Hi I would prefer the 28th please.
Regards
Gillian
,
Gillian Shield
On 18 Apr 2020, at 12:56, Info Quashthetrainwash <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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.
