Hi all,
Just a heads up to be preppared...
I thought I'd go to the local event at St Philip's church about the local plan
yesterday evening. Even though the scope was of course different, I thought I
would try to mention the industrial train wash.
It turned out that a nice shop keeper (the lady at Fantasia) mentioned it first
and is on our side. But at the end of the event I had a chat with her and
another trader (not sure which shop) who has a What's App group for Mill Road
traders to communicate. I thought that man could be an ally too, but he
immediately turned out not to be. He first told me that he had a 'meeting with
them' (Govia) yesterday to 'understand the real' design and that our picture
was very misleading, that the design would be made 'official' at the Monday
meeting and that given what Govia has already invested in this project, we'd
better adjust to the idea that it would be built. He also implied that we
didn't understand how little the noise impact was going to be, just the sound
of a washing machine - 'no, no vibrations!'. I had a calm point to make for all
of his assertions, and say we had to work with very little info since Govia
wouldn't give any, but it was clearly no point trying to make him see our views.
That guy is coming on Monday and won't be on our side.
Has any 'official' design been shared with us yet? Not that I know of. Why?
Should I ask Chris Penn? I feel we're asked to show our demands ahead of the
day (fair enough) but only being told the smallest part of the least
inconvenient truth in return, to be taken off our guards on Monday.
Enough to say for now but I thought this was worth sharing!
Cheers,
Sophie
Le jeudi 20 février 2020 à 03:55:30 UTC, Cherie Gregoire
<dancingmatrix@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
Hello Elizabeth -
In planning, it all comes down to the scope of the application and that is
defined by the Site Plan. This is commonly referred to as the red line
boundary. In the case of the permitted development rights, GTR only applied for
the bridgeworks.
So GTR only had to prove the bridgeworks themselves couldn’t be built elsewhere
and that visually they would not be changed enough to effect local amenity.
You’re probably right that had the entire works been included that those two
conditions would not be able to have been met.
Kind regards,Cherie
Sent from my iPhone
On 19 Feb 2020, at 16:01, Anne-Sophie Bretonnet (Redacted sender abretonn for
DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks at lot Elizabeth and everyone who's looked into the legal aspects!
It's easy to get lost in all these documents relating to the Application for
prior approval, especially when there is so little said about the carriage wash
and its dimensions or constant use etc, and - to my untrained eye - a lot of
red-herrings about various constraints and related properties and other things.
But anyway - about the lawyer that Gill is in touch with: are we considering
the possibility to instruct her? Or the contacts that Ted mentioned before? I
have no idea what fees would be but it feels to me that we must prepare for the
idea of legal help if we want to stand a chance.
On another note, I'll start distributing fliers tonight at the train station
when I'm back from work, and next days in the morning on the train to work.
Regards,
Sophie
PS: Something I keep wondering is: why would any train wash have to be that
high anyway??
Le mercredi 19 février 2020 à 11:27:45 UTC, Elizabeth Mozzillo-Howell
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
Hi,
There are 40 documents associated with the Mill Road Bridge alternation
planning application, but here in the covering letter (see attached), under
'Schedule 1' there is mention of a carriage wash. Nothing about dimensions. The
maps that accompany the planning app show the carriage wash (as I mentioned in
a previous email). its location (and the plant's), has now changed somewhat,
judging from the recent maps (and there's nothing about a car park in the
original map/plan).
The Delegated Report is very interesting. I site just a small part of the
report:
5.5 The GPDO [The General Permitted Development Order of 2015] goes on to state
that development is not to be refused, nor are conditions to be imposed unless:
i. The development ought to be and could reasonably be carried out elsewhere on
the land; and ii. The design or external appearance of any building or bridge
would injure the amenity of the neighbourhood and is reasonably capable or
modification to avoid such injury.
5.6 It follows that unless the Local Planning Authority considers that the
location of the development is wrong, or the appearance adversely affects the
amenity of the neighbourhood, Prior Approval must be granted. With this in
mind, the application has been assessed against the following planning
policies, as far as they are material to the proposals under Part 18 of the
GPDO:
It goes on to mention the various policies, etc. that were in consideration.
Prior Approval should never had been granted, obviously, had the entire
application been properly considered. The focus of the application was all on
changes to the bridge and the effects of its closure.
Elizabeth
