial Works. There would be a footpath running along here (indicating) 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 (indicating) and you can link into the footpath to the north, like that. Once people are here (indicating) they can go up to the north if they wish to do so. As I have said, the evidence of a level usage is extremely low, so how many people will benefit from this new provision 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 information.

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?

18120. MS LIEVEN: It would cost £8,000.

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. 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. 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 (indicating) the green line, and our preferred option is a path which leaves that footpath there and goes down there (indicating) 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 context that. Could we have displayed, please, the deposited plan, sheet 103, which shows Dog Kennel Lane and the bits of footpath leading to it. 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 a 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 Railways Board, Residuary Body 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 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's 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.

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? (Same shown) 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 payment 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 (Same shown) - and 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 (Same shown). 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 (Same shown). 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? (Same shown) 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.

18140. Our proposal of this option is not meant as any sort of acceptance of the demolition of Dog Kennel Bridge without replacement. I have sought to show that it is an important path and that it is well used, even if it chanced that there was little or no use when Crossrail did their survey. The highway authority agrees that the bridge should be replaced. So does South Bucks District Council. So does the Parish Council, whose representative is here today to give evidence. It is a feature of importance to the public, increasingly so as recreational walking gains in popularity, and it is the sort of route to which Parliament attaches especial importance in the rights of way improvement plans it introduced in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. We respectfully ask that you retain this important bridge.

 

18141. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Thank you very much. Have you any questions, Mr Suggett?

18142. MR SUGGETT: Not from me.

18143. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Ms Lieven?

 

Cross-examined by MS LIEVEN

 

18144. MS LIEVEN: There is just one matter, sir. Most of the matters I will deal with with Mr Berryman when I call him because that is the way we normally proceed. There is one point I am a little concerned about. If we can have photograph 002 up again, please, the one with Mrs Berryman climbing the gate (Same shown). Mr Graham, I think you were suggesting to the Committee that this photograph was somewhat misleading because a little to the left there is a stile that Mrs Berryman could climb.

(Mr Graham) That is absolutely right.

18145. Can I put up a photograph taken on the same day, minus Mrs Berryman, which shows the condition of the stile on that day? (Same shown) That is the stile, is it not, on the left?

(Mr Graham) That is right.

18146. If we put up the next photograph I think it makes it rather apparent as to why Mrs Berryman climbed the gate rather than the stile. (Same shown)

(Mr Graham) Yes.

18147. Certainly at that time there was absolutely no evidence of anybody climbing the stile and nobody in anything other than thick walking boots and thick trousers would have wanted to do so.

(Mr Graham) That is because that photograph was taken in June shortly after, within a few months of, Mr Rayner closing the gate. Other users of the path would probably have done the same as Mrs Berryman did, therefore the stile was not used. Since then the stile, as shown in the photograph that I produced which was taken in about November last year, if I recall, has been used considerably more and the vegetation has been cut back occasionally by the odd user or two, including myself.

18148. Can I just put up one photograph on the state of the footpath? (Same shown) That is footpath 15A in June of last year. Does that accord with your recollection of it?

(Mr Graham) That is right, yes.

18149. MS LIEVEN: Thank you very much. I will leave the other points for Mr Berryman. Thank you.

18150. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Thank you very much, Mr Graham, if you would like to stand down. Mr Suggett, can we have your second witness please.

 

The witness withdrew

18151. MR SUGGETT: Glenda Collins, please.

 

 

MRS GLENDA COLLINS, Sworn

Examined by MR SUGGETT

18152. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Just before you start, Mrs Collins' evidence will be A202. Mrs Collins, please carry on, unless you have any questions to lead in with, Mr Suggett?

18153. MR SUGGETT: No, thank you, sir.

18154. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Why do you not sit down, Mr Suggett, it saves you standing all the time. Mrs Collins, if you would like to carry on.

(Mrs Collins) Thank you. My name is Glenda Collins. I am the Clerk to Iver Parish Council of 45b High Street, Iver, Buckinghamshire. On 8 January 2007, Iver Parish Council passed a resolution in support of the petition of the Open Spaces Society and the Ramblers' Association. I have a copy of that resolution to hand to the Committee. If I may, it says: "The Parish Council resolve to support the petition of the Ramblers' Association and Open Spaces Society and resolve to prepare a proof of evidence attesting to the path's importance".

18155. Iver Parish Council passed the resolution because it recognises the importance of retaining the link between footpath 15 and footpath 15A. In the network of local recreational footpaths, this is a particularly important one. It is especially important because in the rectangle bounded by the railway, Market Lane, North Park and Thorney Lane, it is the only off-road route, unless you count the residential roads of Richings Park. And it is an important link with footpath 24 to the south, which can be reached with only a small amount of road walking along a road which has a footway to it.

18156. We know that many local people use the path. Some of them use it frequently. People from further afield use it too, especially those walking southwards to, or northwards from, the Colne Valley Way Walk. If I can just add a little bit there. I take parish councillors on a tour of the parish on an annual basis and this is one of the places that we do visit. The last time we were there, there were about a dozen people walking to and from and standing on the bridge. There was a steam train due to go through and apparently it is a very good vantage point for watching the steam trains.

18157. The Parish Council agrees with the petitioners that Crossrail's proposed alternative route between the Bison Works and the railway is of no amenity value, being so unattractive. If Dog Kennel Bridge is to be demolished without replacement, the petitioners' preferred route would be far better compensation, especially if it connected with the north side of the station at Iver.

18158. The Parish Council's view first and foremost is that the bridge should be replaced. It is an important public amenity in our locality, and so Iver Parish Council asks the Committee to accede to the petition to provide a replacement for Dog Kennel Bridge.

18159. MR LIDDELL-GRAINGER: Mr Suggett, do you have any other questions?

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 were going to do 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 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. CHAIRMAN: Mr Suggett, do you have any questions?

18177. MR SUGGETT: No, thank you.

18178. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Berryman. It was nice to see you again.

 

(The witness withdrew.)

18179. CHAIRMAN: Anything else, Ms Lieven?

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 minimum 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 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. CHAIRMAN: 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 Promoters 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 Promoters' 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 Promoters say 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 Promoters', if we did not believe in the strong case for replacing this bridge.

18193. CHAIRMAN: 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. CHAIRMAN: 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. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, please start, and I think we have been here before, so you can paraphrase quite a lot. (Exhibit A203 marked.)

18200. MS LIEVEN: Sir, I have not been here before, to Acton Yard, but I was going to say that perhaps the Committee may conclude this is not one of the more weighty Petitions, and I suspect even the Petitioner would accept that. The issue here is the condition of the soil on the reprovided allotments.

18201. Where we are is Acton Yard, and the Committee will remember we are doing work at Acton Yard in order to put in a provision for the assistance of the freight traffic out of Acton Yard, a diveunder which allows the freight to get in and out without interfering with Crossrail and vice versa. In order to do so we need to take temporarily, but for some considerable time, land which includes the Noel Road allotments, and we have made provision in the Bill for the temporary relocation of the Noel Road allotments so there is no, as I understand it, dispute with the Petitioners. They are prepared to move ‑ well, we understand that the significant issue is not so much the fact that they are going to be temporarily relocated but the quality of the provision during the period of the relocation and we have, I would suggest, done everything we can to meet these concerns.

18202. Mr Berryman will give evidence as to why we need the site, and I do not understand there to be any evidence to counter that; Mr Berryman can give evidence as to how this is an acceptable provision in terms of vehicular access for the Petitioners and access by foot, and we have offered to the Council who, as it were, provide services to the allotment holders, to condition the soil so that it is in a suitable condition for allotment use, and we have offered that that be done so that the land can be handed over in January of the appropriate year so that the allotment holders can work from January up until the planting season to ensure they can use the allotments beneficially, and also that they can hold on to the old allotment land until April in the same year so they can harvest whatever it might be through the winter, and are not disadvantaged in that way. We have also offered to provide water and fencing at the new site. So our position is that we have really done everything that could reasonably be required of us at that site.

18203. Sir, I do not think there is much more I can say at this stage. I have Mr Berryman here not only to speak on why we need the site but also the condition of the soil when it is handed over.

18204. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr Brewster?

18205. MR BREWSTER: Thank you. I am a member of the Great Western Allotment Association Committee, an active allotmenteer, and also a local resident.

18206. This Crossrail Bill proposes to use the area of land marked as parcels 156 and 157 on plan 126, which is not as detailed as the one that has been brought up here but I will return to that.

18207. It is to be used as a building materials storage area and for construction site workers accommodation. There are some errors on the map but I will return to that. This little piece of West Acton is currently home to a thriving set of allotments. We have about 20 tenants and it is full, it is permanently used, which also goes against something that Crossrail stated on one of their previous maps.

18208. Local people from a wide variety of backgrounds and ethnicities work side‑by‑side, growing all sorts of produce from potatoes to honey; there are beehives and all sorts of things. The area has been used as growing land since at least the turn of the century, market gardens and allotments since the war.

18209. Our objection to the proposed destruction of this site remains despite the Additional Provisions which state the Promoters only need the southern half of this site. So the map you are looking at now is inaccurate, as were quite a few things said by Ms Lieven, I am afraid, in her introductory opening passage, because the most recent Crossrail maps show only the southern end of that site to be used. If Mr Fry would put up my aerial view supplied to me by Crossrail, the allotment site is the green triangle, and the latest map shows a cut‑off boundary there, so that is halving the amount of land allotted compared to the previous one that was up. So there are some inconsistencies there which perhaps need to be sorted out. Mr Fry, if you could put up the photographs that I brought in of the allotment site themselves, I wanted to show how well used the site is. These photographs are various views of the allotments that I took last year when I knew that the site was under threat because I wanted to show how well used it was. No padlocked gates in that sheet so far as I can see. Also I brought this newspaper cutting in simply as evidence that there are a lot of people interested in this piece of land and it was very easy for the local newspaper to get quite a good crowd to come along and support this little gem of a green space in the middle of west London, and there is a lot of local feeling regarding this. Six years ago some developers tried to build on this piece of land and local neighbours and I got together and got a petition with over 100 signatures, and the local council refused them permission on a variety of grounds, which I will come to. There is some sort of legal constraint over local growing land which I am not sure of the legal ins and outs of, but it was turned down six years ago and we are asking that it be turned down again.

18210. The southern half of this site, which is the one that most recent Crossrail maps show are to be required, is the most intensely cultivated area and from Crossrail's own area photograph, if you have extremely good eyesight you can make out lots of little sheds and plots of land dividing that section. If we slip to the legend or key in the top left corner of the map, it says "Plots 156, 157. Vacant allotment, London borough of Ealing", and the photograph is evidence that those allotments are not vacant. 158 I think says: "Vacant allotments", and that is not the case either, that is an area of garages, so there are quite a few errors on there.

18211. The Promoters have spoken to us about alternative sites for the allotments, and we consider this not to be a realistic alternative for several reasons, the key one being access. Access is very difficult to this site, and if we look at the next page of the aerial view again and slide it slightly to the right, this is the alternative site which is scrubland at the moment, woods and trees and what‑have‑you, and the access is right over from Churchill Gardens, which is over 500 yards away. That is a long way to push a wheelbarrow and people need to be able to drive quite close to the allotments to unload fertilisers and compost and tools and what‑have‑you, and access to that site is actually quite difficult. There is currently no water supply on this site, although we have found out recently that the Promoters have said they will provide water so that becomes less important.

18212. The site is full of trees and brambles and as such acts as a mini nature reserve. It has not been tilled or cultivated and has very little top soil, and we do not think it will become viable as a growing space for many years.

18213. The site is adjacent and slightly to the north east of the large aggregate works of Acton Yard. Being a local resident I know all about these because they kick up an awful lot of dust, and I have quite a lot of evidence here about residents' complaints about dust levels, and as we live in an area of Britain where the prevailing wind is generally south westish then those allotments are directly in the firing line. The land is quite contaminated and used by Foster Yeomans mainly. I think it is a point worth making that Foster Yeomans are the prime clients who use these sidings and they are going to be the people who need the diveunder to access their sidings while the Crossrail route is in operation.

18214. MR BINLEY: Can I clarify what the composition of the dust is?

18215. MR BREWSTER: I do not think it is toxic or anything like that, and I am sure there will be controls. It is the aggregate used under railway tracks, and it is washed and stored and cleaned and processed there by Foster Yeomans. While we are on this I wanted to point out the wasted land space going on adjacent to that siding, and suggest that some of the uses for Noel Road allotments could equally be put into these areas of land instead.

18216. We believe the Crossrail project and the proposed diveunder could be completed without using the Noel Road allotment site. The general area has large waste spaces which could be used as alternatives. The plot numbered 154 on the previous photograph, and it is difficult to see this, is basically the triangle between the Central Line and the Great Western line. We feel it would also act as a perfect substitute for using our little piece of allotments there. This little bit of land is waste; that little bit is full of allotmenteers, and we are suggesting Crossrail could use the little bit instead, and also the area adjacent to the Foster Yeomans sidings which we saw on the previous image.

18217. There is a large triangle of spare land to the west of Foster Yeomans area as well. There are about three alternative sites which we consider to be equal in quantity to the purple area marked there that would act as replacements.

18218. We consider the alternative site proposed by Crossrail could be used itself for these purposes, so cut out the middle man, leave us alone and go and use the area that they have offered us as a replacement for workers' accommodation and building materials storage.

18219. Crossrail have told us that they need access to this diveunder from east and west, but we consider that considering there is a readily available rail network to hand which could cope with moving heavy material we are rather puzzled by that dire need to access from both sides. Our allotment association supports the general aims of Crossrail and the environmental benefits it could bring by getting more traffic off roads and on to rails. However, on a local scale we feel there is an argument to be made here about babies and bathwater.

18220. Our allotments are a cushy option for Crossrail being nice and flat and free of buildings. We believe the Acton diveunder could be constructed without destroying the Noel Road allotments if the Promoters were prepared to think a little more creatively and go to a little bit more trouble in considering alternatives. When we were first shown Crossrail's plans they stated the project would need far more land than is now threatened. Originally my son's local primary school was to lose one third of its playing fields, three sports fields were to be taken and another allotment site to the east. We then found that the recent additional provisions have withdrawn the requests for these areas. We ask that one more small area is withdrawn from the list of lands required, and that is the Noel Road allotments.

18221. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Ms Lieven?

18222. MS LIEVEN: Sir, I am not going to ask any questions. I will call Mr Berryman, if I may.

 

MR KEITH BERRYMAN, Sworn

Examined by MS LIEVEN

18223. Mr Berryman, I have the plan up from the supplementary Environmental Statement. Can you explain why it is that we need the land at Acton Yard?

(Mr Berryman): (Indicating on supplementary ES.) Here is the site of the proposed diveunder which will take Crossrail trains underneath the entrance to the freight depot. The frequency of the Crossrail trains and the length and type of trains which use this depot would make operation of both these counter services incompatible unless a diveunder is provided, and this is one of the major pieces of infrastructure on the western part of the Crossrail route. In order to build that, we need to have work sites nearby. We are intending to use this area up here, and indeed the area that the Petitioner pointed to, but the problem is that this diveunder will have to be built around live railways, it involves big pieces of plant and kit, and working in very short possession periods, as you know this railway is electrified and is very busy so we have short duration periods to get on to it, and we need to have work space close enough to the diveunder to enable that to be effectively managed. On the western end of the diveunder we intend to use this piece of land which, as the Petitioner has pointed out, is the existing railway land, but unfortunately, despite quite a lot of effort to try and do so, we have not been able to get away from the need to use this bit of land here as open storage and assembly areas and so on for the equipment.

18224. So just to be clear on one point the Petitioner made, would it be possible to simply swap and use the replacement allotment site for our work site instead of the existing allotment site?

(Mr Berryman): No, that is too far away from the site to be used for the uses we have in mind. That would be suitable for a storage area or as offices and so on but, as the Petitioner has pointed out, there are plenty of other areas around within the existing railway depot which we can use for those purposes, so that site would be too far away for the uses we anticipate to make for this site here.

18225. Going back to the allotment site, mention was made by the Petitioner that we were only going to use the southern part of the allotment site. Can you explain the position on that, please?

(Mr Berryman): Well, the Petitioner is right, the northern part of the allotment site would probably not be needed. The difficulty is that it is going to be very difficult to get into that northern part once we start work here. There will not be any access from Noel Road into the allotment site. In fact, I understand that the pictures of the well‑used and I have to say very good and very nice allotments are mainly in the southern part, in any event. Most of the ones towards the north are less well‑developed and less well‑used. I am not trying to suggest this is not a well‑used site; we are aware it is a very valuable and well‑used site.

18226. And has Crossrail looked hard at whether or not there are alternatives to using that site?

(Mr Berryman): We have. We have spent a great deal of effort on this area generally. As the Petitioner pointed out we have drawn back considerably from what was in the original Bill as a result of AP3, and there is another allotment area which has affected the Great Western allotment, I think it is called from memory, in the middle, which we were originally going to take quite a big piece of. We have managed by dint of strenuous effort to reduce that to quite a small triangle which we will be taking, and I think three allotments will be affected, and that is the best we are able to do.

18227. Can we then move on to the other side of this, which is what we are going to do to help the allotment holders on the new site.

(Mr Berryman): I think the first point I ought to make is that the existing allotments, after our work has finished, will revert to being allotments, there is no question of any permanent occupation of that site, but our temporary occupation will be for a number of years, so that is the issue.

18228. MRS JAMES: I have to make this point, but if this allotment was not conveniently there, what would you do? If this was a built‑on site and it was not there, what would you have done in the circumstances?

(Mr Berryman): Well, it is a hypothetical situation ‑‑

18229. If the allotment had been built on when there was a previous plan to build on it you would have lost this option. You just would not have had the option of moving in for a couple of years and taking over the allotment.

(Mr Berryman): Yes. We would have had to think of another way of doing it.

18230. I think it is the allotmenteers' problem. It is hard cheese on the allotmenteers that they are there, but "Oh well, they can be temporarily moved because it is convenient".

(Mr Berryman): I would not put it quite like that. There are other locations on the project where there are buildings close to the railway where we have had to fundamentally alter the design. It has not been before this Committee but ‑‑

18231. You have moved people out of buildings and inconvenienced them for two years and asked them to move back in?

(Mr Berryman): There are several places like that, yes, but there are a number of places where we have altered the design - I do not mean the design of the detail but the whole design of the scheme, because of problems like that.

18232. I do feel sorry for the allotmenteers.

(Mr Berryman): We are very sympathetic to them and want to try to put them in a position as best we can where they are as little affected as possible.

18233. MR BINLEY: Can I ask two questions, because this concerns me too. The first is, and I do not mean this in any sense as a deprecatory remark, but have you ever had an allotment?

(Mr Berryman): I have never been in that fortunate position. I have spent most of my life traipsing round the world ‑‑

18234. I am not trying to say that you must have one but my second question leads on from that because my father had what he called "40 pole of garden ground" and he worked assiduously at it and he nurtured it, and the use of an allotment is about how much work over a long number of years has been put into it. Do you fully appreciate that?

(Mr Berryman): Yes, I think we do. We understand that that is the issue and we understand that that is a problem with moving an allotment; it is not like moving a caravan or something like that.

18235. You cannot just have the same thing by simply moving from one piece of land to the other. That is the point I need to know you fully appreciate.

(Mr Berryman): We do understand that point and what we are trying to do, as I will come on to in a moment, is to make the transition as nearly adequate as we can, but we recognise that it is never going to be ideal.

18236. SIR PETER SOULSBY: Can you tell me a little bit more about what you plan to put on the site? You talk about storage and assembly.

(Mr Berryman): The dimension between the rail and the edge of the allotments is just over 10m. There will be a diaphragm retaining wall running along, and what we need to do is to have the plant running up and down that 10m strip and it needs to be assembled, it is made up of very large elevations, and we need to assemble the reinforcement cages and things like that to drop into the trenches for the diaphragm walls when they are built. So it is a question of really assembling very large pieces of kit and very large elements of the structure to drop them in in the short periods of time which we have available during the railway possessions.

18237. CHAIRMAN: So is it 30 feet from the existing line, or from the new site lines?

(Mr Berryman): I believe it is a bit over 30 feet, nearer 40, from the existing line to the edge of the allotments, but the new line will go more or less in the same position as the existing line.

18238. SIR PETER SOULSBY: So you are not saying it is impossible to do it without taking this land, but very inconvenient?

(Mr Berryman): Extremely inconvenient, yes. I would say it would perhaps require a fundamental re‑think of how we tackle this problem of the freight yard.

18239. CHAIRMAN: Would you anticipate a danger to the people working with machines around them?

(Mr Berryman): If they were still there, yes, there certainly would be.

18240. So there would be a health and safety issue?

(Mr Berryman): Health and safety, and access problems.

18241. Because you would be doing joint access?

(Mr Berryman): Yes.

18242. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven?

18243. MS LIEVEN: On this topic, Mr Berryman, and this question may be impossible to answer, if we could not have this site and you had to do those operations from the main part of Acton Yard, what are the likely consequences on the work programme, the freight operations, and the train operations generally? Are there any, or would it have to be such a fundamental re‑think you cannot answer the question?

(Mr Berryman): I could not answer that off the top of my head; I would have to give it some thought. It would probably mean the freight yard having to close for a a period of time but I would not like to really say definitely if that is the case.

18244. Can we move on, then, to the alternative provision at Churchill Gardens? First, can you explain the nature of the land there? Size and so on? Access?

(Mr Berryman): I spent, as I said a few moments ago, many years traipsing around all over the world and it is what we would have called in the tropics "semi mature jungle". It needs a lot of cleaning out and a lot of conditioning before it can be used as a growing area, and we recognise that is needed. It is scrubland and basically immature trees. What we would be proposing to do is to condition the soil beforehand by grubbing up and getting rid of all the existing vegetation, and then conditioning it, and I am told that the best material to do this is horse manure and wood chip which you plough into the soil and so on. Then we would be providing water supplies, as said earlier, marking out the allotments, fencing the site off - all that sort of thing, which you would expect to happen.

18245. MR BINLEY: Through you, Chairman, so you have not had a real assessment of the real quality of the alternative site, nor do you know what is in or under that site?

(Mr Berryman): We know the history of the site and we have spoken to the local borough about what is in and under the site. The growth in there is pretty healthy at the moment, and the borough tell us it was previously used as allotments for growing many years ago, and certainly the strength and health of all the wild vegetation there indicates, in their view, that there is fundamentally wrong with the site. The London Borough of Ealing's adviser on allotments and so on has advised us on this point.

18246. MS LIEVEN: Have we been in discussions with the London Borough of Ealing's allotments officer or manager?

(Mr Berryman): I will find you his official title. He is, in fact, the Allotments Manager, Stephen Cole, the Allotments Manager, Parks and Countryside Service.

18247. And have we been discussing with him how to condition the soil?

(Mr Berryman): We have indeed, and he has made these suggestions I have spoken about and also advised us on timing where we would allow people to make their planting at a certain time of the year without making the move. In other words they have two allotments going at the same time as they overlap the different crops.

18248. And so far as the condition of the soil, the condition of the allotments is concerned, have we given any unequivocal commitments on that?

(Mr Berryman): You mean on the temporary allotments?

18249. Yes?

(Mr Berryman): We certainly have. We have given commitments to the borough to do the various things which are needed to condition the soil, and I think we have given an undertaking to the allotment holders. If not, we can do so.

18250. And so far as the borough are concerned, are they content that this is an acceptable site for temporary allotments? Are they concerned about contamination of land or dust flying back to Acton Yard, those kind of issues?

(Mr Berryman): No, they are not, or certainly they have not indicated to us they are. I cannot speak for them really but they have never said anything to us about that.

18251. And we have been in extensive discussions?

(Mr Berryman): Yes.

18252. Just while we are on the condition of the place, have you got any views on this issue that it is not suitable for allotments because there is dust flying off Acton Yard?

(Mr Berryman): Well, Acton Yard is a major aggregate handling area. I would imagine there is a possibility of some dust at some time but I would have thought the whole area would suffer from that problem, and if you look at the other allotment, the Great Western allotment, which is a very large patch of allotments immediately adjacent to the area we are proposing as a temporary allotment, that seems to work quite adequately, and the allotments there are just as well tended and just as actively used as the Noel Road ones.

18253. And those are existing allotments; those are not ones we aspire to move?

(Mr Berryman): We are moving a very small number of them just on the corner.

18254. But there is an existing successful allotment right next to where we are proposing?

(Mr Berryman): I think the boundary is there (indicating.)

18255. Now, another point that was raised was pedestrian access. I think we accept this is not ideal, but can you explain how it works?

(Mr Berryman): Yes. There is an existing very heavily overgrown track from the end of Churchill Gardens to the allotment - this is another place Mrs Berryman has tried to navigate her way through in the past - and we would be proposing to clear that out and make a walkway through. It is about, I suppose, 200m but from the Acton diveunder it is about 500.

18256. What about access by car for bringing heavy things in?

(Mr Berryman): You would only be able to get as far as the end of Churchill Gardens.

18257. MS LIEVEN: I think that is everything, Mr Berryman. Thank you very much.

18258. CHAIRMAN: Mr Brewster?

 

Cross‑examined by MR BREWSTER

18259. MR BREWSTER: The access to Noel Road allotments is why they are so well used. It is because people with busy city urban lives can get down there, get digging and get out again and do not have to traipse down little avenues and freshly cleared paths, so that is a key part of their function. Dust is common. I have a newsletter from the residents' association here which speaks of --

18260. CHAIRMAN: Mr Brewster, have you any questions? At the moment I would like you to confine yourself to any questions you have. You will get a chance to make a statement, so if you would like to do that, would that be helpful?

18261. MR BREWSTER: I would like to ask if Mr Berryman would consider that a building project on this scale in a built‑up area is ever likely to be anything other than inconvenient?

(Mr Berryman): No, it will never be anything other than inconvenient. That is the reality of life.

18262. MR BREWSTER: Thanks.

 

(The witness withdrew)

18263. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven?

18264. MS LIEVEN: Very briefly, sir, because you have heard all the issues, I would start by saying that we do really genuinely need this site. This is a location where a very large amount of effort has been put in in the Bill development to try to minimise the impact on Acton Yard, and quite significant changes have taken place, so this has been tested out hard. It probably is true to say that when a Bill like this first goes in fairly generous parameters are set, and as one goes through Parliament and goes through detailed design, hard scrutiny is put on certain places and this is one area, and it is the clear professional advice that we need this site, I am afraid, and if we cannot have it it is going to have knock‑on effects on the project.

18265. It is important for the Committee to bear in mind that all along the route this project is about balancing out interests, and the interests we have here are the freight lobby, whom some Members of the Committee will remember well, and who feel very strongly for very good environmental reasons that their interests must be protected along the western line, both in terms of the diveunder but also in terms of the operation of Acton Yard. So we have to protect their interests, and we also have to protect the operation of the railway for all the millions of people who use it up and down, so increasing possessions by having a work site further away is something that has very real consequences.

18266. It is not the case that we just thought "Oh, allotments, that is easy, we will take those." That would be a very unfair view of the processing, so I am afraid it is our clear position that we need to have this site.

18267. Therefore, we come to the issue of the alternative. Again we have looked long and hard at this and nobody is suggesting that there is a better alternative. The problem with the northern part of the site we are taking is that of access. Even if access could be got in, the difficulties of safe access, given the kind of activities going on, are really very obvious, so this appears to be the only alternative site. It is of the right size; it does allow the allotment holders to stay together, which I would suggest is very important given the sense of community and the clearly successful nature of the allotments, and we have said, and I am going to sound like Mr Mould now, everything necessary to provide this as suitable allotment land. If we have to put in extra commissioning, we will do it; if we have to do it the year before - and I have not had an allotment and my vegetables die with boring regularity so I am no expert, but if it is the case that the manure has to go in a whole season in advance in order to get the thing rolling early, we will do that. We are thoroughly committed to making suitable provision here.

18268. So far as the fundamental argument that this is an unsuitable site is concerned, it is my submission this is quite a difficult argument to run given there are large and successful allotments next door. It might not be perfect site because it is next to an aggregate site but it is obviously perfectly capable of being successful for allotments because there are allotments next door and it is also obviously capable of being successful because there were allotments on this site land.

18269. So it is really a question of energy and commitment, and we have that, and this is one where we cannot say: "We will go back and look at it again and try and find alternative sites", because our position is that is just not possible. I hope that is a fair summary.

18270. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr Brewster?

18271. MR BREWSTER: The local residents' association have been supplying me with news letters from the past year where local residents living in Lowfield Road, which is shown on this map, are complaining about dust levels. I take the point that allotments are viable alongside this site so therefore some more to the side of it will be all right, but I do consider that the dust levels are an issue regarding this.

18272. I do not feel that anyone has answered the point regarding the space of land itself and the discrepancy between this plan and the overhead photograph I showed earlier. (Same shown). You will see the area in pale purple after the additional provisions have been taken, and that is totally different to what is on the map plan. We are suggesting that this tract of land on the left could make the perfect substitute for that. This tract here is part of Network Rail, I think, or BRB, one of the two, and that would provide access without needing to disrupt the allotment at all because that access is in place now, and vehicles regularly go down there to work on the tracks down here, and I know that because I can hear them at night! But this piece is clear and I have not heard a decent argument yet why that section of land could not act as a replacement.

18273. While we are on the subject I would really like some assurances that Crossrail only intend to take half the allotments now, because the plan we have been looking at that they have supplied keeps showing the whole site going, so there needs to be some clarification there.

18274. MS LIEVEN: I had hoped I had clarified that but let me say it again - it is the access issue.

18275. CHAIRMAN: Ms Lieven, the point is taken very well; I think we have gone over that. The Committee will make up its own mind but we thank you. Would you like to move on?

18276. MR BREWSTER: Yes. Sorry - is that the whole site to be taken then, or just half of it?

18277. MS LIEVEN: We are taking the whole site, sir, because we cannot provide access to the northern part, so the whole thing is being taken.

18278. MR BREWSTER: That is the first I have heard. When we had a meeting with Crossrail just before Christmas we were told that they only intended to take the section marked purple, plots 156, 157, so it has extended again. That would have affected my approach to this.

18279. This diveunder is for the sake of Foster Yeomans' aggregate yard, and that is where the construction should be taking place. There is loads of spare land around there and with a bit of effort and a bit of ingenuity that is the place where the construction workers' accommodation should go. There are big tracts of land, nothing going on, great areas of land that need a bit of tidying‑up anyway. What about the site itself. I still do not feel that has been answered satisfactorily. There is a rail network there to move stuff up and down the line, and that could be used as a conduit for those materials.

18280. I think that is it. I am sorry, but I am not used to doing this.

18281. CHAIRMAN: Mr Brewster, do not worry; I think you have laid your case out very well. Thank you for your evidence; it is extremely good. We have taken all the issues on board and I can assure you we understood what you are trying to say, and as a Committee we will make up our minds. Thank you for coming.

18282. MR BREWSTER: In response to Ms Lieven's earlier comment at the beginning, this may be one of the less important Petitions for her but as far as West Acton residents are concerned it is one of the most important. Thank you.

18283. CHAIRMAN: Mr Brewster, thank you very much indeed.

18284. Because there is no other business I therefore declare that the next meeting of the Committee will be on Tuesday 30 January in this room at ten o'clock in the morning.