Rother Valley Railway

I don't think anything new has been added recently, though? I saw nothing with a 2020 date. (I cheerfully admit that I could be wrong, and if so, I would appreciate a pointer to new material. Thanks!)

Noel

 

The Company running the Inquiry seem to be a bit behind with uploading documents. There was some recent correspondence which I thought was on the 'home' page but it's no longer there - I assume it has been moved elsewhere but can't find it at the moment.

 

You're quite right, Noel- i somehow missed seeing these documents when first submitted, so didn't think to look at the date, so just a year or so behind the curve. Doh!.
Still, I found them very interesting.

 

The inspector’s November letter, in the Inquiry News section, didn’t mention the new date but gave RVR until March to submit the additional technical information he has requested (mainly updates to Environmental/flood risk etc. assessments which are now quite old if they were done at the time of the planning application). This would then give objectors and others time to consider it and respond before the inquiry hearings.

 

It might be interesting to see those, if they are available.

Noel

 

Hi Martin
No, I am not in favour and have seen how RVR operate since the early days when Mr Wilton turned down their offer to buy his land from Junction Road to the bridge at a meeting held with RVR on site. They were extremely upset at this (to put it mildly) but again they'll never mention the meeting in public or what was said. For anyone reading this from RVR who were present that day and don't believe me, Mr Wilton arrived in the field in SWB green G reg landrover driven by one of his closest friends. That was probably 12-15 years ago at least. This was only muted at a time when the whole site was being considered as a retreat for people with their guide dogs where they could enjoy the natural surroundings - somewhere the dogs could have a break as well as their owners. Sadly this never came to fruition before Mr Wilton passed away, the land was sold and then sold again.
In terms of the land being laid to grass and devoid of wildlife, this is not the case. It was an incredible habitat of mature trees, scrub and field edges where I have walked for probably the last 40 years. My children would come with me on a summer evening and have watched hares, had barn owls fly so close they can feel the air from their wings and badger cubs come right up to their feet, so close they asked if they could stroke them. Memories that cannot be bought nor replaced by a day on a train. This wasn't a Wildlife Trust badger experience where the bucket of food is banged on the sett to ring the dinner bell, this was nature at it's very finest and was there for everyone who cared to look for it at no cost.
I have had many, many probing questions for RVR but not a single one has ever been answered with credibility. From habitat, to parking, to flood risk, to level crossings, to economic impact. As has been shown, much of the information they brought to the table was insufficient and/or out-of-date but the thing that I find most concerning is the land itself which they knew right from the off was not for sale. I know what they have done is by legislative procedure but is it really good use of a TWAO when they knew it wasn't for sale at any price? It isn't exactly the altruism of their wealthy backers' offering to build essential public transport infrastructure for the good of the wider public is it - so why do it? We all know why deep down but RVR and their supporters will never say it.

 

You are, of course, referring to the land from Junction Road to Austen's Bridge.... Land that the RVR now owns, thus rendering your argument about the TWAO obsolete (or, as you level at the RVR, out-of-date)....

 

Am I missing something? Is the RVR going to be a 100mph route with 1000-ton trains hurtling by every few minutes? I thought it was going to be a tourist line with a short, steam hauled trains trundling slowly along every hour or so, barely disturbing the local wildlife and actually protecting them from trespassing humans like Mr Gillaroo and his offspring.

 

I can see why Robin decided not to have a discussion with Mr Lacheur, He clearly is opposed to any development, and any discussion would lead nowhere, If a person's mind is already made up, no amount of reasoned discussion will change it, Most of the things he states, As long as you don't trespass, i would think could still be done, and once re established, the railway corridor can attract even more wild life the line, will if permission is granted, will be subjected to restrictions of when it can run, beyond Bodiam , so no night time trains, will be allowed, or only in some circumstances, flooding , if anything the flooding works will be improved, much of the reasoning behind the objections, seems to be based on personal animosity and NIMBYSM.

 

Yes you can work round wildlife to protect it. I believe the IOWSR has a red squirrel bridge and we even have a "Badger Ramp" in the back garden so they can come an go and the railway at Swanage seems not to disturb them.

 

The existing RVR submissions are on the inquiry website (you may have to trawl through a lot to find what you’re interested in) and I assume the new ones’ll be added in due course.

 

In terms of the clearing, yes I refer to Junction Road to Austens Bridge. In terms of TWAO I am refering to the use of it for compulsory purchase of land that RVR knew was never for sale which they still do not own. Hope that answers your post?

 

When exactly were we trespassing? Is this an accusation or just presumption?

 

Please could you show exactly how "the flooding works will be improved" as I haven't seen that model? If you state something here I am assuming you have the evidence to back it up?

 

I used to enjoy reading this thread and looked forward to seeing the progress at the RVR. Now all I see is 'axe-grinding' by someone who clearly (as all 11 of his posts are in this thread) joined just to 'knock' the RVR's management and contributes nothing positive to Nat.Pres. as a whole.
Ray.

 

When one of our most respected, longstanding members feels the need to post in this vein, someone should take note. In this instance, that someone, @Gillaroo, is you.

Presumably, having lost every argument through the planning process, we're now seen as a convenient sounding post for the dying embers of 'over my dead body' opposition, to which there's a ready answer.

For my part, I'm minded to avail myself of the option we all have to 'ignore' posts from this particular direction (a measure to which I've never previously resorted) because, as Ray says, there's been nothing beyond endless carping, rather than any honest attempt to engage in any constructive dialogue. When all's said and done, this isn't the "comments" section of some local hack rag.

 

You seem to be expressing a wish to continue walking on this route when it becomes a railway again, in which case you would be clearly trespassing. And for all I know you may have been doing so when the land was in its previous ownership - did you expressly seek permission to walk there?

 

We saw a man with a dog walk through the Broadway building site as we were building the platforms. The site was gated, CDM notices, we're in hard hats etc. We said 'you're walking through a building site, this is someone's property', but all he said was 'I've been doing this for 30 years and you're not going to stop me now'.

A neighbour also wrote to the council to say that there was a badger set within 500 yds of the site. I think you'd be hard pressed not to find a badger sett in the UK (outside major towns) that isn't in a 1000 yard circle!

It's what you get, we got through it. Now there is nothing but praise.

 

And hopefully the people of Robertsbridge and Salehurst will one day see past those who only for their own very narrow reasons stand in the way , and accept the new opportunities the railway can bring, Lets hope that both sides in this argument can come to an compromise over the land needed to rebuild this bit of railway, I fully understand the position of the land owners, they after all are being asked to return land they legally purchased, The Hoads, i have every sympathy for, they have made use of their land for agricultural reasons, the others who have not made use of the land, but left it vertually un touched since the track was taken up, maybe less so,

 

I apologise if you didn't like what I had to say Ray as I too had enjoyed reading many comments here which seemed both balanced and constructive. I read as a guest for some time before I saw what had been said regarding clearance, and read by many as gospel, to simply not be true. This is shown by the links I provided to RVR's own documents and blog. All I asked was for people to read my post and a response from RVR which still isn't forthcoming. If you would like me to post again I am happy to do so but I too was annoyed by the sheep mentality that if someone from RVR says something it must be true. I should also point out that RVR's submission of documents to the enquiry was also deemed in certain aspects to be out-of-date and not giving the full information required by the inspector so it's not just me who would like clarification from RVR on these points. Am I not allowed to question what is put in front of me?