Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1720
- 1739)
1720. CHAIRMAN: The farmer might have
petitioned!
1721. MS LIEVEN: He might well have done,
but I am afraid we have not referred to Hansard to find out whether
that is the case. That appears to be the reason for the bridge.
1722. LORD SNAPE: If Brunel built this
bridge to allow the farmer to get from one field which he owned
to another field which he owned, is there not any time in that
intervening 160 years that a right of way could have been established.
1723. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, it could have
been established, yes. There is no doubt it could have been established,
but the evidence is unequivocally that it was not established
because in 1992 Buckinghamshire County Council, who were the Highway
Authority and, therefore, responsible for public rights of way,
entered into a path creation agreement so far as the land to the
north was concerned which made it quite clear that there was no
right of way over the railway. They are the statutory body with
responsibility in the matter, and in 1992 they were satisfied
there was no public right of way. I do not know to what degree
Iver Parish Council argued about that at that stage, but what
we have here is a statutory body making a perfectly clear decision.
I would not want the Committee to think that we had just said,
"No public right of way, that's the end of it", what
we did was carry out a detailed survey to find out whether, in
fact, this was an important path being used by people, even if
not under any legal right because as a responsible public authority
we would not want to be knocking down a bridge and providing no
replacement if this was a critical part of a footpath network
which was well used, even if it was not used by law. On two weekends
in June 2006 we surveyed the use of this bridge between eight
in the morning and seven at night and we found nobody, not a single
person—there is the evidence, but I am not sure the Committee
need that (indicating)- that no-one crossed the bridge on those
two weekends in June, quite a fair time to test because it was
good weather, it was in June, but it was not in the holidays,
so you could not argue that everybody was away, it seemed to us
to be pretty clear, but also if we go to exhibit --- [6]
1724. CHAIRMAN: Before you do, I think
Lord James has a question.
1725. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: It is
a fiddly one but I am afraid it is because I do not know the law
in this area. I understand from both private roads and access
around where I am that there is a rule that the owners have to
establish their rights by closing the pathway or the road for
one day in every year in order to maintain their legal rights.
Does any such closure take place on this bridge?
1726. CHAIRMAN: No, you can put up a
notice as well, can you not?
1727. MS LIEVEN: The sign is good enough,
my Lord, that acts as closure.
1728. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: You do
not have to close it to prove your authority?
1729. MS LIEVEN: No.
1730. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Secondly,
why is it called the Dog Kennel Bridge?
1731. MS LIEVEN: I know the answer to
that, my Lord, because it is in the Ramblers' exhibits. It is
very close to the old hunt kennels. I could not find a precise
location but it is because the hunt kennels, and I will find the
reference somewhere, were in the vicinity.
1732. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Do these
kennels still exist?
1733. MS LIEVEN: No, I do not think they
do, my Lord, I very much doubt so.
1734. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: We do
not have a Petition from the foxes asking for the bridge to be
demolished!
1735. MS LIEVEN: No. I stand to be corrected
by the Parish Council, but given the proximity of the M25, Heathrow
and rather a lot of development, I would be surprised if hunting,
legal or illegal was still going on in this location.
1736. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Maybe
we should know the answer because it could be quite a factor if
there was, in fact, a hunting kennel still there as to whether
it was assisting them to break the law or not.
1737. MS LIEVEN: I do not believe there
is, my Lord. It is definitely because there was a hunting kennel,
I read it this morning. The other point on non-usage, I should
make it clear, we are not suggesting for one moment that local
residents who say they have used it are telling the Committee
lies, I am sure that from their evidence some people have used
it on some occasions, but the two things that we refer to are,
first of all, the survey, and, secondly, if we put up Exhibit
6, this is a series of photos taken by Mr Berryman when he visited
in again I think it was June 2006.[7]
My Lord, that is a stile to the north on Footpath 15 and although
it may have been a verdant summer and although we all know that
nettles grow quickly, in my submission that is quite clear evidence
that that footpath had not been used for a number of weeks at
its lowest.
1738. LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN: What
is the alternative crossing? How far are they?
1739. MS LIEVEN: If we put up 023, please,
I was just about to come to this.[8]
This shows what is being proposed (indicating) The current position
starting from the south, this is Footpath 15, that is Dog Kennel
Bridge (indicating) and that is the footpath to the north. It
is difficult to see, but I think the canal bridge is there (indicating).
We originally proposed that people diverted to the west up the
road, across Chequer Bridge there and then we proposed a new footpath
here along the north side linking back into the existing footpath.
The Petitioners were not happy about that because they did not
like walking along a busy road and there was also a problem with
going under Chequer Bridge and it was not a good place for pedestrians,
so what we proposed instead in AP3 was that people diverted to
the east and walked up through the residential streets and then
had to go on a relatively short part of this road (indicating)
and then we proposed creating a new footpath. It is not at all
easy to see on the big screen, but the dots are existing rights
of way but the solid green line is the new path we proposed to
run along the north side of the railway and then link into the
existing footpath to the north.
6 Crossrail Ref: P15, Pedestrian and Cycle Count-Dog
Kennel Bridge-10 June 2006 (BUCKCC-10_04C-001) Back
7
Crossrail Ref: P15, Dog Kennel Bridge Links C-Photograph along
footpath looking north (BUCKCC-10_04-006) Back
8
Crossrail Ref: P15, Dog Kennel Bridge-Alternative Footpath Diversions
(BUCKCC-10_04-023) Back
|
