Notes for editors
Information on this page and the images in the Press Gallery provide basic material for publishing a story:
1) Basics
2) Background
3) Detail
4) Who to contact for further information
5) Press Gallery (separate tab) for downloading high-res images (@300ppi) to complement the story
1) Basics
In a nutshell: The Railway Action Group (RAG) was formed in March 2015 as a result of Network Rail appearing to have breached the law (Section 85, Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000) when it started to install its standard electrification design through the Goring Gap, a beautiful valley in South Oxfordshire, causing a major adverse visual impact on this highly protected landscape. (See article on The Chilterns AONB website:http://www.chilternsaonb.org/news/248/19/Fight-to-protect-the-Goring-Gap.html).
National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) have been confirmed by the Government as having the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The law says that bodies like Network Rail should have regard to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) but it has not provided any evidence that it has made any significant effort to comply with the law.
Network Rail did not commission a special design of electrification which is less visually obtrusive than the new standard design it is currently installing, nor has it modified existing overhead systems which are less visually intrusive to bring them up to current standards. RAG believes both of these options were possible but Network Rail choose not to do either. It simply choose to install the same design throughout the whole route from London to Bristol and refuses to mitigate its new design to minimise the visual impact where it passes through the Goring Gap and the Chilterns and North Wessex Downs AONBs, even though its own Environmental Statement states that electrification will have a major impact on the landscape. Still it continues, unabated, to install an environmentally inappropriate, one-size-fits-all design.
The Secretary of State for Transport, Patrick McLoughlin MP, said about Network Rail that the Great Western Line is a priority and they must 'get that right'. RAG does not believe Network Rail is getting it right and is challenging it to alter its design in just two miles of track where it passed through the Goring Gap. This website provides the background and evidence of the most devastating visual assault on the Goring Gap, described as a 'Jewel in the Crown' of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Network Rail admits it has failed to consult properly and, had it done so at the outset, this issue of the right design for an AONB location could have been avoided. Our objective now is to continue to negotiate with Network Rail to achieve a sensible compromise on design where its primary business objectives can still be met, but with less permanent visual damage to the landscape in this beautiful valley.
The Railway Action Group (RAG) is the collective name for a small group of local residents and parish councillors from Goring-on-Thames and neighbouring South Stoke in South Oxfordshire, conservationists and other individuals who became increasingly concerned when they started to see the electrification infrastructure Network Rail (NR) was installing in the Goring Gap. Seemingly unaware of the environmental significance of the Goring Gap, being with two separate AONBs and its protected status, it choose this particular section of the line (between Reading and Didcot) to be the 'Test Track' for the new Hitachi high speed trains. The urgency to complete electrification on the test track section by the end of 2015 is driving Network Rail to ignore the protestations of environmental campaigners and finish the work regardless, it seems, of the consequences.
RAG was formed as soon as it became evident that the electrification was far more damaging to the landscape that anyone had imagined it would be. John Howell, MP for Henley, supports the aims of RAG and has attended meetings with RAG and Network Rail and written to it’s executives and The Secretary of State for Transport and others to support the effort for a design change and improved consultation.
The two main issues RAG has with NR are:
1) The inappropriate and visually obtrusive overhead electrification design being used in the Goring Gap on the track and on the two listed Brunel viaducts at Gatehampton and Moulsford. This is a highly protected environment, being a beautiful valley situated within two separate Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 states:
‘In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a relevant authority shall have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty.’
NR is neither, in the opinion of RAG, conserving or enhancing the natural beauty Goring Gap and has not, and will not, mitigate the design of its overhead electrification system. RAG is trying to get NR to seriously consider alternative, less visually obtrusive electrification design options to the standard one it is currently installing.
In May 2105, RAG sent 14 written questions to NR and the first 3 are below, along with NR's written answers:
RAG Q1. Did NR ask its designer, Furrer & Frey, to take any account of aesthetic or environmental sensitivity in areas such as AONBs?
NR A1. F & F were commissioned to provide a suite of designs (Series 1) that could be used as a catalogue at a national level, which therefore includes a variety of different structure types that can be selected by the designers of different electrification schemes to provide a bespoke solution best suited to local constraints.
RAG Q2. It appears that the design of the OLE through the AONB at Goring Gap and South Stoke is the same as that being used in urban area of low landscape value: is that correct?
NR A2. The simple answer is yes. However, we have sought to minimise visual impact by avoiding the siting of more visually intrusive components, specifically anchor portals, within the sensitive area of South Stoke village. This was in response to the concerns raised by the community during the early engagement with the community.
RAG Q3. Does NR agree that this new portal design is more visually intrusive than anything previously used in UK rail? (most portals have latticed verticals, and no protrusions above the horizontal lattice beam).
NR A3. No. However, it is not possible to provide an objective answer, as the question of comparative visual intrusiveness is a matter of opinion and nor a matter of fact. There are many design variants across the national network, a number of which may be considered to be more visually intrusive.
(5 further paragraphs omitted in the interest of brevity).
2) The lack of proper consultation with the statutory bodies responsible for protecting AONBs, and other stakeholders which NR is legally obliged to undertake. Consultation is a requirement and there are government guidelines which should be followed by public bodies, such as NR, when embarking on major projects which affects so many people and interests. The Chilterns Conservation Board did not once have a meeting with NR since the project between when CCB and other AONBs were asked to comment on NR's Environmental Statement in 2012/13 and the time the installation of the infrastructure began in early 2015.
2) Background
Following the recent intervention by the government to reduce and delay Network Rail’s over-ambitious plans for modernising the rail network, Transport Secretary, Patrick McLoughlin, said in parliament on 25 June “rising costs and missed targets make the £38.5bn plan untenable”.
1) Basics
2) Background
3) Detail
4) Who to contact for further information
5) Press Gallery (separate tab) for downloading high-res images (@300ppi) to complement the story
1) Basics
In a nutshell: The Railway Action Group (RAG) was formed in March 2015 as a result of Network Rail appearing to have breached the law (Section 85, Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000) when it started to install its standard electrification design through the Goring Gap, a beautiful valley in South Oxfordshire, causing a major adverse visual impact on this highly protected landscape. (See article on The Chilterns AONB website:http://www.chilternsaonb.org/news/248/19/Fight-to-protect-the-Goring-Gap.html).
National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) have been confirmed by the Government as having the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The law says that bodies like Network Rail should have regard to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) but it has not provided any evidence that it has made any significant effort to comply with the law.
Network Rail did not commission a special design of electrification which is less visually obtrusive than the new standard design it is currently installing, nor has it modified existing overhead systems which are less visually intrusive to bring them up to current standards. RAG believes both of these options were possible but Network Rail choose not to do either. It simply choose to install the same design throughout the whole route from London to Bristol and refuses to mitigate its new design to minimise the visual impact where it passes through the Goring Gap and the Chilterns and North Wessex Downs AONBs, even though its own Environmental Statement states that electrification will have a major impact on the landscape. Still it continues, unabated, to install an environmentally inappropriate, one-size-fits-all design.
The Secretary of State for Transport, Patrick McLoughlin MP, said about Network Rail that the Great Western Line is a priority and they must 'get that right'. RAG does not believe Network Rail is getting it right and is challenging it to alter its design in just two miles of track where it passed through the Goring Gap. This website provides the background and evidence of the most devastating visual assault on the Goring Gap, described as a 'Jewel in the Crown' of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Network Rail admits it has failed to consult properly and, had it done so at the outset, this issue of the right design for an AONB location could have been avoided. Our objective now is to continue to negotiate with Network Rail to achieve a sensible compromise on design where its primary business objectives can still be met, but with less permanent visual damage to the landscape in this beautiful valley.
The Railway Action Group (RAG) is the collective name for a small group of local residents and parish councillors from Goring-on-Thames and neighbouring South Stoke in South Oxfordshire, conservationists and other individuals who became increasingly concerned when they started to see the electrification infrastructure Network Rail (NR) was installing in the Goring Gap. Seemingly unaware of the environmental significance of the Goring Gap, being with two separate AONBs and its protected status, it choose this particular section of the line (between Reading and Didcot) to be the 'Test Track' for the new Hitachi high speed trains. The urgency to complete electrification on the test track section by the end of 2015 is driving Network Rail to ignore the protestations of environmental campaigners and finish the work regardless, it seems, of the consequences.
RAG was formed as soon as it became evident that the electrification was far more damaging to the landscape that anyone had imagined it would be. John Howell, MP for Henley, supports the aims of RAG and has attended meetings with RAG and Network Rail and written to it’s executives and The Secretary of State for Transport and others to support the effort for a design change and improved consultation.
The two main issues RAG has with NR are:
1) The inappropriate and visually obtrusive overhead electrification design being used in the Goring Gap on the track and on the two listed Brunel viaducts at Gatehampton and Moulsford. This is a highly protected environment, being a beautiful valley situated within two separate Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 states:
‘In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a relevant authority shall have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty.’
NR is neither, in the opinion of RAG, conserving or enhancing the natural beauty Goring Gap and has not, and will not, mitigate the design of its overhead electrification system. RAG is trying to get NR to seriously consider alternative, less visually obtrusive electrification design options to the standard one it is currently installing.
In May 2105, RAG sent 14 written questions to NR and the first 3 are below, along with NR's written answers:
RAG Q1. Did NR ask its designer, Furrer & Frey, to take any account of aesthetic or environmental sensitivity in areas such as AONBs?
NR A1. F & F were commissioned to provide a suite of designs (Series 1) that could be used as a catalogue at a national level, which therefore includes a variety of different structure types that can be selected by the designers of different electrification schemes to provide a bespoke solution best suited to local constraints.
RAG Q2. It appears that the design of the OLE through the AONB at Goring Gap and South Stoke is the same as that being used in urban area of low landscape value: is that correct?
NR A2. The simple answer is yes. However, we have sought to minimise visual impact by avoiding the siting of more visually intrusive components, specifically anchor portals, within the sensitive area of South Stoke village. This was in response to the concerns raised by the community during the early engagement with the community.
RAG Q3. Does NR agree that this new portal design is more visually intrusive than anything previously used in UK rail? (most portals have latticed verticals, and no protrusions above the horizontal lattice beam).
NR A3. No. However, it is not possible to provide an objective answer, as the question of comparative visual intrusiveness is a matter of opinion and nor a matter of fact. There are many design variants across the national network, a number of which may be considered to be more visually intrusive.
(5 further paragraphs omitted in the interest of brevity).
2) The lack of proper consultation with the statutory bodies responsible for protecting AONBs, and other stakeholders which NR is legally obliged to undertake. Consultation is a requirement and there are government guidelines which should be followed by public bodies, such as NR, when embarking on major projects which affects so many people and interests. The Chilterns Conservation Board did not once have a meeting with NR since the project between when CCB and other AONBs were asked to comment on NR's Environmental Statement in 2012/13 and the time the installation of the infrastructure began in early 2015.
2) Background
Following the recent intervention by the government to reduce and delay Network Rail’s over-ambitious plans for modernising the rail network, Transport Secretary, Patrick McLoughlin, said in parliament on 25 June “rising costs and missed targets make the £38.5bn plan untenable”.
He blamed Network Rail saying “it should have foreseen the improvements would cost more and take longer”. Network Rail said the plan, which was launched last year as the “largest modernisation of the railways since Victorian times, was too ambitious.” After 'pausing' and delaying the upgrade of the Midland and Trans-Pennine routes, The Transport Secretary said that "electrification of the Great Western line is a top priority and I want Network Rail to concentrate its efforts on getting that right”.
(NB: In October 2015, the decision to 'pause' the two midland and northern projects was reversed).
‘Getting it right’ is what RAG wants too.
See ‘Detail’ below showing that NR is not ‘getting it right’ on the two main issues, namely:
1) Network Rail is failing to meet its legal obligations in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs)
2) Network Rail is failing to consult properly and in a timely way with statutory bodies.
Network Rail (NR) is not following agreed procedures for consultation and not considering any alternatives to the current, very visually obtrusive design it is installing throughout the Chilterns AONB and the whole of the GW line from London to Bristol. The current design resembles a series of heavy grey ‘steel goalposts’ every 60m or so along the track, producing a continuous prominent metal scar throughout the protected AONB. RAG believes that from an aesthetic point of view, there could be better options. NR has not been able to provide any evidence that their current design is the only acceptable one. An alternative, less bulky design, could have been developed without heavy metal gantries, similar to the design used on the high speed Heathrow Express track to Paddington which has 98% reliability. Alternative designs therefore are possible on high speed lines, but NR will not consider them, even in this most precious and legally protected area of the Goring Gap.
3) Detail
With suitable modifications, a more robust, yet less visually obtrusive design, would, no doubt, have been possible, but Network Rail did not commission one from Furrer & Frey, the Swiss company who supplied the standard overhead system currently being installed. NR said “F & F were commissioned to provide a ‘suite of designs’ which … includes a variety of different structure types that can be selected by the designers of specific electrification schemes to provide a bespoke solution best suited to the local constraints”.
When RAG asked NR if the design used in the Goring Gap and the Chilterns AONB is the same as used in urban areas of low landscape value, NR’s response was “The simple answer is yes. ...”
The image below (basic gantries before electrification equipment installed on them) shows the devastating visual impact the new electrification infrastructure currently being installed will have on the open landscape throughout the Goring Gap. RAG believes a better, less visually intrusive design should have been used in two short elevated sections of track (a total of about 2 miles. See 2 maps) running through this beautiful valley and we are trying to persuade Network Rail to modify the design it before the damage is made permanent and is too late.
(NB: In October 2015, the decision to 'pause' the two midland and northern projects was reversed).
‘Getting it right’ is what RAG wants too.
See ‘Detail’ below showing that NR is not ‘getting it right’ on the two main issues, namely:
1) Network Rail is failing to meet its legal obligations in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs)
2) Network Rail is failing to consult properly and in a timely way with statutory bodies.
Network Rail (NR) is not following agreed procedures for consultation and not considering any alternatives to the current, very visually obtrusive design it is installing throughout the Chilterns AONB and the whole of the GW line from London to Bristol. The current design resembles a series of heavy grey ‘steel goalposts’ every 60m or so along the track, producing a continuous prominent metal scar throughout the protected AONB. RAG believes that from an aesthetic point of view, there could be better options. NR has not been able to provide any evidence that their current design is the only acceptable one. An alternative, less bulky design, could have been developed without heavy metal gantries, similar to the design used on the high speed Heathrow Express track to Paddington which has 98% reliability. Alternative designs therefore are possible on high speed lines, but NR will not consider them, even in this most precious and legally protected area of the Goring Gap.
3) Detail
With suitable modifications, a more robust, yet less visually obtrusive design, would, no doubt, have been possible, but Network Rail did not commission one from Furrer & Frey, the Swiss company who supplied the standard overhead system currently being installed. NR said “F & F were commissioned to provide a ‘suite of designs’ which … includes a variety of different structure types that can be selected by the designers of specific electrification schemes to provide a bespoke solution best suited to the local constraints”.
When RAG asked NR if the design used in the Goring Gap and the Chilterns AONB is the same as used in urban areas of low landscape value, NR’s response was “The simple answer is yes. ...”
The image below (basic gantries before electrification equipment installed on them) shows the devastating visual impact the new electrification infrastructure currently being installed will have on the open landscape throughout the Goring Gap. RAG believes a better, less visually intrusive design should have been used in two short elevated sections of track (a total of about 2 miles. See 2 maps) running through this beautiful valley and we are trying to persuade Network Rail to modify the design it before the damage is made permanent and is too late.
Network Rail has not listened so far to anyone who cares deeply about protecting the environment and hasn’t taken into consideration and implemented the findings of its own environmental statement. It hasn’t consulted properly with the authorities and is pressing ahead at full speed with a one-size-fits-all design to meet deadlines without regard for the protection of the landscape in this valley.
In the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (Section 115), it states: ‘Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty’.
Members of the Railway Action Group welcome electrification and are fully in favour of the modernisation of the Great Western Route. But, to permanently disfigure the landscape in the process in this way is neither necessary, right, nor indeed lawful, we believe. Network Rail give reasons as to why these particular heavy metal gantries are preferred to other designs currently in use elsewhere on it the Great Western Main Line and elsewhere on its network, but have not provided any comparative data. It could, if it had the will, reduce the visual impact significantly, but it is choosing the easy option to keep the standard design and not mitigate by modifying it over just 2 miles or so, even in this most legally protected and beautiful environment.
On Network Rail's website (Great Western Electrification) there is a heading entitled:
'Better for the environment'.'Electric trains cause 20-35% lower carbon emissions than diesels with no emissions at the point of use, improving air quality in pollution hot spots such as city centres and stations. They are also quieter, improving quality of life for people living near the railway'.
If fails to mention, however, the major adverse visual effects on the landscape that its current electrification design is causing. Network Rail's own Environmental Statement highlight these adverse effects and, as a result of no mitigation of these effects it appears to be breaching Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which protects AONBs from developments which do not conserve or enhance the natural beauty of the landscape.
For interest, a ‘Guide to Overhead Electrification’ is available for those wishing to read about the technical details and intricacies of electrifying railways: http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/sites/default/files/sitedocuments/Planning-and-Building-Control/Planning/nr_a_guide_to_overhead_electrification.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 1:
Is Network Rail ‘getting it right’ in the design of its overhead equipment in the AONB?
RAG believes it is not.
In Network Rail’s Environmental Statement, produced by Atkins, it states in section 3.2.3: ‘The general approach for incorporating mitigation into the Scheme, whether it is through modifications to the design or the addition of other environmental or sustainability measures, is to prioritise avoiding an impact followed by reducing the magnitude of the impact and if this is not possible compensate for the impact’. [Great Western Main Line Electrification Project. Environmental Statement Volume1A General Sections. Network Rail. October 2012].
No such design mitigation has been considered or implemented by Network Rail in the Goring Gap.
Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000’ states:
‘In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a relevant authority shall have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty.’
Is Network Rail conserving (keeping it the same) or enhancing (making it better) the AONB by a possibly unnecessarily visually intrusive design? The answer is an emphatic NO.
Network Rail commissioned Atkins (a design and engineering consultancy) to undertake a major environmental study to determine the impact electrification would have on the countryside around the rail Great Western rail corridor. [Source: Great Western Main Line Electrification Project: Environmental Statement Volume 1B: South Oxfordshire District Council. Network Rail. January 2013].
Network Rail’s own Environmental Statement indicates:
‘Significant effects would be generated by the permanent presence of additional infrastructure.’
For instance, it identifies in the Moulsford - Cholsey - South Stoke - Goring area that:
i) ‘the Overhead Line Equipment (OLE) gantries would be prominent,
ii) the gantries would highlight the location of the rail corridor through the landscape and
iii) they would be permanent changes and the magnitude would be moderate adverse to large adverse.’
Response from Network Rail to Chairman of Chilterns Conservation Board,1 April 2015
“You are entirely correct that our environmental impact assessment identifies the large, adverse impact on the local environmental through South Stoke and Goring and it is for this reason that we are giving consideration to replanting on community grounds for the purpose of mitigating against the appearance of OLE …” - Richard Turner, Community Relations Manager, Western Communications, Network Rail
Network Rail’s response to the initial consultation with the Chilterns Conservation Board (CCB) quotes:
‘There has been a requirement, due to the time constraints associated with the programme for construction, to streamline the methodology to exclude detailed consultation with stakeholders regarding visual amenity receptor locations’.
‘Where appropriate, the landscape chapter will take into consideration Section 85 and DEFRA guidance concerning the duties with regard to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. For example, the LVIA [Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment] will identify where landscape mitigation is most important.’ [Source: Great Western Main Line Electrification Project: Environmental Statement Volume 2: Appendices A-D. South Oxfordshire District Council. Network Rail. December 2012].
Extract of letter sent to Mark Carne (CEO, Network Rail), Robbie Burns and Francis Paonessa, 25 March 2015:
“At present the Board considers that Network Rail is failing to fulfil its statutory duty, under Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, to have regard to the purpose of the Chilterns AONB.” - Ian Reay, Chairman, Chilterns Conservation Board
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2:
Is Network Rail ‘getting it right’ in it’s duty to consult properly with the conservation authorities responsible for protecting AONBs?
RAG believes it is not.
Network Rail never had a meeting with the Chilterns Conservation Board, not engaged in proper consultation before the electrification infrastructure began to appear early in 2015.
Consultation is a requirement and there are government guidelines which should be followed by public bodies such as Network Rail when they are embarking on major projects which affects so many people and interests. Importantly, consultation should take place at times when the consulted parties can have an influence on the outcome of any plans. They shouldn’t be simply be a series of ‘Drop-in’ meetings where Network Rail puts up the plans in village halls after installation has started, as is currently suggested by Network Rail. This is not consultation, nor does it comply with the Code of Practice on consultation, or Network Rail’s own specifications.
Network Rail Specifications for Consultation state:
Stakeholder engagement and consultation. In order for Network Rail to deliver its licence obligation with regard to the production and maintenance of RUS, stakeholder engagement will conducted throughout the process’. [Route Utilisation Strategies - Technical Guide 2009, Section 9.1]
Network Rail states (Great Western electrification project Frequently asked questions) that:
The scheme will be delivered under our permitted development rights. However, the principles of good consultation, as set out in the Planning Act 2008, will be applied in order to assist in the project being managed responsibly. The Planning Act 2008 Act states:
18. Early involvement of local communities, local authorities and statutory consultees can bring about significant benefits for all parties, by:
· helping the applicant identify and resolve issues at the earliest stage, which can reduce the overall risk to
the project further down the line as it becomes more difficult to make changes once an application has been
submitted;
· enabling members of the public to influence proposed projects, feedback on potential options.
Following comments by members of AONB Conservation Boards in Network Rail’s Environmental Statement, early consultation was requested on mitigation strategies to minimise the adverse impact the electrification infrastructure was going to have on the landscape and that Network Rail must take full account of the duties public bodies to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of OANBs.
When the report was published, it was stated:
‘There has been a requirement, due to the time constraints associated with the programme for construction, to streamline the methodology to exclude detailed consultation with stakeholders …’ [Great Western Main Line Electrification Project Environmental Statement Volume 2: Appendices A-D, South Oxfordshire District Council]
Extract of letter sent to Mark Carne (CEO of Network Rail), Robbie Burns and Francis Paonessa, 25 March 2105
“As far as we are aware this consultation has not taken place and the Board is very concerned that overhead gantries are now being erected within the Chilterns AONB. These have a significant detrimental impact on the landscape of the AONB and the Board would like to see them removed and replaced with a much less visually intrusive alternative”. - Ian Reay, Chairman, Chilterns Conservation Board
Response from Network Rail to Chairman of Chilterns Conservation Board,1 April 2015
“Your comments regarding consultation are wholly understandable and I offer my profuse apologies that we have fallen short of this requirement on this occasion. To explain, the final design was approved for construction in December 2014, and this compounded by the fact that we are working in an ever accelerating programme, has sequentially led to this oversight on our part.” - Richard Turner, Community Relations Manager, Western Communications, Network Rail
Guidelines for Government and Public Bodies Consultation state:
Timing of consultation: Engagement should begin early in policy development when the policy is still under consideration and views can genuinely be taken into account. Timeframes for consultation should be proportionate and realistic to allow stakeholders sufficient time to provide a considered response. Sufficient information should be made available to stakeholders to enable them to make informed comments.
At a meeting with South Stoke Parish Council and Network Rail on 27 September 2013, the council requested seeing the design sheets related to the track electrification with its parish boundaries.
Network Rail’s response to the council on 9 October 2013 was:
“It will not be possible to share a copy of the GRIP5 design sheets for the length of track within the parish boundary with you.” - Richard Turner, Community Relations Manager, Western Communications, Network Rail.
4) Who to contact for further information
In the first instance, please contact the leader of the Railway Action Group (RAG):
Ian Haslam
Email: savegoringgap@gmail.com
Mobile: 07776 496655
5) Press gallery - for downloading high-resolution images
NB: Some past media reports on electrification can be found in Documents & Links
Network Rail Specifications for Consultation state:
Stakeholder engagement and consultation. In order for Network Rail to deliver its licence obligation with regard to the production and maintenance of RUS, stakeholder engagement will conducted throughout the process’. [Route Utilisation Strategies - Technical Guide 2009, Section 9.1]
Network Rail states (Great Western electrification project Frequently asked questions) that:
The scheme will be delivered under our permitted development rights. However, the principles of good consultation, as set out in the Planning Act 2008, will be applied in order to assist in the project being managed responsibly. The Planning Act 2008 Act states:
18. Early involvement of local communities, local authorities and statutory consultees can bring about significant benefits for all parties, by:
· helping the applicant identify and resolve issues at the earliest stage, which can reduce the overall risk to
the project further down the line as it becomes more difficult to make changes once an application has been
submitted;
· enabling members of the public to influence proposed projects, feedback on potential options.
Following comments by members of AONB Conservation Boards in Network Rail’s Environmental Statement, early consultation was requested on mitigation strategies to minimise the adverse impact the electrification infrastructure was going to have on the landscape and that Network Rail must take full account of the duties public bodies to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of OANBs.
When the report was published, it was stated:
‘There has been a requirement, due to the time constraints associated with the programme for construction, to streamline the methodology to exclude detailed consultation with stakeholders …’ [Great Western Main Line Electrification Project Environmental Statement Volume 2: Appendices A-D, South Oxfordshire District Council]
Extract of letter sent to Mark Carne (CEO of Network Rail), Robbie Burns and Francis Paonessa, 25 March 2105
“As far as we are aware this consultation has not taken place and the Board is very concerned that overhead gantries are now being erected within the Chilterns AONB. These have a significant detrimental impact on the landscape of the AONB and the Board would like to see them removed and replaced with a much less visually intrusive alternative”. - Ian Reay, Chairman, Chilterns Conservation Board
Response from Network Rail to Chairman of Chilterns Conservation Board,1 April 2015
“Your comments regarding consultation are wholly understandable and I offer my profuse apologies that we have fallen short of this requirement on this occasion. To explain, the final design was approved for construction in December 2014, and this compounded by the fact that we are working in an ever accelerating programme, has sequentially led to this oversight on our part.” - Richard Turner, Community Relations Manager, Western Communications, Network Rail
Guidelines for Government and Public Bodies Consultation state:
Timing of consultation: Engagement should begin early in policy development when the policy is still under consideration and views can genuinely be taken into account. Timeframes for consultation should be proportionate and realistic to allow stakeholders sufficient time to provide a considered response. Sufficient information should be made available to stakeholders to enable them to make informed comments.
At a meeting with South Stoke Parish Council and Network Rail on 27 September 2013, the council requested seeing the design sheets related to the track electrification with its parish boundaries.
Network Rail’s response to the council on 9 October 2013 was:
“It will not be possible to share a copy of the GRIP5 design sheets for the length of track within the parish boundary with you.” - Richard Turner, Community Relations Manager, Western Communications, Network Rail.
4) Who to contact for further information
In the first instance, please contact the leader of the Railway Action Group (RAG):
Ian Haslam
Email: savegoringgap@gmail.com
Mobile: 07776 496655
5) Press gallery - for downloading high-resolution images
NB: Some past media reports on electrification can be found in Documents & Links
