Rother Valley Railway

For exactly the same reason as you would 'hold out' against someone trying to build a road across your garden. The way they see it, it's their land which they own perfectly legally, so whether or not it had a railway across it before is completely irrelevant. Why should they be forced to sacrifice part of their land for something they don't want, whether they 'utilise' that land or not?

You are looking at it from the point of the railway enthusiast, not from the point of view of someone who doesn't want something (re)instated across their land against their will. Look at it from the opposite end of the telescope and it's not 'odd' at all, it's entirely understandable. Just because a railway/airfield/building/road/pigsty/hammock once existed in a certain place, it doesn't automatically give it a divine right to be retained or recreated on that location in perpetuity. In that regard I fully agree with PH, although I disagree with the way he expresses his views (and cries foul every 30 seconds).

I have a lot of sympathy for the landowners in this, because it would certainly annoy me if there was talk of CPOs, etc, on any land I owned. However the campaign of OTT hyperbole and 'we're all doomed' that they now appear to have resorted to does them no favours and I strongly suspect that The Powers That Be will come down on the side of the perceived wider economic benefits, however real or imagined they are.

Both sides in this are overstating their case somewhat, making it rather difficult to see the wheat for the chaff.

 

By the way, regarding my previous post, just to clarify that I am not 'anti-rail'. A few years ago I was on the wrong end of what I considered to be a travesty of a planning decision, regarding the establishment of a local rifle range. Despite impassioned objections and facts to back them up, we were simply ignored. Then, to no surprise whatsoever, as soon as planning permission was granted, the protagonists decided not to implement many of the measures for noise mitigation that they were supposed to implement. So I complained, the council did nothing (repeat a few times), before I ran out of fight and gave up. Which was, of course, precisely what both the protagonists and the council wanted me to do.

So - several times a week, summer and winter - I and my neighbours now have to put up with the noise of a bunch of selfish individuals enjoying their hobby, at the expense of our enjoyment of our quieter lives and, frequently, to the distress of our animals. So yes, I do see the point of view of the landowners. And, in my situation, it wasn't even on my land.

The RVR may not be a bunch of Hooray Henries blasting away with rifles, and there may or may not be genuine wider economic benefits, but I can perfectly see how it wouldn't make it any easier a pill to swallow.

 

A CPO is a weapon of last resort, and one that has to be used only when there is no other option because all avenues of communication have been exhausted, if it were a motorway or duel carriageway that was going to obliterate the farmers land and home i would guess i would have sympathy for him, but its not, its a small strip of land that looking at Ariel footage is not actually used for agricultural purpose , so you have to wonder about the motives of the land owner, one who previously i believed was quite friendly until the RVR became more active, for a long time it was nothing but a small group of people who had fallen out with the KESR, and had no plan , or funds to extend anywhere, then in came the new people, who had the skills and conections, were pro KESR, and suddenly became a real concern to the people who had legally bought parcels of railway land, which, incidently there are questions now over the BR property boards selling of , the line was its been claimed never legally closed, that the order to close it was worded incorrectly .

 

I don't particularly care what an individual does or doesn't do with land* that they have purchased in good faith**, or whether I would agree with their reasoning. It is their land, and they are entitled to feel hard done by if someone else wishes to deprive them of it by force. That applies even if they are themselves trying to use the same powers for a project of their own.

The point of a CPO is that it is the way a deadlock can be broken; if required, it is for both sides to argue their case under planning law and that will decide what is or isn't possible. It may be that the opposition is a form of negotiating tactic, it may be absolutely sincere; the process will dictate how it is eventually resolved.

* - This is without disrespect to @DisusedBranch's absolutely reasonable feelings about the abuse of planning law in the case quoted, where the activity is obviously extremely disruptive.

** - This long after the KESR was closed, I see no merit in arguments over whether the form of closure was strictly correct. If I'd purchased the land from BR when they disposed of it, I would feel cheated if the attempt was made to argue that a technicality voided the purchase.

 

You make good points, and I agree with much of what you say, but I would just ask what the point would be of the RVR making an application for a TAWO without the ultimate threat of a CPO in the background? Surely that would just mean any landowner who was opposed to the line could just "hold out" indefinitely? Given that reinstatement of the RVR has long been in the local Transport Plan and that planning permission was granted unaminously by the local council, would that be fair or democratic?

*edit* 35B has just made the point re. the threat of a CPO better than I did.

 

I agree. The railway was dismantled nearly fifty years ago and could not be reinstated without a TWAO. Additionally in 1971 the K&ESR officially abandoned plans to reopen this part of the line, and made no further attempt to purchase the land until the 1990s, when the idea was revived. There is no doubt the present owners purchased their land in good faith and if all they want to do with it is enjoy the butterflies that’s entirely legitimate. Unless the RVR prove, as I hope they will, that building a new railway is a great enough public interest. That’s what the TWA process is for, just as the Light Railways Act was for the original RVR.

 

Me too. This comment...

... struck me as very much what PH might describe as 'gricers clutching at straws to legitimise their own agenda'. In that respect, I regard it as no less exaggerated a claim than objectors claiming that 'thousands' of motorcycles use the A21 to get to Hastings every weekend and would be held up by a level crossing until eternity or the sky fell in*

* Whichever is the later.

 

Except I think you misread my own post on the matter. I am more interested in the economic benefits and case of such a reinstatement, which seem somewhat obvious to me. There were other posters up-thread who have pointed out that Robertsbridge looks "tired" and needs new life breathing into it, it would also benefit the wider local economy by further reducing the need for more road traffic to major tourist attractions the line happens to serve by giving the KESR a mainline-linked terminus.

We're not talking HS2 levels of potential future traffic here, even during their "Red" timetable the KESR has just 5 trains a day, so hardly the most disruptive of railways. I also state that had the land been re purposed I could see the merit of the landowners argument. But, as it seems one of them is themselves busy developing land they own further away from their own home... one's sympathies become dampened rather quickly, especially their intransigence.

My main argument is always whether the land is being utilised well and if it would bring better benefit (you'd think a farmer would like a few less cars on the lanes near their farm, but hey ho). But then I don't live in the rolling endless fields of Kent but the Brownfield-happy Swadlincote, where we've probably got 50 years worth of brownfield sites to chew up before we even consider putting a single brick on the green belt.

 

That's a fair comment, if true about the other development it does seem rather hypocritical. But whether or not the railway would be busy or if the land has been 'repurposed' or not is totally and utterly irrelevant. The fact remains that it's THEIR land and somebody is, to all intents and purposes, threatening to take it by force. Would you like it if someone was threatening to take over part of your house or garden for something they wanted to do and you didn't?

Nobody would say that, just because a brownfield site once housed a factory or a colliery, then it should always house a factory or a colliery. But railway enthusiasts do seem to have this curious idea that former railways are somehow like ancient trackways and, therefore, should always be available to be returned to that purpose. Even when some lines during the 'railway mania' obviously never had a snowball in hell's chance of ever turning a profit and, equally obviously, should never have been built in the first place

A closed railway is no different to any other former industrial site and, if the land is sold and repurposed (whatever that purpose is, even if the owner chooses for it to be no purpose other than to be a haven for wildlife) then it is what it is and they shouldn't be made to feel pressured or bad about their choice.

 

I suppose it's because a lot of the time the trackbeds been mercifully untouched. In other cases it's simply cheaper to rehab a bit of former trackbed than it is to make a new one.

 

I was thinking about this last night, and the timing (2 articles in 2 different papers) suggests there's been a concerted effort, by either one/both the two farming families, or some allies/agents thereof, to start a PR campaign.

From which my guess is that have perceived, or been advised, that they are not likely to prevail in the TWAO process, and that this is their last/best hope of derailing (sic!) that?

I also wonder how this was made to happen; did the farm family/ies contact the media directly; or had they taken legal advice from a specialist, who knew how to get things into the media; or have they teamed up with some ecological/social-justice/etc group who have experience getting news coverage for their campaigns?

And I hope the RVR is prepared to 'play' this 'game', it could impact getting the TWAO.

Noel

 

Honestly? They probably took a punt on the papers, and the papers are always desperate to fill column inches as is.

 

The landowners have known for a long time, since the early 1990s, what the RVR wanted. It’s hardly surprising if they’ve taken professional PR and legal advice. So, no doubt, have the RVR.
And the time to act is now - the deadline for TWAO objections, or other representations is 31st May.

 

As far as the Mail article is concerned, I think it should be pointed out that the Mail editor, Paul Dacre, owns two farms, one of which is in West Sussex. Far be it from me to suggest that this might have influenced their thinking, or that he might know a farmer in the relevant area.....

 

I am pretty sure I did read somewhere that either someone who works for the Daily Mail or has connections to it lives in or around the adjoining village of Staplecross and were one of the main objectors to the reopening of the level crossing at Bodium station when it reopened.

 

Wouldn't that be biased reporting, running an article for personal benefit?

 

Would not be the first time, I phoned a friend earlier about the person involved who told me he was one of the top knobs for the National newspaper group.

 

Why should this surprise anyone? I can hardly believe I am saying this but in Dacre's defence, the fact that he encountered Stephen Lawrence's mother is believed to explain why his paper pressed for a decent inquiry into the murder. He may well feel, rightly or wrongly, there is an injustice stoking up here.

PH

 

What, a news organization not acting from the highest of motives? 'Say it ain't so!'

Noel

 

It's time to get Michael Portillo 'on board' by the sound of it..

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk