Winning friends and influencing people Network Rail style. Using other people's property/causing prolonged disruption, legal threats, no agreed compo

[Wolfie]

And even if they had, it would almost certainly make no difference.

The point of these statutory orders is to enable development to come forward more easily, not to empower objectors.

Won't happen in this case l doubt but that is exactly why you get civil disobedience - see Swampy et al.

 

[tspaul26]

Won't happen in this case l doubt but that is exactly why you get civil disobedience - see Swampy et al.

And that is why we have injunctions to deal with the Swampies of the world and put them in prison if necessary.

 

[Wolfie]

And that is why we have injunctions to deal with the Swampies of the world and put them in prison if necessary.

Then you wonder why infrastructure improvements take so long....

 

[tspaul26]

Then you wonder why infrastructure improvements take so long....

NIMBYs, BANANAs and watermelons

 

[Wolfie]

NIMBYs, BANANAs and watermelons

BS cliches! People who believe that their wishes and needs entitle them to trample all over others generally come a well earned cropper. Most decent people steer well clear of such toxic individuals.

 

[tspaul26]

BS cliches! People who believe that their wishes and needs entitle them to trample all over others generally come a well earned cropper. Most decent people steer well clear of such toxic individuals.

BS cliches! People who believe that their wishes and needs entitle them to trample all over others generally come a well earned cropper. Most decent people steer well clear of such toxic individuals.

What point exactly are you trying to make here?

And in this thread generally for that matter?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

BS cliches! People who believe that their wishes and needs entitle them to trample all over others generally come a well earned cropper. Most decent people steer well clear of such toxic individuals.

But these aren't wishes and needs - Network Rail has statutory and other legal rights of access.

They have an entitlement, not a wish!

 

[ConnectingDots]

To be honest, if they wanted to borrow part of my garden for £10k, I'd be quite happy (though I'd be prepared to hold out for a bit more).

I wouldn't blame you and I'm sure £10k would help a lot of people greatly in these present times. If you'd worked hard and or even inherited your home and land, you would have every right to enjoy it peacefully.

The question in relation to this matter is, how would you feel if NR gave you the option of giving up your garden for £4 per day for 2 years or taking legal action against you?

 

[Brissle Girl]

… or taking legal action against you?

Which you were bound to lose and the costs incurred by NR would come off any compensation you were going to get.

 

[Starmill]

And that is why we have injunctions to deal with the Swampies of the world and put them in prison if necessary.

Quite a lot of process to go through before you get to that stage of course. An injunction widely defined geographically and against "persons unknown" is pretty controversial after all. Not as if these claims haven't been heard.

Whether any of that might apply to these adjacent residents is unclear, but as Network Rail don't seem to be applying for an injunction against them I'm not sure it matters too much.

Network Rail don't have any access problem with Altnabreac whatsoever, they just DO NOT own the land there, surprised no one has figured this out by now?
Network Rails excuse of not being able to salt the ice is certainly not plausible anymore.

Network Rail doesn't own all of the land they need to use for this work, either. That's literally the point of the Order, it authorised them to make use of it during the works.

I do hope that all the ‘reopening lines’ proponents are taking note. Building railways is not easy, even when you already own the land!

Getting this order by itself took enough time and enough millions, and that's still not enough to stop some elements of negative press even years after granting it.

 

[ConnectingDots]

Which you were bound to lose

I would have to disagree, because Network Rail are not above the law, this is why courts of law exist.​

 

[Brissle Girl]

I would have to disagree, because Network Rail are not above the law, this is why courts of law exist.​

But the Transport & Works Act order entitles NR to possess the land for the period required to do the work. So do tell me how the residents would win.

 

[ConnectingDots]

But the Transport & Works Act order entitles NR to possess the land for the period required to do the work. So do tell me how the residents would win.

Get the best legal advice they can before making any decision. Be interesting to see what transpires.

 

[yorksrob]

I wouldn't blame you and I'm sure £10k would help a lot of people greatly in these present times. If you'd worked hard and or even inherited your home and land, you would have every right to enjoy it peacefully.

The question in relation to this matter is, how would you feel if NR gave you the option of giving up your garden for £4 per day for 2 years or taking legal action against you?

I'd possibly hold out for more money (20k would be a better dent in the mortgage).

 

[Wolfie]

I'd possibly hold out for more money (20k would be a better dent in the mortgage).

It looks like Network Rail want to pay as little as £3k.... Hardly calculated to guarantee cooperation either now or in the future.

 

[yorksrob]

It looks like Network Rail want to pay as little as £3k.... Hardly calculated to guarantee cooperation either now or in the future.

I thought it was £10k when I read it !

 

[peterblue]

It looks like Network Rail want to pay as little as £3k.... Hardly calculated to guarantee cooperation either now or in the future.

Especially when you consider the scale of the operation and the fact these projects cost in the tens of millions. A little extra for the inconvenienced residents isn't going to break the bank.

 

[tspaul26]

It looks like Network Rail want to pay as little as £3k.... Hardly calculated to guarantee cooperation either now or in the future.

It’s £3,000 more than they’re legally entitled to and quite generous all things considered given the very limited amount of land involved.

 

[peterblue]

Which you were bound to lose and the costs incurred by NR would come off any compensation you were going to get.

I'm not convinced it would go to court. It would be horrendous PR for NR.

It’s £3,000 more than they’re legally entitled to and quite generous all things considered given the very limited amount of land involved.

I don't think it is at all generous for the timeframe for which the land is required. If it was a one week, or two week process where NR needed access to trim hedges, install fences, then sure. That wouldn't be a big deal at all. But from what I understand, 2 years' continuous access is needed which is wholly excessive and unfair for the residents.

 

[Wolfie]

I'm not convinced it would go to court. It would be horrendous PR for NR.


I don't think it is at all generous for the timeframe for which the land is required. If it was a one week, or two week process where NR needed access to trim hedges, install fences, then sure. That wouldn't be a big deal at all. But from what I understand, 2 years' continuous access is needed which is wholly excessive and unfair for the residents.

Exactly.

Especially when you consider the scale of the operation and the fact these projects cost in the tens of millions. A little extra for the inconvenienced residents isn't going to break the bank.

Indeed and it could pay dividends in the future if and when emergency access is required for example.

 

[tspaul26]

I'm not convinced it would go to court. It would be horrendous PR for NR.

As opposed to the current excellent press coverage…

I don't think it is at all generous for the timeframe for which the land is required. If it was a one week, or two week process where NR needed access to trim hedges, install fences, then sure. That wouldn't be a big deal at all. But from what I understand, 2 years' continuous access is needed which is wholly excessive and unfair for the residents.

Your understanding is incorrect. The period of temporary possession will be a couple of years, but this does not mean that there would be “continuous access” during that time.

And if these residents aren’t happy then they should have raised this as a remaining objection at the public inquiry, but none of them did.

 

[Wolfie]

I thought it was £10k when I read it !

The householders have asked for £10k which for two plus years of grief doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

 

[Brissle Girl]

I'm not convinced it would go to court. It would be horrendous PR for NR.

It will if it is holding up the project. Remember they have a legal right.

The comments to the DM article are probably what I might expect from the readership of that august publication.

 

[Spartacus]

Especially when you consider the scale of the operation and the fact these projects cost in the tens of millions. A little extra for the inconvenienced residents isn't going to break the bank.

I guess the trouble is it might open the floodgates; if one group gets maybe over 10% of their homes value for temporarily losing part of their garden that could set a very high bar for others to make claims.

 

[yorksrob]

The householders have asked for £10k which for two plus years of grief doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Ah, I see.

 

[Ianigsy]

There’s nearly £20 million in the kitty for acquiring land and access rights, and the compulsory purchase of the houses at Baildon has been covered in the local news. Perhaps some of the residents are hoping that NR will just decide that it’s easier to buy the terrace on that side of the road and knock it down.

Looking at the age profile of the residents, it seems that at least some of them have bought their council houses and have been in there a long time. It may be for a period of two years, but once the restoration works are taken into account, it could be a loss of amenity for three or even four summers.

The aerial photo attached to the Mail article seems to show a couple of pools or hot tubs, a boat and a few vans in the back gardens. Things that will need to be removed by professionals or stored securely.

 

[Bald Rick]

Getting this order by itself took enough time and enough millions, and that's still not enough to stop some elements of negative press even years after granting it.

Well quite. And this is in suburban W Yorkshire. Imagine the fuss in a National Park…

 

[Taunton]

The key to such projects is to manage community relations in such a way that people not only feel well regarded and respected, but they actually are.

For Network Rail to have got into this morass they must have completely failed in this. Whether they have been supremely arrogant, rude, couldn't-care-less, strutted their stuff about having a TWAO so shut up, or whatever, the fact is that in their community relations they have failed notably here. There must be a community relations management team on such a project, for all of whom this happening is certainly not career enhancing. I wonder what Sir Peter Hendy thinks about it.

It will come back to bite NR the next TWAO they look to obtain, when this example will be raised at the review stage.

 

[Bald Rick]

The key to such projects is to manage community relations in such a way that people not only feel well regarded and respected, but they actually are.

For Network Rail to have got into this morass they must have completely failed in this. Whether they have been supremely arrogant, rude, couldn't-care-less, strutted their stuff about having a TWAO so shut up, or whatever, the fact is that in their community relations they have failed notably here. There must be a community relations management team on such a project, for all of whom this happening is certainly not career enhancing. I wonder what Sir Peter Hendy thinks about it.

It will come back to bite NR the next TWAO they look to obtain, when this example will be raised at the review stage.

That‘s quite a jaundiced view.

I don’t know the details here. I do know the details of other projects with TWAOs / other primary consents where the community relations teams did excellent jobs, but come up against an awkward neighbour or three who make a load of noise regardless of how well they are treated. I am not saying this is the case here, as I don’t know.

However, in my experience it is unusual for a community relations team to have ‘failed’ in only one very specific place.

 

[Wolfie]

The key to such projects is to manage community relations in such a way that people not only feel well regarded and respected, but they actually are.

For Network Rail to have got into this morass they must have completely failed in this. Whether they have been supremely arrogant, rude, couldn't-care-less, strutted their stuff about having a TWAO so shut up, or whatever, the fact is that in their community relations they have failed notably here. There must be a community relations management team on such a project, for all of whom this happening is certainly not career enhancing. I wonder what Sir Peter Hendy thinks about it.

It will come back to bite NR the next TWAO they look to obtain, when this example will be raised at the review stage.

I absolutely agree. That sort of bad will is the sort of thing that leads to sugar in fuel tanks etc.