FRIENDS of LONG ROCK MEXICO CROSSING

https://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/friendsoflongrockmexicocrossing/388829381211332

Minutes of Meeting 15 04 2013 Present: Nick Tregenza, Carolyn Trevivian, Mike Bott, Richard Thatcher, Helen Eynon Apologies: Rob Nance 1. Official Letter , CC Legal Dept: (re extension of closure, while CC examines NRs submission for extinguishment) This arrived Fri 12.04.13. 2. Chetna Katri, NR: Has sent answers to our questions. Looks as if ORR has leaned on NR to be more open etc & NR has chosen this route. Chetna states LRMC = 10 x the risk of average crossing. This is about collective risk & not a surprise as it is very heavily used. Despite that she gives an estimated collective risk of one death/81 years. Appears to have confused annual risk to a regular user with risk of making one traverse. If so, her statement matches figure of 400 traverses/day given by NR to ORR. If not, NR has a massive error in its risk numbers. 3. CC Response Form To NRs Proposal: Not sent to whole village, only those within radius of 75m (108). 23.05.13 is deadline for response. HE will speak to Jeremy Edwards & or Michael Gibbons (CC) to ask if they can broaden the scope as whole village wants a say. 4. Legal Representation: CT has spoken to Peter Edwards. Injunction question: not impossible in theory, but would need to see evidence in practice. Judicial review would be useful. Arguments must be strong & consistent now. He thinks there is no merit in him writing a letter to JE on our behalf now. He would be willing to speak to NT on phone informally. If he meets us he would need 2 hrs with documentation sent first, could then form opposing representation that would form the basis of an enquiry. 5. Coroners Reports: Those for the 1972 & 2011 incidents would be v useful. The description by NR of events of 1972 do not match anecdotal evidence that RT & HE have heard in LR & would be useful to know if there are any discrepancies & if NR is accurately describing events. Where information from? Coroner not covered by FOI Act, so we are at disadvantage if Coroner persists in ignoring us or decides that we are not interested parties. 6. Wave Train: CT has asked Wave Train where are their systems are installed & whether they interfere with signalling. Apparently 1/3 of previous cost, works on vibration. 7. Coroner: NT suggests he write again to explain that others (RAIB, ORR etc) have redefined or changed their views & do not recommend closure. 8. Previous closure attempts: RT asked how many there have been. Has it been every 3 years or so? There is a mention of NR trying to close crossing in 1992 & this not happening due to strong objections. CT questioned what strong objections exactly & who from? Would knowing this help us? Can we see it? She will try to find out & HE will ask JE. 9. Newsletter: A need for information to be sent out, MB has begun draft newsletter. HE will ask JE if hed like to make a statement for it. 10. ORR: NT will write tthem & ask if they have changed their position before we have to attack it. ORR had said does not endorse zero risk target, but John Smith (Dft) seemed to be promoting that without questioning it. Ian Prosser (ORR) advised us to find a precedent where Council has kept a crossing open.