Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

No, but she is mentioned and thanked for her contribution.

 

Noy received mine yet either- but don't think our postman comes everyday anymore.

 

I received mine this morning. Apparently, Anne submitted her nomination papers, but she was excluded by the chair. That won't be the last we hear of Anne though, of that I'm sure. I think I might vote for her anyway!

 

I've just noticed, the voting slips offer a tick-box option to select the Chairman of the meeting as proxy, but there is no option to select another member as proxy. Is that the normal process?

 

On what grounds, and what authority ?

 

As I

As I am sure the Secretary will know by now, Clauses 25-29 of the M&AoA specify the process by which any member may nominate another member to act as their proxy. In my experience elsewhere this is usually done by providing suitable space on the voting form, but provided that you follow the relevant rules then i see no reason why you should not submit your proxy nomination separately - in which case I would suggest that you clearly strike out the 'Chairman' option for clarity

 

As far as I can tell the former was not provided and the latter does not exist

 

I don't know, she didn't say.

 

i think this might be appropriate under the circumstances, i get the impression of late that the trust and cic, having been told of their incompetence by a woman feel there is no such place for one in senior management

 

Looking at the documents filed for the Trust on the Companies House website Clauses 25-29 don't mention proxies. And Clauses 29-37 refer to the appointment of Trustees. Is there another set of M&As somewhere or are we getting our wires crossed ?

 

The late Herbert Jones, Talyllyn Railway Locomotive Superintendent (employed in the 1950's, 60's and 70's), said - "Women on the footplate? Neverrrr!"
As befits the pioneer, the TR is probably one of the most inclusive heritage railways now, but the "male ego" seems alive and kicking at WSR, ELR and L&B? Things have moved on, but not very far.

 

That's the original version.

The latest AFAIK is the 2011 version held here https://www.lynton-rail.org.uk/page/corporate-information

 

Certainly unfortunate timing if nothing else

 

Thank you. I should have known that !

 

Along with others, I received this from Anne Belsey yesterday - shared here for those who've not seen it.

________________________________________

L&B TRUSTEES KNEW IN AUGUST 2022 THAT THEIR SECTION 73 PLANNING APPLICATION WAS INVALID AND WOULD NOT BE GRANTED!


Dear L&B Member,


An email from the ENPA to the Trust's planning consultant, Tom Watson, copied to John Barton, Ian Cowling and Peter Miles, which has recently been made publicly available, shows that the L&B Trust Board was informed in August 2022 that its S73 application was invalid and that the ENPA would be acting unlawfully if it granted it.


The Trust Newsletter 79 (February 2023) places the blame for the failure on the ENPA quoting “…Covid, staff shortages and procrastination by ENPA over the validity of the procedure."

The email confirms that there was no procrastination by the Exmoor National Park Authority and that their legal position was clear and unequivocal. Put simply, for the ENPA to grant the Section 73 would have been an illegal act. Therefore, further discussions or negotiations regarding this application would be a waste of time.


So……..


Why did the Trust Board continue to maintain the viability of the Section 73 until February 2023 when it became obvious to everyone that it would not be passed?


Why was the Section 73 still being presented to the members at the November forum and in Newsletters as the solution?


Why did the Trust Board believe that they could reverse the ENPA's position and get them to override their legal advice?


Why did the Trust Board continue to appeal for funds when they knew that the Section 73 could not be approved and thus the extension to Parracombe could not be built?


Why are member's money and donations being wasted on forward planning that can never be achieved?


As a member of the L&B Trust, you might have your own questions to ask the Trustees.




Regards,
Anne Belsey



Email from Dean Kinsella Head of Planning & Sustainable development ENPA to Tom Watson of Arups copied to Peter Miles John Barton & Ian Cowling dated 15h August 2022



Response of Exmoor National Park Authority

15 August 2022

Dear Tom,


You will be aware that the Authority has received a legal opinion from a third party regarding the validity of the current applications to vary conditions relating to a phased delivery of the railway line at Parracombe, together with further concerns regarding the robustness and relevance of the information submitted. The opinion concludes that:


1. “S.73 TCPA 1990 cannot be used to grant consent for a ‘staged’ development because that would conflict with the description of development for the Original Permission. The Promoters are seeking a planning permission that ENPA has no power to grant under s.73 TCPA 1990. The Promoters would need to make a fresh planning application to achieve that result;


2. The ES Addendum fails to assess the consequences of a ‘staged’ development because it assumes Phase IIA will be completed within five years in circumstances where that outcome is not secured or even likely on the evidence. Consequently, in breach of the EIA Regs, the new permission would not be tied to the environmental impact assessment;


3. The planning arguments that lead to ENPA imposing the Grampian conditions on the Original Permission remain valid (and, if anything, are reinforced by the Promoters’ lack of progress in satisfying those conditions). There is no good planning reason to relax those conditions;


4. The proposal to include a turntable at Parracombe Halt for which there is no historical precedent is contrary to Local Plan Policy RT-S2, limb 1(b). Additionally, the s.73 Application gives rise to new planning impacts at Parracombe which have not been considered previously and which militate in favour of refusal;


5. Accordingly, ENPA ought to refuse the s.73 Application both because it seeks a form of planning permission that ENPA has no power to grant given the operative terms of the Original Permission and because ENPA’s decision to impose whole scheme Grampian conditions was clearly correct and should be maintained.”


Since receiving the opinion we have been liaising with our legal team and have sought our own advice regarding the conclusions raised in the third-party opinion. I am sorry to say that our own legal advice largely concurs with the opinion submitted by the third party. I hereby attach our legal advice which I am happy to waive any legal privilege over. You will see that the legal advice concludes that:


“The current section 73 application is invalid. ENPA would act unlawfully if it granted it.”

Having considered this advice and its empathetic nature the authority appears to have no alternative other than to object to the current applications to vary the existing planning permissions. Having taken some time to consider the options available to your client there appears to be only three available:


1. The applications are withdrawn (you will have to consider whether you wish to resubmit an application(s) with a fresh ES and associated information).


2. You ask the authority to determine the application as is currently submitted, allowing you to appeal any decision.


3. Submit further information to remove any other concerns that are likely to be raised leaving a single reason regarding the invalid nature of the application.


I would also stress, the Planning Authority also have the option to refuse to determine the application and note the applications as invalid. No decision has been made on this point currently as we would much rather work with you deal with this matter, but the authority reserves the right to consider this course of action if required.


I appreciate that this will be very disappointing for you and your client, and you are likely to want to discuss this at our meeting on Wednesday? For completeness I have also copied Wayne, John, Ian and Peter into this email, so all parties are aware of this development.


I have not yet shared this advice more widely and won’t inform third parties until after our meeting on Wednesday.


Kind regards,


Dean Kinsella

Head of Planning & Sustainable Development

 

Perhaps the Chair will be good enough to explain what the basis for excluding a duely nominated candidate was? If true, then this is outrageous - on the face of it, the Chair should be resigning over this alone.

 

According to the L&BRT 2011 M&AAs, published on the archive website - see Railwest's link above):

Sadly, I believe that this makes the format of the voting slips recently received invalid, which will therefore need to be reformatted to include space (and instructions) to nominate a proxy other than the chair of the meeting if the member so desires. I will be writing to the secretary to this effect shortly.

 

Could the appointment of a non-chairman proxy be covered by the statement "An instrument appointing a proxy shall be in the usual form"?
ie: a note from person A appointing person B as their proxy, duly signed, dated and delivered to the secretary?

 

This member is awaiting his pack ahead of the meeting. He is concerned that the failure to make this point clear, combined with the provision in the quoted M&AAs that "in default the instrument of proxy shall not be treated as valid", leaves a genuine risk of confusion over the validity of votes where proxies are exercised.

 

Yes, but...what IS the 'usual form', as that is not defined in the M&AoA? After all, without a definition of 'usual form' for appointing a proxy, how can the Secretary determine whether it is valid or not for acceptance? There are various references in M&AoA to things in "the Act" which is defined as the Companies Act 1985, so is there something in that which is relevant perhaps?

Clause 5 requires "..at least 21 clear days notice..." for an AGM. If the business of the meeting has to be substantially altered - eg by adding the name of a Trustee nomination which had been omitted - then might it be necessary to ensure also there is 'at least 21 clear days notice' from when the revised paperwork is altered which could result in the AGM being postponed?