Moorlands and City Railway

I think this may be the same doc you have already seen Nick? It's the Staffs Moorlands Council assessment of the petition as requested by the determining authority, Staffs County Council. I can't find anything on the latter's website as yet, so assume it's in the queue there.

Click the link and scroll down the the item entitled AGENDA ITEM 3, it downloads a Word doc.

Search Results - Staffordshire Moorlands District Council

I suggest that any inflammatory posts regarding the petition and the petitioner will not be helpful. Iain (who has no board or management roll at the CVR or MCR).

 

That's the one, yes. Thanks Iain.

 

Doesn't section 3.1 of the document kill it stone dead ?
constant trespassing on railway land ain't a lawful purpose !

Bob.

 

And trespassing on a railway is also a criminal offence.

 

There don't need to be! - provided there is a notice at the nearest open station the law is satisified. Railway Byelaws and the enabling act continue to apply. Its over.

The basic narrative is :-

18xx - The line is constructed subject to a private act of parliament which will incorporate the 1845 Railway Clauses Act. That designates the land as a railway and so long as there is a railway on the land - no matter how overgrown, the railway use cannot be regarded as abandoned legally and all the relevant railway law remains valid - including the criminal law of trespass on the railway - thus barring out "use as of right"

1998? - last active use of the line??? The line however is mothballed and slumbers on intact - together with all it legal protections, which are only lost when the track is actually removed - which has never happened.

All railway enactments as they are passed into effect are phrased where necessary to also apply to all operational railway land - so all more recent aspects of trespass etc law are just as much in force at Endon as they are at London Euston - right up to this day.

You can't expect local authority lawyers to be au fait with railway law, but I am - but the "extant active railway" point will have to be conceded - and once it is - "as of right" fails

 

OK got a reply hopefully things will be better later this month.
Unfortunatly we were a booking clerk short on the Tuesday and the number of passengers on both days exceeded our expectations, a second window was openedas soon as possible using a member of the platform staff. then we had problems with the credit card system on both days slowed the processing of pasengers.

 

I'm really quite concerned by the content of those minutes. It is not so much the green lady as the other two "witnesses" who are going to be the problem as they go back more than the 20 year qualifying period. The really depressing thing is that the fact it was a mothballed railway and is (hopefully) under active development to reopen it, and it is the prospective recipient of a substantial government grant, has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the Village Green status gets approved. I'm sure the green lady has many more legal tricks waiting to be played in this affair if the application is rejected. How about an appeal, or a nice judicial review? That should delay things nicely. It beggars belief that THREE people - green lady and the two witnesses - can potentially put the kibosh on a scheme notwithstanding the fact that it would be of huge benefit to many thousands of people in the area.

Please do read the minutes referred to in an earlier post - particularly section 7 - and you will see the reason for my gloom!

 

I have a question about the English used in the minutes, and by a couple of posters above. My understanding is that the line has never been officially closed, just no services and stated as mothballed. People have stated that the line will be re-opened. Is this correct in English, as it has never been closed? Should it not be "brought back into service" or something similar? Getting the English correct (I know this is a subject not liked on this forum!) is highly important for some things like official documents.

 

If they manage to block the railway under these terms then what hope does HS2 have?

 

When one has managed as many miles of railway as I have and stated the law, clearly and concisely - why is it that it just doesn't get through?

A railway was built subject to its enabling act

That railway is still there - sleepers, rails and ballast, so the statutory activity remains in place, albeit dormant

The land therefore has a character and usage authorised by an Act of Parliament which is still in force and which has never been abandoned.

THE END

As for HS2 - the alignment, where new, was never a railway in the first place - watch out for every delaying tactic known to man!

 

Legal process is legal process, for once I side with frank, but before the law reaches franks conclusion it has to follow due process. It would be faster and cheaper to kill the application here than start referring around the legal system with technicalities. But believe ultimately Franks conclusion will prevail.

The document recognises the need for a decision, the impact of a negative decision and the low volume of witnesses supporting the application. It also shows the lack of evidence supporting the lines cessation of use.

These two quotes particular stand out to me..

The law..

the lack of supporting railway use evidence..

However section 7.3 could stop the application...

if there was a fence ( as with all railways), the trespass applies and the application is not legal...

Anyone got photgraphs of the trackbed at the time of that railtour showing nice fencing inplace ?

 

Reading previous posts from knowledgeable people I would think that an unrepealed act of parliament overrules everything else.

Bob.

 

Once the application is in play it has to run its wasteful and expensive course - if only these people had to pay the costs of what are, in the end, frivolous and vexatious claims, then that might discipline their minds a little.

But while they can - cost free - delay and frustrate a proper legal activity, with no consequence to themselves this kind of nonsense will continue to occur.

 

Big push this week to finish the work on the Cauldon Loop. Went up and identified around 85 sleepers to be changed. The Bance kept cutting out and all the chair screws had to be removed with a t-bar and with the weather being so mild it was warm work. Talk about keeping fit, just a couple of photos here one with Sheff actually working.

 

That's not a grin, it's a grimace. 85 sleepers = 170 chairs = 510 screws removed.

 

I'm probably the only contributor to have dealt with these applications in the past - before I became time-expired! Bearing in mind that the District Council is not the Determining Authority the background report seems competently prepared. It does however seem a little hesitant in relation to facts of which there is ample evidence. Perhaps someone could send the Staffordshire County Council some U-tube cilps of the 1994 trains on the line.

If I had been preparing the report I would have been far less inhibited and would have said that, in my opinion, the determining factors were that (i) where there is a statutory offence of trespass, it is impossible for lawful use to have been established. (ii) as there is evidence that trains were using the line in 1994, a 20-year period of disuse cannot be shown; this should defeat any argument that a lapse into disuse might have lead to the statutory trespass situation becoming inoperative.

Without getting too involved, we should remember two things. Firstly, that there is considerable disquiet in Government over the operation of the Commons Act 2006 because of this type of frivolous and vexatious application. Secondly, the ancient rights to establish rights of common, rights of way and "squatters' rights" of ownership are gradually falling foul of human rights legislation because they deprive an owner of the right to enjoyment of his property. How this area of property law, where everyone feels that they are in the right, will ever be reconciled I do not know.

The application is not preventing MCR doing anything and the company can proceed as it wishes. Of course the applicant could go to the High Court and seek an injunction to prevent the company doing anything that made the claimed "lawful use" impossible to exercise, but that would lead her into a situation where she would be liable both to costs and to damages to the company for harm to its business.

As for HS2, that will be dealt with by Act of Parliament, which will "disable" any village green attempts!

 

Can't believe that you did that many in a day if simply spot resleepering! That's about one sleeper every six minutes and one screw out and replaced every minute! A long day, as well.

 

John Stewart, many thanks for your insight into the village green matter!