Campaign to save Aristotle Lane level crossing from closure by Network Rail

[whole diary]

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the Oxford Mail:

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.^

[martvw]

Is this not the relaying/extension of the former down goods loop line that existed up until 1973 , so is not a new freight line, but the reinstatement of the old loop line " as network rail says it is putting track back" so does not need planning permission ?

[Busboy W1]

I wouldn't mind seeing the plans for the proposed Railway by the man in question. As long as he doesn't want to knock through my flat it could make for another tourist attraction for Oxford !

[ChrisB]

That old freight line is being extended almost to Wolvercot junction - although it is staying with the railway boundary. It's almost complete too.

[paul7575]

Oxford Mail:

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

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...

Paul

[ellendune]

Oxford Mail:

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

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...

Not the original Act as that normally pre-dates the planning system. You will find it in:

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, Schedule 2

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.

[stuving]

Part 17 covers anything a "statutory undertaker" does, irrespective of any other acts.
Part 11 covers development under local or private acts or orders, such as a railway act.

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,

For Reading, NR^» (Network Rail - home page) claimed permitted status under part 17 for the viaduct and associated works, applying for permission for anything that is a bridge or building. For the station, they claimed permitted status under part 11 and only applied for permission within the "limited grounds set out in A 2 of part 11".

At Oxford, I think that building or rebuilding a track within an existing railway does not count as "constructing a railway" so is permitted.

[stebbo]

So far as I am aware, this is merely relaying the old goods line - and I thought it was still in existence in the 1990s.

[stebbo]

Indeed, see the earlier thread on the cutting down of trees north of Oxford which quotes an Oxford Mail article referring to the "reinstatement" of the goods line.

By the way, isn't the removal of level crossings supposed to be a "good thing" in safety terms? I recall the thread that ran a while back on the Yarnton level crossing accident in 2012. As I recall it, these local people use the crossing to get to their allotments complete with bags of fertiliser etc in wheelbarrows. Sounds like an accident/fatality waiting to happen.

[IndustryInsider]

Sounds like an accident/fatality waiting to happen.

It is, and will be more so when the linespeed of the current 'down Jericho' is increased dramatically, bi-directionally signalled and the 'down passenger loop' is extended with high speed as well.  Local residents who have to put up with train horns blaring most of the day at the crossing warning boards will also benefit greatly when it's closed.  Particularly frustrating for Network Rail, given there's a perfectly good footbridge route a few yards away (which would be even better with small improvements) which is a slightly longer way round but avoids crossing the tracks entirely.

I wonder how Ian Salisbury (an Evergreen 3 objector too) would find the company at lunch of bereaved parents who've had their loved ones killed at similar crossings over the years?  And I wonder how he'd feel if the crossing stayed open and there was a fatal accident sometime in the future? 

Tackley, just down the line, had the option of removing the crossing by the station many years ago when Virgin's 'Operation Princess' improvements were being installed, but objected to an underpass as it meant those people on horseback would have to dismount.  A few years later an elderly woman was killed.  I wonder if anyone who was involved in preventing that from happening has any regrets?

[bobm]

The RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) report in that fatality at Tackley is here - http://www.raib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/090330_R092009_Tackley.pdf

The safety assessment of the crossing is contained in that report.

[Chris from Nailsea]

We have also discussed the Tackley level crossing previously, in some detail, in another topic at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=2432

[eightf48544]

 Is this a vehicle crossing it doesn't look wide enough. But won't Network Rail have to provide a footbridge presumably ramped?

[Chris from Nailsea]

Aristotle Lane crossing is a foot crossing - see http://www.panoramio.com/photo/37565682:

[ellendune]

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.