Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

In the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davis - "He [the builder] would say that wouldn't he".

 

There is a danger that if he can prove that he walked there for x years he can apply to have it designated as a right of way - this is not the same as planning permission. There are things that can be done against this - signage and a declaration lodged with the local county council. What was the outcome out of interest?

 

The responsible officer commented that she was overworked, and wouldn't be able to deal with the request for likely two years.
That was the last we heard, and I helped to lay double track back through the station .
The benefit to Broadway village is such that the pub I use knows when the first train of the day has arrived, by the uptick in business!

 

It must be the Donnington BB that attracts them. At least I hope it would be that: it's a great drop.

 

20 years, the use must be without force, without secrecy and without permission (nec vi, nec clam, nec precario).

As you infer, an effective control method is therefore to have permissive access, with suitable signage & a landowner deposit with the local highway authority. Permissive access may then be withdrawn at any time.

So Anne's idea of permissive access is robust.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

Then I would suggest that the sane logic could be extended to 2 very different railways.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

as said, best practice is all of that plus an enforced closure, at least once a year on a busy day/bank holiday, so there’s a fair chance of people being turned away and/or not being able to walk it without going past closure notices, and after the closure has been advertised.

It is absolutely doable, ‘robust’ I would question, risky definitely.

 

It was still trespass right from the first day to the last one. I shall have to put a sign up in my front garden. (not applicable to Postpersons, and we have the female variety these days)

 

Probably the speed they were able to achieve. The same reason steam lorries disappeared along with the stops for stoking up. The environment didn't feature in anyone's perception in the 60s any more than they thought anything of the fact that smokers tended to die prematurely. Everyone smoked, but I gave up at 28 when the Chancellor put more tax on cigarettes and I totted up how I was spending on them, and went on to cheroots which cured me in a fortnight.

 

There is a need to both build & rebuild relationships with other stakeholders, by no means all of whom are primarily interested in seeing the recreation of a Victorian railway which has been absent longer than it was extant. Some of those concerned about people obtaining a right of way would be quite content I suspect to see CP powers used against reluctant land vendors in order to get "their" railway. In order to justify this major impact on private property requires being able to engage positively with much wider stakeholder interests. This approach will also be critical in obtaining public sector funding. I think that Anne sees this.

There are essentially 3 options:

1. "Private keep out"
2. "Permissive path, access may be withdrawn at any time"
3. Do nothing

1 & 2 prevent a right of way being claimed. 3 does not. Between 1 & 2, which is more likely to favourably influence hearts & minds?

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

There is a privately owned but publically accessible business/residential park near me that closes the main access road with barriers every Christmas Day and the secondary access every New Year's Day, for this very reason. It has worked for about twenty years in proving that there is no right of way without major disruption to residents or business users.

For the L&B trackbed, it wouldn't be unreasonable to close all or part of any permissive routes for several months during the winter. The important factor is that it is communicated well (signs posted etc. ) to potential users

 

Certainly 'Do Nothing' is not an option. Until you are ready to establish a 'permissive' path you need a 'Private Keep out' or 'No right of way' sign.

 

Many of you will have received Newsletter 81 in the last few days. I'm afraid that the 'Rumours' section is far from the open, honest and accurate update that I was hoping the Trust would present (and in fact which Peter Miles promised me it would be.)

I wrote to the Trustees yesterday:
_________________

Dear Peter Cc: all

I received Magazine 131 and Newsletter 81 in the post this morning. I was pleased to see an EA/YVT flyer from David Cameron was included in the packet, which I hope means that working relationships are improving, and that the charges relating to promoting fundraising for EA/YVT that Anne Belsey was accused of have now been dropped.

The critical section of Newsletter 81 entitled 'Rumours' appears unchanged from the draft of the Newsletter you kindly copied to me on the 29th of August. This is disappointing to say the least, as we now both know that it contains several errors of fact and misdirection to the point of misrepresentation. It is particularly tedious given that I went to the trouble of producing a corrected series of answers to my own questions for you to use in the Newsletter on 30 Aug, which I reproduce below.

For the record, can you please confirm that all nine L&BRT Trustees have approved the content of Newsletter 81, and stand by its errors and misrepresentations?

SIncerely yours,

Toby

T J Fenwick,
Member, L&BRT

 

This was my email to Mr Miles on 30 Aug:

_____________

Dear Peter, cc: all

Many thanks for sight of the draft "Newsletter", which two days ago you assured me would provide "The information queried". However, I'm afraid it does no such thing, though it does raise a number of other questions about the Trust's financial management and governance process; worse, it raises serious questions about the fundamental truthfulness about Trust pronouncements.

For the sake of clarity, I set out my original questions; to help you get the Newsletter out in a timely manner and accurate form, I've taken the time to answer my own questions as accurately as is possible from the Trust's public pronouncements and your "clarifications" , to which we will return.

Q1: The amount currently in the 'Return to Parracombe Fund', ringfenced for the extension?

A1: There is £241,778.29 in the 'Return to Paracombe Fund' (RTPF) + £20,744.84 in the 'Killington Lane Fund' (KLF) for a total of £262,523.13 in restricted funds to pay for the Parracombe extension. This is insufficient to rebuild Bridge 65, much less reach and rebuild Bridge 64.

Q2: If this is less than the £700,000 reported in January 2023 and still published on the website as of last night, why?

A2: The honest answer is that there was never actually £700,000 in the restricted RTPF, and the Trust’s communications have been misleading on this since the launch. Notionally, the £450,000 from legacies may have been committed to the RTPF, but these funds were never transferred into RTPF, and as such any statements either stating or implying that there was ever £700,000 in a restricted fund (as the website still claimed last night at 23.01, screenshot attached) is wrong and misleading. As you persist in maintaining these misleading claims on the website despite repeated suggestions for the Trust's reputation to remove, we are left to conclude that you intend to mislead anyone who finds it.

The £450,000 has subsequently been spent on OSHI/LBBC, and this is therefore not available for the Extension.


Q3: The total cost of the purchase of OSHI by LBBC, with a breakdown of (i) purchase price; (ii) non-residential Stamp Duty Land Tax; (iii) professional fees and closing costs.

A3: You have not even attempted to answer these three simple questions, which leads to the conclusion that you're embarrassed by the amount paid.


It is therefore safest to assume that the rumoured figures of £2m are more or less right, representing overpayment of roughly double of the enterprise value of OSHI based on the financial data provided by Mr Cowling in the investors prospectus.


Q4: What funds, if any, were loaned, gifted or in any other way transferred to LBBC from the L&BRT or the CIC to complete LBBC's purchase of OSHI, and when?


A4: The Trust has purchased a total of £203,000 of B shares in LBBC, and has made a £250,000 unsecured loan at 5% to LBBC repayable over 10 years.



Q5: If such a loan, gift or any other sort of transfer was made to LBBC to facilitate the purchase of OSHI, on what terms was it made?


A5: The £250,000 unsecured loan to LBBC is at 5%, repayable over 10 years in equal capital bullet repayments.



Q6: I note that Companies House only lists a charge for Michael Grimoldby's loan at 6%, suggesting that any subsequent loan from the L&BRT or the CIC is unsecured; as the Trust is legally obliged to make loans at a commercial rate, I would be very interested in what interest rate LBBC are paying the Trust, and how a commercially appropriate rate was calculated for an unsecured loan?


A6: The £250,000 unsecured loan at 5% to LBBC cannot be at a commercial rate if we’re paying Mike Grimoldby 6% for a fully secured loan. As a former banker, in the current climate for an unsecured loan to a pub when 50+ pubs are closing a month across the UK, I would expect the unsecured element to be at least twice what LBBC is paying Mr Grimoldby.


This is before we get into the question of how did Mr Grimoldby get such a sweetheart deal in the first place? Even after the run up in rates this year, MoneySavingExpert suggests the best rate for a 6 month term deposit last night was 5.56% with Monument. This begs the question when the secured loan was agreed, and who else was offered the same terms as Mr Grimoldby?



Q7: The minutes from the relevant meeting of the Trustees where any such loan / gift or other transfer from the L&BRT to LBBC was agreed?


Q7: This question hasn't been answered.



Q8: Given the known and potential exposure of the Trust to a pub, why none of this was communicated to the Members in Lynton or at any other point since the closing of the deal for OSHI?


A8: It is unclear why one of this was communicated to the Members in Lynton or at any other point since the closing of the deal for OSHI.


Given the facts, the most credible scenario is that reality of the losing the planning permission was very embarrassing to the Trust, but instead of fronting up and admitting what went wrong, the Trust attempted to hide behind misdirection, misrepresentation, secrecy and libel against ENPA.


Specifically, it is nonsense to claim that the Grampian Conditions were too onerous - they were perfectly sensible conditions to avoid the risk of a part-finished railway in the ENPA planning area. The real reason that the project failed was because the Trust from 2018 onwards failed to plot the critical path to success, which, with the Grob's refusal to sell meant that the only way we could have succeeded was with a TWAO conferring CP powers. You never even applied, instead wasting time and untold money on the s73 debacle which you now seem to be suggesting would have been rejected on the merits by ENPA, a position markedly different to previous Newsletters and the speech to the Members at the (purported) AGM.


A fair answer to my question about why the Members have not been informed would therefore include:


(i) the Trust's failure to even apply to get CP powers ensured that the (perfectly reasonable) Grampian Conditions in the 2018 Permissions could not met;


(ii) this led to desperation for some good news to distract everyone from the strategic failure (at literally almost any price, which turned out to be very high indeed);


(ii) it is now clear that the Trust has actively mislead the Membership for months over the amount in the RTPF and its exposure to LBBC/OSHI;


(iii) Because LBBC overpaid for OSHI by around a million pounds, the financing package demands a minimum profit of £72,300 in 2023/24 in order to avoid default;


(iv) If OHSI fails to generate this minimum profit, then the Trust will presumably have to bail it out to avoid the secured lender foreclosing; and


(v) By choosing to fund LBBC/OSHI, the Trust is now not in a position to fund the rebuilding of Bridge 65 in order to hand it over to Devon Highways even if
planning permission were granted tomorrow, despite the on-going assertions that this is the case.


As all of these things were individually and collectively embarrassing to the Trust Board, you decided not to tell the Membership the truth.


In short, Peter, your promised "clarification" is a litany of half-truths, misrepresentations, misdirections, and in the case of the website, outright lies. Given your leading role in the Trust, I'm afraid this lack of honesty sits with you. And if we can't trust you to be honest and straightforward over the finances, why would anyone believe anything you say, Peter?

Yours in frustration and sadness,

Toby

 

I got no response from Mr Miles, but this morning I got an answer from Chris Duffell.
_______________________

Dear Toby

Thank you for your email to the chairman copied to the rest of the Trustees. I am sorry that you had to write this, as I too had hoped that sense would have prevailed and the draft newsletter that Peter Miles reluctantly circulated (very late in the day) to Trustees was not altered. Especially after Anne, Mike and I had pointed out that sending out the newsletter as written, was unwise, as it was both misleading and incorrect. It is now apparent why our requests for sight and approval of a revised script were ignored, as there was no intension on the chairman's part to amend a document that he had only circulated because of a challenge from Mike. A document that was clearly meant to mislead and cover up the truth.

From that, you will deduce that the answer to your question "was the content of the newsletter approved by Trustees" is no! I cannot condone the inclusion of the miss-truths and errors of fact being published in a Trust document. It is interesting to note that as usual comments on the newsletter were only received from Mike Anne and I, there was no comment on it as usual from the other Trustees namely Swainson, Cowling, Barton, Curson & Summers.

Given that a document that contains errors of fact, misdirection and miss-truths has now been promulgated to the membership, it is my duty as a Trustee to ensure that those members are made aware of that they are being plied deliberately with such incorrect information to hide the true state of affairs, both financial and governmental, that currently exists within the Trust.

I shall also point out that following the first and only meeting, of the Trust since Anne and Mike were elected, it is clear that the Trust is a totally dysfunctional organisation, that cannot operate because of the attitudes and actions of trustees such as Cowling, Swainson and Barton, who have made it clear that they are unable to work with the newly elected Trustees, who are now being kept at arms length from any decision making.

With much sadness that the Trust has degenerated to this state

Kind regards

Chris

 

Chris's openness is very welcome, and it shows a Board where a majority are apparently in favour or indifferent to actively misleading the Members (and anyone else who is interested). I therefore replied to Chris and the other Trustees:

____________________

Dear Chris,

Very many thanks for this, and for confirmation that only six of our Trustees are either intent on or indifferent to misleading the Membership.

I'd only observe that trust in the Trust is at rock bottom as a combination of these sort of lies together with strategic failure. Time for those of you who didn't object to misleading the Members to consider your position and resign.

In sorrow and with thanks for your continued efforts to bring back decency and professionalism to the Trust.

Toby

 

I'm posting this here because we now have clear evidence that the Trust is seeking to mislead the Membership on the state of play, and in some cases - such as the continuing claim on the website that there is £700k for the Return to Parracombe, resorting to outright lies.

I don't know about anyone else's views, but in my view, when Trustees can't be trusted to tell the truth, then it is time for them to resign.

 

Oh dear, or dear, oh dear ..... just when one thought it could not get any worse....

What shall we call this debacle? Rumour-gate? Parracombe-gate? Blackmoor-gate ? Miles-gate? or just simply 'a total disaster in all respects'?

 

Or a bun fight in a bakery or words to that effect

 

'James' of the Accountants to the Trust, Accountancy Edge Ltd, told me before the AGM (I asked because it was not disclosed in the Trust's 2022 accounts what it's investment in LBBC was) that the Trust also holds £50,000 A shares in the L & B Blackmoor Company Ply. The Accounts do disclose (in note 11 on p17) that the Trust made a 'Contribution to LBBC project' of £34,858 during 2022. Also (in note 21) that £44,174 was spent from the LBBC restricted fund which 'represents monies received to finance the plans and corporate structures required to expand the railway at Blackmoor Gate.'