|
|
|
|
Protecting the
Dedham Vale
Until seven years ago Manningtree station announced itself by an avenue of poplar trees. Step off the train, cross the station car park & turn right you would be at the foot of one of the most celebrated walks in natural England, starting through the poplars & heading towards the heart of the Dedham Vale. Not far along the River Stour when the scene becomes remarkably familiar you might stop. You could be standing on the very spot John Constable set up an easel to paint his world famous masterpiece 'The Hay Wain'.
The experience starts differently today. The poplars have been felled. And, to expand the car park, the adjacent sloping bank has been levelled with infill buttressed by a 190m sheet metal wall up to 4m tall. CCTV cameras watch and darkness triggers a sharp white light that can be seen from miles around. This is no gateway to Dedham Vale. This is gateway to Guantanamo Vale.
The Dedham Vale is a 'legally protected'
August 2025
Dear reader,
We are individuals from Manningtree, Essex, who, until March 2020, were privileged to enjoy the sanctuary of an 'Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty' (AONB) on our doorstep. However, while COVID ripped through the UK, a giant metal wall and carpark ripped through our 'protected' sanctuary. How was this allowed to happen?
This is our attempt to explain, and, on the eve of a make or break decision, to point out two of its most visible harms: that to the natural beauty of this 'Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty' and that to a local road system under intolerable strain.
Yet this is about more than an unauthorised building project in Constable Country. It is about the wisdom of handing public services to a profit hungry private sector overseen by a cash starved public sector. And there are surely lessons to be learned about UK planning law & protected status (urban as well as rural).
We are not legal professionals but members of the public who have invested considerable time & effort to get to grips with UK planning law (albeit only how it relates to development by train operators on their station land). This has lead us to the mere authoring 'sleight of hand' behind the devastation brought upon Manningtree & the Dedham Vale. Reader, read on!
We hope that this resource will be interesting, relevant & helpful to those like us. All we ask you to do is to share it with others. Thank you.
Regards,
Individuals from Manningtree, Essex
All station traffic to & from Suffolk (including Ipswich) passes through a single lane underpass (or takes the level crossing to its side). Commenting before the near 40% percent increase in station car park capacity, Cllr Carlo Gugliemi labelled it 'the worst bottleneck in Essex'.
Sir Bernhard Jenkin MP posts on his website
For years now, I have been pushing for progress to rectify the insufferable traffic issues, alongside Cllr Carlo Guglielmi, Tendring Councillors, and my colleague James Cartlidge MP, who represents the Suffolk side of the Stour
and
There is understandable irritation amongst residents who are often caught in the jams that is so often backed up through the town
and
Progress has been slow and it is a harder nut to crack than many of us had hoped.
and
We cannot simply wait for improvements while residents are left with this intolerable situation, especially at rush hour. I convened a task force with Cllr Guglielmi to get to grips with this issue once and for all, and it remains one of my top priorities to see fixed.
August 2025
Dear Sir Bernhard,
Please be aware that between the time you posted the above & COVID shut down station traffic the problem merely got worse.
London commuters are now returning & those insufferable traffic issues that you refer to are also returning. The only difference between then & now is that station car park capacity is nearly 40% greater (and thousands of new homes straddle the underpass). Your term 'irritation amongst residents' does not begin to reflect the mood amongst residents.
This is, as you must surely know, a ticking traffic time bomb.
It has been over five years since you posted the above. You have made the issue an election pledge. Is it still one of your 'top priorities to see fixed'?
Yours sincerely,
A number of your constituents
| Ipswich | Manningtree | |
| Population | 139,638 | 8,619 |
| Station parking spaces | 494 | 836 |
| Annual rail pass to London | £8,592 | £7,488 |
| Season parking ticket | £2,850 | £2,020 |
(Ipswich to Manningtree: 11 miles.)
Planning advisor to Greater Anglia, Mott MacDonald Ltd, wrote a
provide details of the development proposals and seek confirmation from Tendring District Council (“the LPA” hereafter) that an extension to the existing ground level car park is permitted development
The letter quotes the following planning law:
'development by railway undertakers on their operational land required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail' is permitted development
Whether or not a plot can be classified 'operational' is determined by the two parts making up Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) Section 263:
In accordance with S.263 of the TCPA, GA's operational land comprises land which is used for the purpose of carrying on their undertaking and land in which an interest is held for that purpose.
The letter omits S.263.2
Over 1,000 words later, starting to wind down, the letter reasserts that the Manningtree Station development is permitted development.
The planning authority, Tendring District Council, issued a
We do not have a copy of the certificate though it is apparent from the following letter that Tendring District Council did not consider S.263.2 in issuing it:
Greater Anglia built at Manningtree Station. It
Greater Anglia wrote a
detail of the planned construction of a car park facility to serve the railway station at Brandon and how it is wholly permissible
The letter quotes the following planning law:
'development by railway undertakers on their operational land required in connection with the movement of traffic by rail' is permitted development
Whether or not a plot can be classified 'operational' is determined by the two subsections making up
In accordance with s263 of the TCPA, GA 's operational land comprises land which is used for the purpose of carrying on their undertaking and land in which an interest is held for that purpose.
The letter omits the second subsection.
Over 1,000 words later, starting to wind down, the letter reasserts that the Brandon Station development is permitted development. It was not (see below).
SAVE Britain's Heritage solicitor Susan Ring contacted Breckland District Council to challenge Greater Anglia's claim that Brandon Station is permitted development: Full planning permission was required
Permitted development rights could not be used to expand the car park onto "waste land" outside the operational area of the station.
Breckland District Council ignored Susan Ring's letter & issued a
The High Court has quashed a certificate of lawfulness of proposed use or development (CLOPUD) for the construction of a new car park at Brandon railway station.
Breckland District Council had failed to consider lawfully whether the car park was entirely on operational land, since operations land does not include 'land which, in respect of its nature and situation, is comparable rather with land in general than with land which is used, or in which interests are held, for the purpose of the carrying on of statutory undertakings': Town and Country Planning Act 1990, s 26[3](2)
The Council had issued a lawful development certificate which said that Greater Anglia could construct a new car park under the railway permitted development rights. The Council accepted that they had failed to apply the legal test for what was railway land
SAVE's case was not contested by Greater Anglia
Richard Buxton, Dedham Vale Society planning solicitors, wrote to Tendring District Council: in developing at Manningtree Station, a site located within an 'Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty', Greater Anglia should seek to 'further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area' (
Tendring District Council acknowledged that Greater Anglia's development at Manningtree station was unlawful.
Tendring District Council served an
Greater Anglia asked the Secretary of State (SoS) for an
The Secretary of State decided that the Manningtree Station development did not require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
Tendring District Council withdrew its enforcement notice.
Richard Buxton pointed out that, in reaching her EIA screening opinion, the government planning inspector had (1) failed to consider significant details and (2) ignored the
The Dedham Vale Society applied for a
The Dedham Vale Society submitted a skeleton argument to Court. The judge determined that the government planning inspector's opinion was (1) based on an error of law and (2) might have been different had the statutory duty to conserve and enhance the landscape been applied.
The Secretary of State ackowledged that it had made a legal error and withdrew its EIA screening opinion.
Greater Anglia asked The Secretary of State for a 2nd EIA screening opinion.
The Secretary of State (SoS) is currently considering a (2nd)
The EIA screening direction has returned to the Secretary of State with detailed commentary from the National Landscape board and our clients [Dedham Vale Society]. A decision is awaited. The Council has also been informed of the outcome and our clients are hopeful that the enforcement notice will be reinstated soon.
see National Landscape car park expansion challenge