I can email Diane Rowe about the noise. I imagine she'll say their working on
the carriage wash!
Elizabeth
On 20 April 2020 at 16:50 Anne-Sophie Bretonnet <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi Elizabeth,
You are not alone...this thought crossed my mind too.
I'm tempted to call Diane Rowe to at least have an understanding of what
it is they're doing, but I'm desperately trying to complete some work and
just checking my emails briefly before getting back to it now...so this might
have to wait...unless someone else feels like trying this?
Cheers
Sophie
Le lundi 20 avril 2020 à 16:24:59 UTC+1, Elizabeth Mozzillo-Howell
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
Hi, I can do any day.
They are certainly making an awful racket out there. I could by cynical
and say that they (GTR, Network Rail, etc) are using this time to get on with
building the carriage wash knowing that we cannot gather for a in-person
meeting. Otherwise, we might have received a reply from Chris Penn by now on
a virtual meeting?
Elizabeth
> > On 19 April 2020 at 20:47 Gillian Shield
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi I would prefer the 28th please.
RegardsGillian
,
Gillian Shield
On 18 Apr 2020, at 12:56, Info Quashthetrainwash <
info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mailto: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.
> >
