Agenda item

Members will recall approving the publishing of an Intention to make a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), under section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, to prohibit horse use on Public Bridleway No. 19, Camberley and Frimley. No objections were received within the statutory advertising period. Members are asked to consider whether the legal and policy criteria for making the Order still apply.

It is recommended that a TRO be made for avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road, or for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising.

Officers do not have delegated powers to make TROs. Officers support the decision to make the TRO to enable Network Rail to make safety improvements at the level crossing that they would be unable to do with horse use. The continuation of the route in Hampshire already has a TRO on it.

Members discussed the usage of the bridleway and safety considerations.  It was noted that no public objections to the advertisement of the TRO had been received within the statutory period. A recorded vote was held with 6 in favour, 5 against and 1 abstention.

The Local Committee (Surrey Heath) agreed that the grounds for making a Traffic Regulation Order as outlined were met and an Order should be made for Public Bridleway No. 19 (Camberley & Frimley) to prohibit equestrian use under s1(a) of the Road Traffic Regulation Order 1984 for avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road, or for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising, as shown on Drawing Number 3/1/84/H8 (Annexe 1).       

Officers do not have delegated powers to make TROs. Officers supported the decision to make the TRO to enable Network Rail to make safety improvements at the level crossing that they would be unable to do with horse use. The continuation of the route in Hampshire already had a TRO on it.

The Committee were asked to consider whether a Traffic Regulation Order should be imposed on bridleway 19 for the purpose of “avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road or any other road or for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising”.  Members were asked to consider the Council’s duty under Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, “to conduct an adequate balancing exercise to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic”.  In essence they needed to decide whether prohibiting equestrian access would improve safety for other users.

Gail Brownrigg attended and raised the following points:- A bridleway is a route which pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders have a right to use.  Surrey has a large number of bridleways, which enable riders to get off busy and dangerous roads, but this network is unfortunately fragmented and often lacking in connectivity.  This bridleway gives access to the long-distance Blackwater Valley Path which does not currently have equestrian rights along its full length, but which may have the potential for upgrading in the future.  The nearest alternative crossing from Surrey into Hampshire is at Tongham seven miles away.  Network rail would like to install miniature stop lights with a red light and a beeping signal giving 20 seconds warning when a train is approaching.  This is in use at Farnham North station and seems to be very effective.  For equestrian use, the guidance states that minimum warning period should be 40 seconds.  Network Rail are concerned that users would become accustomed to the fact that the crossing is closed for a longer time, and this might influence their decision to cross before the train arrives.  There are however, telephones on each side of the crossing, to enable riders to check with the signalman that it is safe to cross and to confirm to him their safe arrival on the other side.  This request is entered in a log book, where the last record dates to 2009, leading to the assumption that the crossing has not been used by riders since then.  This is, however, incorrect.  A resident living near the crossing says it was in regular use by riders until about three years ago, and a local rider confirms that she last used the crossing in November 2013.  This indicates that riders have not been using the telephone to contact the signalman, but were using their own judgement to cross.  Trains sound their horns before reaching the bend between 7 am and 11 pm, so there is warning of their approach before they are visible.  Incomplete evidence for past use cannot be taken a reliable guide to future need. 

Prohibiting equestrian use would not alter the status of the bridleway – it would therefore still be legal for cyclists to use it.  It would, however, enable Network Rail to remove the telephones which they say are being misused, causing considerable train delays.  I fully understand Network Rail’s reasons for wanting a Traffic Regulation order imposed on this part of the bridleway.  I support the proposed installation of stop lights and audible signal set at the 20 second timing appropriate for pedestrians and cyclists who comprise the majority of users, but I do not agree that it is necessary to prevent the rare equestrian access that takes place.  There is adequate warning of an approaching train which sounds its horn, and the telephones are available for riders who might need more time. No equestrians are likely to wish to cross at night when the horns are not sounded, and any horse that is spooked by the sound of the signal should not be attempting to cross once the red light shows.

Network Rail responded to this, and it was noted that the actions proposed were to improve safety, which had been identified as at risk.  It was highlighted that a collision with a large animal could derail a passenger train and that the Hatches did not have sufficient sight lines.  Log books had not recorded any horse crossings since 2009, so it was deducted that horse owners were therefore not obeying the signage and following the safety procedures available.

Members discussed the usage of the bridleway and safety considerations.  It was noted that no public objections to the advertisement of the TRO had been received within the statutory period. A recorded vote was held with 6 in favour, 5 against and 1 abstention.

The Local Committee (Surrey Heath) agreed that the grounds for making a Traffic Regulation Order as outlined were met and an Order should be made for Public Bridleway No. 19 (Camberley & Frimley) to prohibit equestrian use under s1(a) of the Road Traffic Regulation Order 1984 for avoiding danger to persons or other traffic using the road, or for preventing the likelihood of any such danger arising, as shown on Drawing Number 3/1/84/H8 (Annexe 1).