FRIENDS OF LONG ROCK MEXICO CROSSING

2 The Buildings, Long Rock, TR20 9TT mikebott@btinternet.com 01736 711353 11 August 2013 Mr Paul Masters Chief Executive Cornwall Council New County Hall Truro TR1 3AY Dear Sir Complaint re the Closure of Mexico Crossing Please accept this as a formal complaint within the terms of the Council's complaints policy (Listening and Learning, Version 3.0) about the following matters. The temporary Closure The procedures adopted by your officers in imposing the temporary closure were inadequate in the following respects: They allowed the first temporary closure order expire on 21 June and failed to remove the barriers. They did not seek legal advice before issuing a second emergency site notice on 25 June and making a second closure order on 15 July. Instead of seeking advice, on 22 July they emailed the Department for Transport to request retrospective consent from the Secretary of State under section 15(5) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 for the second order. The Secretary of State has no power to give such consent. They treated the email they received from the DfT on 24 July as confirmation that their second order was valid in all circumstances. They failed to recognise that the email was merely confirmation that the consent of the Secretary of State was not required. Although there might be nothing in section 15(5) or 15(6) to invalidate a second order it would not be exempt from other statutory requirements. They have relied on this email to leave the barriers in place where they remain today without legal justification. They have not responded properly to our letters challenging your right to continue the closure beyond six months. Between 28 June and 26 July we sent seven letters about this and received four replies, but none of the replies addressed this point.

The second closure order is invalid. We attach a separate letter requesting a meeting to discuss this as a matter of urgency. We believe that all of these faults occurred after Peter Marsh intervened in this case and have resulted from his personal handling of it.

The Permanent Closure We do not seek to question the substantive decision announced by Peter Marsh on 5 August, which is a separate matter and will now be examined at a public inquiry. Our complaint relates to the procedure he used to reach his decision, which will not form part of the public inquiry's agenda. Our concerns were confirmed at a meeting on 29 July where his statements and silences revealed the following: He offered no explanation as to why he took over the case from his staff when they had already assessed all the evidence and reached a conclusion well before the temporary closure expired on 21 June. He offered no explanation for the long delay in reaching a conclusion himself, and no explanation as to why the crossing had to remain closed while he deliberated. He refused to confirm that his deliberations would include the suitability of the two alternative routes. All he would say was that he would follow the test laid down in the Act and would be taking advice on what it meant. He appeared to confirm that he had done nothing to assess the suitability of the alternative routes, despite having a legal duty to do so and despite our continuous assertions that they are inconvenient and highly dangerous for pedestrians. He revealed that at a recent site visit he failed to take the opportunity to walk the two routes, which would have demonstrated beyond doubt the truth of our assertions. He confirmed that he had not explored the issue of safety improvements on the crossing, preferring to accept Network Rail's (incorrect) assertion that none of the options is viable.

A mere five days before announcing his decision he appeared unsure as to what the statute required him to consider. Whether off-rail safety is a relevant consideration has been a key issue right from the start of this case and should be clearly visible as a thread running through the paperwork. His need to seek legal advice on such an important issue so late in the day did not inspire confidence. The fact that he took so long to reach his decision, the fact that without good reason he required the crossing to be closed while he deliberated, and the fact that the only way he could keep it closed was by flouting the law and by ignoring the mountain of evidence that the closure was dangerous for pedestrians and disastrous for the local economy, suggest a reckless disregard for the well-being of the people he is paid to serve. Conclusion These matters fall within at least three of the examples listed in paragraph 3.4 of your policy: unreasonable delays in the provision of a service failure to provide adequate standards of service failure to fulfil statutory responsibilities

Yours faithfully

Mike Bott for FOLRMC