House of Lords - Crossrail Bill - Minutes of Evidence

Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill Minutes of Evidence

Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1780 - 1799)

1780. You are the Clerk of the Parish Council and in charge of the records.
(Mrs Collins) That is what happened. The Parish Council had asked for this to be done, and the County Council were going to do it and then at the last minute decided not to.

1781. Did you contest that decision at all?
(Mrs Collins) I cannot recall. I have not spent enough time looking at the records, I am afraid.

1782. LORD SNAPE: You say in paragraph 5 of your evidence that you were asked by the Parish Council to say that it is a valuable path and ought to be retained. As we have heard from the promoters, at the time Mr Berryman did his survey no-one was using the path. Can you give an estimate of how many people in your opinion would use the path in the course of a month, a week or a year?
(Mrs Collins) I do not know. I saw two on Saturday using the path; that is all I can say.

1783. On the bridge?
(Mrs Collins) No, one was on this side of the bridge and the other was on the other side of the bridge. I asked each one of them whether they generally as a rule walked completely from one end to the other and they said, "sometimes we do, sometimes we do not".

1784. In paragraph 9 you asked the Committee to accede to the petition to provide a replacement for Dog Kennel Bridge. We have heard in evidence that the committee should make various recommendations in the overall scheme of the 15 billion of the Crossrail scheme and that none of them amount to a great deal of money, but taken together they do. Has the Parish Council made any estimates of the cost of replacement of Dog Kennel Bridge?

(Mrs Collins) It was one of the questions asked of the promoters when we had the meeting to discuss the original proposal to go under Chequer Bridge, but I do not think I have ever seen those figures. We saw some figures at the time but we thought they were very expensive and must be able to be done cheaper.

1785. Those figures were provided by the promoters to you, then, rather than you providing the figures to the promoters?
(Mrs Collins) The County Council were going to go away but Mr Graham can probably give you more information on that. The County Council were going to go away and look at the figures as well.

1786. LORD BROOKE OF ALVERTHORPE: I presume, Mrs Collins, looking at map 23, that there is no footpath running alongside Horton Brook!
(Mrs Collins) Where is that—on the right-hand side?

1787. Right down the road at the foot of footpath 15, there Horton Brook runs from right to left—across to Chequer Bridge.
(Mrs Collins) I do not think there is, no.

1788. Which would be a very pleasant little walk if there was.
(Mrs Collins) I have a footpath map here.

1789. LORD JAMES OF BLACKHEATH: Can I ask a question that does not touch on anything we have heard so far? If the famous builder of this bridge were to come back to give evidence today and we asked him what was special about this bridge in terms of innovation or any unique feature, what would he say to us?
(Mrs Collins) It is to do with the brickwork I think.

1790. Otherwise it is a bridge, is a bridge is a bridge.
(Mrs Collins) I understand there is some fancy brickwork, but I do not know whether that is unique.

1791. Destruction of this bridge is not going to destroy some unique feature of that great man that can never be capable of being replicated elsewhere or seen elsewhere!
(Mrs Collins) I can only assume that if English Heritage are happy that it is not—

1792. You appreciate the importance of the question?
(Mrs Collins) Yes, I do, but I can only say that if English Heritage had not fought the case, and we have to rely on their expertise—

1793. The answer is that there is no feature here that is unique.
(Mrs Collins) Not that I know of.

The witness withdrew

MR PAUL GRAHAM, Sworn Examined by MR SUGGETT

1794. MR SUGGETT: My Lords, this witness also has a proof of evidence, and I am going to invite him to read it.

(Mr Graham) My name is Paul Michael Graham.

1795. CHAIRMAN: We can take your address as read.
(Mr Graham) I have lived in Iver since 1980 and lived in nearby West Drayton for four years before that. I am Footpath Secretary of the Iver & 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 been a life member of the Ramblers' Association for more than 20 years; and the Iver & District Countryside Association has been a member of the RA and the Open Spaces Society for more than ten years. I have used Dog Kennel Bridge many times on walks and have seen other people using it and the footpaths either side of it. The Petitioners urge that if the Grade II listed Dog Kennel Bridge has to be removed then it should be replaced and provision should be made for the dedication of the new bridge as a public right of way. A summary of the history of the bridge and the associated right of way is in Appendix 1 of my evidence. The paths leading up to the bridge—now known as Footpath 15 and Footpath 15A—were officially recognised as old-established public footpaths in 1953 under the procedures of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. The route appears on a pre-Enclosure map of 1794, albeit with some subsequent deviations caused by the Britannic cable works, the canal, the gravel workings and the railway. It is clear that the public has used Dog Kennel Bridge without let or hindrance ever since 1882 to the present day. When the railway was first built, it was crossed on the level, 120 metres away from Dog Kennel Bridge, but people apparently started using the bridge instead, and in 1914 the Great Western Railway Company had the pedestrian level crossing of the railway extinguished. It is difficult to see what their intention was unless it was to dedicate the bridge to the public as a replacement crossing. But the actual bridge is not shown as a right of way on the definitive map because by the time of the definitive mapping procedures in the early 1950s a sign had appeared on the bridge denying the existence of a public right of way on it. So it is probable that a right of way was established by presumed dedication through long usage before that sign was erected, but the evidence by which that might be proven is of course no longer available as the users are long-dead. That leaves us with the ludicrous situation of two public footpaths leading to a bridge over which a right of way is not definitively recorded, so the Promoter can say that no right of way exists on the bridge because we can no longer prove that one does. In 1990, when an earlier railway project was proposed by British Railways, an officer recommendation that the Buckinghamshire County Council reconstruct and maintain Dog Kennel Bridge if necessary was agreed but not actioned. The County Council estimated the cost of this at that time to be £150,000. The bridge's importance to the rights-of-way network was made clear to the House of Commons Select Committee by the petitions of Buckinghamshire County Council and South Bucks District Council, though the Petitioners did not appear, solely (we understand) on the grounds of the cost of representation. (Unlike voluntary bodies, local authorities feel they must be represented by counsel if they appear.) The demolition of the bridge will cause a diversion of 1.5 km for users of Footpaths 15 and 15A. This is unacceptable, particularly as the two alternatives involve using the entire lengths of the busy Thorney Lane North and South or Market Lane. Part of the latter has no footway. This part of Iver between Langley and West Drayton is the narrowest part of the Colne Valley Park. Removal of the vital link to Iver Footpath 15 would leave only one right of way running north-south, Iver 16 in the far east of the Park. Circular or through walks in the south of Iver and surrounding area would be severely limited as a result. The sketch map shows this. Please can we see some photographs at this point? First, photograph B, which is Market Lane, looking southwards to Chequer Bridge over which the railway runs—which is where the proposers originally intended the footpath should come out and the pedestrians somehow go underneath.[12] Photograph C, which is Market Lane looking north to Chequer Bridge.[13] Then photograph D, which shows another part of Market Lane and demonstrates the suburban nature of this forced alternative to the rural Footpaths 15 and 15A.[14] Then photograph E is Parlaunt Road, the Langley-West Drayton road, looking east.[15] I believe that these photographs highlight the busy nature of the local roadways. In a document Actions and Vision for the Colne Valley Regional Park 2006-09, one of the key objectives of the regional park authority is to "maintain right-of-way and vehicle access over Dog Kennel Bridge". Crossrail have said that the cost of providing a replacement bridge would be prohibitive. We agree that it would be expensive but it would be a small fraction of the overall billions of pounds that the whole Crossrail scheme will cost. The Parish Council say that whatever the benefits that this large transport scheme will have for the travelling public, it is not right that it should be at the expense of local people or users, or that such an important right of way link should be severed permanently. Though Footpaths 15 and 15A will not be legally extinguished by the demolition of the bridge, the effect will be precisely the same, as there would be no practical point for anybody to use them. They will become redundant. That is extremely unfortunate, because though we cannot claim that the route to be lost is exceptionally spectacular, it nonetheless provides a circular walk for local residents over mainly agricultural and rural land, largely of open aspect and with some far-ranging views; an altogether different aspect from the local suburban pavements. Could I have photograph F, please?[16] This is the start of Footpath 15 on the Langley-West Drayton road. Photograph G, please.[17] It goes through this large field and from here there are the far-ranging views which, on a clear day, include distant hills and Windsor Castle. Photograph H, please.[18] It then approaches Dog Kennel Bridge, which the farmer, Mr Rayner, keeps gated at weekends to keep vehicles out; but pedestrians can access it by the stile on the left. Photograph J, please.[19] This is the view of the railway from Dog Kennel Bridge; the photograph gives some idea of the unrestricted distant views over open countryside. It was fairly late on in the afternoon at the time I took it. Photograph K we have included since it gives a good view of Dog Kennel Bridge from Footpath 15A.[20] This was taken from the footpath itself, which I think Ms Lieven said in her introduction it was not possible to see the bridge at this particular point. Photograph L, please.[21] Although in the House Commons Select Committee hearing the Promoters produced photographs of the route taken when the summer overgrowth was at its highest, which may have given the wrong impression that the path is seldom trodden, this photographs shows a well-trodden line. Photograph M, please.[22] This shows a clear, well-trodden width between this semi-tunnel of the hedges which would have grown together otherwise. This is the section that goes past the Bison Works and the hedges have a mitigating effect on that industrial operation. Photograph N, please.[23] Finally the path joins Footpath 17 at the canal bank where you can walk east or west. All of that would be lost if Dog Kennel Bridge was demolished. In a response dated 29 January this year the Promoter has commented on this Petition and it may help if I comment in turn on the Promoter's points. I would ask for the first page of the Promoter's response to Petition No 10 to be displayed, please.[24]

1796. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we have that now.
(Mr Graham) In the third paragraph on the first page, the Promoter points out that "powers for the demolition with replacement of Dog Kennel Bridge had previously been secured by the British Railways Board in the British Railways (No 2) Act 1992, but had not been exercised." The implication seems to be that nobody objected then. In fact a report by an officer of Bucks County Council dated 4 January 1990 used the words that there would be "considerable local unrest if the bridge were to be removed" and stated that the bridge is "heavily used by local walkers". The Iver and District Countryside Association objected to the 1992 Bill but the controversy died down when it became clear that British Rail had no means of financing the powers authorised by the 1992 Act. Could we be shown the third page of the Promoter's response, please. Under the heading "Dog Kennel Bridge: provision of alternative footpath" it says that "the Promoter notes that you appear to have accepted that there is no public right of way over Dog Kennel Bridge itself." We do not accept that. We believe that public rights of way were acquired in the past before any public status was brought into question by the sign erected on the bridge, but it would no longer be possible to prove this. This is not the same as us saying that there is no public right of way over the bridge. Next, a little lower than that, the Promoter quotes 18166 of the transcript of the House of Commons Committee proceedings where the Promoter mentioned a couple of surveys that were done on the use of the way, and use was either minimal or non-existent on those occasions. Of course it would have been better for our case if there had been more use when this survey took place but we question whether a spot-survey is a proper or fair means of gauging the value of this kind of path. It is not the kind of path which necessarily gets routine daily use. It does not connect one well-used amenity with another, as an urban path might, and a survey might not detect much use even over many hours, but over many years I have seen dozens of people using it, albeit not on any predictable pattern. You can see that it is well-used, from the way in which it is well-trodden in many places along its length—despite the photographs produced by the Promoters taken at a time when it was overgrown in places in the summer. I would add that the parish council and I are aware of much more frequent use than was apparent form the Promoter's survey and we would not be here today if that were not so. Finally on this point: even if there were only small use at present, recreational walking is becoming more popular and it is by no means unlikely that demand will grow in future. It is inconceivable that a bridge would ever be built in future and it would be a terrible missed opportunity and lack of foresight if provision were not made now. It would deprive future generations of a simple and basic and free form of healthy recreation. At the conclusion of the first hearing of the Petition in the House of Commons, the Committee said that "we are perturbed and we have not closed the decision that we may retain a foot access over this line". They asked the Petitioners and the Promoter to see if a solution could be found. Could map A be shown again, please. Two routes were proposed: one by the Promoter and one by the Petitioners in the House of Commons Committee proceedings. The Promoter proposed the green route. With the Promoter's proposal, a walker proceeding south along Footpath 15A beside the Bison Works would turn eastwards and walk in a channel between the railway and the works. There are no attractive views at all from this path an the path will be narrowly fenced, probably with high security meshing. The channelled path will then emerge on to what we think is the private access road to the Bison Works. It has no footway and seems to be 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 which are weighed in the balance when a diversion is brought about under ordinary highway legislation. Though your Petitioners' very strong preference is that a bridge be provided, we suggested as an alternative the route shown by red dashes from the junction of Footpaths 15 and 17 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 it should be used as a footbridge for non-rail users so as to make a pedestrian crossing 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 north of the railway can access Footpath 24 to Colnbrook (just off the map) and join the Colne Valley Way by that means. If it cannot connect to the station footbridge, then it could cross the railway by the existing bridge at Thorney Lane. 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 the quid pro quo is significantly better with our preferred option than what the Promoter has proposed. Please could we see the fourth page of the Promoter's response? In their response, the Promoter implies—as counsel for the Promoter said in the House of Commons Select Committee proceedings—that the quid pro quo is about right with their own route, the green route, because they said, "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 ... the replacement is perfectly acceptable". With respect, that misses the point. The proposed alternative path is supposed to be the exchange for the southern section of the path: the section between the bridge and the Langley to West Drayton road. That section really is of open, rural aspect, especially looking south and westwards, with distant views, and that is the section which will be made redundant if the bridge is not replaced. We say that the proposed route between the Bison site and the railway, which has a completely industrial feel to it, is not a fair replacement at all, whereas our proposed red route has some amenity value about it, being over an open space with some good views to it. The Promoter also said in the House of Commons Committee hearing that the land over which our much-preferred path would run was not available because of the possibility that it would be used for development. But even if at some future point it might be developed, that does not stop it from being used in the meantime. If it is developed, there are powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to divert or extinguish rights of way which could be used here to put our proposed path around the periphery of the site, and, anyhow, it may never be developed. It is full Green Belt land and it would not be developed. We do not think that any of these criteria are grounds for preferring the Promoter's proposal to ours. During or after the House of Commons stages, we asked the Promoter to provide a detailed cost breakdown of providing a simple replacement footbridge but they have not done so. It appears to us that the Promoter has not considered the option of providing a simple steel structure at the north side of Dog Kennel Bridge in order to span the fifth rail. It appears to us that this would be perfectly possible. It should not be costly (in the overall scheme of Crossrail) to provide an add-on span with adequate clearance. For all of these reasons we ask the Committee to amend the Bill so as to provide for a replacement bridge or at the very least to provide an alternative route as proposed by the Promoter.

1797. Would you like to take us through the history?
(Mr Graham) If you wish. Perhaps we could look again at sketch map A.[25] If you could imagine the southern part of Footpath 15B and the northern part connecting with an almost straight line, going across what would then be open, unenclosed fields in the 18th century, that was the original route. It was codified in the Enclosure Act in 1801. Subsequent to that, initially the railway in 1838, then the canal in 1882 and then industrial sites, the cable works (subsequently the Bison Works) and the Ridgeway Industrial Estate, have all diverted the path in this way. In particular, the path was diverted by the Great Western Railway in the early part of the 20th century, partly because the level crossing, where pedestrians crossed the railway, was becoming unsafe because of the increased speed of traffic and the widening of the rail. Sadly, at that time public footpaths were not nearly as highly regarded as they are now and no provision was made, in a legal sense, the sense that we know today, to provide an alternative over Dog Kennel Bridge. Nonetheless, from at least 1882 to the early 1940s the public did use Dog Kennel Bridge without let or hindrance and it was only in the 1950s that a sign went up. I was not living in Iver in 1950—in fact I was barely alive—but nonetheless if myself or the parish council had been around at that time we would surely have pressed the county council to take a more robust attitude than they did in the 1950s. Sadly, they backed down at the Quarter Sessions to which Mrs Collins referred earlier. I think that summarises it.

1798. CHAIRMAN: Thank you

Cross-examined by MS LIEVEN

1799. MS LIEVEN: Thank you, my Lords, just a few questions. Good afternoon, Mr Graham. First of all, just a question on your appendix. Towards the bottom of the first page of the appendix you say, "According to a statement made in 1954 by Mr D G Hall, Clerk to Iver Parish Council, the Great Western Railway Company, using the Great Western Bill 1936 sought the power to stop up and extinguish rights of way over the bridge", do you see that?

(Mr Graham) Yes.

12 Committee Ref: A11, View looking southwards of Chequer Bridge from Market Lane, Langley (BUCKCC-10_05-002) Back

13 Committee Ref: A11, View looking northwards of Chequer Bridge from Market Lane, Langley (BUCKCC-10_05-003) Back

14 Committee Ref: A11, View of Market Lane, Langley (BUCKCC-10_05-004) Back

15 Committee Ref: A11, View of Parlaunt Road, Langley (BUCKCC-10_05-005) Back

16 Committee Ref: A11, View of Footpath 15 from Parlaunt Road, Langley (BUCKCC-10_05-006) Back

17 Committee Ref: A11, View of Footpath 15 (BUCKCC-10_05-007) Back

18 Committee Ref: A11, View of Dog Kennel Bridge on Footpath 15 (BUCKCC-10_05-008) Back

19 Committee Ref: A11, View of the Great Western Railway from Dog Kennel Bridge (BUCKCC-10_05-010) Back

20 Committee Ref: A11, View of Dog Kennel Bridge from Footpath 15A (BUCKCC-10_05-011) Back

21 Committee Ref: A11, View of Footpath 15A (BUCKCC-10_05-012) Back

22 Committee Ref: A11, Further view of Footpath 15A (BUCKCC-10_05-013) Back