APPENDIX 4 Public Response 62/50/16

Home , Carhampton, Parracombe, River Heddon, Walkhampton

APPENDIX 4

Public Response

62/50/16/001 – Railway Track Bed and Associated developments

62/50/16/001 Letters received in SUPPORT from outside Exmoor & North Devon area or location not specified on the correspondence following receipt of applications in February 2016

ADDRESS 1.(all) 2.(all) 3.(all) 4.(all) Brian George Philip Groves L C Franlin A Bray Nottingham Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire 5. 6.(all) 7. 8.(all) Gordon Eves D J Dawkins T E Wreford R D Parkinson Northwich Hastings Matson Wisbech Cheshire East Sussex Gloucester Cambs 9. 10.(all) 11. 12. A Edmonds E W Lawrence J Barton B R Curnow Finchdean Plymouth Walkhampton Waterlooville Devon 13. 14. 15.(all) 16.(all) M de Young G Newman J Laytham I D Miles Aylesford Felixstowe Nottingham Lower Durston Suffolk Taunton 17.(all) 18. 19. 20. C Duffell D M Dell A Marshall Mr & Mrs Palmer Ashbourne London Worthing Derriford Derbys West Sussex Plymouth 21. 22. 23.(all) 24. M Orford G Beale M J Ball M Williams Southampton Keynsham Sweden Bristol Bristol 25.(all) 26.(all) 27. 28. J A V Smallwood R & H Cross R & S Barnard C Rainsbury Coalville Altrincham Kent Leicestershire Cheshire

29.(all) 30.(all) 31.(all) 32. S Howe J & S Dandy C Hughes C Knight Willow Ford Cottage Leicestershire Street Fleet Truro Somerset Hampshire 33.(all) 34.(all) 35.(all) 36.(all) A McCartney T Peart G Piercy N & A Drake Perth Western Australia 37.(all) 38. 39. 40.(all) M R J Bayly D Spanner D & D Mills C Sheppy Overland Park Pamber Heath North Petherton USA Hampshire Somerset 41.(all) 42.(all) 43.(all) 44.(all) D E Thompson A H Spencer C Summers A Clark Exeter Brentwood Essex Tadworth Essex Surrey 45.(all) 46.(all) 47.(all) 48.(all) P Bowes M Thompson M Harding Exeter & Teign Chester-le-Street Cross in Hand 2 Balmain Road Valley Railway E Sussex Newcastle 49. 50.(all) 51.(all) 52.(all) J Heys A Lowe M Denny J Williams Broadwindsor Cramlington Farnham Dorset Northumberland 53.(all) 54.(all) 55.(all) 56.(all) J Collinge D Newnham R J Trill C Maycock Galmpton Rochester London Brixham Kent 57.(all) 58.(all) 59.(all) 60. B Powell L Braine T J Butler D Faulkner

61.(all) 62.(all) 63. 64. D Ball M Ashfield & B F H Turner D Blencowe Justice Exeter London 65. 66.(all) 67.(all) 68.(all) T Roy C F Sampson R Jones P Snashall Northallerton Ashford North Yorkshire Kent 69.(all) 70.(all) 71.(all) 72.(all) J Snashall A J L Hill J Gough K Staddon Ashford Winford Kent Somerset 73.(all) 74.(all) 75. 76.(all) P J Curson T Grimley M Steel J Bird Roydon Moseley Dorchester Norfolk Birmingham Dorset

77. 78.(all) 79.(all) 80.(all) B Nottrodt N Illingworth M L Smith D Tervet Comberbach Northwich 81. MP for Milton Keynes South

Letter of support received from Iain Stewart MP Milton Keynes South. This project will create an authentic restoration of a key part of North Devon and Exmoor’s industrial heritage. It includes the creation of a further 24 jobs plus apprentices based at Blackmoor Gate and a boost to tourism and the local economy in Exmoor National Park and North Devon. I am a staunch supporter of Heritage Railways inn Parliament…. And I am also a regular visitor to the Heddon Valley and am a member of the Lynton & Barnstaple Railway. From both my national roles, and my local interest, I know that this railway is a huge asset to North Devon and is much cherished by local residents and visitors alike. This project would enhance this asset considerably and provide significant economic benefit in the years ahead, as well as helping to preserve and restore a much loved part of the nation’s railway heritage.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  The scheme would bring great benefit to the National Park by providing a sustainable way for large number of visitors to travel, support new opportunities for employment, the railway aims to respect interests of affected property owners and, it would replace something that officialdom should not have taken away.  This is of national significance, as it is the only genuine narrow gauge line in England to be restored to its full length (in time). Those Wales lines have boosted income and work prospects for their communities, with economic and social benefits for the region far in excess of the expectations of the original railway preservationists.  The main benefit must be to increase tourism.  The railway should be able to provide jobs and opportunities for apprenticeships and maybe help young people to be encouraged to stay in the area.  Believe this will generate many benefits for Exmoor without damaging the natural beauty of the area.  The railway would see a significant growth of tourism in the area, the creation of jobs in the community and huge financial benefit from a rebuilt railway. You only have to look at the Welsh Highland Railway to see the significant returns that vastly outweigh the costs.  This will help reduce car usage of tourists.  The construction of an affordable dwelling will also benefit the local community.  This will enable the reinstatement and future security of a unique and valuable heritage railway asset of national significance.  It will provide a sustainable low impact visitor attraction providing unrivalled access to the wonderful landscape and scenery of Exmoor National Park.  The benefits of heritage railways in National Parks are well proven and documented.  This will improve the local tourist economy and community employment prospects – including apprenticeships – while helping to minimise traffic and parking congestion within Exmoor National Park, and provide an important family attraction to compliment the other features and amenities in North Devon.  The Lynton & Barnstaple Railway is very much perceived to be a part of North Devon’s Heritage.  Although not local, I am a regular visitor to North Devon and the Railway.  The proposals will assist the preservation and restoration of an important aspect of North Devon industrial archaeology.  The restoration of Woody Bay station is wonderful, if the rest of the line is to the same high standard, together with Exmoor countryside, North Devon will have a world class attraction.  The proposed new footpaths and free carriage of bicycles on trains will do much to encourage people to leave the car and explore Exmoor.  Although not resident in Devon, I visit the area typically three times per year, and it is very apparent during these visits that even the present L&B railway brings significant

numbers of visitors to the area, helping to sustain local business, and thereby creating employment for local people.  The impact of the railway on the area around Blackmoor Gate has been sensitively considered – this area does not currently look smart and welcoming to visitors, and would greatly benefit from additional investment and redevelopment, which respects the historic features of the area, which the proposals do.  From the proposals submitted it seems very detailed consideration has been given to minimise the impact of both the construction phase and the eventual operation phase.  This will provide a safe transport facility that allows people to view the countryside out of a window from a train.  The railway will create new habitats for the local wildlife along the trackbed.  The Trust is intent on creating what will be, as far as possible, a precise reconstruction of the railway. The standards the railway has set for itself are comparable with those of the National Trust.  Cultural identity is really important because of globalisation and immigration and steam railways were hugely important to Britain’s development.  Stream trains are great.  There is a huge feeling of goodwill towards these proposals and this will put Exmoor firmly back on the tourist map, offering a sustainable method of transport, enabling more visitors to access the heartland of the National Park, whilst taking vehicles off the roads.  Suggestions that the railway, if reinstated, would be bankrupt because this was the case in the past, are disingenuous. Every single heritage railway flourishing in the UK today owes its existence to being closed as uneconomical in the first place.  Describing the Lynton & Barnstaple as the finest narrow gauge railway in England is not Victorian hyperbole. The standard of its construction, the lavishness of its equipment, the landscape of incomparable beauty through which it passed, the magic of the far terminus above “Little Switzerland”; all of these attributes combined to make it at least the equal of any of the Lilliputian railways of the world.  This would restore a railway that should never have been lost.  The railway trackbed already exists so there will be no significant alterations required to the landscape, except the removal of an unsightly modern bungalow.  This will revitalise the Blackmoor Gate area and will let children experience how travel was on Exmoor.  Tourists brought in by the railway will help Lynton.  The heritage railway park and ride concept has already proven very successful on the Swanage Railway in Dorset, so I have no doubt that with an integrated bus service this would benefit Lynton and Lynmouth and encourage tourists to stay longer in the towns.  This is part of an important regional development significantly benefiting the economy.

62/50/16/001 Letters received in SUPPORT from Exmoor & North Devon area following receipt of applications in February 2016

ADDRESS 1.(all) 2.(all) 3.(all) 4.(all) Lynton & Lynmouth Mark Blathwayt R & C Walsh R Briden Tourist Information Porlock Manor Fernleigh Guest Shelleys Centre Estate House Lynmouth Lynton . 5.(all) . 6.(all) 7.(all) 8. . LETA-Lyn Economic . A Pickersgill J Rainger N B Oakley & Tourism Alliance Bideford Kings Nympton 3 Sea Closes Combe Martin 9. 10.(all) 11.(all) 12.(all) K Vingoe C & J Lane C Blakey G & J Towell Woody Bay Station 13 Walton Way Lee House Birch Cottage Barnstaple Lynton Martinhoe 13.(001-004) 14.(all 15. 16. Local MP D Tooke B Leadbetter G Bridge 3 Torrs Walk Av. Walsal House High Bickington Ilfracombe Lynton 17. P Knox Whinbrae Torrington

Letter of support received from Peter Heaton-Jones MP North Devon. Taken as a whole, the proposal represents an important investment in the area’s infrastructure, economy and heritage. My overall conclusion is that these applications represent a unique opportunity for the National Park and wider area of North Devon. I would therefore urge the Authority to look upon them most favourably.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  Have worked in and been co-owner of the Tourist Information Centre for over 20 years, over that period and more especially in the last ten years, I have witnessed a steady decline in visitor numbers. A number of major hotels have closed or are for sale.  To reinstate the Railway would encourage many more people to visit and go a long way to redress the decline in visitor numbers.  As an elected officer of Exmoor Tourism and an appointed member of the Lyn Economic and Tourist Alliance, I strongly support this application.  The railway does not need Lynton and Lynmouth, but Lynton and Lynmouth badly need the railway.  Likely to bring economic benefit to the Porlock Manor Estate  Will widen access to the National Park  Local hotelier wholehearted supports the applications, but requests that the Blackmoor Gate public highway junction be improved through the adoption of 2 mini-roundabouts. LETA raised similar comments.  This will have a positive effect on the tourist industry and creation of jobs and apprenticeships as it has had with the narrow gauge railways of North Wales.  Although it is a reinstatement, it have been designed to fit in comfortably with its surroundings and the park and ride facility will ensure no additional pressure on roads and parking places.

 The L&B is sympathetic to the areas needs and environment and will return as important part of the area’s heritage and approval of the proposals will also bring additional and much needed employment to the area.

62/50/16/001 Letters received of OBJECTION following receipt of applications in February 2016

1.(also objects to 005) Mr N Rafferty Rose Cottage Bridge Ball Nr. Lynton

Owner of the Bungalow (to be demolished), known as The Halt. Also owns land at Rowley Cross

 They wish to retire to the bungalow and graze their land with horses.  The attitude of the Railway Trust has been arrogant and offensive, they have even threatened to enforce compulsory purchase if I do not sell my property.  Formally lodges an objection to the proposals.  If any support is given to this application then the principles of compulsory purchase is also being advocated which is offensive and wrong.

2.(all) Foot Anstey (3 letters) On behalf of Mrs Grob, Court Place Farm, Parracombe

Owner of land over which the railway would pass

 Will provide objections in detail within 4 weeks of 17 Feb 2016.

Letter dated 11 March 2016 from Foot Anstey (includes a review by Peter Brett Associates of the Environmental Statement submitted in support of the application)

 The Peter Brett Associates (PBA) report gives an analysis of some of the key land use issues, in particular: 1. Engineering detail a. The proposals at The Halt, Parracombe introduce new platforms, dwellings, a level crossing and an additional line to enable a loop that did not exist hostically. b. The construction of Parracombe Bank is a highly engineered project, requiring a much larger culvert and would take years to complete to accommodate the breeding season, weather etc. 2. Economic benefit a. The additional 15.5 FTE jobs would cost £16.5m to create, i.e. over £1m of capital investment per job. b. Based on comparable heritage railways, only 1,880 additional visitors will come to Exmoor because of the development. c. The negative effects on the existing tourism market have not been addressed at all. 3. Landscape and Visual impact a. The suggestion that the former railway line is a visual feature is factually wrong.

b. Adding alien form of built development cannot have a positive effect on landscape. c. The LVIA has not assessed the effect on the purpose of the NP designation – a fundamental flaw. d. Numerous heritage effects are not assessed. 4. Transport a. During the excavation works, there will be at least 30 two-way HGC trips through Parracombe, every day, for 4 months. b. The total HGV trips needed for the creation of Parracombe Bank will be a staggering 6,800. c. These 6,800 HGV trips equate to 50 trips per day when the weather is dry. d. The HGV trips exclude additional trips required for workforce access, equipment deliveries and facilities for workers on site. 5. Ecological impact a. The ES fails to address the potential loss of numerous bat habitats. b. There is insufficient information in relation to otters. c. Holwell Wood is ancient woodland, but has not been addressed as such in the ES. d. The impact of Parracombe Bank on several species is not properly addressed. 6. Noise a. The noise survey may not be representative of actual noise. b. The results of the noise survey cannot be validated. c. The noise impacts from the train during the operational stage have not been considered.  The PBA report confirms objections to the development are well founded, both in planning and environmental terms.  As a matter of law the applications are contrary to the key development plan policy (RT1) because at least some of its impacts are adverse.  As a matter of law, the applications could only therefore be permitted if material considerations outweigh the policy conflict.  The weight given to the emerging policy RT-S2 is limited and, in any case, the development conflicts with criteria under that policy.  The development conflicts with paras. 115 and 116 of the NPPF.  The development would not provide a much-needed significant boost to tourism and in terms of the economic benefit, there are a number of incorrect assumptions in the ES.  At any rational level of analysis, a few jobs and under 2,000 additional visitors does not represent an exceptional case, it barely represents a case at all.  The PBA report sets out a number of areas where the ES has failed to provide the necessary environmental information.  Accordingly, given the numerous omissions in the ES, the LPA is unable to lawfully determine the applications until those omissions have been addressed.  The planning consequences of a scheme’s lack of viability is an important material consideration, particularly in the National Park.

 There is a very real risk that works may begin on site and then become delayed for numerous reasons, including cost overrun.  The applications do not overcome the statutory test required for a major development in the National Park. Its benefits are at the low-end of the scale – a few new jobs and a couple thousand extra visitors.  It is contrary to the development plan and material considerations do not outweigh that conflict.  It will create numerous adverse impacts on the environment (in both its narrow and wider sense), with the potential for those impacts to be long- lasting.  The ES is fundamentally flawed and missing necessary environmental information and the LPA cannot make a lawful decision until that information is provided.  While there is some emerging policy support, this must be given limited weight in the decision-making process.  The benefits of the scheme have been grossly exaggerated.  The adverse consequences of the applications will be hard for the local community, who will be faced with many years of congestion, noise, harm to habitats and a host of other consequences, all for the sake of a few extra jobs and some extra visitors.  This will blight local projects, affect local lives and damage the precious environment.

The Peter Brett Report dated March 2016 raising concerns including:  There are a number of key engineering issues which have not been addressed in the application, which are deemed to be fundamental to the delivery of the scheme.  Of particular note is the absence of any detail relating to Parracombe Bank – further detail is need of the construction of the structure to ensure safe operational impacts, which are anticipated to be significant.  At Parracombe Halt, it is anticipated that stabilisation works to the existing bridge will be necessary.  Historically the Halt did not operate as a station, but was merely to allow engines to water tanks.  Details of how the existing water courses will be dealt with are not clear.  In terms of Parracombe Bank, historic plans and reports suggest that the original embankment was between 100 and 150 metres long and 15 metres high. The planning application suggests that the embankment will be 20 metres high, but give no further detail regarding the extent of the bank.  The proposals would require necessitate reconstruction of the central area and stabilisation works for the remaining sections as a minimum.  This is a major piece of civil engineering infrastructure which will have a significant impact on the locality, both during construction and operation.  It is likely that significantly more fill will be required for construction of the bank than claimed.  Doubt raised in relation to the suitability of the proposed culvert.  The programme for construction does not appear to have been properly considered.  There would be a substantial impact on ecology and habitat.

 Substantial works, including earth works are required to provide the proposed construction compound and access to this.  Delivering a railway, with the imposed gradient constraints in an undulating and steeply sloping area, has resulted in a solution which is inappropriate for the setting in which it sits and which is unlikely to adhere to modern safety standards.  There are a number of hydrological and ecological issues that will need to be overcome to allow the reinstatement of the track.  Much of the land I very wet and marshy with watercourses running both parallel to and crossing the former line of the track.  Issues with construction at Parracombe Halt and significant volumes of traffic, particularly during construction causing disruption to the environment, noise, visual intrusion and air pollution.  It is not clear how the proposed design has been judged to be acceptable given that it directly conflicts with policies in the Exmoor National Park Draft Local Plan that requires the railway to be reinstated according to the original line and design – instead the proposals include a completely new station in place of Parracombe Halt, with a second track, two new dwellings and other new features introduced.  There is a lack of information to suggest that the programme provided with the application is achievable.  The sustainability and safety of the scheme has not yet been adequately demonstrated.  It should be noted that, following considerable growth in popularity for heritage railways, visitor numbers have remained at a similar level since 2005 despite the introduction of new railways and many additional miles of track. This trend would suggest that the market for heritage railways has now plateaued, potentially in line with a narrowing nostalgia customer base that grew up with steam trains.  The development is estimated to cost the applicant £16.5 million and, once opened, could boost visitor numbers from a current capacity of 50,000 to 70,000 and direct full time job numbers from 8.5 to 24. These figures alone represent poor value for money with regard to return on capital investment.  The most obvious conclusion to be drawn from analysis of the Phase IIA Business Plan and the Environmental Statement socio-economics chapter is that the aspiration to employ a total of 24 full time staff for 52 weeks of the year, with a salary bill of £559,000 excluding overheads is unlikely to be achievable.  The negative economic effects on the tourism market, residents and farms have not been identified.  Unless the application provide suitable responses to the socio-economic concerns raised, planning permission should be refused – with the net additional benefits to the area being of minimal beneficial effect compared to the resulting environmental damage caused by the construction and operation of the railway.  It is clear that the railway will result in the loss of, or lead to adverse effects upon, a relatively large area of Holywell Wood to provide a new embankment, the removal of historic hedgerows and the widening of existing gaps in historic hedge banks, construction and railway tracks over

natural springs and streams and wet areas, and permanent alterations to landform and substantial earthworks.  Concerns regarding landscape impacts during construction, including with construction vehicles travelling along the track bed areas.  The baseline in the submitted LVIA does not reflect the relatively few remaining vestiges of the railway and therefore does not adequately assess the magnitude of change which will occur as a result of reconstructing the railway within the site.  None of the key characteristics identified for the Landscape Character Type F in the Exmoor Landscape Character Assessment include reference to vestiges or remnants of the former railway.  It is our opinion that the LVIA does not provide a suitable level of information to enable decision-makers to fully understand the likely effects on landscape features, landscape character and visual amenity, which will arise as a result of implementing the proposed development.  Concern raised with potential volume of construction traffic, particularly at Churchtown, Parracombe, but also along the A39.  The application does not provide sufficient detail on how the Parracombe Halt site will be accessed, nor does it take into account the level of trips that will be generated by removing such a large amount of fill and reconstructing buildings on site.  Concerns raised with construction traffic and access for the proposed compound at Parracombe Bank.  The proposed level of vehicle trips outlined in the application is misleading and there is a significant underestimate in the level of trips generated by construction of the compound works and by construction of the site access and access track.  Doubt that the Halt at Parracombe would many more visitors to Parracombe, given the distance and gradient of walk to the village.  Concern that potential impact on bat species has not properly been considered nor has potential impact on otter.  The detail provided is missiong important information that would be expected to be seen to allow a fully informed decision on the planning application to be made. There has been a lack of consideration of the full impacts of the proposals at Parracombe Bank where the proposals are anticipated to result in a significant loss of habitat.  There no assessment of potential vibration from construction operations at Parracombe Halt.  Various aspects relating to noise and vibration have not been addressed.  Nosie and vibration impacts associated with Parracombe Halt, including braking, warning signals and accelerating have not been assessed.

Foot Anstey letter dated 18 March 2016  The applications are provoking strong responses from both supporters and objectors – a key theme for supports is the perceived economic benefits and for objectors there is doubt that such economic benefits exist and would be deliverable.  We would respectfully suggest that the proposals should be determined in a holistic manner and the most appropriate process for such determination

would be a formal application for an Order under the Transport and Works Act 1992. It is our view that only by way of a full Public Inquiry may the full scope of the proposals be properly addressed, not only in planning terms but also in terms of compulsory purchase, technical feasibility, necessary licences, footpath diversions, safety issues, cost, funding arrangements etc. All of these issues will have to be addressed at some point in the process anyway, and separating the planning issues from such related and key considerations appears artificial and unhelpful given the clear inter- relationship between these factors.  A related concern would be a premature grant of planning permission which could have the unwelcome effect of either raising hopes or blighting the area, depending on which side of the fence one is on.

3.(all) Slee Blackwell Solicitors (2 letters) On behalf of Mr & Mrs Humprey Bray, Rowley Barton, Parracombe

Owner of farmland at Rowley Barton impacted by the proposals, with the rail line crossing over their land and access

 (Comments of Slee Blackwell) As there are in effect four related planning permissions in connection with the proposed railway line, we do not consider that they should be determined by the Exmoor National Park Authority. We consider that the Authority has already publicly signified its approval of the proposals as it supports them within its 10 year plan. We believe that there applications should be determined by an independent authority and trust these will be referred to DEFRA for this purpose.  (Following comments from Mr & Mrs Humprey Bray…) Reiterate comment above.  The railway crosses my farm and I do not consent to this development.  The former Railway opened in 1898 and closed in 1935 – it was no viable despite numerous cost saving measures. Even in the early 20th century before everybody had a motor car the line was uneconomic.  The present proposal is purely a tourist attraction and must be viewed in that context.  The locality is clearly an area of outstanding beauty, no other development would be contemplated in the area where this railway would go.  The line crosses to the front of my farmhouse, which was built in the 15th/16th century and is mentioned in the Domesday Book; the proposed development is completely out of keeping with the rural area and outlook that the National Park is supposed to protect.  The railway line would cross my access drive – I understand that the proposal is for flashing lights and signs to warn that a train is approaching – in the 1930s this would not have been the case and this would be totally out of keeping.  The farm is a working farm, having to cross the railway line will create a safety hazard.

 There appears to be no consideration to possible other routes to avoid intruding upon people’s houses and where the line would have less agricultural impact.  The proposed goods yard at Blackmoor Gate is completely of keeping with the National Park. The original goods yards were either at Lynton or Barnstaple, at each end of the line, not the middle.

4.(also 002, 003 and 004) Slee Blackwell Solicitors (2 letters) On behalf of Mr & Mrs Anthony, Rowley Cottage, Parracombe

Owner of land at Rowley Cottage impacted by the proposals, with the rail line crossing over

 (Comments of Slee Blackwell) As there are in effect four related planning permissions in connection with the proposed railway line, we do not consider that they should be determined by the Exmoor National Park Authority. We consider that the Authority has already publicly signified its approval of the proposals as it supports them within its 10 year plan. We believe that there applications should be determined by an independent authority and trust these will be referred to DEFRA for this purpose.  This area is exceptionally peaceful, featuring a well-established environment of trees, hedges and ancient pasture, birds, insects and mammals. The landscape is an area of outstanding natural beauty and a Site of Special Scientific Interest. To include the workings of a tourist railway in this would be inappropriate.  Concerned that this would be harmful to the historic hill farming landscape and the biodiversity this supports.  Why is the project being considered on a piecemeal way? The development cannot proceed unless all the landowners affected agree.  The application would appear premature because it does not include the rest of the line, which needs to be considered in context.  The railway was economically unviable and closed in 1935.  (Refers to plans 70 and 71 which show the Rowley Gate Crossing (to Rowley Barton) – I have enjoyed peaceful, unimpeded access over this point for 15 years to access my home. The application is lacking in detail regarding the proposed design and function of a crossing – a diagram made available to me does not appear in the application papers. That diagram detailed a crossing with lights, barriers etc required under health and safety regulations and the removal of 40 metres of ancient hedge.  This is ecologically unacceptable and visually inappropriate.  The design is not true to the original crossing and will blight a view of this AONB.  The fencing and concrete posts is inappropriate.

 (Refers to Lower Rowley Bridge Crossing) – I own the field adjacent to the proposed bridge and have a right of way over the track towards Lower Rowley. A dilapidated croosing of the track bed in my field is no shown on the details. The proposals intersect the field and annexe the ground above the line – at the present time there is no allowance for agricultural vehicular access and no allowance for livestock to freely cross in order to graze, access water and shelter below the line.  I am very concerned that any disturbance of existing drainage or spring water could bring flood risks to our home.  Our domestic curtilage would be overlooked by the occupants of the train.

5.(all) D Bastock East Bodley Farm, Bodley Lane, Parracombe

 If the overall intention is to reconstruct the whole lone than the currently proposal should be part of a much larger submission and it is impossible to approve or consider the proposal on its individual merit.  There are significant issues with the viability of the proposal  The proposal cannot be presented as a travel service because it has no true destinations. It is not therefore viable as a park and ride service.  The proposed adult return train tick is £18 but you could get a return bus ticket from Lynton to Barnstaple for £4.80.  The LBR does not own a significant proportion of the land. We know that landowners who have indicated that they are not interested in selling have felt pressured by the LBR and because there is no travel service merit we cannot see how compulsory purchase for this or subsequent phases can possibly be applied.  The proposals to provide new passing points does not constitute reinstatement.  The public car park at Blackmoor Gate should be retained as a local asset.  The proposals add complexity and confusion to the Blackmoor Gate junction and could compromise highway safety.  Concerns regarding impact of construction vehicles on the conditions of roads.  There has been no independent environmental assessment that we have seen.  Environmentally we cannot see any benefit to the Exmoor National Park, the proposals directly conflicts with the draft Local Plan’s first Vision.  If there is a case for a railway, why not a sustainable modern one.  The details submitted explain that the scheme offers employment for 24 people when the intention is that 14 of these will be voluntary. 6.(all) D J Carter Myosotis, Bodley Lane, Parracombe

 The applicant does not own all the farm and compulsory purchase causes stress to the villages concerned.

 Parracombe will suffer from this major building project for several years, with little benefit to the village.  The time scale of the project is a major concern. The railway should purchase the entire track and raise the capital needed before submitting the applications.  The two houses to be constructed are not necessary. They should by the house adjacent.  Highway safety concerns regarding works around Blackmoor Gate.  If approved the railway should be required to provide financial security for the project completion within a fixed time limit before being allowed to commence work.  An unfinished project could be a disaster for residents and tourism in the area.

7.(2 letters) Mr & Mrs Wooder Fair View, Church Town, Parracombe

Own a house immediately adjacent the line and property over which railway would pass

 The application is not telling the truth – the application means the destruction of our drive and workshop.  The destruction of our double car port and fuel store.  The destruction of our landscaped gardens and trains would run so close to our house that it would become uninhabitable with smoke, noise and no privacy.  Reduction of value of property and ability to sale.  It would block access to our septic tank and to sewerage disposal.  This is causing stress and health problems.  There is also the possibility that our bathroom would need to be removed.  All of this would ruin the character of our property and its surroundings and the local peace and tranquillity.  Rather than destroy people’s homes in Parracombe, relocate the line to a position adjacent to the A39.

8.(also 002 and 005) Mr & Mrs Wilson Hedna Cottage, Church Town, Parracombe

Railway line would pass immediately behind house and gareden

 Concerns regarding the potential devaluation of our property  Reduction of potential interest in sales market.  The railway will bisect our property.  Impact on wildlife, increase in noise and air pollution.  Impact of increased use of Centery Lane and Church Lane.  Adverse impact on privacy of residential dwellings, loss of wooded area.  Encourages diversion of route away from Church Town.

 Doubts that the projected £62m boost to the local economy will be achieved.

9.(001-004) Mr & Mrs Anthony and Mr & Mrs Bray (3 letters, including letter from Mr J Anthony) Rowley Cottage, Parracombe

Line cross property access and land

 The proposed level crossing near Rowley Gate at the approach to Rowley Barton and Rowley Cottage would hugely adversely affect our residential amenity.  This would inconvenience the practical use of the land. We should be afforded the basic right of free movement to and from our property. There is a viable alternative that of a cutting and a bridge to facilitate access.  The proposal for a crossing will be visually unacceptable, there is also a requirement to remove 40metres of ancient hedge.  Object to a train passing so close to our home, affect privacy and bring noise and disturbance.  The railway would be an incongruous feature, harming wildlife.  Concerned that there is disregard for landowners use of their property through which the railway would traverse.  This is not part of Exmoor’s true heritage, which is peace, tranquillity and the natural beauty of the landscape.  Concerned about impact on dark night sky.  Unconvinced regarding viability.

Letters dated 17 March 2016  The proposals would create dead fields above the railway line, the arrangement would be unsafe and disruptive.  A level crossing at Rowley Barton Lane would potentially be dangerous.  There is a real potential that there could be a collision between the train and livestock.  Concern that a landmark, protected bank of ancient beech trees at Rowley Gate would have to be felled.  Serious reservations about the application and on the planning blight that it will have on Rowley Barton as a working farm.  There is a potential resolution – we ask for two safe crossings, including a bridge.  The proposed surface level crossing is not acceptable, additional signage, noise, compromises farm activities, would be disruptive and unsafe.  Water would be required to those fields ‘cut off’.  Extremely concerned about any disturbance to the existing bank supporting the track which could lead to disruption to the spring water supply to Rowley Barton and to flooding at Rowley Cottage.  Further anxiety regarding planning blight.

10.(001&002) G Nicholls Higher East Middleton, Parracombe

Owner of land impacted by the proposals, with the rail line crossing over

 Has farmed here for 3 generations and the reinstatement involves some of our land.  Concerns with general approach of railway people – rude, presumptive arrogant and even obnoxious.  Concerned that they can apply for permission on land they have not purchased.  There is a lack of understanding how the proposal affects the farm business and land value. A major concern is practicality and how the herd of cows could continue to have free access across our farmland – there must be fresh water, shade and shelter and the ability to wander – this is important to the animal welfare and freedom. Cutting through the fields as proposed would hamper this and interrupt the pattern of grazing and the routine of the cows. This can affect the cows well-being and productivity.  Also concerned about biosecurity risk and the potential for the track and train coming through increasing risk of disease entering the herd.  Surveys have been carried out without permission.  Aware of farmers locally having difficulty to erect necessary farm buildings, it would be ironic if the proposed engine shed is supported.  The National Park should prioritise the needs of local farmers, businesses and residents rather than pander to the applicant.  Do visitors really want to see the rigmarole associated with the railway with no real purpose?  We have used the redundant railway as a means of access for our livestock, both cattle and sheep, for decades. If the proposals go ahead, gateways would have to be taken out and parts of hedges removed – bringing environmental disruption.

11.(all) Peter Heaton-Jones MP Conservative, North Devon

 Letter to ask that constituents. Mr & Mrs Bastock, letter of objection is taken into account when determining the application. 12.(all) Mr P Greenhow Mill House, 26 The Green, Otterton, Budleigh Salterton

 Adverse impact of development on Parracombe Conservation Area and the County Wildlife sites.  The rebuilding of the railway line, together with cuttings, bridges, embankments etc cannot enhance the appearance or the character of a national park.

 The railway will take up valuable agricultural land. Fields will be divided and this will cause farming difficulties.  Concern regarding pollution to rivers and streams – particularly as a result of embankments and culverts.  Concern regarding impact on otters  Concern regarding Holwell Wood and loss of trees and impact on wildlife.  Concern regarding impact on culture and listed buildings, such as Church of St. Petroc  The rebuilding of the line, which had a short life cannot be said to enhance the history or archaeology of Exmoor.

13. Mr & Mrs Millner Mockham Barton, nr Brayford

 This would serve primarily as a hobby for a few local people and as a feather in the cap of local officials.  It is such a waste of money and risks damaging the natural beauty and farming of the locality.  The local road network if not suitable.

14. Mr & Mr Ford Exmoor Cottage, Furze Hill, Barbrook

 Will not conserve or enhance Exmoor.  Won’t promote opportunities for understanding Exmoor/  There has been insufficient thought to how people will use the railway, particularly with the main works at Blackmoor Gate and not at one end of the line.  There will be issues with funding – £14 million or more still to be raised.  Not convinced that more jobs will be created.

15.(all) Mr & Mrs Smoldon South Thorne, Bratton Fleming

 The railway manner has been arrogant and bullish to some of the local residents.  Many supporting the applications live outside the area and would not be effected.  Visitors won’t want to walk down the hill into Parracombe.  People’s lives are being severely disrupted by what is no more than a hobby toy train.

16.(all) C Lee, Otterton, Devon

 Development would have an adverse impact on the Conservation Area.  St. Petroc’s Church is a Grade I listed building – the proposed line would be very close and the true peace and beauty would be destroyed by the close proximity of the proposed halt and line.  Court Place Farm, where R.D. Blackmoor wrote Lorna Doone, would be adversely affected.

17.(all) A Barton Devon Bat Group

 The Survey effort for bats is not sufficient. The BCT Bat Survey Good Practice Guidelines should have been followed.  On a more general theme, a County Wildlife Site has been chosen for a site compound – is there really no other piece of land that could be used for this?

18.(all) J King-Fretts & M Bowden

 Whole idea is ridiculous. Cost and impact on farmed landscape not acceptable.  Most supporters are not local.  It is inappropriate for ENPA to consider the applications when it has publicly seemed to be in approval.  How will farmers get to market with the scale of road alterations proposed?  People will travel by car not train, the proposal is not viable.

19.(all) M Osmond Coulsworthy House, Combe Martin

 Notes that much of the expressions of support come from outside the area and consequently should be given little credence. Much of the objection comes locally and this should influence officers and members.

20.(all) Mr Grob Primrose Cottage, Churchtown, Parracombe

Owner of land affected

 The application has been prepared regardless of cost, is flawed, un- bankable and in many ways the wrong one.

 Should it go ahead there would be years of disruption, more cars on the road and a replica mini railway that replicates the bankruptcy on which it is modelled.  The proposed extension is enormously expensive and achieves only a 4 mile extension.  The only use would be for tourism. It would add some jobs, but the business plans calls for a large number of volunteers to make the already dubious numbers work. The plan also calls for a doubling of spend per passenger in what is already an expensive excursion.  Doubt that there are the funds to get through the whole process for the build to take place.  This is not a restoration, but a replica. The application includes housing, track loops, enormous sheds etc that were never part of the original line.  Understand why heritage rail enthusiasts support this plan, but again the prohibitive cost should make even the most loyal supporter question the logic.  This plan should be thrown out until such time that planning for the entire length from Barnstaple to Lynton can be asked for and this should only be considered if full funding is in place.

21.(all) Mr & Mrs Holtom Little Close, Church Lane, Parracombe

 This is an ambitious project. Although, the work already carried out at Woody Bay is admirable and has attracted a large number of visitors with associated benefits to the wider community.  The idea of re-opening the line in its entirety is one that most residents appear to support but while the current application reaches out to that aim there are issues of real concern.  The economic argument is hard to follow. New employment will rely heavily on volunteers. Also not convinced by number of expected additional visitors.  Concern about impact on local residents particularly living very close to or on the line. If the application is allowed, a house will be demolished and gardens turned to railway use and fields severed by the line.  The quiet enjoyment of local residents will not be taken into account.  It would appear insufficient assessment of the visual impact of the development has been taken into account.  There is significant environmental impact from the development during construction.  The proposal would not provide an alternative mode of transport or save a single vehicle journey. Conversely, the proposal would create much greater use of an already under maintained and overstretched road network.  Concerned about impact on PROW and that car parks would not be free to all users.  There would be increased road users and hazards.  There is no guidance on phasing of the works.  The applications should be called in by the SoS.

22.(001) Mr W Schofield

 As a keen National Park patron I object to the proposed planning on grounds of un-necessary destruction and alteration of this pristine environment. 23.(all) S Bastock East Bodley Farm, Parracombe

 Suspects many not content with the proposals are not expressing their view.  There is a feeling of being told what is going to happen.  The entire wider project may never happen and this should not be considered in isolation of that.  The park & ride proposed would be of no real travel benefit.  The benefit and apparent number of new employment appears over exaggerated.  How would the Authority ensure in the longer term the car parks would be free and available to the general public?  A 2010 Exmoor National Park State of Tourism report lists the two main attractors for visitors as, 1) Scenery and Landscape (91%), and 2) Tranquillity/peace and quiet (79%). This is still very much the case.

62/50/16/001 Letters received of OBSERVATION following receipt of applications in February 2016

1 International Otter Survival Fund The Otter survey carried out was only done on the River Heddon and the water course at Blackmoor Gate. There seem to be a number of other water courses which could be used by otters, but no surveys done. – Otters will use drainage ditches to travel. Also if banks are plan to allow otters to travel through culverts, fences will be required, which may need to be 100metres long. 2 K Govier, The Ark, Parracombe Would wish the Authority to consider the effect of the development on the A39 – concern that the railway will present a hazard and distraction to road users and risk to public safety. A speed restriction is suggested for the A39. Concern expressed over extra noise and smoke pollution this will have to Parracombe and quality of life of local people. 3 Barn Owl Trust The Barn Owl Trust recommends that a protected species survey is required for any buildings or structures within the development footprint subject to demolition, renovation or conversion. If Barn Owl evidence is found within any of these structures further advice should be sought from the Barn Owl Trust. Suitable mitigation and enhancement measures may be required depending on the circumstances. 4 S Manning, Martinhoe Old School As Blackmoor Gate will provide the main car park, parking at Woody Bay should be minimised and there should be a ban on coaches, mini-buses and camper vans using the car park. There should be a limitation on events at Woody Bay Car Park that would encourage travel to Woody Bay. There is a real prospect of increase use of road side parking. Lighting – it is noted that only horizontal light pollution measures are stated in the application but the point is light pollution is the result of upward lighting which is not limited by the application. Therefore, any lighting should be specifically down only and lighting should be minimised. Further any road reconfiguration should not result in the need for additional street lighting. 5 L Blanchard – Resident of Parracombe In general terms support is given to the proposal, but a number of reservations are held: LOCAL AMENITY AND SOCIAL BENEFITS There will undoubtedly be an increase in noise, both from the engine and from the whistle. To minimise this nuisance the numbers of trains per hour should be minimal

and their frequency agreed with those residents closest to the line and Parracombe Parish Council. There will be considerable inconvenience to the village during construction phase including closure of some PRoWs. This is not acceptable and alternative footpath routes should be made available. Work should not start until all funding is in place. Welcome the provision of a local need affordable dwelling, but would recommend that both new dwellings are local need affordable dwellings. It is hard to see significant social benefit to residents and strong recommend that the opportunity to create a safe public footpath alongside the line of the railway should not be missed. LANDSCAPE & VISUAL IMPACT It is clear that these applications will not fully meet the first purpose of the National Park. The proposed engince shed would have a significant adverse impact on this National Park Gateway site. The look and feel of Blackmoor Gate is currently slightly urban and the proposals need to reflect this gateway role and I am not convinced the design and landscape achieve this. The large agricultural barns at Rowley Moor Farm are in the ownership of the Railway, and these could be demolished to reduce the crowed industrial feel of buildings. WILDLIFE Welcome the aim to create a wildlife corridor along the line of the railway. Recommend that a management plan for wildlife areas is agreed with the LPA. TRAFFIC IMPACTS Measures to improve safety, already needed, would be imperative when traffic increases along this stretch of road. DARK SKIES RESERVE All lighting must be minimal and downlighting. Bright security spotlights would not be acceptable. ECONOMIC BENEFITS This proposal would benefit local people, in terms of jobs, as well as some local business even if the optimistic visitor projections are not fulfilled. NATIONAL PARK PURPOSES Welcome the opportunity that this proposal would give for people to enjoy and understand the National Park. The existing section of line has been especially beneficial for those with limited mobility, are frail or elderly, to enjoy spectacular scenery and wildlife and this enjoyment would be enhanced by the proposed extension. 6 Mr G Tombs – Spring View Parracombe Support the views expressed by Parracombe Parish Council in relation to the time scale imposed by this application. Endorse the views expressed by other local

24 residence regarding a stipulation that no work should commence on this project until all the funding is guaranteed and in place to enable the project to be completed as one operation.

62/50/16/001 Letters received in SUPPORT from outside Exmoor & North Devon area or location not specified on the correspondence received following receipt of additional details in January 2017

ADDRESS 1.(all) . 2. (16/001-004) 3. 4. R J Ashmore . S J Randall J Wade P Colley 4 Limewood Close 21 Queen Anne Ealing Gardens Falmouth 5. 6. 7. 8. A Belsey G Lelliott R Youngson D & M Cameron 3 Busticle Lane 3 Brotherton Court Dunbar Sompting Knottingley Ingatestone Road Lancing – West West Yorkshire Highwood Sussex Chelmsford Essex 9. 10. 11. 12. (16/001-004) M Pearce M Thompson A Wells A Lowe 4 Fulmar Close Myrtle Cottage 28 Field Farm Close 23 Oakfield Way Basingstoke Heathfield Bristol Seghill East Sussex Cramlington Northumberland 13. (16/001-004) 14. 15. 16. Dr I Harrison J Woodley C Maycock R Barnard 1 Kestrel Road 28 Rowan Walk 46 Sheringham 4 Egerton Drive Kempshott Hornchurch Avenue Hale Basingstoke Essex London Cheshire 17. (16/001-004) 18.(16/001, 003, 004 19. 20. C G Duffell & 005) J Pounds S Broomfield Church Farm J Taylor Emu Cottage Alsop en le Dale Petersfield Tanygrisiau Ashbourne Hampshire Blaenau Ffestiniog Derbyshire Gwynedd 21. 22. 23. 24. G Beale D Montague D Russell G Scott 14 Stockwood Vale 9 Leeson Close Craylands 19 Ridgeway Keynsham Swanage Medstead Ingatestone Bristol Dorset Hampshire Essex 25.(16/001-004) 26.(16/001-004) 27. 28. J Snashall P Snashall L Walker K Burgess 112 Church Road 112 Church Road Kartanontie 9.A.24 Willesborough Willesborough 00330 Helsinki Ashford Ashford Finland Kent Kent 29.(16/001-004) 30. 31. 32. J Barton Mr J Gough J Williams C Knight Walto Crescent 41 Albert Street Winford Fleet Hampshire

33. 34. 35. 36. B Powell P & S Hawley P Hebson J Andrews 42 Salisbury Close Alton Hampshire 37. 38.(all) 39.(16/001-004) 40.(16/001-004) D Taylor M L Smith T E Wreford C R Sheppy Woodside X2 letters Flat 10 Matson 43 Broadlands Av Loves Green Avenue North Petherton Highwood Matson Chelmsford Gloucester Essex 41.(16/001-004) 42.(16/001-004) 43. 44.(16/001, 002, 003 K Staddon M Harding J & L Palmer & 005) 85 Upland Drive D Martin Derriford 30 Starnhill Way Plymouth Bingham Nottingham 45.(all) 46. 47. 48. D E Gandell A Pearce A Walker M Jackson X2 letters 10 Robin Close 16 Mayflower Court 68 Cowslip Bank Basingstoke Highbridge Lychpit Hampshire Basingstoke Hampshire 49. 50.(16/001-003 & 51. 52. T J Butler 005 R Bridle R Watson 15 Christchurch B Lane 29 Londinium Way Laurel Cottage Dorset Rockbeare North Hykeham Dereham Road Lincoln Colkirk Norfolk 53. (16/001-003 & 54. 55. 56.(16/001-004) 005 S Burgess J Godfrey J Lakey T Carnell 61 Saxon Leas 114 Ivy Avenue 3 Summerway Winterslow Bath Exeter Wiltshire 57. 58.(16/001-004) 59. 60. T Spencer D Ball D A Smith R Sheaff 28 Stuart Avenue Dunsland Walton-on-Thames Barn Street Surrey Liskeard 61. 62. 63. 64.(16/001-003 & A Higginson D Blencowe M Hargreaves 005 31 Loughbourough Exeter Dr J W Bond Rd Quorn Leicestershire 65. 66. 67. 68. A Wreford G Piercy A Cameron P C Rumney 23 Ivy Close 24 Redan Road 5 Tibberton House Exeter Ware 16 Tibberton Road Hertfordshire Great Malvern Worcester

69. 70.(16/001-004) 71.(16/001-004) 72. B Bass & G Cowan G Miller M Tester D R Robinson West House Benfleet 44 High Street Rousdon Essex Dry Drayton Devon Cambridge 73. 74. 75.(all) 76. N McGregor J Hart R Bradbury C Summers 17 Porumbaru 16 Stemmet Street 23 The Twistle 9 Bommel Avenue Emanoil Street Eastcliff Byfield Canvey Island 011421 Hermanus Daventry Essex Bucharest Western Cape Romania South Africa 77.(16/001-004) 78. 79.(16/001-004) 80.(16/001-004) J Pavey M de Young P Curson P Bowes Thornbury 25 Northlands The Avenue Chester le Street Bishops Waltham 81.(16/001-004) 82. 83.(all) 84.(16/001-004) P Ford D Edwards E Mitchell B & J Grundy 34 Campkin Road 4 Troughwell Lane Wells Wrenthorpe Wakefield 85. 86. 87.(16/001-004) 88.(all) A C Penny J Streeves M G Poole R Heacock 8 Badgers Close 5 Princes Gardens The Old School Wanborough Codsall Alton Barnes Swindon Wolverhampton Marlborough Wiltshire 89.(all) 90.(16/001-004) 91.(16/001 & 92.(all) J Jenkins R & H Cross 17/002) A Collins Turnip End Cottage 45 Blackwood P Armstrong Coalville Leicestershire 93.(16/001-004) 94.(16/001 & 95. 96.(all) A J Ackland 17/002) P Heathcote A Braddock 24 St George’s View J Nicholas Lonsdale 4 Borderside Cullompton Botley Road Yateley Curbridge Hampshire 97.(all) 98. 99. 100. M Lancashire N Sumpter M Orford T Aslet Felsted 61 Provene Gardens 29 Cranesfield Essex Waltham Chase Basingstoke Southampton Hampshire 101.(16/001-004) 102.(all) 103.(all) 104. A M Dodds J Harle A Mitchell C Rainsbury 136 St Katherines Road Exeter 105.(all) 106. 107. 108. R C White J Brodribb S Teeling D Mills 66 Fore Street 28 Impstone Road Buckfastleigh Pamber Heath Tadley

109. (all) 110.(all) 111. 112. J Smallwood J Lucas P Jamieson M Bodman 16 Sapte Close 25 Chaffinch Drive Cranleigh Cullompton Surrey 113.(all) 114.(16/001-004) 115. 116. M Bladwell J White J Heys G Bowden Conegar Farm 63 Godfrey Gardens Hollis Hill Bow Beaminster Crediton Dorset 117. 118.(16/001-004) 119.(16/001-003 & 120. T Francis P Bradshaw 005) M J Ball 34 Etsome Terrace Plas y Graig J & S Arthurs Somerton Penrhyndeudraeth Little Oaks Farm Gwynedd Bicknacre Road Danbury Essex 121. 122. 123.(all) 124. P Gunstone A Steele A Pickersgill D Wookey 1 St Hild’s Court Flat 1 Clock House 21 Grove Road Durham Dogflud Way Whimple Farnham Exeter Surrey 125.(16/001-005) 126. 127. 128. P Burns D Bloomfield W Curry M Denny Moy Avenue 16 Hatfield Road 46 Tilford Road Derby Weston-super-Mare Farnham 129. 130. 131. 132.(16/001 & P Gallon R Greenwell C Harvey 17/002) 44 Herbert Road 3 Beech Close 11 Lyndhurst Close R Horne South Willesborough Hanwood Winchester Ashford Shrewsbury Kent 133. 134. 135. 136. M Swainson K Turk S Walker M A Hooper Amberwood 16 Bartletts Elm Kirkby in Ashfield Will and Old Village Lynsted Langport Nottinghamshire Devon Kent

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  Keen financial supporter of the reconstruction of the railway and fully support these supplemental applications  These applications are essential to the reinstatement of a viable railway, and appropriate controlled development in the area  Proposals in respect of the above must be an immense asset to the area and future tourism with increased income and have my total support  This will help display the full beauty of the national park, from a totally different view point.  It can only help the County, in these uncertain times  We strongly believe the plans are sympathetic with Exmoor’s beauty and won’t scar or damage the landscape, rather adding to it, just like many other heritage steam railways, have done before it  With Lynton and Lynmouth quite often busy with vehicles and coaches we believe that

the park and ride facility at Blackmore gate for those wishing to travel by railway is a no brainer.  This is the beginning of something special for Exmoor and of course tourism will undoubtedly benefit as well as new jobs and the local economy  The reinstated railway and its associated buildings will all serve a very useful purpose for transport, tourism, economy, education, jobs, people’s enjoyment, a living museum rather than a business trying to make money and without damaging the lovely Exmoor scenery.  The railway can work with the community and its surroundings just like it once did all those years ago.  For those who dislike the idea of a reinstated narrow gauge railway, we believe the benefits of this railway will bring far outweigh the negative responses  The return of a narrow-gauge railway to the scene, using a largely intact infrastructure, will bring with it increased income to the area, create jobs – and remove the need for many of the motor vehicles using the A39 from entering the National Park  Well-known case where a narrow gauge railway has been brought back from the dead is The Welsh Highland Railway in North Wales (largely within Snowdonia National Park); there, the local area has seen an upsurge in visitor numbers, jobs created, and local businesses (especially in the hospitality, catering and accommodation sectors) greatly benefitting  Further evidence one should look to Scotland, at the town of Mallaig in the West Highlands, a daily steam train has greatly benefitted the town and not a single extra car on the road has resulted  The proposed extension line will bring in yet more visitors to North Devon who will further help the local economy  As already been proved, with the reopening of the Welsh Highland Railway, a railway is both the most effective, and unobtrusive method of bringing visitors into a National Park with the minimum of environmental impact.  A reinstated railway, when complete, will be a massive draw for tourism and a revitalisation of the local economy.  The re-instatement of the railway is of national importance, providing authentic restoration of a key part of the North Devon and Exmoor’s industrial heritage.  Similar projects elsewhere include West Somerset Railway and the Paignton and Dartmouth Railway.  Although not local, I am a regular visitor to North Devon and the Railway.  The line traverses difficult terrain for a railway and its extensive civil engineering features are of significant national historic value.  Great care must be exercised in preserving these assets for the nation as they are an important part of our industrial heritage.  The railway has the potential to add benefits to Countryside Access leading to health and sustainable transport benefits.  Having seen the considerable financial and environmental benefits that the area has enjoyed since the rebuilding of the Swanage Railway – I see no reason why the same benefits should not be enjoyed in North Devon and Exmoor.  The engineering skills kept alive by this railway are valuable and encourage our children to consider mechanical and engineering careers.  A fully restores railway would enhance the attraction of the area enormously.  Job/apprenticeship creation as the railway grows can only help the people of the area and is surely to be encouraged.  The short term issues of building work should not cloud the long term benefits of the project.  A valuable park and ride facility for visitors to Lynton and Lynmouth and ultimately Barnstaple

 Will bring a service for local people  The railway track bed is still physically there and only needs minimal disruption to re-lay the track to make it operational.  From the proposals submitted it seems considerable effort has been made to minimise the disruption to local communities, the environment, flora and fauna, during the construction phase and the eventual operation phase.  As the general manager of a heritage steam railway in Snowdonia National Park I can attest to the fact that the railway proposed has a minimal impact on its environment. Indeed, it will form something of a ‘wildlife corridor’ remaining undisturbed for the vast majority of the day. It is more likely that the re-instated railway will reduce disruption.  The South Devon heritage railway complements the local landscape – there is every reason to suppose this application will bring a similar benefit.  The railway will create new habitats for the local wildlife along the trackbed.  This will provide a safe transport facility that allows people to view the countryside out of a window from a train.  We are talking about a World- famous little railway that could be brought back to life using existing infrastructure and boost tourism and associated benefits to the whole area – talk about a gift horse!

62/50/16/001 Local letters of SUPPORT from Exmoor & North Devon area received following receipt of additional details in January 2017

ADDRESS . 1.(all) . 2.(001, 002, 003, 3.(all) 4.(001 & 002) . B Hope 005) William Graham N Backhouse & A . 35 Redlands Road, . William Garfield The Old Bill Couzens Fremington . Lynton Cottage Lynton RES Devon Ltd Hotel . 5. 6.(all) 7. 8. . S Thornborough A Burgess F Baird J Salter . Woolacombe South Molton Braunton Parracombe

9. 10.(all) 11.(all) 12.(all) N Beresford M Wyatt C & K Blakey J & S Tuck Bideford East Down 27 Lee Road Lynton Lynton 13.(all) 14.(all) 15.(all) 16. (all) D Pratt A Seymour A Giles T Meakin Barnstaple Bampton Barnstaple Chair of LETA-Lyn Economic & Tourism Alliance 17.(all) 18. 19. 20. P Knox D Moore R Friendship M & D Gardiner Whinbrae Bratton Fleming Northam Lynton Torrington 21. 22.(all) 23. 24. D Harding W Pryor K Vingoe D Tooke Parracombe Lynton Cinema Ltd Parracombe Ilfracombe

25.(all) 26.(all) 27.(all) 28.(all) I Sutton J Teeling H Bromidge N Minto Carhampton Swimbridge Braunton Swimbridge

29.(all) 30.(all) 31.(001-003) 32. (001) D & M Burgess S Hancock D Gliddon T J S Wilkinson South Molton Ilfracombe Williton Owner of Fairview, Churchtown

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  See little else that will keep the town alive – with the imminent closure of the Bank and rumours about the Post Office there has to be a major attraction brought into the area to maintain or even retain the existing infrastructure.  Although Parracombe will gain only a small amount from being in the middle of the line, we see it as critical to the larger picture; the completion of this project, which we hope will bring extra tourism, jobs and revenue into the area.  Already seen the benefit of the existing line, which will significantly increase with the proposals. This is of importance both locally and nationally, in the Heritage Railway world in particular.

 This will be of great benefit to Exmoor and North Devon – the economy of the south west if heavily dependent on tourism and any addition to this would have a positive effect.  Reopening the railway would offer opportunities for enjoyment.  Will extend the holiday season to the benefit of holiday accommodation providers.  The applicant has done everything that can be reasonably expected to answer the queries raised – I would like to see a conclusion to the planning process so we can move forward with some certainty.  Whilst I initially had concerns about disruption during the construction phase – I now have no objections.  This is an important piece of the area’s history.  This application is proposed by an organisation that is committed, honest, professional and all dealing with the public have been on those terms.  This is a reinstatement not a new idea.  The railway was taken away so quickly no one had the opportunity to save it.  There will be disruption, but I am confident that any problems will be dealt with in a respectful way.  There are many unsubstantiated assumptions and comments included in the Peter Brett Associates Report through Foot Anstey dated March 2016.  The application offers an opportunity to ENPA to bring a viable new transport link to the area, although it is of a heritage nature, it is this which attracts the visitor due to the unique charm of this historic railway.  The extension of the railway will transform a very modest, though attractive, tourist attraction into a major asset for North Devon.  The new owner of the property Fairview in Churchtown supports the application and considers this will bring significant benefits to the local tourism economy and provide vital employment for the local area.

62/50/16/001 letters of OBJECTION received following receipt of additional details in January 2017

Letters received further to reporting in May Committee Report but before amended details and reconsultation.

1.(all) D Bastock, East Bodley Farm, Parracombe (6 May 2016) (in addition to comments already made)

 The EIA submitted is at best misleading and at worst incorrect – urge ENPA to carry out its own independent review.  An example would be the lack of assessment on health to the local community in particular Air Quality Management and pollution control (e.g. in respect of emissions of smoke, fumes, gases, dust, steam, smell and use of chemicals).  Cutting a railway track through ANOB cannot been seen as positive to the ecology.

Objection letters – received following consultation/notification of amended details

1.(all) Barn Owl Trust  Previously recommended that protected species surveys for all buildings or structures within the development footprint subject to demolition, renovation or conversion, we note with dismay that such surveys don’t appear to be deemed necessary.  This is particularly important for application 62/50/16/002 and 62/50/16/004 which involve change of use or demolition of rural buildings 2.(all) Sally Bastock, East Bodley Farm, Parracombe  Previous comments stand – wish to add the following  Proposals conflict with the aims, vision and general policies, purposes and duty of the National Park – they are incongruous to the special qualities.  Highway safety and traffic concerns  Noise pollution and visual impact concerns  Air and soil pollution concerns  Concern that this represents major development and that the tests for major development in national parks is not satisfied.

3.(all) David Bastock, East Bodley Farm, Parracombe  The proposals run contra to the National Park special qualities  The major development tests are not satisfied.

4. (001) Sally Dallyn, 1 Higher Kemacott, Martinhoe Sid and Joy Dallyn, Joydale, Kemacott Kay Dallyn, 2 Higher Kemacott, Martinhoe Kevin Harris and Josie Watts, Kemacott Cottage, Parracombe  Support comments of concern already raised by David and Sally Bastock.  Exmoor is supposed to be special and is supposed to be protected  Majority of neighbour responses have been submitted from all over the country and are simply letters.  ENP did not exist when the Railway did  Blackmoor Gate is one of the gateways to Exmoor and this would be ruined through the development proposed – turning the area in to something like a theme park.  The developers imply that they have the fully support of landowners, but this is not the case – they are arrogant that they have rights because there was a previous railway.  We strongly oppose any further development that will spoil the unique beauty of Exmoor and its wildlife for future generations to appreciate and enjoy.

5.(001) Foot Anstey On behalf of Mrs Grob, Court Place Farm, Parracombe Owner of land over which the railway would pass

 Would like to make the obvious fundamental point that if ever there was a need to show why a Public Inquiry was the appropriate mechanism for determining an application, the proposed application is it.  The applicant has put the ENPA in a very difficult position – assuming the applicant is not willing to withdraw the application, the ENPA should refuse the application, enabling it to be determined at a Public Inquiry by way of a forensic examination of the land use case for and against the scheme, taken in its totality. That is the only way in which the ENPA and its residents can demonstrably be sure that the application has been fully and properly considered, and that a fair decision can be reached.  It is common ground that the application is for “major development”. As major development, the requirements of paragraph 116 of the NPPF are triggered. If the application does not meet the test in paragraph 116, planning permission should be refused, unless the development plan and other material considerations outweigh such a conclusion.  Paragraph 116 requires “exception circumstances” to be shown, and for the application to be in the public interest. The first is the need for the development – it is clear that the development does not, in fact, meet any need.  The tests in para 116 are not ‘light touch’. In Franks v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 3690, the Court confirmed that the requirement for “exceptional circumstances” is “a stringent requirement”. In order to overcome that stringent requirement, something very special has to be proposed, for the

very obvious reason that the National Park is already very special, and should be left alone unless something at least as special is proposed.  With respect to the applicants, the applicant is demonstrably and evidentially not very special, other than to other railway enthusiasts. It makes barely any contribution towards meeting the National Park’s employment needs, tourism needs or National Park purposes, and it does nothing to contribute towards the Park’s transport needs. This is not a subjective view – it is what the evidence shows.  Whilst the railway may deliver some benefits, that is not the same as delivering a need, and the LPA should not confuse the two concepts.  As it happen, all of the benefits that could be created by the proposal could be met in a number of other, better and much less harmful ways.

6.(001 -005) Mr and Mrs Bray, Rowley Barton Farm, Parracombe and Mr and Mrs Anthony, Rowley Cottage, Parracombe

Owners of land over which the railway would pass

Two letters of representation received

 Appreciate the bridge application [for the private access drive to their properties from the A39] and approve the design – this goes some way to solving one of the issues, namely that of access to and from Rowley Barton Farm and the residential properties of Rowley Barton and Rowley Cottage. Nevertheless, concerns and objections remain, not least because of the apparent lack of finance to complete the reinstatement.  The railway does not have the money to finance this project – these is no mention of any grant funding, there is no corporate partner, no commercial sponsorship, no mention of any grant funding and no civil engineering company ready to step in to lead their expertise or financial support.  We no idea how money will be raised for this major project – we could have a situation whereby the railway is constructed in a piecemeal way, blighting the National Park for years to come.  Concern with the proposed business plan. The trustees now need to give a clear indication of how this project will be financed.  We note that the railway makes claim to a dramatic increase in passenger numbers from 2012-2016. According to the L&BR, passenger numbers are drawn directly “from the guards logbook”. These figures have to be viewed with a certain amount of suspicion, given the fact that passengers can “pay once and travel all day”. Are we seeing inflated annual figures from passengers being recounted? This offer, which is available during peak season, is indicative of the fact that they do not have enough passengers to fill the carriages. Passenger numbers do not equate to finance, “Need” is another important material consideration.  The proposed reinstatement raises a number of questions regarding the risk of flooding – concern that clearing and reconstruction of the railway line will create a river as the railway will act as a water corridor – concerned that the requirements of Policy CC-D1 (Flood Risk) of the Plan are not satisfied.

7.(001) Mrs Grob, Court Place Farm, Parracombe

Owner of land over which the railway would pass  A gala weekend is advertised for the unveiling of a completely new engine. Does the Authority accept that an “entirely new engine” contradicts the representations made by the L&BR planning application for the reinstatement of the heritage line? 8.(001) Mr Grob

Owner of land over which the railway would pass

 Feel obliged to draw attention to the mis-representations relating to the LBRs plans for their expansion – since the LBR company first revealed their plans to extend their track to Blackmoor Gate the overriding justification has been the honest reinstatement of the original “heritage” railway. I believe many of their other original justifications, that it would be used as a transport link, a park and ride, with tens of millions injected into the local economy, dozens of new local jobs, have pretty much been consigned to the bin. Its financial case, if one includes the full reinstatement from Barnstaple to Lynton is financial folly. That leaves only “heritage” as justification.  New track, new passing loops, new carriages, new engines, new houses, new imported hard core, new bridges, new workshops can never be anything other than reproductions or pastiche. They maybe painted in Edwardian guise but they are new. They are definitely not heritage.  The railway heritage that is still in place, and can be enjoyed, will be completely destroyed if this plan goes ahead.  Our beautiful village is already suffering the effects of this. Houses that come on to the market are purchased as second homes for weekend enthusiasts.  To encourage this is unforgivable and the potential Disneyfication of a National Park is a disgrace.

62/50/16/001 letters of OBSERVATION received following receipt of additional details in January 2017

1 M Ryall, Hollacombe Farm, Kentisbury Concerned that too little attention is being paid by DCC Highways to the consequences of the increase in traffic at the A39/A399 junction. Consideration should be given to installing 2 mini roundabouts at each T-junction.

2 J Holtom, Parracombe The proposals appear to contradict the promotion of Exmoor as an area of clean air, clear skies and tranquillity. If the world of commerce prevails – the route should adhere to the historic route. An extension of the Parracombe Halt will increase noise and air pollution – further research should be done into the impact of additional smoke pollution.

3 F de Falbe, Heddon Hall, Parracombe Concerns with surface water at Cricket Field Lane and that Heddon Hall is property protected from run-off.

62/50/16/001 Letters received in SUPPORT from outside Exmoor & North Devon area or location not specified on the correspondence following receipt of further details November 2017

ADDRESS 1.(all) . 2. 3. 4. P. Burns . M. Wyatt A Pearce A. Jones Moy Avenue . Gratton Cotage Kempshott Torquay Derby . East Dwon Basingstoke . North Devon . 5. 6. 7. 8. R. P. Weaver R. Beazer M. Pearce R. Hunneman Corsham Cranleigh Basingstoke Newbury Wiltshire Surrey

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 A heritage railway is a type of railway which is operated as a living history to re-create or preserve railway scenes of the past. Heritage railway lines contain historic rail infrastructure that has been substituted or made obsolete in modern railway transit systems.  Angry as some neighbour comments against the proposals.  The line is so needed in the north Devon area.  This will bring both trade and employment to the area.  This is a way of taking sightseeing drivers off the road, enabling them to appreciate the unique scenery without prejudice without interruption and improving the safety of other road users.  The current application to extend the line will only add further to it becoming equal in the benefit it provides for North Devon as the many narrow gauge railways in North Wales now do for that part of the country.

62/50/16/001 Letters of OBJECTION following receipt of further details November 2017

1.(001 - 005) Mr N Rafferty, Rose Cottage, Bridge Ball, Nr. Lynton Owner of The Halt bungalow proposed to be demolished  Objections have not changed (from those raised 18/2/16).  Railway requires demolish of the bungalow, which I own and also work be over land I own at Rowley Cross.  The attitude of the Railway Trust continues to be both arrogant and offensive.  If any support is given to the applications then the principles of compulsory purchase is also being advocated which is offensive and wrong.

2. (005) Sally & David Bastock, East Bodley Farm, Parracombe  Objections raised in previous correspondence remain.  The amendments do not alter the fact that these plans are part of a Major Development that could be built outside the National Park.  The proposals do not meet or support the Aims, Vision and General Policies, Purposes and Duty of the National Park.  Greater national weight is growing to rectify historic damage already caused to the environment. National Parks should be at the forefront of championing measures such as improving air quality.

3.(001 -005) Mr and Mrs Bray, Rowley Barton Farm, Parracombe and Mr and Mrs Anthony, Rowley Cottage, Parracombe

Owners of land over which the railway would pass  Reiterate concerns and objections raised before.  Appreciate amended bridge design (for Rowley Barton access), however concerned that Lower Rowley bridge would not be suitable.  Concern regarding access to land and for livestock to water.  Flood risk concerns repeated – the railway will create a water corridor. Concern that watercourses and surface water will not be managed suitably.  Concern regarding the financial position of the railway – we are two years into these planning applications and still no clearer as to how this railway will be financed.  Business Plan. If the railway trustees cannot give an accurate account of their financial situation with regards to the £16.5m+ needed to reconstruct the railway, we can reasonably assume that they are unable to attract investors because their business plan is not viable.  For the last two years we have questioned the railway’s claimed passenger numbers – these figures underpin the credibility of the business plan. The applicants, at the Parracombe Parish Council meeting, advised that the

passenger numbers also include the passengers who pay once and travel all day. Therefore, passengers are recounted, giving an inaccurate figure of the genuine number of passengers.  We are concerned that the existing local economy will not withstand the disruption caused by these proposals. 4. (001) Mr F de Falbe, Heddon Hall, Parracombe  The proposals do not adequately address flood risk and drainage for reinstating the railway bed and tack.  The environmental impact has similarly not been addressed.  The weight of letters in support of the proposals, without consideration, is from out of area people and councils (eg Berrynarbor) who have not to consider the long term impact of the project.  proposed extension of the Railway in its present form will destroy the character of Churchtown.  The proposed development is out of proportion with this quiet and peaceful ancient settlement and will impinge on the four adjacent listed properties.  The proposal is at odds with the Local Plan policy requirements – because of the scale of development and extra infrastructure at Parracombe Halt and because of noise and air pollution. 5. (001) Mr W Grob, Court Place Farm, Parracombe  I never expected to see scenes of dismay that have been occurring over the last few years due to the Lynton & Barnstaple Railway obsessing over their “last railway adventure”.  People within our community have had strokes and nervous breakdowns, we have seen people harassed out of their homes.  I am worried that the consultation process lacked consultation, with no place to record concerns about the total lack of conservation and total disregard to the wildlife.  I could see 15 million other ways to spend £15 million than a park and ride that goes nowhere.  No one under the age of 50 would waste £18 for a family ticket to throw up on the windy and twisting hills of Exmoor.  I see no logic whatsoever for Exmoor National Park Authority to even consider approving the extra miles of train track, because it goes against what you should stand for. Conservation is the most important contribution you can give the youth, please don’t take that away from my family and me.  The project will take 10 years to complete, you have to consider the rain, it will destroy the roads, which someone will have to pay for and if not the roads it will destroy the land.  There will be light pollution, sound pollution, and probably general pollution.  I see no benefits in this project only pain, frustration and a waste of money.  The only people that will use this novelty train set are people already within the ‘train community’ they gain no extra people by gaining extra track because the train still goes nowhere.

6. (001) Mr K Govier, The Ark, Parracombe  Supports the objections raised by Parracombe Parish Council dated 7/12/17.  Concerned that not enough consideration is being given to the matter of pollution this project will cause – particularly at a time when nationally and internationally countries are serious at reducing the use of fossil fuels.  It is inconceivable that a National Park would support a project that relies on outdated and harmful fuel. 7. (001) Mr D Grob, Court Place Farm, Parracombe Owner of land over which the railway would pass  The proposal is not supported under Policy RT-S2 of the Local Plan.  The plans for the Halt are not policy compliant - there is no attempt to reinstate or replicate the original halt at Parracombe.  The Railway has chosen not to use more than adequate buildings in suitable proximity, preferring to buy and sell them for speculative reasons and in addition insuring their removal for local housing.  Under the Policy new buildings will only be considered where it can be demonstrated that there are no existing building suitable for re-use, which is not considered to have been demonstrated.  The new buildings and halt structures do not complement the character of the original railway.  The proposals don’t respond to landscape character.  The enormous platforms and use of hardcore and concrete cannot benefit any wildlife.  Public safety would be compromised by operating such a large facility at the top of a steep hill serviced by a single track road will blind corners and the nearest toilet facilities a 40 minute round trip walk for a young fit person and certainly not for the demographic served by the railway.  Concern with the state and condition of works recently carried out at Fair View which is owned by one of the railways supporters. 8. (001-005) Foot Anstey LLP, including Counsel opinion on behalf of Mrs Grob, Court Place Farm, Parracombe Owner of land over which the railway would pass  Prematurity – the Local Plan is clear in its objective to reinstate a continuous route along the safeguarded former railway line. Policy RT-S2 does not seek partial reinstatement. It does not seek instatement in phases. Its objective and purpose can only be met through a comprehensive scheme. Instead the application essentially piecemeal development, with inevitable piecemeal and negligible benefits. The full reinstatement will require significant land acquisitions and funding. Until the whole scheme can be assessed against the policy, it is not possible for ENPA to reach a planning judgement that the current piecemeal applications are policy compliant.  Survey date – the data supporting the applications is lacking in significant areas. For example, there have been no heritage surveys along the track line. The noise survey information provided cannot be validated as the

applicants will not release the data. Wildlife surveys are decifient because these are no at least 2 years old. Traffic date is inaccurate as lorry movements are now proposed to avoid Parracombe yet the submitted TA does not address this impact, nor its practicality.  Land Ownership – my client has been steadfast throughout the process and has made it clear that she will never voluntarily sell her land to the railway company. Importantly, my client’s ownership raises the issue of deliverability. As the Opinion confirms, any grant of planning permission without a suitable Grampian condition would be unlawful, for the reasons given.  The Behaviour of the Railway Company – It has been well-documented that the railway company’s approach to these applications has been hugely damaging to local residents and local communities. There have been allegations of bullying, misogyny, intimidation and lying. The applicants have caused enormous stress to many people, including my client and many within Parracombe.  In conclusion, before Members make their decision, they are respectfully reminded that their overriding objective is to only permit major schemes where they can be shown to have major benefits. These applications fail that simple test. It may be, one day, that a comprehensive, fully-funded scheme is presented to the ENPA and a thorough analysis can be undertaken. Until then, the policies will remain in place but permission for these applications should be resoundingly refused.  Conclusions of Counsel for the client – ~ The ancillary development cannot lawfully be granted planning permission without a suitable Grampian condition preventing implementation until the continuous linear route of the railway has been reinstated; ~ Any planning permission for the railway reinstatement would have to be subject to a Grampian condition preventing implementation until such time as the Promoters have acquired the necessary land and funding to deliver and maintain a continuous linear railway; and ~ Given the evidence that Mrs Grob will not make her land available, there are no prospects at all of the Promoters acquiring the necessary land within the time-limit imposed by the permission. EMPA would be entitled to refuse planning permission on this basis.

62/50/16/001 Letters of OBSERVATION following receipt of further details November 2017

1 N Sumpter Cannot understand why only 1 mile has been opened in nearly 12 years. You seem to be purposely putting barriers up and delaying things, it seems to stop the railway opening anymore. The more that is opened the more tourists it will attract and bring more money to Exmoor and North Devon.

62/50/16/002 – ENGINE SHED

62/50/16/002 Letters received in SUPPORT from outside Exmoor & North Devon area or location not specified on the correspondence following receipt of applications in February 2016

ADDRESS . 1.(all) . 2.(all) 3.(all) 4.(all) . Brian George . Philip Groves L C Franklin A Bray Nottingham Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire 5. 6.(all) 7. 8.(all) Gordon Eves D J Dawkins T E Wreford R D Parkinson Northwich Hastings Matson Wisbech Cheshire East Sussex Gloucester Cambs 9. 10.(all) 11. 12. A Edmonds E W Lawrence J Barton M de Young Finchdean Plymouth Walkhampton Aylesford Waterlooville Devon 13. (all) 14.(all) 15.(all) 16. J Laytham I D Miles C Duffell D M Dell Nottingham Lower Durston Ashbourne London Taunton Derbys 17. 18. 19. 20. A Marshall Mr & Mrs Palmer M Orford R Youngson Worthing Derriford Southampton Knottingley West Sussex Plymouth West Yorkshire 21.(all) 22.(all) 23.(all) 24. (all) J A V Smallwood Mr A M Keene M J Ball R & H Cross Kingston upon Sweden Coalville Thames Leicestershire

25. (all) 26.(all) 27. (all) 28.(all) R & S Barnard C Rainsbury C Sheppy A McCartney Altrincham Kent North Petherton Cheshire Somerset 29.(all) 30.( all) 31.(all) 32. (all) C Hughes S Howe T Peart G Piercy Street Willow Ford Cottage Somerset Truro 33. (all) 34. (all) 35.(all) 36.(all) N & A Drake C Knight D Spanner M R J Bayly Perth Fleet Overland Park Western Australia Hampshire USA 37. (all) 38. (all) 39. (all) 40.(all) D E Thompson C Summers M Thompson A Clark Exeter Essex Cross in Hand Tadworth E Sussex Surrey

41.(all) 42.(all) 43.(all) 44. P Bowes M Harding Exeter & Teign J Heys Chester-le-Street 2 Balmain Road Valley Railway Broadwindsor Newcastle Dorset 45.(all) 46.(all) 47.(all) 48. (all) M Denny J Collinge A Lowe F H Turner Farnham Galmpton Cramlington Brixham Northumberland 49. (all) 50.(all) 51. (all) 52. (all) D Faulkner D Ball M Ashfield T Roy London Northallerton North Yorkshire

53. (all) 54.(all) 55.(all) 56.(all) D Blencowe B Powell L Braine T J Butler Exeter

57.(all) 58. (all) 59.(all) 60.(all) R J Trill C Maycock C F Sampson R Jones Rochester London Kent 61.(all) 62.(all) 63.(all) 64.(all) D Mills P Snashall J Snashall A J L Hill Tadley Ashford Ashford Hampshire Kent Kent 65.(all) 66.(all) 67.(all) 68.(all) J Gough K Staddon P J Curson T Grimley Winford Roydon Moseley Somerset Norfolk Birmingham 69. (all) 70.(all) 71.(all) 72.(all) M Steel J Bird N Illingworth M L Smith Dorchester Dorset 73.(all) 74.(all) MP D Tervet

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 As per 62/41/50/001  The development is necessary in order to provide essential covered accommodation to protect the rolling stock from the varied weather on Exmoor.  The scheme has been sensitively designed to fit these essential facilities into the landscape.  Rowley Moor is the best site for such extensive facilities as its environmental impact will be minimal.

62/50/16/002 Letters received in SUPPORT from Exmoor & North Devon area on the correspondence following receipt of applications in February 2016

ADDRESS . 1.(all) . 2.(all) 3.(all) 4.(all) . Lynton & Lynmouth . Mark Blathwayt R & C Walsh R Briden Tourist Information . Porlock Manor Fernleigh Guest Shelleys Centre Estate House Lynmouth Lynton . 5.(all) . 6. 7.(all) 8. . LETA-Lyn Economic . T I Morrison J Rainger N B Oakley & Tourism Alliance . Bideford Kings Nympton 3 Sea Closes Combe Martin 9. 10.(all) 11.(all) . 12.(all) K Vingoe C & J Lane C Blakey . A Pickersgill Woody Bay Station 13 Walton Way Lee House Bideford . . Barnstaple Lynton 13.(all) 14.(001-004) 15. 16.(all) G & J Towell D Tooke G Bridge B Leadbetter Birch Cottage 3 Torrs Walk Av. High Bickington Walsal House Martinhoe Ilfracombe . Lynton 17. Local MP

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  Comments as with 001.  Relocating the operating base of the railway to this location will be a major step in creasing skilled employment to the area.

62/50/16/002 Letters received of OBJECTION following receipt of applications in February 2016

1.(all) Foot Anstey (3 letters) On behalf of Mrs Grob, Court Place Farm, Parracombe

Owner of land over which the railway would pass  As listed under 62/50/16/001 2. (all) Slee Blackwell Solicitors (2 letters) On behalf of Mr & Mrs Humprey Bray, Rowley Barton, Parracombe

Owner of farmland at Rowley Barton impacted by the proposals, with the rail line crossing over their land and access  As listed under 62/50/16/001 3.(001, 002, 003 and 004) Slee Blackwell Solicitors (2 letters) On behalf of Mr & Mrs Anthony, Rowley Cottage, Parracombe

Owner of land at Rowley Cottage impacted by the proposals, with the rail line crossing over  (Comments of Slee Blackwell) As there are in effect four related planning permissions in connection with the proposed railway line, we do not consider that they should be determined by the Exmoor National Park Authority. We consider that the Authority has already publicly signified its approval of the proposals as it supports them within its 10 year plan. We believe that there applications should be determined by an independent authority and trust these will be referred to DEFRA for this purpose.  (Comments of Mr Mrs Anthony) THOSE IN ADDITION TO CONCERNS RAISED RELATING TO 001…these relate to 002, 003 and 004  Strongly opposed to the general suburbanisation of the Blackmoor Gate area.  The original railway consisted of a station house, the proposed development far exceeds that and would be out of scale and overbearing.  The rolling stock shed being of sheet steel would be ugly and unacceptable.  The security lighting would damage the status of the Dark Sky Reserve.  This will alter the character of this peaceful gateway.  Why is the parking capacity designated for Blackmoor Gate – this is unacceptable visually and logistically.  Concern that ENPA is not impartial  Wildlife surveys must be comprehensive and exhaustive. 4.(all) D Bastock East Bodley Farm, Bodley Lane, Parracombe  As listed under 62/50/16/001.

5.(all) D J Carter Myosotis, Bodley Lane, Parracombe  As listed under 62/50/16/001.

6. (001, 002) Mr & Mrs Wilson Hedna Cottage, Church Town, Parracombe

Railway would pass immediately behind house and garden  In addition to concerns expressed in relation to 001.  Potential unsightly industrial appearance at the gateway to the National Park.  Increase in traffic through A39/A399 junction.  Increase in noise and air pollution.  Adverse impact on wildlife.

7.(001-004) Mr & Mrs Anthony and Mr & Mrs Bray (3 letters, including letter from Mr J Anthony) Rowley Cottage, Parracombe

Line cross property access and land  In addition to concerns expressed in relation to 001  This I not a reinstatement of a heritage railway, the proposals represent a substantial new development of industrial buildings and a car park, which is out of scale and character.  The building is disproportionate and does not reflect local vernacular.  Not convinced by the proposed landscape mitigation or its suitability.  These proposals should be located outside the National Park nearer their original locations.  There is no need for such infrastructure for the proposed 4.5 miles line extension.  Premature to grant permission for the goods shed without certainty over the wider line extensions.  Concerned about light pollution and impact on the Dark Sky Reserve.  Incongruous development, introducing a theme park element to the area, undermining its special qualities.  Concerned about viability and the long term impact of the railway particularly if it fails again and leaves a legacy of unsightly and unnecessary urbanisation in Exmoor National Park. 8.(001&002) G Nicholls Higher East Middleton, Parracombe

Owner of land impacted by the proposals, with the rail line crossing over

 As listed under 62/50/16/001.

9.(all) Mr P Greenhow Mill House, 26 The Green, Otterton, Budleigh Salterton  As listed under 62/50/16/001.

10.(all) Peter Heaton-Jones MP Conservative, North Devon

Letter to ask that constituents. Mr & Mrs Bastock, letter of objection is taken into account when determining the application.

11.(all) Mr & Mrs Smoldon South Thorne, Bratton Fleming  As listed under 62/50/16/001.

12.(all) C Lee, Otterton, Devon  As listed under 62/50/16/001.

13. .(all) A Barton Devon Bat Group

 As listed under 62/50/16/001 14.(all) J King-Fretts & M Bowden

 As listed under 62/50/16/001 15.(all) M Osmond Coulsworthy House, Combe Martin

 As listed under 62/50/16/001

16. (all) Mr Grob Primrose Cottage, Churchtown, Parracombe

Owner of land effected  As listed under 62/50/16/001

17.(all) Mr & Mrs Holtom Little Close, Church Lane, Parracombe  As listed under 62/50/16/001

18.(all) S Bastock East Bodley Farm, Parracombe  As listed under 62/50/16/001

19. P Taylor Voley Farm, Parracombe  The proposals to turn a farm field into an industrial area and sidings is contrary to ENPA planning policies and totally out of scale and character with the existing buildings and infrastructure at Blackmoor Gate.  The building would be visually intrusive and out of character.  Industrial lighting would be intrusive and detrimental to the Dark Sky Reserve status.

62/50/16/002 Letters received of OBSERVATION following receipt of applications in February 2016

1 International Otter Survival Fund The Otter survey carried out was only done on the River Heddon and the water course at Blackmoor Gate. There seem to be a number of other water courses which could be used by otters, but no surveys done. – Otters will use drainage ditches to travel. Also if banks are plan to allow otters to travel through culverts, fences will be required, which may need to be 100metres long. 2 S Manning, Martinhoe Old School As Blackmoor Gate will provide the main car park, parking at Woody Bay should be minimised and there should be a ban on coaches, mini-buses and camper vans using the car park. There should be a limitation on events at Woody Bay Car Park that would encourage travel to Woody Bay. There is a real prospect of increase use of road side parking. Lighting – it is noted that only horizontal light pollution measures are stated in the application but the point is light pollution is the result of upward lighting which is not limited by the application. Therefore, any lighting should be specifically down only and lighting should be minimised. Further any road reconfiguration should not result in the need for additional street lighting. 3 L Blanchard – Resident of Parracombe In general terms support is given to the proposal, but a number of reservations are held: LOCAL AMENITY AND SOCIAL BENEFITS There will undoubtedly be an increase in noise, both from the engine and from the whistle. To minimise this nuisance the numbers of trains per hour should be minimal and their frequency agreed with those residents closest to the line and Parracombe Parish Council. There will be considerable inconvenience to the village during construction phase including closure of some PRoWs. This is not acceptable and alternative footpath routes should be made available. Work should not start until all funding is in place. Welcome the provision of a local need affordable dwelling, but would recommend that both new dwellings are local need affordable dwellings. It is hard to see significant social benefit to residents and strong recommend that the opportunity to create a safe public footpath alongside the line of the railway should not be missed.

LANDSCAPE & VISUAL IMPACT It is clear that these applications will not fully meet the first purpose of the National Park. The proposed engine shed would have a significant adverse impact on this National Park Gateway site. The look and feel of Blackmoor Gate is currently slightly urban and the proposals need to reflect this gateway role and I am not convinced the design and landscape achieve this. The large agricultural barns at Rowley Moor Farm are in the ownership of the Railway, and these could be demolished to reduce the crowed industrial feel of buildings. WILDLIFE Welcome the aim to create a wildlife corridor along the line of the railway. Recommend that a management plan for wildlife areas is agreed with the LPA. TRAFFIC IMPACTS Measures to improve safety, already needed, would be imperative when traffic increases along this stretch of road. DARK SKIES RESERVE All lighting must be minimal and downlighting. Bright security spotlights would not be acceptable. ECONOMIC BENEFITS This proposal would benefit local people, in terms of jobs, as well as some local business even if the optimistic visitor projections are not fulfilled. NATIONAL PARK PURPOSES Welcome the opportunity that this proposal would give for people to enjoy and understand the National Park. The existing section of line has been especially beneficial for those with limited mobility, are frail or elderly, to enjoy spectacular scenery and wildlife and this enjoyment would be enhanced by the proposed extension.

62/50/16/002 Letters received in SUPPORT from outside Exmoor & North Devon area or location not specified on the correspondence following receipt of further details in January 2017

ADDRESS 1. . 2.(16/001-004) 3.(all) 4.(16/001-004) T R Wreford . C R Sheppy M L Smith K Staddon Flat 10 . 43 Broadlands X2 Letters 124 Matson Avenue Avenue Matson . North Petherton Gloucester 5.(16/001-004) 6. 7.(16/001-004) 8. M Harding J & L Palmer D Martin P Colley 85 Upland Drive 30 Starnhill Way 21 Queen Anne Derriford Bingham Gardens Plymouth Nottingham Falmouth 9.(all) 10. 11. 12. D E Gandell A Pearce A Walker R Barnard X2 letters 10 Robin Close 16 Mayflower Court 4 Egerton Drive Basingstoke Highbridge Hale Cheshire 13.(16/001-004) 14. 15. 16.(16/001-003 & T Carnell R Youngson T J Butler 005) 3 Summerway 3 Brotherton Court 15 Christchurch B Lane Exeter Knottingley Dorset Rockbeare West Yorkshire 17. 18. 19. 20. R Watson S Burgess J Godfrey T Spencer Laurel Cottage 61 Saxon Leas Dereham Road Winterslow Colkirk Wiltshire Fakenham Norfolk 21.(16/001-004) 22. 23. 24. D Ball D J A Smith A Higginson D Blencowe 28 Stuart Avenue 31 Loughborough Exeter Walton-on-Thames Road Surrey Quorn Leicestershire 25. 26.(16/001-003 & 27. 28. M Hargreaves 005) A Wreford G Piercy Dr J W Bond 23 Ivy Close 24 Redan Road Exeter Ware Hertfordshire 29. 30. 31. 32. A Cameron C Summers A Belsey G Lelliott 9 Bommel Avenue 3 Busticle Lane Canvey Island Sompting Essex Lancing West Sussex 33. 34. 35. 36. D & M Cameron M Pearce M Thompson A Wells Dunbar 1 Fulmar Close Myrtle Cottage 28 Field Farm Close Ingatestone Basingstoke Cross-in-Hand Bristol

Highwood Heathfield Chelmsford East Sussex

37. 38.(16/001-004) 39.(16/001-004) 40. G Dudman A Lowe Dr I Harrison J Woodley 7 Moor Place 23 Oakfield Way 1 Kestrel Road 28 Rowan Walk East Grinstead Seghill Kempshott Hornchurch West Sussex Cramlington Basingstoke Essex Northumberland 41. 42. 43. 44.(16/001/004) C Maycock Dr R Kay M Jackson C G Duffell 46 Sheringham 101 Cavalier Road 68 Cowslip Bank Alsop en le Dale Avenue Old Basing Lychpit Ashbourne London Basingstoke Derbys 45. 46. 47. 48. J Pounds N Dearden S Broomfield G Beale Pakyns Emu Cottage 14 Stockwood Vale Albourne Road Tanygrisiau Keynsham Hurstpierpoint Blaenau Ffestiniog Bristol West Sussex Gwynedd 49. 50. 51. 52. D Montague D Russell G Scott J Jackson 9 Leeson Close Craylands 19 Ridgeway 68 Cowslip Bank Swanage Medstead Ingatestone Lychpit Dorset Hampshire Essex Basingstoke 53.(16/001-004) 54.(16/001-004) 55. 56.(16/001-004) J Snashall P Snashall K S Burgess J Barton 112 Church Road 112 Church Road Kartanontie 9.A.24 Willesborough Willesborough 00330 Helsinki Ashford Ashford Finland Kent Kent 57. 58.(16/001-004) 59. 60. C Knight J Lakey R Bridle B Powell 41 Albert Street 114 Ivy Avenue 29 Londinium Way Fleet Bath North Hykeham Hampshire Lincoln 61. 62. 63.(16/001-004) 64. P Hebson J Andrews J Pavey M de Young Thornbury The Avenue Bishops Waltham 65.(16/001-004) 66.(16/001-004) 67.(16/001-004) 68. P Curson P Bowes P Ford D Edwards 25 Northlands 34 Campkin Road Chester le Street Wells 69.(all) 70. 71.(16/001-004) 72. E Mitchell J Curtis B & J Grundy A C Penny Dene Approach 4 Troughwell Lane Steeple Aston Wrenthorpe Wakefield

73. 74.(all) 75.(16/001-004) 76. D Taylor R J Ashmore S J Randall J Sreeves Woodside 4 Limewood Close 8 Badgers Close Loves Green Ealing Wanborough Highwood London Swindon Chelmsford Essex 77.(all) 78. 79.(16/001-004) 80.(all) R Heacock J Jenkins R & H Cross A Collins The Old School Turnip End Cottage 45 Blackwood Alton Barnes Coalville Marlborough Leicestershire 81.(16/001-004) 82. 83.(all) 84.(all) A J Ackland P Heathcote A Braddock M Lancashire 24 St George’s View Lonsdale 4 Borderside Felsted Cullompton Botley Road Yateley Essex Curbridge Southampton 85. 86.(16/001-004) 87.(16/001-004) 88.(16/001-002) B Bass & G Cowan G Miller M Tester N McGregor West House Benfleet 44 High Street 17 Porambaru Rousdon Essex Dry Drayton Emanoil Street Cambridge 011421 Bucharest Romania 89.(all) 90.(all) 91. 92. D R Robinson R Bradbury M J Ball A Steele 23 The Twistle Flat 1 Clock House Byfield Dogflud Way Daventry Farnham 93.(all) 94. 95. 96.(16/001-004) A Pickersgill M Orford T Aslet A M Dodds 61 Provene Gardens 29 Cranesfield Waltham Chase Basingstoke Southampton 97.(all) 98.(all) 99.(all) 100. J Harle A Mitchell R C White J Brodribb 136 St Katherines 66 Fore Street Rd Buckfastleigh Exeter 101.(all) 102. 103.(all) 104. J Lucas M Bodman M Bladwell D Mills 16 Sapte Close 25 Chaffinch Drive 28 Impstone Road Cranleigh Cullompton Pamber Heath Surrey Tadley Hampshire 105.(all) 106. 107.(16/001-004) 108. J Smallwood J Heys J White T Francis Conegar Farm 34 Etsome Terrace Hollis Hill Somerton Beaminster Dorset

109.(16/001-004) 110.(16/001-003 & 111. 112.(16/001-005) P Bradshaw 005) P Gunstone P Burns Plas y Graig J & S Arthurs 1 St Hilds Court Moy Avenue Penrhyndeuraeth Little Oaks Farm Durham Derby Gwynedd Bicknacre Road County Durham Danbury Essex 113. 114. 115. 116. D Bloomfield W Curry M Denny Mr & Mrs P Gallon 16 Hatfield Road 46 Tilford Road 44 Herbert Road Weston-super-Mare Farnham South Willesborough Ashford Kent 117. 118. 119. 120. R Greenwell C Harvey M Swainson K Turk 3 Beech Close 11 Lyndhurst Close Amberwood 16 Bartletts Elm Hanwood Winchester Lynsted Langport Shrewsbury Kent 121. 122. S Walker D Wookey 7 Thoreby Avenue 21 Grove Road Kirkby in Ashfield Whimple Nottinghamshire Exeter

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

 The whole Lynton & Barnstaple Railway’s Extensions and re-instatement is of primary importance to ENPA & North Devon.  The railway is very important, if not vital, to the future ecological, economic and environmental well-being of the National Park.  There can be no better way of stimulating the economy and sustainable development of the area.  There is a very great and increasing amount of interest in all aspects of local heritage, history and industrial archaeology.  As can be evidenced by the heritage railways in North Wales, which draw in huge amounts of business to the local and wider community, this is a unique opportunity to do the same.  Job/apprenticeship creation as the railway grows can only help the people of the area and is surely to be encouraged.  The carriage and Loco shed is an essential part of the railway – it is away from the road and is set down in a way that will hide its size, and with tree planting, should improve the general view.  As has been demonstrated in other parts of the country with other projects of this kind, the local economy, tourism and employment prospects have all improved as a result.  From the small length of line that has been re-constructed it’s clearly a very successful tourist venue, and any increase in that length can only produce even greater success.  The short term issues of building should not cloud the long term benefits of the project.  Attractions need good facilities to operate.  The re-opened railway would be a fantastic asset to Exmoor.  Enable visitors to enjoy the stunning scenery and tranquillity, without harming the unique environment.  A highly sympathetic and desirable development that should be encouraged in its entirety.

 As the railway extends, a valuable park and ride facility for visitors to Lynton & Lynmouth and ultimately Barnstaple.  The railway track bed is still physically there and only needs minimal disruption to re- lay the track to make it operational.  The plans are sympathetic with Exmoor’s beauty and won’t scar or damage the landscape, rather adding to it, just like many other heritage steam railways, have done before it.  The park and ride facility at Blackmore gate for those wishing to travel by railway is a no brainer.  The railway works will all serve a very useful purpose for transport, tourism, economy, education, jobs, people’s enjoyment, a living museum rather than a business trying to make money.  The railway can work with the community and its surroundings just like it did all those years ago.  Believe that the benefits this railway will bring far outweigh the negative responses.  The chosen location is easily the most unobtrusive possible for this very necessary piece of the railway’s infrastructure.  I notice from the revised Landscape Masterplan, that a very significant amount of extra planting is now proposed which should mask any visible rooflines from the public highway  The re-instatement of the railway is of national importance.  The re-instated railway will provide a boost to tourism and the local economy without adding to traffic or parking congestion.  Looking at similar projects elsewhere (West Somerset Railway and the Paignton and Dartmouth Railway), few would argue that the results have not been beneficial to the local community and economy.  I have seen the considerable financial and environmental benefits that the area has enjoyed since the re-building of the Swanage Railway.  The engineering skills applied to re-instate this railway can be seen and appreciated by visitors and can inspire our children to understand and consider an engineering career.  The area has shown over the years a slow decline and without a major boost to the area I cannot see how this trend can be reversed.  This development would be an essential part of the ancillary services to support the operation of the railway.  The effect of having such an amenity has already proved its worth in a deprived but beautiful area that is heavily used for holidays in the success of Ffestiniog and Welsh Highland Railways in North Wales.  Such a large building as the proposed engine shed may seem not to be in keeping with the rural nature of the site, I do believe the plans as proposed will minimise the impact, as well as provide the necessary infrastructure for the railway to operate effectively.  Permanent and temporary employment will be generated both during the construction, and for the operation and maintenance thereafter.  I am general manager of a heritage steam railway in Snowdonia National Park and as such can attest to the fact that a railway of the type proposed has an absolutely minimal impact on its environment.  It will form something of a ‘wildlife corridor’ remaining totally undisturbed for the vast majority of the day.  The South Devon Railway complements the local landscape – there is every reason to suppose that this application, and construction and operation of the new railway, will bring similar benefits.  The disruption to Parracombe Village during construction will be minimal.

 Proposer sheds and workshops to repair and maintain the railway’s historic rolling stock and protect them from the Exmoor weather is an essential part of the railway’s re-instatement.  Careful planning and implementation of the project has avoided damage to the environment.  Most of the trackbed remains undeveloped which must count a great deal in the applicants favour, because very little ‘new works’ will need to be undertaken.  A world-famous little railway that could be brought back to life using existing infrastructure – talk about a gift horse!  An extended railway within the ENP will provide an excellent opportunity to promote the values of the NP by facilitating the enjoyment of the local area in a family friendly and inclusive manner.

62/50/16/002 Letters received in SUPPORT from Exmoor & North Devon area following receipt of further details in January 2017

ADDRESS . 1.(001, 002, 003, 2.(all) 3.(001 & 002) 005) William Graham N Backhouse & A . William Garfield The Old Bill Couzens . Lynton Cottage Lynton RES Devon Ltd Hotel 4.(all) 5. A Burgess J Salter South Molton Parracombe

6. 7.(all) 8.(all) N Beresford M Wyatt C Blakey Bideford East Down 27 Lee Road Lynton 9.(all) 10. (all) A Giles T Meakin Barnstaple Chair of LETA-Lyn Economic & Tourism Alliance 11.(all) 12. P Knox D Moore Whinbrae Bratton Fleming Torrington 13.(all) 14. 15. W Pryor K Vingoe D Tooke Lynton Cinema Ltd Parracombe Ilfracombe

16.(all) 17.(all) 18.(all) 19.(all) I Sutton J Teeling H Bromidge N Minto Carhampton Swimbridge Braunton Swimbridge

20.(all) 21.(all) 22.(all) 23.(all) D & M Burgess S Hancock A Giess S Thornborough South Molton Ilfracombe Barnstaple Woolcombe

24.(001-003) D Gliddon Williton

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  As listed on 62/50/16/001

62/50/16/002 Letters received of OBJECTION following receipt of further details in January 2017

Letters received further to reporting in May Committee Report but before amended details and reconsultation. 1.(all) D Bastock, East Bodley Farm, Parracombe (6 May 2016) (in addition to comments already made)

Objection letters – received following consultation/notification of amended details

1.(all) Barn Owl Trust

 As listed under 62/50/16/001

2.(all) Sally Bastock, East Bodley Farm, Parracombe

 As listed under 62/50/16/001

62/50/16/002 Letters received in SUPPORT following receipt of further details in November 2017

ADDRESS 1.(all) . P. Burns Moy Avenue Derby

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  A heritage railway is a type of railway which is operated as a living history to re-create or preserve railway scenes of the past. Heritage railway lines contain historic rail infrastructure that has been substituted or made obsolete in modern railway transit systems.

62/50/16/002 Letters received of OBJECTION following receipt of further details in November 2017

1.(001 - 005) Foot Anstey on behalf or Mrs Grob, Court Place Farm, Parracombe

 Seeking Counsel opinion. 2. (002) Sally & David Bastock, East Bodley Farm, Parracombe

 Objections raised in previous correspondence remain.  The amendments do not alter the fact that these plans are part of a Major Development that could be built outside the National Park.  The proposals do not meet or support the Aims, Vision and General Policies, Purposes and Duty of the National Park.  Greater national weight is growing to rectify historic damage already caused to the environment. National Parks should be at the forefront of championing measures such as improving air quality.

3.(001 -005) Mr and Mrs Bray, Rowley Barton Farm, Parracombe and Mr and Mrs Anthony, Rowley Cottage, Parracombe

Owners of land over which the railway would pass

 Reiterate concerns and objections raised before.  Appreciate amended bridge design (for Rowley Barton access), however concerned that Lower Rowley bridge would not be suitable.  Concern regarding access to land and for livestock to water.  Flood risk concerns repeated – the railway will create a water corridor. Concern that watercourses and surface water will not be managed suitably.  Concern regarding the financial position of the railway – we are two years into these planning applications and still no clearer as to how this railway will be financed.  Business Plan. If the railway trustees cannot give an accurate account of their financial situation with regards to the £16.5m+ needed to reconstruct the railway, we can reasonably assume that they are unable to attract investors because their business plan is not viable.  For the last two years we have questioned the railway’s claimed passenger numbers – these figures underpin the credibility of the business plan. The applicants, at the Parracombe Parish Council meeting, advised that the passenger numbers also include the passengers who pay once and travel all day. Therefore, passengers are recounted, giving an inaccurate figure of the genuine number of passengers.  We are concerned that the existing local economy will not withstand the disruption caused by these proposals.

4. (001-005) Foot Anstey LLP, including Counsel opinion on behalf of Mrs Grob, Court Place Farm, Parracombe Owner of land over which the railway would pass

 Comments as raised under 62/50/16/001

62/50/16/003 – RAILWAY CAR PARK

62/50/16/003 Letters received in SUPPORT from outside Exmoor & North Devon area or location not specified on the correspondence following receipt of applications in February 2016

ADDRESS . 1.(all) . 2.(all) 3.(all) 4.(all) . Brian George . Philip Groves L C Franklin A Bray Nottingham Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire 5. 6.(all) 7. 8.(all) Gordon Eves D J Dawkins T E Wreford R D Parkinson Northwich Hastings Matson Wisbech Cheshire East Sussex Gloucester Cambs 9. 10.(all) 11. 12. A Edmonds E W Lawrence J Barton M de Young Finchdean Plymouth Walkhampton Aylesford Waterlooville Devon 13. (all) 14.(all) 15.(all) 16. J Laytham I D Miles C Duffell D M Dell Nottingham Lower Durston Ashbourne London Taunton Derbys 17. 18. 19. 20.(all) A Marshall Mr & Mrs Palmer M Orford D Tervet Worthing Derriford Southampton West Sussex Plymouth 21.(all) 22.(all) 23.(all) 24. (all) J A V Smallwood Mr A M Keene M J Ball R & H Cross Kingston upon Sweden Coalville Thames Leicestershire

25. 26.(all) 27. (all) 28.(all) R & S Barnard C Rainsbury C Sheppy A McCartney Altrincham Kent North Petherton Cheshire Somerset 29.(all) 30.( all) 31.(all) 32. (all) C Hughes S Howe T Peart G Piercy Street Willow Ford Cottage Somerset Truro 33. (all) 34. 35.(all) 36.(all) N & A Drake C Knight D Spanner M R J Bayly Perth Fleet Overland Park Western Australia Hampshire USA 37. (all) 38. (all) 39. (all) 40.(all) D E Thompson C Summers M Thompson A Clark Exeter Essex Cross in Hand Tadworth E Sussex Surrey

41.(all) 42.(all) 43.(all) 44. P Bowes M Harding Exeter & Teign J Heys Chester-le-Street 2 Balmain Road Valley Railway Broadwindsor Newcastle Dorset 45.(all) 46.(all) 47.(all) 48. M Denny J Collinge A Lowe F H Turner Farnham Galmpton Cramlington Brixham Northumberland 49. 50.(all) 51. 52. D Faulkner D Ball M Ashfield T Roy London Northallerton North Yorkshire

53. 54.(all) 55.(all) 56.(all) D Blencowe B Powell L Braine T J Butler Exeter

57.(all) 58. (all) 59.(all) 60.(all) R J Trill C Maycock C F Sampson R Jones Rochester London Kent 61.(all) 62.(all) 63.(all) 64.(all) D Mills P Snashall J Snashall A J L Hill Tadley Ashford Ashford Hampshire Kent Kent 65.(all) 66.(all) 67.(all) 68.(all) J Gough K Staddon P J Curson T Grimley Winford Roydon Moseley Somerset Norfolk Birmingham 69. 70.(all) 71.(all) 72.(all) M Steel J Bird N Illingworth M L Smith Dorchester Dorset 73.(all) MP

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  As per 62/41/50/001  Fully support both car parks as these are essential features.  This will provide a significant employment opportunity and provide environmentally friendly access to the landscapes.  The car parks will allow vehicles to be left at the edge of the Park while the visitors enjoy the scenery.  The twin applications for car parks will provide improved public toilets.  The increased parking will sustain a crucial park and ride facility for the majority of railway users, which removes congestion on the roads – similar to the Swanage Railway.  The proposed pedestrian underpass is a sensible solution.

62/50/16/003 Letters received in SUPPORT from Exmoor & North Devon area following receipt of applications in February 2016

ADDRESS . 1.(all) . 2.(all) 3.(all) 4.(all) . Lynton & Lynmouth . Mark Blathwayt R & C Walsh R Briden Tourist Information . Porlock Manor Fernleigh Guest Shelleys Centre Estate House Lynmouth Lynton . 5.(all) . 6. 7.(all) 8. . LETA-Lyn Economic . N G Beresford J Rainger N B Oakley & Tourism Alliance . Bideford Kings Nympton 3 Sea Closes Combe Martin 9. 10.(all) 11.(all) . 12.(all) K Vingoe C & J Lane C Blakey . A Pickersgill Woody Bay Station 13 Walton Way Lee House Bideford . . Barnstaple Lynton 13.(all) 14.(001-004) 15. 16.(all) G & J Towell D Tooke G Bridge B Leadbetter Birch Cottage 3 Torrs Walk Av. High Bickington Walsal House Martinhoe Ilfracombe . Lynton 17. Local MP

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  Comments as with 001.  This would offer a significant volume of parking for would be travellers on the line and enable a park and ride service to Lynton to be installed.

62/50/16/003 Letters received of OBJECTION following receipt of applications in February 2016

1.(all) Foot Anstey (3 letters) On behalf of Mrs Grob, Court Place Farm, Parracombe

Owner of land over which the railway would pass

 As listed under 62/50/16/001 2. (all) Slee Blackwell Solicitors (2 letters) On behalf of Mr & Mrs Humprey Bray, Rowley Barton, Parracombe

Owner of farmland at Rowley Barton impacted by the proposals, with the rail line crossing over their land and access

 As listed under 62/50/16/001 3.(001, 002, 003 and 004) Slee Blackwell Solicitors (2 letters) On behalf of Mr & Mrs Anthony, Rowley Cottage, Parracombe

Owner of land at Rowley Cottage impacted by the proposals, with the rail line crossing over

 As listed under 62/50/16/001 and 002

4.(all) D Bastock East Bodley Farm, Bodley Lane, Parracombe

 As listed under 62/41/16/001.

5.(all) D J Carter Myosotis, Bodley Lane, Parracombe

 As listed under 62/50/16/001.

6.(001-004) Mr & Mrs Anthony and Mr & Mrs Bray (3 letters, including letter from Mr J Anthony) Rowley Cottage, Parracombe

Line cross property access and land

 As listed under 62/50/16/001 and 002

7.(all) Mr P Greenhow Mill House, 26 The Green, Otterton, Budleigh Salterton  As listed under 62/50/16/001. 8.(all) Peter Heaton-Jones MP Conservative, North Devon Letter to ask that constituents. Mr & Mrs Bastock, letter of objection is taken into account when determining the application.

9.(all) Mr & Mrs Smoldon South Thorne, Bratton Fleming  As listed under 62/50/16/001. 10.(all) C Lee, Otterton, Devon  As listed under 62/50/16/001. 11.(all) A Barton Devon Bat Group  As listed under 62/50/16/001 12.(all) J King-Fretts & M Bowden  As listed under 62/50/16/001 13.(all) M Osmond Coulsworthy House, Combe Martin  As listed under 62/50/16/001 14. (all) Mr Grob Primrose Cottage, Churchtown, Parracombe

Owner of land affected

 As listed under 62/50/16/001

15.(all) Mr & Mrs Holtom Little Close, Church Lane, Parracombe  As listed under 62/50/16/001 16. (all) S Bastock East Bodley Farm, Parracombe  As listed under 62/50/16/001

17. P Taylor Voley Farm, Parracombe

 This is contrary to ENPA planning policy and the NPPF, which gives great weight to the protection to the landscape.  The existing livestock market could provide sufficient parking.  Additional traffic would cause danger.

62/50/16/003 Letters received of OBSERVATION following receipt of applications in February 2016

1 International Otter Survival Fund The Otter survey carried out was only done on the River Heddon and the water course at Blackmoor Gate. There seem to be a number of other water courses which could be used by otters, but no surveys done. – Otters will use drainage ditches to travel. Also if banks are plan to allow otters to travel through culverts, fences will be required, which may need to be 100metres long. 2 S Manning, Martinhoe Old School (2 letters for 003) As Blackmoor Gate will provide the main car park, parking at Woody Bay should be minimised and there should be a ban on coaches, mini-buses and camper vans using the car park. There should be a limitation on events at Woody Bay Car Park that would encourage travel to Woody Bay. There is a real prospect of increase use of road side parking. Lighting – it is noted that only horizontal light pollution measures are stated in the application but the point is light pollution is the result of upward lighting which is not limited by the application. Therefore, any lighting should be specifically down only and lighting should be minimised. Further any road reconfiguration should not result in the need for additional street lighting. Blackmoor Gate – this is a busy cross roads. The proposed development is spread over three sites on each corner – it is generally sprawling over the sites. It is surprising that the development could not have been contained into just one of the three sites – most of the development could have been outside the National Park, leaving only the track bed in the National Park. 3 L Blanchard – Resident of Parracombe In general terms support is given to the proposal, but a number of reservations are held: LOCAL AMENITY AND SOCIAL BENEFITS There will undoubtedly be an increase in noise, both from the engine and from the whistle. To minimise this nuisance the numbers of trains per hour should be minimal and their frequency agreed with those residents closest to the line and Parracombe Parish Council. There will be considerable inconvenience to the village during construction phase including closure of some PRoWs. This is not acceptable and alternative footpath routes should be made available. Work should not start until all funding is in place. Welcome the provision of a local need affordable dwelling, but would recommend that both new dwellings are local need affordable dwellings.

It is hard to see significant social benefit to residents and strong recommend that the opportunity to create a safe public footpath alongside the line of the railway should not be missed. LANDSCAPE & VISUAL IMPACT It is clear that these applications will not fully meet the first purpose of the National Park. The proposed engince shed would have a significant adverse impact on this National Park Gateway site. The look and feel of Blackmoor Gate is currently slightly urban and the proposals need to reflect this gateway role and I am not convinced the design and landscape achieve this. The large agricultural barns at Rowley Moor Farm are in the ownership of the Railway, and these could be demolished to reduce the crowed industrial feel of buildings. WILDLIFE Welcome the aim to create a wildlife corridor along the line of the railway. Recommend that a management plan for wildlife areas is agreed with the LPA. TRAFFIC IMPACTS Measures to improve safety, already needed, would be imperative when traffic increases along this stretch of road. DARK SKIES RESERVE All lighting must be minimal and downlighting. Bright security spotlights would not be acceptable. ECONOMIC BENEFITS This proposal would benefit local people, in terms of jobs, as well as some local business even if the optimistic visitor projections are not fulfilled. NATIONAL PARK PURPOSES Welcome the opportunity that this proposal would give for people to enjoy and understand the National Park. The existing section of line has been especially beneficial for those with limited mobility, are frail or elderly, to enjoy spectacular scenery and wildlife and this enjoyment would be enhanced by the proposed extension.

62/50/16/003 Letters received in SUPPORT from outside Exmoor & North Devon area or location not specified on the correspondence following receipt of further details in January 2017

ADDRESS 1.(16/001-003 & . 2. 3. 4.(16/001-003 & 005) . D Mills T J Butler 005) J & S Arthurs . 28 Impstone Road 15 Chirstchurch B Lane Little OAKS Farm . Pamber Heath Dorset Rockbeare Bicknacre Road . Tadley Danbury . Hampshire Essex 5. 6.(16/001-003 & 7. 8. R Watson 005) S Burgess J Godfrey Laurel Cottage T Carnell 61 Saxon Leas Dereham Road 3 Summerway Winsterslow Colkirk Exeter Wiltshire Fakenham Norfolk 9.(16/001-004) 10. 11. 12.(16/001-004) J Lakey T Spencer R Barnard D Ball 114 Ivy Avenue 4 Egerton Drive Bath Hale Cheshire 13. 14. 15. 16. D J A Smith A Higginson D Blencowe M Hargreaves 28 Stuart Avenue 31 Loughborough 79 Hoopern Street Walton-on-Thames Road Exeter Surrey Quorn Leicestershire 17.(16/001-003 & 18. 19. 20. 005 A Wreford G Piercy A Cameron Dr J W Bond 23 vy Close 24 Redan Road Exeter Ware Hertfordshire 21. 22. 23. 24. C Summers P Colley A Belsey G Lelliott 9 Bommel Avenue 21 Queen Anne 3 Busticle Lane Canvey Island Gardens Sompting Essex Falmouth Lancing West Sussex 25. 26. 27. 28. D & M Cameron M Pearce M Thompson A Wells Dunbar 4 Fulmar Close Myrtle Cottage 28 Field Farm Close Ingatestone Road Basingstoke Cross-in-Hand Bristol Highwood Heathfield Chelmsford East Sussex 29.(16/001-004) 30.(16/001-004) 31. 32. A Lowe Dr I Harrison J Woodley C Maycock 23 Oakfield Way 1 Kestrel Road 28 Rowan Walk 46 Sheringham Seghill Kempshott Hornchurch Avenue Cramlington Basingtoke Essex London Northumberland

33. 34.(16/001-004) 35.(all) 36.(16/001-004) T E Wreford C R Sheppy M L Smith K Staddon Flat 10 43 Broadlands X2 letters 124 Matson Avenue Avenue Matson North Petherton Gloucester 37.(16/001-004) 38. 39.(16/001-003 & 40.(all) M Harding J & L Palmer 005 D E Gandell 85 Upland Drive D Martin X2 letters Derriford 30 Starnhall Way Plymouth Bingham Nottingham 41. 42. 43. 44. A Pearce A Walker Dr R Kay M Jackson 10 Robin Close 16 Mayflower Court 101 Cavalier Road 68 Cowslip Bank Basingstoke Highbridge Old Basing Lychpit Basingstoke 45.(16/001-004) 46.(16/001 & 003- 47. 48. C G Duffell 005 J Pounds N Dearden Church Farm J Taylor Pakyns Alsop en le Dale Petersfield Albourne Road Ashbourne Hampshire Hurstpierpoint Kent West Sussex 49. 50. 51. 52. S Broomfield D Montague D Russell G Scott Emu Cottage 9 Leeson Close Craylands 19 Ridgeway Tanygrisiau Swanage Medstead Ingatestone Blaenau Ffestiniog Dorset Hampshire Essex Gwynedd 53. 54.(16/001-004) 55.(16/001-004) 56.(16/001-004) J Jackson J Snashall P Snashall J Barton 68 Cowslip Bank 112 Church Road 112 Church Road Lychpit Willesborough Willesborough Hampshire Ashford Ashford Kent Kent 57. 58. 59. 60. K S Burgess C Knight B Powell P Hebson Kartanontie 9.A.24 41 Albert Street 00330 Helsinki Fleet Finland Hampshire 61. 62. 63. 64.(16/001-004) R Youngson R Bridle J Andrews J Pavey 3 Brotherton Court 29 Londinium Way Thornbury Knottingley North Hykeham The Avenue West Yorkshire Lincoln Bishops Waltham 65. 66.(all) 67. 68.(16/001-004) J Curtis E Mitchell D Edwards P Bowes Dene Approach 34 Campkin Road 25 Northlands Steeple Aston Wells Chester le Street Oxon 69.(16/001-004) 70. 71.(16/001-004) 72.(16/001-004) P Curson M de Young P Ford B & J Grundy 4 Troughwell Lane Wrenthorpe

Wakefield

73. 74. 75.(16/001-004) 76. A C Penny D Taylor S J Randall R J Ashmore Woodside 4 Limewood Close Loves Green Ealing Highwood London Chelmsford 77.(16/001-004) 78. 79.(all) 80.(all) M G Poole J Sreeves R Heacock J Jenkins 5 Princes Gardens 8 Badgers Close The Old School Turnip End Cottage Codsall Wanborough Alton Barnes Wolverhampton Swindon Marlborough Wiltshire 81.(16/001-004) 82.(all) 83.(16/001-004) 84. R & H Cross A Collins A J Ackland P Heathcote 45 Blackwood 24 St George’s View Lonsdale Coalville Cullompton Botley Road Leicestershire Curbridge Southampton 85.(all) 86.(all) 87. 88.(16/001-004) A Braddock M Lancashire B Bass & Geoff G Miller 4 Borderside Felsted Cowan Benfleet Yateley Essex West House Essex Rousdon 89.(16/001-004) 90. 91.(all) 92.(all) M Tester N McGregor D R Robinson R Bradbury 44 High Street 17 Porumbaru 23 The Twistle Dry Drayton Emanoil Street Byfield Cambridge 011421 Bucharest Daventry Romania 93.(16/001-005) 94. 95. 96.(all) P Burns T Aslet M J Ball M Bladwell Moy Avenue 29 Cranesfield Derby Basingstoke 97. 98. 99.(16/001-004) 100. G Bowden D Bloomfield P Bradshaw J Brodribb 63 Godfrey Gardens Plas y Graig Bow Penrhyndeudraeth Crediton Gwynedd 101. 102.(16/001-004) 103. 104. W Curry A M Dodds T Francis R Greenwell 16 Hatfield Road 34 Etsome Terrace 3 Beech Close Weston-super-Mare Somerton Shrewsbury 105.(all) 106. 107. 108.(all) J Harle C Harvey J Heys J Lucas 136 St Katherines 11 Lyndhurst Close Conegar Farm 16 Sapte Close Rd Winchester Hollis Hill Cranleigh Exeter Beaminster Surrey

109.(all) 110. 111.(all) 112.(all) A Mitchell M Orford A Pickersgill J Smallwood 61 Provene Gardens Waltham Chase Southampton 113. 114. 115. 116. A Steele M Swainson K Turk S Walker Flat 1 Clock House Amberwood 16 Bartletts Elm 7 Thoreby Avenue Dogflud Way Lynsted Langport Kirkby in Ashfield Farnham Kent Somerset Nottinghamshire Surrey 117.(16/001-004) 118.(all) 119. J White R C White D Wookey 21 Grove Road Whimple Exeter

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  The work will enhance the overall amenity of the beautiful Exmoor Park.  Will bring in jobs and investment to the area.  The short term issues of building work should not cloud the long term benefits of the project.  As demonstrated in other parts of the country with other projects of this kind, the local economy, tourism and employment prospects have all improved as a result.  The small length of line already constructed is clearly a very successful tourist venue, and any increase in that length can only produce even greater success.  A single line railway, especially of narrow gauge, seems to blend in to the surrounding countryside. Look at the Welsh Highland for proof of this.  The re-opened railway would be a fantastic asset to Exmoor, providing a much needed economic boost and allowing locals and visitors alike to enjoy the stunning scenery and tranquillity, without harming the unique environment.  This is in keeping with the sustainable tourism, conservation and cultural heritage goals of ENP, a highly sympathetic and desirable development, that should be encourages in its entirety.  It will enhance the beauty and character of this stunning and remote part of the country, whilst preserving part of Britain’s national heritage.  An enhanced tourist attraction in its own right.  Creation of new jobs now and possibly more in future years as the railway develops  Increased income to the surrounding area from tourist trade.  A valuable park and ride facility for visitors to Lynton & Lynmouth and ultimately Barnstaple.  The extended railway will be a major asset to the area.  Railway is a historic heritage railway and is in keeping with NP policies.  Railway track bed is still physically there and only needs minimal disruption to re-lay the track to make it operational.  The plans are sympathetic with Exmoor’s beauty and won’t scar or damage the landscape, rather adding to it, just like many other heritage steam railways, have done before it.  The railway and its associated buildings will all serve a very useful purpose for transport, tourism, economy, education, jobs, people’s enjoyment, a living museum, rather than a business trying to make money.  The pedestrian underpass will ensure user safety, while eliminating any danger, or congestion.

 I note the application states that the car parking spaces will be free to use.  The railway car park is a vital part of the larger scheme for the re-instatement.  The car park is well screened and landscaped, and has been set out to blend as much into the landscape as possible.  The re-instatement of the railway is of national importance.  Local examples of projects that have been beneficial to the local community and economy include the West Somerset Railway and the Paignton and Dartmouth Railway.  There is a very great and increasing amount of interest in all aspects of local heritage, history and industrial archaeology.  As can be evidenced by the heritage railways of North Wales, which draw in huge amounts of business to the local and wider community, this is a unique opportunity to do the same.  As older holiday visitors with friends the railway enables travel and is an attraction.  If managed appropriately the railway also the potential to add benefits to Countryside Access leading to health and sustainable transport benefits.  Having seen the considerable financial and environmental benefits that the area has enjoyed since the rebuilding of the Swanage Railway I see no reason why the same benefits would not be enjoyed here.  This project will preserve and extend the heritage of the past.  The engineering skills can be seen and appreciated and inspire our children to understand and consider an engineering career.  The railway would help alleviate some of the traffic problems experienced at busy times of year.  The effect of having such an amenity has already proved its worth in deprived but beautiful area that is heavily used for holidays in the success of the Ffestiniog and Welsh Highland railways in North Wales.  Landscaped car parking will be essential for visitors to the railway and encourage a ‘park and ride’ attitude to other areas of the National Park.  I support the provision of additional parking, which will help to bring more visitors to ENP, whilst keeping many vehicles off of the roads.  The pedestrian underpass will be a very important safety feature.  Add greatly to the ease of movement of people in the area  Permanent and temporary employment will be generated both during the construction, and for the operation and maintenance thereafter.  This is in keeping with the sustainable tourism, conservation and cultural heritage goals of ENP.  A world-famous little railway that could be brought back to life using existing infrastructure – talk about a gift horse.  Careful planning and implementation of the project has avoided damage to the environment.  The South Devon railway complements the local landscape – there is every reason to suppose that his application, and construction and operation of the new railway, will bring similar benefits to the area.  I am general manager of a heritage steam railway in Snowdonia National Park and as such can attest to the fact that a railway of the type proposed has an absolutely minimal impact on its environment.  An extended railway within the ENP will provide an excellent opportunity to promote the values of the NP by facilitating the enjoyment of the local area in a family friendly and inclusive manner.

62/50/16/003 Letters received in SUPPORT from Exmoor & North Devon area following receipt of further details in January 2017

ADDRESS . 1.(001, 002, 003, 2.(all) 005) William Graham . William Garfield The Old Bill . Lynton Cottage Lynton Hotel 3.(all) 4. A Burgess J Salter South Molton Parracombe

5. 6.(all) 7.(all) N Beresford M Wyatt C & K Blakey Bideford East Down 27 Lee Road Lynton 8.(all) 9. (all) A Giles T Meakin Barnstaple Chair of LETA-Lyn Economic & Tourism Alliance 10.(all) 11. P Knox D Moore Whinbrae Bratton Fleming Torrington 12.(all) 13. W Pryor K Vingoe Lynton Cinema Ltd Parracombe

14.(all) 15.(all) 16.(all) 17.(all) I Sutton J Teeling H Bromidge N Minto Carhampton Swimbridge Braunton Swimbridge

18.(all) 19.(all) 20.(all) 21.(001-003) D & M Burgess S Hancock S Thornborough D Gliddon South Molton Ilfracombe Woolcombe Williton

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  As listed on 62/50/16/001

62/50/16/003 Letters of OBJECTION following receipt of further details in January 2017

Objection letters – received following consultation/notification of amended details

1.(all) Barn Owl Trust  As listed under 62/50/16/001 2.(all) Sally Bastock, East Bodley Farm, Parracombe  As listed under 62/50/16/001 3.(all) David Bastock, East Bodley Farm, Parracombe  As listed under 62/50/16/001 4.(all) Mr and Mrs Bray, Rowley Barton Farm, Parracombe and Mr and Mrs Anthony, Rowley Cottage, Parracombe

Owners of land over which the railway would pass

2 letters received

As listed under 62/50/16/001

62/50/16/003 Letters of SUPPORT following receipt of further details in November 2017

ADDRESS 1.(all) . P. Burns Moy Avenue Derby

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  As listed under application 62/50/16/001

62/50/16/003 Letters of OBJECTION following receipt of further details in November 2017

1.(001 -005) Mr and Mrs Bray, Rowley Barton Farm, Parracombe and Mr and Mrs Anthony, Rowley Cottage, Parracombe

Owners of land over which the railway would pass

2. (001-005) Foot Anstey LLP, including Counsel opinion on behalf of Mrs Grob, Court Place Farm, Parracombe Owner of land over which the railway would pass

Comments as raised under 62/50/16/001

62/50/16/004 – PUBLIC CAR PARK

62/50/16/004 Letters received in SUPPORT from outside Exmoor & North Devon area or location not specified on the correspondence following receipt of applications in February 2016

ADDRESS . 1.(all) . 2.(all) 3.(all) 4.(all) . Brian George . Philip Groves L C Franklin A Bray Nottingham Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire 5. 6.(all) 7. 8.(all) Gordon Eves D J Dawkins T E Wreford R D Parkinson Northwich Hastings Matson Wisbech Cheshire East Sussex Gloucester Cambs 9. 10.(all) 11. 12. A Edmonds E W Lawrence J Barton M de Young Finchdean Plymouth Walkhampton Aylesford Waterlooville Devon 13. (all) 14.(all) 15.(all) 16. J Laytham I D Miles C Duffell D M Dell Nottingham Lower Durston Ashbourne London Taunton Derbys 17. 18. 19. 20. (all) A Marshall Mr & Mrs Palmer M Orford D Tervet Worthing Derriford Southampton West Sussex Plymouth 21.(all) 22.(all) 23.(all) 24. (all) J A V Smallwood Mr A M Keene M J Ball R & H Cross Kingston upon Sweden Coalville Thames Leicestershire

41.(all) 42.(all) 43.(all) 44. P Bowes M Harding Exeter & Teign J Heys Chester-le-Street 2 Balmain Road Valley Railway Broadwindsor Newcastle Dorset 45.(all) 46.(all) 47.(all) 48. M Denny J Collinge A Lowe F H Turner Farnham Galmpton Cramlington Brixham Northumberland 49. 50.(all) 51. 52. D Faulkner D Ball M Ashfield T Roy London Northallerton North Yorkshire

53. 54.(all) 55.(all) 56.(all) D Blencowe B Powell L Braine T J Butler Exeter

57.(all) 58. (all) 59.(all) 60.(all) R J Trill C Maycock C F Sampson R Jones Rochester London Kent 61.(all) 62.(all) 63.(all) 64.(all) D Mills P Snashall J Snashall A J L Hill Tadley Ashford Ashford Hampshire Kent Kent 65.(all) 66.(all) 67.(all) 68.(all) J Gough K Staddon P J Curson T Grimley Winford Roydon Moseley Somerset Norfolk Birmingham 69.(all) 70.(all) 71.(all) 72.(all) MP J Bird N Illingworth M L Smith Dorchester (x 2 letters – support Dorset also for amendment)

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  As per 62/50/16/001  These car parks will allow vehicles to be left at the edge of the Park while the visitors enjoy the scenery from the train.  The twin applications for car parks will provide improved public toilets.  The increased parking will sustain a crucial park and ride facility for the majority of railway users, which removes congestion on the roads – similar to the Swanage Railway.  The proposed pedestrian underpass is a sensible solution.

62/50/16/004 Letters received in SUPPORT from Exmoor & North Devon area following receipt of applications in February 2016

ADDRESS . 1.(all) . 2.(all) 3.(all) 4.(all) . Lynton & Lynmouth . Mark Blathwayt R & C Walsh R Briden Tourist Information . Porlock Manor Fernleigh Guest Shelleys Centre Estate House Lynmouth Lynton . 5.(all) . 6.(all) 7.(all) 8.(all) . LETA-Lyn Economic . J Rainger K Vingoe C & J Lane & Tourism Alliance Kings Nympton Woody Bay Station 13 Walton Way Barnstaple 9.(all) 10.(all) 11.(all) 12.(all) N B Oakley G & J Towell C Blakey A Pickersgill 3 Sea Closes Birch Cottage Lee House Bideford Combe Martin Martinhoe Lynton 13.(all) 14.(001-004) 15. 16. Local MP B Leadbetter D Tooke G Bridge Walsal House 3 Torrs Walk Av. High Bickington Lynton Ilfracombe

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  Comments as with 001.  What a splendid opportunity to make this an appropriate northern gateway to Exmoor National Park – at no cost to ENPA. Once established the railway will manage the area appropriately.

62/50/16/004 Letters of OBJECTION following receipt of applications in February 2016

1.(all) Foot Anstey (3 letters) On behalf of Mrs Grob, Court Place Farm, Parracombe

Owner of land over which the railway would pass  As listed under 62/50/16/001

2. (all) Slee Blackwell Solicitors (2 letters) On behalf of Mr & Mrs Humprey Bray, Rowley Barton, Parracombe

Owner of land at Rowley Cottage impacted by the proposals, with the rail line crossing over  As listed under 62/50/16/001 and 002

4.(all) D Bastock East Bodley Farm, Bodley Lane, Parracombe  As listed under 62/50/16/001.

5.(all) D J Carter Myosotis, Bodley Lane, Parracombe  As listed under 62/50/16/001.

6.(001-004) Mr & Mrs Anthony and Mr & Mrs Bray (3 letters, including letter from Mr J Anthony) Rowley Cottage, Parracombe

Line cross property access and land  As listed under 62/50/16/001 and 002

7.(all) Mr P Greenhow Mill House, 26 The Green, Otterton, Budleigh Salterton  As listed under 62/50/16/001.

8.(all) Peter Heaton-Jones MP Conservative, North Devon Letter to ask that constituents. Mr & Mrs Bastock, letter of objection is taken into account when determining the application.

9.(all) Mr & Mrs Smoldon South Thorne, Bratton Fleming  As listed under 62/50/16/001.

10.(all) C Lee, Otterton, Devon  As listed under 62/50/16/001.

11.(all) A Barton Devon Bat Group  As listed under 62/50/16/001 12.(all) J King-Fretts & M Bowden  As listed under 62/50/16/001 13.(all) M Osmond Coulsworthy House, Combe Martin

 s listed under 62/50/16/001 14. (all) Mr Grob Primrose Cottage, Churchtown, Parracombe

Owner of land affected  As listed under 62/50/16/001 15.(all) Mr & Mrs Holtom Little Close, Church Lane, Parracombe  As listed under 62/50/16/001

16. (all) S Bastock East Bodley Farm, Parracombe  As listed under 62/50/16/001 17. P Taylor Voley Farm, Parracombe  As raised under 62/50/16/003

62/50/16/004 Letters of OBSERVATION following receipt of applications in February 2016

1 International Otter Survival Fund The Otter survey carried out was only done on the River Heddon and the water course at Blackmoor Gate. There seem to be a number of other water courses which could be used by otters, but no surveys done. – Otters will use drainage ditches to travel. Also if banks are plan to allow otters to travel through culverts, fences will be required, which may need to be 100metres long. 2. Alison Perry Happy with improvements, but requests that the car park, which is frequently used is re-provided with decent system of lighting. This would help improving safety for school children being picked up there. 3 S Manning, Martinhoe Old School As Blackmoor Gate will provide the main car park, parking at Woody Bay should be minimised and there should be a ban on coaches, mini-buses and camper vans using the car park. There should be a limitation on events at Woody Bay Car Park that would encourage travel to Woody Bay. There is a real prospect of increase use of road side parking. Lighting – it is noted that only horizontal light pollution measures are stated in the application but the point is light pollution is the result of upward lighting which is not limited by the application. Therefore, any lighting should be specifically down only and lighting should be minimised. Further any road reconfiguration should not result in the need for additional street lighting. 4 L Blanchard – Resident of Parracombe In general terms support is given to the proposal, but a number of reservations are held: LOCAL AMENITY AND SOCIAL BENEFITS There will undoubtedly be an increase in noise, both from the engine and from the whistle. To minimise this nuisance the numbers of trains per hour should be minimal and their frequency agreed with those residents closest to the line and Parracombe Parish Council. There will be considerable inconvenience to the village during construction phase including closure of some PRoWs. This is not acceptable and alternative footpath routes should be made available. Work should not start until all funding is in place. Welcome the provision of a local need affordable dwelling, but would recommend that both new dwellings are local need affordable dwellings.

It is hard to see significant social benefit to residents and strong recommend that the opportunity to create a safe public footpath alongside the line of the railway should not be missed. LANDSCAPE & VISUAL IMPACT It is clear that these applications will not fully meet the first purpose of the National Park. The proposed engine shed would have a significant adverse impact on this National Park Gateway site. The look and feel of Blackmoor Gate is currently slightly urban and the proposals need to reflect this gateway role and I am not convinced the design and landscape achieve this. The large agricultural barns at Rowley Moor Farm are in the ownership of the Railway, and these could be demolished to reduce the crowed industrial feel of buildings. WILDLIFE Welcome the aim to create a wildlife corridor along the line of the railway. Recommend that a management plan for wildlife areas is agreed with the LPA. TRAFFIC IMPACTS Measures to improve safety, already needed, would be imperative when traffic increases along this stretch of road. DARK SKIES RESERVE All lighting must be minimal and downlighting. Bright security spotlights would not be acceptable. ECONOMIC BENEFITS This proposal would benefit local people, in terms of jobs, as well as some local business even if the optimistic visitor projections are not fulfilled. NATIONAL PARK PURPOSES Welcome the opportunity that this proposal would give for people to enjoy and understand the National Park. The existing section of line has been especially beneficial for those with limited mobility, are frail or elderly, to enjoy spectacular scenery and wildlife and this enjoyment would be enhanced by the proposed extension.

62/50/16/004 Letters received in SUPPORT from outside Exmoor & North Devon area or location not specified on the correspondence following receipt of further details in January 2017

ADDRESS 1.(all) 2.(16/001-004) 3.(all) 4.(16/001-004) J Jenkins R & H Cross A Collins A J Ackland Turnip End Cottage 45 Blackwood 24 St George’s View Coalville Cullompton Leicestershire 5.(all) 6. 7.(all) 8.(all) D E Gandell P Heathcote A Braddock M Lancashire X2 letters Lonsdale 4 Borderside Felsted Botley Road Yateley Essex Curbridge Southampton 9. 10.(16/001-004) 11.(all) 12.(16/001-004) T E Wreford C R Sheppy M L Smith K Staddon Flat 10 43 Broadlands X2 letters 124 Matson Avenue Avenue Matson North Petherton Gloucester 13.(16/001-004) 14. 15. 16. M Harding J & L Palmer A Pearce A Walker 85 UplandDrive 10 Robin Close 16 Mayflower Court Derriford Basingstoke Highbridge Plymouth 17. 18. 19.(16/001-004) 20.(16/001-005) Dr R Kay M Jackson C G Duffell J Taylor 101 valier 68 Cowslip Bank Church Farm Petersfield Road Lychpit Alsop en le Dale Hampshire Old Basing Basingstoke Ashbourne Hampshire Derbys 21. 22. 23. 24. J Pounds N Dearden S Broomfield D Montague Pakyns Emu Cottage 9 Leeson Close Albourne Road Tanygrisiau Swanage Hurstpierpoint Blaenau Ffestiniog Dorset West Sussex Gwynedd 25. 26. 27. 28.(16/001-004) D Russell G Scott J Jackson J Snashall Craylands 19 Ridgeway 68 Cowslip Bank 112 Church Road Medstead Ingatestone Lychpit Willesborough Hampshire Essex Basingstoke Ashford Hampshire Kent 29.(16/001-004) 30.(16/001-004) 31. 32. P Snashall J Barton K Burgess C Knight 112 Church Road Kartanontie 9.A.24 41 Albert Street Willesborough 00330 Helsinki Fleet Ashford Finland Hampshire Kent

33.(16/001-004) 34. 35. 36. B Powell P Hebson J Andrews S Burgess

37. 38.(16/001-004) 39. 40.(16/001-004) R Watson J Lakey T Spencer D Ball Laurel Cottage 114 y Dereham Road Avenue Colkirk Bath Fakenham Norfolk 41. 42. 43. 44. D J A Smith A Higginson D Blencowe M Hargreaves 28 Stuart Avenue 31 Loughborough 79 Hoopern Street Walton-on-Thames Rd Exeter Surrey Quorn Leicestershire 45. 46. 47. 48. A Wreford G Piercy A Cameron C Summers 23 Ivy Close 24 Redan Road 9 Bommel Avenue Exeter Ware Canvey Island Hertfordshire Essex 49. 50. 51. 52. P Colley A Belsey G Lelliott D & M Cameron 21 Queen Anne 3 Busticle Lane Dunbar Gardens Sompting Ingatestone Road Falmouth Lancing Highwood West Sussex Chelmsford Essex 53. 54. 55. 56. J Wade M Pearce M Thompson A Wells 4 Fulmar Close Myrtle Cottage 28 Field Farm Close Basingstoke Cross-in-Hand Bristol Heathfield East Sussex 57.(16/001-004) 58.(16/001-004) 59. 60. A Lowe Dr I Harrison J Woodley C Maycock 23 Oakfield Way 1 Kestrel Road 28 Rowan Walk 46 Sheringham Seghill Kempshott Hornchurch Avenue Cramlington Basingstoke Essex London Northumberland 61. 62.(16/001-004) 63. 64.(all) R Bridle J Pavey J Curtis E Mitchell 29 Londinium Way Thornbury Dene Approach North Hykeham The Avenue Steeple Aston Lincoln Bishops Waltham Oxon 65. 66.(16/001-004) 67.(16/001-004) 68.(16/001-004) D Edwards P Ford P Bowes P Curson 34 Campkin Road 25 Northlands Wells Chester le Street

69. 70.(16/001-004) 71. 72.(16/001-004) M de Young B & J Grundy D Taylor S J Randall 4 Troughwell Lane Woodside Wrenthorpe Loves Green Wakefield Highwood Chelmsford Essex 73.(all) 74.(16/001-004) 75. 76.(all) R J Ashmore M G Poole J Sreeves R Heacock 4 Limewood Close 5 Princes Gardens 8 Badgers Close The Old School Ealing Codsall Wanborough Alton Barnes Wolverhampton Swindon Marlborough Wiltshire 77. 78.(16/001-004) 79.(16/001-004) 80. B Bass & G Cowan G Miller M Tester N McGregor West House Benfleet 44 High Street 17 Porumbaru Rousdon Essex Dry Draydon Emanoil Street Cambridge 011421 Bucharest Romania 81.(all) 82.(16/001-005) 83. 84. R Bradbury P Burns T Aslet M J Ball 23 The Twistle Moy Avenue 29 Cranesfield Byfield Derby Basingstoke Daventry 85. 86. 87.(16/001-004) 88. M Bladwell D Bloomfield P Bradshaw J Brodribb Plas y Graig 66 Fore Street Penrhyndeudraeth Buckfastleigh Gwynedd 89. 90.(16/001-004) 91. 92. W Curry A M Dodds T Francis P Gallon 16 Hatfield Road 34 Etsome Terrace 44 Herbert Road Weston-super-Mare Somerton South Willesborough Ashford Kent 93. 94. 95.(all) 96. R Greenwell P Gunstone J Harle C Harvey 3 Beech Close 1 St Hilds Court 136 St Katherines 11 Lyndhurst Close Hanwood Durham Rd Winchester Shrewsbury County Durham Exeter 97.(all) 98. 99.(all) 100. J Lucas D Mills A Mitchell M Orford 16 Sapte Close 28 Impstone Road 61 Provene Gardens Cranleigh Pamber Heath Waltham Chase Surrey Tadley Southampton Hampshire Hampshire 101.(all) 102.(all) 103.(all) 104. A Pickersgill D R Robinson J Smallwood A Steele Flat 1 Clock House Dogflud Way Farnham Surrey

105. 106. 107.(16/001-004) 108.(all) K Turk S Walker J White R C White 16 Bartletts Elm 7 Thoreby Avenue Langport Kirkby in Ashfield Nottinghamshire 109. D Wookey 21 Grove Road Whimple Exeter

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  Great benefit to the area, especially in tourism and the local economy.  This proposal will bring inward investment to the area and significantly increase tourism potential.  Educational for children of all ages – teaching about the history of travel in the area.  The whole L & B railways extensions and re-instalment is of primary importance to ENP.  Great and increasing amount of interest in all aspects of local heritage, history and industrial archaeology.  As evidenced by the heritage railways in North Wales – draw in huge amounts of business to the local and wider community and is a unique opportunity to do the same.  Great care must be exercised in preserving these assets for the nation as they are an important part of our industrial heritage.  If managed appropriately the railway also has the potential to add benefits to Countryside Access leading to health and sustainable transport benefits.  I see considerable financial and environmental benefits that the area has enjoyed since the rebuilding of the Swanage Railway – I see no reason why the same benefits should not be enjoyed.  Preserving and enhancing the heritage of the past.  The engineering skills applied to re-instate this railway can be seen and appreciated by visitors and I believe can inspire our children to understand and consider an engineering career.  The area has over some years shown a slow decline and I cannot see how without a major boost to the area how this trend can be reversed.  A fully restored railway would enhance the attraction of the area enormously and help alleviate some of the traffic problems experienced at busy times of year.  This development would be an essential part of the ancillary services required by customers at the railway.  A single line railway, especially of narrow gauge, seems to blend in to the surrounding countryside. Look at the Welsh Highland for proof of this.  A fantastic asset to Exmoor providing a much needed economic boost and allowing locals and visitors alike to enjoy the stunning scenery and tranquillity, without harming the unique environment.  This is in keeping with the sustainable tourism, conservation and cultural heritage goals of ENP.  A highly sympathetic and desirable development that should be encouraged in its entirety.  As the railway extends a valuable park and ride facility for visitors to Lynton & Lynmouth and ultimately Barnstaple.  The railway will bring in extra revenue to lots of local businesses

 The railway track bed in still physically there and only needs minimal disruption to re- lay the track to make it operational.  This is a much needed improvement on the present system, with pull in places for buses and increased rest areas, for locals and visitors alike, a win-win scheme.  The re-instated railway and its associated buildings will all serve a very useful purpose for transport, tourism, economy, education, jobs, people’s enjoyment, a living museum rather than a business trying to make money.  Blackmore Gate is the ideal location for these facilities.  Granting of permission will result in facilities far superior to those that exist today, which can only enhance the park’s visitor experience.  The current offering of ageing public conveniences and a small car park is not the most inspiring introduction to the beauty of Exmoor.  The current car park is rather tatty.  The re-instatement of the L & B Railway is of national importance.  Will enhance public access to ENP and the safety of Blackmoor gate interchange.  The effect of having a re-instated railway has already proved its worth in deprived but beautiful area that is heavily used for holidays in the success of the Ffestiniog and Welsh Highland railways in North Wales.  Not unduly disrupt Parracombe Village during construction.  I particularly support the construction of replacement toilet facilities and conversion to public amenity space.  Permanent and temporary employment will be generated both during the construction, and for the operation and maintenance thereafter.  A world-famous little railway that could be brought back to life using existing infrastructure – talk about a gift horse.  The South Devon railway complements the local landscape and there is every reason to suppose that this application, and construction and operation of the new railway, will bring similar benefits to the area.  I am general manager of a heritage steam railway in Snowdonia National Park and as such can attest to the fact that a railway of the type proposed has an absolutely minimal impact on its environment.  An extended railway within the ENP will provide an excellent opportunity to promote the values of the NP by facilitating the enjoyment of the local area in a family friendly and inclusive manner.

62/50/16/004 Letters received in SUPPORT from Exmoor & North Devon area following receipt of further details in January 2017

ADDRESS 1.(all) William Graham The Old Bill Lynton

2.(all) 3. A Burgess J Salter South Molton Parracombe

4. 5.(all) 6.(all) N Beresford M Wyatt C & K Blakey Bideford East Down 27 Lee Road Lynton 7.(all) A Giles Barnstaple

8.(all) 9. P Knox D Moore Whinbrae Bratton Fleming Torrington 10.(all) 11. 12. W Pryor K Vingoe D Tooke Lynton Cinema Ltd Parracombe Ilfracombe

13.(all) 14.(all) 15.(all) 16.(all) I Sutton J Teeling H Bromidge N Minto Carhampton Swimbridge Braunton Swimbridge

17.(all) 18.(all) 19. 20.(all) D & M Burgess S Hancock A Giess S Thornborough South Molton Ilfracombe Barnstaple Woolcombe

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  As listed on 62/50/16/001

62/50/16/004 Letters of OBJECTION following receipt of further details in January 2017

Objection letters – received following consultation/notification of amended details

Owners of land over which the railway would pass

2 letters received

As listed under 62/50/16/001

62/50/16/004 Letters of SUPPORT following receipt of further details in November 2017

ADDRESS 1.(all) 0. P. Burns Moy Avenue Derby

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  As listed under application 62/50/16/001

100

62/50/16/004 Letters of OBJECTION following receipt of further details in November 2017

Objection letters – received following consultation/notification of additional details November 2017

1.(001 -005) Mr and Mrs Bray, Rowley Barton Farm, Parracombe and Mr and Mrs Anthony, Rowley Cottage, Parracombe

Owners of land over which the railway would pass

2. (001-005) Foot Anstey LLP, including Counsel opinion on behalf of Mrs Grob, Court Place Farm, Parracombe Owner of land over which the railway would pass

Comments as raised under 62/50/16/001

101

62/50/16/005 – PROPOSED DWELLINGS

62/50/16/005 Letters received in SUPPORT from outside Exmoor & North Devon area or location not specified on the correspondence following receipt of applications in February 2016

ADDRESS 1.(all) 2.(all) 3.(all) 4.(all) Brian George Philip Groves L C Franlin A Bray Nottingham Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire 5.(all) 6.(all) 7.(all) 8.(all) Gordon Eves D J Dawkins T E Wreford R D Parkinson Northwich Hastings Matson Wisbech Cheshire East Sussex Gloucester Cambs 9.(all) 10.(all) 11.(all) 12. A Edmonds E W Lawrence J Barton A Taylor Finchdean Plymouth Walkhampton Foulognes Waterlooville Devon France 13.(all) 14. 15.(all) 16.(all) M de Young M Pearce J Laytham I D Miles Aylesford Basingstoke Nottingham Lower Durston Taunton 17.(all) 18.(all) 19.(all) 20.(all) C Duffell D M Dell A Marshall Mr & Mrs Palmer Ashbourne London Worthing Derriford Derbys West Sussex Plymouth 21.(all) 22. 23.(all) 24.(all) M Orford E Preston D Tervet M L Smith Southampton Knaresborough North Yorkshire 25.(all) 26.(all) 27.(all) 28. (all) J A V Smallwood Mr A M Keene M J Ball R & H Cross Kingston upon Sweden Coalville Thames Leicestershire

29. (all) 30.(all) 31. (all) 32.(all) R & S Barnard C Rainsbury C Sheppy A McCartney Altrincham Kent North Petherton Cheshire Somerset 33.(all) 34.( all) 35.(all) 36. (all) C Hughes S Howe T Peart G Piercy Street Willow Ford Cottage Somerset Truro 37. (all) 38. (all) 39. (all) 40.(all) D E Thompson C Summers M Thompson A Clark Exeter Essex Cross in Hand Tadworth E Sussex Surrey

102

41.(all) 42.(all) 43.(all) 44. P Bowes M Harding Exeter & Teign 71.(all) Chester-le-Street 2 Balmain Road Valley Railway N Illingworth Newcastle 45.(all) 46.(all) 47.(all) 48. (all) M Denny J Collinge A Lowe F H Turner Farnham Galmpton Cramlington Brixham Northumberland 49. (all) 50.(all) 51. (all) 52. (all) D Faulkner D Ball M Ashfield T Roy London Northallerton North Yorkshire

53. (all) 54.(all) 55.(all) 56.(all) D Blencowe B Powell L Braine T J Butler Exeter

57.(all) 58. (all) 59.(all) 60.(all) R J Trill C Maycock C F Sampson R Jones Rochester London Kent 61.(all) 62.(all) 63.(all) 64.(all) D Mills P Snashall J Snashall A J L Hill Tadley Ashford Ashford Hampshire Kent Kent 65.(all) 66.(all) 67.(all) 68.(all) J Gough K Staddon P J Curson T Grimley Winford Roydon Moseley Somerset Norfolk Birmingham 69. (all) 70. (all) 71.(all) 72.(all) N & A Drake C Knight D Spanner M R J Bayly Perth Fleet Overland Park Western Australia Hampshire USA 73. (all) 74.(all) 75.(all) MP M Steel J Bird Dorchester Dorset

103

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  In addition to comments raised under the related applications  The proposed building will be far more in keeping with local architecture  The bungalow was regrettably allowed to be built on the track bed. Welcome the addition of a local need affordable dwelling.

104

62/50/16/005 Letters received in SUPPORT from Exmoor & North Devon area following receipt of applications in February 2016

ADDRESS 1.(all) 2.(all) 3.(all) 4.(all) Lynton & Lynmouth Mark Blathwayt R & C Walsh R Briden Tourist Information Porlock Manor Fernleigh Guest Shelleys Centre Estate House Lynmouth Lynton 5.(all) 6. 7.(all) 8. LETA-Lyn Economic A Pickersgill J Rainger T I Morrison & Tourism Alliance Bideford Kings Nympton Hartland Bideford 9. 10.(all) 11.(all) 12.(all) A Hearn G & J Towell C Blakey N B Oakley Umberleigh Birch Cottage Lee House 3 Sea Closes Martinhoe Lynton Combe Martin 13. (all) 14.(all) 15. 16. C & J Lane K Vingoe G Bridge Ian Cowling 13 Walton Way Woody Bay Station High Bickington Applicant Barnstaple Bishops Nympton 17. Local MP

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  Comments summarised under 001  Although demolition of the bungalow may not please all, it should not have been built on the track bed in the first place and to replace it with 2 new builds, one for a local family is a positive move  ENPA and other local planning policies consistently state the requirement for local needs affordable housing.  The proposed elevations show that the existing bungalow will be replaced by much more attractive semi-detached houses.  Given the importance of this proposal to other component parts of the L&B’s extension plans, and the benefit to local families on completion, I trust ENPA will approve the proposal.  The existing building is not the most attractive and the replacement structures will be more in keeping with the location.

Letter received in support from the applicant – Mr Cowling  Would like to correct the assertion that there have been no negotiations between the railway trust and the owner of The Halt. - Details of negotiations are then given and says that the property has been offered for sale to the railway but at a price in excess of twice the market value.

105

62/50/16/005 Letters of OBJECTION following receipt of applications in February 2016

1.(all) Foot Anstey (3 letters) On behalf of Mrs Grob, Court Place Farm, Parracombe

Owner of land over which the railway would pass  As listed under 62/50/16/001 2. (all) Slee Blackwell Solicitors (2 letters) On behalf of Mr & Mrs Humprey Bray, Rowley Barton, Parracombe

Owner of land at Rowley Cottage impacted by the proposals, with the rail line crossing over  As listed under 62/50/16/001 and 002 4.(all) D Bastock East Bodley Farm, Bodley Lane, Parracombe

 As listed under 62/50/16/001. 5.(all) D J Carter Myosotis, Bodley Lane, Parracombe  As listed under 62/50/16/001. 6. (Also 001) Mr & Mrs Wooder Fair View, Church Town, Parracombe

Railway line would pass through their garden and immediately adjacent their house  Disgust at proposal to demolish perfectly good substantial bungalow, for a railway that goes nowhere and would not serve the local population.  There are local buses that do the journey much more efficiently.  Concern about the amount of noise and disruption to the village with the construction works proposed and operation of the railway – issues with construction traffic.

106

7. (Also 001) Mr N Rafferty Rose Cottage Bridge Ball Nr. Lynton

Owner of the Bungalow (to be demolished), known as The Halt. Also owns land at Rowley Cross  As listed under 62/50/16/001.

8. (also 001 and 002) Mr & Mrs Wilson Hedna Cottage, Church Town, Parracombe

Railway would pass immediately adjacent their property

 The two dwellings proposed would detract from the original railway facilities.  The proposals could devalue the value of our property and reduce interest in property sales market.  The proposal would lead to increased traffic and ongoing maintenance costs for Centery Lane and Church Lane.  Adverse impact on wildlife.  Unsightly appearance of new rail facilities in the Conservation Area.  Don’t necessarily object to whole notion, but suggests the line be moved outside of Church Town. 9.(all) Mr P Greenhow Mill House, 26 The Green, Otterton, Budleigh Salterton  As listed under 62/50/16/001.

10.(all) Peter Heaton-Jones MP Conservative, North Devon

Letter to ask that constituents. Mr & Mrs Bastock, letter of objection is taken into account when determining the application.

11.(all) Mr & Mrs Smoldon South Thorne, Bratton Fleming  As listed under 62/50/16/001.

12.(all) C Lee, Otterton, Devon  As listed under 62/50/16/001.

107

13.(all) A Barton Devon Bat Group  As listed under 62/50/16/001 14.(all) J King-Fretts & M Bowden  As listed under 62/50/16/001 15.(all) M Osmond Coulsworthy House, Combe Martin  As listed under 62/50/16/001 16. (all) Mr Grob Primrose Cottage, Churchtown, Parracombe

Owner of land affected  As listed under 62/50/16/001

17.(all) Mr & Mrs Holtom Little Close, Church Lane, Parracombe  As listed under 62/50/16/001 18. (all) S Bastock East Bodley Farm, Parracombe  As listed under 62/50/16/001

108

62/50/16/005 Letters of OBSERVATION following receipt of applications in February 2016

1 International Otter Survival Fund The Otter survey carried out was only done on the River Heddon and the water course at Blackmoor Gate. There seem to be a number of other water courses which could be used by otters, but no surveys done. – Otters will use drainage ditches to travel. Also if banks are plan to allow otters to travel through culverts, fences will be required, which may need to be 100metres long. 2. Mr & Mrs Salter, South Ridge, Parracombe No objection in principle, however has concerns about potential construction traffic through Parracombe and particularly along Old Church Lane. Would like some formal agreement in place to reduce this and require use of railway as much as possible as the applicants have suggested. 3. Mr & Mrs de Falbe, Heddon Hall, Parracombe Support principle, but have concerns regarding… The sight lines beween the proposed dwellings and Heddon Hall and how visible the dwellings would be. Concerns regarding noise from trains, and… Though not part of this application, would like greater detail regarding the part of the proposed line reinstatement at Parracombe Lane – they have fields either side. Would like assurance of the engineering works. 4 L Blanchard – Resident of Parracombe In general terms support is given to the proposal, but a number of reservations are held: LOCAL AMENITY AND SOCIAL BENEFITS There will undoubtedly be an increase in noise, both from the engine and from the whistle. To minimise this nuisance the numbers of trains per hour should be minimal and their frequency agreed with those residents closest to the line and Parracombe Parish Council. There will be considerable inconvenience to the village during construction phase including closure of some PRoWs. This is not acceptable and alternative footpath routes should be made available. Work should not start until all funding is in place. Welcome the provision of a local need affordable dwelling, but would recommend that both new dwellings are local need affordable dwellings. It is hard to see significant social benefit to residents and strong recommend that the opportunity to create a safe public footpath alongside the line of the railway should not be missed.

109

LANDSCAPE & VISUAL IMPACT It is clear that these applications will not fully meet the first purpose of the National Park. The proposed engince shed would have a significant adverse impact on this National Park Gateway site. The look and feel of Blackmoor Gate is currently slightly urban and the proposals need to reflect this gateway role and I am not convinced the design and landscape achieve this. The large agricultural barns at Rowley Moor Farm are in the ownership of the Railway, and these could be demolished to reduce the crowed industrial feel of buildings. WILDLIFE Welcome the aim to create a wildlife corridor along the line of the railway. Recommend that a management plan for wildlife areas is agreed with the LPA. TRAFFIC IMPACTS Measures to improve safety, already needed, would be imperative when traffic increases along this stretch of road. DARK SKIES RESERVE All lighting must be minimal and downlighting. Bright security spotlights would not be acceptable. ECONOMIC BENEFITS This proposal would benefit local people, in terms of jobs, as well as some local business even if the optimistic visitor projections are not fulfilled. NATIONAL PARK PURPOSES Welcome the opportunity that this proposal would give for people to enjoy and understand the National Park. The existing section of line has been especially beneficial for those with limited mobility, are frail or elderly, to enjoy spectacular scenery and wildlife and this enjoyment would be enhanced by the proposed extension. 5 S and P Kirkman – Church Cottage, Parracombe Do not wish to object, however wanted to raise concern regarding the use of the bridleway from The Halt Parracombe up to the main road – the surface of this is maintained by the residents of Churchtown and we do not wish to see construction vehicles using it which, as there is no turning facility at The Halt we feel may happen.

110

62/50/16/005 Letters received in SUPPORT from outside Exmoor & North Devon area or location not specified on the correspondence following receipt of further details in January 2017

ADDRESS 1.(16/001 & 003-005) 2. 3. 4. J Taylor R Youngson T J Butler B Lane Petersfield 3 Brotherton 15 Christchurch Rockbeare Hampshire Court Dorset Knittingley West Yorkshire 5.(16/001-003 & 005) 6. (16/001-003 & 7.(all) 8. T Carnell 005) E Mitchell M de Young 3 Summerway Dr J W Bond Exeter 9.(all) 10.(all) 11.(all) 12. R J Ashmore M L Smith R Heacock J Sreeves 4 Limewood The Old School 8 Badgers Close Close Alton Barnes Wanborough Ealing Marlborough Swindon Wiltshire 13. 14. 15.(all) 16.(all) P Heathcote M Lancashire D E Gandell A Braddock Lonsdale Felsted 4 Borderside Botley Road Essex Yateley Curbridge Southampton 17.(all) 18.(all) 19.(all) 20.(16/001-005) A Collins J Jenkins R Bradbury P Burns Turnip End 23 The Twistle Moy Avenue Cottage Byfield Derby Daventry 21.(16/001-003 & 005 22.(all) 23. 24.(all) J & S Arthurs M Bladwell J Harle J Lucas Little Oaks Farm 136 St Katherines 16 Sapte Close Bicknacre Road Rd Cranleigh Danbury Exeter Surrey Essex 25. 26.(all) 27.(all) 28.(all) D Mills A Mitchell D R Robinson J Smallwood 28 Impstone Road Pamber Heath Tadley Hampshire 29.(all) 30.(16/001-003 & R C White 005 D Martin 30 Starnhill Way Bingham Nottingham

111

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  If managed properly the railway has the potential to add benefits to Countryside Access leading to health and sustainable transport benefits.  The heritage railway proposed in this application is likely to be of significant benefit to the local economy.  The short term issues of building work should not cloud the long term benefits of this project.  As has been demonstrated in other parts of the country with other projects of this kind, the local economy, tourism and employment prospects have all improved as a result.  I particularly support the construction of two residential properties to accompany the railway re-instatement. It is particularly important that one of these will be made available to a local family at an affordable cost.  Permanent and temporary employment will be generated both during the construction and for the operation and maintenance thereafter.  This housing will provide a benefit to local people.  Will be educational for children of all ages, it will teach them about the history of travel in the area.  Bring great benefits to the area.  The extended railway would be a superb asset to Exmoor providing a much needed economic boost and enabling local residents and visitors alike to enjoy the stunning scenery and tranquillity, without harming the unique environment.  This is in keeping with the sustainable tourism, conservation and cultural heritage goals of ENP.  It’s a highly sympathetic and desirable development that should be encouraged in its entirety.  A world-famous little railway that could be brought back to life using existing infrastructure – talk about a gift horse.

112

62/50/16/005 Letters received in SUPPORT from Exmoor & North Devon area following receipt of further details in January 2017

ADDRESS 1. 2. 3. T Meakin W Garfield R Friendship Chair of LETA Lynton Cottage Northam Hotel 4.(all) A Giles Barnstaple

5.(all) W Pryor Lynton Cinema Ltd

6.(all) I Sutton Carhampton

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  As listed on 62/50/16/001

113

62/50/16/005 Letters of OBJECTION following receipt of further details in January 2017

Objection letters – received following consultation/notification of amended details

1. J Salter, South Ridge, Parracombe  Concern that the pair of semi-detached houses will be out of keeping.  Access is unsatisfactory. 2.(all) David Bastock, East Bodley Farm, Parracombe  As listed under 62/50/16/001 3.(all) Mr and Mrs Bray, Rowley Barton Farm, Parracombe and Mr and Mrs Anthony, Rowley Cottage, Parracombe

Owners of land over which the railway would pass

2 letters received

As listed under 62/50/16/001

114

62/50/16/005 Letters of SUPPORT following receipt of further details in November 2017

ADDRESS 1.(all) 1. P. Burns Moy Avenue Derby

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS  As listed under application 62/50/16/001

115

62/50/16/005 Letters of OBJECTION following receipt of further details in January 2017

Objection letters – received following consultation/notification of additional details November 2017

1.(001 - 005) Mr N Rafferty, Rose Cottage, Bridge Ball, Nr. Lynton Owner of The Halt bungalow proposed to be demolished

 Objections have not changed (from those raised 18/2/16).  Railway requires demolish of the bungalow, which I own and also work be over land I own at Rowley Cross.  The attitude of the Railway Trust continues to be both arrogant and offensive.  If any support is given to the applications then the principles of compulsory purchase is also being advocated which is offensive and wrong.

2. (005) Sally & David Bastock, East Bodley Farm, Parracombe

3.(001 -005) Mr and Mrs Bray, Rowley Barton Farm, Parracombe and Mr and Mrs Anthony, Rowley Cottage, Parracombe

116

 For the last two years we have questioned the railway’s claimed passenger numbers – these figures underpin the credibility of the business plan. The applicants, at the Parracombe Parish Council meeting, advised that the passenger numbers also include the passengers who pay once and travel all day. Therefore, passengers are recounted, giving an inaccurate figure of the genuine number of passengers.  We are concerned that the existing local economy will not withstand the disruption caused by these proposals.

4. (005) J Holtom, Little Close, Parracombe  The proposed extension of the Railway in its present form will destroy the character of Churchtown.  The proposed development is out of proportion with this quiet and peaceful ancient settlement and will impinge on the four adjacent listed properties.  The proposal is at odds with the Local Plan policy requirements – because of the scale of development and extra infrastructure at Parracombe Halt and because of noise and air pollution. 5. (005) S. J. Cheetham, Orchardside, Parracombe  I will be able to see and hear trains running – I tend to look favourably on the reconstruction of the railway and consider the work already carried out at Woody Bay to be of a commendably high standard.  Believe this will lead to an increase in visitors to Parracombe, however I have major concerns about the proposed work at Parracombe Halt.  The site lies in a Conservation Area amongst Listed Buildings and is most sensitive.  There is a severely limited road access.  The Halt only ever had a single line, a platform and a shelter.  Concern regarding the need/justification for the dwellings and the appropriateness of the design.  If the railway is to maintain its current high standards of restoration I suggest it should reinstate The Halt in Parracombe to its condition during the final decade of operation – many of may concerns about the redevelopment of the site of Parracombe Halt will have then been met.

6. (001-005) Foot Anstey LLP, including Counsel opinion on behalf of Mrs Grob, Court Place Farm, Parracombe Owner of land over which the railway would pass

Comments as raised under 62/50/16/001

117