Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I note a sudden spurt in the number of responses to the Sec 73 application, including quite a few 'supports'. But also several 'objects' which refer to supporting letters which are not accessible, so it is hard to know the basis of their objections.

I note that one objection relates to the need to demolish the bungalow on the site. Clearly the writer has not studied the background enough to know that permission for that has been granted already, so it is more a question of 'when' it will take place rather than 'if'.

 

I'd thought that issue at least had been put to bed at the original enquiry.?

 

It has, it’s going to be demolished, and anyone raising it as an objection for the amended plans is wasting their time. This objection will swiftly be dismissed.

 

To be fair, I suppose that it could be argued that if the Sec 73 applications were to fail and if the planning consent ran out of time next year, then at least there would be no obvious need to demolish the bungalow until such time as a railway could be built through there eventually. But as a 'point of objection' it has no validity in the current process (like many others!).

 

What is the basis for objections against demolition of the bungalow anyway? Presumably the loss of housing stock in the area, rather than it being architecturally or historically important?

I might be wrong, but I think this is the first case of a preserved railway buying and demolishing a house in order to build an extension?

 

There are a couple of objections from one of the landowners - this concludes with the comment "However, the legal reasons the Grampian conditions were imposed in the first place are still valid and any amendment under these applications will bring an immediate legal challenge."

 

IIRC the initial objections were indeed about the perceived loss of housing stock in the village. The L&BR response was to propose (as a separate and specific planning application) the erection of two new houses elsewhere on the station site, one as a 'replacement' (whose occupancy could be decided by (say) the Parish Council etc) and the other to be used for a railway employee. The ENPA rejected that application. so at least that saved the railway some future expense

Another example where people are complaining now about something which the ENPA has already considered when deciding on the future of the railway re-building, so has no relevance to the actual Sec 73 applications.

 

With respect, the words I've highlighted in red are NOT part of what the objector wrote.

AIUI the Grampian Conditions (GC) were imposed as a result of a decision by the ENPA to include them - I am not aware (but stand to be corrected) that there was/is any legal requirement for them. The objector is correct insofar as - at this moment in time - the GC remain in force and are valid as part of the planning consent. But if the ENPA decide, when determining the Sec 73 applications, that the GCs may be varied/relaxed/waived altogether, then I fail to see what would be the basis for any legal challenge as the L&BR and the ENPA will have gone through the appropriate legal process to make that change.

 

I note also an objection about the damage likely to the caused to the church and other old buildings by the 'vibrations' from trains using the turntable.

Eh? What vibrations? And why specifically the use of the turntable - why is everyone so fixated on the TT? I wonder how the church and other old buildings managed to survive all those ghastly vibrations from passing trains from 1898 to 1935?

 

I cut and pasted it from their letters - they have submitted several letters. This is from their 15th June letter.

 

I am no planning expert, and don't know the law as it applies to this matter. But my general observation is that when someone writes in general terms that they will go legal, without specifying the nature of the legal position that they're trying to protect, it is a combination of bluff and bullying, and code for "this really, really matters to me". A serious challenmge would have put something in about the "legal reasons" for Grampian conditions.

 

Be mindful my dear chap ..... gricers are not necessarily the only audience here and there's a fine line between opinion and free legal advise!

 

That may be so (I’m no expert either) but regardless of all of that, as local residents they deserve to have their objections noted and considered as part of the process. At the end of the day it will then be for the planners to decide the validity of any objections and whether the positives outweigh the negatives.

I do feel slightly sorry for this landowner; they have set themselves up as the people who can stop the extension dead unless the L&B get CP powers (not guaranteed) and raise a large sum of money (also not guaranteed). Now suddenly they risk a situation whereby the L&B reaches their village and they become the people stopping it going further and thus causing an increased (perceived) level of annoyance to their neighbours for all time, unless they cave in and sell their bit. Which potentially turns them from heroes to villains in the eyes of non-railway-supporting villagers, if the Sec73 variation goes through. It’s a bit of a (potential) turnaround and I can totally see why they won’t be happy about the prospect.

 

And lets not forget that they will get a better offer from L and B for the land than they will if CP powers are applied. Once the TWAO is lodged they can ask for a Public Inquiry as statuatory objectors and then they will have the costs of presenting their case to the Inquiry. I have noticed that they have made objections to the S73 application themselves rather than use a legal representative - although this may still appear.

 

They do, but planning law also defines what constitute valid objections - "I'm not happy" doesn't cut it unless the "because..." is aligned with planning law.

 

So the bungalow ought not be demolished because it "will reduce the local housing stock" according to this objection.
I wonder what the reaction to a totally different planning application to build a new house in the vicinity of Parracombe might be? We attempted to get permission to build a modest sized, disabled accessible house on some land we owned and farmed. We have six children, our youngest is disabled. Totally opposed. One objector suggested that my wife and daughter separate and live in a council disabled accessible bungalow, and I and the other 5 continue to live somewhere else, which "proved" that there was no functional need for us to build

 

God, that is truely callous. I know I'll probably get told off for this, but the entitled, sabre-toothed rural middle classes really do seem to be a most savage and heartless breed at times. I'm finding this whole thing fascinating, from the point of view of a social study.
A few years back, the last remaining green space within our village envelope came up for development. 23 houses in a hamlet of about 50 existing homes. Everyone wrote in and objected, yet the plans were bulldozed through. I'm very familiar with the lady who was head of district council planning. She is a pragmatist who hated her brief, but knew what was required, and had to tag along with the regional planning strategy. "Better I do it, and get the flak- at least I know the area. Better that than some jobsworth, parachuted in, who'd just concrete over everything".
And so it proved. OK, we lost Windmill Field, but it's actually had very little impact on the village. Local fears are often grossly exaggerated.

 

The objector sounds like an economist, no human skills

 

Indeed I first thought upon reading this, that perhaps this was a certain Mr Scrooge, ever passionate about reducing the surplus population.

 

Will someone post the link to S73 (again!) please? I shall make time over the weekend for some careful reading and hope to be amused...