OBJ/148/W–005 PROOF OF EVIDENCE E05 CROSSING 1

OBJ/148/W–005 E05 CROSSING, FULLERS END 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 E05 CROSSING, PARISH OF FULLERS END PROOF OF EVIDENCE of Alan Goffee of Turnberry Cottage, Bacon End, Dunmow, Essex CM6 1JW Introduction 1. My name is Alan Goffee. I am the Ramblers Footpath Secretary covering the

District of Uttlesford. I have held the post for 10 years. I have been a keen

walker for over 40 years. I have lived in Uttlesford for 12 years and I have

regularly walked the local footpath network. I have walked this crossing in the

past and have visited it 5 times recently.

2. Essex County Council, district councils, and unitary authorities regularly

consult the Ramblers about proposals to alter the path network. The

Ramblers has a procedure to decide how to respond to such consultations. So

that it can respond effectively the Ramblers Essex Area Footpath Committee

meets regularly. Proposals to alter the rights of way network are allocated to a

committee member or members on a basis of geography, availability,

experience and knowledge. Each proposal is subject to detailed review by the

Footpath Secretary to establish its convenience, safety and enjoyment to the

public. Typical factors considered are the length of diversions, terrain, surface,

traffic conditions, flooding and ease of access particularly for those with

mobility problems. Enjoyment includes views and tranquillity. Once the

review has been completed and the alteration (e.g, diversion) has been

OBJ/148/W–005 PROOF OF EVIDENCE E05 CROSSING 2

compared to the present right of way a conclusion (e. g, no objection) is sent to

the authority.

3. My evidence represents the views of the Area Footpath Committee and the

Area Council in respect of the proposal to close E05 Fullers End.

4. The Ramblers objects to the proposal to close E05 crossing because of a loss to

the local community of an easy, safe and secure way of crossing the railway. In

addition, it is an important link in connecting the network of footpaths that lie

each side of the railway. In the Ramblers’ view, the proposed alternative route

is inadequate and unsuitable.

The existing route

5. Crossing E05 is on Tye Green Road and links to Elsenham Footpath 70. It cuts

in half Fullers End. The route that this lies on was in existence before the

railway came, and was an ancient highway connecting Takeley and Elsenham

to the Great Cambridge Road. The crossing was a road crossing and hence its

approaches are tarmacked and useable in all weathers. The crossing is level

and only 10 metres across. The crossing is illuminated by a street lamp and

the proximity of houses makes it safe and secure to use at night and during

winter months.

OBJ/148/W–005 PROOF OF EVIDENCE E05 CROSSING 3

Fullers End crossing

6. Network Rail’s figures state that the crossing was used 400 times during a 9-

day period1. This is the third highest usage of the crossings under this order,

behind only Paget and Maria Street. Network Rail states that the majority of

the users were adult but fails to identify the age range. From my own

observations, there are elderly people who use this crossing.

1 Network Rail’s Statement of Case (inquiry document 26, p.52)

OBJ/148/W–005 PROOF OF EVIDENCE E05 CROSSING 4

7. This crossing is not one of those crossings in the middle of a field, used only by

the occasional rambler. It is continually used by local residents on an every-

day basis. It allows Fullers End to function as a real community. A crossing has

been on this site since the railways arrived and has been an essential part of

Fullers End since then.

8. The consultation undertaken by Network Rail took no account of any request

to maintain and upgrade the existing crossing function. Network Rail has

stated that the installation of locking gates, in addition to flashing lights, would

not to be possible because there would be no space for a safe run-off area

should a person be on the crossing when the gates were locked. This cannot be

justified. There is space each side of the gates to create such an area, and with

the short distance between the gates, time to reach this would be minimal.

This or similar upgrading arrangements could be done to maintain a true local

amenity. And in their letter of response2 Network Rail appear to acknowledge

the physical possibility of gates and flashing lights, but cite to expense as the

prohibiting factor. This crossing is a well-used, true local amenity. In our view,

such provision is worth the investment.

Uncertainty regarding the new development

9. It was only in the response letter that Network Rail acknowledged that the

original Sawmill Industrial site is to became a residential development.

Network Rail’s Statement of Case had a map of the site showing the Sawmill

and a number of lock-up buildings. This is the only document showing the

route of the proposed path. It is difficult to make any judgment when no

details of the position of the path with the new residential development have

been provided. It is not clear if the path would be part of the road to the

houses, or on a separate pavement; or if it will be fenced. It is not even clear

that it will be usable 24 hours a day, or fully compliant with disabled

requirements, or an actual public right of way.

2 To Nicky Philpott, 4 September 2017, OBJ/148 APPENDIX 4.

OBJ/148/W–005 PROOF OF EVIDENCE E05 CROSSING 5

The proposed alternative route

10. The route proposed by Network Rail fails to show any understanding of the

importance of the crossing to the residents’ needs. The existing route is safe,

secure and flat. The proposed alternative runs through an area with a newly

built mansion-type house, is routed in front of lock-up workshops, crosses a

field isolated from any housing and features a considerable change in levels,

namely a drop (or ascent) of over 5 metres, in order to reach the underpass. It

is also over 250 metres longer than the existing public right of way. This

cannot be said to compare in any way will the existing route3.

11. The area identified on Network Rail’s drawing as containing Elsenham

Sawmill is now being developed for residential occupation. The large mansion-

type house and its outbuildings require a different solution to that proposed.

The relationship of the path to the new property and its owners has not been

addressed by Network Rail. As a result, the Ramblers are unaware how

Network Rail expects the alternative route to work with the new development.

12. The proposed route of the path, as identified on the drawing in the Statement

of Case, through the old sawmill area, is shown as passing in front of a number

of lock-ups. These remain on site, and without other information, we assume

they will not be removed. The proposed path will be subjected to parking by

the lock-up users, and to possible damage from work that may be undertaken

by them. Network Rail have failed to provide details on how the alternative

route will coexist with these lock-ups.

Inadequacy and unsuitability of the proposed alternative

13. Network Rail's Statement of Case gives no indication as to how the difference

in height between the level of the crossing and the underpass is to be solved.

There is a 5 metre drop over a distance of 120 metres. At the far end of the old

sawmill area, this is to be sharp drop; but there is no mention of any proposed

3 See map included in Network Rail’s Statement of Case (inquiry document NR26)

OBJ/148/W–005 PROOF OF EVIDENCE E05 CROSSING 6

steps. There is no indication that the path will be disabled-friendly, or that the

slopes and gradients of the paths provided will be of the same standard as

those of bridges on other parts of the rail system. The fact that the paths could

be used by wheelchairs, prams, buggies or residents with walking difficulties

has not been taken into account.

14. Network Rail’s Statement of Case also states that the proposed path surface

with not be solid, but will be of Tarmac planings. These are waste road

surfaces and will provide a loose surface. This is not wheelchair-friendly or

pram-friendly. In light of the path’s slope, this material could become

dislodged if the path were to be used by cycles and affected by rain.

15. The claimed additional distance of 250 metres, for the proposed route, would

take a considerably longer time to walk compared with the existing route.

With the proposed surface, that would be longer still in wet weather. That

extra distance and time must be considered in the context of the use of this

path – namely within a community to access local amenities.

16. The Network Rail proposal makes no provision for the needs of local people. It

makes no attempt to mitigate the loss of the crossing which is an important

part of community life. This is not a simple amenity, it is a long-standing right

which should be respected.

17. Furthermore, the Ramblers believes that the deleterious effect on the path

network that would be caused by Network Rail’s plans for this crossing is not

justified by Network Rail’s desire for increased train journey speeds. Network

Rail have the opportunity to install bridges or make crossings safer without so

adverse an effect on pedestrians. When given the opportunity to do just that,

as here in Fullers End, Network Rail has failed to show the appropriate

willingness to respect local people’s needs.

18. For the reasons detailed above, the Ramblers does not consider that the

proposed alternative route for this crossing is suitable or adequate. As a

result, the Inspector cannot be satisfied that a proper alternative right of way

OBJ/148/W–005 PROOF OF EVIDENCE E05 CROSSING 7

has been provided by this scheme, as required by section 5(6) of the Transport

and Works Act 1992.

19. We, therefore, ask the Inspector to recommend the retention of this crossing.

I believe the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

ALAN GOFFEE

18 SEPTEMBER 2017

The old sawmill site at Fullers End

OBJ/148/W–005 PROOF OF EVIDENCE E05 CROSSING 8

The old sawmill site at Fullers End

The old sawmill site at Fullers End—showing part of the drop from the industrial park to the underpass

OBJ/148/W–005 PROOF OF EVIDENCE E05 CROSSING 9

Fullers End crossing

Fullers End proposals—the underpass, showing its isolation and lack of lighting

OBJ/148/W–005 PROOF OF EVIDENCE E05 CROSSING 10

Fullers End proposals—the underpass, showing its isolation and lack of lighting

Fullers End—the climb which people will need to make from the underpass

OBJ/148/W–005 PROOF OF EVIDENCE E05 CROSSING 11

Fullers End, showing the climb from the underpass to the crossing

Fullers End, showing the climb from the underpass to the crossing

OBJ/148/W–005 PROOF OF EVIDENCE E05 CROSSING 12

Fullers End, showing climb from the underpass to the crossing

Existing stile, seemingly to be used on the alternative route by people with mobility

problems

OBJ/148/W–005 PROOF OF EVIDENCE E05 CROSSING 13

Fullers End—the field to be used

Fullers End—the field to be used