Dawlish storms rail line 'threatened by cliff homes' - BBC

[whole diary]

[alexross42]

I'm no geology expert but surely building properties on top of an area of coast line that is known for erosion and landslips is bordering on insanity?!
If anything this will just contribute even further to NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s costs of stabilising this section of the line, unless they can get something written into the planning clause that the developer pays for it, should approval be granted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-30742205

[ellendune]

Ground stability used to be a material consideration in planning applications (PPG14). I assume it still is under the National Planning Policy Framework.

[eightf48544]

i would have thought 10m is a bit tight. i would want 50 at least. Hope Network Rail stick to their objections.

[chopper1944]

All the more reason for a line inland, if planning permission is eventually gramted.

[ChrisB]

Ooh, two threads in this board in one day....

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page)

A main rail line smashed by storms last year will be threatened by planned cliff-top homes, Network Rail has said.

Developer Pegasus Life wants to build new homes on the cliff top at Dawlish in Devon where the rail line was closed for more than two months last winter.

Storms left the line, which connects Cornwall and much of Devon with the rest of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), dangling in mid air.

Pegasus called it an "excellent and appropriate concept for this wonderful location".

Network Rail has threatened legal action if the scheme goes ahead and results in damage to the line.

"The area concerned has a high profile of cliff failures^ - Network Rail
 
Teignbridge Council officers are recommending approval for the plans, subject to Network Rail lifting its objections to the 31 retirement homes at Old Teignmouth Road.

Network Rail told the authority: "We have serious concerns that the proposal if permitted could destabilise the cliff. The area concerned has a high profile of cliff failures and associated rock stabilisation works having to be carried out.

"You should recall we recently had to shut the main line railway as a result of damage to the sea wall caused by storms.

"Before we were able to reopen the railway we also had carefully controlled sea cliff collapses and therefore we know there are potential issues in this locality."

And it warns: "Network Rail will consider any such failure and damage [to the railway line] as an act of nuisance and shall take all necessary action to seek redress for the damage caused and any financial penalties for closure of the railway through the courts."

Howard Phillips, chief executive of Pegasus Life said: "We are committed to creating stunning homes that sit in harmony with their surroundings.

"Prior to our application, there was extensive consultation with the local community, and a high level of support was received.

"We will build the new homes in sensitive appreciation of the special landscape, including ensuring there is a 10m (33ft) exclusion zone from development by the cliffs and would only proceed when Network Rail have the assurances they need."

The council's planning committee is due to consider the application on 13 January.

[Chris from Nailsea]

I've now moved and merged a couple of topics here, simply to avoid further duplication. 

[stuving]

Ground stability used to be a material consideration in planning applications (PPG14). I assume it still is under the National Planning Policy Framework.

It is - though harder to cite, as it's now a bit of an on-line document. The effect is similar - the developer has to come up with assessments and proposals, done by suitable experts, as to how and why it is safe and sensible. Planning approval, if granted, will contain all the conditions that must be met. Other inputs, especially the authority's  experts and technical advisors, and those consulted by statutory right such as Network Rail, should be taken into account. That's the theory, anyway.

[TonyK]

Mrs FT,N! and I are in the market for a small place with a sea view. We saw this proposal and decided against it within seconds, whatever the price,  on grounds of common sense. I should imagine that others will have help from mortgage lenders and insurers in making their minds up.

Should your formerly cliff-top home 200 metres from the edge become first a cliff-edge home then a cliff-bottom home, your insurer's exposure, if you are lucky enough to have good insurance cover, is for the cost of relocating you to a similar property elsewhere, and maybe for clearing up the mess on the beach below. The people in such a position who have good insurance cover will be those who have been there for many a long year, watching with dread the steady advance of the sea against the cliff. Johnny-Come-Lately will not have been able to get cover.

Should the homes be built, and should NR^» (Network Rail - home page)'s warnings of the possible effects of disturbing the ground come to pass, and should the whole development, or even part thereof, suffer what physicists refer to as "a rapid decrease in potential energy", then the insurer's exposure will be to relocate the householder to a similar property, plus the consequential multi-million pound clean up and repair to the previous standard of the railway below. This is likely to be reflected in the premium charged.

The damage, if there is damage, will be unlikely to show itself immediately, but after a few years of rain has seeped through the new channels opened to it by foundations, piling, drains and what have you. The builders will be able to call "Caveat emptor!" by then. Unless a geological survey shows that ground to be as steady as Gibraltar, in which case I shall eat my words, and have a look at a show home, I cannot see any chance of this project going ahead.

The decision should have been on Teinbridge's website by now (reference 14/02780/MAJ), but isn't. I shall check next week. Reading through the application, you will find a great detail of discussion on the types of dustbin required, similar to the detail of deckchairs on the Titanic. These are retirement bungalows, with a putative minimum age of owner of 55 years. They are not "affordable housing", but will generate s106 money from the developers to allow the council to promote "affordable housing" somewhere less desirable.

Kerchingggg!

[ellendune]

The decision should have been on Teinbridge's website by now (reference 14/02780/MAJ), but isn't. I shall check next week.

The applicant will presumable have agreed to a delay in determining the application so they can try and resolve the objection from NR^» (Network Rail - home page).

[TonyK]

The applicant will presumable have agreed to a delay in determining the application so they can try and resolve the objection from NR^» (Network Rail - home page).

I have now found an e-mail dated 13 January from the planning officer Claire Boobier to NR, confirming that

"the application was deferred at Planning Committee this morning in part to await confirmation of whether or not Network Rail can withdraw the holding objection on the application prior to the determination of the planning application at Planning Committee."

The demands made by NR are pretty major considerations, as the committee agenda shows:

3.39 Network Rail has placed a holding objection on the application commenting that this scheme has not considered the stability of the slope or the impact this may have on the operational railway.
3.40 Network Rail considers the proposal is a risk and hazard to the safe operation of the railway and has not fully identified or mitigated the following risks:
^ The potential increase of loading(s) on the cutting slope, have not been identified/mitigated.
^ The potential for issues with the tunnel loading.
^ They would also object to any trees being planted on Network Rail property.
As the drainage report only addresses issues with regard to the new build above the railway, Network Rail considers that the following information is required:
^ Construction methods of drainage towards the railway
^ Construction details of cellular attenuation tank. This is to include cross sections and ground conditions within the surrounding area.
^ Drainage outfall details adjacent to the railway
^ Full construction details within the tunnel portal area of land R78288.
^ Ground investigation report with trial pit and bore holes.
^ How well the drainage system will be maintained and signed statement.
Until the above requested documents have been received and reviewed to ensure that the proposed development will not adversely affect Network Rail^s assets, their objection to this proposal will remain.

3.41 Stability of the cliff is considered within the ^Contaminated Land Assessment^ but Network Rail has advised that this does not address their drainage concerns as highlighted above.
3.42 Network Rail has serious concerns that the proposal, if permitted, could destabilise the cliff as the area concerned has a high profile of cliff failures and associated rock stabilisation works having to be carried out. The main line railway has recently had to be shut as a result of damage to the sea wall caused by storms and before they were able to re-open the railway they also had carefully controlled sea cliff collapses and therefore know there are potential issues in this locality.

Pretty big stuff! Also, I have found that Plymouth City Council lodged an objection the day before the committee meeting, citing the strategic importance of the railway to the city and the whole peninsula. It seems no-one told them about this application!

There are buildings there already, which will be demolished to make way for the development, but they are small in comparison. The Planning Officer asked NR's man with a hi-vis and clipboard:

...could you advise of the likely timeframe for when Network Rail may be able to update Teignbridge District Council  planning department on the outcome of their considerations of the information submitted to Network Rail by the applicant?

My reply would be:

"I shall treat it as urgent. I need to check on everything, so give me a couple of years, and I'll get back to you."