Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Earlier
  2. VW T5.1 Transporter/Camper FOR SALE

    VW T5.1 Transporter/Camper FOR SALE http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/352169002967?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649
  3. Our prediction was spot on! A Variation on Clause 3 of the granting permission to have a temporary mast erected has been sent to the Shropshire Planning. Permission was granted in January on the condition that the mast would be decommissioned by 12th October. The installers now want this extending to 17th December!! I read in the documents with the original application that the Installers would remove the mast by the 12th October regardless of whether there was a fibre connection or not, so why do they need the extend the date to 17th December? So far I read that there is one objector to the extension and one 'neutral' who now suggests that a 'repeater station' be erected on top of the mast so that the mobile network could be improved. With the right mobile operator the reception in Rhos y Gadfa has improved, so why should we give the developers any excuse not to decommission this hideous eyesore on time
  4. £5million Sustainable Transport Grant

    28th February 2017 Head of TWA Orders Unit, Department for Transport, London I am directed by the Secretary of State for Transport to say that consideration has been given to the application made on 12 March 2015 by your clients, Cambrian Heritage Railways Limited (CHRL), for the proposed Cambrian Railways Order (the Order) to be made under sections 1 and 5 of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA). The Order, if made, would authorise the transfer from Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (NRI) to CHRL of the statutory provisions and other rights and liabilities relating to the branch line railway between Gobowen and Blodwel in the County of Shropshire (referred to in this letter as the railway). The Order would also authorise CHRL to sell or lease the railway with consent of the Secretary of State and makes provision as to the operation of the railway. As the Order would not provide for any development requiring planning permission CHRL did not submit an environmental statement with the Order application or seek a direction as to deemed planning permission from the Secretary of State. Summary of the Secretary of State’s decision For the reasons given in this letter, the Secretary of State has decided to make the Order, with modifications. Procedural matters Following the application, five objections were received. Three of the objections were from local residents (Redacted) (referred to in this letter as the objectors). The other two objections were received from the Office of Rail and Road (the ORR) and Highways England in relation to the reinstatement of level crossings on the railway. In response to these objections CHRL accepted amendments to the Order proposed by the ORR which would prohibit the railway from crossing the A5 and A483 trunk roads on the level and to require the ORR’s consent to the operation of level crossings over the A495 and School Lane at Porth-y-Waen. Highways England subsequently withdrew its objection on 4 August 2015. The Secretary of State decided that it was unnecessary to hold a public inquiry or hearing into this application as he was satisfied that the issues raised in the objections could be adequately presented and examined through the TWA written representations procedure. This procedure is set out in rule 24 of the Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 (the Applications Rules). The Secretary of State has considered carefully all the representations that have been made about this application. The main issue which the Secretary of State considers relevant to his decision are addressed below, starting at paragraphs 10 to 16 with a summary of the points made variously by the ORR and by some or all of the objectors. This is followed at paragraphs 17 to 27 by a summary of CHRL’s responses to the objections. The Secretary of State’s conclusions are set out at paragraphs 28 to 40. Background to and aims of the Order application The railway between Gobowen and Blodwel was closed to passenger services in 1966 but remained in use until 1988 for freight traffic serving a stone quarry in Blodwel. After that, the railway was mothballed with the tracks retained for possible future freight traffic to the quarry. In 2008 Shropshire County Council acquired from NR the land on which the railway is situated. In 2009 CHRL was established by agreement between the Cambrian Railway Society Limited (CRSL) and the Cambrian Railways Trust (CRT) as a separate entity to bring forward the revival of the railway. In 2014 Shropshire Council leased the railway land to CHRL for a period of 50 years. The proposed Order would pave the way for the renovation of the railway for public use as a community and heritage railway. CHRL intends to restore the railway to operational use in stages as funding becomes available. CHRL referred in the Order application and its representations to local support for its long term proposals on the grounds that restoring the railway would assist in the development of Oswestry as a tourist destination, would preserve the unique railway heritage of Oswestry, and may provide a sustainable transport option for accessing the local Orthopaedic Hospital. The Order would also release NR from the statutory obligations relating to land over which it no longer carries out any operations and in which it no longer carries out any operations and in which it no longer has any legal interest. The objections Fitness and capacity of CHRL The objectors raised that CHRL was not a fit and proper body to receive the powers that would be conferred by the Order and lacked the experience, funding and business acumen to manage this large scale and difficult project, and to fulfil its responsibilities towards the wider community. In particular, the objectors expressed concerns about the legitimacy, qualifications and alleged unprofessional attitude of the Executive Board of CHRL and the conduct of its meetings, about the legality of existing services operated by CRSL at Oswestry on a section of railway which is not included in the Order, and about the ability of CHRL to attract and retain sufficient active volunteers with relevant qualifications and experience to maintain its low level of services, having to rely in part on the use of unemployed job-seekers. Financial issues and feasibility of CHRL’s proposals The objectors considered that CHRL was not self-sufficient and would need substantial funding to restore the railway in its entirety; Shropshire Council was not able to provide this funding and public expenditure for a tourist attraction was not justified. The objectors had not seen an up to date business plan and doubted that CHRL’s proposals, including a possible community service between Gobowen and Oswestry, would be commercially viable. This was, in particular, because of the costs of providing new crossings over or under the A5 and A483 trunk roads and reinstating other level crossings (without which CHRL would only be able to operate small sections of the railway); the costs of repairing bridges and installing signalling; the costs of maintaining the track and rolling stock. The objectors said also that the proximity of other heritage railways was likely to affect the viability of CHRL’s proposals. For all these reasons, the objectors considered that CHRL’s aim of connecting Gobowen, Oswestry, Llynclys and Blodwel was not feasible. Level crossings The ORR referred to its established policy that there should be no new (or reinstated) level crossings on any railway, unless there are exceptional circumstances, and confirmed that it was opposed on safety grounds to crossings of the A5 and A483 trunk roads on the level. While continuing to have concerns about safety at other level crossings on the railway, the ORR said that it would rely on its existing powers in relation to the control and protection of level crossings when the position on the risks involved at each crossing and how they could be addressed became clearer. The ORR left it to the Secretary of State to decide whether any further provision about level crossings should be included in the Order in addition to the amendments referred to at paragraph 5 above. Aside from its concerns about level crossings, the ORR confirmed that it had no objection in principle to the transfer of the general powers and obligations in relation to the railway from NR to CHRL. The objectors also expressed concerns about the various level crossings that would need to be reinstated which posed safety risks to the wider community, but which were not mentioned in the Order as applied for. The objectors were concerned about whether CHRL had the ability to safely operate and maintain the crossings, referring to the present condition of the pedestrian crossing at Coney Green on the section of the CRSL railway at Oswestry; about impacts on access, including for emergency vehicles to the Cambrian Medical Centre; and whether CHRL would be able to secure the ORR’s consent to reinstate all the level crossings, including on the heavily used A495 road, in the light of the ORR’s policy referred to above. Safety and security The objectors raised more general health and safety concerns, given that the railway would run through the centre of Oswestry and close to a large children’s play area. These included concerns about the cycleway proposed to be built alongside the railway; the maintenance of bridges and fencing; poor security measures; and the adequacy of training for volunteers and of the risk assessments undertaken by CHRL. Environmental and amenity issues The objectors raised a number of concerns about the environmental impacts of resuming railway operations on neighbouring land, including on the new homes built close to the line, a children’s play area and the footpath to be opened alongside the railway in Oswestry. The concerns included the effects of noise, vibration, pollution from smoke emissions, and the use of contaminated wooden sleepers; the risk of damage to property; and the loss of amenity and value. The objectors considered that CHRL should have submitted an environmental statement with the Order application. Adequacy of consultation and transparency The objectors said that CHRL had not carried out adequate consultation and that the consultation report submitted with the Order application was incorrect; neither had CHRL given sufficient public notice of the application. They considered that CHRL had not been open and transparent about what restoration of the railway would entail and had withheld relevant information requested by the objectors such as a business plan. CHRL’s response to the objectors Fitness and capacity of CHRL CHRL said that it was a properly constituted limited company and registered charity. It had the support of Shropshire Council, Oswestry Town Council and other local organisations, as evidenced for example by the Oswestry 2020 Town Plan and the response to consultation. The ORR, which has responsibility for overseeing heritage railways, explicitly stated that it had no principle objection to the statutory or other powers and obligations relating to the railway being transferred to CHRL. CHRL explained further that its members were drawn in a large part from two very long standing heritage railway charities (CRSL and CRT) and that they had the necessary experience in fund raising and successfully applying for grants. CHRL had been successful in attracting new skills and active volunteers by working with local schools and colleges, as well as Government training initiatives, and the membership of CHRL was growing. CHRL refuted allegations that there was any impropriety in the conduct of its meetings or the management of its finances. CHRL said that it was compliant with all legal reporting requirements, details of the company and its officers were publically available, and CHRL followed the Charity Commission’s guidance on running meetings. As regards the legality of the CRSL services at Oswestry, CHRL noted that the ORR was satisfied that the necessary legal powers and consents for those operations had been granted (even though the ORR could not trace its original consent) and that, when recently inspected, the ORR had found CRSL’s operations to be safe. CHRL confirmed that if the Order were made it would liaise with the ORR to ensure that all necessary consents are in place and properly recorded. Financial issues and feasibility of CHRL’s proposals CHRL said that it envisaged a staged expansion of its operations over a number of years, with the transfer of statutory powers from NR under the Order providing an immediate opportunity to improve its offering as a tourist attraction. CHRL had previously received financial support from various sources, including an annual turnover of approximately £100,000, and considered that, as with other heritage railway operations, there was no reason why it should not be able to earn and secure necessary funding over a period of time to enable it progressively to implement restoration of the line. CHRL did not see the close proximity of other heritage railways as a disadvantage, rather this factor was likely to draw enthusiasts visiting neighbouring heritage railways. Neither did CHRL accept that its project was a hobby for enthusiasts without commercial prospects, referring to the “Report on the Value of Heritage Railways” by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Heritage Rail which recognised the importance of heritage railways to their local economies. CHRL explained further that each phase of restoring the railway would be a separate element, which could be appraised, funded and constructed separately and be subject to its own appropriate business plan. CHRL did not accept that such a phased approach to expanding its operations was an indication that its proposals were not feasible. CHRL would work in partnership with a number of statutory bodies, businesses and other railway operators who supported its aims of restoring the railway as a whole over time. As regards the crossing of trunk roads, discussions with Highways England to date had concluded that it would be feasible to accommodate a tunnel at the A5 crossing and an over-bridge at the A483. Elsewhere, the highway over-bridges remained in the control of the local authority and the cost of alterations at the Gasworks Bridge identified by the objectors as an impediment was far below previous estimates. Level crossings CHRL noted that safety at crossings of the public highway was protected by legislation, including the Level Crossing Act 1983, and that all crossings (both public and private) were subject to the scrutiny of the ORR. CHRL said that the ORR had visited the railway at Oswestry on a number of occasions and was aware of all the crossings referred to by the objectors; in particular, the ORR was satisfied as to the safety of the existing Coney Green crossing. With regard to the concerns raised by the ORR, CHRL said it had presented indicative designs for the crossings of the A5 and A483 without level crossings to the ORR who had said that such a solution would be satisfactory. CHRL had further accepted without hesitation the amendments to the Order referred to at paragraph 5 above which the ORR had requested. CHRL noted the ORR’s position as regards the other level crossings not identified in the Order and confirmed that, as proposals to extend its operations were worked up, it would continue to engage with and consult the ORR and other local stakeholders before considering operating any level crossings; CHRL would ensure that it properly assessed the associated risks and implement appropriate measures. Safety and security CHRL said that existing operations at Oswestry and Llynclys had an excellent safety record and complied with all relevant requirements. More generally, CHRL was required to operate to stringent safety standards including compliance with all health and safety legislation, and all operations were subject to the scrutiny of the ORR. CHRL explained further that volunteers in safety critical roles were trained in accordance with approved railway methodologies and were tested and observed to ensure competency. CHRL had, since 2014, retained a safety management consultant, Green Dragon, to advise on all matters in relation to safety and was creating a new Safety, Health, Environment and Fire Focus Officer to act as a contact point for consultation and feedback on these matters. While accepting that vandalism of signage and fences along the route used by walkers had been a problem, CHRL anticipated that with the opening of the new “greenway” path along the railway corridor in Oswestry the situation would improve. The fencing used along the railway was of a standard post and wire variety commonly used for security fencing and had been re-instated as and when removed or damaged. Environmental and amenity issues CHRL explained that as the Order would provide only for the transfer to CHRL of the existing powers relating to the railway and not for any new works, no environmental impact assessment or environmental statement had been required. That said, since the volume of movements along the railway would be low and would be carried out at low speed (maximum 25 miles per hour), there was no significant likelihood of adverse impacts on properties resulting from train operations. The section of the line close to (redacted) would be re-laid with new ballast and sleepers as part of the upgrade of the railway, which would reduce noise and vibration. Work had also already been carried out in the vicinity to improve the condition of the railway by removing overgrown trees, clearing rubbish and planting new hedgerows along the railway corridor. CHRL said also that in other respects such as pollution no evidence had been produced to show that there would be a significant impact on the environment. Adequacy of consultation and transparency CHRL said that the Consultation Report which accompanied the Order application had set out details of the consultation carried out before the Order application was made (including advertising, leafleting and a drop-in session), as required by the TWA Applications Rules. As the Order would not authorise any new works there was no requirement for site notices to be posted. CHRL refuted the allegation that there had been any lack of transparency or misrepresentation about its proposals, either with the public or with its members. For example, the on-going discussions between CHRL and the ORR about level crossings had been reported to members at the AGM. Secretary of State’s consideration The Secretary of State notes first that the main purpose of the Order is to authorise the transfer from NR to CHRL of NR’s statutory powers and obligations relating to the railway, with the aim of establishing over time a community and heritage railway operation between Gobowen and Blodwel. He is satisfied that this is, in principle, an appropriate use for a redundant part of the national rail network, in particular because of the public benefits in terms of contributing to the tourist economy, preserving industrial heritage and, potentially, providing a local transport facility. The Secretary of State notes further that the order would not confer on CHRL any new powers to carry out works and to use land beyond those which currently rest with NR. He considers, therefore, that in coming to a decision on whether it is in the public interest to make the Order, the key issue to address is whether CHRL has the capacity to exercise NR’s existing powers and to fulfil the associated obligations safely and lawfully. He has considered the representations made by CHRL, the ORR and the objectors in this light. Fitness and capacity of CHRL The Secretary of State is satisfied from the representations and evidence submitted that CHRL is an appropriate body to assume responsibility for NR’s statutory powers and obligations in respect of the railway. In coming to this conclusion he has had regard, in particular, to the view of the ORR (as the national regulator of the rail industry) which has no objection in principle to the proposed transfer. He also notes that the ORR is familiar with both predecessor organisations (CRSL and CRT) which have operated sections of railway at Oswestry and Llynclys over a number of years. The Secretary of State notes also that CHRL has been able to attract volunteers with a range of relevant experience, has gained support of local authorities and other organisations for its aims, and has been successful in securing funding towards the development of its proposals. He considers that these factors are relevant indicators of CHRL’s capacity to assume the responsibilities which the Order would impose both in the present and in the future as CHRL’s operations expand. As regards the matters of propriety and legality raised by the objectors, the Secretary of State recognises that CHRL is a properly constituted and regulated company and a registered charity. He considers therefore that appropriate controls are in place to ensure that CHRL’s affairs are properly managed. Furthermore, taking into account the ORR’s view as to the legality and safety of the CRSL operations at Oswestry, the Secretary of State attaches no weight to the missing consent documentation referred to be the objectors in assessing the fitness of CHRL to assume the powers and obligations that would be transferred under the Order. Financial issues and feasibility of CHRL’s proposals The Secretary of State recognises that restoring, operating and maintaining a heritage railway is a costly enterprise, even where there are significant levels of volunteers support. He accepts further that reinstating the railway between Oswestry and Gobowen in its entirety (a distance of 13.5 kilometres), along with the provision of two new grade separated crossings of trunk roads, will be a substantial undertaking that is likely to take a long time to complete. The Secretary of State considers, however, that CHRL’s plan for a staged expansion of its operations as funding becomes available is a reasonable approach in the context of a heritage railway and consistent with how other similar organisations develop their systems. He considers also that the possibility that CHRL may have to operate the railway in discrete sections (until satisfactory arrangements for the level crossings on the railway have been found) does not mean that CHRL’s long term objectives are unachievable. He notes in this regard that such arrangements would be comparable to the current position with CRSL and CRT carrying out separate operations at Oswestry and Llynclys. The Secretary of State considers that the purpose of his decision on this application it is not necessary for CHRL to demonstrate the financial viability of restoring the railway in its entirety (or any particular element of the railway). He considers that it is acceptable for each element of the restoration project to be appraised at the appropriate time, for example, as and when CHRL applies for grants for the project. The Secretary of State does not therefore consider that the objectors’ concerns about the feasibility of CHRL’s long term objectives give grounds for refusing the Order. He considers rather that, given his conclusions above on CHRL’s capacity to assume responsibility for the railway, it would be unreasonable to refuse the Order, thereby precluding the opportunity to restore the railway and potentially secure wider public benefits. Level crossings The Secretary of State has noted the concerns expressed by the ORR about the reinstatement of level crossings on the railway and confirms that the Order will be modified in the manner requested by CHRL as detailed in paragraph 5 above. As regards the level crossings not specifically named in the Order, he is satisfied that no further provision needs to be included in the Order, given that the ORR considers that its existing powers are sufficient to secure the protection of those crossings before they are brought into use. The Secretary of State has considered also the concerns of the objectors about the impacts of reinstating the level crossings on safety and access. As noted above, he considers that safety at level crossings would be ensured by the controls exercised by the ORR. He is satisfied also that CHRL would engage appropriately with local stakeholders about its proposals for reinstating level crossings, and notes that consultation with the local highway authority would be required under the Level Crossings Act 1983 in any event. Safety and security The Secretary of State is satisfied that appropriate and sufficient arrangements are in place (for example, the training of volunteers) to ensure that CHRL’s current and future operations on the railway will be carried on in accordance with health and safety legislation; and he notes that all operations will be subject to the scrutiny of the ORR. He considers also that both bringing the mothballed railway back into use and establishing the “greenway” path would be likely to have a beneficial impact in terms of creating a more secure environment. Environmental and amenity issues The Secretary of State notes that the Order provides for the transfer to CHRL of existing powers relating to the railway and agrees with CHRL that it was unnecessary to submit an environmental statement with its application since the Order would not authorise any development, including development of a sort that would require an environmental impact assessment. To the extent that environmental and amenity issues are relevant in deciding whether it is in the public interest for the Order to be made, he accepts that the nature of operations proposed by CHRL and the measures that CHRL intend to take to upgrade the railway mean restoring the railway should not have significant adverse impacts on the environment or on neighbouring properties. The Secretary of State notes that CHRL’s rail operations would, in any event, be subject to environmental protection legislation, for example, directed at preventing nuisance. Adequacy of consultation and transparency The Secretary of State is satisfied that CHRL has fulfilled the requirements of the Applications Rules and associated guidance as to consulting on and publicising the proposals in the Order. He does not consider that there has been any impropriety or bad practice on CHRL’s part such as could weight against a decision to make the Order. Other matters The Secretary of State has considered all the other points made in representations on this application. In his opinion, to the extent that any of those matters are relevant to his decision on this application, none of them would justify refusing to make the Order, either individually or taken together. Secretary of State’s overall conclusions and decision For the reasons given in this letter, the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is in the public interest to authorise the transfer from NR to CHRL of the statutory provisions and other rights and liabilities relating to the railway between Gobowen and Blodwel. The Secretary of State has therefore decided to make the Order, subject to the amendments referred to at paragraph 5 above and some further drafting changes which do not affect the substance of the Order. The Order will be made shortly, after a notice of this determination has been published in the London Gazette. Notice of determination This letter constitutes the secretary of State’s notice of his determination to make the Order with modifications, for the purposes of section 14(1) (a) and section 14(2) of the TWA. Your clients are required to publish newspaper notices of the determination in accordance with section 14(4) of the TWA. The circumstances in which the Secretary of State’s decision may be challenged are set out in the note attached at the Annex to this letter. Distribution Copies of this letter are being sent to the objectors and the ORR. Right to challenge Orders made under the TWA Any person who is aggrieved by the making of the Order may challenge its validity, or the validity of any provision in it, on the ground that- It is not within the powers of the TWA; or Any requirement imposed by or under the TWA or the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 has not been complied with. Any such challenge may be made, by application to the High Court, within the period of 42 days beginning with the day on which notice of this determination is published in the London Gazette as required by section 14(1) (b) of the TWA. This notice is expected to be published within 3 working days of the date of this decision letter. A person who thinks they may have grounds for challenging the decision to make the Order is advised to seek legal advice before taking any action.
  5. £5million Sustainable Transport Grant

    ...REBOOTING....PLEASE WAIT....REBOOTING...PLEASE WAIT...REBOOTING...PLEASE WAIT...
  6. MISSING! Pet Tortoise

    MISSING! Shelly is missing from St Martin's since Saturday 8th July 2017. Have you seen a male olive Hermann's Tortoise (Testudo Hermanni)? Outgoing, confident 14 years old, approx. 15cm (size of a tea cup saucer). Likely to find shelter amongst flower beds/ behind sheds, please check vegetation before strimming/ using garden fork etc. Favourite treats are tomatoes & strawberries, which would attract him to your door step from the garden. If you have seen or heard anything about this animal, please contact Sophie Hughes on 07525 457193 or 01691 778806. Our pet is microchipped and registered on Petlog. We have registered our pet on the Petlog Lost Page and vets, animal wardens and welfare representatives are actively looking for our pet. Please share!
  7. Robmit

    Traffic calming through Gobowen and St. Martins. I read with interest the article in the Oswestry & Border Chronicle concerning "Villagers' Speed Camera Offer" and wonder if any other members are interested in discussing this important matter which should be of concern to all of us. The Police cannot be constantly patrolling the road and the only way of preventing these dangerous drivers from speeding though our area with no regard for safety is to have proper speed cameras installed. I understand that there is some sort of community fund being set up to pay for this so, if any one has any information about it I would be pleased to hear more and make a small contribution. We have put up with months of Heavy A5 traffic trundling and often speeding past our homes between 9pm and 6am and little improvement, if any, seems to have been achieved at the Gledrid roundabout for all the inconvenience and disturbed sleep for such an extended period that we have all suffered. Irrespective of the A5 traffic which I believe and hope will be finished at the end of this month we need to concentrate on the ordinary every-day speeding which takes place and take action to reduce the danger.
  8. Festival 2017

    until
    Full publicity for Festival 2017, July 14/15 will be in the July/August Wren being distributed shortly. The Exhibition of Craft, Art, Collections & Hobbies opens with an Event Night at 7.30 pm on Friday evening in St John's Church Weston Rhyn. Entrance free: refreshments incl cheese & wine by donation. There will be a short programme of entertainment. On Saturday afternoon the exhibition will be open again and you can view the Show entries in the Institute, enjoy various stands and Fete activities including a bouncy castle, enjoy refreshments, enter the raffle and visit the Car Boot Sale.
  9. Health Awareness Day

  10. Message sent to the forum......

    This email was sent to me via the forum: Is it possible to spread this around please? An elderly lady was living in Ashlands Road, Weston Rhyn up until a week ago. She was found in Llangollen in just her nightdress and gown freezing cold and disorientated. Social Services are trying to sort this out but she has an elderly cat still there and concerned about it. It is 13 years old, black and white and called Popsy. Having been left to the elements for over a week without food or water we need to get her in a secure environment. It seems the cat flap has been locked by the landlord so it cant get in and would be easier to catch. If anyone finds this cat, the neighbour at No. 5 has a cat box and will call us so we can take it to the vets.Thank you for your help.
  11. Local people take on 500mile cycle challenge

    If anyone is interested in sponsoring our challenge follow the link - https://t.co/aKveJsALDp
  12. B5069 SPEEDING MOTORISTS

    You are probably right there!
  13. Thanks Bethan for keeping us updated and I agree with your comments. What has happened with our community spirit I wonder as there seems to be little interest in the area in general? Having made that comment I was very pleased to such a good attendance at the actual meeting which comprised, as far as I could see, of true natives who care for our environment. On my to and from Birmingham by train I pass a fairly similar in sized solar farm site around the Wellington area and it looks absolutely dreadful almost at the foot of the Wrekin and I hate the thought of our lovely area being desecrated in a similar way.
  14. Have you seen the latest!! BT (openreach) - regarding providing a broadband connection to the site, are "looking at having the work complete by no later than 30/06/2017. We will provide you with progress updates as the job progresses." No-one will bet on this happening! Based on their performance to date! Nick Willians (Berry's) now says that " the mast and related foundations will be removed from the site prior to 12th October 2017 regardless of whether a fiber connection is on site or not.." It, therefore, begs the question why put it up in the first place??? Why did they seem so dependent on BT providing a connection in the first place???
  15. Local Walking Group

  16. Solar Farm Public Meeting held Tuesday 17th January 2017 Many attended a lively debate chaired by the Parish Council Chairman. Comments were made regarding lack of notification, poor communication and shortness of time of the new planning application. The installation site will now contain 18,800 solar panels (previously 20,000) changing the layout from the original application drawings to ensure maximum light reaching the panels. There are many questions left unanswered and it was regrettable that the chairman curtailed the meeting when he did. Many lorries delivering to the site are not following the route agreed by the Shropshire Planning resulting in serious road and property damage. Questions asked included: What was done inform hauliers of the route to the site? Were drivers of delivery vehicles made aware of the route, maps, written instructions etc.? What will be done to prevent future occurrences? The agreed route to site requires vehicles to go to the Gledrid roundabout and head for St. Martins. Major road works is about to start there which will take 6 months. Have the hauliers been informed of this, given assurances and that it must not affect the agreed route to the site? Why were no signs put up to help avoid large vehicles travelling down very narrow lanes? Who is responsible for repairing the damaged caused and sweeping the roads? It was announced that BT will install an underground fiber optic connection to the site within 6 months and that they had been paid a very substantial sum in advance to encourage this, suggesting that the 65 ft mast could be removed during 2017. This will obviate the need for the three year period requested in the planning application. This provoked a lot of scepticism, and it was considered that this announcement, at the 11th hour, was only made to appease the audience. Many questions were left unanswered which include: What has been agreed with BT? Is the delivery time of 6 months from the time BT start the contract? If so, what is the start date? What has been negotiated with BT regarding the end date? As payment to BT has already been made, are there compensation clauses in the contract for failure to complete on time? Have BT secured a planning agreement with all concerned for the fiber optic route (reported as being 3 Km long!)? If not, how long is this likely to be? Like in other areas, can the laying of cables etc. be subcontracted so that BT need only be only involved in the connection? What is the effect of the emissions from the mast on mobile phone reception, which is already very poor? Will these emissions have an adverse effect on wild life? If permission is granted to erect the mast, what incentive will there be for it to be dismantled in 2017 even if BT provide the connection? The impression given was that the mast would only be needed for a matter of a few months. This being the case, is it not possible to negotiate an extension to the 31st March, for the ROC to be allocated? Clarification of the above is crucial in securing the shortest possible time should a mast be the only option. There was considerable concern that if/when the mast is erected, and bearing in mind BT’s poor performances in complying with their promises, it will be visible for many years even after the fiber connection is made. OBJECTIONS MUST BE MADE ON GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION UNTIL ALL QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED IN WRITING
  17. Friends from the Weston Rhyn area are to take on a 500mile cycle challenge from Oswestry to it's Twin Town, Combs la Ville. One of the team will be myself and we will start the 500 mile journey on the 12th April, head to Straford upon Avon, to London where we will pick up the Avenue Verte cycle route, and then the over night ferry to Dieppe. From Dieppe we stay on the Avenue Verte taking its longer Eastern route to Paris then on to Combs la Ville. The challenge will completed for charity, we have chosen SANDS UK and Kicks Count and then the Rotary Club of Oswestry have kindly agreed to accept some of the money raised from our Challenge and distribute it on our behalf to selected charities in the Oswestry area. They include: Oswestry Young Carers Oswestry Community Action Oswestry & Borders Foodbank... The Movement Centre Oswestry You can follow updates and progress on our Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/toast37/ and on Twitter www.twitter.com/o2clv
  18. Message for Simple Simon

    I've emptied it a bit now.
  19. Message for Simple Simon

    I was trying to send you a message.... I think your inbox must be full
  20. I hope those of the community who care for our beautiful landscape will attend the meeting in the Gobowen Playing Fields Pavilion at 7pm next Tuesday the 17th January to appeal against the erection of the proposed 20 meter (65.5 feet) high mast on farmland in beautiful Rhosygadfa. I am sure we are all in favour of solar energy on roof tops and on factory sites etc., but not on prime agricultural land and especially in such a beautiful area of our lovely county. Agricultural land should be for just that; the production of food for and not turned into industrial sites. Rhosygadfa is a particularly beautiful part of our county and should not be allowed to be spoiled by industrial usage.
  21. Hi Bethan, What on earth is going on here? The controversial solar farm was refused permission on appeal by the Secretary of State, so what on earth is a mast required for when there is and I hope never will be a solar farm in that area of outstanding natural beauty? The application sounds very suspicious as surely it would not be financially viable to erect a mast for general public use internet connections for such a short period. if BT are proposing to lay proper cables within the next 18 months. Happy New Year,, Rob
  22. Article in The Advertiser today : Solar Farm : We need to put up a 20-metre mast A CONTROVERSIAL solar farm near Gobowen could become “unviable” unless further planning permission is granted. Elgin Energy received the go-ahead for 20,000-panel green energy scheme at Rhosygadfa 12 months ago. But it is now looking for further approval of a 20-metre telecoms mast to provide an internet connection to transfer data from the solar farm to the substation at Ifton. And it is against the clock as the site must be commissioned before March 31. Agents Berrys said that after that date a “notable fall” in the Renewable Obligation Certificate (ROCs) will “render the project unviable”. They continued: “The connection will allow SP Energy Networks to shut down the solar farm in the event of a fault. The applicant has explored all avenues to avoid the requirement for a telecoms mast at the site, however, BT have confirmed a fibre connection won’t be installed before March 31 and Scottish Power have confirmed a satellite broadband option is not reliable enough and, as such, is not a viable option. “In the short term, the only viable option is the installation of a temporary mast.” The mast will only be temporary as BT is expected to provide fibre broadband to the site in the next six to 18 months. voicing concerns that it could impact the aesthetics of the area and damage tourism.The solar farm has caused unrest in Rhosygadfa and Gobowen with many residents and Councillors It was submitted and granted following the refusal of a 40,000 solar panel installation on the site. I understand the application was submitted on the 16th December and the ref is 16/05607/FUL
  23. Now they want to erect a 20-METER MAST to enable SP Energy to shut down the Solar Farm in the event of a fault!!! Supposed to be temporary until broadband option becomes reliable ! What a laugh!! Why don't Elgin install a fibre-optic connection direct underground to the 'Green' box at the Rhewl!! These 'Temporary' solutions' ALWAYS end up being permanent!-
  24. Rumours that Garden Cafe to close...

    I have further news: The Tiffins Café in the Derwen College has already been closed and will be used as a training centre in future. The Garden Café will continue, but with reduced staff and increased student manning.
  25. Three Parishes

    for things that affect all of the area.
  26. until
    Why Garden Birdwatchers are Important a talk by Claire Bagshall 19th January 7.00 pm Methodist Church Hall, St Martins 3 Parishes Community Wildlife Group Tea and coffee All welcome
  1. Load more activity
×