From Watford Observer, Friday, December 24, 2004



Opposition to rail plan voiced
By EMILY HASSALL

CAMPAIGNERS met on Wednesday night to discuss their plight to Keep Croxley "
Green".
The meeting, organised by local group Keep Croxley Green, saw around 200
residents braving the cold to fill the hall at Harvey Road Primary School.
Councillors from across the party divide joined local residents to show their
opposition to plans to build a London Underground rail track replacement depot
on a Green Belt site in Croxley Green.
The planning application was rejected last month by Three Rivers District
Council but London Underground have submitted an appeal against the decision
and campaigners are now urging the local community to back them in opposing the
plans again, because original objections will not be considered.
Prospective parliamentary candidate for Labour in South West Herts, and
Croxley Green resident, Kerron Cross, attended the meeting to show his support.
He urged local residents to make their voices heard and write to the planning
inspectorate opposing the application. He said "I continue to oppose the plans
and am pleased that so many local people came along to show their support in
stopping this Green Belt site being developed.
"As someone who spoke out against the plans when we had the meeting at Three
Rivers District Council I would like to urge all residents to contact the
Planning Inspectorate before January 6, as every letter really does make a
difference.
"I have been out with other residents delivering leaflets, talking to local
people and trying to remind people that they only have a short time to get
their concerns in.
"This is a valuable Green Belt site which is important to the local community
in Croxley and it would be totally inappropriate for London Underground to
develop it."
Mr Cross’s Conservative counterpart, David Gauke, could not make the
meeting, but he also contacted the Watford Observer and encouraged the Croxley
Green community to rally behind the group. He said "Croxley Green residents
have my full support."
Chairman of the Keep Croxley Green Group, Barry Grant, welcomed the support
that they received at the meeting, and explained to the audience why their
letters were important. He stressed that the reason the district council
rejected the original application was because it was improper use of Green Belt
land, and asked that letters opposing the plans focus on this point.
All correspondence regarding the application should be sent to arrive no later
than Thursday, January 6, to The Planning Inspectorate, Room 301 Kite Wing,
Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6PN.
Reference APP/P1940/A/04/1166906 should be quoted in all correspondence and
three copies must be sent. For more information you can visit
www.keepcroxleygreen.co.uk

……………………………….............. ........................
..........................................
John Burke
WRUG

JWBA68 wrote:
From Watford Observer, Friday, December 24, 2004
[snip]
"This is a valuable Green Belt site which is important to the local
community in Croxley

It's a former railway-owned tip that has been roughly cleared, and most
of it is fenced off and inaccessible to the local community. How can it
be important to them in its present state?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 00:20:03 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

JWBA68 wrote:
From Watford Observer, Friday, December 24, 2004
[snip]
"This is a valuable Green Belt site which is important to the local
community in Croxley

It's a former railway-owned tip that has been roughly cleared, and most
of it is fenced off and inaccessible to the local community. How can it
be important to them in its present state?

I'm sure you'll find the answer at www.nimby.co.uk
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

"Richard J." wrote in message
k...
JWBA68 wrote:
From Watford Observer, Friday, December 24, 2004
[snip]
"This is a valuable Green Belt site which is important to the local
community in Croxley

It's a former railway-owned tip that has been roughly cleared, and most
of it is fenced off and inaccessible to the local community. How can it
be important to them in its present state?

Their website http://www.keepcroxleygreen.co.uk/ says that "The land was
compulsory purchased by LUL and they obtained a licence solely for tipping.
Tipping stopped over 25 years ago. LUL gave up their licence and tried to
offload the land firstly to TRDC for £1 and then to CG Parish Council – for
use by the community. It has been used by the community for years. We want
to keep it that way!"

I've never been there but the website includes photos of what looks like an
attractive rural scene. In a case like this where supposedly "operational
land" in fact hasn't been used for many years and has no track on it,
shouldn't the locals have a right to be heard ? This is not the same as
extending or modernising an existing facility - it is effectively a new
development. But perhaps LUL are right and there is no better place for
their depot - so let them prove their case through the planning process.

umpston wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
k...
JWBA68 wrote:
From Watford Observer, Friday, December 24, 2004
[snip]
"This is a valuable Green Belt site which is important to the local
community in Croxley

It's a former railway-owned tip that has been roughly cleared, and
most of it is fenced off and inaccessible to the local community.
How can it be important to them in its present state?

Their website http://www.keepcroxleygreen.co.uk/ says that "The land
was compulsory purchased by LUL and they obtained a licence solely
for tipping. Tipping stopped over 25 years ago. LUL gave up their
licence and tried to offload the land firstly to TRDC for £1 and then
to CG Parish Council - for use by the community. It has been used by
the community for years. We want to keep it that way!"

I've never been there but the website includes photos of what looks
like an attractive rural scene. In a case like this where supposedly
"operational land" in fact hasn't been used for many years and has no
track on it, shouldn't the locals have a right to be heard ? This is
not the same as extending or modernising an existing facility - it is
effectively a new development. But perhaps LUL are right and there
is no better place for their depot - so let them prove their case
through the planning process.

If the NIMBYs win where then does the new depot get put?

JWBA68 wrote:
CAMPAIGNERS met on Wednesday night to discuss their plight to Keep Croxley "
Green".

I know a way to keep Croxley Green. Why not encourage people out of
their cars and onto the train? Oh wait.. there is no trains, because
campaigners blocked it.
--
To reply direct, remove NOSPAM and replace with railwaysonline
For railway information, news and photos see http://www.railwaysonline.co.uk

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
umpston wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
k...
JWBA68 wrote:
From Watford Observer, Friday, December 24, 2004
[snip]
"This is a valuable Green Belt site which is important to the local
community in Croxley

It's a former railway-owned tip that has been roughly cleared, and
most of it is fenced off and inaccessible to the local community.
How can it be important to them in its present state?

Their website http://www.keepcroxleygreen.co.uk/ says that "The land
was compulsory purchased by LUL and they obtained a licence solely
for tipping. Tipping stopped over 25 years ago. LUL gave up their
licence and tried to offload the land firstly to TRDC for £1 and then
to CG Parish Council - for use by the community. It has been used by
the community for years. We want to keep it that way!"

I've never been there but the website includes photos of what looks
like an attractive rural scene. In a case like this where supposedly
"operational land" in fact hasn't been used for many years and has no
track on it, shouldn't the locals have a right to be heard ? This is
not the same as extending or modernising an existing facility - it is
effectively a new development. But perhaps LUL are right and there
is no better place for their depot - so let them prove their case
through the planning process.

If the NIMBYs win where then does the new depot get put?

Somebody else's back yard of course! My point is that we have a planning
system whereby people can object to LUL's proposal. Call that NIMBYism if
you like - but would you be happy with a system where landowners could build
anything they like?

If LUL cannot put the depot anywhere else they will probably win their
case - and the land is already theirs after all. But supposing there was an
alternative 'brownfield' site somewhere else which could be used and might
have fewer environmental objections - but it would cost them a little more
(and it is public money they are spending). What would be the right thing
to do?

umpston wrote:
"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
umpston wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
k...
JWBA68 wrote:
From Watford Observer, Friday, December 24, 2004
[snip]
"This is a valuable Green Belt site which is important to the
local community in Croxley

It's a former railway-owned tip that has been roughly cleared, and
most of it is fenced off and inaccessible to the local community.
How can it be important to them in its present state?

Their website http://www.keepcroxleygreen.co.uk/ says that "The land
was compulsory purchased by LUL and they obtained a licence solely
for tipping. Tipping stopped over 25 years ago. LUL gave up their
licence and tried to offload the land firstly to TRDC for £1 and
then
to CG Parish Council - for use by the community. It has been used by
the community for years. We want to keep it that way!"

I've never been there but the website includes photos of what looks
like an attractive rural scene. In a case like this where
supposedly "operational land" in fact hasn't been used for many
years and has no track on it, shouldn't the locals have a right to
be heard ? This is not the same as extending or modernising an
existing facility - it is effectively a new development. But
perhaps LUL are right and there
is no better place for their depot - so let them prove their case
through the planning process.

If the NIMBYs win where then does the new depot get put?

Somebody else's back yard of course! My point is that we have a
planning system whereby people can object to LUL's proposal. Call
that NIMBYism if you like - but would you be happy with a system
where landowners could build anything they like?

If LUL cannot put the depot anywhere else they will probably win their
case - and the land is already theirs after all. But supposing there
was an alternative 'brownfield' site somewhere else which could be
used and might have fewer environmental objections - but it would
cost them a little more (and it is public money they are spending).
What would be the right thing to do?

AIUI LU's case is that they have examined all other locations that either
have or could be provided with rail access to the network and CG is the only
one.

This matter was discussed on here some months ago when a link to the (IIRC)
planning application at Three Rivers council was posted.

umpston wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
k...
JWBA68 wrote:
From Watford Observer, Friday, December 24, 2004
[snip]
"This is a valuable Green Belt site which is important to the
local community in Croxley

It's a former railway-owned tip that has been roughly cleared, and
most of it is fenced off and inaccessible to the local community.
How can it be important to them in its present state?

Their website http://www.keepcroxleygreen.co.uk/ says that "The
land was compulsory purchased by LUL and they obtained a licence
solely for tipping. Tipping stopped over 25 years ago. LUL gave up
their licence and tried to offload the land firstly to TRDC for £1
and then to CG Parish Council – for use by the community. It has
been used by the community for years. We want to keep it that way!"

I've never been there but the website includes photos of what looks
like an attractive rural scene.

Well, it actually looks to me like a former tip! I have to say (and I
have walked through it) that it is one of the least attractive "rural"
landscapes that I have encountered around London. They conveniently
forget to mention that there is also a factory in the middle of this
wood. The part that they photographed is of course the part near the
canal that is actually open to the public. There is a much larger part
that is overgrown and fenced off*.

In a case like this where supposedly "operational land" in fact
hasn't been used for many years and has no track on it, shouldn't
the locals have a right to be heard ?

Yes, of course they have a right to be heard, but really we're not
talking about a rural paradise here. The track entering the site is
still there, by the way*.

* Photos at
http://rjnews.fotopic.net/c380339.html

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

"Richard J." wrote in message
k...
It's a former railway-owned tip that has been roughly cleared, and most
of it is fenced off and inaccessible to the local community. How can it
be important to them in its present state?

I wouldn't say it was fenced off, as I was able to have a look round whilst
exploring the closed Watford High Street to Rickmansworth Church Street
railway.