Heather Page

19 October  2021  

Mr G.Clow 

Coroners Service 

Dear Mr Clow, 

Regulation 28 Report to prevent future deaths – Investigation into death of 
Heather Frances Page 

I write in response to the Regulation 28 report issued to Broxtowe Borough Council 
relating to the investigation into the death of Heather Frances Page.  

Firstly, our sincere condolences to the family of Miss Page and to all those affected by 
her death.  

Background 

In  2016  a  consultation  process  was  commenced  by  Network  Rail,  the  aim  of  this 
consultation  was  to  engage  with  the  local  community  on  how  to  reduce  and/or 
eliminate  risk  at  the  three  level  crossings  in  the  vicinity  of  Attenborough  Nature 
Reserve.  These  crossing  are  known  as  Barratt  Lane  No  1,  Long  Lane  and  Nature 
Reserve (‘the Crossings’). 

In February 2017, the Policy and Performance Committee of the Council, after being 
made aware of the consultation, discussed this matter at one of their meetings. Their 
discussion was to form part of the Council’s response to the consultation. At the time 
the Committee felt that each Crossing had its’ own individual role and were deemed 
important exits from Attenborough Village. It was felt by the Committee that a variety 
of  alternative  measures  such  as  public  communication  and  educational  exercises 
were not full considered.   

Ultimately, whilst the Committee fully understood the importance of safety, they also 
felt  this  should  be  proportionate  and  be  balanced  with  the  needs  of  the  local 
community.  

Proposed action to be taken  

The Council has recently received a letter from 
, (Route Director), Network 
Rail suggesting a meeting to seek potential solutions to the matters of concern that 
have been raised. A meeting has been scheduled to take place on Friday 22 October 
2021 at 14:00 with both Councillors and Council Officers. 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Once this meeting has taken place we will be more clear with what the timetable for 
action will look like and what the Council’s current position is. We will write further once 
this has been established.  

Yours sincerely, 

For the Chief Executive

REPONSE TO HM CORONER – PREVENTION OF FUTURE DEATH NOTICE 
REPONSE OF DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL 

Following the receipt of the Regulation 28 Prevention of Future Death Notice following 
the Inquest into the Death of Heather Page, Derbyshire County Council received a letter 
from Network Rail indicating that they had previously attempted to close some footpaths 
in this area.  After inspection of records held, Derbyshire County Council responded as 
follows: 

“Thank  you  for  your  enquiry  dated  the  4th August  2021  regarding  your  willingness to 
engage with Derbyshire County Council following the outcome of the Coroner’s Inquest 
into the death of Miss Heather Page on the 7th October 2020. 

I can appreciate  that the report  recommendation under Regulation 28 of the Coroners 
Inquest  Regulations  2013,  resulted  in  yourselves  as  the  Rail Authority  notifying  the 
respective  local authorities  of  their  responsibility  to take  actions to  reduce  the  risk  of 
public access directly onto the rail line.  

Back  in April 2003,  Derbyshire  County Council issued the  notice  of  making an order 
under the Highways Act 1980 for Public Footpath No.7 (Part – Long Eaton) Rail Crossing 
Diversion Order 2003. Public Footpath No.7 is the right of way which accesses over the 
Rail Line at  end of Barton  Road, Long Eaton (see  Appendix 1) into the  Attenborough 
Nature  Reserve  site  (Nottinghamshire  County  Council).  The  intention  was  to  divert 
Footpath No.7 from the Nature Reserve to run adjacent the rail track in a south-westerly 
direction  to  the  junction with  Meadow  Lane,  at  the  on-road  Level  Crossing site.  This 
would have removed the need for people to access over the rail tracks from the Barton 
Road access point. However, due to objections the matter was passed to HM Planning 
Inspectorate  (see Appendix 2) for consideration.  I am led to believe that Network  Rail 
on  the  8th  July  2004  reassessed  the  scheme  following  a  new  risk  assessment  and 
subsequently  withdrew  the  application  to  support  the  proposed  diversion.  Therefore, 
Derbyshire  County  Council  had  no  alternative  other  than  to  cancel  the  proposed 
diversion order from being confirmed on the 12th July 2004, and  subsequently the HM 
Planning Inspectorate  supported the decision taken. 

Derbyshire County Council then received further correspondence with 
of Network Rail in July 2015 in relation to the issue with the crossing of (Public Footpath 
No.7),  at  the  end of Barton  Road,  Long Eaton.  This provides a  facility which crosses 
pedestrians and other vulnerable road user groups over the railway line.  

CONTROLLED 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 The correspondence  at that  time appears  to say that  following  an internal meeting at 
Network  Rail,  that  a  ramped  bridge  to  take  pedestrians  over  the  rail  line  had  been 
authorised  by  the  Route  Asset  Manager.  This  would  have  provided  an  engineering 
solution to the concerns about pedestrians crossing the rail line at ground level and an 
alternative scheme to the one that was  promoted back in 2003. From correspondence 
with 
  I can see that an initial design was tweaked  to require consultation 
with just two landowners and that your Property Surveyor was asked to make contact to 
start  the  negotiations  process.  One  of  the  landowners,  Cemex  I  understand  had 
indicated support for such a proposal. 

The correspondence  indicated that the planners within Network  Rail were  planning on 
making contact,  with  the  local planning  authority,  which  would  be  Erewash  Borough 
Council in this regard, in relation to the proposed design that had been prepared. It was 
identified  that  you  would  have  to  make  an  application  under  Section  119a  of  the 
Highways Act 1980 to divert the public footpaths  current  alignment. To the best of our 
knowledge  Derbyshire  County  Council  received  no  further  correspondence  from 
Network Rail in relation to this matter. 

I trust that the above will provide a suitable explanation regarding the Council’s current 
position in relation to this matter.   

If you require any further  information or clarification regarding the details of this letter, 
 directly by email: 
please contact 

.” 

We enclose the documents sent with the response to Network Rail.  Please note that 
the response relates to public footpath number 7 within the Parish of Long Eaton being 
the only crossing which falls within the Derbyshire county boundary.    

We are aware of the report undertaken by British Transport Police in November 2020 
and as a local authority we will do whatever is within our legal power to assist in the 
prevention of fatalities however it will take a coordinated approach from the various 
local councils, Network Rail and the Highways Authority in order to achieve this.  
Derbyshire County Council as the relevant Highway Authority for Derbyshire will 
always work with other agencies to improve safety across the County.  

CONTROLLED

Response of Erewash Borough Council to the Regulation 28 Report made by Mr 
G. Clow HMAC following the inquest into the death of Miss Heather Frances 
Page: 

My name is 
Council) as the Principal Planning Policy Officer and I make this statement on 
behalf of the Council in response to the concerns raised by the Coroner in his 
regulation 28 report.  

 and I am employed by Erewash Borough Council (the 

In his report the Coroner noted that: 

(5) Support or opposition from local authorities and councils will respectively 
increase or decrease the prospects of the risks inherent in that stretch of track 
being reduced. In the absence of support from local authorities and councils, 
Network Rail will be less likely to make an application to close or rationalise 
crossings along this stretch of track, given the known opposition from some 
persons living near, or using, the crossings. If an application is made, it will be 
less likely to be granted in the absence of support from the relevant local 
authorities and councils. 

There are a number of pedestrian crossings along the section of track adjacent 
to the Attenborough Nature Reserve one of which, the Barton Road crossing, lies 
within the area of the Borough of Erewash. 

In July 2015 Erewash Borough Council were consulted by Network Rail as part of 
that organisation’s Level Crossing Closures Programme. Information shared with 
the Council as part of the consultation included a briefing note (Appendix A) 
explaining the conditions at the Barton Road pedestrian rail crossing whilst also 
providing an estimation of its daily number of users. The briefing note set out a 
suggested replacement for the current crossing, with the advantages and 
disadvantages of installing a ramp and step-style footbridge explored. 

As part of the Level Crossing Closures Programme, the Council were invited to 
respond to Network Rail’s Equality Stakeholder Engagement Topic Guide 
(consultants 
 had been appointed by Network Rail to undertake 
an Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) to investigate the impact of any works 
affecting the crossing). On behalf of the Council, I produced the response 
looking at the various issues from the perspective of Planning Policy. In the 
Council’s submission (Appendix B), support was demonstrated for any 
proposal, including a replacement footbridge, which would help to improve both 
the safety for crossing users as well as increased accessibility at the crossing for 
disabled and non-disabled users. 

In light of recent events, were Network Rail to recommend the closure of the 
Barton Road crossing as a means of reducing/removing risks to those crossing 

 
 
 
 
 the railway line, Erewash Borough Council would not in principle oppose such a 
recommendation. However, as per the Council’s submission to the 
aforementioned Closures Programme consultation, the installation of an 
accessible footbridge remains the preferable way of increasing safety at the 
crossing whilst continuing to allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross the line and 
access areas located on both sides of the railway. 

Signature:  

Dated:  

July 1st 2021

OFFICIAL 

Route Director, East Midlands Route 
East Midlands Control Centre 
Bateman Street 
Derby 
DE23 8JQ 

Executive Director - Place 
Derbyshire County Council 

4 August 2021 

Dear 

,    

I write in reference to the Report to Prevent Future Deaths by Gordon Clow, assistant coroner 
for Nottinghamshire, dated 23 June. Every death on our railway is a tragedy and something 
we are keen to prevent wherever possible. 

As the assistant coroner has noted, we’ve attempted to make changes to (and potentially 
close) a number of level crossings in the vicinity of the Attenborough Nature Reserve in the 
past. However, we recognise that there was a strong local opposition to our plans at the time 
and we weren’t able to make the changes.  

As the route director responsible for the railway infrastructure in Nottinghamshire, I am 
writing to confirm that my team and I are ready and willing to work with you to seek 
potential solutions to the matters of concern that the assistant coroner has highlighted in his 
report.   

Please let me know if you’d like to arrange a discussion on this matter. 

Yours sincerely, 

Route Director, East Midlands Route 

c.c.  

, Leader, Derbyshire County Council 

, Long Eaton Division, Derbyshire County Council 

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited Registered Office: Network Rail, One Eversholt Street, London, NW1 2DN Registered in England and Wales No. 2904587 www.networkrail.co.uk

Response of Nottinghamshire County Council to Regulation 28: Report to 
Prevent Future Deaths relating to Heather Frances PAGE dated 23rd June 2021 

Executive Summary: 

A. Of the 5 level crossings in this area, 4 are within the remit of Nottinghamshire County

Council (“NCC”) as the Local Highway Authority.  NCC is under an express statutory duty
to assert and protect the exercise of the public’s historic highway rights to use and enjoy
those crossings as they have historically found them.

B. The operation, maintenance and improvement of a safe national rail network (including

level crossings), is the responsibility of Network Rail, with oversight and funding
specifically provided to them by the Office of Rail and Road for improving safety at such
crossings.

C. Closure of level crossings can be achieved under 4 separate Acts of Parliament, with only
the Highways Act powers available to the Local Highway Authority.  Such powers were
successfully used by NCC, following an application by Network Rail, in relation to the
nearby Barratt’s Lane No.2 crossing (Beeston Footpath No.66) in 2014.

D. Rail crossing extinguishment orders are subject to public consultation and, if objected
to, must be determined by the Secretary of State, usually following a public inquiry.
Network Rail consulted the public regarding a proposal to close the Meadow Lane and
Long Lane level crossings but received significant public objection in response.  As a
result, Network Rail did not apply for a rail crossing extinguishment order but instead
made safety improvements to those crossings.

E. Contrary to the indication given in the Assistant Coroner’s report, NCC has been (and
remains) supportive of the aim of improving level crossing safety and has, as set out
below, sought to support and assist Network Rail in achieving this.  NCC wishes it noted
that it has received no further applications from Network Rail for a rail crossing
extinguishment order in relation to the 4 crossings in this area but would continue to
consider any that it receives.

Narrative: 

1. NCC is grateful for sight of the Assistant Coroner’s report relating to Heather Frances

PAGE and would be happy to attend any future inquests if it can provide information of
assistance to the coroner.  NCC is concerned that, in the report, it is stated that evidence
was heard that “(4) Efforts by Network Rail to reduce / rationalise the number of
crossings along that stretch have failed due, in part, to opposition from the relevant local
authorities”.  As the Assistant Coroner will be aware, NCC was not invited to be an
interested party at the inquest and was provided with no opportunity to answer this
assertion which is, for the reasons set out below, incorrect.

2.

In response to the Assistant Coroner’s report, NCC hopes that the information below
helps to put NCC’s position into context in terms of the action that it can take, has taken,

Page 1 of 5 

 and will continue to take.  It appears from the context of the report that it has been 
provided to NCC due to the deceased having obtained access to the railway line from a 
nearby level crossing, and that it therefore relates to NCC’s role as Local Highway 
Authority.  It is not clear to NCC as to which level crossing the Assistant Coroner is 
referring, but the situation is similar for each of 5 at-grade crossings in this area; 4 of 
which being within the administrative area of NCC.  The 5 at-grade crossings in the 
Attenborough area are: 

•  Meadow Lane (Beeston Bridleway No.72); 
•  Long Lane (Beeston Footpath No.130); 
•  Attenborough Lane crossing Barratt No.1 (Beeston Footpath No.65); 
•  Barton Lane road crossing (public carriageway); and 
• 

in Derbyshire, Barton Road (Long Eaton Footpath E8 7/2). 

3.  Closure of level crossings can be achieved under 4 separate Acts of Parliament1, with 

only the Highways Act powers available to the Local Highway Authority.  The prescribed 
process which Highway Authorities must follow in order to divert or extinguish certain 
minor public highways2 involve the making of an Order and formal public consultation.  
Should objections be received and maintained to the diversion or extinguishment, an 
Order cannot be brought into effect but must be referred to the Secretary of State for 
determination which often necessitates the holding of a local public inquiry, though it is 
possible, at the Secretary of State’s discretion, for such an Order to be determined 
following a hearing or, rarely, to be dealt with by an exchange of written 
representations. 

4.  Where there are concerns for rail safety, Network Rail can apply to the Highway 

Authority for a rail crossing extinguishment order or a rail crossing diversion order under 
Sections 118A and 119A, Highways Act 1980, respectively.  NCC is aware that level 
crossing safety is a key focus of both Network Rail and the Office of Rail and Road (“ORR) 
and that, for the last funding period (2014-2019) the ORR provided £109 million to 
Network Rail specifically for improving safety at level crossings.  Indeed, pursuant to 
this, level crossing Barratt No.2 (Beeston Footpath No.66) was successfully diverted by 
NCC in 2014 following an application by Network Rail.  Apart from that application, 
however, no further applications have been submitted by Network Rail seeking to close 
or divert any of the above-named crossings. 

5.  NCC actively contributes to and attends bi-annual ‘Road and Rail Partnership’ meetings, 
organised by Network Rail and attended by Network Rail staff including Level Crossing 
managers and their Liability Negotiations Team, British Transport Police and Train 
Operating Companies such as East Midlands Railway.  The meeting is to discuss issues 
relating to level crossings both on carriageways and public rights of way, and bridge 
strikes. 

6.  Additional to the above, NCC and Network Rail are in regular dialogue regarding level 

1 Highways Act 1980; Town and Country Planning Act 1990; Transport & Works Act 1992; Planning Act 2008 
2 Footpaths, Bridleways, and Restricted Byways, within the meaning of S.329, Highways Act 1980 

Page 2 of 5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 crossings across the county, including those in the Attenborough area.  While such 
discussions have looked at diversions and providing bridges it has proved difficult for 
NCC and Network Rail to take matters forward due, mainly, to objections from the 
public as highway users.  For example, Network Rail proposed a bridge at the former 
Cemex site to replace the nearby level crossings for Long Lane (Beeston Footpath 
No.130) and Meadow Lane (Beeston Bridleway No.72).  Discussions were held on site 
and meetings attended, and Network Rail arranged a mailshot to local residents in 
December 2017 regarding the proposals.  This elicited a lot of concern from local 
residents and user groups about closing these crossings and a public meeting / drop in 
with stakeholders was subsequently held at Attenborough Village Hall in February 2018 
to see if the proposals could be refined such that the public would be in agreement.  
This generated a high number of objections from the local community, however, and no 
application was received from Network Rail to close any crossings.  Instead, due to the 
nature and number of objections from members of the public, Network Rail instead 
made improvements at the Meadow Lane bridleway crossing including changes to the 
decking and the installation of miniature stop lights (MSLs).  In November 2018, 
Network Rail wrote to local residents again, citing the MSLs and a proposal to 
‘downgrade’ Meadow Lane Crossing to those on foot and cycle only, preventing further 
equestrian use, and another public meeting was held in December 2018.  No application 
was received by NCC, however, which NCC presumes to have been due to a significant 
level of objection from the public once again. 

7.  NCC’s Countryside Access Team has regular contact and a good working relationship 
with Network Rail’s Liabilities Team; this being the team within Network Rail with 
responsibility for the stopping up and diversion of public highway rights across railway 
lines and operational property.  As part of this, NCC are currently discussing a number of 
at grade crossings in the County regarding their future management, as well as 
discussing opportunities for access on their non-operational land, which would increase 
public safety.  Any proposals arising from this would, however, be subject to the formal 
legally prescribed consultation referred to above and thus may potentially be unable to 
be taken forward due to objections from highway users. 

8.  Notwithstanding the above, it has been possible to obtain public support to take 

forward a number of safety improvements in recent years, and several crossings in 
Nottinghamshire have been diverted by NCC and bridged by Network Rail to remove at 
grade crossings over operational lines.  For example: 

•  at Kings Mill between Mansfield and Sutton-in-Ashfield, bridleway rights have been 

diverted from an at-grade crossing to a bridleway bridge across the Robin Hood Line; 

•  a footpath in Hucknall was diverted and bridged from an at grade crossing across the 

tram and Robin Hood Line; 

•  Newark FP11 was extinguished across the East Coast Mainline; and 

Page 3 of 5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 

in Attenborough in 2014, Beeston FP66 was diverted by NCC on Barratt Lane No.1 
from an at-grade crossing to the barrier crossing over the Attenborough Lane 
vehicular level crossing. 

9.  Separate to the above, NCC continues to work closely with Network Rail’s Level Crossing 
Managers in order to help manage public safety at level crossings.  For example, NCC 
recently provided a temporary emergency closure on Burton Joyce Footpath No.6 
(Chestnut Grove) following a near-miss incident which prevented public access while 
Network Rail undertook some emergency improvement works. 

10. Additionally, officers of NCC in its capacity as Local Highway Authority are to meet with 
officers of NCC in its capacity as Public Health Authority next week to discuss ‘Network 
Rail Deaths and Near Misses’, which it is understood is specifically in relation to work by 
the British Transport Police, Network Rail and Public Health colleagues regarding 
suicides on the railway. 

11. NCC also manages and administers meetings of the Nottinghamshire Local Access 
Forum, at which Network Rail attend annually to update members and officers on 
matters relating to public rights of way crossings; level crossings being a standing item 
on the LAF’s quarterly meetings.  The LAF is established under S.94, Countryside and 
Rights of Way Act 2000 and is a group of volunteers who represent different 
stakeholders with an interest in countryside access and public rights of way. 

12. Accordingly, while NCC is supportive of the aim of zero injuries or fatalities it must also 

acknowledge both that: - 

a.  as with the highways network, it is inevitably the case that where a person intends 
to take their own life, there are no measures that can be put in place to prevent it 
(and widespread closure of all such crossings would meet with overwhelming public 
resistance due to the level of interference that would represent with people’s 
enjoyment of such routes); and 

b.  that the legislative tools available for restricting public access are, through the 

inclusion of the public consultation process, intended to help achieve a reasonable 
and proportionate balance of such interference. 

13. As such, the matter is not simply one of NCC’s support or opposition – indeed it is 

supportive of the aim.  However, the overwhelming preponderance of power in terms of 
whether such crossings can be closed or rationalised is, at law, not with NCC but is with 
the public as highway users and, notwithstanding the Highway Authority’s support, it is 
not within the Highway Authority’s gift to unilaterally achieve closures of the kind 
intimated in the coroner’s report. 

14. The Authority can therefore confirm that, in terms of the action that this Authority may 
and will take to prevent future deaths, this is limited to continuing to undertake those 
actions referred to above and this Authority hereby confirms that it will continue to do 
so insofar as this remains compatible with the legally-prescribed duties and 

Page 4 of 5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 responsibilities of the Highway Authority. 

15. Finally, as referred to above in relation to the assertion that “(4) Efforts by Network Rail 
to reduce / rationalise the number of crossings along that stretch have failed due, in 
part, to opposition from the relevant local authorities”, NCC would reiterate that it was 
not an interested party at the inquest and was provided with no opportunity to 
challenge this.  Given the matters set out above we would respectfully invite the 
Assistant Coroner to now formally acknowledge that, in respect of NCC, that assertion is 
incorrect.  Should the Assistant Coroner remain of the view that efforts to rationalise 
have failed in any part due to opposition from NCC in its capacity as Local Highway 
Authority, NCC would be grateful if further specific details could be provided. 

Corporate Director, Place 
Nottinghamshire County Council 
16 July 2021 

Page 5 of 5