Churnet Valley Railway General Discussion

The people in the houses built along the south to east curve since 1988 have frequently written letters in the local press against the railway reopening and judging by the position of the fence may well have grabbed a bit of railway land as well. Similar anti rail sentiments are well known in the Oakamoor area as well. If you invite 89 new householders to come and live in the Leekbrook triangle and allow them to use part of the track bed of the north to east curve as an access road - don't expect good neighbours. Fortunately, as has been pointed out, the application has been withdrawn. Let's hope good sense prevails.

 

Hang on, where are these houses on the S-E built since 1988? Look at the aerial view, there's only the old railway cottages, the newer houses are south of the junction, and a way down below the embankment, so no way can they have 'grabbed' railway land. The old cottages have extended their gardens, but that is with the permission of the railway, as a goodwill gesture (where there used to a short section of double track), and doesn't affect operations in any way.

https://goo.gl/maps/lnEbm

 

Rather like Creswell, I do hope that they have planning permission for the incorporation of land into their gardens.

 

I am not quite sure what point shelf is trying to make here as he is obviously not from this area, I am saying that somebody in those houses has got it in for the railway regarding anti rail posts. South of what junction? There are three, and what is more all three sides of the triangle are double track width and were laid with double track. Don't you think the entire embankment is railway land? And do you think they were told they could have a gate in the fence? I am sure I have seen at least one. If you are serious about any future railway reopening, you do not want to have people, cars, houses or gardens if you can help it any where near any railway track - they do not mix.

 

Where does planning permission come into it? The sale of land is between the two owners and the Land Registry, providing it is not going to be built on.

 

There are two new developments near the railway with one of Cheadle Road on the opposite side to the Stoke-on-Trent junction, and the other one is off Leek road which could have been built on the site of a mental hospital by the buildings what are left there looks like the chapel etc.

 

Change of use to form a part of a garden which you need planning for as it will become residential land.

 

Is there some point to all this? Some residents had extended their gardens a bit, (not that they were exactly Chelsea Flower Show standard, just extra grass), and the railway rebuilt the fence before re-opening to accommodate this, so giving a continuous fence line, rather than the in & out mess that was there before. Consequently the railway enjoys generally good relations with the locals there.

 

The newer houses are not directly next to the railway line as Sheff points out. And not all the residents complain, just a vocal minority. Quite often we pass to numerous waves from locals walking along their streets or relaxing in their gardens. Don't really see why this has been raised?

 

I'm afraid that that erroneous belief has got many residents all over the country into difficulties with the Local Planning Authority. Planning control is primarily about the use of land and then about built form.

 

On the contrary there are tens of thousands of houses abutting railway lines throughout the UK with good relations all round.

 

Many years ago, in previous house, along with others, I bought a plot of woodland at the bottom of my garden. Planning were quick to say that it couldn't become part of my garden. Could I fence off my property? Yes, but it couldn't be part of the garden. Can I remove saplings? Yes, as long as they weren't bigger than 6" dia. Could I tidy it up? Yes, but it can't be part of your garden. So, I ended up with a neat piece of fenced, grassed woodland at the end of my garden, but it wasn't part of my garden. The bluebells and other wild flowers were already there.

 

If it had been allowed as part of your garden, the planners wont be so easy to stop you building other properties on that land so that was the reason they want to stop it been called part of your garden. There is a propriety in my near village where a part of a field was taken into the garden and now there are three houses built on this extended garden which would have never been allowed to be built if still farm land as it would have been outside the village limits.

 

It's more that, once within a domestic curtilage, the owner could build all manner of outbuildings as "permitted development" with harm to neighbours, the landscape and the local environment. In a previous life I have granted permissions for change of use but with conditions restricting all of these so there are ways round it if the LPA doesn't mind the residential use but doesn't want tatty sprawl..

 

Yes, but not as close as was proposed in the withdrawn plans. Some of the houses were to be built on the old sidings which would be necessary if you were to reinstate freight trains up the branch, especially to Cauldon Quarry. The CVR is desperately short of siding space now that Oakamoor is no more. As I have said before, the new houses to be built along the north curve were to have their access and egress laid on the formation of the Up Leek line which meant that you would not have the usual 15' from rail to fence, so somebody walking home would be technically "On or near the line'.
It remains to be seen what happens next but, I suspect that any future plans submitted will have fewer houses although the removal of the run round at Leekbrook doesn't bode well.

 

A couple of photos from Cheddleton today, the good news is that the Southern coach is virtually finished with just a bit of timping up to do. On schedule for the Santa trains. third phot is in the shed with S160 5197 being worked on, TKh2944 being preped for the Santas and 0-4-0 Brightside being assembled.

 

What, a Southern coach in maroon, and not green, well I never......................

Makes a nice change - looks the Mutts though!

 

Is it the light or is that maroon a little too red/pink? Ours seems darker I think. Also why are the ends painted maroon as well, do you spray paint? Still, it all looks lovely and shiny which is the main thing.

 

I think the colour is the right shade, it my cheap little camera that I go from a car boot this year for a fiver its not the best but good enough to carry on my pway duties. The maroon ends match I think all the rest of the newly painted coaches. As for spray could not tell you. Just take photos to show what is happening on the railway to negate some of the posts on here.

 

Fair enough then. Now that I think about it, other pictures of freshly painted CVR coaches looked fine. Can't say I like the maroon ends, I always think a coach looks better with nice shiny black ends. That's the reason I asked about spraying, it's not too much effort if brush painting, but understandable if spraying.