West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I am a Paddle Steamer Preservation Society Member - you may have suspected this!

Anyway in my copy of 'Paddle Wheels' which arrived today, there is the call for candidates for the Societys Council of Management.

The only requirement apart from being a member is that you must meet the HMRC definition of a fit person.

While it isnt an infallible criteria, details here at

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/money-laundering-regulations-apply-for-the-fit-and-proper-test

It seems to me to be a good requirement for any director or trustee.

 

Perhaps my posting number 996 on the parallel ' S&D eviction' string, may have some relevance. ie
Professor Irven , when WSR Plc Chair, post the withdrawal of the proposed sale of the Freehold
by Somerset County Council, secured an amendment to the Plc lease whereby they ( the Plc)
could grant sub Leases up to a duration of 25 years.

I suggested in post 998 that this might indicate the sub lease granted by a later
WSR Plc Chair to the S&D Trust for 50 years was '' without substance'

(I hasten to add I have not seen the sections of the Bailey report .
I questioned the grant of a 50 year lease at the time.
I am in favour of the S&D Trust remaining at Washford with certain reservations.)

ps

Posting 998 was dated 30/3/2020. I had previously noted this issue on an
earlier post after the Plc/S&D issue first surfaced. Nobody registered any
response to that posting at the time !

Michael Rowe

 

Ah right, thank you Michael.

 

That would make sense, although extremely regrettable.
Is there any likely route which could see a ruling that the lease is valid and to simply read "50 years" as "25 years" in the appropriate place without fresh agreement from the WSR? I don't suppose so, but I can't help but hope.

 

My suggestion for a resolution to the Washford affair is for the S&D Trust to hand the station buildings back to the WSR, enabling them to paint it in GWR colours & the S&D Trust to retain all the yard & their buildings.

DJB.

 

On the other hand .....as both parties signed the lease renewal some two years ago then is the plc not liable for any irregularity in the legality of it ?

 

Yes I understand that, was just wondering if there was any precedent that meant the entire agreement wasn't totally invalid. Clutching at straws? You bet!

 

The question arose a while back in connection with the plc's rights - or not - to sublease. It was never answered definitively and as it relates to a difficult area of law, I suggest we are never likely to get a definitive view.

Edit - please ignore; this will teach me not to read on to the next page where the question is well answered!

 

That only solves the imagined problem the WSR had with the S&DT, not the real ones (which were, IMHO, just as unjustified by the way). I simply see no evidence that the S&DT putting their "stamp" on the station had anything to do with the eviction notice, it seems to have been entirely dreamt up on this thread from what I can see.

 

Indeed. Though in the absence of any substantive reasons ever being declared, the vacuum as to motive was never really closed and some circumstantial evidence was brought that suggested it might not be the least likely scenario.

 

I agree, but personally, I just don't see the current WSR Plc board caring enough about that heritage difference, it seems much more interested in £££ to the exclusion of almost everything else, which of course damages the £££ anyway.

 

John Bailey made a complete hash of it in his report, and Michael Rowe has done the same.

I don't see any requirement whereby Ian Coleby, as the then WSR PLC Chairman could not give the SDRT a new lease for 50 years in 2018 starting this April; and the WSR PLC relies on this new lease in the 'Notice to Quit' on the SDRT over Washford, and quotes this explicitly in the 'Notice to Quit', and therefore cannot deny (via 'estoppel') that anything was wrong with it!

I understand this - John Bailey doesn't, and neither does Michael Rowe - but the WSR PLC board did via it's Solicitors when they served the 'Notice to Quit' upon the SDRT over Washford on 10th February.

Cheers,

Julian

 

Interesting point!

Presumably as well if the S&DRT obtained grants from places like the National Lottery then they must have satisfied the funders that the lease was correct?

More to the point however why fund the pockets of lawyers when the current situation offers a 'Get Out'?

 

@flying scotsman123 :- "That only solves the imagined problem the WSR had with the S&DT, not the real ones (which were, IMHO, just as unjustified by the way). I simply see no evidence that the S&DT putting their "stamp" on the station had anything to do with the eviction notice, it seems to have been entirely dreamt up on this thread from what I can see."

The reason for the eviction was stated by the Plc in their first 'communication' after the eviction notice was issued. You'll need to go back to find the exact wording but basically it said :- We (the Plc) wanted more money, we told the S&DRT to give us more money, they wouldn't - so they are not part of the railway family so we are kicking them out ... (and calling them a cuckoo in the nest etc. etc.)

Two important points to remember. 1 - It is not within the S&DRT's charity remit to just 'give' their money away no matter how much the Plc demands it, and 2 - The WSRA and WSSRT are both charities and both in exactly the same situation and both also refused to just hand over cash... but neither of these are facing eviction...

 

The puzzling thing for me and I am sure many others looking on at the continued WSR fiasco, is that the HRA was asked to oversee, by some method, the eviction of the S&D people at Washford. That seems to have become a low priority - highjacked it seems - and a discussion about re-structuring the WSR groupings substituted.
Is anything ever straightforward in West Somerset? I am never quite sure whether I am reading the script of an Agatha Christie play or a Whitehall Farce.

 

????
I was simply referring to @35B 's "Though in the absence of any substantive reasons ever being declared, the vacuum as to motive was never really closed "

 

My point being, as demonstrated by subsequent exchanges, that we know what was said, but we do not know why it was said.

 

Is not the rent of £841 for both museums? That is what is implied.