Compulsory purchase order may be made to extend RVR

[Worf]

I don't really understand why people who obviously have no time for "heritage railways" bother to come on this part of the forum.
Like it or not, compulsory purchase powers usually come with a TWAO. The Welsh Highland Railway was rebuilt using these powers and despite initial rumblings from a few "objectors" has been a great success in sustaining and growing the local economy from an increased number of visitors to the area. It could also be argued that it has reduced car usage within the SNP.
The Settle Carlisle line and a good number of others have only survived cue to the number of tourists using them for recreational purposes. In that sense they carry very few supposedly "real" passengers who just want to travel from A to B. Not really very different to some of the heritage lines except the profits go to management and shareholders rather than a self sustaining charity ?

 

[eastdyke]

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/

The
'Bodiam to Robertsbridge Junction order: Transport and Works Act order
Application to construct, operate and maintain a new railway between Bodiam and Robertsbridge, East Sussex'
was published on the government website on 20th April.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-junction-order-transport-and-works-act-order
The documents may be viewed here:
http://www.rvr.org.uk/twao.html
I am not able to copy extracts from the html

I have scanned some of the documents and note:
1.] That the railway proposed was included in the Rother District Council District Development Plan which dates back to 2004. The overall plan was subjected to a Public Inquiry. The inspector recommended the retention of the policy of support to the railway as it would have significant benefits for tourism and sustainable travel.
My comments: we should judge this project in its context within the local District and not the Country as a whole. Within the local District it is significant.
Objectors could have had a voice back then (2004), just as they could have had (did have?) at the planning permission stage and still can have in relation to the TWAO.
2.] The TWAO order seeks powers to construct level crossings. The railway will cross 3 roads, including the A21. New level crossings are proposed at the roads and also at one footpath and at one combined footpath/bridleway.
The correspondence suggests that the ORR are more supportive of the plans for a level crossing
over the A21 than are Highways England. From the 'down time' of the A21 crossing discussed I deduce that AHB is proposed (v. 25mph trains).
I am just a little uneasy about how these proposals sit with the ORR stated level crossing policy guidance set out in RDG-2014-06:
http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf...ings-on-the-mainline-or-heritage-networks.pdf
In particular:

19. ORR’s high level policy on no new level crossings includes the term “exceptional circumstances”. This term is not defined so that any case can be considered on its merits. Exceptional in this context means “away from” ORR’s established policy of no new level crossings and – in line with the dictionary definition – would be in the territory of unusual or out of the ordinary circumstances.

Here we have a single project with all 5 proposed crossings which are classed as 'exceptional'. Seems to me that that in itself is extraordinarily exceptional.

 

[mushroomchow]

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

Which would only serve to strengthen the point that it is complete BS for anybody along the route to try to claim that "they had no idea a railway ever ran there".

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

I could say precisely the same of the landowners' claims, since no EIAs have been carried out by them to back up their nonsense. My claim is, at the very least, based on first hand experience with selfish landowners and the realities of the planning process.

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

Okay, I'll rephrase if you're going to be picky.

The pub owners would be absolute fools to turn away footfall that could secure the future of their business.

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.

You see, I actually agree with you on that aspect, but at the same time the reasons which the landowners are using as justification to frustrate the process are so spurious that I can understand why they're considering it.

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.

Again, I agree it needs updating. But the legislation exists, and so a legal precedent exists which the KESR can use if other options are exhausted. And at this rate, it looks like they may well be.

Ultimately, the decision lies with the local council as the Lead Planning Authority, and arguably they set the precedent way back in 2004 when the project was included in the local development plan. That considered, I'd fully expect them to side with the KESR were it to go to appeal.

 

[Roast Veg]

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.

There's no way this is the "absolute definition" of a vanity project when it is quite literally growing an economy in a local area. The trains are busiest on weekends and holidays, so they are run reliably then for the paying customers that drive the industry using stock that is appropriate for their service. The local population don't have to be the ones using the trains to reap the rewards of its presence.

 

[mpthomson]

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.

That would be the hospitality business (ie the pub) that's objected to the plans?

 

[mpthomson]

There's no way this is the "absolute definition" of a vanity project when it is quite literally growing an economy in a local area. The trains are busiest on weekends and holidays, so they are run reliably then for the paying customers that drive the industry using stock that is appropriate for their service. The local population don't have to be the ones using the trains to reap the rewards of its presence.

Is the railway planning to run commuter services all year round? Or does it just want to raise more revenue by increasing footfall? If the former (which I seriously doubt, no other heritage line has done that though I believe ELR has some low level usage like that to get to the Metrolink at Bury) then I'd be more sympathetic. If the latter why should one charity/businesses interests outweigh those of two others who already exist on that land?

 

[mpthomson]

I don't really understand why people who obviously have no time for "heritage railways" bother to come on this part of the forum.
Like it or not, compulsory purchase powers usually come with a TWAO. The Welsh Highland Railway was rebuilt using these powers and despite initial rumblings from a few "objectors" has been a great success in sustaining and growing the local economy from an increased number of visitors to the area. It could also be argued that it has reduced car usage within the SNP.
The Settle Carlisle line and a good number of others have only survived cue to the number of tourists using them for recreational purposes. In that sense they carry very few supposedly "real" passengers who just want to travel from A to B. Not really very different to some of the heritage lines except the profits go to management and shareholders rather than a self sustaining charity ?

The S&C sees significant freight use and has in the past acted as a diversionary route, it's not remotely the same as a heritage railway. It's also part of the national network.

I'm not against heritage railways at all, I enjoy them. However I am against a business masquerading as a charity (it's far too easy to get charitable status in the UK, don't get me started on independent schools that exist as charities, including the one I attended) and a council clearly attempting to use the CPO process inappropriately. Have RVR produced accurate business models for this?

 

[eastdyke]

I'm not against heritage railways at all, I enjoy them. However I am against a business masquerading as a charity (it's far too easy to get charitable status in the UK, don't get me started on independent schools that exist as charities, including the one I attended) and a council clearly attempting to use the CPO process inappropriately. Have RVR produced accurate business models for this?

But 'it is not the council clearly attempting to use the CPO process inappropriately'.
The TWAO will, if granted, give RVR the CPO powers that it needs to complete the project, assuming that the lands for permanent access, for construction and for construction access have been correctly identified.
RVR has produced an Estimate of Costs which is part of the suite of documents that make up the TWAO application.
I linked to the application up-thread but here it is again:
http://www.rvr.org.uk/twao.html
As it is only provided as html I cannot copy directly.
There is an estimate of cost:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w40_UY_9DCEAMdcDfuOa_Aa2XwejoJBj/view
The estimate, amounting to £5.3m includes £535,000 for Acquisition of land and rights over land.
The sum for Highway works including level crossings of £700.000 (there are 3 over roads including the A21 and 2 other 'lesser' crossings) would seem woefully light.
Nothing included for 'optimism bias' or 'contingecy'.
If sections of the estimate as well as for level crossings are also light they could be faced with a bit of a funding hole!
No obvious mention of additional running/maintenance costs or of extra income, but there could be and I might not have spotted it!
There is a funding statement:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1E-Dzh7HPgiQEEvPlY100FV-PMkLnNLkN/view
which simply says that 'The anticipated final cost of implementing the scheme.... is £5.3m, which will be funded by the Rother Valley Railway Heritage Trust.'
I hope that they have a few pennies more at their disposal!

 

[yorksrob]

That would be the hospitality business (ie the pub) that's objected to the plans?

Yes, if they're near a stop on the proposed route, I've no doubt they would enjoy increased footfall as a result

 

[aylesbury]

Agree about some of the comments on hear they are very anti and basically if you are that anti preserved railways don't come on here.The majority of people in the area are behind this project and the landowners are being bloody minded ,if they want access across the line surely a user crossing could be built then everyone will be happy.The people against the A21 crossing are in a similar vane to the farmers but they have the don't get in my way mentality which is very prevalent now.

 

[Roast Veg]

Is the railway planning to run commuter services all year round? Or does it just want to raise more revenue by increasing footfall? If the former (which I seriously doubt, no other heritage line has done that though I believe ELR has some low level usage like that to get to the Metrolink at Bury) then I'd be more sympathetic. If the latter why should one charity/businesses interests outweigh those of two others who already exist on that land?

As I said, "the trains are busiest on weekends and holidays, so they are run reliably then". There are instances of preserved railways providing a public service in addition to their tourist operation. For a semi-local one, look at the school runs on the Romney Hythe and Dymchurch Railway, though I would not expect the K&ESR/RVR to do the same - certainly not to begin with, though if you'd like to campaign for them to do so I would have no objection. I'd go so far as to support the cause!

It's the responsibility of the local council to determine which business will offer the greatest benefits to the local area in terms of employment, trade, environmental concerns, and local aesthetics. The preserved railway does not win out in all of these measurements, but I am of the view that the railway is ultimately beneficial to both Kent and Sussex.

 

[mpthomson]

Yes, if they're near a stop on the proposed route, I've no doubt they would enjoy increased footfall as a result

The pub has already objected to the plans, ie they don't want the railway extension despite the fact that there will be a station very close to the pub.

 

[eastdyke]

Anybody may object, they have until 31st May to do so. It will be interesting to see who actually does. My money is on that the majority of the objections will relate to the crossing on the A21.
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3006825

Any objections to, or other representations about, the proposals in the application should be sent to the Secretary of State for Transport c/o Transport and Works Act Orders Unit, General Counsel's Office, Department for Transport, Zone 1/18, Great Minster House, 33 Horseferry Road, London SW1P 4DR, email: [email protected]
An objection or representation MUST (i) be received by the Secretary of State on or before 31 May 2018, (ii) be made in writing (whether sent by post or email), (iii) state the grounds of the objection or other representation, (iv) indicate who is making the objection or representation, and (v) give an address to which correspondence relating to the objection or representation may be sent. (If you are sending your objection or other representation by e-mail, please provide a postal address and state "Rother Valley Railway (Bodiam to Robertsbridge Junction) Order" in the subject of the email.)

 

[yorksrob]

The pub has already objected to the plans, ie they don't want the railway extension despite the fact that there will be a station very close to the pub.

That doesn't mean to say that it and other businesses won't experience greater footfall. We don't know why they are objecting. The proprietor may have fallen out of a train door as a child and had an immortal fear of them ever since.

 

[yorksrob]

Anybody may object, they have until 31st May to do so. It will be interesting to see who actually does. My money is on that the majority of the objections will relate to the crossing on the A21.
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3006825

Yes, whining motorists sounds about right.

 

[eastdyke]

That doesn't mean to say that it and other businesses won't experience greater footfall. We don't know why they are objecting. The proprietor may have fallen out of a train door as a child and had an immortal fear of them ever since.

It seems to be more about a form of latter day feudalism - barons and serfs. From the quote of the Daily Mail article in the OP, the second public comment includes (my bold/underline):

Very few locals are against this only the rich land owners, they are not farmers! As for the pub, interestingly they need a certain land owner on their side as he owns a strip of land adjacent to the pub which they use. How could a pub, who could only benefit from tourist be resistant? ...

 

[yorksrob]

It seems to be more about a form of latter day feudalism - barons and serfs. From the quote of the Daily Mail article in the OP, the second public comment includes (my bold/underline):

Ah, that's interesting !

 

[Sleeper]

Very few locals are against this only the rich land owners, they are not farmers! As for the pub, interestingly they need a certain land owner on their side as he owns a strip of land adjacent to the pub which they use. How could a pub, who could only benefit from tourist be resistant? ...

Perhaps this strip of land is leased by the pub operator from the landowner? It is far from unknown for a property lease to include a provision that the leaseholder must, when called upon to do so, support the lessor’s position in any planning application or planning objection (or any similar matter).

That could explain why the pub operator has joined in with the objection, notwithstanding that on the face of it the pub might well get additional business if the railway extension went ahead.

Even under an entirely informal licence agreement, if the strip of land is important to the operation of the pub, then the pub operator is going to be compromised by taking an opposite position to the landowner.

 

[Kingham West]

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

This is a real line (Statutoty Undertaker) , with real trains , delivering economic growth, sustainability , and reducing peak weekend congestion , and carbon use.
Ah , just what the Oxford -Bicester Order delivered , and the rich North Oxford NIMBYS , came up with identical arguments against the scheme , and the vexacious Judicial Review attempt was over sedge grasses .
The objectors can not see the bigger picture, and the benefits to Society as a whole , thats why Parliament has allowed. CPO,s for 200 years .
This is a valid application , and ticks the boxes , rather well.

 

[Royston Vasey]

This is a real line (Statutoty Undertaker) , with real trains , delivering economic growth, sustainability , and reducing peak weekend congestion , and carbon use.
Ah , just what the Oxford -Bicester Order delivered , and the rich North Oxford NIMBYS , came up with identical arguments against the scheme , and the vexacious Judicial Review attempt was over sedge grasses .
The objectors can not see the bigger picture, and the benefits to Society as a whole , thats why Parliament has allowed. CPO,s for 200 years .
This is a valid application , and ticks the boxes , rather well.

Two totally different projects, as I suspect you well know. "Real" is obviously a subjective judgement here, and my opinion differs from yours on that. Oxford Bicester absolutely. A mainline railway extension with a professionally worked business case. I would absolutely support the use of CPO there.

But claiming that a huge supposed increase in visitors to a slightly extended steam railway involving multiple level crossings will also somehow reduce weekend congestion and carbon use, is a bit of a stretch. Sustainability is also a word used far too liberally these days for pushing through tenuous business cases.

 

[Kingham West]

Two totally different projects, as I suspect you well know. "Real" is obviously a subjective judgement here, and my opinion differs from yours on that. Oxford Bicester absolutely. A mainline railway extension with a professionally worked business case. I would absolutely support the use of CPO there.

But claiming that a huge supposed increase in visitors to a slightly extended steam railway involving multiple level crossings will also somehow reduce weekend congestion and carbon use, is a bit of a stretch. Sustainability is also a word used far too liberally these days for pushing through tenuous business cases.

In the eyes of the legislation , they do not differ, the legislation seeks to create a statutory undertaker , as it has done since the canal acts .
You would need new legislation to differentiate between Statuory undertakers. Heritage Railways have proven they are good Statutory Undertakers, in fact exellent At maintains their asserts and meeting obligations .

 

[tbtc]

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

Railways were just this Victorian invention, where they built tracks to try to make some money conveying freight and passengers.

Those alignments aren't sacred ley-lines - there's no automatic right to reinstate any closed line - if someone wanted to build a railway over my property then I'd have the right to be annoyed (whether there had been one on the land fifty years ago or this was a brand new line like HS2).

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

I think it's fairly obvious that if you have a nice quiet country pub next to a railway line that has noisy steam trains polluting the environment, you may find some families less likely to enjoy the relaxing atmosphere of your beer garden.

(fairly obvious to non-steam-buffs, at least)

I don't really understand why people who obviously have no time for "heritage railways" bother to come on this part of the forum

Agree about some of the comments on hear they are very anti and basically if you are that anti preserved railways don't come on here

re the above two comments, I think that we'd have a pretty boring Forum if only people in favour of a scheme were allowed to comment upon it.

I appreciate that this is what some people would prefer (since they don't like inconvenient comparisons to be made), but I don't see why a railway forum can only have happy-clappy positivity about any scheme - some railway proposals are good, some are poor, why can't we assess this one in the way that we'd assess other ones?

 

[Royston Vasey]

In the eyes of the legislation , they do not differ, the legislation seeks to create a statutory undertaker , as it has done since the canal acts .
You would need new legislation to differentiate between Statuory undertakers. Heritage Railways have proven they are good Statutory Undertakers, in fact exellent At maintains their asserts and meeting obligations .

That may or may not be the case from a technical legal point of view but does not create a compelling public interest. It's a tiny part of the argument and you know it. This is a small extension of a hobbyist railway and a commercial entity across somebody else's land, there's no public interest. No sustainability, carbon, congestion or other true public benefit you're trying to claim. So in the eyes of the legislation, of course they differ - compelling case in the public interest. It's the reason for the law in the first place.

 

[yorksrob]

I think it's fairly obvious that if you have a nice quiet country pub next to a railway line that has noisy steam trains polluting the environment, you may find some families less likely to enjoy the relaxing atmosphere of your beer garden.

(fairly obvious to non-steam-buffs, at least)
?

Oh please, this isn't Liverpool Street circa 1910. This is clearly a tourist attraction that will be good for the local economy. Fair play to the local authority for working to overcome vested interests.

 

[Muzer]

I love heritage railways (though I'm more of a diesel person than a steam one!), and in any case it'd be great to see the RVR extended. But I would be lying if I said that the use of a compulsory purchase order for this doesn't make me very uncomfortable.

 

[Royston Vasey]

I love heritage railways (though I'm more of a diesel person than a steam one!), and in any case it'd be great to see the RVR extended. But I would be lying if I said that the use of a compulsory purchase order for this doesn't make me very uncomfortable.

Absolutely, I am fully supportive of the preservation movement, love heritage railways but at the same time believe in a man’s property being his own and it’s their absolute right not to sell it for somebody else’s private gain and minimal public benefit. I’m also fully supportive of them achieving their objectives by making a fair financial offer that the landowner cannot refuse. Until then, it’s their land to do what they wish with. Former railways aren’t, as said, sacred land.

 

[Kingham West]

There are no winners in compulsory purchase, but parliament removed the 10% uplift after WW1, and the 2 landowners won’t do a deal.
They are not entitled to costs at the enquiry, they should do a generous deal now, I can not understand the refusal.
Land is held Fee Simple , all land is on tenure from the Crown, to be pedantic.
They are only entitled to , land value, severance , injurious affection , and a bit of disturbance , and fees , not much really in this case.

 

[eastdyke]

There are no winners in compulsory purchase, but parliament removed the 10% uplift after WW1, and the 2 landowners won’t do a deal.
They are not entitled to costs at the enquiry, they should do a generous deal now, I can not understand the refusal.
Land is held Fee Simple , all land is on tenure from the Crown, to be pedantic.
They are only entitled to , land value, severance , injurious affection , and a bit of disturbance , and fees , not much really in this case.

I guess that they will continue to cry wolf for this one final time and settle if/when it becomes apparent that the project will proceed. Going to the National Press may have been an attempt to garner more support for their view. Whether, or not, this proposal should be allowed CP powers is moot. If the TWAO is approved then CP powers will be a part of that order.
If I was going to object then the areas that I would be looking at are:
1. Level Crossings. The letter of 'support' from ORR dates from 2011 and begs some questions. Discussion of the level crossings in the RVR proposals focuses on possible traffic disruption, I haven't spotted any safety risk assessments. Apart from the 3 road crossings, it could be that the footpath and the footpath/bridleway crossings turn out to be potentially very dangerous indeed without some serious mitigation.
2. Adequacy of the Estimate of Costs. They seem light in certain areas, there is no contingency.
3. Available funds to complete the project. Simplistically the Heritage Trust says that they will pay the Estimated Costs. The Heritage Trust should be required to actually demonstrate that funds are in place to complete the project.

 

[mushroomchow]

Railways were just this Victorian invention, where they built tracks to try to make some money conveying freight and passengers.

Those alignments aren't sacred ley-lines - there's no automatic right to reinstate any closed line - if someone wanted to build a railway over my property then I'd have the right to be annoyed (whether there had been one on the land fifty years ago or this was a brand new line like HS2).

As I explained to mpthompson before he went suspiciously quiet, I don't necessarily have an issue with the landowners feeling aggrieved at the proposals - just the spurious claims they're using to frustrate the process. That some of them have claimed to have been unaware that a railway ever crossed the land despite their family having owned it since before the K&ESR was even a twinkle in Colonel Stephens' eye kind of undermines their wider arguments, hence my personal scepticism.

I appreciate that this is what some people would prefer (since they don't like inconvenient comparisons to be made), but I don't see why a railway forum can only have happy-clappy positivity about any scheme - some railway proposals are good, some are poor, why can't we assess this one in the way that we'd assess other ones?

That's what I'm trying to do, but so far the only argument against it that I see as having any weight is the need for a level crossing on the A21, for which other options have been discussed in this very thread and proven feasible elsewhere (e.g. at the ELR). Aside from that, it's just landowners throwing unfounded claims about biodiversity and land access around based on pig ignorance and without any basis such as an EIA to support them.

 

[farleigh]

What are the pigs ignorant of?