Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

[/QUOTE]
If this is correct, in order not to default in April, OSHI has to make a minimum of profit after tax this year of £72,300 :

£34,800 to pay the secured loan annual interest bill.
£12,500 to pay the Trust's interest bill in year 1
£25,000 to pay the Trust's first principal repayment
[/QUOTE]
To be strictly correct the £25,000 would reduce the loan in the Balance Sheet rather than affect the profit, but I take his point - the LBBC Company would have to make at least £25,000 profit after covering the interest he quotes to generate the cash to pay it.

 

If this is correct, in order not to default in April, OSHI has to make a minimum of profit after tax this year of £72,300 :

£34,800 to pay the secured loan annual interest bill.
£12,500 to pay the Trust's interest bill in year 1
£25,000 to pay the Trust's first principal repayment
[/QUOTE]
To be strictly correct the £25,000 would reduce the loan in the Balance Sheet rather than affect the profit, but I take his point - the LBBC Company would have to make at least £25,000 profit after covering the interest he quotes to generate the cash to pay it.[/QUOTE]
@Michael B - of course, forgive me. Let's see if it can be made to work...

 

1. Obtaining planning permission in 2018 was a great achievement.
Unsurprisingly it came with conditions
2. To discharge those conditions required compulsory purchase (CP) powers
3. To obtain CP powers required a Transport & Works Act Order (TWAO)
4. Chris Duffell did a lot of work on the TWAO but received so little help from the trustees that he paused it, and then stood successfully as a trustee.
5. The railway was consequently unable to discharge the conditions & accordingly the planning permission lapsed in March 2023
6. By a remarkable coincidence the OSHI deal closed shortly afterwards & just before the Trust AGM
7. The purchase of OSHI by LBBC does not include the trackbed, which has been bought by the Trust directly
8. The financial case in the prospectus for OSHI hinges on the railway's extension to Blackmoor, and thus on the TWAO

So why wasn’t the TWAO prioritised?

(The points above are believed to be factual)

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

>>> Chris Duffell did a lot of work on the TWAO but received so little help from the trustees that he paused it.........

I too have had experience of a Trust where the Chairman/Trustees wrote great words of encouragement offering support and thanks, yet failed so dismally to actually deliver on anything that in the end I ceased my efforts on their behalf, so I can understand and share his frustration. But what is worse IMHO is the fact that apparently the L&BR's Trustees either did not realise the importance of, and/or did not care about, the TWAO when surely it should have become clear to them all at an early stage just how vital it would be for the future success of Phase 2A? The fact that the Chairman appears to have been content to allow that situation to continue unchecked must surely speak volumes :-(

 

As @Isambard! notes, I wholly agree that it was a great achievement to get planning permission in 2018. But as @RailWest rightly points out, it is now clear that there was no plan to fulfil the conditions and deliver the extension, leading us to the strategic failure we have now.

What is especially strange to me is that there has not been a forum where we can all learn lessons from the last six or seven years, and work out collectively how we can move the project forward. Given the 'one option take or it or leave it' in the so-called 'Consultation', it seems to me that it would be a mistake to pursue CFL without a real lessons learned process and a set of consultations with Parracombers to understand their concerns and see how we can accomodate them.

I also don't want to be a prophet of doom with no ideas of a way forward, so in the absence of a deliberative process by the Trust, we can at least make a start here.

My starter for 10, after listening to lots of voices:

- Spend as much time listening to Parracombers as possible and engage in a proper local dialogue.

- Apply for Bridge 65 and Bridge 64 Planning Permission only (and if we need to limit it further, Bridge 65 alone), and get it built so that we can transfer it to Devon Highways. It appears that we can't even afford Bridge 65 at the moment because of the diversion of funds to OSHI, suggesting that we'll need to fundraise about £250-350k for Bridge 65, depending on quotes post inflation.

- Acquire the remaining packets between KL and OSHI other than Court Place Farm - and this could be an excellent opportunity for EA/YVT to work with the Trust in an area where they've shown real expertise as well as bringing the L&B family back together;

- Fence, drain, level the trackbed we own, and engage in proper husbandry of our holdings;

- Proceed with an electric railcar minimum railway from OSHI to Wistlapound to demonstrate progress and protect the land purchased south of OSHI which could, I understand, otherwise revert to the previous owner in the near future;

- Apply for PP for the KL - BG section, knowing that it'll probably take two years to come through. Accept moderated Grampian Conditions up front to show some we understand why they were imposed in 2018;

- Have the TWAO ready for submission the day after PP is granted with the CP powers that will be required for any outstanding trackbed between KL and BG so that there is no confusion about what the CP powers are to be used for.

This won't be quick: Planning Permissions lodged in 2024 would probably mean PP being granted in 2026, TWAO 2029, and getting the line reconstructed to BG (and connecting the isolated section to Wistlapound) in the period 2030-32.

 

It's sound, and the only sensible way forward. On the subject of BG to WP, the clause in the deed needs to be clarified - could the reconstruction of bridges 54 & 55 be deemed as sufficient to discharge the obligation?

 

>>>What is especially strange to me is that there has not been a forum where we can all learn lessons from the last six or seven years, and work out collectively how we can move the project forward. Given the 'one option take or it or leave it' in the so-called 'Consultation', it seems to me that it would be a mistake to pursue CFL without a real lessons learned process and a set of consultations with Parracombers to understand their concerns and see how we can accomodate them.

I agree wholeheartedly with the first sentence.

I have spoken with a number of fellow members who have varying concerns about the current 'dash for CFL' proposal. The engineering 'solution' is quite interesting, but it appear to be (a) expensive to implement and then (b) expensive and disruptive to remove in order to extend further south. Quite what our passengers would see - and think - when they end up in a cutting at CFL (with at best a footpath for access) rather than the views of North Devon from KL is unclear. It puts me in the mind of Mendip Vale on the ESR in its original access-less form.

Although this may be a case of 'hope over experience', but if the Trust does engage - as it really must do this time in a much better way - with the good folk of Parracombe with the hope of at least getting to CFL, then maybe, just maybe, it would be worth at least trying to discuss going as far as the actual PE station site once again. I accept that there are those who ears are closer to the local PE ground and may recoil in horror at the thought of tempting fate yet again, but - as they say - nothing ventured, nothing gained.

 

So we need:

1. Properly prepared planning documents which have been thoroughly checked to avoid a repeat of the red line errors.

2. A robust & deliverable funding plan will be essential for the TWAO. We should try to get the Grampian conditions on funding to match those of the TWAO - it's a question of finding a way of addressing ENPA's legitimate concerns.

3. A worked up TWAO application ready to be submitted immediately, so there is no unnecessary delay.

4. As Tobbes says regular dialogue with stakeholders including potential vendors.

Overall, a far more open & inclusive process to bring strengths together. I'm a great believer in teamwork. No one person has all the skills for any one of those items. Team members cover eachother's backs. There could be a working group on each if those items.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

At said Trustee's 'consultation', at least one respondent voted "None of the above" adding a suggestion along the lines that time should be most usefully employed in reviewing with all stakeholders how we got to where we were before agreeing on the way to move forward.
I (er, I mean "I believe that member will...") still feel that would have been a more pragmatic approach at the time, and still is now.

I very largely agree with Tobbes' suggestion and, although I believe the work done on the bridges is already sufficient to secure the remaining NDDC planning permission, further visible preparatory work between BG and WP can only be a benefit. Although to me, like many members, the idea of an electric railcar plying the route is far from ideal (I have heard much worse said about it!), bearing in mind where we are right now. it is probably the best and most pragmatic way forward, for maybe ten or twenty years, and a great opportunity to show the residents of Parracombe and other local communities that we are serious, and can work with them as good neighbours to our mutual benefit.

 

agreed. Also required is a proper governance structure and the trust that people will stick to the rules. Without that creating the funding package will be hard.

Also required is a solid project plan not only for the infrastructure but all of this, and a recognition that the fences cannot be rushed. It might be worth pursuing a rapid bridge 65 project, but all else will benefit from a great deal more planning.

 

Three things about a TWAO. Firstly they are expensive. Secondly they require a lot of preparation. Rother Valley Railway have significant, successful experience concerning such preparation and should be approached for advice and assistance on a commercial basis. Furthermore, preparing and working on a TWAO from Killington Lane (KL if you must) to BG (Blackmoor Gate I'd prefer) will provide volumes of helpful experience for future TWAO extensions.

Nevertheless this is most certainly not a starting point. Careful community involvement and engagement with the good people of Parracombe should start as soon as possible, if not sooner. As mentioned above this should be put into the hands of Mike Buse and his team at Exmoor Associates as they have proven communication skills. Perhaps a new team with no accompanying baggage might give the best chance for a path forward.

Of course seek to purchase any remaining parcels of land between Killington Lane and Blackmoor OSHI but apart from Court Place Farm what are these anyway? (If EA were running the show we would know!) Furthermore, I would have thought it might be prudent to attempt engagement with the Grobs too, to see if there is any prospect of a rapprochement in any form.

I find it truly amazing that we on here are even having to go through all this. It should be the L&BR Trustees guiding the process but we get nothing from them except the shrivelled carrot of CFL being dangled in front of us donkeys...

 

Unfortunately a TWAO will be necessary. David Grob did an FoI request to ENPA, which he shared. It shows that ENPA were indeed being very helpful, despite misleading comments to the contrary from trustees. Their legal advice was attached, which is unequivocal as to the unlawfulness of the s73.

At my suggestion we then went back to Grob exactly you suggest....the result was not positive sadly - he is extremely angry. From his comments CP would be the only approach. He's clearly been badly antagonised by one or more trustees some time in the past.

I absolutely concur about the need to work with Parracombe. Simply going for CFL is tin-eared. The whole approach is way too adversarial for my taste, & I don't appreciate being misled.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

I live in a national trust owned property on a national trust owned tenanted farm near Bath. My work involves me in the conservation/restoration and sometimes modification and modernisation of listed buildings in Bath. I deal with conservation officers, and planners and listed buildings officers on a fairly regular basis.
There is a factor in this recent debacle, wasting the planning permission of 2018, that nobody seems to have realised but which could have serious ramifications for the future of many heritage railways perhaps especially the L&B.
These officers are getting younger.
2020 saw an awful lot of people of senior rank in many organisations throw in the towel. Whether it was just facing the fact that life is finite, health can change, or not wanting to spend the next ten years zooming on a computer, who knows.
The replacements are young. Very young. And predominantly female.
They went to university where they learned all about heritage and planning and countryside management from academics who had no practical experience (Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach).
These youngsters have inculcated all the latest ideas about environment and green ideals and inclusivity and whose lives matter. They like badgers and bicycles and electric cars and net zero and rainbow stripy flags.
They do not tend to like old guys, doing old fashioned British things like playing trains.
Not only do the younger lot not remember steam on the main line, but their parents don't remember steam on the main line either. They are several generations removed from what many of us grew up with
So a bunch of wealthier middle aged middle class white guys wanting to build a railway line in the countryside, cutting down trees and upsetting the Animals of Farthing Wood, just so they can play with non-renewable fossil-fuel burning machines is not going to be viewed in the same light as in 1970. Or in 2015 for that matter.

I sincerely hope it is not the case, but the Trust's abject failure to use the planning consents of 2018 may have ruined the chance of the L&B ever being more than a short novelty ride.

 

Given the number of LGBT folk involved in the heritage movement and our length of service (I will be 60 this year and I first volunteered at 14.) you might want to think carefully about remarks about ‘rainbow stripy flags’, which I find more than a little offensive.

Robin

 

Given the conversations that we had regarding another railway in the west country, and the support I voiced and showed at the time, I am surprised and disappointed that you should choose to be offended.
Still, suit yourself

 

And I’m grateful for that support. It is the remark I am offended by.

It detracts from your sensible comment that, in broad terms, a planning application may be harder next time.

 

Agreed. We have very much the same thing in Suffolk ("Why are you doing this? What's the point? Are you mad?") with the added difficulty here (don't know about Devon in this regard) that the planning process locally is completely broken, never having recovered from austerity and Covid.
In our case, many of the local authorities are now run by (or heavily influenced by) the Green party - and our new constituency is likely to be a Green target. So we have to live with it. On that basis, we have invested in a battery-electric loco (which by 2024 will be charged from solar panels) which seems to be popular with such people. FR are doing a similar thing.

On the wider point in this discussion (and we have had a very similar experience here) it would seem to an outsider that the residents of Parracombe are unlikely to trust the L&B Company again. So as has been mentioned here, it's time for the YVT to take over the chore of persuasion (which they seem to be pretty good at), with a clean sheet, so to speak. Yes I know that the personalities and history probably won't allow that - but - frankly - if the unusual plethora of groups, organisations and charities here can be used for once in a positive way, and it works - who cares whose feelings are hurt? The success of the L&B project is much more important than any individual or group of individuals. (And yes, in case you ask - I have been there, and I stepped aside very promptly in a like situation, to allow new faces to take things forward)
James

 

As a long-term resident in the same area, sadly much of your experience of 'local planners' rings only far too true :-(

 

Many people have suggested that that EA/YVT should take on the role of being the L&BR's 'estates' group and handle all future land acquisitions anywhere between Barnstaple and Lynton and I see much to recommend that approach, not least that it relieves the Trust Board of the burden of dealing with such matters on a day-to-day so that they can concentrate on long-term strategy and overall direction of railway activities. However, I do see one possible flaw in the argument...

The objectors and other landowners are not stupid. Regardless of whether the person who comes knocking on their door asking to buy their land comes from those "nice people in EA" or that "nasty lot at WB" (as they might view them), they will know that the ultimate goal will be the same - to use their land to help extend the railway. They will see EA/YVT simply as 'middle-men' acting for the Trust. Are they really likely to succumb simply to a 'charm offensive'? By all mean try, but sadly I would suggest that success is by no means guaranteed.

 

Either way, clearly things have to change, IMHO, there should only be two bodies, one that deals with buying the land and running the estate side of things, and an operational company that operates the railway side, once the land is purchased, things like working party's, land clearance, should somehow, involve both sides, but once it becomes an operational railway site, that's the ops company responsibility, there needs to be an attempt to show good pr, to the local population, you do this by not being confrontable, but by being amenable to listen to concerns and by trying to find ways round problems that do the least damage, even if it means a slight re route, from the original formation, if it enables the line to skirt the edge of someone's property, rather than go through the middle,
People who can't put the railway and project first, before their own egos, are not the ones to take the project foreward.