FOLRMC/CC Meeting 06/02/3013 Re Long Rock Mexico Crossing

Present: Jeremy Edwards (CC Highway Network Mgr), Sue Nicholas (Cllr Marazion), Sally Newby (CC Community Network Mgr - W Penwith), Richard Sargeant (LPC Chairman), Rob Nance (FOLRMC), Nick Tregenza (FOLRMC), Helen Eynon (FOLRMC) SallyN: Gave feedback from meeting 29.01.13 (after the site meeting) at St Clare, Pz, between CC & NR & provided us with copy of the minutes (see previous email/facebook post). The minutes outline the 4 options that NR proposes: 1) Do nothing 2) Provision of some form of technical system to warn of train approaching, either A) Stand alone system B) Integrated into the signalling system 3) Bridge 160m east of the crossing 4) Closure + improve the vehicle crossing. NR claims 2A would cost 800,000. Everyone else felt that this figure could not be accurate. NR want 4. They offer to accept some costs of this. They said they have a target of reducing risk at crossing by 25%. NR said it is likely they will submit to CC a request for an Extinguishment Order within 6-8 wks (ie closure). JE: I expect that NR will apply under section 118. We will reject it & ask for Section 118A. Test 118A has a number of tests in it. Section 1A = whether it is reasonably practicable to make it safe. Needs to be evidence-based. My concern is that NR are confusing improving level crossing with pedestrian crossing. If CC dont make the order, NR will go to Sec of State who will appoint inspector who would launch inquiry. NR referred ORR letter to JE. Uncertain if consultation is before or after order, will get back to us. After this, CC has 6 months to come up with a decision. Options are 1) Keep it closed 2) Re-open. This will be officer decision, not Councillor decision, and will be taken in consultation with a group of officers. JE said that if the decision was opposed it would have to go to an inquiry held by the Sec of State, but he did not have any definition of what constituted opposed. There would be a period of consultation but he did not know if that preceded or followed a decision on an inquiry. JE said that we should look at the criteria that would apply in that inquiry, and not at any others. So it would not be based on petitions and he thought it might be mainly the safety of the crossing itself, but that the criteria would be those set out in the Highways Act. He has a legal advisor who will help with that. JE has the inquest details and a recording from the Coroner, and hears John Cope from RAIB saying I wouldnt be prepared to comment JE thought that it might be possible to re-open the crossing during the process which could take a year. JE asked for no more communications re crossing for the time being so that he can have some peace to consider his decision.

SallyN said that CC had been critical of NR for coming without the facts on the safety evaluation. Her notes are attached (see prev document). CC asked NR to consider lowering the speed of trains here. SN had criticised NR and Sarah Mitchell for being arrogant and unprepared. She had pointed out that describing the crossing as high risk when that was the total risk on the crossing and was high because of high use was wrong. High risk should mean high risk to an individual user, which was quite different. RS said that one of the NR old guard had caught his eye on this, as if indicating that this was a very good point that NR was trying to get away with. FOLRMC COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE Apologies for not inviting anyone else, but SN initiated the meeting and asked that just three from FOLRMC be there.