Queen Adelaide level-crossings closure cover-up?

[Nimbus]

It is possible that the three level-crossings at Queen Adelaide, Ely, plus the one at nearby Kiln Lane, will be closed to all traffic, thus severing the village of Queen Adelaide and a major route into Ely. Both the DfT and NR are hyper-sensitive over this issue - ' If the Department ( for Transport ) were to disclose ( to the public ) the information provided to it by Network Rail it would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of the individuals living in homes immediately adjacent to the crossings in question. Specifically suffering prejudice in terms of 'planning blight' on their homes long before there is even any certainty over a given option...' 'Consequently, Network Rail could experience prejudice to their economic interests in the form of compensatory payments to the aforementioned third parties.' ' Disclosure would also be likely to prejudice the Department for Transport's commercial interests... The Department relies on Network Rail to provide information in order to carry out its daily business.'' On balance the public interest in withholding the information outweighs that for disclosure.' These quotes all taken from FoI releases easily available on-line - just search for Queen Adelaide Crossings. Which in a roundabout way leads me on to ask a question - Who OWNS the land at a level crossing? I mean the stretch of Public Right of Way WITHIN the barriers? My investigations lead me to believe that it is actually the local highway authority, but other information contradicts this. Can anybody quote from an Act or whatever that covers this issue? ( I've read quite a few and not resolved the issue ). Gates, Fences, opening and shutting of gates are all covered, but not who owns the land in-between. Odd. The local highway authority technically owns the surface of every Public Right of Way. A local newspaper report in 1916 records the GER being sympathetic to the plight of the Surveyor to Newmarket UDC over the state of the road in the middle of a local level-crossing, but suggests that he needs to contact the County Council! ( And just to add to the fun, quotes the wrong Council, as the crossing had shifted into Suffolk from Cambridgeshire with the boundary changes in 1888 when County Councils were first created. ) I remain at a loss. NR and the ORR just bumble about stating that 'crossing law is very complicated' and not answering the question! Can anybody out there give me a definitive answer? Many thanks!

[65447]

I just love the way English law produces these conundrums.

If one considers that what is now a public highway originally a road or track in existence before the highways acts and the creation of highway authorities then, as with public rights of way such as footpaths and bridleways, the land beneath the road etc. still belongs to the adjoining landowners, each side usually owning to the centre. If the highway were to be closed by a legal order then the land would revert to those owners. The situation is different for highways created subsequent to those enactments.

On this presumption, historic level crossings would as a rule comprise a right of way for traffic to pass and repass but ownership of the land underneath would belong, these days, to Network Rail and that is the organisation to which it would revert on closure.

[Nimbus]

That sounds about right. There were special conditions for 'public roads' and 'turnpikes' at level crossings when railways were first built over them. The recent fun has come about by NR stating that they are responsible for the safety of crossing users, whereas it could be argued that it is actually the highway authority who is responsible! More pocket money for the lawyers! Potentially severing a village ends you up in much more emotive - and international - areas, such as human rights and cultural identity protection issues / laws, at EU or UN level. Queen Adelaide could turn out to be NR's Pandora's Box!

[52D]

When i was based at Thetford, the crossings at QA were part of one of my shortcuts across the Fens and were very useful and time saving if i was called to a breakdown from say North Cambridgeshire to mid Norfolk. I for one would be sorry to see them go.

[Nimbus]

The County Council now appears to have agreed, in principal, to close the Norwich line crossing and impose 'local traffic only' restrictions across the other two. However, the Political Mayor, who appears to carry real clout, has said that a tunnel or road bridge must be considered as part of this 'improvement' work, not least because up to 8000 new homes are to be built on this side of Ely and will need access. Quite what length of bridge or tunnel contemplated is not exactly clear at this stage. ( If they fit glass sides to the tunnel, we can watch the newts swimming about in the fen and wave to the Bronze Age bog bodies! )