Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Is public education the Trust's only charitable purpose? If so, that is seriously inconsistent with both the original purpose for its foundation and most of its members' wishes.

 

I was referring to Collin's suggestion of employing a 'professional' secretary, finance director and CEO. Nothing to do with the current advertised position.

 

I went back and checked and indeed the charitable objects were enlarged somewhat in 2007 to emphasize the acquisition and preservation of assets, artefacts etc. but still with the overriding purpose of public education. The inconsistency you highlight is far from unusual. Until recently acceptable charitable purposes were far narrower than is now the case. Preservation or recreation of a heritage railway was not one of them. To gain charitable status and the tax and fundraising advantages it affords heritage railways had to shoe horn their purposes within the allowable categories and public education was the nearest fit. Most members of what typically started out as preservation societies didn't understand the fundamental shift in governance and Trustee responsibilities that the change involved. The rank and file assumed the raison d'etre of the organisation continued to be preservation /recreation/operation of the railway whilst those responsible for running a charity are accountable for a somewhat different public benefit outcome.

 

They can though I believe go hand in hand?
The primary income for most heritage railways for day to day operation I should imagine is the high season visitors, tourists and general public. Most heritage attractions are very much educational venues where they can experience a bygone age.
The enthusiasts and perhaps members of any organisation tend to look for extensions, recreation and so on which does cost an awful lot of money.
It is very right that what is existing must be able to pay for itself in regard to maintenance, operation costs and so on, and in ma y ways an extension must be seen as something that is worked towards as larger grants and donations allow.
It's almost like an inadvertent automatic check to lessen the risk of over stretching?

 

Looking at the M&AoA, I note:-
Clause 3(2) of the 'Objects' states: "... To advance the education of the public in the history sociology and technology of narrow-gauge railways and railways in general by the acquisition, restoration, preservation, creation and exhibition of railway locomotives, carriages, rolling stock, equipment, artefacts, documents and records, together with any appropriate land, buildings and structures in particular but not exclusively those of the former Lynton & Barnstaple Railway........

Clause 4 states: "In furtherance of the Objects but not otherwise the Charity may exercise the following powers:
(1) To study, compile records on and acquire, build, restore, reinstate, rebuild, create, reconstruct, preserve and maintain railway lines, trackbed, locomotives, rolling stock and other items of railway interest, and to provide training and instruction in such activities and in particular but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing those associated with the former Lynton & Barnstaple Railway.....

I'm not sure how/why the Trust is supposed to do those bits which I have highlighted, yet just leave them all static and not actually operate a working railway?

Furthermore Clause 23 states: " To aid and co-operate with any charitable association, society or corporation having amongst its objects similar objects to those which are included within the objects of the Trust and to liaise and co-operate with any company operating the Lynton & Barnstaple Railway or any part thereof....

So the Trust, as I read it, can 'co-operate' with (say) the L&BR CIC and/or EA/YVT to actually operate a restored L&BR and that would be quite in order with its Charitable Objects, even if perhaps the Trust itself may not have an 'Object' to operate the railway itself. Yet it would seem quite valid for the Trust to do everything necessary to acquire the track-bed, lay the track, rebuild locomotives and rolling stock etc, but then leave it the CIC to do the actual operating. But is that not roughly what happens already and is planned for the future, so I'm not quite sure how extending the existing line can be viewed as outside the scope of its Objects?

 

Cricket Field Lane - Trackbed just short of Parracombe Halt heading from Killington Lane. The first piece of Trackbed obtained by the then L&BR Association

 

No, more than that, it is surely their duty to explain to the members why it is not possible to act on it?

 

Defining the L&BRT's purpose as "public education" is misleadingly over-simplistic. Referring to the Charities Commission, let me quote what they actually say:

It is widely understood, by the membership at large and as embedded in local planning policy, that the expression of this is intended to be the restoration of the railway to as near as possible the full extent of the line.

I would have no issue in principle with what @Lineisclear writes if there were a tension between a group of trustees seeking to slow down extension on grounds of stability, and proposing a lesser project instead as a way of delivering on the above objectives. Were that to arise, any discussion would need to relate to the facts at that time, and the alternatives under discussion.

However, that is not the situation. The issues of governance are all about how an extension would be pursued, not whether it is desirable to pursue an extension in view of the wider understanding of the charitable objects of the Trust. Indeed, one of the key messages from the incumbent trustees at the last AGM was about their commitment to extending the railway.

 

Indeed. And, to reiterate my previous post, such a belief would be dramatically at variance with all their public pronouncements to date.

 

I would agree with that the charity is registered as a company and is also subject to company law.

 

Cricket Field Lane

 

My understanding of the role of the Trust is to educate the public and raise the funds required to rebuild the railway purley and simple. It does not have a role in either the rebuilding itself or the operation of the railway, that is done by the CIC or it should be.

 

HLF, at least, seems to regard "Education" ibn the heritage sense, to include "enjoyment of heritage". Providing the proposed extension includes more varied and pleasing scenic views then I think that it is probably fulfilling the "Education" mandate. In terms of business cases I think I would argue the present line represents a one-off (been there, seen it, done it) experience for the average visitor with little incentive for them to return. It needs to extend and develop.

 

In which case, why has/is the Trust buying track-bed rather than simply giving the money to the CIC to do that? The immediate answer of course is that it is important for the Trust - as a charity - to own the assets rather than the CIC (hence the issue about the ownership of Chelfham). But it does illustrate that the 'split' is not as simple as some might suggest.

 

I very much agree with you and certainly there's a risk of overstretching. Perhaps the question should be, assuming the business plan numbers stack up,

I'd agree that if extending the line enhances the Trust's ability to deliver public education then that's a sound reason for doing it. The original point was that the Trustees need to decide whether or not to extend on that basis and not because it's what the members might want. In any event they would still have to make a realistic cost /benefit assessment before committing funds to the project.

 

Fair comments, but that doesn't alter the fact that the Trustees are absolutely committed to extension, including supporting the connected transaction to purchase the Old Station House Inn at Blackmoor Gate.

 

I am not at all sure that this is a situation where the membership is pressing the trustees for extension as @Lineisclear characterises it. Once more the dastardly members who don’t understand the trustees. If such a misunderstanding exists then the fault lies with the trustees not the members. Communication.

To date the purpose stated of the trust has been always been the recreation of the line. If there are members who are impatient for this to happen then I think that is understandable based on what has been promised.

i would very much like to have the feeling that the trust has stopped and looked at how it is going to deliver this project. I would actually welcome them saying “we think that we have to go slower and we need a strategy to match resources and progress and to take all stakeholders with us”. This is not the casr

 

Just short of 36 chains, or 800 yards, between Bridge 65 at Killington Lane and Cricket Field Lane. Viz somewhat less than 1/2 a mile.

 

Looks pretty do-able then