Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

If you are up against a known deadline and the clock is ticking very loudly, isn't it logical and urgent just to get on and do this? The GCR bridge shows that it does not need to be used straight away, or is it believed that Killington Lane bridge will never be required?
The cost is only ever going to increase and aren't there already funds for the push to Parracombe?

 

Interestingly, I visited the Mid Suffolk Light Railway this week, a line I was previously unfamiliar with. They have planning permission from their local planning authority - granted in 2017 I think - that enables them to build an extension; but they don't yet have the TWAO that enable them to operate it. Nonetheless, they have got on and built the extension so that the planning permission doesn't lapse, while they pursue getting the TWAO. When you get to the current operational end of their line, there it is - neatly-ballasted rails extending into the distance, waiting for a train.

Clearly building it has required some capital (though I guess, in the absence of operation, you don't need to depreciate that capital immediately, so it is neutral on the balance sheet). There would also no doubt be some ongoing costs in maintaining fencing and the like, probably not major given the scale. But it did seem a sensible "eating the elephant" sort of approach to an extension, and - more pertinently - meant that work done obtaining planning permission didn't get thrown away by allowing that permission to lapse while other legal processes ground on.

Tom

 

Apparently not, which is why the railway launched an appeal which was then halted after the Sec73 applications were withdrawn. Unfortunately, until such time as the Accounts for 2023 are presented at the 2024 AGM, it remains unclear exactly how much money is now in the 'Parracombe pot' (as it were), as there has been a rumour AIUI that in part at least the railway was relying upon a donation/legacy which has yet to materialise. The 2022 accounts state that at 31st Dec 2022 the appeal fund stood at £221,987, yet according to a news item on the website of Jan 8th this year somewhat miraculously "it has now reached nearly £700,000".

 

Both the RVR and the Halesworth/Southwold Railway schemes’ve done the same. Perhaps L&B Trust/Exmoor Ass./Yeo Valley Peoples’ Front etc. should be discussing this as part of a longer term “whole L&B” joint strategy.

L&B were unable to do this with their recently expired permissions, due to the Grampian conditions (which they were unable to overcome via the S73 application) requiring them to own all the land before commencing.

 

Much has been written about the idea of rebuilding Bridge 65 as an initial 'stand alone' project, AIUI with a view to completing the work in time before the approval by DCC to take it over may expire. But what is unclear to me is whether, once the bridge had been constructed and hopefully 'signed off' by DCC, will they then take over the responsibility for it immediately thereafter as 'highway structure', or will they insist that the L&BRT retain responsibility for its maintenance until such time as there is an operational railway running beneath it? Does anyone know please?

 

The implication of what was said at the AGM was upon restoration, not operational use. However, as with all such matters, it would be good to have absolute clarity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Looking at it from the outside and not perhaps understanding it all either......

So PP was applied for and obtained

I understand the issues about the TWAO

BUT I didnt see any sort of plan to raise the money to build the line - unless they actually had it or any sort if plan to start work

Or have I missed something?

 

Sadly, I think not :-(

 

To be honest, the onerous conditions attached to the planning pretty much killed the project dead.
At the time appealing would not have altered the conditions, changes didn't become viable until the bungalow was acquired long after the appeal window had closed and hence the S73 applications put in.
The trouble is, although it was expected a few conditions may have been imposed and reasonable ones, it wasn't expected at just how harsh and restricting they were going to be. It was quite common before Oct 2018 to see Grampian Conditions imposed with little if any notice of what they would entail.
Now, since Oct 2018, any planning authority has to notify the applicant of intention to apply conditions and what they are, this then allows the applicant to agree to those conditions, flat refuse which means they cannot be imposed and a risk of refusal of application, or there can be a period of negotiation which means perhaps rewording or reworking conditions so they are more acceptable.
The changes to the Grampian Conditions in 2018 were made so there is much less need to apply them at all with the aim that any issues are resolved before determination.

 

All of which require a clear negotiating strategy to deal with what happens if similar conditions are suggested again, given that they amount to a de facto veto power.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The railway need to show that it is serious about reconstructing the railway - one way of doing this is building on land that it owns. As I understand it the Planning Concent for Bridge 65 has expired.

 

AIUI the planning consent from ENPA has indeed expired, as it was part of the application for the line from KL to BR. What has not yet expired apparently, but may well do so in the near future, is the period during which the L&BR can construct the bridge and still expect Devon County Council (?) to take it over as a highway structure.

I stand to be corrected on that point, but....it just goes to show how d*** complex this whole matter is and how much information seems to be lacking from what is available to the Trust membership.

 

Those conditions were added before the PP was approved, therefore the planning application could have been withdrawn pending further negotiations on how to proceed whilst taking those conditions In to account

 

In answer to your two questions, Devon County Council took over 12 bridges in 1949, including No 65 over Killington Lane. Bridge 76 at the top of Dean Steep had already been filled in; the payment by The British Transport Commission included the filling of the other 11. A thirteenth bridge, No 77 at the bottom of Dean Steep was transferred a little later, wanted for road widening. (Source: Deed between The BTC and CC of Devon 12 September 1949 and letter from Devon CC to Colin Pealling 27 October 1984)

 

This is indeed the last I recall being heard, and my assumption was that this was a ring-fenced 'Return to Parracombe' fund. As we're not currently returning to Parracombe, in principle we should be able to that ring-fenced £700,000 in an L&B account. Whether there is or not will depend on whether the reported £700,000 were 'Restricted' funds - that is, funds pledged to the 'Return to Parracombe' fund which can't be used for anything without the donor's express consent - or included 'Unrestricted' funds 'for the L&BRT to use as the Trust wished', which were then allocated to the 'Return to Parracombe' fund by the Trust?

For the 'Unrestricted' funds, it is at least theoretically possible that the Trust could move them out of the 'Return to Parracombe fund' and spend them on other things*, meaning that there could be rather less than £700,000 today in the ring-fenced 'Return to Parracombe' fund. This could be technically legal but it would be sharp practice to publicise the £700,000 figure and then not update people if unrestricted funds counted in the £700,000 total were subsequently reallocated without an update on the actual amount in the 'Return to Parracombe' fund. If this has in fact happened, this is precisely the sort of sharp practice and a lack of transparency that has been so corrosive to trust in the Trust.

Of course, the easiest thing would be for the Trust to simply update everyone on (i) the funding situation when they pulled the s73 application, and (ii) the amount in the ring-fenced 'Return to Parracombe fund' today. The silence (as usual) has been defeaning.

*OSHI would be the obvious thing as the other large capital project that the broader L&B family was doing at the time, but yet again, the Trust's exposure to OSHI and the terms of this exposure are (charitably) 'far from clear' despite questions being asked.

 

As far as I know they were asked if they minded a few conditions being attached, but not the details or severity, which at the time planning authorities were not obliged to give. I may be wrong there but that's what I recall at the time.

 

Forgive my ignorance, but isn't the bridge under Killington Lane on the way to Parracombe? Can you return to Parracombe without the bridge;-) ?
Therefore it would be an appropriate use.

 

Atleast someone sees it now .

There's also a member on here who is actually a local to paracombe who takes all this on board and uses it against the railway ..

 

And whose fault is it that there is something to discuss? You cannot blame the messenger. The board needs to Sort the problems out at source. If they demonstrate basic good governance they will build trust and people will stop having things to discuss.

 

How?