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
