Dear Paul,

Thanks again for coming to see us last Friday.

I thought I ought to make a few notes of what we discussed. Please let me
know if I have got anything factually incorrect.

*A) The Aristotle Lane Crossing*

1) You made the point that, since the Evergreen 3 project will be handed
over by Chiltern Railways (CR) to Network Rail (NR), Network Rail are the
ultimate arbiters of what is in the scheme. There is no point CR proposing
anything that is unacceptable to NR.

2) NR insist that the 37 crossings are to be closed. That has been recently
re-iterated. However NR have now agreed to carry out risk assessments on the
37 crossings. There is no scheduled date for that to be completed.

3) The one crossing exception (in Bicester) is a road crossing which would
be impossible to close without a road bridge in a conservation area, which
would be ridiculously expensive and unacceptable.

4) The public inquiry is now likely to be held in Sep / Oct 2010.

5) It is likely that it will be NR, rather than CR, arguing in favour of
closing the crossings at the inquiry.

6) A reorganisation in NR since we spoke last April means that Her Majesty's
Railway Inspectorate are no longer the organisation within NR with the final
say on crossings. I told you that we had tried to get into discussions with
HMRI last year, but they were unwilling to discuss the crossing with us
without seeing CR's plans.

7) There is no promise that we will be given access to the NR risk
assessment for the Aristotle Lane crossing, but it would seem unreasonable
to go into the inquiry without letting us see it, since it is relevant
evidence.

8) You told us that there has been one recorded near miss on the crossing
within the last four years, which is above average.

9) We told you yet again that we are opposed to losing the crossing on the
grounds that we put into our formal objection(s).

*B) The proposed mitigation works*

1) The discussion on the proposed changes to the ramp access etc. is without
prejudice.

2) You said that one reason the mitigation works (the planned works) are not
part of the TWA order is that, once they are in the order, CR lose all
flexibility about doing those works, alternative works, or indeed anything
at all.

3) We expressed the view that the proposed steel structure will be ugly, and
will not gain much over the current Port Meadow access (other than access
when the meadow is flooded).

4) We suggested raising the causeway will be aesthetically more pleasing,
and would provide access almost as good as the proposed steel structure.

5) You said that the reason for the steel works is that no other alternative
(including raising the causeway) was acceptable to Natural England, who were
consulted in detail along with the Environment Agency. They are consulted
because Port Meadow is a SSSI.

6) We all agreed that providing a proper surface to the path, which is in
the planned works, is a necessary improvement.

7) You told us that the provision of car parking spaces for allotment
holders, as catered for by the school / City Council plans, is part of CR's
planned works.

8) We asked if you could confirm that, even if the crossing is ultimately
closed, appropriate mitigation works must be completed before any closure.

*C) Actions*

I think we agreed these:

1. You will provide us with detailed evidence of the near miss incident to
which you referred.

2. You will let us know when the crossing risk assessment is complete.

3. We will contact NR again to try to get our views on the crossing heard.

4. You will confirm to us that, in the event we lose the case at the
inquiry, the mitigation works will precede any closure.

I have no doubt we will need to talk again before the inquiry, not least
because there are some detailed points on the steel ramp which we need to
raise with you / CR, and which we didn't have time to cover.

--
Regards,
Jonathan Clark