SWR to withdraw public access to Guildford Station Footbridge

[Gaelan]

Did a similar thing happen at one of the EMR stations (Derby or Sheffield?) A few years ago? IIRC the TOC backed down in the end.

Sounds like Derby - Sheffield is ungated.

 

[infobleep]

Pedestrian access of Guildford Station footbridge is to be withdrawn on a trial basis starting in December.

South Western Railway (SWR) and Network Rail will temporarily withdraw pedestrian access across the footbridge for three months between Monday, December 4, and Friday, March 1, 2024.

The trial follows anti-social behaviour towards station staff by fare evaders over many years. It will be used to collect data before SWR and Network Rail apply to permanently withdraw access later next year.

Currently, pedestrians are permitted to use the footbridge as a walking route between Station Approach and Guildford Park Road. Until recently, they were provided with a paper “bridge pass” that allowed them to enter and exit the station via the footbridge.
Click to expand...

Guildford Dragon NEWS​

Could they not build a separate footbridge for pedestrians? I accept that costs money and I don't know if such a proposal is in the station rebuilding programme.

Also, will this mean they need to staff the back entrance 20 hours day or will it close at certain times of the day completely to everyone?

It takes at least an additional 5 minutes to reach platform 8 when the back entrance is closed.

I'm opposed to the idea of it being closed but equally I don't like staff being abused and people not having a ticket.

I once saw someone leap over the side barrier at the front. Only solution to stop that is to close the barriers at the front of the station too but then no one could board a train.

Incidentally I haven't heard of the Tory councilors going on about Section 52 when the footbridge is closed as staff are on strike and limited services are running from the station. Wonder why that might be.

I would have thought it might be possible to divert one of the Platform 1 or 2 staircases to lead out of the station via a new exit into the car park area, and then retain all other platform access staircases with locked doors for crew use. That would retain simple access for staff, maintain the public right of way and allow a reasonably easy transit from the bridge exit, along the station frontage and to the entrance.

It’s worth pointing out that SWR are happy to operate Basingstoke in this way, whereby outside of the peaks anyone arriving on the car park side of the station has to transit via a cramped staircase and subway to the other side of the station, so the there is a precedent for similar arrangements.

It's not a public right of way but a Section 52 agreement.

A subway for pedestrians also occurs at Woking.

It's already pretty crowded there though. However I imagine not that many people actually used the footbridge pass to cross the footbridge, given that there is the road nearby, so maybe it won't lead to much of an increase in foot traffic. Wouldn't surprise me if nearly everyone getting a footbridge pass was actually just a fare dodger!

What really needs sorting is the junction and crossings to the south of the carpark/main entrance on the east side of the tracks, it's absolutely lethal trying to not get hit by a car/drivers having to dodge a stream of uni students! If they expect everyone to use Farnham Road then something surely needs to be done to the crossings...

The crossing to the car park has been improved to make it better for disabled people and the visually impaired. That happened this year, when the final traces of the start of the old access road down to the Guildford Motive Depot were removed.

However, nothing has been done with the crossing over the access road down to the car park from Guildford Park Road, the road where the entrance to the footbridge is located.

The Guildford traincrew depot is accessed via the bridge so that would make it a bit of a trek to get to and from the platforms.

They could simply be made to trek around, as pedestrians will have to do and even customers unless it is manned 20 hours a day.

It wouldnt need to be staffed, lots of examples elsewhere where secondary exits are gated and controlled remotely.

I have not come across this happening at any SWR station but it does happen at Govia Thameslink Railway stations.

That isn't to say it couldn't happen but they would need to install equipment to make it possible and change working practices.

 

[Towers]

It takes at least an additional 5 minutes to reach platform 8 when the back entrance is closed.

They could simply be made to trek around, as pedestrians will have to do and even customers unless it is manned 20 hours a day.

Your first point very much points out the issue with the second, which was your response to the post from @lxfe_mxtterz:

lxfe_mxtterz said:
The Guildford traincrew depot is accessed via the bridge so that would make it a bit of a trek to get to and from the platforms.

Train crew being “made to trek around” would mean more time needing to be allowed in diagrams for this, which in turn costs money!

 

[Wolfie]

The article states

The requirement to allow pedestrians to walk through the station and over the bridge was introduced following a planning agreement between the British Railways Board and Guildford Borough Council in 1988


I assume SWR believe that agreement can be terminated

Guildford Borough Council or it's successor mst well have very different views particularly if it was a condition of planning.... Me learned friends could be out to play....

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Did a similar thing happen at one of the EMR stations (Derby or Sheffield?) A few years ago? IIRC the TOC backed down in the end.

I can't see much incentive for the local authority to approve the permanent closure. Presumably SWR are free to put additional RPI's at the bottom of the steps on the platform if they feel that strongly about it.

Nottingham and Sheffield are the ones most often mentioned.

 

[Haywain]

Sounds like Derby - Sheffield is ungated.

No, it was Sheffield that EMR couldn't get gated. LNER had a similar problem at York.

 

[Cantab26]

Re 1., if the Local Authority refuses permission to vary the obligation, they could also appeal to a planning inspector (formally the Secretary of State).

This is not correct.

Guildford Borough Council or it's successor mst well have very different views particularly if it was a condition of planning.... Me learned friends could be out to play....

The local authority doesn’t get the final say on the matter. Hence the possibility of an application to the Lands Tribunal under section 84.

 

[Surreyman]

I support them closing the bridge to non rail users.
There have been proposals for a new separate pedestrian bridge for years but funding is the usual issue...
The closure doesn't affect train travellers, can't really see what the problem is?
I live very close to the rear entrance and have often used the bridge as a pedestrian, it's only a short cut if you are going to the law courts or Cinema, makes no difference if you are going into the town centre. Walnut Tree close can be accessed via 'Yorkies bridge'.
Sign of the times re anti social behaviour even in leafy Guildford! There have been recent A/Social incidents in the Friary bus station, drivers being abused etc.
In recent years the growth of the Royal Surrey Hospital & Surrey University have meant increased bus use picking up/dropping off at the back of the station and it is much busier than it used to be a few years ago.
It is very easy to say to the bloke on the gate (usually agency staff) 'I am just walking over the bridge' and then board a train.
The station has always been a 'bit lively' on Friday/Sat eves/nights with BTP often present.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

As for the North Downs Line, Shalford, although that is further out in the borough.

Crowthorne, Sandhurst, Blackwater, Farnborough North, North Camp, Ash, Wanborough, and every station from Shalford up to Reigate ungated.

Farnham and Worplesdon ungated also

 

[Wolfie]

This is not correct.

The local authority doesn’t get the final say on the matter. Hence the possibility of an application to the Lands Tribunal under section 84.

If commitments made to gain planning permission are as easy to get out as you imply then they are totally worthless.

The "Land Tribunal" - formally the "First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)" - is one of the seven chambers of the first tier legal body i.e. it is a form of Court. Its decisions can be appealed at the "Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber)" i.e. a second tier legal body. How exactly are me learned friends not going to get involved?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Oct 2023 ==

I support them closing the bridge to non rail users.
There have been proposals for a new separate pedestrian bridge for years but funding is the usual issue...
The closure doesn't affect train travellers, can't really see what the problem is?

So only rail passengers matter huh? Conditions of planning permission should never be easily broken.

 

[DelW]

It wouldnt need to be staffed, lots of examples elsewhere where secondary exits are gated and controlled remotely.

I have not come across this happening at any SWR station but it does happen at Govia Thameslink Railway stations.

That isn't to say it couldn't happen but they would need to install equipment to make it possible and change working practices.

Godalming up platform has an entry and exit gate remotely controlled from the down platform gate line. That has been in use for two or three years.

 

[Revilo]

This is not correct.

The local authority doesn’t get the final say on the matter. Hence the possibility of an application to the Lands Tribunal under section 84.

I understood it was a s52 planning obligation, the forerunner to s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act. The Government’s Planning Practice Guidance advises at Paragraph 020 that:

Can an agreed planning obligation be changed?​

Planning obligations can be renegotiated at any point, where the local planning authority and developer wish to do so. Where there is no agreement to voluntarily renegotiate, and the planning obligation predates April 2010 or is over 5 years old, an application may be made to the local planning authority to change the obligation where it “no longer serves a useful purpose” or would continue to serve a useful purpose in a modified way (see section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

And at paragraph 22 that:

Can there be an appeal against a refusal to change a planning obligation (Section 106 agreement)?​

An appeal to the Planning Inspectorate under section 106B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 must be made within 6 months of a decision by the local authority not to amend the obligation, or within 6 months starting at the 8 weeks from the date of request to amend if no decision is issued. The Secretary of State also has the power to allow appeals that are out of time.

 

[Fazaar1889]

I mentioned this to my mum, who is in her 80s and she said Farnham Road Bridge isn't nice or as safe. She doesn't enoy that route.

Can confirm, it's noisy cramped, smelly and overall, very unpleasant to walk through. The station's bridge is far more appealing and inviting.

 

[Bald Rick]

Can confirm, it's noisy cramped, smelly and overall, very unpleasant to walk through. The station's bridge is far more appealing and inviting.

Am I missing something? You dont walk through the Farnham Rd bridge across the railway, you walk across it. I’ve never had any problems with it personally, even as a kid.

 

[infobleep]

Your first point very much points out the issue with the second, which was your response to the post from @lxfe_mxtterz:

lxfe_mxtterz said:
The Guildford traincrew depot is accessed via the bridge so that would make it a bit of a trek to get to and from the platforms.

Train crew being “made to trek around” would mean more time needing to be allowed in diagrams for this, which in turn costs money!

Playing devils advocate, surely they would just need to arrive earlier. Like people tell passengers. Of course if they are taking a rest break between services in a shift this doesn't work.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Oct 2023 ==

Am I missing something? You dont walk through the Farnham Rd bridge across the railway, you walk across it. I’ve never had any problems with it personally, even as a kid.

Well, my mum who is in her 80s doesn't like it and I doubt she is alone. My mum isn't a frequent user of it either, which may partly lead to this. Regular users might get used to it.

I'm not too bothered myself going that way when going into town but I am when needing to get to platform 8 or in fact any platform at the station or any part of the station for any business I wish to do on it.

I did once try to get a platform ticket but was told they don't issue such things.

Guildford Borough Council or it's successor mst well have very different views particularly if it was a condition of planning.... Me learned friends could be out to play....

The BBC didn't quote their views but the Guildford Dragon, which is better for local news but alas not mobile-friendly had this

Local Lib Dem ward councillors seemed more sympathetic with SWR’s position. In a joint statement they said: “Antisocial behaviour causes significant harm to railway staff and makes rail journeys for the travelling public deeply unpleasant. The trial closure is a reasonable step in gathering evidence to address this issue. However, residents are rightly concerned, particularly with respect to the safety of alternative pedestrian routes and the potential for increased traffic around the station.

“As local councillors, we will be monitoring the trial closely over the coming months and will be very interested to see the results.”

And their party colleague, Tom Hunt, who has the lead responsibility for Transport at Guildford Borough Council, was even more supportive of the trial. He added: “SWR has shared evidence of the anti-social behaviour (ASB) being directed towards their ticket gate staff by individuals claiming to be accessing the station using bridge passes.

“The level of this abuse is completely unacceptable, and I am consequently supportive of a trial to identify to what extent closing the footbridge to non-travel-ticket holders stems the flow of ASB.

“I am disappointed that the actions of a small minority will impact the decent majority of residents.”

 https://guildford-dragon.com/pedest...bridge-to-be-withdrawn-for-three-month-trial/

Having had interactions with some of the local ward councilors, I'm sure they have been given a well-written document and business case that highlights the need to do this trail.

Not sure with the station rebuild if a new footbridge could be built. As in, is it in the existing plans. It just makes sense.

Worth noting the Farnham Road bridge and also part of Guildford Park Road had high levels of nitrous oxide, to the level where they had to put an action plan in. I don't know if the levels have dropped since. This was only in the last 3 years that this was noted.

Social incidents in the Friary bus station, drivers being abused etc.
In recent years the growth of the Royal Surrey Hospital & Surrey University have meant increased bus use picking up/dropping off at the back of the station and it is much busier than it used to be a few years ago.
It is very easy to say to the bloke on the gate (usually agency staff) 'I am just walking over the bridge' and then board a train.
The station has always been a 'bit lively' on Friday/Sat eves/nights with BTP often present.

Perhaps they need to close the bus station. The bus station is awful.

Of course, the council does not have funds to do anything about that.

As for the hospital, improvements have been made to create a safer walking route. Now surely such a route would have included crossing the station footbridge. I do accept this report hadn't been given to councilors at this point.

I wonder if the report will be out in the public domain.

Godalming up platform has an entry and exit gate remotely controlled from the down platform gate line. That has been in use for two or three years.

I'm surprised such a thing hasn't been installed at Guildford then.

I understood it was a s52 planning obligation, the forerunner to s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act. The Government’s Planning Practice Guidance advises at Paragraph 020 that:

Can an agreed planning obligation be changed?​

Planning obligations can be renegotiated at any point, where the local planning authority and developer wish to do so. Where there is no agreement to voluntarily renegotiate, and the planning obligation predates April 2010 or is over 5 years old, an application may be made to the local planning authority to change the obligation where it “no longer serves a useful purpose” or would continue to serve a useful purpose in a modified way (see section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

And at paragraph 22 that:

Can there be an appeal against a refusal to change a planning obligation (Section 106 agreement)?​

An appeal to the Planning Inspectorate under section 106B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 must be made within 6 months of a decision by the local authority not to amend the obligation, or within 6 months starting at the 8 weeks from the date of request to amend if no decision is issued. The Secretary of State also has the power to allow appeals that are out of time.

Whilst I appreciate the abuse on the flip side I doubt it could be claimed the footbridge no longer serves a useful purpose because it does.

Is the primary issue abuse or is it abuse and ticket-less travel? If it also covers ticketless travel then they need to gate London Road (Guildford). There are others around but they are not in Guildford town, unlike that one.

If someone wants to avoid the fare, surely they would just go to London Road (Guildford), or are most people not paying, not bright enough to realise this.

 

[DelW]

Am I missing something? You dont walk through the Farnham Rd bridge across the railway, you walk across it. I’ve never had any problems with it personally, even as a kid.

The pavement is sufficiently narrow that it's often necessary to step into the road to pass a group coming the other way, or even to pass mothers with baby buggies and/or children. For much of the day there's a near permanent stop-start traffic queue heading onto the one-way system. It's certainly not a pleasant walk, and the continuation down Bridge Street isn't much better. Having crossed over the station footbridge, that can be avoided by taking the footbridge over the river towards the Odeon and going into the town centre that way.

 

[Surreyman]

The pavement is sufficiently narrow that it's often necessary to step into the road to pass a group coming the other way, or even to pass mothers with baby buggies and/or children. For much of the day there's a near permanent stop-start traffic queue heading onto the one-way system. It's certainly not a pleasant walk, and the continuation down Bridge Street isn't much better. Having crossed over the station footbridge, that can be avoided by taking the footbridge over the river towards the Odeon and going into the town centre that way.

All true but the the station bridge/walkway has stairs at both ends by the Guildford Park Rd entrance and down to platform 2 so it's not exactly friendly to anyone with mobility issues.
As someone who has walked across the Farnham rd bridge for literally decades, yes it is narrow but I have never had to step into the road to pass other pedestrians/buggys.
There has been talk for years about the poor east - west connections in Guildford caused by the railway, a new pedestrian bridge is feasible but with the state of the nations finances unlikely to be built anytime
University students can cross the railway by Yorkies bridge, anyone living around Farnham road can use the Mount if they can manage the slope.

 

[Cantab26]

If commitments made to gain planning permission are as easy to get out as you imply then they are totally worthless.

You might very well think that. I couldn’t possibly comment.

The "Land Tribunal" - formally the "First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)" - is one of the seven chambers of the first tier legal body i.e. it is a form of Court. Its decisions can be appealed at the "Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber)" i.e. a second tier legal body. How exactly are me learned friends not going to get involved?

Section 84 applications do not go to the First Tier Tribunal at all. They are directed to the Lands Tribunal which, in England, forms the Lands Chamber of the Upper Tribunal.

As this body is not a court, there is no requirement to retain counsel or solicitors, although that is of course fairly common practice.

I understood it was a s52 planning obligation, the forerunner to s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act. The Government’s Planning Practice Guidance advises at Paragraph 020 that:

Can an agreed planning obligation be changed?​

Planning obligations can be renegotiated at any point, where the local planning authority and developer wish to do so. Where there is no agreement to voluntarily renegotiate, and the planning obligation predates April 2010 or is over 5 years old, an application may be made to the local planning authority to change the obligation where it “no longer serves a useful purpose” or would continue to serve a useful purpose in a modified way (see section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990).

And at paragraph 22 that:

Can there be an appeal against a refusal to change a planning obligation (Section 106 agreement)?​

An appeal to the Planning Inspectorate under section 106B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 must be made within 6 months of a decision by the local authority not to amend the obligation, or within 6 months starting at the 8 weeks from the date of request to amend if no decision is issued. The Secretary of State also has the power to allow appeals that are out of time.

A section 52 agreement is not a ‘planning obligation’ for the purposes of section 106A so there is no ability to vary or discharge it by this route and no right of appeal to the Secretary of State.

 

[Haywain]

The pavement is sufficiently narrow that it's often necessary to step into the road to pass a group coming the other way, or even to pass mothers with baby buggies and/or children. For much of the day there's a near permanent stop-start traffic queue heading onto the one-way system. It's certainly not a pleasant walk, and the continuation down Bridge Street isn't much better. Having crossed over the station footbridge, that can be avoided by taking the footbridge over the river towards the Odeon and going into the town centre that way.

Perhaps pressure ought to be brought on the local authority to improve the situation then, rather than relying on an obviously unsatisfactory arrangement with the railway.

 

[duffield]

Did a similar thing happen at one of the EMR stations (Derby or Sheffield?) A few years ago? IIRC the TOC backed down in the end.

I can't see much incentive for the local authority to approve the permanent closure. Presumably SWR are free to put additional RPI's at the bottom of the steps on the platform if they feel that strongly about it.

I've seen staff doing checks right at the bottom of steps at more than one station, and IMHO it's dangerous. You get people piling up coming down the stairs while fumbling with wallets, pockets and bags rather than looking where they're walking, it's an accident waiting to happen.

 

[Wolfie]

You might very well think that. I couldn’t possibly comment.

Section 84 applications do not go to the First Tier Tribunal at all. They are directed to the Lands Tribunal which, in England, forms the Lands Chamber of the Upper Tribunal.

As this body is not a court, there is no requirement to retain counsel or solicitors, although that is of course fairly common practice.

I understood it was a s52 planning obligation, the forerunner to s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act. The Government’s Planning Practice Guidance advises at Paragraph 020 that:

A section 52 agreement is not a ‘planning obligation’ for the purposes of section 106A so there is no ability to vary or discharge it by this route and no right of appeal to the Secretary of State.

HM Courts and Tribunal Service would disagree with you over the status of First Tier and Upper Tier Tribunals.

Tribunals - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

Find out more about the specialist courts that make up the Tribunals

www.judiciary.uk

"The tribunals are specialist courts whose judges and members hear a wide range of cases, such as tax, employment, and immigration and asylum. The Upper Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal hear appeals challenging some tribunal decisions."

 

[Cantab26]

HM Courts and Tribunal Service would disagree with you over the status of First Tier and Upper Tier Tribunals.

Tribunals - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

Find out more about the specialist courts that make up the Tribunals

www.judiciary.uk

"The tribunals are specialist courts whose judges and members hear a wide range of cases, such as tax, employment, and immigration and asylum. The Upper Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal hear appeals challenging some tribunal decisions."

They are administrative tribunals (which is to say, executive bodies), not courts, even though the work they undertake is in practice very similar to that carried on by courts.

Hence the “and Tribunal” in HMCTS’ name.

 

[SWT_USER]

Perhaps pressure ought to be brought on the local authority to improve the situation then, rather than relying on an obviously unsatisfactory arrangement with the railway.

Perhaps the railway could fund a second footbridge, rather than trying to change a long standing arrangement to the detriment of the general public.

 

[camflyer]

From an outsiders point of view, it doesnt look like that much of a diversion via Farnham Rd. Surprised it hasnt been done before this

It's not a huge shortcut but still a significant one saving a few minutes. I was a student in Guildford in the 90s and would regularly use the footbridge on the way into town - and this was before ticket barriers were introduced.

 

[Watershed]

Perhaps the railway could fund a second footbridge, rather than trying to change a long standing arrangement to the detriment of the general public.

Indeed. Rather than paying for the cost of employing sufficient people to improve security, or building a new bridge, it wants to "have its cake and eat it".

 

[DelW]

Perhaps pressure ought to be brought on the local authority to improve the situation then, rather than relying on an obviously unsatisfactory arrangement with the railway.

The problem is part of a much wider issue of pedestrian *and* vehicular traffic, and the interaction between them, in that part of the town. Farnham Road, Bridge Street, Onslow Street and the one-way system are all inadequate for current traffic levels and see congestion throughout the day. The last significant improvement was decades ago (1980s?) when the "new" westbound road bridge* was built so that the High Street bridge could be closed to traffic. At around that time the two pedestrian subways were built under Park Street to improve access to the centre, but the route onward is too convoluted and they've never been popular or seen much use.

Since then numerous studies and proposals have come and gone. One that I read somewhere about 10 years ago proposed to pedestrianise Bridge Street and make the "new" bridge* carry two-way traffic, becoming the only river crossing for vehicles in the town centre. I can't imagine what that would have meant for traffic congestion, even if it might have helped pedestrian flow across the river.

*Friary Bridge according to Google maps, though I don't remember ever hearing it called that.

 

[Revilo]

You might very well think that. I couldn’t possibly comment.

Section 84 applications do not go to the First Tier Tribunal at all. They are directed to the Lands Tribunal which, in England, forms the Lands Chamber of the Upper Tribunal.

As this body is not a court, there is no requirement to retain counsel or solicitors, although that is of course fairly common practice.

I understood it was a s52 planning obligation, the forerunner to s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act. The Government’s Planning Practice Guidance advises at Paragraph 020 that:

A section 52 agreement is not a ‘planning obligation’ for the purposes of section 106A so there is no ability to vary or discharge it by this route and no right of appeal to the Secretary of State.

Thanks, that’s interesting. I’d assumed s106 just replaced s52 but you’re right, it can’t be varied in the same way as an newer s106.

 

[Deepgreen]

The best solution would be a segregated footbridge with non-passengers not having to interact with the railway at all. The current one is too narrow for that, so either a replacement or a widened one is needed. Perhaps a joint funding basis from NR/SWR and Guildford Borough Council would be appropriate. The new section need not even be covered.

 

[Sultan]

Don't think Guildford BC have the funds and would probably deny the planning change instead as it's cheaper, letting Network Rail resolve it themselves.

 

[Big Jumby 74]

Perhaps a joint funding basis from NR/SWR and Guildford Borough Council

Not going to happen. Locally it is believed GBC is (allegedly) fast heading the same way as neighbouring Woking BC has gone.....