Rother Valley Railway

Of course the farmer is going to paint a very bad picture, but look at that he says, it's on a flood plain, do you sow a flood plain?, and its a thin strip and there will be occupational crossings to allow access, from google earth the trackbed looks very much in the same condition as the track removers left it, apart from one small bit where the embankment has been removed i'm assuming the embankment was removed by said farmer then, increasing the risk of flooding, if anything, re instating the embankment would channel the flood water into soak aways, as to the woman, most of the services are out of peak and week end when traffic should be less and the most likily hold ups are going to be cars driving to robertsbridge to access the train, so one option is to get people to make use of their local train station , so what she is concerned about is a red herring, whats her answer? build a duel carrageway to link hastings and bexhill directly with the A21/ M25 ? mid week there would be 4 return trips daily so thats a possible 8 times the crossing would be in use, week ends possibly 5 and the odd evening pulman dining train, now thats one avenue no ones looked at, how many people may want to not drive if the know they can catch the train at robertsbridge for a night being wined and dined, it will mean prehaps looking at changing how things operate but some Robertsbridge businesses could use it as a PR tool to impress possible partners or customers, and local farmers could also look at ways of tapping into any increase in passsing trade farmers stores on the stations etc, selling local produce tours etc, won't it be ironic if the very same farmer who was so against found a new market for his produce on the back of the very thing he was against? visit a working farm, especially if he has some historic artifacts, as long as it adds to his business thriving .

 

The report was updated on 9/2/17 and the item removed from the agenda - so it is deferred until March (possibly)

Patrick

 

The sensible way for the railway to proceed (and I am sure that they will be doing this) is to offer landowners the current market value, plus accommodation works, plus a hefty premium. This can be afforded by discounting the potential cost of fighting the CPO element of a TWA Order. Once they have planning permission they can build (but not operate) those parts of the railway that are on land they control. This will be of great benefit to the credibility of any TWA Public Inquiry as it will demonstrate the certainty of the entire scheme being realised. The main area of sympathy for the existing land owner lies in the fact that his (strictly a previous owner's) land was originally purchased compulsorily presumably by means of a LRO under the 1896 Act, that the land occupied by the railway was then purchased by him "voluntarily" after closure and that this would therefore be the second time that it was to be compulsorily acquired. The blunt fact is that for a normal business person money is the answer. However, some farmers have a reputation for an "over my dead body" approach that contradicts economic prudence. The only answer then is either to pursue a well-prepared TWA order application or wait for nature to take its course.

 

As a matter of interest, does 'building' the railway allow the RVR to operate works trains or would that constitute 'operation'? Just curious!

Keith

 

Update

http://www.ryeandbattleobserver.co....e-railway-scheme-decision-postponed-1-7813095

David R

 

ROGS does not apply to works of construction.

 

I think it's unrealistic to expect people to arrive by train, once you are in your car you complete the journey in it, a family on a day out are not going to unload the kids picnic basket etc and load them on a train. If they arrive at Robertsbridge they may well make use of local facilities before or after their journey so they should be encouraged. The local farmers cashing in depends on what they grow, an arable farmer can hardly sell his wheat and barley in a farm shop and a dairy farmer can't sell his milk.
It is true that objectors tend to take their objections to extremes, when the Welsh Highland enquiry was on the hotelier in Beddgelert objected on the basis that the railway would make his hotel to busy! A local farmer built a huge earth wall in front of his house so he couldn't see the railway. I think this sort of thing is counter productive as the planning authority could well take the view that if that's all they've got there are no serious objections.
Point of order, as a railway enthusiast you should know in the UK we don't have 'train stations' they are railway stations

 

Thanks for the info


Keith

 

The experience of Bluebell and SVR is that significant number of passengers arrive by rail. The SVR has arrangements with LM for through ticketing from LM stationd to SVR

 

I'd arrive by train. It's easier to get to Robertsbridge by train than by car from where I live.

Well said. The term "train station" annoys me!

 

If the works trains are for the purpose of building the railway I would not see a problem , but remember that I'm a planner, not a TWA expert!

 

It depends on how much parking there will be at Robertsbridge station, weekends i dare say it shouldnt be as big a problem as it would be on a week day, then there are other stations nearby that will have spare places, its a case of informing visitors where else they can park without blocking the town up the timetable will have to include alternative parking and train times if using connecting services to make people realise there are other places you can park depending on what it costs to park up at say frant, and catch the train , but thats going to be a few years away yet, theres an inquiry to be won, an public enquiry if the Government decide it needs it, then theres the job of building it so i wouldnt expect to see the first train from Tenterden to Robertsbridge much before 2020

 

works trains normally are done by KESR permanent way leading with help from RVR volunteers but the experts tend to be the KESR staff.

 

Given that your avatar reveals you as evidently something of a 'lycra warrior', I suspect that you would always think that everyone would do what you do and arrive by cycle The sheer number of vehicles I see throughout the summer with cycle racks on the roof or back leads me to suspect that a lot of people do indeed head for cycleways in motorised transport... and that many who use such facilities are 'weekenders', to whom two-wheeled human-power is nothing like their primary means of transport.

There is always the problem in every traffic jam that every driver starts moving slightly later than the one in front. This will never be solved until we have driverless vehicles (and probably not motorbikes!) which can all start at exactly the same time when a queue of traffic begins to move.

I'm sure there is a mathematical equation regarding length of vehicle, the gap between each one and rate of acceleration that can give a precise time that the guy 20 motorcycles back will cross the crossing once the barriers have opened. However, simple physics says it has to be be rather later than if all 20 started moving at exactly the same time as the barriers opened.

Thus it's a bit of a red herring to imply that the fact that the crossing will be 'only be closed for 51 seconds' means it's the length of time that traffic on the road will be delayed. Because that time only relates to the first vehicle in the queue.

Thoretically land that is not actively used for agriculture can be more expensive than land that is, because the owner could claim that it is 'amenity' land, which has a higher value than agricultural land. It probably depends on how smart and persuasive his solicitor is going to be. If he's bright, he'll make it look like a garden as soon as he can...!

 

I was not actually the case officer and the "head against wall" smiley was on behalf of a colleague (a rower!) who was just amazed at the grounds of objection that some could dream up.

My point was rather in relation to the incredibility of 200 motor cycles arriving within five minutes.

If it were "converted" to a garden that would be a material change of use requiring planning permission so if carried out without such permission it would be unauthorised development and liable to enforcement action, so it wouldn't do his valuation argument any good at all.

 

'Thoretically land that is not actively used for agriculture can be more expensive than land that is, because the owner could claim that it is 'amenity' land, which has a higher value than agricultural land. It probably depends on how smart and persuasive his solicitor is going to be. If he's bright, he'll make it look like a garden as soon as he can...!'

I would assume that as he says he grows crops on the land, then he is termed an 'active farmer' and thus will claim SFP (Single Farm Payment) and potentially environmental schemes such as ELS (Entry level scheme) or HLS (Higher level scheme) though these two are now being replaced with another form of environmental scheme . These are claimed on an £per hectare basis. This as far as I am aware can't be claimed on non farming land (ie land not used for crops, livestock grazing or environmental schemes) He will and probably does get the occasional RPA Inspector (Rural Payments Agency) out who will measure fields, and the like so that he can't over claim or claim on land that isn't being farmed. I therefore doubt he could claim it is anything other than farm land!

Value of land will also depend on factors such including drainage, size, has it road frontage, what covenants are placed on it for use, does it have a lawful change of use certificate (ie use for camping, or model airplanes), does it have running water, whether it has 'permanent pasture' or arable status, would you get permission to install stables, the list can go on and on!. As the line of the old railway runs through fields, the value only really lies if you own the adjoining land, and I think not many of the adjoining fields have access from the roads.. Grade three land like that is probably worth a maximum of £7500 to £8000 an acre as farm land (unless you get two farmers bidding against each other for it!) but as you rightly say as non farm land in the right conditions you could almost name you price!

 

Fair dos, but my point was I don't think it's that 'amazing' or indeed 'dreamed up'. From the amount of cycle carriers I see on vehicles, I think it's actually a reasonable point!

I lived 3/4 of my life so far in the south-east and you do get convoys of 'Sunday Stupids' fair weather bikers (seeming to mostly comprise middle-aged men with too much disposable income trying to relive their youth!) infesting the roads to the coast on warm weekends. It may be an exaggeration, but you do get high numbers of them.

I was quoting from my experience of land purchase here in Scotlandshire, where the estate that surrounds my property was being sold off and my neighbours and I tried to buy a parcel of former agricultural land which had been left to become scrub/waste ground. The landowner claimed that, as it wasn't being actively used for agriculture, it was amenity land and put a correspondingly higher price on it. The council agreed that it should be classified as amenity land.

Of course, landowners in Englandshire may not wield the power/influence that the estates do up here. It's not the first time that I've had first hand experience of an estate's influence swaying a council planning department into a decision which defied all the rules, yet they got away with it...

 

That depends on exactly what is going on locally. Last August bank-holiday I helped in marshalling the IOW Scooter Rally ride out, and we estimated that in the region of 3,500 scooters were managed through our patch in just over 80 mins. Never underestimate the keenness of the motorised hairdryer two-wheeler rides out.

 

Perhaps I should have made it clearer that the path was from a short distance out of the city into the city centre. An obvious commuter facility. We do have cycle routes generating parking demand in Derbyshire such as the Tissington Trail and High Peak Trail and our amazement was that people seemed unable to distinguish the usage patterns of these from a wholly urban situation.

 

Around 30 years ago I was involved in the design of the level crossing on Station Road at Darley Dale, which has two manually controlled 26ft steel gates interlocked with semaphore signals. It proved possible for one man to close the gates, pull the signal, send out the train and open the gates again within 2 minutes. I expect an automatic barrier crossing would be significantly faster. The key to speed in that case was probably to mount the gates on roller bearings.