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

I would say a combination of both. Try erecting a roofed building over a carriage siding alongside a running line. Clearances both inside and out would be very tight if not insufficient. Not forgetting planning matters of course.

 

I'm sure that most Local Planning Authorities would give permission to cover over a linear scrapyard - if they had to. An operational railway can use Part 8 permitted development powers for "works required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail".

 

There can be opposition by folks and planning needed in some 'conservation areas'

 

Didn't the NYMR have to abide by a number of planning rules when developing Grosmont loco facilities?

 

There is no meaningful opposition to matters that do not require permission. Conservation area controls only apply if the railway itself is within the conservation area. The erection of a building to house vehicles would be "permitted development" within class 8 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015. (The GPDO). Alternatively it may be possible to use Part 18 Powers. These require the prior approval of the LPA to the details of siting and design. It is as if the GPDO gives outline permission but approval of details is still required. In practice the LPA would be hard pressed to argue siting but could take quite a strict line on design details and materials.

There is an obscure way in which Part 8 (or indeed part 18) powers might not be operable and that is if it can be shown that the development is of a type that requires environmental impact assessment. The schedule to the EIA Regulations needs to be studied for this but it is extremely unlikely that building over existing railway tracks on an operational railway would be caught by this. If the railway wished to build on previously undeveloped land that was within its ownership and also operational land it is a faint possibility. Each case would stand on its own circumstances and advice from a practising town planner or planning lawyer should be sought.

Of course some railways might not wish to push GPDO powers to the limit because they wish to maintain good relations with the LPA.

 

This, sadly, can be a real issue

 

It very much depends on the individual council. If they give you substantial support, then I suppose it may be in the railway's interest not to upset them, but you have to decide whether their support is worth maintaining if they cause difficulties when it comes to new developments.

When we started Mangapps, back in the late '80s, our district council and LPA were broadly supportive, in the sense that they "talked the talk", though they did little in terms of "walking the walk". However, some years later when we wanted to extend, pressure from an influential individual and staff changes in the planning department led them to refuse us permission twice. We appealed, rather to their surprise, and won hands down, with the added embarrassment, to the LPA, of their being criticised by the planning inspector.

Shortly afterwards we obtained a signal box and erected it without reference to the planners. It didn't take long for the enforcement officer to arrive and be told to shove off. The LPA reacted with dire threats, so we claimed permitted development rights, which they claimed did not apply as we were not a "proper railway". We asked the Ministry of Transport and they confirmed that we were, as we had a license to carry passengers and, having the same obligations as a line with a LRO or T&WAO, we should have the same rights in terms of planning regulations. The LPA refused to back down, until I issued a counter threat to fight them all the way to the High Court, whereupon the "stout party" collapsed.

Result? The LPA have left us well alone ever since. No doubt we upset a few councillors, but frankly, that has not proved to be much of a loss!

 

I find that very interesting. For the LPA to claim that you had no permitted development rights under Part 17 (of the GPDO 1995, now Part 8 of the GPDO 2015) was plain professional incompetence. I can at least understand the enforcement officer thinking that way (I've known a lot of them including one who, in his police officer days, would tell drunken pests that they were being detained under the Afghan Light Railway Act 1896) but where was his line manager and, more importantly, what was the LPA's solicitor doing? From your "stout party collapse" comment I suspect that this was when the solicitor first saw matters.

If you're in Derby, have look at the East Midlands Signalling Centre beside the Birmingham main line. A huge three-storey block built as permitted development without dispute because of proper liaison between the LPA and the NR planners. Councillors were apprised of what was to happen so none were caught unaware. Things are done differently in the heart of the UK's railway industry!

I did once have a good laugh when we had a complaint that a man had built a signal box in his back garden. He had indeed, it was a scaled down version, a sort of Seaton Tramway of the signalling world, and just crept within the 4m height limit for outbuildings. It looked great!

 

Your suspicions about what was going on are spot on! Incidentally, the enforcement officer in question had a fairly colourful past- he was a former Rhodesian railway policeman. Probably just as well for me that he was no longer equipped with a rifle.

 

Or a dog!

 

I'm not going to disagree with you. In fact, I'm fully in agreement. There is confusion amongst LPA's though and it was highlighted in the All Party Report on the Value of Heritage Railways which said:
"Planning constraints. In general, heritage railways should benefit from the same permitted development rights as does Network Rail in relation to the national rail network. There is evidence that this principle has been eroded by the requirements of some planning authorities that heritage railways should seek planning consent for alterations or additions required for the railway‟s operational use. This appears to reflect some uncertainty by both planning authorities and railways in relation to the requirements, and should be clarified through appropriate guidance."
Heritage railways frequently apply for planning permission for railway operational infrastructure which I feel is shooting themsleves in the foot simply because, by applying, they are implicitly accepting that you need to.

 

When I was gainfully employed I made sure that we never registered applications for things that were permitted development. If a LPA does so, and there are objections which would result in such an application having to go to Committee, the only professionally proper thing to do is for the planning officer to advise the applicant at that stage that the proposal is PD, that no further action will be taken in respect of it and that the fee is refunded. Any Councillors involved will have to be advised of the situation and, without a doubt, the objectors will start asking why was it advertised with the usual "may be inspected and representations made etc." notice. This must be done because one cannot risk an appeal being lodged where the Inspectorate staff will immediately sniff it out and make the LPA look incompetent.

 

Also a former Planning admin staff member and agree operational railways have PD rights. However we didn't have a preserved line in the Borough to test that aspect. During my time I don't recall the miniature railway making any planning applications but whether that was because the planning officers gave them PD rights or that they didn't make any changes I can't say.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

PD rights apply

PD rights apply to all railway operators. An operator can be either the person maintaining the infrastructure or the person providing a service of trains (whether passenger, freight or engineering). There is no distinction between vertically-integrated railways and others. For definitions one needs to study the Railways Act 1993 and the Transport and Works Act 1992. One anomaly that I have noticed is that a railway is defined as having a gauge of 350mm or more unless it crosses (on the level or otherwise) a carriageway in which case narrower gauges would still constitute a railway. This begs the question as to whether or not the availability of PD rights to miniature railways depends on their crossing a carriageway. I've never heard of this being tested.

 

You are at it again bringing planning and permitted development into things....

 

Only by public demand.

 

Or the council (like many) may be entirely clueless about PD rights... I have one at the moment arguing that I need planning permission to put windows in a garage and not accepting any counter argument without case law?

 

Similarly you may have noticed various multi-storey car parks springing up adjacent to the WCML in the north west over the last few years, the one at Wigan was erected as permitted development...

 

Car parks are excluded from PD under the current and previous GPDO. I don't know the circumstances but I am surprised that the locals didn't challenge this.

 

Sadly I don't know all the circumstances either, an Officer mentioned it in passing to me when I complained about the design when he was being awkward regarding the design of my scheme...