I also wonder if the closure order would come from NR, as NR is a quasi not for profit Company, it is a difficult area, fortunately with thousands of these crossing in use, few accidents occur, and I appreciate the cost in bringing convictions by BTP, also the crossing would be for the farm, whose residents & tenants change over time & not for an individual.
Network Rail, as the railway authority can apply for a level crossing closure, although this has to gain approval from the Secretary of State.
The provision of level crossings is either in perpetuity in the case of occupation crossings, or until the land awner changes on the opposite side of the Railway. The accommodation crossing being specifically provide to accommodate access by the land owner across the Railway.
An Order can be requested for an Accommodation crossing which has fallen into disuse, however the strategy was generally to leave well alone, remove the timbers and eventually close the fence. Because disuse has normally occurred because the farmer may have acquired access through, or possession of, fields on the other side it was considered better to let sleeping dogs lie, especially when "rights" of use get forgotten about.
With regards to the penalties imposed, the problem historically has been three-fold. Firstly rural Magistrates were typically drawn from the land owning classes, and those whose businesses depended on the farmers in the local area, thus there was always going to be an inbuilt bias. Secondly Magistrates have never ever taken the serious nature of incidents on the Railway very seriously as can be seen even today by the very light sentences still imposed even for the most breathtaking of abuse or act which has endangered trains. In this the Police have their hands tied, they can only bring the case to the Court. Thirdly, certainly in BR days we were seen as the overbearing Nationalised Industry trying to brow beat the humble poor old working Farmer who was struggling to live. This was re-inforced by the local media who would alsways portray this and that picture was then always taken up by the national papers who were always happy to use any opportunity to run a nasty BR story. It was always the same, either the farmer were a poor unfortunate who just happened to have been caught unawares by this hulking great train, or BR were responsible by not providing a fully automated crossing with signals, etc, etc even though there was clear evidence that telephones had not been used or a "crossing keeper" appointed by the farmer. Indeed in one particular case I remember a local paper pushing the line that because it was summer, and farmers were constantly crossing and recrossing over the crossings without stopping and checking, that BR should arrange for all trains to approach the crossing slowly ! :roll: :roll: :roll:
That pretty much sums matters up, and is probably as valid today as it was 40 odd years ago.