Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Quite - that's why you must get legal advice for something so complex (and find the right specialist lawyer who properly understands the complexity, not one who just plays safe). Under your interpretation reinstating a railway under an existing road bridge, without altering it, wouldn't need a TWAO - but I've no idea if that's correct

 

I've no idea (hence IANAL!!) But you could argue that reinstating a railway under an existing road bridge still constrains the highways authority, since any future putative widening or realignment of the road has now got incrementally more expensive by virtue of increasing the number of stakeholders in such a scheme.

But my substantive point - but only supposition - is that you may have to look in other acts - not the T&W act - to find out at what level of change requires permission with regard roads and paths; but having determined that, a TWAO is then a convenient means to get the permission you require. In other words, the TWAO is a convenient "one stop shop" way to get wide ranging powers for a scheme, but precisely which powers you need has to be determined and may be defined elsewhere. That is how I understand the guidance page to read, since essentially it doesn't say "a TWAO gives you these powers", it says "a TWAO can be used to obtain some or all of these powers as you require".

Tom

 

I'm beginning to find the whole process even more confusing than the US Presidential election, and that's saying something !

 

It will hinge on whether the railway needs any of the powers that such an order could provide, or the ORR decide that one is needed.

I think it is worth observing that whilst there is a structure in place it has not been a bridge over anything other than a depression in the ground for 90years and any powers or rights originally conferred have long lapsed.

 

I agree, but in addition to other Acts (e.g. Highways Act; Town & Country Planning Act) and statutory regulations the legal advice might also need to consider recent and historic case law about things where one bit of legislation possibly rubs up against another and only the courts can give a clear answer.

Sometimes the advice might be along the line of “you’re definitely on a sound legal footing if you have Planning Permission and a TWAO. If you only have PP and no TWAO there’s no law or regulation specifically saying it’s illegal but in the event of legal challenges over this or that sort of things you run the potential risks of …… etc. etc. as in the judgements of 1898; 1952 and 1997 etc.” I’ve no idea if such advice applies to the L&B or whether their case is clear cut.

 

If Bridge 65 is being referred to, the structure survived until the late 50s. Information from David Oxenham who told me he demolished it. This was because heavier lorries running to Beacon Down Quarry were being acquired.

 

I'm not sure of any of the details, but I understand that there is apparently an agreement currently (but time-limited) in place for the local highway authority (possibly NDDC?) to take over maintenance of the KL road overbridge once construction is completed by the L&BRT. Would this perhaps negate the need for a TWAO to cross the highway?

 

I firmly believe, if not clear from my earlier posts, that no-one so far contributing to this thread is qualified to answer your question with any degree of certainty. I hope the Trust has paid for expert advice.

 

Exactly right. I am unclear why some [unqualified] contributors are so adamant that a TWAO is needed. I am confidient that the Trust has sought appropriate advice and hope this is the case.

 

I share your hope, but events of the past few years mean my confidence is less secure.

Where the conversation is interesting is in challenging and elaborating the normal rule of thumb that we all “know”.

 

One would hope that was the case. But then, although it might not be necessary, why do they not tell the membership so and hence end any speculation?

 

Perhaps things were made clear at the forum yesterday - one would have hoped so. Would any attendee care to report ?

 

Have we even had a report/summary/precis from Nov 2023 yet ???

 

Yes, the 11th November 2023 Forum notes were posted on the website (under Trust Notices) on 13th November 2023, as well as appearing on the Exmoor-NG@groups mail system, as recorded by Rob Prosser.

 

Don't we mean the 2024 forum?

 

The comment was in response to a remark by Railwest regarding the November 2023 Forum.

 

Correct - but I suspect that he meant the 9th November 2024 forum.

 

No, he did not - he meant what he said - Nov 2023

 

However...

which was referring to 9th November 2024. You can see why I was confused

 

This just came up on my YouTube feed. Nothing particularly new, but an enjoyable watch: