All aboard for rail plan rumpus


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.^

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,