Compulsory purchase order may be made to extend RVR

[Steptoe]

This was of interest to me as I didn't realise that a heritage railway had the power to compulsorily purchase land once it obtained a TWO; if so there are implications for others who may wish to extend their running lines.

The controversial £7million scheme, led by rail enthusiasts backed by wealthy – and anonymous – benefactors, would restore what supporters call the 'missing link' in the Kent and East Sussex Railway, connecting it with the national network on the London to Hastings line.

The use of compulsory purchase orders on farmland needed for the new track has even been branded The Great Robertsbridge Train Robbery by campaigners.

From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...y-trying-grab-farm-land-7million-project.html

The only comment that I would make is that, if the farming families concerned have indeed owned their land since 1880 and 1946 respectively, then the RVR are only putting back what was there when they bought the farms.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm surprised myself. But then again, if a couple of landowners aren't in favour, why should they hold up the rest of the project. And as the OP says, it's only putting back what was there already.

 

[Kettledrum]

sounds like a great project with big benefits for the wider community. It would be a shame if two families prevent it happening because it would make their field slightly smaller.

If hedgerows were planted along the new tracks, then this would really enhance bio-diversity too. The arguments in the article about damage to the eco-system are flawed.

As for describing it as an ugly scar......that's not a word I've heard to describe other heritage railways in beauty spots such as North York Moors or Corfe Castle.

Really poor journalism by the Daily Mail.

 

[Spartacus]

I've sympathy for one farmer whose family has been on the land since before the railway (it does seem to cut right through the middle too), less, if any, for the other whose family bought the land after WW2 while the railway was operational and it only skirts their land and the Rother, and especially as they reportedly have plans to build homes on another bit of land they own. Guessing they're just worried about the number of plots they'll lose in a few years time.

Quite funny that the landlady of the Salehurst Halt pub objects to the railway considering what her pub's named after and probably owes it's existence to....

 

[Adlington]

I've sympathy for one farmer whose family has been on the land since before the railway [...], less, if any, for the other whose family bought the land after WW2 while the railway was operational and it only skirts their land

According to the Telegraph the present owners' forebears were also unhappy about the railway

We can remember when the line was in operation and know of the difficulties it presented to our forebears in those days

As to the new level crossing, the same article quotes Trevor Streeter, of the Rother Valley Railway:

The level crossing would be near to an existing pedestrian crossing, which stops the traffic far more frequently, 365 days a year, than the train ever would. We would only run 10 round trips a day, with the level crossing operating for two minutes for each one, and none of the trips would be during rush hour

 

[Crawley Ben]

Personally feel the benefits of this extension far outweigh the arguments the farmer (s) are putting up.

Think of the extra revenue this will bring to the local area/economy as more passengers travel etc.

With the crossing over the A21 being shut for 2 mins at a time during non-peak periods, again I can't see a significant issue with this.

Good luck to the RVR, let's hope this all goes ahead ok.

Cheers

Ben

 

[Shenandoah]

I think I see why the Salehurst Halt pub owners are concerned. Looking at the web sites about the place suggests it is a well patronized traditional style English pub. I get the feeling that they are not looking for a great expansion to their business as it would, most likely, destroy it present ambience. Lots of extra tourists calling on them would probably cause many problems, the most likely the complete alienation of many of their regulars.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Personally feel the benefits of this extension far outweigh the arguments the farmer (s) are putting up.

Think of the extra revenue this will bring to the local area/economy as more passengers travel etc.

With the crossing over the A21 being shut for 2 mins at a time during non-peak periods, again I can't see a significant issue with this.

Good luck to the RVR, let's hope this all goes ahead ok.

Cheers

Ben

I disagree. This is an appalling misuse of a compulsory purchase order. It is not a public railway with a public benefit, or a genuine preservation of a meaningful historic site, it's a private operation with a commercial objective to expand their business. The "missing link" argument doesn't wash to me, it doesn't say to me there's any genuine historic significance.

If they want to extend they should have to make the landowners an offer they can't refuse and buy the land, and pay for the carriageway work; this is how the world works.

 

[Shenandoah]

Good to read an alternative view, most of which makes sense. The usual commercial cry when there will be opposition is 'good for the area/tourists and job creation'. Living in a tourist area I find most of these kind of claims fall far short of what supporters believed would happen.

I disagree. This is an appalling misuse of a compulsory purchase order. It is not a public railway with a public benefit, or a genuine preservation of a meaningful historic site, it's a private operation with a commercial objective to expand their business. The "missing link" argument doesn't wash to me, it doesn't say to me there's any genuine historic significance.

If they want to extend they should have to make the landowners an offer they can't refuse and buy the land, and pay for the carriageway work; this is how the world works.

 

[Royston Vasey]

I do find it strange that the pub is against it, not many rural pubs are raking in massive profits these days!

 

[Adsy125]

I disagree. This is an appalling misuse of a compulsory purchase order. It is not a public railway with a public benefit, or a genuine preservation of a meaningful historic site, it's a private operation with a commercial objective to expand their business. The "missing link" argument doesn't wash to me, it doesn't say to me there's any genuine historic significance.

If they want to extend they should have to make the landowners an offer they can't refuse and buy the land, and pay for the carriageway work; this is how the world works.

It's an offshoot of the K&ESR, which isn't a commercial operation. The only reason it is not a part of it is to protect the railway itself from any liabilities. Should a single landowner be able to stop any project in its tracks? Have a look at the L&B extension plans and one Louise Grob.

 

[Royston Vasey]

It's an offshoot of the K&ESR, which isn't a commercial operation. The only reason it is not a part of it is to protect the railway itself from any liabilities. Should a single landowner be able to stop any project in its tracks? Have a look at the L&B extension plans and one Louise Grob.

The structure of the railway doesn't interest me.

The fact it's a charity run by volunteers doesn't mean it isn't a commercial operation. It may have some historical and educational merit but it's a private interest group that takes money to sustain its venture.

The landowner owns the land, it should be his to do as he likes and the railway to make him an offer. Why shouldn't he stop them from doing a project on his farmland, his business. This is not High Speed 2.

 

[LAX54]

sounds like a great project with big benefits for the wider community. It would be a shame if two families prevent it happening because it would make their field slightly smaller.

If hedgerows were planted along the new tracks, then this would really enhance bio-diversity too. The arguments in the article about damage to the eco-system are flawed.

As for describing it as an ugly scar......that's not a word I've heard to describe other heritage railways in beauty spots such as North York Moors or Corfe Castle.

Really poor journalism by the Daily Mail.

Not really poor journalism as it was not the DM that said it, it came from the Land Owner's and their supporters.

 

[tbtc]

The landowner owns the land, it should be his to do as he likes and the railway to make him an offer. Why shouldn't he stop them from doing a project on his farmland, his business. This is not High Speed 2.

True.

If it were HS2 then most people on this thread would be up in arms about this scar on the countryside destroying England's green and pleasant land, ruining the lifetime's work of the farmers, spoiling the quiet pub, cutting down old trees and plants etc etc...

...but it's a proposal for steam trains to chug along a line closed in the 1960s, so of course people on here are going to be backing the plans for a railway (and to hell with the trees/ landowners etc)

Presumably the steam line can be built without such ugly things as "construction traffic" (which was a reason people were against HS2).

 

[Spartacus]

I wonder what would be the opinion if the two were mixed and it was a bit of bulldozed GCR embankment being reinstated for HS2?

 

[duffield]

I think I see why the Salehurst Halt pub owners are concerned. Looking at the web sites about the place suggests it is a well patronized traditional style English pub. I get the feeling that they are not looking for a great expansion to their business as it would, most likely, destroy it present ambience. Lots of extra tourists calling on them would probably cause many problems, the most likely the complete alienation of many of their regulars.

I don't see why this would really affect them. It's not going to be a significant destination on the line. At most it might bring in a handful of extra customers - surely not a bad thing?

 

[tomatwark]

While I am all for preserved lines , I think there is a bit of rich boys wanting to play trains here, I hope someone equally rich helps the farmers fight this.

If these individuals want to build a steam railway I am sure there are other farmers in the country that will more than happily sell them some track bed.

Building up to the boundary on both side and then asking for a compulsory purchase order is just bullying because they have a lot of money.

If this was a reopening to provide a public transport link between to towns it might be different.

If this happens the farmers should force a clause in the contract that they get a percentage of the profits for the next 50 years or that the railway has to run an hourly service.

 

[Steptoe]

Presumably the steam line can be built without such ugly things as "construction traffic" (which was a reason people were against HS2).

Interesting point; if 'bridges can't be mended' between the RVR & the landowners, presumably there would then be a situation such as existed when railway lines were originally constructed where the fencelines were erected first in order to keep the navvies and construction work penned in on the purchased trackbed and off the adjoining land.

 

[tomatwark]

Presumably the steam line can be built without such ugly things as "construction traffic" (which was a reason people were against HS2)

I would not have thought so, as if you look at google earth it looks as though a lot of the formation has been ploughed out.

 

[Adlington]

Talking about bridges on the RVR... The Telegraph story, mentioned earlier, has a photo apparently of "Emma Ainslie on Austens Bridge, a disused railway bridge on her farmland".
The said bridge is a narrow, flimsy construction, doesn't look like something able to carry standard-gauge traffic.

 

[route:oxford]

I disagree. This is an appalling misuse of a compulsory purchase order. It is not a public railway with a public benefit, or a genuine preservation of a meaningful historic site, it's a private operation with a commercial objective to expand their business. The "missing link" argument doesn't wash to me, it doesn't say to me there's any genuine historic significance.

If they want to extend they should have to make the landowners an offer they can't refuse and buy the land, and pay for the carriageway work; this is how the world works.

If it's a good enough method for Oxford City Council to pursue their policy of animal cruelty and gambling in a deprived community, then I don't have a problem with a CPO being used to improve transport infrastructure.

 

[Royston Vasey]

If it's a good enough method for Oxford City Council to pursue their policy of animal cruelty and gambling in a deprived community, then I don't have a problem with a CPO being used to improve transport infrastructure.

A hobbyist railway does not equate to improved transport infrastructure!

 

[Roast Veg]

This is a lot more than a vanity project. Giving the K&ESR a mainline link is a massive boost to its capabilities and public attraction, and has been desired and planned for decades - not just the sudden whim of a few rich enthusiasts.

 

[richa2002]

True.

If it were HS2 then most people on this thread would be up in arms about this scar on the countryside destroying England's green and pleasant land, ruining the lifetime's work of the farmers, spoiling the quiet pub, cutting down old trees and plants etc etc...

...but it's a proposal for steam trains to chug along a line closed in the 1960s, so of course people on here are going to be backing the plans for a railway (and to hell with the trees/ landowners etc)

Presumably the steam line can be built without such ugly things as "construction traffic" (which was a reason people were against HS2).

The two are hardly the same are they. HS2 comes with ugly, tall fences, massive earthworks, modern, ugly concrete structures and frequent high speed trains. A steam railway is the complete and utter opposite in every sense. They still have the right to oppose it of course but to try and draw comparisons with HS2 seems absurd to me.

 

[Royston Vasey]

The two are hardly the same are they. HS2 comes with ugly, tall fences, massive earthworks, modern, ugly concrete structures and frequent high speed trains. A steam railway is the complete and utter opposite in every sense. They still have the right to oppose it of course but to try and draw comparisons with HS2 seems absurd to me.

Well that's the whole point. It's not a scheme for substantial public benefit but one for a niche interest group to make money from. Yet they are getting to use compulsory purchase orders just the same.

And obviously this forum will have a bias towards it over the Nasty Landowners. As they do over HS2.

 

[Royston Vasey]

This is a lot more than a vanity project. Giving the K&ESR a mainline link is a massive boost to its capabilities and public attraction, and has been desired and planned for decades - not just the sudden whim of a few rich enthusiasts.

I still don't think that's enough to say there's a public benefit sufficient to get a CPO, it's all their attractiveness to enthusiasts' money. I doubt it makes much difference to the public. Makes it a bit easier to get to, so they can make more money.

Wanting something long enough doesn't give one a right to have it. It does provide a lot more time to raise enough money to buy the land honestly.

 

[yorksrob]

True.

If it were HS2 then most people on this thread would be up in arms about this scar on the countryside destroying England's green and pleasant land, ruining the lifetime's work of the farmers, spoiling the quiet pub, cutting down old trees and plants etc etc...

...but it's a proposal for steam trains to chug along a line closed in the 1960s, so of course people on here are going to be backing the plans for a railway (and to hell with the trees/ landowners etc)

Presumably the steam line can be built without such ugly things as "construction traffic" (which was a reason people were against HS2).

That's precisely it.

A steam train chugging along at weekends is a lot more picturesque, and fits into the rolling English landscape a lot more sympathetically than a strip of concrete with trains whizzing by seven days a week.

Plus there's the fact that this line clearly didn't ruin the landscape for the sixty years it existed, so it's unlikely to again.

Maybe a compulsory purchase order isn't quite the right instrument, but then again, it's presumably been enacted by the democratically elected local council who obviously see the economic and cultural benefit of the line to the area, so perhaps this should outrank the wishes of the land owner.

I'm also fairly sceptical about the sacred rights of large landowners, given the preposterously feudal distribution of land ownership in this country.

 

[Steptoe]

I am also a little sceptical about landowners motives as a great many are happy to sell huge swathes of countryside to be swallowed up by housing estates; perhaps parting with these two strips of trackbed for a railway will not be quite so profitable as I believe a CPO will result in getting the market value for the land (the calculation of which will be an interesting exercise in itself!)

On the basis that everything has it's price I wonder how much they would accept to sell voluntarily?

 

[Royston Vasey]

I am also a little sceptical about landowners motives as a great many are happy to sell huge swathes of countryside to be swallowed up by housing estates; perhaps parting with these two strips of trackbed for a railway will not be quite so profitable as I believe a CPO will result in getting the market value for the land (the calculation of which will be an interesting exercise in itself!)

On the basis that everything has it's price I wonder how much they would accept to sell voluntarily?

The railway obviously have some very optimistic projections as to their increased future business, I would say that's good place to start. 50,000 visitors a year generate a lot more money than the usual value of a strip of land.

Also if's a flawed argument to state that the railway was there before. The public railway was there but decided to sell the land and withdraw. There's no automatic grandfather right for any railway to be there, especially a private commercial operation.

 

[yorksrob]

The railway obviously have some very optimistic projections as to their increased future business, I would say that's good place to start. 50,000 visitors a year generate a lot more money than the usual value of a strip of land.

Also if's a flawed argument to state that the railway was there before. The public railway was there but decided to sell the land and withdraw. There's no automatic grandfather right for any railway to be there, especially a private commercial operation.

And how much extra trade are those extra visitors (optimistic or not) likely to bring into other local businesses. I would suggest quite a lot, which is why the democratically elected council has a right to have the final say.