Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Is that Grampian Conditions under the pre-Oct 2018 rules or post-Oct 2018? We won't know for sure now until any pre-application consultation has completed in my view. Grampian Conditions cannot be imposed in the way they used to be and in all cases must pass the 6 tests.

 

@DaveE - yes, the current rules. Can I just check you mean these six tests?

Are the conditions
1.Necessary
2.Relevant to planning
3.Relevant to the development permitted
4.Enforceable
5.Precise
6.Reasonable in all other respects

If these are the six you're talking about, Grampian Conditions on the extension within the ENPA boundary would be in my view meet them - and in any event, our planning should be premised on them being required, so that it they're not we have a pleasant surprise rather than an unpleasant one.

 

I think there is a need for the big conversation with in the L&BR group to decided exactly what it is we want to achieve and by when. That options newsletter did not go into enough detail for anyone to make a sensible decision.

 

No one can tell the future, eg, we have got Parracombe Halt and OSHI which not so long ago we thought would be much bigger battles to get. We have a general direction to go in now, but enough flexibility to take advantage of any opportunities which may arise. In reality I can almost guarantee that the route to rebuilding this railway will take many more twists and turns yet.

 

I think "informed" is a better word here.

 

We will have to agree to disagree on the 6 tests, as I am not going into it any further online.

 

It will. Which is why I'm so uncomfortable about such a rapid consultation, premised on "we've done all this work so here's the answer", when it precisely does not offer resolution to the issues that led to Grampian Conditions, and which provoked significant local objections (not just from the "usual suspects") to the S73 application.

 

When I said the RVR TWAO success wasn't relevant to the current L&B situation, I was referring to the current alleged lack of trust in the trustees which will need to be resolved before the L&B is able to get back on track (sorry!). A TWAO will be needed at some stage, and I do know a great deal of preparation has already been completed, but I suspect that the L&B is still some years away from even applying - and it will be three years post-TWAO before the RVR expects to be up and running, so - are we looking at another ten years?

 

Many people have commented in recent weeks on the various 'successes' in recent years by various bodies within the L&BR 'family', such as buying the track-bed up to and including PE station site, Bratton Fleming site, the OSHI, LYN, more coaches etc etc. All 'good stuff' yes, but....they are noticeably silent when it comes to addressing the BIG issue of the 'elephant in the room', namely how on earth can you build a railway from A to B (such as PE to BR) if you do not own all the track-bed and /appear/ to have no obvious realistic prospect of doing so any time soon?

Answers on the back of a PE platform ticket please....

 

I'm silent because there are legal teams involved and negotiations going on of which I don't know what's being said or negotiated. The legal environment is different now to our previous application re: different Grampion Conditions rules etc. Its complicated enough and doesn't need to be muddied up on social media.
We do have things we can do in the meantime and those can be focused on while that legal planning situation is being sorted out.
Speculation will not solve anything especially re: TWAO, again, that's for legal teams to figure out what's possible and what isn't.

 

If I didn't know any better I would suggest that it doesn't follow a business plan at all. It is almost as if things get done to please the membership and to keep the trustee in place for another year.

I have lost track of all the so call half started projects which have never been finished because they are either to big to complete with in a year or just to expensive and would not look good on the trusts CV, as an example a route around the Wistlandpound Reservior that I know of has been discussed with South West Water but the hold up was something to do with land ownership issues.

Like a lot of the membership I had assumed that the deal had almost been done and we were almost in a position to acquire all the necessary trackbed from New Cottages around to North Thorn Farm, I now find out that we are no where close to making such a deal.

 

That's a bit churlish. A heritage railway is a diverse place with many projects going on simultaneously. Moreover, you can't have everyone solely focused on one single objective: there's not (metaphorical) space. If you currently have a loco shortage, it doesn't mean that the team restoring heritage wagons have therefore failed, or their work is worthless.

The key is to be clear on what the big picture is, but then celebrate all the successes along the way that move towards delivering that vision, even if only incrementally. If the big picture is:

"to reinstate 20 miles of narrow gauge railway in Devon, utilising as much as possible of the surviving buildings and route; and building sympathetic replicas where the originals don't exist"
​

then all of the "good stuff" you have mentioned has got you incrementally closer to delivering that vision, and is therefore worth celebrating. It is such a complicated reinstatement that it would be naive to assume that all the pieces will inevitably fall into place in a perfectly logical order.

Tom

 

Maybe shows that it's best not to make assumptions. If there are land ownership issues which are beyond our control there isn't much we can do about it except wait until the parties involved sort the issues out, and that could take years depending on what those issues are.

 

Perhaps I should have been clearer ?? I have no problem with the various 'successes' - after all, they all contribute in some way towards the ultimate goal of rebuilding the whole line from Barnstaple to Lynton. But ultimately we can not get from A to B - and run all the nice new locos and coaches past all the re-purchased stations - if there still remains a gap (or two or three) in the track-bed.

 

Well, that's unfortunate, since there's nowhere to debate it - it certainly won't be in Lynton on Saturday @DaveE .

If these planning applications did not cost anything, didn't incurr any reputational risk, and could be determined quickly and easily, then by all means, let's try all of the combinations.

Unfortunately, none of these three things is true. We need to be very sure next time we're proposing something that won't fall at the first hurdle, and there's no evidence (beyond the Trust annoucing that they had it all under control -- which, if you'll forgive me, isn't very convincing) that the incremental approach is viable.

 

True. But that keeps bringing us back to the failure* of the S73 application, the decisions that led to it, and the decisions about what happens next.

As an ordinary member, it's impossible to see any process of reflection on what led to that outcome, and how the proposed way forward will deliver any better outcome in the long run than the plan that's proved unsuccessful. If the conditions imposed in 2018 were designed to prevent a part built railway within the National Park, I can't see how "Plan C" addresses that concern.

I'm not asking for sight of legal advice or in depth analysis, just enough to convince me that this plan is actually a viable way forward and not an example of "one more push". The consultation looked designed to achieve a pre-ordained outcome, and the "analysis" within it was silent on key questions that, where relevant to options 1 or 2, were discussed in relative depth.

What is sad about this is that I don't particularly criticise the Trustees for the failure of the planning/S73 approach before the summer - certainly not as a hanging offence. What gnaws at me is what happened after the summer, when ENPA's position became clear, and the upbeat portrayal of hopes grew progressively more detached from objective reality.

I'd like a Trust board whom I can trust (pun intended) to make considered judgments on the necessary next steps, and to do so with open minds and clear heads.

* - for this purpose, it's irrelevant that it was withdrawn rather than rejected

 

Not sure if this suggestion would fly, but seeing that we now have most of the stations under the groups control. I wonder if we could or should appoint section wardens, a bit like block sections between stations i.e. one person to deal with any issues from say Chelfham to Bratton Fleming and then another from Bratton Fleming to Blackmoor and so on all the way up to Lynton.

This approach could work and help with getting us some good PR.

 

I agree very much with the thrust of your comments. My view of 'Option C' is that it is trying to do too many disparate things too soon with no real indication of either (a) a full understanding of why it all failed first time around or (b) much better reassurance of a more positive outcome this time.

On the matter of "If the conditions imposed in 2018 were designed to prevent a part built railway within the National Park...", to what extent would (say) KL to CFL/PE be any different from the current WB-KL section insofar as surely the latter is also 'a part built railway within the National Park'? One might argue 'logically' that the sooner the ENPA allows us to build more railway, the quicker they will get towards a fully-built railway within the Park

 

One might. Personally, I think the key point is about traffic in the Park, on which the L&B is stuck on Morton's Fork. If an extended line to an unusable (by passengers) terminus like CFL or PE (or indeed Caffyns) draws more visitors, then that means more traffic within the Park. No possible answer to that conundrum is comfortable from an L&B perspective, especially where opposition is focused somewhere the railway has to go through, and the opponents show every sign of having will and means to be irreconcilable opponents.

 

We have just had 2 days of heavy rain so the going under foot will be very soft, the EA walk will be from Chelfham to Chumhill and back so approx just over 2.5 miles, part of this stretch goes through a deep cutting which we have been clearing for the last few weeks, it was very wet but is now just muddy in places (checked this morning) so wellies or good walking boots will be required, if the thought of the length sounds a bit daunting we have arranged with a local shareholder some limited parking on their property a little closer to Chumhill