Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

And that is where the problem lies, there does not appear to be any urgency to try to raise that or any sort of money for the project.

 

All track-bed purchases could and perhaps should be handed over to Mike Buse and his EA team. They have an excellent track record (sic!) of patient success. Furthermore they are not tainted by shenanigans as are the L&BR Trust members.

 

What is the basis for your thoughts here Dave?

 

Your opinion is shared by many. Lets hope than when the election results are announced then the antis will get behind the trust rather than pursuing a vendetta against the leadership.

 

Just seems an awful lot of time and energy now being spent on things which are becoming a distraction and taking that time and energy away from finding ways forward on the planning and extension issues. The best way forward for any situation like this in my view is compromise.
At the AGM there was way given for Anne to be added to the ballot, and it was recognised that the volunteer company secretaries could really benefit from having some professional support. We have recently seen advertisement for that role.
We also saw a poll of those present at the meeting on whether to continue the meeting in light of the mistakes made on notifications and there was a very clear show of hands for that continuation.
I should imagine that in the last few months the main agenda for the Trust and any meetings they have had have been embroiled in dealing with the accusations etc that have been flying around rather than railway business such as resolving and moving forward quickly on getting progress on planning, making sure OSHI is a success, etc.
It must be remembered that the Trustees themselves are volunteers and that they put in thousands of hours of their own time in the roles they hold.
Many were bemoaning that it will take ages for us to see action on the ground due to the lapse of planning in March, and who moved onto these other issues, all this stuff now is hobbling the Trust in being able to get things moving again as quick as we can.
Compromise, one of the best ways forward in any crisis, relationship or disagreement. We have seen compromise by the Trust, perhaps we need to see some more from other angles too? Anne is on the ballot, the the M&As are being looked at, there is advertising for a company secretary to support the volunteer ones, OSHI is doing very well, the issue of legality of the AGM was resolved by poll on the night. We saw two trustees leave the meeting on the night, it was heated, it was messy.
Time to move on from that, we have work to do.

 

@H Cloutt - the only vendetta I can see being pursued at the moment is against Anne Belsey by Mr Miles and his friends.

 

Firstly, the only signs of vendettas have been from the board, not against.

Second, lack of trust between factions is long standing, and deep rooted. Compromises will be needed on all sides, as total victory will not be achievable by anyone.

Third, the issues about the planning have highlighted the need for a plan to deal with current circumstances. That’s not been clearly evident, and instead we’ve seen a “one more heave” mentality.

I was at the AGM, I heard the shouts of “we want to build a railway”. I’d like to have joined them, except that they were being used to drown out reasonable voices asking how that was to be achieved.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Thank you for your honest reply. I know that you want the L&BR to 'move forward' as do we all. This would account for the poll of those present opting so to do. The problem seems to me that those present at the meeting might well not be aware of the shenanigans occasioned by Trustee Officers. Furthermore there are new papers for the outstanding AGM election of four Trustees with five nominees according to @RailWest . How, in the circumstances can a knowledgable choice be made by Members if, as I suspect, four of those nominees are 'the usual suspects'? If three or four of these get elected then the 'new' Board of Trustees will regard this as Members rubber stamping approval of their historic misdemeanours, whether they (Members) are aware of them or not (as is more likely), as there is only one valid alternative nominee. This seems to me the bind we are in as the guilty parties still do not accept any wrong doing. The L&BR Trust has effectively become nobbled by its own Trustees. This, unfortunately, is the reality from which I cannot see how the L&BR can genuinely 'move forward'.

 

Mike Whiteaker is not one of "the usual suspects", either. So two candidates - Mike and Anne - to vote for,

 

Thank you for that Toby.

 

All who are unhappy with how the others have been acting should vote for only those two.

 

I will agree the problems between the factions is long standing, about 20 years.

The issue with the planning is a long and complex one, one which goes back to before Brexit and the pandemic. The advice at the time was very valid but what happened subsequently couldn't realistically have been foreseen. As far as I recall, when the planning was in its pre-application stages we obtained a grant to obtain exploratory professional advice on the best way to take the extension forward. Alongside this advice was obtained from the Big Lotteries for funding. Being as the Big Lotteries in London only dealt with large projects, their advice was to put in for a large project rather than a small being as the application would be dealt with by them rather than the smaller regional office in Exeter who are more akin to dealing with lottery grants for sports facilities, playgrounds etc.
So on that advice from two entities, 5 planning applications were submitted for WB to WPD. The ENPA then pooled then together so they could be determined as one application.
That advice at the time was most likely correct, with EU money still available, Brexit not yet happened, the Big Lotteries had far more money, and we hadn't even dreamed of a pandemic and the fallout from that.
Our approval was obtained in March 2018 with onerous conditions attached, of which there was no way to successfully challenge them, the changes to the Grampian Conditions did not come into force until October 2018, beyond the six month appeal window for large/commercial applications.
It cannot be expected for any trust, and it is recognised by the a charity Commission as such, to foresee every single possible pitfall that may occur with a project, especially ones so unusual as the pandemic, and no one really knew what the fallout from Brexit was going to be considering negotiations were still ongoing right until we actually left.
So how will it be achieved.
Due to the unusual sequence of events for the application that lapsed in March this year, we have to adapt. We have to scratch what's gone before but using that knowledge (of which after all these years and dealing with various entities involved with the previous application the trust actually has a huge amount of experience of) we find ways forward, break it down into smaller bits to account for the huge changes we have seen in the world in the last 5 years, and we try again.
I can vividly remember chatting to the late Geoff Bunton, a trustee at the time, over a glass of Exmoor finest on the very quandary of what was the best way forward at the time taking into account the advice and information that was coming from various professional bodies back then.
The thing is, if the advice wasn't taken back then, and that's legal and professional advice, and say we had got to Parracombe and then put in for the next section, I can almost hear the cries of why is it costing us more to put in each section, why didn't/don't we put in for all, the Trust are mismanaging etc etc.
In hindsight... And with the knowledge we have now and the experience of the pandemic, the outcome of Brexit and the unforeseen Ukraine crisis, we can see it was not the best path to take.
The advice now, in the current climate, is to take smaller bites.
But hindsight is a lovely thing.
Now, can anyone truthfully tell me they foresaw what Brexit would do, the pandemic and the Ukraine crisis?
If you claim you did, then please tell me the lottery numbers for this coming week, because you have one hell of a crystal ball.

 

Sorry @DaveE, but I must disagree when you say "...We also saw a poll of those present at the meeting on whether to continue the meeting in light of the mistakes made on notifications and there was a very clear show of hands for that continuation....." and then "......the issue of legality of the AGM was resolved by poll on the night......".

All the available information indicated that the calling notices for the AGM were NOT posted in sufficient time to meet the requirements of the M&AoA and so far the Board have failed to provide any evidence to disprove that. Therefore the AGM was not valid. It is simply not possible for any decision made at an invalid General Meeting to change the status of that meeting to valid 'just like that'.

What could have happened - had the Chairman decided so to do - would have been to seek agreement of those attending the meeting to continue on an informal basis only, to record all decisions made, then adjourn the meeting, issue fresh calling notices (complete with new voting papers) for a resumption of that meeting with the correct timescale, and then get the resumed meeting simply to accept the decisions made previously and conduct the Elections in the correct form defined by the M&A0A.

 

And so say several of us, I suspect. Mr Whiteaker must be trusted to be one of the good guys unless shown not to be. It sounds from various reports of the AGM (which I planned to attend but was in hospital) illustrated the fact that many participants were not aware of what has been going on, so naturally supported the top table and took umbrage at some of the speakers from the floor. It seems there is a culture of denial even when told and reasoned with, in which case we shall carry on as before while the present management power-ratio remains a dominating factor.

 

A few years ago I chaired what should have been a charity AGM but we were short of a quorum. We proceeded with an informal discussion and held an EGM later to take the formal decisions.

 

My question there would be would it really make a difference?
Considering pretty much the same faces would probably be at any subsequent meeting at a later date (I've been to the AGM for a number of years now and the same wonderful people turn up to nearly every one bar illnesses etc), or indeed considerably less faces, in my view to consider the issue resolved on the night saves everyone's time especially those who have traveled in from afar.
What would it actually achieve?

We know that the Trust is looking to get professional support so these issues do not occur again through the employment of a company secretary, that should prevent any issues in the future. I actually agree with that employment, as the volunteer secretaries can only do so much, they are volunteers and often pretty much overwhelmed I should imagine. In my view that same company secretary could be used to oversee the CIC, the Trust, and even OSHI etc if they are agreeable to do so. The railway has ballooned in many ways even in the past 5 years, and at some point professional input will be needed.
So when do you say, "Right, we have a professional company secretary overseeing things, let's see how it goes".

 

That seems to be a common problem on heritage railways, so I wonder if there is a solution.
We have to assume that not all members of railway X will use email or Internet forums, so communication would have to be via post.
So would it be possible (legal?) to have a rule added that any member can address the membership through the Trust upon payment of lets say £500.00 (or whatever the posting would cost + 10% for Trust time). The member sending the letter would be responsible for printing costs and the Trust could not edit or interfere with the contents.
I'm sure there are a lot of potential pitfalls with this idea but perhaps its something worth trying to develop?

@Michael B sorry to hijack your post and I don't expect you to have the answers but your posting made me think about a possible solution to the membership information drought.

 

To a large extent it might not make much difference whether you (a) adjourned the AGM and then resumed it at a latter date or (b) closed the AGM and then called a new EGM at a later date. I was present at a similar situation elsewhere some years ago where the former course of action was taken.

However...one important difference would be that, if the AGM was simply adjourned and then resumed at a later date, both events would be regarded as the 'same' meeting and therefore any proxy votes submitted for the first part would still be valid for the second part. However if the AGM were closed and a new EGM called, then the latter would require fresh proxy votes.

 

Why should a member have to cough up £K simply in order to tell his fellow members that which the Trust should have told them anyway? However I would accept that it would be naive to expect the Board to "tell all" if it were to their detriment.

Perhaps more important, if the Trust were to be doing the distribution rather than the actual member, might they not incur some legal liability if the contents of the member's letter were deemed to be discriminatory/libellous/offensive in any way?

 

It seems to me, having spent quite a bit of the early part of my career on Company Secretarial Work, forming Companies, submitting Annual Returns etc. that the work involved here is manageable by a volunteer who is familiar with what is required. Unless requirements have balooned dramatically since I retired 20 years ago. Which is why I suggested a voluntary post as at present, and which Brom appears to be able to undertake without problem with the CIC Company. I see no reason to contract this out at the expense to the Trust, just takes occasional bits of time, some of it a little tedious but not difficult.