Track laying and planning permission

I cannot answer the original question as to the planning permission but for those of you who said that you MUST have a TWAO this is not always true. If your council is a unitary authority and are deemed to be the Landlord then all you need is the Landlords permission to run trains (in writing of course). and before anyone says that I'm incorrect then i will say that my own railway has gained their Landlords permission and was directed to this, thus avoiding a costly TWAO, by the HMRI.

 

There are plenty of grey areas, which is very useful when arguing with planners who, in my experience, rarely have much knowledge of planning law in relation to railways!
Basically, a structure or a use is regarded as permitted development if it can be reasonably shown to be necessary for the operation of the railway, so a station building or a workshop can come into that category, but it depends on the particular circumstances. For instance, a workshop which is attached to an engine shed or a station building attached to a platform, can reasonably be argued to constitute permitted development, but a workshop which is separated from the existing railway or it's facilities or a very large station building on a small branch line, might be a more difficult case to argue. The trouble is that the rules are not clear as to such details and it comes down to what is seen as "reasonable".

 

Gentlemen !!....excellent feedback , thank you all so very much. Having spoken earlier today to the duty officer in the planning dept in the borough council responsible who was very unsure about all this ...probably not too well versed in railway reinstatements !!. Thanks to you lot I am now well aware of any obligations !
One further question if I may.....In applying for permission to lay track, how detailed a trackplan do they require ??.
Cheers Tony.

 

I believe land has been earmarked, just not made official and this was probably known when the buildings were approved.

 

Reading the relevant part of the act the exact phrase used for Permitted Development is "Development required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail". I would take "required" to mean required by the railway in their opinion.

If the railway concerned identified a need for a footbridge or a cafe within a station then I think that they would be covered - the legislation suggests that pretty much anything can be done within the footprint of the station itself.

I think that looking at the wording it is less to do with necessity and more to do with whether the proposed development is related to railway use, and falls within the boundaries of an existing/current station to which the PD rights apply.

There is very little the Local Authority can do in the face of permitted development rights but as has been mentioned it is a good idea to keep planners informed and happy.

 

Since your planning officer has little experience in dealing with railway re-instatements (as is usually the case!) I would recommend, based on personal experience, that your track plan should be as basic (i.e. vague) as possible. This may save you problems in the future.

 

I don't think anyone has said that you must have a T&WO, unless your railway crosses a public right of way, in which case you definitely need one, whether you own the land or have the permission of your landlord, whether they are a unitary authority or not. In other circumstances all you need is an authorisation from HMRI or, now, ORR, which serves as the license to operate.
Mind you, I have heard of a railway which avoided a LRO (it was a long time ago) by taking H.M. Inspector out to a very good and fairly liquid, lunch. When he returned to inspect the line, he failed to notice the public footpath that crossed it!

 

From material posted on the GWSR "Broadway Blog" I seem to recall that the proposed car park arrangements for Broadway are the subject of a separate planning application as the car park will be on land adjoining the railway but to the south of the station site and involving the foot crossing of the B-Class Evesham/Station Road. This will doubtless involve some sort of Pelican or Zebra crossing installation I expect.

 

It was suggested by another poster that any road crossings on the level or by a bridge would require a T&WO. I really don't know the legalities of this but might add that TSR's main road crossing is via a tunnel. Is that regarded as a long bridge?

 

I assume this is concerned witht eh GCR Helsmton Group ?

 

As others have said the issue of planning permission is a complex one. I think advice from a professional is the only way to be certain (even an application for lawful development wont necessarily get you what you want). One area I am uncertain of is the "change of use". I know of land that hasn't ceased to be operational railway land despite the last train operating on it 40+ years ago and the track removed back then.

Planning authorities do not like (as a rule) and tend not to understand statutory undertakings - which this scheme is perhaps not yet. From personal experience I remember the reaction of a planning officer to the appearance of a carriage shed. Threatened all sorts of action and wanted immediate removal of the offending building. It was pointed out that we didn't require planning permission which led to a great deal of bluster. It was politely suggested that he check with his legal department whereupon it went very quite. The loco shed that went up later raised not a flicker.

 

Many thanks for that , as others have said getting the local planning dept onside at the beginning could reap dividends later on and will certainly do no harm.

 

I would suggest that track is a moveable feast and detail is not necessary. Buildings, on the other hand......

 

You don't need a T&WO but, without one, you will have no powers to cross a public highway.
The 1992 Act states that:
1 Orders as to railways, tramways etc.
(1)The Secretary of State may make an order relating to, or to matters ancillary to, the construction or operation of a transport system of any of the following kinds, so far as it is in England and Wales—

It doesn't say that you have to have one but it does define a railway and you will fall into that category so the various regulations will apply, including ROGS.
(a) a railway;
..........
"railway” means a system of transport employing parallel rails which—
(a) provide support and guidance for vehicles carried on flanged wheels, and
(b) form a track which either is of a gauge of at least 350 millimetres or crosses a carriageway (whether or not on the same level),

 

Way back in the 1970s when I worked on the AVR, the track was laid to just short of the first overbridge. I always thought that it was because that was all the rail we had been able to source, dig up and bring to site from various disused sidings and industrial estates. Having read this thread I wonder if it was actually to avoid being caught by the need to have various bits of paper in place.

 

[QUOTE="flaman, post: 1042941, member: 17341" ...... but, as with many other small domestic changes, most councils have bigger fish to fry and tend to turn a blind eye. However, they are likely to take an interest if the neighbours complain! .....".[/QUOTE]

Well, not quite. There is a legal principle of de minimis. In relation to planning control this means that something may fall within the definition of development (which is very wide) but is of such a small and insignificant scale that it would be contrary to public policy to pursue the matter. If neighbours complain the Local Planning Authority could rely on this if appropriate to justify taking no action. You cannot tell the Ombudsman that you operate a "blind eye" policy!

 

My emphasis. So, seemingly a tunnel would not trigger the requirement. I'm trying to think back as to the definition of a 'carriageway'. The Road Traffic Act defines a 'road' and, from memory, the Highways Act 1859, defines a 'highway', or was that also a 'road'?

The word 'carriageway' implies the ability for a carriage to pass along such, or would it also include the passage/carriage of pedestrians, as in the circumstance of a Public Footpath? I don't actually know.

When a certain workshop extension was being planned, I was told that the local Planning Authority requested that plans be submitted. IIRC, when I questioned if such would happen, the response was along the lines of, "No. We don't want to set a precedent."

The extension was built, much to the disappointment of local residents, and then the Building Control of the same Authority passed same which triggered some sort of Environmental funding/payback.

As to why Planning Permission was sought (and granted) in respect of Broadway, I am unclear. However, what I do know is that whilst the majority of the Village/businesses are in favour of the line being extended, there are a small number of (monied) people who are opposed to it. One only has to think back to documents concerning the original application where a resident from Springfield Lane submitted a Right of Way application. The response from Wychavon was, in effect, to FRO - or rather that his application would be unlikely to 'reach the top of the pile' for at least 2 years.

Perhaps PP was a way of ensuring that someone couldn't commence (expensive) litigation concerning the matter.

Whilst many have suggested 'getting into bed' (not literally) with the Planners, there is also the argument that they should be made to demonstrate their need to be involved.

Rather than seeking answers here, I would suggest contacting various Railways themselves, and taking advice based on their experiences/protocols.

 

I remember the Box incident, the Highways Authority tried a similar thing on the Station Road crossing, however as the relevant act of parliament for the crossing had never been revoked - there wasn't an issue

 

I think crossing would include a tunnel. I think the definition is deliberately set very wide.

I completely agree with the comments about planning departments. They should be treated cordially and collaboratively when there is a need to involve them, and excluded when there is not. Local Authorities will typically "extend" their powers whenever and wherever they can either deliberately or inadvertently. We do not need precedents being set, and neither does any individual group.

Station buildings have not been considered operational railway buildings in all cases in the past, and I know of several examples of this (despite the earlier example of the tearoom which I think was an unusually broad interpretation and not typical). Signalboxes, engine sheds, carriage sheds and the like are operational in that they are directly concerned with the operation of the trains. I presume the interpretation is that station buildings are concerned with the commercial aspect of the railway and the convenience and welfare of passengers. I can sort of see the point. You could safely run a railway without a station building, but not a signalbox (assuming the line is signalled at all) and the sheds could be said to be necessary for the safe maintenance of the trains. I don't know the precise background, but I have witnessed the application a few times.