Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I used your terms.

I don't know what other way I can phrase this, but I'm suggesting a way for member X to contact the rest of the membership or possibly canvas support for an EGM without breaking GDPR rules or having any interference from the trust. I seem to remember calling an EGM was discussed recently but dismissed because it would be too difficult to contact all the members as the Trust would effectively have to approve to grant access to members contact details.

Think back to the WSRA saga and how useful such a tool could have been.

 

Well, as I read Option C the first bit would the BR-WD section (estimated about 6 months to build start) and the KL-CFL part would come later (estimated about 12 months for the planning approval). But frankly IMHO it's a mish-mash of bits and who knows how it will turn out? Indeed only last week I was party to some internal volunteer discussions along the lines of "can someone please tell us what the plans are so that we can start to make preparations".

 

My recollections from the WSRA saga was that Company law was used to compel the Association to provide access to the members' contact details specifically for the (valid) purpose of trying to call a EGM.

 

I don't think that the Trust can make any plans until after the Trustee elections which after all is only two weeks away.

 

I agree with @RailWest's contact; the planning as presented at the AGM was not well developed. In fairness, this was less a reflection on the board, and more a reflection on the need to engage with local authorities who have a range of other priorities.

The composition of the trust board is a distraction to other matters, but should not prevent work being done to work up plans.

My concern is that the focus of those plans was engineering led - we've done this work so must use it - and not anchored in a wider project plan for how we can get that work done. Whatever we may think about when the reality should have dawned, the acknowledgement of that in February will have been a blow, and need some significant reflection. Indeed, if anything, I am concerned that there has been too much desire to press on and not enough time taken to pause, regroup, and then consider what can be done next.

 

But is not the inference to be drawn then that the Trustees have done **** all since 13th May? Surely they are not just 'sitting on their hands' waiting for the new Board to form up, especially when - based on the nominees and number of vacancies - it is clear that the result will be at least a 6/3 split (if not 7/2) between 'old' and 'new' Trustees.

 

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

One can access the list or register of members/shareholders via the Companies Act 2006, Sections 808 to 817.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/808

 

In my view you don't maudle, you do press on. You can reflect/pause or whatever all you like but you won't change what's gone past. We couldn't foresee many of the huge events which happened once our previous application in which was after some considerable professional advisory input. See my post some pages back #9432.
We are where we are at right now. Many are looking to enlarge the overall project and including EA and YVT which in my view isn't going to gain anything, in fact it will take longer as there will be a heap of admin to sort out and also meetings etc to even begin to draw the entities together.
Option C gives possible action a few short months away providing all goes well with the application.
It appears to me we have a plan, a plan that is flexible, which right now we need to enable a move forwards wherever we can.
What we do have is a trust who is at the moment bogged down in responding to various accusations from various quarters, with no doubt nearly every meeting since Spring with agendas on responses and governance and so on rather than that valuable time being bent towards what everyone dearly wants, action on an extension.
As I have said before, we need compromise, and as I see it now we need to let the Trust at least gain some ground on that Option C, which I must remind people was the overwhelming option chosen by the Members.
We have an election of which we will know the results soon, the M&As are being looked at, we have a company secretary being taken on, (whether part or full time I don't know), to address other issues, now perhaps we really need to give some space for the trust to get their teeth into what we all want and that's some form of action on the ground somewhere.

 

Umm that's for shareholders I think? I am not a shareholder, but I am a member by yearly subscription. I believe the two are not the same?
Also, Section 813 outlines where the company can refuse if it is not satisfied the information would be used for proper purpose, so I would assume that would include any possible correspondence which could be deemed by the board not in the interest of the company?

 

>>> Many are looking to enlarge the overall project and including EA and YVT which in my view isn't going to gain anything, in fact it will take longer as there will be a heap of admin to sort out and also meetings etc to even begin to draw the entities together....

But IMHO that is not a reason not to try to do it. Such things could take place in parallel to other activities.

>>>Option C gives possible action a few short months away providing all goes well with the application.
The timescale quoted for the CFL application was 12 months, that's a lot more than 'a few short months' in my book. And what grounds exist that going to CFL will be any less contentious than going to PE itself?

>.....Option C, which I must remind people was the overwhelming option chosen by the Members...
Quite probably simply on the basis of it being the 'least worse' of a bad batch of ideas.

Views may differ, of course

 

From the Lynton meeting, I understand that there is a time limit on the reconstruction of Bridge 65 which carries Killington Lane over the railway after which Devon Highways approval of the design so that it will adopt the bridge and maintain it will lapse, and the bureaucratic process will have to recommence. From memory, this was three years from May, but others will have a better recollection.

Given that Bridge 65 could be a standalone project to demonstrate the quality of the L&B reconstruction in an accessible area (in a way that the bridges south of OSHI are less publicly accessible) and that the new bridge will, I understand, be safer than the existing bridge, it seems to me to be a priority to get planning permission for Bridge 65 alone and get it built in order not to have to repeat the adoption work with Devon Highways. As a single bridge reconstruction with local safety benefits and no trains involved, this should be much less controversial than any Parracombe extension, and I would hope that it is being prepared and submitted as a standalone project this year.

After the s73 debacle, any extension towards Parracombe is, on the basis the opposition we saw last year, is likely to be highly contentious, especially if the plan is to open to Parracombe without a guarantee that it will ever open to Blackmoor Gate becuase of the inability to secure the trackbed without CP powers from a TWAO. So why are we apparently pursuing this approach?

 

Why not though? Can you be absolutely certain it will have the same outcome? If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Smaller bites, keep flexible and keep chipping away at it and keep at it in any way we can at the moment is my opinion for what it's worth.

 

Military types refer to the “5ps” - Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance. I also work around “agile” IT projects.

I find it interesting how those projects, when successful, don’t just try things, but have a clear view of how they’re going to proceed and how they will respond to predictable challenges. They tend to fail, expensively, when people just charge in without that planning.

That’s in software. Not civil engineering. And software is MUCH easier to change.

Unfortunately, I don’t sense the sort of planning that will ensure good performance.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

@DaveE - what I'm proposing is small - but achievable - bites. Get permission to build Bridge 65; build 65. Go and listen to Parracombers and listen to their concerns - anyone who has driven up to the Halt and St Petrock's knows how difficult the road is and that there's nowhere for parking - when I read the Parracombe objections, I thought that the concerns about traffic were reasonable, to be honest.

But this is not to say that we do nothing; but I think that unless proper, sustained engagement with the people of Parracombe delivers a strong show of support for the railway having a temporary terminus at CFL or at Parracombe, then I suggest we commit not to extend until we can extend through Parracombe to Blackmoor Gate. That will require planning permission and probably a TWAO to get the CP powers that appear to be necessary. And it will take time - two years for PP and three for a TWAO - and we should be realistic that we're probably looking at 2029/30 to reach Blackmoor Gate.

Which is not to say nothing can else can happen.

First, Bridge 65 can - and should - happen as a matter of urgency.

Second real community engagement which involves listening and responding with facts - not half truths or worse about ENPA, for instance - is essential.

Third. the youth work that Anne Belsey was writing about on Exmoor NG is a wonderful project - and all credit to her for her work and commitment despite the disgraceful way she has been treated.

Fourth, there's lots of practical good husbandry of the existing trackbed we can get on with - fencing, drainage, tree management.

All of these will help show we're still here and we're working with the community to bring back the railway. We just need an agreed strategy and rather less of the vendettas, maladministration and half-truths that have characterised the current sorry period.

 

I agree we must get Bridge 65 done ASAP.
The parking in Parracombe, and any at if at CFL will be minimal, just as there is none currently at KL. Parking does not need to happen at that end of the line just as it doesn't currently.

I agree more needs to be done with regard to relations with the locals, but I feel that perhaps this is better to be left to the locals and those who live in the area who understand the local issues. We have a number of members who live in the area who could be active in these areas but how do you prevent social media becoming involved where comments made by people hundreds of miles away who are not effected personally in the slightest in posting comments which are far from helpful. If there is to be engagement with the locals it has to be from the top level by one representative preferably who lives nearby and with the support of members in the area. The likes of us many miles away need to let them get on with it and not interfere and it needs to be kept off socal media as as we have seen it gets messy with rumours and so on circulating.

I will agree getting the youth involved is important, they are our engine drivers, firemen, engineers etc of tomorrow. I have had many ideas of such, and have had conversations with others on other ideas too, but, with volunteers at a premium it's often come down to who has the time to actually create and oversee any such projects. At times Woody Bay does not have the volunteers it needs now let alone trying to oversee youth projects. A great idea, but is it practical.

The husbandry of the existing trackbed we own is a nightmare, I think as Andy will agree with keeping EA interests in good order, it's a never ending problem with the rate the lush greenery of North Devon grows. Again, this comes down to availability of volunteers who although can spare some time to trackbed husbandry the demands at Woody Bay etc often outweigh that need for husbandry.

Unless we can miraculously find an army of new volunteers, the lack of which is industry wide mirrored with the short supply in the commercial sector at the moment, then I cannot see much changing no matter what strategy or plans we make.

The whole situation is not something that will be solved by any amount of thought or strategy or magic wave of a wand.

Certain aspects can certainly be looked at in a desktop analysis to see if viable, but it must be recognised that if its found not to be viable then the person who has put the idea forward to realise not to take it personally, that at that moment in time the proposal is simply not viable, but by no means does it mean it may not be in the future.

I would say what we do perhaps need is a think tank, a group who collects ideas, catalogues them and puts forward highly possible ones to the CIC or Trust for consideration. Ultimately it will be for those boards to decide if any proposals can be carried forward realistically with the resources available and whether they are commercially viable materialistically, financially and volunteer wise. If any proposal isn't used then it can be archived for future reference for if it does become viable.

 

While I total agree with Tobbes about Bridge 65, I think we also need to be crystal clear that the bridge work does not trigger the next bit of the extension across Higher Bodley land which if I recall has to be done within one year of starting.

 

With all due respect Dave there have been 4 prominent people within the Trust/CIC for more than 17 years and they haven't managed to get anything on the ground as yet, too many people are under the impression that its only been 5 years of planning lost but the reality is its over 3 x that time waiting for something, how much longer are we expected to wait for these guys to deliver! Another 5 years minimum is a reality to get any extension started .

 

Not to defend the current trustees, but gaining PP, a TWAO and raising (eg) £1m is not an easy task. With respect if you think they've done such a poor job and things should have happened much more quickly, put yourself forward at the next election and let's see how quickly you get things done.

 

Keith they have had the fundraising ideas handed to them on a plate and offers of help, but they don't do anything with it. But you are right about one thing, it will take time to build up the funds since we will be starting from scratch.