Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

@Sidmouth is clearly correct, but as @johnofwessex suggests, if we can't organise a legal AGM or follow our own M&As or Company Law, then any public funding bodies are (rightly) going to run a mile. This stuff isn't optional, it's a simple hygiene issue.

 

I don't see anyone attempting to "destroy" anything, @Sidmouth . If the Members choose to elect a new Board, that's in the knowledge that they need to build an inclusive team and use everyone's abilities. This is not exactly a hallmark of the current Board majority...!

This weekend is ultimately about whether the Members retain their democratic rights to choose their Board or give them to the existing Board in perpetuity.

I don't care who is on a Board that wanted this power for themselves - I'd vote against it regardless.

 

That’s neither an accurate nor a reasonable summary of the situation.

In the first place the three newer trustees did not seek election on the basis that they were going to disrupt the board, rather the disruption has occurred because the rest of the board didn’t like necessary questions being asked.
In the second place I don’t believe there is any expectation of an overnight change either in the make up of the board or its approach. Rather there is a desire to create opportunities for debate and deliberation that lead to a better governed organisation.
In the third place it is sometimes necessary and unavoidable to cause short term damage in order to create the opportunity for long term regrowth. It is pretty clear that the current direction of travel is not only not going to deliver a longer railway, but may not protect what exists already.

 

If the members reject the special resolution this weekend and over the next couple of years (unless something dramatic happens) the power of the board shifts then i think there will be a time of great internal auditing and unravelling just to find out how the railway actually stands, securing Woody Bay will be the utmost priority for whoever is in charge, change cant happen quickly but only once a sound footing is found and all of the skeletons have been brushed out of the cupboards will the railway be able to move forward, hopefully in more places than one, if the power base stays the same who knows what will happen, it will be interesting to see what the members do

 

It might be cloud cuckoo land as you suggest, but in the absence of grants in future how else do you suppose we can achieve more than 1 mile of railway, or do we accept what someone has suggested is the current demo railway ? Or do we wait for EA/YVT to do something ?

 

Well, it seems the LibDems are pushing for rejoining the EU and lottery funding is always an idea... Perhaps that mythical Fairy Godmother (or Godfather) might appear too. So, never say never. The trouble might be that many of we, ahem, senior gentlemen, would like to see the L&BR rebuilt in our lifetime... Sadly, I doubt this will be the case but given time and money, little-by-little, Exmoor Associates and the Yeo Valley Trust are acquiring trackbed and making progress. Let us hope that the current difficulties with the L&BR can be overcome: no-one lives forever!! In ten years time who knows what 'The Project' might have achieved!

 

The priority has to be safeguard what you have, and assist Exmoor Associates and the Yeo Valley Trust in acquiring the track bed, and doing what is needed to ensure it remains in their ownership, land clearance, preparatory works, so that its ready for the day when track can be re-laid, and to ensure the L&B has a sound future,
The future has to mean, those 6 trustees, and the secretary, must accept, they are in the way, or change their ways, and put the railway above their egos, if they can't do that, then the future of everything is in doubt, do they think its their way, or the highway, then, i can only see the trust being side lined, whist the other groups get on with what's important, Woody bay, will stagnate, and even possibly close, if the old station house inn goes under, it has the potential to take the trust with it, what then? that will be the foot note on how the future was lost.

 

Picking up on the point of OSHI, with many saying it's a liability and fears of it failing etc.

Currently I don't see it failing, the current management are doing exceptionally well as far as I can work out, and with the activities and fund raising for local causes especially in winter its building an invaluable community relationship and pr which you just cannot put a monetary value on, it's absolutely what we need, the railway helping the community and in many ways repairing relationships with that community.

So what's the plans for OSHI in all this?

I also note a few saying that it's "my way or the highway" for both sides, it's two views on how the railway should go forward which in reality are not that far apart.

I see calls for the six to go, which will inevitably cause a big change in the Trust, those incoming will then have to get up to speed on so many things, build new rapport with various authorities and organisations, go through pages and pages of planning documentation, so much time will be needed just to learn where we are, let alone any way forward and that's before we get to debates and trying to find a consensus as many ask for, a plan that everyone can get behind and agree on, a consensus I would say that is doomed to fail because many members won't be happy with the big changes that would have occurred and far too many opinions to even come close to finding any consensus.

It is absolutely right that new talent should be sought and a gradual refresh of any trust is desirable, but right now we are in danger of a complete overturn of the trust in one go which I think could cause a lot of damage in the long run.

The arguments of late, and the way in which the Trust now has been criticised from all angles, is setting a very very high bar with which any future trustees will now be compared, expectations will be extremely high. To err is to be human, we all make mistakes, and even the authorities recognise that, but if we are not careful there will be zero tolerance from the membership because of this period of fighting.

With so many obstacles, time needed and problems to solve with this railway and an ever increasing responsibility to look after what we have already obtained, I'm not sure it's wise to raise that expectation to such a level?

 

It's great that OSHI's doing so well, though I'm confused about whether it's part of the L&B family or not - the messages are very mixed.

My concern, and that of others, is that it was bought at too high a price and in the wrong way. I'd be delighted to be proved wrong. But let me just play the concerns. It was bought at a high price, and using Trust funds as a shareholder, topped up by an unsecured loan for a lower interest rate than the secured loan on the pub. There are then other questions about details of the purchase and the terms granted to the previous owners.

That means that:
1. A lot of cash is tied up in the pub, and
2. It will be hard to use that cash to pay for work on the railway.

When the trust have already acquired the ransom strip at Blackmoor Gate (the previous justification for buying the whole site), I'm wondering whether it's an asset or a liability.

 

Well, the previous owner drove a hard bargain as should really be expected for an old station and as you probably would do if in their position... A pub, with a running business, and a house, and trackbed, and a power gen plant, and with land for sheds etc etc.

The "ransom strip" wouldn't have been obtained without the purchase of the rest.

As with any property purchase, be it OSHI, WB, BF, Chelfham, or any section of the line, and I must say especially more towards Barnstaple and Pilton where further infrastructure will be needed , large amounts of cash will be tied up, it's impossible to run any railway without cash tied up in property.

The thing is to ensure that those properties are profitable and over the years makes a return to the trust and the railway as a whole, so they become a source of income in the long term.

Some parts of the line we can return profit immediately, other parts are longer term investments.

We can all have fears about all parts of the line, we all feared what would happen in the pandemic with Woody Bay at risk seeing what was happening to other venues.

Right now I have no fears about OSHI, Mark and the team there are doing fantastic.

I don't know about others, but I will be supporting it to the full when I go down to North Devon, and will be using the pub as much as I can and won't be asking for a discount that's offered either, I'll pay full rate as part of my input into making sure it's a success.

Fears, if we follow our fears, we would sell up all and walk off and go home.

 

Possibly, but there is also the saying that "fools rush in where angels fear to tread".

To be clear, I'm delighted that OSHI is doing well and I'd be glad to use it if around. What concerns me is that if the Trust has overpaid, that is money that can't be used for extensions. And unlike most of the others, the cash tied up in OSHI is not just tied up in trackbed.

 

The Blackmoor Company may be doing well, but it is saddled with 6% interest payments on the secured loan of £34,800 pa plus the need to make a profit of £25,000 pa to generate the cash to pay back the £250,000 loaned over 10 years by the Trust on which there is interest payable of 5% = £12,500 pa as it stands at the full amount. And that is before it pays a dividend to its £1m or so shareholders, including £253,000 held by the Trust. The secured loan is repayable at 6 months notice lent by no spring chicken (70 years old). Considering the lack of funds the Trust appears to have, that is a burden, and I would have thought, a worry, for members of the Trust trying to extend the railway to nowhere near Blackmoor. We shall be more enlightened when we see the accounts up to 31/12/2023 in a few weeks time.

Most of us would say that the perpetual 'mistakes' are more than human errors - they are intentional - to protect reputation and cover up the truth, such as the statement that the Trust's exposure to the Blackmoor Company is £350,000 when it is at least £1/2m.

The most serious accusation is the desperation to hold on to power and to remove anyone who queries what the majority has decided. To protect that situation they intend with these new proposed articles to have full control, and to make ineffectual of any opinions the nearly 3000 members might have on who should be a Trustee put forward. And you can bet your life they will put forward potential candidates at the AGM - see all the new Directors of the Blackmoor Company last November - one of them twice at 20 days interval. To say some of the membership is fighting is laughable, frankly, when the oppression is coming from one side and most of the rest of us are trying to defend the railway and get to the truth as to what is going on, such as what a liability the Blackmoor Company represents to the future of the railway. What is needed is the maintenance of fair play and trust that our leaders are being honest and open about the way they operate the Trust.

 

The success of OSHI is welcome.

The expenditure and method of financing it, not so much, but may work out fine in the end.

The rest of your post basically says “no plan is possible that will satisfy everyone, so we should have no plan”. What earlier this week was your first reaction to the idea of a shuttle at OSHI? You drew and shared a plan for a push pull car. Not likely to be everyone’s thing I am sure you’d agree, but without said plan how would you first find out what was viable? More detailed plans would follow and eventually materials bought. The rest of the railway is the same. Except that the extension to CFL is pretty obviously a questionable strategy, like you suggesting that the answer to the shuttle idea would be a regauged pacer.

Debate is essentially. More delegation by the board is essential. More collaboration and cooperation is essential. For those reasons it is imperative to prevent the change in the articles. If they go through the Land B trust is finished as a serious vehicle for achieving any further significant development.

 

My wife's application for membership submitted electronically on 25 February has produced a letter signed by Ian Cowling (but maybe a computer) of 20 March thanking her. He has pleasure in enclosing a membership card, our recent magazine and information on current projects (the latter not enclosed, but she had said she was only interested in the voting form).

There is no voting form or papers, so my guess is that this is an attempt at gerrymandering. At the least the membership card will entitle her to accompany me through the door to the meeting tomorrow. She just has to hope the completed photocopy of the ballot form will be accepted to count in the votes.

The derision these people display towards the members who support the aims and finances of this railway is unbelievable. I am speechless to say anything else.

 

I think some are completely missing the point of my post, but hey ho.

 

Perhaps you could explain the point then please?

 

We may be, but I don't see why (for example) a change in trustees need have anything at all to do with the validity of planning documentation unless we are to believe that a displaced trustee would then have to build a new rapport with the planners - it doesn't require someone to be a trustee to have those conversations.

That takes us back to your point about consensus - where I completely agree with you that it's really important. Which is why I find it so difficult to believe that trustees elected by the membership should be such a threat to the other trustees that it's necessary to exclude those trustees, or give the majority the decisive say in who can stand. That doesn't give consensus, it gives the illusion of consensus because no one can discuss, debate or disagree.

 

Complete consensus may never be possible of course, but harmonious disagreement and majority consensus requires a high degree of trust. Trust is built through transparency and accountability. The board has not been transparent and seeks to avoid being held to account. It is no wonder that there is little trust and as a result no harmony. That is entirely the fault of the majority of the board. They could have behaved less defensively and got an entirely different outcome. The disharmony existed before the three newer trustees came along.

 

Well, according to Ian Cowling's own e-mail to members, that method will be acceptable - but who knows?

It was rumoured recently that they intended to count proxy votes before the start of the meeting in order to save time. But what if the proxy does not turn up, so his votes aren't cast and therefore don't count anyway? Or what if the proxy is left to "vote as he sees fit", so his/her votes won't be known anyway until the actual vote takes place in the hall?

The Board have known for some while now that members are concerned about this problem, yet they have said NOTHING in public to put people's minds at rest - why not? Even if the Secretary has gone MIA surely a Trustee could do this - after all, they were quick enough to post on the website when they wanted to scare everyone abouta so-called take-over?