Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

A couple of random things:

The planning application to reopen the 3. 3 mile Bristol to Portishead line is 80,000 pages long.

In general, I understand that Railways have steaming agreements in place for any loco's they run on their line and that those agreements are negotiated so that both sides are happy with the terms. I am sure that, if the agreement runs beyond the loco's ticket then there will be terms in place for how the overhaul is managed and funded. Without sight of the agreement is question, a commentary on the merit or otherwise of the terms would be speculative.

Wouldn't you think a railway of the length and operating timetable of the L&B would need three locos with at least two in ticket. If so, how fantastic would it be to see the Baldwin and two MWs making up the L&B fleet one fine day?

 

That just replicates the planning restrictions regarding Kingscote on the Bluebell doesn't it. Seemed to have worked there fine for years.

 

Anyone tried reading the Comments on the ENPA Planning Portal yet?
There is a list of who has sent comments, and whether for or against, but the actual text - which is supposed to be listed under 'Documents' - is not available :-(

 

Yes, that seems to be a general problem. There is a note on mine at the top of the page saying that there are some issues with the site...

 

It would be very interesting to see those agreements and to see which boards it involved, (Trust, CIC, 762 Club) especially when at the time they had a common chairman

 

Actually, that message has now disappeared, so it may just be that the comments received so far (the first was only on Friday) need to be manually redacted and processed before they can appear on the planning portal. I'd give it a day or two...

 

1. Comparative numbers of the number of ‘valid’ (or invalid) objections or supportive representations are impossible to obtain until the consultation period ends.
2. The actual number of objections is irrelevant. The most important consideration is whether the application meets ENPA’s planning criteria, bearing in mind their Local Plan supports reinstatement of the railway if their criteria are met.

The previous application failed because the criteria were not met. Not because of the number of objections.

 

You’re correct in terms of planning law. However, @RailWest is right to take interest in the ratio of local responses as a signal of how local opinion is balanced

 

@35B - I don't disagree but I think in this discussion (and possibly within L&B management in the past) there has been an over-emphasis on worrying about local objections to planning applications. Cultivating good local relations is very important generally but a Planning Application is a quasi-judicial process, in which both planning law and local planning-policy have precedence over any number of expressions of support or objection.

 

That sounds like something a lawyer might write; true in detail but in reality far from the whole truth. It is also a political process, where judgment has to be exercised where the answer may not fall clearly on one or other side of a policy boundary.

There appear to be two issues with L&B planning applications as they relate to Parracombe. One is straightforwardly to do with compliance - Cricket Field Lane fell at this hurdle, for example. The other is political, where the railway has to strike a balance between getting its way by agreement, and using the legal levers potentially at their disposal. My sense is that the 2018 application failed here, by both failing to engage the local population as a whole. and by failing to plan to use the levers that could have allowed them to comply with the conditions.

If I were a councillor, presented with an application in circumstances like this, one of my first questions would be "what history does this applicant have". On finding out that history, the immediate supplementary would be "so what's different now".

 

The 2018 application was actually successful, as planning approval was granted. The subsequent failure to meet the requirements was a slightly different matter.

 

Clarification noted - I used "failed" in the sense of "failed to get to the point of commencing works".

 

The public consultation response to the L&B Planning Application s are now available to view online - some at least.
https://exmoor.planning-register.co.uk/Planning/Display?applicationNumber=EXM/26/172/FULL
No doubt more will be added over the coming weeks.