Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1740
- 1759)
1740. While I am showing the alternatives, there
are two alternatives that the Petitioners suggest. One is that
we come across this land here (indicating) which is owned by British
Rail Residuary Board and the difficulty with that is it is outside
our limit of deviation, so we have got no power to provide that.
Of course we could have talked to British Rail Residuary Board
about it, but we have got no power to do that.
1741. The other is that people walk up here
(indicating) up to the south side and then come back on the south
side and cross at Iver Station, but the difficulty with that—there
is a footbridge here—is that it lies within the station,
it is on the paved side of the station, so it would allow people
who had not got tickets legal access into the station. We understand
that would not be acceptable for the train operating company at
the moment, but it would become completely unacceptable if that
station is gated. At the moment it is a "you have to show
your ticket" kind of station, but there may well in the fullness
of time be proposals to put in gates there as there are on certain
other locations on Great Western, so allowing paid side access
would be operationally quite unacceptable we understand. Those
are the alternatives that have been discussed and just to reiterate
to the Committee, our proposal and what is now in AP3 is that
there will be a new footpath created along the north side of the
railway there (indicating) to link into the existing footpath
network.
1742. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Ms Lieven,
if you look at the diagram, the picture shown on 25 and 26 in
the information we have been given, they indicate a very interesting
feature which I do not think you have mentioned. That is that
this bridge appears to have the almost unique characteristic of
being crossable without having to climb steps or go up a slope,
so it is almost on the level. Does that not provide enormous benefit
for handicapped people and would that not be lost with the abolition
of the bridge?
1743. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, there are a
number of difficulties with that. Your Lordship is right in relation
to the actual bridge, but as we have seen a moment ago, to the
south there (indicating) there is the locked gate and the only
way to access the bridge is by climbing the stile. Can we put
up the photo of the locked gate again. This gate is locked, (indicating)
it is locked by the farmer. This is a relatively urban fringe
area, so I expect he is keen to keep it locked. Hidden on the
left-hand side is the stile which when Mr Berryman visited—it
is Mr Berryman who took this photograph. The stile was completely
overgrown, so the only way that you can get access to Dog Kennel
Bridge is over the stile. It is also true to say that because
of the nature of much of the footpath it would not be particularly
good for people with restricted mobility in any event.
1744. CHAIRMAN: Could I suggest to my
colleagues that perhaps we ought to hear the Petitioners and let
Ms Lieven finish and any questions that are left over afterwards
we can ask.
1745. MS LIEVEN: Just finally on that
point, my Lord, to the north where the footpath joins the canal
there were steps—I was looking for them in the photos, 004
is one example—so although you go flat over the railway,
you go up to the canal.[9]
1746. The other thing I should deal with is
that references about the kennels are in the appendix to Mr Graham's
evidence, which I hope the Committee has got. It is even more
interesting than I had remembered because the name of the bridge
was given in 1838 because of the nearby fox hound kennels of the
Right Honourable John Sullivan who was Under Secretary of State
and Commissioner for India and High Sheriff of Buckinghamshire,
so they were his kennels. I believe that appendix also states
that the bridge was built as an accommodation bridge for the farmer.
1747. LORD SNAPE: He would not be a Labour
man then!
1748. MS LIEVEN: He certainly would not
have been a Labour man in 1838, because my knowledge of the Labour
Party is that good!
1749. BARONESS FOOKES: He might have
been a Liberal!
1750. MS LIEVEN: He might have been a
Liberal but I suspect it is more likely that he was a member of
the other party. My Lord, I will leave it to the Petitioners at
this stage.
1751. LORD SNAPE: Before we do, can I
ask Ms Lieven one question. When you were showing us the alternative
routes, you said that the Promoters were prepared to put a path
to the north side of the railway line to take care of the diversion,
I am sure there is a very good reason, but I would like to know
it, why can you not put a path on the south side of the railway
bridge, which would shorten the deviation considerably?
1752. MS LIEVEN: My Lord, I think the
answer to that is because of these houses on A23. Mr Berryman
will correct me if I am wrong, but, first of all, I do not think
there would be enough space but, secondly, even if there was,
it would probably be very unpopular to put a footpath all the
way along there.
1753. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
We have rather prolonged the introductions, but we are looking
forward to hearing what you have to say.
1754. MR SUGGETT: Thank you, my Lord
Chairman. My Lord Chairman, my Lady and my Lords, my name is Eugene
Suggett and I am here to act as agent for the Petitioners in this
matter, Petition 10. Ms Lieven has helpfully outlined the fundamental
purpose of this Petition, to ask your Lordship's Committee to
amend the Bill so as to provide a replacement footbridge in the
place of Dog Kennel Bridge at Iver in Buckinghamshire or alternatively,
to amend the Bill so as to provide a suitable separate footpath
replacement for the one that will be lost if Dog Kennel Bridge
is not replaced. As Ms Lieven has said, your Petitioners are the
Iver Parish Council, the Ramblers' Association and Open Spaces
Society. My Lords, it may help if I explain that I am afraid,
I am not a lawyer and petitioning in this sort of way is not my
line of work normally, so I should apologise in advance if there
is any sort of amateurishness on my part, it is not meant as any
disrespect to your Lordships.
1755. CHAIRMAN: Please, do not worry.
1756. MR SUGGETT: My Lords, straightaway
I need to begin with an apology, paragraph six of the Petition
refers to a Clause 56 in the Bill and that, in fact, is now Clause
57. I am sorry we missed that amendment when it was put in at
the last minute before the Bill passed from the Commons to where
it is now. I am obliged to Ms Lieven for setting the scene so
helpfully, that means I can proceed much more briefly than I had
planned and in a moment I propose to call two local witnesses
who between them will present the facts and will say why we are
not content with the Promoter's response. Unless the Committee
wishes otherwise, I will assume that your Lordships are satisfied
with the descriptions of the Petitioning organisations, the way
they appear in the Petition at paragraphs seven, eight and nine
in the Petition.
1757. Very briefly, Iver Parish Council is the
parish council in whose territory are the affected paths. Your
second and third Petitioners are both organisations that seek
to defend the beauty of the countryside to promote walking as
a recreation and as a means of transport and to protect and extend
the network of public footpaths and other ways used principally
for walking. As your Petitioners indicate in paragraph 10, we
do indeed support the long term advantages of the Bill if it is
passed. It will be beneficial to our members and to all of those
travelling into and across London, we are generally full of welcome
for what is proposed, but we would be happier still if Dog Kennel
Bridge could be replaced somehow.
1758. My Lords, I think that is as much as I
need to say at this stage. With your Lordships' leave I would
like to call the first witness, Glenda Collins. Glenda Collins
is the Clerk to Iver Parish Council. A sketch map called "A
Sketch Map PDF" goes with Mrs Collins's evidence. Could that
be displayed please? It is the map labelled A at the front of
your Lordships' bundle.[10]
MRS GLENDA
COLLINS, Sworn Examined
by MR SUGGETT
1759. MR SUGGETT: My Lords, the witness
has a proof of evidence and I am going to ask her simply to read
it.
(Mrs Collins) My
name is Glenda Collins. I am the Clerk to Iver Parish Council
of 45b High Street, Iver, Buckinghamshire. Iver Parish Council
is the first Petitioner. Dog Kennel Bridge is in Iver parish and
the purpose of our petitioning is to request the retention or
replacement of Dog Kennel Bridge so that the public can continue
to use the two definitive public footpaths, Footpaths numbers
15 and 15A, that it links. These will become redundant dead-ends
if the bridge is not retained or replaced. On behalf of the parish
council can I just set the scene by reference to the sketch map
presently on display? You will see the words "North Park"
towards the lower southern of the map. That road is the Langley-West
Drayton road. Footpath 15 commences there and heads roughly northwards
over a large open field with very good views, especially westwards.
After about half a mile it reaches Dog Kennel Bridge by which
it is possible to cross the railway to reach Footpath 15A, go
past the Bison Works industrial site and connect with Footpath
17 along the canal bank, and by means of that to continue northwards
into Iver along either of two further footpaths. Iver Parish Council
resolved to make this petition because it recognises the importance
of retaining the link between Footpaths 15 and 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 roads at Richings
Park residential estate. It is also an important link with Footpath
24 to the south, which can be reached with only a small amount
of road walking along the Langley to West Drayton Road, which
at that point has a footway to it, so it is a good off-road link
between the two communities of Richings Park to the south and
Iver to the north. If, in accordance with current health initiatives,
people are to be encouraged to walk more and drive less, routes
like this, which has attractions in spite of the Bison Works and
its cranes, will become increasingly important. The northern continuation
of the park comes out in Iver near the two local schools, so there
is scope for promoting it as a Safe Route to School. Even if it
were true, as the Promoter says, that there is not much use made
of this path now, there is scope for it increasing if health initiatives
have their hoped-for effects. In the parish council's view it
would be prudent to allow for that by replacing this bridge and
dedicating it as a public footpath. The parish council knows 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. Being
a rural path, its use is not of a regular pattern and we do not
think that occasional spot surveys are a proper test for assessing
the amount of use of a path in this location. The parish council
supposes that you could take any rural path and survey it and
you would find that in relation to the population not many people
use it, but that does not mean that it is of no value to the people
who do use it. The Promoter's survey should not be the acid test
and I am asked by the parish council to say that it is a valuable
path and that it ought to be retained. We recognise that no public
right of way is recorded on the Highway Authority's definitive
map of public rights of way as going over the bridge itself, only
up to it on each side. I understand that the omission of the bridge
itself from the definitive map does not prove that it is not a
right of way, only that there is no record of it having become
established as a right of way through long usage before any notice
went up saying that there was no right of way over the bridge.
The next witness is going to say more about this issue but it
seems to us unjust that the bridge should be demolished without
replacement by what seems to be a technicality. At the first hearing
of a similar petition by the House of Commons Select Committee,
the Chairman said that they were perturbed by the situation and
asked the Promoter and the Petitioner to discuss other possible
solutions. The Promoter suggested the provision of the new route
shown in green on the sketch map running from the right-angled
bend in Footpath 15A directly eastwards along a depression between
the Bison Works and the railway and then along the driveway to
the Bison Works to come out at Thorney Lane. Your Petitioners
proposed instead the route shown in red running from north of
the Bison Works and then diagonally over a piece of open land
to reach Iver station. This land is understood to be in the ownership
of British Railways Board (Residuary) Ltd. The parish council
is of the view that this would be a far better route than the
Promoter's proposed alternative route. The Promoter's proposed
route is of no amenity value, being unattractive and of no practical
value in getting from any one place in Iver to any other and so
is not an adequate replacement for the path to the south of the
bridge, which is of a rural character. If Dog Kennel Bridge is
to be demolished without replacement the red route would be far
better compensation, especially if it was able to connect with
the north side of the station at Iver. The next witness will amplify
this point, but in concluding I should reiterate that 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.
9 Crossrail Ref: P15, Dog Kennel Bridge Links A-Photograph
along footpath looking north (BUCKCC-10_04-004) Back
10
Committee Ref: A11, Open Spaces Society and Ramblers' Association
map of Dog Kennel Bridge and associated footpath network (BUCKCC-10_05-001) Back
|
