Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

But KL doesn't affect anyone! A terminus in Parracombe is going to create traffic to look at it on a road that is completely unfit for anything other than the most modest increase in demand - and if I lived in Churchtown, I'd be all for the railway and completely against opening Parracombe as anything other than a through station on the way to Blackmoor Gate/OSHI.

 

I agree that road is bad - I've been there
But if the problem is really as bad as some objectors have made out, then surely the answer lies in the hands of the local authority to apply some sort of traffic restriction? Eg restrict the access to the far end to (say) residents and deliveries only? Have adequate enforcement measures. The word will get around and then virtually no-one will try and chance it....

 

Residents only... And their families, friends, visitors and tennis partners....
If I were a local resident, suggesting that road restrictions might appear would make me even more set against the line...

 

The Bluebell had a run around loop at West Hoathly, and no station because some of the locals didn't want one because of parking, so surely this is an option at Parracombe ?I do not see the trust being able to raise funds for Killington to Blackmoor in one go. The Swanage nearly went bust because they were not allowed to open Corfe until they had go to and opened Norden.

 

What is the problem with Parracombe bank?

 

Doesn't it have a big hole in it?

 

Also no public parking at Kingscote, which I am not aware has ever given rise to any passenger issues.

Tom

 

Parracombe, or Parracombe Bank?

Parracombe is a question of local opposition, with some villagers being very firm in their opposition to the railway. One is the owner of part of the trackbed.

The bank, as @ikcdab says, was breached in the 1953 floods. There are suggestions that the fill of the bank may be an issue, but I've never seen that definitively resolved.

 

Quoting from the Exmoor Local Plan, these are ENPA's planning criteria for safeguarding or reinstatement of the railway. The Officers' report recommending refusal of the application makes it clear to me that anyone submitting a future proposal needs to take these criteria (and all the other relevant planning policies referred to in the report) very seriously indeed. Satisfying these would carry great and positive weight with the Planning Officers and also go a very long way towards outweighing many of the objections from residents & landowners (which were not the main reasons for recommending refusal).

RT-D13 SAFEGUARDING LAND ALONG FORMER RAILWAYS
1. The land on the route of the former Lynton and Barnstaple Railway and the West Somerset Mineral Line as shown on the Policies Map will be safeguarded as important heritage assets and protected from development that would prevent the reuse of the former railways for the expansion of the access network (RT-D12) or the reinstatement of the former Lynton and Barnstaple Railway (RT-S2).
2. Partial deviation from the original railway route will only be considered where it can be demonstrated that a continuous linear route cannot be reasonably achieved, for the purposes of reinstating the railway, by using the original route. Where a partial deviation of the original route is permitted and developed, the agreed alternative route will be safeguarded as a replacement of the original route it substitutes.

RT-S2 REINSTATEMENT OF THE LYNTON AND BARNSTAPLE RAILWAY
1. Proposals for the reinstatement of the Lynton and Barnstaple Railway should be in accordance with the following criteria:
a) the proposal should seek to reinstate and replicate the former narrow gauge railway including the line of the original route and the siting, design, appearance, and materials of the associated structures or buildings;
b) any additional new development over and above the original historic former railway should provide demonstrable evidence that it is essential for the operation of the reinstated former railway or is a restoration of a historic feature and that there are no alternative solutions which would reasonably meet the need for the development in any other way;
c) reinstatement proposals should:
i) Seek to re-use the original buildings associated with the former railway.
ii) Where it can be demonstrated that the re-use of the original buildings cannot be achieved, existing buildings in suitable proximity to the reinstatement proposal may be considered.
iii) New buildings will only be considered where it can be demonstrated that there are no existing buildings suitable for re-use.
d) new infrastructure, buildings and structures should complement the character of the original railway;
e) the proposal should respond to landscape character and ensure landscaping is appropriate to the site and character of the area and having regard to traditional features of the former railway (CE-S1 Landscape and Seascape Character);
f) the proposal should safeguard wildlife, habitats and sites of geological interest (CE-S3 Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure);
g) sustainable construction methods should be used, unless they compromise the historical accuracy and appearance of the former railway;
h) the proposal should accord with policy AC-D1 Transport and Accessibility Requirements for Development, and provide a travel plan to incorporate measures to enable safe access by walking, cycling and public transport that will help to minimise traffic generation and the need for parking;
i) parking provision should be in accordance with policies AC-S3 Traffic Management and Parking, and AC-D2 Traffic and Road Safety Considerations for Development; and
j) provision of temporary overflow parking to help address peak parking demand should accord with policy AC-D3 Parking Provision and Standards.

 

I did! I spoke to Mike this afternoon. He said that the agreement was that the original owner would retain access to the land until such time as the railway fenced it off, subject to a time limit of 21 years, after which, if not enclosed, the land would revert to the original owner. Unfortunately, Mike couldn't recall exactly how long ago the agreement was made - but I suspect it might havew been ariound 20 years ago. How could it take the railway 21 years to throw up a fence or two?

 

Yet it may also’ve made very good sense, so long as the deadline’s not been forgotten (glass half full here at the OSHI) not to put up the fence until near the end of the agreed period, both for the convenience of the former landowner and saving over 20 years of maintenance.

 

Fair, but the Trust could've annouced the fencing at any point last year or this - perhaps in a forward annual plan. Given the general air of incompetence and chaos around the Trust, there's no benefit of the doubt to give.

 

And that is what I find interesting, this refusal in some ways gives much more information on how far the ENPA will allow in deviating from the historical.

In many ways I see this refusal as much more useful than an approval with Grampian Conditions as we had before, we can now appeal, amend or resubmit unlike the previous and ensuring we keep within those criteria except where absolutely necessary and where needed perhaps lower impact temporary works.

Remember Bala Lake were initially refused.

I think what will need to be looked at is any development from Blackmoor to Wistlandpound under North Devon jurisdiction and making sure it's complementary to that required in the National Park. By using historical stock and as accurate restorations of buildings etc as possible, or that which is in keeping with the look and feel of the original railway, keeping the high standard as at Woody Bay (and indeed the station at Chelfham and Snapper Halt) in all we do, in some ways could enhance the chances of approvals if it is showcased really well.

 

You are absolutely right in my view. The one thing that we shouldn't do is abandon the idea of this extension - failure to appeal or resubmit gives the wrong message to objectors and ENPA - it suggests that we are not serious. The reports submitted are still valid and paid for. The extension of the railway is in the local plan so there should be a way of getting permission granted.

 

This is sad for the railway and sad for people that’s have donatoned money and it’s been wasted again. People will stop sending in money soon

 

I would like to agree, but am struggling to find a way to given the requirements of a terminal station at the CFL site.

My sense is that this is a situation where time is required to consider options, and what may need to be done to open up a way to get between Killington Lane and Blackmoor Gate. I would be very surprised if an appeal would succeed given the officers' advice, and the level of change to the original line at CFL.

 

On the whole I think I’d rather be thought ‘not serious’ for not appealing or resubmitting, rather than proving it by doing either.

if there’s any hint of that as a way forward at the AGM then reality has definitely left the building IMO

 

This is why I come back to the idea of concentrating on going to PE not CFL, especially as the ENPA Report said in effect "why not PE?".

Yes, we know there are objections about having a temporary terminus at PE itself, but most of those objections would also apply to CFL as well. Also, of course, PE would have the 'advantage' over CFL in not needing the raised height, avoiding the issue about 'harm' to the Heddon Hall kitchen wall, and being an existing station on the existing route - hence it fulfils the heritage criteria.

If there is deemed to be "not much hope" of any extension south of KL for some while, then at least - if the Trust is going to try anyway - then why not try for what we really want (ie proper PE) rather than a temporary fudge at CFL?

 

Unbelievable to me that anyone thinks that any application within the ENPA area is a sensible way forward as the next step.

Read the tea leaves. The residents DO NOT want this railway between KL and anywhere other than MAYBE if it opens all the way to Blackmoor.

The planners do not want it to deviate from the historical unless there is very good reason and it cannot unless the benefit is strong impact the existing view lines etc.

You CANNOT build a temporary terminus at CFL at the historic levels.

The suggestion that we will not be viewed as serious unless this is appealed or resubmitted is in my view completely wrong. It is in fact the opposite. A scheme was advanced and got permission with conditions that were onerous, too much so probably, but NOTHING was really done to try to address them and what was done led to a request to vary that was unlawful. This has been followed by a flawed scheme that manifestly brings insufficient benefits to anyone to outweigh its impact. This ruling it seems to me is an accurate read of this scheme. Even the way in which the engagement was run with Parracombe fell short with many objectors feeling that the changes such as they were didn’t do anything to address concerns.

This then is the background. The railway has done nothing to enhance its reputation. An appeal or a new application upon remotely similar grounds now would not be welcome, and it certainly won’t improve the credibility.

What is needed is a new approach. A period spent addressing the dis-unified nature of the “family” and a good plan that brings benefits to a wide range of stakeholders.

 

According to former Trustee Anne Belsey, posting on another platform, the fencing deadline is January 2026.