Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Yes I can't even afford one of those at the moment, but I am working on it. In fact the project I am pursuing right now will cost at current costs a bit shy of £1 million pounds, fully working.

The other projects I would like to do and that is to rebuild the 3 L&BR 2ft gauge contractor locos. But I haven't really looked into this deeply yet. But I would guess they are about the same size as a large quarry Hunslet and would be similar costs as well.

But since I don't have a workshop that I can use, this may take a while to put together. I think they would be a lot cheaper and interesting to do if they could be built in house somewhere.

 

I didn't get anger here, rather frustration and being ignored.

 

Well, out here in country Victoria I've just received my copy of The L&BR Newsletter (plus Magazine, which I should say is always a pleasant read, albeit somewhat diversionary). Having read it carefully, particularly the S73 bit, I am minded to ask a few questions.
The Trustees state that they had to withdraw the S73 Planning Amendment so as to 'avoid a refusal on the project planning record that could impede future planning applications'. I would have thought that this should have been considered before applying for it in the first place, should it not?
I also wonder why the original planning proposal to ENPA (accepted on 7 March 2018) was not withdrawn once the Grampian conditions were included as a prerequisite before any work might start?
It beggars belief that the Trustees might imagine that they could assemble 'all the land (required), have all the funds and have placed all the contracts before any work was started.' One wonders whether they inhabit some alternative universe??...
I wonder whether this was because they had drafted the (rather grand) proposals for future development of the line as Stages IIa, IIb and 3, and so thought that they had initially to 'push ahead' with Stage IIa come hell or high water? It would have been more prudent to attempt incremental line length increases which perhaps could have been funded and contracts placed, even though the land issue would still have raised its ugly head south of Parracombe. This brings me to the question of communication with contrary landowners. Is there any one of the Trustees who can talk sensibly, openly and constructively with these landowners? If not, why not? And if not they should employ someone with those expert skills. It is useless to adopt a high-handed approach for it only hardens resolve whereas with a genuine negotiator it is always possible that a compromise might be reached. Since we are back at the beginning, well almost, then this is now surely the priority.
One can but hope that when the Trustees 'carefully consider alternative strategies to extend the railway' (exact Newsletter text slightly rearranged) they will address this issue and ascribe it the highest importance.

 

All good questions. However, three observations. First, I believe the law on “Grampian Conditions” changed after the planning application was approved.

Second, at the time, the presentation was that Grampian Conditions were part of how the trustees were dealing gently with local concerns.

Third, do we know that the local objections are the result of poor approaches from the railway? My impression is that at least some of the objectors are quite capable of being adamantly opposed regardless of the manner of the railway’s approach.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

My replies seem to have got inserted into your post. Sorry!

 

Answering:
Grampian conditions - the ability of a planning authority to impose them has been reduced since 2018.
Stakeholder management - hard to know from afar, but with a key local concern in the objections being part completion, the original conditions seemed onerous but a reasonable compromise.
Locals - I’m sure there are things that could have been done better but some objectors have appeared from their objections (and the expense invested in them) to have objected in principle, not just detail.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

With the news due in a month, should not a Plan B now look at the route between Blackmoor via Wistlandpound to Bratton Fleming? With a base and parking at Blackmoor and a good run down to the quaint station at BF this would seem an ideal way forward if we don't wish to wait a generation or more for the 'blockage' at Parracombe to be overcome. A possible further extension to Chelfham would also be possible if a rapprochement between the 'northerners' and 'southerners' can be effected...
Does anyone know if any landowners between Blackmoor and BF are currently refusing to consider selling?

 

Indeed. Also, a careful examination of all the various objections shows IMHO that (a) many of them were 'copy cat' versions, possibly where an objector has persuaded friends and/or neighbours to join in, and (b) many individual objections had no actual basis in fact and in some cases could easily be shown to be complete nonsense. To some extent there seemed to be an element of some objectors trying simply to make as much 'noise' as possible, in a process which merely served to need more time, effort and money expended by the Trust to counter such spurious claims :-(

 

I think this sentence refers specifically to attempting to get a delegated decision before the expiry of the original planning application, not to the process of the s73 more generally.
The trustees clearly felt that a s73 application had a good chance of success at the outset. However, having reached the point where a delegated decision was the only possible way that a decision could be reached in the remaining time, the chances of failure presumably significantly outweighed the chance of success. (Given that at that stage ENPA seems to have been doubtful whether a s73 application was even appropriate for the scale of changes being applied for, the chances of a delegated decision going in the railway's favour would indeed seem to be pretty low!)

 

>>>>With the news due in a month.....

What 'news' please?

>>>>With a base and parking at Blackmoor......

Where will that parking be? IIRC all the car-parking at BR was going to be inside the ENPA area and was the subject of one of those planning consents which has now expired?

>>>and a good run down to the quaint station at BF this would seem an ideal way forward.......A possible further extension to Chelfham would also be possible if a rapprochement between the 'northerners' and 'southerners' can be effected...

AIUI the 'boundary' between the Trust and EA 'spheres of interest' was set just south of Whistlandpound, so any such 'rapprochement' would be needed long before you got to BF, especially as EA own the latter.

Having said that, not a bad idea overall IMHO, though I've no idea how realistic it might prove.

Perhaps much more important, and seemingly often overlooked by some who post here, is the need to firm up at an early stage on a practical and realistic route southwards from BR to by-pass the reservoir. Until you have done that, how do you know what extra land you need to buy? There is a view in some quarters that, perhaps quite understandably, the original plan for Phase 2A simply envisaged going as far south as was currently practical on the existing trackbed until you reached a 'blockage', at which point the temporary WD terminus would be built. But what if the eventual solution for going further south thereafter is one that requires the deviation to start before you reach the proposed WD station site? Then you get the "if you want to get to X then I wouldn't start from here" situation.

 

You should be able to edit your post and move the offending quote-close code to the right place.

 

It was hinted earlier that you should wait for news and maybe raise a pint when the news breaks

 

Ok. I guess that most of us had figured it out.
The question now is:
A) How much?
B) How survivable is it in today's financial climate, with several American banks going into administration over the last few days, and Credit Suisse teetering on the edge?
"This is only the beginning, they won't stop now"

 

The following has today been posted on the Old Station House Inn website and Facebook page:

[attachment removed - it's already been posted above!]

 

1) the price doesn't matter , the share holders know and that's the main thing

2) it's survived the recession, covid and all sorts ....the pub will stay quite happily as long as they don't undo all of martin and Lynn's work .

Literally amazing news and the first post is " nah it will probably shut down''

 

No - I'll just wait until the 18th April to make sure that it has happened!

I am assuming that the reference to "...some adjacent land for the future construction of the railway..." means the land to the WEST of the old station buildings which is needed for the new track-bed and platforms? If so, then I see that as the best bit of the news being the most important thing needed for building the remaining bit of Phase 2A.

 

As financial adverts will tell you, "past performance is no guarantee of future performance". This is good news, but no more than the starting whistle for a lot of hard work simply to maintain what's already there.

 

The area outlined in red is the extent of the planning permission, although that may not be the final plot of land purchased. It clearly shows the trackbed to the West of the current buildings.

 

Thanks.
But it's the gap between the red bit and the larger blue bit that is the 'missing link' at the moment :-(