planning statement appendix 2 main statement of common ground statement … · statement of common...

Planning Statement Appendix 2Main Statement of Common Ground

Land at Streatham Hill Depot SOCG 230210

Without Prejudice

PINS Reference: APP/N5660/C/09/2109705

LPA Enforcement Reference: 05/00391/4CNS

STATEMENT OF COMMON GROUND

23 FEBRUARY 2010

London Borough of Lambeth Council

Southern Railway Limited

In relation to land at:

Land at Streatham Hill Depot, Drewstead Road (to the rear of Sternhold Avenue), London SW16

Town and Country Planning (Enforcement) (Determination by Inspectors) (Inquiry Procedure) Rules 2002

Appeal by Southern Railway Limited against an enforcement notice issued by London Borough of Lambeth Council on the 23rd June 2009 requiring the removal of three canopy structures over platforms 1, 2 and 3 together with associated pipes, conduit, wiring, lights and fixtures and fittings above platform level, and seven lighting columns, on land at Streatham Hill Railway Sidings.

Land at Streatham Hill Depot SOCG 230210

Contents Page

Error! No table of contents entries found.

Land at Streatham Hill Depot SOCG 230210 1

1. Introduction

1.1 This Statement of Common Ground (“the Statement”) has been prepared by the London Borough of Lambeth Council (“the Council) and Southern Railway Limited (SRL) (“the Appellant”) in accordance with Rule 16 of the Town and Country Planning (Enforcement) (Determination by Inspectors) (Inquiry Procedure) Rules 2002 (SI 2000 No. 2685).

1.2 The purpose of the Statement is to set out the factual information agreed between the Appellant and the Council about the appeal in order to narrow the areas of dispute at the inquiry, in accordance with the guidance in Annex 4(II) of C02/2002. In accordance with paragraph 4 of the Annex, this statement is intended to be factual. To the extent that any comments or opinions may appear in this statement, they are not agreed.


2. Description of the Appeal Site and Surrounding Area.

a) The Appeal Site

2.1 The Appeal Site (“the Site”) forms part of Streatham Hill Railway Depot and is a railway siding with five roads located to the west of Streatham Hill on the north side of the mainline railway between Balham and Streatham Hill. Immediately adjacent to the Site to the north are the gardens and terraced houses of Sternhold Avenue. Immediately to the south of the Site are the main lines of the railway and beyond a train shed and roads also in railway sidings/depot use. Further to the south adjacent to the railway are residential properties in Drewstead Road and with access from Drewstead Road. To the west is Tooting Bec Common.

2.2 The Site is shown enclosed by the red line on the enforcement notice plan

(Grid Reference 5302064, 1726480) and occupies an area of 1.2 hectares. It falls entirely within the administrative area of the Council and is located in the Streatham Hill Ward, immediately adjacent to the boundary with St Leonard’s Ward to the south.

2.3 The Borough boundary with the London Borough of Wandsworth lies to the

immediate west of the Site, running in a north-south direction to the west of Rastell Avenue, cutting across the end of Drewstead Road.

2.4 Streatham Hill Railway Depot has two parts comprising the Site to the north of

the mainline railway running between Clapham Junction and Crystal Palace (known as the “Downsidings”) which provides a stabling area for trains and comprises five sidings referred to as “roads 1 to 5” with turn-out rail access to the main line on its northern side and accommodates plant and equipment; and depot land on the south side of the line (known as the “Upsidings”), that includes a fully enclosed depot train shed, sidings, a training school, staff accommodation and associated railway apparatus..

2.5 Vehicular and pedestrian access to the depot is available either from

Drewstead Road ( the principal access) or Sternhold Avenue. A footbridge over the mainline at the eastern end of the Site links the north and south sides of the Depot.

b) The Surroundings

2.6 The Site Plan provided at Appendix 1 shows the layout of the Site and its

relationship with the surrounding area. In addition, an aerial photograph of the site and surroundings is provided at Appendix 4. The plan and photograph show the wider area and land to the north and south of the railway in predominantly residential use with common land to the west. The locality of the Site is in more mixed uses comprising mainline railway, railway depot, common land and residential uses.


2.7 The Site shares a boundary with the gardens of the residential properties 87-

251 Sternhold Avenue, which are located on the southern side of Sternhold Avenue and comprise a total of approximately 100 properties. These properties have existed since at least 1916 and are predominantly 2-3 storey terraced properties some of which have loft extensions. A number of the properties have been converted and the residential accommodation therefore comprises a mix of flats, maisonettes and houses.

2.8 The boundary wall of the rear gardens of the dwellings Nos. 87-251 on the

south side of Sternhold Avenue follows the approximate line of the northern boundary of the Site. The boundary wall is constructed from brick. It varies in height between approximately 1.2 metres and 1.8 metres on the sidings side and between approximately 2 metres at the eastern end and 4 metres at the western end on the residential gardens’ side.

2.9 As can be seen on the Site Plan, the Downsidings are proximate to the

dwellings on Sternhold Avenue. This relationship has existed since at least 1916. No. 155 Sternhold Avenue is today 12.5 metres distant from the nearest canopy on the Site.

2.10 The Site itself is effectively level. The dwellings adjacent to the Site along

Sternhold Avenue are sited on lower ground. Some of the ground floor flats on Sternhold Avenue are below the level of the railway lines and some first floor residential accommodation is at the same level with an outlook to the south towards the Site and the development enforced against. These height differences between the adjacent dwellings and the Site increase as Sternhold Avenue slopes downhill towards Tooting Bec Common. These differentials in height have been a feature of the local townscape since at least 1916.

2.11 Residential properties are located on the northern side of Sternhold Avenue

and in the adjoining roads, which include Rastell Avenue, Tenham Avenue, Salford Road and Thornton Avenue. These are quiet residential streets with no significant through-traffic.


3. Description of the Development Enforced Against

a) Summary of the Development

3.1 The Development which is the subject of the enforcement notice is described in the notice (with amendments proposed by the Inspector at the pre-inquiry meeting) as follows:

1. the construction of a Controlled Emission Toilet (CET) Pumphouse (“the CET Pumphouse”), measuring approximately 2.5m high by 4m wide and 6m long abutting the western end of the existing brick single storey building adjacent to the northern boundary of the site in the approximate location indicated on the plan in Appendix 1; and

2. the installation of a sand silo measuring approximately 9m high by 2.4m in

diameter adjacent to the existing footbridge at the eastern end of the site in the approximate location indicated on the plan in Appendix 1; and

3. the construction of two raised walkways measuring approximately 1.1m

high by 1.1m wide by 332m long in the approximate location indicated on the plan in Appendix 1 as “walkway 1” and “walkway 2”; and

4. the construction of three raised platforms together with three canopy

structures over together with pipes, conduit, wiring, lights and associated fixtures and fittings attached: a) “Platform 1” measuring approximately 35cm high by 2.4m wide by

313m long with “Canopy 1” over; b) “Platform 2” measuring approximately 35cm high by 1.25m wide by

297m long with “Canopy 2” over; c) “Platform 3” measuring approximately 35cm high by 1.8m wide by

282m long with “Canopy 3” over; all in the approximate location indicated on the plan in Appendix 1; and

5. the erection of seven lighting columns measuring approximately 8.5m with a 9m crossbeam over Walkway 1 and Walkway 2 in the approximate location indicated on the plan in Appendix 2; and

6. the erection of four approximately 6m high poles with CCTV cameras

located at either ends of Platform 1 and Platform 2 in the approximate location indicated on the plan in Appendix 1.

3.2 The Development commenced on 25 July 2005 and finished on 27 March

2006 (SRL Briefing Note for Councillor Paul McGlone, 10 August 2006) [CD D4].

b) Detailed Description of the Development

3.3 A detailed description of each element of the Development is provided below.

i) The CET Pumphouse


3.4 The CET Pumphouse is a sound proofed metal cabinet housing (measuring

approximately 2.5m high by 4m wide and 6m long) that contains an electric suction pump. The pump is connected by pipework in under track crossings and supported on the canopy structures, to the CET emptying stations on Platforms 1, 2 and 3. The pump sucks the effluent from the emptying stations on the platforms to the CET Pumphouse. The effluent then flows by gravity to an underground pumping station from where it is pumped via below and above ground pipework over the pedestrian bridge to the public sewer in Drewstead Road.

3.5 The CET Pumphouse is located at the north boundary of the Site, adjacent to the staff building, to the rear of Nos. 113-115 Sternhold Avenue. Vent stacks are fitted to the gravity manhole/underground pump chamber adjacent to the pedestrian bridge on the line between to CET Pumphouse and the Upsidings. The vent stacks are fitted with non-emission damper cowls.

3.6 The CET emptying stations are contained in cabinets located at twenty metre centres along Platforms 1, 2 and 3. Their spacing is determined by their function which is to service the effluent retention tanks located on the trains. At the time of design a number of different train configurations had to be catered for Class 319s, 456s as well as Class 377 trains. Since the development was completed the toilets have been removed from 456 units and 319s no longer operate on SRL’s network. Each CET emptying station is connected by the operative to the adjacent effluent tank on the train by a hose pipe whereby, in accordance with a programme, it empties the tank of effluent by suction, flushes the tank with cold water and then empties the tank of the cold water. Each CET emptying station is equipped with a separate cold water outlet which is used to refill the toilet’s flush header tank on the train. This header tank also serves hand wash basins within the trains.

ii) The Sand Silo

3.7 Kiln dried sand is used in the braking systems of trains to enhance braking e.g.

during wet weather or snow. The sand is held in sand boxes on the trains which are required to be refilled from time to time.

3.8 Sand is stored in the Downsidings in the sand silo measuring approximately

9m high by 2.4m in diameter located adjacent to the existing footbridge at the eastern end of the Site as shown on the plan at Appendix 1. Sand is delivered periodically to the silo by road tanker.

3.9 The sand is moved from the silo by compressed air agitation through ground

troughing, over the staff building on the pipe gantry, into under-track crossings and then through pipework supported on the central canopy structure to intermediate dispensing vessels and then on to the sand dispensing points and finally to the sand dispensing guns. The dispensing guns are petrol station like ‘guns’ in ‘holsters’provided at twenty metre centres on Platforms 1, 2 and 3. They are fed from local pressure vessels about 3 metres high which receive and boost the sand flow using compressed air. Sand is distributed to Platforms


1, 2 and 3 from local pressure vessels via undertrack ducting. The train sand boxes are located on both sides of the train and are filled by operatives using the dispensing guns.

iii) Two Raised Walkways

3.10 Walkways 1 and 2 are located between roads 1 and 2 and between 2 and 3

(counting from the mainline). These roads are each long enough to stable up to a 16 car train set of the Class 455 rolling stock and include acceptable standoff gaps to allow combinations of other train sets totalling 16 cars (Class 455 and 456). The walkways are not covered. They provide train floor level access for cleaners to enter the train for cleaning purposes. This arrangement is preferable for health and safety reasons. It avoids staff carrying buckets and vacuum cleaners having to climb ladders to gain access to the train. Walkways 1 and 2 are equipped with cold water outlets so that in the event of 377 trains entering these sidings they can still be filled with fresh water. Electric power outlets and emergency traction current isolation arrangements are also provided and these are accessed via pit covers within the walkways. Lighting is provided from gantries and seven new cantilevered lighting columns (described below)

iv) Three Raised Platforms, Three Canopy Structures and Pipes, Conduit,

Wiring, Lights and Associated Fixtures and Fittings 3.11 Platforms 1, 2 and 3 (approximately 300mm above ground level) are located

between roads 3 and 4, 4 and 5 and 5 and the northern boundary wall. Cross sections can be seen on CD D45. Roads 4 and 5 are long enough to stable 12 car Class 377 train sets and have acceptable stand-off gaps to stable train sets in combinations up to 12 cars. Road 3 has capacity to stable up to 16 cars. These Platforms provide access to facilities for servicing of the trains. This includes the emptying of toilet retention tanks, tanking with clean water and the filling of sand boxes. The Platforms also provide safe access to train carriages by train cleaners using the train mounted access steps on Class 377 trains. Platform 1 has 12 No. CET emptying stations and 9 No. sanding points evenly spaced along the Platform. Platform 2 is not as wide as Platform 1 and therefore due to the limited clearances this Platform only houses 9 No. sanding points along with distribution equipment, two intermediate sand vessels and a compressed air receiver. Either side of this Platform there are boarded conductor rails which remain charged at 750volts DC, the sanding equipment is designed to be non-conductive so that should any part of the equipment come into contact with the live conductor rail, it will not normally result in electric shock to the operative. Sand is distributed to the other Platforms via undertrack crossings in ducts beneath the tracks. Platform 3 has 10 No. CET emptying stations and 9 No. sanding points evenly spaced along its length

3.12 Full-length continuous Y-shaped canopies constructed from profiled steel and

supported on concrete pad footing are located on the three platforms. These are approximately 4.2m high. The canopies that cover Platforms 1 & 2 are


double canopies or ‘v’ shaped. The last section of the canopy on Platform 3 (immediately behind 137-147 Sternhold Avenue) is a single canopy to avoid overhang onto adjacent properties. There are no sanding points in this immediate location..

3.13 The canopy structures support all of the services and interconnecting pipework

for the servicing of CET and sanding operations. The services allow for the transfer of the sewerage effluent, delivery of clean water, compressed air for the purging of the system and sand. In addition the canopies also carry all of the infrastructure to provide lighting to working areas as well as 110v power supply outlets and emergency traction current isolation pendants. These are designed for easy access in the event of an operative coming into contact with the traction current. The canopy structures also provide the service routes for power and data cabling for CCTV cameras, 3 of which are located at the western end of the sidings and 4 of which are mounted approximately at the mid point of the structures and surveillance to the east and west along the Platforms.

v) Seven Lighting Columns

3.14 As indicated on the plan in Appendix 2, seven new cantilevered lighting

columns (the cantilever arms are described as crossbeams in the enforcement notice) have been erected extending over Walkway 1 and Walkway 2.

vi) Four High Poles with CCTV Cameras

3.15 Four new approximately 6m high poles with CCTV cameras have been

installed at either end of Platform 1 and Platform 2.

(c) Other works and facilities within the Site not the subject of the enforcement notice.

3.16 The works comprise the following (by way of general description):

• Water supply pump house (housed within an acoustic enclosure) located immediately east and next to the existing red brick staff building;

• Filtration/drying equipment and compressor (housed within an acoustic enclosure) located immediately east of the water supply pump house and next to the red brick staff building;

• Pipe gantry and man safe access over and across the roof of the existing red brick staff building carrying pipes/conduits/services to from the down sidings;

• Replacement lighting installed along the crossbeams of each of the three gantries over roads 1 and 2;

• Other pipes/conduits/services running up and along the exterior of the pedestrian bridge.


3.17 The Council’s solicitors have indicated by letter dated 28 January 2010 [CD

E7] that the Council do not intend to make these other works the subject of enforcement action by the Council.


4. Relevant Planning History 4.1 This section provides a summary of the recent planning history for the site

which is of immediate relevance to the Inquiry. 4.2 The Site has a long history of being used as railway sidings, comprising open

railway tracks or ‘roads’. 4.3 The history of the usage of the site stretches back well over 100 years to the

mid 19th Century. Details of the day to day usage for much of this period are not known, however there is evidence that the north sidings were used as a coal depot from 1916 (possibly before).

4.4 Network Rail (NR) has indicated that the sidings have been used for the

stabling of stock since approximately 1911, when the electrification of the line took place and have been used as such since that time.

a) Use of the Site prior to Construction of the Development 4.5 Prior to the construction of the Development, trains which were stabled in the

sidings were accessed from walkways. Lighting was provided by three gantries and some low level lighting. The approximate locations of the gantries are indicated on the plan in Appendix 2. These gantries remain in situ and in use. The low level lighting, which can just be made out in the photograph at Appendix 3 has been removed.

4.6 Prior to the construction of the Development, the sidings were used for the

internal cleaning of stabled trains and for removal of external graffiti. 4.7 Prior to the works at the Site, the Downsidings were used for the berthing of

rolling stock both during the day between operating peaks and overnight. The activities undertaken were the routine internal cleaning and servicing of rolling stock including the tanking of trains fitted with toilets. Typically, equipment used consisted of brooms, mops, buckets and vacuum cleaners. Some external cleaning was also undertaken on an occasional basis if trains had been subject to graffiti attacks.

4.8 The activities employed 21 staff in 1996 and as was the case with the Upsidings, were operational on a 24 hour basis 7 days a week. Network Rail provided information to this effect to the Council in April 2006 as part of its response to the Planning Contravention Notice [CD D29].

4.9 As can be observed from the photograph provided at Appendix 3 the pre-2005 lighting arrangement comprised three gantries extending over roads 1,2 and 3, other lighting at ground level along the walkways and some form of bulk head fittings along at least part of the boundary wall to Sternhold Avenue. The three gantries remain in situ to date. This lighting was sufficient at the time to provide lighting for the use of the Downsidings at that time but would not have necessarily been compliant with current health and safety lighting standards.


4.10 Other lighting was provided via wooden poles (which have now been

removed) located near to the staff building towards the pedestrian footbridge. Some of these observations are supported by the description of “Yard Lighting” provided in Paragraph 7.6 of the one of the two reports produced by Halcrow in March 2003 headed “Particular Requirements” [CD D5].

b) Use of the Site following Completion of the Development 4.11 Following completion of the works the Downsidings are now also equipped

with other facilities which enable roads 3, 4 and 5 to also be used for ‘sanding’ trains, tanking and emptying the Controlled Emission Toilets (CET).

4.12 The kiln dried sand is required to be delivered to the wheel rail interface to improve adhesion during traction and braking. The sand is delivered to the sand boxes on the trains via compressed air agitation from the primary silo, by overhead pipelines to intermediate vessels and from there it is discharged to the train via petrol station type guns. The sand boxes are located below train floor level and feed sand to the rail interface when on-board computers sense a loss of adhesion. The sanding system is used to improve service delivery (running to schedule) and safety to obviate overrunning when braking.

4.13 All new trains equipped with toilet facilities must now be fitted with retention tanks so that the resulting effluent can be discharged safely to foul sewer. This is achieved by use of a CET (controlled emission toilet) system. CET emptying operations are achieved via a suction system. A close coupled hose is connected between the CET system and the toilet effluent storage tank on the train in such a way to prevent spillage of effluent, and the tank is emptied and flushed out on an automatic cycle. The effluent is discharged via an overhead piped system and finally pumped to the foul sewer.

4.14 Clean mains water is also supplied to the sidings and is used to fill the clean water storage tanks located on the trains. This water is used for flushing of toilets and hand washing facilities on board the trains. The water is supplied via an overhead pipe system which is insulated and trace heated to prevent freezing in winter conditions.

c) The Development

4.16 On 14 December 2001 the Council was notified that works were to be undertaken at the Site. This notification came in the form of a letter and planning statement, drawings and photos received from Halcrow on behalf of Southern Railway Limited (SRL) / Network Rail (NR) [CD D21]. NR explained that the works were required to upgrade servicing facilities for new trains necessitated by the removal of the old slam-door rolling stock required by regulations 3 and 4 of The Rail Safety Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/2244). The works included (amongst other things) the installation of the CET Pumphouse, a sand silo, servicing points for CET, sand and water filling points, yard lighting, covered walkways and CCTV cameras.


4.17 On 23 January 2002 the Council replied [CD D22] to SRL/NR stating that an

officer of the Council had considered the proposed works and the application of Part 17 Class A of the General Permitted Development Order 1995 (GPDO). The officer considered that the proposed works would be Permitted Development with the exception of the CET Pumphouse Buildings, which would be located in the Upsidings and Downsidings, and were considered to require planning permission as they were deemed to be ‘buildings’ for an ‘industrial process’. The letter explained that this was only an officer opinion and in order to obtain the formal view of the Council a Certificate of Lawfulness should be applied for:

“It appears that as part of the proposals CET Pumphouse buildings would be located on the upside and downside. I understand that the use of these buildings would be incidental to cleaning. I am of the opinion that such buildings may be considered as being used for an industrial process. I am, therefore, of the opinion that planning permission is required for such works. This would enable the Council to consider, amongst other things, the necessity of attaching Conditions to any permission, to ensure the amenities of neighbouring properties are safeguarded. Please find relevant application forms enclosed.

This is an officer opinion based on the information contained in your letter, and it cannot bind the Council in its future consideration of the matter.

If you wish to obtain the formal view of the Council as the Local Planning Authority then you should also apply for a Certificate of Lawfulness for the proposed works.”

4.18 Railtrack (now Network Rail) replied by letter on 13 March 2002 [CD D23]

which enclosed a Planning Statement prepared by Halcrow on behalf of Govia (who had taken over the running of the South Central rail franchise from Connex Transport Ltd) and enclosed drawings of the proposal for information purposes [CD D23]. The four-page Planning Statement related to proposed works in the Cleaning Shed and Associated Permanent Way (comprising Staff Accommodation, works inside the Cleaning Shed, CET Pumphouse and Sand Silo), Down Sidings and Associated Permanent Way (Servicing of CET, Sand Handling, Yard Lighting, Water Points, Staff Building and Covered Walkways), Up Sidings (comprising Shunter’s Building, Signalman’s Canopy, Depot Protection System), Train Washer, Waste Handling and Security. Railtrack contended that the works were permitted development by virtue of Part 11A of Schedule 2 to the GPDO 1995 under the West London and Crystal Palace Railway Act 1853 incorporating section 16 of the Railway Clauses


Consolidation Act 1845 with the exception of the Shunter’s Building which under Part 11A necessitated a Prior Approval application. In respect of the latter, Railtrack enclosed drawings STR 304 and STR 309.

d) The Upsidings Development and the Shunter’s Building

4.19 Formal Prior Approval (as required by Part 11A of Schedule 2 to the GPDO) of the proposed extension to the Shunter’s Building on land to the rear of Mortimer Close was granted by the Council on 9 October 2002 (02/01052/GDOO) [CD D46]. The decision notice included two conditions. The first requires that, except where stated otherwise on the approved drawings, all new works and works of making good to the fabric shall be finished to match the adjacent work with regard to the methods used and to material, colour, texture, and profile. The second requires that the balcony shown on the approved drawings shall not be used other than for maintenance/access purposes, without the grant of a further specific permission from the local planning authority.

4.20 The first phase of work related to the internal upgrade to the train cleaning shed which is located in that part of Streatham Hill Railway Depot which lies to the south of the mainline railway (i.e. the Upsidings). These works started in September 2003 and were largely complete by April 2005 (SRL Briefing Note for Councillor Paul McGlone, 10 August 2006) [CD D4].

4.21 Following a Member’s Enquiry in June 2004 regarding potential unauthorised works in the Upsidings, an enforcement investigation (04/00278/3DEV) was opened by the Council. The investigation was closed in July of the same year since the works carried out within the train shed were not deemed to be development, the extension to the Shunter’s Building had been formally approved under Part 11A and the other works were deemed to be Permitted Development under the provisions of Part 17A of Schedule 2 to GPDO.

e) The Downsidings Development

4.22 The Development in the Down sidings, which is the subject of this enforcement notice appeal and which is described in detail in section 3 of this statement, was the second phase of works at the Depot.

4.23 Prior to the Development commencing, SRL sent residents of Sternhold Avenue a letter, dated July 2005 [CD D24], providing the following notification of the works:

“Over the previous months Southern has been carrying out work around our depot at Drewstead Road, Streatham Hill. The next major work to be done is to the sidings on the Sternhold Avenue side of the depot.

This work will start on Saturday 23 July and will finish in February 2006.


This work will involve:

• Installing walkways and canopies between the existing tracks

• Installing new facilities for cleaning the trains and for filling them with water and sand

• Installing a silo and a pump house.

We are working hard to keep the noise to a minimum. However, there are heavy machines involved in this work, and these may well cause higher levels of noise than is usual. Works will only take place between the hours of 0730 and 1800 weekdays and between 0730 and 1300 on Saturdays. There are no works planned on Sundays.

We hope that you are not too inconvenienced by this work, which is required to provide a better rail service for the community. If you have any questions please call Southern Customer Services 08451 27 29 20.”

4.24 According to the SRL Briefing Note prepared for Councillor Paul McGlone

(10 August 2006) [CD D4], the works at the downsidings actually commenced on 25 July 2005 and finished on 27 March 2006. The only exception to this is the four approximately 6m high poles with CCTV cameras located at either ends of Platform 1 and Platform 2 which were installed around the same time and in any event within four years from the date of the issue of the enforcement notice.

4.25 An enforcement investigation (05/00391/4CNS) was opened in relation to the Development following an enquiry from a local resident which was received by the Council’s Enforcement Department on 22 July 2005. The local resident had recently received a letter from SRL [CD D24] notifying that it would be commencing works to the sidings on 23 July 2005.

f) Planning Contravention Notice

4.26 The Council sought to obtain detailed information from NR and SRL to inform a report to the Council’s Planning Applications Committee which was intended to be made in April 2006.

4.27 A Planning Contravention Notice was served on NR and SRL by the Council on 16 March 2006 [CD D28] which requested information in relation to the


use of the Downsidings and, in particular, in relation to the canopies which had been installed.

4.28 NR wrote to the Council on 4 April 2006 enclosing a schedule that responded to the Planning Contravention Notice [CD D29]. The letter explained that SRL’s current plans were:

“to berth three trains in the sidings adjacent to Sternhold Avenue during the day and four trains at night although this might change in the future. The current plan is that the first evening train is expected to arrive at 21.19 and the last train to arrive in these sidings each day should arrive by 23.30. The new activities of sand filling and toilet tank emptying should be complete within one hour of the last train arriving. As before, interior cleaning of the trains will continue throughout the night. NR added that all of these times and train numbers could be revisited in the future.”

4.29 NR’s response provided further details about the purpose and operation of the equipment. Amongst other things, it explained that the full length continuous covers installed to tracks 3, 4 and 5:

“are part of the plant and protect the operation of the plant during inclement weather, to ensure that, for example, sand is kept dry when refilling of the sand-boxes takes place.”

g) Complaints from Local Residents and Elected Representatives

4.30 A number of objection letters and complaints from local residents and elected representatives including local councillors have been made to the Council (both to the Planning and Environmental Health departments) over the period since July 2005, when SRL initially notified residents that it was to be commencing works on the Development later that month.

4.31 Although complaints to the Council have been received throughout the period, they have been concentrated at particular times, coinciding, for example, with events such as the construction of the Development.

4.32 In summary, the complaints peaked at the following times:

• July 2005 to March 2006 – approximately 40 Sternhold Avenue residents wrote complaint letters to the Council (including elected representatives on behalf of residents) before, during and after construction in relation to the impacts of the Development, in particular noise, lighting and visual impacts.

• April to June 2006 – approximately 30 Sternhold Avenue residents

wrote complaint letters about the operation of the Streatham Hill Depot, in particular 24 hour operation and associated noise, lighting and visual impacts.

• March 2008 – 16 residents responded to a questionnaire distributed by

the Council asking whether mitigation at Streatham Hill depot had


proved effective. The responses mentioned a lack of consultation by SRL, noise pollution, light pollution, loss of daylight/sunlight, public health, privacy and the general nature of the development. Particular mention was made of noise and lighting nuisance as well as the adverse visual impact of the canopies (Para 1.6.7 of the May 2008 committee report).

• August - September 2008 – approximately 10 objections/ complaint

letters received in response to the Council’s suggested mitigation proposal to help address the visual impact of the Development (i.e. installation of a trellis along the boundary wall).

• 16 September 2008 – A petition with approximately 245 signatures

was submitted to the Council.

h) Mitigation of the Development 4.33 Soon after construction of the Development commenced, SRL decided to

incorporate additional mitigation measures and some mitigation has been undertaken on the Site.

4.34 On 14 September 2005 SRL wrote to Keith Hill MP [CD D25] in response to

a letter he had written raising concerns of residents of Sternhold Avenue about the works that were then under progress on the Site. In relation to lighting, the letter noted residents’ concerns regarding the potential for light pollution. It confirmed SRL’s intention for the lighting along the walkway to be controlled by photocell, however alternative control mechanisms were being considered. It also confirmed that it might be possible to use a motion sensor to control the lights but that a drawback of this approach is that it may prove more disturbing for neighbours than continuous illumination. In relation to noise, the letter stated that SRL would use best practicable means to ensure that its equipment does not give rise to complaints by local residents and that this would be likely to include providing acoustic enclosures for some equipment. The letter also stated that operations at the Site “will remain much the same as now, the only changes will be those associated with the additional tasks of CET tank emptying and sand box filling. Hours of working will not change.” The letter also noted that, as the development was being carried out under permitted development rights there was no requirement for consultation, although residents had been kept informed of what works would take place and when. Section 2 of the letter [CD D25] also noted that the canopies were required to keep sanding equipment dry to maintain a punctual rail service.

4.35 On 22 March 2006 SRL wrote to local residents about the works which were

then close to completion [CD D26]. The letter stated that a number of measures had been undertaken on the Site:


“We are aware that the works at the depot have brought a lot of anxiety to some local residents. We have been working closely with Lambeth Council’s environmental department to put in place various measures to deal with residents’ concerns:

Lighting

Screens have been installed on the canopy lights to reduce light spill into neighbouring properties. The lights servicing the raised walkways on the main line side of the depot have been discussed with the local council and SRL agreed to modify the lights with more directional reflectors and screen so that light is aimed downwards and glare is minimised. Investigations continue on the most appropriate operational timings of the lights at night.

Visual impact

Canopies – we have reviewed whether it would be possible to remove two sections of the canopy roof at the east end of the walkway adjacent to Sternhold Avenue to reduce the impact on neighbouring properties. It has been determined that this would not really make any difference. However, this will continue to be reviewed and feedback from local residents will be taken into account.

We have also investigated the replacement of the canopy roof sections with translucent panels and this was judged to be impractical to maintain.

Silo Sand storage – the sand used for the braking systems of the new trains is held within a nine metre high silo. The original location identified was adjacent to a boundary fence overshadowing the neighbouring properties. Therefore, we moved the location five metres away from the fence and the silo was lowered two metres to reduce its visual impact.

Noise


An environmental noise assessment of the depot was taken before the works started. This was done because we did not want the noise levels to be any higher when the sidings re-opened. Several noise reduction measures have been installed, such as acoustic insulation of the pump-houses and installation of special baffles on the sand filling equipment. We are committed to an independent survey of noise level once the facilities come back into operation.

Operational activities

A code of conduct will be issued to all staff to ensure that they are aware of how their conduct may impact on neighbours. Should you have any comments or complaints please contact our customer services team on 08451 272 920.

Operational performance of the depot and its impact on local residents will be reviewed on a regular basis by Southern and Network Rail.

On behalf of Southern” 4.36 A briefing note from SRL to Cllr Paul McGlone dated 10 August 2006 [CD

D4] addresses the management of environmental impacts at Streatham Hill Depot. The note states that SRL was aware of the proximity of some of the houses in Sternhold Avenue to the sidings and concerned to minimise the impact that its new facilities and operations might have on them.

4.37 In relation to noise, the note explains that, before works started, a firm of

independent noise consultants (Southdowns Environmental Consultants Ltd) was commissioned to perform a base line noise survey. Continuous measurements were made between July 7 and 13 in 2005. According to the note, the results of the survey were used to develop detailed noise mitigation instructions for Amec, the design and build contractor. The note states that many modifications were made to the design both remove potential sources of noise and to provide acoustic enclosures for plant such as compressors. Post construction surveys have taken place to confirm that the demanding standards set were achieved.

4.38 The note also states that SRL had reviewed its operating procedures in July

2006 in order to reduce noise and this included switching off trains at night once they have been cleaned, not berthing class 377 (Electrostar) trains in the Downsidings at night, preferentially using the sidings furthest from Sternhold Avenue and cleaning the trains nearest to Sternhold Avenue first.

4.39 The note also states that SRL was drafting a detailed code of practice for the

site that would clearly identify the potential sources of noise and stipulate how


they are to be managed. The Code of Practice was subsequently issued in October 2006 [CD C8] and provides a “self-imposed set of rules” to manage noise at the Site. The code states that it will apply to all noise generating activities including the stabling of passenger rolling stock, the internal cleaning of rolling stock, internal light maintenance of rolling stock, operation of site support plant and equipment (CET and sanding equipment), arrival and departure of personnel, movement and communications between personnel during sensitive periods, transportation of cleaning equipment around site, and use of the accommodation block.

4.40 In relation to lighting, the briefing note explains that the original design

incorporated 250mm steel shields to reduce light spill onto the properties on Sternhold Avenue. Following complaints, the shields were extended to 350mm on the first 10 luminaries.

4.41 On 21 December 2007 SRL wrote to the Council enclosing a “final report”

prepared by Halcrow (dated November 2007) on its behalf [CD A15 H]. SRL’s letter states that “The report records the actions taken by Network Rail and Southern to improve the existing depot facilities at Streatham Hill to accommodate the new train fleet. It also details the extensive works which have been carried out to ensure that the effects of those actions on adjoining residential properties have been minimised.” The covering letter and report were provided without prejudice to SRL’s view that planning permission was not required.

4.42 In relation to mitigation works which were implemented during construction,

the report states that the following additional works were ordered by SRL to address residents’ concerns:

• “Relocation of the sand holding silo from adjacent to the boundary line including setting the base of the silo some 1.5 metres below natural ground level to mitigate visual impacts;

• Additional sound proofing to the plant enclosures to reduce emitted noise to 10 dB(A) below ambient night time noise levels;

• Retiming of the automatic sand filter cleaning operation to occur between 1200 hrs and 1300 hrs on normal working days only.” (pages 4-5)

4.43 In terms of SRL’s consideration of other mitigation measures, the report asserted:


“The noise source was investigated carefully, and although there is a high intensity of noise from below the carriage floor level, there is also a low intensity of noise at roof level. The combination leads to consideration of a noise barrier with absorptive characteristics, five metres high over most of the length of the sidings…(page 12)

Consideration was then given to the visual intrusion such a barrier would create. Generally along the boundary there is a wall some 1.2 metres high (on the siding side) but over a significant length there is a level difference between the sidings and the property gardens which is up to four metres. At this point the solid visual obstruction would be some nine metres high – equivalent to a three storey house. This was considered to have a hugely detrimental impact on the environment of the residents of Sternhold Avenue albeit for a gain in noise attenuation. (page 13)

Light spill to adjacent properties has been minimised by the installation of screens and deflectors on the light fittings…The screens were retro-fitted to the luminaires on the covered walkways when it became apparent that the contractor’s design had failed to take account of these requirements which are reflected in the contract specification in that the “lighting shall minimise upward and outward light pollution”. (page 14)

The option to turn off the lighting, after train servicing operations has been completed, has been considered. This would be unacceptable unless there are additional security measures installed. (page 15)

On the walkways nearest to the residential properties a hybrid mitigation option that could be considered is to reduce the level of lighting during non-operational periods i.e. after the last train has been serviced. This reduction would be achieved by turning off two thirds of the light fittings i.e. leaving every third light fitting on. This would provide satisfactory light intensities for access and security. The existing lighting installation will require re-wiring and new control gear installed. Again it is questionable whether this will have a significant benefit to residents as the existing lights are already well screened to prevent light spill as noted at 4.2 above. Costs of this option are recorded in Appendix A. (page 15)


Three alternatives have been considered to reduce the visual intrusion [of the canopies] but none provides that visual intrusion mitigation and provides satisfactory suitable, robust weather protection. (page 18)

The translucent canopy option complies with the need to protect both operations and operatives, but then fails to provide the sought after mitigation of visual intrusion and does import significant additional maintenance liabilities. (page 19)

The retractable awnings option requires major research and development initiatives but could eventually comply with the need to protect both operations and operatives, but then fails to provide the sought after mitigation of visual intrusion, and also imports significant additional maintenance liabilities. (page 19)

The sealed system equipment modification provides the essential protection to the sanding operation but fails to provide essential weather protection to operatives. Modification to the train fleet and equipment at all depots is not considered a practicable option. (page 19)

All options have significant cost implications. None of the options considered can be taken forward into a compliant design without importing major maintenance demands which will impact on train servicing and operations. (page 20)

The removal of the weather protection provided by the canopies is not acceptable because of the adverse effect on the conditions of employment of the workforce which would present hazards which are not present in the current arrangement. Weather protection must be provided to obviate risk of prosecution for Health and Safety infringements and to maintain consistency with other depots. (page 23)”

4.44 Para 3.1 of the Halcrow report (November 2007) also explained that, in order

to control noise impacts from the development, the following specific changes had been made to SRL’s berthing strategy for trains being stabled in the Downsidings:


• “Where practicable, trains entering the sidings

will utilise the roads in descending order (Road 5 being the closest to the rear gardens of Sternhold Avenue and Road 1 the furthest) to provide some screening of noise from subsequent and later trains.

• Where practicable, trains leaving the sidings will do so in ascending order to provide some screening by trains closer to the gardens.

• During night-time trains will be powered down until the trains needs to be prepared for departure.

• During night-time, the preferred berthing plan will be that no trains are directed to Roads 3, 4, or 5 for stabling or cleaning, where practicable. However, it should be accepted that in unforeseen or emergency circumstances may dictate that these roads are used.”

4.45 In addition to these revised berthing strategy measures, Rules of Conduct for

staff had also been introduced to minimise noise impacts from the development. These included not having radios playing, not slamming doors, and all personnel being required to access their places of work from areas furthest from residential properties, with persistent offenders being dealt with through disciplinary procedures.

4.46 A letter from SRL to the Council (dated 26 March 2009) [CD D39] sets out their consideration of the potential for further control measures to be implemented. This followed a meeting with the Council on the 4 March 2009. The letter forms an appendix to the 23 April 2009 PAC report [CD A15].

4.47 The letter confirmed that, notwithstanding SRL’s view that the development benefitted from permitted development rights, it was SRL’s intention to instigate further control measures summarised as followed:

1. Rewiring of the depot lighting to allow levels to be reduced by 66% by

switching off 2 of every 3 lights on a road when that road is not in use. This will be controlled by motion sensors at the ends of each road.

2. Removal of the northern leaf of canopy 5 (a copy of feasibility study was appended to Southern Railways letter).

3. Southern Railway consider that it is not appropriate to enter into a legally binding agreement covering mitigation and operational protocol since this would require permission from the Department for Transport and Southern could give no guarantees in terms of complete compliance with operational procedures. Southern Railway was


prepared to state that it would use ‘all reasonable endeavours’ to adhere to its operating plans (which it noted had already been considerably reworked, and staffing arrangements altered, to minimise inconvenience to neighbouring properties).

4. Considered that the measures proposed to address point 1 above would provide a significant reduction in lighting levels.

5. Southern Railways will commit to quarterly review meeting with representatives of the Sternhold Avenue Residents Association to discuss operational issues.

4.48 On 20 April 2009 the Council wrote [CD D35] to SRL to seek its commitment

to a series of further control measures which SRL had investigated and previously stated it was prepared to undertake. The Council requested that SRL submit a Memorandum of Understanding to the Council by no later than 11 May 2009. The Council provided a draft Memorandum of Understanding for SRL’s consideration setting out details of the works.

“We, Southern Rail, hereby undertake with the London Borough of Lambeth to carry out the following measures by no later than 1 August 2009:-

1. Rewiring of the depot lighting to allow levels to be reduced by 66% by switching off two of every three lights on a road when that road is not in use and to install motion sensors at the end of each road to facilitate this. Specifications to be submitted to the London Borough of Lambeth for its written approval prior to the works being undertaken. Such works will be undertaken in accordance with the specification as approved by the London Borough of Lambeth.

2. The removal of the northern leaf of the canopy on road 5. Specifications to be submitted to the London Borough of Lambeth for its written approval prior to the works being undertaken. Such works will be undertaken in accordance with the specification as approved by the London Borough of Lambeth.

3. To use reasonable endeavours to adhere to the berthing strategy and depot operation/operatives protocol [As identified in the attached document].

4. A commitment to hold a quarterly review meeting with representatives of the Sternhold Avenue Residents’ Association. The first Meeting is to be held on 1 August 2009.


Southern Rail will also commit to liaising closely with the London Borough of Lambeth and residents of Sternhold Avenue during the time within which Southern Rail is undertaking such works.

Signed

---------------------------------------

Southern Rail” 4.49 SRL replied to the Council in a letter dated 22 April 2009 [CD D36], stating

that it was content that the measures detailed in the Council’s letter of 20 April are works it could undertake as a means of drawing this matter to a conclusion. SRL stated that it would be willing to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding, although it explained that it did need a little time to consider the drafting of this and its effect. SRL concluded the letter by stating that it would get back to the Council as quickly as it could with any suggested amendments, with a view to having a resolved document agreed by 11 May.

4.50 The matter was reported to the Council’s Planning Applications Committee on 23 April 2009, with the officer’s recommendation to members (set out at paragraph 5.1 of the committee report [CD A15 B]) being:

“It is recommended that members accept that the mitigation measures thus far implemented and those offered by Southern Railways in the letter of 26th March 2009 constitute the most reasonable negotiated solution to mitigate the harm cause by the developments . . . at the Streatham Hill Railway Depot and that it is therefore not expedient to take formal enforcement action against those items considered to be in breach of planning control by PAC in their resolution of 6th September 2006 should Southern Railways provide firm written commitment to institute all measures by 1st August 2009 (or as agreed in writing by the Planning Division)”.

4.51 The minutes of this meeting [CD A15 A] record that members did not accept

the officer’s recommendation and resolved that, despite the control proposed by SR, it was expedient to enforce against the development. Officers were, accordingly instructed to draft an enforcement notice for consideration by the committee.

4.52 SRL next wrote to the Council by letter on the 26 May 2009 [CD D37], in which SRL stated that, given the current circumstances, it would cease undertaking further development activity on the proposed mitigation works pending next steps, as it had no guarantee that implementing the mitigation measures it had agreed would conclude the matter. This letter also recorded


SRL’s view that it was an unfair criticism (in the minutes of the meeting), that SRL’s representative had only had ‘observer status’.

i) The Enforcement Notice

4.53 On 23 June 2009 the Council issued an Enforcement Notice (copy provided at Appendix 5) which was to take effect on 4 August 2009 and which required the removal of the following development within 12 months:

1. The three canopy structures over Platforms 1, 2 and 3, together with associated pipes, conduit, wiring, lights and fixtures and fittings above platform level; and

2. the seven lighting columns

4.54 Details of the Council’s reasons for issuing the notice are provided in section 4 of the Enforcement Notice (see Appendix 5).

4.55 The “Reasons for Issuing the Notice” in Part 4 of the Enforcement Notice does

not recite “noise”, “smell” or “loss of privacy”. 4.56 The Council indicated in its Rule 6 Statement that it intends to address the

impact of noise associated with the development at the Inquiry and the Inspector has asked the Parties to do so. The Council will contend that issues such as “noise”, “smell” and “loss of privacy” fall within what it referred to as the “loss of” or “effects on” “residential amenity” in the enforcement notice. The Appellant does not agree with this interpretation but in any event, will address these issues at the Inquiry in light of the Inspectors request at the Pre-Inquiry Meeting.


5. Previous Consideration of Enforcement Action

5.1 Enforcement action in respect of the development has been given consideration by the Council over the last three and a half years. This has included reports to five meetings of the Council’s Planning Applications Committee (PAC):

• 6 September 2006; • 16 September 2008; • 24 November 2008; • 23 April 2009; and • 16 June 2009.

a) Planning Applications Committee - 6 September 2006

5.2 A report on the development was first made to Members of the PAC at a special meeting on 6 September 2006 [CD A15 I]. The purpose of this was to detail the assessment of the enforcement investigation which considered whether or not the development was Permitted Development in accordance with the terms of the GPDO. The enforcement investigation by officers responded to complaints received by local residents in July 2005 following commencement of construction of the development at the Site.

5.3 The officer’s report (Section 12) of [CD A15 I])concluded that:

“The whole of the development on the downsidings (north side of the main railway line) benefits from Permitted Development Rights under Part 17A of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 and there has been no breach of planning control, and for these reasons no planning enforcement action can be taken given the terms of the General Permitted Development Order.

The Committee will be advised regarding other measures that may be available to the Council to deal with the light noise pollution that has been generated by the development”.

5.4 As part of the investigation, officers from the Council met with Network Rail (NR) and Southern Railway Limited (SRL) and requested further information on the materials used, design and construction of the new cleaning and maintenance depot.

i) The Development

5.5 The committee report (6 September 2006) refers to the Planning Statement submitted by Halcrow dated 14 December 2001 [CD D21]. Para 5.1 of the committee report [CD A15 I] outlined the following as a full schedule of works:


i. Internal works to staff accommodation, ii. Internal works to cleaning shed (Train Shed south side of depot), iii. New platforms/walkways and new canopies to cover platforms, iv. New Controlled Emission Toilet (CET) pump-house, v. New ‘CET points’ to platforms, vi. New sand filling points to platforms, vii. New water filling points to platforms, viii. New sand silos, ix. New 5m lighting columns, x. Removal of existing 5 x 10m lighting columns xi. Extensions to existing shunters hut [this has already been resolved,

Prior Approval was granted by PAC in 2002] xii. Additional CCTV cameras.

5.6 The report addresses the items above as 3 separate (but related) systems

together with associated works/apparatus required for the functioning of the new trains; i. Controlled Emission Toilet servicing system - CET pumphouse, CET

points. ii. Sand (braking) delivery system - Sand silo, Sand points. iii Water delivery system - Water points.

5.7 The CET, sand delivery and water delivery systems are described above. 5.8 Para 6.6 of the committee report referred to the canopies which are described

above

5.9 The seven lighting columns are also described above ii) Residents’ Concerns 5.10 Para 4.1 of the report stated that the Planning Department wrote to residents

advising that a report would go to the PAC. In response, more than 20 letters were received from local residents raising concerns in relation to a lack of consultation; noise pollution; light pollution; loss of daylight/sunlight; public health in relation to the CET function should it malfunction or leak; loss of privacy due to overlooking; and that the nature of the development is analogous to a new train station in terms of its design, hours of operation and potential impact on nearby residences.

5.11 In addition to the complaint letters received by the Council’s Planning

department, the Environmental Health department received letters of complaint from members of the public and undertook separate investigations under the relevant environmental protection legislation (para 4.1 of the committee report).

Paragraph 8.2.1 of the committee report stated that consideration had been

given to whether an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was required.


This included taking advice from Counsel. Paragraph 8.2.1, referring to Counsel’s advice reads:

“. . . Schedule 2, paragraph 13 to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 includes amongst the categories of development, which potentially include “EIA development” changes or extensions to Schedule 1 development. Schedule 1, paragraph 7 includes “construction of lines for long distance railway traffic”. The works do not involve the construction of new long distance lines only the upgrading of the depot to facilitate modern train operations.”

Officers concluded that EIA was not required. 5.12 Section 10 of the committee report dealt with planning considerations and

concluded that the development was permitted under Part 17A of the GPDO, but not Part 11.

5.13 Section 11 of the committee report noted that the Council’s legal department

asked members to note the advice of Counsel that no breach of planning control had occurred.

5.14 Section 13 of the committee report noted that the Executive Member for

Regeneration and Enterprise, Councillor Paul McGlone wrote to the Managing Director of Southern Railways Limited, requesting that, given the loss of amenity to residents, SRL seriously consider mitigation measures and respond by the date of the Committee meeting. This letter, dated 12 June 2006, requested SRL to consider offering mitigation measures to nos 113-251 Sternhold Avenue comprising blackout curtains, double glazing and screening along the boundary of either evergreen or deciduous trees or shrubs. The letter also stated that, as a good neighbour, SRL should limit the operation of the Site from 24 hour operation to 0600-2300 hours on Mondays-Fridays, 0800-2300 hours on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

5.15 The minutes of the meeting [CD A15 N; pages 2-3] recorded that four

residents from Sternhold Avenue addressed the Committee and list a total of 31 concerns that were raised. .

iii) Ward Councillors’ Concerns 5.16 The minutes (page 4) also recorded that Councillor Jeremy Clyne, Member for

Streatham Hill Ward, spoke at the meeting, raising a number of concerns including that Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) had not been undertaken which he believed it should. He also commented that following research of various rail activities he had been unable to find a development as bad as this in terms of size and numbers of properties affected.

5.17 Councillor Ashley Lumsden, Member of Streatham Hill Ward, raised a series

of further concerns, including that a change of use and intensification had occurred at the Site (ibid).

iv) Southern Railway Limited’s Response


5.18 The minutes (page 5) recorded that the Project Director from SRL (Richard

Trigle) responded to these points, explaining that the reasons for the works are that it was SRL’s job to run a vital public service as safely as possible. Therefore, it was felt necessary to change from slam-door trains and to improve the facilities to support them by using sand-filling points at platforms and emptying toilets.

5.19 The minutes also recorded that the Project Director said that SRL could and

should have done a lot more regarding consultation but refuted the argument that none had been carried out. He also explained that there were no consultation requirements for permitted development, however a lot of work has been done to mitigate impacts on residents and that SRL were currently taking steps to reduce the light levels; that they did have to change operational procedures and new trains were not berthed on the tracks immediately adjoining Sternhold Avenue side, due to noise. It was explained that the canopies are used to keep the sand dry, although this is not 100% effective, and to stop rain from getting in and for staff to work under canopies in the rain.

5.20 In addition, SRL’s Project Director is recorded in the Council’s minutes of the

meeting as making the following comments in response to questions from Members (page 7 of minutes):

“There is a legal requirement to replace slam doors on trains by Franchise and Act of Parliament. However, there is no legal requirement to use sand to improve the traction of the trains but Southern Rail has performance targets it has to meet. The only regulations are to empty toilets and that trains must have at least one toilet working.

• “In relation to why there is a different design at Balham and Clapham

stations as compared to Streatham there are only CET points at these stations. It would be nice to have canopies there but they have not been designed in this way.

• There is no legal requirement to use sand, aids in the improvement of the effective running of the trains [sic].

• There is a requirement to have at least one working toilet on the train otherwise they are not permitted to run, as far as he was aware dropped toilets can still be used.

• In relation to running the pipes elsewhere, could put them below ground level would have to cover them with concrete which would be expensive in terms of maintenance – could not use mesh covers as impractical due to high voltage…

• …It is possible to fill up sand boxes without the cover of the canopies, but would not be able to apply them to the trains in the rain. Question comes down to how often the facility is used. Quite possible to do this though without the cover of the canopies – can apply sand in any situation. Lots of places where they put sand in trains without canopies

• No intensification on site. The numbers of trains visiting the depot broadly unchanged. No-one is fixing trains, just train care, cleaning, applying sand, cleaning toilets.”


5.21 The meeting minutes note Counsel’s advice, stating that:

“Points made in relation to what is ‘required’ pursuant to Part 17 – important for members to work out by whom; in light of wording has to be considered as a whole phrase – does not have to be a statutory requirement, can just be a functional requirement which turns on the information obtained from the rail operator . . .”

v) PAC Decision

5.22 The PAC resolved that the installation of the following four items at Streatham

Hill Railway Depot by Network Rail/Southern Railway Limited (NR/SRL) were not Permitted Development under either Part 11 or Part 17A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended).

: • Controlled Emission Toilet (CET) Pumphouse – The reason for the

PAC’s decision was that the CET is regarded as a ‘building used for an industrial process’ and not ‘plant’. The former is excluded from PD rights under Part 17 of the GPDO and the Pumphouse was not specifically designated under Part 11 of the GPDO.

• Sand Silo - The reason for the PAC’s decision was that the CET is

regarded as a ‘building used for an industrial process’ and not ‘plant’. The former is excluded from PD rights under Part 17 of the GPDO and the Sand Silo was not specifically designated under Part 11 of the GPDO.

• Five platforms/walkways and three canopies with lights over 3 of the

platforms – Three reasons are recorded in the minutes for the PAC’s decision. Firstly, the new canopies are not required for the movement of traffic by rail under Part 17 of the GPDO and are not specifically designated under Part 11. Secondly, it is a building and used for industrial process not as envisaged under Part 17 of the GPDO. Thirdly, the canopies were not effective in protecting sand operation and not considered to be a plant and plant could be free-standing.

• Eight 5 metre lighting columns and lights – The reason for the PAC’s

decision was that the lights are not required for the movement of traffic by rail under Part 17 of the GPDO and are not specifically designated under Part 11.

5.23 It was resolved at that meeting that officers submit a subsequent report to PAC

on the expediency of taking enforcement action. b) Planning Applications Committee – 16 September 2008


5.24 Following Member’s resolution at the 6 September 2006 PAC meeting that the

CET, sand silo, platforms, lighting columns and lights were not permitted development, two PAC meetings were scheduled on 20 May and 17 June 2008 to consider the expediency of taking enforcement action. In these reports the officers recommended that all of these items were permitted development, and it would be ‘NOT EXPEDIENT’ to enforce against them. Consideration of these reports was deferred from these PAC meetings at the request of Councillor Diana Morris (Vice Chair of the PAC) to enable residents to have adequate time to be able to respond to the contents of the draft report. This included residents seeking legal advice on the matter.

5.25 Legal advice received by residents and the Council’s response to this is set out

in section 2.3 of the committee report. The resident’s legal advisor stated that it considered the Council had misunderstood the scope of exemption from permitted development in paragraph A.(c)(i) of Part 17 of the GPDO. The Council considered this contention and, in its response, maintained that the works were permitted development.

5.26 The case was reported back to PAC on 16 September 2008 to consider the

expediency of taking enforcement action. The report prepared for the 20 May PAC meeting along with an update report prepared for the PAC on 17 June and a supplementary report prepared for 16 September were presented [CD A15].

5.27 As well as continuing negotiations with Network Rail and SRL in accordance

with government guidance (Planning Policy Guidance 18: Enforcing Planning Control (PPG 18) and Circular 10/97: Enforcing Planning Control: legislative provisions and procedural requirements), the Council also appointed Frazer-Nash Consultancy (independent railway consultants) and Shatunowski Brooks (a consultancy that assesses daylight and sunlight) to provide it with specialist technical advice. Frazer Nash reported (CD A15 E) that in their professional opinion:

“the sanding guns, CET equipment, platforms and lighting are required on the siding to allow Southern to operate their fleet safely and reliably. In addition, the canopies provide a safe inspection and maintenance arrangement and are required for the safe and reliable operation of the depot. Removal of this equipment without practical alternatives would result in Southern being unable to meet their Service Level requirements, as per their franchise agreement.”

5.28 With regard to daylight and sunlight, Shatunowski Brooks concluded (CD A15

F):


“in our view the level of amenity has not been diminished such that it would be noticeable by occupants. This is save for a very few exceptional cases where the target values in the BRE Guide have only been marginally missed. It is worth noting in our view that whilst the technical Sunlight and Daylight figures are to all intents and purposes achieved, at certain times of the year the new canopies do cast shadow on the rear walls and gardens of the Sternhold properties and undoubtedly the structures are obvious and noticeable by the occupants, This is of course not a test set out in the BRE Guidance.”

5.29 Section 1.4.2 of the report explains that on 31 October 2007 a meeting

between Planning Enforcement Officers, the Director of Legal and Democratic Services and Councillor McGlone (Lambeth’s (then) Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Enterprise) and representatives from SRL and Network Rail was held in order to discuss mitigation measures at the depot as a whole.

5.30 The focus of the meeting was on a final opportunity for considering a

resolution to the question of what works might be carried out on the site by SRL which could then be considered by the PAC in determining the reasonableness or otherwise of taking enforcement action against SRL/NR. At the end of the meeting SRL/NR agreed to review those parts of the development that were of concern to Sternhold Avenue residents, namely the visual impacts of the canopies as well as noise and lighting concerns. This was in addition to the measures already implemented at the depot (and described above in Section 4).

5.31 In response to this, SRL wrote to the Council on 21 December 2007, enclosing

a report prepared by Halcrow (dated November 2007) on its behalf [CD A15 H]. SRL’s letter states that “The report records the actions taken by Network Rail and Southern to improve the existing depot facilities at Streatham Hill to accommodate the new train fleet. It also details the extensive works which have been carried out to ensure that the effects of those actions on adjoining residential properties have been minimised.” The Halcrow report included a summary of results from a noise survey undertaken by Southdowns Environmental Consultants on behalf of SRL, and details relating to the cost of works undertaken by SRL at that stage.

5.32 The Halcrow report (November 2007) explained that SRL had implemented a

series of noise control measures at the Site, including additional attenuation for the compressors and pumphouse; additional attenuation and retiming of the sand filter cleaning; revised working procedures to control operative noise; and revised berthing arrangements to limit activity in the sidings adjacent to the houses on Sternhold Avenue. It explains that consideration was also given to construction of a noise barrier but this was rejected as too visually intrusive to provide net benefit to the residents. According to the Halcrow report, the


cost of the additional acoustic insulation to the sand compressor enclosure and the CET pumping enclosure was £100,000. The outline cost provided for a noise barrier was £1 million.

5.33 The train berthing strategy and ‘Rules of Conduct’ applying to all operatives

in the depot which were implemented following noise complaints from residents was summarized as follows:

• All personnel are required to not make any unnecessary noise in the

open e.g. radio playing, slamming doors. • All personnel are required to access their place of work from areas

furthest from residential properties. Persistent offenders would be dealt with through disciplinary procedures.

• Where practicable, trains entering the sidings will utilise the roads in descending order (Road 5 being the closest to the rear gardens of Sternhold Avenue and Road 1 the furthest) to provide some screening of noise from subsequent and later trains.

• Where practicable, trains leaving the sidings will do so in ascending order to provide some screening by trains closer to the gardens.

• During night-time trains will be powered down until the trains need to be prepared for departure.

• During night-time, the preferred berthing plan will be that no trains are directed to Roads 3, 4, or 5 for stabling or cleaning, where practicable. However, it should be accepted that in unforeseen or emergency circumstances may dictate that these roads are used.

• In addition, wherever possible the sidings would be utilised for stabling and servicing the older rolling stock which requires less servicing than the new Electro star trains.

5.34 In order to reduce glare from the lighting system the Halcrow report states that

screens and deflectors were retro-fitted to the luminaries on the covered walkways when it became apparent that the contractor’s design had failed to take account of this requirement; and cowls were fitted to the high mounted light fittings illuminating the raised walkways along Roads 1, 2 and 3 to direct the light onto the walkways and to prevent lateral light spill.

5.35 NR/SRL also stated that reducing the intensity of the lighting would be a

viable option. The Halcrow report stated that the cost of installing intruder alarms to trigger lights after complete extinguishment would cost £30,000. Implementing reduced lighting levels by selective switching would cost £34,500.

5.36 Officers requested that this intensity reduction be implemented. SRL

responded stating that they “feel that it would not be appropriate to implement these improvements in advance of the PAC [meeting] as it could prove to be [an] abortive spend should the meeting reject the findings of the detailed report which [Southern Rail] submitted as requested back in December 2007”.


5.37 In order to reduce the visual impact of the sand silo, the committee report [CD

A15 D] (20 May 2008, para 1.5.7) states that SRL had relocated the sand silo from its original siting adjacent to the boundary line and sunk the silo 1.5 metres below natural ground level. According to the Halcrow report (Appendix A), the cost of relocating the Sand Silo was £285,582.

5.38 Para 1.5.10 of the committee report states that SRL contended that there is no

suitable alternative to the canopies and that they are required to prevent the sand getting wet, to protect the workforce from the worst of the weather conditions, and to support service pipes and cables.

5.39 However, the Council’s technical consultants, Frazer-Nash Consultancy,

considered in its report of February 2008 (section 6.6) [CD A15 E] that an alternative to this structure existed by placing the majority of services (with the exception of the lighting which needs to remain above the platform) within the platform, and covering with light weight covers, allowing access for maintenance or repair; that this option was discussed with SRL who believed that the existing system is preferred due to the ease of maintenance and repair. They stated the cost to convert to an alternative system was in the region of £7.3 million. Frazer-Nash considered that this system would have been more feasible at the beginning of the project prior to the construction of the platforms and would have been as effective as the existing arrangement in terms of maintenance and repair to the services and would have reduced the need for the canopies (Frazer-Nash report, pages 18-19).

5.40 Para 1.6.7 of the May 2008 committee report explained that, following the

series of measures undertaken by SRL since September 2006, a questionnaire was sent by the Council to the residents of Sternhold Avenue in March 2008 [CD D31] asking whether the measures have proved effective or not. Sixteen responses out of a total of approximately 150 letters hand delivered were received all stating that the measures undertaken to date were inadequate in improving the amenity for the residents. The responses mentioned a lack of consultation by SRL, noise pollution, light pollution, loss of daylight/sunlight, public health, privacy and the general nature of the development. Particular mention was made of noise and lighting effects as well as the adverse visual impact of the canopies (ibid).

5.41 Only two of the responses mentioned any noticeable change following the

measures undertaken by SRL with one resident noting “some difference” in lighting but clarified this with “one of [the 5m lighting columns] shines directly into our bedroom so brightly we don’t need a light on to see in the evening and now need thicker curtains to make it dark enough…to sleep”. Another resident noted that “the only discernible difference since Southern have implemented their mitigation measures is in a reduction to noise at night (and some weekends)”. However this resident notes “that there is still a lot of noise from train engines and pump machinery [during the day]” (ibid).

5.42 Officers concluded that, based on the residents’ feedback, overall, with the

exception of some improvement in terms of lighting and noise at night, the


measures undertaken by SRL to date had not created a noticeable improvement in amenity for some of the residents of Sternhold Avenue (ibid).

5.43 The committee report conclusions were as follows:

“4.1) As explained in this report it is not expedient for the Council to take enforcement action against the following items which were determined by Members not to be permitted development on the 6th September 2006.

a) One Controlled Emission Toilet (CET) Pumphouse;

b) One Sand silo;

c) Five platforms/walkways and three canopies with lights over 3 of the platforms; and

d) Eight 5 metre lighting columns and lights.

4.2) It is considered that the above items benefit from Permitted Development Rights under Part 17A of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. Therefore there has been no breach of planning control and the question of enforcement action does not arise. If members disagree, then it is necessary to consider the expediency of enforcement action.


4.3) The installation of the canopies running for 300m along sidings 3, 4, and 5 are the only items that can be considered detrimental to the amenity of the area by way of height and appearance. Officers consider that it is only the canopy on roads 4 & 5, that nearest residents, which creates a particular sense of enclosure to the residents. However, without an available alternative to the canopies, Southern Rail/Network Rail have argued that they are “required” for the “movement of traffic by rail” and as such the removal of the canopies would be detrimental to the operation of the railway depot and any action required to be taken by an Enforcement Notice to remove the canopies would compromise the operation of the depot. Irrespective of this officers are of the view that the Council should enter into further discussions with Southern Rail, to remove the canopy on roads 4 & 5, irrespective of the fact that it is considered that there has not been a breach of planning control and that it is not, on balance, expedient to take formal enforcement action.

4.4) There is no statutory noise or lighting nuisance from the depot. A 3-D computer analysis of the sunlight and daylight to the rear of 119-197 Sternhold Avenue in respect of the canopies and columns demonstrates that the level of sunlight and daylight has not been diminished such that it would be noticeable by the occupants.

4.5) On balance it is considered that the potential effects on the railway network from the removal of any of the items (a) – (d) above outweigh any adverse effects on the residents of Sternhold Avenue created by these same items. Therefore it is considered that it is not expedient to take enforcement action”

5.44 In their recommendation, officers considered that the CET Pumphouse, Sand

Silo, five platforms/walkways and three canopies with lights over three of the platforms, and eight five-metre lighting columns and lights benefitted from Permitted Development Rights under Part 17A of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) and that there had been no breach of planning control. Notwithstanding this, officers considered that the installation of the canopies running for 300m along sidings 3, 4 and 5 were detrimental to the amenity of the area by way of design and materials, which were overbearing, creating a significant sense of enclosure for adjacent residents along Sternhold Avenue (PAC report 20 May 2008; paras 4.1 – 4.3).


5.45 The Council’s minutes of the meeting [CD A22] record that concerns raised

by residents at the meeting included:

• The high levels of lighting and that light deflected off of the side of carriages directly towards their houses.

• The large visual impact of the plant and equipment with particular reference to the platforms and canopies.

• The noise generated by various operations including sanding, cleaning and general movement of rail stock.

• Whether the canopy should be considered as one structure or a combination of non-dependent parts.

• The lack of consultation from the railway company or the planning department in particular with regard to mitigation actions that had been considered and that the reasons given for the need for various pieces of equipment had changed over time.

• Facilities had been developed at other depots that were less overbearing and that the recent development near Bedford had been carried in full consultation with local residents and had resulted in a scheme that had proved acceptable to all.

5.46 Officers explained that various new potential “mitigation” proposals were

outlined in the report. 5.47 The minutes record that representatives of the SRL responded with the

following points:

• A number of control measures had already been taken, more were proposed in the report, they were willing to examine new ideas and they wished to work with the local residents.

• A number of the new measures were as a result of specific issues raised by residents.

• The sidings nearest the residents were only used when necessary and a train was generally placed to shield residents from noisy operations.

• The canopies were there to offer a level of environmental protection to the workforce.

• The initial planning of the site had been carried out by Network Rail. 5.48 Following 3 hours of discussion the meeting was adjourned to allow sufficient

time to enable SRL to review and advise what extra control measures they proposed. The Chair also requested that a more detailed breakdown of the costs of control measures be produced and that information be provided to the committee by the applicants and the planning department on any consultations that had already taken place with residents.

e) Planning Applications Committee – 24 November 2008 5.49 Following the adjournment of the PAC meeting on 16 September, the

Development was considered again by the PAC on 24 November 2008.


5.50 A further update report [CD A15 C] was published for the meeting, which

explained that the Council had asked SRL to carry out further control measures and informed the Committee of legal advice that the Council had obtained in relation to the expediency of enforcement action and how best to secure such measures.

5.51 The report included details relating to measures proposed by NR and SRL and

recommended that the measures proposed be formalised into a Section 106 agreement and expressed the view that it would not, therefore, be expedient to take enforcement action.

5.52 The report also explains (Section 2.1) that, in addition to the measures that

SRL had carried out to date (relocation of a sand silo to improve amenity impact, installation of light guards to reduce glare and introduction of night time berthing arrangements to minimise nuisance to adjoining residents), SRL were formally requested in a letter from the Council dated 26 September 2008 [CD D32] to consider as a matter of urgency the feasibility of three further measures. These further measures comprised erection of a transparent acoustic barrier (rather than a trellis as suggested previously), the dimming of lights when the trains are not being maintained, and consideration of what additional works could be undertaken to deal with the impact of the canopy closest to the residents.

5.53 The further update report [CD A15 C] explained that local residents were sent

a letter on 2 October 2008 [CD D33] advising them of the matters that SRL was being asked to consider and the letter also sought feedback from residents. Members and officers from the Council met with SRL on 21 October 2008 to discuss these matters further. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer also provided initial research into the potential installation of an acoustic barrier along the boundary with Sternhold Avenue.

5.54 With regard to the method for securing such measures, the Council sought

advice from its planning solicitors, Sharpe Pritchard. As explained in Section 2.2 of the report, Sharpe Pritchard advised that the Council is unable to secure measures by condition in light of the fact that there is no planning permission against which to impose those conditions. However, Sharpe Pritchard explained that a Section 106 agreement could be used. It referred to guidance set out in PPG18 which encourages LPA’s and developers to seek to find a compromise solution or explore mitigation measures, prior to issuing an enforcement notice. Seeking to negotiate a Section 106 agreement to secure measures properly, would therefore comply with Government Policy in this respect. Sharpe Pritchard advised that, alternatively, Network Rail and/or SRL could submit a unilateral undertaking in respect of the measures.

5.55 The conclusion of the update report stated that Officers were concerned that

the Council had, at the date of writing, received no formal response from SRL as to the measures the company was being asked to consider notwithstanding that the meeting with them took place on 21 October 2008.


5.56 The officer’s recommendation, set out in Section 5 of the update report was,

that subject to the completion of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to secure the implementation of any further agreed control measures to be undertaken by Southern Railways, (if any) that the Lambeth Planning Application Committee accept, it was not expedient to take enforcement action.

5.57 Inter alia, the minutes of the meeting [CD A15 D]record that SRL were asked

to confirm whether they had agreed in principle to enter into a Section 106 Agreement with the Council to secure the measures proposed. They confirmed they were currently seeking legal advice on this, but subject to what would be included in the Section 106 Agreement, in principle they had agreed to do this.

5.58 The minutes record detailed discussions relating to noise, lighting and visual

impact matters. 5.59 Issues raised subsequently in the meeting included that the suggested costs of

the measures had not been broken down or explained by SRL; the concern that the amount of activity on the site would increase in the future; that other depots had handled these problems more sensitively and achieved negotiated settlements with residents; and that each house experienced a different impact from the sidings and that control measures would need to be tailored to the situation.

5.60 Each of the three Ward Councillors for Streatham Hill ward spoke at the

meeting, raising concerns in relation to the Development and the control measures that SRL had been asked to consider.. The Chair surmised that, amongst other things, actions currently offered by SRL were not satisfactory; a number of further issues needed to be discussed fully with SRL and NR before enforcement action could be taken; and that the appropriate officers from NR and SRL were not available at the meeting to confirm agreement to any such new measures. Concern that SRL had already stated they were not prepared to take any further actions was raised during the discussion.

5.61 The PAC therefore resolved that officers should meet with SRL and NR to

consider appropriate control measures or legal agreements (in addition to existing proposals) which could be put into effect by June 2009; and a report, together with an agreed Section 106 Agreement, be presented to an early February PAC which would then consider whether taking full enforcement action was appropriate.

c) Planning Applications Committee – 23 April 2009


5.62 A report was made to the PAC on 23 April 2009 [CD A15 B] to provide an

update on actions and progress since the matter was previously reported to the PAC in November 2008.

5.63 Following further correspondence between the Council, SRL and NR, a

meeting was held between the parties on 4 March 2009 [CD D3]. At the meeting, SRL committed to assess the potential implementation of the following measures:

1. Lighting– controlling the lighting by motion sensor, 2. The removal of the outer (northern) leaf of the canopy on road 5 3. Signing up to a protocol to ensure compliance with the existing [and

proposed] control measures. (Southern Rail stated at the meeting that they do not consider that a binding legal agreement, till September 2009, is appropriate.)

4. Examine current lighting levels (presently 200 lux), and the possibility of using dimming technology as well as selective switching (switching off two of every three lights) when there are no operations taking place on the particular road,

5. Consider ways of opening a standing channel of communication with local residents (e.g. quarterly meetings).

5.64 SRL responded by letter dated 26 March 2009 [CD D39], which set out their

assessments of the above matters and their proposals for further control measures and the form of agreement SRL would commit to. They confirmed their intention to instigate the following further measures: • Rewiring of the depot lighting to allow levels to be reduced by 66% by

switching off 2 of every 3 lights on a road when that road is not in use. This will be controlled by motion sensors at the ends of each road.

• The northern leaf of canopy 5 can be removed (copy of feasibility study attached to appended Southern Railways letter).

• Southern Railway consider that it is not appropriate to enter into a legally binding agreement covering control measures and operational protocol since this would require permission from the Department for Transport and Southern could give no guarantees in terms of complete compliance with operational procedures. Southern Railway was prepared to state that it would use ‘all reasonable endeavours’ to adhere its operating plans.

• Considered that the measures proposed to address point 1 above would provide a significant reduction in lighting levels.

• Southern Railways will commit to quarterly review meeting with representatives of the Sternhold Avenue Residents Association.

5.65 The report also explained that Network Rail wrote to the Council on 19 December 2008 [CD D34] confirming that Network Rail no longer considered the use of a Legal Agreement to be an appropriate mechanism for securing the


proposed mitigation measures, due to the nature of the franchise agreements with rail operators.

5.66 The officer’s recommendation, at paragraph 5.1 of the 23 April 2009

committee report [CD A15 B] was that:

“members accept that the mitigation measures thus far implemented and those offered by Southern Railways in the letter of 26th March 2009 constitute the most reasonable negotiated solution to mitigate the harm cause by the developments (outlined in 1 above) at the Streatham Hill Railway Depot and that it is therefore not expedient to take formal enforcement action against those items considered to be in breach of planning control by PAC in their resolution of 6th September 2006 should Southern Railways provide firm written commitment to institute all measures by 1st August 2009 (or as agreed in writing by the Planning Division)”.

5.67 On 20 April 2009 the Council wrote to SRL to seek its commitment to a series

of further control measures which SRL had investigated and previously stated it was prepared to undertake [CD D35]. The Council requested that SRL submit a Memorandum of Understanding to the Council by no later than 11 May 2009. The Council provided a draft Memorandum of Understanding for SRL’s consideration setting out details of the works SRL had stated it was prepared to undertake (see Section 4 for more details).

5.68 SRL replied to the Council in a letter dated 22 April 2009 [CD 36], stating that

it was content that the measures detailed in the Council’s letter of 20 April 2009 are works it could undertake as a means of drawing this matter to a conclusion. SRL stated that it would be willing to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding, although it explained that it did need a little time to consider the drafting of this and its effect. As explained above, SRL had already indicated in the letter dated 26 March 2009 [CD 39] that it was unwilling to enter into a Section 106 Agreement.

5.69 SRL concluded the letter dated 22 April 2009 by stating that it would come

back to the Council as quickly as it could with any suggested amendments, with a view to having a resolved document agreed by 11 May.

The minutes of the 23 April committee meeting [CD A15] record that members did not accept the officer’s recommendation and resolved that, on the basis of the measures proposed by SR, it was expedient to enforce against the development. As such, officers were instructed to draft an enforcement notice for consideration by the committee.

5.70 The Council’s minutes of the meeting [CD A15 A] record that the Chair and Members of the PAC expressed dissatisfaction that SRL had failed to send full


representation to the meeting with the result that further discussion about the control measures proposed was not possible.

5.71 SRL next wrote to the Council by letter on the 26 May 2009 [CD D37], in which Chris Burchell (Managing Director) expressed, ”disappointment at the conclusion reached by the Committee, particularly as Southern had engaged actively and positively in the ‘negotiations’ that preceded the Committee” and that he felt that “progress had been made”. He went on to say, inter alia, that “given the current circumstances”, it would cease undertaking further development activity on the proposed mitigation works pending next steps

5.72 SRL’s letter to the Council dated 26 May 2009 [CD D37] also recorded SRL’s view that it was an unfair criticism (in the minutes of the meeting), that SRL’s representative had only had ‘observer status’.

5.73 Residents who addressed the meeting raised points that included the proposed

control measures were completely inadequate; that the railway was at first floor level so even more intrusive; light, noise and odour problems; that developments elsewhere in the country had been undertaken differently and in consultation with residents who had then not objected to what had been built; and that higher levels of use were likely in the future.

5.74 The residents also stated that research commissioned by the Council showed

that the development could have been built differently and that therefore much of the work was not required; that Southern Railway ignored government circulars on consultation; that Party Wall Agreements should have been sought and agreed; that no EIA had been completed; and that no Lawful Development Certificate had been sought.

5.75 The residents considered that it would be expedient for the Council to take

enforcement action and that the Council should have taken more action at an earlier stage including serving Stop Notices.

5.76 Councillor Jeremy Clyne, Ward Councillor for Streatham Hill Ward, is

minuted as referring to local and national planning policy and guidance, stating that he considered it to be a major breach of development rights. He also expressed that the breach was not in the public interest, that the measures proposed would make very little difference, the use of the Site is likely to intensify in the future, and that he had no confidence in the assurances of SRL.

5.77 Councillor Ashley Lumsden, Ward Councillor for Streatham Hill Ward, raised

other concerns including that there was no Section 106 and the Memorandum of Understanding was only draft; that there was a lack of clarity on the implications for a new franchisee; and the lack of clarity on the cost of the control measures.


5.78 The minutes record that other matters raised by Members included carelessly

designed and ugly structures that should have been integrated better; the weakness of the Memorandum of Understanding; noise, light and odor issues that are not properly covered in the proposed control measures; no conviction that quarterly meetings with residents would be effective; and not nearly enough control measures had been undertaken.

5.79 The PAC resolved that the previous decision that the works were not permitted

development be reaffirmed and that on the basis of the measures proposed by SRL it was expedient to take enforcement action, instructing officers to prepare an Enforcement Notice.

d) Planning Applications Committee – 16 June 2009

5.80 The purpose of this report [CD A16] was to present the PAC with a draft Enforcement Notice for endorsement prior to it being served on SRL and NR as the respective occupier and owner of the Site.

5.81 Para 2.3 of the report explains that the Enforcement Notice seeks to break down the various components of the separate breaches that have taken place.

5.82 Para 2.5 explains that the Council needed to ensure that the requirements of the Enforcement Notice should not go beyond what is reasonably necessary to remedy the breach of planning control set out in the notice. Para 2.6 explains that in that context regard was had to mitigation being undertaken by SRL since the original development was carried out. Accordingly, it was considered that given that the Sand Silo had now been sunk into the ground, the adverse visibility impact that it previously had has been resolved. In relation to the CET Pumphouse, acoustic housing has been installed to sound proof the facility and given that this is located next to the existing railway Depot the structure itself is screened from adjoining residents. As such it was not considered to be necessary to include reference to the removal of the CET Pump house and Sand Silo.

5.83 Paragraph 2.7 of the report goes on to say that the Enforcement Notice

necessarily focuses on the key concerns of residents in terms of visual impact, intrusion and impact on amenity, namely the canopies and associated lightings and works; and that officers considered the Enforcement Notice sets out a reasonable and proportionate response in terms of what is required to remedy the impact of the unauthorised development on the site, and does not go beyond what is reasonably necessary, particularly given the context of the measures that have been undertaken by SRL.

5.84 Paragraphs 2.11 to 2.13 of the committee report provides members with

information about the grounds on which the Enforcement Notice could be appealed against.


5.85 At the PAC meeting [CD A16]the text of the draft Enforcement Notice was

amended to omit reference to NR/SRL being required to remove the CCTV cameras and platforms/walkways since these elements of the Development were considered unlikely to impact on the amenity of the residents and, therefore, it would not be appropriate to take enforcement action against them (page 2 of meeting minutes). It was also advised by officers that by taking a more measured approach, the more likely it was that the Council could defend its position at appeal. Paragraph 6.6 of the report states that, should there be an appeal, a third party planning advisor and other experts would be required, as the original planning officers recommendations would be hostile to the Council’s case.

5.86 The PAC resolved unanimously to approve the revised wording of the

Enforcement Notice and to authorise serving of the Enforcement Notice [meeting minutes; CD A16].


6. Planning Policy and Designations

a) The Development Plan

6.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires

that decisions on planning applications shall be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

6.2 The development plan in relation to the Site which is the subject of this

Appeal comprises:

• The London Plan (consolidated with alterations since 2004) (adopted in February 2008) (the “London Plan) [CD A7]; and

• The London Borough of Lambeth Unitary Development Plan (adopted in August 2007) (the “UDP”) [CD A9].

6.3 Material considerations in relation to the completed Development include national Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) and Planning Policy Statements (PPSs), such as PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development, PPG13 Transport and PPG18 Enforcing Planning Control; and Government Circulars such as Communities and Local Government Circular 01/2006. In addition, the Government has also issued policy documents that relate specifically to transport / railway development, including Delivering a Sustainable Railway (July 2007) [CD X], Delivering a Sustainable Transport System (November 2008) [CD A6].

6.4 Other material considerations include the Draft Replacement London Plan and London Transport Strategy published by the Mayor of London in October 2009 which, once approved, will supersede the existing London Plan and Transport Strategy; and the emerging documents that form part of the Council’s Local Development Framework which, once approved, will replace (parts of) the UDP.

b) Planning Designations Relevant to the Development 6.5 The relevant extract of the UDP Proposals Map is provided at Appendix 6. 6.6 Approximately half of the Site (broadly the northern strip that includes roads 4

and 5) is identified as Green Chain. 6.7 The eastern tip of the Site, which includes the Sand Silo, falls within a Site of

Borough Nature Conservation Importance.

c) Planning Policies Relevant to the Development

6.9 The following London Plan policies are considered relevant:

• Policy 2A.1 – Sustainability Criteria


• Policy 2A.9 – The Suburbs: Supporting Sustainable

Communities

• Policy 3C.1 - Integrating Transport and Development

• Policy 3C.3 - Sustainable Transport in London

• Policy 3C.8 - Improving Strategic Rail Services

• Policy 3C.9 – Increasing the Capacity, Quality and Integration of Public Transport to Meet London’s Needs

• Policy 4A.20 – Reducing Noise and Enhancing Soundscapes

• Policy 4B.1 – Design Principles for a Compact City • Policy 5E.1 - The Strategic Priorities for South West London

6.10 The following UDP policies are considered relevant:

• Strategic Policy G (“Through the planning process, the Council will seek to establish a safe, accessible and attractive transport network, and prioritise walking, cycling and public transport”)

• Strategic Policy K (“The Council will protect and enhance the borough’s built and historic environment, promote better and more sustainable design of development, and protect residential amenity”)

• Strategic Policy N (“The Council will minimise pollution and seek sustainable management of the borough’s energy, water and other resources (including waste)”)

• Policy 1 – The Vision for Lambeth

• Policy 7 – Protection of Residential Amenity

• Policy 9 - Transport Impact

• Policy 33 – Building Scale and Design

• Policy 39 – Streetscape, Landscape and Public Realm Design

• Policy 54 – Pollution, Public Health and Safety.

d) Emerging Planning Policy

6.11 In accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Council is currently in the process of preparing a Local Development Framework which, once approved, will replace the UDP. The


Local Development Scheme (LDS), dated February 2008, provides details of the documents which are being prepared and a timescale for their production.

i) Core Strategy

6.12 The Council published its Proposed Submission version of the Core Strategy [CD A13] for public consultation on 2 November and this ran until 14 December 2009. This followed on from the previous stages of public consultation in relation to Initial Issues in February/March 2008, Issues and Options in April/June 2008 and the Draft Core Strategy in April/May 2009.

6.13 The Core Strategy is expected to be submitted to the Secretary of State in March 2010 with an examination in public in Summer 2010 and adoption by the end of the year.

ii) Proposals Map

6.14 The Council’s LDS identifies the Proposals Map as a Development Plan Document (DPD) and explains that the saved UDP Proposals Map will be amended as it is progressively replaced by DPDs. A document proposing Changes to the UDP Proposals Map which result from the changes proposed in the Core Strategy Proposed Submission was also published for public consultation in October 2009.

iii) Site Allocations DPD

6.15 The Council published an Issues and Options version of the Site Allocations DPD in June 2009. A Preferred Options version of the Site Allocations document is due to be published in 2010, following submission of the Core Strategy. The Issues and Options Site Allocations DPD does not refer to the Appeal Site or allocate it for any specific use and it is therefore not relevant to this appeal.

iv) Development Management DPD

6.16 This document will provide detailed policies for the management of development in the Borough. Public consultation has not yet commenced on this document and it is therefore not relevant to this appeal.


7. Matters for Technical Evidence

a) Railway Operational matters

7.1 The following matters are agreed between the Appellant and the Council (the “Parties”):

(a) The Appellant is a train operating company;

(b) The Appellant operates passenger rail services in the franchise area known as “South Central” pursuant to a franchise (the “Franchise”) granted in 2009 by the Department for Transport (DfT) (the “Franchise Agreement”);

(c) The Franchise Agreement runs from September 2009 to July 2015 subject to a possible two year extension at the sole discretion of the DfT (the “Franchise Period”).

(d) Inter alia, the Franchise Agreement requires the Appellant to comply with six Service Level Commitments (SLCs) during the Franchise Period. The implications of the SLCs are summarised in a note headed “Southern’s Train Service Obligations” produced as CD D38. The Parties will comment further upon the impact of SLCs in evidence;

(e) A summary note setting out current weekday and weekend berthing at the appeal site is produced as CD D39.

(f) Models showing forecasts of berthing requirements at the appeal site are produced as CD D40 to enable the future (noise and light) environmental effects of the appeal site to be considered having regard to the implications of the SLCs. Forecasts have been provided assuming that no CET and sanding no longer occurs at roads 3, 4 and 5, as one of the two principal fallback positions identified below in Paragraph 7.6. The Parties will comment further upon these forecasts in evidence.

(g) A diagram showing the track layout at Streatham Hill Depot (Upsidings and Downsidings) is produced as CD D42.

(h) A table(s) showing the Appellant’s light maintenance and cleaning schedule is produced as CD D41.

(i) The environmental effects that the Council alleges in the enforcement notice (the “Notice”)) caused by the operational development (required to be removed in Part 5 of the Notice) are set out in Part 4 of the Notice.

(j) The operational development required to be removed in Part 5 of the Notice is not a direct source of noise. The noise said


by the Council to have environmental effects is generated from the rolling stock stabled from time to time in the down sidings.

(k) The period for compliance of the Notice should be a reasonable period having regard to all of the relevant circumstances which include, but are not necessarily limited to;

(i) Any replacement works that are required to be undertaken in order for the Appellant to provide continuity of operation (having regard to the likely fallback position(s));

(ii) The Appellant managing any disruption to the Appellant’s operation to a minimum or to within a reasonably manageable level;

7.2 Inter alia, the following matters are not necessarily agreed between the Parties and will be dealt with in evidence;

(a) The Appellant considers that retaining the ability to carry out both daytime and nightime ”light” servicing (CET, tanking and sanding) to roads 3, 4 and 5 at the appeal site is;

(i) An important function of its rail passenger operations under the Franchise; and

(ii) If removed, likely to have a material adverse impact upon the Appellant’s ability to deliver upon its Service Level Commitments under the Franchise;

(b) The LPA agrees with the Appellant that an inability to carry out “light” servicing (CET, tanking and sanding) from the appeal site would have planning and management consequences for the Appellant. The Council considers that ”light” servicing from the appeal site is not objectionable in principle.

(c) The Parties do not agree as to the extent of and/or the weight to be attached to, the impact upon the Appellant’s operations as a result of compliance with the Notice.

i) Fallback Positions

7.3 In accordance with Inspector’s Pre-inquiry Meeting notes (Paragraph 7.2(ii) under the heading of “Ground (a)”), the Parties have together considered the possible extent of the Appellant’s fallback positions(s), namely “what the Appellant would still be able to do on the appeal site if the development the subject of the requirements of the [Notice] was removed”.


7.4 The Parties agree that in order to assess the fallback position, it must be

assumed that;

(a) The Inspector has found in favour of the Council in respect of the Ground (c) appeal so that the requirements of the Notice are enforceable;

(b) The Appellant has to comply/has complied with the requirements to remove the development as set out in Part 5 of the Notice;

(c) Neither the Notice nor the Council require the Appellant to cease use of nor remove from the appeal site;

(i) the operational development detailed in Part 3 of the Notice in respect of which it has under-enforced; and

(ii) other operational development not set out in the Notice but within the appeal site as detailed in Paragraph 3.16 of this Statement of Common Ground;

(d) The Appellant is entitled to replace or re-provide such “associated pipes, conduits, wiring, lights and fixtures and fittings” detailed in Part 5 of the Notice (the “Services”), alternative lighting to replace the Column Lighting and such other works as are required (the “Works”) so as to continue to use the appeal site for its operational purposes so far as the carrying out of such Works:

(i) does not constitute “development” for the purpose of Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; AND/OR

(ii) is permitted development in accordance with the Council’s approach to the application of permitted development rights in the GPDO as set out in Paragraph 7.5 below.

7.5 Without prejudice to the Appellant’s Ground (c) case, the Council has indicated to the Appellant that the Council’s approach to Part 17 Class A of Schedule 2 of the GPDO is that any permitted development works must be no more than is required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail (the “Council’s approach to PD Rights”). The Appellants will contend that Part 17A permits any development that is required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail as part of an economic and efficient railway undertaking.

7.6 The Parties agree that having regard to Paragraphs 7.3 to 7.5 (inclusive) above, the following therefore represent the agreed fallback positions;


(i) Roads 1 and 2 at the appeal site would continue to

operate for the berthing and internal cleaning of rolling stock;

(ii) Roads 3, 4 and 5 at the appeal site would;

(A) continue to operate for the berthing, “light” servicing (CET, tanking and sanding) and internal cleaning of rolling stock provided that the necessary services including lighting could be either:

1 troughed and laid within Platforms 1, 2 and 3 (walkways to roads 3, 4 and 5) by re-engineering the Platforms to meet relevant standards; or, if not

2 secured to an alternative structure installed on Platforms 1, 2 and 3 consistent with the Council’s approach to PD Rights;

OR, assuming that no “light” servicing can be retained or replaced,

(B) be used to berth and internally clean 377, 455 and 456 rolling stock that does not require “light” servicing (displaced from other berthing locations in order to provide capacity at such other locations for the “light” servicing of rolling stock that would otherwise be serviced at roads 3, 4 and 5); OR

(C) continue to berth and internally clean 377, 455 and 456 rolling stock that requires “light” servicing but which is shunted to another location for “light” servicing before returning to the appeal site for berthing ahead of return to service.

7.7 In the fallback position(s), the Parties agree that permitted development rights would extend to enable alternative lighting to be provided in a manner / ways which accord with the Council’s approach to PD Rights.

7.8 The Parties are in discussion regarding the feasibility of options, associated costs and periods for compliance with respect to the retention or re-provision of the Services in accordance with Paragraph 7.6(ii)(A) and with respect to compliance with Part 5 of Notice. The Parties intend to provide the Inspector with a further statement shortly reflecting the matters that are agreed. Any matters not agreed, will be addressed in evidence which the Parties intend to provide to the Inspector ahead of the Inquiry and no later than 12 March 2010.


7.9 Notwithstanding the application of the Council’s approach to PD Rights, the

Parties do not agree and therefore will address in evidence the extent to which the Canopies are required as a means to provide;

(i) Shelter for operatives;

(ii) Protection from (rain) water and moisture ingress to sand delivered to sand boxes mounted on the rolling stock;

(iii) A means by which to carry the Services.

b) Lighting

7.10 The extent to which the Parties otherwise agree or disagree in relation to matters relating to lighting at the appeal site and their respective views on the scope for suitable mitigation is set out the lighting SoCG, provided at Appendix 8 (The Lighting SoCG is produced separately to this Document)

c) Noise

7.11 The extent to which the Parties agree or disagree in relation to matters relating to the noise generated from trains berthed at the appeal site and the scope for mitigation is set out in the noise SoCG, provided at Appendix 9 (The Noise SoCG is produced separately to this Document) Matter of disagreement 7.12 The Appellant does not agree with the Council’s approach to PD rights outlined in

paragraph 7.5 above. It is the Appellant’s contention that Part 17A permits any development that is required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail as part of an economic and efficient railway undertaking; and that such permitted development would permit the same or similar development at the Downsidings as is required by the enforcement notice to be removed from the Site.

7.13 The Council considers that the sidings should be operated consistent with the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (“EPA”).

7.14 The Appellant does not consider that this appeal is to be determined by reference to the EPA and will contend that issues relevant to the EPA have at no point formed any part of the Council’s case leading up to or at the point of issuing the enforcement notice nor were any such issues raised in the Council’s Statement of Case. The Appellant will address any evidence or argument in respect of the EPA which are raised in the Council’s proofs of evidence when they are received.

7.15 Notwithstanding that the Parties have been asked by the Inspector to consider other issues, the Appellant will contend that its understanding and interpretation of the Council’s “Reasons for Issuing the Notice” in Part 4 of the enforcement notice;

7.15.1 With respect to the 7 Lighting Columns, is excessive light pollution: and


7.15.2 With respect the Canopies and associated Services is (i) excessive light

pollution and (ii) visual intrusion.

7.15.3 The Council does not agree with the Appellant’s contention in Paragraph 7.14.3 and will address in evidence or at the Inquiry.


8. Other Matters Not in Dispute

a) Daylight/Sunlight/Overshadowing

8.1 The Parties are both of the view that that the operational development required to be removed in Part 5 of the Notice does not have nor cause unacceptable impacts in terms of daylight/sunlight and overshadowing .

b) Application of Permitted Development Rights

8.2 The Parties agree that the matters to be addressed at this Inquiry in relation to permitted development rights are those set out by the Inspector in Paragraph 7.2 of the Inspector’s Pre-inquiry Meeting Notes under the heading “Ground (c)” and the Parties will address these matters by way of legal submission.


9. Planning Controls 9.1 The Appellant contends that acceptable environmental control measures can

be secured by planning control in circumstances where the Inspector is minded to grant planning permission (under Ground (a)) for the operational development required to be removed in Part 5 of the Notice. The scope of control measures proposed by the Appellant is that set out in the evidence of Mr Bumpass and Mr Evans and which (in general terms) includes:

b) Measures to existing Lighting Columns and light fittings on the Canopies to bring light levels within limits set by appropriate standards for obtrusive lighting;

c) Application of the Code of Practice and bi-annual site audits;

d) Provision of a scheme of noise insulation to residential properties on Sternhold Avenue which are subject to noise levels that are in excess of limits set by BS 4142.

9.2 The Appellant has previously offered the removal of the outer (northern) leaf of the canopy on road 5 and this remains the Appellant's position as indicated in its Statement of Case. The Appellant will contend that loss of this leaf of the canopy is not without some detriment to its operations. Nonetheless, if planning permission is required and is to be granted under Ground (a) and as a requirement of the grant of that planning permission for the retention of the development enforced against, including the canopies, it was concluded by the Inspector that the northern leaf to this canopy should be removed, the Appellant would be prepared to accept that requirement

9.3 To the extent to which these measures are not capable of being secured by planning conditions, the Appellant intends to provide to the Inspector a Planning (106) Agreement or Unilateral Undertaking for the provision of such mitigation measures.

9.4 Before the Inquiry, the Parties will be in discussion as to the precise terms of any conditions and/or Planning Agreement and it is the Parties intention that a draft of the same will be provided to the Inspector at the earliest point following exchange of evidence.

9.5 The Appellant intends to provide the Inspector with a completed Agreement or Undertaking, as the case may be, prior to the close of the inquiry.


Appendix 1: Site Plan


Appendix 2: Plan Indicating Location of Lighting Columns and Crossbeams


Appendix 3: Photograph of the Site before Development


Appendix 4: Aerial Photograph


Source: www.bing.com Red Line Boundary Indicative Only (Not to Scale)

http://www.bing.com


Appendix 5: Enforcement Notice (Dated 23 June 2009)


IMPORTANT – THIS COMMUNICATION AFFECTS YOUR PROPERTY

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

ENFORCEMENT NOTICE – OPERATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

ISSUED BY: THE LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH

1. THIS IS A FORMAL NOTICE issued by the Council because it appears

that there has been a breach of planning control, under section 171A(1)(a) of the above Act, at the land described below. The Council considers it expedient to issue this notice, having regard to the provisions of the development plan and to other material considerations.

2. THE LAND AFFECTED

Land at Streatham Hill Railway Sidings, to the rear of Sternhold Avenue, in the London Borough of Lambeth, shown edged red on the attached plan.

3. THE BREACH OF PLANNING CONTROL

Without planning permission:- 1. the construction of a Controlled Emission Toilet (CET) Pumphouse

(“the Pumphouse”), measuring approximately 2.5m high by 4m wide and 6m long abutting the western end of the existing brick single storey building adjacent to the northern boundary of the site as indicated on the plan; and

2. the installation of a sand silo measuring 9m high by 2.4m in diameter adjacent to the existing footbridge at the eastern end of the site as indicated on the plan; and

3. the construction of two raised walkways measuring approximately 1.1m high by 1.1m wide by 332m long as indicated on the plan as “walkway 1” and “walkway 2”; and

4. the construction of three raised platforms together with three canopy structures over together with pipes, conduit, wiring, lights and associated fixtures and fittings attached: a) “Platform 1” measuring approximately 35cm high by 2.4m wide

by 313m long with “Canopy 1” over;

b) “Platform 2” measuring approximately 35cm high by 1.25m wide by 297m long with “Canopy 2” over;

c) “Platform 3” measuring approximately 35cm high by 1.8m wide by 282m long with “Canopy 3” over;

all in the approximate location indicated on the plan; and


5. the erection of seven lighting columns measuring 8.5m with a 9m

crossbeam over Walkway 1 and Walkway 2; and 6. the erection of four 6m high poles with CCTV cameras located at

either ends of Platform 1 and Platform 2 in the approximate location indicated on the plan

4. REASONS FOR ISSUING THIS NOTICE

It appears to the Council that the above breach of planning control has occurred within the last four years. The three canopy structures over Platforms 1, 2 and 3, together with associated lighting are not required for the movement of traffic by rail under Part 17 of the GPDO and are not specifically designated under Part 11 of the GPDO. These structures are not permitted development under the GPDO The three canopies by reason of their design, cluttered appearance, height and proximity to residential properties create excessive light pollution, are oppressive and overbearing, have a detrimental effect on residents’ amenity and outlook and create an unacceptable sense of enclosure, contrary to policies 7, 33, 39 and 54 of the adopted Unitary Development 2007. The seven lighting columns are not required for the safe movement of traffic by rail under Part 17 of the GPDO and are not specifically designated under Part 11 of the GPDO. These structures are not permitted development under the GPDO. The seven lighting columns by reason of their height and proximity to adjoining residential properties create excessive light pollution resulting in loss of outlook and residential amenity contrary to policies 7, 33, 39 and 54 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan 2007.

5. WHAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO

Remove from the land:-

1. The three canopy structures over Platforms 1, 2 and 3, together with associated pipes, conduit, wiring, lights and fixtures and fittings above platform level; and

2. the seven lighting columns


6. TIME FOR COMPLIANCE

12 months from the date this notice takes effect.

7. WHEN THIS NOTICE TAKES EFFECT

This notice takes effect on 4th August 2009, unless an appeal is made against it beforehand.

Dated: 23rd June 2009

Signed…………………………………………………..

Authorised Officer

On behalf of: London Borough of Lambeth Lambeth Town Hall Brixton Hill SW2 1RW

(reference 05/00391/4CNS)


ANNEX

YOUR RIGHT TO APPEAL

You can appeal against this Notice in writing to the Secretary of State, but any appeal must be received, or posted in time to be received by the Secretary of State before the date this notice takes effect as specified in paragraph 7 of the notice. If you decide to appeal, your attention is drawn to the enclosed information sheet from the Planning Inspectorate. If you are in any doubt as to how you should proceed, you are advised to seek professional advice immediately.

FEE PAYABLE FOR THE DEEMED APPLICATION

If your ground of appeal includes ground (a) that planning permission should be granted, you must include with your appeal a fee, which is double that payable for a normal planning application. The total fee payable is £8040. Half the fee is payable to the Planning Inspectorate and half to the Council.

You should therefore include: One cheque of £4020 payable to the Department for Communities and Local Government One cheque of £4020 payable to the London Borough of Lambeth

The fee can be sent with your appeal forms to the respective parties

WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU DO NOT APPEAL If you do not appeal against this enforcement notice, it will take effect on the date the notice takes effect which is specified in paragraph 7 of the notice and you must then ensure that the notice is complied with. Failure to comply with an enforcement notice that has taken effect, is a criminal offence and can result in legal proceedings and/or remedial action by the Council. PERSONS SERVED WITH A COPY OF THIS NOTICE

1. The Company Secretary/Director, Network Rail Infrastructure Limited,

Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9AG 2. The Company Secretary/Director, New Southern Railways Limited, 3rd

Floor, 41-51 Grey Street, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE1 6EG 3. The Company Secretary/Director, Lombard Corporate Finance

(September 1) Limited, The Quadrangle, The Promenade, Cheltenham, GL50 1PX


Appendix 6: Extract of Lambeth UDP Proposals Map


Source: www.lambeth.gov.uk Extract of LB Lambeth UDP Proposals Map (Not to Scale)

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk


Appendix 7: List of Core Documents

STREATHAM HILL ENFORCEMENT APPEAL

APPEAL REF: APP/N5660/C/09/2109705

APPELLANT: SOUTHERN RAILWAYS LIMITED (AS AGENT FOR NEW SOUTHERN RAILWAY LIMITED)

LPA: LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH

Core Document List

(As at 23/02/10)

Planning

No. Title Extract

A1 Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (As Amended 2008)

§ Article 3

§ Article 4

§ Schedule 2, Part 11

§ Schedule 2, Part 17A

A2 West London and Crystal Palace Railway Act 1853

§ Introduction

§ Sections I to III

§ Sections XIX to XX

§ 1853 ‘Parish of Streatham’ deposited plan showing plots including plot 53

§ Other Relevant Plans

A3 London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Act 1899

§ Introduction

§ Sections 1 to 5(3)

§ Section 7

§ Section 10

§ 1899 ‘Parish of Streatham’ deposited plan

§ Other Relevant Plans


A4 Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 § Section 16

A5 The Future of Rail White Paper (2004) § Para 2.3.1

§ Para 2.4.1

A6 The Future of Transport: a network for 2030 White Paper (2004)

§ Para 6 of Exec Summary

§ Ch 4 – Intro Para

§ Ch 11 – Intro Para

§ Annex B – Objective 1

A7 Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (1997)

§ Para 3

§ Para 5

§ Para’s 17-19

§ Para 27 (vii)

§ Para’s 33-39

A8 Planning Policy Guidance 13: Transport § Para 1

§ Para 72

§ Annex C – Para 1

A9 Delivering a Sustainable Transport System: Main Report (2008)

§ Page 7

§ Para 1.5

§ Para 1.20

§ Para 4.6

A10 London Plan: Sustainable Development Strategy for Greater London (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004) (2008)

§ Policy 2A.1

§ Policy 2A.9

§ Policy 3C.3

§ Policy 3C.8

§ Policy 3C.9

§ Policy 4A.3

§ Policy 4A.20

§ Policy 5E.1

§ Page 94 Para 3.110

§ Page 246 Para 4.99

(Including supporting text for all above)

A11 Mayor’s Transport Strategy (2001) § Policy 4E.1 (Including supporting text)

A12 London Borough of Lambeth Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2007)

§ Strategic Policies A to N

§ Policy 1

§ Policy 7

§ Policy 33

§ Policy 39

§ Policy 54

§ Para 2.3.6


§ Para 4.14.10

§ Para’s 4.20.1-4.20.7

(Including supporting text for all above)

A13 London Borough of Lambeth Local Development Framework – Core Strategy: Proposed Submission (October 2009)

Full copy

A14 Lambeth Planning Applications Committee Meeting Minutes (16/09/08)

Full copy

A15 Lambeth Planning Applications Committee Meeting Report Pack (23/04/09)

A PAC Minutes (23/04/09)

B PAC Report (23/04/09)

C PAC Report (24/11/08)

D PAC Report (20/05/08)

E Review of Depot Requirements by Frazer Nash Consultants (February 2008)

F Sunlight & Daylight Study by Schatunowski Brooks Consultants Ltd (December 2007)

G Noise & Light Review by Lambeth Environmental Health Department

H Southern Depots Improvements by Halcrow Group Ltd (November 2007)

I PAC Agenda & Report (06/09/06)

J Counsel’s Advice (20/12/05)

K Counsel’s Advice (24/01/06)

L Counsel’s Advice (05/05/06)

M Counsel’s Advice (08/05/06)

N PAC Minutes (06/09/06)

O Residents’ Responses to SR Mitigation Measures

P Update Report to PAC (17/06/08)

Q Counsel’s Advice (29/05/08)

R Counsel’s Advice (13/06/08)

S Update Report to PAC and Minutes (24/11/08)

T Counsel’s Advice (19/12/08)

U Proposed Canopy Modifications by Halcrow Group Ltd (March 2009)

V Supplementary PAC Report (16/09/08)

A16 Lambeth Planning Applications Committee Meeting Report and Minutes (16/06/09)

Full copy


A17 Case Law: The Queen v The Wycombe

Railway Company (1866-67) L.R. 2 Q.B. 310

Full copy of judgment

A18 Case Law: Emsley v North Eastern Railway Company (1895) E.1248 (1986) 1 Ch. 418


A19 Case Law: English Clays Lovering Pochin & Co. Ltd. v Plymouth Corporation (1937) 1 W.L.R. 1346


A20 Case Law: Pyx Granit Co. Ltd Appellants; v Ministry of Housing and Local Government and Others Respondents (1959) 3 W.L.R. 346 (1960) A.C. 260


A21 Delivering a Sustainable Railway – White Paper (2007)

Executive Summary

A22 Lambeth Planning Applications Committee Meeting Agenda and Minutes (20/05/08)

Full copy

A23 Lambeth Planning Applications Committee Meeting Agenda and Minutes (17/06/08)

Full copy

A24 Lambeth Planning Applications Committee PowerPoint Presentation (6/9/06)

§ Full copy

A25 Planning Inspectorate – Best Practice Advice Note: Public Inquiries into Planning and Related Appeals

Full copy

A26 London Borough of Lambeth Supplementary Planning Document: Guidance and Standards for Housing Development and House Conversions (July 2008)

§ Para 4.8

Lighting

No. Title Extract

B1 Health and Safety at Work etc Act (1974) § Page 3

§ Pages 116-117

B2 The Provision and Use of Work Full copy


Equipment Regulations (1998)

B3 The Electricity at Work Regulations (1989)

Full copy

B4 South East Territory Engineer (Buildings) Lighting Installation Guidance Note (February 2008)

Full copy

B5 The SLL Lighting Handbook (2009) § Pages 122-124

§ Pages 241-242

B6 GI/GN7520 – Guidance on Lighting of Railway Premises (2007)

Full copy

B7 CIE 150:2003 – Guide on the Limitation of the Effects of Obtrusive Light from Outdoor Lighting Installations 2003

Full copy

B8 BS EN 50132-7:1996 – Alarm systems – CCTV surveillance systems for use in security applications – Part 7: Application guidelines

Full copy

B9 HSG 38 – Lighting at Work (2002) § Pages 37-38

B10 ILE – Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light (2005)

Full copy

B11 BS EN 12464-2:2007 – Lighting of work places – Part 2: Outdoor work places BSI, (2007)

Full copy

B12 RT/ENGP/06/22 – Railtrack Operational Property Engineering Policy for Lighting of Railway Premises

Full copy

B13 The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations (1992)

§ Regulation 8, Page 5

Noise

No. Title Extract

C1 British Standards Institution. BS 4142:1997 – Method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas

Full copy

C2 British Standards Institution. BS 7445-1:2003 – Description and measurement of environmental noise. Part 1: Guide to quantities and procedures

No longer required


C3 British Standards Institution. BS

8233:1999 – Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings – Code of practice

Full copy

C4 The Stationery Office. Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and Noise (1994)

Full copy

C5 World Health Organisation. Guidelines for Community Noise (1999)

§ Pages (i) to (xviii)

C6 World Health Organisation Night Noise Guidelines for Europe October (2009)

§ Abstract, Page vi

C7 Southdowns Environmental Consultants Ltd letter of 24th November 2006 – Rick Methold, Director, Southdowns to Richard Trigle, Southern

Full copy

C8 Southdowns Report: Southern, Streatham Hill Down Sidings, Assessment of Noise from Revised Berthing Strategy, Final Report (October 2006)

Full copy

C9 Southdowns Report: Southern, Streatham Hill Depot, Proposed CET & Sanding Compressor, Noise Assessment (August 2005)

Full copy

C10 Southdowns Report: Southern, Streatham Hill Down Sidings, Noise Complaints Investigation, Acoustics Report (August 2006)

Full copy

C11 Southern Depots Improvements by Halcrow Group Ltd (November 2007)

Full copy

C12 National Physical Laboratory. Health effect based noise assessment methods: a review and feasibility study (1998)

§ Page 28

C13 Southdowns Noise Assessment of Streatham Hill Down Sidings (March 2010)

Superseded by Proof of Evidence of Philip Evans

C14 International Standards Organisation. ISO 9613. Acoustics - Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors

§ Part 2: General Method of Calculation (1996)

C15 Environmental Protection Act 1990, Chapter 43, Part III

§ Sections 79-81

C16 The Noise Insulation (Railways and other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations

§ Schedule 1


(1996)

C17 IEMA Institute of Acoustics - Guidelines for Noise Impact Assessment (10/04/02)

No longer required

C18 Official Journal of the European Union – Commission Decision: concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the subsystem ‘rolling stock – noise’ of the trans-European conventional rail system

No longer required

C19 Environmental Noise Management – Code of Practice (2006)

Full copy

Rail

No. Title Extract

D1 Review of Depot Requirements by Frazer Nash Consultants (February 2008)

Full copy

D2 Light Maintenance Depot Licence (2007) Full copy

D3 Streatham Hill Rail Depot Meeting (04/03/09)

Full copy

D4 Managing Environmental Impact: Briefing Note for Cllr McGlone (10/08/06)

Full copy

D5 Depot Improvements – Particular Requirements – Halcrow (2003)

Full copy

D6 Depot Improvements – Guaranteed Outputs – Halcrow (2003)

Full copy

D7 Lambeth Planning Visit to Streatham Hill Down-Sidings (24/11/06)

Full copy

D8 Minutes of Meeting Between Southern Railway Ltd and London Borough of Lambeth (21/10/08)

Full copy

D9 Review: Stabling and Servicing at Streatham Hill Depot (September 2009)

Full copy

D10 Reconstruction Plan / Schedule of Works Full copy

D11 Draft Technical Standard for Interoperability (IU-RST-03-08-2009-TSI draft) for the Trans-European Conventional Rail System, Subsystem Rolling Stock, TSI “Locomotives and

§ Relevant extracts


Passenger RST”, downloaded from the Department for Transport website.

D12 Network Rail Business Process Document “Design of retention toilet servicing installations”, NR/SP/ELP/21276, Issue 2.

Full copy

D13 Webpage from the Wesurail Ltd website, for Products, CET systems.

Full copy

D14 Railway Group Standard GM/RT2461, “Sanding Equipment fitted to Multiple Units and On-Track Machines”, Issue 1, published by the Rail Safety and Standards Board


D15 Publicity and technical material from the Clyde Materials Handling website.


D16 Publicity and technical material from the Klein Anlangenbau AG website


D17 Publicity and technical material from the NEU International Railways website


D18 “Jane’s World Railways 2003 - 4”, Jane’s Information Group

§ Information on NEU International

D19 Paper taken from the Bath university website “Velocity and Impact direction of wind-driven rain on building faces”, Edmund CC Choi, School of Civil and Structural Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.


D20 Abstract of paper from the website of the Journal of American Water Resources Association, “Wind driven rain distributions around street canopies”, by Tsang-Jung Chang and Yu-Ting Wu of the National Taiwan University.


D21 Halcrow letter to LBL enclosing Planning Statement 2001 (14/12/01)

Full copy

D22 LBL letter to SR/NR (23/01/02) Full copy

D23 Railtrack letter to LBL enclosing Halcrow Planning Statement 2002 (13/03/02)

Full copy

D24 SR letter to local residents notifying them of works on Sternhold Avenue side of depot (July 2005)

Full copy


D25 SR letter to Keith Hill MP (14/09/05) Full copy

D26 SR letter to local residents (22/03/06) Full copy

D27 LBL letter to local residents (10/04/06) Full copy

D28 LBL Planning Contravention Notice (16/03/06)

Full copy

D29 Network Rail Response to Planning Contravention Notice (04/04/06)

Full copy

D30 Cllr Paul McGlone letter to SR (12/06/06) Full copy

D31 LBL questionnaire to local residents (March 2008)

Full copy

D32 LBL letter to SR (26/09/08) Full copy

D33 LBL letter to local residents (02/10/08) Full copy

D34 NR letter to LBL (19/12/08) Full copy

D35 LBL letter to SR to SR (and enclosure) (20/04/09)

Full copy

D36 SR letter to LBL (22/04/09) Full copy


D38 LBL letter to SR (12/03/09) Full copy


D40 Summary note of Appellant's Service Level Commitments (headed "Southern's Train Service Obligations")

Full copy

D41 Note of current weekday and weekend berthing plan for Streatham Hill Depot (Upsidings and Downsidings) (Dec 09 to May 2010)

Full copy

D42 Note of forecast berthing plans for the appeal site as at Dec 2011 and Dec 2013 with and without CET and sanding functions

Full copy

D43 Note of Apellant's light maintenance and cleaning schedule

Full copy

D44 Diagram showing the track layout at Streatham Hill Depot

Full copy

D45 Drawings showing locations and sections of development at the appeal site

§ J22159/STR/JG/MEC/DRG/5250 – Rev D2



D46 Prior Approval of Shunter’s Building Full copy


Decision Notice (02/01052/GDOO)

D47 Inspector’s note of Pre-Inquiry Meeting held 12/01/10 (14/01/10)

Full Copy

D48 The British Railways (Stansded) Act 1987

§ Introduction

§ Sections 1 to 6

D49 The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 § Section 20

§ Schedule 9

Other Correspondence

No. Title Extract

E1 Letter from Browne Jacobson LLP to the Planning Inspectorate dated 19 January 2010

Full copy

E2 Letter from Browne Jacobson LLP to Dickinson Dees LLP dated 19 January 2010

Full copy

E3 Letter from Browne Jacobson LLP to Dickinson Dees LLP dated 20 January 2010

Full copy

E4 Letter from Dickinson Dees LLP to the Planning Inspectorate dated 25 January 2010

Full copy

E5 Letter from the Planning Inspectorate to Dickinson Dees LLP dated 26 January 2010

Full copy


Full copy

E7 Letter from Browne Jacobson LLP to the Planning Inspectorate dated 28 January 2010

Full copy

E8 Letter from Browne Jacobson LLP to Dickinson Dees LLP 28 January 2010

Full copy


Full copy

E10 Letter from Dickinson Dees LLP to Browne Jacobson LLP dated 29 January 2010

Full copy


E11 Letter from Browne Jacobson LLP to

Dickinson Dees LLP dated 1 February 2010

Full copy

E12 Letter from Browne Jacobson LLP to the Planning Inspectorate dated 1 February 2010

Full copy

E13 Letter from Dickinson Dees LLP to the Department for Communities and Local Government and Department for Transport dated 1 February 2010

Full copy

E14 Letter from Browne Jacobson LLP to the Department for Communities and Local Government and Department for Transport dated 8 February 2010

Full copy


Appendix 8: Lighting Statement of Common Ground


Appendix 9: Noise Statement of Common Ground


Signatures

This Statement is signed as an accurate record of the common ground between the Applicant and the Council.

(signed)…………………………….on behalf of the London Borough of Lambeth Council

(name and title in block capitals) ……………………………………………

(signed)……………………………. on behalf of Southern Railway Limited

(name and title in block capitals) ……………………………………………