If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Discussion in 'Narrow Gauge Railways' started by 50044 Exeter, Dec 25, 2009.

  1. Flying Phil

    Flying Phil Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2018
    Messages:
    2,696
    Likes Received:
    5,500
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leicestershire
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I am sure an awful lot of work is going on, unreported, to see that the L&B continues to be rebuilt. Despite the problems of "split sites" this may well be how progress is maintained - the gradual joining up of the sections/stations. This will also help to reassure some of the residents of Parracombe that their terminus is indeed to be temporary.
     
    CharlesBingers likes this.
  2. Tobbes

    Tobbes Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    869
    Likes Received:
    2,354
    I sincerely hope so, but given that everyone concerned knows that:

    - There will be a TWAO application
    - It will need to include CP powers
    - It will therefore generate a public enquiry

    ... it would be helpful for the Trust to be as transparent as possible.

    Unfortunately, this seems to be the opposite of the current approach. The idea that someone thought it was a good idea not to hold any public information/discussion sessions in Parracombe ahead of applying for these s73 orders says it all really - very shortsighted/poor.
     
    WhoKnows, Biermeister and Meatman like this.
  3. sitimela43

    sitimela43 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2019
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    91
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Devon
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer

    Perhaps you should make yourself aware of the public consultation that took place at Woody Bay on 11th/12th February 2022 where Trustees met members of the community to discuss the current applications before making such comments. Details of this are included in the application.
     
  4. RailWest

    RailWest Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,803
    Likes Received:
    7,439
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Country
    Firstly, why hold it at WB when clearly the main 'target' would be residents in/around Parracombe, so why not there? Secondly, as a Trust member, I'm surprised not to have heard about this until after the event.

    It may well be that the Trust have had preliminary discussions with the ENPA which have been positive enough at least for them to proceed with submitting the applications, in which case I'm not sure why that fact at least could not be communicated to members. However I would caution against 'expecting' them to be approved without too much debate, even allowing for the fact that many of the objections raised have clearly not been appropriate/accurate/sustainable.

    It would seem clear that, when the original applications were submitted, the ENPA - although ultimately deciding that the perceived benefits to the wider Park area outweighed any local concerns at PE - must have considered the objections from PE and elsewhere to be of sufficient merit as to warrant the imposition of the Grampian Conditions as a way of at least mitigating to some extent the impact or rebuilding the railway to some degree. Consequently the Authority may decide now that the specific circumstances relating to the PE area have not been, nor will be, reduced by allowing the Sec 73 applications - and indeed may be aggravated - and therefore decide that the Grampian Conditions need to remain in place and therefore will refuse (at least some of) the applications at this time.
     
    WhoKnows and ghost like this.
  5. DcB

    DcB Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,338
    Likes Received:
    421
    Location:
    Surrey
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    The last Lynton Line newsletter for residents was Issue 4 back in July 2021. It mentions the purchase of the halt cottage, but not plans or the consultation, so looks like residents found out about the application some other way?.
     
  6. Meatman

    Meatman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2018
    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    1,401
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Burrington,devon
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I'm sure that Tobbes is aware of the event that took place at Woody Bay but is making the point, as a few locals have (also in the planning application) that it would have been far better to hold this event in Parracombe village hall so that it would have been easier for more locals to visit which in all honesty is a very sensible suggestion
     
  7. RailWest

    RailWest Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,803
    Likes Received:
    7,439
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Country
    ...and perhaps even better, it would have been almost an 'on the spot' event (given the proximity of the Hall to the Halt) and might have helped to dispel some of the wilder speculations long before the planning public consultation period.
     
  8. Tobbes

    Tobbes Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    869
    Likes Received:
    2,354
    I'm well aware of that, @sitimela43 , but as @Meatman and @RailWest have noted, the fact that it was at WB and not in Parracombe is precisely the point I'm making, not made better by being a single weekend, and, according to objectors, with pretty short notice. Something as significant and potentially divisive as this should have been worked on with the community over a period of months - it's clear from the drawings and materials that the work was on going in private. Not, as the local responses show, the best way of getting folk on board with the project.
     
    WhoKnows and ghost like this.
  9. Great Western

    Great Western Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2009
    Messages:
    327
    Likes Received:
    174
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I really cant see how a heritage railway can acquire CP powers, especially once which lets face it needs all the friends can get. If you own land the railway needs then come to an agreement to buy it fair and square, not have if forced upon them. If they don't want to sell the land, then tough that's life.

    Its one thing buying parcels of land, and then linking them up over many a year, but then building and operating a sustainable railway in the uncertain 2020s and beyond is very much a different thing. People are struggling to get to work, and heat their homes and will do for many years going forward. Do you really think the numbers will be there to ride and pay fares, or donation going forward as the generation who in the main are doing so now sadly pass away?
     
  10. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,485
    Likes Received:
    23,719
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Without commenting on whether CP powers should be available to heritage railways, the reality is that the law allows railways to obtain those powers precisely because legislators long ago recognised that it was wrong to allow landowners to hold promoters to ransom. The inquiry process is there to ensure that, where they are used, they are used fairly and reasonably. Those rights apply not just to transport schemes, but more widely - some of the provisions for compulsory purchase are under general planning law.

    As for whether the L&B can operate a sustainable railway given the current economic headwinds, I think presuming that they can't or won't is unfair - economic circumstances change, and the fact that some people are struggling as you suggest does not have to mean that so many people will struggle that new attractions won't be able to thrive.
     
  11. Great Western

    Great Western Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2009
    Messages:
    327
    Likes Received:
    174
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    You hit the nail on the head, 'long ago' regards CP powers, new railways serving a purpose to the county, and country not a tourist railway a few miles long and a little niche as well - not everyone is into narrow gauge after all their certainly not going to pull in several millions visitors like the SVR or NYMR.

    Its accepted fact in the real world that many many millions of people, those very people the railway needs are struggling with interest rates increasing, fuel increasing by several pennies each week, fuel for heating also going up several hundred if not thousands each year a trend which will only get worse.

    The railway itself will feel the increased pressure of these increases, if passengers cant afford to drive to the railway then is the railway meant to be sustainable ?

    I also wonder how much the legal processes are costing the railway, would money not be better spent on upgrading what they have rather than lining the pockets of the legal profession ?
     
  12. Tobbes

    Tobbes Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    869
    Likes Received:
    2,354
    The RVR extension is showing that CP powers are open to use by heritage railways and remain relevant, though I'm sure that neither the RVR or the L&B would choose to go down the CP powers route unless absolutely necessary. But (AIUI in both, but certainly in the L&B's case) one or more opponents of the schemes has repeatedly made it publicly clear that they would *never* sell to the railway. Given that a deviation to avoid the land in question is not viable, then the question of CP powers arises. I must stress that I (and I'm sure the rest of the L&B family) would be far happier not to have to use CP powers and to reacquire the trackbed for a fair price without them.

    However, where a single landowner refuses to sell under any circumstances - as is their right - then the community gets to have a view of the impact on them of this refusal through the TWAO / CP process with the appropriate checks and balances, which is precisely what the legislation is for.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2022
  13. RailWest

    RailWest Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,803
    Likes Received:
    7,439
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Country
    Which surely is exactly the point with the L&BR in North Devon. The 'business case' for the L&BR - as recognised by the ENPA - is to bring more business to the county by bringing in more tourists, but at the same time take pressure off the road system by providing a P&R facility. So it will 'serve a purpose to the county' as opposed to (say) those groups who merely operate a small site and run trains up and down a few hundrd yards of track just for 'fund and nostalgia' (meaning no disrespect to those involved in such ventures).
     
  14. Great Western

    Great Western Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2009
    Messages:
    327
    Likes Received:
    174
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I understand, however it is grossly unfair in the UK, in 2022 that someone is forced to give up their property for a non critical project like a niche heritage railway - HS2, Heathrow 3rd runaway for example I can see the need but not this.
     
  15. RailWest

    RailWest Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,803
    Likes Received:
    7,439
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Country
    Whilst I respect your point of view, look at it another way. The 'someone' now owns some land which was once part of a railway, now the railway would like to buy it back (at an agreed fair price) so that it can rebuild itself. The railway will serve a purpose to the area and its community. As far as I can tell, the current owner makes no use of the former track-bed other than as a strip of land along the edge of an existing field, so what loss would they suffer by giving it up?
     
  16. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,485
    Likes Received:
    23,719
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    In which case, I would expect any inquiry process to prevent the railway obtaining those powers. "Long ago" does not mean that the rule is dated, but that the unfairness of allowing someone to exploit their location to prevent development is well established. Similarly, CP powers are not just about transport "for the county", but also consider wider benefits. I'm not aware that there's a minimum threshold, and the history of the Ffestiniog demonstrates how easy it is to underestimate the viability of a project.

    As to the question of fairness, I find it far less fair that a landowner controlling a small parcel of land essential to an otherwise viable project should be able to veto that project than that a neutral and rigorous process should be able to assess the competing claims and then determine which should prevail, considering public policy and legislation rather than being dictated to by the coincidence of who owns what land. That is especially true when balancing the private benefit of that landowner against an adopted public policy in favour of a particular development. I refuse to criticise anyone for using the law as it is written and was intended, even if their scheme is not to be a critical piece of national infrastructure.

    As for the sustainability of the L&B, I prefer to leave that to it's leaders and members to make informed decisions about how they can best achieve their objectives. I'm just glad that, about the time I was born, other preservationists weren't deterred by the mess of the 3 day week etc. into not proceeding with projects like the SVR, NYMR, GCR, Ffestiniog, etc.
     
  17. RailWest

    RailWest Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,803
    Likes Received:
    7,439
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Country
    As I think I may have mentioned on here before, some months ago I was involved with discussions about various proposals for different ways of extending the existing railway onwards to, or near, Parracombe, in terms of how it might be operated and signalled. Quite obviously, given the known sensitivities surrounding PE, such discussions were not made public and indeed there were occasions when I tried to 'damp down' any speculations that the railway might be trying to 'circumvent' the Grampian Conditions. Various comments and suggestions were submitted, after which nothing was heard for several months until - much to the surprise of myself and my colleagues in those discussions - the Sec 73 applications were announced! So I too am not exactly impressed by the way in which this has been progressed...
     
  18. Meatman

    Meatman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2018
    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    1,401
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Burrington,devon
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    I believe that I read somewhere in one of the many books on the L&BR that there was stiff opposition to the railway at Parracombe when the original line was being built, a few landowners were holding out for more money than was being offered, CP powers had to be used and the main landowner received less than was offered by the railway originally, the others then soon agreed to sell, I do of course stand to be corrected by M. B. as he will know for sure. My personal view about current landowners who have trackbed on their land is that they should be required to sell if any railway needs said trackbed to extend if planning has been approved on the basis that the trackbed already exists, CP powers should only be used if it is a new transport route
     
  19. Tobbes

    Tobbes Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    869
    Likes Received:
    2,354
    @Great Western Here's the 1999 TWA Order for the Welsh Highland Railway - a success, as I'm sure you'll agree - and you'll see the CP powers it was granted at paragraph 14.

    So CP for heritage railways is not new, not obsolete and not ever used when there is an alternative. Which in my view is exactly as it should be.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2022
    Hirn, Miff, ghost and 1 other person like this.
  20. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,485
    Likes Received:
    23,719
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I think you describe a form of compulsory purchase.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

Share This Page