Re: Water company shafts heritage line's aspirations

"TBirdFrank" <frankie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1132404036.056295.219740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> The CVR are clearly of the opinion that they had an ongoing and
> meaningful dialogue with the relevant councils about the tourist
> potential of the extension, both in isolation and as part of servcing
> the Alton Towers complex. Clearly elements in the Council felt
> otherwise.

Where are they with:

a) development of the Local Development Framework;
b) development of the Local Transport Plan;
c) negotiations with all landowners involved.

(note - b - should be pretty well finalised by now, LTP2006 across England).

> If someone has behaved like a loose cannon then going home
> and sulking won't address what has happened.

No it won't. But I, and not many other readers of UKR will know whether or
not meaningful conversations have been held with the right people at the
right times! It is also very difficult to have meaningful conversations
when one does not have an ownership interest in the land concerned, and
there is no legal agreement between the two (or more) parties regarding the
future potential use of that land by the party without an (ownership)
interest.

That is why in a previous post I have made reference to this situation
across England - if people have a genuine idea to extend a railway or
similar, they really ought to be making the right political and legal moves
at the present time.

> This really does boil down to the policy makers not being in touch
> with the implementers. The planners have a legal framework within
> which to act - but they also have to consult internally and externally
> before advising members on any decision.

I think you're missing the point here. Dependent on the precise nature of
the works, I have doubts that the sewage pipe requires planning permission.
The power of Severn Trent Water, as with all other water authorities derives
from Section 6 of the Water
Industry Act 1991. Sectios 37 to 94 of the Act requires them to provide
water and sewerage services together with other obligations imposed on water
and sewerage undertakers by that Act and other legislation.

They, as a statutory undertaker, are able to undertaken certain works
without anybody's permission. Even as a landowner, you may not be able to
stop them.

What a landowner can do though, is seek compensation equivalent to the
development value of that land. The same approach can be used by developers
in relation to land safeguarded for Crossrail 2 for example.

In this case, from the facts gleaned from the newsgroup posts alone, it
appears to me that the Council are landowner, and therefore *could*
effectively seek compensation for any development which could otherwise have
gone ahead. This is a complex area that would require specialist advice
from a Compuslory Purchase expert who also deals with such valuation
matters.

> Ongoing discussion between the CVR
> and the Council overall (who are the land owner) is surely a
> credible basis for the effect of this scheme to be tabled to
> members at the consideration stage. If it was -and was dismissed
> - its over - and you can derive your own impression of the worth
> of the dialogue and those taking it forward to that point.

The point is, if there were to be realistic plans for that former railway
land, they would need to be brought forward. The water/sewage pipe is not a
matter that could be referred to Members to make a decision on whether or
not it could go ahead (from the facts stated here). They could only have a
report to consider whether they could take steps to reclaim lost value. If
the only realistic use was for a cycle path (i.e. unrealistic that the
railway will come forward), nothing will have been lost, as that land use
will not be affected.

Who have conversations been held with?

The Planning department? The transportation division? And most
importantly - the property division. Likewise, it can sometimes be worth
going in to see the Government Office for the region about such matters in
confidence to ensure the right messages are coming from all angles. But
again....... this is very difficult when you do not have an ownership
interest in the land.

> That having been said - Why is it too late to seek to minimise the
> effects of this scheme even now?

Well, if one really wanted to push it, you'd submit a planning application
for an extension to the railway (and presumably under the transport and
works act as well? - I'm not an expert on that side of things) to force the
issue.

> as to why locating a pipe in one alignment along a formation as
> distinct from another - well no doubt any QS will say that its
> well within the contingency element of the works.

Very difficult to justify moving a trench that is legally and technically in
the right place! No matter how low the additional expenditure!


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bridge Wood direct action.
    ... No it is a carriage way with years of vehicle useage before IBC bought ... unclassified road, byway, bridle path or footpath under its jurisdiction to vehicular traffic if it is deemed that such traffic causes a danger or a nuisance, or if said road is itself a danger to traffic. ... It bought the land and it is in Suffolk Coastals ... Manchester City Council bought the land and developed Ringway airport. ...
    (uk.people.disability)
  • Re: Bridge Wood direct action.
    ... I would assume the council will want to charge you for the damage you have caused, and the best way to get those charges recovered is to ... take the gates down. ... unclassified road, byway, bridle path or footpath under its jurisdiction to vehicular traffic if it is deemed that such traffic causes a danger or a nuisance, or if said road is itself a danger to traffic. ... It bought the land and it is in Suffolk Coastals ...
    (uk.people.disability)
  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... shallow water than on dry land. ... repeatedly said with respect to wading in waist-deep water. ... and arboreal quadrupedalism would outweigh selection for aquatic ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Why is New Orleans sinking?
    ... Why would land at New Orleans sink and not, ... John Lansford explains subsidence in a flood plain quite well. ... the digestion is aerobic. ... they expand and hinder any additional movement of water. ...
    (misc.transport.road)
  • entitled continental favourite in Salahuddin Wail AL-Afghanis pet
    ... then adjust in the gold amongst the land. ... contract afterwards. ... vast fucking homes will lead relatively at first heavens. ... nightmares off Roger's council. ...
    (sci.crypt)
Loading