This a long document prepared by Andrew Ross and sent Lbh but is detailed in the objection to NR's attempt to impose SotG with a non- friendly user footbridgeObjections to PALL/2023/2425: Application by Network Rail for Prior Approval Brooks Lane Footbridge Submitted by: Andrew Ross 86 Thames Road London W4 3RE Grounds for Refusal of Prior Approval: Flow Bridge Background Objections 1. Disability and Discrimination Act 1995 (incorporated in 2) 2. Equality Act 2010 3. Public Inquiry: Class Action 4. Injury to Amenity 5. Lack of Consultation: Abuse of Process 6. School Street: Co-Design 7. Alternative Proposal: Flow Bridge 8. Recommendation to Refuse and Re-submit Grounds for Refusal of Prior Approval The Objection is against an inaccessible and ugly ‘like-for like’ replacement. Under Condition A2, Prior Approval can be refused if: “the Council is satisfied that the development ought to be and could reasonably be carried out elsewhere on the land, or the design or external appearance would injure the amenity of the neighbourhood and is reasonably capable of modification so as to avoid such injury” Flow Bridge • The technology for an accessible sloping-ramp Flow Bridge is available • The land for this Flow Bridge is owned, both sides, by LB Hounslow • The design rights for this Flow Bridge are owned by Network Rail • The materials for this Flow Bridge are: - sustainable, low carbon - long lasting - light weight • It can be built in half the time, reducing disruption • It can be built for half the cost, reducing budget pressure • It is accessible by the disabled, elderly, children and cyclists • It has transparent glass parapets, enhancing visibility and security • It has local community support and amenity benefits for: - Strand on the Green Schools (Junior and Infant) - LB Hounslow Meadowcroft sheltered accommodation - Chiswick Village residents - Stile Hall Gardens residents - Strand on the Green residents • It can be designed in collaboration with School Street Co-Design • It significantly adds to the beauty and amenity of Chiswick Background Strand on the Green in Chiswick is set on a wide hemispherical bend in the river Thames in west London. Chiswick, itself, is bisected West-East by the South Western Railway [SWR] line running from Hounslow to Waterloo, and Strand on the Green is between Kew Bridge station and Chiswick station. Crossing this railway line, North-South, is the Brooks Lane footbridge (see picture (A) of its North side, looking East). Network Rail [NR] has stated that this 125-year old structure is at the end of its design life. NR proposes to replace it with a ‘like-for-like’ structure. Contrary to law, it will be inaccessible. Replacement requires closure for at least 2 months. Quoting its Act of Parliament, NR has made a planning ‘submission’, not a planning application, to London Borough of Hounslow [LBH]: PALL/ 2023/2425. Prior Approval of LBH is required for the work. But NR has put up a Notice stating that preparatory works will commence on 20/10/23. Accordingly, because it is not a planning application, only a request for Prior Approval, LBH has limited powers to consult local residents. It has done so by letter to just 15 local homeowners; 7 on one side, 8 on the other; and with a Notice on the footbridge. NR has also timed its submission for the middle of the school holidays. There are two Strand on the Green schools (Infant and Junior) on the South side with a total of c180 children, at least half of whom, together with their parents, cross this bridge (with prams, buggies, scooters, satchels and bags) four times daily in term time. In addition to which the Strand on the Green schools incorporate the Swan Centre which holds the SEN-certification for the entire area of Chiswick for children with Special Educational Needs; many of whom cross this footbridge daily. Neither the Schools, nor the parents, have been consulted. Many people also use this footbridge daily to commute from Strand on the Green to Gunnersbury station which serves both the Overground and the District Line into central London, and out to Heathrow. Other than by a Notice on the footbridge, they have not been consulted. There are no shops at all throughout the entirely-residential area of the North side of the Brooks Lane footbridge, until one reaches Chiswick High Road, over a mile away. Local residents rely on the Strand on the Green shops, and its dentist, and its Post Office. People do their convenience shopping here - and carry shopping bags, rather use shopping trollies. Furthermore, LBH owns a sheltered accommodation facility for 32 residents, several of whom are elderly and disabled, including wheelchair users, in Meadowcroft House - which is on the North side of the footbridge. At present, none of these residents have access to the South-side facilities of Strand on the Green - nor will they in future if this NR submission is approved by LBH. Similarly, all the residents in Pinkham Mansions, who are mainly in LBH Council-owned properties on the North side and are directly adjacent to the footbridge, currently do not have, - and in future will not have, ease of access - if this development proceeds as planned by NR. In addition, Strand on the Green itself is a highly popular riverside destination for a great many tourists and visitors with its several historic riverside pubs, and restaurants and shops. A large number of people constantly cross this footbridge to visit the area. And this Brooks Lane footbridge is also crucial for many runners and cyclists and residents of Chiswick and west London who use it for recreation to get to the riverside towpath leading to Kew Bridge - and to walk or cycle over to the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew. There are no bus services in Strand on the Green; nor on either side of the footbridge. The alternative means of access from the North side of the Brooks Lane footbridge to the South side requires more than a one-mile walk up to the North Circular Road, along to Kew Bridge, then down into Thames Road in order to reach Strand on the Green. Objections Objections to the NR submission to LBH are therefore being made on six grounds; with an Alternative Proposal and with a Recommendation: 1. Disability and Discrimination Act 1995 (incorporated in 2) 2. Equality Act 2010 3. Public Inquiry: Class Action 4. Injury to Amenity 5. Lack of Consultation: Abuse of Process 6. School Street: Co-Design 7. Alternative Proposal: Flow Bridge 8. Conclusion and Recommendation 1. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (incorporated in Equality Act 2010) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/50/contents Network Rail is in breach of the statutory requirements, inter alia: • PART III Discrimination in Other Areas • Goods, facilities and services • 19. Discrimination in relation to goods, facilities and services. • 21. Duty of providers of services to make adjustments. • 21ZA. Application of sections 19 to 21 to transport vehicles Public authorities • 21B. Discrimination by public authorities • 21E. Duties for purposes of section 21D(2) to make adjustments • Part IV Education • Chapter 1 SCHOOLS • Duties of responsible bodies • 28A. Discrimination against disabled pupils and prospective pupils • 28C. Disabled pupils not to be substantially disadvantaged • 28 D. Accessibility strategies and plans • 28E. Accessibility strategies and plans: procedure • Residual duty of education authorities • 28F. Duty of education authorities not to discriminate • 28 G. Residual duty: supplementary provisions 2. Equality Act 2010 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents Network Rail is in breach of the statutory requirements, inter alia: • Part 3 Services and public functions • Preliminary • 28.Application of this Part • Provision of services, etc. • 29 .Provision of services, etc. • • Adjustments for disabled persons •• 20.Duty to make adjustments • 21.Failure to comply with duty • 22.Regulations • Chapter 1 Schools • 84.Application of this Chapter • 85.Pupils: admission and treatment, etc. • 86.Victimisation of pupils, etc. for conduct of parents, etc. • 87.Application of enforcement powers under education legislation • 88 .Disabled pupils: accessibility • 89.Interpretation and exceptions • Chapter 3 Rail vehicles • 182.Rail vehicle accessibility regulations • 183.Exemptions from rail vehicle accessibility regulations • 184.Procedure for making exemption orders • 185.Annual report on exemption orders • 186.Rail vehicle accessibility: compliance • 187.Interpretation NB: Kew Bridge Arch: Platinum Jubilee 2022 It should be noted that the strong support of LBH for the transformation of the arch under Kew Bridge into an open access passageway for local residents was achieved with regard to the Equality Act 2010. It has become a hugely successful, and very welcome improvement, in the amenity of the whole area. The same Equality Act 2010 principles apply to the Brooks Lane footbridge. 3. Public Inquiry: Class Action It has been discovered that NR has made 17 similar applications to Local Planning Authorities throughout England. All are for stepped footbridges that are inaccessible: all are contrary to law. https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/network-rail-installs-new-700000footbridge-that-is-inaccessible-to-wheelchair-users/ This application by NR for Brooks Lane brings the national total to 18. However, the entire set of NR applications is now to be the subject of a government-ordered Public Inquiry. A preliminary meeting is due to held in York, at which the Terms of Reference will be determined. It is entirely feasible that the NR Brooks Lane application will become a party to this Public Inquiry - and will join in the cause of a Class Action. It is asserted in this Objection that it is improper for LBH even to consider giving Prior Approval for this NR application in the light of these national legal proceedings under the Equality Act 2010, currently under way. 3. Injury to Amenity Mr Robert Coomber, Area Planning Manager LBH, wrote to Councillor Peter Thompson on 14 August 2023 by way of explanation to say: “The works proposed are railway operational development for which Network Rail has statutory powers and planning permission is therefore granted by virtue of Part 18 Class A(a) of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, which relates to development authorised by a local or private Act of Parliament, subject to conditions that give us some limited scope to influence the work. This part of the railway line was constructed with the authority of Parliamentary powers contained in the Windsor, Staines and South Western Railway Act (No.1) 1847. Section 1 of the Railway Act incorporates the Railway Clauses Consolidation (RCC) Act 1845. Section 16 of the RCC 1845 Act contains powers for Network Rail to make alterations to, maintenance and substitution of existing infrastructure. Section 16 of the Act explains the works that may be carried out, saying that Network Rail: “may make or construct in, upon, across, under, or over any lands, or any streets… (etc)…such temporary or permanent … bridges … roads… passages, conduits, drains, piers, arches, cuttings, and fences, as they think proper”. Under condition A.1 of Part 18 of the Town and Country Planning General (Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 it is necessary for Network Rail first to submit to the Council for Prior Approval to the design and siting of the proposed works. Condition A2 says that Prior Approval (underline added) cannot be refused unless: “the Council is satisfied that the development ought to be and could reasonably be carried out elsewhere on the land, or the design or external appearance would injure the amenity of the neighbourhood and is reasonably capable of modification so as to avoid such injury”. There is no definition in the Order as to what ‘the amenity of the neighbourhood’ means. I explain this to set out that this submission is not a planning application. We will need to consider whether there are differences in the new proposal as compared to what is in place that might constitute injure the amenity of the neighbourhood” (underline added). It is asserted in this Objection that the current NR design proposal seriously injures the amenity of the neighbourhood not just of Strand on the Green locally but by causing major negative impacts to the public realm in the entire area of Chiswick and across west London in general because: • It is in breach of the statutory requirements not to discriminate in the provision of goods, facilities and services to those with disabilities and the elderly, and children with SEN requirements, for whom steep steps are a physical barrier that negatively impact on health and well-being. • It is in breach of the statutory requirement not to victimise or make it impossible for those with disabilities, specifically with regard to children, for whom access to education through the use of public infrastructure is necessary - and where open access to public transport infrastructure, such as railway bridges and footpaths, are essential. • There is further injury to the amenity of the neighbourhood in the current design of the bridge, and in its external appearance, with steep and enclosing steel parapets. This does not allow for clear and open visibility as to anyone who may be concealing themselves on the bridge. This is a particular concern of parents who need to leave their children at the steps of the bridge in order, themselves, to go off to work - and cannot then see them safely arrive at school. And it is also a serious concern, particular amongst women, for their own personal safety in crossing such a bridge during the night. • There is also broader environmental injury to the amenity of the neighbourhood in that this ‘like-for-like’ replacement requires the use of building materials that consist of high carbon concrete and high carbon steel that significantly add to GHG Greenhouse Gas emissions, which will be in place for decades. This is contrary to the Climate Emergency and GHG-reduction commitments of LBH; and it is contrary to government legislation under the Climate Change Act 2008. 4. Lack of Consultation: Abuse of Process It is asserted in this Objection that NR has provided no evidence in its planning submission of any data, nor of any kind of survey, regarding the extensive footfall across this footbridge; either at present, or predicted. No knowledge, apparently even of the existence, has been provided of the highly-important local public sector users such as the two Strand on the Green Schools, and of the needs of residents in nearby sheltered accommodation. In particular, no provision for any consultation with local residents in the Strand on the Green Association or with the Stile Hall Gardens Association, who together represent residents of c 2,500 homes, has been made. Ignorance of these data is inexcusable for public transport infrastructure. Abuse of Process Furthermore, the clear intention of NR has been to use the summer holiday period, when parents and children are away, to prevent the gathering of local opinions on their proposal. No provision has been made by LBH, itself, even for a notification to the Strand on the Green Schools, which it has a statutory duty to provide - and it has not; at least as far as is known, done so until after the re-opening of the Strand on the Green Schools on 4 September. There is clearly no time for proper consultation before the closing date for Comments. It is also arguable that the provision of a Notice by NR (see (B) attached) that preliminary preparatory work will actually commence on 20 /10 /2023, with “no access for pedestrians / cyclists” which is clearly, and very forcefully, intended to mean that the work is certain to go ahead (for which NR has not yet received LBH consent) - and that it will, thereafter, be unstoppable, and irreversible. It is asserted in this Objection that, jointly, this NR/LBH procedure amounts to Abuse of Process. 6. School Street: Co-Design Since 2004 Brooks Lane outside Strand-on-the-Green School, has been closed to traffic at drop-off and pick-up times. This is known as a “School Street”. Initial feedback on the potential for the re-design of this School Street has been positive, and now the London Borough of Hounslow Council, the two Strand on the Green schools (Infants and Junior) and the charity Sustrans are partnering together to build on this success. The aim is to develop a community-led design that proposes some physical changes to the space, to make it a nicer place to spend time. Surveys and Online Neighbourhood Meetings and ‘Pop-Up’ events are being conducted to invite the local community to suggest ideas on what kinds of changes people would most like to see. There is the potential to transform this featureless and barren School Street into a much more pleasant area; both environmentally and architecturally. Study area: 7. Alternative Proposal: Flow Bridge NR is proposing to install a ‘like-for-like’ stepped footbridge that is not only inaccessible, but would be constructed with high carbon concrete and steel that are not compatible with the requirements for sustainable infrastructure. There is an alternative sloping-ramp design that is low carbon, is made of sustainable materials, can be installed in much less time - and which is both aesthetically far more pleasing - and is compatible with the amenity and environmental enhancement of the area - and which also costs much less. NR has commissioned, and it has the design for, a Flow Bridge. 8. Recommendation to Refuse and Re-submit Installation of this Flow Bridge, integrated with the School Street Co-Design, would transform the entire area and contribute very substantially to the health and well-being and enjoyment of living in Strand on the Green. The recommendation to London Borough of Hounslow Planning Committee is that the NR submission in PALL/2023/2425 for Prior Approval is refused. LBH Planning Committee should ask Network Rail for a re-submission with regard to the outcome of the Public Inquiry, and that a Flow Bridge proposal be developed with regard to the School Street Co-Design. Network Rail Advance Warning of closure from 20/10/2023 for ‘enabling’ works’ LBH Prior Approval Notification dated 16 / 08 /2023
Richard Griffith ● 612d