Discussion in 'Heritage railways & Centres in the Uk' started by nine elms fan, Nov 4, 2012.
This is exciting news!
Fantastic! Living less than 10 miles from Robertsbridge, I will be following progress with great interest. Well done to all the RVR team who have been so patient in working through so many complex issues over a period of several years. I do hope that now permission has been granted, the negotiations with the landowners will go well.
Some good news for a change.
I am pleased that the potential reopening of the Junction Road - Northbridge Street section has moved a step closer. However I hope that everyone will understand that those who have objected to the plan will have done so for reasons that they believe in just as passionately as the reasons those who believe the railway should be reopened believe in theirs.
I am sure that the RVR will treat both supporters and objectors with equal dignity, professionalism and respect. I just hope that the more over-zealous elements of the 'railway enthusiast Taliban' - to whom anyone who doesn't share their enthusiasm seems to be regarded as some sort of cross between Judas Iscariot, Beelzebub, Dr Beeching and two short pieces of 4 x 2 - will try to open their blinkers wide enough to extend them a similar level of courtesy and understanding.
Congratulations, Mike ! Well done to all involved.
Well done RVR. This is very good news. Congratulations to all involved
Excellent news. I hope to be able to travel on the new section before I snuff it!
I will withhold my verdict on this subject, if the landowners do act in good faith, and a workable agreement can be found, then yes i will treat them with dignity, but if they act to delay, do not treat attempts to mediate an mutually agreed settlement ,as a matter of urgency , but instead chose to fight every inch of the way, and in the end it comes down to a CPO, then, i dont see how any land owner, or anyone else for that matter , can be treated in any other way other than if they do chose to be totally unwilling to negotiate can be treated in a manner that their actions deserves .
OK, let's use an analogy. Say you own a piece of land that had a Second World War aerodrome on it, which reverted to agriculture after the war and has been used as such ever since. Now a flying club wants to take part of your land off you and reopen it as an aerodrome - by force, if necessary. You have your reasons for not wanting an aerodrome on your land, you want it left as it has been for several decades. Now the flying club has - against your will - obtained planning permission to reopen the aerodrome and if you still don't want to sell the land, they intend to take it off you forcibly, by means of a CPO.
In that situation would you want aviation enthusiasts to treat you "in a manner that (they feel) your actions deserve?" Or would you say "b****cks to them" and dig your heels in even harder?
From your response, it sounds like you're just the kind of person I was writing about...
Just because, by the nature of this forum, we all like railways, it doesn't automatically follow that everyone on the planet wants one in their back garden, for whatever reasons they have.
Simple question I don't think has been answered on here (but don't want to go back over 21 pages): Was the land in question sold to the farmers or was it simply 'acquired' once the line was lifted?
What i was trying to say is that you should judge people by their actions,
But it is the farmers land and if they don't want to sell then taking a belligerent attitude towards them will not help.
How do you think posting such remarks would go down with the landowner if someone was to copy and paste your comments above in an email to them? I know what my reaction would be.
He's quite right Martin, posts like yours do not help the RVR case at all. The people behind the RVR have made it clear that comments such as yours don't make their job any easier. You actually have no idea what sort of dialogue has gone on between the RVR and the farmer concerned, only the people actually concerned know. and they won't be telling us - rightly!
At the moment there is, so far as I am aware, no CPO. As such, and given how difficult it can be for even public authorities to obtain them with public enquiries etc. first costing huge amounts of money, working with landowners is the best the RVR can do. I wish them ever success.
i have edited my post and wont comment any further in future
I did notice that of three MPs who commented on the planning application, one was in favour and two were strongly opposed to permission being granted. Given that the TWAO is determined by the Secretary of State for Transport, I wonder how much influence they can wield on the success or otherwise of the application?
From responses received to the planning application:
A21 Reference Group, Rt Hon Greg Clark MP; and Amber Rudd MP:
object to the proposal stating that, the A21 is the main trunk road between the M25 and the south coast providing a key strategic route linking Hastings, Bexhill, Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge and has been recognised as vital to coastal regeneration around Hastings... Work has started on duelling the A21 between Tonbridge and Pembury and the Bexhill - Hastings Link Road is due to be completed by next spring. The next stage is duelling the A21 between Kippings Cross and Lamberhurst. Building a level crossing on the A21 which would interrupt traffic movements would, therefore, run completely counter to this strategic process and be extremely unwelcome.
I like the idea of "duelling" the A21 rather than "dualling".
There are no proposals for a dual carriageway on the A21 near Robertsbridge. Talk of this in the 1960s came to nothing since the Robertsbridge bypass, built in the 1980s, is single carriageway. A Highways Agency proposal for the A21 between Flimwell and Robertsbridge was also single-carrigeway, except for a short bit near Flimwell, but this scheme was abandoned in 2010 and the land is no longer protected.
Separate names with a comma.