Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

As you say planning permission is already granted but, regardless of the validity of any legal challenge, a S73 might be refused on the merit (or otherwise) of the S73 application and/or the strength of the objectors' case in opposition to the proposed amendments.

 

The fact that the L&B continue to drop the ball on public engagement absolutely baffles me, but I do have some hope! Either way, very much looking forward to the glut of 7mm/0-16.5 ready to run stock coming from Lionheart!

 

All very well but I don't think Jeremy Clarkson is planning another model railway jaunt in Devon, is he? Well, perhaps not yet...

 

I know Captain Slow came down thataway. Must've missed JC's visit.

 

I doubt the residents of Parracombe would suffer from the pollution of a heritage train, coal fired or not, including it's whistle, or the visitors' cars. If they lived next to a main road with cars and lorries 24 hours a day in a major city like me and many others they would have something to complain about. They could also remember that many of their local shops and businesses (petrol stations which are closed on Sundays, for example), would be of doubtful viability without the money brought to the area by visitors. Surely a heritage railway is a minor irritation unless your house is within 25 metres of one. But we all search for something to moan about. (me included)

 

I know that a S73 can be granted or refused, I was merely stating that it is not a planning application, it is a planning amendment

 

They have also chosen to live somewhere that isn't blighted by those phenomena, and where what is being proposed represents a change to the status quo. Regardless of what I think about the merits of their objections, or their proportionality, they're entitled to wish to protect what they have and not be damned for it.

It is the job of the planning authorities to weigh up the merits of the various claims in accordance with planning legislation, based on objective fact.

 

I would question whether 'blight' is the right word to describe what would result from the railway reopening. In a situation where the local economy benefits from having the visitors it would bring. Or am I misunderstanding what could be expected of people's tolerance.

 

If something is potentially changing then I think most people would use the word blight.
I moved to be within sight of an existing Heritage line, but others will be unhappy. I heard for example some of those who back on to the line and are happy with steam objected to the WCRC 37 during the Wareham trial back in 2017 because of the noise. Growling about growlers I guess.

 

The L&B brought me & my wife down there there twice this year, each time for 4 days. We paid a local B&B, ate out at night, visited various other attractions and ate during the day. I made donations to the various planned expansions, money that will be spent with local contractors and businesses. Every business we spoke to was glad we came, especially as it's not that busy at the moment.

 

I was merely commenting on your post, not contradicting it. Nevertheless I'd refer you to paragraph (1) of Section 73 of the Act which will show you it is a planning application. If it's agreed planning-permission may be granted subject to the amended conditions. If it's refused the original planning-permission remains valid, as you know.

 

Thank for seemingly agreeing that the houses closest to Parracombe Halt will suffer significant loss of amenity if the current Section 73 planning application is permitted. As others have said, it will be up to the planning authority to consider whether any benefits might outweigh this harm.

 

The word "blight" may have been overly strong, and I was responding to your mention of 24 hour traffic more than the very limited movement that the L&B would cause. However, the role of perception is important and legitimate. The reactions are by individuals about their beliefs about the impact this change will cause to their their lives. That doesn't have to mean that I agree with their perception, or that it is objectively true.

In such matters, I am also very cautious about mixing the questions of impact and economy. The economic benefit may be judged to outweigh the impact on individuals by the planning system under it's rules, but that does not mean that the impact on those individuals becomes positive.

As someone who wishes the L&B to extend, and to prosper, I do wince at the apparent desire to confront local objectors and their (IMHO mistaken) views, rather than focus on winning the planning process under the rules, and then finding ways to build relationships.

Better to win the peace than a war.

 

Didn't Sid James' 'Mark Anthony' say something along those lines in Carry on Cleo?

I'm in full agreement with what's there, but would add that we mustn't overlook the fact of considerable local support for the line and that extends to doing all we can properly to understand the situation from the point of view of the line's neighbours and neighbours to be. As important to immediate plans as it is, Parracombe isn't the ultimate objective.

Just as all opposition isn't "hard opposition", so all support isn't "come hell and high water" either. Opposition can be won over with reason, as support can be alienated with a careless word, or perceived slight. As to traffic levels .... the sooner the restored line can gain the point where it crosses the southern boundary of the ENP, the sooner scope exists for the line to play it's part in reducing summer congestion, as I feel certain it will.

 

I would agree in principle, but.....surely part of 'winning the planning process' will have to include refuting - and proving to the ENPA the inaccuracy of - many of those 'mistaken views'? If the members of the ENPA Planning Committee are not totally au fait with railway operations, and the L&BR makes insufficient/inadequate attempts to dis-prove the objections, then why would the Committee be moved to dismiss them and decide in the railway's favour?

 

You would appear to be putting words in Michael's mouth. If anything, I would regard his comments as an expression of the view that the occasional interruption of the rural idyll of a few nearby residents is 'small beer' compared with the 24/7/365 experience of far greater numbers of inner-city residents.

 

Proving to ENPA is not the same as convincing individual objectors, or even particular representative bodies. To that extent, the role of individual meetings is less important than the process of consultation and the amassing and presentation of evidence that will allow the planning authority, acting reasonably, to make an informed decision that is favourable to the L&B.

I worte earlier about winning the peace being better than a war; it's also worth note that wars can be won without having to win every skirmish.

 

I know it has been suggested before, but I have been looking at a proposal that was made sometime ago.

As anyone who is a follower of the L&BR will know that at least on two previous attempts the section of trackbed between the old Barnstaple Town station site and Chivenor has been looked at as a possible new route back into Barnstaple.

Yes I am aware that part of the trackbed is now part of the Tarka Trail, but it has got me thinking, what if the proposed redevelopment of the old Council offices was to allow for a new 2ft gauge station on the car park site between the old civic centre and the River Taw/Tarka Trail?

The suggestion that I have heard about goes something like this:

A new 2ft gauge station would be built on the site of the old duel gauge goods interchange site, it would then cross over the River Yeo on a new Bridge and then join up with the old Ilfracombe line.

The land on the other side of the new Yeo bridge looks like it forms an abandoned yard, which if it was part of the plan looks large enough to house an engine shed, turntable and a two road carriage shed.

Leaving this behind and heading out for about 1 1/2 miles (but before you get anywhere near the Sewage Works) you take a right hand route to cross the A361 on a railway overbridge.

The details for the proposed line from here on are a bit vague and suggests a route via Yarner's Wood and a tunnel under the A39 but built to the north of the North Devon District Hospital, the line then make an easterly direction to pass Kingdom Gardens and the Yeotown Fish farm and then just south of Snapper Halt it then rejoins the old L&BR trackbed.

It was also suggested that this extension if ever it was built, would need some serious bits of Civil engineering that would match Chelfham Viaduct.

As a guess I think this plan could have added something like 5miles to the total running line of the L&BR if it took off, but I guess it won't happen due to the costs involved, but it would be great to start a new Journey from as close as you could at the old Barnstaple railway station.

PS don't shoot the writer as this information was passed on to me a few years ago before the Woody Bay site took off.

 

I do wonder how good the scrumpy was when that idea was devised!

 

I said houses within 25 metres. There may have been more houses built apart from the Bungalow on the site of the Halt (which I believe now belongs to the Trust) that are not shown on my 1975 map which scales at about 3.35cm to 100 metres, but on that there only appear to be two - Fairview, which the present owners bought fully knowing the situation with the Railway's intention when they did so. Ivy Cottage is about 25 metres away from the nearest trackbed and they bought it off the Trust also knowing. Are there any others ?