Recent decisions by the Secretary of State (e.g. Radlett) have contained an opinion as to whether the proposed development will work as an SRFI. I am therefore writing to ask what tests would be applied by the Planning Inspectorate to establish this.
The term Strategic Rail Freight Interchange does not appear within the Planning Act 2008 (PA08). PA08 considers all such sites to be Rail Freight Interchanges (RFI), making a distinction in terms of scale and capacity to classify the larger sites as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects, thereby altering the approval process through the transfer of responsibility to the Planning Inspectorate.
NPSNN distinguishes between SRFI and RFI as follows:
Section 2.43 states that “Rail Freight Interchanges (RFI) enable freight to be transferred between transport modes, thus allowing rail to be used to best effect to undertake the long-haul primary trunk journey, with other modes (usually road) providing the secondary (final delivery) leg of the journey.”
Section 2.44 states that “The aim of a strategic rail freight interchange (SRFI) is to optimise the use of rail in the freight journey by maximising rail trunk haul and minimising some elements of the secondary distribution leg by road, through the co-location of other distribution and freight activities. SRFIs are a key element in reducing the cost to users of moving freight by rail and are important in facilitating the transfer of freight from road to rail, thereby reducing trip mileage of freight movements on both the national and local freight networks.”
I suggest that the differences between the two paragraphs above provide for a series of critical tests as to whether any of the four proposals will indeed function as an SRFI, viz:
• Is the use of rail freight optimised?
• Has rail trunk haul been maximised, e.g. in comparison to alternative sites?
• What elements of secondary distribution have been minimised?
• Is the proposal likely to reduce the cost to users of moving freight by rail?
• Will trip mileage of freight movements on both the national and local freight networks be reduced by the proposal?
I would further contend that the Developer should provide evidence, based on a full analysis of current and future freight flows, of the effect that the proposal would have towards meeting the stated aim of SRFI, as stated in the NPSNN.
In my view, the Developer’s analysis of Needs and Alternatives should also assess each alternative site against the site’s ability to meet the aims of SRFI policy, as set out in the NPSNN.
However, this is merely my view. Can you therefore please clarify the standard tests that the Planning Inspectorate would apply? Is there, perhaps, a need to issue a formal guidance note on this matter?

As you note, s26 of the Planning Act 2008 sets at number of conditions which must be met for a rail freight interchange threshold to be a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project for the purposes of that Act. Assessment principles are set out in the National Networks National Policy Statement (NPSNN) but there is no standard test which The Planning Inspectorate applies as to whether a proposed development would function as a strategic rail freight interchange. The Planning Inspectorate does not have any plans to produce guidance on this matter.
Paragraphs 2.43 and 2.44 of NPSNN have not been considered by the Courts and there is no authoritative legal interpretation of this on which one can rely. Clarification/ interpretation of Government policy does not fall within the remit of the Planning Inspectorate and therefore we are unable to advise you in this matter further, however if you wish to pursue the matter further we would advise you to contact the Department for Transport (DfT) with your query.