Rother Valley Railway

Yes, I had permission and I was a keyholder for the car park gate to the field on Junction Road by the bridge as well as the gates on the road going through Forge Farm when you could drive all the way through to Robertsbridge on the road Guinness built. No, I did not go there when it changed hands prior to RVR's purchase nor did I go there after RVR had purchased it. Not much point going there now looking for badgers as the two setts have gone in line with the clearance work. Hope that answers your question and I am no longer labelled a trespasser?

 

I understand your point Martin although regarding land use, may I suggest that just because land is not being worked agriculturally, it does not mean therefore that it does not have a value in terms of habitat. Possibly, and especially in current times, having a few wilder, untouched spaces give us something equal in value to fields with crops livestock. It doesn't have to be viewed by ramblers nor does it have to be a tourist attraction - it just has to be there. Just a thought.

 

And I believe that is exactly what the RVR proposes, dependant on whether or not the Hoads decide that the small parcel of land they currently own, which lies between the Rother and the projected line of the railway is still viable to cultivate, or not. If not, then that parcel of land, about 1.5 acres, would be encouraged to revert to a wild state. Not visitable, but there, nonetheless.
Quid pro quo, environmentally speaking.

 

For which i believe the Hoads could recieve government funding if they agree to lay aside that land, have i got this right, there was a sceme, by where by farmers could rewild some of their land and in return the farmer would recieve a yearly sum to make up for the loss of income from that land.

 

I think you're referring to the Countryside Stewardship scheme. I don't know if the Hoads would be eligible or not, there are so many different grades and criteria, and it seems mainly aimed at bird life, although of course any other species of mammal could equally make themselves at home, too!

 

If the Hoads found themselves stuck with an unworkable 1.5 acres as a result of the line being renewed, I could see the RVR offering to buy that land. That would mean a guaranteed payout for them, rather than hoping that Government grants continued, and the railway could let the ground go to wild. That would allow a decent space for all kinds of creatures to find a home in!

 

So here's the rub with apologies to those just wanting to read nothing but progress reports from Mike Hart... the land is not for sale so whatever plans RVR have and whatever environmental mitigation is envisaged, to achieve them there would need to be a compulsory purchase of someone's land from which they gain their income and have done for generations - cue the "well if it was there 60 years ago and the farmers were fine, it can be worked around now" argument which doesn't actually stand up given the changes in farming methods, labour force etc etc. Remember (and for those who do not know the area) this is a small, profitable, mixed farm, providing local and regional, full and part-time employment, not the bottom of someone's back garden where a fence needs to be moved.

Personally, I don't believe this to be a good use of the TWAO process looking at the scheme submitted thus far by RVR as a whole. Maybe someone here could tell me why they think it is, but please dont say just because you can legally do it... why is it a good thing for everyone? I certainly would be furious if it happened to me, as I guess most would, unless of course you are an ardent heritage enthusiast so I may be barking up the wrong tree on this forum? Saying that, much of what has been said previously has been very balanced and good and bad arguments from both but either way, it is an emotive subject for all. As I understand it, a TWA order has to be for the good of everyone and not just good for the promoters of the scheme. Maybe RVR's revised submission, as requested by the inspector, will throw more light on this? Does anyone know what has changed on their part regarding the issues raised?

Lastly, there is a lot of talk about "wealthy landowners" blocking the scheme in this thread but I would also suggest they are mere paupers in comparison to those pushing the scheme through. Maybe they would like to comment as to why they are investing vast sums of money in the scheme as to date they have remained silent? Is it pure altruism at it's finest on their part for the good of everyone? I seriously doubt it but again I may be proved wrong.

 

Yet more dis information, and mud slinging, the RVR Isn't just one man, and his, or her play thing, there has been an desire to reconnect the KESR to the network for years, if it can remove car and coach journeys off the minor roads in the area and on to the train to visit Bodiam Castle, and Tenerden , that has to count for something,, The people who are promoting the reclaiming of the closed section, have to now been able to purchase the land by Negotiation with the land owners, in some cases by buying the farm the land was part of, then selling off the un needed land and buildings to others who are not against the railway, then you have a situation where talking will not work, so do you give up, walk away, leaving the job half done, or do you use the tools that will allows you to complete the job, Imagine if say a land owner has said, over my dead body when the A21 was Duelled, what happened there, a compulsory purchase order would had to be used , they are a last resort weapon, that no body wants to use, but its there if talking has not worked, and agreement can not be reached,
Its sad that such a instrument may have to be used, but what other option is there, would you rather the RVR, instead of building a railway, which would only have a limited impact on the lives of the locals, instead built a housing estate, or some other business on the land they own ?

 

“Nagotiation” - love it. I feel that way sometimes at home ...

Being serious: it’s probably not surprising if on a railway forum the overwhelming majority are broadly supportive of the extension plan. But that shouldn’t blind us to the fact that in almost any walk of life, not everyone is an enthusiast. If someone wanted to open, say, a motor racing circuit in the area, you would similarly expect great enthusiasm from those who follow motor racing as a passion, but might also expect a whole range of other responses from passively in favour through passively against to vociferously against.

So it doesn’t in my view do any harm if the likes of @Gillaroo choose to remind us that local opinion may not be as blindly in favour as the subset of us who hang out on a heritage railway forum.

In terms of wider benefits: we are seeing everything from “greatest thing since sliced bread” to “one man’s full size train set”. (I might be paraphrasing a bit). I suspect the reality will be somewhere in between: a good local tourist attraction, generating jobs and promoting the overall diversity of income in an area. As such I think that is a good thing, but let’s not pretend that it will somehow transform congestion on the roads around Bodiam Castle. I don’t know how or who is funding it: it is interesting that we don’t seem to see high-profile public appeals for funding. But if it is being financed by a few wealthy individuals, I doubt whether they are doing do in the expectation of seeing any financial return, as was alluded to slightly cryptically above.

Given all that - I’m supportive of the project, but would also urge us, as supporters, neither to over-egg the benefits, nor to drive away from the discussion those who may have a counter view.

Tom

 

I wish this scheme well, but from a considerable distance and with no more commitment than is represented by this post.

@Jamessquared has largely spoken for me, but I do want to pick up on what you say about the TWA order process and motivations. "Good for everyone" would be a very tough hurdle to pass, because it would require that those harmed (for example by being subjected to compulsory purchase) would still have to benefit. My understanding (and I am not a lawyer), is that it is a broader public interest test, such that the public as a whole benefit from the project.

You also comment on motive. I have yet to see anyone run a preserved railway who has made a positive return on their investment; very few are run on a fully "commercial" basis. Their motives may be varied, but the expectation of financial return is negligible. I know of two cases around railway preservation where this was suggested - the Severn Valley in the early 1970s, where the late unlamented Gerald Nabarro MP tried to manipulate the project to his advantage, and the West Somerset a few years ago where property speculation became involved within that railway's politics. Just on the balance of probabilities, I find it implausible to believe that pecuniary interest is a driving factor in the RVR, regardless of the wealth of the backers (whose identities, incidentally, I have no knowledge of), and I therefore presume altruistic motives.

 

It certainly doesn't, although specific issues are more readily comprehensible and (IMO) far more likely to produce something approaching reasoned discussion than an overly repetitive blunderbuss approach.

Far from being problematic, even heated discussion can prove fruitful. Witness the debate over G-WR Broadway Station, not so very long ago (and contrast with the WSR threads!), which eventually produced an overall improvement the project. If that's the case here, all well and good. Finding the best answer invariably benefits from taking the widest view, most especially where there's any danger of tunnel vision, but is that what's going on here?

Where I suspect things differ in this instance (and I'm quite open to being proved wrong) is that nothing short of total abandonment of the RVR extension would serve to satisfy @Gillaroo's aspirations and that, whilst that's a position to which anyone is fully entitled, this is unlikely to prove the most fruitful furrow for any in outright opposition to plough. Indeed, that's precisely the reason for a planning process for which, be it noted, our merry little forum is no substitute.

 

Please tell me where anything I have said is "disinformation" and then compare it to what was said regarding timings of the clearance which was not correct as I have tried to show members of this forum. Once you have done this can you call out those that said the clearing of the track was done at a much earlier date and put them right?
You might also want to look up the meaning of disinformation and who it is most associated with.

 

Whilst in no way wishing to control your right to free speech, or your attempt to convince a bunch of railway enthusiasts to your point of view, in one of your earlier posts you stated
"unless of course you are an ardent heritage enthusiast so I may be barking up the wrong tree on this forum"
With no personal involvement in this project I suggest you probably are, as I view it to be akin to me, when I worked at British Airways at Heathrow, joining HACAN or the No Third Runway Coalition and trying to convince them that airport expansion is the path to follow.
Planning Laws exist for a purpose, many may think that they are not fit for that purpose, but that is what we have.

 

Although I support the scheme I’m not involved with RVR and do not wish to accuse you or them of disinformation, or even mistakes. The RVR have said all they did, on their own land, was allowed within the relevant legislation & permissions yet you seem to be accusing them of doing something that wasn’t permitted. Given your level of concern you must have been involved in reporting this to the relevant authorities. What was their response?

 

Yet there are some here that have accused me of disinformation. All I have done in the first place is point out that what Mike Hart told you all via RMW regarding timing of the clearances was incorrect (as proven by their own hand) and that the landowner, whose post was put on here and mocked as being codswallop, was indeed correct. I have never said it was done illegally although I have asked to see the ecologist's report which as yet has not been forthcoming and the reasoning why it had to be done during the nesting season - apparently according to RVR it was "unavoidable" which I am astonished by. What is even stranger is the land they cleared is in effect an island where they cannot run trains as no permission to cross Junction Road has been granted. Would it not have been better to hold fire? Answer these and I'll be on my way.

 

Myself, with no knowledge whatever other than what I read in public documents and forums it looks to me like a cock up in communication and nothing more. Nothing illegal was done. End of discussion.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

 

Have you raised your concerns with the relevant authorities and what was their answer? Your silence on this question which has been asked at least twice is deafening.

 

I would think that he hasn't, because he knows that the clearance was with in the allowed conditions set, As regards it being in the nesting season etc, i agree with 21b, nothing illegal was done, possibly the communication was not well done, but given that this gentlemen appears to have personal grudges with those people who are in charge of this project, they might have decided not to share information as he clearly is out to try to damage the organisation, as is their right,
the issue is that this gentleman is upset because someone sold land, he used to be able to talk over, that he , himself did not own, and had no right of way, to the railway, and of course, he has lost his ability to do that.

 

The crossing works, and the works in making the formation line up with the other side of Junction Road, need a clear area where materials and plant can be placed. The RVR do not own the land on the other side of the crossing, so can't use that. They can hardly dump it on the road. As for permission, do you wait until permission is granted to do anything at all, and set the project further back, or do you do what you can while still waiting for permission, so you can get on with it if and when it is granted. I am afraid your earlier observation is correct. While you have every right to hold your views, this is a forum for rail enthusiasts, and you will not find a lot of support here.

 

I had to think about this as RVR have already built their railway from Bodiam up to a few feet from the Junction Road crossing and have cleared their recently purchased land on the other side of the crossing. So they do have access to both sides but I guess what @Fireline meant was that only on one side (the newly cleared bit) is enough land in RVR ownership available for the materials & plant necessary for the crossing works.