Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Quite true, but that is also a process which costs the railway money every time :-(

Experience with past applications has shown that many objections are either (a) factually incorrect (and can easily be demonstrated as such) and/or (b) a repeat of an issue already addressed and/or (c) an obvious failure of the objector to read all the application details with sufficient care and/or (d) simply a misunderstanding of some detail of the proposal (sadly in some cases because the Trust had not explained it in sufficient detail) and/or (e) an invalid comparison with something that exists on another heritage railway.

Everyone has a right to comment on a planning application, but sadly some objections are little more than a 'flame war' of multiple theoretical perceived problems with little or no basis in fact and could be view as an attempt simply to 'bamboozle' the ENPA.

PS... and yes, before you ask, my supporting comments went in yesterday, so no doubt will appear there in due course. Sadly, unlike @Meatman, I did not have time to read *every* objection, but I got the overall 'flavour' from those that I did find.

 

On a more general point about application comments...

On the ENPA Portal there is a 'Comments' section which lists the names of all those who have submitted comments and marks whether each is 'Support' or 'Objection'. However there is NO link against any entry to actually read the comments.

In order to read the actual comments you have to go to the 'Documents' section, which lists all the comments by address and name (probably just in the order of arrival) and then use the 'View' link against each entry. BUT...there is nothing in that list to tell you whether the comments are 'Support' or 'Object' - you have to follow the link to find out.

As far as I can see therefore there is no simple way to just go down one single list and find each 'Object' and look at it directly.

Or have I missed something? If so, do please tell me

 

Whether objections made are forwarded to the railway for a return comment, or not, will depend on the arrangements between the railway and ENPA. We don't know, so maybe best to assume they do.

It is right that everyone is allowed to make comment as invited by the ENPA.

Those who do wish to pick up on comments by others, please make sure that you as are honest, truthful, and accurate as possible and most of all considerate and polite. If, once you have done your draft, and you suspect some of it may have unintended consequences or create a flame war, perhaps don't include it, or ask someone else's opinion before submitting.

Meanwhile, bickering, will not get us anywhere?

A bit of zen doesn't go amiss sometimes

 

I understand the reasons for wishing to rebuild and operate the L&B as closely as possible to how it was during its short life, not least the ENPA's conditions. However viability of the rebuilt line will depend on bums on seats (as well as other sources of income). Longer trains could mean more seats for bums, and better facilities could make the trains more attractive. The comparison that is often made with the WHR deserves to be fully thought through. The WHR's coaching stock and motive power are very different from the originals, but the railway itself is very similar; a narrow gauge line carrying tourists through mountainous country with steam traction. While many have opinions about the relative merits of an authentic L&B and a WHR-style L&B, can anyone actually predict how passenger numbers (and operating costs) would compare? Whatever the answer, it is probably different for short-term and long-term.

 

It's not just the passenger numbers that need to be considered; how many people would be enticed/dissuaded from volunteering if the railway is not an authentic (as far as possible) L&B.
It also needs to be carefully considered regarding how many people would be enticed/dissuaded from donating the large amounts of money required to rebuild the railway (and cover the inevitable difference between takings and costs).

 

Having read some of the recent postings, I do feel that sadly we are at risk of going round in circles over old arguments yet again :-(

As I see it, there are two 'extremes' for any plan to extend to PE as a temporary terminus. The first is the 'minimalist' approach, in which the station will consist of no more than a platform and a single track that will end at a buffer-stop. The second is a 'proper' terminus with a platform road, a run-round loop and ideally also a short 'cripple' siding.

The rationale behind the former would be to try to keep the new build as close as possible to its heritage ancestry, no doubt with a view to minimising potential objections that anything more would be 'not heritage'. Yet the only practical ways to operate the former would be either (a) by push-pull working and/or (b) top&tail working. The former would require modifications to rolling stock, the latter would involve two rather than one engine and crew for each train. AFAIK neither method of operation was used by the original L&BR, here again the potential for objections based on the proposal being 'non heritage'. A similar objection could be raised against the latter option, based on the fact that the station would be different format its original format.

At least some of the objections appear to be based on perceived 'issues' around the 'dwell time' of a train arriving at and then departing from a terminus, rather than just stopping temporarily at a Halt simply to drop off/pick up some passengers. Such commentators appear to want - at best - no more than a train that simply 'passes through' PE. IMHO the irony of that stance is that is exactly what the Trust tried to achieve with the original Phase 2A application (which was approved by ENPA), but was hampered - as indeed it still is - by the problems in acquiring the necessary trackbed to the south of PE. It would be a very odd situation indeed if those who object to a railway ending at a terminus in PE were actually the same people who had it in their power to enable the railway to carry on towards Blackmoor

Another issue which I note seems to arising in some of the objects concerns the fact that PE is planned as a temporary terminus. There are those who fear that it will become permanent and never extend any further south, but the solution to that lies with those to who I refer in my previous paragraph. There also appears to be a curious view in some quarters that the application is indeed for a permanent terminus, but that this is some kind of underhand 'ruse' to enable the railway to extend later towards BR. Yet Phase 2A was quite clear about the intention for the line from WB to BR and this accords with the view of both the L&BRT and the B&YRT for an eventual restoration of as much of the line as possible - all of which is public knowledge.

Phase 2A proved perhaps to be a 'bridge too far' for various reasons. The ENPA wanted to avoid the situation of an extension which might end up as various piecemeal bits in different places. The current application is an attempt to do at least part of it in a more manageable 'bite size' form. Previous complaints about potential disruption from extensive construction works have been noted and the work has been split down into smaller chunks to be done over a longer period. Yet now I read complaints about the length of proposed construction time being too long and why does the railway not try and get the disruption over in as short a time as possible. There does not appear to be a consensus view from local objectors, so how can one try to ameliorate so many contrasting opinions?

 

Many, many years ago, and it may well have been tied up with phase 2A, it was revealed that the L&BRT had been advised by a third party to seek Compulsory Purchasing Powers status, but I have a feeling that ENPA was so shocked that they could have lost planning control regarding the rebuilding of the railway that they reached a deal with the L&BRT.

Just how true that was has now been lost in the mists of time, and I am not suggesting we use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut at this stage, as it will be down to sensible people who must come together to work out a sensible conclusion. This is a win-win for just about everyone if you give it a try, and it is time to look at the big picture for North Devon, not just this bit of North Devon in isolation.

 

I don't know about any 'deal' but....

My recollection - which, of course, may well be completely wrong - is that the Trust did look at the idea of by-passing the ENPA and applying for a TWAO and CP, but decided that - as such a request would almost certainly lead to a Public Inquiry which might well happen away from North Devon and lead to local residents feeling isolated and cut-off from such a 'distant' event - it was better for public relations and local goodwill to follow the 'normal' process of applying to the ENPA. With hindsight one might argue differently now, but the cost would have probably been impractical at the time - and maybe even more so now!

What has become clear, of course, over the years is the relative ease with which the various elements of 'the railway' has been able to get approval from NDC when compared with the ENPA. I can understand the concerns and policies of the ENPA as the 'custodian' of Exmoor, but just within Devon alone there are marked contrast in the approaches to the aspirations of its various heritage railway sites.

 

I think your judgement is far better than mine. To be honest, as you said, a public enquiry wouldn't help at present, but reading the other day about proposed changes to planning law, I guess it is now a case of wait and see as to what is proposed for community assets, such as heritage railway extensions and the like. I think Peak Rail has the same or similar sorts of issues as the L&BR has in Devon.

Regarding a deal between the Trust and ENPA, this may well have been the wrong term to use; I would suggest that it may have been closer to an understanding between the two parties at the time.

 

Which is why comments should focus on supporting or opposing the application, rather than debating the rights or wrongs of what someone on the other side has said. Evidence for a proposition is much more effective than argument or counter-argument, and therefore likely to be read and paid attention to. If that can be done in a way that addresses opponents arguments so much the better, but it's still necessary to bear in mind that these are public responses, not the views of the promoter. Less is often more.

 

I agree with @35B - leave it to the railway and/or their planning consultants to refute objections, if necessary, in a professional manner. They will be watching, as anyone can, the incoming comments.

Stating the reasons why the railway is a ‘good thing’ is great. It’s also pertinent to point out the ENPA’s Local Plan supports reinstatement of the L&B, therefore granting this application would further that aim.

 

Thnak you kind sir, not often I get such a compliment

 

I would not disagree with you in principle there. However in these days of the WWW it is quite easy for anyone, anywhere to write and say simply that they support the application. Not surprisingly, I would suggest, any objectors who are also local residents might say that - even if the number of objections are much less than the number of supports - the needs of, and effect on, local residents should have greater weight than (say) supports from several hundreds of people who may not even live in the UK, let alone Exmoor. It could be difficult to fault their argument.

If anyone writing in support can also demonstrate - with appropriate supporting evidence - that one or more objections can not be sustained by actual fact, then might that not help to sway the views of those whose knowledge of the situation does not extend much beyond what they read in the comments published so far? How often do you not see cases on social media where someone complains bitterly about something, various people wade in with the views in support, only for it to become apparent after a day or so that actually the 'truth' of the situation if in fact completely different? Is it not better to nip the potential in the bud wherever possible ?

 

Better by far to answer the question without picking up the objector’s argument directly. So, taking one that’s been seen here about parking at Parracombe, why not simply comment from personal experience how similar planning constraints have worked at (say) Kingscote?

 

Errr.....'cos I know nowt about Kingscote

Now, maybe Mendip View, but then I doubt anyone would be inconvenienced by the occasional visitor trying to get there by road anyway! Been there, tried that, gave up in despair....

 

Fair comment, but take the gist of the argument - and apply what one knows.

 

Sounds like my experience of trying to find Parracombe station while I was holidaying in the area.
I feel that, had a narrow gauge railway been available, I might have actually found it (by train).
Shan't bother trying to find it by road ever again (even if there is a train there). It's basically impossible!

 

Indeed, getting a Ford Galaxy there was fun! It's a good job we went out of season. And to say my enthusiastic reaction to a concrete shed, in the garden of a modern bungalow, was not shared by anyone else in the car would be a severe understatement...

 

Like my school teachers used to say - must try harder - finding PE station ought to be quite simple if you look at a map or Google

I have been to PE station site on more than one occasion and parked there to have wander about without AFAIK causing any annoyance to anyone. Having said that, the road is indeed very narrow and winding, so you really want to go when there is no other traffic about. Roadside parking at the station site PE is limited to about two cars at most, assuming that there is not one there already, in which case your journey may be wasted! I really would not recommend it unless you are very determined or happy just to walk up from the village. Another option perhaps would be to get someone to drop you off on the main road so that you can walk down the unmade lane to Churchtown.

A view of the platform shelter (and my car) just to prove 'I was there' in 2017. IIRC the car was less than a month old at that time, so you'll appreciate how cautious I was as to where I ventured with it!