Post by Adrian on Mar 18, 2022 6:56:42 GMT
... will not be shut down (pending possible appeal of the decision within next 6 weeks).
This cause has has been fought over many years by many people, as well as community groups and Wivenhoe Town Council, and while we must remain aware of the danger presented by rail crossings, the decision is very welcome news.
Here are the relevant sections from the decision letter:
206.The Secretary of State notes that E41 Paget carries a pedestrian link across the railway between two disconnected parts of Paget Road(IR 5.31.1). The Order would confer powers to close the crossing and extinguish any existing PROW over it(IR 5.31.6). The Order would also confer powers to construct a footpath including a footbridge, widen a section of footway on the High Street overbridge, and create PROWsover two privateroads. Users would be diverted over two routes: an eastern routevia the local road network and the Anglesea Road overbridge, and a western routevia the local road network and the aforementioned footpath, private roads, and High Street overbridge(IR 5.31.7-10).
207.The Secretary of State notes the large number of objections relating to the proposal to close this crossing (IR 5.31.34-179). The Secretary of State further notes that the objection fromMr Button (OBJ-106) is discussed in the IR, though he withdrew his objection on 12 October 2017. The Secretary of State has therefore not considered this objectionfurther.
208.The Secretary of State notes the Inspector’s conclusion, following objectors’ concerns, that the proposed works may cause some disruption, but that the detail of these works and any mitigation needed(bar alteration of the footway width on the High Street bridge, discussed below)could be included at the detailed designstage(IR 5.31.180-182), and that E41’s closure would not prevent RMGaccess (IR 5.31.183).
209.The Secretary of State notes the Inspector’s consideration of NR’s argument that closing E41would have direct operational benefits due to the resulting removal of the temporaryspeed restriction (IR 5.31.184), but notes the objectors’ contentions that NR’s basis for calculating sighting distancesare incorrect (IR 5.31.185). The Inspector concludes that there is some merit totheobjectors’arguments,that recognition of an increased sighting distance on the up line may not require whistle board mitigation,and this would have consequent effects on line speed on the down line (IR 5.31.191). The Inspector states,however, thatNR’s procedures are not a matter for the inquiry and he is unable to affect any change to those procedures (IR 5.31.188-192).The Secretary of State agrees.
210.The Secretary of State notes the Inspector’s conclusion that there would be little impacton the landscape from fencing and vegetation removal (IR 5.31.195).
211.The Secretary of State notes the Inspector’s conclusion that the proposed alternative routeswould be unsuitable and inconvenient for users of E41 (IR 5.31.214).The Inspector consideredthat the easternalternative has a severe gradient (IR 5.31.211), and that NR’s proposed mitigation for this would be welcome but inadequate to deal with these issues (IR 5.31.203).The Secretary of State also notes the Inspector’s view that, given the utilitarian nature of journeys over E41(IR 5.31.181, 5.31.199), the increase in journey distances would be highly inconvenient (IR 5.31.210)and may disproportionately affect disabled users (IR 5.31.202).
212.The Secretary of State notes the Inspector’s view that thelack of footways and uneven surface on the eastern alternative would not improve access for some groups, and may result in injuries and collisions with vehicles (IR 5.31.204). The Secretary of State further notes the Inspector’s concerns over accidents with vehicles caused by the lack of footways on Alma Street, Hamilton Roadand Phillip Roadon the western alternative (IR 5.31.205, 5.31.206), and that this would reduce the safety benefits which older users may derive from E41’s closure as pedestrians would need to walk in the carriageway (IR 5.31.202). The Secretary of State also notes the Inspector’s view that the proposed works on the High Street overbridge, i.e. widening footways and narrowing the carriageway, will not address existing shortcomings (IR 5.31.211), in particular thenarrowfootway on the south-east side of the bridge whose widthis limited by the need for buses to turn (IR 5.31.207), thereby forcing users to step into the carriageway (IR 5.31.208). The Secretary ofState notes the Inspector’s concern that the need to avoid these issueswould thus force users to cross the High Street twice (IR 5.31.209).
213.The Secretary of State notes the Inspector’s conclusion that, given the steep gradients, uneven surfaces,andpotential for contactwith buses (IR 5.31.212), access would be reduced for the elderly and users with mobility impairmentswho can currently use E41, and that including E41in the Order would raise the likelihood of the PSED not beingmet (5.31.213).
214.The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions that there are potential operational benefits of E41’s closure (IR 5.31.214) but agrees that,taking account of theabove matters, this proposal should notbe included in the Orderas the proposed alternative would not be suitable or convenient(IR 5.31.216).The Secretary of State also notes the Inspector’s consideration of the matters relating to consultation (IR 5.31.215) and this is an areathat NR should consider further with regard to any future applications.