Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I see a recreation as something rebuilt from scratch with absolutely nothing original remaining.
But, others may see it differently.

 

I suggest that the 'Historic' L&B was very different to the 'Historic' WHR

Its one of the reasons why I dont get excited over anything other than the three Rheidol tanks working on the VofR

 

My understanding of grandfather rights was that they were in place until 2014, when anything new had to comply with the current ORR regulations. Grandfather rights were a way to bridge the gap between old and new regulations, protecting existing practices from abrupt changes.

Coming back to the current stock at Woody Bay, I think the reason given was that each coach had a substantial amount of the original carriage used in the reconstruction, I am not sure how the Tayallyn or the FR have gotten over these issues with the new coaching stock that has been built since, it may well be the case that they are now exmpt of the ORR regulations. Which, if so, is a good thing. That said, I am not sure if traceability of material is still an issue that has to be abided by.

 

They are exempt from mainline regulations as are the L&B.
I post again for information...
https://www.orr.gov.uk/guidance-com...rogs/exclusions-mainline-railway-requirements

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2025-03/rogs-exclusions-approved list.pdf

 

I agree with this, however, two long-term considerations need to be considered as well:

1 The number of volunteers available to operate shorter and more often trains

2 Just how popular will the railway become once it is longer in operation?

I am not suggesting we go against ENPA Policy when any other station is rebuilt in the park or outside it, for that matter, but I feel it should be noted that ENPA should be advised of this issue when new plans are submitted. I think the following report may help when it comes to rebuilding the railway

https://www.exmoor-nationalpark.gov...-Public-Opinion-Survey-2023-final-results.pdf

See page 21

Just came across this as well

https://www.exmoor-nationalpark.gov...-Visitor-Economy-Covid-Impact-Full-report.pdf

 

I quite agree, although we're into jurassic park/ wooly mammoth territory. If the new carriage has physical elements of the original, then it must be a rebuild, otherwise where does one draw the arbitrary line- 10%, 20%? everyone will have their own version of the yardstick.
As an example for the defence, I'd point to the Bluebell's "rebuild" of 32424 "Beachy Head", which is accepted as such even though its not much more than a regulator handle, but I'm quite happy to see it that way.
Historically, railway companies often did similar, although that was principally to keep the accountants happy!

 

The Lynton and Barnstaple railway, and the Southern Railway ng which it became, had its own unique character, quite different to any and all other British narrow gauge lines*.
If the project is to re-create the former L&B, then there is the argument for rebuilding it on the former route etc. which might well be the justification for some measures.
If the project is- 'we've got a bunch of locos and we want to play trains' any opposing landowner would be saying "fine, but do it somewhere else" and there's no argument against that.
You could take your toys and buy up a chunk of the Princetown branch, or the Lyme Regis branch. Copy Tony Hills, or Julian Bowman**, because if you sacrifice the integrity of a faithful re-creation, then what is the moral justification in expecting others to let you do it, or support you doing it.
I never quite 'got' the old WHR, or NWNG- perhaps it went before tourist photographs immortalised it, or perhaps it lacked a significant style or character. Anyhow, I don't think anything has been lost by having a safari park for garratts carrying tourists through Snowdonia, just as I don't think anything is lost having that zip-wire in the quarry at Llechwedd- but neither is preservation, or re-creation. Just entertainment and recreation.
When the Bluebell Railway was founded, 70 years ago, no-one knew if enthusiasts could run a standard gauge railway. Why they chose that site, I don't know, but clearly the opposition, if there was any, was not insurmountable. Presumably if there was major opposition at Horsted Keynes, they could have gone off to Heathfield, or Hailsham or Hawkhurst. The Bluebell is not the most faithful, exclusively accurate preserved branch line in Britain- it didn't set out to be, and taking a swipe at its mismatched stock misses the point. They were pioneers, and many sites might have been equally attractive.
*Of course the same could be said for the Leek & Manifold, Corris, Talyllyn, Festiniog, Campbelltown & Machrihanish, VoR, Southwold...
** Absolutely no criticism of Messrs. Hills and Bowman, or of their railways in any way.

 

You have highlighted two distinct flavours of the L&BR, one the independent days and the other under the Southern Railway banner. Some prefer the independent days, while others would like to see a Southern Railway Narrow gauge set up, which could be done at one of the other stations, a bit like the Mid Hants, with different periods at different stations.

The old saying of, that you can't please all the people all the time is so true when it comes to the rebuilding of the L&BR.

 

And there is plenty of opportunity to mix the different periods, whilst still being faithful to the original- the corporate transformation was very slow and piecemeal, and, as on the ground research has shown, in some places probably never happened at all. That's the beauty of it!

 

Meanwhile, back to planning....

In the case of the previous Sec 73 application for PE, when the ENPA made it clear that legal advice would lead to them refusing it, AIUI the Trust withdrew the application on the basis that, if it went to a decision and was refused, that refusal would be a 'black mark' against them for any future planning application. So, presumably they now have a 'black mark' from refusal of the CFL application?

Once the Board had read and digested the implications of the ENPA Officer's Report, surely it would have become obvious to them that "the writing was on the wall" that it was going to be refused, so why did they not withdraw/suspend that application until they had time to address all the issues which had been raised? Were they keeping their corporate finders crossed in the hope of pulling the proverbial rabbit out of a hat? Frankly, given the nature of the proposal and the objections against it in planning policy grounds, I don't see how it could have been 'adjusted' to comply anyway, so why not just withdraw and think again?

Or have I missed something?

 

No, I think that’s fair. The bit I’m not clear of is whether a rejection was bad news in itself, &/or because it would affect the credibility of the Trust as an applicant, &/or because it would compromise any future extension by being a comment on the plan. In planning, rather than political, terms I think it was the last of those, in which case I’m not sure CFL being bounced is the end of the world for the Trust if they advance any future applications to ENPA.

I visited Woody Bay last week, and overheard a conversation between a visitor (I think interested tourist rather than L&B knowledgeable), asking about extension. There was a clear sense in the answer from the person they spoke to of a desire to extend - “hope we appeal” was the sense.

 

Given the nature of the reasons for refusal and the inherent issues (flaws?) in the CFL design, I wonder on what grounds any succesful appeal could be made anyway? Would it not be better to try to find some more suitable alternative proposal?

 

I think we have to once again look at Bala Lake, at first a refusal, then once the issues addressed, an approval.

We now know the cards the ENPA will play, to me that makes it far easier now.

 

There is definitely an appetite for an extension, not just among members and enthusiasts but visitors and tourists as well. Woody Bay has a charm about it which captures so many imaginations and I think nearly everyone, including the average tourist, wants to see it succeed to the fullest.

 

Having appealed planning rejections, I concur. The reasons for rejection are clearly articulated. The inspector will have this same information to consider.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

Bala was a bit different though, their refusal was related to waste water treatment capacity and how the planners had calculated the needs of the extension.
In the case of the L&B, to put it bluntly the planners are saying that the CFL extension would be an ugly blot on the landscape with no historical significance in that location. I can’t see how an appeal could possibly be successful.

 

Dave, in all fairness to ENPA, their inspectors report made clear what "cards they were going to play".
The point RailWest is making is, knowing that in advance, why did not the Trust pull the application before having to drag everyone through a pointless meeting on the 6th, which they knew would fail? That was just wasting everyone's time, and looks very poor.
Watching the video back, body language alone tells they knew they were on a hiding to nothing.
I really fail to understand the mentality of it.

 

Agreed. I really do hope that we are not going to be presented with a “Son Of CFL” proposal as the way forward.

 

As much to the point, ENPA weren’t playing cards. The approach was studiously neutral and extremely legally tight.

Insofar as anyone was card playing, it was the objectors - and their hands were hardly a shock.

Going forward, I’d suggest seeing planners not as players, with cards to play, but referees, ensuring that the players (applicants, supporters and objectors alike) play by the rules.

 

Planning Committees don't always take notice of Officer's recommendations. One of the Southwold applications was recommended for approval by the Officer, but still voted down, comprehensively, by the Committee. So I guess that MIGHT happen the other way around. But didn't.
Having been on both sides of this kind of thing (as a Councillor and an applicant) I have seen some pretty odd decisions - but this one I think was probably logical and reasonable, by their lights.
I doubt the "black mark" idea is of much importance - non-rail developers make multiple applications to get their way, and no-one seems much irritated about that - it's expected.
As has been said by others here, there's little point in looking at - for example - the WHR planning saga, as it bore little if any relationship to the circumstances of the L&B. The Rother Valley may be a bit closer in some ways - but it's a lot easier to argue for a connecting link between two viable operations than for CFL, or anything like it. Fundamentally, it's a dichotomy between two views of how heritage railways are built - in the last century it was a matter of bit-by-bit with each section's takings "paying for" the next one (gathering momentum too) - but nowadays it seems to be specified - as here - as all or nothing - either a complete A to B railway which will provide a tourist attraction, and ideally take cars off the road as well, or nothing at all.
One point that may be worth mentioning, for future applications - making more of the L&B's charitable status. 98% of heritage railways are registered charities, which means that they MUST put public benefit above all else, in all decision-making. Thus the rebuilding of the L&B is by definition a "public good" (or the Charity Commission would not allow it)
This is not true of most development planning applications, as they are usually made for profit-making reasons - and the point needs hammering in at every opportunity. JH