Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Nice to see on the Website the official bridge opening on Dec 13th.

 

Further to this post - it has gone very quiet with this planning application. There was no planning meeting in January and the application is not on the Agenda for the February Meeting. Just have to be patient.
It was good to see the reports on the website of the ongoing activity on the trackbed - it shows that the railway are serious about the extension which is important for the TWAO.

 

Latest news is that the TWAO application now due to be submitted in Spring.

 

For some reason I simply can't find the Old Station Inn application on the NDDC website - nothing comes up on any searches, not the original message about it with the application number and link. Can some kind soul post them here again please ???? Thanks!

 

Here is a link... https://planning.northdevon.gov.uk/Planning/Display/70504

 

Thanks - success at last !

 

it did receive a lot of negative press locally including over half a page dedicated to the story in the major local newspaper and digital platforms,from comments i've heard out and about it hasn't painted a very pretty picture of the railway locally.probably trying to bury bad news .it would be interesting though to know which representative of the railway started to throw about the threat of compulsory purchase at the meeting which was held between the pub owners and the trust,a solicitors letter states peter miles was in attendance but doesn't mention who else .

 

for anyone interested a planning amendment has been applied for with ENPA, planning number 62/50/20/004.

 

I must confess that I have not read every bit of paper connected with this application (life's too short for that!), but I do get the clear impression that some of those involved (however tenuously) seemed to have got hold of the wrong end of the proverbial stick in many ways.

1. The fact that the applicant does not own a site is irrelevant to any planning application. The application, if approved, merely gives them the right to carry out a development if and when they do own the site. So whether or not the railway currently has the funds to buy the OSHI or build the line to WB etc is totally irrelevant to the determination of the application.

2. Other than the adaptions proposed for railway use, I can see nothing in the application that suggest anything other than that the existing pub/restaurant business will continue largely unchanged. After all, why would the railway want to lose a valuable source of income, especially on days when trains are not running? I do get the impression that someone has been scaremongering and far too many people have jumped in to object without actually reading the facts.

3. Either there was a fundamental misunderstanding in the early days between the railway and the OSHI's owner(s), or someone for some reason has changed their position on this matter. Exactly what is their current position seems unclear given the apparently contradictory information emerging from various sources.

4. The railway needs a T&WO in order to operate. AIUI such an order could/ would confer the right to apply for a CPO, but that does not mean that a CPO would automatically be requested or granted - really it would be a matter of 'last resort'. AIUI the railway has a possible route past the OSHI site that would enable a passing-loop and two platforms to be constructed to the west of the old station, so it would seem that acquisition of the OSHI is more of a 'desirable' than an 'essential' element of the Phase 2A extension. So it seems doubtful that the railway would have started 'waving their big stick' at such a premature stage, when ongoing and construction discussions may well yield a mutually-acceptable solution within a reasonable timescale. I suspect that someone somewhere has mistaken a 'statement of the facts' as a 'statement of intent'.

5. AIUI this is not really a 'new' application in the sense of a totally new proposal, but simply a re-application for a previous application where the consent is now time-expired. So, given that NDDC approved the original application, I would suggest there would have to be strong evidence of a significant change in circumstances to support any decision by NDDC not to approve this renewal. On the contrary, it could be argued that the recent work on the bridges is clear evidence that the railway is moving forward in its goal to re-open the line and in doing so acting in support of ENPA/NDCC policy.

 

I've tried that but it failed as well ! ENPA seem to have changed their Planning Search engine recently and it now just sits there waiting..and waiting....and waiting...:-( Anyone got a specific link please which they have actually found to work ???

 

https://planning.agileapplications.co.uk/exmoor/application-details/21255

 

Thanks RailWeast for a very comprehensive view of the situation.

Having read some of the documents it would seem that there have been changes in the situation with the owners of the Inn. I am surprised that there were so many objections to what is in effect a reapplication for a lapsed planning application. Seems to have been a lot of 'fake news' in the media.

 

Tried that and search seems to be taking ages - could be my broadband connection though.

 

Thanks - at least I did get there eventually this time !

However.....reading the response from 'Heddon Hall' did give me some cause for concern. Although not objecting, he does seem to be unhappy about the way that he perceives the railway is doing what I presume to be basic clearance and repair work etc.

 

All work to date on track bed clearance has been on land owned by the L&B and, as far as I am aware, within any existing planning consents. Though yet again it seems the L&B has fallen slightly short of good community engagement

 

I am sure that is the case, but the letter makes reference to an (alleged) incident of trespass on adjoining land and expresses concern about possible future encroachment. That may not actually happen of course, but I'm sure a good dose of proactive 'engagement' would be a worthwhile precaution

 

I eventually managed to access the application and documents - this application seems to be necessary because of 'drafting errors' in the previous [approved] application. The 'comment' does not seem to understand that the recent clearance work is approved under the existing planning consent. However I am surprised that permission was not sought before the contractor crossed the adjoining land to tidy the hedge.

 

Yes, there is of course a difference between permitted clearance work and not-yet-permitted construction work. Unfortunately there may be those who will seize upon such activity, and any possible associated problems supposedly caused by it, to generate unwarranted 'bad press' about the railway and whip-up anti-L&BR local feeling. The problem is trying to nip such 'fake news' in the bud before it spreads :-(

 

From what I recall about the previous clearance weekend, the trees cut by the working party were well within L&Bs curtilage, mostly overhanging the track, and several described as "diseased'.
The most recent working party was almost exclusively involved with restoring the fence line on this stretch. We all know what good fences make, but it does sound like a simple courtesy call to Heddon Hall would have made all the difference. It does remind me of the old proverb about "for the sake of a nail.."