Agenda item

An application has been received from Network Rail to divert Public Footpath No. 381, Lingfield onto the existing Lingfield station footbridge on safety grounds under section 119a of the Highways Act 1980. A number of objections have been received. This report seeks a decision on whether to make a legal orderto divert the footpath.

The officer’s view is that the application should be refused.

(Report and 3 annexes attached).

The Local Committee (Tandridge) resolved to agree that:

(i) The application from Network Rail dated 3 November 2016 to divert Public Footpath No. 381, Lingfield onto the existing station footbridge, shown A – C – E – F – G – B on Drg. No. 3/1/29/H60a is refused.

(ii) Network Rail is asked to explore other options for a diversion onto an alternative route accessible for those with mobility difficulties and pushchairs, including a new footbridge with lifts or improving the level crossing.

(iii) The Chairman writes to Network Rail expressing the committee’s dissatisfaction with their failure to secure a satisfactory solution for residents.

Reasons for decision:

The application seeks to divert the at-level crossing onto an existing stepped footbridge. The footbridge is not accessible for those with mobility difficulties and

those with young children in pushchairs and also involves a 360 metre detour if

travelling in a west to east direction or vice versa.

Officer attending: Debbie Prismall, Senior Countryside Access Officer, Legal Definition

Public speakers:

Parish Councillor Mrs Liz Lockwood had registered to speak on behalf of Lingfield Parish Council in objection to the application. Mrs Lockwood made the following points:

·         The current footpath provides direct, level, and road-free access for walkers.

·         Anyone with a buggy, mobility difficulty, or heavy luggage is disadvantaged through this proposal. A lift is needed to enable these residents to access both sides of the platform and the continuing footpath.

·         Lingfield has a high proportion of local residents who have mobility difficulties.

·         This proposal is a backwards step.

Mr Tony Pearson, Local Footpath Secretary, had registered to speak in objection to the application, on behalf of the Ramblers. Mr Pearson made the following points:

·         The footpath was closed on a temporary basis, and residents were led to expect the development of a bridge with lift access. This is what residents want to see.

·         The existing route provides a useful link for walkers. The proposed diversion is a large detour.

·         The committee should reject this application and ask Network Rail to come up with a better solution.

Member discussion – key points:

·         Members confirmed with officers that refusing the diversion application would not cause the existing footpath to be reopened.

·         Members commented that this temporary closure has now been going on for a long time. It was felt that there must be a way of making the level crossing safer, perhaps using lights or other warning system. Members noted that Network Rail were working towards a national programme of level crossing closures.

·         Members expressed concern about the lack of disabled access being proposed, and concluded that the officer recommendation to refuse the application was correct, as this was an inadequate solution for Lingfield residents.

Members voted on both of the officer recommendations:

Votes in favour of recommendation (i): 9

Votes against recommendation (i): 0

Abstentions: 0.

Votes in favour of recommendation (ii): 9

Votes against recommendation (ii): 0

Abstentions: 0.

The Chairman proposed an additional recommendation to write to Network Rail to express the committee’s dissatisfaction with their failure to propose an acceptable solution. Mrs Marks seconded this proposal.

Resolution:

The Local Committee (Tandridge) resolved to agree that:

(i) The application from Network Rail dated 3 November 2016 to divert Public Footpath No. 381, Lingfield onto the existing station footbridge, shown A – C – E – F – G – B on Drg. No. 3/1/29/H60a is refused.

(ii) Network Rail is asked to explore other options for a diversion onto an alternative route accessible for those with mobility difficulties and pushchairs, including a new footbridge with lifts or improving the level crossing.

(iii) The Chairman writes to Network Rail expressing the committee’s dissatisfaction with their failure to secure a satisfactory solution for residents.

Reasons for decision:

The application seeks to divert the at-level crossing onto an existing stepped footbridge. The footbridge is not accessible for those with mobility difficulties and those with young children in pushchairs and also involves a 360 metre detour if travelling in a west to east direction or vice versa.