Journal 70: The Choice is Yours

A. An outright purchase of the whole trackbed by the Company from the Official Receiver

This method requires the agreement of all the Debenture Holders (D.H.s) of the old Company and proof to the Official Receiver (O.R.) that we have the means to administer the land and all the liabilities connected with it. The O.R.'s job is to sell off the assets of the old Company, but he must ensure that he will not be landed with another liquidation involving the same property. He therefore imposes very onerous conditions on a prospective purchaser. We consider that his terms cannot be complied with and that the liabilities are too large for us to take on at this stage in our development. One of the D.H.s, Gwynedd County Council (G.C.C.) would oppose sale to us on the same grounds.

B. A joint pourchase by ourselves and another interested party

This arrangement would require the other party to believe that we could comply with the sale requirements and administer the land, as well as having the means of preventing the venture from failing. They and the O.R. would impose similar conditions as in A above to ensure this. The other party therefore could not agree to a joint purchase. Finding an interested party who would take on a joint purchase would also prove difficult.

C. A purchase of "part only" of the trackbed by the Company

The O.R. is unwilling to sell off the trackbed in part lots due to the nature of its physical layout i.e. it is a long thin strip of land. If he did this he would require and Abandonment Order for the entire length and this would raise countless problems for him. It would make his task much more difficult when he tried to sell off other parts and his job would not be completed until he had sold the entire lot. Legal and administrative costs would be prohibitive and he has no finance for this so he might ask the first purchaser to offset them. This would make the notion very unattractive to any party, even one with unlimited financial resources.

D. Reconstitution of the old Company

To the best of our knowledge this has never been tried before. Legal advice is that there is insufficient expertise within their profession to attempt it. It would require the cooperation of a majority of the D.H.s or would mean us getting sufficient Debenture Shares (by buying them off the D.H.s) to control the old Company. We consider it doubtful that G.C.C. with 20% or the D.o.T. with 42% of the Debenture Shares would back such a scheme. We also suspect that the D.o.T. considers that new statutory powers would be required. A very substantial sum of money would be needed, not only to reconstitute, but to fend off the numerous adverse possession claims that would undoubtedly result once a new owner became known. This potential amount of money, assuming that it is available, could, we consider, be better used to finance a reopened railway along part of the trackbed.

E. Leasing from another party which has powers to administer the trackbed

This requires a powerful body with statutory rights who can administer the land. This includes adverse possession claims, defective works and the many other ways which adjacent landowners could use to reinforce their case for claiming ownership. This party must also believe that we can carry out what we claim we want to do. It must be able to control the situation so that if our venture fails it has the means of clearing up afterwards. This party could allow extension when the lessee had reached a state where he could finance and administer it. In our present state this would appear the best course of action to adopt. Our leagal advisers favour this course of action and we feel that we should not disregard them.

The simple fact that we are a volunteer based organisation handicaps us in most cases. We are at present a small untried unproven organisation with questionable financial and administrative capabilities.

There is no conflict between the Council's 1978 proposals and the current ones. The present ones are in the same spirit with added guarantees for the Council bu in return protecting our interests; see the National Parks Officer's remarks.

There are advantages of land management if the Council own the trackbed. They would be able to administer that part in which we had an interest but with which we were unable to cope. We can be rebuilding part of the railway and growing stronger while they hold off the potential claims for possession. We have neither the ability nor the people to form an effective land management team nor can we finance such a vast undertaking. All our income and labour can be directed to building the first stage and making it viable. This will be the most convincing argument to the Council that we are able to progress further.

The Council have sufficient powers to upset our plans if we adopted a course which did not include their ownership of the land. Conversely, these powers will be used in our favour if we adopt a course of leasing from them (described later).

If we adopted a course which could possibly result in our owning all the trackbed, then we must be realistic in our assessment of the liabilities (described later). If we gained ownership of all the trackbed, we would have to meet head on opposition from various bodies (e.g. G.C.C, N.F.U.) which would bring about bankruptcy due to the financial outlay involved in opposing these bodies.

Providing the lease terms are not too onerous, freehold conditions do not appear to have much advantage. With G.C.C. as owners, their powers, e.g. Compulsory Purchase, are useful in resisting adverse claims made on a lessee.

Any of the other methods of owning the trackbed would result in a lot of effort being expended and result in the only achievement being that we had prevented the Council from purchasing it! We need more land quickly, to extend our railway and make our enterprise viable and credible.

Adopting the course of leasing from the G.C.C. has its risks, but we consider that there would be more risks involved if we were owners of the trackbed. Consider a series of advers possession claims being made against us, or claims for defective accomodation works. The latter would have to be paid immediately, not waiting until we could afford it. In our present state of development we could not provide the administrative land management or the finance. Under a lessee arrangement these claims, if made against a large organisation like G.C.C., would be dealt with by that body which has the organisation to cope with such matters. It is considered that far fewer claims would be made against such a body because of its remoteness and its standing in the governmental system.

Leasing Terms

A nominal rent would be paid annually and it is understood that the period of the lease would be in decades. There would be no "penalty clauses" attached (e.g. if Pont Croesor is not reached by 198x the lease expires). THe details of the lease would be arranged and agreed by the solicitors acting for each party, so that if the Company agrees to the deal at the E.G.M. the Board can approve the terms. If the terms are available for the E.G.M. the membership will be advised. Only after the lease terms are agreed and the E.G.M. approves the agreement will the Board withdraw its offer to purchase the trackbed from the O.R. and support a sale to G.C.C. The Company will maintain all structures, fencing and works on any land leased from the Council. The area of the lease of land will be more than sufficient to build not only any proposed track layouts, but also all other operating facilities. The Council will only take sufficient land along the side of the trackbed to provide a footpath.

No reference to options on extensions can be written into the lease for the section from Porthmadog to Pont Croesor, neither can any clause regarding the maintenance of integrity of the remainder of the trackbed. The Officers state that they would not recommend a sale to a third party.

There are no arrangements made with any other parties, but the cycleway people would only occupy on a license. Disclaimer notices would be used on any land occupied by any other party.

Form of Consultation

A Consultative Committe consisting of Company and COuncil Officials would meet at six monthly intervals and as needed. Other parties who may be affected would attend as required. It was not considered necessary for any consultation to include the District and Community Councils.

The Company would be given notice of all matters concerning the remaining unleased trackbed. A minimum period of 28 days notice would be given, with extensions if required.

Current G.C.C. Proposals affecting the trackbed

The Planning Department's only proposal is for a footpath to run alongside the railway from Porthmadog to Pont Croesor. The Highways Department had no proposals but were concerned over the condition of Bryn-y-Felin road overbridge. They are not concerned with river bridges or culverts unless they affect a public road.

The National Parks Office had proposals on some undefined footpaths, and a proposed cycleway somewhere between Rhyd Ddu and Nant Mor.

Planning Applications

Regarding the submissions of applications for further sections of trackbed beyond Pont Croesor it was considered inopportune until the Company had progressed to that point.

To allow both parties to make progress the Company is to withdraw its objection to the non-determination of its planning application for Porthmadog to Rhyd Ddu.

Your Directors have considered all the known facts and have come to the conclusion that a lease from the G.C.C. with possible extensions is the most advantageous method of extending the railway with the materials, finance and physical resources available to it at present.

Your Directors recommend that you accept the arrangements as detailed and attached to the notice of E.G.M. for 12th November 1983.

If the recommended course of action is not adopted, we will have to find and alternative and investigate it to the full.

We must believe we are right and understand the responsibilities and liabilities we are taking on as well as the risks we will be running. We must understand that the manner in which we rebuild, run and generally administer the first extension will be looked on by the G.C.C.as evidence that we are worthy of being trusted with more land. The decision of the E.G.M. must be by a majority of the membership because the Board must have your support. A small minority cannot sway any decision as the work is done by the members by common consent. The Board must have your mutual support and trust to be able to progress. There is ample evidence in past Council minutes that if we prove ourselves on the first section we will get further than Pont Croesor. Your Board believe that to succeed we must have the good will and support of the local people and there is ample evidence that this is so.

This is the most important decision that we have had to make so far in our existence, so we must each carefully consider all the facts before we decide, and on having done so, support our decision and see it through.

A Financial Appeal will be made shortly to finance the extension of our railway, by whichever means we can gain access to the land. I would emphasise that all money given to this appeal will be kept in a separate account and be used only for extending the railway.

Powers of Gwynedd County Council

Town and Country Planning Legislation

Planning permission would appear to be required for the rebuilding of the railway, but the legislation gives cause for doubt on this point. It is doubtful if enforcement could be pursued successfully by the local authority. This results in the desire of the local authority for land ownership control. Planning permission is definitely required for stations, workshops, bridges and new highway accesses. G.C.C. is the local planning authority within the National Park and in developments which cross its boundary. It is also the agent for Meirionydd District Council and as Highway Authority can direct refusal of any application affecting classified roads in the County or National Park.

Railway Legislation

Can object as Highway Authority and Planning Authority to the granting of a Light Railway Order. Experience has shown in the preservation movement that onerous conditions and unsatisfactory compromises have been reached (e.g. S.V.R., K.&E.S.R., N.N.R.).

Highway Legislation

As Highway Authority the council has powers to undertake any repairs it considers necessary to a road overbridge and recharge this cost to the railway. Powers of footpath creation are also available under this heading and can be reinforced by the Town and Countryside legislation.

Countryside Legislation

These include wide ranging powers to acquire and develop land for recreational purposes in National Parks.

Compulsory Purchase

Council has powers of compulsory purchase under all of the above headings. Regarding the trackbed they have not been exercised, but there is no guarantee that they would not be if needed.

Powers of Department of Transport

Railway Legislation

Has committed itself to stating that and Abandonment Order and a new Light Railway Order will be required for any railway on this land. The D.o.T. have not yet granted a L.R.O. against the wishes of a local authority in whose area the railway would operate. The D.o.T. effectively controls every aspect of a railway's operations under its existing L.R.O. This is reinforced by its powers under the Health and Safety at Work legislation.

Powers of District Councils

Town and Country Legislation

Dwyfor, Meirionydd and Arfon District Councils are the planning authorities outside the National Park and are therefore very reliant on the G.C.C. They can grant planning permission but have no other powers of significance, except compulsory purchase outside the National Park.

Adverse Possession Claims

The O.R. quotes a figure of 54 claims over the whole trackbed. Consider the amount of pressure there is likely to be on any new owner to settle these immediately after a purchase. Farmers would consider a private company (especially one like ours) much more vulnerable than an organisation like G.C.C.

Title

It is understood that ALL the deeds cannot be found.

Fencing and Drainage

There are approximately 24 miles of railway which would, in most cases, require fencing on BOTH sides of the property. Adjacent landowners are almost certain to apply pressure to have these repaired. Cost of new fencing is approximately £5000 per mile, for materials only. No estimate of work to be done on drainage is available, due to the fact that this alone is a formidable task.

Road Bridges

There are 10 public road overbridges, 5 private road bridges and numerous culverts. The bridges are generally in the northern area. These are generally of stone or brick and inspections have shown that they are all in very poor condition and would require some repair. Consider the cost of any short and medium term repairs.

River Bridges

There are 8 river bridges all of considerable construction (e.g. the viaduct at Glanrafon). At least 2 require urgent work to repair their abutments just to prevent any further erosion. What would this cost.

Insurance

If we purchased, what would be the insurance costs required by the O.R.? We consider that his requirements would be tantamount to a refusal to sell.

General

It is very difficult to put any realistic figures as to the cost of liabilities. However, consider that G.C.C. officers have been able to investigate this much deeper and more accurately than we have, and have then had difficulty in persuading their Councillors to offer £1 (yes, one pound) for the purchase of the whole trackbed!! They have budgeted £15,000 to cover costs in the first year only. A purchaser of the trackbed must be able to meet substantial legal and land management costs which could result from complicated adverse possession claims and other claims. Knowing some of these claims, we are of the opinion that the puchaser might not win. When your future depends on the continuity of the property this could prove decisive.

In a letter dated 7 June 1982, the O.R. asked what security we could provide in respect of paying for the Abandonment Order, defective accomodation works and breaches of covenant. Your Directors are unable to reply to this request.

On the question of a third party, in the form of a Trust, group of businessmen, revived 1922 Company or any other form of backers, taking on the trackbed, this has been considered many times over the years. No realistic proposals have ever come to light. A few years ago a Channel Isles businessman investigated the matter of purchasing the trackbed, came very near to a joint purchase/partial lease and then withdrew very quickly. We would suggest that this method requires a minimum of £50,000 initial capital, access to the best legal expertise and estate management and, most important, LOCAL PUBLIC GOODWILL. How long would such a scheme take to get things off the ground, even if it were started?