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.

 

My concern about the role of objections in the planning process is that IMHO to at least some extent the view taken of them by the Planning Committee will always be subjective. For example, exactly how do you decide to 'weigh' (say) a small number of objections about noise from trains and whistles etc against a larger number of people supporting an attempt to improve tourism in the wider area?

IIRC one of reasons given for failing the CFL application was the perceived 'harm' that would be caused to the setting of the kitchem wall at Heddon Hall. How on earth do you measure 'harm' in such a case? Is there some defined scale of 'harm criteria' against which you tick various boxes to see it it passes or not? - I doubt it.

A lot of the possible problem with the PE application is that many of the concerns expressed by the objectors are based on assumptions made about possible future impacts such as noise, numbers of visitors, traffic, parking etc etc. Obviously the objectors will take the most pessimistic view, whereas the railway's supporters will take an optimistic view. But how is the Planning Committee to decide which is right?

[EDIT] Incidentally, I note that one objector has already picked-up on the 'hidden' option of allowing casual visitors to PE to board the train there and buy their ticket on arrival at WB. To this perhaps one might also add those who buy their tickets in advance on line? I suspect this will not be the last that we shall read about this 'loophole'.....

I notice also that at least one objector has either failed to read all the application details sufficiently carefully or chosen to be selective in their comments, by suggesting that a statement made by the Trust is actually in correct, when in fact the relevant supporting document provides clear evidence in support of the Trust's claim. Hopefully the Planning Committee will pay careful attention to such factual inaccuracies rather than the emotions which surround them.

 

Who would be on the planning committee eh? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The planning process does have to be somewhat subjective, but in the examples I have seen, particularly those involving the L&B, much weight is normally given to the Officer's reports, adherence to policies, and other official input, rather than relying on the subjective opinions of sections of the general public. At this stage, all we (the L&BRT and supporters) can do is make our case through official channels, and trust in the overall balance of the system.

Also, please remember, this thread is undoubtedly viewed by those who are less enamoured of the L&B plans as well as those of us who fully support the scheme, so 'least said, soonest mended' might be an appropriate proverb at this stage.

 

And one objector (might be the same one... can't be bothered to check) has stated that it would take an hour to walk to some sort of castle, which the planning documents say is around 5-600m away, IIRC. Well, unless it's up a vertical cliff, I think it would take considerably less, personally. But what any of that has to do with the L&B planning application is beyond me, frankly. Still, I fundamentally support the right of the objectors to object, and have their concerns heard. And I trust that the planning committee will weigh everything up fairly.

One question I do have, which I couldn't see the answer to in my admittedly cursory glance at the planning documents, is what length of train is expected to fit within the proposed Parracombe run-round loop. Does anyone know?

 

IIIRC from an initial reading, the answer sadly is only two.

Space at PE is very tight, clearances under the bridge are very tight, and I suspect that the reverse curve at the approach will merely aggravate the situation, so trying to get the point toe right against the bridge with an engine or bogie coach being shunted in/out the loop maybe too great a risk.

If only we had a few more yards at the BR end....... :-(

 

... or we could operate slip-coaches at KL. A first for NG and heritage rail?