Keynsham Canopies

[whole diary]

[John R]

A planning application has been submitted to BANES for removal of the existing station canopies and their replacement by the usual steel "bus shelters" which are familiar at many smaller stations.  Appreciate that the existing canopies extend too far out given electrification, but it hardly seems progress?

[ChrisB]

Does that need planning consent? Its within railway boundaries

[John R]

A point which continues to puzzle me, ChrisB.

After all, the whole of the Bicester to Oxford upgrade (with the exception of the new chord) was within railway boundaries, yet the delays caused by continuing opposition in and around the Oxford area have had a big impact on the delivery. 

Likewise, we're now being told that an existing level crossing at Ashton is problematic for the Portishead reopening.
 

[ellendune]

A point which continues to puzzle me, ChrisB.

After all, the whole of the Bicester to Oxford upgrade (with the exception of the new chord) was within railway boundaries, yet the delays caused by continuing opposition in and around the Oxford area have had a big impact on the delivery. 

Bicester to Oxford was done with a Transport & Works Order which give planning consent as well. However, the whole project was included in the T&W order even stuff that did not need to.  That is how Nimbys were able to have such a big impact.  NR^» (Network Rail - home page) anxious not to repeat the same mistake on EW Rail but this means the application is more complicated as they have to sort each bit out. 

[Red Squirrel]

A point which continues to puzzle me, ChrisB.

After all, the whole of the Bicester to Oxford upgrade (with the exception of the new chord) was within railway boundaries, yet the delays caused by continuing opposition in and around the Oxford area have had a big impact on the delivery. 

Likewise, we're now being told that an existing level crossing at Ashton is problematic for the Portishead reopening.
 

Part 18 Class A to Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 is applicable to developments which were originally authorised by an Act of Parliament - in this case, the Great Western Railway Act of 1835.

The GPDO states that:

The prior approval... is not to be refused by the appropriate authority nor are any conditions to be imposed unless they are satisfied that -
(a) the development... ought to be and could reasonably be carried out elsewhere on the land; or
(b) the design or external appearance of any building, bridge, aqueduct, pier or dam would injure the amenity of the neighbourhood and is reasonably capable of modification to avoid such injury.

Reason (a) is easily dealt with: the old waiting shelters are in the way, and the new ones need to be on the platforms. Reason (b) is in this case fairly easily dismissed too: The existing shelters date from the 1930s and are described as 'much altered'; NR^» (Network Rail - home page) consider that there is 'nothing of historical or architectural interest' above platform level at Keynsham. New 'bus shelters' may not exactly lift the spirit, but they couldn't really be said to injure the amenity of the neighbourhood either. This is Keynsham we're talking about, not the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.

So why bother with Prior Approval? Because it gives the appropriate authority the ability to object if NR are about to commit a howler like, for example, emptying a massive box of Dexion all over an AONB^▸ (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) without warning anyone. Not that they'd ever do anything THAT daft!

[Chris from Nailsea]

This is Keynsham we're talking about, not the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.