Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Thanks for the link Chris. Clearly there are some lovely walks around Chelfham.

 

............. but could easily strain the relationship between North Devon Council and the railway.

In 2002, the Lynton & Barnstaple Railway submitted an application to North Devon Council for planning permission titled "Laying of trackbed of former railway to form private railway at Chelfham Station". The extent of the railway was between the boundary with the Viaduct and the boundary with Valley Cottage. The application was REFUSED for 4 reasons, all of which related to points regarding inadequate road access, increased traffic levels, etc. NDC Planning Application reference 33229 refers.

 

I'm curious. Given that Chelfham doesn't currently form part of the operational railway and likely won't for a while yet, I wonder why does NDC anticipate worrisome volumes of traffic? Further, when that happy day dawns and Chelfham is selling tickets again, does this ruling imply serious future problems?

I'm not aware of too many lines where railway-related road traffic, away from the principal point(s) of embarkation, is notoriously heavy.

As off-the-cuff examples, in the case of the FR, I'd not be surprised to learn last year's footfall at T-y-B had exceeded the total for the entire period since Dduallt reopened in 1968 and feel reasonably safe in saying that, from a revenue point of view, T-y-G may as well not exist. Over on the IWSR, there's been comment a-plenty that passenger numbers originating from the Island Line connection at Smallbrook Jc, or by car/bus at Wootton pale into insignificance when compared with Haven Street.

 

Which is nice, but the decision is the decision is the decision (unless you want to appeal it).
Clearly, the railway will need to address this at some point. Presumably best done when it is shown that (a) the area will not be overrun by hordes, and (b) those that come make a positive contribution

 

I can understand if permission was being sought to actually run some kind of passenger carrying venture, but in this case, the track would be purely for set-dressing, wouldn't it?
It would certainly be interesting to know what NDC's position would be regarding tracklaying for non-commercial reasons, and certainly a lot of water has flowed along the Stoke Rivers valley since 2002.
Anyhow, I'm sure that those on the ground at Chelfham, with their hands actually dirty from the Devon soil will be in a much better position to comment on this.

 

Thanks Chris for your detailed reply
- I was just thinking of "Set Dressing" as Mark puts it but certainly would not like to, in any way, upset the relationship with the County Council. I'm sure those on the ground are well aware of these aspects and are making suitable provisions.

 

Given that the railway is proving a success for the local tourist industry , and the NDCC has its restoration in the relevant Local Plan, it may be that the Counicl's attitude towards a revised application for Chelfham might be more favourable some 19 (!) years later.

However...I know from my own visits that road access to the station is 'less than ideal' and parking in the immediate vicinity is very limited, so such matters clearly would remain of concern to the local authority. It may be that 'typical' visitor numbers to Chelfham are manageable at the moment, but if/when you were to start to 'ramp up' the attraction by adding (say) a short bit of operational railway and running short brake-van type trips on a number of 'Open Days', then visitors numbers might rise to a level that could give rise to complaints.

Having said that, if 'expansion' were to be limited to (say) track within the limits of the platforms only and just one or two static exhibits of rolling-stock to add to the recreated 'atmosphere' of the original station, then maybe a more limited application might succeed? Perhaps at least some exploratory discussions could take place with NDCC as/when time and circumstances permit?

 

I was going to post along similar lines but you beat me to it. NDDC have recently approved plan for the replacement of the Timber Lodge at Chelfham which will enable overnight accommodation. So clearly the Trust have things in mind for this site.

 

Surely, the placement of static rolling stock items on a short length of track would not require planning permission? Especially if no charge were levied to enter the site...?

 

Which comes back to my earlier question about what actually needs planning permission and so, by default, what can you do that does not need it?

 

To find out for sure there would need to be a conversation with the NDDC planners. It may be that the Trust have already had this conversation, although I suspect that they are busy in finalising the documents for the TWAO application. They have just received planning consent for buildings at both Chelfham and Woody Bay and getting this work started may be their priority at the moment.

 

Given the situation a better question might be, 'although we don't need planning permission for this, is it a good idea to do it?'

 

I can't imagine any planning authority welcoming applications for something that doesn't need permission. Extra work for them and then they'd simply bounce back to the applicant...

 

I'm not sure that is what John meant. I think (and stand to be corrected) he meant that if the council refused permission previously, and the work isn't necessary at the minute then maybe it's better to leave things as they are for the meantime. After all, the additional track and/or additional rolling stock is not exactly a priority at this time.

 

Indeed, more to the point I was concerned that while legal, it might upset that planning authority who you want to be on your side

 

a little more progress

 

Lovely to see - hard to believe that the ugly extension was ever there....

 

Thanks Meatman - will the, eventual,? signal arm be linked to the signal cabin?

 

Certainly "signals" well for the future meatman. Moving onto the necessity for additional/renewal of the planning permission for re-instating any trackwork, whilst it may not be needed, it IMO wouldn't do any harm to keep the local Authorities in the loop and on side........

 

I am sure that the Trust is already doing everything suitable to keep the local authorities 'on side'