Rother Valley Railway

The Usual objectors have commented on the facebook post. I am confident that RVR would not have undertaken this work without complying with the various authorities' requirements. Recent posts on Facebook have suggested that sleepers are being delivered to site - Looking at the pictures there is a lot of work to be done before tracklaying could commence. There is a comment about the sleepers seeping creosote into the ground - bit difficult from concrete sleepers!

 

Looking at the photos, clearly the poster does not understand what is being done , or needs to be done, The disused track bed needs to be dried out, drainage rebuilt the first step is to deforest the actual formation to let the land dry out, it also allows other wild life to re establish its self, this will take time, before any track is laid, so if any thing, clearing of trees and brush , scrub, is beneficial to the environment.

 

From the point of view of rebuilding a railway I am sure you are right. But the person protesting is evidently not looking at it from that point of view. If you don't want to see the railway rebuilt, why would you be accused of "not understanding" steps being taken that are preliminaries to a rebuild? As for whether clearing back scrub is beneficial to the environment - again, it depends what happens next. Quite possibly so if it acts as a preliminary to allow various dormant species to bloom once there is sufficient light; less so if it acts as a preliminary to laying thousands of tons of ballast.

Don't get me wrong: I'd like to see the railway re-instated, and there are plenty of examples where you can show a railway acting as a linear wildlife corridor; cutting back of the linesides can help flowers bloom etc etc. But don't assume that clearing away mature trees with the long-term aim of re-instating a railway will be perceived as beneficial by those who don't wish to see the railway re-instated at all.

Tom

 

Indeed the You have to break eggs to make an omelette argument is nonsense to someone who doesnt want an omelette...
( or wants to use those eggs to make a quiche instead)

 

Rather have them fried, couple rashers of bacon, black pudding, mushrooms mmmmmm I can nearly taste them already.

 

I think it is disgraceful to name people and ask them how they sleep at night.

 

In part that's why I suspect her fall back plan is that if the plan for 160 homes in Bexhill on a farm site she owns, does not get permission, she may very well have plans to try to do a similar redevelop on the farm land in question, And of course a re instated railway will mean less money from developing the land,

 

I think its an unlikely scenario. Apart from being AONB, I think quite a bit of her land is flood plain, and road access is single track lanes, unless the land goes as far east as Junction Road, and I don't believe it does.

 

There is a strain of real nastiness creeping into today's society, and strangely it seems to almost exclusively emanate from the wealthier middle classes. A very unsettling phenomenon.

 

Unfortunately the days when you could strongly disagree with someone's opinions but still have a drink with them afterwards seem to be over.

 

Ooooh, get thee behind me Satan... !

 

She has every right to build a development on any land she might own - if she can get planning permission.

 

I’m sure it is but it’s still given unnecessary ammunition to the anti brigade

 

Indeed could very relevant I would think.
If you want to reconstruct a railway that's has been dormant for decades then by definition you will alter the wildlife and ecology that has developed on the site during that period. This then becomes an issue as we are reading about especially if you have to remove for example habitat that protected species such as Nightingales are using. I suspect the RSPB lobby are more numerous and powerful than railway enthusiasts once mobilized.
On canals such as the Montgomeryshire the EA requirement was for the restorers to provide alternative living habitat to replace the shallow derelict reedy canal once it had been dredged and it would not surprise me if railway restorations have to follow suit in future.
B

 

Many years ago, I was told a story. I do not know how accurate it was, so I shall name no disputed names. The RVR had approached all the land owners, to sound them out about buying their sections. Three land owners said no. I was told that these three land owners were the Hoads, of Moat Farm, and the owners either side of Junction Road itself. I was also told that a female owner had told the company to come back and see her once they owned all the other land. The phrase "ransom strip" was mentioned, and this was the first time that I had ever heard that phrase. Since these times, two of the other three sections have been purchased. For what it matters, I thoroughly respect the Hoads for standing by their word.

 

Just to clarify - the Hoads are from Parsonage Farm which is at the Robertsbridge end. Moat Farm was owned by the de Quinceys. Mrs de Quincey has sadly died and the farm has passed to her decendants. So there are currently two landowners.

 

Oops. I stand rather heavily corrected!

 

Jack Hoad, former driver - any connection?

 

Incidentally, I knew that two owners were still involved. Sorry if my post wasn't clear. There were four owners in total, three who didn't want to sell, and the fourth who said to go and see her. Given the information posted since I posted, the farm may have changed hands since then, which could explain the attitude change.

 

I had heard that story as well. Documents submitted for the Public Inquiry go some way to explaining the current ownership but things may have changed since then.