Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

The legal challenge appears to have been down to process, in a situation where the underlying planning was fiercely contested by some. Reading Newsletter No. 79, ENPA were caught between conflicting legal opinions, as a result of which there was a delay in putting the proposals to public consultation that meant the process could not conclude before 7th March.

The difference is the working of planning processes and timings.

 

Sorry but I don't see anything happening in the next year or two now that Blackmoor is part of the family. As I understand it we can't do any development with in the Blackmoor Station site just yet as it was part of the long term agreement with the previous owners.

What does need to happen now is to draw up a fresh new business plan based around Blackmoor, A new project strategy and a fresh look at the project capital appeal funding stream. None of this is going to happen over night but they will all take time to prepare.

The other thing which we need to do and that is to build up the groups credibility again. I have heard that at least two of the trustees feel that they have done what they can and now it is time for them to move on before the AGM. I wonder just how many more will come to the same conclusion and say to themselves well we have done what we could, but now we need to let others have ago and move on before the AGM.

 

Hi Mark - In RVR's case there were not so many objection to the S73 variation. There were 36 letter of Objection and 6 letter of support. There was a solicitors letter submitted on behalf of a number of objectors which resulted in RVR submitting an updated a revised Environmental Statement. The S73 application was made after the Public Inquiry for the TWAO had taken place so maybe the objectors felt they had had their say. In RVR's case the pre-commencement conditions were not as onerous as the L and B conditions - they didn't have to own all the land before they started,. - Harold

 

Thanks, Harold. That helps to clarify.

 

No revenue earning traffic, but it would have secured the p/p in perpetuity. Surely a sacrifice worth making for that permanent foothold, rather than having to consider starting from scratch at Blackmoor on a separate venture. From there, the TWAO could then have been applied for at leisure. Didn't even have to be to Parracombe- with S73 variation for the necessary work, it could have just have been to make good on structures and roadbed as far as Cricket Field Lane, which is what the trust are now advocating as part of their vaunted "option C", but far too late to be useful. There could have been no objections on grounds of noise, pollution, tourists parking, scaring of horses, etc.
But it would have gotten that foot in the door.

 

I receieved the "consultation" document in Suffolk today.

It's hard not to be underwhelmed by it: the Trust are clearly not interested in any other options than the one that they've just failed to deliver; this would be a substantially more persausive document if it had some - even indicative - numbers in it. I read this "consultation" as an attempt to rubbish any other option than C, proposed by the Trust. This is unfortunate, as Option C is silent on three key points.

First, why would ENPA grant planning permission to extend from KL to Cricket Field Lane and from Blackmoor Gate to Lower Rowley rather than insisting on the whole of Phase IIA being completed as one by requiring Grampian Conditions as they did in 2018? The same risks to the National Park of having an incomplete (in this case, two incomplete) railway(s) terminating in the middle of nowhere in the park - and therefore providing no obvious public transport benefit - would apply, and so why would they approve this?

Second, why would there be substantially less local objection in Parracombe with Cricket Field Lane and Lower Rowley as railheads? They get none of the benefit and at least some of the inconvenience (noise, tourists)?

Third, even if you chose to operate solely in the NDDC area, how are you going to get the works and carpark (in the ENPA area, as I understand it) approved in light of question one? How would this even work?

That having been said, I will be writing to John Barton in the following terms:

- The lack of land ownership north of Woody Bay and the lack of an obvious terminus in Lynton at this time that is better situated than the old station makes it unlikely that this would be approved without Phase IIA in place, as it would not serve the public transport through the Park, but would instead increase traffic to a terminus in the Park.

- Restarting below Wistlandpound Resivoir is superficially attractive, especially given the great progress that EA are making in trackbed acqusition. However, even if there were a clear trackbed between Bratton Flemming and Snapper, there is no obvious place to build a large car park (let alone at each end) and therefore this doesn't seem to work.

Therefore, it seems to me that the best hope for extending the railway is through successful implementation of Phase IIA.

- However, I do not agree with Option C as proposed, for the reasons outlined above. In my view, we should apply for the whole of Phase IIA, accepting that it is likely that Grampian Conditions will again be imposed. In parallel, the Trust should also be preparing a TWAO application to go in the day after the ENPA planning is granted - overcoming the risk that ENPA would be a statutory objector at the inevitable public enquiry, making two points crystal clear:

• First, that that the request for CP powers in the TWAO is in order to meet the Grampian Conditions, all other routes having been exhausted;
  
  
• Second, that the land to be CP'd is limited to the width of the solum and is not a general power to do with whatever we want.

This represents a measured, de minimus approach done in sorrow and as a last resort, all other options having been exhausted: in other words, precisely what CPO powers were designed for in the first place.

 

Like your thinking, using the CP issue as a way of saying "sorry, but you're giving us no option here. We don't want to use such a method, but you're really giving us no option but to use this route"

 

I too find the "Consultation" pretty threadbare. I notice that one Trustee , Mr Duffell, has not endorsed the Board recommendation and is listed as abstaining. It would be interesting to hear if he has an alternative proposal.

 

Worth pointing out that in the 40-odd year saga of the Bluebell's northern extension, the section of line from Kingscote (the then limit of passenger operations) to Imberhorne Lane bridge (at the entrance to the tip, which blocked progress further north) was laid through the summer of 2004. The line finally opened through to East Grinstead in March 2013. So for 9 years there was "a stretch of track from Kingscote to Imberhorne quietly rusting away with no revenue-earning traffic". In practice, there were occasional shuttles (without the ability to alight at the end of the line) at major galas which served to show intent, raise funds for the extension and generally keep the project foremost in everyone's mind.

I think (but can't prove) that had no work on that ~ mile of trackbed happened until the tip had been cleared of 110,000 tons of rubbish, it is likely there would have been far less excitement round the project, and, I suspect, less success in fundraising. Ultimately, the extension may well have failed without that sign of visible, and continuous, progress - even though it meant an investment in rails and ballast that were used only sporadically for the first 9 years.

Tom

 

Just worth noting that the CIC's operations at Woody Bay are profitable, at a time when a lot of other railways are struggling the L&B is thriving. I can understand why people are maybe preferring the idea of extension work down south but don't forget that any other work elsewhere along the line would take away from the operation at Woody Bay. Not just in terms of revenue but also staff/volunteers, funding, development opportunities etc. What the trust has at Woody Bay is only going from strength to strength. It seems an awful shame to jeopardise that for the sake of a few miles elsewhere?

 

Precisely this, @Mark Thompson.

@Thomas Woods : I agree - WB should stay as the successful hub and be a key draw as the line extends south.

 

A very valid observation. However, it is also an argument that needs to be made with care, as if pursued to its logical extreme would prevent consideration of any option other than one based on Woody Bay. I would not want Woody Bay to become Devon's Pen-y-mount.

Separately, I have also written to respond to the consultation document. Like @Tobbes, I have found it unpersuasive. In particular, it does not address the question raised by @RailWest recently about the irreconcilable objectors; nor does the risk analysis provide any help in interpreting the plausibility of the interim stages within ENPA.

If viewed as a preliminary toe in the water, this exercise has merit. If it is intended to be decisive, I regret that it is unlikely to succeed.

 

There is some though that an option to improve Woody Bay without an extension at present could be useful, the other thing which I get from various other social media outlets is that we need to also change out attitude to the landowners and dire I say we need to be seen as more professional in these dealing with them.

I was once told by a North Devon landowner that all the time we take the railway enthusiast route with any negotiations we might as well be banging our head up against the wall. Where as, if we took a more business like approach to the negotiations, we might be surprised at the results we get. It might not remain a No. But it might become a may be, I will think about it.

 

It would be useful to be able to read the Board Minutes, as one might find that actually it was discussed at a meeting at which he was not present - just a thought.

 

I would also note that a recorded abstention merely means that the person in question is unable to positively endorse the plan. The challenge to come up with an alternative lies more with anyone who votes against that proposal.

For example, and assuming that I can be at the AGM and that there is a vote on the options as presented in the consultation paper, I would expect to abstain on Option C rather than vote against.

There is no alternative on the table that would be better, and weak though it is, there is a logic to it.

 

What, this HASN'T been the L&B's comms strategy with objectors?

 

It arrived this morning in deepest, darkest East Sussex.

 

As a shareholder in the OSHI, I'm not aware of any long term agreements with the previous owners (although it's entirely possible I may have missed it). Are you able to share the details?

 

This is not aimed at objectors, but rather at the planning process, Grampian conditions and time constraints. The combination of these means one is effectively operating with one, if not both hands tied.
Have a read of Tobbes' post I was replying to (7406), and it may give you a sense of the nuance behind the statement.

 

I’m really curious about the advice to pull the s73 application relative to the ENPA being unable to meet their own timetable. It seems odd to me that the planning permission couldn’t simply be extended by the authorities in order for them to be able to determine the s73. I can only think that the advice was to pull it because that would make the re-application for planning permission more straightforward somehow, but I am unsure how.