Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I agree with all of this, @35B .

The law on Grampian Conditions did change in 2018, and some people here seem to have convinced themselves that this meant that Grampian Conditions can't be imposed so all is well.

This is narrowly true but effectively irrelevant as the planning authority will simply refuse permission if the conditions are rejected by the applicant. As I read it, nothing has substantively changed, though the process differs.

Based on their rationale of avoiding a partially built railway or a termunis in the Park, I fully expect ENPA to insist on basically-identical permissions for Phase IIA, including Grampian Conditions, and in my view we should be planning on that basis.

 

I think I am right in that it will not matter wherever we want to extend the railway in the National Park, Grampian Condition will still apply. But it will be down to us that we have taken note of them and we can prove that we can comply with them for however short an extension may be.

But before anything else can happen we need to get our join heads around the one thing that we as a group must understand and that is the finance question.

Until we understand that we cannot continue to rely on membership donations and we need to look for different funding options. We can dream until the North Devon Cows come home but nothing is going to happens.

 

I think the s.73 application was well worth a try.

It was the only way round an impasse. I can imagine “off the record” conversations that might have taken place quite early on between the planning authority and the L&BR Trustees/Board. Certainly my own legal experience of planning authorities was of this ilk. Conversely, I was also involved somewhat in certain applicants throwing everything at the planning authority to get the outcome they wanted to make ‘big money’ on a development. Appeals etc.

The situation here is rather the reverse - one landowner who probably could never by any stretch of the imagination be persuaded by whatever means to agree has significant financial resources to pay for Solicitors and Counsel’s Opinion that scuppered the s.73 application.

I don’t myself consider that Counsel’s Opinion to be the last say on the matter. Section 73 is ‘fluid’, apt to very different interpretations. There has not to my knowledge been a s.73 application that has been adjudicated upon in respect of extending a narrow gauge railway in a national park. There is no judicial interpretation of s.73 to say that such an application in this case should not have been approved.

I think the Trustees were right to do what they did.

 

Probably, unless we can come up with Donors C, D and probably E to help shorten the time. Meanwhile as much trackbed as can be bought should be bought...

 

Is it worth dropping an update on ground conditions on the FB Lynton and Barnstaple Railway group? I don't mind putting an update there using your report from here if you wish.

 

No, that's not what's been said. What's been said is they cannot be imposed so easily. The applicant must be notified of any Grampian Conditions that are proposed, the applicant can then choose to a) accept, b) not accept and face refusal, or c) enter negotiations on the conditions to be reworded or demonstrate if they are unreasonable. Before often authorities were not pre-notifying the details, and applicants often didn't know what the conditions were until the day of determination.

 

Bear in mind it wasn’t the objectors opinion that was dangerous, but the opinion that ENPA procured which aligned with that of the objectors.

From that point, the application was in grave trouble. Litigating for a resolution would have been extortionately expensive as well as pointless because of the time limits.

The problem is not that the Trust tried to use the S73 process (though there are serious questions about how they approached it), but in the portrayal of optimism once that opinion was received.

That portrait was used to fundraise (by the way, raising questions about the reuse of funds given the failure of the application), and subsequent information shared publicly has reflected a disbelief that anyone could reasonably not agree - evident in both the Trust’s publications and the approach to “Option C”.

Reflection and consideration seem surprisingly and disappointingly absent.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Which is fair. The uncomfortable question is then to ask which of the 2018 conditions might be negotiable in future, and whether planning consent for a project in parts would be considered given what ENPA felt necessary back in 2018.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

This feels like angels dancing on the head of a pin, @DaveE - the question that needs answering is less about process, than about the likely outcome.

Where is the evidence - and not asertion / hope / "trust us' - that ENPA and the local community is now ready to accept a terminus for however long at CFL or at Parracombe?

Having read the objections to the s73 application, I cannot see any groundswell of support for a Parracombe-area terminus, and therefore I fully expect Grampian Conditions in accourfance with all six tests to be imposed were we to successfully apply for planning permission again.

Consequently, we should be planning on that basis.

 

Because any new application should be determined under it's own merits, and within the new rules, it's difficult to give any definite answer to whether GC's will be imposed or not, or what they may or may not be. That's why it's best now to leave it to the legal and planning teams to deal with and find the probability of outcomes.

 

When I sent in my comments to John Barton about 'Option C', one of the points that I made was that - in essence - I saw little or no difference between an application for KL-CFL from that for KL-PE. Apart from the slight difference in location of the terminus, what - if anything - was there to mitigate/nullify the key objections that (a) it would be a terminus rather than a through station, (b) regardless of whatever mitigations the Trust might propose, with human nature (and railway enthusiasts!) being as they are people will still try to get there by foot or car, and (c) no clear and acceptable evidence as to how long it would remain as a 'temporary' terminus. As yet I've seen/heard nothing beyond the apparent "don't worry, we'll have better luck next time" attitude behind the determination to 'try again' - IMHO far too soon after the recent debacle. Even without Grampian Conditions the ENPA may still decide to turn down any applications which do not solve the key objections outlined above.

 

The problem, @DaveE is that the Trustees (with the honourable exception of Chris Duffell) have, through their actions and inactions, burned through the necessary basis of trust. They have not played by their own rules (Anne Belsey), libelled someone they don't like (Anne Belsey again), they are pushing ahead with an "AGM" that isn't legal and will be a nullity despite admitting that it was improperly served, and their "consultation" was so slanted as to be meaningless.

And you wonder why there is a lack of trust?

In refusing to even countenance a period of engagement and reflection to learn lessons from the failure of the last five years as Chris Duffell and @35B have eloquently suggested, the Trustees are providing no basis for optimism that next time will be any different to last time.

And that shouldn't be good enough for any of us, given the stakes.

 

Whether you sit and cogitate on what's gone past or not, it won't make any difference to how any planning application may be determined from this point forward in light of law changes since 2018, which I believe is what we were talking about.

 

On the contrary, @DaveE , how we approach the future planning application will absolutely require us to learn the lessons from the current situation.

And we need to come back to the key point: will ENPA and the people of Parracombe suddenly decide that a terminus short of Blackmoor Gate is acceptable?

If the Trust thinks that the mood has changed that significantly in less than 12 months (look at the objections to the s73 application), what evidence do they have for this?

 

My feeling is that, given recent events over the last 12 months, the ENPA - and local objectors - will be even less convinced than before of the ability of the L&BR to minimise the length of time that CFL/PE will be a 'temporary' terminus. After all, if it can't even organise a simple process like an AGM efficiently after 20-odd years of practice.....

 

A gentle query: whatever happened to 'Isaac'? I thought she was a great little engine.

 

https://www.lynton-rail.org.uk/page/locomotives

 

Thanks Ian. Such a pity. Motive power isn't a current L&BR strong point. (And I'm not going to be drawn further here...)

 

im pretty sure she went to the Statfold Barn Railway, another cock-up by the railway AIUI or more so the attitude of a trustee so i have heard

 

RVR need the TWAO to operate the railway as well as to construct it (including the compulsory purchase powers) and it is required for all 3 of the level crossings of highways. Any historic operating powers lapsed when the the old railway was dismantled and the land sold.

As I understand it Devon County Council have agreed to adopt Bridge 65 at Killington Lane as a highway structure, making them responsible for future maintenance after it is completed. However I don't understand why a TWAO would not also be required - that's not a matter for the Council to decide.