Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Why not ask the HRA to provide someone to hear the appeal, much cheaper?

 

Unfortunately I think it's mostly enthusiasts who are most likely to try and park just about anywhere and ignore sensible signs and show courtesy. I've met a fair few who have little consideration for others and also trespass whenever they feel like it too.
The average tourist or high season visitor will almost always go to Woody Bay for their visit.
I would like to hope that a good awareness article in the Magazine, and the likes of us who are active on social media, can make the point that if we get CFL then it's strictly no vehicular access, zero, none, keep out of it and go to Woody Bay, park up and ride down, don't be an ass.

 

The issue @DaveE is that if I'm in Parracombe, then I'm going to assume the worst, whoever is doing it. It is on us as the applicant to demonstrate that there will not be an negative impact from the plans, and based on what we know now, that's simply not the case at CFL. @Meatman makes a series of very sensible points above; I'd love to hear the official answer to them.

You'd think, or our own Railway Vicars.

But Miles committed to an independent process in Lynton, and yet it ended up being decided by the Trustees, which was risible as it made Miles and Co prosecution, judge and jury. Worse, they ended up trying to impose a penalty that I can't see in any L&B written disciplinary proceedure. Given this track record, I presume that by proposing the use of the same consultancy firm to produce a report, they're trying to make sure that they make the final decision on an appeal on their own decision, which would be to make a mockery of the whole process. This mustn't be allowed to happen.

 

OK, if we are trying to sell the CFL idea..

Its some distance further out of Parracombe so addresses the concerns of noise.
It has zero vehicular access.
It may be possible to have foot traffic so people can walk into the village and go to the Fox and Goose which increases the economy of the village.
If we say strictly no access at all and Vat has to be charged, so be it, Bluebell did similar for a while I believe when they could not allow passengers to alight at one of their stations. But doing this would isolate Parracombe from any benefits of trade in the pub or shop.
Having reached CFL we could then over a period of time demonstrate that we will work with the village on any problems that occur, and also try and help the village in areas which are perhaps not strictly railway related. Two days a year say we have L&B volunteer parties to do litter picks, garden help, clear drainage etc. Loads of things can be done.

 

Dave as i stated earlier it has Century Lane leading up to the bottom of CFL so there clearly is vehicular access that could and probably would cause issues and as you stated earlier enthusiasts will go there no matter what and to be perfectly honest its those very enthusiasts that contribute a significant amount to the railway coffers as a whole

 

And to that point, I wonder how many here on social media would make the effort to go to Woody Bay and actually get involved in activities which although are not railway related do help the local communities.
I know many who live in the area probably would, but what about those from further away.
The acts of kindness that could be done are in my view invaluable.
If people want togetherness the sniping and back biting needs to stop, willingness to be a part of activities to help the rural communities will earn more brownie points with those communities than any amount of talk and consultations.
It's noted that the old lady or man on the corner has a broken gate it needs a new hinge, we ask and if they want we fix it. Maybe the garden is becoming too much, we offer a morning on a slow day or day we are not open to tidy it up. For this we could ask for volunteers who are community champions connected to the railway but don't necessarily work at Woody Bay, but they have the backing and access to the railway resources.
There are many things that could be done.

 

I think that's where its down to the likes of us to get across that it's just not proper to cause problems and be inconsiderate. Make it quite clear that that type of behaviour is just not acceptable.
But equally, if someone wants a VIP trip down to CFL, maybe go into areas the public don't normally, then they can park at Woody Bay, ride down and be given a tour in recognition of that contribution.
I know, all comes down to volunteers available etc.

 

Perhaps you might have a word with Chairman Miles to stop the sniping and back biting? This would go some way to building togetherness. Then we might be able to consider how best to get Parracombe villagers et al onside. I think you make some good points here but once started it will probably take some time to convince the 'vociferous minority' that what they are witnessing are 'the real L&BR members'.

 

At present the people of Parracombe appear not to want the railway halt reinstated or indeed to have the railway running through the village.

So how about a compromise?

Has anyone ever suggested not reinstating Parracombe Halt at this time, and running directly to BG? (yes I know this would still run through the Grob's land and probably require a CPO)

If acceptable to all, the water tank could be reinstated at Parracombe to be used in emergencies only.

Looking at the L&B map from the website, the distance from WB - BG would seem to be approx. 4 - 4.5 miles, so shouldn't cause any problems with loco water capacity or indeed passengers getting bored/needing toilets.

Reinstatement of the halt can be revisited when the railway is more established and the residents may have changed their minds.

 

There is a huge amount of it that goes on on social media too. Togetherness and community relations does not need to come from a chairman either, it comes from all of us and how we speak about people and the comments we make.
Singling out one person for the reason is not right when I can see often comments which are not particularly nice being made on social media.

 

@DaveE do give us a break. It was Peter Miles who started this vendetta against Anne by breaking our own rules and excluding her valid candidacy from the election with the active assistance of Tony Nicholson, and who has sustained this vendetta at a currently unknown cost despite Anne's election to the Board. It was Miles who refused to follow our own rules in running an illegal AGM, and who has an unfortunate habit of being caught out making assertions which then don't stand up under the mildest analysis.

None of this is the result of 'back biting' or anything else - these are choices that Miles has made unbidden. If you want healing, then getting those who are in charge to start behaving decently, start following our own rules, and being straight with Members would be a great place to start.

 

I don't think I was talking about what's going on at high levels? I was talking about how to solve the upset in the communities. And some of that starts by those on social media being more mindful of what they say.

 

That's fine @DaveE , I wholly agree.

But part of being straight with people is also making clear that no one landowner has a right of veto over this project, and that if - very regrettably - there is no alternative to CPO powers, then we will seek them but only for the following pieces of land. People understandably fear CP powers - we can lay a lot of concerns to rest by making it clear that this is a narrow, limited power and it will only be sought as a last resort, and only for these specific pieces of land.

 

Err....have you missed the last 5 years please? IF we have/had the Grob land, then we could have pressed on to BR long ago, with or without a Halt at PE. But (1) we do NOT have that land, (2) we do not have a CPO, (3) we do not have a TWAO to give us CPO powers and (4) even if we were to get fresh planning consent it may well still be the case that ENPA will require us to have all the money up front and do we have that ? - I think not.

 

What a condescending comment ! Many of the posters on this thread are experienced railway operators/builders/administrators, as are many of the members of the L&B Trust. Others will have experience in other fields such as project management, accounting, building, fund-raising and Public Relations, all of which will be required at some stage during the development of the railway.
The criticism of the so-called survey was that it gave every appearance of being constructed to produce a specific result : "Discount Options A,B, and D, we've had a look at them and they won't work so vote for option C". That is not a consultation. Those of us questioning this presentation were, and are, not asking for highly detailed engineering specifications, which would be of limited use anyway at this point in time. What we would expect to have seen was a "bullet point" type summary of what might be required to accomplish the various options. This would address not only the engineering requirement (re-instatement of track-bed, 'x' small bridges, road over- or under- bridges, 'y' metres of track, ballast and sleepers, drainage, signalling equipment, etc) but also the work-force required at different stages, finances to be raised by time-line, and any particular obstacles (whether physical or legal) to be overcome. This is the sort of information that anyone making a presentation to a committee or body of members is expected to provide.
Instead, all we get are your assurances, without any evidence (and on what authority ?) that the Trust's legal and planning teams (who are they ?) are on top of things and we need not concern ourselves.

The more I enquire the more I am surprised at what has not been done over the intervening years. It seems we have now bought OSHI with a view to developing track-bed and yards but have given little or no thought to how we are going to get under the A399 given that the road is much wider and carries more traffic than it did when the railway was built. We also have track-bed towards Wistlandpound Reservoir but have not surveyed potential routes around it. As these are our two biggest and most expensive obstacles, together perhaps with the new bridge required over the A39 before Collards Bridge, I would have expected the basic surveying and planning to have been done years ago.

I suggest that a lot more could be accomplished if the Trust Board engaged more with the membership and took on board some of the useful suggestions which have been made. Hopefully this will occur with the refreshed Board but I can't say the auspices auger well at present.

 

>>>>Many of the posters on this thread are experienced railway operators/builders/administrators, as are many of the members of the L&B Trust. Others will have experience in other fields such as project management, accounting, building, fund-raising and Public Relations, all of which will be required at some stage during the development of the railway.

Quite - and sadly, there are far too many instances where apparently such skills are being ignored...

>>>>Those of us questioning this presentation were.....not asking for highly detailed engineering specifications.....[but] ....a "bullet point" type summary of what might be required to accomplish the various options. This would address not only the engineering requirement (re-instatement of track-bed, 'x' small bridges, road over- or under- bridges, 'y' metres of track, ballast and sleepers, drainage, signalling equipment, etc.....

Well, as far as signalling (and its equipment) goes, I know that there was no involvement with the 'signal group', as only recently we had to write to 'the management' to ask what the intentions/requirements for Option 'C' are so that we could check (a) what equipment existed already and (b) what we need to acquire. No sign of a response yet.....

 

That's your point of view you are entitled to it. We were specifically talking about civil engineering though.

And as I said some time ago, what I say is my point of view as part of a discussion on this thread, I don't need prompting, I have my own mind and my own thoughts, ideas and suggestions.

I will also say that although I have disagreed with many here, I respect their views and have never attacked anyone personally.

As far as I see, everyone is in their trenches, I cannot help diffuse the situation, I'm wasting my time.

I'm out.

 

Err...no, and your post comes across as arrogant and berating, maybe posters on here should think about how their posts could be interpreted to potential supporters or to those wavering on not renewing.
I'm well aware of the situation with the land and the need for CPO/TWAO - I even stated that in my post. Prejudging what the ENPA might or might not say is not a good reason to consider a certain plan.
The point was/is that the previous application incorporated the halt at Parracombe, which seemed to draw the greatest fire from locals, so why not think about an application that does not include the contentious bit.

 

I have said many times that I don't see this as a vendetta against Anne. There is clearly an issue with something Anne apparently did which needs to be investigated and resolved. Her election as a trustee does not mean that the investigation should stop. I am sure that all those who voted for Anne in the Trustee election want a resolution to this.
I accept that the trustees [and I am not singling any one trustee in this] made a mistake in not including her on the original ballot. As I understand this was because there was an investigation underway.
I also think it is time the vendetta against Peter Miles was stopped.

 

Things change - RVR had several landowners who would not sell - more than the two who are now subject to CPO. Circumstances change and they were able to negotiate to purchase several part of the trackbed without resorting to CPO. I don't think that applying for a TWAO allows you to be specific about which portions of land will be subject to a CPO. As I understand it the TWAO allows for CPO powers for any land which is needed. In L & B's case this is effectively one or two part of the trackbed. Don't forget that anyone who owns land on the trackbed becomes a 'statuatory objector' who had the right to call for a Public Inquiry. Far better to buy by negotiation. As I understand it RVR are attempting to negotiate land purchase rather than use the CPO powers which they now have.