Sydney Gardens - paling into insignificance

the green mile · Post by **the green mile** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:25 am

One already exists on the down side. It's called the Kennet and Avon Canal.

Robin Summerhill · Post by **Robin Summerhill** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:59 am

the green mile wrote:One already exists on the down side. It's called the Kennet and Avon Canal.

After I posted about that it got me thinking.

I suppose you could argue that Bath Road had a moat as well

free2grice · Post by **free2grice** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:15 am

Robin Summerhill wrote:I suppose you could argue that Bath Road had a moat as well

The River Avon runs next to the depot but doesn't surround it. <BJ>

rogerh · Post by **rogerh** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 8:59 pm

horace wrote:Fence is in place for track lowering as explained in my pic.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mao_zhou/7652092866/

Remember every structure through here is listed and part of two world heritage sites. Bath itself and the GWR railway. They cannot touch a thing except the track.

It's nothing to do with electrification but just the latest phase in a battle between the ORR, Network Rail and B&NES. The ORR have told NR to exclude trespassers and B&NES have been objecting to NR's proposed fences. You can see some of their designs here (although the illustrations understate the intended height which I think was at least 6ft):

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk ... yID-7.aspx

Post by **madhattie** » Sat Aug 04, 2012 9:31 pm

Couldn't they design a fence that was diagonal to the railway at certain spots along the track so that people like us could stick a camera through a gap and still get a snap? They could even leave small (6inch square) 'holes' (much like the holes in the boards surrounding building sites that let the public see what's going on behind) in the fence so we could stick bigger lenses through.

horace · Post by **horace** » Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:56 am

rogerh wrote:
horace wrote:Fence is in place for track lowering as explained in my pic.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mao_zhou/7652092866/

Remember every structure through here is listed and part of two world heritage sites. Bath itself and the GWR railway. They cannot touch a thing except the track.
It's nothing to do with electrification but just the latest phase in a battle between the ORR, Network Rail and B&NES. The ORR have told NR to exclude trespassers and B&NES have been objecting to NR's proposed fences. You can see some of their designs here (although the illustrations understate the intended height which I think was at least 6ft):

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk ... yID-7.aspx

This is a two year old article, English heritage have since listed everything through here. They rule the roost.

rogerh · Post by **rogerh** » Sun Aug 05, 2012 10:32 am

It may be two years since the exhibition but that's how slowly things have been progressing in this dispute. The recent GWR listings are irrelevant - the fence is in Sydney Gardens, not on railway land. Listed Building Consent wasn't required for this fence and won't be for any other but it requires the consent of B&NES as the landowner, although Network Rail will have statutory enforcement powers should consent be unreasonably witheld.

horace · Post by **horace** » Sun Aug 05, 2012 3:27 pm

I finally give up, after 40 years of working in the civil engineering industry and being in charge of schemes that are far beyond the size of what is being constructed here, having dealt with local authorities, English heritage and Governments all over the world. I find that obviously that actually I know nothing and my knowledge of the planning laws, environmental protection laws, listed building consents, United nation protected sites etc. Pale into insignificance with the knowledge gained by some on here.
I knew when I responded to this thread that dead horses and whips may have been the outcome, but from what i can see everyone here has already decided the wall which is listed has already gone. Well if that's what you want to believe you carry on, I will go to bed resting easy trusting in the law and the strictest planning laws in the world.

horace · Post by **horace** » Sun Aug 05, 2012 3:30 pm

rogerh wrote:It may be two years since the exhibition but that's how slowly things have been progressing in this dispute. The recent GWR listings are irrelevant - the fence is in Sydney Gardens, not on railway land. Listed Building Consent wasn't required for this fence and won't be for any other but it requires the consent of B&NES as the landowner, although Network Rail will have statutory enforcement powers should consent be unreasonably witheld.

My last coment ever.

Please explain how network rail have statutory powers on land that as you state belongs to BANES.

rogerh · Post by **rogerh** » Sun Aug 05, 2012 3:39 pm

It's in order to avoid making alterations to the wall that the preferred solution has been to erect a separate barrier set some way back from it.

rogerh · Post by **rogerh** » Sun Aug 05, 2012 3:57 pm

horace wrote:Please explain how network rail have statutory powers on land that as you state belongs to BANES.

Under the Transport and Works Act 1992, I would imagine but I don't pretend to be an expert on rail legislation. However if you look at Cllr. Coombes email above you'll see he says, "While we have not been convinced of the need for this fence, Network Rail are entitled to put it up". I've also read many of the emails between B&NES and NR provided in response to a FOI request I submitted a year or so ago.

Robin Summerhill · Post by **Robin Summerhill** » Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:13 pm

rogerh wrote:
horace wrote:Please explain how network rail have statutory powers on land that as you state belongs to BANES.
Under the Transport and Works Act 1992, I would imagine but I don't pretend to be an expert on rail legislation. However if you look at Cllr. Coombes email above you'll see he says, "While we have not been convinced of the need for this fence, Network Rail are entitled to put it up". I've also read many of the emails between B&NES and NR provided in response to a FOI request I submitted a year or so ago.

I'm not going to get involved in what is increasingly looking like a personal argument, but I'll make one observation and also ask a question.

Observation - having worked on the periphery of politics for most of the last 35 years, it is not unknown for politicians to say things in correspondence that may or may not be true, or more usually may or may not be "quite" true (there's a difference

). They are also pretty good at buck-passing, and/or putting spins on things to get themselves off any hooks it looks like they might get caught on. I would therefore not take anything that Cllr Coombes has to say at face value, without first checking its accuracy.

Question to (rogerh) - if you have received any information from B&NES under an FOI request, then it is now publicly available information. Could you possibly post the pertinent bits so that we can be helped in maiking our minds up?

rogerh · Post by **rogerh** » Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:07 pm

I'm sorry about that. It's not my intention to be personal. I'm simply presenting the information I have to hand.

Re. the FOI request, you need to bear in mind that this dates from January 2011 so things may have changed (or possibly not since they were proposing a temporary wooden fence back then). Also that being a FOI request the information supplied is rather disorganised and, in this case, heavily redacted in parts.

I'll scan some in later but for now the earliest letter I have is from the Railway Inspectorate to B&NES (in reference to a letter from the Parks Dept. regarding an impasse over a solution) stating that Network Rail had a duty under Sects. 2 and 3 of the Health & safety at Work Act 1974 and that B&NES should consider its own responsibilities under Sect. 36.

By January 2009 the Railway Inspectorate was "minded to serve an improvement notice on the company [NR] requiring it to fence the railway at Sydney Gardens..." and ends by pointing out (to B&NES) that "any other party which impedes NR from carrying out its legal duty commits an offence under Sect. 36 of the Act and could be liable to prosecution".

More to follow, including a summary from the ORR in Dec. 2010 saying that NR "have for many years wanted to erect fencing at Sydney Gardens, with our support over the last ten years".

horace · Post by **horace** » Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:53 pm

I was not going to comment any more, but as robin says take anything politicians say with a big pinch of salt. Also note that all of what Banes and network rail are putting forward is proposals. Those proposals have to get past the planning legislation once they have been agreed ( n.b agreed). Network rail can wish that the sky turns pink but there is no way they can bypass listed building legislation. Look very carefully at the documents for electrification, every thing has to go through a consultation with English Heritage.
As I stated earlier gone are the days of demolishing Euston Arch. Look at what happened at St. Pancras, it cost millions to renovate as it could not be touched. On high speed one whole hillsides were dug up and replanted else where. Railway legislation is not all powerful, if it was Dawlish would have a fence all along it, a very similar situation to Sydney gardens.
from my own experiences i know of proposals fro improvement schemes for rail and road that stay just that as they cannot get past the legislation. Once and if the proposal for a fence becomes an application then the fun starts. I can assure the cost of the fence will pale into insignificance compared to the cost of overcoming the objections that i am sure all on this site will be submitting to planning authorities. Rather than tear one another apart in here concentrate on looking out for an application if one ever arises and then campaign like crazy to stop it. As you have seen Network rail cannot even electrify its own railway without making an application and having a full consultation with English heritage. Another thing to do is to write to the council and check that the wall is listed, if it is not put in an application for it to be listed. Find a local resident and get that done, once its listed it has the same status as every other structure.
The thing to do above all else i repeat is watch for an application, that is the starting gun, not a proposal.

This is my last comment, this time i promise you.

Robin Summerhill · Post by **Robin Summerhill** » Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:30 am

Horace - no need to stop if you can add something to the debate

Perhaps I should make myself a little clearer, as somebody who can perhaps see where both you and rogerh are coming from. Let me put all those years of experience of political manouverings into practice!

Cllr Coombes wrote: "While we have not been convinced of the need for this fence, Network Rail are entitled to put it up".

As I read this statement:

"You don't want a fence put up so I'll write something that makes it appear that I'm agreeing with you. But also something that I can step back from if certain substances hit the fan. You see, we have "not been convinced" - that's not to say we won't "be convinced" in the future. The way I've couched my words means that, if a fence does go up, I've got plenty of wriggle-room and can say it's all Network Rail's fault, not mine. They will be the 'bad guys' in all this.

Oh, by the way, can I count on your vote come the next election?"