150 replies to this topic

[swingsound]

UNIT, on 01 January 2011 - 02:14 PM, said:

The Upper Norwood Improvement Team has updated Les Brown, the divisional director of planning at Lambeth, about the proposed development. He has instructed his enforcement, policy, design and conservation officers to investigate and come back to us with a response in early January.

It would be helpful, if more information - such as a location plan in the context of the park and any photos could be posted here please or you can email us at: se19unit@hotmail.com

Thank you.

Could you let me know Les Browns email - thanks

[Otterygirl]

This is what happened in Devon when campaigners supported by the local authority put pressure on Network Rail.

This is from a policy document on the website of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England

Rail masts terminate here: Network Rail masts

Devon, 2003

Telecommunications masts erected for the railway network are ‘permitted development’, meaning that they do
not need an application for planning permission. These masts, where erected, have often been particularly
obtrusive in their siting and design. However, pressure from both local people and planning authorities in
Devon has led to Network Rail having to postpone and reconsider parts of its mast programme.

A direction can be issued on a specified area of land by the local authority under the regulations, specifically Article 4 of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. Such a direction (called an ‘Article 4 Direction’) can be used, subject to certain conditions, when a local authority thinks that the beauty of an area is threatened. The result is that a full planning application will be required for any development within the area specified.

In 2003 South Hams District Council, in south Devon, served an Article 4 Direction with Government approval
on a 500 metre stretch of Network Rail land, to prevent the construction of a telecommunications mast which
would have affected views of the Grade I-listed Totnes Castle.

Also in 2003, in the face of considerable pressure from CPRE, local authorities and other groups, Network
Rail abandoned plans to erect 20 masts, each 33 metres high, along the ‘Tarka Line’ between Exeter and
Barnstaple in Devon. These masts would have had a ruinous impact on the beauty of the Taw Valley.

[UNIT]

charlie, on 31 December 2010 - 12:02 PM, said:

ljbrown@lambeth.gov.uk - Les Brown - Planning Director

UNIT asked Lambeth whether it had taken any legal advice regarding the proposed development noting the information given on the Mast Sanity site and refering to the Article 4 direction (which Otterygirl has highlighted in her post). UNIT has received a further response from Les Brown:

"I had not been advised of the contact from NR so will check with John Flynn (team leader enforcement appeals and telecommunications);

We would not have sought legal advice separately given the severe budget constraints that we are having to manage, but other cases over the past 6 years have given us an appreciation of NR and permitted development."

John Flynn's email address is: JFlynn@lambeth.gov.uk

[Andrew Gibson]

Network Rail will argue that it can build what it wants under Permitted Development ("PD") rights, but as others on this thread have said, that is far from the case.

Network Rail only have PD rights for intallations "necessary" for the running of the railway. Gipsy Hill councillors should try to get this proposal put before the Planning Committee, where residents can have the opportunity to question whether the installation really is "necessary". The Committee tends to be more robust than council officers (see below).

Network Rail tend to "steamroller" residents on PD rights: as they say, they will have previously notified the Council, local MP, and local councillors (of which I was one - I will check my records to see what was sent), but they typically do not sufficiently spell out the detail or the ramifications of their plans, seeking to give the impression (in my view) that the plans are unobtrusive and anyway a "fait accompli".

(By the way, a friend thinks a notice was given out on the Benton's Lane Estate, depicting an unobstrusive aerial - does anyone have a copy?)

In addition, I see that the proposal is not easily found on the Council's planning pages - that is if it there at all.

(In contrast, a "normal" application will be assessed by council officers, with clear drawings (accurate, not indicative), site maps, and a discussion of the pros and cons under planning law. The application's progress would also be tracked in the fortnightly planning update sent to councillors by the Planning Dept. None of this seems to have been done in this instance, so the odds seem stacked against residents.)

As a poster has noted above, a similar case happened in Sternhold Avenue recently. After a seeming minimum of notice, a superstructure the length of three football pitches was erected almost overnight. This was for maintenance work, and involved lights shining into the residents houses all night.

The residents argued that this superstructure was NOT permitted development, as there were similar yards elsewhere that operated without the intrusive rigging. To cut a long story short, the residents won the argument at Lambeth Planning Committee. This was despite the fact that Lambeth's planning officers were defeatist throughout: they recommended allowing the development, as they were presumably worried they would lose an appeal and incur costs.

The Streatham Hill ward councillors and residents never gave up, despite numerous delays and setbacks. Eventually the case went to the Planning Inspectorate. The residents felt they were doing well, and indeed NR offered a "compromise". To the residents justified anger, this compromise was considered by the Council Officers and accepted by the new (post-May 2010) Planning Committee. Even so, the residents had established that NR could NOT simply do what it wants and that there is a difference between "necessary" and "preferred" maintenance operations.

The Gipsy Hill ward councillors similarly should work to get this proposal put before the Committee. They should not be swayed by excessive caution on the part of officers - the council has a legal contingency fund to allow it to fight causes such as this. One of the current GH councillors was on the Planning Committee that heard the final Sternhold Ave proposal and will be familiar with this process.

Also, I am going to contact the Sternhold Ave campaign leaders and put them in touch with Friends of Norwood Park.

The mast is blocking a valued view and it is close to houses - if, as an ealier post says, there is in-built redundancy in this mast network, then surely there is a chance that the mast can at least be moved elsewhere, if not scrapped entirely.

[Otterygirl]

Hi all,
Still awaiting time and date for the meeting with Network Rail but hoping it will be held at Kingswood Primary School. Will update as soon as have news.
In the meantime the South London Press are planning to run an article about the mast and want a photograph of campaigners. I have arranged a time for 2.30pm on Saturday at the location for the mast on the entrance to the country walk nearest to Finch Avenue (at the back of Gipsy Road).
We would really appreciate anyone who is against the mast whether you live in the area or use the park to please come along and support this important protest against Network Rail.
Thank you

[JennyB]

Dear Members,

Most of you by now are aware of Network Rail’s intention to erect a 75 ft GMS mast at Gipsy Hill/Norwood Park. Should the mast be erected its height would obscure the views residents have across London from Norwood park.

Gipsy Hill and Knights Hill councillors are aware of this matter and are working to try to find a resolution acceptable to the local residents and users of the park.

It is assumed that Network Rail is erecting the mast under permitted development rights. Permitted development rights are granted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 and enables “statutory undertakers” (Network Rail comes under this definition) to carry out certain types of developments without the need to obtain a separate planning permission.

Should the erection of the mast proceed it will blight the views across the park which apparently enjoys protected views status and change the character of the park. I am not, however, aware of any provisions in the Permitted Development Order that would limit the rights of Network Rail to build in an area which has protected views. A full description of permitted development rights can be found on Lambeth’s website.

I am currently seeking answers to the following questions.

• Does the proposed erection of the mast come within the definition of permitted development?
• If so, could Network Rail erect the mast at an alternative and less controversial site?
• Did the planning officers assess the proposed development and satisfy themselves that the works could be carried out under the permitted development legislation?
• Did the planning department set conditions upon which Network Rail must carry out the construction under permitted development rights, if so, what were those conditions?
• To what extent does the protected view status impede Network Rail’s right to erect the mast?
• Why wasn’t there a comprehensive consultation or notification procedure, and in particular, why weren’t the councillors in the Gipsy Hill ward advised of the proposed works?
• Whilst this matter is being reviewed can the Planning department place an injunction on the works?

I shall also obtain copies of any documents relevant to this development from the planning department.
.

I currently sit on the planning application committee and can advise that mounting a legal challenge to the propose construction is likely to be time consuming and expensive. I was involved in the tail end of the very controversial development of railway sidings in Streatham Hill by Southern Rail, ostensibly under the permitted development legislation. After four years of dispute and, following an application to the Secretary of State, the matter was finally resolved in November 2010. I hope that a legal challenge will not be necessary but this will depend on how amenable Network Rail is to resolving this matter by agreement.


I am in contact with several residents, Tessa Jowell MP and Val Shawcross, London Assembly Member, on this matter, all of whom are concerned about the potential blight to the area. I hope to attend the proposed meeting with Nicholas Gray, Communities Relations Manager at Network Rail in the near future. I will keep you updated on this issue as it unfolds. Should you wish to discuss this matter with me over the coming weeks please contact me (details below).

Lastly, you will all be aware of the excellent work Stephen Hodge, one of our residents, has been doing to try and resolve the situation – something I know we are all grateful for and I wanted to take this opportunity to thank him.

Regards

Cllr Jennifer Brathwaite
Councillor for Gipsy Hill
Labour Group Office
London Borough of Lambeth

Phone 020 7926 3000
mobile 07805943813
email jbrathwaite@lambeth.gov.uk
website http//www.lambeth.gov.uk

[densole]

Otterygirl, on 07 January 2011 - 11:17 AM, said:

Hi all,
Still awaiting time and date for the meeting with Network Rail but hoping it will be held at Kingswood Primary School. Will update as soon as have news.
In the meantime the South London Press are planning to run an article about the mast and want a photograph of campaigners. I have arranged a time for 2.30pm on Saturday at the location for the mast on the entrance to the country walk nearest to Finch Avenue (at the back of Gipsy Road).
We would really appreciate anyone who is against the mast whether you live in the area or use the park to please come along and support this important protest against Network Rail.
Thank you

We will all be there it's important, the more the better.

[Andrew Gibson]

Otterygirl,

Thank you (and others) for doing the site meeting and organising the protest.

At the site meeting, did you sense that the officers hold out much hope of change?

JennyB, you say:

"I currently sit on the planning application committee and can advise that mounting a legal challenge to the propose construction is likely to be time consuming and expensive...I hope that a legal challenge will not be necessary but this will depend on how amenable Network Rail is to resolving this matter by agreement."

Resolving the matter by agreement would certainly be preferable.

But if that can't be done the Council has a (cash) legal reserve to fight such cases as this. I hope you won't be swayed by the officers that this fight would be too risky. Officers were defeatist throughout the Sternhold Ave case, I am sure residents would argue, yet the residents demanded a legal challenge and were able to ameliorate NR's proposals substantially in spite of officer pessimism.

You also say:

"• Why wasn’t there a comprehensive consultation or notification procedure, and in particular, why weren’t the councillors in the Gipsy Hill ward advised of the proposed works?"

I think much of this is covered in my posting of 3 January. Network Rail seem adamant that they notified Tessa Jowell MP, local councillors and some residents. The question is how accurate and clear were their representations (and what was the delivery coverage for notice to local residents). If anyone has a copy of the letter to Bentons Lane Estate it might be very helpful.

(Jenny, as you will know, sadly the "notices" requirements for planning apps are not very onerous in law.)

Regarding this point:

"I currently sit on the planning application committee and can advise that mounting a legal challenge to the propose construction is likely to be time consuming and expensive."

Would it be better for one of your ward colleagues to lead on this issue henceforth given the legal rules surrounding "pre-determination" and Planning Committee members? I know these rules are to be relaxed, but they haven't been relaxed yet and I wonder if it is not better in future to be safe rather than sorry? i.e., you wouldn't want NR to challenge your right to be on the Committee hearing this case (one councillor had to step down from the Sternhold Ave Committee), so 'challenges' definitely do happen...

[Otterygirl]

I think it went as well as expected. The officer was very helpful. However, if it gets in to any kind of confrontation with Network Rail I do think it will come down to money re legal costs. The council says it has no money and as for the legal contingency of £1million I have been told that is there for the Streatham Network Rail wrangle.
I am very grateful for all the support but I don't think political point scoring is very constructive. I say that because the mast going up and not going up will come down to whether we can put enough pressure on Network Rail. That could come down to what the council do or don't do. I can understand your point about councillors on planning committees etc but they can always declare and interest and hopefully the vote would be so decisive against the mast it wouldn't matter. Also presently the mast is permitted development so unless the council take steps to call it it then this isn't even an issue.
Tessa Jowell's office say she wasn't briefed about this mast and so far none of the present or former councillors can recall ever being notified about it. If that is the case then clearly this is a huge oversight on Network Rail's part particularly as they have said they have consulted with all stakeholders. Though when it comes to stakeholders I would have thought residents and park users are a priority.

[swingsound]

TODAY Saturday 8th at 2.30pm in Norwood Park Please all come and join in the South London Press photo for the article about the Network Rail mast objection

[densole]

It's a clear bright winters day sun today and from our Norwood Park the views to our city of London are simply beautiful. Is is really true that Network Rail forgot to look at other sites when they planned this and now they know about the park because we told them they won't change their minds?

Edited by densole, 08 January 2011 - 10:25 AM.

[Andrew Gibson]

Otterygirl - I am surprised that the legal fund is "spoken for".

But you are right - we are not at the Committee or legal stage yet. Challenging the PD claim is the necessary first step.

[colinf]

JennyB, on 07 January 2011 - 11:46 AM, said:

I am currently seeking answers to the following questions.

• Does the proposed erection of the mast come within the definition of permitted development?
-> arguable. Signalling equipment is counted as PD. But is a phone mast warning system really signalling as it does not direct traffic?

• If so, could Network Rail erect the mast at an alternative and less controversial site?
-> the mast will intrude on views from sightlines within West Norwood Cemetery (Grade II* listed landscape). Moving it 1 km up or down the line will not improve matters. Reducing the height by approx 10m will probably remove the problem.

• Did the planning officers assess the proposed development and satisfy themselves that the works could be carried out under the permitted development legislation?
-> I don't think it went like that. Something to clarify with LBL planning.

• Did the planning department set conditions upon which Network Rail must carry out the construction under permitted development rights, if so, what were those conditions?
-> ditto

• To what extent does the protected view status impede Network Rail’s right to erect the mast?
-> the 1995 Order refers to Article 4 exemptions from PD for 'conservation areas'. It seems that this has been interpreted by the courts to include the curtilage of listed buildings (e.g. Devon CC). The GLA can best answer regarding its definition of protected views

• Why wasn’t there a comprehensive consultation or notification procedure, and in particular, why weren’t the councillors in the Gipsy Hill ward advised of the proposed works?
-> NR seem to have assumed it was PD and thus did not need to consider conservation considerations and thus it thought it had no obligation to consult.

• Whilst this matter is being reviewed can the Planning department place an injunction on the works?
-> the 1995 Order does not appear to go into this eventuality. However, I wonder if LBL Conservation may be able to do something under other powers.

[Otterygirl]

Hi all,
Just wanted to thank everyone who turned out for the photo for the SLP in the park today. Really appreciated. Should be in Tuesday's edition.
On your point Andrew about the £1million contingency fund...that's what the enforcement officer told us when I mentioned it. He said there was no fund and monies had to be set aside in a contingency fund each year for the Network Rail wrangle at Streatham, which sounds costly and long running.
We should know the date of the meeting with Network Rail on Monday. Nick Gray, Community Relations Manager says they plan to leaflet residents notifying them of the meeting. Will be interesting to see if we actually get the correspondence this time!
Thanks again

[densole]

Please keep the pressure on, these people need to hear your views and objections to Network Rail effecting Norwood Parks protected views of London -

Tessa Jowell / MP / tessa.jowell.mp@parliament.uk
Robin Gisby / Network Rail Director Of Operations / Robin.Gisby@networkrail.co.uk
John Flynn / Lambeth Planning / JFlynn@lambeth.gov.uk
Jennifer Brathwaite / Local Cllr / jbrathwaite@lambeth.gov.uk
Niranjan Francis / Local Cllr / nrfrancis@lambeth.gov.uk
Jane Pickard / Local Cllr /jpickard@lambeth.gov.uk
Matthew Bennett / Local Cllr / mpbennett@lambeth.gov.uk
Nicholas Gray / Network Rail Community Relations / Nicholas.Gray@networkrail.co.uk
Steve Reed / Lambeth Council Leader / sreed@lambeth.gov.uk
John Flynn / Lambeth Planning / JFlynn@lambeth.gov.uk
Lyndon Sawyer / Lambeth Enforcement Officer / lsawyer@lambeth.gov.uk
Valerie Shawcross / London Assembly Member / Valerie.Shawcross@london.gov.uk
Boris Johnson / Mayor Of London / mayor@london.gov.uk
Giles Dolphin / GLA Planning / giles.dolphin@london.gov.uk

Edited by densole, 09 January 2011 - 07:56 PM.