Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Lots of options to explore, all need to be tested against the ENPA Local Plan policies if in the National Park.
If in the NDDC area, also a need to be aware of the ENPA policies as they will be "watching".

 

My feeling is that it might not be a bad idea to always keep the ENPA policy in the back of our mind, wherever we are rebuilding the railway.

 

judging by an idle perusal* of their posts in the last couple of years, they seem rather keen that the entire scheme to do anything L&B be put to bed.

 

No

also, given the trust/EA doesn’t own Barnstaple-Blackmoor are you asking us to fundraise and negotiate with many (many) landowners to build a cycle path?

because it really isn’t either or. The trackbed exists on maps, not as an entity that you can play ‘rails or pedals?’ on.

 

Fair point, but another option to be offered is "None of the above" with a free-form response as to individuals' preferred alternative. According to Giles, the primary question is to be "Appeal the refused application? Yes or No."

 

Others have answered in other ways. I'll just observe two things. The first is that the bridges on the L&B aren't high, and this 6 footer isn't sure about the headroom on a bike! More seriously, part of the prospectus for Exmoor Associates and the Yeo Valley Trust refers to nature conservation purposes in the absence of a railway. Walking the trackbed from Collard Bridge towards the crossing of the road to Chelfham last year, what struck me was the peacefulness of this soft strip of Devon countryside. That character would be changed radically by conversion for cycles, and wouldn't be what I for one am donating to.

 

Well, now....

Firstly, on what basis would they make the appeal?

Secondly, if they appealed and won and therefore started on going to CFL, that might impact whether they had any funds left over to do anything else as well (eg BR to WD), so on that basis it might be a good idea to get that Yes/No decided first. If the members said 'No' then they could forget going south in the ENPA for some years to come and turn their attention elsewhere. But where that 'elsewhere' might be could be more difficult to decide.

It was reported from the AGM that one of the options was to do CFL without the embankment. This puzzles me - how would they deal with the steep gradient of the original track-bed and the narrow width of the bottom of the cutting yet still get a platform and run-loop? And if there were to be a feasible answer to that, then why did they submit the original scheme in the first place?

Personally, despite various reservations, I am minded to the view that if the membership decides to pursue an extension southwards from KL come what may, and if the Board could be certain that it would pass ENPA scrutiny as regards all aspects of planning policies, then it would be more practical and beneficial to aim for PE itself again rather than some intermediate non-heritage temporary location. But of course others may disagree vehemently

 

Essentially, you had to be at the meeting to understand the issues and the only 2 reasons for the refusal of the planning etc , again as giles pointed out ..facts and evidence over emotion.

It was well explained in the AGM but there will be a full letter sent out to all members soon with all possible options AND a box for your own option incase a member feels there's a way forward that hadn't been listed.

It will be a 2 part question do we want to appeal , yes ... well then that's the way forward , no well that's when the other options get considered.

There's alot said at the AGM that hasn't been repeated outside of that room properly and is made to twist facts unfortunately.

 

We should probably just keep applying for planning permission for the same bit of railway. If we do that often enough they’ll be bound to grant permission to make us go away.

 

Yes, but at what cost or permanently

 

There was a hint of sarcasm in my previous post

 

As Einstein (allegedly) once said: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results"

 

I look forward to seeing the letter. But I will be assessing it against the video of the planning meeting, and the credibility of the options accordingly.

 

this would be a classic case of Schröder's cat

 

There is every option avaliable from appealing , going north from Woody bay , going south from killington, blackmoor gate south and an " any other opinion " box

There's something for everyone ( hopefully)

 

Surely, an option of “south and/or north from Chelfham” should be a spelt-out option?

 

My view of the AGM was that it was designed to control emotions (fair enough) but that it was basically a reasonably well put together exercise in damage limitation. The opening section was about statistics and facts and again about what is 'posted' on social media, one set of statistics didn't quite add up IMO when tied in with a related figure of approximately 3 years ago and should be of great concern.(nothing financial i should add or to do with the operational railway). The proposed options to move forward have been better thought out and all we can hope is that what was promised is delivered when the paperwork lands on the doorstep although the cynic in me would suggest there were undertones from snippets mentioned (those seemingly innocent comments that are designed to sit in the brain somewhere and pop back to life when a key sentence is said at a later date) to back up a couple of those options, for instance a planning application has been approved to alter existing planning around Blackmoor although the actual detail was not mentioned, I'm sure a quick look on the planning portal will show the details, there are two maybe 3 good choices within those options IMO so it will be interesting to see what happens, there is however a timeframe to lodge an appeal on the planning decision so hopefully the paperwork for these options will arrive on the doorstep within a few weeks, Apart from a question relating to the trust accounts and its involvement with LBBC, nothing at all was mentioned of OSI, but the fencing work across Bridwick farm was mentioned and is planned to be done.At the end of the meeting election results were given and all nominees were re-elected but what was clearly apparent were the amount of votes cast, usually on average votes cast are ITRO mid 700s this time only just pushing mid 300-400 mark which is pretty poor for a membership of just over 2100

 

Having walked the trackbed over the weekend, it seems an obvious one. What are the problems with thid option...I assume access and parking?

 

Indeed. My concern is that they are presented fairly, and that non local members should not be led into a preferred option without a realistic understanding of the choices and their implications. The consultation in 2023 is an example of what we should avoid.

In the context, I’m relatively relaxed about it being structured in two layers - firstly appeal/don’t appeal, then “what else”. There is a bias in that, but the choice on an appeal does have to be made. Even though my own reaction is “for goodness sakes, no - this is a dead parrot and the sooner we accept that the better”.

 

Fundamentally, yes. Access by car at Chelfham is difficult, and worse at Snapper - and that’s without considering conservation of the sites. Any project in the southern half of the line would have to address access (and facilities) somehow.