Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I'm sorry, but tech and civil engineering are worlds apart. If full details of the civil engineering were given to the membership most would be none the wiser because it's not their field of knowledge.
For most of the membership all they want to know is what is feasible and what isn't. A few may want the nitty gritty details (which you may be one of which is fine), but most don't because they don't understand most of it.
If the options had had mountains and mountains of details and figures and drawings and all sorts, we would then have had calls that it was too complex for ordinary members to make a decision.
Can't win sometimes.

 

And the same isn't true of tech?

I'm not a technologist, and I've made my career (such as it is!) from being able to take the hard tech of my expert colleagues and help them render it into commercially deliverable projects.

This is not about "please give me lots of detail" - the average micro-history of a railway branch is far too detailed for me (and, yes, that includes the likes of Catchpole on the L&B). It's about reading what was put in front of ordinary members, and asking "what's missing". Ultimately, the success (or not) of the resurrected L&B will not be determined by the quality of the engineering drawings, but by the ability of it's leaders to negotiate their way through the challenges of getting permission to build the railway past seemingly irreconcilable opponents. And there, the consultation had next to nothing to say.

 

Maybe because getting their backs up even further is perhaps not the best way forward?
Get to CFL, show them that we are not the ogres that we are made out to be, work with the opponents, work with the locals, show them that there are benefits for the village if we can make CFL work without hindrance to them, action with courtesy and respect shows good intent rather than some of the things I've heard suggested.
Things like CPO etc is a nuclear option, and it should be the very last thing we even mention let alone bring onto the negotiation table.

 

I didn't mention CPO or TWAO, and I largely agree with your view on how to relate to the local community. But nor did I see any discussion in that paper of why this wouldn't be a repeat of last time, which was especially glaring when the example of the Rother Valley is before us*. I didn't see anything substantive on that, nor did I hear anything at the AGM - and yet it's people who will matter to what is or is not achievable.

* - the RVR does show that it is sometimes necessary to force something through to break an otherwise irreconcilable deadlock.

 

RVR TWAO was submitted in 2018, determined 5 years later, this year, plus the pre-application period.
This way we have the possibility of being able to get to CFL, work with the locals, include them, be a benefit to their village and bring them along with us, and maybe we won't need to be in the same position as RVR.

 

I agree - which is why I think pushing for CFL so soon as after the recent PE fiasco may well do exactly that. Have we learnt nothing from the past 5 years?

If we leave aside the 200-300-ish ? yards difference between CFL and the site of PE station, where is the fundamental difference from the perception of PE objectors? We will still be building a terminus within the general confines of PE village, at a location with limited road access, and just as likely (or not) to attract 'enthusiasts' coming by means other than the train itself. And it will be patently obvious to everyone that the 'temporary' nature of CFL as a terminus will be for as long as it takes to gain possession of the necessary sections of track-bed not currently owned by the Trust - and that will not be a short period, 'cos no doubt the land-owners will continue to thwart the railway as best as they can for as long as they can.

>>>Get to CFL, show them that we are not the ogres that we are made out to be.....show them that there are benefits for the village if we can make CFL work without hindrance to them..

BUT - first you have to get to CFL. And that's where the problem will lie.....

 

I would argue it's perhaps acknowledging the locals concerns and moving the terminus a little way away so it addresses those concerns raised previously.
If we were resubmitting to Parracombe Halt then I would agree we have learnt perhaps nothing.
We don't have loads of enthusiasts milling about at Killington Lane unless we are using it as a carpark on gala days (which I doubt we will be doing at CFL) and as far as I can see it won't be any different, no road access with limited pedestrian access.
If its done right it will show we can be sympathetic to those local concerns, which to me is working with the locals rather than being a hindrance.

 

Sorry to keep labouring the points, but....

>>>...moving the terminus a little way away so it addresses those concerns raised previously...
Exactly how please, given that it will still be a terminus?

>>>We don't have loads of enthusiasts milling about at Killington Lane ....and as far as I can see it won't be any different, no road access with limited pedestrian access....
You may think that, to some extent I would agree with you as the road access at CFL would be even worse than PE (basically non-existent), but I would suggest that some people will try regardless of what warnings are given and that is what the residents seem to have been concerned about.

>>>If its done right it will show we can be sympathetic to those local concerns...

But what you perceive to be the 'right way' to do this then please? However you may choose to 'dress it up', a terminus is a terminus regardless of where it is and that is what the main objectors have made quite clear they do not want.

 

You've already said yourself, 2-300 yards further out.
We don't seem to have the problem with those trying regardless at KL, if there is no road access, there is no road access, end of.
I would also suggest that even using the term "terminus" brings the wrong perception, it's a turnaround, nothing like what most would think of one say at Woody Bay or even Barnstaple, it's a run round, in, and back out again.
Other than that, I'm not commenting or getting pulled into more of an argument, this is for the planning and legal teams to deal with and the locals to decide if its more acceptable to them. We can argue all we like here, but it doesn't effect us directly at all.

 

You’re quite right, it’s not something that members should be needing to debate like this.

But the questions of what a temporary terminus means, and how usage will relate to the village, will matter - including to any who might be tempted to misrepresent matters to the railway’s detriment.

Which brings me back to the question of strategy, and the big picture for how we break the logjam. And there, sadly, I get no sense of evolution or change, just “one more heave”. As a believer in the definition of insanity being to keep trying what’s already failed in the hope that it will work the next time, this doesn’t warm my heart.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You hit the nail on the head there. Reading back over the recent posts here, there's plenty of talk about the next step, but precious little on how that would be achieved, and before anything gets put before ENPA, the railway badly needs to engage with the community, and not just on a lip - service level. A completely new approach is needed, and for that, new faces are required. This is where Chris D, Anne, and Mike W could really make the difference, and I'm sorry to those who might be offended, but Peter Miles and Ian Cowling will need to keep as far away from the public eye as possible during any future consultation process, as any repetition of what has gone before would surely be worthy of the "insanity" tag.

 

No trackbed owned through Parracombe and beyond - residents not happy; No CP powers - no trackbed through Parracombe and beyond; No TWAO - no CP powers. Simples.
The current idea of nudging at CFL is pointless. Either go for the TWAO or look to create a longer line further down the route ...

 

With the best will in the world, to argue as @DaveE is trying to that a terminus isn't a terminus because we're choosing to call it something else is pure sophistry, and unconvincing sophistry at that.

I agree with @21B , @35B, @Mark Thompson and @RailWest - where is the evidence we've engaged in any sort of listening exercise with the people of Parracombe? How does CFL address the legitimate concerns of the people of Parracombe raised during the s73 debacle? What have we done to make it likely we'll get a different response with positive public engagement this time? It seems much more measured and proportionate to apply to build Bridge 65 alone so that it can be completed before the consents from Devon Highways expire, and build the case for an extension from there.

And having been away with work for a week or so, has the Trust dropped its vendetta against Anne? And what is the actual story with the expired planning permission for the WB engine shed?

The first of these is a shameful stain on the Trustees who allowed it happen, and the second at best appears to be very sloppy administration - you need to be on top of your consents or gift an open goal to your opponents.

 

Get Planning Permission to OSHI/ENPA boundary, then go immediately for a TWAO. Or give up.

 

According to post on the Exmoor-NG group it appears that Peter Miles is continuing the campaign against Anne by trying to organize a patently unfair 'appeals' procedure using the same consultants as before.
I expect her post could be added here if people would like and Anne agrees?

 

If true, that's disgraceful @Meiriongwril . If Anne has appealed, it should be heard by an entirely independent panel - as was promised in Lynton - not Mr Miles's cronies whose "report" was so slipshod they couldn't even spell Anne's name correctly. I do hope this is wrong, or that minds have been changed.

 

Toby, I think you know as well as I do there is a huge difference between a London Terminus, Barnstaple Station, even Woody Bay and the current run round loop at KL with the vast majority of passengers doing a return trip.
All are termini yes, but all are completely different in terms of scale, usage and footfall.

 

Who are the 'people of Parracombe' and what are their concerns? From a distance it seems that 'they' have not been seriously involved in what the L&BR Trust is seeking.
Find someone with good communication and marketing skills (not Mr. Miles FGS) and set up a series of community sessions in 'The Fox and Goose' and with the Parish Council, or wherever else may be suitable, to explain the greater plan. No planning application for any extension should proceed until the local people have been brought into a discussion and gained a transparent understanding of L&BR aims. (I wouldn't mind betting that many of them, even at this late stage, have little idea of the overall aim!) After all, what we all want to eventually see is a line running around the rear of Parracombe with a little halt where it once was. Nothing really controversial here, unless perhaps you are 'entitled landowners' like the Grobs. The idea of a terminus (whatever that may mean) might sound ominous to some. Therefore, don't even attempt it at the moment. I cannot believe that the whole village is against the railway: why would they be FGS? Work for and build support in the village. Spend money to achieve this.

Once the whole matter has been fully aired, then apply for a TWAO. Yes, it will take time, we know this, but the L&BR will not be rebuilt over a short time-frame. It will have to be, easy, easy, catchee monkey. And yes, many of us will not see the complete rebuild either! Just get over it! Incremental progress via EA/YV is working. Let's gain quiet satisfaction where we can.

As for Mr. Miles (why do we refer to him as such FGS!), if he is still intent on attacking and attempting to remove Anne Belsey in spite of her gaining the support of the membership at the recent election, then this is truly atrocious and he should be called out. We seem to have an 'entitled' L&BR Trust Chairman who seems to think he is beyond reproach and above (fairly warranted) criticism. He has had his chance to accept responsibility for lies and failure but has ignored this, so how can he be removed?

 

As @Tobbes has said, get bridge 65 built and be done with it before time runs out with DCC, the chance to get to CFL with little resistance was had many years ago, that chance has gone, certain trustee's through their inability to communicate have alienated the railway from a small but very vociferous and effective group of residents in the Parracombe area ( not necessarily locals in the true meaning of the word ) the trusts plan now AIUI is to employ a PR group to try and patch up the mess they have made which in all probability will alienate them even more because they haven't got the balls to meet face to face. Maybe the best chance of moving within the Parracombe area is to seek to reinstate the sections that the trust owns but with no sleepers or rail, trackbed repaired and ballasted and fenced off ready for the future, no running of trains +no arguments over termini.
Irrespective of what some say that a runaround at CFL will not attract attention, I'm sure it will for the first 12 months at least, of course there is no parking apart from Parracombe lane and Century lane, Century lane is also the access road to Heddon Hall and is also a public footpath with access to CFL so anyone with an ounce of common sense can see there will probably be issues similar to Churchtown regarding vehicles being parked up without due consideration to others.
the scan is dated approx 2007

 

@DaveE, please: no one is suggesting that Parracombe or CFL is Waterloo, but that's not the exam question.

Instead, the exam question is how the newly proposed CFL will *differ* to the formerly proposed Parracombe (either the first s73 application or the second s73 application) which inspired so much opposition? There will have to be some sort of public access at CFL (or at least as I understand it, without it the KL-CFL element would not be public transport (even in theory), and therefore there would be VAT implications on ticket sales), and how is CFL better equipped for public access than Parracombe's station site? I don't see it at all.

Again, as @35B noted above, John Barton was (commendably) clear in Lynton that the "consultation" was nothing of the sort, and that there was only one plan - and, if I recall correctly, that if we didn't go with it, he take his toys and go home. Beyond demonstrating that the "consultation" was fundamentally disingenuous, this exposed a "one more heave" mentality that showed little or nothing had been learned from the last five years. Let's apply to do Bridge 65, and work with the people of Parracombe to get a plan we can all live with, even if it means being realistic and accepting that we're not likely to get to OSHI until 2030/31 because of the failures of the last five years.