Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

No Tom, that's a misunderatnding or my argument. Your observations about multiple options and the need to take accout of the concerns and often the sage advice of members are spot on. There is indeed no monopoly of wisdom on the Trust Board. Wise trustees will not only listen but actively encourage members to contribute their views and expertise. Where we differ is on what distinquishes trustees from the members. Quite simply, as invariably specified in a company or charity's constitution, they run the show and have the personal responsibility that goes with that privilege. My core point is that valuable member input to decision making is distinct from an expectation that the role of the trustees is to implement the member's decisions. Trustees are not just accountable to members but primarily to the public and the Charity Commission which, in extremis, could see them obliged to refuse to implement member decisions even if passed by an overwhelming majority at a General Meeting.

 

There has been much discussion on FB in recent days about the failed CFL application.

A common thread revolves around the perceived scenario that the Trust paid (presumably lots of) money to consultants, only to find that the application was recommended for refusal on the basis of what /appear/ to have been instances of non-conformance with planning policies. But was not part of the role of the consultants to identify and propose solutions to such issues? Were the Board aware of such issues and if so, did they choose to ignore them and if so then why? Once the Planning Officer's report was produced, was it not possible for the Trust to ask for the application to be put 'on hold' until the failings could be rectified? If so, why did they not do that and resubmit at a later date?

Most, if not all, of the above issues are matters about the which - I would suggest - the average Trust member has little or no knowledge or understanding. In part at least I would put that down to lack of clarity and communication from the Board as to how exactly how the application was progressing. Clearly a weekly blow-by-blow account would be overkill, but a fairly regular (say monthly) update on the situation would have helped. IIRC there was a mention in a past Newsletter that the Trust had 'been in discussions' with the ENPA - the implication being, in the absence of any statements to the contrary, that all was going reasonably well and favourably - so how then did we get, apparently very suddenly and unexpectedly, to the fact that it was recommended for refusal and the Authority acted accordingly?

It would be nice to have an open and frank discussion at the AGM Q&A about all the above, especially given the apparent intention of the Board to offer yet more 'options'. How can we judge the potential feasibility of the success/failure of such future options if we can not get a clear understanding of how we came to fail so badly on CFL? 'More of the same' will simply not be good enough. Sadly, I am not optimistic......

 

We go in circles. That accountability is correct, but very much a background matter. If trustees genuinely believed that a member motion woudl put them into this position, that debate would need to be had in the open and in response to the motion.

It is not, especially in the context of an annual meeting, justification for closing down the formal agenda because members might push trustees into that place.

That is before we get into the whole question of how trustees' duty is discharged, and the fact that most charities' objects are sufficiently widely drawn as to allow for a range of interpretations as to how they are fulfilled.

 

In an ideal world, Yes, although I imagine a trustees’ response of “ We can’t be bound by that motion even if passed” would be unlikely to secure consensus! It may be an extreme scenario but it emphasizes the underlying primacy of trustee decisions.

 

Which reminds me of what I learned the hard way with children - saying "no" is rarely effective, but saying "but what about..." frequently delivers results.

In the case of the L&B, there is broad consensus that a longer railway is not only a good thing, but essential. The issues are about how this goal, which is not disputed to be within the objects of the charity, is achieved.

 

OK so let’s get to the nub of the disagreement. Given the complexities and cost of extending the current operation, or starting a second one, it’s entirely possible that the financial sustainability of the Charity might be better achieved by just sticking with what’s been achieved at Woody Bay. However you suggested extension is “

 

Sorry. Trying to do this on a phone …,,,you suggested extension is “essential”. That maybe the conviction of many members but if were to be clear that complying with their wishes would put the financial position of the Charity in jeopardy I suggest the trustees duty would be to stick with the status quo at least until the financial prospects changed.

 

@Lineisclear you have this situation backwards. It was against considerable body of opinion that last year the trustees pressed ahead with scheme that was pretty obviously very likely to fail. That was not in the best interests. So far I have not heard the board come out and say that it feels sticking with what they have is the best option, even though it might well be so, for the LBRT. If they did say this though, there would be a body of opinion that they had wasted considerable resources in poorly conceived schemes.

Finally this discussion is slightly different because, I can quite see that the LBRT deciding not to actively participate in building more railway could be right for them for now. That doesn’t mean though that another organisation couldn’t or shouldn’t.

 

Indeed. But perhaps the 'right' answer from the Board should be simply that the Trust should "continue to be involved with the rebuilding of the L&BR". There is no need for them to be specific upfront as to where and when and how, or to try to do all of its themselves, but simply to help those who can to do more, eg by better cooperation with EA/YVT. That would not prevent them from (say) pushing on with the BR-WD section if they so choose, not could they not continue to 'explore' a possible extension to PE on a 'wait and watch' basis until such time as more favourable conditions might arise.

 

For what it is worth, I don't think the trust is the right body to try to build this railway. Own the trackbed. Yes, run it No, build it No. I just feel that the trust is trying to prove it can do everything and is making a mess of it in the process.

I think it is time that the trust took time out and looked at the skill sets it has, and then compare them to what is needed to build the railway, and if we don't have enough hands at the coal face, then we need to seek out those that can do that.

 

A lot of the consultants reports were already prepared for the S73 application.

It was Planning consultants who prepared the applicaion and I assume were involved in the pre-application discussions with ENPA. How effective were they in communicating with the trust over potential issues?

 

@21B has answered some specifics. I will just add that this has no bearing on the general point of governance, which is about the willingness of a trust board to be accountable to its membership.

The question of trustee duty is a distraction; the issues at debate are not of a kind in which that issue presents itself. Even at NYMR, the major debating points are fundamentally of how duty is discharged, not whether - hence mine and others’ complete alignment that framing agendas around the remote prospect of trustees genuinely having to refuse to enact a resolution is the wrong way round.

 

One would also have to ask whether their advice was listened to.

 

...and was it acted upon as required?

 

I can't help thinking you are making a meal of this point about the Trustees' duty to act for the public benefit.

Firstly, it seems to me that the term "public benefit" is so wooly as to be almost meaningless when viewed in the short term. The Trustees could announce tomorrow that they plan to pursue an extension to Whistlandpound reservoir; or they could announce a period of consolidation to restore finances during which time no extensions were planned, and I think you could spin either as being in the charity's best interests and therefore "of public benefit". Short of investing the financial reserve in Tesla shares, I'm not sure what they could (realistically) do that you couldn't make a strong case was of public benefit, at least in the immediate term.

Of course, in hindsight one of those actions might prove correct and one wrong, but I am not aware that the Charity Commission is in the business of punishing trustees for decisions that in hindsight turned out to be wrong, provided they can demonstrate that the decision making process itself was robust. Show me a heritage railway charity and I can probably show you a decision, properly made, that in hindsight looks a mistake.

So how do you define the public benefit in the long term, and what then is the responsibility of Trustees? I would start from a vision. I don't know if they have a formal vision or mission statement, but the website says "an exciting project to rebuild one of the world’s most famous and picturesque narrow-gauge railways; the legendary Lynton & Barnstaple Railway" which is probably good enough for this discussion. That is at least somewhat clear: the mission is to rebuild the railway. That may never be completely possible, but it does make clear that over time, extension is what is on the agenda. Presumably members of the Trust are behind that mission (because frankly if you don't support it, why are you a member?)

So having established the vision, the question for members is about competence. To put it simply, are the current trustees advancing the railway according to that vision? 15 years boxed in at Woody Bay with a series of expensive, but failed, planning applications to move forward would seem to suggest that they are not. At that point, I don't believe that a defence of "we are accountable to the public good" is sustainable. The charity has been founded on delivering a specific project of a rebuilt railway, so the measure of the public good must be "is that being achieved?" The answer is surely no.

Tom

 

As a paid-up supporter of my local line, I think maybe there is something (a lot) to be gained from looking at the way the KESR and RVR work well together - one running a railway from Tenterden to Bodiam, the other building an extension (from the far end at Robertsbridge Junction) to eventually join up.

 

I've just checked in at the Valley of The Rocks Hotel in Lynton. Will I be able to hear the "open and frank" discussion at the AGM from here?

 

I'm not overly-familiar with the K&ESR and RVR, but what I read and see on the web they are working well together in their respective ways to reconnect Tenterden to Robertsbridge and then run an end-to-end service. The same could be the case in North Devon, with EA/YVT acquiring the trackbed so that 'someone' can rebuild from Pilton to Wistlandpound eventually and thereby connect up to an extended line from KL to WD, but.....somehow it is not too hard to get the feeling that one body is more or less interested in being co-operative than the other, when really both should be working to a common goal.

 

Also, Tom, the other thing to consider here is what is the point of the Trust in the first place? My understanding has always been to provide funds for the rebuilding of the Lynton and Barnstaple Railway and to act as the governing body, which is controlled by the membership

 

NO. Trustees do not become gods or suddenly infallible once elected. Nor do they become psychic and able to instantly understand the desires of the members without actually asking them. This is where the majority of your arguments fall down when your comments repeatedly make the presumptions that the trustees are the experts, must be obeyed and only they know what is needed. In any membership organisation it is the members and their views, wishes or desires that are important and make the basis of how the organisation should proceed. The primary function of the board is to ensure they meet legal and statuary requirements whilst following the wishes of the members as closely as possible. It is NOT up to the board/committee to 'run the show' however they want and ignore the members.