Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

As a way of working together it was being planned that one trustee and CIC director from L&BRT,L&BR CIC,EA,and YVT would create a forum, this went t*ts up when the L&BR CIC stuck the knife into Annes back but behind the scenes there has been a good working relationship with Chris Duffell and Anne Belsey and EA/YVT, good idea's are coming together one of which at Annes suggestion is highlighting the railways past existence and future plans along owned stretches with information boards, Chris had designed a few so far and the first has been printed and is waiting to be put in place.
As volunteers we do happen to work together, in the Yeo Valley we work between EAs land and Chelfham, 2 or 3 also venture to Woody Bay .

 

Well Dave it would seem that certain Trustee's are hell bent on hitting the self destruct button, IMHO they are now insulting the members and dragging the reputation of the railway down

 

>>>If only a copy of the minutes of the last trustee meeting was available!

If only copies of ALL Trustees meetings were made available to members (albeit redacted as necessary), so that we could see what was being said and decided on our behalf. Other Trusts can manage to do this, so why not the L&BRT? It merely leads to the question "what do they have to hide?".

 

@DaveE you frequently speak of healing and moving on together, which I'm sure that everyone fervently agrees with. But this is all predicated on trust in the individual leaders and confidence that there is a sensible, implemnentable plan for the railway's reinstatement. At the moment I fear we have neither.

Specifically, the actions of Peter Miles and those who facilitate his autocratic behaviour - and before anyone jumps on the word autocratic, I suggest that attempting to exclude validly nominated candidates from elections, libelling people and refusing to follow the organisation's rules are behaviours that we see in authoritarian regimes around the world - since at least last summer have been utterly corrosive of trust, and the recent election results show the Members' answer to that. If nothing else, then the behaviours have to change (stopping personal vendettas would be a good start), or if they can't or won't, then perhaps its time for those who won't change to step down for the good of the railway.

On whether we have a plan that is implementable, the jury's out. What I'd like to see is a critical path analysis that sets out the known issues (including, e.g., land which I understand reverts to it former owners in the next few years if we don't use it, and the drop dead date for Devon Highways' agreement to take on Bridge 65). Once we have that, we will have more clarity on what the options are and what order things need to be done in. This isn't secret, it's just robust programme management which can be shared with all stakeholders - including the objectors - to show what we're up to and how we're going to achieve it.

None of these things are insurmountable; if they were, the dream would be dead and we'd all go off and do other things with our time. But they require honesty about what has happened and what needs to change to succeed where things have failed to date.

 

Yes, that seems like a pretty hard deadline.

I have to say that as someone who fell in love with the L&B at the age of 12 in the garden of Fairview watching a 16mm Manning Wardle chuffing around the original track bed, it's painful seeing the damage a few toxic personalities can cause, and the disastrous results of completely avoidable PR decisions. I can see why the Yeo Valley Trust, Chelfham and Exmoor Associates are attractive to active, local volunteers who feel the same. It seems that rather then them taking up their toys to play elsewhere, the operational L&B is being taken away from them

 

I am not commenting on the specifics of what has happened with Anne, I am not a lawyer, I don't have the evidence and documents from all parties, nor am I judge and jury.

What I will say is that unless there is compromise, and that's on all sides, within and without the trust, none of this will be resolved.

There are trenches all over the place, fractures, and no one is willing to move an inch.

Stalemate.

 

Quite possibly. But I'm not sure that compromise is necessarily the right approach, when the recent power behaviours have been so strongly one sided. Instead, I suggest that the focus should be on how the various factions can restore mutual trust and respect, and rebuild confidence in the process.

 

I was not actually suggesting a particular setup. Rather, I was abstracting it to the level of functions: my thesis is that regardless of the setup, you need to have clarity about who within our setup is responsible for each function. In that context, by "your setup" I mean "the wider collection of organisations that are collectively trying to reinstate the railway line between Lynton and Barnstaple".

Of the four functions, the critical one is strategy. A single organisation model (such as the IoWSR) makes it pretty clear who defines the strategy for the whole railway. If you don't have one organisation, then you add some friction in relationships, but you are absolutely on a hiding to nothing if you arrive at a situation whereby not only do you not have one organisation, but each organisation is following its own strategy in isolation. As an example, EA appear to be managing quite successfully to purchase parcels of land - but are doing so remote from the operational railway. In the context of "collectively trying to reinstate the railway line between Lynton and Barnstaple", those land purchases only have long-term value if there is an intention that at some point the railway will be reinstated there! Of course, you could tidy up the trackbed, repair the existing buildings and create a very interesting 20 mile footpath - but I doubt that would meet the wishes of many of the people who have donated money to the idea of reinstatement.

Going back to the WSR example, often when neutral observers like myself commented on structures, you would get a very defensive response that dug up some issue that happened in 1975 as a reason for why things were as they were. Conversations would go along the lines:

"Your structure is holding you back"
"Yes, but remember that in 1975 the WSSRHRTS was instrumental in saving the WSRSSRHTS from bankruptcy so we can't change."

(And then some acolyte of the WSRSSRHTS would chime in, normally with some counter interpretation of the same event ...).

Meanwhile, any possibility of reform would be dismissed as too hard, not how we do things, and in any case "there are more important things to be doing now." (The standard WSR view about reform is that when times are good, reform isn't needed; and when times are bad, reform is a distraction).

My worry about the L&B - and ultimately I have no stake in it, but do see it as having potential to be one of the great railway journeys in the country - is that it is slipping along the same path. It risks continuing to limp along, without the capacity to break out of its current straitjacket, but without the desire to remove that straitjacket either.

Tom

 

But that is precisely the point of EA, namely to raise the funds to buy up land not needed for immediate operational need (hence not a priority for the Trust), but which one day will became part of the rebuilt line from Barnstaple to Lynton.

The problems at the moment seems to include:-

(a) an impression that EA seem to be much better at this than the Trust (allegedly due in part to the different personnel involved), leading to suggestions that they should become the agreed body to handle all land purchases (which does not seem to find favour with the Trust)

(b) some worrying rumours that, despite an 'agreement' between to the two bodies that the Trust will concentrate on the line north of Wistlandpound and leave EA to tackle the line south of there, there have been recent incidents where the Trust have been engaging with landowners south of WD without prior discussion with, or the knowledge of, EA. If true, hardly a way to engender a spirit of cooperation :-(

 

Which is exactly my point about a lack of clarity of who does what. If EA are good at land purchase, then let them get on with it along the whole line - but within a clear agreement. Likewise, the Trust then concentrates on operations. But you need a plan, not least because stepping up the scale of operation in due course needs to have precursors of sorting out the level of rolling stock and trained staff you need to run the larger operation. Hence needing a mechanism for deciding, and everyone agreeing to, the overarching strategy.

Tom

 

You don't need to be a lawyer to recognise that attempting to stop people validly nominated for election standing is ok, @DaveE - it was an attempt to rig an election, pure and simple.

You talk of compromise. But as @35B rightly points out.

What do you think "compromise" with Miles and Co, looks like, @DaveE, given their behaviour?

If nothing changes, then the railway will continue to bump along, and, in my view, will be lucky to get as far as CFL; the governance failures are so glaring that getting a large benefactor or a public/quasi-public fund (e.g. one of the lottery funds; DLUHC's Shared Prosperity Fund) to engage is extremely unlikely.[/QUOTE]

 

@Jamessquared - I think that the point @RailWest is making is that there was an agreement between the Trust and EA about who was operating where, and as I understand it, the Trust broke it and then weren't honest about what they'd done. Not helpful.

 

I don't know, is why I asked for suggestions some posts ago, but in my view compromise is part of any resolution in any conflict. Every war or conflict in history has ended where they started, round a table and agreements made and usually after some significant damage to what was being warred over.

 

I don't think Dave was referring to the election but to the investigation into the allegations.

Personally I think that Anne's name should have been on the nomination paper. Of course all the publicity about her not been included may have got her extra votes.

The fact remains that the allegations still need to be investigated - the fact that she was elected does not alter that. I am sure that all those who supported her want this matter to be resolved.

 

As am I. Though I'm also far from sure that the process followed was necessary or appropriate.

 

This, 100x.

 

Assume that member A of the Trust makes an allegation to the Board about member B. The Board may - or may not - decide to make an initial informal investigations to see if the complaint bears merit.

However IMHO no formal disciplinary process should be initiated unless and until member A submits a written and signed complaint, which details (a) the nature of matters complained about, (b) what member B is alleged to have done/said (or not done/said as relevant) and (c) what laws/rules/codes of practice or similar member B is supposed to have breached and how.

Furthermore, if the allegation/complaint arises from a member of the Board, then even if that member recuses themself from any further discussion it is difficult to see how the Board can be regarded as independent - it's far too small to construct any form of 'Chinese Wall' that would appear believable to outside observers. In such a case the whole matter should be handed over to an independent arbitration-type process.

Does any formal complaint even exist in Anne's situation, and if so do we know from whom? Without that, then Anne could easily ask "where is the formal complaint, where is the supporting evidence" etc - if answer comes there none, then the whole process should be voided. If such a farrago were to have happened in my department at work, the union's Branch Secretary would have been hammering on my door demanding instant apologies for a breach of due process.

 

Fair enough, @DaveE .

I agree with @H Cloutt that the allegations against Anne should have been investigated. Justice needs to be blind, and so there should either be an equal investigation into a senior East member's apparent GDPR breach or none at all. My own view is that neither bear particular investigation as GDPR is binding on the organisation and therefore it is a training and competence issue for the organisation as a whole.

However, this hasn't happened; instead we have (paid, presumably) to have a report so slipshod that the consultant can't even spell Anne's name correctly (!) iwhich then led the previous Trust Board to find Anne guilty and attempt to impose a sanction for which I can seen no basis for in the Trust's own rules. This is a million miles from the independent process was promised in Lynton - the Trust Board cannot be both prosecution and jury. Given that there is an appeal against their decision which needs to be heard by a wholly independent panel whose decision is binding and final: the railway's Vicars seem like an excellent fit for this. Whatever happens, the libelous nonsense of "criminality" against Anne that were sent to me by Tony Nicholson and then stuck on the Trust's public website demands at least an apology to Anne, and should be accompanied by the resignation of those responsible - certainly both Messers Miles and Nicholson - because their positions are untenable given this conduct.

On the Extension, I start from the point that with limited volunteer resources, having two operational railways several miles apart is to be avoided at almost all costs. The case for going north from WB is hard to make: we own no land until Dean Steep and to get there you're crossing the A39 twice and having to sort out Martinhoe Cross. More importantly, one of the key wins for ENPA delivered by the railway is park and ride for visitors into the National Park, which the extension to Blackmoor Gate delivers, and a WB - Caffyns extension would not. (Indeed, to the extent that it increased patronage and interest, it would probably achieve the opposite.)

Based on this, the extension has to be in the south; but what is the basis for anyone to think that t1he people of Parracombe are any more interested in CFL or Parracombe than they were last summer? None of the roads have changed, and the reality is that whatever the railway does there will be people going to CFL or Parracombe to see the trains, which will impact the locals. Much better in my view to recognise that we need to open to Blackmoor Gate in a single phase, and plan on the basis that we expect Grampian Conditions to be imposed again, and that we will need CP powers for Court Farm. This points towards extensive engagement with Parracombe and the members over the next year, a discrete planning application for Bridge 65, and a planning application in autumn 2024. When you add in the need for a TWAO and the probability of a public enquiry, this means that realistic opening to Blackmoor Gate is a roughly a decade away (Summer 2032?) Again, this is about open and honest communication with Members, the railway's neighbours and the Park Authority. What have we had since May? Nothing of the sort.

Bringing the L&B family together: we are in the ridiculous position where someone is being put through a disciplinary process for suggesting that people support EA/YVT on the grounds that this is promoting people funding organisations other than L&BRT at the same time the L&BRT are sending out fliers for DHR B Class. If the L&BRT continue to treat EA/YVT as the enemy, we're going to get nowhere. Mike Buse was clear at the EA meeting in May that EA/YVT are keen to meet with the L&BRT but it seems that the Trust have not responded.

This leads us to finances. It would be very helpful to understand what funds are in fact available for Bridge 65 and Planning Applications. In theory there should be £700,000 or so in the 'Return to Parracombe' fund account; if there isn't, the Treasurer and the Board need to explain why, and answer the questions I posed in post 10015, above. In an organisation dedicated to transparency, we wouldn't have to ask because we'd already know; this is clearly not the situation here. More worryingly, whilst we all want OSHI to suceed, there is no clarity about the relationship between the Trust and LBBC and what the financial implications for the Trust are if the pub runs into financial difficulties - with 51 pubs a month closing in the first quarter of 2023, this is no idle concern. Again, transparancy and openness would be a valuable starting point.

So, a to-do list for the Trust:

- Provide a wholly independent appeal for Anne's case, and be bound by the outcome. An apology for the libellous statements made against her with the resignation of those responsible for them - actions have consequences.

- A series of open forums with neighbours, members, opponents all welcome to discuss the future. A clear plan developed from this with the known pinch-points (Bridge 65, the land south of OSHI, others) included.

- From this, there should be a neutrally-chaired meeting between L&BRT and EA/YVT to have a proper conversation on how we collectively achieve our collective aims.

- Be clear about the finances, especially as it relates to OSHI; if we granted planning permission on Bridge 65, we need to be in a position to press ahead - so is there £500k in the 'Return to Parracombe' fund to pay for it? If not, why not? And if not, how are we going to fundraise for it?

Does this help, @DaveE ?

 

I have said, and I repeat again, I will NOT get drawn into the legalities surrounding Anne apart from I don't personally think using Vicars is a wholly independent process. In my view independent means independent, completely outside if that's what is asked for.

Extension, the park and ride wasn't for Exmoor National Park, the park and ride was for Lynton and Lynmouth and to reduce the traffic in those towns but increase footfall, they both have very limited parking. Therefore if we are going to champion the park and ride, you have to go north as well. Arguing that extending to OSHI for a park and ride to WB is pretty weak, WB isn't really on the Moor, so it will only be doing the same as to Caffyns.

We could try and get to OSHI in one go but we do know there is a block at the moment of Parracombe. Originally it was planned to go to Parracombe, and then onwards bit by bit but there is a reason why it was lumped altogether and it got tangled up with events afterwards. Before the planning was submitted a grant was awarded to explore the way forward for the L&B and the next extension. I believe it was a London company was engaged to do that and they advised, along with the Lottery people to do a larger section. The lottery people made the recommendation because being a larger section and more money meant the case would be dealt with in London where the larger applications are dealt with rather than Exeter where they dealt with smaller amounts. Indeed the lottery people suggested doing the whole line in one go! Now, I distinctly remember talking to Geoff Bunton at the time and I know very well there were reservations on submitting such a large application. The applications for WB to OSHI went in in 5 sections, it was as far as I know the ENPA who lumped them altogether into one application. Perhaps at the time it was the right thing to do, we had EU money available, Lottery money was more available, we hadn't left the EU, we hadn't had the pandemic, we hadn't seen Ukraine invaded and we didn't have a cost of living crisis.

It has been said that we shouldn't be doing the same thing again yet you are suggesting to do exactly that.

There are differences between Parracombe Halt and CFL, but an awful lot of people seem to be speaking for the locals, why don't we let them speak about it. The moving out by 200 yrds may make a lot of difference to them, let them speak.

As for OSHI, why do so many almost wish it to fail? Many of the closures of pubs are pubs which are either part of a chain or have huge debt burdens from the pandemic. There are many independent pubs opening as well, they are able to negotiate deals with Brewers, not dictated to by them, don't have increasing lease costs and can make their pub work as they wish, as community hubs, music venues, games venues and fetes, festivals etc. If you are owned by a brewer you can bet if you have successful music evenings they will start to demand you charge a fee on the door, and that fee will go up, and also probably demand an increase in pump prices too on that night. That's not crap, I've seen it happen with a pub in Colchester.

I agree perhaps we should have a neutrally chaired meeting between the Groups, but who is going to be accepted as neutral? It would have to be someone completely outside of the railway altogether.

What we need now is compromise, a recognition that things didn't go to plan, a lot of that is due to unpredictable external circumstances, we are where we are and the move to try to get to CFL in a shorter step for now is a good one. It gives everyone something to focus on and hopefully do while the rest is being sorted out.

South of OSHI we have clearance to be done, perhaps even lay track for weekend running, and further south EA and YVT have challenges which need to be resolved as well.

As far as I can see the fractures just keep deepening, more and more heels being dug in, and it just keeps on going.

Can I do anything about it? Not that I can see, no compromises are on the horizon at all.

 

Thanks as ever for engaging, @DaveE

I don't see any reason why the Vicars can't be seen as neutral. This sort of thing is pretty central to their entire careers in local communities and they are well-respected around the railway.

The rationale for going straight to OSHI is straightforward: it removes the risk of a terminus in the Park, which I understood ENPA had made clear is something that they don't want because of the traffic impacts. Let's not make ourselves look ridiculous by trying to argue that a terminus isn't a terminus - we may agree this operationally, but this is about perceptions and politics. I also understand that there are important VAT implications if we're not offering a point to point transport service (which is VAT exempt, I understand) whereas an out and back ride will incur VAT. So if you're going to do CFL, then you're strongly incentivised to allow people to get off or join the train.

Nothing could be further from the truth: I have set out a clear plan to deliver the whole route in one step in light of the likelihood that the Grampian Conditions will be imposed again. I could be wrong, but it's a damn sight more coherent that what we've heard from the Trust. In their case, what we had before was a lack of a plan and therefore strategic failure ending in the ignominy of the s73 debacle.

I completely agree. So where are the meetings in the Parracombe Village Hall? Where is the outreach?

You keep asserting this, @DaveE but that doesn't make it true. I'd love it to be a roaring success and everyone who bought shares to become an instant millionaire. Please read what I said: pubs are in a tough position because of the economy, and we have little or no idea what the Trust's exposure to LBBC PLC/OSHI is. As a member, I am concerned with the financial future of the Trust because that will dictate everything else - planning, land purchase, construction - knowing where the potential financial landmines are is pretty important to project planning.

Again, one for the Vicars or the HRA. But a meeting where people can get together without anyone dictating to anyone else would be a great start.

Things didn't go to plan, but I have to suggest that this was entirely predictable if you didn't have a plan to be able to meet all of the planning requirements - like having all of the required land. The failure to have a plan to get the required land doomed the planning permissions: as many will have remember in training, 'a failure to plan is planning to fail'.

And forgive me, I don't see getting planning permission to get to CFL as a done deal - what gives you that confidence? Start with a non-controversial (or at least the least controversial) application: Bridge 65. Bridge 65's reconstruction is time sensitive because of the time limits for the Devon Highways handover, and it should actually make the road safer. Seems much more sensible to get that done separately and ahead of the CFL application which I fully expect to be seen as the thin edge of the Parracombe shaped wedge.

And getting people out onto the ground doing useful things is an excellent idea and should be happening anyway.

Compromises with power imbalances like this start with the powerful accepting that they need to bring people in. I set out four concrete steps that I think would help - what do you think, @DaveE ?