Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Had they? Or had a subset of the board decided to purchase OHSI?

 

Purely practically, being able to effect a transaction does not necessarily say anything about whether that transaction was authorised.

If the CIC account does require a second signatory for payments, it would be interesting to know who did that. If not, there are equally important questions on protocols.

 

Didn't that use to be a form punishment in the good old day

 

The apologists , or defenders, or faithful, call them what you will, keep talking about people 'quietly getting on with rebuilding the L&B', but they aren't, are they?
Currently the L&B, as a whole, seems to be spending its efforts on buying pubs, buying a mill, building an access road to some farm buildings, apparently grabbing hold of any bit of North Devon they can, and doing everything but building a railway.
They are not apparently working towards the necessary planning permission and TWAO needed to build the railway, which is the only thing they can do and is essential to further rebuilding the line. Therefore, to this man, they are not working towards rebuilding the railway.

When the A1 lot first proposed building a new Peppercorn locomotive, they found some supporters. As their planning developed and became more credible, support increased. As results started to be visible, more and more support was forthcoming. After all, nothing succeeds like success.
Currently the L&B seems to be reminiscent of the Clan lot when their first chassis was deemed unusable- many supporters fell away, many supposed it was the end of the project.
With the current L&B situation, I see no credible plan. I see no apparent understanding of the actual issues, no strategy, no communication, no transparency, no culpability. If the Trust want my support, they need to make a realistic plan, and work diligently towards it. Just that.

 

I want to know what the Chairman is really trying to hide. There has been a long and concerted effort to hide something.

 

Hide, or simply protect power base and reputation? All of the behaviours seem reactive, and a response to being seen to fail.

 

I am hoping that it is only pride that is being protected. I am hoping the apparently unlawful actions are no more than a slapdash approach / arrogant disregard for the rules. I would very much like to hear from the Chairman an honest answer to each point made by the minority report.

 

Hi Ross I can't speak for EA or any other group of members to be honest with you, but if you want some one to blame for the Mill then blame me, I have been on about it for ages and have alway considered it a goal as a membership hostal site which we don't have at all at present, it may not be building a railway but it will serve as a central meeting and storage point and something we can use as a spring board from to building the railway around the Chelfham end of the line.

If we had the money I would suggest that we do the same with both properties at Bratton Fleming and Parracombe which are both currently on the market. If only I could convince more people of the value of Heddon Hall as the northern springboard in and around Parracombe life would be much more simpler.

Another reason to buy these properties would be to increase the presents of the Trust as the start of becoming a major landowner in the area, very few Heritage/Tourist railways manage to obtain all the land they require, yes I understand that owning the property comes with the responsibility to maintain it and this will cost. But all three sites could also become useful income streams for the railway as well and while they are not the sort of fundraising you might expect from a railway, they could help us to re establish the railway with a far better reputation that we have right now since they could be seen as the L&BR Group putting something back into the North Devon Community when it needs it the most.

 

I feel I need to make two clarifications regarding my previous comments:
1."people 'quietly getting on with rebuilding the L&B', but they aren't, are they?"
By this I am not in any way denigrating the efforts, activities and results of all those working on any part of the former L&B, nor those at Woody Bay. I mean that all those efforts are cannot actually create any increase of operational railway if the board will not do its part and extend it. Mr Meatman can go to Pilton and build two platforms, a booking hall and an overall roof, but it will never see a train from Woody Bay if the trains never go beyond Killington Lane.
2. "apparently grabbing hold of any bit of North Devon they can, and doing everything but building a railway"
I do not think there is any issue with acquiring property that is not directly railway related. I am certain that such acquisitions should be from spare or dedicated funds, and should not be enabled by plundering funds which many donors understood were absolutely for the furtherance of the railway itself.

Heartfelt apologies to all those I have offended.

 

I would urge a little caution here; this is a railway company and not a property company - historically, only the Metropolitan owned non-operational land for wider commercial purposes. There are also legal constraints on what the Trust may invest in, and on what terms.

Given yesterday's publication, and the clarity that gives as to how little money is available, the focus should IMHO be on what is essential for the railway. If there's to be a commercial aspect to purchases (and that may be relevant - others have convinced me that there's a sound case for Chelfham Mill), then the income and costs need careful thought - the numbers from OSHI illustrate how easy it is to misallocate scarce capital and in the process make the main goal harder to achieve. I'd far rather that Bratton Fleming were purchased, the railway land secured, and then the house resold to provide a war chest than the house be kept "because".

 

That depends on something we don't know, which is what the specific instructions were in connection with the legacy. If the terms of the bequest were that it went to the L&B Trust, then it would be permissible that it went into the general fund and the scenario you paint would be feasible and permissible - though you'd hope that the trustees communicated better to make it clear that a bequest had been received to the general fund, not a restricted fund. Alternatively, it is possible that the bequest came with specific conditions, in which case it could only be used in connection with those conditions.

My understanding from the Bluebell Railway Trust is that it is common that legacies are more often unrestricted, though it is not a hard and fast rule. (I suspect the reason is that many people may write a will years or decades before they die, so leave the precise purpose looser, since priorities when you write a will may be irrelevant several decades hence). It is not a given though: a recent large legacy we received was explicitly directed towards building restoration at Horsted Keynes and Bulleid Carriage restoration.

Your point about restricted legacies being sometimes of limited use is well made, though a railway can always refuse a donation that they feel they couldn't use. (I'm not sure I have ever seen one do so!) However, in the specific case, if the legacy were explicitly directed towards the return to Paracombe, then the railway can hardly say they will never aim to do that, even if the specific opportunity was about to lapse at the time the legacy was received.

What is absolutely true is that you can't count money twice: it is either available for the return to Paracombe, or it has been spent elsewhere. It can't be in both places at once.

Ultimately, significant changes in amounts between the various funds within a charity is something you would expect absolute clarity on.

Tom

 

From a church perspective, I will just observe that there is a tendency on the part of many to leave money to the Fabric Fund, rather than let it go to the General Fund. That's never a deal breaker, but it can be frustrating that resources are not available for day to day expenditure.

 

Apology accepted! Just to clarify, EA purchases land (mainly former trackbed and associated properties) - south of Wistlandpound - using its own donors' money, donated for that specific purpose. It does not rely in any way on funds raised by The L&BR Trust for any of their projects, and if sufficient funds are not raised by donations, the EA purchase does not go ahead

Most, if not all EA shareholders are also members of the L&BR Trust, and have supported both in the past.

 

I'm thinking 'what reputation'? Surely this has been burned already?

 

There are evidently people who continue to place their trust in Miles and Co, based on previous successes, notably gaining planning permission in 2018.
But one hopes that this provides a corrective based on an honest appreciation of the actual position rather than the spin, obfuscation and lies from Mr Miles and his friends.

The other interesting point to me is the silence from Mr Miles and Co: if Chris, Anne and Mike have got it wrong, then it should be straightforward to disprove. As I say, the silence is deafening.

 

From what has been posted on here there is prima facie evidence that some of the trustees have acted in ways not within the law and within the charity's governing document. I hope the Charity Commission will wish to establish the facts.

 

If the "rules" in question are those stated in the Trust's governing document or in the laws applying to charities, then disregarding them is unlawful, is it not?

 

Yes, potentially. Intent is important too.

 

True.

The silence from Miles and Co is striking, no? Has anyone heard anything?

 

Tobbes, I’ve responded to you elsewhere, but as you’re asking a similar question in multiple areas, it’s probably pertinent to add my reply to you here too.

With regards to demanding an immediate response (within 72hrs I believe you requested elsewhere), it is simply not as straight forward as you suggest!

The evidence suggests what’s happened is, limited and incomplete information has been used to sensationalise a story that suits the imposed narrative. In the same way that the media, politicians, campaigners etc create headlines, usually with the intent of dramatising the situation. As a result, the headline is concerning (and possibly rightly so), but it’s unproven and admittedly light on fact.

This in turn requires a disproportionate amount of effort by the accused to refute the accusations, requiring a lot more time to prepare an accurate response, validate the information, it may even be that some of this information is rightfully protected and cannot be shared. It is a much greater task to prepare, sanity check, consider all legal implications, secure full authorisation to publish and ultimately issue a response. Your demand for an immediate response is frankly unreasonable and difficult to support, demonstrating a lack of understanding and rationality on your part.

In the short term the situation strongly favours the accuser, as having had the benefit of time to prepare their statements, they are either correct, partially correct, or proven to have got the wrong end of the stick due to access to limited information, with little impact to their credibility. The accused, however, have to immediately divert any efforts currently aimed towards any sort of productive progress and focus’s all their attentions on managing the allegations to meet the response time that is being demanded. In this instance, this is being requested whilst efforts are being directed at a significant event of the year that should be the current priority and understandably soaking up a huge amount of effort and resource. The longer term impact however is likely to be that those accuser’s could be seen to have ulterior motives and have information withheld from them in fear of further information breaches (all of which appear to be happening). This unfortunately could end up with those people who had so much promise of bringing change, renewed enthusiasm and positivity to a project that could clearly benefit from such energy, instead creating a legacy of confusion and damage to the L&B dream.

IMHO, the best play for the entire L&B family at this stage is for the board to issue a statement recognising the report and advising that a formal and measured response would be issued at a point in the future. The meeting later in the year would seem an obvious point to address the concerns and advise the appropriate relevant stakeholders in the first instance. In the mean time, grown up conversations need to be held behind closed doors to repair relationships and restore confidence.

I have previously made it clear that I support the new trustee’s and am encouraged by their enthusiasm. However the choice of tactics to ‘air the dirty washing’, so to speak, could damage their reputation more than those of the trustee’s that they’re attempting to challenge. Either way, the ultimate result of this action appear’s to be that efforts are being redirected away from active progress towards the L&B dream and instead are being used to combat allegations and infighting.

Do you honestly consider these latest actions as progress and positive for the L&B family, because I’m unconvinced and becoming increasingly sceptical.