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. H Cloutt

    H Cloutt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2018
    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    595
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Battle
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    According to my Notice of AGM - the candidates were:- Peter Miles, Pete Snashall, Martin Swainson and Mike Whiteaker - so I'm confused. The number of votes seems low compared to the last election.
     
  2. RailWest

    RailWest Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,163
    Likes Received:
    5,710
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Country
    According to the Planning Statement, plus recent details in the Newsletter etc, Stage 1 of the Sec73 application is only for Bridge 65 and three road access junctions at Blackmoor (BR). Construction of the Depot at BR is listed for Stage 4 (BR to PE rebuild) and therefore - as I read it - will take place after the BR-Whistlandpound (WD) section (Stage 3) is operational.

    IIRC the Depot construction is subject to a different (approved) ENPA application than the trackbed work and is also subject to the Grampian conditions. Do not forget also that, in order to get the locos and coaching stock between the Depot (north of the main road and in ENPA area) and the BR station -WD section (south of the road and in NDC area) you will need to have a short section of the trackbed in place within the ENPA and passing under the new bridges which need to be built under the main road and station access road (also part of Stage 4 apparently).

    Accordingly to the Construction Plan Appendix 1, the KL-PE section is supposed to be open about Spring 2024, with the BR-WD opening a year later (2025), whereas the Depot at BR will not be ready until the beginning of 2027, so there will be about 2 years 'gap' at least.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2022
    H Cloutt likes this.
  3. Tobbes

    Tobbes Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    471
    Thanks @RailWest . Again, more questions: so does this mean that if a s73 variance was agreed for Stage 1 (Bridge 65 and the access roads at Blackmoor) only this would be worth having because though it would build no actual railway, it would be a commencement of works sufficient to permanently lock in the ENPA Planning Permission?
     
    Mark Thompson and Snail368 like this.
  4. RailWest

    RailWest Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,163
    Likes Received:
    5,710
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Country
    As I see it, the simple answer is 'yes'. Or, more to the point, even the smallest Sec73 variance for at least one item of work somewhere along the line before next March AIUI ought to secure the permission.

    However....given that there are four (IIRC) separate applications involved within the ENPA area, I'm not sure whether meeting the timescale on one would necessarily apply to the others - eg you could perhaps get into a situation where you can rebuild the track but not build the Depot etc.

    What I think the recent set of comments on this thread demonstrates quite clearly is that the many of the 'membership at large' still lack clarity on the nitty-gritty of the intricacies of the planning situation and details of exactly what is - or is not - possible and the impact of all the various scenarios. Even though I have a very modest personal involvement in some of the design team work, in general I'm still as much 'in the dark' as everybody else, partly - I have to say - through the absence of any form of regular - or even intermittent - top-down briefing dissemination. It is difficult sometimes to avoid the feeling that it's a lot of effort leading nowhere fast...:-(
     
  5. Meatman

    Meatman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2018
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    534
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Burrington,devon
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    you are correct with the names, It was announced that PM and MS both received votes in the 360-370s and i believe PS and MW were in the 320s with one vote between them (i cant recall the exact numbers), on the recount PM and MS were on the same as previous but there were now three votes between PS and MW so the decision was taken to have someone independent take the slips away and recount them. In my opinion its about time the L&BRT and CIC have an independent company run the voting and possibly include electronic voting, only then might things be more reliable and also look more professional
     
    Biermeister likes this.
  6. Meatman

    Meatman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2018
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    534
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Burrington,devon
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    The appeal for funds should have happened 4 years ago in all honesty when they first had the planning approved
     
    Mark Thompson and Small Prairie like this.
  7. Tobbes

    Tobbes Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    471
    Well this would certainly be worth having, and so in the case that the ENPA were not convinced about the merits of proceeding to a temporary terminus in Parracombe (however much we would all like to see the railway extended), then this would be a reasonable middle ground with the remaining Grampian Conditions in place.

    This reflects my principal concern being that the planning permission will expire before the TWAO process with the CP powers is complete. I'm not underestimating the challenge in actually raising the funds - this will happen or it won't, and grant aid should be forthcoming for something like this, in much the same way that the WHR was financed, so I'm reasonably confident on this.

    Indeed, and clearly undesirable.

    Agreed. And presumably the same is true in spades for the local people who are affected. One only has to read the Statement of Community Involvement to get a flavour of the risk of being seen to be disengenuous by, for instance, holding a short notice information session on Parracombe somewhere other than Parracombe.

    Quite. And see above for the local community, too.

    I certainly hope not!
     
  8. Mark Thompson

    Mark Thompson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,150
    Likes Received:
    2,791
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    E sussex
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    AIUI, that is the relevance of the several access way applications, including to the proposed depot- that undertaking these works would be sufficient to be viewed as a commencement, and therefore securing the P/Ps.
    I quite agree, and would certainly be preferable to a temporary terminus, fraught with operational difficulty and obligation, right in the middle of hostile territory. Such an outcome would perhaps defer the wrath of those opposed, at least until the time comes when the railhead can finally be pushed through to Blackmoor without pause. I understand that Chris Duffell has been advocating for this diplomatic middle ground, too, but to no avail. A pity, because whatever the outcome is now, a degree of damage to community relations has already been done, and that is regrettable.
     
  9. Biermeister

    Biermeister New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2019
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    149
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Brewer
    Location:
    Daylesford, Victoria, Australia
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Indeed, and I would no longer be disenfranchised as I receive voting papers by Royal Mail which leaves insufficient time for a reply out here in country Victoria...
    Furthermore, none of this discussion indicates a professional perspective emanating from the Board which prompts the question do they have a plan or have they just tied themselves into a knot of inaction from which they see no effective way out? Surely they would wish to get the membership on board, wouldn't they??
     
    Colin Rutledge likes this.
  10. Meatman

    Meatman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2018
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    534
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Burrington,devon
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Im pretty sure that is what John Barton stated, by doing the access splays and Killington lane bridge those works should be enough to secure the planning for good, however existing conditions might still be applied therefore we may not see an extension between Woody Bay and Blackmoor for many years, but as usual the way this has been approached has upset many locals already although their main issue is an extension to Parracombe. If they build from Blackmoor to Wistlandpound there are no workshop facilities there and if running 2 railways im not sure how it will be staffed as there is a struggle for volunteers as it is
     
    Biermeister, H Cloutt and RailWest like this.
  11. H Cloutt

    H Cloutt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2018
    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    595
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Battle
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I have checked the planning website today and apart from four responses from Official bodies - there are two comments - one in support and one against. Early days yet of course.
     
    Mark Thompson likes this.
  12. Meatman

    Meatman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2018
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    534
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Burrington,devon
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    i think the timeframe for a section 73 is 8-13 weeks in total, it would be interesting to know whether the comments in the statement of community involvement would automatically be carried over to the S73, interestingly, John Barton stated that for every letter of objection locally would need 6 letters of support locally so considering how many letters of objection are in the SoCI it would seem there needs to be a lot of letters of support locally
     
    H Cloutt likes this.
  13. mgp

    mgp New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    122
    Perhaps I misheard what John said, but my recollection is he said something like "one letter of support from a resident of an area close to Parracombe is worth six letters of support from those who live further afield".

    Wherever you live, if you want to see the line extended then do please go to the ENPA website and support the five planning applications. The following links will take you to each of the five pages.

    https://planning.agileapplications.co.uk/exmoor/application-details/23263

    https://planning.agileapplications.co.uk/exmoor/application-details/23264

    https://planning.agileapplications.co.uk/exmoor/application-details/23265

    https://planning.agileapplications.co.uk/exmoor/application-details/23266

    https://planning.agileapplications.co.uk/exmoor/application-details/23268

    Please encourage others to also support the applications. There are literally thousands of people who know and love the Lynton & Barnstaple Railway and are eager for it to run between Woody Bay and Wistlandpound - we need their help now!

    Many thanks

    Mike Pearce
     
    Mark Thompson, brmp201 and H Cloutt like this.
  14. H Cloutt

    H Cloutt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2018
    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    595
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Battle
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Comments should be submitted by 18th June. I suspect that the comments in the SoCI would need to be resubmitted.
     
  15. H Cloutt

    H Cloutt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2018
    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    595
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Battle
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Thanks Mike - I hadn't realised there were 5 applications - need to support all of them!
     
    mgp likes this.
  16. RailWest

    RailWest Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,163
    Likes Received:
    5,710
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Country
    Although there have been occasions when I have been a supporter of, or objector to, various planning applications at various places over the years, I do not recall ever doing so in regard of a Sec 73 application. So I am not sure exactly how such things might be treated differently from 'normal' planning applications, but I would make the following observation.....

    IIRC the original 'application' to ENPA was actually 5 (?) separate applications (trackbed, depot etc). One of these was for proposed replacement housing at Parracombe station site, which was rejected (which at least saved the railway the expense of building them!), so we can ignore that one. That left 4 (?) main applications, all of which were approved subject to conditions.

    AIUI the purpose of the current batch of Sec 73 applications (I had not realised from the info already issued to members that there was more than one - possibly another communications shortfall?) is essentially to vary some of the conditions. As far as I can tell, they do not seek to alter in anyway the end-result of the original applications (namely the rebuilding of the railway from KL to Blackmoor, plus new Depot etc). To that extent therefore I do not see that the mere repetition of any of the original objections along the lines of not wanting the railway, impact on the locality, traffic etc etc could or should be taken into consideration again - they were taken into consideration when the original applications were approved. I would suggest that any objections now against the Sec 73 applications would have to concentrate on how/why the proposals therein might somehow have an adverse effect on the currently-approved situation. To that extent, I would suggest the main - if not only - issue would be the potential use of PE as a terminus for 3 years (early 2024 - late 2027).

    Although no doubt the objectors might not agree with me, I would argue that the approval - as a minimum - of the Sec 73 application for Bridge 65 and the various road accesses could actually be beneficial for PE residents. Obviously the main, and urgent, need for the railway is to secure all its applications before they expire in March next year. If that can be done with the minimum of work and disruption, then the railway could 'take a breather' while it tackles the TWAO and other issues. The availability of Bridge 65 would allow the railhead to be driven southwards by use of the trackbed, thereby keeping construction traffic off the local roads. In the meantime the railway (hopefully) could acquire its TWAO, sort out the remaining trackbed purchases, and drive a railhead northwards from the new Depot site. After that the whole line from KL to BR could be brought into use in one step and PE would never have to be a temporary terminus.

    Mind you, the members would have to patient even longer to see trains going south from KL.....
     
    ianh likes this.
  17. H Cloutt

    H Cloutt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2018
    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    595
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Battle
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Interestingly Rother Valley Railway had a S73 application to phase their work approved in January 2022. There were 26 letters of Objection and 6 letters of support. The planning department said this in their report:- "As previously stated, there
    is an existing (extant) planning permission in place for the reinstatement on the railway. While a number of the objections received in relation to the Planning Notice are in respect of the principle of reinstating the railway, the current s73 application here deals with matters concerning the proposed variation of the conditions imposed on that planning permission and does not extend to revisiting the original decision in principle"


    Hopefully ENPA will take the same view.
     
    RailWest and CharlesBingers like this.
  18. 35B

    35B Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,464
    Likes Received:
    16,523
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grantham
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I agree. However, varying the conditions imposed does reopen the question of capability to fulfill the consents granted and therefore by definition creates space for some of the original objections to be resurrected.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  19. Miff

    Miff Part of the furniture Friend

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,495
    Likes Received:
    2,103
    RVR's S73 is much simpler since they do not propose to open their new railway in phases. The S73 simply confirms permission to construct it in phases due largely to the fact that whilst they can work on the land that they own they cannot enter the land they do not own without a TWA Order. The Public Inquiry for that Order was delayed for various reasons including lockdown and the decision is now eagerly awaited.
     
    Biermeister and H Cloutt like this.
  20. 30854

    30854 Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Messages:
    11,346
    Likes Received:
    10,811
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Brighton&Hove
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    I'm not about to pretend I understand the large print regarding operation of planning legislation, never mind implementation of the small print.

    I'm inclined to side with those who feel running two disconnected railways is distinctly sub-optimal. To those who'd cite the F&WHR as a precedent in that regard, I'd suggest that, for any number of reasons, the situation on Exmoor is utterly different to that pertaining in Snowdonia a quarter of a century ago.

    Looking at the reinstatement south of KL, I 'm guessing making Parracombe Big Bank fit to carry trains looms large in the costs, but does the full finished cost represent the spend actually needed initially to get trains running? .... and now I'll cite the F&WHR! Maybe waiting 40 years for Moelwyn Tunnel to get aesthetically pleasing portals frustrated some, but the trains ran perfectly well without 'em for that whole time (and yes .... I do realise there's no tunnel on the L&B).

    Case in point, until the trackbed north of Woody Bay is required for services, will there be a pressing need for the full depot facility proposed at Blackmoor? Or could a few more years be squeezed out of the current facilities at WB? And .....

    With Blackmoor - Woody Bay open (could Blackmoor - Wistlandpound be approached more ..... organically?) is any facility beyond the historic single platform actually needed at Parracombe?

    The distance between BM and WB is 4 miles 15 ch (with Parracombe some way off being equidistant from both anyway), suggesting even a 20min journey time* stopping at Parracombe wouldn't exactly involve breaking the sound barrier.

    Just thinking out loud ....

    *About what the old L&B managed, Lynton bound, which included the 3-4mins needed to take water at Parracombe. and comfortably 3 mins over Barnstaple bound, including those which took water at Parracombe.
     

Share This Page