Railtrack dumped with bill for pigeon clean-up

Railtrack has been dumped on from a great height by the Rail Regulator and millions of angry passengers, but yesterday it was the turn of the pigeons of south London.

In a unanimous Appeal Court judgement, Railtrack will be forced to foot the bill for clearing up the birds' droppings from streets underneath railway bridges. Hundreds of bridges throughout the network are infested with the birds and the ruling could cost the cash-strapped company millions of pounds.

Lord Justice Kennedy said Railtrack's assertion that the birds were wild and therefore it had no control over them was immaterial if it had the means to end the nuisance.

In the original ruling against Railtrack in the High Court, Mr Justice Gibbs quoted a 650-year-old legal precedent and said there was an ornothological explanation for the birds' behaviour. "The remote ancestors of these urban pigeons were rock doves which roosted and nested in cracks and crannies in the side of cliffs," he said.

But a more recent attraction to Balham railway bridge in south London – the structure which prompted the case – was the presence of fast-food restaurants. The court heard that 89 outlets were located within 500 metres of the bridge.

The ruling means that Railtrack must pay costs of around £60,000. Although the company was refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords, it can appeal directly to the Law Lords.

A spokeswoman for Wandsworth Council, the plaintiff, said: "We are happy with the decision, but not happy that they might appeal further."

The Council had argued that Railtrack had allowed pigeons to roost under the bridge with the result that pigeon mess had made the road and pavements below hazardous.

In addition to damages, it also sought to force Railtrack to act to prevent nuisance. It claimed it has to clean the road up to seven times a week whereas ,without pigeons, far less cleaning would be needed.

The ruling could cost Railtrack "several million" nationwide. On a broader scale, the decision could increase the liability of many landowners for nuisance caused by animals.