Compulsory purchase order may be made to extend RVR

[tbtc]

The two are hardly the same are they. HS2 comes with ugly, tall fences, massive earthworks, modern, ugly concrete structures and frequent high speed trains. A steam railway is the complete and utter opposite in every sense. They still have the right to oppose it of course but to try and draw comparisons with HS2 seems absurd to me.

It's an absurd comparison, agreed.

HS2 will be taking thousands of people every hour (heck, with 400m long trains, you could have a thousand passengers on each service!) whereas the "preserved" railway will be taking dozens of people each week.

IF you are going to rip up fields to build a railway (and cut down trees etc) then I'd rather than it was for the greater national good (i.e. a line between the biggest urban conurbations), so more use comes out of it.

That's precisely it.

A steam train chugging along at weekends is a lot more picturesque, and fits into the rolling English landscape a lot more sympathetically than a strip of concrete with trains whizzing by seven days a week.

Plus there's the fact that this line clearly didn't ruin the landscape for the sixty years it existed, so it's unlikely to again.

Maybe a compulsory purchase order isn't quite the right instrument, but then again, it's presumably been enacted by the democratically elected local council who obviously see the economic and cultural benefit of the line to the area, so perhaps this should outrank the wishes of the land owner.

I'm also fairly sceptical about the sacred rights of large landowners, given the preposterously feudal distribution of land ownership in this country.

Saying that a railway build in the middle of fields "didn't ruin the landscape" is a little subjective...

But, generally, your point seems to be that it's okay to chop down trees and ruin fields as long as it's only for a handful of slow trains each week - if you are chopping down trees and ruining fields for the benefit of a large number of trains running at high speeds then it suddenly becomes environmental damage?

I'd take your point about the "feudal distribution of land ownership in this country" if that was something you'd brought up in favour of every proposal for new infrastructure (and not just as an excuse to damn the farmers unhappy that their land will be dug up to restore a steam railway that might have closed before they were born.

Similarly, your objection to "concrete"... will the Robertsbridge line be built without any concrete? Are they getting some hipsters in to hand-craft everything organically?

Essentially, you can destroy the environment as long as you are only wasting it for the sake of reinstating an ancient railway - if you want to build something modern (like a route between the largest cities) then people will reach for the smelling salts

if's a flawed argument to state that the railway was there before. The public railway was there but decided to sell the land and withdraw. There's no automatic grandfather right for any railway to be there, especially a private commercial operation.

I think that some people on here view railways as sacred land, mystical paths, like ley-lines; seems the only "new" railways must follow the routes that our Victorian ancestors decreed were worthy of rails (and, similarly, anyone who dared build a house or plant a tree on these sacred sites should have known better).

 

[yorksrob]

It's an absurd comparison, agreed.

HS2 will be taking thousands of people every hour (heck, with 400m long trains, you could have a thousand passengers on each service!) whereas the "preserved" railway will be taking dozens of people each week.

IF you are going to rip up fields to build a railway (and cut down trees etc) then I'd rather than it was for the greater national good (i.e. a line between the biggest urban conurbations), so more use comes out of it.



Saying that a railway build in the middle of fields "didn't ruin the landscape" is a little subjective...

But, generally, your point seems to be that it's okay to chop down trees and ruin fields as long as it's only for a handful of slow trains each week - if you are chopping down trees and ruining fields for the benefit of a large number of trains running at high speeds then it suddenly becomes environmental damage?

I'd take your point about the "feudal distribution of land ownership in this country" if that was something you'd brought up in favour of every proposal for new infrastructure (and not just as an excuse to damn the farmers unhappy that their land will be dug up to restore a steam railway that might have closed before they were born.

Similarly, your objection to "concrete"... will the Robertsbridge line be built without any concrete? Are they getting some hipsters in to hand-craft everything organically?

Essentially, you can destroy the environment as long as you are only wasting it for the sake of reinstating an ancient railway - if you want to build something modern (like a route between the largest cities) then people will reach for the smelling salts



I think that some people on here view railways as sacred land, mystical paths, like ley-lines; seems the only "new" railways must follow the routes that our Victorian ancestors decreed were worthy of rails (and, similarly, anyone who dared build a house or plant a tree on these sacred sites should have known better).

To what extent digging up a field "ruins" the environment also depends on context. Fields in themselves are often monocultures which don't in themselves add a great deal visually or in terms of biodiversity. It is their setting within the landscape, along with their boundaries and hedgerows which bring such benefits. In this respect, even a brand new steam railway would enhance the landscape in that you create an additional boundary together with a strip of wild land either side of the permanent way.

I realise such arguments are unlikely hold much sway with the sort of neophytes who believe that railway building should be restricted to billion pound mega-projects.

As for my argument regarding land ownership, I would happily repeat it, were some landowner holding up the construction of a useful addition to the national railway network, such as Uckfield-Lewes or Bere Alston - Tavistock.

 

[Royston Vasey]

And how much extra trade are those extra visitors (optimistic or not) likely to bring into other local businesses. I would suggest quite a lot, which is why the democratically elected council has a right to have the final say.

Well the local pub seems to disagree and if the extra people all come via train all the extra revenue will go to Southeastern. There seems little there for the local tourist economy other than the railway itself.

Democratically elected or not the council doesn't have the right to abuse its power and the law. The fact wealthy anonymous benefactors are in the equation also makes it especially important to understand their links to those in power.

 

[Royston Vasey]

I realise such arguments are unlikely hold much sway with the sort of neophytes who believe that railway building should be restricted to billion pound mega-projects

Not me, at all. They should be restricted to where there's a public need or where those wanting to carry out the project achieve their aims honestly and at a fair price.

As for my argument regarding land ownership, I would happily repeat it, were some landowner holding up the construction of a useful addition to the national railway network, such as Uckfield-Lewes or Bere Alston - Tavistock.

That's the whole point though, this isn't useful for anyone but the coffers of the railway and the vanity of the benefactors.

 

[yorksrob]

Not me, at all. They should be restricted to where there's a public need or where those wanting to carry out the project achieve their aims honestly and at a fair price.


That's the whole point though, this isn't useful for anyone but the coffers of the railway and the vanity of the benefactors.

It's not useful in terms of a transport link, I agree.

What it is useful for is to bring in all those tourists who go on to spend their money in the local shops, pubs and restaurants (I grew up nearby and know how sleepy it generally is).

The area gets all of this benefit without having to build dual carriageways, shopping centres, theme parks or any other obtrusive 21'st century monstrosities. Instead it gets a nice little railway which quickly gets back to peace and quiet once the steam engine has chuffed on its way.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Here's something interesting.

The leader of the local council is married to either an employee or the owner of... The Salehurst Halt!

This from the register of interests of Cllr Nick Greenfield. I wonder how that affects the process! (I expect he'll have to recuse himself)

http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=24419&p=0 (link to pdf download from http://www.rother.gov.uk/article/862/Salehurst-and-Robertsbridge )

 

[yorksrob]

Here's something interesting.

The leader of the local council is married to either an employee or the owner of... The Salehurst Halt!

This from the register of interests of Cllr Nick Greenfield. I wonder how that affects the process! (I expect he'll have to recuse himself)

http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=24419&p=0 (link to pdf download from http://www.rother.gov.uk/article/862/Salehurst-and-Robertsbridge )

Unless the Salehurst Halt is linked to the RVR in some way (and other than proximity, I don't see any evidence to suggest that it is) its just one of probably a number of local businesses that stand to benefit from increased footfall.

I doubt it would register as a conflict of interest, but if it does, so long as Cllr Greenfield followed his Council's procedure, there shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Shenandoah]

Saying that a railway build in the middle of fields "didn't ruin the landscape" is a little subjective.
The above comment is taken from an earlier post by tbtc.
Steam trains trundling through the countryside may not to 20th/21st. century eyes be ruining the landscape, but if those, who lived in the 19th. century - particularly in the 'railway mania' period - were still here, I am sure a great many, whilst accepting the inevitable and benefit of the new railways. would state categorically that the countryside they knew had been compromised.

 

[XDM]

Yorksrob said the extension of the RVR from Bodiam to the main line at Robertsbridge is not a useful transport link.
I think he is wrong. Bodiam castle has thousands of visitors each year, all by road. A train to within 5 minutes of the castle will be very appealing. The road journey from London, specially the last lap, is on frustrating 1930 type roads.
If you examine the Daily Mail readers' comments under their article many of the posters say how useful the line will be to Bodiam.

 

[route:oxford]

I am also a little sceptical about landowners motives as a great many are happy to sell huge swathes of countryside to be swallowed up by housing estates; perhaps parting with these two strips of trackbed for a railway will not be quite so profitable as I believe a CPO will result in getting the market value for the land (the calculation of which will be an interesting exercise in itself!)

On the basis that everything has it's price I wonder how much they would accept to sell voluntarily?

Market value of the land plus all legal costs.

I suspect that you're close to the right answer. A railway through the land will slash the future housing density on it and cut the sales value considerably.

 

[Elecman]

Anyone betting on the landowners quickly putting in outline planning permission for new homes to boost the value of the affected land?

 

[yorksrob]

Yorksrob said the extension of the RVR from Bodiam to the main line at Robertsbridge is not a useful transport link.
I think he is wrong. Bodiam castle has thousands of visitors each year, all by road. A train to within 5 minutes of the castle will be very appealing. The road journey from London, specially the last lap, is on frustrating 1930 type roads.
If you examine the Daily Mail readers' comments under their article many of the posters say how useful the line will be to Bodiam.

Royston Vasey said that first.

Perhaps it could be, but in my experience preserved railways don't tend to have particularly useful operating hours.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

This isn’t the first time a recreational transport project has used compulsory purchase via a TWAO. Leicestershire County Council did it a while back (10 years maybe?) against a landowner who wouldn’t sell up for the Ashby Canal to be restored. The story I heard was that he got less than LCC were prepared to offer via negotiation, as well as being on the hook for legal fees. It did take forever, though.

 

[markindurham]

Anyone betting on the landowners quickly putting in outline planning permission for new homes to boost the value of the affected land?

As the Council are supporting the RVR, I can't see how that would go through without monkey business happening, tbh

 

[Shenandoah]

t seems assumed that only the two landowners are protesting about this. There are others apparently and just because a council supports something doesn't necessarily mean it will go ahead. Many references to the area refer to it as tranquil so I am sure there must be reservations by others who live in the area. I gather there is to be a referendum about the Neighbourhood Plan later this month. How that might affect this I cannot say, but those living nearer the area might know what it might, or might not, mean.

 

[Worf]

That's the whole point though, this isn't useful for anyone but the coffers of the railway and the vanity of the benefactors.

Err.... "This is a local railway for local people, there's nothing for you here" sorry!

 

[Royston Vasey]

Yorksrob said the extension of the RVR from Bodiam to the main line at Robertsbridge is not a useful transport link.
I think he is wrong. Bodiam castle has thousands of visitors each year, all by road. A train to within 5 minutes of the castle will be very appealing. The road journey from London, specially the last lap, is on frustrating 1930 type roads.
If you examine the Daily Mail readers' comments under their article many of the posters say how useful the line will be to Bodiam.

A frustrating 1930 type train to within 5 minutes of the castle you mean? Don’t be silly. It’s not an alternative to the car as a means of getting to anywhere

 

[davetheguard]

Actually a heritage railway train is an alternative to the car in certain circumstances. The last time I visited Bodiam Castle, and had lunch in the village pub, I came by K&ESR train. The previous visit was by main line train to Hastings and the local bus to Bodiam. I've never visited by car, and despite being able to drive, I'm never likely to.

 

[bramling]

t seems assumed that only the two landowners are protesting about this. There are others apparently and just because a council supports something doesn't necessarily mean it will go ahead. Many references to the area refer to it as tranquil so I am sure there must be reservations by others who live in the area. I gather there is to be a referendum about the Neighbourhood Plan later this month. How that might affect this I cannot say, but those living nearer the area might know what it might, or might not, mean.

A handful of trains on a comparatively small number of days per year surely isn’t enough to threaten tranquility. Personally if it were me I would rather have a railway line than housing built.

 

[Roast Veg]

Actually a heritage railway train is an alternative to the car in certain circumstances. The last time I visited Bodiam Castle, and had lunch in the village pub, I came by K&ESR train. The previous visit was by main line train to Hastings and the local bus to Bodiam. I've never visited by car, and despite being able to drive, I'm never likely to.

I have started further from my point of origin on the K&ESR just to do the full length of it, see Bodiam, and then return for a full day out and anecdotally I have heard of and seen others do the same - I'd love to see figures that show the proportion of transport modes to the site but I doubt they exist. The fact that the local council has final say on this is a good thing, I hope they have all the required evidence to make the decision that will benefit the area best.

 

[2HAP]

Salehurst Halt was a station on the original KESR. Reached from Salehurst village by footpath between church and pub. If the halt was rebuilt, then the pub could benefit from extra footfall.

As to the CPO, as I understand it, the original Act of Parliament that the railway was built under (Light Railways Act, 1896) is what gives the revivalists the option of going for the CPO. A KESR with a mainline connection will grow quickly and further benefit the local economy, as has happened at the Bluebell Railway.

 

[mushroomchow]

Rich NIMBYs trying to stop a nominal hit to their land value? Who'd have guessed!?

I find it remarkable that some of these objectors weren't even aware that a railway used to cross their land, not least because most of the trackbed is still intact.

The pub owner's objection is arguably the most baffling at a time when the industry is in decline and the economy is stagnating. They could, quite literally, be the turkeys voting for Christmas if they eventually have to shut up shop due to a lack of business. A simple halt could be a big boost on weekends and summer days.

I also suspect that the farmers do diddly-dick for biodiversity on their land and that, as is often the case with rich landowners, they're using it as a diversionary excuse for objection since there aren't any other compelling reasons why the CPO shouldn't go ahead. We got it plenty of times when I used to work in flood enforcement - a landholder would object to an improvement or alleviation scheme on the grounds of "biodiversity" even after an EIA had been carried out showing that the worst to happen would be a blackbird having to nest in the next bush over.

And, of course, that is to say nothing of the potential to take cars off the local (rural) roads visiting the KESR and Bodiam Castle, if even a fraction of visitors decide to come by train via Robertsbridge...

I don't know. Maybe I, like a lot of people here, just can't understand their reasoning because I have a bias in favour of heritage rail. Maybe their fear, in the pub owner's case at least, is of community cohesion suffering from an influx of tourists brought by the railway. But I just can't come to any other conclusion than to see such attempts at frustration of a project with obvious wider economic (and maybe environmental) benefits as being driven by anything other than selfish, narrow-minded reasons.

 

[mpthomson]

This is a lot more than a vanity project. Giving the K&ESR a mainline link is a massive boost to its capabilities and public attraction, and has been desired and planned for decades - not just the sudden whim of a few rich enthusiasts.

Not buying that at all. It's not a public transport operation. If it was going to run frequent commuter services reliably all round the year using appropriate stock then you might have the smallest grain of a point. However, it isn't, it's a charity that needs income to sustain itself. The fact it's been 'desired and planned for decades' doesn't alter the fact that it's a wholly inappropriate use for a CPO. It's the absolute description of a vanity project.

And how much extra trade are those extra visitors (optimistic or not) likely to bring into other local businesses. I would suggest quite a lot, which is why the democratically elected council has a right to have the final say.

I'd be very interested to see the business modelling that's been used for this decision. If it a) exists in any coherent form, and b) is remotely realistic.

 

[mpthomson]

Rich NIMBYs trying to stop a nominal hit to their land value? Who'd have guessed!?

I find it remarkable that some of these objectors weren't even aware that a railway used to cross their land, not least because most of the trackbed is still intact.

The pub owner's objection is arguably the most baffling at a time when the industry is in decline and the economy is stagnating. They could, quite literally, be the turkeys voting for Christmas if they eventually have to shut up shop due to a lack of business. A simple halt could be a big boost on weekends and summer days.

I also suspect that the farmers do diddly-dick for biodiversity on their land and that, as is often the case with rich landowners, they're using it as a diversionary excuse for objection since there aren't any other compelling reasons why the CPO shouldn't go ahead. We got it plenty of times when I used to work in flood enforcement - a landholder would object to an improvement or alleviation scheme on the grounds of "biodiversity" even after an EIA had been carried out showing that the worst to happen would be a blackbird having to nest in the next bush over.

And, of course, that is to say nothing of the potential to take cars off the local (rural) roads visiting the KESR and Bodiam Castle, if even a fraction of visitors decide to come by train via Robertsbridge...

I don't know. Maybe I, like a lot of people here, just can't understand their reasoning because I have a bias in favour of heritage rail. Maybe their fear, in the pub owner's case at least, is of community cohesion suffering from an influx of tourists brought by the railway. But I just can't come to any other conclusion than to see such attempts at frustration of a project with obvious wider economic (and maybe environmental) benefits as being driven by anything other than selfish, narrow-minded reasons.

I think you'll find that one of the families has been there since well before the railway ever existed.

And that your biodiversity claim is your personal view and not backed up by any evidence.

In addition the pub owners will never be, quite literally, turkeys........

The railway is a commercial tourist enterprise with charitable status (ie it has to break even to continue), but that's not a good reason to try to use a CPO. In fact it rather suggests that the Light Railways Act (1896) is now no longer fit for purpose and needs revoking or repealing if it's going to lead to this sort of silliness.

 

[mpthomson]

A handful of trains on a comparatively small number of days per year surely isn’t enough to threaten tranquility. Personally if it were me I would rather have a railway line than housing built.

Equally 'a handful of trains on a comparatively small number of days per year' isn't enough to be misusing CPOs in this manner. If it was for a line that would significantly reduce car journeys and provide commuters with correctly timed reliable access to population centres throughout the year I might be persuaded. However it doesn't meet any of those criteria at all.

 

[Adsy125]

I think you'll find that one of the families has been there since well before the railway ever existed.

And that your biodiversity claim is your personal view and not backed up by any evidence.

In addition the pub owners will never be, quite literally, turkeys........

The railway is a commercial tourist enterprise with charitable status (ie it has to break even to continue), but that's not a good reason to try to use a CPO. In fact it rather suggests that the Light Railways Act (1896) is now no longer fit for purpose and needs revoking or repealing if it's going to lead to this sort of silliness.

I don't think the light railways act still exists anyway...

AFAIK They have to apply for a TWAO (Transport and Works Act Order) which can include compulsory purchase powers if demonstrated they they are needed.

 

[Kingham West]

I have a little experience of the Oxford -Bicester TWO, the fanatical objectors , got statutory compensation only, and the scheme delivered economic benefits way in excess of what was expected . Oxford Parkway and Bicester Village have exceeded expectations by a factor of 2.
This actual evidence suggests 1) The Rail haters should do a deal now to get a bit more cash( which they seem to love) .
2) The economic benefits will exceed the promotors claims. This is important in this case as Jobs are at a premium in this part of Sussex.
This is a scheme benefiting the many , opposed by a handful of individuals, who can’t see the wider benefits.

 

[Steptoe]

I don't think the light railways act still exists anyway...

AFAIK They have to apply for a TWAO (Transport and Works Act Order) which can include compulsory purchase powers if demonstrated they they are needed.

This has already happened; presumably the landowners affected were notified as part of the procedure and hence the current protests.

RVR bosses are preparing a Transport Works Act order, which is equivalent to higher level planning permission and it's set to go before the transport secretary by April.

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/tenterden/news/rail-fast-track-to-jobs-160230/

 

[yorksrob]

Not buying that at all. It's not a public transport operation. If it was going to run frequent commuter services reliably all round the year using appropriate stock then you might have the smallest grain of a point. However, it isn't, it's a charity that needs income to sustain itself. The fact it's been 'desired and planned for decades' doesn't alter the fact that it's a wholly inappropriate use for a CPO. It's the absolute description of a vanity project.



I'd be very interested to see the business modelling that's been used for this decision. If it a) exists in any coherent form, and b) is remotely realistic.

I think it's fairly obvious that if you have a hospitality business next to a reasonably sized tourist attraction, you have more potential passing trade than one that isn't.

 

[Royston Vasey]

I have a little experience of the Oxford -Bicester TWO, the fanatical objectors , got statutory compensation only, and the scheme delivered economic benefits way in excess of what was expected . Oxford Parkway and Bicester Village have exceeded expectations by a factor of 2.
This actual evidence suggests 1) The Rail haters should do a deal now to get a bit more cash( which they seem to love) .
2) The economic benefits will exceed the promotors claims. This is important in this case as Jobs are at a premium in this part of Sussex.
This is a scheme benefiting the many , opposed by a handful of individuals, who can’t see the wider benefits.

Again though that’s a real line with a demonstrable benefit for real trains