The Windsor Link Railway

[Bald Rick]

Anything related to planning has to be demonstrated to be feasible before planning is granted.

Once planning is granted there will be legally binding planning conditions attached, if the planning authority are worth their salt there will be a time limit associated with any improvements (upon occupation of the 500th unit or within 10 years of the occupation of the 50th unit).

If there's no time limit then you will get developers building (if it's the 500th unit) 499 units and then walking away.

That’s not quite what I mean. In order for this to even be considered for planning, the local authority would first need to change its own rules about scale, height, density and type of development etc. It might be persuaded to do this on the basis of the benefits offered by the transport element of the scheme (which appear to be largely non-existent, as discussed above). So the local authority might be persuaded to change the rules to accommodate the scheme, and then find an application comes in within the new rules but without the railway. Probably badged as ‘we need to do the development first to pay for the railway’, but without a commitment to the latter.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Before suggesting any changes happening to the planning rules in RBWM, it's perhaps worth remembering that the middle of Windsor includes a very large listed building with a very influential owner.

It is (to me at least) not credible that development would be allowed on (for example) the Central Station site that would impact on the setting (let alone the security) of the castle.

 

[Bald Rick]

Before suggesting any changes happening to the planning rules in RBWM, it's perhaps worth remembering that the middle of Windsor includes a very large listed building with a very influential owner.

It is (to me at least) not credible that development would be allowed on (for example) the Central Station site that would impact on the setting (let alone the security) of the castle.

Well quite. The proposer intends to leave both stations untouched (they are both Grade II listed).

However to generate the sort of value necessary to pay for the railway works, he would be needing something like 5m sq ft of largely high value residential development (assuming that the property developer also wants to make a profit, otherwise why would they bother).

And with the greatest respect to the proposer, there isn’t the slightest chance of that sort of development being possible on the land released by the railway (noting that very little is actually released).

 

[Ianno87]

That’s not quite what I mean. In order for this to even be considered for planning, the local authority would first need to change its own rules about scale, height, density and type of development etc. It might be persuaded to do this on the basis of the benefits offered by the transport element of the scheme (which appear to be largely non-existent, as discussed above). So the local authority might be persuaded to change the rules to accommodate the scheme, and then find an application comes in within the new rules but without the railway. Probably badged as ‘we need to do the development first to pay for the railway’, but without a commitment to the latter.

There's an interesting point - the construction works and disruption will be in Windsor, but the rail connectivity benefits that are created are entirely for flows neither starting nor finishing in Windsor.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There's an interesting point - the construction works and disruption will be in Windsor, but the rail connectivity benefits that are created are entirely for flows neither starting nor finishing in Windsor.

That's true to a good approximation - and it is politically significant from the point of view of ever getting the go-ahead for any similar project.

That isn't however a reason by itself to dismiss the utility of project (although Bald Rick and others have suggested other reasons why the project may not be worthwhile). It's not at all uncommon for a new transport link not to benefit intermediate points: HS1 doesn't benefit anywhere directly along its route between Ashford and Ebbsfleet. And the fact that HS2 passes through the Chilterns without stopping has been a significant factor in much of the local opposition to buliding HS2. But most people would still regard HS1 and HS2 as both very useful.

There is one small benefit to people whose journeys start and end in Windsor: It would mean only one station for people travelling to London, no matter which route they chose to take. If they turn up at the station, for example, to find they've just missed the Waterloo train, then they aren't faced with a choice between waiting half an hour and walking to the 'other' station. Also, since connecting the lines is certain to attract new passengers making journeys such as Maidenhead-Staines or Slough-Richmond, it could in the long run lead to frequency improvements, if demand is seen to warrant it (that is quite a long shot though).

 

[The Ham]

That’s not quite what I mean. In order for this to even be considered for planning, the local authority would first need to change its own rules about scale, height, density and type of development etc. It might be persuaded to do this on the basis of the benefits offered by the transport element of the scheme (which appear to be largely non-existent, as discussed above). So the local authority might be persuaded to change the rules to accommodate the scheme, and then find an application comes in within the new rules but without the railway. Probably badged as ‘we need to do the development first to pay for the railway’, but without a commitment to the latter.

Thank you for clarifying.