Okehampton Railway re-opening

[KeithMacdonald]

1 hour ago, rab said:

It's only a bid to fund the business case.

i wouldn't go rushing to buy tickets yet.

 

Yes, it would be a long wait on Bere Alston station!

 

It'll be interesting to see if the "new" business case is just a reprint of the "old" business case from 2014(?), or whether there will be any substantial changes.

 

https://www.devon.gov.uk/roadsandtransport/traffic-information/transport-planning/tavistock-to-bere-alston-railway-and-associated-multi-use-trails/
 

Quote

 

What happens next

The Applicant has not yet set a timetable for this project. After receipt of the application, there will be 28 days for the Planning Inspectorate to review the application and decide whether or not to accept it for examination.

 

 

https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/projects/south-west/bere-alston-to-tavistock-railway-reinstatement-and-associated-trails/

[lmsforever]

Went to this railway many years ago now not very impressed seemed to be in a run down state then only Oakhampton station was reasonably worth looking at and then mainly for the restaurant for lunch .Cant see the point in the preserved railway coming back especially when the line reopens for passenger traffic.I think there are far better projects out there that deserve to profit  in these straightened times.

[Siberian Snooper]

I was under the impression that the developer of the housing estate in Tavi was supposed to be funding the extension from Bere Alston as part of the planning permission, does this mean that the developer has been let off?

[Kris]

40 minutes ago, Siberian Snooper said:

I was under the impression that the developer of the housing estate in Tavi was supposed to be funding the extension from Bere Alston as part of the planning permission, does this mean that the developer has been let off?

I suspect that the council has found some other pet project to spend the 106 money on. 

[mdvle]

7 hours ago, Siberian Snooper said:

I was under the impression that the developer of the housing estate in Tavi was supposed to be funding the extension from Bere Alston as part of the planning permission, does this mean that the developer has been let off?

 

No, the cost of re-opening to Tavistock went well beyond the developers contribution so the council dropped the idea.

 

Rail had an article in 2019 that stated the developer was required to contribute £1.53m for every 100 homes (153 homes in the first phase, total of 750 eventually).

 

So eventually £11.5m.

 

Problem - in 2019 the cost of the Tavistock extension had gone up to £93m, so well beyond the developer's contribution and the council decided it wasn't viable.

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/reopening-bere-alston-tavistock-railway-3311504

 

The council apparently applied for money from the Reverse Beeching scheme but I don't think Tavistock has been selected for any of the money based on a quick search.

 

[62613]

17 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

No, the cost of re-opening to Tavistock went well beyond the developers contribution so the council dropped the idea.

 

Rail had an article in 2019 that stated the developer was required to contribute £1.53m for every 100 homes (153 homes in the first phase, total of 750 eventually).

 

So eventually £11.5m.

 

Problem - in 2019 the cost of the Tavistock extension had gone up to £93m, so well beyond the developer's contribution and the council decided it wasn't viable.

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/reopening-bere-alston-tavistock-railway-3311504

 

The council apparently applied for money from the Reverse Beeching scheme but I don't think Tavistock has been selected for any of the money based on a quick search.

 

If the developer builds fewer than the number of houses to trigger the payment in each phase, they can wriggle out of it. That happened with a local development; the promised school extension and childrens' playground were never built.

 

[Northmoor]

14 minutes ago, 62613 said:

If the developer builds fewer than the number of houses to trigger the payment in each phase, they can wriggle out of it. That happened with a local development; the promised school extension and childrens' playground were never built.

 

I sometimes wonder if people who devise policies like this can do basic maths or have even met other humans before.  If you have to pay a premium for building 100 homes but nothing for building 99, how many would you build?  Offsets like these only add to the cost of housing, discourage building and drive up the cost of homes. 

 

If a school extension and childrens playground were needed, the council should have paid for it (and recovered the costs through council tax).  That is what they are there to do.  It's not like only the new homeowners would benefit from the facilities. 

[Oldddudders]

58 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

I sometimes wonder if people who devise policies like this can do basic maths or have even met other humans before.  If you have to pay a premium for building 100 homes but nothing for building 99, how many would you build?  Offsets like these only add to the cost of housing, discourage building and drive up the cost of homes. 

 

If a school extension and childrens playground were needed, the council should have paid for it (and recovered the costs through council tax).  That is what they are there to do.  It's not like only the new homeowners would benefit from the facilities. 

This is the basic flaw with democracy. While the council officers might recommend certain lines of approach, the elected members take the decisions and have the final say. The vast majority of us have no interest in being a politician at any level, so why would we trust the tiny minority who do?

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

If a school extension and childrens playground were needed, the council should have paid for it (and recovered the costs through council tax).  That is what they are there to do.  It's not like only the new homeowners would benefit from the facilities. 

It mostly is the new homeowners though, or at least a question of maintaining a level of services proportional to the number of people living there (even though the eventual services aren't rigidly used by people in one place). Even with a railway, if adding more just starts making the roads worse and worse. The existing council tax payers will quite legitimately question why ultimately they're the ones paying for facilities needed based on an increase they'd probably prefer didn't happen in the first place.

[62613]

2 hours ago, Northmoor said:

I sometimes wonder if people who devise policies like this can do basic maths or have even met other humans before.  If you have to pay a premium for building 100 homes but nothing for building 99, how many would you build?  Offsets like these only add to the cost of housing, discourage building and drive up the cost of homes. 

 

If a school extension and childrens playground were needed, the council should have paid for it (and recovered the costs through council tax).  That is what they are there to do.  It's not like only the new homeowners would benefit from the facilities. 

It rather depends on; 1) whether the council has the funds to build the school and playground. This was in 2013, after three years of cuts to the rate support grant from central government. The idea that local authorities fund their spending entirely from Community charge is one of the biggest misconceptions of all time.

                                       2) whether the DoE would allow the local council to build the infrastructure; there has been an idealogical assault on the idea of local democracy, starting in the 1980s. Policy since 2005 has been that education should be removed from L.A. control, in favour of academies and "Free Schools".

                                      3) surely building one less unit isn't going to affect the developer's profits by much, especially if the development was in two stages of 50 units each (your example)

                                     4) last two sentences in the first para; why do you think house prices are so high?

[mdvle]

2 hours ago, Northmoor said:

If a school extension and childrens playground were needed, the council should have paid for it (and recovered the costs through council tax).  That is what they are there to do.  It's not like only the new homeowners would benefit from the facilities. 

 

The existing residents, most of whom either object to paying taxes (particularly for things "they don't use") or think taxes are too high/government is wasteful, are the voters who gave the councillors their jobs.

 

New home owners aren't yet voters, so their opinion doesn't count for much (yet), but then the cycle repeats once they are voters where they don't want to pay for the stuff for future new residents...

[Not Jeremy]

The way I heard it, the real reason was that Network Rail massively upped some contingency payment the developer had to put in and they very understandably walked away.

 

This apparently a decision taken by NR after their "experience" with the WR electrification.

 

God bless 'em.

 

But then again NR have just relaid the railway to Okehampton, having hopefully bought the whole shebang back from the Yanks at a knock down price.

 

God bless 'em

 

Funny old World, but however you look at it the prospect of getting tracks back over Dartmoor can only be better than they were - I may yet live to see it....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 21, 2021 by Not Jeremy
typo

[Northmoor]

8 hours ago, 62613 said:

It rather depends on; 1) whether the council has the funds to build the school and playground. This was in 2013, after three years of cuts to the rate support grant from central government. The idea that local authorities fund their spending entirely from Community charge is one of the biggest misconceptions of all time.

                                       2) whether the DoE would allow the local council to build the infrastructure; there has been an idealogical assault on the idea of local democracy, starting in the 1980s. Policy since 2005 has been that education should be removed from L.A. control, in favour of academies and "Free Schools".

                                      3) surely building one less unit isn't going to affect the developer's profits by much, especially if the development was in two stages of 50 units each (your example)

                                     4) last two sentences in the first para; why do you think house prices are so high?

I agree with virtually everything you've written above and am well aware of the difficulties (and lack of lee-way) of local government funding.  Central government is very good at "devolving powers" to local government - making it sound like they are doing what the public wants - then failing to transfer any appropriate funding, telling the LA they can fund it through savings.

 

Point (3) and your phrase "by much" is however, the problem; the pernicious nature of offsets.  No-one thinks what they are asking for makes much difference, except that there are 30 other offsets all making "very small impacts".  Eventually the developer decides that the profit doesn't compensate for the risks and walks away; now the council doesn't have the new housing or the extras it wanted.

 

Point (4) is very simple, supply and demand and the number of reasons for that is too long to list (and people would still come up with others).  However offsets are one of those reasons; the hurdles now required to be met by housing developments mean that local builders who might be able to deliver a small scheme of 3-6 houses (in almost every village in the UK) struggle to do it, while the Multi-£Bn listed housebuilding companies can afford to build huge developments of 500 houses.  This is what causes a town to suddenly grow by 10%, without the commensurate growth in facilities (and all the houses are the same boring designs with the same construction faults too). 

 

The solution?  I don't know, but giving local government tax-raising powers would help.  People would certainly object (and a national government of any colour would never allow it), but perhaps it would get the voters to actually turn out for local elections........?

[Gwiwer]

8 hours ago, Not Jeremy said:

 

 

 

That’s going nowhere. 
 

Failed for having no driver’s windscreen wiper. 
 

[62613]

11 hours ago, Northmoor said:

I agree with virtually everything you've written above and am well aware of the difficulties (and lack of lee-way) of local government funding.  Central government is very good at "devolving powers" to local government - making it sound like they are doing what the public wants - then failing to transfer any appropriate funding, telling the LA they can fund it through savings.

 

Point (3) and your phrase "by much" is however, the problem; the pernicious nature of offsets.  No-one thinks what they are asking for makes much difference, except that there are 30 other offsets all making "very small impacts".  Eventually the developer decides that the profit doesn't compensate for the risks and walks away; now the council doesn't have the new housing or the extras it wanted.

 

Point (4) is very simple, supply and demand and the number of reasons for that is too long to list (and people would still come up with others).  However offsets are one of those reasons; the hurdles now required to be met by housing developments mean that local builders who might be able to deliver a small scheme of 3-6 houses (in almost every village in the UK) struggle to do it, while the Multi-£Bn listed housebuilding companies can afford to build huge developments of 500 houses.  This is what causes a town to suddenly grow by 10%, without the commensurate growth in facilities (and all the houses are the same boring designs with the same construction faults too). 

 

The solution?  I don't know, but giving local government tax-raising powers would help.  People would certainly object (and a national government of any colour would never allow it), but perhaps it would get the voters to actually turn out for local elections........?

Last para; giving local authorities powers to borrow, to build houses; or to allow them to keep the receipts from council house sales, might help (if the council actually owns any; mine doesn't)

[corneliuslundie]

To be fair to NR (why should I?) I think the contingency increase was imposed by the Treasury on public sector projects.

Jonathan

[mdvle]

On 21/06/2021 at 08:59, Not Jeremy said:

The way I heard it, the real reason was that Network Rail massively upped some contingency payment the developer had to put in and they very understandably walked away.

 

Unless it was an £80m contingency budget, which seems unlikely, the costs of the project simply weren't in the range that they could be covered by a housing development.

 

The article I linked to indicated that cost jumped from £70m to £93m within a year - a £23m jump sound like adding a contingency budget to the project - but £70m wasn't funded either so a moot point.

 

(and I agree with corneliuslundie, I seem to recall at some point the Treasury forced NR to start including contingency funding in their estimates for projects given the habit that the estimates weren't turning out to be accurate - perhaps post WR electrification problems(?))

[AMJ]

Needs politicians/NR to be looking again at Dawlish diversionary route to metaphorically get this off the ground.

[mdvle]

3 hours ago, AMJ said:

Needs politicians/NR to be looking again at Dawlish diversionary route to metaphorically get this off the ground.

 

Which won't happen anytime soon - a look at the several videos posted to YouTube by Dawlish Beach Cams shows that the work done/being done by NR at Dawlish has eliminated any near term/mid term need for a diversionary route.

[Zomboid]

It'll never fly just as an alternative to Dawlish. Rebuilding the route needs to be viable on the basis of running trains between Exeter, Crediton, Okehampton, Tavistock and Plymouth. If such a regular service can be justified there's some hope for it. I won't be holding my breath for that.

[Reorte]

26 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

It'll never fly just as an alternative to Dawlish. Rebuilding the route needs to be viable on the basis of running trains between Exeter, Crediton, Okehampton, Tavistock and Plymouth. If such a regular service can be justified there's some hope for it. I won't be holding my breath for that.

 The only way I could see it happening is if Exeter - Okehampton and Plymouth - Tavistock are viable in their own right and it then being regarded as not too expensive to fill in the bit between Okehampton and Tavistock and run the regular services all the way through, with the end result of something being a bit more expensive than doing what'll definitely pay for itself.

 

That would work if the two ends were a mile or two apart, but I can't see it being enough to bridge the distance between Tavistock and Okehampton (even though nowadays it would probably be enough to keep it if it hadn't been closed but was threatened with it). Okehampton and Tavistock alone seem to be struggling to get attention as it is.

Edited June 24, 2021 by Reorte

[Northmoor]

The pros and cons of the diversion away from Dawlish was done well in this thread last year (took a bit of searching to find it):

 

Edited June 24, 2021 by Northmoor

[rovex]

I can't copy the link but the local press is announcing that Network Rail has bought Okehampton station and the sixteen miles of track linking up ot to the mainline.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.railadvent.co.uk/2021/07/dartmoor-line-and-okehampton-railway-station-purchased-by-network-rail.html/amp

 

 

Edited July 4, 2021 by rovex
Adding link

[Gwiwer]

NR has bought the trackbed and the northern side of Okehampton station from Aggregate Industries. The council retains ownership of the southern side and footbridge. 

[009 micro modeller]

15 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

NR has bought the trackbed and the northern side of Okehampton station from Aggregate Industries. The council retains ownership of the southern side and footbridge. 

 

Does the council bit contain any track?