THE PROPOSED NETWORK RAIL (ESSEX AND OTHERS LEVEL CROSSING REDUCTION) ORDER DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT REFERENCE: TWA/17/APP/05

Transcription

1 OBJ/148/W 003 H05 PATTENS CROSSING THE PROPOSED NETWORK RAIL (ESSEX AND OTHERS LEVEL CROSSING REDUCTION) ORDER PUBLIC INQUIRY, 18 OCTOBER 2017 DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT REFERENCE: TWA/17/APP/05 OBJECTION BY THE RAMBLERS TO CLOSURE OF H05 PATTENS CROSSING, PARISH OF THORLEY PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF DAVID GLASS OF 4 DOLPHIN WAY, BISHOP S STORTFORD, HERTS, CM23 2AH Introduction 1. My name is David Glass and I am the Ramblers Footpath Secretary covering the parishes of Bishop s Stortford and Thorley. I have held this post for 6 years. I have been a keen walker for most of my life, and a member of the Ramblers for 9 years. I have lived in Bishop s Stortford for 40 years and have regularly walked the local footpath network. 2. Hertfordshire County Council and district councils regularly consult the Ramblers about proposals to alter the rights of way network. Hertfordshire and North Middlesex Area of the Ramblers have a Footpath Secretaries Committee, which I attend regularly and have discussed the Network Rail Level Crossing closure proposals on many occasions, and as the local Footpath Secretary I am responding on their behalf. 3. I would like to add that this is the only proposed diversion in Hertfordshire under the order that the Ramblers is objecting to. Additionally East Herts Ramblers have been consulted on 5 other diversion orders in our area since 1 August 2016, and we have not objected to any of them. We only object if we feel there is a significant detrimental impact on the rights of way network. In our view, there will be a OBJ/148/W 003 H05 PATTENS CROSSING 1

2 significant detrimental impact on the rights of way network if this crossing closure is authorised. 4. The Ramblers objects to the proposal to close H05 Pattens crossing because of the adverse effect the closure will have on the local footpath network. In the Ramblers view, the proposed alternative route is inadequate and unsuitable. The Existing Route 5. Footpath 022 (proposed to be diverted) across H05 Pattens level crossing is the main access to the Thorley Wash Nature Reserve from the south and west of Bishop s Stortford. It is a direct, short, convenient and open route linking Bridleway 010 to the Essex path network on the opposite side of the level crossing to the east. 6. From the west there is a clear line of sight from the A1184 (point A in Annex A) and the elevated level crossing. To the west there is clear line of sight from the elevated level crossing to point B in Annex A. 7. The East Herts District Plan identifies a further 4000 homes will be built in Bishop s Stortford, with 750 of those on the opposite side of the road to the Nature Reserve, so the crossing is likely to become all the more important and used by the residents of these new developments to take advantage of this direct route. 8. The Bishop s Stortford Neighbourhood Plan for All Saints, Central, South & part of Thorley states The character of existing public rights of way (PROWs) must be protected in terms of safety, directness, attractiveness and convenience. Although the TWAO does not come under development, it is clear that the desire of the local plan, and users of the PROWs, is protection and enjoyment of the current route. The Proposed Scheme 9. The whole area is in a designated flood plain. See the Environment Agency Flood Map for the area with annotated current footpath and proposed diversion, Annex OBJ/148/W 003 H05 PATTENS CROSSING 2

3 A. The current direct route over the crossing is about 100 metres long, with its height increasing at the level crossing. The proposed diversion is in the region of 1 kilometre long over an indirect and meandering path subject to several changes of direction. The current direct route takes 1.5 minutes to walk, whilst the proposed 1 km diversion takes 15 minutes. An unacceptable length of diversion. 10. New research by the Met Office highlights an increased risk of unprecedented rainfall. A News Release by The Met Office on 24 July 2017 entitled High Risk of Unprecedented Rainfall states Analysing these simulated events showed there is a 7% risk of record monthly rainfall in south east England in any given winter. 1 See Appendix A for the full news release. This would indicate that the likelihood of a path being impaired due to severe weather is higher than previously considered. 11. The chances of a path being rejected as unusable by a walker in severe, boggy or wet weather is far higher over a path ten times as long. 12. The proposed diversion will cross the railway line via a reduced height underpass, measured by myself at 1.9 M (6ft 3 inches). (See photo in Annex B). The NR proposal is to fit a mesh to the underside of the bridge via angle brackets to prevent access to the sleepers and debris from falling on walkers. In their proposals they provide no dimensions, however this will clearly reduce the height of the underpass. Additionally they propose to increase the ground level with a 2.5 % fall towards an existing drainage ditch. (Left to right in the photo). Again NR do not provide any dimensions but this must also reduce the height of the underpass. 13. Both these proposals will reduce the height of an already reduced height underpass. What will be the height of the underpass with the proposals implemented? Currently anyone under 6ft 3 inches will need to duck. After the proposals are implemented will this be reduced to 6 ft; or 5ft 11 inches or maybe lower? It is unacceptable to provide a diversion when so many people will be required to duck to get through. The risk of someone hurting themselves (head or 1 See OBJ/148 APPENDIX 5 for full news release. OBJ/148/W 003 H05 PATTENS CROSSING 3

4 back) whilst manoeuvring under the reduced height underpass must be considered. 14. NR state that According to the Environment Agency s (EA) Flood Map the existing underpass is at risk of flooding during a 1 in 1000 year flood event.. According to EA definitions this would put the underpass in Flood Zone A. (See Annex E). As can be seen from the Environment Agency Flood Maps in Annex A, to the west there is a finger of Flood Zone 2 and to the east a finger of Flood Zone 3 in and around the reduced height underpass. It is not clear which applies but from the Environment Agency definitions in Annex E, in the best case there is a 1 in 100 to 1 in 1000 risk of flooding, or worst case there is a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of flooding within the underpass. 15. In August 2017 (at the time of writing this submission) the side of the underpass at its present level had water flowing in a side channel. (See Photo in Annex C). It is difficult to see how the reduced height underpass can be prevented from flooding and preventing use of the diverted route by walkers. 16. The proposed underpass is unacceptable as it is height restricted, (possibly less than 6 feet although this is not clear as NR have not provided any details), in permanent shade, in a damp environment and more likely to flood than the current path. The height restricted underpass could be intimidating to some users, particularly due to an abrupt unsighted left turn after passing through it from the west. 17. Once through the underpass the proposed path is about 700 metres in length in the Flood Plain. At the time of writing (August 2017), there are open drains and other watercourses flowing with water. This was the same in April, and because there was less overhanging vegetation then a photo taken in April is included as this shows the reduced height underpass more clearly. (See Annex D). In a normal winter, or after any heavy rain, this could all easily become flooded, waterlogged or miry. OBJ/148/W 003 H05 PATTENS CROSSING 4

5 18. It does not have to fully flood to make the route unusable or unattractive to users. If, with heavy rain, the path becomes significantly boggy or waterlogged users will be deterred, particularly as they will be required to walk 1 km on a meandering path, with several changes of direction, in uncertain conditions, with no sight lines of what is in front. In contrast, the existing path from the west is about 80 metres to the elevated railway crossing, which is in full view. To the east there is less than 20 metres to where the proposed diversion re-joins the current path. 19. If (as would appear to be highly likely) flooding or high rain fall resulting in a water logged or boggy surface prevents use of the proposed diversion, users will have to go an extra 2.3 kilometres to gain access to the Essex footpaths on the other side of the crossing. (Via a footbridge to the north of Pattens on Footpath 05.) This will include more than 900 metres along a major road. At normal walking speed this will take almost 35 minutes. See Annex F. The loss of amenity, exposure to noise and fumes of vehicles, and the extra distance on a major road makes that unacceptable. Conclusion 20. The Ramblers believes that the deleterious effect on the path network is not justified by the increase train journey speeds Network Rail hope to achieve by the crossing closure. It would be open to Network Rail to make the crossing safer in some other way (audible / visual warnings or a stepped bridge) which would not have such adverse effects on pedestrians in the parish of Bishop s Stortford and Thorley. 21. For the reasons detailed above, the Ramblers does not consider that the proposed alternative route for this crossing is suitable or adequate. The Inspector cannot, therefore, be satisfied that a proper alternative right of way has been provided by this scheme, as is required by section 5(6) of the Transport and Works Act Consequently, we ask the Inspector to recommend the retention of this crossing and of the local rights of way network. I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. DAVID GLASS 18 SEPTEMBER 2017 OBJ/148/W 003 H05 PATTENS CROSSING 5

6 Annex A. Environment Agency Flood Map with Annotated Paths OBJ/148/W 003 H05 PATTENS CROSSING 6

7 Annex B. Reduced height underpass Annex C. Flowing water in reduced height underpass OBJ/148/W 003 H05 PATTENS CROSSING 7

8 Annex D. Water course adjacent to proposed diverted path with view towards reduced height underpass. OBJ/148/W 003 H05 PATTENS CROSSING 8

9 Annex E. Environment Agency Flood Zone definitions Flood Zone 1 Low Probability Land having a less than 1 in 1,000 annual probability of river flooding. (Shown as clear on the Flood Map all land outside Zones 2 and 3) Flood Zone 2 Medium Probability Land having between a 1 in 100 and 1 in 1,000 annual probability of river flooding. (Land shown in light blue on the Flood Map). Flood Zone 3a High Probability Land having a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding. (Land shown in dark blue on the Flood Map). Flood Zone 3b The Functional Floodplain. This zone comprises land where water has to flow or be stored in times of flood. Local planning authorities should identify in their Strategic Flood Risk Assessments areas of functional floodplain and its boundaries accordingly, in agreement with the Environment Agency. (Not separately distinguished from Zone 3a on the Flood Map) Annex F. Alternative route linking Hertfordshire to Essex PRoWs if proposed NR diversion unavailable OBJ/148/W 003 H05 PATTENS CROSSING 9