Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I guess the old saying of cross each bridge as you come to it is in some ways sometimes best. At the moment there is lots we can do as Option C gives quite a bit of flexibility which, in my view, with the complexity of piecing together the L&B is essential.

 

I don't know the details in RVRs case but such suggestions are not unusual in today's electronic world. Social media has its merits, but it's also rife with trolls, conspiracy theorists, armchair warriors, and so on.

 

Old Kent Biker stated that planning for the TWAO 'has been in preparation for several years'. In which case, the RVR TWA Order Application and Decision should be templates for guiding and aiding in its further preparation. Agreed this is not urgent but it is important. Perhaps someone with a planning mentality down Woody Bay way should be given the task of developing this further.

 

I don’t see how the L&B could run to Parracombe without a TWAO. If they’re relying on the fact they’ll be going under the road rather than over, I suspect that advice is as worthless as the advice they got over the PP.

 

If old distinctions are anything to go by, that advice may be less use than that for the planning, which was at least in the realms of arguable case rather than pure wish fulfilment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I was told that the a TWAO was only needed for the RVR to get Compulsory Purchase Powers. Personally I think that it may also have been needed because a NEW Level Crossing was required over the A21 which is a 'major' route managed by National Highways rather than East Sussex County Council. As I understand it Devon County Council have agreed the bridge at Killington Lane without a TWAO.

 

If we can persuade the lovely lady in Parracombe that there is a huge business opportunity in perhaps developing an exclusive art school in sleepy North Devon, where budding artists are able to sit in a field with a tutor and paint in whatever medium they wish of flowers in the meadow, with the train gently passing by with smiling faces and well wishing waves, the harmony of flora and fauna, of people, and that of a bygone industrial age.... Who knows, they may find the next Picasso, Lowry, Monet or Constable!

 

The whole issue of funding for the L&BR I feel has never really been taken seriously, I feel that when it come to money, people are genuinely scared of getting involved. There is a level of what people or the membership are prepared to donate to, but that comes at a price. The views of the membership are in this case far from the same views held by say a major investors would be.

The membership might be happy for a replica steam loco and say four or five rebuilt L&BR carriages, where as someone, who might be willing to invest a significant amount of capital into the project, is going to want to make sure he is not wasting his time, effort or his capital.

To a certain extent I am glad all this has happen now, since it will give us the opportunity to reset how the whole project is managed in the future and to correct the mistakes of the past.

The RVR TWAO also indicates to me the direction that we shall need to be travelling if the L&BR project is to full fill the dreams of the membership.

Accountability and scrutiny will be the two new words in everyone's dictionary from now on, more so from those providing the money to make this all happen. The membership may not like it if the direction goes off course a bit, but the truth is those that pay the piper get to choose the song we sing.

It is important that the L&BT learn from all of this and puts in place the necessary requirements that everyone can see that will make it a successful project. At the worst case scenario, we might attract someone with a lot of wealth, but their idea of a rebuilt L&BR might be a Disney style 20mile linear theme park. Now while in the fullness of time there is some merit too that approach, but I think it should be up to both the railway membership and the residents around the railway just as to how the area develops for everyone's benefit.

Most people realise that North Devon has never been over developed in hundreds of years and is one of the more poorer regions of the UK for infrastructure installation (according to Government figures). But again is that not what attracts people to the area? There recently has been a call to install and upgrade the existing Wi Fi system in North Devon and Exmoor in order for the small/medium sized business's to be able to be connected to the rest of the UK and beyond and to generate a much fairer wealth profile for the area.

Now whether you believe it or not but I see the rebuilding of the L&BR as being part of that core regional re-development plan and we shall only get the once change to make it happen and it needs to be done in the correct way.

 

The point about successful fundraising is to persuade potential donors to contribute to the project that is seeking funding, not to chop and change the project based on what individual donors might want. I include government bodies in my definition of "donor", and have in mind that the L&B was, when operational, not obviously a core part of the region's development. This isn't to say that there might not be advantages to partnering, for example by providing a cable route*, but that these need to support the objectives of the heritage railway, not take it over.

* - as an aside, both timescales and routing make me dubious that the trackbed offers major benefits here seeing as BT will already have cable routes that serve the villages.

 

Quite agree, the aim is to reinstate the L&B as near as possible to the original. That attracts Heritage funding, and makes for a unique and special experience for visitors, those visitors who already make so many favourable comments about the railway.

 

I think the works from Lowry’s brief “pastoral views in flower meadows” period are amongst the less well known output from his career …

Tom

 

As far as I am aware Chris Duffell was tasked with this job but it was put on hold BTWMBO

 

Have you met this 'lovely' lady, perchance? Given her rabid hatred of the railway you've as much chance of persuading her as you have of winning the Euromillions top prize!

 

I think you are right and ot did worry me that nothing had happened, but I think caution is needed. I sat though a fair bit of the RVR's Public Inquiry and it struck me that everything needed to be just right and that the process was costly.

 

Just because people dislike railways doesn't mean we need to be derogatory.

 

You take yourself far too seriously. My post was a jocular response to your, presumed, whimsical fancy or, perish the thought, were you actually being serious?

 

I must admit that however long ago it was when Killington Lane to Blackmoor was first mooted and there were composite images bandied about of bowstring bridges spanning the gap in Parracombe bank and the glib comments that you could have a bridge or X amount of lorry movements to bring in fill that the proponents of this were a bunch of arrogant pricks and it would seem they have remained true to type. Little wonder community relations are where they are.

 

The Inspector's Report under Funding (para 12.14.1.3. on p233) states:
'RVR has indicated that more than £3.0 million has already been spent to fund the employment of consultants and advisors to advise on all aspects of the project and the implementation of works carried out so far'.
So yes, the process was indeed costly.

 

Exactly - not to be entered lightly especially if it not absolutely necessary. At least L and B don't want a NEW level crossing accross a major road managed by National Highways and are not building in a floodplane. Having said that Parracombe Bank is not exactly a minor piece of engineering. I suspect that the landowners in RVR's case have spent more in legal and consultant's fees than they will receive in payment for the land.

 

I agree @H Cloutt , but with two caveats.

First, there's no publicly available evidence that ENPA will agree to Planning Permission without Grampian Conditions allowing a phased approach. Until this evidence is provided, the current approach to Option C is a dead letter.

Second, assuming Planning Permission is again granted, assuming it comes with Grampian Conditions, we need a plan in order to obtain the trackbed to satisfy the Grampian Conditions - and in the absence of a change of heart from landowners, we will need CPO powers, and as RVR have demonstrated, this is only possible through the TWAO process. Hence, we need to be prepared to go down that road.