Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

The situation you describe is where an appeal might well be justified - where the committee has potentially acted capriciously or otherwise inappropriately.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

Which, for the avoidance of doubt, they absolutely did not. At no point did the lawyer intervene, and even the most favourable member of the committee felt unable to do more than abstain - while at least one other indicated clear support in principle for the L&B, but not for this application.

 

James Hewitt makes several important points and Lynbarn's post 14605 shows clearly the ENPA's priorities as outlined by the public (who responded). The L& B is given very little notice in the grand scheme of the ENPA and yet it can be clearly beneficial to many of the aims of the ENPA and local residents......if it is clearly focussed on those aims.
It is a difficult balancing act between those who want more people to visit and generate income, those who value peace and solitude, those who wish to experience the natural habitat and those who just want to see and travel through it. A longer L&B can bring people into the area as an attraction in itself, can employ local people, can keep traffic off the roads within the ENP and allow more people to see and appreciate the area.....but it needs to continue to engage with the local people and slowly build bridges - both physical and metaphoric!
As the various sites along the route develop and extend piece by piece, so these overall benefits will be realised.

 

obviously the best simple option is to join Killington Lane to Blackmoor via an underground link with a nice glass tube bridge where Parracombe bank was,add some interest by using ex GPO underground rolling stock for the metro section and everyone should be happy except no doubt those that don't think there will be enough volunteers to run these different sections

 

....followed in due course maybe by an underwater glass tube tunnel from Wistlandpound down towards BF, thereby (a) avoiding the need to build a deviation and (b) introducing a new aquarium attraction to North Devon as trains pass through the water of the reservoir

 

i don’t know what the obsession with battery locos is on here…. Clearly the answer both here and at Wistlandpound is Manning Wardles modified with Mersey condensing apparatus.

 

Besides everything else that has been said, and having slept on this. My view is that we walk away from Parracombe for now while we review the whole project from end to end. Tobbes has suggested we find a neutral Chairman to hold a joint meeting between the Trust and EA/YVT, in theory, a very good idea; But in practice, it could be hard to do at present, as finding someone who will not take one side or the other could be problematical.

Then there will be the proposed Chairman's background, what should it be? legal, business or something else? I don't think it can be a member, since you will already be biased to one side or the other or how about ACAS?

 

No, let's not spend money on ACAS - even if they're willing to support.

A neutral chair simply needs to be someone who is willing and able, and trusted to be such, to conduct one of more meetings involving those of various views, and help them form a consensus on a way forward. There are a relatively small number of ideas in circulation (though with a range of flavours); the challenge is to get people to agree on a consistent set of priorities. Given the history of the L&B, a lot of that will be about people rather than ideas, helping create common purpose where it hasn't existed before.

That may well be possible within the membership; it may benefit from an outsider - the key point is that they are trusted not to be partisan in helping people come to a conclusion.

 

In business, a planning application is merely 'what can we do at this place which will produce a profit?' 10houses? 20 houses? and the business will usually have enough people who have gone through the process before that they now what to expect.
Development land for sale in city X. Ok, pay up to £3 per foot.
The total area is 2.6 hectares. Ok, they allow 100 houses on that, get on with a survey.
Total costs for design, and planning applications etc must not exceed £4000 per habitable unit.
And that is it. Developers should not, as a rule, become emotionally invested in the project.

The L&B project is more akin to a private planning application, where people do get emotionally invested.
I want to convert my loft to make a bedroom as we are outgrowing the house. I can't afford a bigger house in this street. If I move to the bigger house I can afford, my kids will have to change school, but the school is why we live in this street...... emotional stuff.

Planning applications are less a card game, and rather more akin to sitting an exam. If you go to the exam determined to write what you know the examiner will not agree with, you'll fail.

 

Exactly right, @35B . On chairing, I was really impressed with the way in which Mike Whittaker chaired the contentious meeting last year, and I'm sure that one of the railway vicars could serve equally well. I should be clear that I've not asked any of them, but the skills within the membership are clearly there.

Intrinscially we know what the likely options are. North from WB are unrealistic as we have no land, and south from WB runs into land issues immediately beyond Parracombe Halt and community opposition in Parracombe, leaving two groups of options:

- BG/OSHI - south: Wistlandpound, and then depending on land acquisition, an initial run to Bratton Flemming. Could include the proposed works at Rowley Moor.

- Chelfham based schemes - north to Chumhill, options south depending on land acquisition towards Snapper and thence to Barnstaple

In either case WB would remain open as a museum operation, but if there is 5+ miles of operational railway elsewhere, then it would be natural that this would become the centre of gravity with the aim of linking back through to WB once we've shown that the project is successfully delivering the broader community benefits @21B outlined above. Under these circumstances, WB could revert to a the initial Lynbarn style operation, with the heritage carriages and 762/Sir George/MWs on the longer section.

Both BG/OSHI and Chelfham based schemes have advantages and disadvantages, and as @35B notes, these are actually families of options. And in most cases, the pattern of the land holdings will require L&BRT and YVT/EA to work togther to acheive the reinstatement, as has always been said. This is not about one 'side' 'winning' or 'losing' - it is about the best way to resintate the L&B.

 

Well said, Tobbes. There is an irresistible change of gravity taking place, and that is in a southward direction. Parracombe is a running sore, and the sooner it is left alone to begin healing, the better.
The only way to win is for the "family" to begin working together, however, trust will be the first, very major major obstacle to overcome. Only then can the "family" begin to truly look outward, towards what can be achieved.
I'm not holding my breath, as so much dead wood needs to go first. But we know where we have to go. Unification of resources is the only workable way.

 

@Mark Thompson trust certainly is at a premium, but with goodwill and openness to other's views, we'll get there. I'm not especially concerned with people refusing to play - if they choose not to work harmoniusly with everyone, then that's on them, and all that should happen is that they write themselves out of the process. If the members of the L&B family are set on more reinstatement of the railway - and I firmly believe that they are - then anyone who stands in the way of that by refusing to cooperate with everyone else deserves to get the short shrift that they deserve.

Fortunately, I don't think it will come to that, and that was options are fleshed out, people will grow comfortable working together and success will be infectious. That's my hope, anyway!

 

Tobbes, I have to disagree with this part of your comment, for the last 15 or so years this has been the case with a handful of trustees, one or two in particular have wanted total control of every part of the L&B families, when that control didn't materialise in certain areas that group was pushed aside, belittled and demonised, the newsletter over the years has been used to promote the self importance some feel they have and the membership sadly never questioned such continuity of power. Many years ago on another forum I suggested that some were Megalomaniacs and I was ridiculed, asked to apologise, had every post monitored and it was suggested that i be removed from the forum all together even though the pattern that was emerging at that time was blatantly obvious, one motion at the EGM last year was a clear grab for overall control which confirmed mine and others suspicions all those years ago. This small group is still very much evident today. Even though they are slowly getting watered down, behind the scenes they are very much still intertwined within some groups, they might disappear from the trust or CIC but they will still be pulling some very important strings and it is still clearly evident that despite all the failures over the past few years that they still command some hardcore support and that is why they are still at the top and any request raised for them to step down has fallen on deaf ears . They are the ones who should have written themselves out of the process but they haven't and the railway has been slowly suffering

 

That may be true, but power is shifting. That “old guard” are losing their key advantage - look at this plan, if we weren’t here it couldn’t happen - as projects fail to progress. There were changes in leadership from the last AGM, and there are signs of a changing approach.

That doesn’t mean change is happening fast enough, or that more pressure isn’t required. But with the recent planning failure, it’s clear that a pause for thought and reflection is required, and that “more of the same” can’t cut it.

 

My hope is for renewal. A future in which it is acknowledged that the past has been difficult, but that it is the past and that there is a strong future possible if we can start to look for points of agreement rather than difference.

It shouldn’t be for the organisation to “eject” particular people unless they’re guilty of misconduct. I think that what is important is to have a clear and actionable vision. To set expectations about the culture of the organisation that will deliver that vision and to invite participation. If the vision is compelling enough then democracy takes over. Any individual who finds the new order not to be of their liking, doesn’t have to participate of course.

I acknowledge that going from where we are to these “hallowed sunlit uplands of one Land B acting in concert” is difficult. It requires a vision to be created (that’s very achievable) which is credible (entirely possible) and then for the majority of those interested in the future of the L and B to adopt the plan as their own (more challenging given that it will mean some tough decisions).

My personal opinion is that 10miles of railway is possible in time to mark the 100th anniversary of the closure of the line in 2035. Could a goal like that with a credible plan to achieve it drive the unification needed to deliver the plan?

 

Local press report;

Hopes of reinstating part of an Exmoor railway line have been dashed after the park’s planning committee voted overwhelmingly to refuse the scheme.......

Several members of the public attended the meeting (Tuesday 6 May) to speak against the plans, raising issues such as a lack of a public right of way around Cricket Field Lane, worries about flooding, and fears that the proposed economic benefits would be much smaller than suggested.

A statement read out to the committee on behalf of the owners of Heddon Hall, in Parracombe, Stuart and Carol Blowey, raised the issue of access.

“The proposal seeks to use land to gain access to the new terminus, however there is no public right of way along Cricket Field Lane as we own the land on both sides along the entire length apart from the centre part,” the statement said.

“We therefore own Cricket Field Lane under common law principles and anybody wanting to use it would need our permission and nobody has approached us about our ownership of it.”

The statement added that the pair had “serious concerns” about flooding and drainage issues.

Lee Willocks, another resident who’s statement was read out, said the suggestion that the extension would create 5,000 extra passengers a year had “no evidence to support it”.

He claimed the railway owners had admitted at a recent public meeting that this was a “finger-in-the-air estimate”.

Mr Willocks said members of the railway trust had suggested the proposal would “add almost nothing to the current operation and might not be capable of being built”......

Resident Stuart Wallace wrote to the committee to say questioned whether any of the proposed economic benefits were sufficient enough to outweigh the “significant harms” identified.

Mr Wallace, who said he had experience of economic appraisals and was an expert witness on a Parliamentary committee’s scrutiny of the HS1 and HS2 schemes, queried the possible benefits.

He estimated it would only add around £12,000 a year extra to the greater Exmoor tourist economy, thought to be around £400 million.......


In a statement on the Lynton and Barnstaple Railway website, it said it was “extremely disappointed” the proposed extension had been refused permission.

“As the trust is a member-led organisation, we will be seeking the views of our membership to determine our immediate course of action with respect to the Cricket Field Lane proposal and other options for the development of the railway,” it said.

“This process will start immediately with options being outlined at the forthcoming AGM before being presented for decision by the full membership.”

So, wait for the AGM!

 

My membership card arrived in this morning's post. It was a push-out card mounted in the covering letter, and clearly handled as part of a professional bulk mailing. It was not combined with other materials, and I was mildly surprised to see an ordinary 2nd class stamp rather than some form of bulk post discount.

 

Fixed that for you...

 

12' 6¾" to be exact. I still have my survey sketch of 1967.

 

Well, given that the AGM is looming either a lot of midnight oil will be burned or the alternatives ( plans B,C,D etc) must already be fully designed and costed. It must be apparent to all that plan A is dead in the water. My own thoughts are that the world has moved on and that the proposal to re-build the whole line has run out of time.