'First Great Western are appalling neighbours'

[whole diary]

[Chris from Nailsea]

I'm going to post this item here in 'the lighter side' as it concerns ... erm, a light. 

From the Oxford Mail's letters page:

First Great Western are appalling neighbours

I wonder if anyone else has had the opportunity to experience First Great Western as a neighbour as we have?

The company has a bright streetlight near Oxford station which shines into the entire back of our house.

After six years of requesting they address this by putting up a shield, they put up an inadequate thin shield that does not stop the streetlight shining into our house, and now they seem to be of the opinion that they have done all they can.

On phoning them I got through to someone in India who informed me that my home and my postcode do not exist.

I emailed them without response.

When going to talk to the station manager about it, I was unable to see the manager, but was informed angrily by one of the staff that people who choose to live near the station should have to put up with the lights and that it is my own fault for living here.

First Great Western are not only extremely crowded train operators, but appalling neighbours too.

[grahame]

I note the follow up comment from a reader:

So the Chair of the Oxford Pedestrians Association is complaining about the lighting that illuminates the pathways for pedestrians walking on public transport infrastructure in the dark...

You couldn't make it up.

And looking at the address of the original letter, the lighting is over the car parking area off the end of the main station approach - not sure if that's actually public or staff parking.

http://www.oxpa.org.uk/Contact.html

[ChrisB]

Which was there first - the house or the light?

Rewley Park? Isn't that the 'new' houses built by the station?....should've looked round at night before buying. Zero sympathy

[ray951]

It is the new houses behind the Said Business School, built on the site of the old LNWR^▸ (London North Western Railway) (?) station that is now at Quainton Road, I suppose they will start complaining about the noise of the trains next

[ChrisB]

Yes, those are they.....this was predicted at the time they were being built. They want a shade, they pay for it, I reckon.

[Trowres]

Perhaps the unsympathetic readers had better review the comments on HST^▸ (High Speed Train) lighting and quiet carriages elsewhere in this thread.

After all, those complainers *knew* that people have phones and travel on trains, and that trains have bright lights, but still chose to travel.

Pot : kettle.

[ChrisB]

Totally different.

You do have rights around your living space; you have none when travelling on public transport.

[didcotdean]

Sushila Dhall is also the chair of the Oxfordshire Green Party. Was a city and county councillor for a while but has been unsuccessful recently, albeit in a different ward.

[JayMac]

Right that's it. I'm never travelling by train again now that I know I have no rights as a passenger.  

You say you have zero sympathy ChrisB but then rightly point out that that people have rights around their living space. Light nuisance can be a criminal offence just like noise and smell pollution. However the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 exempts certain railway premises from the legislation. Within that legislation it says which types of railways premises are exempt. One is 'stations' and under the legislation 'stations' means any land or other property which consists of premises used as, or for the purposes of, or otherwise in connection with, a railway passenger station or railway passenger terminal (including any approaches, forecourt, cycle store or car park), whether or not the land or other property is, or the premises are, also used for other purposes.

So it would appear that the owner of the car park isn't breaking the law, but that doesn't stop them being good neighbours. I have every sympathy for the letter writer, politician or not.

[didcotdean]

Of course without seeing the locality it isn't possible to know what could be done without reducing the necessary area of illumination. It must be a pretty strong light if with even some kind of a shield it can penetrate lined curtains or blinds.

[ChrisB]

Right that's it. I'm never travelling by train again now that I know I have no rights as a passenger.  

I knew you were going to be obtuse in your response! We're talking about light nuisance? You have no rights under that heading on a train.....:-)

So it would appear that the owner of the car park isn't breaking the law, but that doesn't stop them being good neighbours. I have every sympathy for the letter writer, politician or not.

Possibly. Maybe she ought to approach the building owners?....

[JayMac]

I knew you were going to be obtuse in your response!

Not obtuse (Adj. Annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand or, deliberately difficult to understand). I understood immediately that although you said 'none' when referring to passengers rights you didn't mean 'none'. But you still said 'none'.

So, not obtuse. Perhaps irksome or pestiferous. 

[grahame]

Perhaps we've thrown enough light on some of the uses of the English language here.   A very illuminating discussion, and hopefully the various parties in this issue can see their way forward to a solution.

[TonyK]

Sushila Dhall is also the chair of the Oxfordshire Green Party.

Crikey, and there was me thinking it was that spicy lentil dish I ordered in a certain oriental restaurant once. Caused the world to fall out of my bottom, it did.

If it's only a light nuisance, why worry? There are enough nuisances of a much heavier nature to deal with first.

[LiskeardRich]

Better quality curtains should resolve the issue, or black out blinds.....