Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I’m afraid that doesn’t work for me. I understand the points and am sympathetic to them, but it reads as though the policy was to run down the clock and then push for S73 changes - which I don’t think is your intent.

The conditions were imposed in 2018, the board maintained their “no compulsory purchase” line after withdrawal of the application in 2023.

The bit I simply can’t see is where they had a plan to get past irreconcilable opposition given the constraints of the planning system and insufficient resources to make opponents offers they couldn’t refuse on their land.

As I was reminded in a meeting yesterday, “hope is not a strategy”.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

We will never know what actually happened - with different accounts. What you think depends on your perception. But I agree the existing board members need to welcome any new colleagues. It will be interesting to see who stands and what they say in their personal statements.

 

I agree entirely and it is reassuring to know that Mike W (hopefully) will remain on the Board, even if perhaps as "the lone voice of reason" until after the AGM. It indicates also IMHO his ability to separate the - possibly conflicting - needs of his (temporary) role as Chairman from his personal views as (a) a Trustee and (b) a Trust member.

 

It also depends to a degree on who one has spoken to, and one's faith in those different accounts. On which note, and interestingly, I have never heard the account of the summer meeting at which Ian Cowling is asserted to have refused to work with Anne either rebutted or denied.

However, I completely agree that the personal statements will be a critical part of assessing candidates when, in reality, most will not be known personally to most of the electorate.

 

I tend to believe that the truth about what happened between the trustees is somewhere in the middle; neither side was exactly innocent.

 

Perhaps he might be a future Chairman himself, He sounds like the sort of person who can build bridges and unite people, that is going to be needed once the Present Chair, and his enablers have gone.

 

He is only 1 year into his term, and I have heard no suggestion that he might be considering stepping down.

Having spoken to him in the interval at the EGM between discussion and votes, I can only reiterate my praise for his chairing of motions 1 and 2 - especially on the very difficult question of the vexatiousness of those motions. There was not a consensus in the room that they were (as I personally firmly believe them to be) illegitimate under the Companies Act, and we lacked anyone with the formal competence to adjudicate on that. In those circumstances, I believe he made the correct call.

I also believe, equally strongly, that those who advanced them and/or permitted them to be brought forward are worthy of censure for that act alone. Speaking entirely personally, when considering my votes in the Trustee election in this and subsequent years, I will absolutely be considering the acts of the six signatories in my choice of candidates as part of their past performance. That will be on the basis that anyone who puts their name to a motion like that which is so utterly bereft of evidence, or permits it to go forward, can be presumed to be unfit for office themselves through their choice to go for exclusion over inclusion.

 

Just a thought, but isn’t it the case that at least one if not two of the biggest donors to the KESR previously underwrote the building of the WHR? I feel that the L and B has all the necessary romance and practical possibilities to attract serious backing, but does need to focus on building bridges externally.

 

I was very impressed with the way that Mike handled himself considering how he was put on the spot, hopefully a future chairman if he too doesn't somehow get removed, I know of two definite but possibly four nominees willing to stand and from what small amount I know of them three already have my vote on reputation alone, I will openly admit that I would not vote for any re-standing trustees, the board has stagnated already and we desperately need new faces with open minds to move this project on in a sensible way, now is very much the time for change

 

From what I can gather, a lot of members/donors/supporters are not happy with the board. There’s an informal poll on one of the facebook groups.

 

I'm not actually sure, quite possibly. The WHR was a bit of a unique situation in as much as the Ffestioniog was already a sound base to build from and the North Welsh NG Railways have had a huge following for many many decades with Bala, Dinorwic, Snowdon, Ffestiniog, Fairbourne, Talyllyn, VoR and so on.

In many ways it's why I think we immediately need now to stop the arguing, we need to be particularly careful of what is displayed in the public domain, we need to promote the heck out of Woody Bay and the success it is, and also promote the heck out of the other parts of the railway which we want to develop and bring in to the whole.

Being as positive as we can be, shouting loudly, we may then attract the attention of the big hitters.

It's those big hitters that enabled the aspirations of these other places to actually happen, to enable grand plans to be made, at the moment the animosity will be keeping anyone likely to get involved well way.

 

250 words isn’t much to set out a position that helps you differentiate, in my view.

In another society, where I have had candidates that I am not personally familiar with (which is likely to be the default position for most non-working members) then one thing I look at is who has proposed / seconded a given candidate. It’s not everything, but is another useful indicator.

Tom

 

I believe that the Trust are using their power to set bylaws to impose a 150 word restriction on candidates.

I agree with you on the problems of word limits, and would personally like to see them supplemented with CVs that can be reviewed online but aren't part of the mailshot.

The real issue, which applies to every society I've ever belonged to, is that "remote" members are fundamentally disempowered by not knowing the individuals, and how they actually perform in and around the organisation. This is qualitative information that is an essential part of discerning the difference between otherwise very similar profiles. The only time that I've seen this bypassed was in the last set of elections for General Synod (held during Covid restrictions), when hustings were held online as a Zoom call, and then the recording made available. The effectiveness was diluted by limited participation (and, yes, I did consider whether candidates attended when voting), but made the choices more apparent than if I'd just been presented with the papers.

 

Quite a bit of bias in that poll. And the option of "Frustrated" is not defined. I can say I am frustrated, but not necessarily at any individual trustee, just the overall situation and circumstances that have led us to this point. One person's frustration may be different to anothers.

Also, it's prone to selection bias, it's only any good in judging the sentiments in that particular group which may be weighted towards those who are not happy with the railway.

The only way you would get a true understanding is by a properly constructed poll, checked for the various bias pitfalls, and presented to the whole membership, and public as well if seeking visitor satisfaction in a marketing research exercise.

 

And the way that you achieve that external presence is…..get the foundations right! Build internal consensus. Behave with integrity. Share appropriate information freely and openly welcome ideas and input.

 

I don't do Facebook, so haven't seen the poll, don't know what it's reporting, or have a feel for the group it encompasses.

However, I would be reluctant to dismiss any such poll so readily. If such a poll measures a level of frustration, even within the constraints you've mentioned, that is a strong indication that something is awry. The reality is that (a) someone has been motivated to create that poll and (b) it has generated the response that it has. That has to be a signal worth attention, even if it is only part of the picture.

I would also take care to distinguish between measurement of what the Trust is doing, and market research. No one is disputing that the L&B CIC, operating just under a mile of track at Woody Bay, is delivering an excellent service to the public. I would never hesitate to give it 5 stars on TripAdvisor.

This is about the parent organisation, the L&BRT, which owns the CIC and has a much broader set of purposes. If it is to achieve it's ambitions, it will need to ask outsiders for money. That's the public and grant givers. Some of them will give because "it's a good thing". But many will look at the organisation and what it's achieved. They will ask questions that seem intrusive. They will insist on formal submissions and sight of papers - certainly accounts, but also potentially meeting minutes. And they will be very cautious indeed with their money if they smell anything that might be dodgy.

So matters like those at the EGM, or concerns like those raised about the manner of the purchase of OSI, will matter, because those the Trust needs to impress will ask questions that will expose them. Which means that @21B is absolutely right to say:

How do I know? Because I am involved with a charity that gives grants, and asks precisely those sort of questions. And I have been on the other side of the fence seeking grants for projects, and seeing what grant givers (especially public sector ones) ask.

 

Because the planning drawings contained serious errors. They had not been checked. As a result a significant delay was incurred paying another consultant to sort them out, & to reapply for planning.

This meant that the original planning could not be implemented and the drawings could not be used for a TWAO.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

And vice versa, which is exactly what did not happen.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

Was that why they didn't go for TWAO powers, or was that "only" a question of the quality of the application?

 

It could not be progressed without accurate information. Awarding legal powers is rightly taken very seriously. Furthermore the parallel fund raising was not expedited. As a result the TWAO worksteam was paused.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk