Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

No.

Some uses are prescribed (and so inherently ‘permitted’ ) by law.

 

AIUI there has been only one Board meeting since the postal election, at which allegedly most - if not all - of the 'old 6' said that they could/would not work with the 'new' 3. After that apparently, coupled with a suggestion for all Trustees to resign and stand again (which appears not to have been pursued), the meeting broke up in disarray. I am not aware that much - if any - formal business was conducted, let alone decisions made and recorded. Therefore I fail to see what, if anything at that stage existed by way of something with which the 'new' Trustees might disagree (and therefore be expected to resign) - other than the lack of proper governance.

IMHO under such circumstances any 'proper' Chairman should have reminded the '6' that the '3' had been elected by the membership and therefore it was incumbent on them at the very least to attempt to conduct a Board meeting in an orderly and convivial manner and not pre-judge the attitude of the 'new' Trustees before they had barely had time to warm their seats around the Boardroom table (as it were).

 

On the other hand, it should be pretty obvious to all those with data responsibilities (Are you listening Trustees, Directors, Managers etc) that actions like writing to members and saying something like: ‘We don’t like these candidates, so here are their personal contact details so you can write to them and tell them how bad they are.’ would be a GDPR breach.

For those for whom that isn’t obviously wrong (1) don’t stand for positions of authority and (2) training courses are available.

I am aware of several instances of such crass behaviour in the charitable sector recently. Heritage Railways don’t have a monopoly.

 

Just to clear something up would it be against GDPR if you asked via email for each recipient of the above minority reports to hold their contact details on a new list so that you could send any more information to them outside of the Trust in this case?

 

My understanding is that GDPR only applies to businesses. A private individual can hold data..otherwise everybody's address books or email contact lists would be illegal. So no.

 

Point of order, it is not restricted to businesses but applies to all organisations.

In the sort of scenario that I suspect @lynbarn is considering, I suspect the legal boundaries would be a bit more complicated. Checking the content of GDPR, the exclusion for address books is covered as an exclusion, in which GDPR does not apply "to the processing of personal data...by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity" (Article 2, Clause 2(c)). If @lynbarn or I were to gather a list as suggested, that would be his personal list of contacts. Once shared with others, or used for something that wasn't "a purely personal or household activity", GDPR would then bite.

The important thing here is not about who may be emailed. It's that there are duties for how data is kept and maintained, or of the data subject's rights to have their personal data removed from that database.

 

Some good news! EA have posted that the EA shareholders have overwhelmingly voted to change their M&As to work more effectively with the Yeo Valley Trust. Details here: https://www.exmoor-associates.co.uk/2023/10/voting-results/


Well done to all concerned!

 

Even if some of the current L&BR Trustees don't know what or how they should behave. This result brings the long term merger one step nearer, but there is still a river or two to cross before that can happen.

If there is to be any further advancement in this direction, then now is the time to come up with a long term strategy that everyone can make their own.

 

Not right, I’m afraid.

If the purpose of holding the information was to engage in the affairs of a heritage railway in other than an entirely personal sense, then the GDPR would apply because none of the exceptions apply.

As a barrister, I am a data controller for all information received in the course of my profession - which is not the same as business. If I received information in the course of giving pro bono advice to, for example, a charity, the the GDPR apply with full force.

 

All these discussions are interesting, but the fact remains that the overwhelming need is for a plan to be developed that a genuine majority of L&B supporters can unite behind. As long as the supporters are split into factions there will be no progress, just stagnation. To me it seems clear that having made the OSHI investment any extension plans need to find a way of reaching at least that point so that the investment that now exists is given the best chance to prosper. I can't see how an extension to CFL is going to help with that. On the other hand , other developments, such as workshops on the Rowley Manor Farm site, are a distraction and a sideshow and should be left on the side at the moment. Concentrate on getting the basic railway extended and up and running!

 

Sorry, but I am confused now.... You appear to dismiss the CFL extension, yet at the same time say that you want 'the basic railway extended' - so how do you propose to do that without going south of KL or north of WB?

There are two key issues which people seem to keep ignoring:-
1. There is a time limit to rebuilt Bridge 65 in order to get it adopted by DCC. Without that, you can not extend south of KL.
2. There appears also to be a time limit on bringing into use at least part of the BR-WD section, so again unless that is done then any extension southwards from BR will be a dead duck.

An expanding railway will need more workshop space and covered stock storage. The long term intention is for that to be at the new BR Depot. If the section from BR to WD can be brought into use relatively easily and quickly, then IMHO progressing the new BR Depot in the meantime does have value, although its true potential will be dependant on getting the planning permission to rebuilt the bride under the main road to connect it to BR station.

>>>the overwhelming need is for a plan to be developed that a genuine majority of L&B supporters can unite behind....
I agree wholeheartedly. IMHO however we need first to stop this apparent mad rush for Option C etc - which to a large extent was only voted on as the favourite because it was the 'least bad of a bad bunch of choices' rather than any overwhelming superiority as a proposal - and get everyone together to work out a common consensus on the best way ahead. Then - and only then - do we throw money and manpower at achieving it.

 

For information, can anyone advise any details of this agreement and whether the completion deadline is beyond renegotiation? Unless it’s a condition of (yet another) planning permission a highway adoption-agreement may not require a statutory deadline although, of course, there’s always the risk that a request to renegotiate might be refused. It’s always better to honour an existing agreement if possible.

 

I'm not a member, just an interested bystander, so I don't have fixed views on the matter - but I would have thought that the sensible thing would be to try to press ahead to reach the OSHI given that close to £2M has been invested there; I'm a simple soul but it makes sense, to me at least, to try to leverage that investment as part of the extension process. But, as I also said, the line's supporters need to be rallied to get solidly behind whatever extension option is chosen, the infighting needs to come to an end.

 

GDPR is not there to stop businesses communicating stuff that is important and potentially useful to customers/members
There is a "legitmate interest" justification that is quite broad (even includes direct marketing in some cases) subject to it being appropritate

from the ICO website they have a 3 part test and I quote

It makes most sense to apply this as a test in the following order:

• Purpose test – is there a legitimate interest behind the processing?
• Necessity test – is the processing necessary for that purpose?
• Balancing test – is the legitimate interest overridden by the individual’s interests, rights or freedoms?

I think GDPR is largely irrelevant here as it meets these 3 criteria. Communicating the misrepresentation of financial position to members is totally legitimate, direct communication is necesary and email uttely reasonable as a vehicle and it does not impinge on the recipients interests rights or freedoms to use their email in this way.

 

I agree.

The subtlety in the question is over who may act on behalf of the Data Controller (the L&BRT) is a situation like this, which is about the governance of the organisation itself. While I agree with @Lineisclear that it's something that needs checking, I then disagree profoundly with the implied conclusion that if the issue is not resolved, there is neither right nor duty for minority trustees to inform their members of this issue concerning their organisation.

 

It does. Unfortunately, that infighting involves competing views of how the railway should be reopened and extended, and also touches on issues of power and authority. That, in my view, requires those who've tried and failed to unlock the extension taking a bit of a step back and acknowledging that other approaches may be more fruitful. Their behaviours suggest that they do not share this opinion, and have the blinkers on.

 

But when you say "reach the OSHI" - from where? If you mean KL, then how do you get around the problem that landowner(s) at PE simply will not - absolutely NOT - sell their land at whatever price, so the only obvious solution is to get Compulsory Purchase powers, which in turn require a TWA order, which in turn required lots of time, effort and money (see the RVR for example). But we've been around this buoy over and over again in recent months and sadly the situation does not change.

 

That's the nub of the question , isn't it? FWIW my opinion is that what is needed is a serious charm offensive to win over the unconvinced locals in particular and try to win support for a revitalised TWA. I personally don't see extending from Woody Bay in the Lynton direction or extending to CFL as viable options, any more than reopening further isolated sections of railway, unless they are there primarily to publicise future developments. I recall that the Puffing Billy line in Australia, when it was in the process of extending, used to transport a small loco and carriage to its eventual destination at Gembrook each weekend to give rides and generate interest and support. I'd have thought there could be scope for doing that at Chelfham, for example, if track could be laid from the station and over the viaduct. It would be an ideal turn for a small engine like a "Sipat" 0-4-0T

 

Sadly, 'offensive' appears to have been part of the problem with the original attempt to reach PE. Getting the same people to try agina may only make the problem worse.
As for a 'revitalised' TWA, there is not yet one to be revitalised anyway, and how can you ask for one until you know where your railway is going to be ? So we're back to the 'where is the long-term plan' question.
The railway does not own the Viaduct at Chelfham and any sort of regular popular event there is likely to attract complaints about parking (or lack thereof) until more capacity can be found.

 

Fair enough.

Fair enough, perhaps the point has been reached where everyone concerned should agree there's absolutely no way of ever progressing beyond what already exists and leave it at that - that seems to be the best conclusion to draw from your summary.