Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Duplicate post deleted

 

First off, welcome to the madhouse!

Here's a link to the relevant page of L&B partner organisation Exmoor Associates' website. EA exists to purchase former trackbed and properties and flog off the non-railway related bits-n-bobs which unavoidably come with certain deals. Proceeds from sales of any such acquisitions are earmarked to top up the coffers for future purchases.

Quite how up to date the included map is, I'm uncertain .... but on top of info on the recent planning application posted above, it's a fair starting point. Happy hunting.
http://www.exmoor-associates.co.uk/land-property/

 

Thanks. I could not find much detail from KL to P but, on digging, I now have.

 

What I'm curious to know now is what is the railway's next step, focus on getting a T.W.O., start seeking for required money needed for the project, or both?

Personally I'd say the best course of action would be both, for I'm pretty sure there's a time limit for how long you can have on the T.W.O. until ideally, you need to be actually running trains on the stretch of track you applied for.
I could be wrong but I'm sure there is some clause in such a agreement.

So getting on with financing and actually starting the construction process as soon as possible once all applications and such other red tape are complete, I'd say, is key and a necessity. Certainly at the very least it shows all you really mean business with expanding the railway, and prove to the sceptic this is no toy train pie in the sky idea, and actually is a serious and committed project.

 

At a glance, the EA map has been updated to show the purchase of trackbed at Fairview and Ivy Cottage, but does not show two more recent acquisitions (one north-east of Blackmoor Gate, and the other running from Dean Lane eastwards above Barbrook)

I should add that both these sections are acquisitions by the Trust, rather than by EA.

 

Thanks... I was having wierd random issues with my broadband connection last night (interactive stuff like google maps didn't want to play).

I haven't got any sort of handle on how it's decided whether it's EA or L&BT who buy any particular plot/building ... but so long as it's one of 'em (or a supporter in a generous mood) ... who cares?

 

Oh to have the money to be one of those!

 

AIUI there is a gentleman's agreement that EA concentrate on acquiring land in the southern section from Blackmoor Gate and the trust acquires the land in the northern section to Lynton. There are a few sections that don't meet this rule, but I'm guessing that they were purchased before the agreement. As you say it doesn't really matter who buys it, as long as it ends up in L&B control!


Keith

 

I believe that EA are really focused on trackbed for phase 3 (Wistlandpound to Barnstaple), whereas the L&B require trackbed for phase 2a and phase 2b (even though EA own some sections of phase 2a). I guess it also depends on who has the cash in the bank when property comes up for sale.

Saturday 17th March is the Surrey L&B Group AGM (1pm at Mizens Railway, Woking). I'm sure that the recent planning approvals (and what happens next) will be discussed. I'll share anything appropriate when I return from the meeting.

 

Aye ..... and Thank Bob Chelfham Viaduct is done and dusted!

 

I'm wondering whether the refusal of permission for the two houses is good or bad for the L&B? On one hand, they don't have to find the money to build them. On the other, there's now no money to be made from selling house 2 (tho, as affordable housing, there was presumably not much to be made anyhow), and no free house for a railway worker.
What do y'all think about the economics of that decision?

 

I think the L&B incorporated these houses to compensate for demolishing the bungalow. However, access to them was over the halt platform which didn't seem very practical.

Also, the roofscape of the new house might have interfered with the view of a certain listed building and could have breached the listing conditions.

It's a good move to reject this application but the L&B will probably have to build a replacement house elsewhere..

I'm just guessing all this as is normal for NP..

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

Listening to the recording of the planning meeting I notice that there was no representative from the owner of the bungalow at Parracombe present.
Seems strange as potentially they are more effected than other opponents.

 

I think I'm right in saying that the owner was scheduled to speak but didn't actually do so.

 

Well, there was no requirement in the permissions for them to build one elsewhere, so presumably only if they want to? (It's possible that ENP may revisit the rejected application at a future date, I suppose)

 

IIRC the owner doesn't actually live there but was renting it out? So, maybe they reckoned they'd get good enough compensation seeing as ENPA was clealrly supporting the applications.

 

Personally speaking, I see the issue of the rejection of the 2 houses application is a non-issue so far as the railway reconstruction project is concerned. The railway could resubmit amended plans, do nothing, or look at alternative locations elsewhere along the route, but the line can go ahead regardless.

 

Agreed - it was just idle speculation as to whether the railway was pleased or disappointed with that particular decision.

 

And if I could venture, from an aesthetic point of view, Parracombe halt will look infinitely better without the access crossing and residents car parking which would certainly have had a detrimental impact on what will probably be a quite idyllic location.

 

I was tempted to suggest the arches of Chelfam Viaduct as a location, but they'd be visible to passengers on the approach from the Barnstaple side, well them and everyone else in the valley!

More seriously, there are exemptions for "buildings of outstanding architectural merit" (subjective, I know) and "buildings with a zero or less carbon footprint", which also translates as 'minimal running costs' (anyone else just had the winter gas bill drop through their letterbox?).

In both cases, some imaginitive architecture and construction is called for, as well as sympathetic consideration for a sensitive location, but such buildings are very much practical propositions. We're definitely not talking about any 'historic L&B house style' here, but with much interest from both architects and the construction industry, plus enthusiastic support from bodies such as ENPA, adopting such an approach needn't be as eyewateringly expensive as might first be supposed.

This doesn't, in all honesty, sound like a job for either the L&B or EA, but both (along with other local interest - including those opponents of the L&B project), as interested parties, would likely have substantial useful input for whoever does take up the challenge.