Rother Valley Railway

In addition to the rationale that Tom gave (why buy land if one won't be able to get planning permission), reading the documents may reveal another: The plans include three level crossings, but "None of the proposed Level Crossings can be built or operated without RVR having first secured a Transport & Works Act Order and/or Level Crossing Order from the Secretary of State for Transport – which Order application would follow the granting of planning approval for this remaining section of the Railway." So there's another reason to go ahead with the planning approval: it's apparently needed for the Order paperwork to go in.

Noel

 

I'd be surprised if a T&WO could incorporate compulsory purchase powers. Surely this requires an Act of Parliament? As I understand it, it is quite common for people/bodies to apply for planning permission on land they do not own. Leasehold land falls fairly into this description. When applying for planning permission you have to inform the owner of the freehold and he obviously has every right to object, if he so desires. Having planning permission doesn't give you a right to build, it allows you to build with the consent of the freeholder. I believe that to obtain a T&WO, you need to own the freehold or have a suitable lease in place because the T&WO will effectively safeguard the right of way of the railway.
That's my barrack room lawyer take on it, anyhow. Not sure how the original LRO will affect things. Was the whole line subject to a transfer order from BR?

 

On this topic, the planning submission says: "There will be significant removal of some road traffic from country lanes. Tourist companies and the National Trust are already planning to bring in tourists via the link to Network Rail at Robertsbridge.", so that's a non-minor benefit to the local community.

Noel

 

TWOs can and often do include compulsory purchase powers. The TWO for reconstructing the Welsh Highland included CPO powers, both for the original route and for the deviations. You can read the Order here (Part 3 is the bit about CPOs): http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/2129/introduction/made

Like the Welsh Highland I would guess a TWO for the Rother Valley Railway is unlikely to be granted without a public inquiry. At the inquiry the landowners would be able to object both to the railway and to the CPO powers if they wished. They can also object to the planning application now.

 

An interesting aspect of the K&ESR is that it always was a Light Railway. The whole point of such railways was that they were established and built "on the cheap", the initial reason for the Light Railway Acts being that following the agricultural crisis of the early 1880s, there was a need to extend access to rural areas which could not support high-cost "proper" railways.
They were known as "railways of local interest", the idea being that they would be promoted and largely financed locally, by landowners, farmers, businesses and local authorities. Landowners often sold land to the railway very cheaply, or even donated it and, such were the benefits of having rail access, plus the pressure from neighbours, there was generally no need for compulsory purchase powers. Railways established by Act of Parliament, on the other hand, generally had such powers included in the Act.
CP powers can be granted by the Secretary of State for almost any project which is deemed to be in the public or national interest, but whether this would apply to the Rother Valley is very debatable. The WHR is a different issue, since it was a Welsh matter, was considered a matter of national interest to Wales, partly financed by the Welsh Govt. and the relevant powers were an the hands of a Welsh minister.

Anyone can apply for planning permission on any land, with or without the owner's permission. However, the ownership and occupation (i.e. tenancy/lease) status of the land has to be stated in the application. It is extremely unusual for a Local Planning Authority to grant permission where the applicant lacks the approval of the owner.
So why apply? Usually such applications are made in order to kick-start, gain publicity for, or register an interest in, a scheme. The best example I came across was in about 1970, when the LPA of which I was a member received, from the Noise Abatement Society, an application to build London's third airport on the Maplin Sands on the Essex coast. The Society didn't own any of the land, which belonged to the M.O.D. and the Crown Estate, and had neither the means nor the intention to build an airport, but it successfully set off a long and very high-profile, though ultimately unsuccessful, campaign to build a coastal airport. We declined to determine the application, but that didn't matter to the Society, the application had served it's purpose.

Nearly 15 years ago, I was invited to a party on the "Wealden Pullman" and was introduced to a fellow farmer who owned much of the land between Bodiam and Robertsbridge. He was supposed to have said that the railway would only come back over his land "over his dead body" and I had the job of persuading him that having a railway over your farm is not such a bad thing and might even have some advantages. I felt that I was kicking at a (half) open door, but he did remark that he felt that the whole matter was academic, partly because of the Robertsbridge by-pass crossing issue, but also that there were other landowners who would be really bloody-minded!

 

I guess the development at Maplin Sands was scuppered as the tides were too hi de hi (getting my coat)

 

All the planning application documents are now on the RVR website and they answer a number of interesting questions which have cropped up in this thread.
There will be 3 automatic full barrier level crossings, including the one over the A21.
The Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) have already considered the level crossing proposals and have responded by providing a ‘Letter of No Objection in Principle'.
The Transport & Works Order submission will include land acquisition powers (i.e. compulsory purchase) although I am sure the RVR will not wish to use the CPO process if they can secure the land by negotiation.

 

I'm learning a lot from this thread! All very interesting stuff, and especially good with such a rational and dispassionate debate - unlike so many enthusiasts who seem to default to "It's a railway, therefore it is A Good Thing and anyone who doesn't share our vision is a ...", without any consideration any of the wider issues.

Talking of being dispassionate... I think this a slightly over-hyped aspect. Quite apart from the schoolboy contradiction in terms - is it 'significant' or 'some'? Make your minds up.

I'd say a more truthful statement would be "Some visitors will travel to Bodiam Castle and possibly Dixter by train instead of car."

I think evidence from many preserved lines in the past - especially those which have set out to provide (and, notably, all of whom have failed to sustain) a 'community railway' service, rather than a traditional 'tourist attraction preserved line' service - shows that, while some people will indeed use the train to access various tourist attractions along the line, very few (if any) locals will use the train as a regular means of getting from A to B.

In the 50+ years after many rural lines lost their passenger services because people were attracted by the convenience of the car, people have only got more used to, and more reliant on, them. I find it very hard to imagine (let's call her) Sheila Hogsnorty, who lives round the aforementioned 'country lanes' and wants to pick up a few bits in the shops in Robertsbridge, walking the 1.5 miles from her house to the station, get on the train to amble at a sedate 25mph or less to Robertsbridge, do her shopping, wait for a train, amble back and then walk the 1.5 miles with shopping bags again.

She could do it in probably 1/4 of the time (or less) using her oversized 4x4, door to door. So that's what she'll do. And who (apart from railway enthusiasts ) could blame her?

Just making the point that, while I think reduction of traffic round the fabled 'country lanes' is a selling point for reinstating the RVR, it is only so to a limited degree. Over-egging that point is probably counter productive, because I suspect nobody outside the railway will believe it will make a 'significant' difference.

 

I have come rather late to this RVR thread and apologies if I have missed pertinent bits in the preceding pages, but....

Whilst I have a pretty good idea about the K&ESR past/present/future, I am finding it difficult to get a coherent idea of the 'current day' RVR situation at Robertsbridge. I get the impression that there has been some sort of 'new' station here which has been demolished and another 'new' one is under construction elsewhere on the site. But what, where and why is all very vague.

Can anyone point me please to any sort of 'concise history' of the 'modern' RVR so that I can catch up on the background?

 

In a nutshell the present fast rate of progress was not envisaged a few years ago. In the short term the RVR was planning to offer short train rides at the Robertsbridge site. They started to build a track layout, with a short platform, to make this possible although it was never finished. Reopening the whole line was seen as a longer term goal.

Then something changed and the temporary station idea was abandoned. The RVR Trust focused all their effort on reopening the line. Since then they seem to have attracted a lot of money and professional help towards this end. So the station now being built will have the permanent track, platform and buildings needed when the whole railway is open.

 

The RVR has a useful website! http://www.rvr.org.uk/index.html

 

>>>The RVR has a useful website! http://www.rvr.org.uk/index.html..
Indeed it does, but so far I have not been able to find anything on it showing the layout plans for either the 'old' or 'new' station.

My thanks to Miff also for his concise summary

 

I thought they'd posted the planning documents at one point, but in a quick scan through the blogs, I didn't see them.

For now, this post and immediately subsequent ones show most of the plans for the new station area (including the platform and station, engine shed, carriage shed, signal box, water tower, etc, etc, etc).

Noel

PS: I did download all that material at the time (Dec 19 2012, according to the file dates), but using Google to try and find pages with selected phrases, they do not appear to be online anymore. I'm reluctant to post them, as i) I don't know why they were taken down, and ii) they aren't mine. However, if the blog entries aren't enough, and you really want to see them, drop me a quick email (jnc at mit dot edu) and I'll get them to you.

 

Thanks. For some reason I could not move on to any other posts, but never mind - I will try another route sometime.
Just to clarify one point - will there be any physical connection to NR in any form?

 

In a word - yes. And then comes the "however".

The original bay platform line that the KESR used is still in place as an engineers siding although the connection to the KESR is long gone. That connection will be reinstated in due course but the old bay will never be of such length that Tornado (for instance) with 12 on would be able to access it and then transfer to the KESR.

 

Not sure how readable these will be at this scale - two drawings showing the layout of Robertsbridge Junction Station

Mike Hart

 

Ah, depending on your browser (some things work in one, some in another, etc), one way that would probably work (worked in both Firefox and Chrome when I tried it) is to click on the 'Sidebar' button at the top, and that will give you (down the left-hand edge) a list of all posts for that year, in reverse order (i.e. last at the top). If that doesn't work, try 'Timeslide' (reversed order from the previous, more detail on each post).

Noel

 

Navigation through the blog pages is very uncertain but much can be revealed by sensible editing of the URL.

Eg http://12rvrnews.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/
http://12rvrnews.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/
etc

And http://11rvrnews.blogspot.co.uk/

Sidebar links etc work differently and sometimes erratically depending on browser.

 

There was never a KESR station at Robertsbridge, passenger services always used the main bay platform, , there were plans for a separate station, but nothing was ever built, the "new" station building is i believe based on what the original would have looked like, and simular to the Tenterden town building , The interchange with NR as far as i can work out, is, or will be only for plant and stock movements , whilst a visiting engine would be no problem, i dont see how anything more than 5 or 6 bogies in length would fit between the spur and the station buffers the only visiting mainline train would be the Hastings unit unless you wanted to carry out an involved stunting movement