What happened at the Lynton & Barnstaple?

[Neil]

Oh dear, this sounds like one of those situations where it's possible to see and have sympathy with both the land owner, why should change be thrust upon you, why should you be forced to sell something you own, and the railway, frustration that one parcel of land scuppers ambition. Unfortunately it is be very easy in such circumstance to fall into that scourge of modern society, deeply polarised opinion. The easiest and best way forward would be to win over Mrs Landowner and that will never happen if she's viewed as 'the enemy'.  I wonder how this situation developed over time, I'd be interested to know where I could read more.

 

I used to live a couple of miles up from the Corris Railway. One thing that struck me about it was the great efforts made to keep the local community on side. I think it helped that many of the movers and shakers lived in the locality and valued the community as much as the railway. Though to some progress seemed slow the railway was viewed as a good neighbour and has maintained goodwill. 

 

 

[MarkC]

On 20/09/2024 at 08:50, Neil said:

Oh dear, this sounds like one of those situations where it's possible to see and have sympathy with both the land owner, why should change be thrust upon you, why should you be forced to sell something you own, and the railway, frustration that one parcel of land scuppers ambition. Unfortunately it is be very easy in such circumstance to fall into that scourge of modern society, deeply polarised opinion. The easiest and best way forward would be to win over Mrs Landowner and that will never happen if she's viewed as 'the enemy'.  I wonder how this situation developed over time, I'd be interested to know where I could read more.

 

I used to live a couple of miles up from the Corris Railway. One thing that struck me about it was the great efforts made to keep the local community on side. I think it helped that many of the movers and shakers lived in the locality and valued the community as much as the railway. Though to some progress seemed slow the railway was viewed as a good neighbour and has maintained goodwill. 

 

 

Here you go, Neil. It's a big thread, but worth a read

 

https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/rother-valley-railway.38105/

 

Cheers

Mark

 

 

[Neil]

1 hour ago, MarkC said:

Here you go, Neil. It's a big thread, but worth a read

 

https://www.national-preservation.com/threads/rother-valley-railway.38105/

 

Cheers

Mark

 

 

 

Thank you Mark, it'll keep me out of mischief.

[johnofwessex]

Bear in mind that those who oppose the L&B - and the Rother Valley read these threads so a little caution is well advised 

[37114]

I had an enjoyable if a little wet day on the L&B today. The 1 mile trip does go quickly but standard ticket is a day rover so did a couple of trips, you can definitely see why they want to extend the line!

 

In the coffee shop the digital display presented loads of detail about the extension to Cricket field lane but looking around both stations there are plenty of visuals outlining the ultimate desire to rebuild from Lynton all the way to the reservoir so this seems very much a long term aim.

 

Here are the pics I took:

 

 

 

 

I also stopped in at The Station Inn at Blackmoor Gate and had a nice pint and read in the pub which is I understand owned by the railway.  It was pretty quiet so hope it is doing its bit for the finances.

[RichardT]

On 20/09/2024 at 02:08, Matt37268 said:

They have a very wealthy backer that lives in the vicinity, and has diverted funds from his trainset at Crewe (there’s a reason a certain BR Pacific paid a visit earlier this year)

Oh no, don’t tell me that this is another bit of railway preservation tainted by the egregious Hosking?

 

Still, he’ll be able to get Lawrence Fox cheap to open the extension.

 

Richard

[Compound2632]

On 06/09/2024 at 14:57, Not Jeremy said:

 

In any event, Anno Domini will see off the "definitely not Mrs Bessemer" in due course, as it will for the rest of us, of course.

 

I understand the person in question is in their early 50s...

[Not Jeremy]

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I understand the person in question is in their early 50s...

 

Are there two high-ish profile female objectors perhaps?

 

The person to whom I referred is definitely much older than that, perhaps you've lit upon a hopeful press release or something(!)

[Compound2632]

25 minutes ago, Not Jeremy said:

 

Are there two high-ish profile female objectors perhaps?

 

The person to whom I referred is definitely much older than that, perhaps you've lit upon a hopeful press release or something(!)

 

It's what I was told by an L&B person on their stand at an exhibition earlier this year - Abingdon or Basingstoke, I forget which.

[Not Jeremy]

Ah, that'd explain it(!)

[locoholic]

If the L&B are sitting on a pile of cash and unable to spend it, perhaps they should head the other way and rebuild the bridge under the A39 at Woody Bay to enable progress towards Lynton?

North Devon could really use another wet-weather tourist attraction - it does rain there quite a lot!

[franciswilliamwebb]

13 minutes ago, locoholic said:

rebuild the bridge under the A39 at Woody Bay to enable progress towards Lynton?

North Devon could really use another wet-weather tourist attraction - it does rain there quite a lot!

 

If sheltering under a bridge constitutes a wet-weather tourist attraction, perhaps it's time to throw in the towel😉

[Compound2632]

12 minutes ago, franciswilliamwebb said:

If sheltering under a bridge constitutes a wet-weather tourist attraction, perhaps it's time to throw in the towel😉

 

You've clearly not done as much wet-weather tourism as I have!

[phil-b259]

28 minutes ago, locoholic said:

If the L&B are sitting on a pile of cash and unable to spend it, perhaps they should head the other way and rebuild the bridge under the A39 at Woody Bay to enable progress towards Lynton?

North Devon could really use another wet-weather tourist attraction - it does rain there quite a lot!

 

You rather forget that the L&B happens to sit inside a national park where not only are planning rules different from outside said parks but there is great hostility to 'half finished' projects.

 

Both of these play a large part in why the L&B hasn't manged to expand its current operation because the compromises or options which other railways would have open to them are closed off.

[locoholic]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

You rather forget that the L&B happens to sit inside a national park where not only are planning rules different from outside said parks but there is great hostility to 'half finished' projects.

 

Both of these play a large part in why the L&B hasn't manged to expand its current operation because the compromises or options which other railways would have open to them are closed off.

The L&BR in its current form is the very essence of a half-finished project, and yet it exists.

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, locoholic said:

The L&BR in its current form is the very essence of a half-finished project, and yet it exists.

 

I doubt you would find any of the planning authorities share that view!

 

Put simply if the all the planning applications filed thus far have been related to the Woody Bay - Killingdon Lane railway then they have all been completed thus the project is manifestly not half finished in planning terms.

 

If you apply to build one house and then complete said house, then that project can be considered complete. If you go on to build 5 more houses one after another then with each being a separate planning application, then each 'project' will be regarded as complete once each single house has been completed.

 

If however you apply to build 5 houses but only build 3 of them then you cannot be judged to have completed the project in accordance with the 'no half finished' project rules - and are legally speaking still leaving a 'half built' project littering the landscape (even if you haven't actually broken ground for the remaining 2 houses).

 

Hence the planning authorities covering the L&B have made it crystal clear that whatever permissions the railway seeks, they  will not be allowed to be started until all of the finance and land is available to complete them in one go with no pauses in the construction phase from start to finish.

 

That restriction is obviously on the assumption that a planning application gets the go ahead in the first case - extending the current railhead to Parcombe for example has previously been rejected by planning authorities who fear that any form of railway infrastructure (even just a run round loop) at Parcombe would encourage people to drive into and park in the village (which is totally unsuited to motorised transport).

 

Hence the current situation the L&B finds itself in - not only a vocal resident who refuses to sell up (with the only way of getting past that being compulsory purchase) but also a planning system which demands that all the land and funding for the entire proposal must be within the comnpanys ownership / bank account before a single shovel can hit the ground - along with a strict timetable for completion.

 

The latter is where the previous L&B application to extend as far as Blackmoor Gate came unstuck - to get there (and get round the vocal resident) they were forced to apply for compulsory purchase powers, however they and the time limited planning permission for the entire extension) was conditional on not only all the rest of the land being owned but also ALL the funds to complete the work being in place before any construction work whatsoever could start.

 

Unsurprisingly in view of how expensive this extension would be the L&B were unable to raise ALL of the funding required to demonstrate they could complete construction of the entire line within the 2 years which the planning permission allowed for work to start - which meant that after 2 years all the planning permissions and compulsory purchase powers expired and forcing any extension of the railway to start all over again for square one.

Edited October 2 by phil-b259

[Northmoor]

Peak Rail have always been in a similar position; the PDNP planning authority stipulated that once work started within the National Park boundary, it needed to be completed within ten years.  Funnily enough having the funds ready to complete about 12 miles of railway and all the stations, hasn't been achieved.

[locoholic]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

I doubt you would find any of the planning authorities share that view!

 

Put simply if the all the planning applications filed thus far have been related to the Woody Bay - Killingdon Lane railway then they have all been completed thus the project is manifestly not half finished.

 

If you apply to build one house and then complete said house then that project can be considered complete. If you go on to build 5 more houses one after another then with each being a separate planning application, then each 'project' will be regarded as complete once each single house has been completed.

 

If however you apply to build 5 houses but only build 3 of them then you cannot be judged to have completed the project in accordance with the 'no half finished' project rules - and are legally speaking still leaving a 'half built' project littering the landscape (even if you haven't actually broken ground for the remaining 2 houses).

 

Hence the planning authorities covering the L&B have made it crystal clear that whatever permissions the railway seeks, they  will not be allowed to be started until all of the finance and land is available to complete them in one go with no pauses in the construction phase from start to finish.

 

That restriction is obviously on the assumption that a planning application gets the go ahead in the first case - extending the current railhead to Parcombe for example has previously been rejected by planning authorities who fear that any form of railway infrastructure (even just a run round loop) at Parcombe would encourage people to drive into and park in the village (which is totally unsuited to motorised transport).

 

Hence the current situation the L&B finds itself in - not only a vocal resident who refuses to sell up (with the only way of getting past that being compulsory purchase) but also a planning system which demands that all the land and funding for the entire proposal must be within the comnpanys ownership / bank account before a single shovel can hit the ground - along with a strict timetable for completion.

 

The latter is where the previous L&B application to extend as far as Blackmoor Gate came unstuck - to get there (and get round the vocal resident) they were forced to apply for compulsory purchase powers, however they and the time limited planning permission for the entire extension) was conditional on not only all the rest of the land being owned but also ALL the funds to complete the work being in place before any construction work whatsoever could start.

 

Unsurprisingly in view of how expensive this extension would be the L&B were unable to raise ALL of the funding required to demonstrate they could complete construction of the entire line within the 2 years which the planning permission allowed for work to start - which meant that after 2 years all the planning permissions and compulsory purchase powers expired and forcing any extension of the railway to start all over again for square one.

Your many paragraphs still do not explain why the mile from Woody Bay to the non-place called Killington Lane is regarded as a complete project, but any further extension has to be several miles to a definite destination! The goal posts seem to have been moved.

[phil-b259]

On 02/10/2024 at 22:33, locoholic said:

Your many paragraphs still do not explain why the mile from Woody Bay to the non-place called Killington Lane is regarded as a complete project, but any further extension has to be several miles to a definite destination! The goal posts seem to have been moved.

 

Because it IS a complete project!

 

Look, you need to stop being logical and start thinking in terms of planning applications and legal niceties!

 

The L&B may well have a goal of eventful operating a railway between places X & Y - but that means nothing in terms of planning law!

 

You can have all the ambitions you like - however when determining whether a particular construction (be it a railway or a building or indeed an entire complex of buildings) is 'complete', the planning authorities will only compare what has been constructed and what was in your planning application - nothing else!

 

So I repeat, when the L&B applied for planning permission for the Woody Bay - Killingdon Lake section - that was ALL they applied for permission for!

 

When that section of railway was opened then the planning authorities came along and said ' yes you have built what you said you would in the timeframe you said you would and as such we consider the development / railway complete.

 

Any further developments would have needed fresh planning permission - and would be deemed complete based on said application, not on anything else.

 

Now, had the planning application* been from Woody Bay to Blackmoor Gate (which it wasn't!) then said planning application would indeed not be considered complete from a planning perspective if the railway terminated at Killingdon Lane.

 

Ordinarily this may not be an issue, in many cases the planning permission is not time limited and as long as you start work you basically can take as long as you want before actually completing the works  listed in the planning application.

 

However, as I and others keep pointing out, planning law in national parks is different - the authorities are much stricter and will usually impose things like time constraints and deadlines by which point projects must be completed - and if they are not the planning permission expires meaning anything which has been built must be ripped up and that land returned to its prior state.

 

* and yes the whole Woody Bay setup would have required specific planning permission right form the very start - and not everyone was that happy about it being granted...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 3 by phil-b259

[locoholic]

So all the railway has to do is submit an application for the section of the trackbed which it owns for a couple of miles beyond Killington Lane, to another such non-destination, and then deliver that "complete project" in the designated time?

[Compound2632]

8 minutes ago, locoholic said:

So all the railway has to do is submit an application for the section of the trackbed which it owns for a couple of miles beyond Killington Lane, to another such non-destination, and then deliver that "complete project" in the designated time?

 

That is, as I understand it, exactly the position with the extension to Cricket Field Lane.

[phil-b259]

13 hours ago, locoholic said:

So all the railway has to do is submit an application for the section of the trackbed which it owns for a couple of miles beyond Killington Lane, to another such non-destination, and then deliver that "complete project" in the designated time?

 

Correct.

 

However you need to remember that a planning application is just that - an application.

 

If objections get raised to said application (e.g. like concerns over car parking by potential users or bystanders) then the application may well be rejected.

 

That is the situation the L&B have faced when they started discussions over extending to Paracombe only - the planning officers told them that such an application would result in so many objections that the application would most likely be rejected by the planning authorities leaving the railway financially out of pocket with nothing to show for it.

 

Hence the 'think big' idea of going all the way to Blackmoor Gate in one go. As history shows, while the planning authorities did consider that plan to be acceptable, the necessary funding could not be raised to complete the works within the constraints laid out by the planning authorities.

Edited October 3 by phil-b259

[Reorte]

On 02/10/2024 at 20:55, Northmoor said:

Peak Rail have always been in a similar position; the PDNP planning authority stipulated that once work started within the National Park boundary, it needed to be completed within ten years.  Funnily enough having the funds ready to complete about 12 miles of railway and all the stations, hasn't been achieved.

I thought the bridge over the A6 was still an unresolved issue.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

13 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

Hence the 'think big' idea of going all the way to Blackmoor Gate in one go. As history shows, while the planning authorities did consider that plan to be acceptable, the necessary funding could not be raised to complete the works within the constraints laid out by the planning authorities.

As a 'not remotely interested party', everything about this project has stop signs writ large all over it. A truly 'think big' idea would be to find some less encumbered attractive location and build it there. So it might be the Little and Black (Torrington) Railway (other locations are available).

 

Once folks get excited they forget the objective was never to fight battles (always expensive) but to win as cheaply as possible. Ample international examples of the first make the wiser choice very clear. 

[Compound2632]

4 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

As a 'not remotely interested party', everything about this project has stop signs writ large all over it. A truly 'think big' idea would be to find some less encumbered attractive location and build it there. So it might be the Little and Black (Torrington) Railway (other locations are available).

 

This was exactly what the L&B Trust did many years ago to raise funds for the Woody Bay scheme. To go back to that would be a truly retrograde step.