I have come across a fault in the traffic assessment submitted and accepted for the DIRFT III project. That project has not developed sufficiently for the local community to 'encounter' that fault.
I am a retired scientist resident in Blisworth which is very near the sites of two major SRFI projects that are being presently prepared for submission to PINS. In my research associated with analysing the traffic forecasts for these projects I noticed how closely the applicants have formatted their traffic figures on the figures presented for DIRFT III and accepted a few years ago.
Just the current figures gave me concern enough and I will deal with them at the appropriate time.
However I wish to report the faulty DIRFT format, as it appears to me, found in the DIRFT data. This was prepared by Vectos and I refer you to Table 8.1 in the document entitled "Document 6.2 Regulation 5(2)(a) Environmental Statement Technical Appendices Transport Assessment, February 2013". The table is reproduced and annotated in the attachment.
Dealing with only the "total persons trips" there are six readily identifiable peak values in the one hour slots and these are coloured red for arrivals and blue for departures. There appears to be evidence for a traditional 3-shift employment system, the figures for which overlay 'background' streams of arrivals and departures throughout the day that correspond to office staff and support workers.
I try to concentrate on the shift worker contingents which I separate from the aforementioned background by a straight forward arithmetical procedure. I get from this:
1. 0600 shift, 1227 arrive and 8 hours later 731 depart.
2. 1400 shift, 550 arrive 430 depart.
3. 2200 shift, 440 arrive 311 depart.
If compared with the steady arrival of loads that need processing at a high and steady rate throughout the day (but with 10s of percentage fewer during night time), this profile of 1227, 550 and 440 contingents does not look right at all - the figures are too small. Here I suspect massaging of the figures at source probably in order to avoid local traffic overload in their forecast.
There is another issue: the contingents departing are only 60 to 78% of the corresponding arrivals. The rather obvious reason for this is that workers are charged with a shift duration that in many cases will differ from 8 hours, usually longer by up to 4 hours. Indeed it is entirely plausible that a proportion of workers are taken on with 12 hour shifts starting at various times.
There is choice in interpretation here: either the figures are carelessly massaged to avoid forecasting a traffic overload or a CONFIGURATION of shift allocations has been invoked and this done without any supporting textual description in the document as far as I can find. Both are a serious problem but what worries me most is that any 'configuration', whether explained to PINS or not, rather assumes that the group of various occupiers (or rather the group of CEOs) would be expected to form a 'club' in which it is agreed that such configuration shall be observed at least until such time that either (a) Highways England can continue to maintain a program of adequate improvements or (b) the onset of warehouse automation sweeps the problem away.
What is clearly unacceptable would be traffic pulses on completion of DIRFT III corresponding to 1500-2000 cars at each shift change arriving and departing whilst far fewer were actually forecasted.
I hope to receive a reply on the points in this letter so I will know whether I am barking at the wrong tree and this is why the letter is entitled "Seeking advice". This letter is not copied to anyone other than PINS but I wonder whether that is wisest.

Following an examination, which considered the Environmental Statement submitted alongside the application, a decision on the application for a development consent order for Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal was taken on 03 July 2014 and has now been issued. That examination cannot be reopened and that decision can only be challenged in the courts. You can find a copy of the Statement of Reasons and the Examining Authority's report to the Secretary of State on our website, here:
attachment 1
The period for legal challenge is defined in s118 of the Planning Act 2008. Further information about legal challenge can be found in the letter sent to all interested parties accompanying the statement of reasons.
If you have concerns about how the Development Consent Order is being implemented, I suggest you contact your local planning authority in the first instance.
If you have any questions about the process for considering applications for development consent, please do not hesitate to contact me.