Great Western Coffee Shop

All aboard for rail plan rumpus

(http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/resources/images/2709891.jpg?type=articleLandscape)
Ian Salisbury at the level crossing OX61564 Ric Mellis

An allotment holder applied for permission to build his own railway line to make a point. But it didn^t turn out the way he had expected and to his surprise Ian Salisbury, of Lathbury Road, Oxford, had his plan approved by the city council.

Mr Salisbury has been fighting Network Rail plans to build a new freight line from Oxford Station to Wolvercote and the closure of a crossing.

Because of that and other work, like electrification and redevelopment of Oxford station, rail traffic going through the Aristotle Lane crossing in North Oxford will double from 11 trains per hour to 22 by 2019.

Trains will also travel at up to 90mph ^ 20mph faster than now ^ and railway officials say the level crossing will be too risky for use. Mr Salisbury was hoping his application would be rejected to prove that Network Rail will not be able to get permission for its line.

He said: ^I am thinking about what to do next. I have a further option but I am keeping it up my sleeve. I am not an expert but what the law says is that when new track is laid they have to make a planning application and if there is an objection the Secretary of State will appoint an inspector to allow people to make representations. That is what we have not been allowed to do.^

Mr Salisbury said the level crossing was ^low risk^ with no accidents in its 175-year history.

Network Rail claims it has permitted development rights, which means it does not have to apply for planning permission.

Network Rail has said it will rebuild the Aristotle Lane footbridge which is around 100 yards from the level crossing.

In February, the city council agreed to give up its rights over the footpath, but it will only close once improvements have been made to the bridge.

Oxford City Council officer Hannah Revell said work Network Rail is carrying out is lawful and so Mr Salisbury^s plans were approved.

A Network Rail spokesman said: ^There are major enhancements planned and this investment will result in more capacity and trains at higher speeds ^ these factors represent an increase in risk of someone being struck by a train.^

Oxford Mail:


It isn't a claim, it definitely does have permitted development rights, almost always allowed for under the original Act for the relevant railway.  I'm surprised the Oxford Mail didn't know that...

PART 17 DEVELOPMENT BY STATUTORY UNDERTAKERS
Class A Railway or light railway undertakings

A.    Permitted development

Development by railway undertakers on their operational land, required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail.

A.1    Development not permitted

Development is not permitted by Class A if it consists of or includes^

  (a)the construction of a railway,
  (b)the construction or erection of a hotel, railway station or bridge, or
  (c)the construction or erection otherwise than wholly within a railway station of^[/li][/list]
     (i)an office, residential or educational building, or a building used for an industrial process, or
     (ii)a car park, shop, restaurant, garage, petrol filling station or other building or structure provided under transport legislation.

A.2    Interpretation of Class A

For the purposes of Class A, references to the construction or erection of any building or structure include references to the reconstruction or alteration of a building or structure where its design or external appearance would be materially affected.

PART 11
DEVELOPMENT UNDER LOCAL OR PRIVATE ACTS OR ORDERS
 
Class A
 
Permitted development
A. Development authorised by^
(a) a local or private Act of Parliament,
(b) an order approved by both Houses of Parliament, or
(c) an order under section 14 or 16 of the Harbours Act 196431(orders for
securing harbour efficiency etc., and orders conferring powers for improvement, construction etc. of harbours) which designates specifically the nature of the development authorised and the land upon which it may be carried out.
 
Condition
A.1. Development is not permitted by Class A if it consists of or includes^
(a) the erection, construction, alteration or extension of any building, bridge, aqueduct, pier or dam, or
(b) the formation, laying out or alteration of a means of access to any highway used by vehicular traffic,
unless the prior approval of the appropriate authority to the detailed plans and specifications is first obtained.
 
Prior approvals
A.2. The prior approval referred to in paragraph A.1 is not to be refused by the appropriate authority nor are conditions to be imposed unless they are satisfied that^
(a) the development (other than the provision of or works carried out to a dam) ought to be and could reasonably be carried out elsewhere on the land; or
(b) the design or external appearance of any building, bridge, aqueduct, pier or dam would injure the amenity of the neighbourhood and is reasonably capable of modification to avoid such injury.
 
Interpretation of Class A
A. 3. In Class A, ^appropriate authority^ means^
(a) in Greater London or a metropolitan county, the local planning authority,
(b) in a National Park in England, outside a metropolitan county, the county planning authority,

Sounds like an accident/fatality waiting to happen.

There already seems to be a bridge only about 50 metres away.  A new ramp from that providing access into the allotments should be all that is required.

THE leader of Oxford City Council has threatened to scupper one of Network Rail^s schemes if it does not provide ^disabled-friendly^ bridges in South Oxford.

Bob Price has said he would allow the company to close the Aristotle Lane level crossing in North Oxford, but only if it played ball with the Hinksey and Whitehouse Road footbridges.

As part of its ^1bn electrification scheme, Network Rail wants to close the level crossing, which leads to some allotments, as well as demolish the nearby bridge and replace it with a higher one.

It also wants to demolish the two bridges in South Oxford and make them taller.

The city council has objected to the fact that the bridges in South Oxford will not have ramps and so will be inaccessible for the disabled and those with buggies.

Mr Price said: ^The two footbridges are very important links and when they were first put there in the 1920s they didn^t accommodate for people who had disabilities or pushbuggies. We think it is perfectly reasonable to link the two issues. If, on the one hand, it would be sensible to close the crossing, it would also be sensible to accommodate the disabled at these two bridges.

^Since they have stuck to their guns, we are going to stick to ours.^

The city council refused prior approval to Network Rail to demolish the two bridges and both have since gone to appeal.

A government planning inspector supported Network Rail with the Hinksey footbridge while a decision is still pending on the Whitehouse Road bridge.

Meanwhile, Network Rail has submitted a planning application to demolish the Aristotle Lane footbridge and replace it, which would in turn allow it to close the nearby level crossing.

But the city council is the owner of the crossing rights to the private footpath and Network Rail must ask it to surrender those rights so the crossing can be closed for safety reasons.

Allotment holder, Frenchay Road resident and former city councillor Jim Campbell said: ^Anything that is done to keep the level crossing open in my opinion is a huge benefit.

^If the level crossing is closed it will take me a lot longer to get to my plot.^

Hayfield Road resident Jonathan Clark, who also has a plot, said: ^If Bob Price is using the level crossing as a negotiating strategy then good for him but it is slightly ironic because he was supporting the closure.

^I don^t think it is dangerous. If you are quick to cross, it is fine.^

Network Rail has said that it wants to demolish and replace the footbridge to enable the construction of a new passenger line between Oxford and Wolvercote.

Bringing this line back into use means it can run freight and passenger services on separate lines to reduce disruption and making the railway more reliable.

A Network Rail spokesman said: ^We will continue to work with Oxford City Council on our plans to improve and modernise the railway across the region.^

A decision on Network Rail^s planning application will be made by a committee of city councillors at a date yet to be set.

Cannot these changes be done within permitted rights? It may not be the case here, but I'm often puzzled why NR goes through a planning process if it doesn't need to.

As an example, when the planning application for the new ramps at Nailsea & Backwell station was put in, NR's response was:

Notwithstanding this support to this planning application, it is Network Rail^s view that these works are permitted development under Part 17A of the (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.

So why bother making applications and running the risk of complications?  It could prove to be a very expensive gesture at being a good neighbour.

It's the closure over the level crossing that's the problem here - the City Council have rights across it....it has to be negotiated

Agreed.

However, the City is always 'hard up' with no budget for these things, hence trying to get NR to pay as it is they that want a closure. The ORR can't act yet as there is no *acceptable* alternative to the rights holder