Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Interesting comments about the gradient through Beddgelert, but as pointed out above reopening an existing station is arguably a different proposition than opening a new one.

Canada Water on the East London Line (now part of London Overground) was built and opened by LU as recently as 1999 and is on quite a gradient. I have tried and failed to find out what that gradient is, but I do recall that it fell outside the HMRI guidance and several hoops needed to be jumped through before the station was allowed to open. At that location, of course, the station is hacked out in the middle of a tunnel, so there was no prospect of easing the gradient by adjusting either side; it was either accept that that was the gradient, or no station.

In the case of CFL, surely it is the case that there is a very obvious solution which would result in a station on an acceptable gradient - the original site at Parracombe. Attempting to put it anywhere else is just madness, especially given that the L&B already owns all the necessary land. I understand that the locals don't want it as a terminus (they probably won't want CFL as a terminus either) but I don't see any fundamental reason why it couldn't be built. Just not operated, yet.

As for the OSHI, it's all well and good to say that the L&B could always sell the pub on later; this assumes that there are people queuing up to buy country pubs. In the current climate, I'm not sure there are, so selling it on might not be so easy. Personally, I think the purchase was probably necessary; whether the timing was right or they paid the right amount I couldn't say. But what gives this pub an advantage over many others, as an investment, is of course the fact that if the railway is extended to there, it will bring more day trippers who will undoubtedly swell the customer numbers; a train ride and pub lunch would make for a nice day out. So to my way of thinking, buying the pub as part of the overall extension project is probably a great idea. Buying it whilst simultaneously scaling back the extension ambitions to not go anywhere near there, though, seems a bit odd, like someone's priorities need straightening out.

 

Bringing everyone together is critical - and as important, getting a plan which is affordable and implementable is also critical.

 

This problem has not been aired recently. Bridge 63 at the head of Parracombe lane is one of them. It might be thought that the farmer owning the adjacent fields filled underneath these bridges, but in fact Devon County Council did, having been paid the cost of filling them as part of the 1949 agreement with BTC when the County took over the bridges which had previously been the subject of a maintenance agreement. 12 bridges were affected. Of course the farmers may have added to the fill either side of the bridges to flatten their fields. So who knows what nasty material could be in there. If the Trust has had some trial borings done (something Nuttall failed to do) can we be told the results ? Judging by the drawing in the Network rail archive it is about 14ft deep at that point and about twice that across.

 

As part of the discharge of planning conditions, trial boring was carried out a few years back at various filled locations. Nothing untoward was found, the spoil apparently being inert.

 

An interesting idea, which IMHO does have some merit, at least in theory. It would enable the L&BR to 'get on' with extending the railway (just not operationally) and deal with the issue of getting Bridge 65 done in time to be taken over by DCC. To some extent it might be viewed as 'progress'.

However I see a number of issues that would remain unresolved, including :-

1. If you were an objector to the railway, and especially one who does not want PE as any form of terminus for any period of time, would you believe the (current) Trust if it said "we will build the line to PE but promise never to open it other than as a through station to somewhere else further south" ? Sadly, I doubt it...

2. There is no hope whatsoever of PE ever becoming a through station until such time as the Trust owns all the trackbed south of PE onward towards Blackmoor.

3. Even if the line were to be extended from KL to PE and then (miraculously) at some later stage the objectors conceded and/or ENPA gave consent for it to be opened as a terminus, without ownership of the track-bed immediately south of the station there would remain the practical problem of trying to create a useable run-loop within the confined location.

 

What kicked off this latest round of debate was the sudden insistence on an extension to CFL following the loss of the planning permission. From that point on there has been concern that this might be a plan with serious flaws.

The advantages are:
it connects with the existing railway
It is a section owned by the trust
Some at least of the engineering has been done
The ecology studies etc are also completed

The disadvantages are:
it goes nowhere
It is likely to antagonise the local opposition
There is no strong case to grant permission for a railway that will be no more complete than the one it extends- there is no particular local benefit to be obtained
Any terminus/turnaround point will have to address the gradient issue somehow
Land may have to be acquired to get the width needed for a platform and run round loop (if either are envisaged)
The loop at KL will be lost as the original PP made that a condition on extension
It increases costs, without positive impact on visitors because it doesn’t go anywhere

I think it is possible an alternative strategy might be appropriate. Alternatives and quite radical ones at that, need consideration

 

But the answer to both of these conundrums lies in the Transport & Works Order which would be required to operate the line. That gives an opportunity for any objectors to formally object, especially should the T&W application be for anything other than the promised through route. It also gives the opportunity for the L&B to obtain the CP powers which sadly it seems will be needed to go further south (and again, gives the affected landowners an opportunity to make their case when objecting). So the risk of an inoperable extension to a station which can't open would be entirely the L&B's risk (although noting that the local plan supports extending the line); I can't see how the objectors could block the construction part, at least.

The pity is that this didn't occur to them when they wanted to vary the Grampian conditions. Had they simply proposed to build in stages, but not change the overall strategy to open it in one hit, they might have been in a position to start construction and lock in the planning permission which has since lapsed.

And it's the lack of that land further south and inherent difficulty in creating a usable terminus that should give the locals the assurance that this won't be the plan, or at least if it does become the plan, it'll be through a further planning application which they'll have the right to object to. And given that the previous guidance from ENPA seems to have been not to have a terminus there, and that that seems to be largely why the S73 application failed, I can't see how a future planning application would ever reverse that.

Edit: I meant to add, should there then be subsequent pressure to 'run some trains on it', there might still be the option to designate it as a non-passenger line with exemptions to operate top & tail for (say) six days a year. Tie that in with (say) local school visits or a village fete, and it could be a way to gradually start rebuilding relations with the locals who may, in time, come to see the railway as a part of their community. (Maybe I'm being naive on this point, I don't know.)

 

I received the following email from ENPA this morning. It makes interesting reading, and shows some of the upcoming challenges we may have to add to the mix, even if not necessarily wholly positive for the railway:

+++++++++++++++++++​

PRESS RELEASE
Tuesday 26 September



Wind turbine and Electric vehicle at Pinkery Outdoor Education Centre


Seed harvesting and sorting by Exmoor National Park Conservation Officers



Sapling planting at Exford ENPA Nursery

Exmoor National Park joins 'Race to Zero

Exmoor National Park has committed to ambitious climate action putting it on track to join the UN-backed Race to Zero initiative of global climate leaders.

The National Park will be leading considerable and immediate action across the protected landscape, towards a fair share * halving global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and to reach net zero by 2050 at the latest.

Exmoor intends to become one of the first National Parks in the world to join the global initiative, which is aimed at encouraging institutions to deliver a healthier, fairer zero-carbon world.

The latest science shows that climate impacts are happening sooner than models predicted just a decade ago. Critical tipping points in the Earth’s natural systems are already being breached. The future of the natural world, rests on delivering accelerated decarbonisation and nature restoration at scale.

National Parks have a crucial role to play in restoring nature at scale which is vital in naturally drawing down excess carbon from the atmosphere.

Exmoor National Park Authority has already taken considerable action to cut climate-changing emissions including:

• A switch to a number of electric vehicles in our fleet and installation of EV charging points across the Park.

• Partners in the Southwest Peatland Partnership, restoring carbon-storing peatlands across Exmoor.

• Installation of solar panels at various estate sites, a wind turbine at our Pinkery outdoor education centre and recent installation on the site of a biomass boiler.

• Use of battery powered tools for activities and at our sawmills

• Tree planting programmes, helped by volunteers allowing for a sustainable timber supply and ‘seed to sawmill’ events to promote renewable practices.

• Nature recovery projects as part of the ‘Farming in Protected Landscapes’ programme including meadow and orchard restoration.

Andrea Davis, Chairman of Exmoor National Park Authority said:

“We are keen to join forces with other UN ‘climate champions’ and demonstrate the critical role of national parks play in the global effort towards net zero.

As a climate lead myself in Devon, I am particularly proud of the commitment Exmoor National Park Authority teams have shown, in a robust carbon audit and in the numerous projects across Exmoor advancing our climate mitigation strategy.

We really hope by demonstrating the great work we’re doing and sharing carbon reduction knowledge and resources, relevant to rural areas like Exmoor, we can encourage others to follow our lead."

Notes to Editors:

*The ‘Fair share’ approach argues that there is a moral reason to keep total global carbon emissions below a certain level and to minimise our carbon emissions as an individual or organisation.

Climate 'fair share' establishes what climate action should be taken, based on: ‘The remaining carbon budget' – The total amount of greenhouse gases that may yet be emitted, globally, before we are most at risk of irreversible and accelerated change.



Estate worker Rachel making a gate 'end post', from wood sustainably grown on site at the ENPA Exford depot and sawn with electric equipment.



Locally made Exmoor National Park signposts

About Exmoor National Park Authority

First designated in 1954, Exmoor National Park has an amazing variety of landscapes within its 267 square miles – stunning coast, moorland, woodland, valleys and farmland and more than 800 miles of rights of way to enjoy. It is one of 15 National Parks in the United Kingdom and in 2011 was designated Europe’s first International Dark Sky Reserve.

Exmoor National Park Authority works in partnership with the community, local councils, businesses and other organisations to look after the National Park and promote its conservation and enjoyment. Donations to CareMoor for Exmoor are gratefully received towards the upkeep of the National Park and its special qualities.

+++++++++++++++++++​

 

The conditions required all the funding, all the land ownership and all the contracts to be in place before work started. The part completion of a railway with an unknown time before completion was precisely what the conditions were designed to prevent. So it would not have been possible to take the approach you have suggested.

 

The whole point of the S73 application was to seek to change those conditions, to allow a phased approach. The problem was, I think, they tried to change too much, so that what was being proposed was no longer in line with the original permission. A phased construction within the original plans and with no prospect of operating might have been more palatable than 'lets put a terminus at Parracombe', and might have succeeded.

And if having a railway built but inoperable wouldn't be acceptable to ENPA, you could have accepted new conditions that "nothing but rebuilding bridges xyz and restoring drains and culverts to take place until ..." - basically, enough to lock in planning permission without causing a massive ruckus.

All water under the bridge now, of course.

 

I suspect that a s73 application for permission to build only a proportion of the line and thereby avoid the Grampian conditions would have been equal unlawful. It would most certainly have been challenged.

 

I agree with @21B on this; the various opinions circulated suggest that the change from a single redevelopment to a staged approach would itself have blown the limits of what was legally possible once the original application had been challenged.

 

Is that actually relevant? Restoration of the railway is in the Local Plan. Common sense - and a realistic assessment of the practical issues - would show that such a rebuild would have to be done in stages. So, if the section from KL to CFL/PE were to be the next of those stages, might it not be argued that the ENPA would have to show a good reason to reject an application that is in line with its LP rather than the L&BR have to find a good reason for it not to be rejected ?

 

The issue is that the 2018 planning wasn't based on a shorter extension, so the issues there weren't tested. The time taken for the process and the conditions imposed suggest though that the planners would take the opinions of Parracombe residents pretty seriously.

 

Honestly I don’t know, I am not a planning expert, but it seems to me that against local opposition the lack of a compelling local benefit would perhaps be a fairly significant hurdle whereas it would be one consideration in a number for the reinstatement of the whole line, which has demonstrably positive effect on North Devon as a whole. Added to which the main local opposition was to the trains stopping/terminating in PE. That isn’t really addressed by CFL.
It is pretty clear from 2018 that the planners and the ENPA are concerned about a partially built line. I’m not really certain that a piecemeal approach is what they will welcome.
Common sense from a different perspective might conclude that unless it can all be delivered, none of it should be.

 

Having bought it I imagine everyone hopes the OSHI will remain profitable and eventually be part of the railway's attraction when it extends that far.

The risk is it needs to be profitable enough to repay the loans, in addition to whatever investment might also be needed to sustain or develop it as a business. The previous owners lived on the premises and may well've had a much lower debt burden. If so they'd be able to sustain their business on a rather lower level of profit than the new L&B pub business will need. In the longer term if that business doesn't wash its face the present or future L&B management may face some tough decisions.

 

The recent Gala seems to have been very successful and many local businesses benefitted from the visitors who came to the railway.

 

That's exactly right @Miff, and we all hope that it is a great success. However, the debt load seems very high, and what cannot be allowed to happen is for the Trust to bail LBBC out if it gets into trouble - as @35B has pointed out, it isn't allowed under Charity Commission rules. If it doesn't perform, then it will have to allowed to go bust with all that entails - notably raising £580,000 plus interest to pay off the secured loan, whilst the Trust nurses at least a £503,000 + interest loss, and after you've wiped out £900,000 of shareholders funds. Yup, making it work is pretty important...

 

The suggestion of leasing the OSHI does make some sense, but I wonder if you could find someone who could make that happen. My guess is that the Trust will want to make sure it does not lose its shirt over this so the terms will be almost impossible for anyone to try and have a go under the current situation.

It may well turn out that we might have to throw good money after bad some how to make this work. But if that is the case then we need to be able to set a limit of just how much is ploughed into the project.

My personal view is that we should be looking at Blackmoor for the long term and as the centre of operations with a railway museum and workshops both on or near the OSHI. To try and look at it as a stand alone project will make it look worst than it may be. But until we see the finances in full, it will be difficult to judge the approach that has been taken.

Putting this railway back together is not going to be cheap and I would suggest that if we want to follow any business model for Blackmoor then may I suggest we look at the Midland Railway Centre as an example for how we might go about it (https://www.midlandrailway-butterley.co.uk/history-of-the-midland-railway-butterley/).

As a separate project it might just be do able, the burden of the money owed to the trust and shareholders is going to make this one difficult project to manage and for that reason alone I would suggest that it looks for its own site manager and also have nothing to do with the L&BR until it has become established in it own right.

Of course this would be just one suggestion. However one elephant in the room which we have not discussed and that is what should we do if it did fail? those that have contributed to this first and current scheme are not going to get that money back and it would take a lot to find others willing to put money into a failed pub in the middle of Exmoor. Obviously I don't want it to fail but we have to be realistic that it could and that we also need to plan for it to happen just in case.

I am convinced that there is still more land at and around Blackmoor that we need to buy, it would be the only way to make any progress if we owned this extra land before we started rebuilding the railway itself.

 

I will observe that having visited the MRC once nearly 20 years ago, I’ve never felt inclined to return. Nor have the reports I’ve seen of it since made me think I’ve missed out.

As ever, my sense is that it’s less to do with what’s written than about the spirit in which it’s organised and run.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk