If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Discussion in 'Narrow Gauge Railways' started by 50044 Exeter, Dec 25, 2009.

  1. RailWest

    RailWest Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,803
    Likes Received:
    7,439
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Country
    I note a sudden spurt in the number of responses to the Sec 73 application, including quite a few 'supports'. But also several 'objects' which refer to supporting letters which are not accessible, so it is hard to know the basis of their objections.

    I note that one objection relates to the need to demolish the bungalow on the site. Clearly the writer has not studied the background enough to know that permission for that has been granted already, so it is more a question of 'when' it will take place rather than 'if'.
     
    Biermeister and H Cloutt like this.
  2. 30854

    30854 Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Messages:
    12,172
    Likes Received:
    11,493
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Brighton&Hove
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I'd thought that issue at least had been put to bed at the original enquiry.?
     
    Biermeister and H Cloutt like this.
  3. Alan Kebby

    Alan Kebby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2019
    Messages:
    1,173
    Likes Received:
    1,223
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Brighton
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    It has, it’s going to be demolished, and anyone raising it as an objection for the amended plans is wasting their time. This objection will swiftly be dismissed.
     
    Biermeister and H Cloutt like this.
  4. RailWest

    RailWest Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,803
    Likes Received:
    7,439
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Country
    To be fair, I suppose that it could be argued that if the Sec 73 applications were to fail and if the planning consent ran out of time next year, then at least there would be no obvious need to demolish the bungalow until such time as a railway could be built through there eventually. But as a 'point of objection' it has no validity in the current process (like many others!).
     
    Biermeister and H Cloutt like this.
  5. Alan Kebby

    Alan Kebby Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2019
    Messages:
    1,173
    Likes Received:
    1,223
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Brighton
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    What is the basis for objections against demolition of the bungalow anyway? Presumably the loss of housing stock in the area, rather than it being architecturally or historically important?

    I might be wrong, but I think this is the first case of a preserved railway buying and demolishing a house in order to build an extension?
     
  6. H Cloutt

    H Cloutt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2018
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Battle
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    There are a couple of objections from one of the landowners - this concludes with the comment "However, the legal reasons the Grampian conditions were imposed in the first place are still valid and any amendment under these applications will bring an immediate legal challenge."
     
  7. RailWest

    RailWest Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,803
    Likes Received:
    7,439
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Country
    IIRC the initial objections were indeed about the perceived loss of housing stock in the village. The L&BR response was to propose (as a separate and specific planning application) the erection of two new houses elsewhere on the station site, one as a 'replacement' (whose occupancy could be decided by (say) the Parish Council etc) and the other to be used for a railway employee. The ENPA rejected that application. so at least that saved the railway some future expense :)

    Another example where people are complaining now about something which the ENPA has already considered when deciding on the future of the railway re-building, so has no relevance to the actual Sec 73 applications.
     
    Biermeister likes this.
  8. RailWest

    RailWest Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,803
    Likes Received:
    7,439
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Country
    With respect, the words I've highlighted in red are NOT part of what the objector wrote.

    AIUI the Grampian Conditions (GC) were imposed as a result of a decision by the ENPA to include them - I am not aware (but stand to be corrected) that there was/is any legal requirement for them. The objector is correct insofar as - at this moment in time - the GC remain in force and are valid as part of the planning consent. But if the ENPA decide, when determining the Sec 73 applications, that the GCs may be varied/relaxed/waived altogether, then I fail to see what would be the basis for any legal challenge as the L&BR and the ENPA will have gone through the appropriate legal process to make that change.
     
  9. RailWest

    RailWest Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,803
    Likes Received:
    7,439
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Country
    I note also an objection about the damage likely to the caused to the church and other old buildings by the 'vibrations' from trains using the turntable.

    Eh? What vibrations? And why specifically the use of the turntable - why is everyone so fixated on the TT? I wonder how the church and other old buildings managed to survive all those ghastly vibrations from passing trains from 1898 to 1935? :)
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2022
    brmp201 likes this.
  10. H Cloutt

    H Cloutt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2018
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Battle
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I cut and pasted it from their letters - they have submitted several letters. This is from their 15th June letter.
     
  11. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,487
    Likes Received:
    23,719
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I am no planning expert, and don't know the law as it applies to this matter. But my general observation is that when someone writes in general terms that they will go legal, without specifying the nature of the legal position that they're trying to protect, it is a combination of bluff and bullying, and code for "this really, really matters to me". A serious challenmge would have put something in about the "legal reasons" for Grampian conditions.
     
    The Dainton Banker and H Cloutt like this.
  12. 30854

    30854 Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Messages:
    12,172
    Likes Received:
    11,493
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Brighton&Hove
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Be mindful my dear chap ..... gricers are not necessarily the only audience here and there's a fine line between opinion and free legal advise! :Pompus:
     
    35B and H Cloutt like this.
  13. pmh_74

    pmh_74 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,217
    Likes Received:
    1,456
    That may be so (I’m no expert either) but regardless of all of that, as local residents they deserve to have their objections noted and considered as part of the process. At the end of the day it will then be for the planners to decide the validity of any objections and whether the positives outweigh the negatives.

    I do feel slightly sorry for this landowner; they have set themselves up as the people who can stop the extension dead unless the L&B get CP powers (not guaranteed) and raise a large sum of money (also not guaranteed). Now suddenly they risk a situation whereby the L&B reaches their village and they become the people stopping it going further and thus causing an increased (perceived) level of annoyance to their neighbours for all time, unless they cave in and sell their bit. Which potentially turns them from heroes to villains in the eyes of non-railway-supporting villagers, if the Sec73 variation goes through. It’s a bit of a (potential) turnaround and I can totally see why they won’t be happy about the prospect.
     
  14. H Cloutt

    H Cloutt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2018
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Battle
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    And lets not forget that they will get a better offer from L and B for the land than they will if CP powers are applied. Once the TWAO is lodged they can ask for a Public Inquiry as statuatory objectors and then they will have the costs of presenting their case to the Inquiry. I have noticed that they have made objections to the S73 application themselves rather than use a legal representative - although this may still appear.
     
  15. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    25,487
    Likes Received:
    23,719
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    They do, but planning law also defines what constitute valid objections - "I'm not happy" doesn't cut it unless the "because..." is aligned with planning law.
     
    ghost, RailWest, 30854 and 2 others like this.
  16. ross

    ross Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Messages:
    1,002
    Likes Received:
    2,477
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Titfield
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    So the bungalow ought not be demolished because it "will reduce the local housing stock" according to this objection.
    I wonder what the reaction to a totally different planning application to build a new house in the vicinity of Parracombe might be? We attempted to get permission to build a modest sized, disabled accessible house on some land we owned and farmed. We have six children, our youngest is disabled. Totally opposed. One objector suggested that my wife and daughter separate and live in a council disabled accessible bungalow, and I and the other 5 continue to live somewhere else, which "proved" that there was no functional need for us to build
     
  17. Mark Thompson

    Mark Thompson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    3,559
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    E sussex
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    God, that is truely callous. I know I'll probably get told off for this, but the entitled, sabre-toothed rural middle classes really do seem to be a most savage and heartless breed at times. I'm finding this whole thing fascinating, from the point of view of a social study.
    A few years back, the last remaining green space within our village envelope came up for development. 23 houses in a hamlet of about 50 existing homes. Everyone wrote in and objected, yet the plans were bulldozed through. I'm very familiar with the lady who was head of district council planning. She is a pragmatist who hated her brief, but knew what was required, and had to tag along with the regional planning strategy. "Better I do it, and get the flak- at least I know the area. Better that than some jobsworth, parachuted in, who'd just concrete over everything".
    And so it proved. OK, we lost Windmill Field, but it's actually had very little impact on the village. Local fears are often grossly exaggerated.
     
  18. johnofwessex

    johnofwessex Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    Messages:
    9,185
    Likes Received:
    7,226
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Thorn in my managers side
    Location:
    72
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    The objector sounds like an economist, no human skills
     
    H Cloutt likes this.
  19. JMJR1000

    JMJR1000 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    843
    Likes Received:
    698
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cleethorpes
    Indeed I first thought upon reading this, that perhaps this was a certain Mr Scrooge, ever passionate about reducing the surplus population.
     
    H Cloutt likes this.
  20. Biermeister

    Biermeister Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2019
    Messages:
    333
    Likes Received:
    625
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Brewer
    Location:
    Daylesford, Victoria, Australia
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Will someone post the link to S73 (again!) please? I shall make time over the weekend for some careful reading and hope to be amused...
     

Share This Page