Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

As an aside....

After railways closed and track was lifted, it was not uncommon for adjacent landowners to extend their occupancy over a stretch of the trackbed, particularly so in urban areas. I know of an instance where a proposal to extend an existing heritage line further along the trackbed past the backs of a row of houses to the site of a (now demolished) former station was met by opposition from the residents whose gardens had been extended over the years to incorporate the disused trackbed. A quick examination of the appropriate land records showed that most, if not all, of them had never actually bought any of the disused land from BR and therefore had no right to be on it anyway!

I presume this is not the case with any of the L&BR trackbed ?

 

Prior to the Land Registration Act 2002, this could have happened under the doctrine of adverse possession if the house owners had squatted on the land for 12 years. This was changed in 2002 see here.

It's possible that owners could have asserted adverse possession as early as the late 1940s; what actually happened isn't clear to me - various accounts talk of the land being sold off, but not all of the pieces were subsequently registered with the Land Registry being held on the basis of deeds. But other than Chelfham viaduct (Highways Agency - ex-BRB residual) itself and Twitchen Lane north of Narracott Bridge (a minor public road, so presumably NDDC), I don't think that there is any 'unclaimed' land that isn't in the hands of private owners or of the L&B 'family' (edit: south of Wistlandpound). At least this is what the very useful EA map suggests.

I'm sure that someone will correct me if I've misunderstood!

 

talking of which, spot the difference

 

And many millions are not struggling. We are in a period of inflation. We aren't used to it, and many people are screaming that it is the end of the world. It may be the end of the world, but it wasn't last time.
However, some people are more affluent than others. If the affluent, because of rising costs, or unobtainable visas, or health scare, are unable to travel abroad, they will still travel within the British Isles. Look at 2020- Devon, Cornwall, Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire all welcomed(ish) tens of thousands of moneyed English tourists desperate to enjoy some sort of holiday, somewhere, preferably somewhere pretty, but somewhere other than the house they had just spent 6 months indoors. Exmoor always attracts tourists, and has done since the mid 19th century, and I suspect will continue to attract them. The L&B will prove itself to be as sustainable as any other steam railway.

I am curious, however. How could the current line between Woody Bay and Killington Lane be upgraded? It doesn't need large scale sleeper replacement, or heavier rail. The fences are in good order, the drainage works well, the buildings are in good order... So....? perhaps they should invest some resources in restoring rolling stock, or build a new locomotive or three, would that be acceptable? Or improving the visitor facilities? That scruffy old marquee that is used as a visitor canteen, surely something better could be arranged, if only someone had the wit and sense to see it.

 

...........You mean this scruffy old marquee used as a visitor canteen?

 

Well done Ross much rather talk about the good things that are happening at the railway than fueling the fires of the few who don't wishto see the railaway expanded. Yes things can always be done differently. I am quite sure all those who comment here and say this or that could be done better by the management. ASpend most of their time telling there colliuges they could do their bosses job better than him or her. However they never take the leep of promotion as the they dont have abbility to atualy make a desicion or are able to cope with the stress of a higher level. so please shut up and stop adding to and already tense situation. It is mot helpfull in the least if you wish to see railway rebuilt stop talking about it.

 

What is the difference? As far as I’m aware the only way a landowner could be ‘required to sell’ to the railway is via CP.

 

maybe i should have worded it differently, if you have trackbed on your land and it would be required to extend a railway, thats not just the L&B but any railway, then you would be obliged to sell as opposed to the railway having to seek powers to buy it/force you to sell so not really CP

 

With respect, we seem to be splitting hairs here - you seem to talking about a compulsory sale to the railway rather than a compulsory purchase by the railway, but does that not amount to the same thing? I would categorise it more that you envisage there being an automatic requirement for the landowner to sell, rather than the railway having to request a power which might not be granted.

 

I still don’t understand your point. The owner being obliged to sell is exactly what CP is, nothing more. The CP price is set via a legal process so that the seller cannot hold the buyer to ransom; but also so that the seller receives a fair amount of compensation in addition to the market value.

Whether it is right to give CP powers to the railway can only be decided via the TWAO process, where the landowners can object and both sides can put their case at a public inquiry.

Whether the land was previously a railway is irrelevant, as far as CP is concerned, if the railway was closed long ago and the land sold. The original powers to build and operate the L&B no longer exist.

 

I believe @RailWest has summed up better what I was trying to explain, if trackbed already exists there should be no need for a railway to try to obtain CP powers to purchase said trackbed, so for instance because planning exists to extend to blackmoor trackbed within that stretch should be made available for the railway to purchase without the need to obtain CP powers,

 

I'm not sure that I would agree with that approach. As I see it, the TWAO should be in effect merely the technical approval to actually run a railway. Permission to build the railway is granted by the local authority (in this case the ENPA) granting planning permission, and that permission ought to be sufficient for the railway to be able make a compulsory purchase request. Any objections - and public enquiries - should have been made at the planning application process. After all, if the local authority agrees to have the railway, why should some central government body be able to put obstacles in its way?

There is the situation of course that - as the law stands at the moment - anyone can apply for planning permission over land which they do not own. Developers do it all the time, to ensure that they do not buy land which they then can't develop. So any such 'presumption of the right to buy' would have to be restricted to specific cases such as railways, to ensure that otherwise it is not abused by developers trying to 'grab' land etc.

 

I disagree. Planning permission already exists for this part of the railway but the planning process did not convey or even consider powers of land acquisition.

I hope the L&B succeeds but, as a general principle, I’m glad it’s not too easy for a railway, the local authorities, the Government or anyone else to take away my land, your land or anyone else’s against their will. What the L&B have to do now is build a strong enough case for CP, which they did not need to do in order to get PP. In the meantime I’m sure they will also have offered (probably several times) to purchase the land for a generous price in order to avoid the CP process if at all possible.

 

You may prefer a different approach but the L&B are having to deal with planning law and the T&W Act as it is, not as you wish it.

 

Something which I have been wondering about is the historical nature of disposal of surplus assets, in this case a railways right of way, (and presumably only a legal professional steeped in property law would be able to answer this), but, when trackbed was originally disposed of, up to that point, a right of way would have existed. My question is, when that land was disposed of by deed of sale, be it by the SR, BRB, etc. to Joe Soap esq, would those deeds have contained a clause explicitly relinquishing any right of access for the purpose of running trains, or would that relinquishment have been implied?
I'm guessing the former, otherwise a test case would almost certainly have come up by now, but its a question worth asking, nonetheless.

It's an interesting point, but one which has enormous legal ramifications, particularly where the ROW has been interrupted, either by building or demolition. Unfortunately this country missed a golden opportunity to have the ROWs, at least from the Beeching era, preserved in law for future use. And sadly, the short term nature of government, and the ever shorter term nature of government policy making has left its mark.
That said, this article is interesting, particularly para. 2:
https://www.carson-mcdowell.com/new...ts-of-way-over-private-land-landowners-beware

 

I'd be very happy to help with outreach, and have said so to senior members of the Trust, including producing a Q&A for use with the community.

I didn't even get the normal politeness of a response.

Ergo, if this is the place that the discussion about the future is happening, that is in considerable part because other avenues internally have been foreclosed.

 

I think the second half of your post answers the first - that the closure of railways removed the right of way enjoyed by the railway operator prior to closure, and that sale of the land would have been unencumbered by residual rights. A much more recent closure (mid-1980s) of the Lincoln Avoiding Line has seen multiple buildings on the solum, and demolition of earthworks; eminently justifiable decisions at that time but now deeply regrettable.

As you say this is a specialist area, and I am not a lawyer, but the phrase "right of way" has multiple meanings. Without getting drawn into what should have happened following railway closures, railways are not public rights of way in the sense of roads or public footpaths, and (see also multiple debates with Sustrans), arrangements such as you suggest might not be helpful to railway preservation in any case.

 

Reinstatement of the L and B is in the Local Plan. This means that a planning application to do this will be granted subject to that application covering all the things that planning law requires. This may be subject to conditions imposed by the Local Authority. It also means that if someone submits an application to build something on the trackbed other that reinstate the railway it will be turned down. That is my rather simplistic view of the situation. The need to cover the various planning matter is why you employ an agent to make the application.

Application for a TWAO requires a parliamentary agent. There are so many documents needed that you need to take advice particularly since it is likely that a Public Inquiry will result. Getting this right is important and that is why [I assume] that the application has not yet been made.

I feel sure that the landowners who have not yet agreed to sell their land will have been approached. At the RVR Public Inquiry a document was submitted which listed all the contacts made with the landowners over a considerable period - so I am sure L and B will be keeping a record of their contacts. [I did try to find the document but there are so many on the Public Inquiry website that I haven't been able to find it!]

 

The position that I understand it is when the WHR closed the trackbed was not sold off and because there were no funds the Official Receiver never applied for an abandonment order.

As a result the land remained in legal terms a railway & the 'New' WHR which had purchased the trackbed from the Receiver could evict anyone from the land.

The L&B however was 'legally' closed by The Southern Railway and the land sold off so the powers obtained by the original L&B Company were extinguished and have to be reinstated so the line can be rebuilt.

 

A railway right-of-way is not at all the same as a public right of way, for example the public have no right to walk on a railway It’s very well established that a long dismantled railway needs a new TWAO in order to be rebuilt. I.E. the power to build the railway was ‘used up’ when it was built the first time.

Any existing rights to operate a railway cannot be transferred to a new company without a TWAO; or before that either a Light Railway Order or Act of Parliament.

Therefore when disused railway land was sold there was no need for any restrictive clauses either forbidding or permitting future use for a railway.