Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

However you look at it, £1,427,783 is an awful lot of money to be tied up in shares in a subsidiary company.
In the meantime, what significant progress - if any - do we see in bringing the BR - WD section back into some sort of productive railway use any time in the conceivable future?

 

Only about 30% (at the end of 2023, anyway) is held by the Trust, plus, of course the 50,000 controlling A shares; the rest by private shareholders, but I agree a lot of money which would not all be produced in a realisation.

 

Seems to be a lot going on for such a tiny Railway....

 

...but one with big plans Mind you, quite what they are at the moment seems a little unclear.....

 

Part of the problem is the ongoing drain on the finances of the Trust due to the fact that the Blackmoor Company's annual £25,000 loan repayments (and it would seem the loan interest) have to be paid by the issue of shares instead of cash because it makes so little profit.

 

I have since discovered that £176,000 of B shares were issued in 2024, not £116,000. There has been no filing on the Companies House website of the other issue of £60,000 allotments. I have drawn attention of this to a Director who will investigate.

 

Mr Miles (the Director I informed of the apparent LBBC filing omission) wrote back mentioning the final share totals at 31.12.2024, so I detailed the filing history which included two conflicting registrations in 2023, the correct one being registered again last April. I also pointed out that on 7 March this year an allotment of 26,000 in 2024 was registered making a new total of 1,427,783, which was 86,000 more than the figure on the previous registration of 1,341,783. Which was why I queried whether an allotment of 60,000 shares had either not been registered, or had been filed but not put on the website by Companies House. Mr Miles has responded that 'the number of shares in the LBBC accounts and those registered at Companies House are the same. The matter is therefore closed'. I have therefore offered the information to LBBC's accountants in case I can get through to them about what is wrong.

 

It has dawned on me that figure shown is the one it should have been in the middle of a series of allotments had the filing been made in the correct sequence, rather than as I expected, the total at the end of 2024.

 

Michael, I wouldn't say that you are over extending the thread on this, little information is given on the financial relationships between the trust and the lbbc, some are already questioning the amount of money the trust has received and apparently squandered over the last 10 years or so, so all of this is very relevant,Mr.Miles has a habit of putting out what he wants people to hear as I found out for myself a few years ago, having asked to correct information he had given as fact in a newsletter he assured me what was printed was correct and that he had checked that information with others, the fact that I knew exactly what facts were correct was it seems irrelevant as the information he gave suited his narrative, over the last 10-15 years people have not questioned things enough and that is why things have come to a head over the last few years,yet many still refuse to accept things could be very wrong,

 

I must confess that the nitty-gritty of the financial details is often beyond my comprehension <g>, but IMHO Michael B is doing just the sort of 'due diligence' and/or 'forensic examination' of the Trust that increasingly appears to be desperately needed.

 

Afternoon everyone,

Apologies for being elusive, but life rather got in the way. I'm very grateful to @Michael B for chasing these details down. If the rumoured LBBC profit of £8000 (on a £2m investment!) is correct, then the Trusts investment in LBBC and loans to it become very pertinent indeed. The key thing we all need to understand is that whether the Trust is converting its loan into B shares - this would be against Charity Commission recommendations (and may also be illegal) where it is a bailout of a failing subsidiary.

Converting the Trust's loan into shares because LBBC can't pay the interest bill and the repayments due to the Trust is what I fear is going on here, and Mr Miles saying 'the matter is closed' usually means that there is much more to come out, and rarely is any of it good.

Of course, LBBC and the Trust can clear all this up by simply telling us what's going on.....

 

As a shareholder I have been asked to maintain confidentiality, but it is surely a blessing that the pub is making a modest (it would appear) profit, shortly after the takeover. It's not a bleeding sore, or black hole.

Remember that the purpose of the purchase was to secure the site, not to enter into a profitable pub busines (which we all know is not very profitable these days). Also, I bought shares, not to get a market beating return, but to help the railway secure the site. That goal has been achieved. I have mentally written my investment off as a donation.

It is also still early days as the business and contractual relationships settle down. I'm thinking that there will be an additional source of income, without going into detail (as asked not to do so).

Buying these essential pieces of the jigsaw is very tricky and time consuming. Udiam farm and the missing link on the RVR spring to mind, negotiations being held by EA down south, and the purchase of Ashey station on the IOW are all examples of how difficult and slow these things are. You can't always make public a blow by blow account each time.

More transparency on LBBC would be nice, but it's not always possible when dealing with land owners. When the dust has settled it will no doubt all come out.

 

@Tobbes I have to agree with you. What really bothers me is that at the end of 2023 the Trust had a £423,000 investment in this Company representing 29% of the B shares and all 50,000 A shares (plus the £250,000 loan, now £50,000 repaid). In 2024 a further £176,000 shares have been issued, including an unknown (as yet) number of them to the Trust. This is a significant investment of the Trust when we are trying to build the railway from Killington Lane and a carriage shed. The Land and Buildings bought by the Blackmoor Company are being valued in the unaudited figures at cost less a small amount of depreciation (£20,000 at 31.12.2024). A written-down value of £1,866,349 at that date. I do hope the auditors will consider whether this is a reasonable assessment of the value for a pub in North Devon, especially as I understand it is intended to lease the 6-bedroom house on the site to the Trust, thereby reducing it's value. Surely such a significant asset (the whole site) should be the subject of a valuation. And that leaves aside the thought as to whether the Plant and Machinery (lawn mower and kitchen and bar equipment) and Fixtures and Fittings would be worth £44,000 - the written-down figure. I imagine some of the £800K private shareholders are similarly concerned.

 

That is a valid point of view and one which I am sure would be agreed with by many who helped to purchase the LBBC.

However, the problem is that a decision was taken by the Trust to enter the pub business, not merely to acquire the site. The business formed to run the pub has an overly complex share structure for something relatively small and straightforward. It is a share issuing business, and that means that for the trust to own shares in it they have to demonstrate that this is a good investment.

Remember that charitable status is granted under certain conditions which allow a privileged treatment for tax. That means accepting some constraints on freedom of action.

It is doubtful that the share structure is entirely satisfactory for the Trust. It is questionable that the Trust can legally accept more shares in lieu of interest.

£2M was spent. It could have generated 5% or more on deposit/compliant investment. In other words it should be generating £100, 000 per year for the Trust, but it is £92,000 short of that.

If donations had been collected to buy the site outright for the Trust, that would have been fine. But that isn’t what happened. A “clever” scheme was concocted which has the potential to continue to provide a financial millstone and a possible legal minefield for the Trust for many years to come.

 

I see from the Agenda for the ENPA's May planning meeting that the CFL application has been recommended for refusal.

So far I have not made an in-depth study of the pages and pages of the report, but IMHO while some of the objections are understandable there are others which appear somewhat contrived. For example, why seek to refuse on the basis that a Halt at CFL is not 'original heritage' if AFAIK the same objection was not used about KL? If it is acceptable to run trains between WB and KL that are clearly visible in the landscape the valley, why then complain if the temporary arrangements at CFL will mean that the train is visible above the cutting there? Much was made about hidea that the proposed terminus at KL would bring supposed excessive vehicle and pedestrian traffic to Churchtown - but now at CFL the complaint appears to be that there will be no road or (PROW) pedestrian access at all!

Without wishing to be pessimistic, I fear that the end-result will be yet another nugatory expenditure in ££££ and man-hours, further depleting Trust resources. On the one hand, if we do not keep trying then we may never get anywhere, but on the other hand I can see that there will be those who will be able to say - with some justification perhaps - "I told you so".

But at the end of the day it all rests with the Committee, so who knows? Fingers crossed!

 

The summary is on p 72 of this document: https://www.exmoor-nationalpark.gov...022/146632/May-06-2025-Planning-Committee.pdf

If the PP is denied, then I really hope that the Trust accepts that at this time there is no credible extension from Woody Bay, and that as the L&B family, we need to sit down and do a proper options analysis based on realistic business plans, rather than knee-jerking into "we must appeal", and spend even more money flogging what would be a horse distinctly past its best.

Let's remember that is not what happened when the previous planning permission expired, as John Barton finally had the grace to admit at last year's AGM.

 

I be

I believe there is a site visit today so perhaps the Trust represents can sway the recommendation.
Unfortunately I can't post the link to the ENPA report for the last meeting

 

It does seem strange. I haven't read all the document to find the reasons why the officer is making this recommendation. With the Reinstatement of the railway being in the local plan there ought to be a way that this application can be passed.
No doubt the railway's planning consultants will be examining the report in detail. Let's hope there is a way forward.

 

You'll find the summary on page 72, Harold. It reads:

Recommendation

Refuse for the following reasons:
1. The development proposed, by virtue of the scale, mass, relative level,
alignment and position of the proposed halt is considered to harm the scenic
beauty and character of this part of the National Park. The development
would not therefore accord with the National Park’s first purpose, policies
GP1, CE-S1, CE-D1 and RT-S2 of the Local Plan or accord with Paragraph
189 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The development proposed, by virtue of the scale, mass, relative level,
alignment and position of the proposed embankment and halt would cause
harm to the significance of Parracombe Conservation Area and the listed
buildings of Heddon Hall and its kitchen garden wall. This harm, whilst less
than substantial, would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the
scheme. As such, the proposal is contrary to the National Park’s first
purpose, policies CE-S4, CE-D3 and RT-S2 of the Local Plan or accord with
Paragraphs 189, 212, 213 or 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework.