Sydney Gardens - paling into insignificance

rogerh · Post by **rogerh** » Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:24 am

The status of the wall doesn't matter. The fence is a separate, freestanding structure in Sydney Gardens, not part of the railway. There's no requirement for planning permission or Listed Building Consent, only the consent of B&NES as landowner.

horace · Post by **horace** » Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:04 pm

rogerh wrote:The status of the wall doesn't matter. The fence is a separate, freestanding structure in Sydney Gardens, not part of the railway. There's no requirement for planning permission or Listed Building Consent, only the consent of B&NES as landowner.

Not true, try putting a fence up next to a listed building regardless of who owns the land the fence sits on. Read the planning laws, it is the affect on the surroundings that count not the affect on the square inch of land it sits on. As robin said a councillor will tell you anything to keep his ass on the council office seats.

rogerh · Post by **rogerh** » Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:47 pm

Yes, if it's in the curtilage of the building. However if LBC was required here then it would have been required for the fence that's been put up but no application was submitted for that.

jules · Post by **jules** » Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:33 pm

However if LBC was required here then it would have been required for the fence that's been put up but no application was submitted for that.

Don't different rules apply to "temporary" structures? From earlier in the thread, we were discussing whether the fence was related to the track through here becoming a work site?

I can't see NR would erect a rickety old wooden fence if they were intending it to be permanent.

horace · Post by **horace** » Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:54 pm

jules wrote:
However if LBC was required here then it would have been required for the fence that's been put up but no application was submitted for that.
Don't different rules apply to "temporary" structures? From earlier in the thread, we were discussing whether the fence was related to the track through here becoming a work site?

I can't see NR would erect a rickety old wooden fence if they were intending it to be permanent.

Bang on.
Temporary structures don't come under the same rules. As I stated earlier its like the scaffolding and safety fences that go up around a cathedral for works to be done.

jules · Post by **jules** » Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:57 pm

Temporary structures don't come under the same rules. As I stated earlier its like the scaffolding and safety fences that go up around a cathedral for works to be done.

So, we can look forward to a removal date then?

I think however that all should be on their guard. Temporary structures have a horrible habit of becoming rather less than temporary ... or even worse, replaced by something "better" to serve the same function ... as "how could we manage without it after all the years it has been there?"

mow · Post by **mow** » Tue Aug 07, 2012 11:40 am

This is the coverage in the Bath Chronicle.

http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/Park-goers- ... story.html

rogerh · Post by **rogerh** » Tue Aug 07, 2012 1:57 pm

"The proposal is for a fence park side, as we do not possess enough land track side to safely erect a fence. While we can erect a fence clear of the listed wall, thus obviating the need for listed building consent, we would require landowner's consent."

(Email from Community Relations Manager, Network Rail to undisclosed recipient, October 2009)

-

"It is our current view that the proposals Network Rail tabled at our meeting would not require Planning or Listed Building Consent but, of course, should the proposals change then this position would have to be reassessed."

(Letter to Network Rail from Divisional Director, B&NES, Nov. 2009)

-

"As discussed at our meeting on 9 November 2009 we will look to mirror the planning process to demonstrate social responsibility."

(Route Director, Western Network Rail to B&NES, January 2010)

-

Robin Summerhill · Post by **Robin Summerhill** » Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:09 pm

mow wrote:This is the coverage in the Bath Chronicle.

http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/Park-goers- ... story.html

Some interesting comments on that story.

I am particularly intrigued by the "retired railway electrical engineer" who seems to think that the "European standard" is 11kv ac whilst everybody else seems to think that its 25kv ac, and also that " The traditional 750V d.c. conductor rail in general use on the routes of the erstwhile Southern Railway is hardly hazardous at all." Perhaps he should try standing on a live one and see what happens.

I don't think I'd let this guy near a 13-amp plug in my house .....

And somebody else thinks that: "It's a box ticking exercise to cover backsides.Ã¶ I suppose its nice to know somebody reads my posts

jules · Post by **jules** » Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:39 pm

From the Bath newspaper "retired" railway electrical engineer:

The traditional 750V d.c. conductor rail in general use on the routes of the erstwhile Southern Railway is hardly hazardous at all. When taking the examination for The Track Walking Pass on London Transport lines, it was demonstrated to us that it was perfectly safe to rest an overall covered leg against the rail. In DRY CONDITIONS ONLY the thickness of the overalls plus personal trousers beneath was adequate insulation.

I wouldn't b***y risk it! Idiot.

Obviously an ex London Underground employee. I would suggest a seriously long-term retired one, whose dangerous lack of knowledge shows he has probably never been out of the tunnels.

I wish sub-editors and moderators would do their job on railway related stories in the press (and in their associated forums) - and edit out such dangerous and mis-leading nonsense!

I quite agree Robin - the person isn't suitable to fit a 13A plug!

Robin Summerhill · Post by **Robin Summerhill** » Wed Aug 08, 2012 8:18 pm

I went down to Bath by train this afternoon and saw this fence first hand for the first time.

Hmmm.....

Although it is a paling fence, the support posts give it something of an air of rather more permanence than your "average" fence protecting works. Both the fence and the supports are quite clearly on non-railway land, which I presume must belong to B&NES. Therefore, at the very least they would have given their permission for it to go up.

I have a nasty feeling that it might be a bit more permanent than Horace thinks. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is just the sort of thing that would make NR "look like they've done something" about the alleged dangers along here, without going the whole hog and putting up the usual 6' high metal monstrosities that they seem to like so much in most other places where they want to fence off railway land.

So, in summary, it looks like a typical "compromise" arrangement that will shut up the various warring authorities.

I only hope I'm wrong

mow · Post by **mow** » Wed Aug 08, 2012 9:34 pm

This shows the recent addition to the lineside at Meadow Lane, Bathampton.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16582147@N07/7477895038/

The green galvanised fence has replaced a much lower barbed wire fence.

horace · Post by **horace** » Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:49 pm

Taken today

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mao_zhou/7761442566/

Decent photographs can still be had from this location.

Fence not that permanent, in one place a post was already leaning against the line side wall.
I will admit that another thought did enter my head whilst I was there. The line side wall had in places been vandalised and damaged, and it was quite recent damage. If mindless idiot vandals are going to go around damaging listed structures then even I have to admit a fence is inevitable.

mow · Post by **mow** » Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:49 pm

Looking at the cutting from the A36 end of Sydney Gardens.

mow · Post by **mow** » Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:07 pm

Looking from the Sydney Place end to the A36.

The cast iron bridge appeared to be closed off with a large grid or gate, adorned by safety tape.