There was strong support for the future of Rail in Radstock on Monday evening, as a packed Methodist Church Hall heard speakers and enthusiasts discuss the possibility of getting trains running once again in the town.
Local author, Colin Maggs, began the proceedings, covering the history of the line, which dates back to 1804 and was one of the earliest railways in England.
Those asking questions had come from far and wide, including some who belong to the Heritage Railway in Swanage. A written submission was read aloud by Nigel Bray, the Secretary of Railfuture Severnside, who stressed the importance of discovering whether or not there is an actual demand for rail in Radstock, the costs (estimated £40 million), consultations and surveys that would be necessary, requirements and constraints. Many were in agreement that a commercial railway would be difficult to get up and running, but that heritage would be a good starting point and could bring vital tourism to the town.
There was some debate about a future possible station location near to the old Marcroft Wagon Works site, which is on a gradient. There also seems to be some confusion as to whether NRR and Linden Homes have realistically allowed enough room for rail to go ahead, despite their assertions that there is – protestors say that plans for Zone 3 of the regeneration plans will physically build over trackbed, meaning the future of rail in the town could be lost forever.
Resident of Meadow View, Chris James, said Radstock was "Missing a trick" and that a narrow gauge operation could work successfully and pointed to Heritage Railways in North Yorkshire, which also accommodates commuters and school-children.
David Redgewell, from the South West Transport Network, said that the underwriting of the trackbed structure would need to be by the Council and the Government, with the Rail Standard and Safety Board needing to agree a station site. He urged those attending the meeting to go to the hearing of the outline planning application, due to take place this Wednesday at Radstock Methodist Church, at 2 p.m., and put forward their views with the aim to attach conditions to protect the future of rail in the town, should the application be delegated to permit.
Not everyone was in favour of bringing back the railway. Ted Hallam, a Kilmersdon resident of fifty years and user of the cyclepath, said he could remember rail in Radstock and feared that what is now a beautiful walk could be 'wrecked' by 'noisy, dirty and smelly trains'. Indeed, cyclepaths and trains have an uneasy relationship, with difficulties having been experienced at Bitton, for example, where shared spaces exist. However, there is a legal obligation in place with Sustrans, which means that the trackbed had to be left in place for the potential for rail alongside the cyclepath.
Shirley Steel, Commercial Director at Midsomer Norton South station, a volunteer operation which has successfully seen track edging towards Chilcompton from Midsomer Norton and has over 1,000 members, said that rail in Radstock should have been in place over ten years ago. Indeed, volunteers are now looking at ways to extend the track towards Radstock and the cost of a bridge over Silver Street, in the future, which could link up the two towns.
Other local residents called for clarity and drive on the situation – with a large amount of money needing to be found, interest needs to be established and a comprehensive business case needs to be put forward to show that it is a viable, costed plan. Grants would need to be applied for and interested parties would need to put in time and effort.
Some criticised the NRR plans as 'unimaginative', and fears remain about car parking for Heritage Rail, with the B&NES Planning Officer noting in the report due to go to the Development Control Committee on Wednesday that there will be a lack of parking in the town should the development go ahead, with spaces reduced from the current and oversubscribed 44 to just fourteen. This begs the question – where, also, will commuters park?
Councillor Eleanor Jackson (Labour, Radstock), who also sits on the Development Control Committee, said: "I am absolutely thrilled that so many people have turned out tonight to debate the future of rail in the town. When I moved to Radstock, I thought I would be buying a house close to a Heritage Rail site. It turns out the estate agent was a little premature. I would urge those who believe that building in Zone 3 would damage the chance of rail to email comments to: develop [email protected]">[email protected] for Wednesday's meeting, where they will all be read."
B&NES' Development Control Committee will receive the report from the Planning Officer, which delegates to permit the scheme for 190 houses, 47 of which would be affordable. In the
report, various officers raise concerns about many aspects of the scheme, but as this is only an outline application, many issues will need to be overcome or ironed out, even if Wednesday's decision gives the plan the green light. Most concerning of all, is that B&NES Council could be left with the bill for knock-on effects of the scheme, with Linden Homes' independent viability report stating the scheme will not be possible if S 106 monies have to be paid. The Planning Officer concedes that 'The proposed development, with the package of measures it secures, can reasonably be viewed as the best which is likely to be achieved on this difficult site'.
If outline permission is delegated to permit on Wednesday, this will not be the first time in the site's history. Outline planning permission was granted in 1995, but never progressed, again in 1999, but failed at S 106 negotiations, permitted again in 2008, subject to a Section 106, but was not implemented, again in 2009 and 2010, but was still not implemented. This application has a long way to go.