Heather Page

Response of Nottinghamshire County Council to Regulation 28: Report to Prevent Future Deaths relating to Heather Frances PAGE dated 23rd June 2021 Executive Summary: A. Of the 5 level crossings in this area, 4 are within the remit of Nottinghamshire County Council (“NCC”) as the Local Highway Authority. NCC is under an express statutory duty to assert and protect the exercise of the public’s historic highway rights to use and enjoy those crossings as they have historically found them. B. The operation, maintenance and improvement of a safe national rail network (including level crossings), is the responsibility of Network Rail, with oversight and funding specifically provided to them by the Office of Rail and Road for improving safety at such crossings. C. Closure of level crossings can be achieved under 4 separate Acts of Parliament, with only the Highways Act powers available to the Local Highway Authority. Such powers were successfully used by NCC, following an application by Network Rail, in relation to the nearby Barratt’s Lane No.2 crossing (Beeston Footpath No.66) in 2014. D. Rail crossing extinguishment orders are subject to public consultation and, if objected to, must be determined by the Secretary of State, usually following a public inquiry. Network Rail consulted the public regarding a proposal to close the Meadow Lane and Long Lane level crossings but received significant public objection in response. As a result, Network Rail did not apply for a rail crossing extinguishment order but instead made safety improvements to those crossings. E. Contrary to the indication given in the Assistant Coroner’s report, NCC has been (and remains) supportive of the aim of improving level crossing safety and has, as set out below, sought to support and assist Network Rail in achieving this. NCC wishes it noted that it has received no further applications from Network Rail for a rail crossing extinguishment order in relation to the 4 crossings in this area but would continue to consider any that it receives. Narrative:
1. NCC is grateful for sight of the Assistant Coroner’s report relating to Heather Frances PAGE and would be happy to attend any future inquests if it can provide information of assistance to the coroner. NCC is concerned that, in the report, it is stated that evidence was heard that “(4) Efforts by Network Rail to reduce / rationalise the number of crossings along that stretch have failed due, in part, to opposition from the relevant local authorities”. As the Assistant Coroner will be aware, NCC was not invited to be an interested party at the inquest and was provided with no opportunity to answer this assertion which is, for the reasons set out below, incorrect.
2. In response to the Assistant Coroner’s report, NCC hopes that the information below helps to put NCC’s position into context in terms of the action that it can take, has taken,

and will continue to take. It appears from the context of the report that it has been provided to NCC due to the deceased having obtained access to the railway line from a nearby level crossing, and that it therefore relates to NCC’s role as Local Highway Authority. It is not clear to NCC as to which level crossing the Assistant Coroner is referring, but the situation is similar for each of 5 at-grade crossings in this area; 4 of which being within the administrative area of NCC. The 5 at-grade crossings in the Attenborough area are:

• Meadow Lane (Beeston Bridleway No.72);
• Long Lane (Beeston Footpath No.130);
• Attenborough Lane crossing Barratt No.1 (Beeston Footpath No.65);
• Barton Lane road crossing (public carriageway); and
• in Derbyshire, Barton Road (Long Eaton Footpath E8 7/2).

3. Closure of level crossings can be achieved under 4 separate Acts of Parliament1, with only the Highways Act powers available to the Local Highway Authority. The prescribed process which Highway Authorities must follow in order to divert or extinguish certain minor public highways2 involve the making of an Order and formal public consultation. Should objections be received and maintained to the diversion or extinguishment, an Order cannot be brought into effect but must be referred to the Secretary of State for determination which often necessitates the holding of a local public inquiry, though it is possible, at the Secretary of State’s discretion, for such an Order to be determined following a hearing or, rarely, to be dealt with by an exchange of written representations.

4. Where there are concerns for rail safety, Network Rail can apply to the Highway Authority for a rail crossing extinguishment order or a rail crossing diversion order under Sections 118A and 119A, Highways Act 1980, respectively. NCC is aware that level crossing safety is a key focus of both Network Rail and the Office of Rail and Road (“ORR) and that, for the last funding period (2014-2019) the ORR provided £109 million to Network Rail specifically for improving safety at level crossings. Indeed, pursuant to this, level crossing Barratt No.2 (Beeston Footpath No.66) was successfully diverted by NCC in 2014 following an application by Network Rail. Apart from that application, however, no further applications have been submitted by Network Rail seeking to close or divert any of the above-named crossings.

5. NCC actively contributes to and attends bi-annual ‘Road and Rail Partnership’ meetings, organised by Network Rail and attended by Network Rail staff including Level Crossing managers and their Liability Negotiations Team, British Transport Police and Train Operating Companies such as East Midlands Railway. The meeting is to discuss issues relating to level crossings both on carriageways and public rights of way, and bridge strikes.

6. Additional to the above, NCC and Network Rail are in regular dialogue regarding level

1 Highways Act 1980; Town and Country Planning Act 1990; Transport & Works Act 1992; Planning Act 2008 2 Footpaths, Bridleways, and Restricted Byways, within the meaning of S.329, Highways Act 1980

crossings across the county, including those in the Attenborough area. While such discussions have looked at diversions and providing bridges it has proved difficult for NCC and Network Rail to take matters forward due, mainly, to objections from the public as highway users. For example, Network Rail proposed a bridge at the former Cemex site to replace the nearby level crossings for Long Lane (Beeston Footpath No.130) and Meadow Lane (Beeston Bridleway No.72). Discussions were held on site and meetings attended, and Network Rail arranged a mailshot to local residents in December 2017 regarding the proposals. This elicited a lot of concern from local residents and user groups about closing these crossings and a public meeting / drop in with stakeholders was subsequently held at Attenborough Village Hall in February 2018 to see if the proposals could be refined such that the public would be in agreement. This generated a high number of objections from the local community, however, and no application was received from Network Rail to close any crossings. Instead, due to the nature and number of objections from members of the public, Network Rail instead made improvements at the Meadow Lane bridleway crossing including changes to the decking and the installation of miniature stop lights (MSLs). In November 2018, Network Rail wrote to local residents again, citing the MSLs and a proposal to ‘downgrade’ Meadow Lane Crossing to those on foot and cycle only, preventing further equestrian use, and another public meeting was held in December 2018. No application was received by NCC, however, which NCC presumes to have been due to a significant level of objection from the public once again.

7. NCC’s Countryside Access Team has regular contact and a good working relationship with Network Rail’s Liabilities Team; this being the team within Network Rail with responsibility for the stopping up and diversion of public highway rights across railway lines and operational property. As part of this, NCC are currently discussing a number of at grade crossings in the County regarding their future management, as well as discussing opportunities for access on their non-operational land, which would increase public safety. Any proposals arising from this would, however, be subject to the formal legally prescribed consultation referred to above and thus may potentially be unable to be taken forward due to objections from highway users.

8. Notwithstanding the above, it has been possible to obtain public support to take forward a number of safety improvements in recent years, and several crossings in Nottinghamshire have been diverted by NCC and bridged by Network Rail to remove at grade crossings over operational lines. For example:

• at Kings Mill between Mansfield and Sutton-in-Ashfield, bridleway rights have been diverted from an at-grade crossing to a bridleway bridge across the Robin Hood Line;

• a footpath in Hucknall was diverted and bridged from an at grade crossing across the tram and Robin Hood Line;

• Newark FP11 was extinguished across the East Coast Mainline; and

• in Attenborough in 2014, Beeston FP66 was diverted by NCC on Barratt Lane No.1 from an at-grade crossing to the barrier crossing over the Attenborough Lane vehicular level crossing.

9. Separate to the above, NCC continues to work closely with Network Rail’s Level Crossing Managers in order to help manage public safety at level crossings. For example, NCC recently provided a temporary emergency closure on Burton Joyce Footpath No.6 (Chestnut Grove) following a near-miss incident which prevented public access while Network Rail undertook some emergency improvement works.

10. Additionally, officers of NCC in its capacity as Local Highway Authority are to meet with officers of NCC in its capacity as Public Health Authority next week to discuss ‘Network Rail Deaths and Near Misses’, which it is understood is specifically in relation to work by the British Transport Police, Network Rail and Public Health colleagues regarding suicides on the railway.

11. NCC also manages and administers meetings of the Nottinghamshire Local Access Forum, at which Network Rail attend annually to update members and officers on matters relating to public rights of way crossings; level crossings being a standing item on the LAF’s quarterly meetings. The LAF is established under S.94, Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and is a group of volunteers who represent different stakeholders with an interest in countryside access and public rights of way.

12. Accordingly, while NCC is supportive of the aim of zero injuries or fatalities it must also acknowledge both that: -

a. as with the highways network, it is inevitably the case that where a person intends to take their own life, there are no measures that can be put in place to prevent it (and widespread closure of all such crossings would meet with overwhelming public resistance due to the level of interference that would represent with people’s enjoyment of such routes); and

b. that the legislative tools available for restricting public access are, through the inclusion of the public consultation process, intended to help achieve a reasonable and proportionate balance of such interference.

13. As such, the matter is not simply one of NCC’s support or opposition – indeed it is supportive of the aim. However, the overwhelming preponderance of power in terms of whether such crossings can be closed or rationalised is, at law, not with NCC but is with the public as highway users and, notwithstanding the Highway Authority’s support, it is not within the Highway Authority’s gift to unilaterally achieve closures of the kind intimated in the coroner’s report.

14. The Authority can therefore confirm that, in terms of the action that this Authority may and will take to prevent future deaths, this is limited to continuing to undertake those actions referred to above and this Authority hereby confirms that it will continue to do so insofar as this remains compatible with the legally-prescribed duties and

responsibilities of the Highway Authority.

15. Finally, as referred to above in relation to the assertion that “(4) Efforts by Network Rail to reduce / rationalise the number of crossings along that stretch have failed due, in part, to opposition from the relevant local authorities”, NCC would reiterate that it was not an interested party at the inquest and was provided with no opportunity to challenge this. Given the matters set out above we would respectfully invite the Assistant Coroner to now formally acknowledge that, in respect of NCC, that assertion is incorrect. Should the Assistant Coroner remain of the view that efforts to rationalise have failed in any part due to opposition from NCC in its capacity as Local Highway Authority, NCC would be grateful if further specific details could be provided.

Corporate Director, Place Nottinghamshire County Council 16 July 2021

CONTROLLED REPONSE TO HM CORONER – PREVENTION OF FUTURE DEATH NOTICE REPONSE OF DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Following the receipt of the Regulation 28 Prevention of Future Death Notice following the Inquest into the Death of Heather Page, Derbyshire County Council received a letter from Network Rail indicating that they had previously attempted to close some footpaths in this area. After inspection of records held, Derbyshire County Council responded as follows:

“Thank you for your enquiry dated the 4th August 2021 regarding your willingness to engage with Derbyshire County Council following the outcome of the Coroner’s Inquest into the death of Miss Heather Page on the 7th October 2020.

I can appreciate that the report recommendation under Regulation 28 of the Coroners Inquest Regulations 2013, resulted in yourselves as the Rail Authority notifying the respective local authorities of their responsibility to take actions to reduce the risk of public access directly onto the rail line.

Back in April 2003, Derbyshire County Council issued the notice of making an order under the Highways Act 1980 for Public Footpath No.7 (Part – Long Eaton) Rail Crossing Diversion Order 2003. Public Footpath No.7 is the right of way which accesses over the Rail Line at end of Barton Road, Long Eaton (see Appendix 1) into the Attenborough Nature Reserve site (Nottinghamshire County Council). The intention was to divert Footpath No.7 from the Nature Reserve to run adjacent the rail track in a south-westerly direction to the junction with Meadow Lane, at the on-road Level Crossing site. This would have removed the need for people to access over the rail tracks from the Barton Road access point. However, due to objections the matter was passed to HM Planning Inspectorate (see Appendix 2) for consideration. I am led to believe that Network Rail on the 8th July 2004 reassessed the scheme following a new risk assessment and subsequently withdrew the application to support the proposed diversion. Therefore, Derbyshire County Council had no alternative other than to cancel the proposed diversion order from being confirmed on the 12th July 2004, and subsequently the HM Planning Inspectorate supported the decision taken.

Derbyshire County Council then received further correspondence with

of Network Rail in July 2015 in relation to the issue with the crossing of (Public Footpath No.7), at the end of Barton Road, Long Eaton. This provides a facility which crosses pedestrians and other vulnerable road user groups over the railway line.

CONTROLLED The correspondence at that time appears to say that following an internal meeting at Network Rail, that a ramped bridge to take pedestrians over the rail line had been authorised by the Route Asset Manager. This would have provided an engineering solution to the concerns about pedestrians crossing the rail line at ground level and an alternative scheme to the one that was promoted back in 2003. From correspondence with I can see that an initial design was tweaked to require consultation with just two landowners and that your Property Surveyor was asked to make contact to start the negotiations process. One of the landowners, Cemex I understand had indicated support for such a proposal.

The correspondence indicated that the planners within Network Rail were planning on making contact, with the local planning authority, which would be Erewash Borough Council in this regard, in relation to the proposed design that had been prepared. It was identified that you would have to make an application under Section 119a of the Highways Act 1980 to divert the public footpaths current alignment. To the best of our knowledge Derbyshire County Council received no further correspondence from Network Rail in relation to this matter.

I trust that the above will provide a suitable explanation regarding the Council’s current position in relation to this matter.

If you require any further information or clarification regarding the details of this letter, please contact directly by email:

.”

We enclose the documents sent with the response to Network Rail. Please note that the response relates to public footpath number 7 within the Parish of Long Eaton being the only crossing which falls within the Derbyshire county boundary.

We are aware of the report undertaken by British Transport Police in November 2020 and as a local authority we will do whatever is within our legal power to assist in the prevention of fatalities however it will take a coordinated approach from the various local councils, Network Rail and the Highways Authority in order to achieve this. Derbyshire County Council as the relevant Highway Authority for Derbyshire will always work with other agencies to improve safety across the County.

Response of Erewash Borough Council to the Regulation 28 Report made by Mr G. Clow HMAC following the inquest into the death of Miss Heather Frances Page:

My name is and I am employed by Erewash Borough Council (the Council) as the Principal Planning Policy Officer and I make this statement on behalf of the Council in response to the concerns raised by the Coroner in his regulation 28 report.

In his report the Coroner noted that: (5) Support or opposition from local authorities and councils will respectively increase or decrease the prospects of the risks inherent in that stretch of track being reduced. In the absence of support from local authorities and councils, Network Rail will be less likely to make an application to close or rationalise crossings along this stretch of track, given the known opposition from some persons living near, or using, the crossings. If an application is made, it will be less likely to be granted in the absence of support from the relevant local authorities and councils.

There are a number of pedestrian crossings along the section of track adjacent to the Attenborough Nature Reserve one of which, the Barton Road crossing, lies within the area of the Borough of Erewash.

In July 2015 Erewash Borough Council were consulted by Network Rail as part of that organisation’s Level Crossing Closures Programme. Information shared with the Council as part of the consultation included a briefing note (Appendix A) explaining the conditions at the Barton Road pedestrian rail crossing whilst also providing an estimation of its daily number of users. The briefing note set out a suggested replacement for the current crossing, with the advantages and disadvantages of installing a ramp and step-style footbridge explored. As part of the Level Crossing Closures Programme, the Council were invited to respond to Network Rail’s Equality Stakeholder Engagement Topic Guide (consultants had been appointed by Network Rail to undertake an Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) to investigate the impact of any works affecting the crossing). On behalf of the Council, I produced the response looking at the various issues from the perspective of Planning Policy. In the Council’s submission (Appendix B), support was demonstrated for any proposal, including a replacement footbridge, which would help to improve both the safety for crossing users as well as increased accessibility at the crossing for disabled and non-disabled users. In light of recent events, were Network Rail to recommend the closure of the Barton Road crossing as a means of reducing/removing risks to those crossing

the railway line, Erewash Borough Council would not in principle oppose such a recommendation. However, as per the Council’s submission to the aforementioned Closures Programme consultation, the installation of an accessible footbridge remains the preferable way of increasing safety at the crossing whilst continuing to allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross the line and access areas located on both sides of the railway.

Signature: Dated: July 1st 2021