Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Lots of options to explore, all need to be tested against the ENPA Local Plan policies if in the National Park.
If in the NDDC area, also a need to be aware of the ENPA policies as they will be "watching".

 

My feeling is that it might not be a bad idea to always keep the ENPA policy in the back of our mind, wherever we are rebuilding the railway.

 

judging by an idle perusal* of their posts in the last couple of years, they seem rather keen that the entire scheme to do anything L&B be put to bed.

 

No

also, given the trust/EA doesn’t own Barnstaple-Blackmoor are you asking us to fundraise and negotiate with many (many) landowners to build a cycle path?

because it really isn’t either or. The trackbed exists on maps, not as an entity that you can play ‘rails or pedals?’ on.

 

Fair point, but another option to be offered is "None of the above" with a free-form response as to individuals' preferred alternative. According to Giles, the primary question is to be "Appeal the refused application? Yes or No."

 

Others have answered in other ways. I'll just observe two things. The first is that the bridges on the L&B aren't high, and this 6 footer isn't sure about the headroom on a bike! More seriously, part of the prospectus for Exmoor Associates and the Yeo Valley Trust refers to nature conservation purposes in the absence of a railway. Walking the trackbed from Collard Bridge towards the crossing of the road to Chelfham last year, what struck me was the peacefulness of this soft strip of Devon countryside. That character would be changed radically by conversion for cycles, and wouldn't be what I for one am donating to.

 

Well, now....

Firstly, on what basis would they make the appeal?

Secondly, if they appealed and won and therefore started on going to CFL, that might impact whether they had any funds left over to do anything else as well (eg BR to WD), so on that basis it might be a good idea to get that Yes/No decided first. If the members said 'No' then they could forget going south in the ENPA for some years to come and turn their attention elsewhere. But where that 'elsewhere' might be could be more difficult to decide.

It was reported from the AGM that one of the options was to do CFL without the embankment. This puzzles me - how would they deal with the steep gradient of the original track-bed and the narrow width of the bottom of the cutting yet still get a platform and run-loop? And if there were to be a feasible answer to that, then why did they submit the original scheme in the first place?

Personally, despite various reservations, I am minded to the view that if the membership decides to pursue an extension southwards from KL come what may, and if the Board could be certain that it would pass ENPA scrutiny as regards all aspects of planning policies, then it would be more practical and beneficial to aim for PE itself again rather than some intermediate non-heritage temporary location. But of course others may disagree vehemently

 

Essentially, you had to be at the meeting to understand the issues and the only 2 reasons for the refusal of the planning etc , again as giles pointed out ..facts and evidence over emotion.

It was well explained in the AGM but there will be a full letter sent out to all members soon with all possible options AND a box for your own option incase a member feels there's a way forward that hadn't been listed.

It will be a 2 part question do we want to appeal , yes ... well then that's the way forward , no well that's when the other options get considered.

There's alot said at the AGM that hasn't been repeated outside of that room properly and is made to twist facts unfortunately.

 

We should probably just keep applying for planning permission for the same bit of railway. If we do that often enough they’ll be bound to grant permission to make us go away.

 

Yes, but at what cost or permanently

 

There was a hint of sarcasm in my previous post

 

As Einstein (allegedly) once said: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results"

 

I look forward to seeing the letter. But I will be assessing it against the video of the planning meeting, and the credibility of the options accordingly.

 

this would be a classic case of Schröder's cat