Plans (which have been supported by Hampshire County Council) to close two pedestrian rail crossings at Woodfidley and Deerleap (and associated bridleways) are being opposed by NFDOG.

This follows an informal consultation by the county council earlier this year (to which NFDOG also responded with an objection). Despite many objections, Hampshire County Council countryside officers decided that Network Rail’s plans had merit and recommended closure. This, with the objections such as ours, now goes to the Planning Inspectorate. 

NFDOG is committed to fighting any plan to restrict access for not only dog walkers (but clearly they're our priority) but any forest users. While it's important to promote the environment, and sometimes closures are appropriate, in this case we have judged there is no merit in these plans, which will inconvenience thousands of walkers every year. 

In essence it appears that scant evidence, mainly based on safety, is being used simply to bring about a financial saving through not having these crossings. In one case, Woodfidley, the path has existed since Roman times as a salt-way (to transport salt from Lymington, the crossing was created with the railway in 1846, and closure of the crossing would wipe it out. 

Copies of our submissions are below.  

Sent: 28 August 2025 16:11
To: row.notices@hants.gov.uk
Subject: Response to PPO 5246 Deerleap/Denny from the New Forest Dog Owners Group

Dear Hampshire County Council, 

Your ref: PPO 5246 

I am writing on behalf of the New Forest Dog Owners Group, of which I am Co-Chair, to comment on your and Network Rail’s proposals for the closing of level crossings and Hampshire County Councils associated desire to extinguish bridle ways – this objection refers to Denny Wood (Deerleap). 

The New Forest Dog Owners Group (NFDOG) represents some 1300 members. It’s primary role, as the largest such group in the UK, is to promote access to the New Forest for dog walkers. We have asked our members by email about the proposals, and not had a single comment in favour. All (28) responses have been against this proposal. 

The proposed crossing and associated bridleways, is used by dog walkers. This is acknowledged by the prime mover, Network Rail. By its own account nearly three and a half thousand walkers, especially dog walkers but others ranging from Duke of Edinburgh’s Awards to cyclists, use this crossing each year and would be considerably inconvenienced.  However, we further believe the reported figures, from an eleven day ‘off season’ survey in 2023, soon after Covid, significantly misrepresent the use based on our experience as local users. The speculative claim ‘does not appear to be a regular walking route’ is nonsense, and shows how people behind desks in offices fail to understand local situations. 

It is difficult to see what Network Rail’s reason is. But its own narrative, this crossing has a good safety record, and is in the higher echelons in terms of safety. Network Rail’s own figures show Woodfidley crossing to be 78th out of 142 similar crossings – that is just outside the top 50% safest. Surely attention should be paid to the most dangerous first? 

Of course the narrative suggests ‘what if’s’. The reality is these are imagined and not based on any incidents or history of problems. Most of the incidents recorded since 2007 (nine out of 11 recorded)  relate to pedestrian gates being left open. We acknowledge the seriousness of this. But why do these gates not close automatically – as for example at Woodfidley, also slated for closure, where a  weight on a wire ensures the gates shut after use. To close a publicly valuable amenity, for the negligence of Network Rail to address the actual issue, seems overly draconian. One may suggest that the failure to make these gates self-closing, given the history of incidents and the relative ease of solving the issue, is negligent. Indeed at section 3.3 of the submission the applicant says (also relating to surface work) ; ‘It would also bring NR into compliance with their own standard’. The closure suggests punishing thousands of people for Network Rail’s own failure to even meet its own standards. 

The stone throwing incident is particularly serious – but this could happen anywhere on the track, not just at this crossing? To close a crossing because of that suggests one would close a facility wherever such an incident occurs – rather than address the problem of anti-social behaviour. Ditto the trespassers – but who’s to say these entered from the crossing, or if there were no crossing they’d have climbed onto the line anyway? 

Part of Network Rail’s argument is that there are alternatives. True – but they’d add several miles to a walk, and also prevent the circular nature of local walks – i.e. alternatives walking and cycling routes out and return which is always more interesting. Equally, there are always alternatives to anything. The alternative to using rail is car and bus. But they’re so different in nature as not to be actual practical alternatives (which is why we have a train service) and we’d submit this is the case here. We submit this part of the argument is specious.

The proposal from Network Rail includes an alternative arrangement going forward which leaves the crossings open to users (3.3 again), and if it is necessary to change the crossings, we’d urge these to be accepted. In turn that means the extinguishing order for the HCC Bridleways should also fail as both would remain necessary. In this day and age, if Network Rail is concerned it should install CCTV – that’s hardly an expensive or technologically challenging solution in 2025. 

Thank you for your consideration, and following the failure to record our earlier submission to the informal consultation, an acknowledgement of this submission would be helpful please. 

David Bennett. On behalf of New Forest Dog Owners Group. 

Sent: 28 August 2025 15:06
To: row.notices@hants.gov.uk
Subject: Response to PPO 5245 Woodfidley/Denny from the New Forest Dog Owners Group

Dear Hampshire County Council, 

Your ref: PPO 5245 

I am writing on behalf of the New Forest Dog Owners Group, of which I am Co-Chair, to comment on your and Network Rail’s proposals for the closing of level crossings and Hampshire County Councils associated desire to extinguish bridle ways – this objection refers to Denny Wood (Woodfidley). 

The New Forest Dog Owners Group (NFDOG) represents some 1300 members. It’s primary role, as the largest such group in the UK, is to promote access to the New Forest for dog walkers. We have asked our members by email about the proposals, and not had a single comment in favour. All responses have been against the proposal. 

The proposed crossing and associated bridleways, is used by dog walkers. This is acknowledged by the prime mover, Network Rail. By its own account (based on figures themselves two and a half years old) thousands of walkers, especially dog walkers but others ranging from Duke of Edinburgh’s Awards to ramblers, use these each year and would be considerably inconvenienced.  However, we further believe the reported figures, from a one month survey conducted shortly after Covid, significantly misrepresent the use based on our experience as local users.

It is difficult to see what Network Rail’s reason is. But its own narrative, this crossing has an excellent safety record, and is in the higher echelons in terms of safety. Network Rail’s own figures show Woodfidley crossing to be 52nd out of 142 similar crossings – that is almost in the safety top third. Surely attention should be paid to the most dangerous first? 

Of course the narrative suggests ‘what if’s’. The reality is these are imagined and not based on any incidents or history of problems. Three incidents recorded since 2007 – one a rail driver failing to blow his horn to warn track workers could have happened anywhere on the rail network. Doubtless this serious matter has happened many times elsewhere – yet there are no plans to close facilities elsewhere. Two trespassers seen by just two trains out of the many which pass each hour – it’s circumstantial, and even if correct, there is no evidence they came onto the track at the crossing. Finally, an person crossing with animals, correctly rang the signal box as they started, but failed to ring after crossing. Granted this is an issue, but who knows what the signs were in 2007 when this incident occurred. An asteroid might fall from the sky – in terms of history it’s as likely. We conclude there is no sound public reason for closure.

Part of Network Rail’s argument is that there are alternatives. True – but they’d add several miles to a walk, and also prevent the circular nature of local walks – i.e. alternatives walking and cycling routes out and return which is always more interesting. Equally, there are always alternatives to anything. The alternative to using rail is car and bus. But they’re so different in nature as not to be actual practical alternatives (which is why we have a train service) and we’d submit this is the case here. We submit this part of the argument is specious.

The proposal from Network Rail includes an alternative arrangement going forward which leaves the crossings open to users, and if it is necessary to change the crossings, we’d urge these to be accepted. In turn that means the extinguishing order for the HCC Bridleways should also fail as both would remain necessary. In this day and age, if Network Rail is concerned it should install CCTV – that’s hardly an expensive or technologically challenging solution in 2025. 

Thank you for your consideration, and following the failure to record our earlier submission to the informal consultation, an acknowledgement of this submission would be helpful please. 

David Bennett. On behalf of New Forest Dog Owners Group.