Meeting documents

To consider a report by the Senior Definitive Map Officer.

The Committee considered a report by the Senior Definitive Map Officer regarding  objections to the Rail Crossing Extinguishment Order 2018 for Footpath 14, Wool at East Burton. Consideration was given to this application at Committee on 7 December 2017 and subsequently an Order made and published to that effect.

The Committee was now being asked to consider how to proceed in respect of the made Order to extinguish Footpath 14 Wool, at East Burton - known as "Darkies" - having been assessed by Network Rail as being a significant risk at the point at which it crossed the Weymouth to Waterloo railway track over the level crossing. This assessment was part of a national undertaking by Network Rail of the safety of level crossings in looking at whether they remained necessary, relevant and purposeful or whether an alternative means of crossing the track could be found which would significantly reduce that risk. How the assessment had been made was explained, with cameras surveys determining the level of use. The risk assessment carried out in October 2015 rated "Darkies" as C6, indicating a high individual risk.

A visual presentation showed the basis on which the Order had been made – this being on safety grounds to minimise the risk of crossing the rail track and so as to avoid any direct conflict with oncoming trains – and what the practicalities of doing this entailed. The Update Sheet, provided to members prior to the meeting, set out comments from the County Council member for South Purbeck and the status of land registered between points A and B on Footpath 14, together with responses by officers. Photographs and plans showed the characteristics of the footpath proposed to be extinguished, its relationship with the rail track, particularly at the point at which the two met, its setting within the landscape and the points between which it ran. Usage of the route was drawn to the attention of the Committee in terms of numbers and frequency and how this had been assessed. This showed a low use of the crossing which could not justify any alternative means of crossing at that point.

What alternative routes there were available to gain access from one side of the railway line to the other – from A-D, via East Burton Road/Bailey’s Drove/Footpath 13/Frome Avenue - and how these could be achieved was explained. It was impractical to make the crossing safe as it was, with all other alternative options for doing this having been considered and seen to be impractical or unviable.

In agreeing that an Order should be made, the Committee had made a judgement that given the current, unsatisfactory visual inadequacies - including sun glare, the configuration of the track and short response times - the frequency and speed of trains and that the means of indicating trains were approaching was limited during the night time - the continued use of the level crossing, as it was, posed a significant risk and it was necessary to address this.

What responses had been received in respect of the Order being made were explained. Objectors were concerned that they were being inconvenienced by not being able to still use the "Darkies" crossing and that the alternative routes being proposed were excessive in length, that use of the unpaved East Burton Road brought its own risks and that the usage surveys were inadequate. The officer’s report provided responses to all the issues raised by objectors. There was no reason to believe that the surveys undertaken by Network Rail were not a true reflection of activities taking place. Concerns over maintenance issues relating to drainage along the section of Footpath between points A and B also now had been resolve, as it had since been established that the Weld Estate was responsible in that regard. All alternative means of crossing the line suggested by the objectors had been assessed but considered to be impractical and unviable.

On that basis, the Order had been made on safety grounds as the crossing had been identified as high risk and it was considered that the proposed alternative means for crossing the track were both reasonable and acceptable and the Order had been made on that basis. Officer’s recommendation was now that the Order should be sent to the Secretary of state for confirmation with the County Council taking a supportive stance in those proceedings.

The views of the County Council member for South Purbeck were reported to Committee. Whilst she understood the reasons for the proposals as they stood, she raised a concern that these should not have any adverse effect on access to the nearby Dorset Innovation Park by enacting them. Officers were confident this would not be the case.

Public speakers then addressed he Committee with Sheila Holmes claiming that Footpath 14 was well used and was an important party of the rights of way network in the area and that the alternative route proposed would be inconvenient . She considered that there was more of a risk by using East Burton Road than at the level crossing, where no accidents had been reported.

Similarly Madeline Hemsley made the point that Footpath 14 was a well used route with no reported accidents and expressed concern at the perceived dangers of using the largely unpaved road as the alternative means of accessing a crossing point. Should the Secretary of State be asked to confirm the Order, she asked that a neutral stance be taken by the County Council.

Damian Haynus, Network Rail, explained that what was being proposed was based on safety grounds and designed to make accessibility significantly safer and crossing the line more convenient. The speed and frequency of the trains together with what was seen to be insufficient opportunity to have clear sight of oncoming trains meant that crossing the track was a considerable risk, especially as it was in an isolated location. Whistle boards could be used but this would cause unnecessary nuisance to local residents. The section of line at the point it crossed the level crossing had a maximum speed of 85 mph in both directions. The sighting of approaching trains there was insufficient from the crossing point due to track curvature, proving only some 5 seconds to respond. Given all this, he felt that the proposals were justified.

The opportunity was given to the Committee to ask questions about what they had heard and took this opportunity. How the stance taken by the County Council in this matter could be applied was debated and the circumstances around either taking a neutral or supportive stance were explained and understood.

Whilst some members considered that in the absence of any reported accidents what was being proposed could be seen as being unnecessary in the circumstances, on being put to the vote, the Committee considered that the provisions of the Order made were acceptable on safety grounds and that the proposed means of gaining access from one side of the rail track to the other was seemingly reasonable in the circumstances. The Committee considered that the Secretary of State should be asked to determine the Order and that the County Council should be taking a neutral stance, rather than a supportive one, in those proceedings. That was due to there being a balance between the safety of the crossing and the safety of the alternative route which members felt was difficult to determine and the relatively finely balanced decision when the Committee previously considered the matter.

Resolved

1. That the Order be submitted to the Secretary of State for determination; and

2. That the County Council takes a neutral stance in the proceedings.

Reasons for Decision

1. As there had been an objection to the Order the County Council could not confirm it itself but may submit it to the Secretary of State for an Inspector to be appointed to consider confirmation; and

2. The County Council had accepted the application and agreed with the proposed extinguishment.

Decisions on applications for public path orders ensured that changes to the network of public rights of way complied with the legal requirements and supported the Corporate Plan 2017-19 Outcomes Framework:

People in Dorset are Healthy:

- To help and encourage people to adopt healthy lifestyles and lead active lives.

- We will work hard to ensure our natural assets are well managed, accessible and promoted.

Dorset’s economy is Prosperous:

- To support productivity we want to plan communities well, reducing the need to travel while ‘keeping Dorset moving’, enabling people and goods to move about the county safely and efficiently.