Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Quite true, but that is also a process which costs the railway money every time :-(

Experience with past applications has shown that many objections are either (a) factually incorrect (and can easily be demonstrated as such) and/or (b) a repeat of an issue already addressed and/or (c) an obvious failure of the objector to read all the application details with sufficient care and/or (d) simply a misunderstanding of some detail of the proposal (sadly in some cases because the Trust had not explained it in sufficient detail) and/or (e) an invalid comparison with something that exists on another heritage railway.

Everyone has a right to comment on a planning application, but sadly some objections are little more than a 'flame war' of multiple theoretical perceived problems with little or no basis in fact and could be view as an attempt simply to 'bamboozle' the ENPA.

PS... and yes, before you ask, my supporting comments went in yesterday, so no doubt will appear there in due course. Sadly, unlike @Meatman, I did not have time to read *every* objection, but I got the overall 'flavour' from those that I did find.

 

On a more general point about application comments...

On the ENPA Portal there is a 'Comments' section which lists the names of all those who have submitted comments and marks whether each is 'Support' or 'Objection'. However there is NO link against any entry to actually read the comments.

In order to read the actual comments you have to go to the 'Documents' section, which lists all the comments by address and name (probably just in the order of arrival) and then use the 'View' link against each entry. BUT...there is nothing in that list to tell you whether the comments are 'Support' or 'Object' - you have to follow the link to find out.

As far as I can see therefore there is no simple way to just go down one single list and find each 'Object' and look at it directly.

Or have I missed something? If so, do please tell me

 

Whether objections made are forwarded to the railway for a return comment, or not, will depend on the arrangements between the railway and ENPA. We don't know, so maybe best to assume they do.

It is right that everyone is allowed to make comment as invited by the ENPA.

Those who do wish to pick up on comments by others, please make sure that you as are honest, truthful, and accurate as possible and most of all considerate and polite. If, once you have done your draft, and you suspect some of it may have unintended consequences or create a flame war, perhaps don't include it, or ask someone else's opinion before submitting.

Meanwhile, bickering, will not get us anywhere?

A bit of zen doesn't go amiss sometimes

 

I understand the reasons for wishing to rebuild and operate the L&B as closely as possible to how it was during its short life, not least the ENPA's conditions. However viability of the rebuilt line will depend on bums on seats (as well as other sources of income). Longer trains could mean more seats for bums, and better facilities could make the trains more attractive. The comparison that is often made with the WHR deserves to be fully thought through. The WHR's coaching stock and motive power are very different from the originals, but the railway itself is very similar; a narrow gauge line carrying tourists through mountainous country with steam traction. While many have opinions about the relative merits of an authentic L&B and a WHR-style L&B, can anyone actually predict how passenger numbers (and operating costs) would compare? Whatever the answer, it is probably different for short-term and long-term.

 

It's not just the passenger numbers that need to be considered; how many people would be enticed/dissuaded from volunteering if the railway is not an authentic (as far as possible) L&B.
It also needs to be carefully considered regarding how many people would be enticed/dissuaded from donating the large amounts of money required to rebuild the railway (and cover the inevitable difference between takings and costs).

 

Having read some of the recent postings, I do feel that sadly we are at risk of going round in circles over old arguments yet again :-(

As I see it, there are two 'extremes' for any plan to extend to PE as a temporary terminus. The first is the 'minimalist' approach, in which the station will consist of no more than a platform and a single track that will end at a buffer-stop. The second is a 'proper' terminus with a platform road, a run-round loop and ideally also a short 'cripple' siding.

The rationale behind the former would be to try to keep the new build as close as possible to its heritage ancestry, no doubt with a view to minimising potential objections that anything more would be 'not heritage'. Yet the only practical ways to operate the former would be either (a) by push-pull working and/or (b) top&tail working. The former would require modifications to rolling stock, the latter would involve two rather than one engine and crew for each train. AFAIK neither method of operation was used by the original L&BR, here again the potential for objections based on the proposal being 'non heritage'. A similar objection could be raised against the latter option, based on the fact that the station would be different format its original format.

At least some of the objections appear to be based on perceived 'issues' around the 'dwell time' of a train arriving at and then departing from a terminus, rather than just stopping temporarily at a Halt simply to drop off/pick up some passengers. Such commentators appear to want - at best - no more than a train that simply 'passes through' PE. IMHO the irony of that stance is that is exactly what the Trust tried to achieve with the original Phase 2A application (which was approved by ENPA), but was hampered - as indeed it still is - by the problems in acquiring the necessary trackbed to the south of PE. It would be a very odd situation indeed if those who object to a railway ending at a terminus in PE were actually the same people who had it in their power to enable the railway to carry on towards Blackmoor

Another issue which I note seems to arising in some of the objects concerns the fact that PE is planned as a temporary terminus. There are those who fear that it will become permanent and never extend any further south, but the solution to that lies with those to who I refer in my previous paragraph. There also appears to be a curious view in some quarters that the application is indeed for a permanent terminus, but that this is some kind of underhand 'ruse' to enable the railway to extend later towards BR. Yet Phase 2A was quite clear about the intention for the line from WB to BR and this accords with the view of both the L&BRT and the B&YRT for an eventual restoration of as much of the line as possible - all of which is public knowledge.

Phase 2A proved perhaps to be a 'bridge too far' for various reasons. The ENPA wanted to avoid the situation of an extension which might end up as various piecemeal bits in different places. The current application is an attempt to do at least part of it in a more manageable 'bite size' form. Previous complaints about potential disruption from extensive construction works have been noted and the work has been split down into smaller chunks to be done over a longer period. Yet now I read complaints about the length of proposed construction time being too long and why does the railway not try and get the disruption over in as short a time as possible. There does not appear to be a consensus view from local objectors, so how can one try to ameliorate so many contrasting opinions?

 

Many, many years ago, and it may well have been tied up with phase 2A, it was revealed that the L&BRT had been advised by a third party to seek Compulsory Purchasing Powers status, but I have a feeling that ENPA was so shocked that they could have lost planning control regarding the rebuilding of the railway that they reached a deal with the L&BRT.

Just how true that was has now been lost in the mists of time, and I am not suggesting we use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut at this stage, as it will be down to sensible people who must come together to work out a sensible conclusion. This is a win-win for just about everyone if you give it a try, and it is time to look at the big picture for North Devon, not just this bit of North Devon in isolation.

 

I don't know about any 'deal' but....

My recollection - which, of course, may well be completely wrong - is that the Trust did look at the idea of by-passing the ENPA and applying for a TWAO and CP, but decided that - as such a request would almost certainly lead to a Public Inquiry which might well happen away from North Devon and lead to local residents feeling isolated and cut-off from such a 'distant' event - it was better for public relations and local goodwill to follow the 'normal' process of applying to the ENPA. With hindsight one might argue differently now, but the cost would have probably been impractical at the time - and maybe even more so now!

What has become clear, of course, over the years is the relative ease with which the various elements of 'the railway' has been able to get approval from NDC when compared with the ENPA. I can understand the concerns and policies of the ENPA as the 'custodian' of Exmoor, but just within Devon alone there are marked contrast in the approaches to the aspirations of its various heritage railway sites.