Rother Valley Railway

Kindly note too that the border between Kent and East Sussex was specifically mentioned!

When considering planning blocs, pro and anti, I'm in agreement over just how ridiculous many entrenched positions can end up coming across as.

 

The problem isn't so much the two landowners and the RVR, Its those who see an opportunity to get involved in some cases for political reasons, that is the issue, or local pressure groups , neither of whom are directly involved, or will be effected by the railway, if it is reopened, a lot of the anti remarks have been dealt with at length , the A21, the other 2 level crossings are over minor roads, ok a level crossing just before the roundabout will be a problem, some of the time, but nowhere as bad as imagined as it would have not been passed if it was, I suspect what has been said about the nature of those who have backed the landowners being part of an small group of a local elite, , councillors, fellow people of status, not being representable of the greater locality, is very close to the truth, its friends of friends, willing to spread falsehoods in support of their friend, I wonder, though, how supportive would they be if it was the Government taking the whole of their land to double the A21 rather than just a small strip?

 

To me, whatever the size of the landholding and the influence, or otherwise, of the owner, we should be extremely reluctant to grant compulsory acquisition powers to pleasure railways. Arguments that they are in any way different to other proposals for business use tend to be rather spurious ones.

Paul H

 

Do you differentiate between profit and non-profit entities? (I ask because to me the term "business" implies the former.)

Noel

 

I don't see any essential difference when it comes to compulsory acquisition.

PH

 

Cobbled, their still as the romans left them why do they call it 1066 country ? because the road network is unchanged from 1066

 

Quite right: I will never forget having a tipper of gravel arrive in the 1960s having come up from near Chichester to just over the North Downs
near where the M25 is now and the driver enthusing what a good road it was on the way up. What he was so thoroughly pleased with
was the Roman road - not unaltered but plenty of it still a good route.

 

Yeah, but apart from that, what have the Romans done for us?

 

Mark , what have the romans done for us, saved us from those unwashed Celts for one, they came to St Albans on an away day, and burnt the place down, savages, I tell you,

 

I agree. Compulsory purchase is the state removing an asset from a citizen. Not to be taken lightly. All such proposals need to be scrutinised with care, but it is also true that a pleasure railway may have a legitimate argument on the grounds of the now well established benefit that such enterprises can bring. There is a system in place to determine whether such benefits are sufficient to overcome the individual rights of a citizen (to hold their property) in favour of a collective right. Neither those who side with the Daily Mail viewpoint, nor those that are as stridently of the opposite opinion are relevant. The law and process will determine if the benefit is sufficient. All we can say for now is that the granting of planning permission clears the first hurdle out of the way, and indicates that the local government believes that the case for the benefit has been shown to be strong. (Otherwise why grant permission).

 

"Up to a point Lord Copper" Anyone can apply for planning permission on anyone's land, provided they serve the necessary statutory notices. This is an entirely separate matter from land ownership and the right actually to carry out the work.

Paul H

 

Just as well they can as the TWAO requires planning first, but do the planning authorities not have a duty to consider the appropriateness of any development? Part of such a consideration would be the "fit" with the local plan, a document that would consider things like desirable economic developments. So to some extent at least the planning permission serves is an indicator of the acceptability of the scheme to the local government.

 

Indeed, and reinstatement of the RVR has been in the Local Transport Plan for many years. Also worth noting that I believe local council sat on the planning application for a record 2 years, before unaminously approving it, so every detail has already been closely scrutinised.

 

But what would be the point of RVR applying for TWAO without the ultimate threat of a CPO in it? Surely that would just encourage any landowner against the scheme to hold it up, possibly permanently?

 

There is a presumption in favour of all planning applications and a local planning authority has to justify refusing permission. This is not quite the same thing as approving something positively and certainly not as wresting the necessary land forcibly from an unwilling owner.

It sounds as if the politicians here are as guilty of W.I.B.N. as is the case elsewhere and suffer from the widespread confusion between "Public Transport Function" and "Visitor Attraction" which so many enthusiasts do.

Back to my original point. Why should a visitor attraction be given compulsory acquisition powers? Theme parks don't expect this. It takes time and patience to acquire land piece by piece through negotiations but it can be done. As an example, see Exmoor Associates.

PH

 

So far the RVR have done it this way, Udiam farm, purchased, track bed reinstated track relayed, farm then sold on to buyer minus the land taken back for the track bed, Junction Rd to Austin's Bridge, trackbed sold to RVR, land due to be cleared this august and track relaying soon afterwards, including the level crossing over the B road. given the chance to I am sure the RVR would prefer to negotiate land purchase by agreement , but where agreement can not be reached and the landowner in effect says, over my dead body, and even then, you won't get the land, then what do you do, give up , walk away, with an unfinished project or make use of CPO powers where they are available. its a nuclear option, either way. as you either end up with a bitter farmer, or a bitter frustrated railway company that has 1000's of members who if local councillors are involved on the side of the farmer, could adversely effect that councillors future political future if it goes against local wishes

 

On this point, because the law provides a framework whereby a railway promoter can obtain and use compulsory powers, regardless of whether it is "public transport" or a "visitor attraction". My understanding is that for projects that rely - as do railways - on a line of route rather than area, the law is careful to limit the powers of landowners to veto development by refusal to sell small parcels - so called "ransom strips". That may be an anomaly, but I refuse to criticise the promoters of a business for seeking powers that would enable them to realise their objectives, but would expect (a) that the grant of those powers is very carefully considered and (b) that, if granted, they are used as a last resort.

I suggest your example of the L&B demonstrates both the strengths of alternative approaches, and also their potential limitations.

 

This is one point I can accept although what I gather from someone who is a shareholder in E.A. is that care has been taken to build up good relationships so that formerly implacable opponents have ended up doing deals. Steam railways need to realise that they don;t always seem to be the best of neighbours/

PH

 

I thought of you Paul when I heard our local councillors discussing our extension to Broadway; they were getting terribly excited about us getting a mainline connection at Honeybourne and steam trains running all the way to Bridgnorth!

On the "Public transport function" though, I think you simplify this a bit too much. I'm in total agreement with you that any type of commuter service is doomed to fail. However, in the right area heritage railways can and are used to transport people from place to place as part of a bigger day out. Broadway is certainly very happy that they have in effect gained 2 large car parks; 1 at Cheltenham and one at Toddington. Sure, people visit for the steam trains, but they are using us to get somewhere else, which sounds like a kind of public transport function to me.

Sorry to divert off topic but I'm not familiar enough with the local geography to make a similar point in a more relevant area!