Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Interesting that it's a second home - I thought that the locals didn't like these since they inflated house prices. I wonder how many of the other objectors are second home owners.

Can I be a bit of a pedant but a 'Planning Inspector' would only be involved if the application went to appeal - its a 'Planning Officer' who deals with applications in a local authority.

Does anyone know what has happened with the proposed sale of Heddon Hall?

 

I too know of a couple who were interested in purchasing this property quite a few years ago but the railway weren't interested in working with them to sort certain issues, I am also of the understanding that the current owners were pro railway and in talks to move the extension from the back to the side of the cottage, I'm sure it was also stated in one of their objection letters that they had paid for a survey to be carried out on the proposed alterations, obviously negotiations have broken down, the question why has to be asked, also time and again members have been told negotiations with the OSHI must be kept on the DL and cannot be seen to be discussed in public yet the owners then turn around and fire 7 bales of sh1t at the railways section 73 application, what is going on here!

 

Nothing that can't be made worse by being given the oxygen of publicity.

 

I wonder whether EA has an internet policy? If so, does it cover their Directors? In particular attacks (usually with innuendo rather than evidence) by a director against the L&B Trust, with which they claim to have good relations?
Too often voluntary organizations lack policies on what their officers and/or employees may do in terms of internet use, in particular criticism of others. The L&B itself lacked (and maybe still does) such a policy. Indeed, their former general manager (an employee) felt it perfectly okay to insult an L&B member on social media for raising the issue of the inappropriateness of hosting seances on L&B trains. That insult resulted in the loss of thousands of pounds in donations from that source. [Evidence for this is in my possession.]
So - please be careful about throwing around accusations on social media

 

Well - if they don't they ought to have. The trouble is that some people who use Social Media forget that their comments can be read by a lot of people. This is very common on Village Facebook pages. With regard to Railway pages - a few years back RVR posted a picture of a Buffer stop with the caption 'End of the Line - for the moment' or something similar on their facebook page which resulted in lots of comments from those opposed to the extension. RVR quite rightly [in my view] removed these comments - they do own the page. The discussion then transferred to the Village facebook page where they were accused of censorship etc. Unfortunately a Social media presence is necessary for Publicity but there are pitfalls!

 

I'd just suggest looking at the cost of such online politics by reviewing threads about a nearby standard gauge preserved railway, in Somerset.

 

I'd have to agree that an internet policy would be desirable, further, any such policy should itself be transparent .... or it's far too easy to become mired in the same accusations of despotic autocracy "seen elsewhere"*

T'would seem that the disposals policies of the EA, L&BT and (while we're about it) the L&BR could likewise do with a quick once-over. Sometimes, squeezing that last guinea out of any transaction can produce it's own additional set of unwelcome considerations .... evidently!


*No, I'm not going to elaborate. I've no intention whatever of elaborating, or becoming embroiled in any further discussion on the subject .... and that's that!

 

Fencing off Parracombe halt with a passing loop for locos, so it is effectively a replacement for KL as a stopgap until the line to Blackmoor is available, seems a good plan and should get approval as Paramore will not get hoards of visitors.
Shows the railway will be serious about extending.
They might lose some rent from the demolished house, but will be worth it for the future of the line.
May need an emergency only gate at PE halt and perhaps a passenger only toilet.

 

My day job is community engagement - this is exactly what the L&B should be doing. Build relationships, make the community feel invested in the railway, identify the concerns, discuss and reassure with mitigations

 

Still on the market 2.25 million

 

A difficult one to shift, in the present climate. Oligarchs are conspicuous by their absence, and the other alternative is an events venue, which likewise, is a rather precarious arena to enter right now, particularly with such an investment to make up front, and no guarantee of return.

 

Nice ideas, but...

1. The railway submitted an application to build a pair of replacement houses elsewhere on the PE site, but it was refused by ENPA, partly IIRC on the grounds of traffic.
2. One of the main objections is that people do not want PE as a terminus, regardless of however short or long-lived in that state. Any 'tinkering' with the plan is unlikely to ameliorate them on that issue.
3. Even if you stop passengers leaving the station, another main objection is the (imagined large) number of people who will come to the station to view the trains. Difficult to see how you can stop that.

 

Interesting - one of the objectors who spoke at the RVR Public Inquiry made a similar point. This was more in connection with visiting engines hauling a special along the line - he forsaw cars racing along narrow lanes to photograph the engine going over the level crossings.

 

My late grandparents lived in a village on a "green" A road (a bypass came later). A small warehouse complex was proposed near them, and caused ructions locally because of the fears of lorry movements - this despite the 24x7 traffic past the front of the house on the A road. To the best of my knowledge, after it had been built, it has not caused issues.

People will fear the worst from changes affecting them and their property, and it will always be difficult to persuade them that those changes won't seriously affect them. But they are entitled to express their concerns - even if planning officers and inspectors will give those fears very little weight without tangible evidence.

 

Having driven to PE station on occasions in the past (naughty me!), I do know just how narrow and winding the road is, so to some extent I can understand and appreciate the concerns of those who live along, or use, it.

Two points though:-

1. There is a Village Hall on that road with a car-park. I would happily park there and walk to the station, but it is marked for 'Hall Users Only' so I respect that and don't use it. But whenever the Hall is not in use for some function, why does the village not come to some agreement with the railway to allow it be used for station visitors? Maybe even some income for the Hall from modest parking fees?

2. Much has been made about the alleged problems caused by the presence of a school on that road. As someone who lives near a local school, I know only too well just how much of the problems are actually caused by the parents themselves who insist on trying to get their cars as close to the school gate as possible - even those who live within easy walking distance anyway. I doubt that the relatively small numbers of passengers/visitors who may wish to walk between the station and the village centre or vice-versa will really make that much of any significant difference to the current situation. More to the point, if the situation there currently is really so bad and potentially dangerous as some objectors claim, how come it has existed for so long already (with no railway) without anything being done about it?

 

just to update, the supposed facts relating to Fairview are in fact stated within the section 73 application

 

True, and I've been guilty of those same overblown fears myself, in the past.
But given the very real threats to our established way of life which most people are now looking at, ie. being priced off of the roads, "Heat or Eat" to name but two, the "concerns" being voiced on the planning pages begin to take on the distinct perspective of "first world problems". I'm glad there are those for whom the occasional whiff of coal smoke, a clump of a carriage door, or peasants wandering in to look at a steam engine, are still of such great pith and moment to invoke this degree of outrage. It is reassuring in a way, to know that some of that old social heirarchy still exists, at a time when many of the people I know, myself included, are looking anxiously towards a far grimmer future...

 

They may be "first world problems", but they are the things that those people - whatever their circumstances - find of concern. Those concerns, and more importantly the fears that underlie them, deserve to be taken seriously. There's a saying about winning the war, but losing the peace. If reopening is the war, then the peace is being open. And the railway will need friends - best to try to make them, or at least not make enemies.

 

Community engagement is one of those "two types of people" issues. Those who think it important think it is tremendously important. I think the brass hats at the L&B are the other sort of people. Is it within them to grasp the fact that there is, at the very least, merit in winning friends and influencing people? I hope it is, or the next steps are going to be much more difficult than they ought to be

 

Furthermore, one can well imagine that those opposed to the railway, particularly those in Parracombe, will be seeking to gain allies to bolster their position.
If the L&BR Trustees do not seek to do likewise, then they (and of course, we all!) will be losing ground. I do not think that any of us want this.
It is time for some Trustee action down Parracombe way!