Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I would be wary of appealing or resubmitting anytime soon as it might appear that the Railway just doesn’t get it. Take time, consider, regroup before proceeding.

 

Like @21B @62440 @gwralatea and others, I don't see any need to rush the next steps. The Trust have said that there needs to be options, which provided that they are real options fully developed across the length of the line and in concert with the whole L&B family, is exactly the right approach: fudging something together for Saturday week is manifestly the wrong approach.

To me, an appeal looks hopeless - if the vote had been 4-3 and an abstention, then despite my reservations over the merits of the CFL scheme, it may have been worth considering. But read the room: literally NONE of the Planning Committee voted for it, and given that the recommendation and decision was not manifestly absurd, any appeal would have a very tough time of it. Save the money and the political capital with local residents and ENPA, and take this one on the chin.

I also see no point in asking to get back to Parracombe unless it is a scheme to go through to Blackmoor Gate/OSHI. The Parracombe community has made its views clear, and for the L&B to go back again with what would essentially look to the residents as a version of the withdrawn-before-it-was-rejected s73 proposals is just asking for a rejection, and presumably at a large cost for consultants, lawyers and planners - oh, and another 12-18 months' delay.

Instead, let's have a neutrally-chaired process that develops options for the Members to consider to plot the way forward.

 

For those of us following with interest but not completely au fait with the jargon, could we avoid the acronyms, or at least explain them in posts?

TTFN

KX

 

Which ones? OSHI is the pub at Blackmoor Gate.

 

A starter for ten:

ENPA - Exmoor National Park Authority
CFL - Cricket Field Lane - the latest extension proposal, about half way to Parracombe from Killington Lane. Rejected this week, there was never a station here on the original line.
OSHI - Old Station House Inn, a pub owned by the Lynton Barnstable Blackmoor Company (LBBC), a partially owned subsidiary of the Lynton and Barnstable Railway Trusy (L&BRT) in the buildings of Blackmoor Gate Station (BG).
WB - Woody Bay station
KL - Killington Lane Station
BF - Bratton Flemming Station
PE - Parracombe Halt

 

What is TTFN?

 

OSHI.....according to its website, is now just Old Station Inn (OSI)
NDC - North Devon Council

 

Ta-Ta For Now.

 

Here it is:
And a direct link to the report (might help to have it open, for reference, whilst listening to the video) May-06-2025-Planning-Committee.pdf

 

There is still no item 'any other business' on the agenda, leaving only the item 2 to receive and adopt the Report of the Directors which does not refer to this issue, which it appears to me, enables the Chairman to rule anything said about it from the floor to be inadmissible. Can someone familiar with Company Law please advise on how this possibility can be avoided, short of 'brute' force or pressure of numbers from the audience ?

 

You could speak (and vote against) adoption of the Report of the Directors on the ground that it fails to mention things which should’ve been brought to the attention of the Membership?

If the report’s voted down it has no binding effect on the directors, but is a censure of their performance.

 

That also means that any introduction from the board of a resolution in response to the planning decision is inadmissible and could be no more than advisory. My own view is that this gives weight to the need to take time rather than rush; it is questionable how much weight could or should be given to a “consultation” held at the AGM in these circumstances.

Discussion might logically arise either outside the formal business of the AGM, or within the response to the directors report given that it explicitly refers to the planning application.

 

As the report is for the year to 31st December, that might be considered tenuous.

In an ecclesiastical context, I am familiar with the ability to formally raise a question that must be answered. This has real merit as a way of dealing with urgent business, without compromising the integrity of notice deadlines.

 

I was initially supportive of the CFL extension proposal. I was hopeful that an interim station that could be viewed more as "KL (South)" than as "PE (North)" might go some way to mitigating the objections of local residents concerned about a temporary terminus at the original station site.
However, as DaveE's thoughtful post points out, the recent planning decision is a useful reminder that ENPA's starting point will always be compliance with the local plan. Trying to mitigate the concerns of residents is absolutely essential, but if the resulting proposal drifts too far from the local plan it will likely never get out of the starting blocks.
Perhaps the takeaway from this is that whatever the next steps may turn out to be, any future applications within the ENPA area must start from the ground up with rigorous compliance with the local plan in mind. That way the application can at least be fought on it's merits, rather than simply falling at the first hurdle.

Andi.

 

Having watched the proceedings, I can fully understand why the members made the decision they did.

An interesting snippet from the transcript:

16:42
"... the best summary I've heard about why this application should be refused came from a long-standing member of Linton and Bstable Railway they wrote the following on a forum just a few days ago on the 26th of April this is the Linton and Barable Railway member there is only one reason for the scheme the LMBR members are desperate to have a longer running line this is a longer running line just the previous scheme having collapsed there was an impatience to do something this is something so that's what they are doing it adds almost nothing to the current operation might not be capable of being built obstructs any further expansion destroys the existing historical track bed and will cost almost 2 million pound in the process that's from a member of the railway and I could not put it better myself thank you for listening"

(text auto-generated by YouTube - not my spelling!)

 

With respect, the important words of the sentence summarising refusal are "conservation area" and "listed buildings", the "kitchen garden wall" part is just providing geographic context.

One thing which strikes me with the inevitably-failed CLF scheme is that it strays so far from the requirements of the local plan (as quoted further up thread) that it was on a hiding to nothing. At which point, I'd like to ask, what sort of pre-engagement with the ENPA planners took place prior to submitting plans? I ask this because in the planners' report for one of the failed applications on land behind our house (which is similarly in a conservation area), there was a rather pointed comment that the planning authority welcomed pre-application consultation over what was and wasn't considered possible within guidelines, and that in the case of that particular application, no such consultation had taken place. It's almost as if they were saying, "come on, we're not stopping any development from happening ever, but work with us and be reasonable". I'm unfamiliar with how ENPA works but I'd be surprised if they didn't allow some sort of similar approach. Which, you would think, would prevent an application being refused flat out, provided the advice was followed; refusal on some minor technicality which could be worked on would be quite different.

And in writing that, I am also hopefully signposting the way forward; it's utterly pointless to debate whether to appeal, apply for something smaller, apply for something bigger, go somewhere else, or simply give up, without first having had this sort of conversation.

 

As an idle thought, would an alternative be to seek a variation of the agreement with the former landowner, changing the deadline? I presume that the reason for the clause being there is so that they can use the land until such time as the railway needs it, so given a choice between changing the date and having a fence go up, I would have thought they would consider this?

 

Watching the YouTube video is very telling and should give the membership some hope.

 

Does anyone know exactly where this fabled land is? I had always understood that it was between Blackmoor and Wistlandpound, however a recent post (now lost far, far upthread) hinted that it might be part of the KL to CFL trackbed. Can anyone confirm this 100% either way?

 

I thoroughly agree.