60009

Ah yes, Peel Ports are the organisation in question, I think. A ruthless business.

 

Owners of Doncaster Airport too, so if the Vulcan people don't get their act together soon I can see that being scrapped in the future.

 

If that happens, couldn't a loco be fired with some sort of solid biomass fuel instead (perhaps pyrolized to reduce the reduce the volatiles which can produce pollutants)? Yes, it will probably have different burning characteristics, and so some adjustments would likely be needed, but those ought to be doable.

Noel

 

Electro-steam! (which I think someone has tried) Batteries in the coal space to heat water...

 

http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/swisselec/swisselc.htm

 

That's it John, that's the one!

 

Rules are made for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience by fools; I leave others to decide which category best defines the council.

 

So you think people should be able to do as they like as far as planning and development is concerned?

 

For very good reasons many of the planning & development rules and guidance are not clear cut. Councils have planning committees so that Councillors can exercise their judgment in the best interest of their own communities - especially when an application is for something out of the ordinary, like this one. I think someone in this thread said the application was decided by planning officers and not referred to planning committee. If this is the case I think this may have been a mistake by the council. I wish the late @John Stewart was still around on this forum to give us his professional view.

 

I think further back, when discussing Scottish planning procedures, it was said that the initial application was determined by officers using delegated powers. They presumably would have to follow the pre determined rules and policies of the Council. If a second application is determined by a committee of councillors they can if they wish depart from the policies they themselves had previously made.

 

I am afraid I normally find that if anyone quotes the old chestnut that @Fred Kerr has quoted these days, then deciding which category they fall into isn't difficult! Especially as these days, you could say '....and the blind obedience of those who don't want to be sued'!

However, having just spent a decent portion of my professional life involved in a very different planning dispute, and had a quick scan read of the judgement in this case, I do think the whole planning system seems to have totally lost sight of its purpose (as effectively summarised by @Spamcan81) and become bound up in Planning Guidance without stepping back to consider what the aim of the guidance is. Another way of putting that is that 'guidance is guidance - it is not law' - something which too many parts of Government Machinery forget, especially when it is their own internally produced guidance that all too often doesn't even correctly reflect what the actual law says (just what the Government department wants it to say!) This decision seems to quote from a variety of pieces of Planning Guidance which, in the way quoted, suggest that any application to build on prime farming land will always be rejected. This seems unlikely!

Reading the decision and the Trustees comments, you wouldn't think they were about the same thing. The decision appears to take no consideration of the farming aspects of the project, which the trustees stress.

Steven

 

That was me - Scotland has a different system to England and Wales, thus Councils have a very rigid delegation protocol under which this application seems to have fallen into the officers decision (which genuinely surprises me), next step is a review where it is considered by selected members if JC and his team decide to go that way? I am no fan of the Scottish system as it seems to not really allow an independent review of applications outside local prejudices unlike our system (which I hasten to add is still not that great).

GWR4707 Planning professional with too many years experience, although I always bowed down to JohnStewart on all matters DC....

 

Firstly from experience its normally those who moan about the restrictions of the planning system on applications they like, who are the first to jump up and down about policy and guidance not being applied when an application directly affects them in what they perceive to be a negative manner.

The thing is that guidance is there to support the statutory elements of planning law, thus in my area of specialism (heritage planning) the legal bit is the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, where the relevant paragraphs state that 'special regard' should be given to the preserving of heritage assets (an absolute minefield of legal cases and precedent), an then the delivery of this process is supported by the guidance in the NPPF and PPG, however as such decisions are subjective its a process that is always open for personal interpretation, appeal and confusion.

Actually these days on large schemes I often spend as much time working with officers who wish to support schemes making sure that their reports are robust enough to full consider the requirements of the Act and NPPF and thus hopefully avoid potential for JR.

 

Certainly in England a few tweaks and a further application will often elicit a positive outcome but if all else fails the idea already mooted up thread of a custom built shed at Boness would be a fitting testament to John Cameron and his locomotives. There would appear to be room for a suitable building either parallel to existing buildings or at right angles to them alongside the museum access path and dock basin.

However that may well be anathema to John Cameron's vision for both locomotives.

As an aside the preservation movement will have to get used to the necessity of more small permanent museums to look after the burgeoning numbers of locomotives that probably will not steam again when there is so much competition with often well funded overhauls, restorations and the remarkable new build phenomenon.

 

I wouldn't be against 60009 coming to Bo'ness but I think your suggested site is already earmarked by the SRPS for a new Steam Workshop.

 

This raises an interesting point: are there too many locomotives now? Has the success of resurrecting many of the Barry wrecks, the pick 'n' mix at Didcot and the new build phenomenon led to a potentially unsustainable amount of locomotives? I'm not saying for one moment we should actually consider scrapping locomotives but are we reaching a point where we have to say "enough is enough"?

 

Yet most lines struggle for steam power?

The subject is complex and huge - suffice to say ownership and funding is probably too diluted, those needing locos don't necessarily have the where-with-all to help those with locomotives but too few resources solve the problem - and then there are those who don't care how long a loco is out of action, of even if it is actually deteriorating faster than they can work on it, as long as every single bit of it is done by them.

The ability to plan work, and deliver to budget and timescale is also too often sadly lacking, making conventional business planning - and funding - impossible.

Steven

 

Very true: there are plenty of lines around without funding to resurrect their locomotives which sadly leaves us with many a decaying machine. IIRC the NVR only had one operational steam loco for a while - 34081. Yet there are a good few locomotives there: some which this casual observer thinks are unlikely to steam again (unless I start doing the Euromillions, win a fortune and give the NVR say, £15m. Well, I can dream).

 

IN many ways the availability of both labour and finance are the major determinants of a successful (and speedy) overhaul as the current structure seems to consist of funding an overhaul by loans then working the locomotive to earn income to pay of those loans and (hopefully) earn income towards the next overhaul - whilst being aware that a major failure during the "running" years could consume existing funds - and more !

This surely obviates any structured planning and suggests why only wealthy individuals - or companies - have the wherewithal to achieve speedy overhauls; sometimes the "working" locomotives are not located where they are needed thus transport costs and hiring fees also come into the equation. This brings us neatly back to JC who has decided to exit the loop by creating his own museum - on his own land - at his own expense but has been denied by planning rules that make recommendations only. IMHO the planners should allow the plans in the interest of attracting visitors (thus economic activity) to an area short of both thus exchanging rules that deny economic improvement for a planned construction that encourages economic improvement.

 

Now you're being logical: don't you know that logic and bureaucracies are inherently inimical?

Noel