Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

HR should be about public transport not parking even more cars!!

 

Chelfham mill school has outline planning for 15 houses, so 15 possible families objecting to a railway running across the Viaduct plus whatever development happens on the mill side of stream, if the property is secured by the YVT that threat is removed, volunteer accommodation can be provided relatively quickly, there will be ample parking and scope for other activities, we have already seen what a few organised objectors can achieve, don't forget the old railway route is a protected transport route not a protected railway route.

 

Thank you. That helps me understand one side of the question.

 

I have to say that this feels like a "nice to have" rather than being strictly necessary (unless those in the know have already found out that it is necessary, especially if there is a push to run trains around Chelfham in the not too distant future).

I'm not (yet) a member of EA, but I would have thought that their priority was trackbed acquisition. There is still the Scout Camp section (718m) to purchase between Chelfham and Snapper (as well as the challenge of getting across the road), and nearly 2700m of trackbed to acquire between Chelfham and Bratton Fleming.

Also, I'm not sure the suggestion of a car park for Chelfham station would fly (if that's what people were suggesting). Perhaps the idea is to buy it as an investment (build the houses and rent them out, etc.), as well as protecting from potential owners opposing trains crossing the viaduct?

 

You have hit the nail on the head, should there be some land available at Chelfham mill it has been suggest that some of it could be swapped for the scout camp site, but I don't know just how big a lump of land the scout camp is and course we are far away from that happening.

One thing I think that hasn't got across and that is we are all members of the L&BR so as I see it, it is not the membership which are at fault, since we all get on with each other, but it is the group of people who have been charged with leading the project where the problems lie at present.

While the trust membership might not have the same powers as say a shareholder would in a commercial company , they do still own the Trust and it follows that the trustees should be acting for the benefit and in the interests of the trust itself. This being approved by the membership at an AGM.

It now appears that many people feel that the upcoming AGM is null and void before it have even taken place, following a number of other issues which have already been discussed on here on top of all this and the situation I don't think could get any worse or could it.

To use another sailing reference I feel that the L&BR Trust is like the Mary Celeste at present with no leadership at the helm, it should never have got to this, but it has and now we have to work out away to over come all the difficulties, while some may see the number of small groups in the L&BR arc as a major issue. I thing it has been the opposite and has been the saviour of the whole project to be honest.

 

Two thoughts. First, the arguments on structure are also applicable to the L&B Trust - and look at what’s happening there.

Second, in a situation where there are governance disputes it is dangerous for people on one side of the argument to say “it’s their fault and they need to come and talk to us” while also setting up parallel organisations. Whatever the motive - and I give full credit that this is about achieving reinstatement - it easily looks like an attempt to undermine the Trust,


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

It still is, it's the Yeo Valley Trust who are looking to purchase the Chelfham Mill site

 

@H Cloutt - I have no idea whether I fit your (suitably condescending) description of " 'so called' supporters " but I can assure you that I'm not doing this for my own entertainment: the sole purpose is to get the L&BRT to be an exemplar of good governance, rather than being run by people who happily ignore the rules and operate in a totally arbitrary manner towards members they appear not to like.

I'd like nothing more than to get back to working up credible plans to extend the railway. This doesn't mean Option C, unless Mr Miles and Co can show that there is a credible chance of getting planning permission to extend to a point at or near Parracombe without Grampian Conditions. I don't see any evidence of it at all.

 

If by " 'so called' supporters" Harold, you mean true supporters of the L&BR who are prepared to stand against the current cabal of, perhaps I might call them, 'so-called Trustees' (Chris Duffell excepted), then I am happy to receive this appellation.
I am completely in agreement with Toby ('Tobbes' in post 8449 above) and welcome the day when the railway can be extended although I cannot see any other option than Option C (so-called?). The extension from Blackmoor to Wistlandpound could be built in readiness for operating trains, much like the RVR's extensions from Bodiam to Junction Road and from Robertsbridge to Northbridge Street. Trains are not essential in demonstrating purpose.

 

I understand why you have asked the questions you have asked - I am not questioning your motivation in doing so - I do have similar concerns. However I am concerned whether having a detailed discussion about this on what is a public forum which can be accessed by opposers is appropriate. Maybe what is needed is a private members only forum. I am disappointed that the members only area of the website has not been updated. Had this been updated with information then some of the speculation on this forum would have been avoided. In particular information could have been provided about (1) the fact that legal advice was requested about the S73 application (2) the rationale behaind the decision to modify the application (3) news about the withdrawal of the application (4) the reasons why Anne's name did not appear on the nomination.

I don't know the personalities involved in all of this - but it does seem that there are those who have a dislike [almost a hatred] of some of the current trustees. There may be good reasons for this of which I am not aware. As an ordinary member I can only make a judgement on the many things which the trust has accomplished - I would have liked to have seen more accomplished. The main thing is getting more track on the ground - is the failure to do this due to incompetance of the trustees, bad advice from their prefessional advisors, external constraints over which the trustees have no control or something else? I don't know the reason by I have a view.

I have gleaned from posts that there is apparently some conflict between EA and the trust. I am a supporter of both organisations and am not aware of this from my experience. If there is conflict then bridges need to be built.

Hopefully we can put all this conflict behind us soon and move forward and see some progress with the reconstruction of the railway.

 

I don't see the establishment of the YVT as an attempt to undermine the Trust.

 

Nor do I - as such. But in view of the tensions that you comment on, intent and effect can differ.

More generally, the public forum is a strong signal of something being damaged in organisational governance. As a minor example, I wrote last weekend as a newly joined ordinary member to the Company Secretary of the Trust to ask a couple of questions in relation to the AGM - essentially, about whether I should plan to travel. I’ve yet to see any reply, even as acknowledgment.

The lack of use of clear channels to engage with the wider membership is concerning. Whether it’s technological (the comment in a recent newsletter about using email betrayed total ignorance of how mailing list tools can be used), cultural (the members only pages), or political (fear of saying anything in case “the wrong people” get wind - see passim re. CP powers on this thread) I’ve no idea.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Not commenting on the specifics of the current situation, but I don’t think a members’ only section of a website is the solution you seek in allowing more detailed communication (away from those with an interest in thwarting the railway), since the bar to membership is so low. If I were against the railway but wanted the inside track (no pun intended) on what was occurring, I’d simply join as a member and have equivalent access as anyone else to any communications intended as members’ only.

(And even not going that far - anything you say to a few thousand members is to all intents and purposes public domain, in fact if not in theory: someone will share it with someone outside the intended audience).

Tom

 

It's disappointing when you don't get a prompt response - but in defence - they are volunteers. I am afraid that I am not always prompt in responding to emails for some associations where I am an officer - the key is to respond promptly but when you receive a large number all at once...

I am a member of the RVR supporters association and when they were about to apply for the TWAO they got lots of flack from opposers about not receiving replies - It would seemthat the opposers thought they were dealing with a large international company rather than a group of volunteers.

 

Exactly right. I've known of individuals who have done just that. You last point is also valid - I am afraid people do share things outside the intended audience - maybe that is why the trust is "tight-lipped' with cetain information - I don't see this as being a "carbal" - but being responsible. This applies to property purchase negotiations and some Planning Matters.

 

I'm a newish member (I took the plunge to get involved when EA appealed for Bratton Flemming), and as a result, I don't actually know any of the Trustees, and so personal animus plays no part in this - I am simply concerned with the goverance of the Trust which I see as critical to our future success; if the current Board (Chris Duffell excepted) were behaving honourably and playing by the rules, I would not be pushing for their ouster: neither are currently the case, sadly.

 

I’m sympathetic to that argument in general. However, the evidence that’s come out in the last few weeks shows that, at best, the risk of confidentially curdling into groupthink has manifested.

On here we have seen evidence that at least one trustee does not have confidence in the options presented, that the same trustee was excluded from the decision to exclude an apparently eligible candidate, and that the manner of these have given rise to a formal regulatory complaint. The same thread has also provided insider accounts of the workings of governance around the Trust and CIC.

This is not just gossip or speculation, but a bare factual statement. My belief is that a major factor in what’s happened is that there has been too little sunlight or oxygen.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Last night I recieved a phone call from a member who has been in touch with the firm responsible for sending out the AGM paperwork, to establish whether the AGM paperwork was posted on time in line with the requirements of the Trust's own rules (the M of A&A) as this member had not seen a timeline from the Trustees.

This member's enquiries established that the mailing is invalid - and therefore the AGM is a nullity - as it was sent out two days late because the paperwork was two days late to them.

This, combined with the ultra vires (& therefore illegal) exclusion of Anne Belsey's valid nomination from the Trustee election casts the Trustees (with the honourable exception of Chris Duffell) in a deeply unbecoming light of chicanery, malfeasance incompetence and sharp practice.

The AGM is therefore a nullity, as is the election. It is ridiculous that the Trust leadership refuse to accept the legal realities of their actions and postpone the meeting and include Anne's valid nomination, requiring Members to travel to Lynton to object to their illegal behaviour.

One would expect the Trustees to behave decently and honourably; behaving legally is the barest minimum and they're failing even that.

 

Commercial sensitivity around land purchase is one thing, @H Cloutt , and where there is trust in the leadeship undertaking the negotiations, Members rightly defer to the leadership. Because of the trust built up (and frankly, their success) EA member/shareholders seem entirely relaxed about letting Mike Buse et al get on with the job.

By contrast, the L&BRT's handling of the s73 application, including refusing to inform Members of the ENPA legal advice last summer which would have been understood by any civil servant as the death knell to the proposal, the Trust leadership didn't even bother, as I understand it, to inform all of the Trustees. During this period, they continued to solicit funds for a project tha a reasonable person would have become very sceptical of and would have asked reasonable questions about.

When the inevitable was recognised and the application was pulled, instead of publshing all of the legal advice (I've never seen our legal advice that the Trust leadership claim to have relied upon in maintaining the charade through to March 2023), the Trust blamed everyone but themselves in Newsletter 79, including (outrageously) slurring ENPA planners for delays when the record clearly shows that ENPA communicated their position to the Trust in the summer of 2022.

This use of personal attacks continued in Newsletter 80 with the libelling of Anne Belsey on page 1, and made infinetely worse by then publishing defamatory and as yet unproven allegations against her on the website. Oh, and all of this after failing to meet the deadlines for the AGM and illegally refusing Anne a spot on the ballot in the first place.

The EA leadership has my trust because they proactively communicate with the membership, and have a track record of success. At the moment, the L&BRT Trustees (again, with the honourable exception of Chris Duffell) have none of these things.

Is this the sort of Trust leadership you want, @H Cloutt ? I don't.

(Right, time to tune in to Westminster!)