Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Agreed. Your photo shows the wide bit. It's the bit that leads up to there that is fun. I went there in 1997, but did not take any pictures.

 

It is a concern, when one reads some of the comments against the re-created railway, that those making the decisions might be swayed by what we, the supporter, might class as 'mindless boollocks'.
'I am very concerned that if the Flying Scotsman were a regular visitor to Parracombe, tourists might prevent me getting to the post-office....'
and you sit there thinking ' what the actual???'
but then you are worried that the people making the decision might not understand why this objection is fantasy.
In the 1960's, and trying to reinstate the Severn Valley Railway, you could be reasonably confident that the planning officer had at least a mildly approving attitude toward steam trains, tourist money being spent in a somewhat under-developed area, jobs, history etc.
In these times where many people have their jobs in certain land-trust organisations simply because they went to university and had the correct new-think installed, rather than having a robust knowledge of rural economics, animal husbandry, land management and so on, many decisions seem to depend on political views rather than common sense. 60 years ago, even people in bureaucratic roles were only a generation away from land or industry. Now the decision makers are often 4 or 5 generations away from reality, and it shows.
But how far should those on one side of a debate go, explaining simple sense, when those on the opposing side are either incapable, or unwilling, to comprehend basic reality.

 

To give an example....

IMHO it is quite clear from the application plans that, once the bungalow at PE has been demolished, the only 'developement' at the site will be the platform, the main running line and the loop line. (There is also a mention of the reinstatement of the water-tank. tho' I'm not sure of the rationale for that.) The remaining land to the east of the loop will be tidied-up and left as 'natural' as possible. The Trust appears also to have gone to great lengths to explain its approach and efforts to discourage as far as is possible any vehicle and pedestrian visits up the road to the station.

Yet one objection appears to imply that the Trust is being disingenuous on the latter on the (imagined) basis that allegedly there will be a car-park on the site of the former bungalow! Apart from being clearly at odds with what the application actually proposes, there is also the not-inconsequential matter that acccess to any such car-park would need a level-crossing over the track, something that is unlikely to find favour with the ORR, whilst it is unlikely that the Trust would want the extra cost of all the necessary protection and mitigation infrastructure.

Unless the Trust becomes aware of such comments, and can respond proactively, then it will indeed be dependent upon the relevant decision-maker spotting this and saying "eh...what the..."

 

Flipping heck! That road is wide by South Devon standards. In the South Hams where I holiday it’s common for the greenery on the Devon banks to touch both sides of the car. If you meet another vehicle it’s simply a case of one of you backing up until you find a spot where you can squeeze past. Don’t ever go there if your car is your pride and joy.

 

I spent an interesting hour sampling the objections last night, as can anyone with access to ENPA's portal - and I'm sure the Trust are doing. Some were reasonable and reasoned, others a little less so - and that from both "pro" and "anti" commenters. Of the Parracombe comments, it's really clear that the near neighbours are deeply anti, but I was pleasantly surprised by how many locals living in the village strongly supported the application.

Our comments are on the merits of the application, and will be assessed based on planning law by the officers and then, if it goes to committee, ENPA representatives. With so many comments, and so much being said, the answer is not to say "but they're talking rubbish" but to emphasise the merits of the case we are supporting - not least because it won't risk further embedding misconceptions in reviewers' minds. So, taking my Kingscote example, not "x is wrong because..." but "I have seen this work elsewhere and it is very effective". Otherwise, there is the risk of repeating the £350m bus scenario - where protests at the dishonesty of it just anchored the claim in peoples' minds, doing the Leave campaign's work for them.

Planners are familiar with the role of fear in objections by neighbours, and how that can make reasonable concerns completely disproportionate in peoples' minds. The legislation around planning is tightly drawn, and strongly rules based - so many of those objections simply wouldn't have standing in law.

 

If the grass grows in the middle that's good, means a dual carriageway

 

That's the bit that I always walk on, it's softer on my feet than the rest of the tarmac

 

That’s true ( for motorbikes. ). And a motorway is where the road is wide enough to put a white line down the middle.