Agenda item

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 grounds of safety of the public.

9.       Mr Dance left the meeting.

10.      Mr Harman asked about line speed and whether the biggest safety risk was the users rather than the crossing itself and Ms McLauchlan said the misuse of the crossing was part of the safety element.

11.      The Applicant, Mr Damian Hajnas (Infrastructure Liability and Contracts Manager – South Region, Network Rail), highlighted that the main risk factors were objective and included the frequency and speed of travelling trains (including variance in train speeds) which affected the perception of risk, and a large number of users were vulnerable ie they were children, the elderly or distracted which impaired their ability to react.  He said the safety arguments were well tested and the crossing was evidently unsafe, and the crossing should be closed.  He said Network Rail did not consider the risk would be displaced from railway to the road and it welcomed further enhancements to the proposed diversion being brought. 

12.      Mr Gareth Randall addressed the Panel in support of the application. He explained that whilst he was the Chair of Bobbing Parish Council, the Parish Council had not taken a formal position on the application and he did not speak on their behalf. He said the proposed diversion provided two additional benefits including accessibility (the current crossing had gates which were difficult to pass through for those with pushchairs and bikes) and the removal of the need for trains to sound their horns.  Mr Randall said he took a pragmatic approach in that he would like access across the railway again for residents and he understood funding was not available for a bridge. 

13.      Mr Graham Herbert reinforced the points made by Mr Randall and raised the issue of vehicles parking alongside Sheppey Way Bridge, to which Ms McLauchlan confirmed officers had consulted with Kent Highways who were happy with the proposed diversion.

14.      Mr Mike Baldock, Local Member, addressed the Panel in objection of the application and said he had personally used the crossing for 50 years and it had been used for generations by the public. Mr Baldock said, since the crossing was closed, there had been a greater number of safety incidents and the application had over exaggerated the risk and was misleading.  He said examples of misuse could apply to any rail crossing. Mr Baldock said most users crossed safely and the claim the crossing was dangerous was unsubstantiated.  He said there was a risk that people would continue to use the embankment to cross (via the bridge) if the crossing was not reopened and the proposed diversion under the bridge would be used for antisocial behaviour.  Mr Baldock suggested the crossing be reopened with measures put in place to make it safer including, for example, adequate signage and crossing lights, and that the risk be assessed again after a year. 

15.      Mr Damian Hajnas (Infrastructure Liability and Contracts Manager – South Region, Network Rail), as landowner, responded to some of the points raised.  He said the evidence in favour of the order was before the Panel and clarified that Network Rail had not made the application for convenience or to gain anything financially.  He reiterated Network Rail’s strict regulatory obligation for safety.  He said every option had been explored to minimise the impact on the public and the proposed diversion was the only practicable option. In response to the allegation that Network Rail had exaggerated the evidence Mr Hajnas said they had video footage of people risking their lives on the railway.  In relation to the risk assessment on the proposed diversion he said KCC were consulted and barriers alongside Sheppey Way would be enhanced.  He said there was not any evidence to suggest that the proposed division would attract antisocial or criminal behaviour.

16.      The Chairman invited comments from the Panel.

17.      Mr Harman said fatalities by suicide were not a reason to close the crossing and suggested solutions could be put in place to deal with misbehaviour on the railway.

18.      Mrs Parfitt-Reid felt this was a sensible diversion as it seemed relatively short but felt there was an argument for and against the recommendation. 

19.      Mr Cole referred to previous near miss incidents in 2019 and said an attempt to close it then was not made until one incident in 2020 which led to Network Rail applying for a TTRO.  Mr Cole asked what the definition of a near miss was and whether anything had changed over the last four years since the incidents in 2019. Mr Hajnus said a near miss was identified at the discretion of the train driver if they were required to apply the emergency break, and it was their responsibility to report it. He said there were numerous other near misses reported as part of the TTRO application and Network Rail had been observing the crossing and working to make it safer for several years.

20.      The Chair commented that she was aware of the video footage, but judgments should be based on the evidence presented in the report and to the Panel.

21.      The Chair put the recommendation set out in the report to the vote and it was agreed by majority.

RESOLVED 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, will be made.