Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Its something I've heard has happened too. With the fault finding that goes on and most social media being open to all, information can be taken and used by those who may oppose the railway.

There are times when things needing to be discussed or debated need to be done out of the public eye because not doing so causes far more damage than realised and sometimes more than the original issues.

Social media and forums like this one can be a great tool for promotion and marketing, but that same mechanism can work in reverse too.

 

Sadly, blaming the messenger is precisely how Chairman Miles started his angry rant at the (illegal) AGM in Lynton. To listen to him, if there were no questions and no criticism, presumably by now we'd be laying track into Pilton Yard...!

@21B is spot on - if there was open conversation, and the pronouncements of the Trust could be relied upon rather than immediately compared with known externally-confirmed facts (e.g., audited accounts, publicly available planning documents), then we'd be a lot better off. As it is, the Trust's misrepresentations and half-truths - let alone the libellous attacks on Anne B and things that have been shown to be flat out lies - mean that very little of what comes out can be accepted as fact without checking. The absence of regular updates (Lynton Line was good but seems to have disappeared) means that those who care about the railway, or are concerned about it, will debate it in whatever forum *is* available - whether it is here, ExmoorNG or Facebook.

And @DaveE - appeals for privacy and 'trust us' fall flat precisely because the Trust has forfeited a lot of trust by their actions and misrepresentations. The only people to blame for that are Miles and his friends.

 

im sorry Dave but who in their right mind would agree to such without knowing the detail, especially on such a large and significant planning application

 

I disagree, it's OK to maybe discuss some things, but there is a time when perhaps it needs to go to a private group chat by invite where it can be ensured no additional damage can be done by airing info which can be taken away and used negatively.
If I want to discuss something with others which may be a rumour, controversial or sensitive I take it to private where I can be sure of who I am conversing with.
I've used social media enough now over the years to see what damage can be caused, and quite often from info which isn't particularly shocking or controversial.
The social media part cannot all be blamed on the Trust or anyone apart from those participating in the discussions online.

 

Didn't have a choice back then, it was why the changes were made in October 2018. It happened quite often with other applications which is why the govt sought a review as authorities were using the conditions in a way which they were not really brought in for.

 

Killington Lane goes down to Hunters Inn, the bridge takes this road over the railway, as far as I'm aware it was removed years ago so needs to be rebuilt

 

Theres always a choice

 

Unfortunately before Oct 2018 as I understand it often there wasn't a choice, being as the authority didn't have to notify the applicant of the condition or wording and could pretty much be imposed on the day of determination, applicants didn't know what the conditions would be or if they would be Grampian Conditions.
Now and since Oct 2018 authorities have to notify of intent of applying Grampian Conditions and the wording, the applicant can then agree to them or refuse (and the authority then has to reword/find another way to address the issue/refuse application).
What this means is if there is an intent to apply Grampian Conditions, there is an opportunity to negotiate and work through those issues and in effect should negate the need to have them at all.

 

Indeed. It's a must have and on the way to Parracombe. So why does it seem so difficult to allocate existing funds, earmarked for the Parracombe extension, to this objective.
Less faff and more action.

 

But how can the musings of us lot here be used as fodder for naysayers? We have no say and much of what appears here is contradictory anyway!
Certainly 'there are times when things needing to be discussed or debated need to be done out of the public eye' but has anyone suggested that this is never the case?
I do hope that you and @Small Prairie are not suggesting that much if not everything should be withheld from public gaze? (There is also an assumption here that Members are not to be trusted, even though we are the ones providing much of the capital!) Yours in confusion, etc.

 

In one of those instances where it might be best to talk privately... Hope you don't mind but I've contacted you privately! hehe

 

well, all figures being approximate give or take a few £k we know that the trust started the 'return to Parracombe ' appeal with around a £400k block, the total became £700k before the appeal was stopped, the accounts show some £200k + that was actually raised by the appeal but where the £400+ block is , is actually unclear, it could be from unrestricted funds , lets not forget though that Killington lane bridge was in the elapsed planning so before work can start a new application needs to be submitted and approved

 

There are objections to the standard practice of appointing auditing accountants being by company boards however naturally that happens - rather than the shareholders by a process that is nothing to do with how the membership of the board is determined.

 

Not a railway but in 2005 another heritage/tourism transport scheme, the Ashby Canal restoration (partly on the original route and part on a deviation) obtained a TWAO with compulsory-purchase powers.

 

Bear in mind that any contributions here, and on Exmoor-NG, Facebook etc. involve a very small proportion of the L&BR Trust membership, so not necessarily a true representation of the Trusts position overall,

If I was peacefully contemplating the quiet enjoyment of my rural idyll, and I heard that a bunch of entitled rich townie boys wanted to build a stinky, smelly railway through my village, what would I do?

Well the first thing might be to join (or get one or more close friends or relatives from further afield to join) said bunch to find out as much as possible about their plans, and do what I (they) could to thwart the evil scheme - perhaps even volunteering, or rising to a position where I could influence their thinking sufficiently from the inside, or within local authorities and other organisations.

If I couldn't find all I needed from within, then yes, I too would join all the social media groups I could find, join in their conversations and glean more details.

It would be naive to think that some or all of the above (and more) hasn't been going on for many years,

Know thine enemy - that is what 'they' are doing!

 

I'd suggest if your attitude is "know thine enemy" then you are already on completely the wrong foot. The best organisations have supportive relationships with their local community, not antagonistic ones. If language like "know thine enemy" is entrenched within L&B supporter circles, little wonder if the local community is struggling to see the upside of having the railway develop on their doorstep.

That's not, incidentally, a suggestion that therefore supporters should maintain radio silence in any public, or semi-public, channel (such as this one). But rather to consider whether their support for the railway aligns with local needs, or is couched in a way to antagonise those living locally.

Tom

 

I think it has to be said that Nat Pres has a bigger reach than perhaps thought being as it will be linked to search engines etc.

Very much could be said for "Idle Talk Costs....."

 

No one really sees them as an "enemy" especially those who support the railway and also have friends in that local community, we fully realise that this is in all ways a very big issue for the locals.

There will be some who do see us as an enemy though.

That said, it's very much why I think the issues should be talked about locally, resolved locally and not on social media or a wider reaching forum where things may get misunderstood, rumours begin, nastiness occur and where also lurks trolls, keyboard warriors, etc who just get a kick out of causing conflict.

 

Ah, that's where the current junta came from ....

 

It isn't my attitude - I'm very much a 'Jaw-jaw is better than war-war' kinda guy and I'm sure much more could have been achieved by now through engaging in meaningful dialogue with all concerned over the many years since restoration began at Woody Bay.

[Update:]
Incidentally, I would like to applaud the trustees - in particular John Barton - for the recent uptick in notices to members - two posts to the website in a fortnight. I'm sure that level of update (even if not always quite as frequent) can only help to improve membership and other stakeholder enagagement.