Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

...which would be a flagrant breach of their fiduciary duties if true.

 

I think you misunderstand the point I was making. Having the ambition and intent to extend is fine but it has to be tempered by financial reality which, in the case of a charity, has to be the paramout concern for any board of trustees. The current board is criticised for its lack of achievement in extending the line but if that put the Woody Bay operation at risk it would be excusable. There seems to be the intent to extend to Blackmoor Gate but if the costs of overcoming the land ownership blockage ( if that's possible) would undermine the future viability of the limited Woody Bay operations surely any board of trustees should prioritise preserving those?

 

It would be tenable to say “in the late 2010s we intended to extend the line, but the economic realities of the post-Covid era mean we no longer think that is financially viable, and we must instead ensure we safeguard the economic future of what we have at Woody Bay”. But that line of reasoning is shot to pieces by recent investment in a pub miles from the current operation - that only makes sense if it was acquired with an extension being seen as the charity’s core strategic objective.

You can’t have it both ways: you appear to be trying to defend their actions on the basis that they are doing the complete opposite of what you suggest! You are saying, in effect, “it is prudent not to extend; the current board have not extended; ergo they are being prudent” while ignoring the fact that their failure to extend is not by design and prudence, but by their failure to see their own stated plans through to completion.

Tom

 

No. The current board is criticised for its lack of achievement in delivering what they have promised. They have failed on their own terms. Whether extension is for the best/in line with the charitable objectives is not relevant. They said they would do a thing. They failed to do the thing. You can't then retcon the whole idea and say it was never a good idea to extend in the first place. The trustees could at a push, but they haven't.

 

Seriously, every post you put on here is like sucking air out of the room.
You never seem enthused or encouraging about anything, it's always doom, gloom and legal obstacles that you see to stop things happening.
Do you ever look at it the other way around and say "how can we overcome any potential legal issues"?
Maybe you'd be happy if we all just stopped running railways, sat at home and just looked at pictures of how it used to be, and put the locos and rolling stock in a museum somewhere or scrap them as they're just liabilities.
Honestly, your posts are draining.

 

It's more than that, though. If the board were acting on the basis of the policy @Lineisclear suggests (and, for the avoidance of doubt, I am absolutely convinced that they are not), the way that they are seeking funds for the L&BRT would be a fraud upon donors. It would amount to an attempt to persuade individuals to donate to a charity where that charity had no intent of using the funds for the stated purpose. It does not require a lawyer to understand just how defamatory such an allegation would be if it were being made.

To reiterate. This L&BRT member would, with regret and following robust challenge, accept a decision by the board to say "no more extensions - we can only sustain what we have". Much as he wants the railway to extend, and believes that to be both possible and desirable, he recognises that it may not be feasible. At no time has he seen any suggestion that any such option is even being considered, or that the L&BRT board consider that the railway needs to remain at it's current extent. He is instead being told by the board that extension is both possible and desirable, as they commit significant resources to extending the railway.

 

I put much of the current problems down to the trustees not having the right people who can point the way forward, and at the same time seeing any outside influence including new trustees as a threat to their power base, If you are serious about extending, you need people on board who are experts at planning, and at the various surveys that will need to be done, the board have to be prepared to allow these people to do the work, not view it as someone else is stealing my power, Like it or not, professionals will at some stage have to come on board, that's the only way, and the board will have to accept that, or make way, either by volunteering to step down, or being made too, My Advise is that change needs to be done, and the trust needs to know how it stands financially, once you know, then you can plan, one trustee needs to liase with EA and the other groups buying track bed, that's their main job, coordinating working parties on the track bed, clearing, repairing, so it becomes a joined up process, another should have fund raising , and working with local grant giving agencies, working alongside EA when grants are needed to help purchase land, and keeping a watching brief on OSHI, how its performing, reporting back to the trustees, another who works with the legal side, drawing up agreements, and surveys, working with contractors to ensure planning is done correctly, and trust funds used correctly, the secretary, obviously needs to report to these trustees, each trustee should have a responsibility for how the trust operates, to the members and if the CIC, Is owned by the trust, again someone will need to be responsible for ensuring its running efficiently, not wasting money, and that there is a clear, path, to future plans, any extension needs to have the proper planning, and funding in place, the legal side done and approoved, I believe it can be done, its not going to be easy, but it can't be done with things as they are,

 

The two positions are not inconsistent. I have no doubt there is a desire and intention to extend when that can be done without putting the existing operation at risk. With that long term aim in mind it's prudent to acquire a strategic asset when the opportunity arises. That keeps open the opportunity to extend but the decision as to when to do so still has to be based on prudent financial assessment.

 

I didn't see those - I got lost at the mention of a tunnel under the road near the hospital. We can do without wasting our time in realms of fantasy, and concentrate on what might realistically be achievable, in terms of permissions, acquisition of land and practicality. Now, when they have reinstated the Ilfracombe line, that's a different kettle of fish !

 

I think that's unfair to the board. I have many criticisms of them, and think that they are in desperate need of significant change for the L&B dream to be realised. However, these are also the people who managed to pilot the planning application through ENPA and NDC, and who can justifiably claim much of the credit for the ongoing success of what's at Woody Bay.

However, they also - like us all - have their limits. Some have been in post a very long time, none are spring chickens, and they have their blind spots. There needs to be openness to new ideas, and different ways of working to achieve the ends. That requires a level of humility, to recognise that the best efforts were not enough, and that it is right and necessary to seek assistance in finding a new way forward.

All of this needs to be done in awareness that the L&B is not a large organisation, and that to be successful, at least some trustees will also need to be doers and managers. But that needs to be done in the spirit of seeking to find successors, and handing the reins to those successors, not hoarding power.

 

You continue to miss the point - there is not a conversation about "without putting the existing operation at risk", and to assert that misses the nature of what is happening at the L&B.

The Old Station Inn demonstrates this in spades - in a strategic location, but at a cost that ties up a vast amount of working capital (did I mention that there is ~£500k of Trust money invested in a commercial enterprise?) which is unavailable for other purposes (including extension) and is at risk (shares and unsecured loans) should anything happen to the pub, when the Trust has already purchased in it's own right the ransom strip of land required to put the railway through.

It is only "prudent" of the board not to extend if they make considered decisions not to. The same lack of extension takes a different complexion if time, effort and money are going into the extension. This is not the NYMR making a strategic decision that Pickering will remain the southern terminus, and building it's plans on that reality, but akin a parallel universe in which it had stated the intent to extend to Malton, was busy buying land between Pickering and the Showground, but was blocked by refusal to permit a level crossing over the A170 and making no plans to address that obstruction.

 

I stand to be corrected by those directly involved but my understanding of the Trust's purchase of the ransom strip of land at BG would not have been possible without the OSHI transaction going ahead?

 

That is unclear, but may well be true. However, given the sums of money involved, it's far from clear why the purchase price of OSI needed to be so high, or required the Trust to retain a business and land that aren't necessary for the reinstated railway to operate. It is not as though running a pub/restaurant is part of the Trust's charitable purposes, or clear how the return on that investment represents value for money.

 

True that running a pub is not part of the charitable purposes but the Trusteees do have some power to make investments for the benefit the charity.

 

They do. Six figure sums as a combination of shares and unsecured loans are, however, an interesting interpretation of "benefit of the charity". Especially when, in liquidation, both would rank below the loan from a CIC director secured on that business, and the unsecured loan is at a lower rate than the aforementioned secured loan.

I have yet to see anyone provide a convincing rebuttal of the analysis provided by @Tobbes of these financial structures.

 

So you would sell it? I don't think that would go down well with a huge amount of members and people who visit etc.

It could be said that the purchase was within the objects...

Item 4 (8) to preserve and or display historic structures, buildings, artifacts, relics and documents relating to the railway and railways in general.

The building is a historic structure of the railway, a former station. Many may say that if that is the case then the pub needs to go and for it to be returned to its former use as a historic station, if that is the case why do we not see calls for the Ffestiniog's pub Spooners to be returned to a goods shed.

But we also have to be realistic. The pub will in time be an important income stream and be part of the Blackmoor Station even if altered from the original.

We cannot always reinstate every single thing as it was 100 years ago. In today's world which is vastly driven by experience venues and tourism of a different age, we have to have one eye on making sure we can sustain economically what we have acquired and making sure there is quality visitor satisfaction but also trying to at least preserve as is now historical items that may come along.

The problem isn't so much that OSHI was bought, more that perhaps it was just not quite at the best of timing. The opportunity arose, and like many other opportunities which have arisen right along the length of the line, it in many ways had to be taken, otherwise the property is lost, and maybe for another generation or more.

 

Selling it now would be rather silly as it is not worth what was paid for it, that is to say that no other buyer is likely to want it as much as the trust.

How the building is used in the future is not the present problem. If and when the railway needs the core building as a station that issue can be looked at in the round.

The pub may be an important revenue stream and I certainly hope that it will be, but for some while it is going to paying off the loans.

Personally I am content with the purchase strategically, but uncertain that the funding structure was properly communicated and curious about the nature of a couple of recent developments on that score.

 

I didn't say that I'd sell it, and I would certainly not willingly sell it now at a (probably significant) loss. Like @21B, my concern is over the price and funding structure, and (I will add) their impact on the chances of the L&B ever operating between Killington Lane and Blackmoor Gate.

If OSI is to be justified under Item 4(8), then I would also suggest that investing in a company operating a much changed structure for a purpose it was never designed to fulfil stretches that object to breaking point, and again has to be considered in the round of how the £500k+ of Trust money could otherwise be used for those purposes, let alone the ~£1.5m of other money that has been provided for the purchase and might have been applied to other L&B related purposes.

Let's remember, though, that the question of the purchase has been raised here by @Lineisclear's suggestion that the failure to extend the railway somehow represents a decision by the trustees not to try to proceed with such an extension. I think we would both agree that (a) this is a highly implausible interpretation of their actions and (b) wholly undermined by what has happened at Blackmoor Gate.

For clarity, whatever my thoughts on the wisdom or value of the purchase, I now wish the OSI to succeed and for the hopes of it's dividends supporting the railway to be realised. Even if I'm not holding my breath!

 

All correct. All absolutely not how the organisation has been behaving.

Successful organisations have a track record of doing what they say they will. The LBRT doesn’t inspire confidence in this respect.

We need a coherent plan communicated by the board.

 

I am almost 100% certain all trustees wish to see the railway extended as we all do.

OSHI will succeed, and maybe beyond expectations, Mark is a great landlord and doing fantastic in building community relationships. That is invaluable at the moment after the past few years.