Fencing For Sydney Gardens, Bath

The Bath Chronicle Nov 4th has referred to Network Rail's latest proposals to errect fencing at Sydney Gardens in Bath.

http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/news/Ne...s-railway/article-2834138-detail/article.html

 

I'll try and keep an eye on the BANES planning site and post any relevant links, however I have seen a comment on a local heritage site that suggests that Network Rail is committed to retaining trackside access on "Steam Special" days. I've also previously seen suggestions that there could be access to the main areas during the day with it being closed off at night when it is felt most of the trespass problems occur. I'm not aware of any public information on the web at present, but once it gets to planning it will be fully available.

 

As promised - the following was posted today on the blog of one of the ward councillors covering Sydney Gardens.

"This week Network Rail will erect a temporary fence alongside the railway line in Sydney Gardens.

They have been attempting for several years to increase the separation between the high speed trains on the Great Western line and park users. The rail regulator has powers to compel safety improvements.

Many will have attended an exhibition of proposed permentant fences a few years ago. This fence being erected this week is a temporary fence made of chestnut paling. After negotiations with BathNES Council a temporary solution was accepted so that a permenant and more acceptable solution can be found when the park is restored in the next few years."

Chestnut paling is that fencing whereby rough stakes are bound in wire at 2 inch intervals. If they put this up at any distance from the wall its going to make it hard to get close for photos. I suppose they might put it near enough to the wall to allow photos over the top. I'll keep an eye on it and see if any photos come up locally.

 

Posted by Glen Batten this morning. <BJ>

''There is now a temporary-looking wooden picket fence positioned about 18" from the low wall along the gardens, preventing access to the stone wall itself. It is possible to lean over the fence (about 5' high) but only one person could get a shot without another photographer being in the way. The iron footbridge is also fenced off now, leaving only the stone footbridge at the north end (and overhanging trees make that a pretty poor option now)''.

 

I heard from a local historian here in Bath that if the fence gets the go ahead, then the Dawlish Sea Wall could be next. But this is only on hear say, this person heard. link below for photo of Sydney Gardens fence
http://glenbatten.smugmug.com/Trains/Latest-Photographs-1/i-VNBnV4c/0/M/201207244374-300-1024-M.jpg

 

For more information and photographs regarding the Sydney Gardens fencing please follow the links. <BJ>

Latest Photographs - UPDATED 18 JULY! - Glen Batten - Railway Photography
Cllr Nicholas Coombes and Cllr David Martin | Temporary fence to protect railway in Sydney Gardens

 

What's wrong with a few iron spikes on top of the stone wall ?, low enough to see over but not possible to climb over without getting impailed, the recent platform end fences that are springing up are a reasonable compromise, at 5ft or so you can see/phot over them, but the sharp points prevent access.

 

There is a Lib-Dem council in Bath so unless gay marriage or House of Lords Reforms are involved they are not going to stop the idiots at NR ruining this!

 

What are the numpties at NR hoping to achieve? I would have thought that they'd be better occupied getting the national network sorted rather than erecting lengths of fencing all over the show.

 

I wouldn't be so sure Oakfield - we may well have a (useless) LibDem council but we also have a number of very active preservation/heritage groups who already have this issue on their agenda. There is already also a local sensitivity over closed bridges after Victoria Bridge (a James Dredge designed nearly unique wrought iron suspension bridge) was left closed for months due to neglect. A certain degree of temporary protection will be tolerated but years of scruffy fence will not - as far as I'm aware there is no recent mention of funds to restore this park.

I've already seen one complaint on Twitter that "train park is no more" and once the local rag picks it up, there will certainly be some vigorous debate about this fence - that said looking at the photos it appears to consist entirely of metal stakes and palings - frankly if the local yobs want to, they'll have that down in a night. It all seems rather pointless!

 

A glimmer of good news, the Sydney Gardens fencing issue has been taken up by the Bath Chronical newspaper and several leading railway mags. Watch this space as they say. <BJ>

 

A reply to my email from Cllr Nicholas Coombes, Bathwick, Liberal Democrat regarding the Sydney Gardens rail fence. <BJ>

www.bathwick.mycouncillor.org.uk<http://www.bathwick.mycouncillor.org.uk/>

''Network Rail have been trying for several years to build a fence along the line at Sydney Gardens, which is one of the most exposed parts of the high speed train network. They are prompted by the safety concerns of the Rail Regulator, who are able to compel action. Cllr David Martin and I do not think that the safety case has been adequately made to ourselves or the public.

After many years of neglect, the Lib Dems on BathNES Council have established a project to improve Sydney Gardens (Cabinet November 2011) and set aside money to get the project going (Capital Budget February 2012). This is just the start of the process; residents and park users will be involved, but it may take several years yet. We think that the current safety concerns, and also the risk posed by the high voltage power lines of electrification, can be overcome by a good design that reconciles the different needs. For example, secluded areas beside the track prone to inappropriate behaviour could be closed completely, while we would like a large, pleasant and safe viewing area to remain.

Previous proposals by Network Rail were for larger permanent fences which might not have suited the new project to improve the Sydney Gardens. While we have not been convinced of the need for this fence, Network Rail are entitled to put it up. The timber fence it is less intrusive and cheaper for the public purse than earlier designs and will allow us to find a more acceptable and comprehensive solution in the future''.

 

Annoying thing is as I said in my earlier post, if NR and the various other people involved could be bothered, a suitable fence for all parties concerned could be erected, one that prevents access but still allows photo's and viewings of the passing trains and fits in tastefully with it's surroundings which is a must in a place like Bath, certainly that temp rickety wooden thing or 8ft pallisading is definetly not the answer.

 

david - that is hopefully the long term plan - however its not simple. For example attaching a suitable fence to the top of the wall isn't easy because the wall is listed and shouldn't be damaged in that way. However there is clear local desire for viewing facilities to be retained and for the original atmosphere of the park to be retained, not turned into a barricaded prison camp at NR's behest. NR put up some ideas but none of them were ideal so its gone to this temporary fence whilst the long term plans are sorted out.

 

Typical LibDem response. Long on waffle short on actual proposals or positive reassurances.

 

Hear hear. This 'temporary ' chestnut paling is not acceptable. I live in a conservation area and I I erected a tatty mess such as this in my garden I would, rightly, be prosecuted. It appears NR have erected this fence on public land into the bargain.

 

Just found this on the BBC website. They have been given a grade II listing.
BBC News - Rail structures on Great Western Line get protected status

 

Come on, you know full well you can't do that. The idiots it's meant to deter would hurt themselves.

 

On the face of matters NR has erected this fence on City Council land. Therefore, either the City Council has agreed to this or there is some historical right in the arrangements between the adjacent land owners that so allows them.

The paling fence is quite hideous and seems a result of Health and Safety fears deeming that the relationship of the last 170 years is unacceptable. Electrification is some away off and cannot be used to defend this current action. A trawl through the website of one of the specialist architectural ironmongers will reveal readily-available railings of a type designed to be added to a wall. They will not be spike-topped but will emphasise the fact that the public should not cross the wall. Listed Building Consent will be required but should be forthcoming for a proposal of the appropriate quality.

An alternative would be a freestanding steel fence a metre or so away from the wall. The vertical components could be spaced (say 150mm centres) to permit photography between them. In my view LBC would not be required (although there is much room for argument and I have been involved in such debates elsewhere over many years), and, as the fence would be permitted development under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, no application for planning permission would be needed.

Clearly the footbridge cannot be used when electrification is in place and the solution to that does look somewhat harder.

 

What's the difference between what I propose and 8ft pallisading in that instance ?, you can do a nasty impailing injury on them too if your daft enough to attempt access.

If you started prosecuting for "sharp fences" the backlog of cases would stretch to about 2025.