Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

https://byvrt.org.uk/faqs/#SnapperFAQs now contains FGAs to three (now four) FAQs, including two (now three) you haven't asked yet!

 

Noted, thanks, and some useful stuff there as to the 'reasons why'.

 

A thoughtful website with a lot of information. I'm a trustee of a canal restoration society and I agree with your approach. Unless a multi-millionaire benefactor arrives, it isn't feasible to restore everything sequentially and it's better to restore what can be achieved. Having a plan is important but so to is having the flexibility to take advantage of opportunities as they arise. Momentum and success builds credibility with stakeholders and leads to more success and opens doors to funding. You're spot on with pursuing planning consent in a careful and considered way. The approach will keep each application to a manageable size and scale for you to administer and it allows the planning authority to focus on a modest range of issues compared with a larger application for an operational railway. As seen elsewhere on the L&B and other lines, applications for lengths of running line, car parking & passenger facilities etc. are eye wateringly expensive, require thousands of pages of paperwork and generate multiple issues that need to be addressed with stakeholders.

 

Hendy confirms Historic Rail Estate will move from National Highways to Great British Railways | New Civil Engineer https://share.google/faMXGjFefY1L3TmUP ....

I wonder what - if any - effect this may have on the future maintenance and access arrangements for Chelfham Viaduct?

 

On the face of it, it looks like a positive move, taking legacy infrastructure out of the risk-averse, road-centric custody of NH/ DfT, and placing it under a rail-focussed management. It may just make access arrangements at Chelfham more flexible, who knows? I certainly don't. And I certainly wouldn't want to second -guess any arrangement which is subject to government policy announcements/ control from Whitehall!
That said, I am tentatively optimistic!

 

Looks like a swerve from the Highways Agency, lots of costs off their books and any problems with the roads caused (or allegedly caused) by such bridges are somebody else's problem...

The new railway authority will still be working out what things they missed from their budget and suddenly get extra laibilities.

 

My footage of 762 'Lyn' climbing the 1 in 50 gradient on approach to Woody Bay, filmed on 29th October.

 

Just as much as the next man, I want to see more of the L&BR open (including the Chelfham Viaduct), but we need to make sure that we have covered every base before that happens and the liabilities that the operating railway/Trust will face if we need to take ownership of the Viaduct. Am I right in thinking that it is a grade 2 listed building, and if so, might that not cause an operation/ownership problem at some stage?

As I said before, anything to do with the L&BR is never simple, and this will need careful consideration.

 

The listing will just mean that you have to maintain it properly using traditional materials and methods, and in consultation with whoever the local authorities have appointed to look after such heritage matters.
My brother's house is grade 2 listed; this hasn't prevented him from, for example, ripping up a historic herringbone pattern floor, while dealing with some damp issues, but all of the pieces had to be carefully saved and put back down again afterwards. He's going to be adding skylights to the roof; this is acceptable because the roof is not original and nobody can say what the original roof looked like. So yes, there are restrictions, but it's not a case of "you can't do anything". And a railway viaduct is a pretty simple structure, compared with a house. I really wouldn't see it as a problem, especially for an organisation whose very existence depends on preserving heritage.

 

I don't disagree; I think one of the issues in the past has been the cost of the insurance premium, and until the railway is operational and can generate an income to cover those costs, I get the impression that they are happy to let sleeping dogs lie.

 

Firstly,the viaduct has undergone extensive inspection over the last couple of years and there was a programme being put together for the nessecary repairs, mainly pointing of the parrapet walls and sorting out spalling brickwork, there was talk of fitting some kind of safety netting underneath now that the school site (growforward) is an active site again.
Secondly, Im pretty sure that to be able to take on the viaduct whoever does so has to have a TWAO

 

I don't believe that is the case, but rather that in order to transfer ownership, the Government wants evidence that the new owner has the financial resilience to maintain the structure - for whatever use they propose for it. So a viaduct could be transferred to an owner with no intention of creating a railway and therefore no need for a TWAO. An example would be the Northern Viaduct Trust, which owns a number of viaducts in Cumbria that are open as cycling / walking routes.

https://www.edenviaducts.org.uk/about-us/

(IANAL)

Tom

 

I was having a blank moment earlier and thats what came to mind, my mistake, but I believe that the purchaser would have to be a statutory body

 

Exmoor Associates website says (in their FAQ)
"Who owns Chelfham Viaduct?
It continued to be owned by British Railways Board (Residuary) Ltd until 2013, along with nearby Goodleigh Road bridge and the formation between. Ownership transferred to The Highways Agency when BRB was was wound up. The viaduct was restored to operational condition in 2000 by BRB with substantial support form the Railway Heritage Trust. The viaduct remains property of The Highways Agency today. It can be viewed from the public road, but is not accessible to the public. The Grade 2 listed viaduct can only be sold to another statutory body who is in possession of a T&WAO (to include the structure). Until such time as a railway is ready to be built across the viaduct, it will remain in the hands of The Highways Agency, who will continue to be responsible for its maintenance."

However, I suspect @Jamessquared may well be correct that if there was no railway proposal (or if the L&B revival for some reason became a dead duck) there's no statutory or regulatory reason why the viaduct could not be transferred to some other body so long as they had the long-term resources to maintain it.

 

Yes, I was making a general, not a specific point.

Tom

 

The statement about the needs for a T&WAO is on the Exmoor website and I suspect is not quoting anything statutory. I think the Highways Agency would snap the hand off anyone offering to take on the liability provided that they were satisfied that they had the resources to maintain it going forward.