Planning and Permitted Development, ex-The "linear scrapyard" revisited

These comments are of course nothing to do with Wigan or NR but to an anonymous LPA and an anonymous railway operator. A car park is excluded from the things that can be built under Part 8 (GPDO 2015) powers. If a car park is built without permission it is unauthorised development and could be subject to enforcement action within four years of its completion. However, if our fictional LPA had issued a letter, or worse still, a Section 192 Certificate, it would be estopped from taking action. In these circumstances an aggrieved party could complain to the Local Government Ombudsman and, in the circumstances I have described, I rather think that the LPA would be found guilty of maladministration. The Ombudsman has no powers in relation to the development but can only censure the LPA and "suggest" that compensation is paid to the complainant. Whilst the Secretary of State has reserve powers to do virtually anything a LPA can do, I am unsure how this would square if a Section 192 Certificate were in place. An objector could go to the High Court to seek the quashing of any such certificate but whether this would really help anyone is debatable.

It's fortunate that your scheme was less than perfect or we would never have found all this out!

 

Does that apply to developments outside the existing authorised railway land - e.g. a new siding and a carriage shed in a newly purchased field next to the existing depot? I'd assume planning permission would be necessary but I expect you will know for sure.

 

Who knows - may have just been a design officer venting if he wasn't consulted or just used it as an example to shut me up and stop my moaning... I must confess I never checked if an application was made, I would expect at least a LDC application to be on the system and may be there, I would check now if I was sat at computer.... Anyway been there 5+ years now.

 

Having been retired 8 years now my knowledge is long rusty but IIRC you would perhaps need change of use for the field from agricultural land to whatever category (I've forgotten which) industrial or light industrial comes under. In the case of the earlier quoted Alton brewery land though that would probably not have applied as it was already in industrial use before the recent change to housing. It would be a definite case of reading the legislation and guidance though as to whether PD rights of the owner operator then over-rule any other consideration that was already governing the land, pre-sale. Most of the PD rights issues we had to process were over volume on back extensions etc and all within existing cartilages.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I suppose as a general caution we should do our best to avoid wishful thinking which, sadly, tends to be a bit of a problem with railway enthusiasts!

Paul H

 

A very interesting question! A couple of years after originally gaining planning permission for our railway, we laid an additional 40 metre siding adjacent to the permitted line, on land that already belonged to me, but just outside the curtilage of the original permission. The LPA's officers objected, made it clear that they would recommend refusal of any planning application and, when we refused to remove the siding, started enforcement action. A compromise was eventually reached and the Enforcement Notice was withdrawn, but it remained on our deeds for almost 2 years until my lawyers threatened action against them, and in the meantime we could not make any land transaction affecting any part of our 400 acre property!
When we started planning our extension, 400+ metres long, which was to run immediately adjacent to our entrance drive and which was covered by the original planning permission as being the verge of the drive, my advisors suggested that we did not require further permission. The LPA, however, disagreed, in spite of the area on which the track was to be laid being within the curtilage of the existing permitted development.
We were confident that they had no grounds to refuse permission and made an application anyway, only to find that they were determined to resist. The matter was eventually settled by a successful appeal, but I have often wondered whether we could/should have gone ahead with construction of the line and then fought it out with them.
The question could arise again, were we to decide to extend further.

 

One snag with all UK planning issues (viewed as a non-planner) is so much appears to be subjective opinion


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I think that you have answered your own question in that the Inspectorate would never have processed the appeal if the works involved were permitted development.

 

So that would also answer Miff's question ( post #51)?

 

Yes. Railway permitted development only relates to building or engineering operations, never to changes of use. Of course one could apply for planning permission for change of use from (say) agriculture to railway operational land, but I would expect the LPA to be very circumspect about granting such an open-ended permission. It wouldn't want the additional land to be used for a siding which then became the famous linear scrapyard.

 

Perhaps we were rather lucky, because that is exactly what happened when we were given our initial planning permission. It didn't even specify the precise location of sidings or whether the line was single or multiple track.

 

If the development requires the purchase of additional land, not already owned by the railway undertaking then Planning Permission is always required.

If the development is on land the railway undertaking already owns AND the development is directly related to the operational needs of the railway (e.g. a new relay room, crew mess room, station building, signal box, GSM-R mast, stabling sidings, lineside lighting, etc) then planning permission is technically not required - though that does not absolve the railway undertaking from complying with regulations to do with sound / light pollution, environmental issues and the right of neighbours to privacy (as in not being able to look directly into nearby houses) etc.

Car parks, and buildings housing, say, timetable planners, signalling design staff, Payroll, HR, route directors, heads of departments, training divisions, etc are NOT considered as directly associated with the operational needs of the railway undertaking. So the likes of Basingstoke ROC required planning permission as although construction of the bit of the building housing signallers would be allowed under PD rules, the training school and general office sections are not.

Usually the advice is that even if a development would technically not need planning permission under PD rules, it is wise to apply for it anyway as by following the process the railway can (1) be sure it has not left out any of the many other regulations which apply separately to the PD issue and (2) It also covers them should it there be any doubt or legal challenge later on that such and such an activity does not count as operationally necessary for the running of the railway in the courts (3) it allows the railway to get backing from the majority of local residents / councillors for the plans, by engaging with the local community and respecting any concerns they may have.

 

Most interesting. A recent example of these sorts of issues was the surfacing of the lower carpark at Havenstreet in tarmac. This required planning permission which produced a condition requiring a hydrocarbon separator for run-off water to be provided.

(Before the grotophiles on this thread get busy on the "red tape" track, it should be pointed out that the adjoining land is a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Also the railway's property by the way.)

PH

 

I think the first statement should actually be that if the development requires the use of land which is not designated as being in railway use then planning permission is always required for the change of such use. I think I am correct that the ownership by a railway company of a piece of land does not necessarily confer a designation of "railway land", though equally land owned by the company, but never used for railway use, but which formed part of the original land acquired for the railway (and defined in the act or light railway order incorporating the company) may well be so. Once the land is designated as operational railway land then PD rights apply to it because it is land in railway use owned a statutory undertaking. All that said I suspect that the local authority would want to know what the land was to be used for exactly before granting permission for change of use, so it may be a moot point. If though the change of use was granted for say sidings, and subsequently a carriage shed was wanted, I think that a further application may not be needed. I am unclear how much of the Transport and Works act would apply, a virgin field next to the running line upon which sidings were to be laid wouldnt (I think) be covered by the LRO or T&W originally granted, I dont know if it possible to "add on" small scale works....never had to try.

There is a fairly strong counter argument that applying for planning permission for things which do not require you to do so because they are part of the entitlement of the organisation as a statutory undertaking sets a precedent that is unhelpful. Item (1) in your list ... due diligence to building regulations and environmental legislation (for example) is required whatever, and reliance upon the planning system to identify those requirements to you may lead to either of two extremes...not identifying all the requirements, or identifying additional activities not in fact required. (2) I dont see that this applies if the company is reasonably sensible about following the PD rules that apply to it, and in ensuring that the classification and usage of the building or facility is per the original intent or very nearly. (3) Engagement does not require planning processes, and these should not be being relied on to drive local engagement. If the company enter the planning process without already knowing what objections and support they are likely to get then that is a failure really.

 

There is an exemption for things such as an office building which can be permitted provided they are "wholly within" a railway station. Note that a railway station is not necessarily just the platform in this context. This can be very useful if you have a large area which has always been designated as a station since the 19th century...

Regards

Matt

 

I have been looking at T&W Orders recently and came across the one that was granted when the Dart Valley Railway plc transferred the Totnes to Buckfactleigh line to the South Devon Railway Trust. (SI2009/3281)

http://origin-www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/3281/made

I notice that this Order covers many sidings and minor extensions that had been made over the years and that were not covered by the original LROs. So there is a precedent for covering this kind of siding with a T&W Order but I'm sure that it wouldn't be economic to do so unless you were getting an Order for other purposes at the same time.

Nick

 

Wouldn't you have put in a separator if it had not been mentioned in the PP, then?

 

Interesting to read comment #8 (or thereabouts) here in light of that; surely a signal box counts as a "work[] required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail"?

Noel