Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but NP is social media.

 

I'd like to think of it more as a love-in for people with a rail-oriented bent... (Mind you it can seem like social media at times too!)

 

As a point of order (pun not intended), the RVR T&WAO is far from the first in preservation. The main government website (Transport and Works Act (TWA) applications and decisions - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)) only seems to have applications back to 2016, but there are certainly much earlier ones.

This one for example covers the GCRN, and dates from way back in 1995: The Great Central (Nottingham) Railway Order 1995 (legislation.gov.uk)
(There was a subsequent further GCRN act in 2000.)

A quick browse of that site (although it isn't the easiest to navigate) throws up an example from Chinnor in 1994. I think they might have been first, as the several 1993 orders seem to be the last of the Light Railway Orders.

 

I stand correct, thank you @pmh_74 - but was the RVR the first to include CP powers?

 

As far as I’m aware for heritage railway schemes, so far the only TWA Orders containing compulsory-purchase powers are for the RVR and the Welsh Highland.

In the case of the WHR there were unique circumstances (concerning adverse-possession of parts of the old company’s trackbed, which’d never been formally abandoned or sold and was still a statutory railway).

Therefore the RVR example is the more important precedent for the L&B - compulsory purchase of land where the old railway was both abandoned and the land sold after closure.

 

Just a post to try and clear my mind on something here...

Toby, you will have to forgive me for I am not a Christian, I follow a different path. I do though have many colleagues and friends who do go to church and we have a lot of respect for each other and we get on fabulously.

But I am finding it difficult to understand how or why it's been suggested that the Railway Vicars are or could be used as an independent authority?

Initially to me it's unreasonable to ask those people who enjoy their roles in a spiritual capacity and to be there for one and all across the railway family to become perhaps political and be judge and jury?

Additionally is that really the definition of "Independent"?

I could understand perhaps counsel being sought and their views on any matter, much the same as an independent view being sought from say a solicitor or company who can look at the situation independently and has no interest in the railway or decision made on that outcome.

I also understand from various posts the M&As are absent in rulings on such a situation, in such a situation then you fall back on the laws and guidelines of Company Law or The Charity Commission for a default ruling and how to proceed?

Being as such, asking for a ruling to be made by anyone other than the trustees is perhaps asking others to do so without actually having the legal authority to do so? Much like the report produced recently, it was quite clear they could only advise and give their view from a legal angle, but ultimately could not make a ruling on the situation.

Just trying to understand this call for the vicars to be used as judge and jury as I don't think that is fair to them or perhaps even possible?

 

Firstly, the lack of formal authority of the vicars is a red herring. It is possible for the trustees to delegate a sensitive matter to others, and to abide by the resulting recommendation.

Clergy have considerable experience of dealing with people, and working to resolve issues. Such experience, especially where the allegations appear less about law and more about (broken) relationships seems reasonable.

Now to the sensitivity. You’re rightly concerned about “outsiders” ability to act as judge and jury. However, we have a situation where the chair and some trustees are apparently acting not just as judge and jury, but also as prosecutor. I believe that over 90% of criminal trials are held in magistrates courts, where the magistrates are judge and jury. They are never, however, prosecution.

Some context. I’m a school governor. We deliberately organise ourselves so that if there is a potentially contentious issue (e.g. pay reviews, exclusions), the governors involved in assessing the decision have no personal connections with the subjects of discussion. We also ensure that the Chair of Governors is kept out of the discussion in case of an appeal, where he might need to be an independent voice. In a small body, this can be difficult to manage - and we have used governors from other local schools to assist. I see the use of the “railway vicars” as being entirely consistent with this approach.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Latest update on "Trust Notices"

10th August 2023
We have now received Exmoor National Park’s very helpful and thorough response to our pre-application enquiry to extend the operational railway from Killington Lane to Cricket Field Lane. With advice from our planning agent, this will help us define the scheme and the necessary detailed technical work that will be required to support the application. That in turn will determine how long the planning process might take. When the scheme proposals have been developed, and subject to Board approval, they will be published in a further update to members. A public meeting will also be organised with Parracombe Parish Council to explain and discuss the scheme with local residents prior to finalisation and submission of the planning application.

John Barton - Trustee

The Lynton & Barnstaple Railway - Trust Notices and information (lynton-rail.co.uk)

 

@DaveE, good morning - @35B makes most of the points I would have, but I'd add that as I understand it the Vicars actually offered to take these sort of cases a number of years ago to promote the healing we all fervently desire.They'd also be free, as opposed to more external spend.

What cannot happen is the Trust Board to determine the appeal against their own decision.

 

Hmm, but isn't the issue very much about law?

I can understand using vicars to resolve perhaps arguments between people, to bring together say differences of opinion on the platform, but on points of law etc?

 

The people taking the appeal would also have to have a good understanding of any relevant legislation/regulation. A specialist human resources company is quite normal to use in situations such as this - they have the expertise and experience.

 

Exactly. As I understand it one of the main issues is connected with GDPR. This is a complex issue and one I doubt that the Railway Chaplins are qualified to comment on.
I am afraid that many people comment on GDPR with no knowledge of what it involves.

 

AIUI one of the allegations was that Anne encouraged people to donate to EA/YVT instead of the Trust. Given that 'supporting' other L&BR-related bodies is part of the Trust's defined Charitable Objectives anyway, how can such action be 'wrong' let alone a issue about 'a point of law'?

 

We have now received Exmoor National Park’s very helpful and thorough response to our pre-application enquiry to extend the operational railway from Killington Lane to Cricket Field Lane. With advice from our planning agent, this will help us define the scheme and the necessary detailed technical work that will be required to support the application......"

That sounds good-ish news, as it would appear that at least there must be some prospect of success. Quite a quick response from ENPA too

"A public meeting will also be organised with Parracombe Parish Council to explain and discuss the scheme with local residents prior to finalisation and submission of the planning application....."

Also good, and very sensible. Let's hope that it will take place at a time and location suitable for PE residents.

However, I note also:-

"When the scheme proposals have been developed, and subject to Board approval, they will be published in a further update to members....".

Why not circulate the ENPA response to members in the meantime, perhaps with a covering explanation from the Board as to the potential impact/meaning of its contents? At least then we can get an early idea of what may or may not be possible in the near-ish future and help to quell some of the ongoing speculation.

I get the impression that the Board intends to decide what the formal proposal will be and then inform the members afterwards - maybe that is in line with their role as the 'management' of the railway, but IMHO it is not really in the spirit of 'consulting with the membership' and keeping them informed along the way. Or am I being too harsh ?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/educati...ory-shines-light-on-unfettered-academy-powers

Or an independent HR Company will do its clients bidding unquestioningly (Sounds Familiar) rather than getting to the bottom of it.

 

That might be a bit of an assumption - churches are also subject to GDPR, besides which as a former free church minister I can comfortably say that the skills and knowledge that I acquired covered all sorts of subjects and issues that most people would not immediately associate with the christian ministry.

However, if you are looking for intermediaries to help sort out such a situation as this, the important criteria are that they as individuals should be respected by all sides and between them competent enough to understand the issues and know what (legally and technically) is possible. I don't know these "Railway Vicars", nor do I have any stake in the L&BR (which is why I do not normally post in this thread), but beware of making assumptions - the vicars may be ideally suited, but equally they may not. An independent HR service may also be quite suitable, but equally may not have a clue where to start with a body that is made up of, and funded by, volunteers, and perhaps may never have had to deal with an organisation that is subject to charity law.

As an aside, I have also worked for many years in an NHS GP surgery. In seeking to appoint a new Practice Manager an HR company was engaged to help make the appointment. The consultant assigned to help, whilst undoubtedly competent in her usual work just didn't understand how the NHS works, and consequently ended up recommending totally the wrong person.

Beware of making assumptions.

Steve B

 

In this case yes I think you are. I get that we've got to a point where there's no trust left, but publishing that sort of micro-detail (even assuming there are no issues of privilege) in what is bound to be a contentious and oppositionary environment - and here I primarily mean externally, never mind internally, is not IMO a sane way for any* board to proceed.

*In which I would include, for the sake of argument, any 'ideal' list of trustees that may exist in any individual's head, never mind just who we've currently got. 'Keeping your powder dry' gets thrown around far too often at the L&B, including on here. But unfortunately it's a bit like the boy that cried wolf - occasionally you turn up something - like this IMO - where it would be best to, er, keep your powder dry....

 

Because although it may be a charitable objective, I'm not sure how it would lay with Company Law.... beyond me, for the legal people to figure out.

 

Sounds like you agree with "Archdruid" Eileen! https://cyber-coenobites.blogspot.com/2023/06/revised-church-of-england-ministerial.html