G'day all,
Some more updates for you.
1. If you'd like to read Daniel Zeichner's letter to GTR, it is now up at:
https://quashthetrainwash.org/danielzeichnerurgesplanning/
2. On Friday April 17, Richard Buxton solicitors (who are acting on our
behalf) sent a letter to the Cambridge City Council. In a nutshell, they
lay out our case that the definitions of industrial process and building
that GTR etc have apparently side-stepped do seem to apply and thus should
require a planning process. The letter asks the CCC to confirm that it
agrees with this position. If they agree, they could attempt to enforce a
planning process or not, and we could take a position on either of those
outcomes. If they do not agree, we would then need to take a position on
that. While our position on the applicability of planning seems reasonable,
the outcomes of this are still uncertain, so the best we can do is to
continue to put pressure on GTR, Network Rail, and Greater Anglia. As a
backup, we should also be prepared for a longer nuisance action against GTR
etc on the basis of noise, visual, and other environmental pollution if
this initial action does not stop the development.
The text of the letter follows below my sign-off. *Please do not forward it
in any form.* We should preserve it as private at least until the CCC has
responded. We do not want GTR, NR, and GA to see the precise details yet.
3. We should have another online community meeting. That could be next
week, before the CCC's response deadline, or the week after, when we'll
either know their response or know that they haven't responded. I propose
that we meet on either TUESDAY 21st or TUESDAY 28th, started at 19:30.
Please let me know if either is okay or you really need another day/time.
Until anon, Sean
Re: Carriage-wash facility at Cambridge Railway Station.
We act on behalf of Quash the Trainwash, a local group of residents
concerned about Network Rail’s proposal to build a 12-carriage enclosed
train wash facility on Network Rail land at Cambridge Station. The facility
will be located approximately 25 metres from the rear gardens of properties
on Great Eastern Street, with the proposed pump shed located even closer to
these properties.
Local residents are understandably concerned about the impact of the
proposed development, in particular the noise it will generate (we
understand that the peak period of use will be between 11 pm and 6am); the
vibration impact; the impact on daylight and sunlight levels experienced by
nearby properties; and the visual impact, in particular given its location
at the centre of the Mill Road Conservation Area. Whilst recognising the
need for a new carriage-wash facility, residents consider that it can
reasonably be located elsewhere where these impacts can be removed or
mitigated.
We understand that Network Rail do not intend to apply for planning
permission for the development. The reasons are set out in full in an email
dated 6th March 2020 from Chris Penn (Stakeholder Manager at Govia
Thameslink Railway), which we append to this letter. For the reasons set
out below, we consider that the development does require an application for
planning permission or at the very least it requires the prior approval of
the Council.
In short, Network Rail considers that the development does not require
planning permission on the basis that it is permitted development under
Part 8, Class A and Part 18, Class A of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (“the GPDO”).
We have reviewed the GPDO. Paragraph A.1 of Part 8 makes clear that
development is not permitted by Class A if it consists of or includes “…a
building used for an industrial process”. Article 2(1) of the GPDO defines
an “industrial process” as including the “cleaning” of “any article”. Since
“article” is expressly defined to include a ship or a vessel, the term is
plainly wide enough to include a train. As such, given that the proposed
carriage-wash is for the cleaning of trains, it is a “building used for an
industrial process” and not permitted by Part 8, Class A.
As for Part 18, Class A, 40, this applies to development specifically
authorised by a local or private Act of Parliament and we do not consider
that the Eastern Counties Railway (Brandon & Peterborough Extension) Act
1844 or the Great Eastern Railway Act 1862 (which incorporates the Railway
Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (“the 1845 Act”)) “designates specifically
the nature of the development”. In particular, the list of development
authorised by section 16 of the 1845 Act does not “specifically” refer to a
carriage-wash. In any event, under Paragraph A.1 of Part 18, development is
not permitted without prior approval where it consists of the “erection…of
any building”. That would include the carriage-wash. Therefore, even if the
development falls within the scope of Part 18, any development commenced
without the prior approval of the Council would be unlawful.
In light of the above, we ask the Council to confirm that it agrees that
the proposed development requires an application for planning permission;
or at the very least an application for prior approval. This would enable
the need for the development in this location to be properly assessed,
together with its impact. Even if permission is ultimately granted, it
would also enable the Council to control its impact through the imposition
of conditions. As matters stand, the impact of the proposed development on
the local community (in particular, its size, appearance, hours of
operation, and noise and vibration levels) will be left entirely
unregulated.
We would appreciate your response by 24 April 2020 please.
