Ordsall Chord

[lejog]

My understanding of Judicial Review is that it is generally about procedure rather than the merits of the decision. That being the case I was surprised that this even went to JR (although I believe that NR may not initially have done everything it should have done). The law lays down the procedures that have to be gone through including an enquiry. During that process the arguments by all sides are heard as are the objections. At the end the inspector makes his report. It is then up to the Secretary of State to decide to grant the order or not or to grant with modification. He doesn't have go along with the inspectors views. If he decides to grant the merits of the order can't be questioned what can be questioned is whether or not the correct procedures were followed and whether or not the Secretary of State had the legal power to grant the order or elements within it. If not the judge on review could quash the order. However it is possible to go back and go through the whole procedure again this time doing everything properly and then the Secretary of State grant exactly the same order.

So far everything I have so far read suggests that the Marks arguments are about the merit of the Decision rather than procedure.

Absolutely this is my understanding too. And if they go through the process again then Marks option will be off the table as the land will be unavailable. As he has said he does not want the development stalled, he wants it stopped. He is gambling on both winning the case and Network Rail with its current finances giving up.

 

[Viscount702]

Absolutely this is my understanding too. And if they go through the process again then Marks option will be off the table as the land will be unavailable. As he has said he does not want the development stalled, he wants it stopped. He is gambling on both winning the case and Network Rail with its current finances giving up.

In fact the land is not unavailable. NR could go and seek and order for Marks Option 15 if it wished.

However it won't because
a) from my understanding of the arguments it is not practical from an engineering point of view and

b) Mark EH and MOSI are unlikely to object but I suspect the number of objections to Option 15 are likely considerably more than was the case for the existing proposal (not least the developers of Middlewood Locks) which would prevent it happening apart from the huge increase in cost.

 

[ironstone11]

Oh dear, I've just realised who the judge is.
It doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in either the prospects for the Ordsall Chord being built, or in the Judiciary!

This could be a good thing as the Judge is not being asked to decide the relative merits of the schemes, but whether or not the correct procedures were followed during the Public Inquiry. Not knowing much about cricket and probably railways too, High Court judge Mrs Justice Beverley Lang can concentrate on the procedural aspects of the case. (As I understand it a challenge against the outcome of an inquiry can only be made on procedural grounds and it this action that Mr Mark Whitby is taking.)

If the judgement does find procedural errors then there would seem to be no reason why a new public inquiry could not be held, this time ensuring that there are no procedural errors during the hearing.

The down side is of course that this just delays the project.

 

[bitmadmax]

If the review is only looking at the procedure, why did the judge in the earlier post about the cricket pitch refuse it based on the risk of flying balls causing injury/damage?

 

[snowball]

If the review is only looking at the procedure, why did the judge in the earlier post about the cricket pitch refuse it based on the risk of flying balls causing injury/damage?

I imagine the cricket case was not being heard under the Transport and Works Act.

 

[kevconnor]

I imagine the cricket case was not being heard under the Transport and Works Act.

Indeed it would come under the modern equivalent of the Town & Country Planning Act.

The JR process not only looks at the process of the Public Enquiry but also looks at the process by which the planning inspector have arrived at their decision. The is as far as I can see the crux of Marks main argument that the planning inspector misdirected themselves by to readily and quickly discounting Option 15 without giving it due consideration.

Here to an extent the merits of each option do play a part in that if a particular option is blatantly not viable then you would not expect a treatise on its relative merits but his argument is it deserved greater consideration than it was given and so because of this perceived failure it invalidated the final decision.

 

[ironstone11]

If the review is only looking at the procedure, why did the judge in the earlier post about the cricket pitch refuse it based on the risk of flying balls causing injury/damage?

This wasn't a judicial review.

Sounds as though the judge had to rule on a straighforward case between Party A v Party B.

 

[kevconnor]

This wasn't a judicial review.

Sounds as though the judge had to rule on a straighforward case between Party A v Party B.

The courts won't do that, they will only look at if the process by which the decision has been reached was correct and fair.

 

[MarkyT]

So it seems in his determination to stop the scheme as it stands Mark Whitby really doesn't care if that practically puts the skids under the whole Northern Hub project permanently with all its carefully analysed transport and economic and broader environmental benefits. That's not the kind of engineer I think I would ever want to employ again.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

So it seems in his determination to stop the scheme as it stands Mark Whitby really doesn't care if that practically puts the skids under the whole Northern Hub project permanently with all its carefully analysed transport and economic and broader environmental benefits. That's not the kind of engineer I think I would ever want to employ again.

Quite.

Mark has publicly 'lost the plot' and destroyed the credibility he has spent his entire career building up, though I can't decide if Mark Whitby is genuinely concerned about the heritage of the site, or if he's more upset that his 'Option 15' plans weren't approved and feels he has been slighted.

I don't know how successful his practice is going to be moving forward - he got involved in the Ordsall Chord when he was contracted by Network Rail, and seems to have gone away in a bit of a strop when they wouldn't do what he wanted them to do, before rounding on them in the worst way possible. I can't imagine many big infrastructure projects are going to want someone like that looking at their plans and digging around for reasons why the favoured plans for projects shouldn't be approved.

 

[nidave]

So it seems in his determination to stop the scheme as it stands Mark Whitby really doesn't care if that practically puts the skids under the whole Northern Hub project permanently with all its carefully analysed transport and economic and broader environmental benefits. That's not the kind of engineer I think I would ever want to employ again.

I have thought that this is a "I will take my ball and go home if I dont get things my way" strop from the start - he is being a sore looser (that is not my first description).

 

[bluenoxid]

As undertaking this sort of action is commercially unviable, I am left wondering if potentially the choice not to go for Marks preferred option was more damaging to Mark than biting the hand that was feeding you.

 

[Class 170101]

Assume someone's already suggested sticking in diamonds to keep the MOSI's line connected.

Yes

There will be about a foot difference in height between the old track level and the new track level.

This was said also.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Yes



This was said also.

This was clarified 2 pages ago.

It's also worth remembering (and this has also been said before) that even if it was possible to keep MOSI mainline connected, there's going to be so little pathing capacity available upto and over the Ordsall Chord for use of charter trains, the connection would be of negligible practical use.

 

[The Planner]

And also the fact that MOSI have agreed to the severance, as have all the operators.

 

[lejog]

In fact the land is not unavailable. NR could go and seek and order for Marks Option 15 if it wished.

However it won't because
a) from my understanding of the arguments it is not practical from an engineering point of view and

b) Mark EH and MOSI are unlikely to object but I suspect the number of objections to Option 15 are likely considerably more than was the case for the existing proposal (not least the developers of Middlewood Locks) which would prevent it happening apart from the huge increase in cost.

I think we may be using different criteria for "availabilty". Outline planning permission was granted for the redevelopment of the site in March and detailed planning permission is expected in the next couple of months. As has been reported earlier in the thread the developer has started preparation works.

NR could apply for a CPO for Option 15, but it won't currently be granted by the Transport Minister since the route was rejected by a public enquiry. By the time of any new enquiry it is highly likely that Option 15 would involve building a railway viaduct straight through a major new development. The compensation a CPO may incur for halting a £700m development is likely beyond Network Rail.

 

[HowardGWR]

NR could apply for a CPO for Option 15, but it won't currently be granted by the Transport Minister since the route was rejected by a public enquiry. By the time of any new enquiry it is highly likely that Option 15 would involve building a railway viaduct straight through a major new development. The compensation a CPO may incur for halting a £700m development is likely beyond Network Rail.

It's 'Public Inquiry' and please note capitals. I have tried posting this point before. Apologies to those who read that post.

 

[lejog]

I apologise for my shocking spelling, however I do not accept that when talking in generic terms that 'public inquiry' should ever take capitals. Perhaps someone should tell Parliament.

 

[lejog]

For those unfamiliar with the plans here is a picture of the Middlewood Locks development which now has planning permission, enclosed by railway lines on three sides.

The route accepted by the Ordsall Chord Inquiry runs from Salford Central (to the bottom right of the picture), along the existing line (along the bottom) and then branches towards Central Manchester (off the bottom left). It has minimal effect on the development.

Mr Whitby's preferred option would replace the existing line with one running from bottom right (straight through a planned 32 storey tower block) to top left (through the centre of the development). The new connectivity would be provided by a curve towards the bottom left (straight through twin 25 storey buildings).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

How soon might the decision of the Judicial Review be known?

 

[lejog]

Oh dear, I've just realised who the judge is.

It doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in either the prospects for the Ordsall Chord being built, or in the Judiciary!

In a case which is slightly more relevant, Ms Lang found that TfL was indeed in breach of its own procedures and demonstrated a failure to consider the relevant issues, but reached a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/mar/22/boris-johnson-christian-ad-court

 

[Haydn1971]

I've not really been following this in any detail - but what allegedly does the "Whitby" chord offer over NR's preferred alignment ?

 

[nidave]

I've not really been following this in any detail - but what allegedly does the "Whitby" chord offer over NR's preferred alignment ?

Because he thought of it ???

 

[swt_passenger]

I've not really been following this in any detail - but what allegedly does the "Whitby" chord offer over NR's preferred alignment ?

It may be best to go back to when this was discussed earlier in the thread, there's a post here with all the necessary links:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2104246&postcount=481

 

[PR1Berske]

What is the current update/status of the case, if anybody knows?

 

[Viscount702]

Awaiting the Judges decision on the Judicial Review.

 

[Haydn1971]

It may be best to go back to when this was discussed earlier in the thread, there's a post here with all the necessary links:

Cheers for that - benefits either way it seems
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can't imagine many big infrastructure projects are going to want someone like that looking at their plans and digging around for reasons why the favoured plans for projects shouldn't be approved.

That's the problem with this industry - bitterness towards past problems get in the way of moving forward positively. Stick your neck out and your damned for years.

 

[snowball]

The court has found in favour of the Chord.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...ll-chord-linking-piccadilly-victoria-10256974

 

[po8crg]

Network Rail Press Release

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/ordsall-chord-judgment-good-news-for-rail-customers

Network Rail today welcomed a judge’s decision to dismiss a legal challenge to the process by which permission was granted for a much-needed railway improvement in central Manchester.

The Ordsall Chord is part of £1bn+ of improvements across the north of England included in Network Rail’s ‘Railway Upgrade Plan’.

By linking Manchester’s three main railway stations - Piccadilly, Victoria and Oxford Road - the Ordsall Chord will improve capacity and enable faster, more frequent services between towns and cities across the north, as well as the creation of new direct routes to the city’s airport.

A Network Rail spokesman said: “We welcome this decision as the Ordsall Chord forms a key part of our Railway Upgrade Plan for the north of England. More than £1bn is being invested to provide passengers with better services and we plan to start work on the Ordsall Chord as soon as possible.”

Today’s judgment was handed down by Mrs Justice Lang in the Planning Court in London. She dismissed all three claims made by Mark Whitby: two statutory challenges of the Transport and Works Act order, one of the Listed Building Consent and a judicial review of the planning permission. Mrs Justice Lang also refused permission for Mr Whitby to appeal.

The Ordsall Chord will support the delivery of:

• Two new fast trains per hour between Manchester Victoria and Liverpool
• Six fast trains an hour between Leeds and Manchester
• A new direct service through Manchester city centre to Manchester Airport
• Faster journey times to Hull, Newcastle and the North East

This is the only story I've mentioned that points out that permission to appeal was refused.

AIUI, the only option Whitby still has would be to go to one of the European courts - but I expect he'd get laughed out. CFI would almost certainly throw an ECJ application out, and I can't see any grounds for ECHR.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Just in time to figure in the detail of the Northern/TPE franchise awards (service plans, timetables etc).
Now the ball is in Network Rail's court to get its local construction plans agreed so that work can start.
No doubt some disruption of services via Ordsall Lane is likely, and fairly soon at that.

It's good that no issues were found with the original inquiry process and inspector's report.
Presumably someone is facing a large legal bill.