Agenda and minutes

Mr Damian Hajnus (Network Rail), Rich Lehmann (Local Member), Mr David Lindop, Mr Steve Obeirne and Mr Paul Townson were in attendance for this item.

1.       The Members of the Panel visited the site of the proposed diversion prior to the meeting. This visit was also attended by Rich Lehmann (Local Member), Ms Gemma Kent from Network Rail (the Applicant) and approximately 8 members of the public. Panel Members inspected the crossing point and observed the visibility lines along the railway and viewed the route of the proposed footpath from the station platform.

2.       Mr Michael Tonkin, Public Rights of Way Officer, introduced the report which set out the application the County Council had received from Network Rail to divert part of Public Footpath ZR681 at Teynham. 

3.       Mr Tonkin explained that a number of risk assessments had been carried out on the footpath crossing by Network Rail, and the crossing was currently closed under a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO) due to associated risks and a near miss in November 2022. He explained that if the crossing were to be opened at the time of the meeting it would be the second highest risk footpath crossing in Kent.

4.       Mr Tonkin said the number of train movements passing over the level crossing was averaged at 183 per day, with an up-line speed of 90mph, and a down-line speed of 75mph. He noted that the up-line speed had been restricted to 80mph in an attempt to mitigate the risk at the level crossing.  The main concerns for Network Rail at the crossing were insufficient sighting, high level of users, misuse of the crossing, the proximity of the level crossing to a railway station, and a large number of vulnerable users, including the elderly and children.

5.       Mr Tonkin explained the legislation in relation to the diversion of a public path at a rail crossing contained within Section 119A of the Highways Act 1980, and the tests and criteria, detailed in the report, to be considered under Rights of way circular 1/09.

6.       Mr Tonkin said that consultations had been carried out as required by the Highways Act 1980 and a number of objections had been received.  He highlighted an error in the report in that Councillor Lloyd Bowen, not Councillor Mike Whiting, had responded with an objection.

7.       Mr Tonkin discussed the consultation responses and the evidence received in conjunction with each of the legal tests to be considered and concluded that the case was finely balanced and slightly weighted in Network Rail’s favour. He said Network Rail had a safety case and, for the reasons set out in the report and explained to the Panel, the tests under Section 119A of the Highways Act 1980 had been met. He explained that some members of the public who responded objected to the considerably longer route and its convenience.  He said rail crossing orders were invariably finely balanced, especially when the reason was on a basis of safety, and it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

Mr Damian Hajnus (Network Rail), Mr Mike Baldock (Local Member), Mr Gareth Randall and Mr Graham Herbert were in attendance for this item.

1.       The Members of the Panel visited the site of the proposed diversion prior to the meeting. This visit was also attended by Ms Gemma Kent from Network Rail (the Applicant).

2.       Ms Maria McLauchlan, Public Rights of Way Officer, introduced the report which set out the application the County Council had received from Network Rail to divert part of Public Footpath ZR109 at Bobbing. 

3.       Ms Maria McLauchlan said the most recent risk assessment was carried out on 2 March 2020 following a near miss on 21 February 2020.  The crossing scored a risk rating of C3 (it was C5 in 2013) on Network Rail’s All Level Crossings Risk Model (“ALCRM”). This meant it had a high to medium level of both individual and collective risk.  At that time, the crossing was ranked as 13th out of all crossings in Kent, and 2nd highest for footpath crossings. 

4.       Ms McLauchlan said the key drivers for the application on the grounds of safety were frequency and variety of train movements (including the high-speed passenger services), high levels of use particularly of vulnerable users such as the elderly and children and increased evidence of misuse.

5.       Due to the risks associated with the crossing, use of the footpath had been prohibited by a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order since March 2021, initially for a period of 6 months and then extended for another two years until September 2023.  A further extension of 2 years had been granted by the Department of Transport, lasting until September 2025. 

6.       Ms McLauchlan explained that the same legal tests and government guidance to be considered under Rights of way Circular 01/09 were applied as in the case for Teynham West (Item 3) and as set out in the report.

7.       Ms McLauchlan discussed the consultation responses and the evidence received in conjunction with each of the legal tests to be considered and concluded that in this case Network Rail had put forward such a safety case as to warrant a temporary Traffic Regulation Order closing the crossing until a suitable alternative could be found, and due to limitations at the site, it was recognised that alternative solutions were also limited.  Whilst it was understood that the new route would inconvenience some users of the path, this diversion appeared to be the best proposal that could be found.  She said officers were therefore satisfied, for the reasons set out in the report and explained to the Panel, that the legal test of safety was met and that other considerations had been applied.

8.       Ms McLauchlan set out the recommendation that the Applicant be informed that an Order to divert part of public footpath ZR109 from the foot crossing, known as Simpsons Crossing, at Bobbing in the Borough of Swale be made on the grounds that it was expedient to divert the path on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

There were no urgent items.