Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Well, to be honest about this, I am sure if we were to meet in a pub and we were having a face to face disscusion about heritage railways, I would bet that we have very similar views on how all this lot should/could go forward.

 

My two pence:

The most important currency to build at present is that of credibility. Both within and without the heritage railway movement the overall project skates on thin ice at present. Only the B&YVRT has been in consistent “positive” credibility for the last 5 or more years.

The LBRT and associated organisations have done some good and interesting things, but blown most of their accrued credibility on two failed attempts to extend. The second of which was carried out at a time and in a way which was entirely tone deaf. The situation with OSHI is alarming - and I do not use that word lightly.

If we stand back and look at the project as a whole the main question has to be “why do we need this railway?” It cannot exist in a bubble. It must bring benefit to the local area. That benefit must be wider than tourism. Furthermore, the national park area and residents might well argue that they don’t require that tourism, as a destination point within the park.

If we look to the lower Yeo Valley there are opportunities to create something of value that could catalyse the economy of a depressed economy. Not the worst of areas nationally for economic disadvantage, but quite close. Building things (physical and in respect of volunteering and employment/training) is something that would be very welcome. Credibility gained there in steady, bite size chunks that can accelerate and grow more credibility will be the approach that delivers confidence, financial resources, and a supportive local population.

Replicate that steadily up the valley, and I think there is reason to think that in 20years or less there could be a Barnstaple to Blackmoor Gate railway. That railway
(Which I am sure by then would also be a combination of both Trusts) might be able to build the rest of the line if at that point they still wanted to do so.

I don’t think any other approach has a greater chance of success.

 

The LBRT needs to continue the great work at Woody Bay. Secure the heritage of the L&B and sort out OSHI. Achieving financial stability should be the main focus in my opinion for the next three to five years.

 

Sorry but you've misunderstood my suggestion. Get permission to Parracombe. Start building it at KL, and get as far as that bridge done, and up to passenger carrying standard before going any further.
At that point you are perhaps 3-5 years into the project depending on funding and progress. And at that point, if you don't have the funds to finish the job, you pause.
Whether you run the occasional members-only special, or occasional special-event-day trip to the back of Fairview, or not, will depend on whether the permissions gained by that point permit trains to run before the extension is "finished". That's a negotiation you'd have to have. But if not, you still have a 2/3 finished extension.
The point I was trying to make is that arguing that a tenanted property, which you own, is somehow stopping you from progressing the project for which you bought it, is just daft.
But keep the rental income coming in for as long as possible.

 

Hard to see a “build where we can” approach being very popular with the local planners, if they are proposing a number of different construction sites in various parts of the valley, without the immediate prospect of a working railway to provide economic benefits in the public interest. I know the southern section is outside the National Park but isn’t that exactly what the infamous Grampian Conditions were cited to avoid?

 

They were, but they were National Park conditions focused specifically on the risk of disruptive work taking place and then being abandoned partway through - protecting both the interests of villagers whose land was being crossed and the village more widely because of the heavy construction traffic required to reinstate the embankment.

It's not obvious that the same issues apply to anything like the same extent in the North Devon planning authority area

 

Planning Guidance since 2018 now makes it much harder for authorities to impose pre-commencement (Grampian) conditions if they are too onerous. It also allows the applicant to refuse proposed conditions or offer to negotiate - although if refusing conditions the applicant may then face a higher risk of PP being refused. Grampian conditions were not a factor in the refusal of the last L&B Trust planning application to extend to Parracombe.

“Build where we can” has been successfully used by both the RVR and Southwold/Halesworth schemes. And lots of canals.

 

A point which, while true, needs to be considered in parallel with the local circumstances. I am not a lawyer or planning expert, but it seems to me that the conditions around the 2018 extension were unlikely to have softened much. Without relitigating that whole matter, I think it likely that land ownership would have been a critical factor in getting through Parracombe - a matter that it is quite likely only the nuclear option of compulsory purchase powers could have got through.

That particular neighbourly challenge is IMHO the biggest fly in the ointment of trying to extend piecemeal through Parracombe - the key obstacles remain in place and are more or less beyond the capacity of the L&B to cut through

 

No, but presumably there are still fairly major bits of civil engineering required on the southern section involving significant construction? A lot of bridges missing I believe and a whole viaduct to be rebuilt? Or maybe this is where the L&B route, carefully designed to avoid serving any centres of population might become an advantage as nobody lives close enough to object.

 

I think that is nearer the mark - the relationship between Parracombe and the railway has been tricky right back to the 19th century. Those projects are also not so close to people's homes, or so demanding of lorryloads of material

 

But it remains untested (and doubtful IMHO) whether the ENPA will give permission for that. A stretch of track that may take trains one day beyond the bridge and into a station at PE, but meanwhile nowhere for them to get off and nothing much else to see other than a cutting. OK, I know that many railways have progressed in 'small chunks', doing more bits and when they can, but my feeling is that the ENPA don't really like that and want to see a 'complete package' and the benefits that will accrue from it.