Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Not clever. Nor is continuing to try to drive out someone who has just been elected!

 

Can anyone post a map showing the route between Killington Lane and Cricket Field Lane for the less cartographically able of us?

 

Woody Bay is top right. Parracombe Halt is middle bottom. AIUI Cricket Field Lane is roughly where the purple fence icon is, just above Parracombe Halt.

 

Well that seems like a manageable amount of progress, I hope it comes to pass sooner rather than later.

 

The full, zoomable and labelled version of this map, created and maintained by Chris Lane, is available at:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewe...McXa_4B1kEucQ&ll=51.15622879263707,-3.8855782

 

Manageable for whom? For the supporters and L and B perhaps so, for the residents of Parracombe? Will it be more palatable for them or will they dig in still further? Does the scheme address their concerns about having any kind of terminus in the village?

 

Won't know without trying or until the public consultations. In my view while that process is ongoing it's best to let the planning and legal teams sort it out between themselves, it doesn't need interference from those not involved in that process.

 

Does the railway need to terminate at or near Parracombe? Can't the track be extended but not used (apart from perhaps special events?) so that at least it is there and in situ ready for when the necessary land is purchased towards Blackmoor gate?

 

We can only do what the ENPA allow us to. So for now the plans being negotiated are to Cricket Field Lane. ENPA have a bit more power than a normal local planning office and apart from land husbandry we can't do anything more than that or what is permitted as far as I know.

 

I am far from convinced this is a sensible strategy to pursue or that there has been anywhere near enough consideration of alternatives. This feels like the fences are being rushed.

 

That's in your opinion which of course you are entitled to. Thing is we can consider, debate, muse and cogitate until the cows come home, and still end up with what we are doing now, we have something to get on with, let's get on with it as far as I am concerned.

 

I am not against rapid action. Quite the reverse in fact, but it needs to be the right action. A little more planning will save a lot of time and money.

 

Pre-application discussions are part of the planning process and are essential in my opinion. This is what is happening. On the bright side, as the Trust already own this part of the land, and have some (at least) of the necessary funds available, it would appear to be a logical step to take.

 

I believe that there has been enough consideration of alternatives. The matter was put out to the membership for consultation and this option was supported.

 

I was at the AGM, and heard John Barton spoke on the consultation. He gave a clear view of why he sees Woody Bay to Blackmoor as key, and why the alternatives are in his view untenable. He was also very frank about the consultation being framed in such a way as to drive a particular answer. These were, as I understood him, fundamentally about the engineering.

It would not have passed muster as a public sector consultation, and it didn’t deal with key issues around people and process, but was very focused on civil engineering matters. It was also clearly, and admitted as such by both John Barton and Peter Miles, an evolving plan with much detail yet to be worked out.

I am pleased to hear that there is progress, but with a discomforting feeling that we’ve been led up the hill before, with key information not fairly represented.

I trust you will pardon me some doubts for now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Is that not largely correct though? Happy to be corrected by people better informed than me, but wouldn’t any other location (even if the wider L&B owns the trackbed already) mean starting from scratch with a totally new planning application and detailed engineering feasibility. And if not connecting to Woody Bay, a whole new operating base would be required.

Not to say that this is the correct option to take, but in terms of timescale that seems a reasonable point of view.

 

Personally I would have thought being as railways have huge amounts of civil engineering and hence cost, especially where £multi - million bridges etc are concerned, that it would be the primary consideration, and that's what John Barton is best at quantifying. I expect many members wouldn't really know where to start with civil engineering.

 

That wasn’t a consultation.

 

I work for a technology company. My experience is that the technology is rarely a problem, but people frequently are - even for stuff that otherwise seems simple.

With the history of matters L&B in and around Parracombe, I found the focus on civil engineering matters to have been somewhat lacking in what I would have needed for making decisions.