Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1704
- 1719)
Ordered: that Counsel and Parties be called in.
1704. CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon. Before
we start, there are two points on which I would like clarification.
We have now been given more maps with the footpath links but I
suppose the definitive map of South Buckinghamshire is the ultimate
and I do not know if anybody can produce that, because it is always
a matter of joining up footpaths and making circular routes and
things. It may be that we do have enough in the petitioners' exhibits,
but I just say that. The other thing is that I have here petitioners'
photograph K of Dog Kennel Bridge and I would like to know a bit
more about the fifth track, because I can see that there will
be problems with the fifth track at Dog Kennel Bridge.
The Petition of Iver Parish Council, the
Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society
1705. MS LIEVEN: Perhaps I can weave
those two matters into my brief opening and Mr Berryman can give
you much more detail in his evidence.
1706. As your Lordships know, we are dealing
this afternoon with the Petition of the Ramblers Association,
Open Spaces Society and Iver Parish Council and the one issue
is Dog Kennel Bridge. Perhaps I could show the Committee on the
route map because I am afraid we have leapt straight from the
north east section into the west section.[1]
(Pause) Dog Kennel Bridge lies between Langley and Iver Stations.[2]
The first two Petitioners, the Ramblers Association and the Open
Spaces Society, appeared twice before the House of Commons' Committee
in July 2006 and January 2007, the latter on Additional Provisions
3. In July 2006, the House of Commons asked the parties to go
away to consider a solution for the problem. We did slightly change
the alternative footpath arrangement in the light of the House
of Commons decision—it was not part of their interim decision
but it was a comment made in July 2006—but the Ramblers
and the Open Spaces Society were not content with that change.
1707. Going back to the story, the bridge lies
between Iver and Langley, crossing the Great Western Railway.
The scheme is to demolish the bridge and not to provide a replacement.
It is the issue of replacement which is really fundamental to
the Petitioners, I understand. On the western section, west of
Heathrow Junction—sometimes called Stockley Junction here—we
are electrifying the track all the way up to Maidenhead and, also,
at the location of Dog Kennel Bridge, putting in a fifth track.
There is power in the Bill to put in the fifth track. There is
no issue that it would be possible to put it in, but it is for
those two reasons that Dog Kennel Bridge has to be demolished:
the electrification and the fifth track. So far as electrification
is concerned—Lord Snape will know far more about this than
I—you have to put electric cables above the track. This
means that bridges along the route either have to be demolished
or the tracks have to be lowered or the tracks can be skewed in
some cases so that you have enough clearance between the top of
the train and the bridge. One way or another, we have to increase
the clearance at each of the bridges west of Stockley Junction.
We have looked in detail—and Mr Berryman can tell the Committee
about this—at each bridge to see whether or not it is possible
to lower the track, skew the track or whether we have to demolish
the bridge. The conclusion at Dog Kennel Bridge is that any solution
other than demolition would be disproportionately expensive but
also could have serious operational consequences.
1708. I should explain at this point that Dog
Kennel Bridge is one of the Brunel bridges along the route west
of Stockley Junction. It is one of four bridges which the Secretary
of State, on the advice of English Heritage, listed in April 2006
as Grade II listed. We entered into extensive negotiation with
English Heritage about these bridges and about the consequences
of the listing. We have managed to preserve two of the listed
bridges, but our conclusion is that two of the listed bridges,
including Dog Kennel Bridge, will have to be demolished.
1709. CHAIRMAN: You will be able to tell
us the reasons why they were listed. Other than being built by
Brunel, it may be there are other reasons.
1710. MS LIEVEN: That is the fundamental
reason.
1711. CHAIRMAN: It is historical.
1712. MS LIEVEN: It is entirely historical.
They are part of Brunel's historic railway and they were considered
to be four good examples. It is perhaps worth noting, although
I think it is perhaps a side issue today, that it is very difficult
to see Dog Kennel Bridge unless you are the driver of the train.
The train driver gets an excellent view of it; the walker gets
virtually no view of the bridge at all. I think the position is
that the passenger on the train gets very little view of it either
because the line is quite straight at that location. There is
not one of those side-on views that one sometimes gets. That is
the history of the bridge. As I say, we have had a lot of discussion
with English Heritage. English Heritage have not petitioned and
are content with the position where two are preserved and two
are demolished.
1713. The second issue in relation to Dog Kennel
Bridge is that of non-replacement of the bridge. That is the issue
with which today's Petitioners are really concerned. Slide 04-023
shows the position on the ground.[3]
Dog Kennel Bridge is in the middle of the plan and there is a
footpath from the south which runs from the road up to Dog Kennel
Bridge and there is a footpath to the north which runs from the
north side of the bridge up round the Bison Works and up to the
canal. There is, in my submission, no issue that there is no public
right of way or footpath across the bridge.
1714. As far as the definitive map is concerned,
my Lord Chairman, we have not produced it because there is no
issue that on the definitive map the footpath runs up south of
the railway, and runs north of the railway but there is no footpath
across the bridge. Nobody has bothered to produce the definitive
map because that is not in issue.
1715. In the documentation it is clear that
in 1992, British Rail, who at that stage wished to demolish the
bridge, indeed got powers to do so in an Act in 1992. So Parliament
has already been given permission for this bridge to be demolished
once, but it was part of a scheme on the Great Western Line which
was never implemented, because of rail privatisation and lack
of funds. At that stage there was a path creation agreement between
Buckinghamshire County Council and British Rail Board which created
the path to the north. It is quite clear from the documentation
that it was expected at that stage that there was no footpath.
Indeed, if we go to exhibit 8, your Lordships will see the sign
which has been erected on the bridge for many years by the British
Railways Board indicating that the way across the bridge is not
dedicated to the public.[4]
As a matter of law, in my submission there is no possible doubt
that there is no public right of way across the bridge. That is
why we are under no legal obligation to replace.
1716. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: My
knowledge of the law is a bit shaky in this area but it does seem
odd, when you say there is a footpath to the north and there is
a footpath to the south and there is a bridge between them, that
there is no right of way. Do they not establish some right of
way by using it over a period of time? I ask that as an ignorant
layperson.
1717. MS LIEVEN: Not ignorant in the
least, because your Lordship is right that it is possible to establish
rights of way by usage—"by prescription" is the
legal phrase—but here we have a clear legal situation in
1992 where there was no right of way established, and from the
date when the notice was erected—and we do not know precisely
when that was but it was certainly erected in 1992—nobody
could gain prescriptive rights because there is a notice saying,
in effect, "You're walking across this bridge but you are
doing it because I, the owner, am letting you". Since 1992
at least, there could be no prescriptive rights and there is no
evidence before that which has convinced Buckinghamshire County
Council that there are any prescriptive rights at that stage.
1718. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: Do
you have any idea why the bridge was built in the first place
and continued to exist?
1719. MS LIEVEN: The bridge was undoubtedly
being used as an accommodation bridge by the farmer. On photo
009 you will see a gate with a padlock.[5]
The padlock and the gate are opened by the farmer. Certainly now
there is every reason to believe that, since the railway was built,
the purpose of the bridge has been to allow the farmer, who farms
both north and south, to get his machinery or livestock—or
whatever it may have been over the last 160-odd years—across
the railway. I am slightly guessing now but Mr Berryman or Mr
Mould will tell me if I have this wrong: the position now is that
if you build a road across a farm and you sever the two parts
of the farm, the Highways Agency is under an obligation to build
either an accommodation bridge or an underpass to allow the farmer
to continue to farm both halves. If you do not do that as the
public authority, you have to buy the other half of the land from
the farmer. I am assuming that when Brunel built this railway
a similar principle would have applied. If the railway went though
the farmer's land and it was severed, then the Great Western Railway
Company would have been under an obligation to build an accommodation
bridge so the farmer could get his livestock backwards and forwards.
1 Crossrail Line 1-Western Route (LINEWD-OPN1-015) Back
2
Crossrail Ref: P15, Dog Kennel Bridge Links (BUCKCC-10_04-001) Back
3
Crossrail Ref: P15, Dog Kennel Bridge-Alternative Footpath Diversions
(BUCKCC-10_04-023) Back
4
Crossrail Ref: P15, Dog Kennel Bridge Links E-Photograph along
footpath looking north (BUCKCC-10_04-008) Back
5
Crossrail Ref: P15, Dog Kennel Bridge Links F-Photograph along
footpath looking north (BUCKCC-10_04-009) Back
| 
