Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Very true, wasn't there a revised business case submitted not long ago? I wonder how much (if any) of that could be salvaged?

 

(Good evening Thomas: I'll assume for now that you've accepted that I wasn't making stuff up and I'm not a fantasist. Thanks.)

Back on track: the short answer to your question about a business case is 'who knows'? Why? Because the Trust leadership around Peter Miles don't share such documents (if indeed they exist) with the Members, many of whom are far better qualified than me to assist. Why they refuse offers of help from highly qualified professional members - Renewable Energy in @Isambard! 's case, signalling and operations in @RailWest 's - is beyond me.

The slightly longer answer is that as @35B gently pointed out, there is all the difference in the world between whether something can be built from an engineering or financial perspective (and at the moment, these are different at the L&B because the money earmarked for the extension has gone to OSHI) and whether you're allowed to build it.

To actually get some track down will require all three elements - engineering (including land acquisition), finance and permissions. CFL currently has only the first of these, and the Trust's high-handed/tone deaf approach to the s73 process (itself an act of desperation because time was running out on the 2018 consents) has obviously sowed ill-feeling and mistrust with our neighbours and galvanised our opponents - just go and re-read the public submissions to ENPA during the s73 process.

To blithely - that is, "with casual and cheerful indifference" - assume that becuase CFL isn't (quite) in Parracombe, permissions will go through on the nod is little short of breathtaking. Have those who are seriously taking this position learned anything from the last two years? I'd suggest that their actions suggest they haven't.

For all of these reasons (including, of course, the fact that despite the Trust's ongoing untruthful claims about the Return to Parracombe Fund, we can't afford to build Bridge 65 now, let alone get to CFL), many of us, including, notably Chris Duffell have been calling for an chance to sit down and look at the options and build a plan that everyone - Trust, CIC staff, volunteers, members, YVT/EA, 762 Club - can get behind. What has been notable from the Trust is complete opposition to this, with misdirection and, in Newsletter 81 and on the website, demonstrable lies.

I'd ask you to ask yourself which approach you think is more likely to build the railway we all want to see, @Thomas Woods .

 

I’m not quite sure what you mean by “business case” or “submitted” in this context - there’s been some discussion with the planners, but it’s not clear quite what form that’s taken.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Just quickly as busy today,

I think what Thomas is trying to say is the that the documentation to comply with some of the previous conditions and which were discharged and still in date as they have an expiry date will mean that a large proportion of that documentation can be reused in any new application.

Surveys demanded by condition such as watercourse surveys, archaeological, drainage, buildings, road infrastructure and traffic surveys and so forth will have changed very little and any discharged conditions still "in date" or recent can be reused. Conditions with perhaps a shorter shelf life such as flora and fauna may be different and need updating. It must be remembered that some of those conditions have only been discharged very recently.

If I recall only one condition was not met which was the all the land, all the money and all the contractors engaged before commencement, which I may add may not be possible to apply now after the 2018 Grampian Condition changes which occurred after our previous approval. Previous approvals elsewhere and I believe in our case where such conditions were applied left very little room for a challenge or negotiation and was being used by authorities onerously, this was why the govt called for the review on Grampian Conditions and the changes made and became law in October 2018. (We have gone over all that previously).

 

Isn't that last statement a bit disingenuous? It's like saying "I could have been a millionaire - only one condition was not met, which was the absence of a million pounds in my bank account".

Of course the planning landscape has changed somewhat since 2018, but the bottom line is that the Trust had planning permission and didn't do anything with it. Were I a representative of the Planning Authority, that is bound to make me want to scrutinise any future application even more closely to understand the deliverability of what is proposed.

My sense is that what could be perhaps the last great railway adventure in preservation is instead leading inexorably towards the establishment of a new long distance footpath - not immediately, but in perhaps 10 or 20 years.

Tom

 

I have seen news reports of developers being unable to complete already started projects because their surveys have timed out. Regulations change - look online for “nutrient neutrality” for an example.

I completely agree that a lot of work has been done that lends itself to reuse, and that this will mitigate the pain. But it still feels like the tail wagging the dog.

As an aside, I’m curious about how the reuse argument works for CFL. As I understand it, the line is on a 1:50 gradient there, yet ORR insist on minimal gradient where trains terminate. The plans done for the 2018 planning are presumably based on restoring the original alignment. If I’m right, then what needs to change to make CFL work as a temporary terminus - and how easily can it be reversed to re-extend later?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

My sense is that what could be perhaps the last great railway adventure in preservation is instead leading inexorably towards the establishment of a new long distance footpath - not immediately, but in perhaps 10 or 20 years. Tom[/QUOTE]
...



Without a substantial change in management team, yes.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

Aside from the engineering feasibility, CFL is potentially an incendiary location. For a potential small gain in run length there is a real risk of further antagonising the people of Parracombe. The railway needs to win friends not alienate people.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

Maybe, but if the definition of a millionaire is one million pounds in the bank, is it not a condition which is similar to the bank denying you the ability to even deposit a million pounds in the first place?

 

I'd not want to push the analogy too far. But your original post implied that the Trust were soooooo close to being able to proceed, with "only one" condition not met. But that "only one" was pretty fundamental: they didn't have the money, and they didn't have the land.

Tom

 

Not only were there (at least) three Grampian Conditions (land, money, contracts to build) not just one, but also four (the fifth - for the new houses at PE - was rejected) planning applications and consents, not one. Sadly some people seem to talk in singularities and make it sound all so simple....

 

As far as I understood I think it was 43 out of 44 conditions had been discharged. Perhaps I am wrong, haven't got time to check up right now.

Anyhow, whether the money/land/contractor Grampian Conditions is one or 3, it still still stands that it is much more difficult to apply those conditions after the 2018 changes due to the test of reasonability and also the fact that there is now a requirement on authorities to notify the applicant before determination any wording of such proposed condition(s), this leads to an opportunity to challenge or negotiate any such proposals. Essentially now Grampian Conditions should never need to be applied which was the aim of the changes in law in 2018.

 

Sadly, I think you may be putting a lot of emphasis on the “Grampian” part of “Grampian Conditions”, and not enough on “conditions”.

I share your understanding of the change in policy, but those negotiations would not be on an even footing. Speculating somewhat, if 2018 were to be rerun on these rules, I would still not be surprised if those conditions were proposed (especially regarding building the railway as a single project), and that unwillingness to agree to that could well lead to rejection of the application.

I keep coming back to the view repeatedly expressed by @Tobbes and others, which is that any plan for reopening needs to be based on active consideration of what would happen if landowners continue to refuse to sell, bearing in mind the time limits on a planning permission.

In the meantime, with limited resources and a lot to do, I remain interested to see how the plans come together towards rebuilding our credibility and the railway.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I agree with @35B . There is a credibility gap evident to all. There is much that is good as well, but it is the weaknesses that need addressing

 

I do wonder if there will be a shift in emphasis with the Woody Bay operation continuing "as is", the steady build up of infrastructure at OSHI/Blackmore and a "Southern" railway operation under the EA/YVT established.
The Southern operation growing, as and when, until it can be seen that Parracombe is just required as a through railway for the completion of a much longer community asset.

 

I actually think - and this has come through in more than a few people's posts - that what needs to be done first is everyone take a deep breath, sit down, and talk before anything else happens.

There's far too much - 'we need to do something, this isn't working, let's go and do that' - none of which addresses root causes or personalities.

Parracombe is a problem, so there's a call for 'let's do Blackmoor to Whistlandpound' - which conveniently forgets that we don't actually own all the land there either, so it's not like spades can go straight into the ground.

Then there's another call of 'let's cut out the L&BRT entirely and do something under YVT in the Yeo Valley further south.'

I have said before, and maintain, that we need one org doing the buying, one the building and running, and one the strategic overseeing - across the whole length of Lynton to Barnstaple.

As a trust member, and an EA shareholder, I sympathise with the 'let's do something in the south' cries of many. I share some of them myself. But I worry that YVT is at best a stalking horse for change at the Trust*, and at worst for some people a Trojan horse to replace the trust.

The potential for this to boil over into (publicly disastrous, and I mean more disastrous than we've seen so far) open warfare quite frankly alarms me.

A cursory glance at who owns what 'in the south' might help those who aren't quite sure what I'm worrying about here...

*which is actually what I'd like it to be

 

Well here is the key planning condition:

"The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until - (i) there has been submitted to the local planning authority documentary evidence - a. proving that the applicant owns all the land required for the development permitted by this permission and permissions 62/50/16/002, 62/50/16/003 and 62/50/16/004; b. proving that the applicant has entered into a construction contract or construction contracts which provide for the completion of all the development permitted by this permission and permissions 62/50/16/002, 62/50/16/003 and 62/50/16/004 within a specified time period; c. showing that the applicant has sufficient funds to meet its liabilities under the above contract or contracts"

Given the clear requirements set out above, where was the funding plan & the TWAO? - basically the ball was comprehensively dropped. That level of prima facie incompetence is frankly unforgivable. To make matters worse all we get is obfuscation - secrecy to cover lack of competence. No apology. A childishly ridiculous attempt to blame ENPA. Demonstrable untruths about finances. With such active denial there's a huge risk that terminal mistakes will be made again.

The solution is, bluntly, a fundamental change in management team, to one which is competent & open. This has started but we have a way to go. Time is not on our side.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

If I were an opponent of the rebuilding of the L&B, I'd probably be quietly satisfied with the Trust's leadership over the last few years.

 

Very nicely put Jon.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

I am not a L&B member and dont pretend to get my head around everything thats going on BUT this clearly summarises my grasp of the situation, and indeed as far as I can see the really relevant issues.

So yes, the Trust has well and truly dropped the ball