Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I must have missed that one, but if that was the case it could only have applied to Parracombe to Blackmoor, between us (The Trust, the CIC and Exmoor Associations) the three bodies do own a fair bit of the rest of trackbed, the problem is most of it is just not joined up yet, folks may not realise that there are over 100 landowners to deal with here so it is not going to be easy or fast to do.

That said the extension to Parracombe which we do own all the track bed should not have got into this position in the first place, but we need to learn the lesson and do it well next time.

 

Colin, unless you have canvassed the opinions of all the members, please stop acting as though you speak for them.

 

As I understand the TWAO, you might well struggle to obtain powers to CPO peoples homes and or businesses. Therefore I think the delays in all this are ultimately down to purchasing both the bungalow at the Halt and Blackmoor Station Inn, which reduces the issues somewhat.

 

Keith I speak for a group of members who all attended a public meeting years ago to get this railway up and running and as far as they are concerned nothing has changed, can I take it then you are a member of the Trust and you are quite happy with how things are?

 

If that's the case then say that you are speaking on behalf of a group of members and not 'the members' - there's a big difference.
I hardly think that posting long diatribes on here about how the trust are the worst thing since the square wheel, is going to solve anything. As I've said before, pick up the phone and speak to the trustees

 

If only it were that simple...

 

It has been tried but they don't want to know and you still haven't answer my question are you a member?

 

To be frank, that's none of your business

 

The bungalow was purchased ages ago and, as I understand it, the inn is very close to being purchased (may have already been bought).

 

I am not @ghost, and I am a member. And, to be absolutely clear, I will use my membership rights against anyone who dares to claim to speak for “the members” when they have not canvassed me, or achieved the right to do so through some kind of vote. That goes double when they do so in a way that tries to draw lines between people and determine whether they’re entitled to an opinion, which is how I read your questions to @ghost. Please bear that in mind when you post ex cathedra, and remember that you may be actively damaging the cause we both support.

As regards Grampian Conditions and the actions that should possibly have been taken, I make no comment at the moment. That is not because I don’t have views, but I don’t understand the issues. That is why I asked a question in the hope that someone with knowledge of planning matters might comment.

I would therefore be grateful if someone with knowledge, not opinions, could clarify the facts around the relationship between Grampian Conditions and this planning amendment.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I don't remember seeing that in the magazine/newsletter but it may have been before I joined. I am not sure that a percentage is needed but stand to be corrected.

 

Harold,
I remember seeing the quotation in question, and also being baffled by its meaning. IIRC, and it is a stretch, the remark was in connection with the purchase of "The Halt", and also mentioned something like "moving a step closer to acquiring the trackbed needed to unlock the path towards the TWAO application", but this is only from memory. I also recall asking a question regarding clarification on this, but no one at the time was able to enlighten.

 

AIUI - and it remains of those issues which has yet to be clarified - the purchase of the OSHI will NOT include the land needed for the new trackbed and platforms. The railway would get possession of the old trackbed and platforms, but those could only then be used by demolishing what has been built on them, so I'm not sure if that would count towards any 'percentage'.

Or have I misunderstood the situation?

Of course, a nice coherent and comprehensive explanation with plans in the next Newsletter would be nice

 

Mark - Now you mention it I remember it. I just read it as acquiring land on the route. As I understand it means that there are two parcels of land left to acquire to get to Blackmoor. The section by the Halt in Parracombe [which includes Parracombe Bank] and a section parallel to the A39 from Ley's Lane towards Blackmoor. I think that in terms of route length the proportion that the trust own between Killington Lane and Whistlandpound is highter than the proportion owned by the RVR between Robertsbridge and Bodiam and they were able to apply for a TWAO.

 

Strictly that’s not correct - a TWAO could contain CP powers for the whole lot, there’s no percentage threshold. However, in practical terms your case is far stronger if you already own much of the route and only one or two landowners are objecting. Each possible objection resolved in advance reduces the number of lawyers, experts, time & cost needed for the application and the public inquiry.

As I’ve said before it’s unlikely a case could be made for the Station Inn building to be compulsory purchased since it’s not essential for the operation or construction of the railway.

 

This must be correct, given that otherwise there is some (undefined?) level of opposition which hands a veto to landowners which is precisely what CPOs are there to overcome.

Again, very sensible. It would be much, much better to avoid a CP situation if at all possible, and I applaud the efforts that have been made to that end. And it is especially important if you need to go around CP'ing people's homes - however important the L&B is to us and to supporters worldwide, it's not HS2 (LSE - Low Speed Exmoor?). However, it is clear that without CPO the required land will not be made available at any price, therefore it's a CPO situation to acquire the (bare minimum) solum to get the railway through to Blackmoor Gate.

This is probably right, though if OSHI's garden were up for CP, then as I understand it, the owners would be stautory objectors with the de facto right to call for a full public enquiry.

But none of this obscures the fact that when it became clear that CP was the only way forward, then instead of trying to impose an omerta on discussing it, it should've been pressed ahead (regrettably) but with complete determination and the professionalism that has characterised the consultancy work for the rest of the planning application. Why it wasn't remains a mystey to me - if anyone knows, I'd love to understand the thinking.

 

Colin, just out of interest, when exactly was that meeting, how many of that group are still L&BRT members, and how many of those have you spoken to regarding their views? Just asking for a friend...

 

Hi Martin about 2006 but you are right since I don't have access to the membership records I can only go by those I still chat to I think it was in the region of 20 to 30 the last time I looked. Some are no longer members since they have become so disillusioned about the whole L&BR project.

Sadly it would have been more, but death appears to have a habit of catching up with a number of my friends.

 

Judging by some negative posts in this thread I can see why some people have become disillusioned with the L&B.

 

It is such a shame that so many are disillusioned - some have turned negative posts into an art form.