Chiltern Evergreen 3 project - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[paul7575]

The Judicial Review can only be on original objections, if electrification was not raised as an objection at the original public enquiry it cannot be raised in a JR.  My feeling is the objector just does not want trains running at all and would be quite happy to see the line close completely.

I think I veered off the subject slightly there, but it wasn't really intended to suggest the present judicial review was about electrification.  I think that in post #113 swrural is only suggesting that further complaints, from similar sources, about East West rail and electrification are probable, not that it is an aspect of the current judicial review.

Paul

[IndustryInsider]

Hopefully this Judicial Review will be swiftly dealt with.  Will the East-West Rail scheme require a TWA?  There will no doubt be the same delays and nonsense if it does! 

[ChrisB]

If I were to say that the objector is part of the road lobby, it might put things in perspective. He's also on Legal Aid & this is costing the taxpayer a lot of money.

NR^» (Network Rail - home page) hasn't yet determined which way it will apply for rights for EWR work yet - the presentation at the OBRAG meeting covered this saying there are three options being discussed.

[swrural]

If I were to say that the objector is part of the road lobby, it might put things in perspective. He's also on Legal Aid & this is costing the taxpayer a lot of money.

NR^» (Network Rail - home page) hasn't yet determined which way it will apply for rights for EWR work yet - the presentation at the OBRAG meeting covered this saying there are three options being discussed.

That mystifies me (road lobby bit).  Can you not safely name him please (bound to be a him) so one can google it and learn more?  I must confess, as an environmental campaigner myself (CPRE^▸ (Campaign to Protect Rural England)), I am not against people getting legal aid to fight a case on principle.  I think that unlawful practice, especially by large organisations, should be challenged (like the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) franchise affair for instance).  So whether this A.N. Other has a case or not will soon emerge, hopefully.  My mystification centres on what a petrol head has against railways, in this case, unless A.N. Other is an RHA member (thus my curiosity).
 
Yes, on my previous post, I meant new possible objections (to the electric spine and East West part) but wondered if those developments needed any planning consent (leaving aside new station buildings and so on).

[mjones]

I noticed that "Transport Watch" was an objector in the public inquiry, though I don't think the individual behind it is representative of any wider lobby group.

[paul7575]

If this really is the infamous Mr Withrington, he seems to object as a matter of course to anyything regarding railways.  I thought the inspector had seen through his fairly ridiculous proposals and reported as such?

Paul

[ChrisB]

That's him....he did, but Witherington is still entitled to take it higher, unfortunately. And he does have the larger road lobby behind him.

[paul7575]

The inspector's original report does seem to adequately rebut his points IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion), but then I'm no expert in the minutae like Withrington obviously thinks he is. AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) he tried to make out that EG3 was really a DB^» (Deutsche Bahn - German State Railway - about) sponsored scheme to improve DBS^» (Deutsch Bahn Schenker - UK^▸ (United Kingdom) website)'s freight capability, but then also proposed that the whole route to Marylebone should be turned into a coach route.

The Inspectors original report is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4487/twa-10-app-01-report.pdf

... so if anyone is interested in looking up Withrington's summarised case it's on page 178 et seq.

Paul

 

[swrural]

Thanks Paul, I will.  Could both of you agree on the spelling of Withrington, this or the other  please?

My experience of hearing evidence like the coach route to Marylebone is that it destroys credibility of objectors.

Mind you, that was apparently DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) policy at one time, whoops!

[swrural]

I am answering my own question (it's Withrington).

Here is the link of his opponents.

 http://www.engage-oxford.org.uk/content/evergreen3-public-enquiry-update-paul-withrington-transport-watch

Will read with interest.  In fact this was dealt with earlier in the thread (early 2011). 

[John R]

Gosh, this made my blood boil, particularly if he is getting legal aid. He doesn't even live anywhere near the area (Northampton).

There are some wonderful inconsistencies in his statement of case. At one point he complains that 4 or 5 freight trains a day will do nothing to impact road traffic and later on speculates that a noisy freight train every six minutes would shatter the peace of those living next to the line. And cutting and pasting Chiltern's rolling stock fleet from Wikipedia into the case, and then presuming that their costs will be consistent with High Speed Rail stock elsewhere was easily shot down by Chiltern on both counts.

Hopefully the fact that the first phase is now going to be tied in with EWR means that the  delay caused by the JR will be minimal, due to the need to replan.

[swrural]

Yes, I have had a look now.  Incidentally the initial link I gave came from a fellow supporter organisation, not opponents as I stated, but that linked to the same address as given before.

I read his opening which, after stating some impressive qualifications and job history, launched into unremitting hyperbole.  I then looked at his 'coach route' proposals and stumbled on so many unfounded assertions and not-thought-through analyses.  It must have been difficult for the Inspector do deal with all this verbiage and 'summarily' was probably safer than in detail.  However perhaps that is the substance of the JR application, as dealing with the fantastic minutiae would indeed be a mammoth task, so he will complain of errors of omission probably.

It all reminded me of Dr Dionysis Lardner and I.K. Brunel in front of the Lords committee on Box tunnel.  The latter had a few devastating scientifically-sound retorts and the committee who came down on Brunel's side did not have to worry about judicial review of course.

[TonyK]

I have read through many of the arguments raised by the objector. The only possible reason for them that I can think of is that he has a barrister in the family. The arguments he puts forward are riddled with anomaly and incorrect assumption, but he, like anyone else, is entitled to seek judicial review of any exercise of power by a minister or other statutory body. Whether he will succeed is of course entirely another matter. Much of his case is based on a secret plan to use the route for intensive freight operations, entirely rebutted by Chiltern, and with no evidence to the contrary. Judges don't like unfounded conspiracy theories.

I can't figure out what his ground for review is by looking at the grandly drafted "Conclusions", and assume he wants the judge to conclude that the Secretary of State, in allowing the scheme, acted in a way which any reasonable person would conclude to be irrational. If that it is the case, then it's a bit rich.

Of the many put-downs by Chiltern of his barrack-room accountant approach to the relative costs of road and rail, this one is my favourite:

3.130 The Objector claims that a railway can be converted to a busway for ^100/m2, or ^1,000 per lineal metre. The trackbed of the former Cambridge to St Ives railway (25 km) is currently being converted to a busway and the out-turn cost is currently estimated at ^181,000,000, which equates to ^7,240 per lineal metre. This is for converting a disused line, and thus unlike Order Scheme it does not include any provisions for providing replacement services during the construction period.

Source: http://www.engage-oxford.org.uk/sites/engage-oxford.org.uk/files/CRCL-R-OBJ319%20Withrington.pdf

Two paragraphs prior to that, Chiltern point out that aound the world, busways are being converted to rail, or closed. The day of the busway has come and gone, which is why at last Bristol has started to build one. 

[ellendune]

The phrase vexatious litigant comes to mind.

[TonyK]

The phrase vexatious litigant comes to mind.

It does to me also, although I doubt it would do much more than offer the man the use of an even bigger soap box, and a supply of willing proxies to take his place.

No less a person than the MP^▸ (Member of Parliament) for Witney, the Rt Hon David Cameron, expressed frustration at the expensive and endless uses of judicial review in holding up infrastructure projects. He has said he will try to change the law to make such challenges harder to mount, but is worried his regulations may be overturned on, er, judicial review.

I have said elsewhere within this noble coffee shop that there is a reason why the former dictatorships in Europe enjoy more comprehensive public transport than here. We should really enjoy our democracy and the power it gives to the common man to object to things we don't like, without risking being taken out and shot. The Planning Inspector will have given Mr W a good listening to, steering him back to the point should he stray into other matters, before ignoring his specious and flawed arguments. Judges are not so indulgent, and you annoy them at your peril. However, let us not lose sight of the fact that, however meritorious the scheme, the Secretary of State approved it against the recommendation of the inquiry. Whilst Chiltern had convinced her that they had mitigated the issues cited by the inspector, it does give the opponent the impression that it must have been a close call, so worth a challenge.

Hurry up, your Honour!