Rother Valley Railway

I have been keeping an eye on the comments received on the planning application and note that the Environment Agency has objected to planning permission being granted on biodiversity grounds, namely (1) Detrimental impact on nature conservation, (2) Inadequate assessment and mitigation measures, and (3) Inadequate buffer zone (from the River Rother). The Environment Agency also offer guidance on how their objections can be overcome.

To give a couple of examples:

Firstly they object to river crossings which do not clear span the river channel because this could adversely affect flora and fauna. To get round this the river crossings should be designed as clear span bridges which do not require construction within the river channel or reinforcement of the banks.

Splutter...

Secondly, they object that the assessment and mitigation measures submitted with the application are inadequate, based on assumptions, and do not properly address the risks. In particular, the proposals do not identify and assess the habitats directly impacted by the proposal. The majority of the ecological assessment has been undertaken remotely, from a distance of between 50 metres and 300 metres... and so it goes on.

Their solution? - Detailed ecological surveys and WFD assessment are required prior to development of detailed plans... The detailed design, construction, mitigation and compensation measures should be based on the results of a survey carried out at appropriate times of year...

Splutter Splutter Choke...

The reason why there isn't a detailed ecological survey is given in para 4.2 of the Environmental Statement, vol. 1:

"A major limitation of the EIA has been the refusal of the three directly affected landowners to allow access to their land to undertake any surveys to fully establish the ecological baseline. Therefore, the assessment has had to be based primarily on a desk based review of publicly available data, observations made from public footpaths and roads, and professional judgement on the likelihood of habitats and protected species being present on the site."

So how on earth are RVR supposed to do a detailed ecological survey of the habitats directly impacted by the proposal as demanded by the Environment Agency when the landowners refuse access to undertake any surveys?

 

Can't it become a 'reserved matter' until access is gained?

 

I would have thought that is exactly how it would be treated. One cannot really expect the EIA to just accept that access could not be gained and raise no objections.

 

Why 'splutter'? Sounds eminently sensible to me. As well as protecting wildlife and plants - which some of us are just as keen to conserve as old railways, they don't have to be mutually exclusive - if there was construction in the river channel which contributed, in whatever way, to localised flooding there would be uproar. And rightly so. Good for the EA for stating its requirements now so everybody knows what parameters they are working within.

Or are you another with the "Anything which means the railway can't be bulldozed through without a second thought is BAD" point of view? Would you be spluttering if it was a motorway, rather than a steam railway?

 

Yes, I would be spluttering if it was a motorway too! The reason for my splutters is that as part of the planning application there are FOUR volumes of Environmental Impact Assessment -

Environmental Impact Vol. 1 - Non-Technical Summary (29 pages)
Environmental Impact Vol. 2 - Main Statement (275 pages)
Environmental Impact Vol. 3 - Technical and Supporting Reports (236 pages)
Environmental Impact Vol. 4 - Supporting Figures (57 pages)

Given the flat refusal of the three landowners to allow any surveys it is clear that everything possible has been done to produce a comprehensive assessment using professional advice. But no, according to the Environment Agency, the resulting 597 pages of assessment is "inadequate". Of particular concern is "the lack of water vole and otter surveys". That is why I splutter.

I write as someone who has spoken at planning meetings to try to stop development on a greenfield site. On that occasion the planning committee rejected the application against the advice of the planning officers. It went to appeal, the applicant lost, and a valuable buffer area was protected. I have strong views on wanting to protect the natural environment and the wildlife in it, but at the same time I'm a realist and would not insist on the redesign of a bridge in case it damages a flower, or means a water vole or otter has to take a slight detour! Yes, I know, I overstate the case.

I'm sure the RVR took a lot of advice before submitting the planning application to produce an acceptable solution. You only have to look at the detail in some of those reports. I wonder what their reaction was when they saw that Environment Agency response?

 

EA have been reading this: Riparian zones

 

More entertaining comments here....

Noel

 

I think you will find that the persons who shout the loudest are doing so because they are are not wishing to lose face having told landowners they will support them, wait until it goes through, watch them change their stance then when the town begins to see more trade same with salehurst, i imagine the pub will do very well from increased trade , so lets see how the meeting tonight goes, i cant see how the scheme can be turned down, then its a matter of coming to agreement with the landowners over the land that is needed and if it comes to having to force landowners to sell, so be it, after all, the line was never officially fully closed the final bit, legally removing the railway s right to the land was never enacted

 

Although the railway was not formally abandoned the track was lifted and the land was lawfully sold. Therefore reinstatement of the railway is impossible without planning permission; a TWAO; and buying the land either by agreement or using a CPO.

Some may be irritated by the Environment Agency's objections but the fact that the landowners would not allow a proper survey is not a matter for the EA to consider - their job is to assess the application only on the relevant technical criteria. The EA do not have a veto and the RVR can make additional representations, if they wish, in response to objections. It is the Council's job to weigh it all up and decide what they think is best for their community. They have already given planning permission for the new Robertsbridge station; for reinstatement of the railway between Robertsbridge and Northbridge St; and for reinstatement of the railway between Bodiam and Junction Road.

 

I have just read some of the on line comments, some are very good, and well informed but some are just ignorent , i object to some nimby,, because isn't that some are, calling preserved railways toy trains? there is nothing toy ish about preserved railways, these people if thats how they think must have never ventured out from their village the wording on some, i would say is very strange, its as if they have all followed the same script but its good to see the letters of support locally as well as further afield,
some say about parking, well most visitors would come at week ends, when the NR car park is mostly empty, crossing the roads, train will operate outside of the peak , when traffic levels should be less and if your just coming off the roundabout, your going to be going slowly anyway and by the time you drive to north bridge st, to try to avoid the crosssing, the crossing should be lifting anyway,
Flooding, i would think the railway would enhance flood defences by keeping gully's clear and by rebuilding embankments where it was found they needed it. its not in the railways interest to be flooded out

 

From the date of your post, the meeting 'tonight' was a week ago. So how did it go?

If the railway aims to ensure that visitor levels are maximised at weekends by ensuring that the school brats don't get six weeks off in the summer, I'm all for it

I think it would be interesting to look at all the comments and compare their point of view with their location. In other words, are more of those in favour people who don't live in the immediate vicinity of Robertsbridge/Salehurst and, therefore, are less affected by the potential issues that those objecting to it raise?

Unfortunately I don't have the time on my hands to do it, but I think it would be an interesting comparison to make.

 

If the EA bothered to read its own national survey of otters published in 2010 it would know why there is about as much point in a survey of otters on the East Sussex Rother as there is in one for polar bears. Despite occasional local press excitement, there are to all intents and purposes no wild otters in Kent or Sussex. And even if there were, the plentiful evidence from much of the rest of the UK where otters are now numerous would show that very localised bridge construction would have next to no impact on the lives of an animal whose wanderings may cover up to 10 miles in a night. Unfortunately, I suspect that legislation means that surveys for non existant animals whose lives would go unaffected even if they were not non existant have to be carried out.

 

There are wild otters on the Bewl and Teise at Scotney. I've seen them.

 

No answer?

 

I don't know if this is what Martin referred to but there was a Parish Council planning meeting on 4/09. The Parish have the right to be consulted but no decision making powers. The Clerk submitted their comments via the on-line portal on 8/9. They did not formally object to the scheme but raised a number of detailed concerns, as might be expected.

 

I wish this were true, but sadly I think you are mistaken. Otters are huge - over 3 feet long from nose to tail, yet very rarely seen even where they are plentiful. Much more commonly seen are mink which can be the size of a large ferret, and spend less time in the water than otters do. Otters ALWAYS mark their presence at very regular intervals with very distincive spraint (droppings) which cannot be mistaken for anything else. This is how one can establish their presence or absence with near 100% certainty, as was done in the last national survey in 2010. I have walked hundreds of miles of river bank all over the south east and have never found a spriant, yet in Hampshire or Essex where otters are widespread now you can almost always find some within 200 yards of leaving the car.

My original point was that this particular excuse for raising objections is a time and money wasting excercise by the Environment Agency, who should know better. Building the railway will have virtually no effect what so ever on otters even if they were there, never mind when they aren't.

 

A recent especially interesting posting on the RVR News blog is the 3rd Quarter issue of their magazine, the Phoenix. One entry inside indicates that the RVR has a collection of bridge sections which they have acquired, some of which will be used to re-instate bridges on the last section of the line. (Also, one existing, in situ bridge on that section is in good enough shape to be used.)

I'm mildly curious where all the money for this is coming from! (I don't have a problem with it, just curious - other heritage railways seem to be always scraping for money, but that doesn't seem to be an issue here.) Almost all the work seems to be being done by paid contractors, and the RVR paid for the new carriage shed for the KESR, so clearly the line has a major fairy god-mother hidden away somewhere!

Noel

 

I can't give you names as the benefactors wish to stay anonymous, but it's well known that there are two major backers putting substantial sums into the project.

 

Not a problem (for me, at least).

Well known to some, perhaps! But thanks for the confirmation of my guess!

Anyway, hats off to them, and thanks.

Noel