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

[tspaul26]

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.

On the contrary, even the best community relations team can do very little with certain types of objector.

Some really unpleasant and dishonest people can crop up and nothing a project can do will ever please them.

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

People who do things like this.

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

Utter nonsense. It would be completely irrelevant.

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 whi 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.

Exactly right.

 

[rob.rjt]

It is interesting to see what the TWAO order actually allows. There are two sets of affected houses on Glenfield Avenue. The ones I think are complaining are the ones at the left hand end of the attached PDF (references 9-065 to 9-078) which, according to the Order, only grants Network Rail "ground anchor rights". Again, the Order defines this as:

(4) In this article “ground anchor rights” means—

(a)rights to insert ground anchors or soil nails into the subsoil, or to carry out other subsoil works, for the purpose of strengthening and stabilising Work No. 5 and Work No. 14 as described in Schedule 1 (scheduled works); and

(b)rights to maintain the ground anchors, soil nails or other subsoil works referred to in sub-paragraph (a).

This does not sound like something that requires NR to actually access the garden, nor indeed to anything within the garden. This is in contrast to the sections at the other end of the road (9-083 to 9-087) where there are rights to put a work site for construction.

 

[ConnectingDots]

given the very limited amount of land involved.

You must be kidding? it's a 1/4 of their already small and limited gardens. Aerial photographs of the gardens show they are already small strips of land with children's trampolines, large wooden garden sheds, animal houses, children's goal posts and toys and one house has two vehicles next to an expensive looking shed right at the end. These gardens look well-kept and cared for, with some of the residents using THEIR OWN LAND to grow food!

I would like to know if you own your own garden and house? If yes, would you be willing to give it all up for two years for less than a fiver a day? I doubt it.

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.

Well from the report the residents are saying that they were NOT notified about the public enquiry and one resident Mr Binns (A retired grandfather) comments in that report that he is angry because there has been no real communication and the first he knew of it was when he received a compulsory purchase order through his door without any explanation. He said that he didn't know what it meant and it was quite scary, obviously great PR on NR's agenda.

https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2024-05-15/residents-call-for-10k-payout-for-losing-gardens-in-2-year-rail-upgrade

Quote from Mr Binns in this article which acknowledges the work needs to be done and does not object to the work per se.

"It is a great thing for the line to be electrified. It will be quicker for people going to Manchester and Leeds but for us we have got this for two years," said Terry adding: "So just compensate us for the time you are going to be here and we think a reasonable amount is £10,000 which is only £12 a day."

 

[The Planner]

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.

That sort of thing makes little difference, people move jobs quickly now as part of their progression and its of no consequence.

 

[John R]

You must be kidding? it's a 1/4 of their already small and limited gardens. Aerial photographs of the gardens show they are already small strips of land with children's trampolines, large wooden garden sheds, animal houses, children's goal posts and toys and one house has two vehicles next to an expensive looking shed right at the end. These gardens look well-kept and cared for, with some of the residents using THEIR OWN LAND to grow food!

I would like to know if you own your own garden and house? If yes, would you be willing to give it all up for two years for less than a fiver a day? I doubt it.


Well from the report the residents are saying that they were NOT notified about the public enquiry and one resident Mr Binns (A retired grandfather)

Out of interest, of what relevance is his employment status, or whether he has grandchildren? Does it confer any additional rights in terms of what he is entitled to.

 

[yorksrob]

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

It depends if there are a lot of peoples homes backing directly onto the railway which are needed for access in said national park.

 

[ConnectingDots]

Out of interest, of what relevance is his employment status, or whether he has grandchildren? Does it confer any additional rights in terms of what he is entitled to.

I would it say it is relevant because a 'retired' grandfather would be more likely to be at home tending to his garden rather than someone that is 'employed' and gone to work.

I guess the reason that this is emphasized is so that a broader picture of the story being reported is able to convey the effect on the people involved. More to do with principles, morals and fairness for those who are not suffering a complete lack of natural human affection towards others.

 

[John R]

I would it say it is relevant because a 'retired' grandfather would be more likely to be at home tending to his garden rather than someone that is 'employed' and gone to work.

I guess the reason that this is emphasized is so that a broader picture of the story being reported is able to convey the effect on the people involved. More to do with principles, morals and fairness for those who are not suffering a complete lack of natural human affection towards others.

I’m retired. I wouldn’t expect to be treated or considered any differently in the type of dispute we’re talking about.

I don’t have grandchildren yet, though if this is going to place me at a disadvantage in terms of public sympathy then I might ask my kids to hurry up.

 

[ConnectingDots]

I’m retired. I wouldn’t expect to be treated or considered any differently in the type of dispute we’re talking about.

I don’t have grandchildren yet, though if this is going to place me at a disadvantage in terms of public sympathy then I might ask my kids to hurry up.

I'm sure you or anyone else would expect to be treated fairly. Are you enjoying your garden in your retirement?

 

[tspaul26]

The ones I think are complaining are the ones at the left hand end of the attached PDF (references 9-065 to 9-078) which, according to the Order, only grants Network Rail "ground anchor rights".

This isn’t quite correct: the Order grants Network Rail the power to acquire land ( which for this purpose includes the ground anchor rights) compulsorily, but does not itself grant the rights.

This does not sound like something that requires NR to actually access the garden, nor indeed to anything within the garden.

The right to take temporary possession is in a different part of the Order.

You must be kidding? it's a 1/4 of their already small and limited gardens.

You are admitting that this involves a small amount of land then.

If yes, would you be willing to give it all up for two years for less than a fiver a day? I doubt it.

Since they are not being asked to “give it all up” this is an irrelevant straw man.

Well from the report the residents are saying that they were NOT notified about the public enquiry

The residents were contacted and informed about the application for the Order, but did not make objections which is why they would not have been directly notified of the subsequent public inquiry.

The inquiry was nevertheless have been advertised locally and had they turned up they would almost certainly have been allowed to participate.

Not that it would realistically have changed the outcome, of course.

one resident Mr Binns (A retired grandfather) comments in that report that he is angry because there has been no real communication and the first he knew of it was when he received a compulsory purchase order through his door without any explanation.

There is no compulsory purchase order.

Unfortunately, most people tend to ignore the notices for this type of infrastructure project when they are received. Mr Binns has either forgotten about receiving the notice or he is lying.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think we all know that if objections had been raised at the public enquiry that these would have been dismissed out of hand, so trying to argue that the residents are at fault here is ridiculous. The overall benefit clearly outweighs their inconvenience.

“We don’t have to give you anything, so go away” seems to be an attitude endemic within the railway, as we’ve seen with the way HS2 has royally shafted the people subject to compulsory purchase orders under that construction scheme.

As for some people always being obstructive, the residents in this situation don’t appear to fall into that category. They’ve been offered money that they think is insufficient for their inconvenience and have named a figure that would be more agreeable to them. The fact it’s gone to the media really indicates that NR have not negotiated with the residents and have simple said “take it or leave it”. They’re well within their legal rights under the TWAO I’m sure, but it doesn’t seem right.

 

[tspaul26]

Out of interest, of what relevance is his employment status, or whether he has grandchildren? Does it confer any additional rights in terms of what he is entitled to.

In theory it could engage certain legal duties, but that would be on a procedural level - it wouldn’t change any entitlement to compensation.

I think we all know that if objections had been raised at the public enquiry that these would have been dismissed out of hand

If relevant objections are raised then they are considered in detail so this comment is nonsense.

so trying to argue that the residents are at fault here is ridiculous

If they ignored the notices then it is their fault, but they disclaim all responsibility.

The overall benefit clearly outweighs their inconvenience.

This is the ultimate issue in the case.

“We don’t have to give you anything, so go away” seems to be an attitude endemic within the railway, as we’ve seen with the way HS2 has royally shafted the people subject to compulsory purchase orders under that construction scheme.

Firstly, there are no compulsory purchase orders on HS2.

Secondly, the HS2 land acquisition and compensation schemes have been far more generous than any remotely comparable project in the UK over the past century.

As for some people always being obstructive, the residents in this situation don’t appear to fall into that category. They’ve been offered money that they think is insufficient for their inconvenience and have named a figure that would be more agreeable to them. The fact it’s gone to the media really indicates that NR have not negotiated with the residents and have simple said “take it or leave it”. They’re well within their legal rights under the TWAO I’m sure, but it doesn’t seem right.

The lesson for the future will therefore be to offer no discretionary payments at all: “take it or leave it”.

And the residents are being obstructive by trying to refuse access.

 

[John R]

I'm sure you or anyone else would expect to be treated fairly. Are you enjoying your garden in your retirement?

That is of course designed to be a question for which both answers yes/no have an immediate retort.

But as it happens, not as much as I had hoped, due to a decision by the National Planning Inspectorate )or whatever they are called) which meant that after appeal the land immediately behind our garden was built on last year.

We went through the appropriate legal process, without mentioning we are retired, number of grandchildren etc, but concentrating on planning law, and lost. We then accepted the decision, endured the considerable disruption of construction, tried best to mitigate the long term effects and moved on with our lives.

 

[rob.rjt]

The right to take temporary possession is in a different part of the Order.

You are, of course, correct. The land over which Network Rail is entitled to take temporary possession is noted in Schedule 16 of the order. Article 34 allows it broader powers, but is restricted to any land it could compulsorily purchase, which would be noted in the plans. None of the properties involved are marked for compulsory purchase.

Article 35 allows them to take temporary possession for the purpose of "maintenance of works", but not "any house or garden belonging to a house".

If I was the householder, I'd be asking which particular power in the order Network Rail is using, as the power to do one thing does not necessarily mean the power to do something else. What every parcel of land on the plans is to be used for is noted in the Schedules to the Order.

 

[tspaul26]

The land over which Network Rail is entitled to take temporary possession is noted in Schedule 16 of the order. Article 34 allows it broader powers, but is restricted to any land it could compulsorily purchase, which would be noted in the plans. None of the properties involved are marked for compulsory purchase.

Again, this is not quite correct.

The right to take temporary possession in article 34(1)(a)(ii) may be exercised over land within the Order limits (which these part-gardens are).

This is subject to the proviso in article 34(12) that temporary possession is not permitted if Network Rail may not acquire the land under article 26.

Article 26(1)(a) permits the compulsory acquisition of land within the Order limits. Again, that includes these part-gardens which are shown within the limits of land to be acquired or used on the deposited plans.

This is subject to article 30 which restricts the scope of the article 26(1) power to the acquisition of the ground anchor rights (plus sundry other matters).

I appreciate that the drafting of the legislation jumps about somewhat, but the end result is that Network Rail’s article 26(1) powers extend to this land and therefore temporary possession may be taken for the purposes of construction under article 34(1)(a)(ii).

If I was the householder, I'd be asking which particular power in the order Network Rail is using, as the power to do one thing does not necessarily mean the power to do something else.

See above.

 

[ConnectingDots]

You are admitting that this involves a small amount of land then.

No I obviously was not. Do you consider a 1/4 of your house to be a small amount? I guess that depends on the size of your house.

Since they are not being asked to “give it all up” this is an irrelevant straw man.

I see you like to play with words and manipulation. The residents in the news article 'clearly' say that they will not be able to use their gardens during the 2 year work period, which is what I was referring to. Do you really think the residents will be having BBQ's or children playing and hanging their washing on the line with work in progress!

The residents were contacted and informed about the application for the Order, but did not make objections

Is this your opinion? do you have a link/source to this information?

There is no compulsory purchase order.

Well it's the residents that have said this and received the letter from NR. Have you read the letter? or are we back to your opinion again?

Unfortunately, most people tend to ignore the notices for this type of infrastructure project when they are received. Mr Binns has either forgotten about receiving the notice or he is lying.

HAHAHA!, "Mr Binns has either forgotten about receiving the notice or he is lying" Sounds to me like you're making it up as you go along.

The truth is that if you don't spend your money and buy a newspaper every day you might miss the 'small print' of planned works having an effect on you, your life or your property.

I would like to know if you own your own garden and house? If yes, would you be willing to give it all up for two years for less than a fiver a day? I doubt it.

I notice you avoided replying to this one!

Actually don't bother, I wont be replying to you again, you can keep your worthless opinion

Mr Binns has either forgotten about receiving the notice or he is lying.

 

[nr758123]

The truth is that if you don't spend your money and buy a newspaper every day you might miss the 'small print' of planned works having an effect on you, your life or your property.

If you buy the Huddersfield Daily Examiner every day - and very few people do - then you still wouldn't know about the biggest project affecting the town in a generation.

 

[tspaul26]

No I obviously was not. Do you consider a 1/4 of your house to be a small amount? I guess that depends on the size of your house.

And once more you misrepresent the situation since the houses are not affected in this case.

I see you like to play with words and manipulation. The residents in the news article 'clearly' say that they will not be able to use their gardens during the 2 year work period, which is what I was referring to. Do you really think the residents will be having BBQ's or children playing and hanging their washing on the line with work in progress!

And you like to play with fallacies and strawmen, so there we are.

As to your comment about being able to use gardens whilst works are in progress, the same arguments would apply even if no part of the garden was taken into possession because the main works are immediately adjacent so this doesn’t really take you anywhere.

Is this your opinion? do you have a link/source to this information?

It is all recorded in the book of reference, the statement of reasons and the inspector’s report.

Well it's the residents that have said this and received the letter from NR. Have you read the letter? or are we back to your opinion again?

There is no compulsory purchase order relating to this project. It is not something that would apply to this kind of infrastructure development scheme.

HAHAHA!, "Mr Binns has either forgotten about receiving the notice or he is lying" Sounds to me like you're making it up as you go along.

The truth is that if you don't spend your money and buy a newspaper every day you might miss the 'small print' of planned works having an effect on you, your life or your property.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

However, that doesn’t apply to the letters sent directly to each property and also addressed to the owners and occupiers by name (including Mr Binns).

I notice you avoided replying to this one!

Actually don't bother, I wont be replying to you again, you can keep your worthless opinion

I do not own my own home. I rent a flat with no garden.

If I did live in one of these particular properties, I would have lodged a holding objection and negotiated a settlement during the inquiry process.

As to the value of my opinion, I specialise in this area of law so I daresay it might be worth a tad more than your ill-informed complaints.

 

[ConnectingDots]

If you buy the Huddersfield Daily Examiner every day - and very few people do - then you still wouldn't know about the biggest project affecting the town in a generation.

Exactly!

 

[rob.rjt]

As to the value of my opinion, I specialise in this area of law so I daresay it might be worth a tad more than your ill-informed complaints.

Thanks for your help in enabling me to understand the Order, which I have read through several times. It has taken me until not to realise that

26.—(1) Network Rail may acquire compulsorily—

(a)so much of the land shown on the deposited plans within the Order limits as land to be acquired compulsorily and described in the book of reference as may be required for the purposes of the authorised works; and

(b)so much of the land specified in columns (1) and (2) of Schedule 2 (acquisition of certain lands for ancillary works) (being land shown on the deposited plans and described in the book of reference) as may be required for the purpose specified in relation to that land in column (3) of that Schedule,

the bolded bit above effectively describes all land numbered on the plans, even if the compulsory acquisition applies only to ground anchor rights.

That being said (and not knowing what the householders have been told), if they were told "Oh yeah, we want to put some ground anchors under the end of your garden, this won't really affect you" and then been told later "Yeah, we actually want a worksite at the end of your garden for two years" I can understand their frustration. Had it been me, I'd probably agree to the first but not the second.

Again, not knowing as much as @tspaul26, could the money offered actually be for the purchase of the ground anchor rights, not any other works?

 

[ConnectingDots]

And you like to play with fallacies and strawmen, so there we are.

Yes it would be a fallacy for someone to use their garden for a BBQ or hang their washing, well at least coming from someone that lives in a flat with no garden.

 

[tspaul26]

the bolded bit above effectively describes all land numbered on the plans, even if the compulsory acquisition applies only to ground anchor rights.

You are correct, subject to certain exclusions. The way they’re normally drafted is to have a broad power which is then limited in respect of identified plots by other articles or schedules (as in this case).

Other orders can be structured differently though.

Again, not knowing as much as @tspaul26, could the money offered actually be for the purchase of the ground anchor rights, not any other works?

Possibly, although you wouldn’t normally have reached that point in the process given the present state of the physical works.

Either way, a dispute over the amount doesn’t affect the existence or ability to exercise the powers.

Yes it would be a fallacy for someone to use their garden for a BBQ or hang their washing, well at least coming from someone that lives in a flat with no garden.

I’m not sure that you understand what a fallacy is…

 

[ConnectingDots]

That is of course designed to be a question for which both answers yes/no have an immediate retort.

But as it happens, not as much as I had hoped, due to a decision by the National Planning Inspectorate )or whatever they are called) which meant that after appeal the land immediately behind our garden was built on last year.

We went through the appropriate legal process, without mentioning we are retired, number of grandchildren etc, but concentrating on planning law, and lost. We then accepted the decision, endured the considerable disruption of construction, tried best to mitigate the long term effects and moved on with our lives.

Glad you tried, sorry you lost in this instance. I would of hoped you could of enjoyed your garden in your retirement. My wife and I love our garden, we grow our own veg in it, we have various trees of which the Copper Beech looks especially radiant right now, We have Chickens and a plethora of wild animals and birds and deer. Speaking of which, I am going out to cut the grass right now.

I’m not sure that you understand what a fallacy is…

I'm not sure you understand what you can use a garden for....

 

[tspaul26]

I'm not sure you understand what you can use a garden for....

I see you are making a rather ambitious leap from “doesn’t own a garden” to “has no understanding what a garden is used for”.

If you buy the Huddersfield Daily Examiner every day - and very few people do - then you still wouldn't know about the biggest project affecting the town in a generation.

Do you mean to say that there has never been a single mention of this project (at any stage of its development) in the local paper at all?

That is of course designed to be a question for which both answers yes/no have an immediate retort.

But as it happens, not as much as I had hoped, due to a decision by the National Planning Inspectorate )or whatever they are called) which meant that after appeal the land immediately behind our garden was built on last year.

We went through the appropriate legal process, without mentioning we are retired, number of grandchildren etc, but concentrating on planning law, and lost. We then accepted the decision, endured the considerable disruption of construction, tried best to mitigate the long term effects and moved on with our lives.

I wish all the people I had to deal with as part of my work were like you!

If it was up to me you’d be the one receiving a cheque for £X for being reasonable and a good sport.

Unfortunately, these things aren’t up to me.

 

[ConnectingDots]

I see you are making a rather ambitious leap

Of which you are chief.

Mr Binns has either forgotten about receiving the notice or he is lying.

 

[tspaul26]

Of which you are chief.

Is it your position that Mr Binns was not sent a single notice regarding this project at any point prior to the Order being granted then?

 

[ConnectingDots]

Is it your position that Mr Binns was not sent a single notice regarding this project at any point prior to the Order being granted then?

Is it your position that Mr Binns was sent a notice and that he is a liar?

 

[The exile]

I think we all know that if objections had been raised at the public enquiry that these would have been dismissed out of hand, so trying to argue that the residents are at fault here is ridiculous. The overall benefit clearly outweighs their inconvenience.

Their objections might have been dismissed - but perhaps not their claims for appropriate compensation. If you are invited to register objections and do not do so, you have only yourself to blame if it is assumed that you do not have any.

 

[John R]

Is it your position that Mr Binns was sent a notice and that he is a liar?

Given that Network Rail posted a document to the Inquiry that said his household did, and given the legal status of any document posted, then either he is a liar or he received the document, did nothing with it, and forgot he ever received it. Note that the document was validated at the Post Office to provide evidence of posting.

Attachment shows the document posted to the Inquiry which evidences that a document was sent to both Terence Binns and Karen Binns at the address quoted in the Daily Mail article.

 

[Taunton]

“We don’t have to give you anything, so go away” seems to be an attitude endemic within the railway, as we’ve seen with the way HS2 has royally shafted the people subject to compulsory purchase orders under that construction scheme.

... and in this thread, by the look of things.