Order Decision Inquiry Opened on 4 June 2019 by Mark Yates BA(Hons) MIPROW an Inspector Appointed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Order Decision Inquiry opened on 4 June 2019 by Mark Yates BA(Hons) MIPROW an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Decision date: 27 August 2019 Order Ref: ROW/3209333 • This Order is made under Section 118A of the Highways Act 1980 (“the 1980 Act”) and is known as the Leicestershire County Council Public Bridleway I20 (Part) Parish of Barrow Upon Soar Rail Crossing Extinguishment Order 2017. • The Order was made by Leicestershire County Council (“the Council”) on 4 December 2017 and proposes to extinguish a section of Bridleway I20 in the parish of Barrow upon Soar, as detailed in the Order Map and Schedule. • There were ten objections outstanding at the commencement of the inquiry. Summary of Decision: The Order is confirmed subject to modifications set out below in the Formal Decision. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 1. I held a public inquiry into the Order on 4-6 June 2019 and undertook both unaccompanied and accompanied visits to the site and the surrounding area. 2. The Council adopted a neutral stance at the inquiry and the case in support of the confirmation of the Order was made by Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (“NR”). 3. There are two errors on the additional map within the Order1, which proposes to show the alternative route available to the public. Firstly, the route is shown through properties and not along the highways concerned. Secondly, the one- way system within the village means that it is not possible for horse riders or cyclists to travel northwards along the carriageway of Grove Lane2. There is nothing to suggest that anyone was prejudiced by these matters. 4. I take the view that it is not appropriate to insert a new map into an Order to remedy errors with the original version. It is nonetheless open to me to modify this map. The options are that the alternative route and the map key are modified, or the map is struck out. Bearing in mind that there is no requirement for this additional map and the difficulty of showing the different options on it, I consider it appropriate for the context plan to be struck out. 5. It became apparent that the Planning Inspectorate had not forwarded the proof of evidence for one of NRs witnesses (Mr Greenwood) to the other parties. Arrangements were put in place for this to be circulated a few days before the inquiry opened and I gave some additional time on the opening day of the inquiry for people to read it. 1 Known as the ‘context plan’ and having the reference number ‘2340C’ 2 It may be permissible for a person to push a cycle along the footway ORDER DECISION: ROW/3209333 MAIN ISSUES 6. The Order was made as it appeared to the Council expedient that a section of bridleway should be stopped up in the interests of the safety of members of the public using it or likely to use it. If I am to confirm the Order, I will need to be satisfied that it is expedient to do so having regard to all the circumstances, and in particular to: (a) whether it is reasonably practicable to make the crossing safe for use by the public, and (b) what arrangements have been made for ensuring that, if the Order is confirmed, any appropriate barriers and signs are erected and maintained. 7. Whilst particular regard should be given to those matters set out above, other factors may be relevant when determining whether it is expedient to extinguish the section of bridleway included in the Order. Paragraph 5.49 of Defra Circular 1/09 (“the Circular”) outlines that these may include “the use currently made of the existing path, the risk to the public of continuing such use, the effect that the loss of the path would have on users of the public rights of way network as a whole, the opportunity for taking alternative measures to deal with the problem, such as a diversion order or a bridge or tunnel and the relative cost of such alternative measures”. REASONS 8. The Order proposes to permanently stop up a section of Bridleway I20, where it passes over the Mountsorrel level crossing (“the crossing”), between its junctions with Sileby Road (point A) and Footpath I24 (point B). Further to the north, I20 links with Footpath I23 and continues north westwards to Melton Road/Paudy Lane and beyond. Point A is located towards the eastern extent of the village of Barrow upon Soar. To the south of Sileby Road in this locality is the River Soar. 9. Work has commenced on land to the north of the crossing in relation to the Poppyfields development, which will comprise of 291 dwellings. To the east of the crossing there are industrial units and the Lafarge works on the southern of the railway lines and British Gypsum works on the northern side of the lines. 10. The crossing passes over the Midland Main Line, which comprises of four lines for passenger and freight trains. There are two additional railway lines under the control of Lafarge Aggregates, and these are located nearest to Sileby Road. Public Use of the Crossing 11. As outlined below, the crossing has been closed on a temporary basis since 2008. The only available information regarding the extent of the use of the crossing arises from a census undertaken over a period of nine days commencing on 25 March 2006. It is noted that nine hours of data was lost due to a person tampering with the camera. Subject to this issue, the camera recorded 358 people using the crossing during the nine-day period, which equates to an average of around 40 users per day. It is stated3 that ten cyclists and two horse riders used the crossing during this period with the remainder of the users being pedestrians. 3 At paragraph 2.7.3 of NRs 2019 risk assessment 2 ORDER DECISION: ROW/3209333 12. NR relies on statistical data regarding the average figures for the occupancy of houses in the UK, the number of dependent children within households and the percentage of homes having a dog in support of its view that the Poppyfields development would give rise to a significant increase in use of the crossing and that some of this use will involve vulnerable users. Following the completion of the development it is believed that use could rise to over 80 users a day. Reference is also made to visitors to properties on the development. NR says that even without the Poppyfields development there has been natural growth in the village population and estimate that the number of users could have risen to 50-60 people a day if the crossing had been open. 13. Any increase in the number of users gives rise to a greater risk that an accident will occur, but it could also be supportive of the need for a means of crossing the railway in this locality. I accept that the development will lead to an expectation that there will be an increase in use of the crossing. However, I am reluctant to place too much reliance on the average figures involving households in the UK. The nature of the crossing and the locations of facilities within the village may serve to influence use to some extent. It is nonetheless the case that the figures put forward by NR are stated to be on the conservative side. The Safety of Members of the Public Using the Crossing 14. The Midland Main Line comprises of two fast lines with trains travelling at speeds of up to 110 mph and two slow lines allowing for speeds of up to 65 mph. During operational hours, eight trains per hour pass over the fast lines (four in each direction) and two pass over the slow lines (one in each direction). There are additionally between twenty and fifty freight trains a day. 15. Two additional lines are used by Lafarge and are outside of the control of NR. They consist of a reception line and a loading line. Trains travel at speeds of up to 15 mph on these lines and on average there are between eight and ten arrivals and departures per day. In addition, there are shunting movements during the day which lead to trains moving over the crossing and sometimes stopping on the crossing. 16. An investigation was undertaken following a near miss on the crossing involving a pedestrian in 2008. The recommendation of the Railways Inspector (Mr Tilly) who investigated the matter was that the crossing should be closed. It has subsequently been the subject of temporary closures under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Some weight should be attached to the findings of Mr Tilly following his investigation of the crossing. However, the same cannot be said to apply to the temporary closures. The extension of the temporary closure was requested by the Council in order to find a solution and this was granted by the Secretary of State for Transport without comment on the merits of the permanent closure of the crossing. 17. Self-closing gates and signage informing people to ‘stop, look and listen’ were in place prior to the closure of the crossing. The main witness called by NR to speak on safety was Mr Briggs. He outlines that this type of signage is usually placed at decision points. A decision point is where it is reasonable to expect a user of the crossing to make the decision to cross. These signs place reliance on users deciding whether it is safe to cross and heeding the warnings whilst continuing to look and listen when crossing.