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
