There's a lot about this that's not clear at first reading. For a start, the latest planning approval was in 2016, and had a standard three-year limit on starting work, so it has lapsed.
In 2016 there was a pair of applications, one for planning approval (P/2016/0145/
PA▸ ) and one for listed building consent (P/2016/0146/LB). Both were treated together, with almost identical documents, and those documents don't make the pairing clear. (Graham's link to the "planning decision" is actually to the planning officer's report for P/2016/0146/LB.)
The original version of the application proposed polycarbonate panes in the existing frames on th ground floor. This was changed (following discussions with the planning and heritage departments) to a secondary glazing in polycarbonate, as being more robust and so secure. (See below!) Where the selling agent's details talk about planning being "implemented", that's all they are referring to. What they mean by "building regulations have been passed by the local authority" is anyone's guess.
That officer's report contains the planning history, starting with a first (and virtually identical) application in 2010. It also says the signal box wasn't listed then, and this happened in 2013 just as the applicant was trying to get hie approval extended (which wasn't then allowed), and he gave up for a while. But that's not quite true.
The signal box was sold by Railtrack in 1994, and acquired by its present owner in 2004. That owner (and the applicant) is Mr J Rushworth acting as (or for) Rail Property Investments of Boston Lincs. In 2010 he put in two applications, one for planning approval (P/2010/0835/PA) and one for listed building consent (P/2010/0836/LB). They were granted subject to the condition that an alternative security treatment for the ground-floor windows was found as the proposed outer polycarbonate secondary glazing was found to have "unacceptable impact upon the listed building"!
The listing notice is included in the D&A statement (which seems to have disappeared from the later applications). It mentions the station buildings and footbridge, but not the signal box. I wonder if the applicant tried arguing that the signal box was not included, and as a result it got included - I suspect he'd be more than a little miffed by that! In any case there was a gap from then to 2016.
If you have read the planning officer's report, you'll have seen this comment from
GWR▸ :
Mr David Harrison Milford House 1 Milford Street Swindon SN1 1HL (Neutral)
Comment submitted date: Wed 16 Mar 2016
I am commenting as Estates Manager for Great Western Railway which is the train operating company responsible for Torre station. We do have concerns that the signal box is situated on an operational railway platform at an unmanned station with the only means of access being across the railway platform. If the signal box is converted to a holiday let then there is the potential for it be let to people who are not familiar with the risks associated with railways and there is no manned presence at the station to provide on-site management.
Also, as far as I am aware there is no electricity supply connection to the signal box and no foul drainage connection.
For any work activity outside of the signal box on the station platform consent from both Network Rail and Great Western Railway will be required.
On a factual matter, the building already has a
WC▸ , so presumably it does have water and foul drainage. From the pictures, it also has lighting and sockets as you'd expect with mains electricity. Those services are probably not routed via the station and across the tracks, so GWR know nothing about them. Our Mr. Rushworth was obviously not happy with the general tone of that comment - I guess in his line of business he (or they) spends a lot of time banging his head against the powers that run trains. He counter-commented :
Mr justin rushworth 48 thorold street boston pe21 6ph (Supports)
Comment submitted date: Thu 31 Mar 2016
I act for the owner of this property who has submitted this application. I note the comments of Mr David Harrison claiming to be acting for Great Western Railway. I find his comments most unhelpful when all he can do is state what he considers cannot be done rather than praising our efforts to bring this property back into use he and his colleagues have done nothing but hinder our efforts in recent years attempting to put as much red tape as he can in our way. Needless to say his statement as to consent required from his company and Network Rail is incorrect, the demarcation agreement reflects a totally different picture. It seems convenient for him to suggest what consent we need from him when in fact his company have chosen in the past to do entirely as they chose with our property in the name of so called health and safety concerns, when in fact they couldn't even address our security concerns over lack of cameras on the side of the platform where our property sits. The usual blame someone else approach that seems to be normal in this country at the moment seems to be Mr Harrison's second language. He seems to have forgotten the people who built these railways by working together. Thankfully he will have no involvement in the future of the box but I guess his company will be quick to try to claim they have been involved in improving the station in any event. I hope that parties considering this application will take a pragmatic view and approve the proposals.
Click on the map to explore geographics
