Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Many years ago when the Paignton & Dartmouth intended to re-instate a siding on the down side of Churston one particular nearby householder caused a lot of noise - newspapers informed and other moans.
His house was recently built, long after the railway was. The siding was single track.
Cries of 'Clapham Junction' were heard (he was a South Londoner actually) but the siding was laid, but, not the original length I believe. He moved some while ago and the siding became the original length.

 

Many comments on the article seem positive.

 

I think that Parracombe is much more central than Blackmoor Gate. To compare it to another Narrow Gauge line it would be like passing all of the Ffestiniog railway trains at Minffordd. However do correct me if I am wrong!

 

Looking at the old photo in the Mail article, it does appear that the line did run very close to the side/rear of the building, and looks to emerge from the cutting right by the house. Perhaps there may be some scope for realigment to afford a little more distance between the house and track?

 

if you look at the Daily Mail photo you will see that there is an extension at the back, this is on the old track alignment, the Trust has a photo of Fair view with a train passing it and it is very close even then.

 

I really dont see anything wrong in discussing on here 'difficulties'. It isnt being 'doom and gloom', just realistic! It has also produced some extremely interesting posts from ChrisB, Herald, and Kingscross.

The WHR applied for compulsary purchase powers (CPO) to deal with adverse possession claims and a few other matters. That is quite different to the L&BR where post 1935 the sections of track bed were legitimately sold off. For 80 odd years the land has been privately owned by successors of the purchasers post 1935.

I am very grateful for the further information re Fairview. I had not appreciated that the railway came so very close to Fairview as originally built in 1911.

Mr Rafferty who owns 'The Halt' bungalow has obviously been upset by the L&BR approaches. If his statement that the L&BR threatened compulsary purchase if he didnt sell then that does not reflect well on the L&BR, though I personally doubt that this is actually what accured.

So, will the TWAO grant CPO powers? And do the L&BR have the funds to pay the compensation if CPO granted?

Cheers,
Julian

 

Hi Julian

As you have pointed out the major difference between the L&B and the WHR is the trackbed, ie the old WHR was never wound up and so some shares where purchase by trackbed consolidate and that the reason behind the bulldozing effect was that legally the new WHR did not need a CPO as the old railway had not abandoned the trackbed, but the legal story about that railway would fill a number of these boards, which is not what is being discussed here.

In the 37 years of the L&BR groups existence I have seen both the good and the bad of railway preservation at this project and there has been more than enough of its my ball and I am taking it home with me attitude.

Reason will prevail in time, you asked if the L&BR had the money to pay compensation if a CPO was granted? At the moment I doubt it, but I guess that if we needed to raise the money then someone somewhere will come up with it, supports always tend to do so if they can.

 

Don't believe it. I've had 13-week applications that took two or three years. Expect a lot of activity to modify the scheme to meet as many objections as possible before it goes to Committee.

 

Thanks for posting that link, Herald, the house is nearer to the old track than I had realised.

 

I do not quite understand 'lynbarn's' recent posts. 'The Halt' bungalow at Parracombe was built in the 1960's but he appears to suggest he spoke with Mr Rafferty before the bungalow was built ie approx 50 years ago.

If the L&BR hasnt the funds to pay for CPO, then the whole scheme for the extension seems to be ... should I say 'optimistic'?

If significant grant funding is being applied for (as per the WHR), I havent seen any mention of it yet.

Cheers,
Julian

 

I would assume that having spent as much as they have to get this far, they must have some idea of how its all going to be paid for

 

I'm sure the L&B Trust are all really sorry that they haven't been keeping you in the loop about their plans and grant applications...

 

Quite. Especially as from experience with a project in a different area (of heritage and of the country), a lot of donors and grant givers will only firm up once a project has gone a considerable way.

Given the scale of the project and financial commitment, I do not envy the L&B team the work that they will undoubtedly be needing to go to.

 

Hi Julian

As you sure it was built in the 1960's? As I am sure that nothing was on the halt site until the late 1970 early 1980 at the earliest, I have a photo somewhere that I took around the time and I don't recall seeing the bungalow, I do remember Bill Pryor saying that was going to be the next bit of trackbed the old Association was going to go after after buying the cricket field land section.

I have been a member of the L&BR (group) since the start in 1979 and there are not a lot of us left from that time.

At the time some one was trying to buy the trackbed to build a miniature railway on from Woody Bay down to Blackmoor, they eventually went to Barmouth in North Wales and the rest as they say is history.

With regards to the finances of the project those details can only be nailed down once the planning has been approved, the management team know what they are doing, as far as I am concerned, they are doing a great job and just getting on with it. But if you want more details then can I suggest you use this link

http://www.lynton-rail.co.uk/contact

 

Pretty sure you are correct with the dates for when the Bungalow was built.
I visited the area in the late 70's before the Bungalow was built and seem to remember that planning permission was granted around 1980.
I believe the association did try to stop the development but in those early days thoughts of reopening seemed a long way off.
Thankfully we are now in a position to have protected status for the track bed to stop this occurring again.

 

I sincerely apologise re the date of construction of 'The Halt' bungalow at Parracombe, but was going on the response from 'Heritage England' or some such other organisation that said it was a 1960s building of no architecteral merit, and its removal would enhance the planning considerations.

I dont think the actual date of construction alters things materially. It is an eyesore from a planning point of view, which considerably helps the L&BR extension. Plus from the owner's response to the planning applications they do not actually at the current time live in.

Cheers,
Julian

 

That's OK Julian, from what I can recall there have been a number of attempts to buy the Halt from him over the years.

Please forgive me if I don't say much else as I am lead to believe that something is in the pipeline and the last thing I want to do put the kibosh on it. But rest assured there is a team out there (both from the Trust and Exmoor Associates) that are talking to landowners the whole length of the line and putting things in place that only time can solve.

You are right on one thing Parracombe is the only community that the railway runs anywhere near to and so it has to be expected that we would get a lot more objections from them, but on the other hand I look at it like this, who would love to live in the middle of no where and yet have its own private steam railway that can transport goods etc in to the village when the roads get block with snow or bad weather during the winter? And they still do, from what I have been told.

 

We recently had cause to object to a planning application near our house. The plans were turned down, but probably 90% of the issues raised by us and our neighbours were insufficient to reject the plans, the few that did see it rejected were all because it didn't meet this, that or the other clause of the local & national development guidelines. So fundamentally it came down to "does it meet the council's rules for building stuff".
I haven't been following the L&B story closely (it's not an area I know at all) but I'm guessing that this will be similar, people will say things like "you can see it from our house" and the council will get the tape measure out to see if it is close enough to meet clause xyz of their guidelines, that sort of thing. The end result will be based on facts, not opinions and emotions, and most of the objections will count for nothing. The remaining few, you will need to take seriously.

 

We've had a couple of planning applications that affected us and our neighbours because someone wanted to do something that the rest of us didn't like. However, in both cases, despite objections to the council and, in one case, a local petition, we failed miserably! The adverse effect on house prices was a major comment but, apparently, the planners are not allowed to take that into account. If your house loses value because someone else gets planning permission to do something detrimental, that's just your hard cheese.

As I remember it from a discussion with a local planning officer, their hands are tied by legislation and government guide lines and they have to approve everything that people want to do unless it contravenes the legislation and guide lines. He was quite sympathetic and could understand our concerns, but said that if the council were to turn it down the applicant could, and most probably would, appeal. This would lead to a government inspector looking at the case and he would most likely overturn the council's decision. However, the council, i.e. local tax and rate payers, would then have to foot the bill.

 

They don't always get things right. English Heritage once listed a statue as grade II as having been there since 1893 as that was the date on the plinth. In fact I had dealt with a planning application to erect it some three years earlier. The statue had been somewhere totally different for 100 years.