Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

But you do have the prettiest viaduct in preservation.....when you eventually get there...

Robin

 

I suppose we all love steam, so would welcome a preserved railway running near our house.
If it was something we had no interest in (drag car racing?) but was someone else's passion, we would object I dare say.
Let's hope a sensible conversation can lead to a mutually satisfactory outcome.

 

I agree with Andrew, if I lived near the route I'd be apprehensive, especially with terms like compulsory purchase banded about

 

I think you mean 'bandied' about

 

Thanks

 

Rother Valley Railway is awaiting a planning permission decision before seeking their TWO. They have said they'll seek CPO powers if they can't reach agreement with landowners.

I imagine getting planning permission first simplifies the TWO process later, since planning permission issues will not have to be considered again. Seeking deemed planning consent with a TWO is probably only appropriate for the more complex kind of transport schemes - where the planning decisions would probably be in any case 'called in' by the government. Either way the local objectors have a right to be heard and considered.

 

As far as I know the Trust don't want to use compulsory powers if they can help it. As it brings all sorts of problems with it that you may not be aware of, I do know that the trust want to work with everyone involved with this and not to be seen as the bad guys.

If the Trust already had compulsory powers it would not only be up against a few land owners, but both NDDC and the ENPA in planning matters, the way the Trust are conducting themselves is the only way this can be done.

 

I agree, it is so important to work with the local authorities and landowners to try to build up local support - which will be a big help towards marginalising any objections. But if you still have just one landowner who refuses to negotiate, having CPO powers in your TWO will help to break this deadlock even if you don't end up using them.

 

I recall that a particularly recalcitrant landowner (whom I'm not going to name), who won't meet with anyone from the Trust, is so keen to stay in idyllic Devon that they had their property on the market at some stage! I believe one of the owners is or was a tax exile who couldn't stay for any long periods in the country leave alone in North Devon anyway...

 

Reading the excellent Rushdon book on the WHR rebuilding I believe that CP powers were included because of the number of possible adverse possession claims to the tracked. What we are talking of here is a somewhat different scenario, in that much of the land isn't in the hands of the railway or associated organisations. I recall the Bluebell took several years to acquire the land to EG and did so on the quiet, I guess in North Devon the position is different again.

CP powers would I presume be required for the L and B unless the land can be acquired but by bit.

Interesting reading some of the objections/comments who say that the application should have concerned the whole 14 miles or so not open at present. Again the WHR had to decide whether to apply for TWO to Rhydd Ddu only or all the way in one hit- with hindsight the latter route was better.

It will be interesting to see what happens with both this and the RVR applications, there is certainly a more "pro railway" flavour climate of late with the WHR as a very good example of a railway bringing positive benefits to a national park. Living in South Wales with the doom and gloom of the steel industry a L and BR type initiative is surely something that can only be good for the local economy in North Devon.

Regards

Matt

 

Ever since I have been a member of the L&BR there has always been some one who has their property on the market and no one else has brought it, I have heard it said that one owner blamed the Trust for not being able to sell their place because the local plan said there was going to be a new railway at the bottom of her garden.

I get the impression that we are always open to buying any property that includes trackbed or right of way for the project if a genuine sale was wanted by the current owner.

If you ask the right person it is surprising just how much of the L&BR trackbed is now owned by pro project owners or has been purchased by people in the Trust, of course there will always be some who will not sell, but I know of at least one landowner who would only consider leasing their trackbed once we get to where they are.

I know I might be out of date on this one but I think there where about 80 known landowners along the whole line before we started at Woody Bay. If you want an exact figure the best place to go would be the land register.

 

Around 25% of the entire route is currently owned by the Trust or Exmoor Associates. The Trust has made it known in recent newsletters that several more stretches are about to be purchased.

 

GCR's "gap" bridge is also being built under planning permission. I'm unsure if either the LRO (GCR(S)) or T&WAO (GCRN) covers it or if a new application will be needed before a train runs over it, but I guess that the planning permission route was seen as the best way of actually getting the thing built. I imagine that it also keeps the local authorities on side if you engage with their normal processes.

 

I have a railway (and a station) at the bottom of my garden and I can say conclusively that it does NOT have a negative effect on the attractiveness, saleability or value of my property.

Robin
(Of Station House, Stogumber)

 

(first post in quite a long time, so bare with me)

I do think that one day the railway will own all the land or atleast have a long term lease on some sections.

But I can also see why land owners who are not willing to sell up see it as a negative. I looked at bere ferrers station building, and the only thing that stopped me from buying it was the fact that NR where/are/one day in the process of making a Dawlish diversionary route via the line along with potential electrification.

I think its very easy for us ( as railway enthusiasts) to say how amazing it is for a railway to be rebuilt and to be at the end of our gardens, but I also can understand why some people arnt overly excited about the idea.

However, saying that though. I think the L&B are very good with making everything very open publicly and have a good relationship with most the land owners and I think patients is slowly paying off. the railway and EA combined now own 17.9% of the 19 mile strech ( figure from the EA website)

I think that its just a shame, and not just with this line but with all lines around the country, there will always be enthusiasts who force there way onto peoples private land and break that relationship and trust down.

 

Yes I know of one such group that have openly said they want to obtain compulsory purchase powers, which does not help their cause, there is a second group on this line which is taking a totally different approach to the whole problem and could (I say could with a big C) be in a position in less that ten years with a very substantial railway project to run.

 

I think you'll find that the EA website's FAQs are pretty much out of date. I think there were posts on the Yahoo group recently that showed a figure of 25% is much nearer the mark.

 

Ah, i can only go by the EA website as i dont use yahoo, but i stand correctted

 

The current total is 4.78 miles just a tad short of the 25%, but I understand there will be some more good news if it all goes to plan.

 

Despite containing a lot of official-sounding waffle, the report from Mrs Grob's consultants is actually pretty careless. One of their principal objections is that Parracombe Halt was only a water stop and was never open to passengers.
This is plainly incorrect and if they visited the site they'd have seen that the passenger waiting shelter is still there!
I'd also put little faith in a consultancy which tries to sound authoritative but can't even spell bridle (bridal) path correctly.