Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

It has not been applied for. If it had, it’d be on this DfT list:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/twa-inspector-reports-and-decision-letters#twa-applicatio

 

Thanks @Miff - which given the repeated public positions of some of the landowners, seems a major oversight - or one which requires proper explanation from the Trust leadership.

 

I’d suggest it might be unwise to apply for a TWAO whilst the planning permission issues are unsettled. If the PP was allowed to lapse that’d be the greater oversight I think.

 

@Miff - fine, except that I understoof PP can be granted - and therefore clarified - in the granting of a TWAO. If this is correct, then there was no obvious reason not to go ahead with the TWAO application.

 

Although the Act allows it I suspect legal advisors, and quite possibly the DfT, would discourage promoters from seeking planning permission within a TWAO application in cases where the local authorities are competent to deal with it.

Being seen to sidestep a local authority’s power to decide over planning permission might not sit well with Councillors or voters and might contribute to turning a local authority into an opponent (and TWAO objector), rather than a supporter. Whereas having planning permission in the bag and (hopefully) the enthusiastic support of the local authorities sends a powerful message to the DfT at TWAO decision time.

In any event it would add considerably to the complexity; duration and cost of the Public Inquiry if it had to consider the full range of planning matters in addition to all the transport and works stuff.

 

Interesting, @Miff - what was the planning status in the RVR's case (which is the first heritage TWAO that employs the full range of powers I can think of)?

 

They got planning permissions in the bag for the whole scheme, and the enthusiastic support of local authorities, MPs, Network Rail and many others before submitting their TWAO application.

They’re still awaiting the SoS’s decision following the public inquiry but I can say for sure this greatly helped the RVR in defending against many of the objections at the inquiry.

 

It's worth adding that they also encountered the same problem with time running out on PPs, but obtained an S73 variation (funding not being in any way an issue), and began work on the section they had aquired between Junction Road and Austen's Bridge, thereby locking in the PPs for perpetuity.

 

IIRC this was the essence of one of the arguments used by the Trust in going to the ENPA rather than seeking a TWAO, in that it avoided the possibility of local residents feeling somehow excluded by a decision-making process taking place remotely in London rather than locally in the Park.

 

"Irony" is barely enough to do justice to that.

 

Well that's perfectly sensible right up to the point that the circumstances change and it became clear that the CPO powers of a TWAO would be required. As the facts change, so the aproach has to change with it.

 

I’m not sure what you mean. L&B did not, and could not, seek a CPO via their planning applications to the local authorities. The only way they can get CP powers for a railway is via a TWAO. Both planning-permission and a TWAO are essential to the scheme. CP would not be essential for a TWAO application where all the land was available, and if this came about it would simplify the application and Public Inquiry (if needed) process.

RVR have used their planning permissions to build (but not operate) big chunks of their railway on the lands that they own but they cannot cross the highways & rights of way, or enter the lands they don’t own, without the TWAO.

 

We agree @Miff - my point was that the ned for CP powers to obtain all the required land (both to build the line at all and to unlock the Grampian Conditions in the curent PP) was clear some considerable time ago. Ergo, as the TWAO is the only way of obtaining the CP powers, it should have been the immediate priority as it is the critical path - so it would be very helpful to understand why it hasn't even been applied for to date.

 

Fair enough- I see what you mean now. The Grampian conditions in the pp were forced upon the L&B as a result of objections, and then Covid slowed down everything but I suspect lack of money is also an issue - public inquiries and the lawyers & top engineering & environmental professionals you really need to prepare & present your case don’t come cheap (RVR have been very lucky or canny in recruiting a number of super-rich benefactors). I hope the S73 applications succeed and give the L&B more time.

 

once the initial planning had been granted the L&BR Trust should have immediately sought to change the Grampian conditions to allow exactly this to be done, for the trackbed they own to be restored, fencing to be erected and base ballast put in place but no track laid or operational railway running over any part of it until they owned all of the trackbed needed, also leaving Parracombe bank to be the last piece of infrastructure to be built, at least the planning would have been secured for good

 

I am pretty sure that potential cost of the TWAO is the reason for delay in applying for it. I dread to think how much money RVR spent on their TWAO. I supect that the landowners had to spend a similar amount in opposing it. Consultants and Legal teams are expensive.

 

In hindsight I agree that something should have been done about the "Grampian" conditions but I'm not sure how easy this is to achieve. The S73 application was one way to do this. I did not expect that process to take 9 months without a decision.

 

I would value the view of someone with planning knowledge (@GWR4707?) to comment here on Grampian conditions. My very limited understanding is that at the time of the application, they were an option open to planning authorities to prevent projects starting, then progressing in a stop start manner, but are now no longer available to planners as a tool for new applications following a court judgment.

I also think I recall that, at the time of the planning application, the use of such conditions was accepted by the railway as part of a process of building trust.

All of this was before Covid.

In those circumstances, and with no material change to circumstances, I suspect that the railway would have struggled legally or morally to justify any change of approach.

Since then, we have obviously had Covid and significant economic changes that will affect the project, and the current application is a result.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

There was a slightly cryptic comment in the L&B magazine/newsletter a while back, which implied that to be eligible to apply for a TWAO, the applicant had to already be in possession of a certain percentage of trackbed/property. The inference was that the L&B did not have have the required amount, but purchase of the pub would change the balance.

 

35B the biggest issue as far as the membership are concerned has been the lack of any preparation to get any of this done or to make any challenges to the Grampian condition once they had been removed by the court case, all this has been going on for 5 years and now everyone is panicking about it.

When the dust has settled the L&BR group will need to pick it self up and look at these weaknesses and change things around.

Miff has this banged to rights it will be expensive and I don't think this was taken on board, I am not saying Fundraising for all the legal work is going to be cheap or easy, however you put something like a steam locomotive in front of people and its a wow that look good where do I sign up.

If I could go back 5 years I would have said that it would be better to form a planning and construction group to bring together the experts we need and let them get on with it.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing to be used to blame other people for the lack of progress, but the truth is that we are all to blame for this for not asking questions at the right time or in the right place.