Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Yes, mobile users need to view the web version to see the RH column.

 

Found
https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/major-south-west-railway-expansion-10169115
I expect the same complainants to the Cricket Field Lane application will also raise new complaints about the Parracombe Halt proposal, and get planning officers to also reject it.
Hopefully the railway management will be able to overcome objections, but might be hard work.

 

On a detail, planning officers did not reject Cricket Field Lane. Councillors did, after careful consideration, on the basis that it didn’t follow policy and where objectors could demonstrate fundamental weaknesses in the proposal in front of ENPA. It was also clear from the councillors’ comments that, had the project been more precisely a recreation of the L&B as was, as in the ENPA local plan, votes would have been cast differently. The video of the hearing was very informative.

Whatever my views of the wisdom of revisiting Parracombe from the Woody Bay side, the feedback from the CFL planning meeting gives a very clear sense of what is and isn’t going to be acceptable to planners.

 

Do bear in mind that PP was GRANTED in 2018 (see the archive, at https://www.lynton-rail.org.uk/story/planning-application-news for more details) to reinstate the line from Killington Lane to Parracombe as part of the project to continue to Blackmoor, so in principle, the objections can be overcome. There were restrictions caused by the imposed "Grampian Conditions" which meant that the L&BRT was unable to start the work until all property was secured from Killington Lane to Blackmoor, ultimately preventing the railhead from expanding. The lessons of the CFL application have been learned, I'm sure.

 

duplicate deleted

 

The 'problem' - if there really is one - with any current PE extension proposal is that quite clearly it will be a terminus rather than a through station (halt) for such time until the L&BR can acquire the 'missing' sections of trackbed in order to get to BR.

Unless the railway is confined to alternative methods of operation (all of which have the issues in terms of manpower and costs) then a run-round loop will be required at PE and AIUI this is now included in the present draft application. No doubt there will be arguments from some objectors that this is non-heritage as there was never one there before, but then such a situation already exists at KL (approved by the ENPA) and - unlike KL - at PE the original 'railway footprint' was large enough that a loop can be included without going outside the heritage boundary.

 

It should be borne in mind that in any planning application residents’ objections are not the be-all and end-all, and Parracombe residents do not have some kind of veto.

The previous application was refused not because of residents’ objections but because the proposals (at that time including an intrusive ‘temporary’ embankment at Cricket Field Lane) were not in accordance with ENPA’s planning policies. This was clear both in the Officers’ report recommending refusal and, as @35B said, the Members’ comments before the vote, in the video of their planning committee meeting.

Exmoor National Park Authority are in favour, in principle, of reinstating the railway as stated in their Exmoor Local Plan. The plan includes the following criteria and I hope the new planning application will be in accordance. If so, this may carry much greater weight with the authority than many of the kind of objections previously received.

RT-S2 REINSTATEMENT OF THE LYNTON AND BARNSTAPLE RAILWAY
1. Proposals for the reinstatement of the Lynton and Barnstaple Railway should be in accordance with the following criteria:
a) the proposal should seek to reinstate and replicate the former narrow gauge railway including the line of the original route and the siting, design, appearance, and materials of the associated structures or buildings;
b) any additional new development over and above the original historic former railway should provide demonstrable evidence that it is essential for the operation of the reinstated former railway or is a restoration of a historic feature and that there are no alternative solutions which would reasonably meet the need for the development in any other way;
c) reinstatement proposals should:
i) Seek to re-use the original buildings associated with the former railway.
ii) Where it can be demonstrated that the re-use of the original buildings cannot be achieved, existing buildings in suitable proximity to the reinstatement proposal may be considered.
iii) New buildings will only be considered where it can be demonstrated that there are no existing buildings suitable for re-use.
d) new infrastructure, buildings and structures should complement the character of the original railway;
e) the proposal should respond to landscape character and ensure landscaping is appropriate to the site and character of the area and having regard to traditional features of the former railway (CE-S1 Landscape and Seascape Character);
f) the proposal should safeguard wildlife, habitats and sites of geological interest (CE-S3 Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure);
g) sustainable construction methods should be used, unless they compromise the historical accuracy and appearance of the former railway;
h) the proposal should accord with policy AC-D1 Transport and Accessibility Requirements for Development, and provide a travel plan to incorporate measures to enable safe access by walking, cycling and public transport that will help to minimise traffic generation and the need for parking;
i) parking provision should be in accordance with policies AC-S3 Traffic Management and Parking, and AC-D2 Traffic and Road Safety Considerations for Development; and
j) provision of temporary overflow parking to help address peak parking demand should accord with policy AC-D3 Parking Provision and Standards.

 

Thanks.
But the Devonlive report does give the impression it was the views of residents that persuaded the park’s planning committee to reject it.

If the halt is to be a terminus then what does the new application say about potential noise of steam locos, car parking and lots of tourists descending on the narrow lanes of Churchtown, which seems to be concerns of residents?
And will there be space for a bus service to Blackmoor gate? The current 310 bus stop is at the Fox and Goose.

 

Whatever 'impression' Bradley Gerrard (Devonlive's journalist) wanted to give to readers his report did not state ENPA's reasons for refusing the application. I wonder if Bradley paid enough attention to the Officers' report or the committee meeting. Probably he just thought the details of the objections made for a juicier story than going into the minutia of planning policy & law.

Yes, lots of residents objected but the reasons for refusal were as stated in my earlier post.
Watch the meeting for yourself at:

 

AFAIK the application is still in draft form, so I doubt anyone on here knows what it contains.
One would hope however that those involved with its drafting have learnt from the past mistakes and will make renewed efforts to get it as ENPA-friendly and PE residents-friendly as is realistically possible.

 

Yes, but a local journalist can write what ever they choose to generate clicks, particularly if they decide actually reviewing the primary evidence sounds too much like hard work!

In other words - given the original report or DevonLive as my source of "why was this application refused", my money is own the original report!

Tom

 

Thanks hopefully a lot of residents came to the drop-in day on 25th April and did the online consolation, but likely there will be a few who do not want to engage and just oppose, so those doing the drafting can make provision to make the application as PE residents-friendly as is realistically possible (as you said)

 

Well, that's a new way of looking at it

 

Meant consultation. (blame it on the auto correct!!)

 

Get rid of auto-correct and get yourself a spill-chucker.

 

Just want to point out incase you have never actually used the 310, it stops at the Fox and Goose, and also Bodley Lane and the Village stores and anywhere else you pretty much shove your hand out and the driver can safely stop. Many locals get dropped right outside their house if the driver knows them or someone asks for a specific place.

 

So will be able to stop at the proposed halt station.

 

Very unlikely - if a bus went down that dead-end road I'm not sure where it would turn around to come back.
Anyway, to satisfy the local objections, the whole aim will be to discourage people from using PE as a destination/embarkation point. That may sound crazy, but....that's the way it is.

 

... and no whistles in Parracombe either, as that was one of the objections, so alternative notification systems will be employed.

 

I know it is different in scale, but the "no whistling" edict also applies at East Grinstead on the Bluebell. The safety mitigation is that the section of line is "one engine in steam" and therefore those most at risk of being hit by a moving vehicle - someone on the ground operating points, for example - is adequately protected if they maintain awareness of the movements of just one loco, there being no possibility that someone focused on one loco could end up being struck by a second. I'm sure a similar risk assessment could apply to Parracombe.

When Kingscote was the temporary terminus of the line (as it was between 1994 and 2013) the same "no whistling" edict was in place. In addition, the station had no (and still does not have any) public parking (except I think one disabled bay) and tickets were only sold to walk-in passengers who could demonstrate they had arrived by public transport, the aim being to actively dissuade people from blocking local roads by parking just out of sight of the station. It seemed to work OK - I believe the ticketing restrictions are still in place.

Tom