Rother Valley Railway

David Penn's recently published Change at Robertsbridge: The Rother Valley (Light) Railway Company (1897 – 1904): its directors, promoters and investors might have something to say about it. I've just bought it as a Kindle download but haven't had time to read it yet. I wonder if someone someday, perhaps a NP member, will write a book about the current RVR scheme and the personalities involved.

 

It wouldn't stretch the imagination too far if the saga was ever worked into an episode of Midsomer Murders

 

I doubt it would be a best-seller and wouldn't do much for building relationships with people who will still be the railway's neighbours.

 

There are two more documents on the Inquiry website - loaded yesterday. These are:-
(1) The landowner's reply to RVR's response to their application for costs.
(2) The landowner's technical note on review of flood compensation options.

As you would expect the landowners are continuing to pursue their application for costs - It will be interesting to see what the final report says about this. I think RVR may address this again in their closing statement.

 

I tried reading these yesterday, but have to admit they were so heavy going, I developed brain fade and gave up after a couple of pages.

 

I read this too. I thought 'my goodness me, there can only be giant lawyers' fees at the end of this...'
Furthermore I wondered whether the landowners are thinking that if they lose they might still be able to salvage some of their costs through RVR's 'unreasonable behaviour'!
(However unreasonable that might be!)

 

From the back of the classroom, a cynical thought crosses my mind. To wit ..... with umpteen large scale public infrastructure projects (active or pending) firmly in mind, HS2 included, what would successful applications for costs (primarily by those seeking to stop said projects) mean for the public purse over coming decades?

..... as I said, just a thought .....

 

Heavy going, and frankly it all seems to be clutching at straws and trying to make it all sound much more significant than it really is.
The landowner's "technical" note on review of flood compensation options strikes as 19 pages of pure waffle. Repeatedly the author states 'Capita have used 3d modelling. I can't but I'm quite sure I'm right and they are wrong' or words to that effect, but cannot offer anything substantively factual to refute the Capita reports- reports which are backed by professional credentials.

A contact of mine in the US owns a restaurant. They serve a plate of Rocky Mountain Oysters for $22.95, which simply illustrates that making a big meal of a lot of ******** needn't be as expensive as they are making it in Robertsbridge

 

I agree with pretty much all this (that's exactly the reaction I had to the flooding reply - it was always assumed the final details would be worked out if/when the TWAO had been granted, since, unlike the LCs, the decision to grant isn't really that dependent on the details of the flood compensation).

That "backed by professional credentials" grated a bit, though. My sense is that this age puts too much emphasis on someone's professional qualifications, and not enough on independently assessing the content of what's being said. (Clarke's First Law is a vivid reminder of the value of professional credentials.) As Felix Hoenikker said in Cat's Cradle, "any scientist who couldn't explain to an eight-year-old what he was doing [is] a charlatan".

Noel

 

What I meant was this: I am a carpenter-quite a good one actually. My professional opinion, which is based on qualifications and experience, carries more weight than that of a practicing diyer. However it does not stand up against engineering calculations which I simply don't do.
My "I think it will be strong enough in practice" might be right- It always has been so far- but if you take an existing truss, and test it, and calculate the weight, wind load etc that will act upon it- well you can rely on that. I tend to overbuild things, probably by a factor in excess of 100%. Stuff I build does not fail- but if you wanted a lightweight structure, using the minimum material, at the lowest cost, to be just strong enough-go with the engineer.
It is one thing to explain what you are doing. It can be quite another to make the other person understand how you are achieving it.

 

Highways Englands' closing statement is now on-line. Positive discussions on the Departures Application are in progress, but not yet agreed. HE's objection is therefore still in place but they confirm if and when agreement is reached they'll withdraw the objection and give consent. They're also changing their name, again, to National Highways.

The Eastwoods have had a flood, adjacent to the already-built bit of RVR, and have sent pictures.

 

I'm not surprised they had a flood. That would be the day a few weeks ago when the road across the Rother Valley at Stonegate was under water. It has to be pretty bad for that to happen, nowadays.
I'm glad Highways England is changing its name once again. That'll be a nice little taxpayer funded earner for whoever is doing the rebranding exercise. Plus ca change...

 

The landowners' closing submission is now also there. It's 87 pages long so I haven't read it all yet but the nub of their case may be in part of paragraph 187: "In order to enlist the might of the State to expropriate property against the will of its owners, there needs to be a compelling case in the public interest. In the present case, RVR falls woefully short of this target."

 

This, the landowners' closing submission, along with a number of other minor items, are all in the "Documents Submitted during the Inquiry" section of the Inquiry Web-site.

The RVR clearly has some work to do to make HE happy: "It will be for RVR to bring forward revised proposals to address SES’s concerns and that RVR undertakes to deliver." Still, heading in the right direction.

Noel

 

That, of course, is entirely dependant on one's interpretation of the term 'public interest', the analogy being, I guess, the Welsh Highland Railway.

In that case, as folks may remember, the enquiry came down against permission, only for that decision to be overturned by then SoS, John Prescott. IIRC, from the national perspective, "public interest" was held to have been defined in unduly narrow terms. I wonder, had construction not preceeded the Porthmadog bypass, whether we'd now have a reinstated line, bringing vital income from tourism into an area struggling following the loss of it's signature industry, decades earlier?

In the South West, I recall the committee chair, speaking of the L&B's successful application to extend, mentioned quite pointedly that the support spoke of benefits to the wider Exmoor community, whilst the opposition largely confined their cases to their personal concerns.

The tone of the enquiry concerning the RVR has been markedly more business-like, with the serious issues surrounding water management and flood mitigation (quite properly) of paramount concern to all parties. Whilst the A21 crossing is obviously a defining issue, I can't help but note that much said concerning the RVR formation is just as applicable to the trunk road and suspect that the effort expended on the matter of water/flooding will prove most useful to HE/NH (you know who I mean!), with that plus the railway reinforcing the case for a long overdue upgrade to a notorious stretch of main road, to the great benefit of residents, railway and road users alike.

 

With the direction of the government's "green" policy being what it is, I can't help but wonder how trunk road upgrades will now fit in with the rush towards carbon neutrality. Sure, we can all try to imagine our roads in a generation's time being populated almost solely by electric vehicles, but I wonder what the carbon tonnage would be, in terms of land take and construction, to dual and largely reroute the A21 south of Pembury? Compared to 2 miles of single-line railway, absolutely colossal, and God knows there's been enough environmental sturm und drang about that. Personally, I cannot see it happening. If the fuss over the RVR's link has been epic, the environmental outrage to dualling the A21 would be biblical at the very least. Although of course being a state-sponsored project, protests would be muted by the powers that be, at best.

 

As much to the point, if the heart of their case is about that rigorous a definition of public interest, it will reinforce the prejudice against change. I'm not sure of the precise legal test for "in the public interest", but I don't believe it is weighted so far as the objectors' "compelling", and I would be uncomfortable if it were.

Historically, the law has frowned upon the use of ransom strips and such like as means to frustrate development; as well as compulsory purchase powers, concepts such as wayleaves have evolved to ensure a balance is struck between the various interests.

The RVR need to prove to whatever the legal standard is that their plans are in the public interest, which I hope they can despite noting the ambiguous precedents from north Wales; the objectors should not be allowed to raise the hurdles further.

 

I too have not had time to read the 87 pages - but intend to listen in to some of the final day tomorrow.

 

I'm less convinced - the relative reactions to HS2 and current major road schemes suggest a certain logical inconsistency in the public's mind.

 

I can't speak for current road schemes, but from my own personal experience, I have yet to speak to anyone who is in favour of HS2, and that includes someone who has a family member directly involved. The protests aren't reported, or at least are on the back burner as far as the MSM are concerned.
This is a government flagship, and as such is being steamrollered through by the state, whether people want it or not.