Rother Valley Railway

Sorry, but I think your memory is a bit lacking here. Leaving aside level crossings, over the years Britain's heritage railways have suffered a number of fatal accidents apart from the one at the NYMR - there was another at the NYMR where a passenger was struck by a bridge after climbing onto the roof of a moving train and a footplate crew member at the Mid Hants was hit by a bridge whilst moving coal forward in the tender of a loco. Sone was crushed to death during a craning job at the Bodmin & Wenford. Turing to level crossings, the NYMR has had at least two cars hit by trains at the Trout Farm occupation crossing at Pickering, the RHDR has had two fatal accidents on level crossings, the Scevern Valley has had one on an occupation crossing lrading to a waterworks. The Dean Forest had crossing gates struck by a train, injuring the crossing keeper and on both the South Devon and WSR a train has hit a car on at least one occasion, I think. It still isn't a bad record for the railways as most of the accidents were down to the stupidity of road users, and on this relatively small selection of evidence, occupation crossings are just as dangerous as crossings over public roads. perhaps more so because regular users get both impatient and blase.

 

Don't forget the death at ELR in 2010 I think it was.

 

Might best be a topic for a thread elsewhere than here …

Tom

 

I suspect that whatever the outcome there will be appeals etc against the decision.

 

There are several lawyers on here far better qualified to comment but I don't think it's as easy as that, particularly if it were to be the objectors appealing. The appealing party would have to allege that the inspector and/or minister made an irrational judgement or a legal or serious procedural oversight or error. It would cost to take it to Court with both sides' costs to pay if you lose, and with no guarantee of a different outcome on a re-heard or re-examined case. Quite a lot of hurdles.

The same's true for the RVR, but presumably they also have the option to make another (presumably amended) application.

Patrick

 

the only “challenge” possible post decision is a judicial review with strict time limits and a narrow basis of appeal eg the decision is one that no reasonable inspector could have made with respect to the facts.

The NFU attempted this against Prescott decision on the WHR but failed.

regards

Matt

 

Unless I am mistaken these were the grounds used in the Stonehenge case this week.

My point is more that I doubt that the inspector's verdict will be the last stage and I find it hard to imagine given how much both sides have invested that the side that 'loses' won't seek to challenge the decision in some form, even if it is unlikely to succeed.

 

I think that in the end, it's going to come down to the question of the A21 crossing, and the impact it might have, Flooding could be migrated by having culverts built into the embankment that way the water can be directed away in the case of heavy floods, but its in the lap of the gods as to who the inspector believes has the most accurate case, personally, I don't think the level crossing will have that great an impact, but of course, the objectors will say differently, the frimwell lights and other bottle necks on the A21 are of much greater significance, but of course, they are not part of this application.

 

The "only fatal accident I recall" was intended to imply that my memory was not all-encompassing! But my main point in listing fatal accidents on heritage lines was that heritage LCs are less dangerous than ones on the big railway, because the train speeds are slower. I didn't know of the two RHDR fatal LC accidents (which happened quite a while ago, in 2003 and 2005; ironically, it was apparently the engineer who was killed in both cases). All the LCs on the line have since been upgraded from flashing warning lights to lifting half-barriers, so maybe those accidents 'couldn't happen' on the proposed A21 LC.

Noel

 

And in 99 % of cases, its the motorist who was found to be at fault, there are very few cases where a train driver was found to have caused the incident , in many cases, the driver of the vehicle, or a pedestrian who did not obey warning notices, and flashing lights and proceeded to cross when clearly they shouldn't have.

 

It was, for context it was reported that Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site crowdfunded £50,000 for that Judicial Review. There's a difference in scale between Stonehenge* and RVR objectors and possibly their ability and commitment to fund a Judicial Review should the result not be to their liking. I was trying to suggest that it would be a high barrier but I may be wrong, of course!

Patrick

*Ancient Sacred Landscape Network, Campaign for Better Transport/Transport Action Network, Campaign to Protect Rural England, Friends of the Earth, The British Archaeological Trust

 

The landowners must have spend in excess of this figure for the work done in connection with the Public Inquiry, they have had numerous consultants prepare reports and appear at the Inquiry plus representation by a QC. I am sure they have been fully briefed about their options should be TWAO be granted.

 

A very high risk strategy, if you ask me, if they lose, they will have to pay their own costs, and A21 aside, its not certain they will win because the land the RVR is hoping to be able to buy, doesn't include their homes, only a thin strip of land, so its not as if someone is putting a motor way through their homes, the Anstie's i would argue, have less of a case, because the land has not been returned to agricultural use, their argument is mostly ecological , but i do believe that should the TWAO be granted, then they might sell , do they actually farm any of the land they acquired from the Dequincy estate? they did have plans to develop one farm, they own for housing, but of course, there was a lot of opposition to that, and there is a block on any large scale development in Salehurst anyway,

 

Perhaps, someone might confirm my memory as I seem to recall reading that on the section in question between Junction Road and Robertsbridge. When the farms acquired the trackbed from B.R. in the 1970's, some low embankments where dug out! Which lead to flooding occurring, where they had not before, if this is the case, as I recall, does it not make some of the anti arguments worthless!

 

There are a further batch of documents on the Website this morning which mainly include documents submitted by the objectors on Friday. I found a couple of them interesting. One who claims that RVR have 'friends in High Places' and another who is opposed to Compulsary Purchase and yet is a life member of the Lynton and Barnstaple railway. The L and B are about to apply for a TWAO which is likely to include a Compulsary Purchase provision - they too have a landowner who is reluctant to sell. There are also comments about who the RVR development is contary to the Salehurst Local Plan - RVR had planning consent before this plan was 'made'.

 

Not really. Since the old railway was abandoned and the land was sold any flooding that happened between then and now was the responsibility of the landowners; the relevant authorities and the rain Gods.

For the TWAO application the onus is on the applicant (RVR) to prove their proposed works meet today’s standards for flood-prevention & mitigation. Therefore, anywhere embankments were demolished, the original drainage design is now irrelevant - it’s a new railway. Where original structures are still in place the drainage has to be upgraded if necessary to meet current standards.

The RVR have now reached agreement with the Environment Agency, who have withdrawn their objections as reported previously in this thread. I’d hope this would weaken the arguments of the other objectors more than anything else.

 

And more in the "Documents Submitted during the Inquiry" section of the Inquiry Web-site today.

Most notably, the Closing Submission of Sir Peter Hendy [Chairman of NR] on behalf of Network Rail, which makes the same point I did, about how a number of factors will make the proposed RVR A21 LC considerably less dangerous than a LC on the big railway: "the trains would be short, their numbers low, the service seasonal, and the speed of trains on crossings would be as low as 10mph". But the whole thing is a gem (on many other points), and incredibly supportive. Having the Chair of NR so strongly in favour is of very great value, I reckon.

One other new document, Modifications to the draft Order session is of some interest; if the Inspector has a session laid out for going through changes to the proposed Order, I would read that as saying there's a good chance he will recommend 'yes' - why spend time tweaking the proposed TWAO if it will not be needed. (Yes, he could be readying it in case he recommends against, and the minister reverses him..)

Finally, the Application for Costs is interesting. The general 'vibe' I get from it is 'the RVR didn't have every last i dotted before filing their paperwork, and that increased our costs'. It will be interesting to see what the Inspector says about costs. I do hope the landowners aren't assuming that they won't have a big bill to pay; if their lawyers were honest with them (most are), they probably warned them, but sometimes hope triumphs over hard-headed caution.

I'm not sure this is really relevant. I would think the main concern would be to prevent any accidents.

Noel

 

I share your general optimism about the way the inquiry is going but I think you're mistaken in interpreting this session as a sign of the Inspector's views. The only purpose of the Inquiry is to inform the Secretary of State for Transport in his decision whether to make the Transport & Works Act Order. Therefore the contents of the draft Order are crucial and any changes must be justified by RVR and be open to challenge by the objectors. The original draft (ref: RVR01 in the core documents) was submitted by RVR at the time of their TWAO application in 2018. Many of the proposed changes have only been settled in recent weeks following final agreement with the Environment Agency and provisional agreement with Highways England. Any changes suggested by DfT TWA Unit would only be matters such as best legal practice (always evolving), updated legislation since 2018, clarity and any typos or technical omissions. IIRC a session for the Inquiry to consider these changes was always in the draft programme.

 

I do agree. Peter Hendys submission is spot on. It contrasts with the rather childish submission by the Eastwoods in doc 135.
Ian C

 

So, the objectors are applying for costs from RVR because RVR were in ongoing discussion with Highways England. Is that right? The fact that the landowners objection is entirely (and rightly) based on how a rebuilt railway would affect their own land holding. It is not their business to object to a level crossing on an A road some distance from their property, and their objection to that will carry as much weight as any other local objector.
They can't, and don't claim that RVR acted wrongly in their dealings the landowners, so its quite difficult to see how costs could be awarded.