Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I've mixed feelings about the overlapping memberships. It's obvious (and, in my experience, the L&B is far from unique in this) from what has happened that board members have at times lost sight of the fact that they are acting as a director of body X rather than for a wider interest. At the same time, I've a lot of time for the idea that linked bodies should have some, or even a majority, of directors who are there to ensure that the "junior" organisation works within the interests of the "parent".

In my view, this is then less about formal structures and more about culture - yet again.

 

That would depend on the nature of parent & subsidiary businesses. In this case the directors of LBBC as a PLC owe a duty to all shareholders, in the Trust the trustees are (or should be) directed by the governing document. The potential for conflicts of interest can be seen.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

I agree, but in an organisation like the L&B, the two categories are not completely distinct - hence the challenge

 

I think that the gap is wider (or ought to be) between the LBBC and LBRT. The overlap between LBRT and CIC is understandable and largely desirable. The overlap with 762??? Once more it strikes me strongly that there are too many organisations and the governance structure too unclear.

If we are to be serious about building a longer railway this lack of clarity must be addressed. As must the relationship with EA/YVT. And no that doesn’t mean rolling everything into LBRT, nor does it mean creating any impression of winners and losers.