Translink advises 'only safe option is a footbridge over the railway track' as Jordanstown halt proposal rejected
A planning application for a pedestrian footbridge and refurbished waiting areas at Jordanstown railway halt was refused by Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council’s Planning Committee at a meeting, in Mossley Mill, on Monday evening.
A decision had been deferred since last month to allow Translink representatives to provide the committee with additional information to address concerns over the proposed new structure at Jordanstown’s level crossing on the Belfast to Larne railway line.
The officer’s recommendation was to grant permission subject to conditions.
Mark Montgomery, route manager, northern area NI Railways, at Translink, told the meeting: “Safety is our top priority. Safety has always been a key driver for this project.”
He went on to say that during the past five years, there have been 20 reported incidents on the line.
“I have attended multiple situations of near misses and fatality when members of the public have chosen to walk across the track. There is a pressing need to address this issue. Translink have long been committed to raising awareness of rail safety. Misuse of these crossings remains a significant challenge.”
The committee heard that Translink has been intending to appoint a contractor later this year. The duration of the contract is expected to be between 18 to 22 weeks with acoustic barriers to be provided.
Members were also advised that Translink does not own enough land at the railway halt to include disability ramps in the scheme and that a lift cannot be provided as the halt is unmanned for part of the day which could result in a member of the public becoming stuck. There was also a concern that a lift could lead to anti-social behaviour.
There have been 14 letters of objection outlining concerns such as potential loss of privacy, overlooking, impact on character of the area, removal of trees, noise and disturbance.
Bat Roosts
An objector asked the committee not to allow any work to commence before a survey for bat roosts and invasive plant species. She also asked for no removal of vegetation of trees prior to breeding season, lighting to meet regulations during construction, restrictions on noise levels and consultation with neighbours on an ongoing basis.
Threemilewater Alliance Alderman Tom Campbell asked Translink how many incidents there have been during the past two years, the nature of incidents and if there has been a recent risk assessment.
Mr Montgomery said: “One incident of trespass of someone jumping a barrier is one too many. There is only one outcome if someone is struck by a train. ”
Mr Campbell went on to say: “The concern that many residents have is whether or not these works are necessary. I do not think you have made a compelling case.
“It seems to me you are coming here with equally scant information given the importance of this particular application and level of disruption.”
Mr Montgomery indicated he can provide the information that is required, adding that a risk assessment for a railway station is “enormous”. He also noted that there is a “significant amount” of schoolchildren travelling through Jordanstown.
Threemilewater DUP Cllr Sam Flanagan asked if other options have been explored. The Translink official advised the “only safe option is a footbridge over the railway track”
He reported there have been more than 435,000 passengers at Jordanstown halt since the “relocation” of Ulster University.
“This project is specifically targeted at improper use of the crossing,” he added.
In response to a query over use by wheelchair users and prams, he stated: “Those users are not people identified as misusing the crossing. It remains a safe crossing as a level crossing. It is when people take risks. The safety mitigation is already there with the manual barrier.”
Macedon Ulster Unionist Cllr Robert Foster remarked that the proposed footbridge would have 39 steps.
Mr Montgomery replied: “This bridge is a tall bridge, This is for future-proofing purposes, for future electrification of the line.”
Cllr Foster went on to say that someone over five feet tall crossing the footbridge would be able to look into a neighbouring property.
Councillors were told the parapet was 180 centimetres “to improve privacy alongside opaque glass” and that it has been designed to stop people “looking over the top”.
Cllr Foster stressed there should be an “option for disability access”.
Macedon Alliance Cllr Billy Webb MBE stated: “I am very disappointed that the rights of the disabled have been dismissed this evening again.”
He asked why the bridge could not be placed near the car park which he suggested would enable “ample space” for a ramp to be installed. He was informed the reason the proposal is for a bridge to be installed is “because of safety”.
Level Crossing
“I do not think it is fair to say we are not taking into consideration disabled users. There is a level crossing there. Wheelchairs and prams can go over the crossing. People we are having the issue with, are not people using wheelchairs or prams,” the Translink official explained.
Cllr Flanagan pointed out that anyone over 5’10” could see over the top of the footbridge.
Airport DUP Ald Matthew Magill said: “Overlooking is a major area of concern for the community.” He queried if the proposed structure could be higher.
He was told this is something that could be reviewed and the current measurement is “based on research and best practice”.
Ald Campbell proposed that planning permission be refused on the grounds of scale and massing of design as well as potential disturbance and loss of amenity for local residents, seconded by Glengormley DUP Cllr Alison Bennington.
“I think even if you had this structure, there is still potential for people to take short-cuts,” Ald Campbell claimed.
Planning permission was refused by the committee following a vote in which seven councillors backed the proposal with four against.
Michelle Weir, Local Democracy Reporter