Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Just to be clear, I can understand why the ENPA continued with their position, the case law running in the background can at times be very unpredictable. They need to get things right otherwise it can cost them if things go to JR (Judicial Review for those wondering).

Just a bit of interesting info I found which shows how unpredictable case law is.

When the case was heard for Finney vs Welsh Ministers, which concerned S73s and objective changes, the findings meant that an estimated 20-30% of S73 applications were wiped off the table overnight. All those applications had objective changes in their applications. It was a complete 180° turnabout on the legal position of that matter.

This is why I said earlier on the planning stuff that, hey, it's all very complex with no guarantees, we don't need to fight over it, just find new ways forward.

I just wasn't very good in explaining

 

The Trust did know that the first s73 application was a dead duck - which is why it was changed; the point @H Cloutt is that we were not told why - which would have been honest and have increased trust and confidence. The Trust decided not to do so - and is reaping the whirlwind of its consistent policy of secrecy and refusal to be transparent with bad news as well as good.

First, the advice was about Planning Permission which has lapsed, so the current discussions will necessarily result in a new application. Therefore, the documents we are talking about are purely historical at this point - and so should be published so that we can all learn lessons from what went wrong. There is lots pf expertise in the Membership which can't be tapped by the refusal to have an open and inclusive lessons learned exercise, meaning that the Trust's defensiveness and refusal to engage with the Membership is actively hurting our chances of success in future.

Second, "legal privilege" isn't absolute nor does it stop us publishing our own legal advice at any time we want. The Trust simply chose - and continues to choose - not to do so, which given the failures in the s73 strategy, does nothing to increase confidence in the Trusts's current "trust us for one more heave, don't ask any questions, and send us your money" approach.

The word "accept" is doing a lot of work in this sentence, @DaveE . My reading of ENPA's position was that "accept" simply meant that the second s73 was not dead on arrival unlike the first and therefore could be considered - not that it was necessarily going to be approved (ie, that the proposal was "acceptable"). Of course, after wasting nearly all of the five years of hard-won approvals, this very late in the day for this.

ENPA appears to have been scrupulously fair and to have been as helpful as they could have been. It wasn't their fault that we ran out of time, and the public attacks on the Planners by the Trust shame us all (as well as being totally counterproductive).

Libelling the ENPA planners in our own publications suggests that the Trust was more interested in deflecting blame for the loss of the Planning Permission than to maintain strong relationships with the planners.

On the Cricket Field Lane (CFL) extension, I do not see any evidence that the reasons that the Grampian Conditions were imposed in 2018 would not be reimposed in a future planning application, nor do I detect any sort of groundswell of support in Parracombe for a terminus at the halt until such time as we can push south.

Far better, I would suggest, to accept that we're going to have to open to Blackmoor Gate in one jump, and go into the discussions on the basis of modernised Grampian Conditions being central to the approvals. This will mean a TWAO to get CP powers for the one section where the landowners have been clear that they won't sell under any other circumstances, and it also means we should expect the permissions to take about five years (two years for PP, three for the TWAO and associated public inquiry). I'd also make a separate application for the Bridge 65 reconstruction (which is by its nature less controversial than an operational railway) so that it can be completed and adopted by Devon Highways before the expiration of those permissions.

 

Toby, I respect your right to your opinion, mine might be different.

I will just point out that the first S73 application wasn't dead on arrival, it was validated and accepted by the ENPA in May after some significant pre-application consultations and public presentations, and for which a Planning Performance Agreement was put in place with the target determination of August. It wasn't until the challenge was presented in June that it became contentious.

My apologies, my choice of the word "acceptable" has perhaps caused confusion. It was acceptable in as much as the ENPA would enable it to be lodged as a valid application to determine....it wasn't refused at that stage.

 

You're all good @DaveE , and I think we agree on much - crucially, that we all want the railway extended.

My point is that the Trust's unwillingness to be open and learn from what went wrong, so that we can all get behind a deliverable plan for reinstatement, is something that we can fix now, and will be part of the healing that we all ferverntly desire.

 

Not that old chestnut again, please. Not all of us were able to get to the Members Forum, yet the Board have refused/ignored all requests for a precis/summary to be published for the membership. The apparent argument that "if you were that interested, then you should have come (to North Devon)" simply added insult to injury.

 

We all agree with we want to see some progress toward an extension. Hopefully we can learn from the way that the planning went.

With great respect - your lengthy critical posts about the planning process are in my view not contributing towards the 'healing' that we all want. The trustee election has taken place and the candidate you supported has been elected - so we need to get behind the efforts to make progress.

 

If you look at all the time wasting and mistakes of the last 5 years the cynic could suggest everything has been perfectly engineered to fail from the start, go through the process, keep the cash coming in, build up the trainset but ultimately say everything was against us from the start, we are sorry but this is what we will do now, it will take X amount of years by which time we will be too old to carry on and we will pass the mess we made on to someone else to try and deal with and this has been said many times by many people

 

Yes, but.....how do we know what the right efforts to support will be in the future until we have established (a) what went wrong and how and (b) what not to attempt again (at least not for a long time)?

 

And at the last members forum John Barton's reply to a members question was that 'things were serious. very serious' so he knew then way more than he was letting on, he obviously knew of the parks decision back in August because he was one of the trustees cc'd in the park email

 

I’m not convinced. Whether as a cynic or otherwise, can you explain why anyone in the Trust would’ve wanted to engineer it to fail ?

 

Let’s hope they stay elected - and are not removed from office - and the focus can stay on progress and not recrimination.

 

because of the desire to stay in control and if the railway expands it would need more experienced people to oversee its growth and manage it

 

The new board need time and space to form, and to find ways through previous tensions. That will require magnanimity amongst all involved, and I agree will need privacy to be enabled.

But I also agree with @Tobbes that part of their success or failure will be in how they respond to and communicate challenges in what happens in future. In my professional life, the watchword is “no surprises”. That means that when something comes up, it is communicated honestly and stakeholders enabled to respond appropriately. Regardless of whys and wherefores, that didn’t happen between July and February, hence both increasing nervousness and sense of something being up, and the shock when the news did come out.

I hope never to see similar miscommunications in future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

This. It would be great now if all do back off, we have the results, they need space, and we need to knuckle down to other matters. That being, making sure those who are working tirelessly at Woody Bay, Blackmoor and also other locations, are getting our greatest support and that everyone appreciates what they are doing.

Stuart has posted some excellent info on Facebook in the past few days of the achievements of those at Woody Bay, let's see some fantastic support for all those volunteers and indeed the staff who make those places the successes they are and need to continue to be.

 

I agree. But that also requires the utmost good faith from all to make this new dispensation work.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Indeed @DaveE - I can't wait to stop talking about governance and instead focus on the extension and operation of the line. Can't come soon enough.

@35B is exactly right - and the ending of all of the nonsense against Anne would be a very sensible first step.

 

@H Cloutt - with the greatest respect, are you objecting to the length or the criticism?

If the length, I can only say that the issues are complex and take space; if you object to the criticism, I can only say that I would be delighted to be celebrating success. But when faced with strategic failure on this scale, it is imperative to conduct a detailed analysis of what went wrong and why, to ensure that we don't repeat the mistakes in future.

 

I am not sure whether this forum is the correct place to be discussing this. I am aware of your views on the issues. Now that the trustee elections are completed and the candidate(s) you said you would support have been elected, I think that we should allow them to address the issues which you raised.

 

Actually, @H Cloutt we agree - this isn't the ideal place for such a forensic inquiry to determine how we do better. The problem is, it is the because it is, with Exmoor NG, the only one(s). And this interface is easier to follow than Exmoor NG, so until there is an inclusive process, I'm fear we're doomed to thrash it out here.

 

We certainly should not expect to be told details of the board's discussions at its next meeting, but we might reasonably expect to be told when that meeting will take place, and soon after that meeting whether or not the hatchet has been buried. If Anne's mistreatment continues that must not be ignored.