Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

What vendetta is this, @H Cloutt ?

There's a pretty fundamental difference in asking questions and holding leaders accountable on the one hand and renegeing on commitments given in a public meeting in order to attempt to defenstrate someone you see as an opponent. The second of these looks like a vendetta....

 

Well, it was not intended to be, so I am sorry if you interpreted it as that.

My point is that, if you are well acquainted with all the 'facts and figures' about the history of the past few years, then I fail to see how the omission of a halt at PE would help in anyway for the railway to get back to BR under current circumstances. Do not forget please that the original planning application for Phase 2A, was was approved, proposed a passing-loop with two platforms at PE - clearly an enlargement over its historic form. IMHO that was what drew the 'greatest fire' at that time. Then came the various versions of the Sec73 applications, which reverted to being just a single platform with a run-round loop (or siding) as a temporary terminus - and as far as I can see, it was the 'terminus' status that caused the problem rather than the simple fact of having a station at all. Even if you cut back even further to no halt/station at all, you still have to get around the (lack of) land purchase issue anyway.

If the ENPA were willing to ignore the objections from PE residents and grant permission for the original loop+two platforms design, on what grounds could they decide in future to support objections and refuse permission for a scheme on a reduced scale?

 

There is nothing in the M and A that prevent a properly nominated person from standing for election whether under investigation or not. That was the trustees making it up as they went along.
There is no longer an investigation. That has happened and the trustees have concluded that they have lost confidence in Anne Belsey as a result of her use of email and her suggestion to others that they donate to other organisations.
They have applied a sanction-which is to dismiss her as a trustee and a member.
There is now an appeal.

Now it seems evident that there are three (at least) grounds for appeal:
1. If there was a breach of GDPR (which is debatable) then the breach was actually by the Trust. Not the individual.
2. There is nothing to prevent trustees suggesting people donate to other organisations allied to the overall objective of the trust. There is therefore no case to answer on this point.
3. The trustees do not have the power under the Mand A to suspend or terminate anyone’s membership or trusteeship.

On the face of it the trust have made charges that are wrong and applied a sanction they have no right to apply. Anne has no case to answer and her appeal must be allowed.

It might be argued that the powers of trustees might need revising but that isn’t the point right now. Even if they were revised and applied retrospectively there are other grounds for believing that the process is not being followed fairly, in fact no process is being followed really, it is being made up on the fly.

None of this is compatible with healing relationships inside and outside the LandB and creating and delivering any coherent strategy that delivers the end goal of a railway from Barnstable to Lynton. Or even one as far as CFL or whatever other point on the map is chosen.

It is no good burying heads and hoping that all the people asking awkward questions will go away. They won’t. And what is more the questions asked from outside the tent will be much more difficult.

This is a very serious long term development. It will at some point probably require millions of public money and the LandB has GOT to project an air of competence and good governance that it hasn’t done much of over the last year or so especially.

 

I am aware of the GDPR rules. If there is a breach then the Trust has broken the rules. They then need to investigate the breach and identify who is responsible and hold them to account. Procedures may need to be altered. Training may need to be given.
As a trust member I do not want to see the trust landed with a hefty fine - funds which could be used for the benefit of the railway. So the matter should be investigated and steps taken to prevent it happening again.

 

That's good to know. Whilst a CPO can't buy you love, but it can put you in a very good bargaining position

 

@H Cloutt - again, we agree: it is far better to negotiate for the land required and I would hope never to have to apply for CP powers. Sadly, in our particular case one landowner has made their position very clear. Personally, I'm very pleased that ours is a society where there is a presumption against CP powers, but that is not the same as an individual having the right of veto over a project with broader public goods, and therefore CP powers exist. There is nothing to suggest that they won't be required here, but we will be able to say very specifically what land we will require through a CPO, which should assuage fears locally.

 

I agree @H Cloutt, which is why it is so curious that the Trust has taken this stance in Anne's case, which, as @21B notes is arguable, whereas they took no action and certainly didn't have an enquiry like this when a senior member of an area group did disclose email adressess. One rule for us and another for you isn't the look we're looking for, I'm afraid.

 

I think there is a slight conflation of matters here.

If you apply for TWAO with CPO then yes all landowners become objectors by statute.

Once you have the CPO powers it doesn’t mean you have to use them. Negotiations can continue, and in the case of the RVR have to continue in order to resolve things like where the occupation crossings will be. The powers simply mean that the landowner can no longer block the development. Ultimately the developer can fence off the land and get on with the job. A process then kicks in to determine the compensation. I am guessing, but that process is probably not without cost, and the RVR will need to live with its neighbours going forwards, so continuing to talk is very sensible. The CPO means that the nature of the conversation is rather different though.

There is a great deal to be learnt from the RVR experience.

 

Indeed, @21B. And for me, the key is in para 95 of this document from 9 May 2023: https://assets.publishing.service.g...ile/1155226/rother-valley-decision-letter.pdf

Here, the Secretary of State admits that the RVR does not absolutely have to have all of the cash up front, but a decent chance of getting it before she granted the Order. As the first preservation TWAO, this should have significant precedental value, and this is extremely helpful for the L&BRT.

 

I think that the other useful precedent (possibly set twice now if we include the WHR) is that there is a wider community, economic and societal benefit. The use of CP powers being proportionate to obtaining that set of benefits even at the objection of land owners.

We do need to be careful about that of course as it is a massive thing to deprive someone of their property and it isn’t something to be triumphant about.

 

I am not aware of all the facts in either case. However, you have to involve the ICO who will advise you whether the breach needs to be reported or not. When you report it you need to say what action you are taking to prevent it occuring again. The ICO will advise you about this as well. One factor they take into account is whether the breach deliberate or accidental?
I am confidient that the Trust has taken advice from the ICO and have acted/are acting in accordance with the guidence they have been given.
Committees and trustees of membership organisation have to take account of GDPR in their working practices. It is important and it is the law. It may mean limiting who has access to membership records.

 

Given all the other procedural hiccups, what is it that gives you confidence that this one has/is being dealt with properly?

 

See also the 'made' order at The Rother Valley Railway (Bodiam to Robertsbridge Junction) Order 2023 (legislation.gov.uk)

 

Would that be done in the same way that they apparently 'took advice' from the Charities Commission with regard to the late notification of the AGM and then acted in accordance with that advice ....understood to be 'follow your M&AOA'....by carrying on regardless ??? Sadly, at the moment I fail to share your confidence in them :-(

 

that is interesting to know, perhaps those who have had their membership revoked should get together and mount a challenge

 

sadly due to certain trustee's incompetence or willingness to jump the gun on elections over the last few years, they have, including the 'ANNE' inquiry unnecessarily wasted somewhere in the region of £10k....

 

I would be extremely cautious about following this course. People are quite capable of discerning when a person or organisation is attempting to ingratiate, merely to silence the objections to their/its own agenda. For most people, the reaction to such tactics is greater hostility, as the person/organisation clearly thinks that the objector is:
1. Too stupid to recognise the disingenuousness behind the sudden generosity
2. Too shallow to hold on to their principles when faced by such blatant manipulation

 

I had neither in mind but nevermind.

 

However we are not talking about bulldozing property are we? We are talking about a strip of farming land, in the case of RVR, with agreed occupation crossings, and in the case of L&BR, a strip of land at the foot of a garden... I'm not suggesting that this is a matter of no consequence but I am trying to set it into context. In the case of the L&BR it is, I would posit, cashed-up NIMBY-ism.

 

Agreed, social media is a potential cesspit of mis-information and lies. I do not inhabit it and I might humbly suggest that you don't either.
I partially agree too that 'togetherness and community relations does not need to come from a chairman' but I would suggest that it is better for an organisation if it does and, if it signally does not, what does this tell us about the style of 'leadership' anyway?? I see no signs of a true leadership emanating from 'Chairman Miles'. If it did we would not need to be having this conversation either.