The Kent County Council Regulation Committee Member Panel met on 6 October 2025 to discuss an application to divert part of Public Footpaths AU22 and AU17 in Kennington, Ashford. The proposal involves diverting the footpaths from the foot crossings known as Cradle Bridge and Bolleaux, with Network Rail applying for the changes in the interest of public safety. The report pack included a recommendation that the applicant be informed that an order to divert the footpaths would be made.

Public Footpath Diversion at Cradle Bridge and Bolleaux

The meeting was scheduled to discuss an application from Network Rail to divert parts of Public Footpaths AU22 and AU17 in Kennington, Ashford, where they cross the railway line at the Cradle Bridge (AU22) and Bolleaux (AU17) foot crossings.

The stated reason for the application was to remove the at-grade foot crossings from the railway line in the interest of public safety. According to the report pack, both footpaths currently have stiles at either side of the railway line. Public Footpath AU22 also has two steps on the north side and two gates on the south approach to the crossing.

According to a report included in the pack, risk assessments carried out by Network Rail in June 2022 deemed both crossings to have a high to medium level of risk. The report stated that the crossing over which Public Footpath AU22 passes is currently ranked 35th highest in Kent in terms of risk, and the crossing over which Public Footpath AU17 passes is currently ranked 45th highest in terms of risk, out of 166 footpath/bridleway crossings in Kent.

The report pack noted that planned residential developments to the west of the railway, including a new school and recreational facilities, and to the east, including Conningbrook Lakes Country Park and the Julie Rose Stadium, are expected to lead to a significant increase in the use of the crossings, which will, in turn, significantly increase the risk.

The proposed diversion for Public Footpath AU22, as shown in the plan at Appendix A of the report pack, involves diverting the path over a stepped flow bridge where it passes over the railway, and then to a more direct alignment on the south-eastern side of the railway. Prior approval for the stepped flow bridge had already been granted by Ashford Borough Council. The proposed diversion for Public Footpath AU17 involves diverting the path along the east side of the railway to link up with the new bridge approach on Public Footpath AU22.

The report pack also included the result of consultations that had been carried out as required by the Highways Act 1980. County Member Brian Collins and Ashford Borough Councillors Katy Pauley and Nathan Iliffe were consulted, but no responses were received. Ashford Borough Council did not object to the proposals. Kennington Community Council agreed that the proposed diversions were in the interest of public safety, but considered that the diversions would be substantially less convenient to the public. The Open Spaces Society, the Ramblers, and the British Horse Society were consulted, but no responses were received. The East Kent Area Public Rights of Way Team did not object to the proposals. Kent County Council's Highways Improvements Team did not object to the proposals but asked if there would be some sort of sign at the beginning of the footpath to inform users that the bridge is not accessible to all. No objections were received from any Statutory Undertakers who responded to the consultation.

A member of the public, who is a wheelchair user and regular user of public rights of way, had contacted the Public Rights of Way and Access Service independent of the consultation process to express frustration that a ramped bridge had originally been planned and approved but then rejected due to rising costs. They objected to the proposal on grounds of accessibility and stated that they considered that the County Council would be in breach of its public sector equality duty if it approved the proposal. Another local resident contacted the County Member with concerns that a stepped bridge would not allow wheelchair users to cross at that point, requiring them to make a substantial detour, and which would disadvantage a large section of the community.

The report pack stated that in dealing with the application to divert a public right of way, consideration must be given to the criteria of Section 119A of the Highways Act 1980, including:

• Whether it is in the interests of the safety of users or likely users of at-grade crossings.
• Whether it is reasonably practicable to make the crossing safe for use by the public, and what arrangements have been made for ensuring that, if the order is confirmed, any appropriate barriers and signs are erected and maintained.
• Whether the diversion order alters a point of termination of the path or way, if that point is not on a highway over which there subsists a like right of way or, otherwise than to another point which is on the same highway, or another such highway connected with it.
• Whether the order should make provision requiring the operator of the railway to maintain all or part of the right of way created by the order.

The report pack also stated that consideration should be given to whether the right of way will be reasonably convenient to the public, the effect the proposal will have on the land served by the existing path or way and on land over which the new path or way is to be created, the effect that the diverted way will have on the rights of way network as a whole, and the safety of the diversion, particularly where it passes along or across a vehicular highway.

The report pack included a Disability Impact Assessment (DIA) completed by Network Rail in October 2024, which concluded that a stepped-only footbridge of a flow bridge design would be suitable for this site based on a number of factors, including that the existing crossings are not currently accessible to all, as they include stiles and steps, the paths leading to the crossings can get overgrown and have uneven surfaces, which can be challenging for some people to use, and the bridge would provide a significant level of safety improvement for users. However, Network Rail also noted that, taking into consideration the new school that is part of the planned development, the user requirements and frequency are likely to change, making an accessible bridge desirable and more appropriate for the future, and that not having an accessible crossing significantly lengthens the journey between the southern housing estate and the new northern school, placing those who cannot use the bridge at a disadvantage.

The Public Rights of Way and Access Service also undertook its own Equality Impact Assessments (EqIA) to fully consider the matters stipulated in the Equality Act 2010. The EqIAs recognised that the provision of a stepped bridge could have an impact upon those sharing the protected characteristics of age, disability, pregnancy or maternity, and potentially those who have carers responsibility, and also noted that the existing approaches to the crossings are likely to pose challenges for these groups currently, but stated that where change is taking place on the public rights of way network, the aim is to try and improve accessibility where possible. The EqIA concluded that the stepped bridge is likely to result in a reduction of access to the public rights of way network for a limited number of users, and this needs to be balanced against the safety of the public, and that a bridge is required to remove the danger to the public of crossing the railway line at grade, and that ideally, a ramped bridge would provide the best solution, but a ramped bridge is not feasible due to the cost.

The report pack stated that the County Council must primarily consider the legal test required to be met under section 119A of the 1980 Act, and that the Public Rights of Way and Access Service considers that Network Rail has put forward an acceptable safety case with regard to the expected increase in use of both crossings as a result of the planned development, which in turn will increase the risk of danger to the public at the crossings, and that the provision of a footbridge and the diversion of Public Footpath AU22 over that footbridge, and the diversion of Public Footpath AU17, will provide the public with a means of crossing the railway which does not expose them to unacceptable risk and danger.

The report pack also stated that although not a test within the legislation, guidance within Defra's Circular 1/09 suggests the County Council must also consider the convenience of the new route, and that although there is a preference for a ramped bridge, it is not possible in this particular case, and that a stepped bridge will inconvenience some people and will mean that some will not be able to use the route at all, potentially taking instead a much longer route to reach a given destination.

The report pack included a recommendation that the applicant be informed that an Order to divert part of Public Footpaths AU22 and AU17 from the foot crossings, known as Cradle Bridge (AU22) and Bolleaux (AU17), at Kennington in the Borough of Ashford, as shown on the plan at Appendix A to the report, will be made on the grounds that it is expedient to divert the path on the grounds of safety of the public.