Rother Valley Railway

Brilliant news - overjoyed to hear it at last!

The process is a judicial review, in the High Court, of the Secretary of State's decision with typically high (i.e. High Court sized, paying both sides if you lose) legal fees. No-one goes there on betting odds.

 

No. But people have been known to go there on sheer bloody mindedness, especially if either with money to but or a crowd funder.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

If it's JR territory, then the bar is really high - errors of law and/or a reasoning or decision that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made it (so called Wednesbury unreasonableness.

 

Prior to the close of the Inquiry a costs application was made by the Hoad Family (Parsonage Farm) and the Trustees and Executors of the Noel De Quincey Estate and OBJ/767 – Mrs Emma Ainslie (Moat Farm)(“the Landowners”) against RVR. That application is the subject of a separate Costs Report which was submitted to the Secretary of State, and a separate decision will be issued on that matter.

This will be interesting. Given that all of the points raised by the objectors have been dismissed, the prospect of costs being awarded to the detriment of the railway seems unlikely.

 

Wonderful news. For 10 years we lived off the lane leading up to where Salehurst Halt used to be. When the railway is completed we could have photographed it from our back garden.

 

Excellent News!

 

What great news. Lots of reading here! https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-junction-order-transport-and-works-act-order

 

Well done Mike and the team. This must be the happiest day for all those associated with the RVR project. Let's hope that bridges can slowly be built (literally too) with the Hoads and Ainslies: festering resentment is not in anyone's interest.

 

Not to mention the availability of deep pockets.

 

Huge congratulations to the RVR team.

I skimmed the inspector’s report yesterday. It struck me the difficulty of navigating the perverse legal process. It’s right that any development is scrutinised, and particularly so when compulsory purchase is needed. However, the bar seems to be ridiculous in two ways; it has cost £3m to obtain permission for a £5.5m development; the process has taken so long that the planning permission has expired and will need to be reapplied for.

It cannot be right that the process should create such absurdities.

The inspector believes there is no reason why planning should not be granted again, but once again a situation where the system cannot produce a result within the timeframe the system created.

 

If you read the RVR TWA Order Decision, it will put your mind at ease. Paragraphs 97-99 concern Planning Permission which I copy below:

Planning Permission
97. The Secretary of State notes that Planning Permission Ref. RR/2014/1608/P, for the
reinstatement of the Rother Valley Railway from Northbridge Street to Junction Road, was
granted by Rother District Council on 22 March 2017, subject to various pre-
commencement conditions and a condition requiring the development to commence within
5 years otherwise the planning permission would lapse [IR 12.14.3.2].
98. While the Secretary of State notes the consideration given by the Inspector to the
validity of the planning permission at IR 12.14.3.7 to 12.14.3.14 and his recommendation
that the Secretary of State may wish to take advice on whether or not a new planning
permission was needed, noting this is a point of law, since the close of the inquiry and prior
to the time in which the permission was due to lapse, Rother District Council amended the
planning permission to allow a phased approach. The Secretary of State notes that the
District Council confirmed by letter dated 28 March 2022 that a material commencement of
lawful development had occurred which satisfied the legal requirements in section 56(4) of
the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Secretary of State is therefore satisfied that
the planning permission associated with this scheme remains valid.


99. Overall, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that it is unlikely that there
would be any impediments to RVR exercising the powers in the Order [IR 12.14.4.1]

 

I understood that the RVR had applied for, and was granted, a s73 variation, which allowed them to start work on the section between Junction Road and Austen's Bridge, thus locking in the PP. This was a couple of years back.
Or have I missed something?
But your point is a very valid one. The current systems timelines are virtually unworkable, at least with Grampian conditions in place.

 

I agree with your comments about the lengthy & costly process however the inspector’s report is out of date on that point.

As stated in the Secretary of State’s decision letter RVR obtained both a S73 variation and a letter from the planning authority confirming they agree the development had lawfully commenced in time. Therefore PP remains valid and there’s no need to reapply.

 

The Section 73 variation was agreed in early 2022 and development started - it was only a couple of weeks before the previous PP would have expired.

 

I recommend that people read the Inspector's report in addition to the Secretary of State's pronouncement. With regard to the objectors, the inspector is often very dismissive of their claims, suggesting that there is little weight to their argument.

The case of Quarry Farm and NAW's objections are particularly curious
https://assets.publishing.service.g...e/1155227/rother-valley-inspectors-report.pdf

 

Some fairly wild things. I enjoyed that trains might have to go through floods which would be dangerous. And that the children who currently walk to the cricket club won't be able to in future because of the danger of walking over the level crossing. How the A21 crossing would stop development in Hastings. Lots of other wild examples which I am sure did not help the objectors.
But we do need to be magnanimous. It is now necessary to work with the objectives harmoniously.
Ian

 

Yes - it is a bit wierd - their presentation at the Public Inquiry was just as curious.

 

The timing of this wonderful news is rather providential as the Kent & East Sussex's steam up, featuring trains to Junction Road for the first time in years, begins two weeks on Saturday (27th). Obviously, thanks to the

of the two main backers of this project, there won't be any need to appeal for donations to complete the project, but hopefully the goodwill the announcement has generated will benefit the owning groups of locos like 4253 and 6619, which are the sort of engines likely to be used on the extended line and which need funds to overhaul or restore their locos.

I think that a conciliatory approach is the name of the game when dealing with these two families. I have a lot of sympathy with them. The concept of compulsory purchase orders, whereby some official can force you to sell up land which is legally and rightfully yours, is not something I feel comfortable with. I guess that most of us on this forum, if we were farmers, would quite enjoy a bit of railway activity on our land - after all, look at John Jolly at Mangapps. The Hoads and the Ainslies clearly feel differently and have thus fought tooth and nail against the RVR. Hopefully now the decision has been announced, an amicable agreement can be reached without resorting to a CPO, with no detriment to the operation of their farms and no legacy of ill-will.

 

Fully agree, Whilst we are very relieved, we have to remember that there are still people for whom its a crushing defeat, and we have to hold out the hand of friendship, and try to come to an agreement that enables the land to be made available but at the same time not having too great an impact on their businesses, My hope is that by working with these families, it might open new opportunities to them, to off set any loss in their businesses, and a good working relationship emerges,