Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Does that apply if it is the ROW that crosses the railway, or does it not matter which way round it is?

 

Doesn’t matter

 

My point entirely, other the lack of clarity in what I have read as to whether passing under a public road counts as 'crossing' it.
So, when a trustee says “We are not planning to pursue a TWA order at this time", one has to ask - why not please?

 

Passing under or over a public right of way (footpath, bridleway, RUPP, BOAT, or any road open to the public) requires a TWAO to be able to operate the railway.

One is left wondering which of the following is true:
1. The board doesn’t understand a TWAO will be required or,
2. It is a slightly cackhanded bit of communication that is meant to reassure local concerns about compulsory purchase.
3. It is a truthful and accurate statement because they know that they do not as yet need a TWAO and its application is some years off. The planning permission will give permission to build the line and once that is granted they can apply for the permission to operate when they are ready.

edit: just to be super clear, the need for a TWAO applies to a new railway. New means a railway built on land which doesn’t form part of the existing operational area of a railway with a TWAO or some other form of authorisation (Light Railway Order or Act of Parliament for example). A new line or siding within the curtilage of an existing authorised railway doesn’t need a TWAO, it is a permitted development right.

 

Crossing the King's Highway requires the sanction of Parliament. Private Act, TWAO, take your pick.
Pat

 

If 1, then there would appear to be a problem :-(
It may be 2, but it seems an odd way of trying to reassure people, especially those who (a) do not know what a TWAO is anyway or (b) know enough to know that one will be required later anyway.

It's a long-ish time ago now, and my recollection may be at fault, but....when the railway first opened at WB it could go no further south than Bridge 67 not only 'cos at that time the bridge span was missing, but also 'cos it crossed a footpath that was a PRoW and therefore needed a TWAO. Did they apply for one? - I can't recall now. However this 'fact' has always stuck in my mind since then and surfaces again whenever people have spoken about the bridges southwards from KL.

 

I think that If you don’t cross a public right of way, you’re on land owned (or leased I think) by the company and you have planning permission, then you wouldn’t need TWAO or LRO or Act of Parliament.

It’s possible that the current operation doesn’t have any form of parliamentary authorisation nor need it.

 

As far as I am aware there is no need to have a TWAO given the circumstances. TWAOs replace LROs and Acts of Parliament.

I am certain that the L and B have taken appropriate advice before stating that a TWAO is necessary.

 

Did you read the last group of messages?

 

but they WILL be crossing a public right of way as noted in previous posts... (unless Killington Lane has miraculously stopped being a r-o-w?)

 

That is correct and was the point of my posts. They can build the railway if they get planning permission, but will require a TWAO to operate it

 

Not always.

 

I'm aware of a railway which reopened in recent years and has carried passengers under a public road via a bridge (admittedly one which was already there, not a new one), which has no TWAO.
So I'm not sure the rules are that clear-cut, actually.
Same railway apparently never had an Act of Parliament when it was new, either!

 

I am pretty certain a TWAO is not required. There are many heritage railways which operate without TWAO.

 

Yes.

 

Can you please provide some examples of the many heritage railways that operate without a TWAO or LRO?

 

Please name a few.

 

Not only examples, but also the reasons WHY such railways did not need a TWAO is the more important bit IMHO.

 

No, not going there, in case the one I'm aware of have screwed up. If they have, I don't want to be the person who costs them a large fortune in squaring things up. I'm personally satisfied that their operation is safe, which is enough for me to keep well out of it.

 

Fair enough. Although I am prepared to believe that there might be one or two concerns that operate without such an order for whatever reason, I was more concerned with the rather far-fetched statement made by @H Cloutt that there were many heritage railways that did not possess a TWAO or its predecesssor, the LRO.