Rother Valley Railway

...apparently even looking at this thread is not without repercussions! I only started looking at it a week or so ago and now my YouTube feed is populated with RVR videos explaining ecological mitigation measures and flood risk assessments. Sadly I found them extremely interesting, especially the piece highlighting the level crossing location which looks very busy.

 

Never quite understood this logic myself, for what serious inquiry board would actually take quotes from a online forum meant for general discussion railway related as actual hard evidence either for or against the plans? I certainly wouldn't, I would just scoff and tell the people presenting quotes from this forum as hard evidence to actually take this seriously and present REAL evidence and not just randomly selected quotes of conjecture at best.

 

http://rvrailway.blogspot.com/2021/02/section-4b-oct-20-environmental.html

 

Good description of the environmental works - the blog seems to be being updated more frequently which is good.

 

Good to see that the R.V.R. and the environment are working together so flora and fauna and the newly reinstated line to be already cleared from junction road to Austen's bridge, can be constructed and the railway operated all in good time without having a impact on plant life and wild creatures and animals habitats and helps nature to flourish and hope the reinstatement of the R.V.R. gets approval to be reconnected in May 2021 when the meeting goes ahead to discuss future planning and construction from Junction R.D. to Robertsbridge and MAYBE some agreement can be reached for all parties involved.
Good luck.
Davo 56F

 

Particularly noteworthy is the effort put into relocating the badger sett. It is a truism that railway corridors act as wildlife sanctuaries and one might hope that this can be conveyed adequately to the owners of Moat Farm...

 

Who actually owns Moat farm now, because the original owner passed away, a few years ago, i believe it passed to two sisters, the niece of one , was the one behind the facebook page, and isn't the family linked to the housing development on another farm, on little common, So possibly not as eco minded as they might like people to think, Money talks, and i would expect will be the thing most likily to sway them.

 

I'm not sure how up-to-date this is but it is certainly required reading:
https://gat04-live-1517c8a4486c4160...vio-media.org/rother-valley/socs/obj-1002.pdf

It answers your first question I think. When any action is contemplated that might disturb someone's local situation then the NIMBY principle dictates a likely response...
Of course the greater good must be addressed and hence the need for planning procedures however flawed they might actually be. We must hope that a broader consensus of the greater good emerges at the forthcoming TWAO inquiry.

 

I don’t understand why people move next to a railway and then complain about it. It has been there since it was built a very long time ago and shouldn’t be a problem to put it back.

 

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that it hasn’t been there since it was built, otherwise there would be no need to put it back.

 

I was going to reply in similar vein, but what with the Isle of Wight extending on a track bed of grass clippings and a busy photo of the MHR justifying extension from Alton in three different directions, life is really too short ...

Tom

 

In case you missed it - Rother District Council have approved [with Minor Conditions] the planning appliction to install a turntable at Robersbridge and modify the siting of the engine shed. The application Number is RR/2020/2493/P.

 

The public inquiry website, https://gateleyhamer-pi.com/en-gb/rother-valley-railway has lots of new documents submitted by RVR in March ready for the PI. The website isn't very phone friendly - I suggest using a computer. The docs include updated environmental information; also technical plans for the A21 level crossing developed in liaison with Highways England. The report says installation of the precast crossing components and regrading of the road would require a road closure for just one weekend.

 

Its been an very interesting read, as has some of the letters of objection, most of which, seem to be against the level crossing on the A21, but at the same time, in favour of duelling the A21 from Hastings to Tunbridge, which will take out far more land and homes, but if it allows them to get out of Sussex faster, who am i to condemn them , Local opposition seems to be , summed up as we like our sleepy bye way sort of life, how dare you want to bring people into our world, shades of " This is a local, place, for local folk, we don't want your type here" i wonder, was Tubbs, based on someone from Salehurst? Is Royston Vasey actually Salehurst ?
then you have those objections , that seem to be a paste and copy exactly the same font , same spacing, and even the same paragraphs, Why , its even as if they were told copy this, rather than, make your own mind up ?

 

I recently had notification that the pre-inquiry meeting will now take place on 19th May [rather than 12th May] - this is likely to be a Virtual Meeting. The Inquiry proper will start on 6th July - they don't know yet whether this will be in person, virtual or a hybrid meeting.

 

A dualling would probably result in a flyover over the railway.

I understand that a suggested solution to commuter parking was to close Robertsbridge station.

I think that a lot of these were handed out to bikers on a May Bank Holiday.

 

I would say that those people who favoured dualling the A21, don't actually care that much about the Rother valley, as they would flash past it, most likely on their way to Hastings on a bank holiday, nicking all the parking spaces, before heading back again,

Closing Robertsbridge station ? the only thing i heard was that it might be just as well to park at another station, a stop, or two away, and get the train to Robertsbridge, but saying that, Robertsbridge station car park, is empty most week ends,

Bikers, on a bank holiday ? I suspect the majority were from a certain Facebook site, set up by an anti RVR Person.

 

I'm very struck by the incredible amount of detail in the new documents; facially, the professionals engaged to produce them have put a tremendous amount of work into these. Clearly the RVR is very determined to make this project happen - as is obvious from all the work that's been done at Robertsbridge already. A great deal of money has obviously been spent on non-volunteer work (well, I'm assuming that Ove Arup, and Capita Property and Infrastructure, didn't donate their time for these recent documents, but maybe I'm wrong there; I'm fairly sure I recall that quite a bit of the Robertsbridge work was contractors, although there was a lot done by volunteers, too). I'm sure a lot of other heritage lines must be envious! Not that I'm complaining about the money being spent, just observing. Anyway, the RVR is clearly being very careful to get their ducks all lined up just so, so I'm hopeful that the outcome of the inquiry will be positive.

Noel

 

Something which is puzzling me; I understood that "Representations" were made by statutory consultees in the planning process, and yet here, about half of them are just random individuals with no apparent affiliation to any statutory body, spouting off either for or against the development. Very odd.
Secondly, the "safety" factor of the A21 crossing;
This last friday, the A21 was closed 3 times, firstly a 3- vehicle smash north of Lamberhurst in the morning. Then another incident between Lamberhurst and Flimwell shortly afterwards, then finally another smash at Flimwell crossroads during the afternoon. Set against a manned, full barrier crossing which would be closed for c. 90 seconds, just 12 times during any peak service day, I think the users of the A21 (me included) have far more pressing things to worry about.

 

Like you I have just looked at the Inquiry website and I too am puzzelled about the 'Representations' - I can understand that responses from Public Bodies would come into this category. I wonder, like you, why the other documents are treated as 'representations' rather than 'Objectors' and 'Supporters'. I know that not all letters are acessible on the website - my letter of support was listed until recently but not accessible - now it is not listed. Looking at the notes from last years Pre-Inquiry meeting it seems that there are several people [mainly objectors] who intended to speak at the Inquiry. It will be interesting to see the paperwork from this May's Pre-Inquiry meeting. I agree with you that there are many more pressing dificulties with the A21 than the proposed level crossing. The pedestrian operated crossing just north of the roundabout has the potential to cause more delays.