Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Whilst Great Western makes a valid point, the reality is that the "Greater L&B" has made significant progress over the past five years. More sections of trackbed have been purchased, all the main station sites have been purchased and are progressively being returned to their relevant historic appearance and potential use. Woody Bay is getting busier and more useable stock is being created.
Many people around the country and abroad are continuing to support the recreation of the L & B - both physically and financially.....despite the obvious problems, some of which are unfortunately self inflicted.

 

I agree it shouldn't be too easy for any developer to take away somebody else's land. The law says Compulsory Purchase'll be allowed in a TWAO only if the Secretary of State for Transport's convinced there's a compelling case in the public interest. In the case of the RVR the SoS was convinced there’s a compelling case, for the reasons given in the decision letter (see pages 23 and 24).
Rother Valley Railway (Bodiam to Robertsbridge Junction) Order decision letter (publishing.service.gov.uk)

Perhaps you're right (although in the long run I hope not) since it's entirely up to the promoter (L&B) to build a case compelling enough and, if not, it'll rightly be refused.

 

Presumably for much the same reasons as is happening in various places for HS2, new by-pass roads etc.

 

You really think a narrow gauge railway in Devon is as important nationally, or even locally as HS2 or a bypass....okay!

 

Autumn Gala Update: Visiting loco change. As reported on the L&B Events pages, https://www.lynton-rail.co.uk/events/view/2023-autumn-gala
Russell will no longer be available to visit for the Autumn Gala. In her place, Welsh Pony will now be visiting Woody Bay...

 

Wrong comparison - say RVR instead

The issue here, in order to justify compulsory purchase of land, is whether providing a heritage or tourist facility is as much in “the public interest” today as providing a transport service was when the L&B was originally authorised via an earlier statutory process. In our modern world I think it may be.

 

CFL isn't going to be a terminus - it's a railhead - or does that make it worse?

 

Anne herself has suggested that the railway's three chaplains (who officiated at the recent trustee election count) undertake the appeal, which would seem like a pragmatic way forward.

 

I think its important to understand that an appeal isn't normally raised just because you don't like the outcome. The result is usually final. An appeal can noramlly only be raised if there was a failing of process, evidence was missed or if new evidence has since come to light. I see no reason why a team of vicars cannot do this. Lay magistrates are widely accepted - they have no specialist legal knowledge but they do have experts they can call on - as do the vicars.

 

Included in with the latest L&B Magazine was a flyer encouraging members to donate to another organisation, towards the purchase of a certain Darjeeling loco - an organisation and asset much further removed from the L&BRT than EA or YVT. Should the Secretary, Chair, and any other individuals involved be castigated for that infraction?

 

You're trying to apply logic to it.

 

When is a terminus not a terminus?

More seriously, I have yet to hear anything as to what this terminus/turn-around/railhead at CFL will look like, nor have others to whom I have spoken. Yet surely the basic details would have been known when Option 'C' was proposed and/or when the Board wrote to ENPA for advice?

 

I believe the there are positives. I am afraid that I agree with about the public damage done by some of the comments on this thread.

 

Sadly I agree. Especially as the focus of some is on the comments rather than their substance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You can’t bury bad culture. Drag it out into the light. Deal with it. Move on. The solutions are all available, but the board has to take the right steps. That is the way to build a reputation on firm ground.

 

And of course that other person who circulated any amount of others email addresses yet hasn't had any action taken against him but then unlike Anne he didn't level any criticism at the trustees over their performance

 

Sadly, I think the only reason for wanting to build to CFL is so that the Trustees may claim that they are making progress in building forward! There is no reason to lay track to CFL unless the obstruction beyond Parracombe Halt can be overcome. More importantly, as @Tobbes has stated, and I hope I've got this right, Bridge 65 should be attempted before planning consent lapses.

 

I shared a file a few pages back of a page taken from the winter 2006/7 magazine about the proposed extension to CFL back then, this was put down by some of the trustees who still sit on the board today yet here they are, now clutching at straws to prove themselves but we are where we are and we cant change the past but my own view is that it is a big slap in the face to all of those loyal and generous supporters who wanted to see the L&B extend yet have sadly passed away over the last 14 or so years from when the extension to CFL could have been put into action

 

I suppose, if it had happened, that some of the sting might now have dissipated from the (rump of?) People of Parracombe (and their hangers-on) who oppose the railway passing through their little village?

 

We should at least be given an anticipated timescale