Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I don't take this view - what I see is people who care and who want to know what is going on because they want the L&B to succeed.

 

Let me start by saying that what follows below is NOT an attempt to deny there are no serious planning difficulties looming ahead regarding the L&BR phase 2A extension beyond Killington Lane bridge.

But in responce to the above submission made by “Tobbes”, I would suggest you should refer to the Trackside Magazine (Issue 19 – February 2023) and the Editorial Column therein written by Mel Holley (Editor) where on pages 4 & 5, he outlines the negativity that these internet discussion forums are causing to management of many Heritage Railways.

Quoting just one paragraph from the Editorial article:
“Criticism has always been there. What’s new is today’s ‘social media storm’ when people write things on forums they’d never consider saying face-to-face. A football manager might expect constant abuse from fans, but in a heritage movement, it can be crippling”.

And then advancing the open pages to page 12, where there is yet another article titled “HRA boss: Attitudes must change” submitted by Chris Price, HRA Vice-Chairman.

Chris Price writes:
“You might think the biggest single challenge facing our sector right now is money".
“Our biggest problem is actually something else. It is people. Specifically, their attitude”.
His comments come after waves of extreme criticism in recent years, often very personal, about decisions railways have made.
“We have a very unforgiving set of stakeholders. Volunteers, members and enthusiasts can be brutal in their criticism of our organisations. The appalling behaviour of some in our sector needs calling out”.
“I am specifically talking about the barrage of ill-informed and unjustified vilification that many of our decision-makers are subjected to, mostly on social media and internet forums”.
“Those who vent very often have dangerously little understanding of the vital facts or crucial context that steer policy”.

In conclusion I stress the importance of being positive. I say this by drawing on my working experience back in the 1990s when I was closely involved in managing three separate multi-million pound electronic projects that things will and do go wrong. Normally immediate corrective action cannot be implemented until another partner organisation in the project has confirmed their future intention(s). IMHO this is the root of the situation with the L&BR extension plans, but equally I may be wrong. Whatever the reason, there is no excuse whatsoever for a small minority of people to continue bickering, whinging and moaning on a public discussion forum about what they believe could or should have been be done differently or better.

 

Some fair points Chris, I agree with much of what you say. The same is true today in many walks of life, but apart from saying "please don't say anything negative in public" when there is apparently little heed paid to any criticisms made in private, what can the trust (or any other group) actually do about it? Human nature being what it is, what would you suggest?

 

It may well be that, as Chris D suggested, there were things which - in hindsight - could have been done differently. Whether they should have been done differently, or whether that would have made the situation better or worse, is hard - if not impossible - to judge. But, as the saying goes, "we are where we are" now.

On the basis of the information available to me as a Trust member, and a reasonable - if not comprehensive - understanding of the various bureaucratic processes involved, IMHO the inescapable conclusion to be reached at this very late stage is that, in little over the 3 weeks, the Phase 2A extension plan (or at least that part of it within the ENPA area) will become an ignominious failure by virtue of the expiry of the relevant planning consents. What I have not seen or heard anywhere yet has been any utterance from the Board along the lines of "don't worry, we know it may look bad, but actually - because of things about which we are not at liberty to speak at the moment - we're confident that it will all be OK in the end". This seems to be one of those occasions when 'silence speaks volumes'.

 

I agree with Chris D's comments and observations - it is interesting that Trackside Magazine has picked this up.

But my concern is that postings on this forums and simillar forums such as facebook are in the Public domain and that are therefore available for opponents of the various schemes to read. We know that they actively look at these forums to get information. With the current situation with the ENPA planning it is only right that the Trust is silent so as not to give information away to opponents of the scheme.

As a trust member I would expect to get my information from the members pages of the website and am disappointed that updates have not been made for some time.

 

Comment removed.

 

Was that the intended number of negatives?

 

Social Media is the new kid on the block (relativity speaking) and to be honest I think one of the problems with Heritage Railways is that no one has yet got to grips with just how to use this technology and what it can do for this Industry.

Sure we have some nice looking Websites, to view but what else can it do for this sector?

I will be honest it about, I don't have a clue about either Twitter or Tic Tok or what is come, but I can do Facebook and email I can also just about get by on Whatsapp anything to do with the smartphone I get the apprentice to sort it out for me, but it is a hard learning curve.

If you have never used Social Media in your working life time, then you are going to find it difficult to deal with. I am not suggesting for one moment it should be regulated, but what we have is a new method of contacting each other and a new way of doing business and these changes need to address or incorporated to the advantage of each railway.

As a basic concept some Railways now have a digital archive which the members can view anywhere in the world, one such Railway is the County Donegal Heritage Center. I have lost track of just how many photos they have in the collection but if you are a member they can arrange to send you a link of the part of the railway you need the details of.

The thing is Social Media gives you instant access to information which is much quicker that say when each society would send you a 3 or 4 monthly Magazine, people's lives have changed and more is now done online.

Sometimes it does get very frustrating when waiting for the next bit of news from our favourite Railway project, but people live at a much faster and manic speed than our grandparents use to do so.

So is the internet a bad thing? No I don't think so, but it is here to stay and we have to get use to it and use it for our benefit, this revolution is no different to that of the introduction of the railways themselves, you will alway get the good the bad and the ugly. But we need to work smarter with it if it is to have any good and long term benefit of all heritage railways.

How we do that I haven't given it any though like most of us on here I guess. But it could be a wake up call and the start of a new thread on NP.

Might just have to get a copy of the magazine to see what was said.

 

There seems to be a lot of heat and not much light concerning posters over the last few days, perhaps unsurprisingly as the L&BR Trust Board have seen fit not to post anything. (Quiet aside to self: I wonder if that is because they know that if they do say anything it will be broadcast loudly on this site to the possible detriment of what the 'loud broadcasters' claim they would like to see...)
Anyway, what I would be interested to know is whether, if the Section 73 change is permitted, is there any leeway in the planning process that would enable the ENPA to grant a time extension for work to be started, especially so given the adverse consequences of Covid-19?

 

It seems the Trustees are, very sensibly, pursuing a policy of "softly, softly, catchee monkey". There is no point in strutting about waving the big CP stick and antagonising people when there may yet be options available to settle matters peacefully. (Assuming that CP rights could even be obtained in the first place !)
I agree that it would be nice for members to get more regular updates but it may be that the Trustees have more than enough on their plate at the moment,( after all somebody is rebuilding the website, as well as preparing the planning appeal ) or they may consider that what news they have should not be seen in the public arena, which would inevitably happen if posted on the members' pages.
I'd recommend a little patience !

 

Ahh but some of them there objectors have become members so that they can attend AGMs or view the members page to get that information, the sneaky beggars, thats why nothing can be put on there

 

17 years has required a lot of patience

 

One thing which I find sad is that as far as I know we have so much talent in the group and yet hardly any get tapped or just asked to help out they really do need to delegate

 

This has been the case for a long time, to the point where it can be regarded as a pattern. And it has been reported that private requests have been ignored, maybe for fear that confidential information would be broadcast. But, as far as I know, what was said at the forum has remained unbroadcast. But when next to nothing is said a vacuum is bound to be created, filled by negative thoughts about what people think ought to be done but aren't given any reassurance, and so wonder whether all that could be done is being done. They naturally fear that the planning permission will slip through our fingers and it will be several more years and a large number of supporters will go away.

 

I have asked questions from time to time and have received answers. We will have to wait and see about the planning.

 

I recall reading several years ago that PP was not strictly necessary as the TWAO would give powers to run over the route included in the application. PP was more to reassure local people and to be seen to be good neighbours.
So, if PP lapses because of the delay in considering the changes, one assumes this is not fatal as the TWAO can still be submitted. I realize that might make the TWAO more protracted.
Could anyone who knows the relevant regulations confirm this - or otherwise?

 

Lucky you - that's not been my experience, I'm afraid. Let's see what the next three weeks brings.

 

Is it just me asking for the impossible in wanting a longer and better Lynton and Barnstaple Railway, sadly in its whole heritage history this group has had to rely on activist's to get things moving.

 

I don't think this is correct. Although a TWAO can confer planning permission. Applying for Planning is complex but no where near as complex and expensive as a TWAO.

 

The answer is 'otherwise'. See my earlier posts on this subject in the last few days - a TWAO does not automatically include planning-permission, nor does it remove the requirement for it. To try to include PP in a TWAO application is likely to involve a higher risk of refusal, higher costs to prepare the TWAO application and higher costs of presenting and defending all the evidence at a public inquiry.