Severn Valley Railway to launch £4,000,000 share issue.

I notice the spectre of the former car showroom site becoming a fast food outlet (McDonalds or KFC) has been raised on the SVR's own forum. Were the burghers of Bridgnorth to allow such an event the SVR's plan for a highly profitable cafeteria would be thrown into complete disarray.
I see an event such as this to be feared as much as was that of Hanbury cottage falling into the hands of others less sympathetic to the railway.
Accepting the site is only available leasehold at present (as was the site of Kidderminster Town station) it is important that the SVR has some long term control over it.
Possibly time for the four quorate gentlemen to reconsider how they spend the £1M raised so far. . . . .

 

Two good reasons not to adopt that approach and dispell slighty irrational and unwarranted fear:
1. The site in question has no planning consent for such activity & any such application might well be refused on Highway grounds at least (and possibly others).
2. Only a certain limited portion of the population actually enjoys/buys fast food. A reasonable quality cafe serving fresh food should not be unduly threatened by such a development. There are numerous assorted food outlets near Kidderminster SVR station yet the SVR facility sees a fair bit of use as does the King & Castle PH.

Acquisition of this site would be in the "nice to have" category but it is neither essential or affordable.

 

If the numbers for lease and rates quoted on the SVR forum are correct and there's little room for negotiation (circa £130k pa, and the freehold is not for sale), that's one hell of an overhead to cover before you even start to look into costs of fitting out etc as a food outlet - and that's assuming PP would be available
I don't know what level of profits they are hoping to generate from the proposed "new" catering facilities, as part of the station redevelopment, but I think there's already enough controversy over the plans without venturing off site, and spending circa £130k pa as an "insurance premium" just in case McDonalds wants to move in.

 

Deleted

 

I wouldn't rely too much on PP refusal. When faced with an application for change of use from one commercial activity to another which opens up a disused facility and creates jobs, planners tend to favour the change of use. As to highways - it's amazing what a bit of S106 money does - a mini roundabout for instance would probably satisfy highways objections - and arguably improve road safety by slowing traffic down.

 

May I add that Bridgnorth has seen the recent departure of no less than three car dealerships which, to me. demonstrates there is a decreasing appetite for such activity in the town. Even Dexter's in Station Lane seems to have shown little interest, preferring to expand into the adjacent premises.
Whether or not Shropshire Council would be tempted with a bit of Section 106 money is open to speculation although I agree an improved junction with the Cleobury Road wouldn't go amiss.

 

As has been stated numerous times both here and on the SVRA forum, the freehold is not for sale, so whether the SVR would like to have "long term control" over it or not is frankly irrelevant. If you think there is a viable business case for purchasing the site at the aforementioned rate (130k p.a.), why not email it to the bridgnorth development team and share your wisdom for the greater good?

 

A very weak argument. The KR Town site was rented/leased for some time before the freehold was bought. When the SVR took occupation of the site it had no definite idea of when the freehold would become available. Had privatisation not taken place would we own the freehold today?

 

If you think it's weak then fair enough, that's your opinion. However it is not an argument, it is fact. I don't know the figures of what we paid BR in rent for the KDR site, it was before my time, but the Inchcape site is owned by an individual who uses the rent as his regular income, he's not interested in selling. I note you still haven't suggested a viable business case for renting, or indeed buying, the site in any case. If ,as I believe, there is no such case, then this discussion really is pointless.

 

Never say never

 

Andy2857 shows an endearing lack of empathy with the property-owning classes – where almost everything is for sale at a price -it’s just a question of how much. You might be surprised what the average person will do for a couple of million in cash.

I am not in favour of SVR (H) making major capital investments because they are not very good at it any more (see Engine House, passim) but if there was a joint venture deal to be done for the whole Hollybush Road site, all the way from the car dealership to the coal staithes, that could be an economic game changer for Bridgnorth town and surrounding economic hinterland. I don’t think any (or either) of the existing tenants are dependant on pedestrian footfall (does anyone walk to Jewson’s for a bag of sand in this day and age...probably not). They can relocate their businesses, although that is not to say they would. There are probably no more than 30 jobs down there at the moment. A decent but sympathetic tourism/leisure development could triple that without trying. A hotel could contain an annexe for the unwashed volunteers, who might finally get a proper quality of accommodation. Franchised catering outlets on profit-share tenancies may generate more income for the railway than the fumbling portakabin manages in profits, if it makes one at all. The wretched shop almost certainly doesn't provide any return, so that can go too.

Is it not impossible that the two land owners (if all that land is in single ownership) could co-operate with a third party investor to create such a thing. Such a massive project would be beyond the competence of SVR(H) to manage, but someone like Julian Birley at North Norfolk knows how the property business works and could hold their hand to protect them from losing their (and our) shirts. It would not be beyond the wit of man to preserve the essential railway character of the station while delivering a mixed use development that would add significant value to the Bridgnorth tourism offer and protecting the interests of SVR shareholders.

One downside is that next time some poor victim of terminal depression ends it all off the footbridge they will land on railway premises. Hitherto Inchcape have had the sad duty of coping with that.

 

Well it is nice to see positive thinking alive and well on NatPres at this time of good-will to all men.

I find myself very sceptical of the perceived dangers of not having control over the site below the bridge, and it becoming a fast food outlet or similar. This is because I have watched visitors arrive at Bridgnorth off the train, and they use the bridge to get to the town. They have no need and make no effort to take the circuitous routes from the station yard down to the main road. In other words, any fast food outlet would be off the beaten track of the SVR's visitors, and I do not perceive that they would change their habits with one's arrival.

The only way in which the site could be effectively used by the SVR, in my opinion, is as a car park. Any amenities would just be too far out of the way for visitors on their journey from train to town and vice versa. So the only advantage the site would buy for the SVR would be better car parking, enabling, perhaps, some more of the current space in the station yard to be used for buildings.

I'm with the SVR management on this, I really am. It would not be worth it.

 

I'm not too sure you've been reading all the arguments, both here and at the other place. The myopic management still seem to retain the parochial view that they had before the good people of Bridgnorth realised how much money the SVR brings into the town and hence seem scared of growth.
Does our friend guard_jamie welcome the destruction of the Exeter sheds to replace then with something akin to a Nissan hut? Like or not, they are far more part of the historic railway scene than their replacement. Does guard_jamie welcome the prospect of glass monoliths forming the new visitor reception centre and footbridge?
Much of the necessary secondary building functions could be accommodated at the former Inchcape site without destroying that which, hopefully, we all seek to preserve; including the typical if none-too-pretty Exeter sheds.e other

As has been said to others both here and at that other place. "Wake Up".

 

Thanks for the heads up on the change in membership discount. As a member for 20 years, reading of it on this forum was the first I had heard of it. A note with the the news surely would have been considered necessary for any other major change to membership terms? Apparently there is a couple of lines in the latest SVR news, but it must be sufficiently hidden away for a lot of us not to notice. As a member who lives some distance from the railway, opportunities for travelling are somewhat limited and the 50% discount was a major carrot for continuing to support the line. Membership has always been considered by the SVR to be one of it's strong points and at a time when we are being asked yet again to dig deep for the share issue, it seems a strange time to deliver this change which judging by comments on the SVR's forum has not been well received at all. No doubt many will consider my comments harsh, but when added up with the rising costs of getting to the railway and all the other costs that have risen lately, unlike my wages, for the first time I will be thinking twice about renewing.

 

Some of the recent postings here concerning land acquisition seem to be somewhat misplaced. Nice as acquisition of land is, GFG has presented a perfectly reasonable economic model for any potential development of the old Inchcape site and adjacent businesses. Whilst it is true that the surface area available at Bridgnorth is somewhat restricted. The SVR does own land at Bridgnorth that could possibly be better utilized. For example by pilling into the made ground on the east embankment south of the station, thus making room for amongst other facilities volunteer accomodation, bar and cafeteria stores etc with the new cafeteria complex above at platform level.

The share issue, even if it were somehow to reach three million pounds, would not cover the costs of those proposals already outlined in the prospectus, even less those that appear to have been added to the wish list. This in itself implies that some retrenchment will be required.

I for one look forward to the revised plans for Bridgnorth with some hope. First priority should be one new building containing new toilets, eating facilities, canopy and bookshop - in early 20th centuary style ! I am not sure that the financial benefits of these facilities will be what is hoped. But decent facilities, in the appropriate style can only enhance the station and the reputation of the SVR. Will the money extend to the rest of the plans ? In my view almost certainly not. The Exeter sheds would therefore survive the planners/developers axe, in the short term at least.

I think the SVR learned little from their original mistakes, by once again not keeping the general membership/shareholders informed of their thoughts and plans as they developed. I hope that the outcry over the original plans have made those responsible aware of what is expected - best to live in hope.

 

The Exeter sheds were demolished before Christmas. I am not sure whether posters are unaware of this or if there is confusion as to what the Exeter sheds are?

Here is a link to a photo of them mid-demolition posted on twitter by SVR Engineering: https://twitter.com/svrengineering/status/265478608762568704/photo/1/large

 

I think it may be you who is confused. The Exeter sheds being referred to in this debate are those occupied by the WLA & P-way Dept; not those that were behind the boilershop. I.e. There used to be two lots of Exeter sheds. One is now extinct, the other remains extant - at present.

 

Ah, thanks Brian. So I was right that there was confusion, but the confusion was my own!

 

What deliciously McCarthy-ite questions from you! I can say, Mr Thornhill, that I am not and never have been a statutory Director of Severn Valley Railway. Neither have I ever sought (or allowed my name to go forward for election to) such an unhappy position, and nor would I. But I have known the Valley and its affairs closely for three decades. I am proud still to count several volunteers and ex-Chief Officers there as friends. I do not post in other areas of your Forum because I only ever comment on matters I have some knowledge of.

In answer to your other questions, yes to all (SVR member, shareholder, several other railway-related Directorships on the big railway) – although I am now semi-retired and can no longer be considered a Front Line combatant in the heritage arena or on the main line. But I can look back on 35 years service as a professional railwayman – and a little longer than that as a volunteer in the playing trains business; the first thing I ever did, aged 15, was help repaint WTC No 5 from a red/pink shade to GW green. The late but magnificent Des Lauder taught me to be very wary of steam engines and their propensity to scald or crush you. That was in the mid-1970s. It was a priceless lesson.

These days I merely potter around the country by train subject to the staff travel restrictions for First Class all-stations status pass holders (only humble Silver I’m afraid, not Gold) and can use the post-nominals CMILT if I ever bother to blow my own trumpet. I do try to avoid doing so, but you did ask.

Having said all that I wonder if I might now enquire, Mr Thornhill, into your own professional railway credentials? I am sure they are awesome...and you asked first...I am merely returning the compliment. Please don't tell me you are just a Ned with a keyboard. I am really hoping for something more substantial than that.

Yours aye

GF-G