Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

With respect, that’s not really evidence. We all know about one particular landowner, but I don’t think it is possible to assume that they are influencing others without some actual evidence of it happening.
Moving the railway offline in the enpa area is a non starter-you would never get planning permission for something that would be seen to be unnecessary construction/disturbance of the park. Rebuilding something that has already made its mark seems to be accepted.

 

Quite true, but...in the longer term with a reconstructed line southwards to, and through, PE then - not being part of the original trackbed - it will no longer be needed anyway.

 

Why would we want to move it anyway? When we already own all the trackbed from Killington Lane around to the Parracombe halt site

 

It was a suggestion from @DcB for a solution to the Parracombe situation.

 

I agree, at least in the sense that this doesn't need to be an "Us versus them" sort of situation. The important thing is that the land is the L&B owns the land into Parracombe, and can be a good presence within the community if/when trains get back there. Being a good neighbor, and a communal asset, can go a long way into fostering more positive relationships, even if there will always be dissent.

That was something the original L&B got wrong. And that's something that the current L&B has the ability to get right.

 

I'm puzzled - so how do you reckon that the original L&BR got it wrong please? After all, it closed down because the SR closed it, more to do with alleged low levels of traffic and high costs than 'problems with the neighbours' surely?

 

Reading reports and posts there are several in Parracombe that will see the benefits the railway could bring: more tourism can help provide jobs in gift shops, pubs and cafes, and help funding new houses for local young families and holiday lets.

But in the Churchtown area there is a wealthy landowning family near the halt, who have decided to have a "forever" home, do not want a noisy train bringing in tourists and have a lawyer to fight it. So doubt if permission to reopen the halt will be easy.
Best for the railway to liaise with the family, plus other properties, like the new owners of Heddon Hall, to find a way forward to get to Blackmoor Gate, perhaps if there is now a chance to change the local plan for a new route bypassing the family's land going north or south of the town?

Plus if a station is needed to help boost tourism in the north part of Parracombe, or trains just go direct from Blackmoor Gate to Woody Bay.

 

Indeed :-(

Do people never actually (a) read what has already been written on the subject so many times and (b) go and look at the area and appreciate the impractical nature of their suggestions (however well-meant they may be) ???

 

To be fair, this thread has been running since 2009, and has 818 pages, so it is perhaps a bit much to expect anyone to remember or read through all of it, and not everyone is within easy distance of the L&B to visit 'in the flesh' so to speak. Having said that, there is a fair bit of twaddle that gets posted from time to time (and yes, some of it has come from me too!)

 

Think the current Parracombe consultation will bring a mixture of responses, but without the landowners south of Parracombe onboard, will not be worth applying for planning permission if it will not progress, like past attempts?

 

Time can be, and is, a great changer. And with the L&BRly we're talking in increments of a century.
What I'm trying to say is that just because something is how it is now, it will not remain so indefinitely. But sometimes, one does need infinite patience. And tact. And diplomacy...

 

A functioning railway to an (albeit truncated) terminus at PE will bring various benefits IMHO, not least a sense of long-overdue extension. At least then we will have a better base from which to plan an extension to Blackmoor rather than the current 'middle-of-nowhere' KL.

Furthermore, it is to be hoped that over time, as more and more PE residents come to appreciate the potential benefits, then the level of potential opposition will decline to the point that the ENPA will view the railway's plans for getting to BR with greater favour.

 

I say this with more about how the L&B didn’t exactly suit itself well with locals the first go around: be it by a lack of proximity as was the case with Woody Bay or Lynton’s stations to the towns and villages they were supposed to serve, or with the difficulties with Parracombe that resulted in that village, the only notable one the L&B actually had proximity to, never having a proper station. Had those things been a bit different, it may have lasted longer.

As others have made it clear, opinions are not going to always be set in stone. The focus, to me, isn’t about them or what they think. They have a right to their opinions and the best thing that you can do, is to do the right things a good neighbor does, and hope that a positive presence makes a difference in the long term.

 

Hundreds of railway stations were built some distance from the place they purported to serve. After all, whilst those 19th century citizens might have been eager for the potential benefits a railway might bring, they would hardly have wanted to lose the market square for it.
So, stations were sited as close as possible and as close as the major route and terrain would permit. This happened on every railway, everywhere, and the L&B was far from the worst.
Places that had the potential for growth grew towards, and round the railway station- after all, the cattle market had immediately moved adjacent to the railway, and any new industry would be sited so as to benefit from transport links. The beef, beer, coal and cabbages that were the actual traffic of most railways would always have required local distribution- and the hard bit of that is loading and unloading. The difference between a 200 yard journey or a 1 mile journey meaning little. Our passenger-centric view of railways means most of us can only see the lack of convenience for people, but until WW1, the railways derived 80% of revenue from freight
The places that did not have the potential for growth remained small, with an inconveniently placed railway station, and that was adequate until 1920. and ultimately Beeching shut a few thousand of them. The problem is, we see that evidence, and draw the wrong conclusion.

 

Given that (a) the ENPA previously gave permission to rebuild the L&B through said landowner's land (if they could buy it), and (b) the current thinking seems to be to ignore that bit and stick to the bit they own, which doesn't affect said landowner's land, I don't see how their (assumed) objection would have any more bearing on the outcome than anybody else's. And at that point, it's just a case of arguing whether or not PE can be a suitable terminus. It wouldn't be the only heritage railway terminus in a sensitive location without any sort of viable road access, but that's an argument for those applying for permission to convince others of.

Exactly. Focus on being good neighbours; support community events; offer visits for local schools; put a display in the local library or whatever. Don't set fire to anyone's garden and try not to cover their washing in soot. And over time, the objectors become grudging acceptors and the not-sures may, hopefully, become enthusiastic supporters. Obviously you're never going to convince everyone, but planning rules are based around the overall best outcome, not trying to please everyone all of the time (otherwise, no new housing estates or roads would ever get built anywhere).

Fast forward 15 years... supposing the railway is established in PE, maybe more land has been bought further south (even assuming not operating as a railway), and if the last piece of the puzzle is that one landowner... well perhaps that is the time to explore other options. Even if that means a bus link. But never say never; another generation or another owner of said land in future may have different priorities. And in the meantime... leave them be.

 

All good stuff @pmh_74 I agree 100%

I would also say do this hand in hand with B&YV Trust’s new strategy of rebuilding the track (but not operating trains, other than perhaps occasional open days) on the sections they own.

This will prove the wider L&B ‘movement’ know how to build railways and manage land in a neighbourly way and that there is actually a bigger and bolder vision for the whole of the former Lynton & Barnstaple Railway. Not just a little extension to Parracombe after years of getting nowhere. Local people might then be more likely to support filling in the ‘missing links’.

A similar strategy worked for the Rother Valley Railway. It took nearly 4 decades, as the L&B will if not more, but it worked.