Update: Sustrans have been asked by both councils to withdraw their application. Many thanks to those of you who put in objections.

Sustrans Planning Application for the Broadway to Honeybourne trackbed

The plan

to create a "meandering path" part tarmac part unsurfaced, along all five miles of trackbed
vegetation allowed to "regenerate" at the side of the meandering path
path to be 2.5m wide on 4.5m wide raised bed
to remove 600mm of ballast from the entire formation and sell it off to pay for repairs to the bridges
to remove part of bridge parapets or wing walls to create access ramps of up to 5m width

You can view the covering document and details here.
Covering Letter
2.5m Unsurfaced path 1
2.5m Unsurfaced path 2
2.5m Tarmac path

What this plan will mean

Rail reinstatement will be impaired and prejudiced. It will make this impossible without needless and massive extra cost. Practically speaking this will prevent the already planned reinstatement of the line either by the GWR and most likely by Network Rail/SRA.
Future public trains for Race days from the main line will be prevented by putting the cost of reinstatement beyond the funding capabilities of the GWR. The new £16 million pound 'mini NEC' development by the Racecourse Company which can hold events of up to 6,000 capacity will not be rail linked. Traffic congestion around the racecourse will not be reduced.
The railway formation through Cheltenham is in poor repair and is estimated to cost many millions more to restore than a mainline link at Honeybourne. This is beyond the GWR's finances. Without a connection at Honeybourne the largest rebuilt private railway will remain isolated from the rest of the rail network and its public transport potential will be reduced.
The reuse of the route for through freight will be severely prejudiced and impaired by making the economics of reinstatement massively more expensive. This route was named in Railtrack's NMS 2000 as a possible reinstatement scheme for freight.
The considerable tourist potential offered to the area by the GWR will be reduced substantially. Tourists will be unable to arrive by rail at Honeybourne. Future road traffic to the station in Broadway will be increased.
The isolation of the line from the rest of the rail network will prevent an outside train operating company providing a week day service (to compliment the weekend tourist trains) which could serve stations at the following villages : Broadway, Laverton, Toddington, Winchcombe, Gretton, Gotherington, Bishops Cleeve. It would also block any chance of through trains from Stratford-upon-Avon to Cheltenham.
The loss of a possible rail freight facility at the site of the disused Honeybourne airfield to transfer fruit produce through the Channel tunnel. The number of heavy lorries in the area will not be reduced.
To add the cost of replacing the ballast by an estimated £600,000. BR are believed to have had problems of drainage and mud pumping up through the ballast. The extra ballast most likely was put down to help remove this problem. It would need to be replaced for heavy rail as would drainage sand blankets. The ballast would have to be compacted and stabilised requiring heavy plant equipment at great extra cost.
To add to the cost of reinstatement by requiring the wing walls and parapets to be rebuilt for rail. The bridge inspector indicates this would be required due to the higher safety requirement for rail than a path.
To add to the cost by likely requiring a rail operator to realign the tarmac path and unsurfaced path alongside one side of the formation. Another massive needless cost. Elsewhere in the country, it is alleged that this has been so great that other freight reinstatement schemes have had to be abandoned by a large national freight operator.
To add to the cost by requiring a rail operator to remove the vegetation that Sustrans state would be allowed to "regenerate" by the side of the path (made more likely by the removal of the ballast). This would cause more disturbance to habitat and wildlife.
Have a significant detrimental environmental impact to local residents with an estimated 3,000 – 6,000 lorry journeys (20t or 40t lorries) along narrow local roads removing the ballast, and another 3,000 – 6,000 if rail is ever reinstated. This may well have consequences for the damage of local roads and their structures that are narrow and not designed for heavy lorries as well as creating dust, noise and pollution.
To make likely damage to the drainage of the formation with possible unpredictable consequences for local farms and houses near the line.
To cause extra cost by a rail operator having to remove part of access ramps and raised path bed where it fouls the clearance gauge for rail.
To require five miles of extra fencing for rail reinstatement.
To add extra liabilities for public safety and insurance.
To create a public path from Broadway to Willersey (despite the fact there is already a public footpath and 'B' road between the villages that is much more direct). Once created this might be difficult to remove if a rail operator needed to do so.
To render redundant the extra hundreds of thousands of pounds spent by Worcestershire County Council on the Broadway bypass bridge that was constructed to take rail reinstatement by the GWR/SRA.
In their application, Sustrans covering letter states "We believe that the proper maintenance of the railway bridges now is of much greater benefit than the retention of this ballast, both in terms of our management of the asset and in terms of any future public railway use of the line."
The GWR are intending to run public services for Race days. As they are likely to be the first infrastructure operator of public services along the formation and as they already maintain 14 miles of trackbed and structures without needing to damage or remove assets, clearly the public interest would be best served by Sustrans supporting ownership of the trackbed by the GWR. It has always been the understanding that where rail was to be reinstated Sustrans would defer ownership to the rail project. This is alleged to be one of the conditions of the lease agreement with the BR properties board.
National planning policy guidance with regard to safeguarding railway trackbeds will have been ignored. Trackbeds should only be used for alternative uses when they are 'redundant' to future needs, which this trackbed is clearly not. This will set a dangerous precedent for future rail reinstatement projects.

The Path

In the following article from the 'This is Worcestershire website' here

Sustrans engineer Simon Ballantine is alleged to have said "For the one and a half miles from Broadway to Willersey, we want to build that as a public path because that gives you a link between the villages that are currently severed by the Broadway bypass."

Please have a look at the map which can be seen online here.

You will notice that the trackbed does not pass through either village. How can it link them ? There is already a much more direct link between the villages in the form of both a public footpath and a 'B' road ! One has to question how many locals would want to walk further to get on and off the trackbed to this path than to walk direct along the existing routes in the first place. For the vast majority of residents this path is likely to be of little or no use in linking the villages.

The article also states that the villages are presently linked by the Broadway Bypass. I hope no one tries walking from Broadway to Willersey along it. If so they will end up in Evesham or Stow on the Wold. As you can see from the map it doesn't go through either village let alone link them up ! In fact the only reason why you might have to risk walking or cycling along the bypass to reach Willersey is if you were trying to get to the proposed new path on the trackbed !

Is losing the chance of reinstating rail for freight, public transport or tourist trains by this plan to be implemented in the public interest ? – Especially when Sustrans could easily construct the path in a way that did not obstruct rail reinstatement ? Clearly not. The cycle path could be built alongside existing roads however the railway can only be put back along the trackbed.

How to Object

The Board of the railway has already objected to these plans on behalf of its members, as have many other railway societies and rail interest groups. Many thanks for their support and help. Local newspapers and national Railway publications are now taking an interest and are likely to publish details of this plan soon.

The planners at Wychavon ask that members of the railway understand that the Board's official objection covers them and that they do not need to submit individual objections. However, as there is such strength of feeling on this issue, if you would like to email me I will present a collection of the responses to the planners. For Wychavon objections MUST BE IN BY 21 NOV 02. I believe its important that they understand the anger these plans will have produced amongst our members and shareholders, but there is clearly no point in making extra work for them.

However please encourage friends, neighbours, organisations you are members of to put in objections. Please also consider writing or emailing your constituency MP.

The trackbed runs through Wychavon and Cotswold district councils. The addresses are as follows :

Wychavon :

Gavin Greenhow,
Planning Dept.
Wychavon District Council,
The Civic Centre,
Queen Elizabeth Drive,
Pershore,
Worcs,
WR10 1PT.
E-mail at:
Gavin.Greenhow@wychavon.gov.uk

Cotswolds District :

Geraldine LeCointe (Planner)
The Planning Dept.
Cotswold District Council
Trinity Road, Cirencester, Glos. GL7 1PX
Email
mailto:planning@cotswold.gov.uk

Members of Parliament :

Please contact your constituency M.P. You may like to consider asking them why Sustrans appear to be receiving public money to produce this scheme that goes against Government policy by needlessly prejudicing rail reinstatement. Please also consider asking why the freehold of the land hasn't been handed over to the GWR by the SRA or Sustrans, as their is now a realistic plan for reinstatement for public trains to Cheltenham Racecourse with the backing of racing companies. It is now clearly in the public interest for this to be done. The GWR already maintains many more structures on its part of the trackbed including a long tunnel and viaduct without needing to damage the assets to pay for repairs as Sustrans intend to do.

There is a list of all M.P.'s and their email addresses here.

If you live locally the details are :

Tewkesbury : Laurence Robertson Email at :

http://www.locata.co.uk/cgi-bin/webdriver?MIval=commons_mail&id=458

Cheltenham : Nigel Jones website at : http://www.nigeljones.org.uk/

Mid Worcestershire : Peter Luff MP website at http://www.peterluff.co.uk/mid_worcestershire.asp

Local Planning Policy

In writing objections to the plans, you might like to make reference to the planning policies of the various councils, which are very supportive of protecting rail reinstatement. My suggested comments are below each policy which you might like to use in your objections.

Worcestershire Structure Plan states :

"7.70 The need to retain rail property such
as track bed, sidings and buildings including land owned by Railtrack,
British Rail and others has been identified in the White Paper as being very
important in view of the potential value to future passenger and freight
services. Policy T.17 seeks to protect such land from development in order
that, should the opportunity arise, suitable land is available for the
expansion of the rail network. In the instance that, following
consultation with the Strategic Rail Authority, Railtrack and the relevant
train and freight operating companies, it is clear that the land is no
longer needed or suitable for operational purposes, the land may be released
in the first instance for alternative transport related issues such as cycle
tracks."

Comment :
The Gloucestershire Warwickshire Railway is a statutory undertaker and operational railway authorised by act of Parliament. It intends to run public trains for Race days and tourist trains during the rest of the year. The land will be needed for operational purposes. Permission should not therefore be given for alternative purposes.

Wychavon local plan states :

9.11.1 Part of the former Stratford-upon-Avon to Cheltenham
railway line runs through the east of the District. Having
been largely dismantled in 1969, the line is now being
re-laid in part by a private company (the Gloucestershire
and Warwickshire Steam Railway plc). Currently, the
re-established line runs some way south from Toddington and
the ultimate aim is to reopen it from the main line junction
at Honeybourne to Cheltenham Racecourse. There is also a
campaign to reinstate the length of line between Stratford
and Honeybourne Junction with the opportunity to reopen a
number of stations along the full length of track, including
Broadway. The project offers great tourist potential. The
majority of work within Wychavon’s area is to be carried out
beyond this District Local Plan timescale and, although it
is not the Council’s intention to become involved in the
implementation of the scheme at any stage, it can assist in
the interim by refusing permission for development likely to
prejudice implementation."

Comment :

The plan not only prejudices reinstatement by the GWR but with respect to our limited resources will for all practical purposes completely prevent it. Permission should be refused.

Gloucestershire structure plan states :

"Policy T.6
The maintenance and enhancement of the rail network will be
promoted by: the safeguarding of land for new or re-opened railway lines,
stations, railfreight terminals and associated facilities, including car
parks;
providing for the improvement of facilities at existing
stations, including facilities for interchange with other
modes of transport;
the protection of railway facilities from development which
would interfere with their transport function; and
the promotion of improvements to passenger services to
existing and proposed development, in conjunction with rail
operators, and developers where appropriate.
Policy T.7
Protection of Transport Corridors
Disused railway lines and canals which are used, or which
have the potential for future use, as continuous transport
corridors should be protected from development which would
impair such use.
8.3.20 Disused railways and canals offer the potential for
a wide range of transport uses, for example as
cycle/footpaths, for development as roads, or indeed to be
restored to their original uses. They have the advantage of
an established transport use, overcoming many of the
difficulties associated with establishing a new transport
route. Local plans should therefore include policies to
protect such corridors from development which could impair
their future re-use.

Comment :

This plan impairs future re-use of this trackbed for rail by "meandering" the path along the formation from side to side, removing the ballast, removing part of the bridges and encouraging vegetation to "regenerate" by the sides of the path. All of this is unnecessary to construct a cycle path and increases the costs of rail reinstatement to such an extent to make any future use extremely unlikely. The Cotswold district planners should be reminded of Wychavon and Worcestershire's plans as they relate to this application. Permission should be refused.

Cotswold district Local Plan (Adopted) 1999 :

"Policy 32 : Access to the Countryside
4. Development that would prevent, or reduce the opportunities for, the use of former railway lines as long distance recreational routes, will not be permitted. The retention of existing embankments, cuttings, bridges and other features will be sought."

Comment :
This policy can be applied to 'tourist' steam trains that give access to the countryside for recreation. 'Retention of other features' should be taken to mean ballast - it should not be removed. The proposed access ramps for the cycle path requiring removal of bridge parapets and parts of the embankments are also against this policy.

"6. The council will not permit planning applications which might prejudice the re-opening of the railway line between Honeybourne Junction and Cheltenham Racecourse."

Comment :
Cheltenham Racecourse is our southern terminus, and was not the limit of the Railtrack proposals which were from Cheltenham Lansdown Rd to Stratford-upon-Avon. This policy is intended to apply directly to the Gloucestershire Warwickshire Railway. The cycle path prejudices reinstatement by the GWR and the application should be refused.

National Planning policy and guidance

The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport states for cycle paths :
"Generally these routes will use existing highways, but may also include the use of redundant railway lines or space alongside canals and rivers."

Comment :
This formation is a dismantled railway that is required for future public transport, freight and tourism. There are realistic and active plans for its reinstatement. It is NOT 'redundant'. It should therefore not be used for a cycle track which can be built elsewhere.