Southwold Railway

Well done! (I trust your hospitalisation was planned, and not as a result of your labours ? Either way get well soon).

 

Looking good, one length of track at a time and before you know it, you will have quite a run.

 

A little update about my objection. I hope there were lots of others from members of this forum.

I received an acknowledgement from Suffolk.gov.uk, with the following text:

The County Council has a statutory duty to investigate formal applications made to amend the definitive map of Rights of Way. Legislation states that the determination criteria is entirely evidence based, either documentary (historical records), user evidence or both. No weight can be attached to merit based issues such as need, desirability, cost, effect on the environment, safety and security or the wishes of any parties etc. It is purely whether the evidence in support is sufficient or not. This application was supported by a large amount of user evidence and under the legislation the alignment can only be that to which the evidence relates.

Unless withdrawn before the end of the objection period (14 April) your letter along with all others received will be passed to the Planning Inspectorate to be determined by an Independent Inspector by way of a local public inquiry. Based on current timescales of other cases currently with the Planning Inspectorate, this is likely to take up to 2 years to take place.

I'm not quite sure what this all means, but I've done my bit, and explained to the council the likely benefit of re-opening the railway, based on my experience with another one. I think you would need some legal advice to point out exactly what ticks the right boxes for those who decide. A lot of aspects seem to have no bearing whatsoever!

 

thanks - neither, sadly - but we have a really good event team, and they excelled themselves - very nice to see, at last, an item in the income list which states - 'ticket sales! james (tho' it was probably one of the shortest passenger runs on record - even doing it twice each time - i.e. out/back/out/back still meant only about 330 yards or so. still - little acorns....)

 

thanks lynbarn - only wish it was as simple as that! we have, in a small way, very similar local objection problems as does the L & B - but we will win.... james

 

It never ceases to amaze me, the sheer number of words it takes to say absolutely nothing.
"Legislation states that the determination criteria is entirely evidence based, either documentary (historical records), user evidence or both."
I'm wishfully allowing that phrase to do some heavy lifting, here.

 

Hi James, I have just had a thought regarding the Cleminson chassis. I have a feeling that the Chasewater Railway near Birmingham, Brownhills, have one that they have used so it might be worth having a word with them.

Regards

Colin

 

some pics of the event j

 

Surely that clarified the matter very well, and may be helpful to you? It means that the Right of Way decision needs to be based on hard evidence, not public or media pressure. It's some years since I was involved with the Planning Inspectorate and, occasionally, PRoW matters, but it's for the proposers to show that people have been using the route as a right of way for however many years, without let or hindrance or something like that. You need to show they haven't.
NIMBY opinion against the railway is not in itself a factor. As people who have been there for years, you should be in a better position to give hard evidence than newcomers.

 

That particular phrase certainly had a degree of cut-through. Having said what I said, from what I have observed of the Planning Inspectorate in practice, evidence-based pragmatism does seem to be their modus operandi.

 

yes 3a bescot - indeed. the proposers have indeed shown - sworn testimony from local residents - that there has indeed been such use. sadly, we have only been there since early 2020 - we began the project at the height of covid.
after all, no-one has seriously proposed re-instatement of sr before, let alone tried to do it, so all the trackbed is heavily compromised. we certainly submitted evidence about gates, etc. (which people just walked round) - and the wishes of the owner that it not be a prow - but that was ignored.
the nimbys - via the pc - have seen an ideal opportunity - after all, who is going to try to stop them using a path that has been such for 85 years - and they have used it. the fact that it is then impossible to re-instate the railway there because of this - well, we know the reasons - but can't prove them....
in balance, the two-year plus delay in granting (complicated by the upcoming unitary authority change) is probably good (though bizarrely scc assert that even before the order is granted, it is already a prow from their pov - which of course affects planning) - but it will delay our application for a diversion, as that can't be made until the prow is granted - and may well take 5 to 7 years to process, we are told. all a big can of worms.......but the success of Easter Monday nevertheless gives us all hope
james

 

It's how lawyers make their money...

 

Thanks, yes, I see.
Proof of a PRoW for is a right for walkers to pass, not a change of use of the land from that authorised. Insistence on the sacrifice of a 3m width all along it, for example, sounds like to trying to do just that!
Anyway, James, good luck to you.