Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

If the AGM is not within a few weeks, an EGM to elect a brand new board would seem warranted!

 

Well the AGM is on the 13May Should there be a resolution at the AGM to either remove or replaces the Trustees this shall need to have a 21 day clear notification period.

 

Why would a brand new board be warranted? Electing a brand new board at this point in time is by far the worst thing you could do. A brand new set of individuals with potentially no prior involvement with the railway is bound to make the same mistakes and slip-ups that the current board have made. What's saying we wouldn't be in this same position in another 5 years time? IMHO I believe that, now they have learnt their lessons, the current board are in a good position to deliver the extension.

 

Ive not suggested that whatsoever, I just stated what others have actually achieved before the current bunch, i suggest you take a little more time to read what has been written

 

I suspect that there are arguments to be had in both directions. The reality is that the present board have not delivered on the extension, and that will provoke difficult questions. At the same time, those who wish to see the railway extend to meet it's potential need to be honest with themselves and the membership about whether alternatives could achieve greater success. Just getting rid of the board may be cathartic, but it isn't necessarily going to be constructive.

 

If that's the case then, from what i have heard its been a very expensive lesson to learn, it really would be nice to know the official true cost of all of this and also what it cost to correct the 'red line' incident, the biggest concern that springs to mind at the moment is how this news will affect future donations

 

[QUOTE="Thomas Woods, post: 2797610, member: 28975".....IMHO I believe that, now they have learnt their lessons, the current board are in a good position to deliver the extension.[/QUOTE]
By implication therefore, you would seem to be suggesting/agreeing that it was indeed the fault of the Board.

For those who might want to 'get rid of the Board', I would suggest a careful study of the MoA first, as you will probably find that you can't do that in its entirety - there is usual a minimum number below which you can't go.

 

The minute anything like this raises it ugly head it is bound to have an effect on donations. I am willing to work with the trustees to put in place a new and fresh fund raising strategy.

Also if they have learned their lessons then they won't mind if a new governance system is put in place to prevent this sort of thing happening again.

As I have said elsewhere there also needs to be more training for the Trustees to understand what it is they have to do. Now would also be a good time to review just what each person in the management change of command does and I also feel and this is a hang over from the the days of the Association but the Trustees also are given other areas to manage.

My feeling is that the Trust needs to fundamentally change what it does for the project. Most Railway Trusts now have subsidiary companies or groups to carry out certain roles and responsibilities.

Both building and running a Railway have certain skill sets which the Trustee don't really need to know. Most Trusts only have five area of responsibility:-

1 Project finance overview
2 Fundraising
3 Membership
4 Producing all the policies and procedure's and direction of travel for the whole project to follow.
5 The management of the trackbed and adjacent land estate.

By the time you have had your trust meeting, there will be very little time left to worry about planning issues.

I would like to hope that if given the change to make suggestions then some of it, if not all of the above, can be looked at by the Trustees.

Regards

Colin Rainsbury

 

Ok Sherlock thanks for clarifying that

 

Elementary, my dear Watson.....just a shame it seems to have taken them so long to learn them :-(

 

My only concern right now is if the membership can still trust them to deliver, if any part of the mistake has happen due to something they have or haven't done then they need to stand up and take responsibility for it.

 

Many (most?) railway preservation groups do not go to that level of complexity. When money and labour are restricted, real care is required when considering setting up parallel organisations, in particular to consider whether they are necessary or whether the delegation required can be fulfilled in another way.

In particular, I would be very cautious about any model that assumes that the trustees or directors must be those with hands on responsibility for everything. The board should set the direction, but does not have to carry day to day management responsibilities - indeed, doing so may mean that it lacks capacity to give enough focus on everything that needs its attention.

This is a difficult time for the L&B, but it need and should not threaten its existence. Indeed, the greatest threat will be drastic action because “something must be done” that rushes to conclusions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It should be remembered that the duty of a Board of Trustees is to act in the best interests of their Charity in pursuing its defined Charitable Objectives, NOT simply to follow the wishes of its membership, although of course it can seek and take note of them if it so desires.

According to the 2011 M&AoA (which I think is the current version?):-

"...3. The Charity's objects ('the Objects') are
(1) To acquire preserve and restore for the public benefit items of historical, architectural, engineering or scientific value in connection with railways;
and
(2) To advance the education of the public in the history sociology and technology of narrow-gauge railways and railways in general by the
acquisition, restoration, preservation, creation and exhibition of railway locomotives, carriages, rolling stock, equipment, artefacts, documents and
records, together with any appropriate land, buildings and structures in particular but not exclusively those of the former Lynton & Barnstaple
Railway in Devonshire ('the railway') and to provide educational and training facilities to those engaged in the restoration and operation of the
railway or railways generally...."

It could be argued therefore that the Trustees have done, and are still doing, most if not all of the above - I'm sure they could find at least one example of each of the various items listed above - and as such are fulfilling their obligations regardless of whether or not any sort of extension of the railway ever takes place.

If therefore the 'charge' against them at any General Meeting were to be that they have failed to deliver on at least that part of Phase 2A which falls within the ENPA, those 'pointing the finger' may well have to determine exactly how that can be viewed as a breach of their primary obligation. Such potential matters then as the possible less-than-ideal use of resources and/or donations, generation of a lack of goodwill in the community, poor management of their volunteer workforce leading to a discouragement of potential new recruits etc etc could perhaps be taken into account in terms of how that may have impacted the 'well being' of the Charity.

Food for thought perhaps ?

 

It would be a change to hear a positive comment regarding the L&B. Rather than constantly blaming the Trustees for the current planning situation, you are not speaking for the whole membership.

 

I'm sure we're always receptive here to hearing a different viewpoint. So...who/what do you blame for the 'current planning situation' then please?

 

Well you have just summed up the problem, in that for some reason they have not or do not want to delegate. Railway heritage groups such as the L&BR have not yet caught up with the rest of the voluntary sector and how it operates.

There are more voluntary groups seeks members and Trustee etc and like it or not heritage railways need to make themselves more attractive to those people who have the skills that we need to make a project work.

Another thing about heritage railways is that they are mainly made up of a certain age group of men who want to be in charge. It is all well and good when things go right but also you can't start blaming everyone else if you have just cocked up. What I outlined about is just basic governance of which 9 times out of 10 we take for granted and we do sometimes forget that they are there in place to stop us making mistakes. That said when you don't use them or you think you know better than that. That is when the problems start.

If any of us say need an electrician, a plumber or a car mechanic, you would look one up and ask them to come and take a look at the problem. While this is clearly a situation of people trying to do something with out the right advice they have in my book lost my Trust, but instead of walking away from this I will be happy to get stuck in and try to help avoid this happening again. Changes to the M&A are most definitely required and I feel that the Trustees we have need to have some training in Charity Commission ways of doing things.

I guess that it will not be until the Trustee election paperwork comes out for the AGM that any of us will be able to tell just how damaging this has been to the Trust. If you get say three or four people willing to stand besides the existing Trustees then to me it means that either the membership are happy or they just don't want to know what is going on.

If however you get more than say 9 or 10 people willing to stand then to me it means that the membership are concerned with what is going on and are asking for change.

Either way you look at it the whole extension affair has done a lot of damage to the L&BR and it will take a lot of time to repair its reputation. As far as the membership are concern they may be able to live with it. But I would be more concerned with the external companies that we deal with and what their take on all of this will be. Could it affect our credit? What else could something like this do to the whole project could something like this have an effect on say Exmoor Associates?

For those of you that know the area you may be aware that Heddon Hall has been sold STC what happen if the new owners decide they don't want a railway running at the bottom of their garden even thou we do own the trackbed? It could be years before we can think about having another go at this section.

One item I forgot to mention was it will be interesting to see just how many members fail to renew due to this issue.

 

OK lets hear your take on it then

 

I should start by saying that much has been achieved; in particular the acquisition of the Parracombe Halt site in June 2021 (Rick & Barbara Sayers, thank you and RIP) means that we are not trying to CPO a dwelling, which would be much harder than CPOing land. This, along with much of the geotechnical work and bridge design work should carry forward.

The problem with this (very charitable) interpretation @Thomas Woods, is that the attitude demonstrated by the existing Board over at least the last 12-18 months has been anything other than open, engaged and humble, with a focus on learning lessons; from where I sit as an ordinary member who repeatedly tried to help, it has been distant, haughty and dismissive of questions and people trying to help. Worse, the Board has been unforgivably high-handed with the Parracombe community over the abortive s73 application - the fact that the first of the s73 plans were only available at WB rather than in a series of community meetings in Parracombe itself says it all about the mindset of those responsible (I suggest all go and look at the objection to the s73 from the Headteacher of the school - precisely the sort of person who should be onside).

This attitude is what then continues in the current newsletter Q&A - it is all someone else's fault, the Board could do nothing other than what they've done, and are blameless.

Politely, I'd have to describe that as "b*ll*cks".

It was clear from 2018 that at least one landowner would not willingly sell at any price; indeed, it's on video from that time. So, the critical path from then forwards had to be obtaining CPO powers to acquire the solum in question, and there was only ever one way to do that - a TWAO and a public enquiry. Yet the one thing that has not been lodged - even after the acquisition of the Parracombe Halt site - is the TWAO application, which, I say again is the only known route to getting the CPO powers required to buy the solum to extend south of Parracombe Halt.

So if there's only one tool to solve the problem, you choose not to use it, and then you seek to blame any and everyone else when it all goes horribly wrong. then I'm afraid I've got limited sympathy.

I look forward to the AGM. I would be delighted to serve the railway in any way where my skills could be useful.

 

*DING DING DING DING!!*

AND WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

Congratulations Tobbes on being the first person to mention compulsory purchase!