Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I am puzzled also by the practice of electing the Trustees one by one (in alphabetical order?) as separate Agenda items. IMHO one should not proceed from one Agenda item to the next until the former has been completed - ie a person has been declared elected or not. Not so bad I suppose when there are 4 candidates for 4 vacancies, but what if there were to be 5 (or more)? Election of Trustees ought to be a single Agenda item, during which all votes are cast for/against each candidate and then the requisite number with the most votes are deemed elected.

 

I am puzzled also by the practice of electing the Trustees one by one (in alphabetical order?) as separate Agenda items. IMHO one should not proceed from one Agenda item to the next until the former has been completed - ie a person has been declared elected or not. Not so bad I suppose when there are 4 candidates for 4 vacancies, but what if there were to be 5 (or more)? Election of Trustees ought to be a single Agenda item, during which all votes are cast for/against each candidate and then the requisite number with the most votes are deemed elected.[/QUOTE]
Precisely this.

And why is Anne not on the list of candidates? Answers from the Secretary are awaited.

 

Plenty of people on here are commenting that the trust was correct in obtaining their own legal opinion yet how many have actually seen its contents, i for one cannot find it published anywhere, we have seen ENPA legal opinion and have been able to read its contents which in itself is quite conclusive but we haven't seen the contents of the trusts document, we have only been TOLD that it stands up well to the other responses which is a totally different kettle of fish

 

I thought I had seen it on the ENPA website but could be wrong.

 

If a certain allegedly Trustee candidate is so anti the Trust Board that does raise issues, as does an EA Director allegedly also so anti to the Trust Board. Mutual trust and confidence, and all that entails.

I remain firmly of the view that the s.73 course was well worth proceeding with. Planning Law is uncertain and complex and does not ultimately depend on Counsel’s opinion. So I consider Anne’s response in this light. And potentially and allegedly partial in the light of other stuff.

 

(I can state categorically that of one railway preservation organisation I am a member of, I have been privy to all sorts of correspondence and legal matters, none of which has not and could not be shared with the members openly. A lot of ‘stuff’ must of necessity be kept confidential when complex legal negotiations are being undertaken).

 

I think legal privilege will be involved there, the ENPA waived that privilege as noted in the notification letter on 15th August. As negotiations and legal advice the Trust engages in will no doubt continue to be needed the privilege will be also be continued. I suspect this will have been recommended by the counsel.
(Edited for clarification)

 

As someone not involved in the L&B I hesitate to post on here, but I take a keen interest and like all of those closer to the "coal face" I yearn to see the railway grow and prosper. The heritage railway movement seems to be going through tough times at the moment, whether it's rocketing costs, reducing passenger numbers, "management issues" (WSR, ELR and to read this thread, L &B) or "planning issues" (RVR, Bala Lake and L&B).
Given the phrase "we are where we are", I'm trying to understand the thinking of the trustees with their preferred option C, which I understand it is to extend from Killington Lane to Cricket Field Lane (plus possibly also in the opposite direction from Blackmoor to ??). I believe that the collective (and confusing) parts of the railway "family" own all of the trackbed between KL and CFL.
Reading the previously posted communication from the ENPA it seems obvious that opposition in Parracombe is not going away and and any new planning application is likely to still have Grampian conditions imposed. If the railway does indeed own all of the trackbed to CFL and can raise the sums required to build it, then a successful planning application for just KL to CFL is possible - even with Grampian conditions. The phrasing of the email suggests that the railway does have some support within the ENPA.
It may not be very far and obviously falls short of everyone's expectations, but is better than nothing. If that is indeed what the Trustees have in mind then, hard as it may be for some it is surely better to go with it rather than have an almighty bust up and waste more time?
Not allowing someone to stand as a trustee is another matter entirely, but we haven't heard the full story yet. I do hope, for the good of the railway, that there is a reasonable explanation.

 

" Legal professional privilege protects all communications between a professional legal adviser and his or her clients from being disclosed without the permission of the client."
so the Trust can release this information if it chooses. Given that members are querying its actions, and it has already referred to the advice itself, there doesn't seem to be any reason to withhold it.

 

That I understand, but if communications are ongoing and it relates to matters raised previously such as those in the ENPA notification then the counsel may advise continued privilege being as there looks to be a new application being negotiated.

 

I don't know either of the people to whom you are referring or the issues concerned. However it is up to the membership to decide whether or not they should be elected as Trustees and therefore take the issues to the Board. It is counter-productive to allow the Board only to elect "people like us" who think the same way : that way leads to stultification and eventual failure.
Boards always need "fresh blood" to ensure that they are taking a broad view and are flexible in their thinking.

 

Perhaps I have misunderstood but I thought the s.73 approach had been abandoned and, therefore, there was no further point in maintaining privilege.

 

Reading the ENPA letter I can imagine that some of the points raised would probably need to be dealt with in any pre-application consultations. As its been indicated that further applications could or will be made, in reality the withdrawal of the S73 and lapse of previous approval is only now part of a longer process, and as such perhaps continuation of privilege has been advised. Personally I would expect so.

 

It is not a matter of ‘privilege’ in respect of the s.73 application. It is a simple matter of not disclosing that which is private and confidential and may affect any subsequent dealings with any of the planning authorities and subsequent objectors. Any ‘without prejudice’ communications also. Any ‘without prejudice save as to costs’ stuff as well. Private and ‘off the record’ telephone calls.

One recent Appeal on s.73 matters might arguably strongly support the stance taken by the L&BR Trust.

 

The Railway is in the local Plan so ENPA have to be supportive.

Wirh regard to the nomination issue - we don't have all the facts - no doubt a statement will be issued in due course.

 

It would be nice to think so but don't hold you're breath, what i do find interesting is that there are 4 places available and now only 4 candidates to fill them, the only female excluded and one of those candidates is the managing director of the railway/ director of the CIC so a conflict of loyalty could arise

 

We don't know what was in the advice, and therefore what value there may or may not be in retaining privilege or, indeed, confidentiality.

In view of what was in the pack that hit my doormat yesterday, I tend towards the case for privilege being reasonable, and there being a strong case for the Trust to play its negotiating cards close to its chest. A read of this blog post on the tactics that won Dominion Voting Systems $787bn is instructive about the posture that people need to take when considering going legal.

The issue, clearly pointed to by posts by @Meatman, is about the level of trust that people hold in the Trustees, and the impact this has on confidence in the plans being put forward. But that also requires that some allow those trustees space in which to work privately.

 

I would agree with your first sentence, but must dispute the second.

One key objection to the Sec 73 application in particular, and the whole Phase IIA extension in general, is that there are residents in the Parracombe area who do not want PE to be a terminus, even if just a 'temporary' one (for however long it might take to acquire the land needed to go further south). Simply stopping short at CFL rather than the actual station site is unlikely to mollify them - it is still 'Parracombe'. The other key objection was the perceived issues with both pedestrian and vehicle traffic to/from the station site at PE if it were a terminus - and IMHO the CFL site is even worse in that respect.

Look at it from the objectors' point of view - they will feel that they have just 'seen off' the railway, only for the Trust's response to be (almost) immediately trying to do almost the same thing again. How will that go down well in terms of 'good community relations'?

Of courses if the Trust were to 'pull it off' and get approval, then great - but recent experience does not give me cause for much hope.... yet.

 

I understand that Anne Belsey submitted a valid nomination for election to the Trustee.

If this is true, then the Company Secretary - Tony Nicholson - is obliged to put her name forward in the ballot.

Her name is not on the ballot.

So, Mr Nicholson, why not?

 

What with all the other mistakes that have happen over the past three or four AGMs this has to be a resignation issues for a company secretary?