West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I wondered that myself, especially since the relevant Council officials have taken a close interest. I see that it appears to match the station building. Perhaps @Roger Thompson could enlighten us?

Robin

 

To be honest, we only realised that the roof pitch was different to the original building when the roof went on. The drawings were prepared several years ago on a pro bono basis by an architect based in Derbyshire who was the then son in law of the volunteers who were running the project at that time. These volunteers are no longer involved or prepared to co-operate with FoCHS, having left the station in difficult circumstances in 2015, and in any case my understanding is that the architect is no longer their son in law, having fallen out with their daughter! So contacting him to ask why the roof is like it is wasn't possible. As Robin says, it does match the station building, and we assume that this is a deliberate decision, but whether this was a decision made by the architect himself, or whether it was a planning requirement, goodness only knows.
My own feeling is that the architect just did it like that, and no-one realised from looking at the drawing that it was different from the original. All we have of the original building is photos, of course. By the time we did notice it was too late to change without yet further delay and extra cost, for a building that has now cost well over 100% more than the original poorly prepared budget of £18k, and which would never have been started at all if we had known what the true costs would be! Some of the extra costs have arisen as a result of the WSRs current tightening up of safety matters generally.

As I implied in an earlier post, a pretty but very expensive shed! Sorry about the roof!!!

 

Ouch! Thank you for your candour Roger! Hopefully the FOCHS Committee will keep a better grip on things than in the past.

 

Thanks!

Does Crowcombe station have any particular fund raising events planned to fill the £10K funding gap or should we just buy an extra piece of bread pudding when we come to the station?

Robin

 

We have a FoCHS committee meeting later this week, and this will be on the agenda.


Sent from my Lenovo TAB 2 A10-70F using Tapatalk

 

Does this throw any light on it?
https://www.westsomerset.gov.uk/onl...o?activeTab=documents&keyVal=_WSC_DCAPR_22836


The Heritage statement is interesting ....

 

Roger, the council have been pulled up on numerous occasions over the years for divulging email addresses and telephone numbers of individuals on the Internet. Should yours be in the public arena? I'm never sure if it's right or wrong of them ...
https://www.westsomerset.gov.uk/onl...ion&documentOrdering.orderDirection=ascending

 

Careful study of the roof in photographs of the existing building shows that the roof edge construction (and so the barge boards) was rather different on the Goods Offices than the station building.

Unfortunately they have also been constructed to match the station building rather than to replicate the original. (Look, in particular, at the lower ends of the barge boards.) This adds to the impression of 'difference' (from the original) created by the lower pitch of the roof.

Hmm.

Robin

 

Yet in the application they show intent of replication with Watchet and Williton as examples (if I can load the darned thing!)

 

All documentation relating to planning applications is regarded as being in the public domain unless there are exceptional circumstances.

 

Ah, content and names/addresses certainly but I'm always unsure of home/mobile numbers and email addresses too?

 

What is done is done, and we should just forget it and concentrate on more important matters.

 

When I took this project on following the departure of the previous volunteers, my job was simply to get the building completed in accordance with the already approved drawings, which it has been. My only involvement with the Planning Officer was to get her approval of the trial stone panel which we were required to construct for her approval. I will confess that the first time I have seen the heritage statement is this evening. I was never given a set of the original planning application documents, or, indeed, much paperwork at all.

Reading the heritage statement for the first time, the architect, who I guess wrote this, says he has incorporated certain style elements from the main station building. I can only surmise that these included the pitch of the roof and the style of the barge boards. Why he did this we shall never know, but his design was approved by the planners and has now been built.

Perhaps the lesson here is not to leave projects like this entirely in the hands of volunteers, who may, for whatever reason, depart the scene part way through the job.

Sent from my Lenovo TAB 2 A10-70F using Tapatalk

 

Spot on. As it is it looks very nice indeed anyway, it's certainly "in keeping".

 

Are you suggesting all planning ought to be done by paid contractors? That seems a little drastic, and more than a little expensive! Not just giving the whole thing to one volunteer but make sure at least a couple know all the ins and outs of a project might be better.

 

There really is no point in trying to allocate blame in such circumstances. It is far more important that FOCHS learn from their mistakes and look forward as to how the money can be raised.

 

I would say some of the most interesting things on here are reports & photos of the infrastucture works, signalling works etc. As well as reports of loco works. Also that is the most interesting of the photos on the . org site. To me at any rate.

 

It may be important to examine the Railway's own heritage processes for the future to ensure such matters don't slip through again. Volunteers can (and have) moved mountains with the right assistance. Those of us who have been around for longer than others or who occupy positions of leadership need to ensure such structures are in place to help, encourage and support. Not much we can't achieve if we get that right.

Kind regards

Robin

 

I agree! However trying to apportion blame for the past errors is not the way forward.

 

Sorry, I am grinning again