Rother Valley Railway

Plus i believe the actual crossing is tied up in the rest of the planning application for the rest of the line, as the application is for the entire Junction Rd to Robertsbridge section, as far as the level crossings go, there is not a separate application for the crossing at Junction Rd.

 

RVR have planning approval from Rother District Council for the whole of the line from Junction Road to Robertsbridge. The current application is for a TWAO [Transport and Works Act Order] which amongst other things gives powers to operate the railway - this is the subject of the Public Inquiry which is now scheduled for July. I am unclear whether they actually need this granted before they can put the Level Crossing in.

 

A TWAO gives the right to cross the Queen's Highway, which, by Act or Order, needs Parliamentary sanction.
Pat

 

Thank you for confirming RVR have done nothing illegal. You seem to have exposed nothing more than one local landowner has upset some of their neighbours by lawfully clearing their own land in accordance with planning permission and environnmental regulations.

Robin White said why RVR are unlikely to engage with you on this forum so I guess your questions about the timing of works won’t be answered here since no one else knows. Most other NP readers are supporters of the heritage railway movement and might be inclined to give RVR the benefit of the doubt on this point since, if there’s no regulatory breach, it’s of no more significance than any other neighbourly dispute.

 

At last someone who knows their stuff regarding the TWAO process. I am amazed that so many presume the planning approval by RDC gives permission to build the three level crossings and these are people very close to RVR and very vocal in support and backing of anything that is said by the hierachy. A serious question remains in that if the Inspector at the enquiry felt that submissions from RVR were out-of-date and inaccurate and has requested that they be redone, recalculated and resubmitted, does that then hold true that the submissions for planning were the same? How long does planning approval stay in place on land that isn't owned by an applicant - I thought it was 5 years? One thing I think we can all agree on is that this has taken an awfully long time to resolve and things that were important at the beginning have changed immeasurably especially in the last year for all, both those in favour of the extension and those against. I'm not even sure what the appetite for sitting on a train will be in the future for the main network or heritage lines and we don't know what implications this will have financially to both.

 

Did you raise your concerns with the appropriate authorities at the time? What answer did they give?

I am not sure why you are finding it so hard to answer these very basic questions, given all the questions you seem to have about the RVR.

I am struggling to work out why you keep on asking a bunch of railway enthusiasts.

 

Well that has answered so many important questions, thank you. A truly well-informed and knowledgable forum member, happy to believe whatever RVR say and give them the benefit of the doubt regardless. For the umpteenth time, I have put forward my view on this (and yes I know I'll be in the minority here by 1000:1) together with links to RVR own documents and those that have taken the time to read it know what RVR did and when. Whether it was a breakdown in communication on their part is immaterial. It's about why it had to be done at that particular time. I don't expect them to reply and I fully expect to get ridiculed and put down on here, but I did hope to find someone on this forum that can explain why clearing work had to be done during the nesting season as it was "unavoidable." Is it just me that believes the work could have been put on hold for a few months?

 

As regards reports or studies being out of date, the enquiry has been postponed several times. It is therefore inevitable that some paperwork will need updating. It does not mean that said paperwork was out of date when originally submitted.

As regards the expiry of planning permission, I believe it remains valid once work has commenced (IANAL). For example, the work carried out in the area around the new station at Robertsbridge was covered by a separate earlier planning permission. Much of that work has been completed, but some items will not be done until or unless the line opens for traffic. So the permission for the remaining works is still valid because the works have started.
The planning permission covering the route from the end of current track at Northbridge Street to the end of track at Junction Road (including the three level crossings) will be active once any of the work covered by that permission has started. I would have thought that the work carried out so far on the stretch between Junction Road and the next bridge towards Robertsbridge would have activated this permission.

Once again I Am Not A Lawyer, but that is my understanding.

 

Thank you for that explanation. I know the station area was under a separate planning application but is starting work relating to the Robertsbridge to Junction Rd application the reason why clearing the line had to start when it did?

 

Appreciate this reply thanks Tom

 

I must confess having watched this thread from the sidelines for a while now, I am curious as to what of of @Gillaroo 's endgame is here, asking these questions in hopes to build up a case to stop the RVR project in it's tracks maybe? As it seems clear to me the man obviously isn't supportive of the idea, not even sure if he likes the KESR or railways preservation in general. Plus simple put, as others have pointed out on this thread a few times before, if someone has objections against something on a heritage railway be it management or a project direction, trying to demands answer and accountability on a Forum for just general discussion and chit chat is not exactly the best place for that as you won't really get anywhere. Well besides aggravating staunch supporters I suppose.

It's getting them nowhere, and not exactly helping to promote a friendly more positive place to discuss on all things pertaining to the RVR.

That said I doubt me saying anything on here will change much if at all, and indeed probably won't cease until either the RVR folds and the project is shut down, no doubt to the relief/pleasure of @Gillaroo , or it actually goes ahead and is brought to it's completion.

Though perhaps with slight drama at the opening of the extension with @Gillaroo laying himself upon the track in front of the train in a final last stand of protest...? I jest of course.

In an ideal world we should be finding ways to keep both sides of a argument happy as best as possible, though reality is never that simple, especially when it comes to a project like this one. I for one support the project wholeheartedly, on the simple grounds that the intent is to complete what the founders of the heritage KESR could not do on it's own, owning, preserving and operating the remainder of the line to Robertsbridge.

 

In an ideal world, compromises would have been found, that suited both the proposers and the land owners to find a way to take back the land, and where possible move the track bed to lessen the land lost by the land owner, once the line is re instated.
Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world,
I would urge everyone to be very careful what you post, as you don't want to see your posts screen shot , and used to undermine the case for the RVR,
It would not be the first time a protester has screen shot remarks, and used those remarks in a different context , it I believed has happened, not with this case, so far, but certainly with others , where internet content has been used as evidence to undermine your opponent's position.

 

Mike, I find this comment rather insulting, as well as disingenuous. The answer to your question will not be found here, because we simply do not know. As far as I am aware, we are all just amateur enthusiasts on this forum.
Ironically, had the world not been turned upon its head last spring, you would have had the opportunity to ask your question directly to the people that matter, in a public forum, in front of the Secetary of State for Transports representative.
You still have that opportunity, (God willing), this coming July. Please wait until then, proper time, proper place, rather than trying to winkle out speculative indiscretions from members of this forum.
To be clear, I personally have no links or affiliation with the RVR. I am just a well wisher, who would like to see Tenterden and the Rother valley reconnected by rail to the national network.
However I am very much invested with both organisations involved with the recreation of the Lynton and Barnstaple railway, so I am very aware of the absolute necessity of obtaining a TWAO before a public highway can be crossed, be it over, under or on the level. These people face similar challenges, but on a larger scale, and they have worked miracles so far, with what they have, despite localised opposition.
Enough hot air has been expended. The law's delays have been frustrating for everyone, and Covid has only exacerbated the situation.
Can we just wait until July, after which I sincerely hope we can all move on, in whichever direction that may be.
Thank you.

 

I think you’ve misunderstood me. It’s not a question of whether or not I believed what RVR said. The reason your questions about the date of the works have raised so little interest on this forum is because, as you’ve acknowledged, RVR had every right to do the clearance at whichever time they did it regardless of whether you or I believe it could have been put on hold.

 

Would it be possible to move the Gillaroo-gate "discussion" to a separate thread, so we can choose to engage with it or ignore it.

Personally, I'm getting a bit tired of threads being dominated by certain individuals (an island opposite Portsmouth also comes to mind ...) who jump on their keyboards at the slightest opportunity to publicise their grudges without actually taking any action themselves.

 

Just wait until the RVR lay the crossing in at night! The protests then!!!!

 

At least by carrying out the work at night, the disruption will be reduced to a minimum, I would imagine the actual method used will be to have a pre assembled crossing and dig out a trench across the road, and drop the crossing bed in, same as what was done with the renewal of the A28 Crossing at Rolvendon.

 

People should be careful not to say things that might be quoted out of context to oppose the RVR in the inquiry.

 

How many times has that had to be said on this thread?...

 

"That would be an ecumenical matter"