Lorry driver James Fuller has lost count of the hours he has spent chasing answers about Stonea Crossing. Emails, formal complaints, freedom of information requests — all of them fired off from his home in the Cambridgeshire Fens in the hope of making a hazardous stretch of road a little safer.
What he has received, instead, is a paper trail of apologies, caveats, and bureaucratic deflections. Cambridgeshire County Council says it is waiting on data. Network Rail says it didn’t ask its contractors the right questions. Monitoring equipment appears, then vanishes, with little explanation.
Network Rail installed monitoring equipment on the overpass and the underpass but mysteriously didn’t analyse underpass/bridge data despite the contentious nature of the bridge.
For Fuller, the frustrations are personal. “If you don’t push, nothing happens,” he has told fellow residents. And pushing is what he has done, even as officialdom insists that Stonea Crossing is under control. He is also reminded daily that nine years his 21-year-old brother was killed in a crash on a rural road in nearby Norfolk by someone deemed to driving carelessly.
Stonea Crossing: A hamlet Divided by Rails, Roads, and Risk
On the flat fens of Cambridgeshire, where long straight roads cut across ditches and waterways, Stonea Crossing sits as a stubborn reminder of Britain’s uneasy relationship with level crossings. To some, it is a quiet rural inconvenience; to others, it is a deadly hazard waiting for its next victim.
For years, the junction of the B1098, a low railway bridge, and the adjacent overpass has been a source of tension between local residents, campaigners, and the authorities tasked with keeping the public safe. A fatal collision in June 2023 brought Stonea Crossing into sharper focus, igniting debates about whether the infrastructure can ever be made safe.
The bridge is 6’6” and narrow – not wide enough to fit the word ‘slow’ side by side at the entry and exit of the low bridge (not 2 full size lanes underneath – no road markings under).
Today, amid letters from council leaders, ministers, complaints to chief executives, and freedom of information battles with Network Rail, the crossing has become more than a patch of tarmac and rails. It is a test case for how Britain handles safety at its most vulnerable transport pinch points.
A Crossing with Complications
Stonea Crossing lies near the village of Manea, a few miles south of March. The landscape is deceptively simple: one straight road, one railway, one bridge. Yet the infrastructure is complicated.
It lies long the ‘sixteen foot bank’ B1098 between the villages of Manea and Christchurch –where Cambridgeshire and Norfolk meet.
Vehicles approaching from the north or south must contend with a low railway bridge — an underpass notorious for collisions with traffic, often vans. To one side lies a level crossing where road traffic must stop for passing trains. Between the bridge, the crossing, and the riverbank running alongside, the site is a knot of potential hazards.
The main road is the B1098 that takes you under the bridge, over height vehicles (or those who would usually fit if they were not carrying a roof box/ladders/bikes etc) have to use the overpass – but in both directions vehicles have to cross a live lane of traffic twice to use the overpass. This is what caused the death of Brian Dewey – a car crossed a line lane and hit Dewey coming under the bridge
Mr Dewey, a 73-year-old motorcyclist from Little Thetford, died in a crash on the B1098 Sixteen Foot Bank, between Stonea and Manea, Cambridgeshire, on Saturday, June 3, 2023. Mr. Dewey was riding an orange Kawasaki motorcycle, which was involved in a collision with a blue Volvo V60
The County Council maintains the roads leading to the crossing but not the crossing itself. Responsibility switches to Network Rail once vehicles reach the tracks. That division, as with many level crossings across the UK, often muddies accountability when problems arise.
The Fatal Collision of 2023
On 3 June 2023, tragedy struck when a fatal road traffic collision occurred at Stonea. The incident prompted a “Fatal Review” by Cambridgeshire County Council officers. They identified deteriorated road markings and signage as contributing factors. Within weeks, the road received fresh white lines, with additional signage planned as part of broader junction improvements at Boots Bridge.
But for many residents, this response was not enough. The death was seen as part of a pattern of dangers at Stonea, from near-misses with the bridge to confusion around the crossing itself. Local campaigner James Fuller began pressing the authorities for answers.
A Campaigner’s Fight
Fuller has become a persistent voice on Stonea Crossing. Through complaints, appeals, and freedom of information (FOI) requests, he has sought to expose what he sees as systemic failings in how the site is monitored and managed.
His questions have been detailed: How many bridge strikes occur? How often do lorries reverse back to avoid the low bridge? What speeds are recorded on approach? Are cyclists and pedestrians properly accounted for in safety assessments?
How often do vehicles reverse – not lorries.
While some answers have emerged, others remain mired in bureaucracy. Fuller’s frustration reflects a wider sense that, despite the obvious risks, decisive solutions are elusive.
The Council’s Position
In September 2025, Cambridgeshire County Council leader Cllr Lucy Nethsingha wrote to Fuller, attempting to clarify matters. Her letter, while measured, laid bare the complexities.
The roads leading up to the crossing are maintained by the County Council, but Network Rail controls the level crossing itself and any assets within its 50-metre exclusion zone. That includes the lighting posts needed to power new VivaCity cameras, designed to monitor traffic and behaviour at Stonea.
Nethsingha confirmed that while the County Council had pressed Network Rail and VivaCity “considerably” to speed up installation, they had no power over when the cameras would finally be switched on.
As for the state of the roads, the council insisted their assets were in “good order” and required no intervention. There had been no recorded injury collisions since June 2023, they noted, and therefore no urgent safety measures were planned.
On the contentious issue of closing the underpass — long suggested by campaigners as a way to eliminate collisions with the low bridge — officers ruled it out. The riverbank alongside the road, they argued, was too unstable to support a vehicle restraint system. Closing the underpass, they concluded, might increase the risk of vehicles entering the water.
Fuller adds “While I appreciate that I’m not a road safety expert, I cannot see how the closure of the underpass might cause vehicles to enter the water, it seems cautious in the extreme”
Instead, the council pinned its hopes on the cameras. Once installed, they promised at least three months of data would be collected before deciding on any further interventions.
Network Rail and the FOI Battle
If the County Council has faced criticism for inaction, Network Rail has been accused of obfuscation. Network Rail installed temporary cameras and pneumatic road tubes for 9 days as part of an internal safety review of the crossing – this is standard procedure and not related to the bridge strikes or local campaigning
In March 2025, Fuller submitted an FOI request asking for detailed information about traffic monitoring at Stonea. He wanted figures on bridge strikes, U-turns, speeds, unusual behaviours, and more.
The response he received in May was unsatisfactory. Network Rail claimed it did not hold information on most of his questions, including speeds and anomalies. Dissatisfied, Fuller requested an internal review.
The review, completed in July 2025, revealed a more complicated picture. Network Rail admitted it did in fact hold some speed data: average northbound speeds of 42.6 mph, southbound speeds of 34.5 mph, and an overall average of 38.6 mph. This data had been overlooked in the initial response.
However, other information Fuller sought — particularly about U-turns and unusual driver behaviour — had not been analysed, even though it might have been captured by cameras and pneumatic road tubes. The monitoring company, IDASO, had only been contracted to assess traffic over the level crossing, not the underpass or bridge.
In effect, the data existed but was not processed, and because Network Rail had not paid for that analysis, it argued the information was not “held” under FOI law.
The review concluded with a rare admission: Network Rail had “not disclosed all the information we held.” But it also insisted that there were no business reasons to collect more, and no legal obligation to hold underpass data.
Complaints and Closed Doors
Fuller’s campaign has not stopped at FOI requests. In 2024, he pursued a formal complaint against the County Council, escalating it to Stage 3 — the highest level in the council’s procedure.
The response came from Dr Stephen Moir, the council’s Chief Executive. Moir acknowledged Fuller’s concerns but ultimately sided with his officers. The underpass, he wrote, could not realistically be closed without creating new risks or imposing “very significant investment” for replacement facilities.
Network Rail, Moir stressed, was “resolute” in its opposition to underpass closure, citing risks to rail traffic. Without their agreement, the option was unworkable.
Instead, Moir pointed again to cameras. A monitoring system, he promised, would allow the council to “continue to review the location and monitor the speed and flow of traffic.”
Fuller’s complaint was not upheld. The matter, Moir said, could be taken to the Local Government Ombudsman, but the council considered the issue closed.
The Cameras That Hold the Key
The cameras are AI cameras, the same cameras that have been installed on roundabouts in Central Cambridge
At the heart of every official response lies a single solution: data. Cameras and sensors, once installed, are expected to provide the evidence base for any future action.
Yet the delays in installation, and the narrow scope of past monitoring, have bred scepticism. Campaigners fear the data will again be incomplete, or that the time taken to gather and analyse it will leave residents exposed to further accidents.
For the council, however, the cameras represent a way to move beyond anecdote and focus resources on where they are most justified. Without injury collisions since 2023, officials argue, Stonea does not yet warrant major interventions.
A Microcosm of a National Issue
Stonea is not unique. Across Britain, level crossings pose a persistent safety challenge. The balance between keeping roads open, railways safe, and costs under control often leads to compromise rather than resolution.
Network Rail has closed hundreds of crossings in recent years, but many remain, especially in rural areas where alternatives would be prohibitively expensive. The division of responsibility between rail and highway authorities further complicates matters, as Stonea illustrates.
Stonea Crossing is one of only 5 manual gates on the entire Anglia Route
An Unfinished Story
For now, Stonea Crossing remains much as it has for decades: a low bridge that traps vans and caravans, an underpass that unnerves drivers, and a level crossing that divides responsibility between two powerful authorities.
Residents continue to navigate it daily, campaigners continue to demand change, and officials continue to watch and wait for data.
Whether the promised cameras will deliver the clarity needed for decisive action remains to be seen. What is certain is that the debate around Stonea has grown far beyond its quiet fenland setting — into council chambers, FOI reviews, and the corridors of Network Rail.
And the top of government
And until a long-term solution is found, Stonea Crossing will remain both a local hazard and a national case study in the politics of safety.
“Fuller concludes this is a busy road In a poor state of repair, running along a waterway that’s claimed the lives of many people over the years. Stonea crossing is an unusual junction that is confusing for the uninitiated, with many too focused on their sat nav than the road ahead, added to that there’s an extremely low bridge that’s too narrow for two cars to pass through safely.
He added: “It should be plainly obvious to anybody that visits Stonea that it is completely unfit for modern traffic demands – despite this, Cambridgeshire County Council and Network Rail refuse to act. Perhaps if the Leader of the Council, Cllr Nethsingha could be persuaded to visit the site and meet with residents, she too could be persuaded that Stonea Bridge must become a priority.”
In a broader sense, the Stonea bridge campaign is about more than Stonea Bridge itself – Fuller is trying to show that community advocacy can be effective no matter where you live.
“This is about communities taking ownership of where they live,” he said.
