Bala lake Railway.

I was aware.

I wasn't, that's why I asked.

So you bought some rail and you connected the L&B to the Thorpe carriages. I'm not giving you much credit for buying into the LYN or LYD projects as many other people did that too.
This still doesn't tell us what makes you such an expert in charity rules, management structures and operations, financial management etc etc that you frequently comment on with purported authority and experience.

I haven't been proclaiming my knowledge and authority in these matters so my experience is not relevant. Suffice to say I have been involved with several heritage projects (railway and other) in the past, and I'm currently heavily involved with another railway project.

 

It is because I have been involved with this side of things with a couple of other charities outside of railways, as well some of the finance work was done while working for a local college and helping to kept the books for the department that I was working for.

What I will say is there is always someone, somewhere that knows far more about anything than you do. So that is why I don't call my self an expert, what I have seen works for me if it works for others so be it, I admit I can and do get things wrong but when it is down to me I hold my hand up, as you only know to well.

 

I'll gladly help crowd fund one of these if it'll sort the river out:

https://shirleyaquatics.co.uk/product/air-operated-lifting-diver/

 

I've just read that Costa Coffee have had planning permission refused for a site in Mold for the same excuse as given to the Bala Lake Railway.
I know that if I go to Bala for a day out I would use a public toilet, but if the railway was built with toilets I would use them instead. This would therefore have no effect on phosphate levels. I would imagine that most of the railway's customers will be tourists or day visitors to the town, who subsequently choose to go for a train ride, which if correct makes the planning refusal a joke.

Bob.

 

If I've understood it correctly the idea is not to encourage/approve plans that would bring more visitors to the area until the water situation is resolved.

 

The "logical" next step is for Visit Wales to discourage visitors to Bala, Mold etc as their phosphates are not welcome. That'll help depress those local economies. It's time that someone with real authority gave the water authority a metaphorical good kicking.

 

"Someone with real authority"?!?!?

What's happening is everyone is doing their job properly.

The environmental authority is doing their job, which is protecting water quality. That's what they should be doing. It's why they exist.
If no one was doing it, then Bala Lake and the Dee Valley could eventually become polluted, unsightly and malodorous.

The planning authority is doing their job, which is balancing all the recommendations they receive and coming to an overall decision on the basis of the planning guidance.

What's happened is the railway is arguing the extension will bring extra visitors and hence revenue to the area, and if it does, there will be an environmental impact (traffic as well as water pollution). The environmental authority seems to think the water bodies can't take any extra visitors. On its own they may be right.

You might argue with the relative balance put on different factors, or with who needs to tackle the environmental pollution (including agricultural), or with how many extra visitors will actually come to the area, relatively, but the process is being applied properly, and it's completely unfair to attack the regulators for doing their job.

Unfortunately tackling the water quality issue is a complex problem which will take a lot of time and money to fix.

I hope the extension gets built, and soon. But this is not a simple issue.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

The extension is contrary to the Eryri Local Development Plan and this is the major hurdle as the National Park Authority holds the power, the Dwr Cymru objection adds but is not in itself decisive.

 

Is it contrary to the plan because at present there is no answer to the problem of controlling phosphate discharge?

 

No, the proposed extension development fails to meet numerous criteria within the comprehensive plan, it is rather puzzling that engagement with the authority and its plan which covers 2016/2031 resulted in the presumptive fairly considerable investment when there would appear to be so many negatives. The phosphate issue a simply an add on.

 

All of which is fair. But what I notice in all that is the absence of a clear policy statement from the Welsh Assembly Government on how these issues should be balanced.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I trust the water authority have done their homework and can produce real evidence of their concerns which will stand up to scrutiny. FRCo did homework on the WHR street crossing at Porthmadog and the road authority objected without any evidence and so it went through.
There has been a lot more pollution in Bala when there has been an Eisteddfod. I haven't heard that they have been banned in future!!

 

There hasn't been a Welsh Assembly for three years now...

 

The "water authority" do not grant permission.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales...x41oBGBOoI_DrLtv9o1xTsXSSEW9q57X55dKULeOtgnxQ

 

An unfortunate conclusion but was well signposted.

 

As the officers agreed with the principle of the extension the door is presumably open to return with a plan that meets the requirements of the local plan. Perhaps once the phosphate issue is addressed

 

As the extension is only 3/4 mile according to the news article is this really going to increase passengers numbers massively to the town

 

The refusal notice is now on the SNPA planning website.
There are seven points for refusal, five of which state "insufficient information has been submitted". Given the very comprehensive and professional application, it seems that the planning officer was scratching around for other reasons to reinforce the decision. The seventh refers to access to water mains and sewerage by Dwr Cymru being required "at all times" where the trackbed crosses them!
I don't doubt that the "phosphate problem" is real, but the notice reads to me like a deliberate attempt to find reasons to turn the proposal down.
Let us hope that a different planning officer is allocated when the BLR resubmit.

 

On the other hand, item 1 looks pretty substantial in its own right.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk