2014 12 15 (2014!12!12) HeidiCruickshankPlanningInspectorateToENance OrderConfirmation

I.
The Planning Inspectorate

3/25 Hawk Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Bristol, BS1 6PN
Direct Line:
Customer Services:
Fax No:
e-mail:
0303 444 5646

0303 444 5000
0117 372 6153
helen.sparks@pins.qsi.qov.uk
28 Godolphin Road, Long Rock

Penzance
Cornwall
TR208JP
Your Ref:
Our Ref:
FPSjD0840j3j3
Date:
,.,
2 DEe 2014
Dear Madam
HIGHWAYSACT 1980 SECTION 118A
Cornwall Council
The Cornwall Council (Mexico Inn Pedestrian Crossing) (Long Rock) Parish of Ludgvan Rail
Crossing Extinguishment Order 2013
I enclose for your information a copy of the Inspector's decision on this Order following the
Inquiry which opened on Tuesday 21 October 2014.
Also enclosed are two leaflets entitled
Decision in the High Court.
Our Complaints Procedure and Challenging the
If you have any queries about the enclosed declsion. please contact the Quality Assurance
Unit at the following address:
Quality Assurance Unit
1/23 Hawk Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
Bristol
BS16PN
Tel: 0303 444 5884
http://www
.plan ni ng porta I.gov. u k/planni ng/appeals/planni
ng inspectorate/feedbackl
An electronic version of the decision will shortly appear on the Inspectorate's website.
Yours faithfully
Helen SparkJ
(Rights of Way Section)
Despatch 1
www.planningportal.gov.uk/countryside
~vnSTOR rx PEOPLE
Order Decision
Inquiry opened on 21 October 2014
by Heidi Cruickshank
BSc (Hons), MSc, MIPROW
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Dedsion date:
OrderRe~
It
1 2 OEC'2014 ---- -----
-- _.- -.--- --
FPS/DO~40/3/3
This Order is made under Section 118A of the Highways Act 1980 and Is known as The
Cornwall Council (Mexico Inn Pedestrian Crossing) (Long Rock) Parish of Ludgvan, Rail
Crossing Extinguishment Order 2013.
The Order is dated 14 August 2013 and proposes to extinguish part of a footpath
running from a cui-de-sac, Beach Terrace, in a generally southerly direction to the
junction with FPj103j48. The section to be extinguished crosses the London - Penzance
main railway line. Full details of the route are set out in the Order Plan and Schedule.
There were 154 objections and 5 representations in support outstanding at the
commencement of the Inquiry.
Summary of Decision: The Order is confirmed subject to

modifications set out in the Formal- Decision.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
Status of the route
1. The Order route, Mexico crossinq", is not recorded on the Definitive Map and
Statement, the legal record of public rights of way, held by Cornwall Council,
the order-making authority (lithe OMA"). It is also unrecorded on the record of
publicly maintainable highways, the list of streets, also held by the OMA.
However, I agree with the OMA that the evidence shows that the landowners
and public have accepted the use of the route as a public right of way. Section
118A of the Highways Act 1980 ("the 1980 Act") does not require the route to
be either recorded or publicly maintainable; it refers to a 'footpath', which
section 329 of the 1980 Act defines as "a highway over which the public have a
right of way on foot only, not being a footway.
11
2. Although ev.idencerelating to the historic development of the Order route and

the railway is conflicting, I understand some' feel that the railway has been built
on an existing right of way and more should be done in relation to the public
rights. The Friends of Long Rock Mexico Crossing ("the FOLRMC")rightly say
that new level crossings would generally be avoided, with an expectation for a
grade separated crossinq/ from the outset. I consider that the introduction of
the relevant legislation, through the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000,
to-enable-the stoppinq up of riqhtsof way crossifi~~rrailways, was in recognition
of the potential conflict between these land uses.
Clartficatlon of Order
3. The Order as drafted does not specifically refer to the width of the route to be
extinguished, however, it is,abundantly clear that all parties understand that it
1 The Order refers to 'Mexico Inn Pedestrian Crossing', however, most parties have referred to 'Mexico crossing'
and, for the sake of brevity, I shall refer to it as 'Mexico' in this decision.
2 For example a bridge over, or tunnel under, the railway line
http://www
.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk
ORDER DECISION FPSjD0840j3j3
is the full extent of the public rights which are affected. To avoid any' possible
doubt on the matter I intend to remove the term " ...of the length ..." set out in _the second paragraph of the Schedule. I am satisfied that this minor
modification causes no prejudice to any party and need not be advertised.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
4.
I held a pre-Inquiry meetinq on the 13 August 2014, having made an

unaccompanied site visit on 12 August. Followingthe pre- Inquiry meeting, at
the request of the parties, I walked Footpath 3 ("FP 3") on the afternoon of 13
August; made an access required site visit on 20 October, where the level
crossing at Mexico was reinstated for me to cross and I also viewed trains
passing from the trackside, as well as at Long Rock" crossing C'LRC"); and on
, 23 October I made an evening visit to a footbridge and user worked crossing
("UWC") at Ponsandane, west of LRC,as well as viewing the lighting
arrangements associated with the closed circuit television ("CCTV") at LRC.
5.
I held a Public Inquiry into the Order on 21 - 29 October, excluding the

weekend. Unfortunately, due to venue availability, it was not possible to
organise an evening Inquiry session. No-one requested an accompanied site
visit following the close of the Inquiry.
MAIN ISSUES
6. The Order has been made as it appears to the OMA that Mexico should be
extinguished in the interests of the safety of members of the public. Before
confirming the Order I need to be satisfied that it is expedient to do so having
regard to all the circumstances, and in particular to:
(a) whether it.ls reasonably practicable to make the crossing safe for use by
the public, and
(b) what arrangements have been made for ensuring that, if the order is
confirmed, any appropriate barriers and signs are erected and maintained.
------7.
The Raff-Erossing-ExtingtJishment-and-Blverslon-Brders-Regtrlations 19934 ("th e

1993 regulations") set out a 'Form of Request' for an extinguishment, to
including:
(i)
the use made of the path, including numbers and types of users, and
whether there are significant seasonal variations, giving the source for
this information;(ii) , the risk to the public of continuing to use the crossing and the
circumstances that have given rise to the need to make the Order;
(iii)
the effect of the loss of the crossing on users, in particular whether there
are alternative rights of way, the safety of these relative .to the existing
rail crossing, and the effect on any connecting rights of way and on the
network as a whole;
,
(iv) Theopportunltv for taking alternative action-to remedy the proolem-,-suchas a diversion, bridge or tunnel, or the carrying out of safety
improvements to the existinqcrosslnq:
(v)
the estimated cost of any practicable measures identified under (iv);
(vi)
the barriers and/or signs that would need to be erected at the crossing,
assuming the Order is confirmed.
3
4
The village is shown as l.oriqrock on some maps but I shall use the preferred local spelling
Statutory Instrument 1993 No. 9
www.plannlngportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
8.
9.
The requirement is for the OMA to be satisfied as to. the expediency of making
the Order in the interests of safety of members of the public. The FOLRMC
argued that the crossing was safe in relation to a number of assessments
already made and should be opened immediately, although there may be some
minor safety improvements which could be made. Network Rail ("NR") argued
that their assessment of the safety of the crossing should be relied upon.
As I need to consider whether it is reasonably practicable to make the crossing
.safe for public use, I must first be satisfied that such measures are required
and so I shall consider the arguments made in this respect. There were
disagreements between the parties as to whether there were, or were hot,
reasonably practicable measures to improve safety. It was suggested that the
1980 Act only referred to safety in relation to the physical features of a
crossing, and NR were dealing with a situation where they themselves
identified the risks to arise from the way in which users were using the
crossing. I agree with the ORR that the reference in the 1980 Act to safety to
the public is not confined to physical features of the crossing.
10. The objections to the Order centred on the desirability of keeping the route
open, as it was used by local people and visitors to access the beach, the South
West Coast Path and the cycle path in this area. Whilst those supporting the
Order argued that alternatives were available for such access, which would be
improved as a result of the Order, objectors argued that the available
alternative routes were not as safe or convenient as the Order route itself.
11. I was asked 'to consider. the overall health of the population, if they chose not
. to access the beach anyrnore, as a result of the changes. NR argued that
'health' and 'safety' were two separate concepts, with which I agree, however,
my understanding of the argument of the FOLRMCwas not that the two should
be considered together but that 'health' weighed in the balance of my
consideration of 'all the circumstances'. Similarly, arguments were made as to
the effect upon local businesses as a result of the closure of the route.
12. I agree withNR that the matters to which the legislation requires me to have
particular regard are the practicability of making the crossing safe for use by
the public and the arrangements for barriers and signs. Other matters fall into
the wider expediency test but are not the primary focus.
REASONS
Background
13. A report under Rule 43 of the Coroner's (Amendment) Rules 2008 related to an
Inquest concluded on 7 December 2012 into the death of Mrs Nicholls, who was
struck by a train whilst using Mexico pedestrian railway level crossing in the
Parish of Ludgvan on 3 October 2011. The Inquest was held by a jury and the
Asststant D!=P!Jtycoroner.Ctbe APC"} took the view " ...that t!]isJQQ.tJ;[o$sing 'is
dangerous, could lead to other fatalities and should be closed."
14.Following receipt of the Coroner's report the OMA temporarily closed Mexico on
21 December 2012, using powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 19845
On 15 March 2013 an application was made to the OMA, by NR, to permanently
extinguish Mexico.
I note concerns that the temporary closure has been extended and it was suggested that this was beyond the
powers of the OMA. This is not a matter for me to consider.
.
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
ORDER DECISION FP$/D0840/3/3
Description of relevant locations and features

15. The Order route is a short section, of 9 metres, running between points A and
. Bas shown on the Order map. Until December 2012 it was maintained as a
level crossing over the main railway line between London and Penzance. There
are pedestrian gates in the line of the fencing on either side of the track and.
signs to "Stop, Look, Listen. Beware of trains" ("5LL signs"). Mexico is a
'passive crossing', which are those reliant on the user for their safe operation.
16. Penzarice railway station is situated to the west of the Order route, on the
'down' line, with the first station to the east, on the 'up' line, being St Erth.
This section of the railway line. is single track with a double track to the east,
just out of view of Mexico. As noted in the Rail Accident Investigation Branch"
Rail Accident Report ("th~ RAIB Report") of June 20127 there is a low bank on
the southern side Of the railway line, which restricts views to the east, around a
curve in the track. Whistle boards are sited both east and west of Mexico,
indicating the points at which train drivers need to sound their horn to provide
a warning to pedestrians.
17. Approximately. 200 metres" along the railway line to the west is LRC, a shared
pedestrian and vehicular level crossing which has 'wig-wag' warning lights and
barriers to' prevent access when trains 'are.on the track. LRC provides access'
to a public car park, and to the beach, to the south. Adjacent to LRC, to the
west, isthe Long Rock Maintenance Depot.
..
18. The village of Long Rock lies to the north of the railway line and a residential"
street, known as Beach Terrace, joins Mexico to the road which runs through
Long Rock, from Penzance in the west to Marazion and St Michael's Mount in
. the east. The Mexico Inn public house lies to the west of Beach Terrace, with
the Long Rock Stores ("the Stores") to the east. On the opposite side of the
road is the Mount View public house and a little further to the north-east, off
the. main road, is the. post office. The main residential area of the village lies to
the north-east of Mexico.
19. Following Long Rock Road to the east, outside the limits of Long Rock in the
direction of Marazion, is the Station House Bridge ("the SHB") which provides
access over the railway line. South of SHB is a public car park providing access
to the beach and with facilities of a shop and public house.
. 20. To the south of Mexico is a public footpath, which is also used as a multi-use
trail, part of a promoted cycle route and the South West Coast Path. Directly
south of Mexico access is provided down to Long Rock beach from the raised
level of the multi-use path and sea defences.
.
The RAIB was set uR in 2005 and investigates accidents in order to make recommendations about safety to the
Secretary of State. RAIB's reports may be used by a coroner to establish cause of death and to make "Prevention
of future death" reports.
7 Report 10/2012
8 I shall deal with the issues arising from references to the distance between the two crossings as appropriate
6
ORDER DECISION FPS/D0840/3/3
Safety of the crosslnq

Legislation
21. This area of NR's work is governed by the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974,
which places a statutory duty on them in relation to:
(a)
.(b)
securing the health, safety and welfare of persons at work;

protecting persons other than persons at work against risks to health or
.safety arising out of or in connection with the activities of persons at
work.
.
22. A level crossing provides a point of interaction between the main activities of
NR, in providing a railway network and so creating a risk, and the general
public, who are not persons at work for NR but who may require protection
from the consequences of that risk.
23. The Office of Rail Regulation ("theORR") say that the Management of Health
and Safety at Work Regulations, 1999 places specific duties on employers to
undertake risk assessments, to identify risks that can be completely eliminated
(the preferred solution in health and safety law) and otherwise identify
measures which can be taken to reduce the risks: Their strategy for health and
safety regulation of level crossings sets out that they support the closure and
removal of crossings, with all risk assessments considering closure first.
24. I need to be satisfied as to the safety, or otherwise, of the relevant crossing .
. .As noted, the 1993 regulations set out that in making their application, NR
should provide information on a number of matters, including " ...the effect of
the loss of the crossing on users, in particular whether there are alternative
rights of way, the safety of these relative to the existing rail crossing...".
25. NR do not appear to have made such an assessment,except in relation to the
railway itself, relying instead upon the OMA. Section 118A(1) of the 1980 Act
sets out that it must appear to the council that it is expedient to make the
Order " ...in the interests of the safety of members of the public using it, or
likely to use it...". Despite arguments that the OMA decision-making process
was flawed, and that there were internal disagreements as to the safety of
Mexico, the matter was taken before the Cabinet and their recorded, and
legally unchallenged, decision was that the Order should be submitted to the
Secretary of State for confirmation. The OMA took an active role in the
Inquiry, supporting the confirmation of the Order.
.
Policy
26. In March 2014 the House of Commons Transport Committee ("the HOCTC")
published a report on Safety at level crossings. The report sets out that level
crossings in the UK are generally safe, with improvements seen in the five
years from 2009, NR having committed itself to reducing risk at level crossinqs
by 25% over that period. Like the FOLRMC,the HOCTCidentified that NR has
been able to improve safety by closing level crossings, but further
improvements may be progressively more difficult to achieve.
27. The HOCTCindicates that there are significant safety risks, with level crossings
representing half of the non-suicide, non-trespass fatality risk on the railway.
It sets out that the aim should be to aim to eliminate accidental deaths at level
www.pianningportai.gov.uk/pianninginspectorate
crossings with a recommendatipn that the ORR adopt an explicit target of zero '
fatalities at level crossings from 2020. The ORRexplains that this is not
binding, but they find it significant and highly influential.
28. The HOCTCreferred to the Law Commission having recognised that decisions
about level crossings involve striking a balance between the convenience to
communities in being able to cross a railway and public safety. It is clearly the
view of a number of objectors that this has led to an aggressive attitude
towards closing level crossings, without proper reference to the wider impacts.
The Law Commission recommendedthat consideration of the closure of level,
crossings should be based on a public interest test, considering a number of
factors, including the safety of the public; convenience of the public; efficiency
of-the transport network (including the network of public paths); cost of
maintaining the crossing; the need for the crossing and its significanc;e for the
local community (including the protection of heritage); and, the costs and
environmental impact of any works needed to replace the 'crossing or upgrade
other crossings. The HOCTCalso called for the addition of a public safety test
with respect to any alternative or diversionary route.
.
29. Although I was made aware that the Department for Transport had commented
onthe Law Commission proposals, I am determining an Order made under
specific legislation. I take the view that the 'all other circumstances' that I
need to consider under the 1980 Act relates to points raised by objectors,
which reflect many of those referred to by the Law Commission. I shall
consider them in relation to expediency, as set out by the 1980 Act.
30. I consider 'that the legislative and policy background demonstrates the pressure
upon both NR and the ORR, in order to reduce risk. However, ultimately, their
focus ison the railway line interaction and both NR and ORRstated that the
other issues that may need to be considered were outside their areas of
expertise. I agree with the FOLRMC,and other objectors, that in relation to my
decision, the safety issues relating to Mexico cannot be considered in isolation
to th e wider rssues Identifled.:
Safety of Mexico
The circumstances that have given rise to the need to make the Order
31.
Inspections were carried out in the two days immediately following the 2011
fatality by the ORR and NR. The ORR produced a report, dated 14 October
2011, which found that Mexic;oreaches the ORR published safety standards,
and was broadly compliant. The Approval Officer's Considerations, which postdate the RAIBreport referred to below, indicated that there were wider'
national issues emerging from the accident, relating to the issue of low-tone
horns; the location and marking of decision points; and, the development of
cheaper-warning methods for-footpath crossings;-- --- - ---
32.( note that the ORRstated that ''An approach was made to the local ~uthority
to discuss the possibility of closing the crossing prior to the fatality but
feedback suggested local opposition which, given that [LRC] is only 200 metres
further west and would provide a logical and suitable alternative crossing, is
disappointing. However, NR should continue to liaise with local authorities to
push the case for closure."
www.,planningportal,gov,uk/planningi~spettorate
33. The RAIB report made five recommendations, which related to improvements
to sighting and warning arrangements for pedestrians using Mexico; developing
a' national approach for the location and marking of decision points at level
crossings; optimising warning arrangements for pedestrians at level crossings
provided with whistle boards; a recommendation to the Rail Safety and
Standards Board Ltd ("RSSB") regarding improving intelligence on near miss
incidents at level crossings, enhancing the review of the effect of changes
made in 2007 for sounding train horns at whistle boards; and, one to First
.Great Western, the relevant train operator, regarding the testing of horns after .
a train has been involved in an incident or accident. Supporters to the Order
have pointed to many comments within the MIB report which they feel
demonstrate that Mexico is unsafe, and so should be extinguished.
34. The closure followed the report of the ADC, who " ...took the view, after hearing
the evidence or...the Rail Safety Inspector, that this foot crossing is dangerous,
could lead to other fatalities and should be closed. J understand that in fact
there is a gated barrier operated level crossing only 200 yards further down the
line, so that any inconvenience will be minimel." The Rail Safety Inspector
referred to by the ADC was the RAIB Inspector. In reply to questions raised by .
. the FOLRMC,the RAIB stated that "The RAIB has not recommended closure of
. the crossing. You will note that recommendation 1from the RAIB's...report is
concerned with safety improvements that can be made at the crossing rather.
than closure...[X] represented the RAIB at [the] inquest ...the presentation ...was
based wholly on the findings of the RAJB's investigation, and thus did not
recommend closure of the crossing...".
35. I do not have the evidence put before the inquest, leading to the
recommendation for closure and the application to the OMA. Whilst I do, of
course, place reliance on the finding of accidental death, in relation to the
closure of Mexico there is a wider quantity of evidence now before me, which I
must take into account.
'
36. The HOCTCrecord that "NR states there are 680 level crossings within 200
metres of an alternative crossing. These are therefore prime candidates for
closure ...". Although I am sure there has been no deliberate intent to mislead,
LRC has been referred to as cl crossing 200 metres, or yards, from Mexico by
NR, the HOCTC,the ORR and the ADC. I consider thatthis has had the effect
of conflating two matters: one the safety of Mexico and the other the
availability of an alternative, which may. not, in reality, beof such minimal
inconvenience as '200.metres' might suggest. I will consider the issue of the
alternative routes in relation to the actual distances relevant to users.
The risk to the public of continuing to use the crossing.
Quantitative modelling & Health and Safety Executive Tolerability of Risk
Framework--~
- -- --- - 37. NR uses a model known as the All Level Crossing Risk Model ("ALCRM~')to
assess risk at level crossings. This generates two risk scores: the risk of a
fatality per year for an individual user, based on 500 traverses/year, with A the
highest risk score and M the lowest; and, a collective risk of fatalities and
weighted injuries ("FWI") per year, scored 1 highest value and 13 the lowest.
38. TheRAIB report referred to risk scores for Mexico of CS, C2 and C6 in 2007,
2009 and '2010 respectively; with the current ALCRM risk score being C2.
FOLRMCsuggested that only the individual risk should be taken into account
and argued that the 'C' category, not being on a linear scale, did not mean that
Mexico was unsafe. Whilst there was criticism that most footpaths were
included in category C, I consider this a fair reflection of the risks on such
crossings; identified particularly by the RSSB.
.
39. The HOCTChave raised concerns regarding ALCRM, in particular the fact that
, . the crossing usaqe inputs are mostly based on a 3D-minute census during a
, weekday, off-peak period, and sodo not take account of crossings with high
seasonalvariations, such as those near beaches. It seems from the
information provided by fOLRMC that the number of users has generally been
underestimated, with NR not having taken advantage of suggestions within the
ORR guidance on census methodology. NR failed to provide information in:
their application to the OMA on " ...the use made of the path, inclUding numbers
and types of users, and whether there are significant seasonal variations,
giving the source for this information ..." ~s set out in the 1993 regulations.
40. I,agree with the ORRthat both individual and collective risks are relevant; a
high collective risk means that more individuals are being exposed to the risk.
and, in my view, this cannot be ignored. A document .presented to the Inquiry
WaS the RSSB report of'Research into the causes of pedestrian accidents at ,
level crossings and potential solutions'; published in July 2014 ("T984"). The
: Executive Summary of T984 sets out that the objectives were to:
Establish the causes of pedestrian accidents_at level crossings
Improve or promote any existing, and identify any new,' mitigations that
offer cost-effective solutions to reduce pedestrian risk.
41. As polnted out in T984 there is, unsurprisingly, a strong link between the
occurrence of pedestrian accid_e,!~and the pedestrian moment9 It was noted
that the greatest number of pedestrian train strikes, and FWI arising from
those incidents, arise at footpath crossings, accounting for 41 % of the total.
The RSSBAnnual Safety Performance Report 2013/14 ("the ASPR") indicates
that 12% of-fatality risk is to pedestrian level-crossing users. The pedestrian
moment, in combination with the crossing type, is the single most dominant
influence on level of risk.
42. NR state that an individual risk of A ,- C, combined with a collective risk of 1 ~
3, identifies a high risk crossing within their criteria. Information was provided
to show that Mexico ranked 7 in total FWI score when compared to all footpath
level crossings on the Western route and 17 when compared to all level
crossings on the Western route. On the national rail network Mexico ranked 59
in -cornparlson to all footpath level crossings and~59 in comparison to all level --,' --,
crossings. Using the figures from the HOCTC,which could be slightly out of
date as closures may have subsequently occurred, Mexico appears to be in the
top 5 % of the FWI score nationally for both level crossings generally and
footpath crossings in particular.
.
Pedestrians per day x trains per day
wwW.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
,8
43. I agree with the West ,Cornwall Footpaths Preservation SOciety ("the WCFPS")
that there is a risk in relying on the ranking of crossings; as crossings are
closed,' previously 'safe' crossings become closer to being the most dangerous.
However, I am satisfied that, from NR's viewpoint, Mexico is a high risk
crossing. , The question posed by the FOLRMCis whether that risk is high in
comparison to risks which may be acceptable to the general public and for this
they rely upon the Health and Safety Executive ("HSE") Tolerability of Risk
, framework ("TORF") which is helpfully explained in the document 'Reducing
Risks, Protecting People', submitted to the Inquiry by the ORR.
44. HSE set out that their general thrust in application of the TORF is inherently
precautionary, to lead to control regimes that improve or at least maintain '
standards, while retaining principles of proportionality. The three zones within
the TORF are 'Intolerable', 'Tolerable' and 'Broadly Acceptable'. Risks within
the intolerable region would be unacceptable,' whatever the level of benefits
associated with it. HSE states that risks falling into the broadly acceptable
region are generally regarded as insignificant and adequately controlled,
although duty holders must still reduce risks wherever it is reasonably
'practicable to do so or the law requires.
45. Risks within the tolerable region are typical of those from activities that people
are prepared to tolerate in order to secure benefits. The risk is sufficient to
justify further steps be made to reduce and keep risk as low as reasonably
practicable ("ALARPII). The risks should be periodically reviewed to ensure that
they still meet the ALARP criteria, taking account of new knowledge about the
risk or new techniques for reducing or eliminating it.
'
46. The FOLRMCdrew my attention to the response of NR to the HOCTCwhere a
suggestion was made that the 1 in 10,000 risk defined the risk of death to an
individual where the risk was imposed on them; NR felt that a user could
.decide whether or not to cross or use other routes and, therefore, this limit
should not apply to level crossings. The ORR, who are the regulator in this
case rather than HSE, shows the boundary between intolerable and tolerable to
be at 1 in 10,000 and that between tolerable and broadly acceptable to be 1 in
1,000,000 and I rely on these as the, appropriate limits, reflecting the indicative
criteria for risks, such as this, entailing the risk of individual or multiple deaths.
, 47. NR initially made a mistake in presenting data on the individual fatality risk,
which caused some initial confusion. There was a good deal of argument as to
the 'danger' of the agreed risk of 1 in 23,500. Despite further mathematical
errors arising from the ORR use of logarithmic scales, I am satisfied that the
FOLRMCare correct in stating that the risk lies closer to the broadly acceptable
zone than to the unacceptable, or intolerable, zone In the TORF.
48. HSE stress that the TORF provides guidelines to be interpreted with common
-,sense,-which may need-to be adapted to take account of societalconcerns orpreferences. It suggests that although experts may regard the control
measures as adequate, the view may not be shared by society as a whole, as
established through existinq democratic processes and regulatory mechanisms.
49. With Mexico ranked at 259 in comparison to all level crossings, but still falling
well within the tolerable' zone, it is difficult to see how the HQCTCreached the
conclusion " ...that there may be many hundreds of crossings which exceed
Health and Safety Executive guidance on the acceptable level of fatality risk to
www,planningportal,gov,uk/planninginspectorate
ORDER DECISION FPSjD0840j3/3
the public." It seems to me that the HOCTCreflects a societal concern, with

the introduction stating that "Although the safety record of Great Britain's level
crossings has improved in recent times, .concerns have 'been expressed about
.whether Ne.twork Rail is sufficiently focused on protecting the safety of road
users and pedestrians who traverse them; There have been a number of high
profile accidents for' which Network Rail has been criticised for ignoring prior
warnings that level crossings were unsafe and for shabby treatment of the
-relatives of those killed."
- .
50. I am well aware that the vast majority of the objectors are part of the society
of Long Rock and feel that their concerns, expressed by some by reference to
the Localism Act 2011, have not beentaken into account. There were
comments that decisions have been taken by those not living in the area, with
mention made of the objection to closure by locally elected bodies: Ludgvan
Parish Council, the local County Councillor and the local Member of Parliament .
. I understand that people feel that matters have not been properly understood
or considered. In reaching my decision on this case I have tried to balance the
wide range of competing concerns that have been put before me.
Narrative Risk Assessment
51. Whilst the FOLRMCnoted that the ALCRM inputs should average across the
country, taking account of the various conditions at all the different level
crossings, the failure to incorporate local factors into the ALCRM model has
been raised by both the HOCTCand the RAIB. I note that the HSE refer to
providing a 'full picture' of risks generated by a ,hazard, which may be
supplemented by assessments of particular groups of people interacting with
the hazard in a certain way, or who are particularly vulnerable to it, a slice of
time and/or particular locations.
52. This has led to NR moving to the situation where ALCRM is used to identify the
'at risk' crossings with .local features taken into account by local Level Crossing
---Man ag@r:-C'
bCM")/w-I:1Q-w-il-I~l:1a-v@-g-Fea-ter--farn-il-i-aFi-t-y-W-i,t;A-a-paFtietllaF~1
eveI
crossing, carrying outa 'narrative assessment'; There was no LCM in place in
relation to Mexico prior to the temporary closure and soan historic 'familiarity'
is not available.' NR referredto issues which they felt reflected greater risk at .
Mexico than was being shown by the ALCRM calculation alone. I shall deal with
the issues referred to which I consider assist in the recognition of factors which
may be relevant specifically to Mexico.
53. I agree with NR that it is not appropriate to simply rely on numbers and
statistics to make this decision; they are just one piece of the information.
Near miss data
,54.J"JR,_tbe_ORRand supporters said that near misses were a key precursorto
accidents, as said in the RAIB report. _The RAIB noted that it was important for
L"
the railway industry to have the data necessary to understand the riSing trend
_in near misses at level crossings so that appropriate action could be taken,
55. There was disagreement as to whether the near miss data was predictive. I
agree with the objectors that there is no obvious ratio in the 'data, with near
miss reports almost doubled over a decade but no upward trend in fatalities. I
agree with the Ramblers that there it is likely that there will be more near
10
misses on crossings which are frequently used; this may point to NR needing to
undertake further work to identify use but does not, of itself, point to a risky
crossing. The ASPR makes the point that only one in three reported near
.rnisses with pedestrians/cyclists' occur on footpath crossings, however, more
than half the fatalities of these users occur on these types of crossings.
56. Whilst suggested in objection that the near misses provided a convenient and
emotive argument, without scientific substance or predictive value, I consider
'that the point of near miss data is not that it is quantitative but rather that it is
qualitative. I consider the best use of the data is to see whether there is a
trend in incidents, pointing to a particular issue at a crosslnq, which should
then be ameliorated.
!
57. I agree with objectors that near miss reporting is subjective; incidents reported
separately to the Inquiry, or to NR, by users or those who had observed
incidents at Mexico, did not correspond to records within the' British Rail
Information Management System ("BRIMS") or the Safety Management"
Information System ("SMIS"). On the other hand, a number of objectors made
the point that they had used Mexico, often with family members, and had not
had a near miss in all their years of use-. One objector was a former engine
driver, who worked on this section of track and indicated that he had had no
problems at all in relation to Mexico.
58. Recording of near misses is dependent on the train driver's view of the incident
and NR say they tend to use the criteria such as whether they have engaged
the emergency brake. The ASPR indicates that reportinq.is likely to be
influenced by factors such as ease of reporting andperceived effect, whilst,
objectors suggested proximity to the 'end of the line' might be a factor. I
,
, agree with the objectors that it would be' helpful to .have criteria for drivers, to
identify common factors, such as age/ gender/ local people, visitors, time of
year and weather conditions, although there will be limitations on identifying
and recording such data.
59. NR initially referred to 10 years of near miss history/ which was the period
referred to in the RAIB report. Following a request from a supporter to the
Order/ NR carried out a further search to identify any other references to'
Mexico in older records/ including those from BRIMS/ used until the
introduction of SMIS in 1998.
60. This identified four reports in the period 1991 - 1993 and NRindicated that
they had been aware of two reports of vandalism in 2004/ but had not
mentioned them previously as they had not thought them relevant. No
incidents were recorded in the years 1988/ when BRIMS was introduced/ to
1990/ or in 1994 - 2006/ with the exception of the vandalism. It is possible
that there are further records which have not been identified. It is also
- possible that drivers were not reporting incidents; the ASPR indicates that
under-reporting is difficult to identify and can have a significant impact; with
potential underestimate of risk.
61. Having noted a significant change in the incident history from May 2007/ the
RAIB queried whether the move to a single-tone train horn was a factor.
Although the RSSBfelt it unlikely that there was a significant alteration
nationally since the change/ there appears to be further work be done.
However/ I consider. it significant that this coincided with the introduction of
www.planningportal.goY.uk/planninginspectorate
11
ORDER DECISION FPS!D0840/3/3
Mexico as a separate asset for reporting. It seems to me that the availability

of it in the asset list allowed for ease of recording. Whatever the reason, I am
not satisfied that the small number of recorded incidents in the period prior to
2007 means that Mexico is safer than thought, as sugge~ted by FOLRMC.
62. Looking at what the data may indicate, there are limitations as to what is
known from each of the incidents. The RAIe indicatedthat six of seven
instances involved diesel multiple units, the same as, or similar to, the class
150 unit involved in the 2011 fatality. A supporter to the Order said she found
these trains to be virtually silent. Seven incidents related to down trains and
four to up trains. Again this reflects the fatality, which occurred on the down
line, although two of these appeared to be 'misuse', with children playing
'chicken' and someone jumping up and down on the line. Eight cases involved
, females compared to three identified' as males and whilst there is no reason
that women should be at greater risk, T984 found more men to be involved in
fatalities than women; I consider that the apparently hiqherJevel of use by
women indicates a high level of general use, which does not seem to have been
taken into account by NR initially. Four instances involved dogs and two
referred to bicycles and pushchairs.
. "
63. Despite the misgivings of the objectors, I agree with the ORRthat the near
miss data is indicative of an issue at Mexico. In particular there appears to be
a tendency for issues to arise in relation to the down line, which, when crossing
from the south, is the worst direction for sighting time, although the data
before me is insufficient to show in which direction the pedestrians where
travelling. There also appears to be an issue regarding the quieter trains on
this line, which are the local trains. The near miss incidents do,raise concerns
for me with regard to public safety.
Previous' requests (or closure
64. I note the point that neither the RAIB nor.the ORR sought closure of Mexico
-im mediat@l-y-fo-I-lo-w-i-r:l9-tl:ie--20-1-1-fata,lit-y.-I-t---S@@n:ls-to-De-aGGe
pted. th at NR had
discussed, or requested, closure of Mexico in 1991, 2007, 2009 and 2010 . .I
note that the OMA only refer to issues being raised in 1972, 1991 and 2007.
No copies of requests or applications were provided .
. RAIB Recommendation la - Improvements to sighting towards the east for
pedestrians on the south side of Mexico '
65. The RAIB noted that the view to the east is partially obscured by an equipment
case and siqnalpost, although an approaching train could still be seen, dueto
its height and width. Having observed a train approaching down line, from the
southern side, I agree that the equipment in this area,causes an unnecessary
obstruction to views and I bear in mind the apparent higher propensity for
+near-rnisses on the-down-line.
RAIB Recommendation lb - Determine the optimum position of the whistle boards
at Mexico and make any required adiustments
66. The RAIB noted on their inspection that the horn was only audible 50% of the
time. It was also noted that there was an influence on the audibility arising
from the location, of the user at the time the horn sounded" the bank to the
east, prevailing westerly winds, the impact of noise from the sea and possible
www.planningportal.gov,uk/planninginspectorate
'
12
confusion with ship horns. These are site specific factors which raise a concern
to me with regard to Mexico.
RAIB Recommendation 2 - Identify data to be captured in SMIS to inform future
decision-making and enhance the review of the impact of sounding only the low
tone of the warning horn
67. Whilst there was no discernible national trend to show fatal accidents, or near
misses, increased after 2007, following the change in policy, the
recommendation was concerned with identifying additional data to capture
through SMIS to allow a better review of the impact of the change. This could
also lead to improved data capture for general risk analysis.
RAIB Recommendation 3 - Identify the optimum decision point at each footpath
.and UWC crossing used by pedestrians: mark and sign the optimum decision point
at each crossing: .use the decision point in estimate of sighting distance: and, brief
staff with regard to this approach
68. The ORR Level crossings: a quide for managers, designers and operators
indicates that a sign explaining how to cross safely should be displayed at the
decision point, not less than 2 metres from the nearest running rails. In
practice this is taken to be the SLL sign and it was noted by the RAIB that the
southern SLL sign was placed further from the running rail at the time of the
fatality, being moved from 3.4 metres to the 2 metre distance in January 2012.
There appears to be general agreement that 2 metres provides a safe point
from which to make a crossing decision, however, the RAIB recommendation
also relates to the wider crossing network.
.
Vulnerable users - visitors
69. In their application to the OMA, NR identified increased use during the summer
. months by visitors/holiday makers accessing the coast. They stated that,
although compliant to all safety recommendations, it is most likely being used
by pedestrians who may have no experience of crossing railways, which was an
unacceptably high risk factor.
70. The FOLRMCrelied on T984 to show that there was no additional risk to
unfamiliar users over those familiar with crossings.T984 said that regular
users were more likely to perceive crossing risk as low and, therefore,' fail to
follow safe crossing procedure. Whilst there was no overall evidence for either
group being more at risk, neither does it mean that either are less at risk.
.
71. T984 notes that user encumbrance is a risk factor, whether in relation to dogs,
bicycles, or carrying objects, such as lnflatables to the beach. There is
evidence of use of Mexico by people with bicycles, fishing tackle, kayaks and
pushchairs, which similarly may cause difficulty ill use of the gates and a larger
'footprint'for the user-.--Being aware the 1-9l-2--fatalitywas of a person with a --dog, and bearing in mind that tourists, and locals, ac:cessingthe beach are
more likely to be 'encumbered', I consider that the use of Mexico has features
which are of concern in this respect.
.
72. I also take account of the fact that a large number of people have indicated
that they do not feel Mexico is unsafe, which will of itself potentially give rise
to, entirely unintentional, risk taking .. As set out in T984, the majority of
www.planninqportal.qov.
uk/plannlnqlnspectorate
13
'ORDER DECISION FPSjD0840j3j3
accidents occur where users believe their behaviours are 'safe' but where
ultimately they are struck by a train.
Vulnerable users - children
73. There was some argument as to whether children were vulnerable users, with
the FOLRMCnoting that the 0 - 9 years of age category has the lowest number'
of fatalities per million. I agree with them that this is likely to be related to the
accompaniment of users of this age by others, for example parents looking
after them. The ASPR notes that fatalities to children, under the age of16, are
relatively rare, although due to their distressing nature they receive a greater
degree of media focus, reflecting societal concern.
74. There was disagreement as to whether the spike in the 10 - 19'age group
indicated a risk to 'children' or was indicative of risk taking behaviour, such as
'playlnq chicken', by older teenagers. The data before me is insufficient to
reach a conclusion, however, I note that one recorded incident at Mexico was
of this type of behaviour. T984 suggests that youths would be more able to
jump outof the way, although that there remains a risk of a slip or trip.
Vulnerable users - the elderlv
75. Also of concern were users over 65 years, who are involved in a
disproportionately higher number of train strikes than other users. Both sides
raised the importance of this point in relation to Mexico, with the FOLRMC
arguing that Mexico allowed this group to benefit from the use.
76. I agree with those who point out that NR has not carried out the surveys it
could reasonably have been expected to, to identify numbers and types of
users here, The Level Crossing Risk Management Toolkit ("the LXRMTK"), run
by RSSB to provide options for mitigation, and the ORR refer to a range of
, methods to collect census information, none of which appear to have been
acttvely.ernploved here. I consider that the best available information for the
age profile-cumes-frum-th-e-RAtB-rep-o-rt;-wh-o-se-own-ohservati'ons-identlf ed a
high proportion of elderly users. , In addition; I noted that a number of
objectors referred to themselves as older or disabled and so having difficulty in
using the alternative routes in comparison to Mexico.
J
'
77. I note that the ORR ALCRM review, 2008, indicated that the overall estimated
risk was not adequately dealt with using the slower walking speed; it was'
noted not to be sensitive to local factors that may influence pedestrian risk.
The issues around this, age group relate to the llkehhcod of having time to cross
after becoming aware of a train approaching. There was concern that the sight
time, particularly in relation to down trains from the southern side of the line, '
, was short and may not provide sufficient time for users to cross, particularly
vL!lner.aQI~users,.QDc~iLtrain was seen, The_QRR,report fOJdndJJH~,~lg~ting
distance, which affects the available time for crossing, to be adequate. The
RAIB found that, from 2 metres from the nearest rail, there was sufficient
sighting time to allow all users to cross, although at the slower 0.8 mjs there
was only 1.5 seconds to spare. I note the comment made in support that an
allowance of 1.5 seconds is given for drivers to respond to an unexpected
hazard. However, I also note that T984 found a lack of strong evidence that
accidents were more common at passive crossings with short sight times,
suggested to be because people would be more cautious.
14
, __
78. Whilst the sighting times are just enough for these 'vulnerable' users, in my
view the margin of error is very small; with the issue of quieter trains
approaching on the down line, which are less likely to be heard by those with
hearing impairment, often the older generation, and shorter sighting times
crossing from the south, I consider this to be a particular factor. I consider
that there is evidence to suqqesta high proportion of elderly users here and
they are likely to find the crossing time limits their ability to cross safely.
Vulnerable users - dog walkers
79. The fatality in 1972 seems to have been related to the person trying to catch a
dog. Whilst I heard evidence that the incident occurred a little to the east, I
am satisfied that the lady was, most probably, using Mexico; it seems her dog
escaped and,she was trying to recover it. FOLRMCpointed out that dogs were
identified in T984 as a recurring theme, with dog walkers accounting for 17%
of train strikes and the ASPR noting 13%' of near misses mentioning dogs,
although I am unclear whether these are significant figures in relation to the
overall dog-owning and/or dog-walking population.
80. In relation to Mexico, there is no breakdown of the users with or without dogs,
although a number of objectors referred to dog walks as one of the reasons for
using Mexico on a regular basis. Dog-walkers do tend to be more regular
walkers than the general population and I agree with the FOLRMCthat NR have
failed to identify a factor which seems likely to give rise to a higher risk arlslnq
here. As noted, dogs were identified in four near miss incidents.
Train frequency
81. Another 'point made in T984 is that low train frequency influences risk, with a
proportional sense of risk only maintained where services are relatively
frequent. Mexico falls into the category of <100 trains per day, which leads to
twice as many accidents on footpath crossings than would be expected,
although I note the data is based on a relatively small number of train strikes.
Summary
82. I agree with the ORR and NR that point made in T984 is particularly important
to bear in mind; "...at specific locations, combinations of characteristics of
users, trains, the crossing layout and equipment, and other factors may 'add
up' to cause users to have specific difficulties in crossinq safely ...". I consider
that there are a number of factors here which lead to this conclusion. Taking
all the evidence and arqurnents into account I am satisfied that it was
reasonable for the OMA to find it expedient to make this Order in the interests
of the safety of members of the public using, or likely to use, Mexico.
The safety of the alternative routes relative to the existing rail crossing
Long Rock Level crossing
83. The closest alternative access to Mexico is via LRC. NR report that there have
been no near misses on LRC, which might be anticipated, because people
cannot get onto the crossing when a train is expected, due to physical
obstruction by the barriers. From the perspective of pedestrian safety in
relationto trains this is a safer situation than that seen at Mexico. NR
15
-~------.
ORD~R DECISION FPSjD0840j3j3
indicated that the ALCRM risk assessments for LRCwere HS, K8 and G4 in
2007, 2008 and 2009. respectively, which they are satisfied is low risk.
.
84. The FOLRMCraised concerns that whilst the pedestrian/train risk may be low,
, the interaction between pedestrian/vehicle was high. Ih relation to the road
leading to LRC, there is no separation between pedestrians and vehicles, which
,may leave some walkers feeling vulnerable. I note from the FOLRMCsurvey'
that 62% of those replying found the route dangerous. However, having
visited the area during the peak summer period and the October half-term
holidays, when both pedestrian and vehicular use might be expectedto be at a
high level, I did not feel any concern in using the road. It is a short stretch,
ending at the car park, so there is no through-movement of traffic and these
factors combine to mean that overall traffic speeds appear to be low.
85. I was told of an incident involving a pedestrian being brushed by a car, leading
to bruising, and another of someone being knocked off their bicycle; neither
event appears to have been reported to relevant authoritles, NR and the OMA
have reached an aqreernent'? for improvements to be made to this stretch of
'road, paid for by NR, if the Order is confirmed. I consider that the provision of
a footway will be of assistance in separating vehicles and pedestrians giving'
qreatersafety and perception of safety. According to the ORRLevel crossings:
a guide for managers, desiqners and operators it appears that LRC may already
'be falling below best practice in not making such pedestrian provision.
86. Of course, bicycles are vehicles and so will remain in the main traffic stream.
This may-not be an ideal situation, however, relying on the evidence of the
OMA in relation to risks on the roads, it seems that the risk is low.
87. The improvements on the corner opposite Poniou Lane, in front of the car
rental company, should greatly reduce the possibility of use of this area for
parking vehicles, which could force pedestrians out onto the road. Comments
were made that the existing double-yellowlines on the access road were
..ign0 reQ.----Th@r-e-will-g~nG-waiting-at-any-tirne!-'F0aGl-rna
rki ngSR ere and th is is
a matter for enforcement by the relevant authorities.
88. Of course, there cannot be separation from vehicles on the level crossing itself,
however, this is a very short distance and I consider the plan for a section of
footway to the south-east of the railway will provide a visual aid tending to
. ~eep drivers to the west of the footway section.
,
..
89. I was told that a child had recently been trapped by their clothing, being hung
on the barrier for a period of time. This seems a most unusual incident and
not, in my view, indicative that LRC is inherently unsafe.
90. Although I ,agree with objectors who say that the use of LRCdoes not remove
alldanqer, I am satlsfted.that it is safer than Mexico for pedestrians with
_ ... __ ._.
regard to the interaction with trains. Whilst there is a need to then interact
with carsI consider that the risks are low, due to low traffic speeds over a
short distance, and that the agreed improvements will further reduce risk.
10
Dated 21 October 2014, with amendments signed 29 October and 3 November 2014
16
Road through Long Rock villeqe

91. From the northern end of Beach Terrace there is a footway':', through Long
Rock both to the east and west. To the east the footway continues on the
southern side of the road to just beyond the 30 mile limit, past the roundabout.
Several properties have dropped kerb access across' the footway from the road
and there is a Pelican crosstnq'" east of the northern end of Beach Terrace,
joining the footways on either side of the road through the village.
92. To the west of Beach Terrace there is vehicular access to the cui-de-sac Castle
View and two entrances to properties on Bay Villa. On the corner leading to
LRCthere are light industrial Units, primarily used for car sales, maintenance
and rentals.
93. The footways are what might generally be expected in a village, with some
necessary residential access. The OMA had no records of accidents involving
pedestrians and vehicles within Long Rock and I see no reason why the road
safety record would be affected by the closure of Mexico, even with the
potential additional pedestrian use of some parts of the footway. I understand
that people would prefer not to walk alongside the road, or to have to cross
roads, even residential accesses. However, I do not consider that this makes
the road here a dangerous alternative to Mexico.
Nerezlon/Lonq Rock Road and SHB
94. To the east of the village limits the road continues towards Marazion as a
vehicular carriageway, with no separate footway. Although there are no
incidents reported to either the police or the' highway authority involving
pedestrians or cyclists and cars, information was given to me of near misses,
either observed or experienced. As in relation to the trains, I bear in mind that
near misses are subjective incidents.
95. From the FOLRMCsurvey, 76 people had chosen not to Use SHB as they felt it
too dangerous. Having walked as far as SHB itself from the car park on my
initial site visit, I can understand this view. I also note that 77% of those using
this route felt it dangerous. The survey does not compare the danger felt in
using the road to that of using Mexico, although anecdotally I am clear that it is
the perception of users that the road is more dangerous ..
96. I understand the concerns felt by local people at needing to walk along this
stretch of road. However, as part of the planned works, referred to above, the
OMA will be providing a footway along the entire southern side of this stretch of
road, over SHB to Old Station Lane. Some objectors felt that this would be
helpful but others remained concerned that this was a busy road and there
may be the possibility of conflict between pedestrians and vehicles.
97. Taking account of the expert evidence provided by the OMA in-this regard, I am ~.~ -satisfied that the proposed changes will improve pedestrian safety, and
perception of safety, in -using this stretch of road. I understand that it may not
be as pleasant an environment for walkers as the multi-use trail accessed from
N Section 329 of the 1980 Act defines a footway as "a way comprised in a highway which also comprises a
carriageway, being a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only."
12 pedestrian light controlled crossing
17
Mexico, 'however, in my view, this does not weigh against the tests in
comparison to the safety of Mexico.
Road compared to rail
98. Supporters to the Order drew my attention to the HOCTC, which said that
unlike crosslnqa road, where motorists can swerve and brake and vehicles are
lighter than trains', the consequences of being struck by a train are almost
always very serious, if not fatal. If an average walking trip includes a level
crossing, the fatality risk to a pedestrian is about double the risk of an average
walking trip without 'a level crossing. _
99. On the other hand, objectors referred to distractions for
cause accidents, such as using mobile phones or eating,
drivers would be more likely to concentrate on their job.
made with the number 'of accidents that.occur on roads,
roads were not closed in such circumstances.
drivers which could

feeling that train.
Comparison, was
with comment that
100. The OMA indicated that the 10 year average was 5 pedestrian deaths per year
on roads in Cornwall but approximately half of the pedestrians involved in such
accidents were intoxicated. They felt thatthe number of near misses and
accidents on roads reflected the number of cars, which were far more frequent
than trains, such that the risk of dying asa pedestrian, particularlv a sober
one, was extremely low. .
.
101. Taking account of all the evidence, I recognise the concerns but consider, even
if people feel worried, or unhappy, about using the road network, rather than
. Mexico, their risk is reduced by doing so. The provision of pavements will .
reduce that risk further and, in rnv.vlew.irnake the use of the alternatives more
palatable than at present.
.
.
Whether it is reasonably practicable to make the crossing safe for use by
the public
--------
102. A number of objectors made suggestions for improvements, which they

believed could deal with any safety issues, allowing both sides to find a
solution; those wishing to use Mexico to be able to continue to do so; whilst
those who had concerns on safety could 'be satisfied, so far as possible, that no
further incidents could arise. I note the comments from both objectors and
supporters that NR had previously done little to improve safety, arguing that
Mexico was legally compliant.
103. Edwards v The National Coal Boerd (1949Y3 was relied upon to show that the
risk should be placed on one scale and the sacrifice, whether in money, time or
trouble, involved in the measures necessary to avert risk placed in the other.
If there is a gross disproportion between them; the risk insignificant in
corrtparison to sacrtfice; thencompltanceIs
not reasonably-practicable-.
Bridge or tunnel
104. The most obvious solution in this type of situation is to provide a grade
separated crossing, above or below the line of the railway. It was generally
13
i All
ER 743
..
18
accepted that in this particularlocation

a tunnel was not possible, due to the
danger of encroachment from the sea.
105. Although there was some discussion around the provision of a footbridge, it
seemed that the only way in which this could occur would be by the purchase
and removal of a residential property at the southern end of Beach Terrace. I
accept that the technical and financial implications of such provision take it
beyond what is reasonably practicable.
Improvements to sighting towards the east for pedestrians on the south
side of Mexico
106. NR rejected the recommendation of the RAIB to move the .equlpment cases,
sited east of Mexico, on the basis that the sightline was already compliant, such
that the small benefit would not justify the cost, which they lndicated was
higher than that estimated by the RAIB. I note the comment that a project of
Delivering Rail Improvements in Cornwall, including the upgrading of signalling,
could allow such work to be carried out. However,taking
all the matters into'
account, I am, just, satisfied that the overall cost means that it is not
reasonably practicable.
Determine the optimum position of the whistle boards at Mexico and make
any required adjustments
107. The RAIB report suggests that there may be scope to move both up and down
line whistle boards closer to Mexico, which could increase the probability of a
horn being heard, particularly on the down line. I note that NR were concerned
about the potential impact on residents, however, it seems that the residential
area of Long Rock will be expanding further east, due to new development. '
108. Following a national review of the impact of train horns on residents,' only the
low tone of the two-tone horn has been used since April 2007, with no horns in
the period 23:00 - 07:00. The FOLRMC suggested that local arrangements
could be made to allow the reintroduction of two-tone horns at this location, as
they are arguably more recognisable as being from a train.
109. NR argued that regular users would be used to the current warning time, such
that moving the whistle boards, shortening warning time, could become a risk
in itself. Given that Mexico has been closed for almost two years I consider
that a new pattern would be relatively easy to establish and could be reinforced
with appropriate signage. Nevertheless, I take account of the view of the ORR
that any safety improvement in making the horn easier to hear would be small
and may be off-set by the reduced warning time.
110. I agree with the FOLRMC, and other objectors, that this appears to be a lowcost option, already identified by industry experts. However, I remain
.concerned that, when-it-may be risky to rely on the whistle boards, such as when the wind is in a certain direction or train drivers fail to sound the horn,
the sighting to the east provides only a short time frame.
Identify, mark and sign the optimum decision point
111. The FOLRMC believed that quite simple measures could improve safety at
Mexico, and other, crossings. The HOCTC noted that users were generally
unaware that they needed to be at least two metres away from the tracks in
www,planningportal,gov.uk/planninginspectorate
19
order to remain safe and at footpath crossings on mainlines the minimum

distance was three metres.
112. T984 notes that SLLsigns are typically the most prominent crossing feature at
passive crossings. However, it was found that they were not commonly viewed
by users, and there was little, if any, evidence that those who did observe the
SLL sign were more likely to look for trains, although there was a weak positive
influence on safe use. It does not appear that the SLL sign is such a safety
factor that changes would significantly improve Mexico. Whilst there was some
criticism of the wording ano design of the SLL sign by the FOLRMC,these
matters are set out by reference to the Private Crossings (Signs and Barriers)
Regulations 1996; this is a wider issue than can be considered in relation to
this Inquiry.
113. It seems from the RAIB report that the movement of the SLL sign, following
the 2011 fatality, was seen by NR as the marking of the decision point. The
RAIB has also recommended that decision points should be marked on the
ground; Photographs of Mexico, prior to the removal of the crosslnq boards,
show a continuous,yellow board-walk from the gate to the north, to almost the
southern gate. r' agree with the FOLRMCthat this is unhelpful and note that
T984 includes the idea of providing clear distinction between the zone in which'
there is risk of being struck by a train from the approach and exit areas, and .
that where there is no such risk, as an option for widespread consideration.
The FOLRMCsuggest <DANGER> marking., whilst T984 suggests yellow colour.
114. Although I agree with the..FOLRMCthat such markings would be likely to lead
to improvements at Mexico, I note that T984 sets out that the safety
improvements are likely to be comparatively small.
Crossing deck
115. The FOLRMCalso suggested widening the crossing deck, to assist in busy
periods. However, it seems to me that this might encourage more people onto
the crossing at. one time, potentially leaaing to bottle-necks at the qates. I do
not consider it has been demonstrated that this would improve safety for' users.
116. There has been focus on the crossing from the south, but I agree that the slope
in the crossing deck to the north reduces sighting distance and increases
crossing time here. Alterations to the level. of the crossing deck appear to be
practicable, with T984 showing improved crossing surfacing as a low cost,
mandatory improvement. I am satisfied that it would improve safety for
Mexico.
Other signs
117. The LXRMTKsets out that the provision of a sign reminding dog owners to put
doqson a lead whilsttraversinq is a 'suitable mitigation measurer The ORR =: . Level crossings: a guide tormeneqers, desiqners and operators indicates that
simple signs giving clear instructions to users on how to cross safely may be
provided. This is low cost and the use is established elsewhere. As pointed out
by the FOLRMC,in Long Rock there are signs relating to dog use and non-use
of the beaches west and east of LRC respectively; the instructions on the signs
mayor may not be enforced, however, there is apparently general conformity
to them by users in this area.
www.pianningportai.goY.ukjpianninginspectorate
20
5.
118~The FOLRMCalso. suggested that a sign could be erected stating "A safer
crossing is available at the west end of the village." There wauld need to. be
thaught given to. the siting of such signs, althaugh I agree this may improve
user choice and could lead to. a small impravement in safety if mare users
chase to. use LRC, rather than Mexico. I am satisfied that these ideas provide
reasonably practicable measures, which could Improve safety here. '
Train, speed restrictions
119. There was suggestian from same objectors that train speeds could be reduced.
NR had referred to. this in their applicatian, rejecting it an the basis of a
Gavernment expectatian of reducing passenger times by increasing speeds,
rather than decreasing them. The LXRMTK shows that speed reductian
provides an effective means of reducing the potential far and cansequences of
collisions an level crassings. However, the mare recently published T984
indicates that the occurrence of accidents does natchange with train speed and
sa this is not, by itself, a risk factor.
120. I give little weight to. the argument that passenger times would be affected by
a speed alteration at a paint sa close to. the railway terminus at Penzance.
However, given the confllct between the LXRMTK and T984, I do. not consider
that it has been demonstrated that reduction of train speeds is a practicable
safety measure.
Miniature warning Jights14
121. The WCFPSsuggested that it may be passible to. install miniature warnlnq
lights ("MWL") an ar at the gates, perhaps run as a spur from LRC. HOCTC
indicates that just aver 100 level crassings have MWL far pedestrians and it is a
legal requirement far pedestrians to. stap when MWLs show red. I heard direct
evidence, and it was also. documented in the HOCTC,'that long delays between
MWLs changing to. red and a train passing can lead to. increased risk-taking.
This is similar to the situation where people apparently relied an the LRC
barriers, but did not always wait until they are raised before crassing at Mexico..
122. Taking account of the RAIB report I am not satisfied that MWLs would increase
safety Mexico, in fact the use afMWLs, as assessed in ALCRM, increased the
risk score for Mexico.from C2 to B1. This does not provide a reasanably
practicable means to. make the Mexico.safer.
Manual crossing with barriers and closed circuit television
123. LRC is a crossing of this type and it was suggested by WCFPSthat the same
system could be installed at Mexico., with control of the warnings and barriers
from Penzance signal box, in the same way as LRC. I aqree with WCFPSthat it
appears that there is sufficient roam to. install the necessary lighting and CCTV
at-Mexlco. as the line here was formerly- double-track and does not appear to
be significantly narrower than at LRC.
124. Having visited LRC in the evening of Thursday 23 October, I was surprised at
the extent of the illumination arising. I agree with NR that such light would
impact on residential properties situated just to. the north of Mexico, even if it
were passible to safely direct lights mare towards the sea, as suggested by the
14
Also referred to as miniature stop lights
21
ORDER DECISION FPS/D084Oj3/3
WCFPS. Taking account of all the requirements for such a system at Mexico,
including signaller involvement in the on-going operation of it, I am satisfied
that such a solution would not. meet the test of reasonable practicability.
ESiGate 200
125. The ORR,indicates that it is preferable to generate audible warnings at the
crossing itself and objectors were keen that this could be a solution: I was
greatly assisted by evidence given to the Inquiry from Bombardier, who own
and develop a number of different systems, one 'of which is the EBI Gate 200. I..
I understand that the EBI Gate was originally developed for use on UWc. Both
UWC and footpath crossings are classed as passive crossings, however, in the
case of UWCsthere are a small number cif identified indivlduals with access, for
example in connection with agriculture or a marina. For footpaths anyone may
use them and there are likely to be a greater number of users.'
126. Bombardier are in the process of further development of the product to meet
the needs of footpath crossings, such as Mexico1 and it was abundantly clear
that there was a desire to find a solution. Both Bombardier and NR wish to '
solve the issues arising from these types of situation, which would be a win-win
situation. However, I need to 'determine the Order as,it is before, me now, with
the current available technology and; having heard the evidence from both
sides, I am not satisfied 'that the solution is available now in relation to the
complex signalling system that exists in and around Mexico/ or that, if it were,
it would meet the test of reasonable practicability.
1i7. I understand the observations of those of us unfemlliarwith engineering and
signalling solutions that on the face of it the costs seernhiqh for the work that
appears to..be necessary. However, I am satisfied that the.siqnallinq
complexities with the strike in and strike out zones associated with the tracks
on either side of the crossing do introduce additional costs to the works and' it
is not simply the initial cost' of the system that needs
to be considered.
'
,
..'
Other systems
128. Other possibilities, such as Wavetrain and power operated gate openers, were
also raised by objectors.but, most fairly, accepted as not being suitable for use
in this situation. There was some' concern that, as non-experts in this field,
objectors may have missed options which could assist. In response to a direct
question, NR confirmed that the identified options were the closest to providing
a safe crossing and that there was 'no other option. in development that was '
close to being a solution for Mexico. I understand the frustration of users that,
in.an age of technology, no solution is yet available.
.'
Other matters regarding reasonable practicability

129.-'lfwauld be fair-la say that there was a suspicion that N-R'were'slmplv seeklriq
to close any level crossings that they could, without taking account of possible
solutions, NR indicated that Mexico was ranked 7 in total fWI score when
compared to all footpath level crossings on the Western route. Of the six,
footpath level crossings with higher FWI, five already had footbridges provided,
or being provided, whilst for the sixth, negotiations had just begun to identify
the appropriate way forward. It does not seem that there is any justification
www,planningportal,gov,uk/planf)inginspectorate
22
for the suspicion in this case, particularly where NR have agreed to pay for
.improvements to the road network, in connection with the alternative routes.
Other matters ...compensation
130. There appeared to be an understanding that anyone affected by the
extinguishment could claim compensation from the OMA, with the suggestion
that this would give rise to such high costs to the public purse that the
.extinguishment could not be justified. It is not my understanding that
compensation under the 1980 Act works in the way envisaged, and so I have
not taken this matter into account.
Conclusions
131. I consider that some matters have been identified by objectors which could
lead to safety improvements at Mexico, further reducing the risk, however, the
reductions in risk are all small, although cumulative. There would still be, in
my view, groups of users who would remain at a high risk, .due to being slower
in crossing throuqh age, impairment or encumbrance. The more extensive
works that might lead to NR being satisfied as to the risk profile at Mexico are
either not yet developed to be used in this specific situation, or are beyond
what I would consider to be reasonably practicable. It is to' be hoped that
solutions will be developed for other circumstances, where noalternative
access is available. However, in this case, at this time, as articulated in T984,
there is no 'silver bullet' for mitigating the existing risks.
ArrangelTI~nts for appropriate
maintained
.
barriers and signs to I).~erected and
132. As set out in the Order NR have entered into an agreement with the OMA to
defravanyexpenses in connection with the erection orrnalntenance of barriers
or signs. An agreementwas signed on behalf of NR on 21 June 201:?ahd I
understand that the fence-line alongside the railway will be extended and
maintained across the former gates on either side of Mexico. I note comments
from objectors that teenagers have been seen climbing the temporary fencing
to continue using Mexico. This point will need to be borne in mind when
designing the barriers to prevent a further incident at this point.
133. As this is an unrecorded route, not shown on Ordnance Survey maps and with
no signs to indicate it as a public footpath, there may be less need for signage
to be maintained in the long term.
Whether it is expedient to confirm the Order having regard to all the
circumstances - the effect of the loss of the crossing on users
Alternative routes
'134~-Whilst a great deal-of the verbal and written evidence referred to the
importance of the beach, a survey by the FOLRMCshowed most use was for
access to the path, which is a multi-use trail, runoing between the beach and
the railway at this point, The route is not simply a leisure route, but also
provides access for work and school. However, unsurprisingly, it was also clear
that residents, and probably a number of visitors, do use it to access the
beach. There are fantastic amenities to the south of the railway, whether
walking the dog, cycling to work, swimming, surfing or running, or just as a
23
place to enjoy for views and fresh air. If there were no other means of access
to the south of the village then I consider that the positive-value of this would
weigh heavily in.the balance against the stopping up 'of Mexico.
135. Two alternative access routes are available to reach the amenities: to the west
over LRG and to the east over SHB. I am aware that a number of objectors are
not satisfied that either of these alternatives provides sufficient convenience to
overcome the loss of Mexico, and I shall consider the matters raised in this
respect below.
Surveys
136. The FOLRMCcarried out a survey to explore the use of Mexico prior to closure
'and of the alternative routes subsequently. The author of the survey fairly
admitted that there were some limitations in methodology, making analysis of
the results more difficult. The questionnaire was distributed to every household
and copies were held in the post office.and the Stores, as well as advertised by
posters in the area. It was fairly agreed that the questionnaire had a level of
bias, being headed "If you want to save the crossing please fill in the
questionnaire'. The results will be used to strengthen our case to Cornwall
Council for having the crossing reopened and kept open." Those who might not
wish to keep the crossing open would be less likely to complete the survey.
, However, I am satisfiedthat, whilst it may not be statistically representative of
the users as a whole, it does provide useful information.
'
137. Of the alternative routes, most use was made of LRC with 203 of the 280
individuals having used it,whilst 155 had used SHB. Only 12% of those using
SHB found it inconvenient,in comparison to31 % of those using LRC. This may ,
be a reflection of the fact that the general residential area is to the north-east
of Mexico and Ludgvan Parish Council indicated that the majority of crossings
are made with Marazion as the ultimate destination. It would feel perverse to
travel to LRC and then back around to the east, rather than simply travelling
east m.the.ftrst.lnstance..
_
138. As part of the management of LRC, NR carried out a 9 day census in October
2007, which showed 'an average of 90 pedestrians using it per day. A 5 day
census ]une'2014 showed a 284%, increase in use, with 256 people per day.
Despite the difference in the time of year, I agree with NR that it is likely that
the higher use reflects people now using LRC as an alternative to Mexico.
Despite the concerns raised by objectors, people are making l!se of LRC.
Convenience of the alternative routes relative to the exlstinq rail crossinq
Distance
139. Many people were unhappy that there was a tendency to refer to LRCbeing
-"200 metres' from Mexico. I am cle-arthat the distance-that needs to be
-' -- ,-, considered, for the majority of users, will be that from the top of Beach Terrace
to either LRC itself or back to the southern side of Mexico. There is access to
the beach at LRC; however, it may not be the first choice for some, as dogs are
allowed on the section to the west. Access to the east along the beach is
limited depending upon tide times, due to the sea defences here. The next
available access onto the beach is that opposite Mexico. For those living in
Beach Terrace there is a short additional distance to the top of the road,
www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorat'e
24
, although I understand entirely that it feels perverse, and so inconvenient, to

walk away from where you want to be in order to get there.
'
140. The OMA indicated the relevant distance was approximately 600 metres. At
the average walking speed of 1.2 metres/second this would result in additional
time of around eight and a half minutes. I agree that for most people there will
be a two-way journey, to and from their home, leading to an overall distance of
approximately 1.2 kilometres and time of around seventeen minutes. For some
users, for example the elderly or those with young children, this would take
longer, with a speed of 0.8 m/s giving a time of twelve and a half minutes and
a return journey time of twenty-five minutes.
141. The OMA give a distance via SHB as 1,4S0m, which would take an average
walking time of approximately twenty minutes, or half an hour at the slower
speed. However, unlike LRC, there is no obvious reason why users would need
to go back to Mexico, as access is available from the car park- south of SHB.
The additional journey would therefore be about half the distance, although, of
course, there would be a 'return trip, leaving the' overall additional journey time
at 20 - 30 minutes.
142. I agree that an additional distance may be inconvenient to users and, for some,
may prove to be a step too far in,terms of whether they feel able to make the
journey at all. However, as pointed out by NR, 80% of those who completed,
the FOLRMCsurvey were using one of the alternative routes. Given the
proposed improvements to those routes, I am satisfied that more people will
feel able to make use of them.
Time
, 143. The FOLRMCraised concerns about the time taken, and therefore wasted, in
using the LRC, rather than Mexico. I have dealt with the issue of walking time
in terms of distance above and issues were also raised about time standing at
the barriers. I agree with NR that if people are relying on the barriers at LRC
to determine whether it was safe to cross at Mexico then there would be no
difference in the time; when the barriers were down at LRC people could not
physically cross at that point and should not cross at Mexico. However, it is
clear that some people would still choose to cross even if the barriers were
down, simply relying on them to indicate higher likelihood of a train arriving
soon; for those individuals, the time spent at the-barriers would be additional,
but also stops them making a more risky crossing.
144. It seemed that the suggestion of additional controlled barriers at Mexico was
seen by some as a solution allowing continued use of the crossing. This would
also mean that people would spend additional time at barriers in comparison to
the former situation.
"14S-.-NR supplied information on the usual time that barriers were-down by way-of a- snapshot of real time information arising from a random' period, 1 .Auqust - 15
August 2014. In that period there were an average of 47 occasions every day
that barriers were down, some of which could relate to tests or maintenance.
The overall average period that barriers weredown was 4 minutes 5 seconds,
with the shortest period 3 seconds and longest 14 minutes 18 seconds.
www,planningportal.gov.ukjplanninginspectorate
25
146. There is clearly a perception that the LRC barriers are often down for long
periods, with a number of people mentioning 15 - 20 minutes, although the
FOLRMCsurvey of June/July 2014 found that the longest waiting times at the
barriers for most people were 5 or 10 minutes. Whilst the table from NR is just
a snapshot of a particular period, and I note an error in replicating one of the
data sets, there is no reason to suppose that it was not representative.
147. It seems that if you happened to be wishing to cross to and fro at LRC at times
when trains were passing then you could, on average, spend a little over 8
minutes at the barriers. The longest 'time might be as much as half an hour
but this would only occur if you arrived at the barriers at the exact time they
closed and they were then down for the longest identified time period when
travelling in both directions; such circumstances seem unlikely to me.
148. A factor I consider a negative for users is that raised by the FOLRMC;the
, ' unpredictability of ethe time that the barrier might be closed w.ill be likely to be
, a deterrent to recreational users. The Law Commission, in the HOCTC,found a
close relationship between convenience and safety, such that people may take
risks if made to wait for longer than they think reasonable. ' However, on my
site visits in connection with the Inquiry, as well as when passing the end of
the road leadingto LRC, driving to and fro, there were few times that I noted
the barriers to be down. I made a specific request for the times of trains on 20
October to ensure that I viewed them passing through the two crossings.
149. Concerns were also raised regarding times that people may be trapped south of
the barriers due to a technical fault. This,occurs because the barriers fail in
'safe mode', that is down, to prevent access onto the railway line. Such a fault
. arose in September 2014 when I understand the barriers were down for
approximately 2 hours and I was provided with a list of 21 failures occurring'
since renewal of the barrier in 2007. Of course, it would be extremely
inconvenient and frustrating to be stuck on the wrong side of the barriers, and
I hearthe argument that if Mexico was open it was possible for people to cross
--,the l-i-ne-regard+ess-;-N-everth-e+ess,l-consider-this-to-be--a-n-tlnu
suai situati 0 n and it is to be hoped that the LCMfor LRCwill actively engage with the local
stakeholders
to properly inform the risk assessment process and determine'
\
how to dealwith such issues appropriately.
,
.
.
150. I do, of course, understand how frustrating it may be to be stopped by the
barriers, when wishing to be somewhere else; additional time, no matter how
little, will be inconvenient to at least some users. However, weighing the
importance of time for some parties, against safety for others, I do not
consider that the potential for additional time spent standing at the barriers
should be given great weight in this case.
.Conclusions
,151. I understand that the combination of time, distance and danger, real or
perceived, make the alternative routes inconvenient and unattractive in
comparisontb Mexico. However" giving appropriate weight to the proposed
works, and, welqhlnqthe matters against the issues in using Mexico, I am
, satisfied thatovera!l. the .availabllitv of the alternative routes is a' positive
factor in considering cbnfirmationof the Order.
26
Wider health impacts, quality of life and the Equality Act

152. The FOLRMCfairly raised the issue of possible effects on overall health for
village residents, who may no longer make journeys to the beach if having to
use one of the alternative routes instead. Witnesses to the Inquiry provided
evidence that this may arise because the distance was too great, for either the
youngest or oldest, or due to the possibility of having to stand in traffic fumes
at LRC, or walk in such circumstances generally. Whilst there was argument
.from a supporter that the beach had appeared as busy on summer weekends
as previously, there is credible evidence before me to supportthe objectors'
case that less use is being made of the beach.
153. The FOLRMCsaid that the risk of death on Mexico, for a regular user was 1 in
23,500 years. By comparison, it was said that if an older person chose to no
longer make a journey, which might be deliberately for health reasons, or from
which the health benefits arose as a by-product. then given that their agerelated risk of dying Was, say 1 in 10 years, there was no benefit to them in
being stopped from using Mexico.
154. Age and dlsabilltv are both protected characteristics under the Equality Act
2010 ("the 2010 Act"), 'which establishes a general duty on public authorities to
have due regard when carrying out their functions, to the need: to eliminate
unlawful discrimination, harassment or victimisation; advance equality of
opportunity; and to foster good relations. I understand that some parties
believe that the closure of Mexico removes their equality in being able to
access the southern side of the railway line.
.
. 155. I note that the OMA carried out an Equality Impact Assessment and found that
. the longer journey would impact significantly on those with mobility
impairmenf. I agree with objectors that there will be some people who may
find a decreased quality of life, because they decide not to make the longer
journey to the beach, instead drivinq to another destination or simply
remaining at home. I also agree with NR that for those who continue to make
that journey, whether deliberately for health or not, they will inadvertently gain
additional small benefit from that longer walk.
156. I entirely understand the view that people should be allowed to make their own
informed choices about use, and heard the term 'health and safety gone mad'
at the Inquiry. Both sides seek to protect 'vulnerable users' by either closing
the crossing or keeping it open. However, taking account of the particular
circumstances of the 2011 fatality; this was a local resident. who had lived here
for over thirty years. Albeit that her family described her as fit, she was, at 73
years of age, a potentially 'vulnerable user', identified by the FOLRMCas being
one of those for whom Mexico had particular value. She was a regular user of
Mexico, who relied on the position of the barriers at LRC to assist in deciding
-whether or not to cross. Despite these factors, she was still struck by a train.
157. The idea that people should be able to decide for themselves whether or not to
take the risk, choosing to have the benefit in exchange for the risk, is fair
enough when they clearly understand the risk. However, it takes no account of
those who may be unaware of it,apart from in the abstract of 'crossing a
railway line'. It also takes no account of the clearly devastating effect that
such an accident has on the family and friends of the deceased.
27
.158.,I consider that there will be some people for whom the loss of thecrossinq will
negatively affect their health and quality of life. The impact of this is likelyto
be higher on those who have protected characteristics under the 2010 Act.
However, given the fantastic resource and amenity which exists to the south of
the railway line, I am satisfied that the majority of people will wish to continue
to access it and their quality of life, and health, will not be negatively affected
in the way suggested by the FOLRMC. Taking all matters into account, and in
particular the higher risk to the more vulnerable users in continuing to use
Mexico, I consider that. it is expedient in this respect to confirm the Order.
Business impacts
159. The FOLRMCnoted that there were business owners in Long Rock who felt that
the closure had a negative financial impact on their business. I heard from two
individuals at the Inquiry whose perception was clearly that the closure meant
people were no longer passing the door or choosing their location, affecting
takings. No accounts were provided to support this, although the owner of
Mount View said that at least one person had cancelled their stay as they were
unable to access the beach via Mexico and another holiday home owner'
indicated that their bookings had reduced in 2014 on informing people of the
unavailability of Mexico.
v .
.
160. There will be some people who would have used the Stores in passing and may
not now, such as the dog walkers from Marazion, who bought coffee and cake
daily.' Some objectors referred to having formerly used Mexico to access the
Stores from the beach.
161. Chelonia Limited has moved to a different site, although the Director indicates
that he still wished to use Long Rock beach for equipment testing. It was
indicated that the product development was only possible due to the unique
circumstances of living at 5 Beach Terrace, which is the property immediately
north-east of Mexi,co. This is a particularly individual set of circumstances and I
acce~t-Ehat-EAe-eentiFll;;leEl'
use-ef-EAe-13eaeA.:....might-ee-m0fe-El+ffi
cult and ti meconsuming, due to the need to work around the down-time of the barriers at
LRC. Nonetheless, the business has re,..sitedand is presumably viable.
162. I accept that for all the business in the village there is, at the very least, a
.
perception and fear that the extinguishment of the crossing will have a financial
impact. Unfortunately, it is difficult to specifically identify the effect of the
closure when there are so many other factors involved in choice; for example,
there are three supermarkets within one and a half miles and a large number
of hotels, holiday cottages, guest-houses and public houses to choose from in
the immediate area. Whilst the evidence is anecdotal, I consider that the
potential effect on businesses adds some weight againstthe confirmation of the
Order, although I note the comments from those in support of the Order that
---hebusinesses'hads'u-rvived almost 2-years of temporarv closure of Mexico'- ---.
Use of other routes
163. Itwas suqqested that if people could not use Mexico, they might choose other
routes, 'particularly FP3, north of Long:Rock. I walked this route as part of my
.site visits and, given that it crosses the A30 dual carriageway, I consider it
highly unlikely that anyone would choose to use this rather than either of the
alternatives identified above, which do provide beach access.
28
- -
Property values
164. Several people suggested that the value of their properties had been, or would.
be, decreased by extinguishment, as access to the beach was a selling point.
Whilst I understand people may be concerned at this, no valuations were
provided to substantiate this point and .so I can give it no weight.
165. Mention was also made of being unable to install storm boards in the sea wall,
which lies to the south of the railway line. It may be that the line of the sea
wall should be filled, if there is no need for access to the railway line at this
point, but this is a separate matter.
.
Emergency access
166. Some people raised concerns about emergency services being able to access
the beach quickly should they need to. Use of Mexico would require knowledge
that access was available in the first place and I note that no statutory
objection was made by the relevant services in this regard, despite consultation
with them. I note the concern but give it no weight in this instance.
Other.matters
- effects upon rail staff and passengers
167. It was noted that an accident with a train, particularly a fatality; has an effect
on train users, with drivers involved in such incidents apparently often never
returning to the same job! due to the distress arising. Passengers will be, at
least! inconvenienced and! if aware of the circumstances! may also be
distressed. I note that ALCRMincludes a factor for effects upon rail staff and
passengers and so do not wish to 'double-count' what is! in my view!
minimal
factor in relation to the thrust of the 1980 Act legislation. I accept that; in
wider terms! it provides a very small amount of support to closure of Mexico.
Conclusions
168. Decisions.under this legislation rely on the confirmation being 'expedient'! and
the ORR referred to The Health and Safety Ex~cutive v Wolverhampton City
Council (2012Ys which sets out that "The word 'expedient' implies no more
than that the action should be appropriate in all the circumstances." This is
supported in Gillan and Quinton v United Kingd~m (2010Y6.
169. It was argued by some that safety was of paramount importance! and by
others that the issues of safety and convenience should be given equal weight.
I bear in mind the argument of NR that Attorney-General for Canada v Hallet &
Carey Ltd (1952y7 gives weight to 'safety' as the language is clear and
unambiguous and so there is no need to look outside the terms of the 1980
Act; every statute should be expounded according to its manifest and
expressed intention. Nonetheless, I agree with the "findings of the Law
Commission! as re~orted by HOCTC!th~t t~s_i~.about strikinq abalance.
170. In this case there is a balance of conflicting interests! with each side of the
view that their case is in the public interest: one to close Mexico for the safety
of the public who might use it; and! the other relating to the value to the
community of retaining Mexico. As set out at the Inquiry! I consider that these
UKSC 34
50 E.H.R.R. 45
17 AC 427
15
16
29
are very strong and legitimate competing interests. In balancing those

interests I consider that 'greater weight should be given to the safety of
individuals over the potential inconvenience and losses identified by the,
objectors. I have found there to be a fine balance in this particular case,
however, keeping in mind all the matters discussed above, I consider it
expedient to confirm the Order.
OTHER MATTERS
171. I also understand that people feel that those seeking to close the route had
time and finances not available to the objectors. I have considered the
evidence and arguments presented by both sides and trust that those
concerned will be satisfied that I have understood and properly weighed all
relevant matters.'
'
172. I am not able to take account of concerns regardingthe consultation process,
prior to the making of the Order, or the use of petitions and e-petitions and
their management by the OMA. Neither can I deal with the apparent failure of
the ADC to provide further requested information regarding the inquest
procedures.
173. I note the concern that if Mexico was closed, then, LRC might also be, leaving
users without access. Whilst I note the concern, this would be a separate .
, matter, to be considered, if it arose, at that time by reference to the legislation
and evidence then prevailing.
. CONCLUSIONS
174. Having regard to these and all other matters raised at the Inquiry, and in the
written representations, I conclude that the Order should be confirmed subject
to the minor modification in relation to the extent of the affected route.
FORMAL DECISION
175. -I con-m-mme Oraer suojecl:-:-fOfFle

foTlowing modificafions:-
In the Schedule to the Order:
in paragraph 2, after text "...to stop up 'the full extent of the ...rr remove
text "...Iength of...",
Heidi Cruickshank;
Inspector
'
DOCUMENTS
1
The Order
Agreement between Network Rail and Cornwall Council
Cornwall Council - Closing submission
Opening submissions
including case law
T984 - Research into the. causes of pedestrian accidents at level crossings

and potential solutions
Locking sketch, Mexico Crossing (Drawing No. 51090/2 (extract))
Information on barrier closed timings
Presentation of crossing findings
Correction to proof of evidence of My Tim Mayo
10
Proof of evidence of Mr D Jowett
11
Crossing ranking information
12
Evidence of Sarah Mitchell
13
Information on Mexico layout, with reference to EBI Gate 200
14
Submissions in closing on behalf of Network Rail Infrastructure

including case law
15
Opening statement on behalf of the Office of Rail Regulation.
16
Closing submissions on behalf of the Office of Rail Regulation, including case

law
17
Submissions of Mr & Mrs Webster
18
Letter from the Open Spaces Society
19
Information on May 2014 survey
20
Graphical presentation of risk information
21
Bombardier presentatlonon EBI Gate 200
22
EBI Gate 200 deployment information
on behalf of Network
Rail Infrastructure
23
24
Friends of Long Rock Mexico Crossing, User Survey
25
The West Cornwall Footpaths Preservation Society submission

.
'.
26
Statement of case of Dr J Bailey & Dr P Glinkowski
27
Letter from Mrs E Bassi
28
E-mail from Andrew George MP
Limited,
Limited,
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ADC
Assistant Deputy Coroner
ALARP
As low as reasonably practicable

(
ALCRM
.ASPR
.All .Level Crossing Risk Model

RSSB Annual Safety Performance Report 2013/14
BRIMS
British Rail Information
CCTV
Closed circuit television
FOLRMC
Friends of Long Rock Mexico Crossing
FWI
Fatalities and welqhted injuries
HOCTC
House .of Commons Transport Committee
. HSE
Management System
Health and Safety Executive
LCM
Level Crossing 'Manager
LXRMTK'
Level Crossing Risk Management Toolkit .
MWL
Miniature Warning Lights
NR
Network Rail Infrastructure
OMA
Order Making Authority.
ORR.
Office of Rail Regulation
SHB
Station House Bridge.
SMIS
Safety Management Information
RAIB
Rail Accident Investigation
RSSB
Rail Safety and Standards Board Ltd
SLL
Stop Look Listen signs
T984
Report by RSSB of Research into the causes of pedestrian accidents at

level crossings and potential solutions, July 2014
TORF
Tolerability of Risk Framework
UWC
User-Worked 'Crosslnq
WCFPS
The West Cornwall Footpaths Preservation Society
WHO
World Health Organisation
Limited
.. --
------'
..
System
Branch
APPEARANCES
For the Order Making Authority:
Ms V Davis
who called:
Mr P Marsh
Mr A Roberts
Legal Officer, Cornwall Council

Head of Commissioning and Asset Management,
Cornwall Council
Project Manager for Safety Engineering, CORMAC
Solutions Ltd
In Support of the Order:

MrJ Phillips
who called:
Mr D Cottrell
Dr M Gallop
. Mr DJowett
of Counsel instructed by Mr D Tilney, Bond-Dixon LLP,

on behalf of Network' Rail Infrastructure Limited
Level Crossing Safety & Risk Manager for the National
Level Crossing Team
Director of Route Asset Management, Western Route
Senior Level Crossing Product Development Engineer
Mr P Martell
Route Asset Manager for Signalling, Western Route
MrT Mayo
Route Level Crossing Manager, Western Route
Ms S Mitchell
Head of Safety, Health and Environment, Western Route
Mr H Flanagan
who called:
Mr M McNeal
of Counsel on behalf of the Office of Rail Regulation

HM Principal Inspector of Railways
Mrs A Farmer
Mr J Webster
Mrs V Webster
..
In Objection to the Order:

Dr N Tregenza
on behalf of the Friends of Long Rock Mexico Crossing

and the Open SpacesSociety
who called:
Mr A Bennetts
Mrs D Capper
Mr I Holrnes
Mrs J Gilbert
Mrs T Lambert
Mrs P Penney
Mrs S Powell
Mr B'Tarr
Mr D Tarr
Mrs J Tremayne
Ms CTrevivian
Mr S WUliscroft
Bombardier EBI Gate 200 Product Owner
Mrs E Bassi
Mr M Bott
Mr P Glinkowski
Mr RJRogers
on behalf of the West Cornwall Footpaths Preservation

Society
Mr G Ronan
on behalf of the Ramblers
"\
~"
;:
Highways Act 1980 Section 118A Order Plan: Re File HAE 008
,l':
Parish: LUDGVAN GP Path Number: FP/103/UR
(ln~dJ/lftlll
DUm{/(j~lof(
OO~u\ll\N'fi\ll
Produced by Countryside AccessTeam: 05 August 2013
COUNCIL
,1
~III
---....,....-.,.,'"
~.,;.-.;..---
-~... -
.I
I
........
,I
KEY
Scale:
/'OS SHEET SW
50/3i]
!.ho. ratl that this map'does not~ho\'J a PublIc Rfght otWa,/ does
n.otmean th;:tt"Such right m-ay netbe the !ublect of e.current
claIm or claimed and proved scmetlme In the ruture.
1:500
1--'---
__
-1
Thlsplanfli~ \:IDenPloduced spec.licllllyto supply ilI1 ind".vfdu::r!

. \'11th value added Loccl Authority fnfotmallon, It Tem::rln$ the
property or Cornwall Counq! ~d m~t not be copied,
Right QfWay oil Fool'

10 be Relalned:
Thi,
LLL
Ccrnw:all ~ounc:acannot ~.cc.eptrssponsl!:fity Ior any error

orlnecel,lracywhrcf\ mOlf arise-from the transposiliol'l
o'u'e flights ofW~'I DErlttitiv= Map,
map has b~('" proi1uead by tril(lspo~Jng "the Rigfits cfWay

(rorn the Dctinllivo Map. 'ij\e prectse II.neor[l dgl1torwaYC2J1
only b<i~eti!1rntned
by reference
to the DonniUve Map.
C).Crown eepyrfght and database rf~hls 2013
Right of Way on 1:001

to be Extinguished:
Otclnilnce SUTV~)l10~049047
Highways Act 1980 Section 118A Map Annexed to Order:

Re FileHAE 008
Parish: LUpGVAN CP Path Number: FP/103/UR
Producedby
Countryside AccessTeam: 05 August 2013

149.800 U(/Qr;<.\o
A PLAN ANNEXED TO:

THE CORNWALL COUNCIL (MEXICO INN
PEDESTRIAN GROSSING)
(LONG ROCK) PARISH OF LUDGVAN
RAIL CROSSING EXTINGUISHMENT ORDER .2013
LCJhgroc(
Rail crOSSi~9
"ML'to be Extln' uished
[PointAto oint 8]
l}.
_----
~-~
g-f~~~-7~~~------~~~~~+_-----=~--~==~----~~44~~~-----------+--_~-~-~~~--------+-----
__-------~.g
~.
~
~
.~
----M- -AP- --N-:-' - --TO---------------___--------
11
ORIGINJ~' stALE
g
~EY
OS SHEET SW 49-50/31
.Scale: 1:2,000
"the rae! Ihal this m!lp dots. not sho\,l.a PubrIc' R1~htorWiy does
{lcfrnt'an ll)al1uc!t d!l1\ts-may nOJ be (he s.tlbJ~ct or 'Htm;!nt
:~I~lmor datmed an~ provid sometime In the Mute_
~~.~~
rhls plm1hi:u; bl!lIIqproduced ip~c!il!aljy to liupply '" Indivfc$uiil

wlth villua,ildcfed LocQ' Authority InrQnmriion, It rCnt,IM th.
p(~pirtt ~f 9"orn'll.affCou~1I zinil must' not be ~pled~
'6 -I---------.:...-------"---------~--+_'------------------..,.J
'10 bS:Reiain'ed:
LLL
RltJl1tof Way on Fool

10 be EXtinguished:
Alternative route on fool 10 the
w~y.'aFfected ~ylh,e Order
--
'fhl~ rl'l'~phas been produced by Irilnspostng Ula Rights or Way

flom the OeMrti'''~ Map. Thep(~'i58I1ne:of~
rfghlorwb,/c31'1
IlnJyb.e.d~ltrmln .d by r~rereilca to the qatinI6vlll.1a:p.
Cotl'l\'l~lI'Counelr c~nnct accept ,~,pDniSjbllty r~rOflyerror
arfnil"urOJey\',hlch mISt Mlefrom lhe Ir.1nspoiUlan
ot the Rlgb~ 91W:rJ Dllinf~ve-.M:l.p,
.
f).t;:cewn ~opyrfghfItna' d~t;basa rI~h(s20-13
.ot.d"~ceSutve'/1a0049047
~
3
~
~
~
_
I ~'
The Plan~ing Inspect~rate

YrArolyglaeth Gynllunlo .
Our Complaints Procedures

Complaints
We try hard to ensure that

everyone involved in the
rights of way process is
satisfied with the service'
they receive from us.
Applications and orders to
amend the rights of way
network can raise strong
feelings and it is inevitable
that someone will be
disappointed with the
decision. This can
sometimes lead to a
complaint, either about the
decision itself or the way in .
which the case was
handled.
I.
I
Sometimes complaints' arise

due to misunderstandings
. about how the system for
deciding application appeals
and orders works. When
this happens Wewill try to
explain things as clearly as
. possible. Sometimes the
objectors, applicant, the
authority or another
interested party may have
difficulty accepting a
decision simply because
they disagree with it.
Although we cannot re-open
a case to re-consider its
merits or add to what the
Inspector has said, we will
answer any queries about
. the decision as fully as we
can.
Sometimes a complaint is
not one we can deal with
(for example, complaints
about how long an order
making authority took to
submit an order to the
Secretary of State) in which
case we will explain why
and suggest who may be
able to deal with the
complaint instead.
How we investiqete
compleints
Inspectors have no further

direct involvement in the
case once their decision is
issued and it is the job of
our Quality Assurance Unit
to investigate complaints
about decisions or an
Inspector's conduct. We
appreciate that many of our
..customers will not be
experts on the system for
deciding rights of way
appeals and orders and for
some, it will be their one
and only experience of it.
We also.realise that your
opinions are important and
may be strongly held.
We therefore do our best to
ensure that all complaints
are Investlqated quickly,
thorouqhlv and impartially,
and that we reply in clear,
. straightforward language,
avoiding jargon and
.complicated legal terms.
When investigating a
complaint we may need to
ask the Inspector or other
staff for comments. This
helps us to gain as full a
.:picture as possible so that
'we are better able to decide
whether an error has been
made. If this is likely to
delay our full reply we will
quickly let you know.
What we will do if we
have made a mistake
Although we aim to give the

best service posslble, we
know that there will
unfortunately be times
when things go wrong. If a
mistake has been made we
will write to you explaining
what has happened and
offer our apologies. The
Inspector concerned will be
told that the complainthas
been upheld.
We also look to see if
lessons can be learned from
the mistake, such as
whether our procedures can.
'be improved upon. Training
may also be given so that
similar errors can be
avoided in future.
However. the law does not
allow us to amend or
change the decision.
INVESTOR IN rEOPI,n
Complaint Leaflet December 2013
r
I
I
I
Furl'her information
Taking if: further
Each yearwe publish our Annual Report
and Accounts, setting out details of our
performance againstthe
targets set for us
by Ministers and how we have spent the
funds the Government gives us for our
work. We publish full statistics or the
numberof
cases dealt .with during the
preceding year-on our website, together
with other useful information (see
'Contacting us'),'
If you are not satisfied with the way we have dealtwith

your complaint you can contact the Parliamentary
.
Commissioner for Administration
(often referred to as The
Ombudsman), who can investigate complaints of
maladministration
against Government Departments or
their Executive Agencies. If you decide to go to the
Ombudsman you must do so through an MP. Again, the,
Ombudsman cannot change the decision.
Frequently
esked questions
contectinq us
"Why can't the' decision be reviewed if a mistake has

happened?" - The law does not allow us to do this
because a decision is a legal document that can only be
reviewed following a successful High Court challenge.
Website
www,planningportal.gov.uk/planning/count
-ryside
"If you cannot change a decision, what is the point of

complaining?" - We are keen to learn from ourrnlstakes
and try to make sure they do not happen again.
Complaints are ther.efore one way of helping us improve.
General Enquiries
Phone: 03034445000
E-mC1i1:enquiries@pins.gsi.gov.uk
Complaints and Queries in England:
"How can Inspectors know about local feeling or issues if

they don'tlive in the area?" - Using 'Inspectors who do
not live locally ensures that they have no personal interest
.ln any local issues or any ties with the council or its
policies. However, Inspectors will be aware of local views
from the representations
people have submitted.
Pleaserefer to OWf website:

http://www.planning
portal.gov. uk/plannrn
g/planninginspectorate/customerfeedbackl
feedback
. or write to:
i'l wrote to you with my views, why didn't the Inspector

mention this?" - Inspectors must give reasons for their
decision and take into account all views submitted but it is
not necessary to list every bitof evidence:
I
"How long will I have to wait fora reply to my complaint?'

.., We will aim to send a full reply within 20 working days.
In some cases where the issues raised are complex, a
.: more detailed investigation will be needed, often requiring
the views of those involved with the case. This may mean
'. that we cannot reply to you as quickly as we would like.
Quality Assurance Unit

The Planning' Inspectorate
1/23 Hawk Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple QUay
. Bristol BSi 6PN
Phone: q303 444 5884
Car_diffOffice
Room 1~004
'Cqthgys Park
:c:ardiff CH 3NQ
Phone: 0292.082 3866
E-mail: Wales@pins.gsi.gov.uk
Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman
Millbank Tower, Millbank
London SW1P 4QP
Complaints Helpline:0345
6154033
Website: www.ombudsman.org.uk
Emall: phso.enquiries@ombudsman.org.l!k
Complaint. Leaflet December
2013
Challenging a Decision in the High Court
Important Note - This leaflet is intended for guidance only, It should be noted that
there are different procedures involved for statutory challenges and judicial reviews and
they follow different timetables. Because High Court challenqes can involve complicated
legal prcceedinqs, you may wish to consider taking legal advice from a qualified 'person
such as a sollcltor Jf you intend to proceed or are unsureabout any of the guidance in this
leaflet. Further information is available from the Administrative Court (see overleaf).
Challenging a decision
Once a decision is issued we have no power to amend or change it. Decisions are therefore
final unless successfully challenged in the High Court. We can only reconsider a decision if a
challenge is successful and the decision is returned to us for re-determination.
,Grounds for challenging
the decision
Adecision cannot be challenged merely because someone disagrees with the Inspector's
judgement. For a challenge to be successful, you would have to show that the Inspector had
misinterpreted the law or that some relevant criteria had not been met. If, in relation to an
order decision, 'a mistake has been made, and the Court considers it might have affected the
decision, it will quash the decision and return the case to us for re-determination or it will quash
the order completely. If the Court considers a mistake has been made ona Schedule ..14 Appeal
or Direction, it will quash the decision and return the case to us for re-determination.
Different
-
order types
-
The Act under which the order decision has been confirmed will specify the conditions under
which it can be challenged, and is thus a statutory right to challenge a confirmed order - often
referred to as a Part 8 claim as it is brought under Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.
There is no statutory right to challenge where an order is 'not confirmed'; in these
circumstances a judicial review under-Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 of the decision
not to confirm may be applied for. Both scenarios are set out in more detail below.
Challenges to ,confirmed orders made under the Wildlife and Countryside
Act 1981
,Any person aggrieved by the confirmed order can make an application to the High Court under
paraqraph 12 of Schedule 15 to the 1981 Act on the grounds i) that the order is not within the
power of section 53 or 54; or ii) that any of the requirements of the Schedule have not be
complled with. If the challenge is successful, the court will either quash the order or the
decision. The Inspectorate will only be asked to re-determine the case ifthe decision only is
quashed.
Challenges must be received by the Administrative Court Within 42 days (6 weeksjof
the date of publication of the notice of confirmation .this period cannot be extended.
High Court Leaflet revised December
2013
by R Sayers
Challenges to confirmed orders made under the Town and Oountry Plenninq Act 1990
and the Highways Act 1,980 .
.
AJlY person aggrieved by the confirmed order can make an application to the High Court under
paragraph 287, ln the case of an order made under the 1990 Act, or para-graph 2 of Schedule 2
in the case of an order made under the-1980 Act, on the grourids that i) the order is not within
the powers 'of the Act; or ii) that any of the requirements of the Act or regulations made under it
have not been complied with. If the challenge is successful, the court will either quash the order.
or the decision. The Inspectorate will only be asked to re-determine
the case if the decision only
is quashed.
Challenges must be received by the Administrative Courtwithin
42 days (6 weeks) of
the date of publication of the notice of confirmation - this period cannot be extended.
1
Challenges to orders which are not contirmed end etlScitedule

Direction decisions
14 Appeal and
If an order. made under any of the Acts is not confirmed, an aggrieved person can only challenge
the decision by applying for a judicial review to the Administrative
Court for a court order to
quash the decision, the matter will then go back to the Inspectorate to re-determine. This also
applies to an aggrieved person to a Schedule 14 Appeal or Direction decision as there is no
statutory right to challenge.
For applications for judicial review, the Claim form must be filed with the
Administrative
Court promptly and in any event not later than 3 months after the date
of the decision (for orders made under the Highways Act 1980 or the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981) or 6 weeks (for orders made under the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990), unless the Court extends this period
. Who should be named as Defendant in the claim form?
In order cases the Inspector is usually appointed on behalf of the Secretary of State for
Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs to confirm an order made by El local authority.
In Schedule
14 appeal cases the Inspector is acting as the Secretary of State. The claim form for all types of
proceedings should therefore be issued against the Secretary of State for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs and served upon The Treasury Solicitor, One Kernble Street, London, WC2B
4TS. For telephone queries, please call the Treasury Solicitor's Department on 0207 210 4700.
Interested
partles
Interested parties can find out whether a case has been challenged by contacting the
Administrative
Court. If you do not know the name of the likely claimant, you will need to
provide the Court with the date of the decision and the full title of the order or appeal (including
the name of the relevant local authority).
The more information you can provide, the easier it
will be for the Court to identify it. If a person wants to become a formal party to the Court
proceedlnqs then they can make representations
to the Court under Part 19 of the Civil Court
Procedure Rules 1998 (see overleaf). Should you wish to become a formal party you may wish
to seek legal assistance or ask the court for guidance. To be a party to a judicial review a
person would have to have a sufficient interest.
Frequently
asked questions
"Who can make e chellenqe?"> In principle/ a p-ersonmust have a sufftcient interest (sometimes called
standing) in the decision to be able to bring a challenge. 'This caninclude statutory objectors/applicants,
interested parties as well as the relevant local authority.
.~
"Who is notified af the chetlenqe?" - In Part 8 statutory claims,' the clalrnantwlllserve
proceedings on
the named defendants, In Judicial: Review claims the claimant" will serve proceedings on the persons the
2
'High Court Leaflet revised December 2013 by R Savers
challeriqelsaqalnst
and anyone elsethey have identified asan interested party. The Planning
Inspectorate will not notify anyone of the challenge. The claimant would be expected to identify and
include the Council as an interested party. If the defendant and any interested party are aware that
another party should be made aware of the proceedings as an interested party they should include the
qetails of that party in the acknowledgment of ser.vice.
l'How much is it likely to cost me?" -A relatively small administrati~e charge is made by the Court for
processing your chaJlenge (the Administrative Court should be able to give you advice on current fees see 'Further information'). The legal costs involved in preparing and presenting your case in Court can be
.considerable though. It is usual for the costs ofa successful party to be paid by the losing party,
,therefore if the challenge fails you will usually be ordered to pay the defendant's costs as well as having to
cover your own. If the challenge is successful, the defendant may be ordered to pay your reasonable
Jegal costs. However, the court ultimately has the power to issue whatever costs it sees fit. .
'Wow long will
ii.teke?" - This can vary considerably.
"Do I need to get legal advice?" - You do not have to be legally represented
do so, as you may have to deal with complex points of law.
in Court but it is advisable to

.
"Will a successful challenge reverse the order decision?" - Not necessarily. The Court will either quash
the order or quash the declslon, Where the decision is quashed, we wlllbe required to re-determine the
order. However, 'an Inspector may come to the same decision again, but for different or expanded
reasons. Where the order is quashed, jurisdiction will pass back to the Order Making Authority.
They will
need to decide whether to make a new order.
"Will a successful challenge reverse the appeal decision?"
Yes. We will be required to re-determine the appeal. However, an Inspector
decision again, but for different or expanded reasons.
may come to the same
"ff the decision is re-determined will it be by the same Inspector?"

The same Inspector will be used unless there is a good reason not to do so.
"What can I do if my challenge fails?" - The decision is final.

to the Court of Appeal, a compelling
permission for you to do this. .
argument
,
Although it may be possible to take the case

would have to be put to the Court for the judge to grant
."What happens if the order is quashed?",-,Jurisdiction
will pass back to the Order Making Author-ity .. They
will need to decide whether to make a new order.
"What can I do if I am not listed as an in teres ted party on the challenge but want to be involved?" - You
tan
contact the Admihistrative Court and ask to be listed as an interested

Civil Procedure Rules 1998 for the definition of an interested party),
party (see Part 54.1(2)

.
of the
I
I
"Can the Planning Inspectorate or the Department" for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, provide me
With advice about making a challenge?" - Neither the Planning Inspectorate nor the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs can advise you on a challenge or
should seek advice from your own legal adviser.
''Where will I find the claim forms?"
I
I
on becoming a formal party - you
The forms are available on .the Administrative Court's website at www.justice,gov.uk/courts/pr'ocedurerules/clvll/forrns.The

Part 8 Claim form is number n208 and the form for making a Judicial Review is n46L
Guidance notes for claimants are also available.
nWhere do I send the completed claim forms?"

They need to be filed with the Administrative Court at The Royal Courts of Just ice, Queen's Bench
Division, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL. They also need to be served on the Treasury Solicltor, One Kemble
Street} London, WC2B 4TS.
Further Information
Further advlceabout making Cl High Court challenge can be obtained from the
.
Administrative Court at the Royal Courts of Justice, Queenis Bench Dlvlslon, Strand" London
WC2A 2LL, telephone 0207 9476655. Information can also be found on their website at '
3'
High
court
Leaflet revised December 2013 by R Sayers
www.justice.gov.uk.
Please see the attached' flow charts setting out the main steps to be '
followed for both the statutory and judicial review procedures.
'
,Inspection
of order documents
We normally keep most case files for one year after the decision is issued, after which they
are destroyed. You can inspect 'order documents at our Bristol office, by contacting the case
officer dealing with the case, .or our General Enquiries number to make an appointment (see
'Contacting us'). We will then ensure that the fileis obtained from our storage facility and is
.ready for you to view. Alternatively, if visiting Bristol would involve a long or difficult
journev, it may be more convenient to arrange to view the documents at the offices of the
relevant local authority.
CONTACT ~NFORMATION
The Planning
Inspectorate
Rights of Way Section
Mrs Annie Owen

Rights' cif WayS'ection Manager
, 'The Planning Inspectorate
312:5 Hawk Wing
Temple QWClY House'
2The Square'
Temple Quay
Bristol 8,Sl 6PN
,I
Phone: 03034445466
f-rnal]: annie.owen@pins.gsi.gov.uk
Website: www.planninqportal.gov.uk/planning/coUritryside
Generpl Enquiries
Phone: Q3034445,000
E~mail; enguiries@pins.qsi.gov.uk
,
Cardiff. Office

Room 1~004
CaJhays Park
Cardiff' CFl 3NQ
Phone: 02920823866
E-mail: Wales@pins:gsi.gov;uk
I
I
Complaints
Please refer to our website:

http://www .pia nningportal. gov. uk/pla nning/plan ninginspectorate/cLlstomerfeedback/feed back
Phone; 0303 444 5.884
Adminlstratlve COLJrt
ROyC,l1 Courts ofJustice
Queen's Bench Dlvision
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Phone: 0207 9476655
Website: www.justice.qov.uk
Treasury Solicitor
Tbe'Treasurv Solicitor
One Kernble Street

," London
i
WC2B 4TS
Phone: 0207 2104700
Website: www.tsol.qov.uk
Parliamentary
and Health Service
Ombudsman
Partlarnentarv and health Service Ombudsman

Millbank Tower, Millbank
London SW1PAQP
Complaints Helpline: 0345 015 4033
Website: www.ombudsman.orq.uk
Email: phso.enquiries@ombudsrn~m.org. uk
4
High Court Leaflet revised December 2013 by R Sayers
I I
j i
>
.1
Timetable for Part 8 Claims
Declslo n being reviewed is received by the (Intending) Claimant.

Applicati on to quash certain orders of a Minister or
(see 8P 0.22)
government department
,
be
Olalmform must
filed at Administrative Court wlthln the time limited by the
relevant en actment . for making the application
(leschedute
15. WPA . 6 weeks
.
.
.....
(42 days
-I
'"
Statutory
Proceedlnqs issued by the olalmant
.claim form a nd any written evidence
tlmetrame
- file with court and serVe on Defendants

on which C intends to rely.
-
Part 8
14 days (or 28 days by agreement 8PD 7.5(2

' ..J'
Defendant must file and serve acknowledgment

on which he .intends .to rely:
of service and any written evidence
14 days (01"28 days by agreement
'01::1lmant
may fUe and serve further Written evidence In reply. ,
Clalman t prepares paginated
8PD7.5(3
bundle, flies and serves Skeleton Argument
21 Working
days from Hearing
Defendant files and serves SI<eleton Argument
14 Days from Hearing
I
I
Hearing
I
I
I
I
1
High Court Leaflet revised December
2013 by R Sayers
"
Timetable for JUdicial Review

Decision being reviewed Is received by toe (intending) Claimant
(proposed) Defendant's reply

',",H()Jcting letter prqp9~log extension
(proposed) Deferidant's
w Response
letter
ra~ly'
Service of Order granting permission
,j~~~t~lri'~l~f}~1J&I]
Claimant flies Notice of Renewal
Claimant flies and serves Skeleton,Argutnent
.;'Q,~i~
~'~~'n.t,~f~J~{
'~!:l'~,~A,r.v.~,~:r~
:::";:SkeJ,~t9n.At~~.fm,e~C
;\'-::/-:
.. 14 w:orklng .days
Claimant lodges application
to appeal to Court of Appeal
High Court Leaflet revised December 2013 by R Sayers
I
I
:

2014 12 15 (2014!12!12) HeidiCruickshankPlanningInspectorateToENance OrderConfirmation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2014 12 15 (2014!12!12) HeidiCruickshankPlanningInspectorateToENance OrderConfirmation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I.

The Planning Inspectorate

0303 444 5646

28 Godolphin Road, Long Rock

Our Complaints Procedure and Challenging the

.plan ni ng porta I.gov. u k/planni ng/appeals/planni

The Planning Inspectorate

BSc (Hons), MSc, MIPROW

1 2 OEC'2014 ---- -----

Summary of Decision: The Order is confirmed subject to

2. Although ev.idencerelating to the historic development of the Order route and

ORDER DECISION FPSjD0840j3j3

I held a pre-Inquiry meetinq on the 13 August 2014, having made an

I held a Public Inquiry into the Order on 21 - 29 October, excluding the

The Raff-Erossing-ExtingtJishment-and-Blverslon-Brders-Regtrlations 19934 ("th e

ORDER DECISION FPSjD0840j3j3

ORDER DECISION FP$/D0840/3/3

Description of relevant locations and features

ORDER DECISION FPS/D0840/3/3

Safety of the crosslnq

securing the health, safety and welfare of persons at work;

ORDER DECISION FPSjD0840j3j3

ORDER DECISION FPS/D0840/3/3

ORDER DECISION FPSjD0840j3j3

Establish the causes of pedestrian accidents_at level crossings

Pedestrians per day x trains per day

ORDER DECISION FPSjD0840j3j3

ORDER DECISION FPSjD0840j3/3

the public." It seems to me that the HOCTCreflects a societal concern, with

ORDER DECISION FPS/D0840/3/3

ORDER DECISION FPS!D0840/3/3

Mexico as a separate asset for reporting. It seems to me that the availability

ORDER DECISION FPS/D0840/3/3

'ORDER DECISION FPSjD0840j3j3

ORDER DECISION FPSjD0840j3j3

ORD~R DECISION FPSjD0840j3j3

ORDER DECISION FPSjD0840j3j3

Road through Long Rock villeqe

ORDER DECISION FPS/D0840/3/3

drivers which could

102. A number of objectors made suggestions for improvements, which they

ORDER DECISION FPSjD0840j3j3

accepted that in this particularlocation

ORDER DECISION FPSjD0840j3j3

order to remain safe and at footpath crossings on mainlines the minimum

ORDER DECISION FPSjD0840j3j3

Also referred to as miniature stop lights

ORDER DECISION FPS/D084Oj3/3

Other matters regarding reasonable practicability

ORDER DECISION FPSjD0840j3j3

barriers and signs to I).~erected and

ORDER DECISION FPSjD0840j3j3

ORDER DECISION FPSjD0840j3j3

, although I understand entirely that it feels perverse, and so inconvenient, to

ORDER DECISION FPSjD0840j3j3

ORDER DECISION FPS/D0840/3/3

Wider health impacts, quality of life and the Equality Act

ORDER DECISION FPSjD0840j3j3

ORDER DECISION FPS/D0840/3/3

- effects upon rail staff and passengers

ORDER DECISION FPS/D0840/3/3

are very strong and legitimate competing interests. In balancing those

175. -I con-m-mme Oraer suojecl:-:-fOfFle

In the Schedule to the Order: