Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

How sad indeed. But in a world where the likes of the WHO can propose to conduct business apparently in contravention of international treaty law, then it's hardly surprising that a piddling little charity in North Devon can see fit to behave itself in a similar manner.
We are, it seems in a post- democratic, and ultra vires era.

 

Well, they may well have done - probably several times, but it is never publicised or shared with those who could help to deliver on it.

 

Well, a post by me quickly which I have been compiling for a few days now gradually as I find time.

Having seen the the circulated PDF file "The Way Forward", rather than just saying it's wrong, or right, or get personal or abusive or all lovey dovey over it, I decided to have a good think on what is proposed.

Below is my personal thoughts on those proposals.

The original text in the PDF is in italics.

The basic outline of this programme is presented below. The various stages will be undertaken concurrently, with full use being made of our volunteers.

i) Immediately start on works to extend the railway from BG towards WLP using volunteers (fencing, drainage repair, vegetation clearance, etc.).

We immediately have to ask how thin we are going to try and stretch the volunteers and how far we can push any demands on them. North Devon is a sparcely populated area and hence the volunteer availability is quite limited. There has been since the pandemic an acute shortage of volunteers right across the volunteer sector and at the Heritage & Museums Trade show in London which I attend it's been a major talking point on how to get new volunteers in the post pandemic era.

The problem we have is how people have, a/ changed how they spend their time after retirement, and b/ the after effects of the pandemic where many were forced to look deeply at how they use their free time. Those newly retired are now more likely to be those who travel around due to more excess cash in their pocket and visit the various places and help out financially rather than get involved as an active volunteer. In the modern world experience of many things overrules dedication to one cause.

Additionally the experience of the pandemic caused many to look at how they live, what they do etc, and many now equally look to experience as much as they can in their lives rather than singular dedication and especially so with the current cost of living crisis. Whereas in the past the father/husband may have gone off and spent an afternoon at some local charity or cause such as railways or similar and the mother/wife may have got involved in a local charity for children or similar, they now look to see where they can spend the day out together for a family experience.
Its very much so that I have watched the world change in the past few years (and I would say actually from as far back as the Millennium) from a world of doing, to a world of experiencing.
So it has to be asked where all the additional volunteers will be coming from when we already see calls for volunteers from the existing parts of the railway eg: Woody Bay, EA and YVT.

I think it also has to be pointed out that in reality this isn't an extension, it is a completely different section of the line and so just as Woody Bay has its dedicated volunteers it too will be needing its own second set of dedicated volunteers (see above on gaining new volunteers).

Although some volunteers may go along with whatever is asked of them, eventually they gravitate towards whatever part of the line they take most interest in, have affinity for or where feel they are needed most. You cannot make demands they same way as if they were employed, at any time they can call in sick or cancel, they can turn up and talk all day if they wish, they can refuse to do the work set here or there, or if over demanding tell you to shove it and disappear.

I do think though that if we can find new volunteers to modestly start clearing track, vegetation and erect fencing we would get some if it was seen that Woody Bay, Chelfham, maintenance of EA sections etc and other parts of the line are not being left behind.

ii) Apply for a Section 73 to postpone the construction of Br 56, the A399 bridge.

I think this would need to be done regardless of what option is chosen or who does it.

iii) The BG to WLP section to be opened in stages as soon as a suitable length of track isavailable using a battery/diesel powered push-pull train.

Although in principle I agree that getting some sort of activity at BG is desirable, I do question the viability of perhaps running non L&B style or theme park type stock as we did once before as this was one of the objectors points at one of the public meetings about it becoming a theme park type attraction or Disneyfication. We must in my view keep to either L&B heritage stock or as close as possible and "in the style of".

With Woody Bay running heritage stock and live steam hauled many will expect that same or close to standard at BG, both visitors and the locals. The most important point here is that those in the National Park area and the planning process will be watching BG and how things are done there, running anything other than heritage or heritage style could cause major problems with those planning processes further north.

So the stock used in any such venture must be carefully thought about and at East Group workshops we have. Using our approved underframe for the heritage carriages we can construct a cheap lightweight toast rack body out of steel and ply making sure it has an L&B look and feel and can be painted in one of the L&B liveries.
Being as these carriages will be lighter it's possible we could see Axe hauling two or more with ease, later and as heritage carriage bodies become available we can take the toast rack body off and drop the heritage body on. This means that we know the stock we are using is approved, only the body will need an independent engineers/inspector's approval for hse etc and we are in keeping with our L&B heritage aims and goals.

I do see the advantage of having a diesel loco which may be used as less crew are needed, it might be one of those situations of needs must depending on that volunteer availability.

The ideal I think would be weekend running perhaps steam, maybe one diesel day in the week. With weekends more likely to see volunteers available it would prevent stifling Woody Bay for weekday crew. All about volunteer availability.
Any electric power unit must be looked at very closely indeed as I doubt the BG complex, with the pub, the houses nearby along with any power needs of the railway itself would lend to the placing of what I would imagine being a hefty 3ph recharging point for a loco. Additionally the siting of a 3ph generator to boost power to the complex and charge an eco loco just wouldn't be eco!

All of the above though costs money, and that all important limited volunteer time, which we must make sure is truly available and is in addition to all the other activity along the length of the line.

iv) Set up a working Group to develop the plans required for the development of the railway at BG (Br 56 design, car parking for OSHI and railway, design and layout of Railway station and engine shed) and to submit planning applications as necessary.

I question the need to look for further and new designs and plans when considerable money and effort has already been spent on the existing plans which have already been approved by the planning authorities?

v) Continue with development and planning application to construct Br 65 (KL bridge) and the line to CFL or Bridge 61. (Only plain line to be laid with no temporary terminus station to be built. The line will not to be opened for public use until line it reaches BG. The existing KL halt will remain the limit of public operation.)

If bridge 65 can be done and the line can be laid beyond KL we really need to be using it and getting revenue off that line. If we are to be making appeals for money to extend that section then people will be wanting to see a return for the money they donate and any grants will want to see results and use otherwise they will not provide those grants, if the track is laid but they cannot take the ride on that section will anyone really invest in it?

Personally I think if we can make CFL work and as quick as possible we should grab the opportunity gladly with both hands as it will give us a chance to show the residents of Parracombe that we are not the big bad wolf they fear. To the question off fares I've seen elsewhere, overall will the cost of going to CFL be hugely more than KL? With the number of passengers we see per year a modest 50p increase would perhaps cover any increased costs. One for the marketing guys at Woody Bay to figure out where the profit/loss break point is.

vi) Commence construction of BG works once necessary planning permissions obtained and as funds become available.
Remember those all important volunteers too and their availability.

vii) Prepare and submit a TWAO with Deemed Planning Permission for the construction of the Railway from CFL to BG. (A TWAO will be required to ensure that all the land is available. It will be considerably quicker and cheaper, as it is 1 application and not 2 and thus objections can only be aired once. A shorter application length will reduce the funding required for the works considered by the TWAO. Considerable work has already been carried out on TWAO preparation which otherwise would have been wasted)

This is part of a post I put on Facebook, I will simply copy it to here. .

As far as I understand it the more trackbed and infrastructure you have in ownership the more likely you are to gain a TWAO. The work already done is good, it's not and never will be a lost effort and is a valuable exercise in gaining understanding in what is required for a TWAO, but we may only ever get one shot at it. To ensure success (as much as we can) we need to make sure we have maximum chance at gaining that success. At the level of track ownership we have at the moment I seriously doubt we would have that success. If we can get to CFL, and also start sorting the track down to WLP we can show we mean business and alongside also again carefully show the local residents that what we are running will not have as big an impact as they feared. In the mean time we may be able to acquire or have promise of further trackbed south of Parracombe. CFL provides a means to attempt to repair the relationship with the folks of Parracombe. It may even be that in the end way may not need a TWAO or at least a minimal one.

viii) Construct the railway between CFL and BG as soon as the TWAO is granted and funding is secured.

See previous comments

ix) Create an overarching group to develop a forward strategy for the rebuilding of the whole of the railway consisting of the L&B Railway Trust, the Yeo Valley Trust and Exmoor Associates.
x) This group would:-
a) Develop options for completing the railway especially to the south to make use of the extensive and available lengths of trackbed now owned by EA/YVT. (Work to understand the issues here is already underway)
b) Engage with the Local Government and politicians at all levels (National, County, District and Parish)
c) Develop a positive publicity campaign to raise awareness, engagement and gain support from the local population.
d) Develop the funding strategy for the overall railway to ensure that funding is available to enable construction to proceed as and when required.

Personally I think all the groups involved with the railway from Barnstaple to Lynton have at the moment some monumental challenges to overcome. Whether they are working together or separately each area has its own unique challenges with some parts in the NDDC (easier authority to deal with but major challenges perhaps near Barnstaple plus less land to create facilities at Snapper and Bratton Fleming) , some in the ENP (more difficult as it's a National Park authority but more land to play with) , some are land acquisition problems (seen right along the length of the line), some are geographical (WLP) and some are local transport related (Road now on old trackbed, crossing the A399 etc.).

Chelfham is perhaps the exception where there has been an input by all groups, with its charming station perched up on the hill and at the end of the viaduct, who cannot just love Chelfham. But it too has its challenges, parking being the main one.

I agree perhaps in principle a body could be created as a liaison between the different groups but it should not have control of any of them. Each group has a different set up, it's own challenges and needs it's own support network.

A more detailed programme will be ready to present to members at the Trust AGM in May.

With the above plan I can see Woody Bay almost orphaned which is not ideal by any means. It is successful and continues to be so, it is also invaluable in increasing our profile with the wider world and tourists not just for the L&BRT but the when line, and every one of us must support it.

Equally we must be seen to be thinking ahead (liaison group), being careful we don't over stretch our wonderful volunteers, and carefully go forward as the opportunities arise.

At the moment with the huge success of all the groups especially during the pandemic era where Woody Bay itself successfully navigated the pandemic and was open when many other attractions where shut for months or worse, and also where some fantastic opportunities arose and were taken advantage of (acquiring OSHI, Bratton Fleming, Parracombe Halt, Budds Wood etc, plus advances made at Chelfham etc) there is now so many bits of the line which so many have put huge amounts of effort into that the railway as a whole is being pulled in so many different directions.

Although I understand the desire to lengthen the railway as I would like to see too, it should not be "at any cost". We have Woody Bay which is an extremely successful tourist attraction now in North Devon, OSHI (which although some may not agree with, it is what it is and we have it and should support it fully to make sure it's a great success), then there is Chelfham, Bratton Fleming, Snapper, plus other sections of trackbed, all important sites which need support. It's no good focusing on just extending if you let the existing railway and other locations and the support networks to collapse just to get an extra few yards of track down.

Personally I think each of the groups have enough to do at the moment without the arguments we have seen of late.

Woody Bay has its problems to solve as do EA and YVT further south with figuring out how to get what I personally think is an extremely important presence nearer to Barnstaple, to. "proper wake Barnstaple up" to what is occurring in the valleys north of the town. We need more volunteers, shake Barnstaple up and we may see some creep out of the woodwork.

For what it's worth, that is my opinion and I am only one small voice which obviously may differ from others, but right now, with the challenges faced in all the different areas, I think, smaller focused groups in their designated areas with the knowledge of that locality may be more productive in the long run than one organisation chasing its tail up and down the line from Barnstaple to Lynton.

Above I have said I agree in principle to a liaison group, and that it should not have any control. The reason for this is all the main groups involved, EA, L&BRT, YVT, all have their own governing structures, with shareholders and members. If we have an overruling body it takes away the rights from those independant trusts and companies and in effect they become subsideries of yet another organisation. The danger here is if one group finds the controlling body decides something they don't like then we will have more disruption and then calls for that body to have yet another body watching them, and so on, layers and layers of bodies and even quango type organisations.

In my view, just a simple panel, no control, a set of people who are ambassadors for each group, perhaps one or two from each, who speak at each other's AGMs and events and just generally increasing the information flow between the groups. After all much has been said about communication. In that I don't necessarily lay blame at any one organisation for that lack of communication, often with complex issues at hand in their own sections and limited resources and people time, sometimes it just doesn't get done. We must remember, everyone involved in management at L&BRT and indeed EA and YVT are volunteers themselves too. A liaison group may well resolve that issue.

Blessings to all, not here so much as I have a mountain of stuff to do, busy, busy!

 

I have seen this figure quoted somewhere before but im not sure that its correct, pre covid the record number of visitors was somewhere in the region of 45-47,000, i know it was busy last year but i dont think it was that busy, im sure i saw a report that it was in the low 40-000

 

I would say, forget about extending the line for now, until you have secured the track bed, just clear the land you have and repair / update the station sites to be ready for track laying, if stations have been lost, then build them back, to original style, using reclaimed materials where possible, only expand once you have the land either side of Woody bay, and the present end of the operational line, extend only from this end, for the other ends, say it's private land, and only members can legally enter it, sell walkers permits, that are valid, until time when it becomes an engineering site, then they can be scrapped, unless the holders have a valid reason to be there, there needs to be a more conciliatory approach from the trust, and an desire to work together with everyone on the project other groups, and locals, all of which need to be gotten on board with, you might not agree , but leave the door open, talking is better than open warfare, and if a house owner won't sell, talk with them, ask why, and is there a way round, ask others who might own land next to the site, to see if the line could divert, but try to get dialog, and understanding, for example, if the house is on the track bed, and the owner says no, but the farmer next door, is prepared to sell you a bit of land, and the owner says, yes, and is prepared to give up the edge of their field, so the track can then pick up its old alignment, isn't that better than confrontation and threats?

 

You are describing the Exmoor Associates approach

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

An interesting set of comments from DaveE, but IMHO there is one further issue which he appears not to have addressed specifically.

As I understand the extant planning consent for KL, once the railway has extended southwards then KL station must be abolished and the land returned to its original state and owner. I'm not aware of the ENPA's precise definition of 'extended' in that context, but I would assume it means something on the lines of "running passengers trains to a new terminus further south". If it were to also mean in the ENPA's views simply having track laid, but no trains other than occasional engineer's trains for maintenance, then clearly that would be a no-no 'cos we would lose KL with no gain.

Quite clearly, if whatever we do will result in the loss of KL, then the new facilities at CFL (or wherever) must not result in any deterioration in service. Perhaps more importantly, if the work proposed to create a new terminus at CFL was something that would then have to be removed at a later date in order to extend further south through PE itself, then that will cause a disruption in service which will not be able to be accommodated by a re-use of a station at KL that will no longer exist. So there is a potential for causing an extended shut-down of the railway at some future date in the event of construction delays etc (shades of the level-crossing renewal saga at Minehead perhaps?).

 

I welcome a considered analysis, and practical critique of ideas. There's a lot in this post, but what I see is good practical thinking about what would work and how - with consideration of the risks.

The one thing that I will observe here is that I don't support crystallising the current split between organisations. It creates tensions that are almost impossible to resolve, and liaison groups aren't really enough. This forum has plenty of evidence from the example of the WSR to reflect on, and I note that it has caused challenges at the GCR too. The focus needs to be on moving towards unity, not firming boundaries. Here in Grantham, the local branch of "Churches Together" (to all intents and purposes, a liaison group) is disbanding because there isn't the interest - from my church as much as others. In West Somerset, the PDG has been disbanded.

The roles of the Trust, the CIC, EA and YVT are complementary. As and when the railway expands, the scope of each should change in connection with the operational railway.

In the context of the upcoming EGM, I will just observe that we are faced with a choice between two visions of how the railway should be developed and run. One, which has led to the calling of the EGM, is of a vision of all powerful trustees, effectively accountable to no one, and with complete freedom of action. The other would continue to give ordinary members their say over the strategy and direction of the railway, with a willingness to work collaboratively with others inside and outside the L&B family.

Given your obvious desire for collaboration, I look forward to seeing you vote "No" at the EGM, and will be glad to chat.

 

Thank you chaps for all the advice. My work takes me to various parts of the world where dishonesty, vote-rigging and intimidation (and far worse) are par for the course; sad that I should consider such behaviour might happen in North Devon. @Tobbes, I will send you a PM.

 

A thoughtful, well considered post worthy in its turn of detailed consideration. Thank you.

 

But AIUI that was a unilateral decision by the WSR PLC (under what authority, if any, seems unclear) without prior discussion with and/or agreement of the other participating bodies. I'm not sure that its demise can be taken as an accurate indication of any general lack of interest.

 

Some might consider that parts of North Devon exist in an 'alternative reality' altogether where different 'norms' apply

 

Indeed. But - as in a very different context does my reference to Churches Together - it also highlights the fundamental weakness of governance models based upon liaison groups, and spheres of interest. A liaison group might be a way to get from where we are now, but it has to be in support of a vision, not a substitute for one.

In the case of the L&B, this is why I am very clear that these problems will not be resolved by the proposed Articles, and that what is required is a change in culture within the Trust leadership to work with other groups, and not to act as though they assume that their only place is in charge of all things L&B.

 

Thanks for this, @DaveE, I appreciate your engagement.

I think the point here @DaveE is that constructing the railway is likely to increase the pool of volunteers who are prepared to come out and help - see Deviationists at FR, the RVR etc.

One thing I'd like to test is whether volunteers see themselve as 'CIC Volunteers', 'Woody Bay Volunteers', 'Chelfham Volunteers' or simply as 'L&B Volunteers'? My sense is that it's a bit of both, but the overwhelming incentive is to help the railway - and that means better coordination across the L&B family as the recent hedging experience showed.

It's not about being 'left behind' it is that as a landowner we have a duty to responsibly husband our land; clearing track, laying hedges, erecting fencing, fixing drainage are all things that should be part of an integrated management plan for the assets across the L&B family. Does such a thing exist in the Trust even for the Trust's own holdings? It's not obvious, given the state that the infamous CFL hedging was allowed to get into.

Getting on and building the line south of Blackmoor Gate is actually imperative - not only will it stop land we've purchased reverting to the previous owner shortly (2025?) it will demonstrate that the railway is intent on moving forwards where it can. Having an operational railway at BG/OSHI can only help OSHI survive - it's failure would be a hammer blow for the Trust, given the exposure of more than £500k to it.

That depends entirely on how you market it.

Where is the evidence for this, @DaveE ? If it is marketed as something different, and it is explained that the heritage carriages are at WB and we will link the two when we get PP and access to the trackbed, I'm far from clear that it will cause "major problems" at all.

Great. There's a debate for another day about what stock is required in addition to the heritage coaches for a longer railway, too.

I can see that part of the reason NOT to use steam initially at Blackmoor Gate is to keep that attraction at WB. There's also the case of where do you put the required infrastructure for steam at Blackmoor Gate now? Diesel operation would be substantially easier.

Every plan needs to be assessed to see if it is the right plan now as circumstances change, @DaveE . I understood this to mean that the A399 bridge could be smaller and much less expensive than previously planned - it's therefore quite right to reassess and revalidate plans before we invest large sums in them.

My personal preference is to seperate the building of Bridge 65 (essential to meet the timescales of the agreement with Devon Highways) and not bother with an extenstion towards Parracombe until we can go straight through to Blackmoor Gate, because there's no evidence Parracombers are keen to welcome the railway, and for the reasons that @21B has cogently made (and he's a guy who knows a thing or to about running a major heritage railway) it isn't at all clear that CFL would add any revenue (and if we have to pay VAT because there is not even a notional exit at CFL, we could end up losing money - and that's before @RailWest very sensible points about timetabling is considered - remember, as soon as you open south of Bridge 65, Killington Lane has to close and be removed.)

See above. It is only 'worth siezing' if the politics, economics and operations stack up. As @RailWest makes clear, building something that you know you're going to have to close in order to extend further - and having lost Killington Lane because you opened south of it, what train service do you have to offer? It would be deeply ironic if the CFL mini extension actually caused the long-term shutdown of WB when the southerly extension occurs because there's nowhere to run trains to.

At the moment, we have one group ('the six') actively persecuting those who are attempting to work constructively across the L&B family, and with their 'hostile takeover' email, seem to be living in a parallel universe of paranoia: all that sort of nonsense should stop to begin with. We have to sort out how we work together and offer volunteers the choice of what they want to do across the organisations, I think.

Yes.... and no. First, 'almost orphaned' is not what anyone is proposing. Woody Bay is all of the things that you say, @DaveE but it is not the only show in town, nor can it be if we're to reconstruct the railway. As the railway extends - and yes, even on the Trust's current plan - Woody Bay will become less important (Blackmoor Gate will become the operational centre a Wistlapound-Woody Bay operation, making Woody Bay less important that it is today. This is inevitable, and it is a sign of success, not something to be feared.

Strawman alert! No one is proposing to let "the support networks to collapse just to get an extra few yards of track down", @DaveE - No one! It is important that the railway's extensions are considered and are economically and future construction sensible - CFL at the moment is neither of these, I note. Let's get a plan that everyone can get behind and build a sustainable railway. And no, 'the six' are not making this happen, which (along with their lies and personal attacks) is why I oppose them and oppose surrendering Members' influence over the Board to them.

The EGM didn't come out of nowhere, @DaveE - 'the six' - including Charlie Summers, sadly - voted to spend several thousand pounds on a totally unnecessary meeting a week on Saturday because - and only becuase - they want to control who is on the ballot in May. That's disgraceful as well as being a disgraceful waste of resources - if you want to start holding folk accountable, you'd be well advised to start with Mr Summers and his friends over this disgraceful waste of Trust funds and Members' time (and personal funds, too).

You can - and need to have both local groups and an overall strategic plan. We don't have the second at the moment, @DaveE.

Ideally, we'd have a single Trust. Hopefully a merger of the L&BRT and EA/YVT will happen reasonably soon.

 

You’re lower number could well be right. It would certainly appear to me to be more likely. At 70k visitors that would suggest it carries a lot of people compared to some much bigger lines. It would be 30% of the SVR for example.

 

Umm, what?

Hmmm,

Has anyone actually asked ENPA if KL can be kept until after the line is beyond Parracombe? Do we know their thoughts on possibly asking for a variation on that while CFL is in use?

Surely if you were able to extend into and beyond Parracombe it would not be any different to now with KL?

KL is extended to CFL for public service, the extension is built while using KL after which it is closed and returned to original field. CFL is extended to Parracombe Halt (if the village wanted it), or somewhere beyond, CFL in use until that is built after which CFL is returned to original.

 

Critical. Why would you oppose it?

Well, the short answer is we don't know because the Trust isn't very interested in sharing what's going on with the Members, but the longer answer is that I don't think that it matters - I was told that there's not room for KL and the reinstated cutting to Bridge 65. though this could be wrong. How would you operate both KL and CFL?

Except that at CFL the gradient is 1:50, but to build a station there you need to get under Bridge 64 and then flatten the gradient to no more than 1:500 so over 500ft, the CFL station with be 9ft higher than the original formation, so you have to close the station, take up the track, excavate back to 1:50, prepare the trackbed and then put the track back. But since you've closed KL (because of the planning requirements and the physcial requirements of the cutting under Bridge 65), how do you operate a train service at Woody Bay when the extension from CFL is being built? Presumably it would have to be top and tail to somewhere short of Bridge 65? What would that do to the economics?

 

At the moment yes, purely because each of the groups have enough to get on with as it is. And as I outlined in my post above I believe each have merits, and each have knowledge of their patches and individually I believe they will do better than one organisation trying to control the whole.
I said i think a liaison group would be good but to try and join up at the moment, no. As it is, the L&BRT is mostly in the National Park, and that is a completely different kettle of fish to deal with than NDDC.

We don't know because pre-application discussions are priviledged, this is so each side can discuss freely.
It may be that there isn't enough room, or maybe something different needs to be done. But everyone assumes it's something that isn't negotiable, it might be.

Other lines have stations on fairly steep gradients, I'm not sure the 1in500 would have to be absolute obtained. Beddgelert is 1in40 so it's not unprecedented to have a station on a gradient. The only way that that can be assessed on whether acceptable is with discussions with the ENPA (which again will be privileged) and the ORR to get an understanding of what may or may not be required.

 

we have been over that here before. Beddgelert was a reinstatement with no alternative position available for the station. It has not been without incident. Getting permission for a station in a location without precedent on a 1:50 is going to be… an uphill battle. Actually it would be better if the gradient was rising towards the buffers, but it isn’t. I don’t think it’s at all likely, and if you did it anyway and had a mishap, well….

 

We need a comprehensive plan for the reinstatement of the railway, especially if we're going to do it stages. Given the likely 3-5 years that a TWAO will take to get the land and the powers to rebuild through Parracombe, it is possible given EA's successes that the next section to open would be Wistlandpound to Bratton Fleming, which would give a railway of just over 4 miles to Blackmoor Gate, and on a particularly attractive section. Blackmoor to Bridge 65 is just over 3 more miles, meaning that we'd have an 8 and a quarter mile railway - hopefully by the centenary of closing. But this means that we need to find a way to work closely and effectively together sooner rather than later.

I'm usually suspicious of claims that things are priviledged, becuase whilst some narrow point are, those who jump to the "we can't tell you" answer are usually using that to minimise what they decide to tell you. We saw how well this approach worked with the s73 fiasco, and so I'd suggest that radical openness is the way forward here - only HR issues and actual commercially sensitive negotiations would automatically fall into the "we can't tell you" bucket.

@21B has already covered this.