Agenda item

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 was believed that Network Rail’s safety case needed to be considered with greater weight. He referred to two recent rail diversion orders, in Otford and Whitstable, where safety was noted as the primary motivator for the diversion.

8.       Mr Tonkin explained that the decision made by the Panel today was not the final decision and the next stage would involve a formal consultation.

9.       Mr Tonkin recommended to the Panel that the Applicant be informed that an Order to divert Public Footpath ZR681 from the railway foot crossing to an alignment running parallel to the northern platform of Teynham Station in the Borough of Swale, be made.

10.      Mrs Parfitt-Reid asked about the consideration of a footbridge and Mr Tonkin explained this had been discounted for accessibility reasons and clarified that there was not enough room at the site for a slope bridge.

11.      Mr Cole agreed that the case was finely balanced and said there was a fundamental argument for freedom of choice.  He felt that most behaviour-related safety risks included in the application could be applied to any crossing in the UK.  He said people had the right to make decisions and questioned the timing of the application if safety incidents had taken place since 2017.

12.      The Applicant, Mr Damian Hajnas (Infrastructure Liability and Contracts Manager – South Region, Network Rail) addressed the Panel.  He said Network Rail was subject to a strict regulatory duty and its primary duty was to provide a safe and efficient railway network. He said it was a balancing exercise to ensure maximum safety to passengers and staff whilst trains ran on time. In 2019 Network Rail embarked on a strategy to reduce risk on crossings and this was therefore a preventative, not reactive exercise. Mr Hajnus reiterated the main risk factors included in the report and highlighted by the Public Rights of Way Officer, including the large number of users (and vulnerable users), the high speed of trains on the line and the limited time users had to react at sight of a train. Mr Hajnus said there had been repeated instances of misuse and the diversion had been carefully selected from a number of options, and the proposed route was much safer. He concluded that he was strongly in favour of the order being made.

13.      Councillor Lloyd Bowen (Councillor to Teynham and Lynstead Ward, Swale Borough Council) addressed the Panel in objection to the application.  He said he was a long-time user of the crossing, and the proposed diversion would have an effect on people’s mental health and on the community. Councillor Bowen said not all eventualities could be covered and compared the crossing to others in the area.  He suggested potential adjustments that could be made and said it was essential that the voices of residents were heard.  He said the closure of the crossing affected the connectivity and vitality of local business.

14.      Mr David Lindop addressed the Panel in objection to the application. He referred to the proposed diversion route which included many trees that acted as a natural screen against the sound and light of the railway. He said the removal of trees would cause disruption and would have an impact on biodiversity and wildlife.  Mr Lindop referred to the increase of crime and disorder at the station and said the proposed diversion would bring that closer to residents, including a risk of vandalism to property.

15.      Mr Steve Obeirne addressed the panel in objection to the application and referred to the proposed division going through the station car park and said he was concerned for the road safety at the vehicular level crossing.

16.      Mr Paul Townson (Chairman of Teynham Parish Council) addressed the Panel and said the crossing was a popular route for residents walking dogs, residents who lived in Conyer who were coming to Teynham to access the school and shops, and the pathway formed part of a fruit walk. He said safety was recognised by residents and he suggested some practical solutions to improve this.  Mr Townson also raised some road safety concerns in relation to the proposed diversion.

17.      Mr Rich Lehmann (Local Member) addressed the Panel and expressed the view that not enough consideration had been given to the current crossing and suggested some improvements to make the crossing safer including moving it further west, decreasing train speed limits, and additional warning signs.  He questioned how much consideration had been given to alternative diversion routes and raised the issue of road safety risks of the proposed diversion and questioned whether the danger was being shifted from one place to another.

18.      Mr Damian Hajnas (Infrastructure Liability and Contracts Manager – South Region, Network Rail), as landowner, responded to some of the points raised.  He said, regarding the possibility of a footbridge, Network Rail had considered all the issues including protective characteristics of individuals, value for money and the significant planning issues it would entail. He said Network Rail’s principal objective was safety and level crossings were inherently dangerous. In terms of user behaviour and personal responsibility Network Rail considered everybody’s safety which included those who were unwell, distracted, young or vulnerable.  The mitigation of risk in relation to children had resulted in the speed of the trains being reduced and this was only done in exceptional circumstances. None of the mitigation measures considered would deliver value for money or reduce the risk.  He said he was sympathetic regarding the safety of the proposed path behind the platform as it had not yet been tested, and it was expressed openly in the consultation that reasonable measures would be considered, however, he said there was not any evidence to support security issues on the proposed path. He said the land was bought for running the railway and it was not environmentally protected.  Regarding road safety of the proposed diversion, he said this was raised early in the consultation with KCC highways and concluded that mitigation measures would be deployed and funded by Network Rail.

19.      The Chair invited comments from the Panel.

20.      Mr Harman thanked all those who spoke at the meeting.  He acknowledged the importance of the safety issues within the risk assessment whilst noting that some level of risk had to be accepted.  Mr Harman compared the level of risk against the practicality and cost of the proposed solution.

21.      Mr Dance expressed concern for the brick railway building on the down side at the London side of the crossing hindering the vision of trains from London.

22.      Mrs Parfitt-Reid said there was always risk and personal accountability could not be mitigated against.  She said on balance the proposed diversion was costly for something not supported by the community.

23.      Mr Cole questioned why, if safety was the primary element, applications had not been made earlier and whether full exploratory work into different mitigation measures had been explored. 

24.      The Chair put the recommendation set out in the report to the vote and the Panel agreed unanimously to refuse the order.

RESOLVED that the Applicant be informed that an Order to divert Public Footpath ZR681 from the railway foot crossing to an alignment running parallel to the northern platform of Teynham Station in the Borough of Swale has been refused.