My name is Paul Sladen, I was present at the public inquiry in 2011.

The report before us lists four options, only two of which have been
investigated in suitable levels of detail.  The original stopping-up
and routeing around the outside of the station, and the route
submitted today via the temporary ramp and 'hammerhead' service road.

The fifth route, the original proposal and the most ideal, safest,
direct, and convenient one.  The one that was raised at the public
inquiry and discussed at every subsequent meeting is omitted entirely.

The report states that the application received is nominally in the
name of Network Rail, without noting that the design work has been
done by contractors of the City Council.

This confusion between the council's role as OMA, and also being
facilator and designer may explain the omission of the more ideal
route.

This confusion can be been seen elsewhere the report: in s3.4 "Having
considered the powers available to the Council to alter the alignment
of the footpath the power under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980
would appear to the most appropriate." suggests that it is the council
making the application, whereas s2.1: "the Council has received a
request from Network Rail for an order to be made under Section 119 of
the Highways Act 1980" suggests that the request has come from Network
Rail.

Instead of the ideal route, the report asks to steer this committee
into authorising a variant, one that effectively absolves the
landowner of the cost and responsibility to restore footpath 28 on the
definitive route after construction, or to provide dedicated
replacement infrastucture.

The diversion we are asked to authorise instead uses an indirect
estate road footway to reach Queens Road and a temporary poured
concrete ramp built in 2012 to reach the platform level.  The platform
widening, likewise, is ancillary and is not explicit provision for a
diversion, as it too will have been constructed regardlessly.

Owing to this committee's record of due-diligance from 2010, the
report this time is more substantial.  While it is thicker, it remains
incomplete with the omission of the most ideal and discussed route.
Additionally the maps we are asked to consult contain distortions,
inaccurate scales, and self-inconsistency in the route alignments.

The report contains sections on legal implications and the meeting of
statutory criteria.  Similiar to the advice was received was presented
to this committee three years ago.  Following this resulted in an
unnecessary public inquiry, several temporary prohibition orders, two
periods of unlawful obstruction of the highway, and the deprivation
from public use for much of that time.

Up until 74 hours ago I had been anticipating an email invitation to
the next consultation meeting.  One which would review and hopefully
decide on exact details for the scheme of diversion that would be
promoted.  My shock and surprise on Monday came from the sudden
esculation straight to this committee, asking for authorisation for
something that does not appear to have clear support even among the
existing objectors.

If yourselves, as councillors wish to authorise this juncture as-is,
you have the option of minuting that you have been made aware of
discrepancies in the report.  You may wish to describe any discomfort
you have at being put in a similiar situation again.

Alternatively, you may wish to defer the decision until your next
meeting.  This would match the precedent of your due-diligence in
2010.  When that stopping-up order was presented for authorisation the
first time, you requested more information in order to have a fuller
overview, and considered this at a following meeting.

Your initial discomfort over the merits of the stopping up order
authorisation request were ultimately bourne out: culminating in a
large number of objections, the non-confirmation by the public
inquiry, and the substantial wait since.

I would concur with the conclusion of no financial impact for this
committee's budget.  The 2010 authorisation did have a cost for the
council as a whole: the expenditure in resources from pursuing
a public inquiry which was ultimately lost.  In hindsight, had the LAF
and/or this committee stood by their minuted reservations, and not
authorised the 2010 request, the council would have been financially
better off and the landowner would have been forced to integrate a
workable solution into their plans earlier.


To recap: all of the consultees and prior objectors have been pushing
for a safe and suitable diversion.  What is presented, allegedly, as
the preferred option from a subset of only four, does not match my
recollection of the reality of those many consultation meetings.

None of us here in this room can predict what will happen if this
order is authorised to be advertised in its present state, though we
can collectively learn with experience of what may happen from
pressing ahead regradlessly, from the last occasion.

If it helps this committee, there are eleven prior objectors/consultees.

Should the chair allow it, I would be open to questions.