Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Ah that will be a good weekend then looking forward to continuing our chat. I don't bite honest, others might.

 

@Thomas Woods - no one - literally no one - is suggesting that CP powers are anything other than a last resort. But it is clear that at least one landowner will not sell at any price, and that has consistently been the case since 2018. Given that the only possible way of fulfilling the Grampian Conditions - which AIUI can still be required, albeit with a prenotification requirement by the planning authority - is to own all of the required land, then CPO powers are very likely to be required.

And this is why I am critical of the way the Trust has proceded - it should have gone for TWAO and CPO powers no later than the acquisition of 'The Halt' in Parracombe because this was the only credible route to meeting the planning conditions.

So, @Mark Thompson is quite right to point out that not mentioning the elephant in room doesn't make it go away. Let's be honest and practical, shall we?

 

That would be more credible if your profile were set up in a way that allowed members to privately message you on here, and possibly use that as a channel to establish contact, possibly as a "correct channel" or possibly to help identify what the "correct channel(s)" might be.

 

Other people have messaged me just fine?

 

I would go further than that I would suggest that we as members need to be able to trust those in charge so how about having a fully costed project report on each of the options given in the next newsletter other wise as they say on dragons dens sorry I am out.

 

My apologies - DM inbound, having established user error on my part.

Edit - and now found that the board won't allow me to send

 

@Thomas Woods - why do you think you're being ignored?

@RailWest makes a series of excellent points about PE and a KL-style terminus at Cricket Field Lane. For me, the only way to minimise the impact of the railway's return to Parracombe is to open Parracombe at the time of the opening through to Blackmoor Gate - trains will run through, and there will doubtless be enthusiasts taking photos of MWs and Lyn under St Petrock's but it will be one vista amongst many, rather than the terminal focus of the line for a period. If I were a Parracombe resident - and look again at the school Headmistress's submission to the abortive s73 application - I would expect the ENPA to reimpose Grampian Conditions and to open Phase 2A as a single entity. Which immediately raises the requirement for CP powers via TWAO.

 

There's a debate to be had on the strategy and tactics around the latest planning application. However, the evidence of the RVR application suggests that the question was never as binary as that argument suggests.

In the context of the original strategy for the application granted in 2018, acceptance of Grampian Conditions would have made applying for a TWAO highly confrontational. Once the clock was ticking, I doubt that there was time for a TWAO within the period of the planning application.

Now, some of the politics will be different as the opponents have drawn their battle lines very clearly. However, and right now, I'm not sure anyone could understand the project in enough detail to recommend adopting a TWAO/CP approach, bearing in mind the burden of proof that will be required. There's a lot of hard work to be done before the L&B gets to the stage where that discussion is even relevant.

 

We would be stupid if we gave the go ahead to the next part of the project if we didn't understand what happen in the past year, it would be like building a castle on a dried up quick sand only to fall apart when the first floods arrived.

 

There may well be legitimate reasons for any Nat Pres (or FB, or ...) member not wishing to be contacted off-line, so that shouldn't be an issue. All the L&B Trustees and Directors' direct contact details are in the L&B Magazine, and EA directors are in Trackbed Trails. I have always found a polite telephone call or email leads to a timely and polite reply. Not always the answers I would like, perhaps but at least I get to hear their thinking at the time. It's good to talk...

 

The primary, and legitmate concern of the school was that the turntable was going to lead to vast amounts of traffic heading down tiny country lanes. A well put together application which makes clear
a)Tickets will not be sold at Parracombe, and this will be made clear on the website.
b) Construction will be carried out in a sympathetic manner to the local community
c) This part of a clear plan to expand the L&B towards Lynton and Blackmoor.
will probably attract less opposition. The railway will never win round some of the objectors, particularly the ones who opposed the application in the first place.

 

What is the old saying you can't please every one all the time

 

What is somewhat ironic is that the original builders of the L&B also had problems with the Parracombe residents I believe.
I'm sure we all can sympathise with those who want to retain an undeveloped outlook over the Devon countryside, but changes happen for all sorts of reasons, be they farm developments, road developments or housing. A single track narrow gauge line, used by a few trains, mostly only at the weekends, is a far less intrusive development and would benefit many small businesses in the area.

 

Good point. On timescales alone, PP and a TWAO do not fit together, in any sense. The RVR is still waiting for a decision, 2 years on from the Public enquiry. Fortunately for them, funding was never an issue, and an s73 variation was forthcoming, with planning permission now locked in. Perhaps if a really concerted, high profile fundraising campaign had begun in 2018, the Trust would have been in a far more advantageous position, come the crunch.
But even then CP would still have been required for the Parracombe section, so we end up going round in circles.
On the subject of the Trusts "recommendations", can anyone enlighten me as to how the "long tunnel" under the A399 becomes a much less expensive bridge? Surely the subterranean distance remains the same, as does the method of taking the railway beneath the road, or can anyone elucidate further? Otherwise, this seems like an unconvincing exercise in semantics.

 

Yes I saw that as well but is there not a mention about a level crossing? that will never happen ORR will see to that, again all this worries me that there has been no costing involved how can you run a project and you don't have a clue as to just how much it is going to cost?

 

Yes they did and I understand that the railway had to use CP powers then, I'm sure Michael could enlighten us

 

This has been gone over already, though there's a lot of thread to scroll back through. The issue isn't necessarily the reality of the terminating, even temporarily, but the perceived reality, which is (to my mind) completely understandable for people in the immediate community. Realistically I don't think Parracombe as a terminus is viable from a planning or PR perspective without the wider community onboard

 

I too was wondering that, if it was deemed necessary in the original planning why has it been decided not to be necessary now, I'm sure if C is chosen an explanation will follow but an explanation up front would have been more preferable

 

You never know. At the TWAO inquiry ORR confirmed they had no objection to the RVR’s proposed level crossing over the A21, and two other level crossings of local roads, once they were convinced their safety & technical criteria could be met. Similarly National Highways withdrew their objection, after the public inquiry, once RVR proved their concerns also could be satisfied.

 

Why not top-and-tail with a diesel at the rear end of a train running south from Woody Bay which pulls the train back from Parracombe to Killington Lane where the locomotive runs around, obviating any need for unnecessary infrastructure at Parracombe? Problem solved. Locals happy, well, possibly so. (I can't help but think of the bell-shaped curve. There will always be a minority of ne'er sayers against any planning proposal.)
The problem south of Parracombe will be solved by attritional pressure and kindness. Perhaps.