hello all,
Can anybody send me the email for Chris Penn? best wishes, Peter Joseph
________________________________
From: cambtrainwash-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <cambtrainwash-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
on behalf of Anne-Sophie Bretonnet <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 21 April 2020 07:03:23
To: cambtrainwash@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [cambtrainwash] Re: Update on legal action
Thanks Elizabeth!
You may be proven right or be 'pleasantly' surprised if she shares more, but at
least we'll have tried!
Kind regards and take care
Sophie
Le lundi 20 avril 2020 à 17:11:50 UTC+1, Elizabeth Mozzillo-Howell
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
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.
