Leicestershire County Council Letter, Great Central and Freight by Rail

Comment: We sent a simple letter and I attach the response. 

May only be a green pathway possibility, but that is progress for protecting a corridor upon which we hope to build. It is not either or conventional rail or preservation, Finmere aspires to 4 miles or so; here we're talking 40+ miles of rebuilt railway, but railway which can do so much more in that 'rebuild' - double deck commuter trains, piggyback, roll-on, roll-off and capacity off WCML*/MML *and M1 - which HS2 does not touch. * West Coast Main Line/ Midland Main Line.

You have to have a vision before a plan. The enlightenment brought us onto doing things scientifically, even theology through a scientific method - everything which can be observed, touched, tested confines to natural order, sociologists sought to transfer to social ordering of societies, using scientific principles. This 'science' is rather suspicious/discounts 'faith' as a valid basis to proceed/claim truths which cannot be 'tested'. But faith/belief systems is an essential pre-requisite to creating, a key reason to bother, for or against surely? Thus, building expressionality out of the vision beit old Jerusalem or a new 'heavenly' citadel coming out of the skies - science can be a servant to help get the vision to plan to design to implementation; but to insist it is the sole and only acceptable prime approach to do anything or business with, is erroneous one might suggest.

You/we need a vision for what kind or reach and range all or specifics we wish for in 'freight by rail'. Is there environmental gains sending more freight by rail? Government seems to cordon type of freight x a cap on freight for passenger and speed than new/reopened rail for medium-longer haul capacity flows.
I'm afraid that some are so narrow in heavenly mindedness, they forget the hands-on upwards which creates bread! 

The reverse one finds equally true and faith is discounted, when it is a part of the engine room/guts which inspires and energizes to get things started. Railfuture could campaign-lead more on a freight by rail renaissance.
The market alone will just go for pop and the easiest structure - roads unless made to/incentivised to consider water and/or rail. E.g. a pre-planning requirement of Blisworth should be they invest in Northampton-Brackmills-Bedford and a recycling depot, likewise the proposed incinerator at Millbrook, Central Bedfordshire, adjacent to the Marston Vale Railway should as a pre-planning requirement be ordered to bring in/make arrangements for bringing in waste by rail and taking the ash/burnt material out by rail. Whatever the qualms on 'smoke'; unless the recycling is bulk-rail enough to volume-ise for aggregate justification of tonnage - you have an army of lorries masquerading behind 'local distribution' and often the unions! Government could do more to sort the frameworks out to encourage pro-rail compliance as a pre-plan thought than addendum to colourise a lorry fleet mecca on an outline plan.

Therefore the accountancy and 'science' has to be squared to practical realities. If our vision is too small, we get small loads of whatever, if too expansive, we fail to build the market incrementally and thus establish a robust operational dynamic. I'm for more freight by rail and can see a component is capacity (hence reopenings), but also you need someone willing to invest in wagons, trainloads, haulage and switch potential.

A niche I believe a campaign could work on is the 3 R's: Renewables, Recycling and Rail as a triangulated unit. Bulk requires Regional scale of operation but you could have regional hubs like Forders Sidings, Wolverton and Brackmills around a triangulated rail network bestriding 3 regions and multiplex warehouse, logistics and distribution hubs Bedford, Milton Keynes and Northampton are. How we get from a to b, is the key and challenge. Conversely if the tracks aren't there, if business has no incentive, even outside our area to it, it falls down and new depots off main lines minus the Northampton-Bedford missing link, just means capacity on the WCML has to give in passenger or other customer terms.

I welcome your help in finding solutions. Thank you.

Further reading:
https://mmetag.wordpress.com/
http://modgov.southnorthants.gov.uk/documents/s15384/Rail%20Central%20Appendix%202.pdf
http://www.brackmillsindustrialestate.co.uk/contact-brackmills-industrial-estate-northampton
http://www.railfuture.org.uk/Welcome+to+Railfuture

Please help us by writing in support of a Bedford-Olney-Northampton rail link

Please help us by writing in to Milton Keynes Council asking them to protect lands for the reopening of a Bedford-Olney-Northampton railway. Development must be tailored to enable the Handley Alignment to be do-able and both sides. For further enquries and guidance ring 020 8940 4399 or email simon4barber@gmail.com.

The Occupier On Behalf of ERTA 20 Fitzherbert House Kingsmead Richmond Surrey TW10 6HT	Duncan Sharkey Corporate Director - Place
	Anna Rose Service Director Planning and Transport
	Our Ref:		15/02299/OUT
	Your Ref:
	Reply To:		Richard Sakyi
	Direct Line:		01908 252509
10th June 2016	e-mail:	richard.sakyi@milton-keynes.gov.uk

Dear Sir/Madam,

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED)

APPEAL BY Mr Paul Johnson AGAINST REFUSAL FOR
Outline application (access) for a proposed residential development of up to 50 dwellings, estate road, open space and associated works (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale - reserved matters)
AT Land To South of Lavendon Road Farm, Lavendon Road, Olney, ,
APPEAL START DATE:	6th June 2016

We are writing to advise you that the Secretary of State is conducting the above appeal.

The Council’s reason(s) for refusing the above application(s) are as follows:

(01)     The proposed access in combination with a proposed mini roundabout (onto Lavendon Road), by reason of the roundabout design (lack of curb) and location near to a bend in the road, would fail to give priority to traffic nor encourage traffic to slow down on Lavendon Road before the junction, increasing the risk of accidents within the locality to an unacceptable degree. No other mitigating measures have been proposed to overcome these concerns. The applicant has failed to demonstrate a safe access to the site, and that the proposed development accords with Design Manual for Road and Bridges / Manual for Streets 1 and 2 and MK New Residential Design Guide, and therefore is contrary to Milton Keynes Local Plan 2005 policy T10 and the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(02)     No evidence has been submitted to indicate that a suitable discharge point into the River Ouse has been agreed with the Environment Agency.  The Local Planning Authority cannot therefore be satisfied that the scheme is able to incorporate a sustainable drainage system, contrary to aims and objective of the National Planning Policy Framework (and National Planning Policy Guidance) in this regard.

(03)     The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not lead to a burden on or have an adverse impact on existing local social and sustainable infrastructure, education and leisure facilities.  The proposal is therefore contrary to the guidance within Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) for Affordable Housing SPD (2013), Education Facilities SPG (2004), Leisure Recreation and Sports Facilities SPG (2005), Social Infrastructure SPD (2005), and Sustainable Construction SPD (2007) which support the Milton Keynes Core Strategy Policy CS21, Policy P04 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2005, and the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

(04)     The proposed development, by reason of the concerns raised in reasons for refusal numbers 1, 2 and 3, does not meet the definition of sustainable development as outlined in paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Planning Inspector has asked me to notify you about this appeal as it is considered that you may be affected by the proposed development.

It has been decided that this appeal will be dealt with on the basis of an Informal Hearing, which you may attend, and at the Inspectors discretion give your views. The Informal Hearing will be at Milton Keynes Council, Civic Offices, 1 Saxon Gate East, Central Milton Keynes. We will notify you of the date of the hearing when it has been arranged.

Any comments made by you at the application stage will be sent to the Planning Inspectorate and if you want to make any additional comments, 3 no. copies must be sent to The Planning Inspectorate, Room 3/13, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN, quoting reference APP/Y0435/W/16/3147906.

These should be sent by 11th July 2016.  Any representations received after the deadline will not normally be seen by the Inspector and will be returned.  I am obliged to point out that all representations will be disclosed to the appellant.

Representations can now be made on line at www.planningportal.gov.uk/pcs.

A copy of the Planning Inspectorate’s booklet “Guide to taking part in planning appeals” may be obtained free of charge, on request from the Planning Department at the Civic Offices.

The appellants statement may be inspected at The Planning Department, Milton Keynes Council, Civic Offices,1 Saxon Gate East, Milton Keynes, once received, approximately 6 weeks after the appeal start date.  The Council’s statement is currently being prepared and you should check on its availability by telephone before coming to inspect.

The Planning Inspectorate will send a copy of the decision to you provided you specifically ask for one.

If you are not the owner of this property to which this letter is addressed perhaps you would ensure that the owner is made aware of the contents of this letter.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Sakyi

Senior Planning Officer

On behalf of Head of Development Management

The traffic impact of this development, the turning a country lane (Lavendon Road) to a busy thoroughfare, the location of hedgerows which may be lost all has to be weighed with the benefit if lands are used for the railway which will deliver footfall and spend to Olney minus the conflict of land available and parking. The whole area north of built Olney should be declared a mini greenbelt.

Flying Scotsman Comes to Bedford!

Photos up and down are recording the visit of Flying Scotsman to Bedford on Saturday 4th June 2016.
Taken and donated kindly, by Ms. Sue Allen. Thank you.