Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1800
- 1819)
1800. It seems probable that the reason why
Mr Hall, who was Clerk to the Parish Council in 1954, was making
that statement was in support of a claim for a public right of
way across the bridge, does it not?
(Mr Graham) As you know, between 1949 and 1954 there was
considerable debate about the right of way across the bridge,
whether or not it should be included in the definitive map for
the first time and, yes, Mr Hall was Clerk at that time. You are
correct, that statement was made in relation to that sequence
of events.
1801. It is a statement that that would have
been made under the relatively recent 1949 National Parks and
Countryside Act in support of the Parish Council's claim that
there was a public right of way across the bridge?
(Mr Graham) I do not know, I would have to go back and look
at the exact thing. I have got it in writing here but I do not
know the context in which it was made.
1802. But it seems highly likely?
(Mr Graham) It is possible, yes.
1803. In 1954 there would have been a great
many people still alive who would have been alive before the Second
World War, alive before 1936 who, if they had used the footpath
regularly before 1936, could have given evidence of that on behalf
of the Parish Council, could they not?
(Mr Graham) They could indeed and I am sure if I had been
around then, and Mrs Collins and most of the inhabitants of Iver,
that would have happened, but sadly, as you probably know, the
climate regarding rights of way was totally different then.
1804. We know that Iver Parish Council were
around then, we know that they had this point in mind and we know
that Buckinghamshire County Council, who were the statutory body
with powers under the Act, did not accept in 1954 that this was
a public right of way, did they?
(Mr Graham) That is not quite true. They
took it as far as the Quarter Sessions. There were two objectors
to the bridge itself being put on the definitive map, one was
the British Rail and the other was a local landowner, a farmer,
who happened to be on the Parish Council. In the face of objections
from those two, the Buckinghamshire County Council initially decided
to fight the objection and backed down at quarter sessions. I
do not know why that is. I have looked into it briefly, I have
asked for rights of way at county council, but it is not in their
records. I can only assume that they simply backed down because
it was too expensive or perhaps because, as I say, the climate
was different in those days. Landowners tended to be on both parish
and county councils and to regard rights of way as not so important
as they do nowadays.
1805. We are throwing around a lot of allegations
about Buckinghamshire County Council.
(Mr Graham) You asked me for the reasons, the background
to this and, I am sorry, I do not know anything more about it.
I tried to investigate but that is my submission.
1806. What is clear from the facts is that in
1954 Buckinghamshire County Council did not support public rights
of way over the bridge, did they?
(Mr Graham) That is not true. You asked it before and I have
said it is not true. They did in fact support a right of way over
it because they put it on the draft definitive map, but faced
with objections they backed down at Quarter Sessions.
1807. So at Quarter Sessions they were not convinced
that there was a public right of way?
(Mr Graham) No, they withdrew it from the Quarter Sessions
before the Quarter Sessions were held.
1808. Okay. Thank you, Mr Graham.
1809. CHAIRMAN: Mr Graham, it never went
on the definitive map?
(Mr Graham) That is right, exactly.
1810. MS LIEVEN: There is no issue. It
is not on the definitive map.
(Mr Graham) It has never been on the definitive map and it
is believed that about that time the first notice appeared on
the bridge.
1811. MS LIEVEN: Can we pick up a couple
of other points?
1812. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, Mr Graham,
before or after they abandoned the case at Quarter Sessions?
(Mr Graham) We do not know. I am sorry, it is too long, nobody
even remembers.
1813. You just might know.
(Mr Graham) I am afraid I do not know. When I first moved
to Iver in 1980 and became interested in footpath work about the
mid 1980s I asked the oldest inhabitants around and they did not
know. As far as they knew, that sign had always been there since
the war, but they were not sure. I have sought the advice of the
County Council highways officers and their view is that a notice
having been put up there for that length of time would render
an application for it to be made definitive very, very difficult
and unlikely to succeed; hence that is the reason why we have
not done it. Our association has, in fact, made several applications
for rights of way to be put on the definitive map and had the
backing of the County Council and they have been successful, but
in this case we took the advice of the County Council and decided
not to proceed.
1814. MS LIEVEN: Can I move on to a different
point? Your photographs B and D, if we can look at B very briefly,
this is Chequer Bridge, is it not?[26]
(Mr Graham) Yes.
1815. It is not our proposal, following AP3,
that the footpath be diverted to use Chequer Bridge, is it?
(Mr Graham) That was the first proposal, the second does
not use Chequer Bridge.
1816. That is not our current proposal, is it?
(Mr Graham) No.
1817. If we put up the aerial photograph of
Thorney Lane Bridge, this is the M25 (indicating) just for context,
is it not?[27]
(Mr Graham) Yes, the Bison Road is on the left
at the bottom.
1818. This is Richings Park here (indicating)?
(Mr Graham) Yes.
1819. Come out of Richings Park, walk over a
dedicated pedestrian bridge, it is a foot bridge, is it not?
(Mr Graham) Yes.
26 Committee Ref: A11, View looking southwards of
Chequer Bridge from Market Lane, Langley (BUCKCC-10_05-002) Back
27
Crossrail Ref: P18, Ordnance Survey Map of Iver (SCN-20080303-005) Back
| 
