Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

My Grandfather and Aunt used to live at Sticklepath.
My view is there is potential for good parking at Blackmoor Gate.
There is a major problem going through the traditional route at Parracombe, there are too many houses near the line with many owners against the railway.
Why not just bypass it with a new route alongside the A39 to Woody Bay? That way trains could run as originally planned from Blackmoor Gate and return, perhaps with an optional bus ride to Lynton (which would reduce traffic on the A39).

 

Given the ENPA's insistence on the 'heritage' past, and their reluctance to accommodate even just a modest widening of the treackbed at CFL, I can imagine their reaction to such an idea would along the lines of McEnroe's "you can not be serious" Plus the Trust would lose all (remaining) credibility in one fell swoop...

 

But if the only way to proceed to open the line from Blackmoor Gate to Woody Bay, then the ENPA should consider it.

It could be in time the original route though Parracombe might become available, but will be a long time.

 

Three things come to mind:-

1) The Trust will need to change its communication to the Parracombe community, and it will also need to understand their side of the negotiations.
2) Presenting the project as both an environmental protection plan and as a business case to both the Parracombe Community and the ENPA.
3) Identify and prepare the required resources to make this part of the project happen, in other words, build a war chest of support.

This is not going to happen overnight, and we also need to be looking to start building elsewhere along the trackbed or at least start getting to own much more of the trackbed north of Woody Bay towards Lynton.

The more trackbed we can own, the stronger our case for rebuilding it becomes.

 

Why?
You make it sound like the enpa are driving the project.
I would think that they are ambivalent at best towards any extension.

Even if your idea was possible, it would cost millions to buy the land and engineer a trackbed.

 

Looking at the interactive Google map an alternative route to the east of the village should be feasible.
And some of the land south of the village has yet to be acquired.

 

It doesn’t matter if you go East or West, it would still cost millions and is highly unlikely to get planning permission

 

As I understand it, the rejection was largely based on the new 6ft-high embankment, and a non-original station, rather than the widening of the trackbed.

 

True, but.... from reading the ENPA Report I sensed an element of "outwith the original" as well.

The CFL proposal would have involved building on land that AIUI was never part of the original railway's ownership, but was an 'extra' that was bought by the old Association in its early days. By contrast at PE there is extra land beside the line which was part of the original railway estate, so the Trust could for example use that for a run-round loop (albeith short) if so required without going "outhwith the original" at all.

 

The L&BRT can only (CPOs excepted, but that is a whole new can of worms and not feasible here and now) buy land that the current owners are willing and able to sell. This can take years of patient, positive and constructive engagement. One piece of trackbed recently purchased in the south dates back to approaches first made in 2003...

 

With this government playing silly buggers with farmers (don't think for one moment that their policy regarding taxing the size of farm has gone away), the trust could be a saviour for some local North Devon farms, if it had the money to do so.

Very simply, the trust (if it could) would buy the whole farm and then lease the land we don't need back to the farmer on a life-long lease, thus giving us a regular income from the land. This could also have two long term benifits: 1) We would get the trackbed, and 2) we could make sure that the environment around the railway itself does not change or gets built up like it has done around some other heritage railways of today*.

* Ok, a very simplistic view, I know, but I hope you can all understand the direction I am travelling for the long term. I will leave the legal part to the Solicitors and the Accountants to work out the details.

 

I'm sorry, but I really don't think you've thought this through. At a simple cash level, if agricultural land were £1000/acre and an affected farm were 100 acres, with 1 acre of trackbed on the farm, you would spend £100,000 to acquire 1 acre, and then rely on clawing that back in rent over many years, while taking on the liabilities of a landlord. All this to acquire 1 acre. It would tie up a great deal of cash, provide a limited return, and require a lot more management. All to get something that could be bought on the open market.

More generally, this is called a sale and leaseback. It is the type of arrangement that has broken a number of businesses by taking their assets (typically buildings) and turning them into liabilities. If the farmers own their land (tenant farmers would be a different question) , you would be asking them to crystallise their tax liabilities now by selling their property, and then removing their ability to pass the land down to their descendants. If farmers want to do a deal with the L&B, they'll sell land; if they don't, then crystallising their tax loss in their lifetime is not going to impress them.