Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Quickly looking up, it's actually a grey area depending on certain criteria.
So I'll retract for now to say majority, and for a 10 for 0 against and 1 abstention that's a large majority. But it seems in some counts it would be seen as unanimous as there are no against at all.

 

Astounding.

So what should your perfect Trustee do when faced with a Chairman and the Company Secretary refuse to follow the rules and refuse to put a validly nominated candidate for an annual Trustee Election?

Or should we simply dispense with elections and allow the existing Trustees to nominate their successors, @Lineisclear ? After all democracy is so messy, when all you need is an Enabling Act.

 

Its certainly a big nice to have, and strategically I can understand the reasons for getting it if possible.

But I expect there will be a list of priority where if trackbed came up it would take preference.

This is where reinstating the L&B requires complete flexibility in my view to take advantage of those unexpected opportunities as they appear.

 

After following this thread, and railway for a number of years Id love to see a little L&B train running along a substantial section of the former line in my life time (40yrs old) but sadly for every page of this thread I read that hope gets smaller, and smaller. Would I donate to a railway who are so intent of self destruction and self interest? Not a chance, in the same way I would never donate to the WSR after thousands of pages of public mud slinging.

Talk of compulsory purchases of property, and the vile abuse local female objectors got only go to prove that the project will stagnate at its current limits as a best case long term, or fail completely at worse. The only people who will be to blame will be those who put their own egos and self interest in their little train set ahead of the greater good of the reinstatement of the railway.

 

Each to their own - but having been sceptical about the proposal until I walked the site, it makes a great deal of sense for volunteer accomodation and a sizeable car park for Chelfam in due course.

 

Forgive my ignorance, is Chelfam the building directly under the viaduct? The plot looks very large indeed, I assume the railway already owns the former tracked into the station, and has access to the viaduct?

Edit: Looking at google it appears the station has been rebuild, and is looking fantastic is there no opportunity to start a centre of operations here and work either way from the station?

 

I’m not sure where you get the link between discussion of governance of a society, and the relationships with locals.

This supporter of extension completely recognises the right of objectors to object, because they believe the restoration of the railway will disrupt their lives. The planning decision in 2018 demonstrated that those objections were not sufficient in law to prevent the grant of permission.

That permission came with conditions, which had the effect of making enactment of that permission impossible.

The law has long recognised that there needs to be a way to break a deadlock between landowners and project promoters. This involves a significant legal process, including a public enquiry, which if successful culminates in compulsory purchase powers.

The promoters of the Rother Valley Railway have gone through that process. The government inspector’s report is clear that, in terms of planning law, those objections were insufficient to justify preventing extension, and therefore compulsory purchase powers could be used to break a deadlock.

I’d much rather that any extension is achieved through negotiation and agreement. The railway will have to live with the local community, and personal criticism (which I’ve not seen on here) of objectors, prominent and not so prominent, will not help that process.

However, one of the weaknesses of the L&B’s plan over the last decade or so has been in how it breaks the deadlock of irreconcilable opposition. Policy is (honourably) to stop short of seeking compulsory purchase powers, but the alternative approach (the variation) did not succeed.

The concern is that an approach of “one more heave”, whether as a whole project or in chunks, will run into the same blockages. That brings focus back to the L&B leadership, and whether they as individuals or a group are the right people to take this forward.

Unfortunately, what was evident in Lynton a month ago was a determination to maintain a closed shop. That is what bothers many, as it makes achieving what we both want less likely.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I agree. And that in turn requires that there be a willingness to consider the entire trackbed as an entity, and bring together the different groups.

I’ve no idea how you choose between £625k of trackbed and Chelfham Mill; but a setup where there are structural impediments to considering those priorities can’t help.

Given the track record of EA, I see that as needing to draw them north rather than the L&BRT push south.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

As "unanimous" means that everybody agreed, the existence of an abstention, which clearly indicates that somebody did not agree, would mean the vote was not unanimous !

 

You'd enjoy a visit @Great Western - much has been done at Chelfham and it is a gorgeous spot, and the viaduct is remarkable - as well as a very clear reminder that the L&B was built as a 'mainline in minature' .

Exmoor Associates have published a very helpful map of the various sections of the trackbed and their ownership south of Wistlandpound. It is tempting to read this map as a railway running from Snapper to Loxhore Bank only requiring a deal with the Scouts, and two parcles for 78m of trackbed, but in practice it would be a bit more complex than that without the Chelfham school site as a car park for the southern section, and the reinstatement of the river bridges and raising the trackbed. But for me, the bigger problem would be building a bridge across the main road at Skew Bridge which I understood would require a TWAO (I'm very happy to be corrected on this).

So, yes, the YVT attempt to buy Chelfham Mill is audacious, but they pulled it off with Bratton Flemming, and as @35B notes, EA have a strong track record of working with landowners and acquiring trackbed, so do have a look.

 

The CIC owns the stations site and a short length of trackbed heading northwards. EA own an isolated section of track south of the viaduct.

The actual viaduct currently remains in the ownership of whatever official body is currently the successor to the former BR Residual Property Board, a 'good thing' from the L&BR's perspective in that it means that the railway does not have to bear the (potentially large) expense of its ongoing maintenance. AIUI there is an (informal) 'agreement' that the viaduct can be transferred to the L&BR at some later date, but until such time as the railway has a realistic need for it as part of an operational railway then it's far more economical to leave the situation unchanged for now.

 

The assumption is that a decision to which collective responsibility applies is one that a board could take legitimately i.e in accordance with the company's Articles. If the Articles are not complied with then a majority decision should be no more binding on an individual dissenting Trustee than would be the case if the membership voted to instruct the board to do something in breach of the Articles. If the stipulated process for nomination and election of Trustees is not followed then any member, not just a dissenting Trustee, would have grounds to complain to the Charity Commission.

 

We agree on this, @Lineisclear - and this is precisely what happened with Anne Belsey's nomination, and based on his opening comments in Lynton a month ago, Peter Miles was absolutely against reversing that decision until it was forced on him by sustained vocal opposition from the floor.

For me, this abuse of power and the desicion of Company Secretary Tony Nicholson to along with Miles's scheme to exclude Anne's nomination in violation of the Trust's rules shows that they lack the requisite decency and honour we agreed earlier in this thread was essential. The only conclusion that I can draw from this is that they should resign forthwith.

 

Experience elsewhere suggests that may be problematic. Government policy appears to be that heritage railways as a class are not acceptable transferees of such structures as they are not considered financially robust enough to take on the maintenance and repair liabilities. of former public assets such as road bridges, viaducts etc. The HRA is seeking urgent clarification on this as, if that's the case, it could make re opening of lines very difficult where such road bridges or viaducts are involved.

 

If that's the case they wouldn't be the first, or sadly the last, to trip up over corporate governance. We're all human. Surely the issue is what, if the allegations are correct, is being done to remedy the mistake?

 

Perhaps you could outline what could be done to remedy the mistake, since you say the other trustees should resign if they see misdoing by their colleagues.

 

There were also irregularities in the 2022 election, overseen by the same individuals, which resulted in that having to be rerun.

How does the saying go?

Once is unfortunate, twice is careless.

 

Indeed. Which is why I'm rather concerned that, a month after promises were made to conduct an election, there are no signs of action towards that end.

This is in the context where it is reasonable to suspect that, as @Tobbes comments, those upon whom the running of that election depends are also those who drove the decision to exclude the candidacy. That tends to suggest that this is more than just a question of tripping up over corporate governance.

As @ghost comments, what would be interesting is to understand how those not comfortable with an ultra vires use of powers should act in such circumstances, in the context of the different routes and obligations open to trustees and members.

 

As @35B notes, @Lineisclear , this was hardly 'tripping up' - it was a clear decision by the Chairman and the Company Secretary acquiesed by all of the Trustees with a single honourable exception to bar Anne's candidacy without any authority to do so. The fact this was accompanied by defamatory allegations against her in an email to me and on the Trust's public website underscores that this was a calculated decision, not a mistake.

I'd also note that I understand that the 2022 election re-run @Glenmutchkin mentions cost £6,000, entirely unnecessarily, and down to Trust maladministration. It is hard to believe that given inflation, this year's rerun will be less than £4,000, and so £10,000 will have been completely wasted because of incompetence and ultra vires malice of the Chairman and the Company Secretary. £10,000 is the profit from lots of tickets and slices of cake.

You'd have thought that the 'decent and honourable' thing to do would be for those responsible to pay back these unnecessary costs.

Oddly enough, there's no sign of that in the accounts.