Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange

The list below includes a record of advice we have provided for this project. For a list of all advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate, including non-project related advice, please go to the Register of advice page.

There is a statutory duty, under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008, to record the advice that is given in relation to an application or a potential application, including the name of the person who requested the advice, and to make this publicly available.

Preview
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments in relation to the developer's pre-application consultation and potential issues for examination were raised regarding the Northampton Gateway application.
Consultation material presented by the developer at the pre-application stage is not “the application”. The pre-application process is intended to allow the developer to gather useful information from the public and others that will influence the preparation of the application that is eventually submitted. The consultation material presented must be clear and informative, but it is not necessarily a draft version of the application.

The Relevant Representation stage is the point at which comments on the scheme can be submitted to the Examining Authority. This is when anybody who wants to become an Interested Party and take part in the examination can register. You must register separately for each Development Consent Order (DCO) application you wish to be an interested party for. You can register individually, or as part of a group for example a household or Action Group, or organisation; providing all those in the group or organisation have similar views. However it is important to note that that you can’t register as two individuals for example ‘Mr and Mrs’ – Individuals must register separately. For more information on registering please see Advice Note 8.2

The Relevant Representation period for Northampton Gateway opens 28 June. The Application documents have now been published on our website and are available to view on the project specific webpage: [attachment 1]

At the Relevant Representation stage we are seeking your views on the DCO application as it has been submitted. Any Relevant Representation should relate to the application. It must include a summary of points which you agree and/or disagree with about the application, highlighting what you consider to be the main issues and impacts. The Relevant Representation form can be accessed online once registration begins, or if required supplied in hard copy if those who wish to complete a hard copy form contact the Planning Inspectorate and request this.

The Examining Authority will use the views put forward in the Relevant Representations, to carry out an initial assessment of the principal issues. After the close of the registration period, all Relevant Representations will be published on the project webpage on the National Infrastructure Planning website.

After the close of the Relevant Representation period the Examining Authority will invite interested parties to attend an initial Meeting, known as the “Preliminary
Meeting”. The invitation is emailed or posted to Interested Parties at least 21 days before the Preliminary Meeting is held. The invitation will include the Examining Authority’s initial assessment of principal issues.

The purpose of the Preliminary Meeting is to consider how the application will be Examined. Each Examination is unique and is designed to reflect the particular
circumstances of each case. At the Preliminary Meeting, the parties will be able to comment on a draft Examination Timetable. After the close of the Preliminary Meeting, the Examination will begin.

The Examination is the period during which the appointed Examining Authority gather evidence and test information about the application from Interested Parties. This is primarily a written process with deadlines clearly set out in the Examination timetable. Interested Parties can also make representations orally at hearings, which are supplemental to written submissions.

Further information covering a range of process matters in relation to the Planning Act 2008 process can be found on our website: [attachment 2]

25 June 2018
Tommy Gilchrist
Enquiry received via email
I have written to both my local MP Andrea Leadsom and also our local authority South Northants District Council regarding the potential inadequacy of the “cumulative impacts Assessments” produced by both Roxhill(Northampton Gateway) and Rail Central (Ashfield Land) as part of their phase two consultation.

South Northants District Council have already replied to me regarding the potential inadequacy of the “Cumulative Assessments”, a matter they will be taking up with you directly, they were not however able to clarify the timing issue regarding when the “Cumulative Impacts Assessment “should be undertaken, and for that matter what” considered/dealt” with actually means.
A cumulative impact assessment forms part of the Environmental Statement that will be submitted with any application; it is prepared by the applicant at the pre-application stage. It is then considered and examined by the Examining Authority during the examination stage.

We apologise for any confusion caused by our advice, which as I hope you now understand, was consistent.

20 June 2018
Alan Hargreaves
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Mr and Mrs Sharp wrote to comment on the merits of the application during the acceptance period
This application was received by the Planning Inspectorate on 21 May 2018, and is currently in the acceptance stage. This is when the planning Inspectorate review the application to see if it meets the tests to be accepted for examination.

There is no opportunity during the acceptance stage to make comments on this application.

If the application is accepted, anyone interested in the application will be able to register and express their views during the relevant representation stage and the subsequent examination.

Advice note 8.2 gives further details on the relevant representation period.

[attachment 1]

06 June 2018
Mr & Mrs Sharp
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Local residents have asked if they might be able to meet with PINS (presumably you as Case Officer) to discuss the process, and in particular the cumulative impact of both proposals, and how that is taken into account. They very much are aware that it would be inappropriate to comment on the merits of either proposal, but they are wanting to understand how the application are approached, and at what point do cumulative impact assessments become required? Let me know if a meeting would be something PINS could do, as I know it would reassure residents to understand more fully. I presume that you may have had similar meetings with representatives from the developers on points of process?
We note in your correspondence, your request for the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) to meet with local residents to discuss matters of process regarding the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) and in particular to advise on cumulative impact assessments for both proposals. As you have stated in your email, we have met with both Applicants for the above proposals in our Bristol office. In addition, we have also met with the Stop Rail Central group. We have provided written advice to a large number of parties regarding these schemes and a record of the advice can be found on the project specific pages of our website under the section (s)51 advice tab.

Rail Central Proposal:
[attachment 1]

Northampton Gateway Proposal:
[attachment 2]

Whilst we have held meetings with the public to explain the NSIP planning process in certain instances for other proposals, we have now provided the same information in videos as part of the advice readily available on our website.

We therefore feel that the information below will sufficiently cover the advice we could provide in person and we would be grateful if you could please send this to the relevant people.

In order for members of the public to be involved in the examination of a project they must, at the appropriate time, register to become an interested party. This video provides information on how and when to register as an interested party on an application:

[attachment 3]

We would however like to take this opportunity to respond to your queries directly and provide you with links which we trust you will find useful.

If a proposed NSIP requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to be submitted as part of the application, the EIA Regulations necessitates that the Applicant undertakes an assessment of cumulative effects (amongst other matters), and considers alternatives to the proposed development. This process begins at the pre-application stage. The assessment of cumulative effects would take into account other reasonably foreseeable schemes including any other relevant NSIPs. Both developers have confirmed that their application is EIA development and therefore an Environmental Statement (including information on cumulative impacts) will need to be submitted as part of their application.

It would be for the Applicant for each scheme to make the case for, and to assess the impacts of, their proposed development taking into consideration the cumulative effects of the relevant built, consented and/or proposed developments as appropriate at the time of their application being lodged. Each application would be assessed on their individual merits, where the appointed Examining Authority (ExA) would assess the material and/or information submitted by the Applicant within their application documents submitted, including subsequent submissions where for example, more information becomes available on a separate proposal included in the assessment. ).

Both Applicants, namely Roxhill Developments Limited (Northampton Gateway) and Ashfield Land Management and Gazeley GLP Northampton (Rail Central), have confirmed that they are undertaking a cumulative assessment to include the appropriate matters of the other proposal. You may have also noted that the Northampton Gateway proposal was recently submitted and PINS on behalf of the Secretary of State has until 18 June 2018 to decide whether to Accept this application for Examination.

We would encourage you to review the published meeting notes (under the s51 advice tab) for both projects (Northampton Gateway RFI and Rail Central SRFI) to have sight of discussions held between PINS and the relevant Applicant regarding their respective proposals. It is reasonable to assume that consideration by both Applicants regarding each other’s proposal and their cumulative effects will be a matter for consideration during the examination.

Useful Links

Advice Note (AN)17 provides a brief description of the legal context and obligations placed on an Applicant in respect of cumulative effects.

[attachment 4]

The AN8 series (AN8.1 to AN8.5) provides more detailed advice on the application process and aims to take you step by step through the planning process for NSIPs.

Advice Note Eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others
Advice Note 8.1: Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation
Advice Note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination
Advice Note 8.3: Influencing how an application is Examined: the Preliminary Meeting
Advice Note 8.4: The Examination
Advice Note 8.5: The Examination: hearings and site inspections

We would encourage you to please circulate the advice provided hereto to any and/or all local residents with an interest in the abovementioned proposals, specifically drawing their attention to the video and Advice Notes recommended above as well as those published to the National Infrastructure website:

[attachment 5]

If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact the relevant case teams via the email addresses provided below:

Rail Central proposal - [email protected]
Northampton Gateway proposal - [email protected]

24 May 2018
Tommy Gilchrist
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached Meeting Note
Please see attached Meeting Note

10 April 2018
Roxhill Limited - anon.
Enquiry received via email
We write regarding two schemes for SRFIs at Milton Northants, namely Roxhill (Northampton Gateway) and (Rail Central) Ashfield Land, both developers have now clearly indicated that their proposals are running on very similar time lines Roxhill having commenced Phase 2 consultation and Ashfield Land indicating Phase 2 consultation expected in Q1/2 2018.

We write with regard to the potential adverse cumulative impacts the interrelationship of both schemes, now running it appears concurrently, may have.

We have referred to PINS advice note 17 “Cumulative Effects Assessment”(CEA)in section 1.3 reference is specifically made to environmental effects, and in section 1.4 Advice note 17 PINS also state “When considering cumulative effects the ES should provide information on how the effects of the applicants proposal would combine and interact with the effects of other development”.

Could PINS confirm if the Cumulative impact relating to the practical aspects of the scheme(as well as environmental issues),which in this instance is two SRFIs potentially connecting into the same very limited Northampton Loop of the WCML, would be deemed to fall under Advice note 17 1.4 and thereby would need to be considered by both developers, and given the importance of Rail connectivity should this be dealt with in this pre application period.

We would appreciate your advice on this
If a proposed development requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to be submitted as part of the application, the EIA Regulations necessitate that the applicant undertakes an assessment of cumulative effects, and considers alternatives to the proposed development. The assessment of cumulative effects would take into account other reasonably foreseeable schemes including any other relevant Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP). Both developers are undertaking an EIA and will therefore submit an Environmental Statement as part of their application.

It would be for the Applicant for each scheme to make the case for, and to assess the impacts of, their proposed development taking into consideration the cumulative effects of the relevant built, consented and/or proposed developments as appropriate at the time that their application is lodged. Each case would be judged on its individual merits, where the appointed Examining Authority (ExA) would assess the material of the Applicant’s application documents and submissions received during the Examination (should the application be Accepted for Examination by the Secretary of State (SoS) via the Acceptance process) from interested parties.

You made reference specifically to section 1.4 of Advice Note 17, however we would encourage you to review the document in its entirety as it provides more information on cumulative effects assessment and includes the proposed methodology for Applicants to consider when reviewing cumulative effects.

The Applicants for both the Northampton Gateway and Rail Central SRFI proposal, have confirmed that they would be undertaking a cumulative assessment which would include the others proposal and therefore this matter is being considered/dealt with at the pre-application stage. We would encourage you to review the meeting notes published on both project pages (Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange and Rail Central SRFI) to have sight of discussions held between the Planning Inspectorate and the Applicants regarding their respective proposals. It is therefore safe to assume that as both Applicant’s would be considering each other’s proposal and their possible cumulative effects, that the decision maker (the SoS) would be equipped with an assessment of the likely cumulative effects associated with both schemes including if they were both operational.

It is essential to note, that when making a decision on whether or not to grant consent for an NSIP, the SoS will have regard to any important and relevant matter; as will the ExA appointed to examine an application and report to the SoS. The impact of a proposal on existing uses and its compatibility with other developments is a matter that could be raised in submissions and could be capable of being relevant and important.

19 January 2018
Alan Hargreaves
response has attachments
Pins meeting with Roxhill (Junction 15) Limited on 12 January 2018
See attached meeting note and 3 further attachments:
- Comments on draft documents
- Comments on Consultation Report
- Comments on draft Plans

12 January 2018
Roxhill (Junction 15) Limited - anon.
Enquiry received via email
Whilst I do understand that each case would be judged on its individual merits, for example there must surely be a point at which the cumulative impact of two schemes competing for rail connectivity on a stretch of track that is already nearing capacity is considered. If, as is widely thought to be the case, the West Coast Main Line could only handle the freight paths for one additional SRFI in the area, if one SRFI application is granted a DCO then any other similar proposals in the area would become “road-served” and non-compliant with the National Networks National Policy Statement. This would then remove other existing proposals from PINS’ jurisdiction.
At what stage would this happen?
In your email you refer to removing proposals from PINS’ jurisdiction and at what stage this would occur. To confirm, a proposal will be considered a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) if it meets the thresholds set within the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). A decision to grant a development consent order for one project will not therefore remove the NSIP ‘status’ of another project.

It is for Applicant’s themselves to decide whether or not to progress with submitting their application for a development consent order under the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). The Planning Inspectorate would deal with any submitted application(s) [as detailed in our previous advice dated 2nd November 2017].

29 November 2017
Tommy Gilchrist Parliamentary Assistant to the Rt Hon. Andrea Leadsom MP
Enquiry received via phone
Query in relation to responding to the developer’s consultation during pre-application and, if the application is accepted to proceed to examination what a relevant representation could include.
Consultation material presented by the developer at the pre-application stage is not “the application”. The pre-application process is intended to allow the developer to gather useful information from the public and others that will influence the preparation of the application that is eventually submitted. Further information about responding to the developers pre-application consultation can be found in Advice Note 8.1 (see links below).

If an application is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and is accepted to proceed to examination there will be an opportunity for anyone who would like to register to take part in the examination, by making a Relevant Representation during the pre-examination stage of the process. The Applicant will advertise the period when a Relevant Representation can be made. There is no requirement for an individual to have responded to the developer’s pre-application consultation, to enable them to make a relevant representation.

If you participated in the pre-application consultation your views on the project at that stage should have been reflected in the Consultation Report that was submitted as part of the application. However, at this stage we are seeking your views on the application as it has been submitted. Remember, the project you commented on previously may have changed in response to the pre-application consultation carried out by the applicant. A Relevant Representation should relate to the application. It must include a summary of points which you agree and/or disagree with about the application, highlighting what you consider to be the main issues and impacts. Further information about registering to participate in an examination can be found in Advice Note 8.2 (see links below).

The Advice Note 8 series provides an overview of the Nationally Significant Infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others. I have included links to these documents below for your information:

Advice note eight: Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others (PDF 2.2 MB) Published February 2017 Advice note eight has been produced in five sections and aims to take you step by step through the planning process for major infrastructure projects: Advice note 8.1: Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation (PDF 2.1 MB) (version 2) Advice note 8.2: How to register to participate in an Examination (PDF 1.4 MB) (version 2) Advice note 8.3: Influencing how an application is Examined: the Preliminary Meeting (PDF 2 MB) (version 4) Advice note 8.4: The Examination (PDF 1.4 MB) (version 4) Advice note 8.5: The Examination: hearings and site inspections (PDF 2 MB) (version 4)

24 November 2017
Andrew Bodman
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
A number of my constituents are of the opinion that the Northampton Gateway proposals have now leapfrogged Rail Central, with Roxhill having now entered the statutory consultation phase. Some months ago it appeared that Rail Central / Ashfield Land were more progressed in their plans.

Does PINS have a view on whether it is likely that both SRFIs could be granted a Development Consent Order? I appreciate you won’t be able to comment on the merits of either scheme – I do not seek any such – but I would be interested to know if it was a case of “first come first served”, and if the granting of one would remove the business case for the other.
Thank you for your correspondence below. It would be for the Applicant for each scheme to make the case for, and to assess the impacts of, their proposed development taking into consideration the cumulative effects of the relevant built, consented and/or proposed developments as appropriate at the time that their application is lodged. Each case would be judged on its individual merits, where the appointed Examining Authority (ExA)/Panel would assess the material of the Applicant’s application documents and submissions received during the Examination (should the application be Accepted for Examination by the SoS via the Acceptance process) from interested parties. It is not possible to state whether the granting of consent for one project would necessarily remove the business case for another, it would be for the appointed ExA/Panel to assess all relevant material during the Examination on its individual merits to conclude on such matters and provide to the Secretary of State a recommendation on the matters assessed during the Examination. It would ultimately be the decision of the relevant Secretary of State (in this instance DfT) to decide on such matters.

PINS acts on behalf of the relevant Secretary of State on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) and does not consider any NSIP proposals on a “first come first served” basis. All material and discussions had with the Applicants have all been published on the relevant webpage for their projects. It is the Applicant’s decision to determine when they deem their proposal is adequate for submission.

We provide for information a link to the note of our last meeting with Rail Central and subsequent advice issued to them:

[attachment 1];ipcadvice=c2a692a96e

02 November 2017
Andrea Leadsom MP
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I thought I would give you the heads up that, as previously indicated, we will shortly be sending to you draft documentation for consideration. This will comprise the documentation identified with a “Y” in the fourth column on the attached document list. I anticipate sending the documentation during the course of next week with the exception of the Consultation Report which will follow in approximately 3 weeks’ time.

In the meantime I have an urgent query on the above scheme relating to the need for further consultation. In response to consultation responses there are some changes that we intend to make to the scheme basically comprising:
- some tweaks to junction improvements which may require additional third party land;
- the inclusion of a lorry park within the SRFI scheme; and
- the inclusion of a facility for an aggregate terminal within the rail terminal

We obviously will do a focussed consultation with the owners of any additional land required for highway works but wanted to check whether you would expect a full consultation be undertaken in respect of the second two issues. We intend to submit our application by the end of January 2017 and wish to be sure we have undertaken all necessary consultation you feel is required.
Thanks for your correspondence provided below regarding submission of draft application documents for PINS to review.

Regarding your query on the other matters below, please be advised that the decision on whether to undertake full statutory consultation is a decision for yourselves (‘the Applicant’) to consider and dependent on whether the changes described below amount to material changes to the proposed application. If the Applicant is of the opinion that any of these changes is a material change then this indicates that a full consultation would need to be facilitated. The Applicant should also consider whether these changes have previously been consulted on as part of the preparation of the ES or adequately addressed within the ES (e.g. introduction of Lorry Park, could increase traffic movement not previously assessed). If not, then this points to a need to carry out a full statutory consultation including consultation with the relevant statutory bodies.

It should be noted that as the scoping request was submitted in December 2016, under the transitional provisions (regulation 37) in the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, the 2009 Infrastructure Planning (EIA) Regulations would normally apply. However, if the Proposed Development has altered since the version described in the Scoping Report, the 2009 EIA Regulations may no longer apply. You should satisfy yourselves that the ES has been based on the appropriate set of EIA Regulations.

We note in your correspondence below that you intend to submit a draft Consultation Report for comment within the next 3 weeks (separate from those to be received shortly), if you could provide us with a specific date that would be appreciated, so we can take this into consideration when issuing final comments on all draft documents. We would also like to draw your attention to PINS Prospectus for Applicants, regarding reviewing of draft application documents (Section 3.3)

[attachment 1]

It is note therein, that the Applicant should allow around 3 months for review of draft documents and/or as a minimum 6 weeks. Given the timing of these submission and the Applicants anticipated submission date (end January 2018), it would be useful if you could confirm whether there are any specific documents you would like us to review? We would also need to diarise a date for PINS case team to meet your project team to discuss our feedback, which we could hopefully discuss upon receipt of draft documents. Please note that owing to resource constraints we are not able to provide comments on the whole ES. We are however happy to comment on the chapter that deals with the project description and on any report relating to the Habitats Regulations.

25 October 2017
Morag Thomson
Enquiry received via email
Para 4.27 states that “All projects should be subject to an options appraisal” but then goes on to say that the appraisal “should consider viable modal alternatives”. The remainder of the paragraph cross refers to paragraphs 3.23 and 3.27 which deal with road and rail schemes and then contains further text which also is only referable to road and rail schemes.

Given that the whole purpose of the SRFI scheme is to provide a modal alternative, and given the exclusive application of the majority of the text in paragraph 4.27 to road and rail schemes (not RFI) we have come to the conclusion that this paragraph is not aimed at schemes such as ours. Accordingly we do not propose to include an options appraisal considering viable modal alternatives in our application documentation.

I would be grateful if you could indicate any disagreement with the above as soon as possible.
It will be for the Secretary of State to decide on basis of the facts of any application in respect of the proposed Northampton Gateway SRFI whether and, if so, to what extent, the appraisal required by paragraph 4.27 of the National Networks NPS is required in respect of that scheme or part of that scheme. If the applicant considers that it does not apply in the case of that scheme then it should set out its reasoning clearly in its consideration of the policy context of the scheme. You will no doubt be aware of how the Secretary of State considered para. 4.27 in the case of the East Midlands Gateway Rail Freight Interchange but will understand that that reasoning was based on the specific facts of that application.

Paragraph 4.27 of NPSNN has 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.

10 July 2017
Eversheds Sutherland - Morag Thomson
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

23 March 2017
anon.
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Comments regarding the proposed Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange
Please note that this project is at the pre-application stage and no application has yet been received by the Planning Inspectorate. The developer recently requested a Scoping Opinion from the Secretary of State – the Scoping Opinion contains advice to the developer on how they should undertake the environmental impact assessment for the project, should they wish to take their proposals forward. The list of bodies that the Planning Inspectorate can consult before producing a scoping opinion is largely prescribed by law. This is explained in more detail in our advice note titled ‘EIA Notification and Consultation’ which I have attached to this email.

At this stage therefore the Planning Inspectorate can only accept your email for information purposes. I would encourage you to contact the developer directly to make your concerns known. During the pre-application process the developer will also be required to carry out statutory consultation (under sections 42, 44 and 47 of the Planning Act 2008) before they submit their application to the Planning Inspectorate. This will involve the provision of information about the proposal to various statutory and non-statutory bodies and the wider community, responding to questions, listening to suggestions and taking these into account to influence and inform the application that will ultimately be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. The Government has published Guidance on the pre-application stage of the process, which can be found at the following link: [attachment 1]

The Planning Inspectorate has published a series of advice notes which explain the process, including information on how to get involved. These are available at [attachment 2] I would draw your attention in particular to advice notes 8.1 to 8.5.

You can receive updates about the project at key milestones by signing-up to email updates on the project page at the following link: [attachment 3] By signing up you will receive notifications such as when the application is formally submitted, if the application is accepted to proceed to examination and when the period to register a relevant representation opens and closes. It is advised that in order to stay up to date with the application you regularly visit the project page.

11 January 2017
Various Enquiries
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting.
Please see attached meeting note.

09 December 2016
Roxhill representatives
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Response made in a personal capacity to the Scoping consultation.
As the project is currently in the Pre-Application stage, we strongly encourage you to raise your concerns with the developer directly if you have not already done so. If an application is made, and Roxhill (Junction 15) have suggested a submission date of Q3/Q4 2017, then you will have a further opportunity to register as an Interested Party and raise your concerns. We encourage all parties to access further information about the process via The Planning Inspectorate website. The Advice Note 8 series should provide advice on how to have your say in the planning process (see here: [attachment 1] ).

25 November 2016
Stephen and Vivian Blyth
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Response made to the Scoping consultation objecting to the proposed development.
As the project is currently in the Pre-Application stage, we strongly encourage you to raise your concerns with the developer directly if you have not already done so. If an application is made, and Roxhill (Junction 15) have suggested a submission date of Q3/Q4 2017, then you will have a further opportunity to register as an Interested Party and raise your concerns. We encourage all parties to access further information about the process via The Planning Inspectorate website. The Advice Note 8 series should provide advice on how to have your say in the planning process (see here: [attachment 1] ).

25 November 2016
Northants Friends of the Earth - Alan Heath
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Response made in a personal capacity to the Scoping consultation.
As the project is currently in the Pre-Application stage, we strongly encourage you to raise your concerns with the developer directly if you have not already done so. If an application is made, and Roxhill (Junction 15) have suggested a submission date of Q3/Q4 2017, then you will have a further opportunity to register as an Interested Party and raise your concerns. We encourage all parties to access further information about the process via The Planning Inspectorate website. The Advice Note 8 series should provide advice on how to have your say in the planning process (see here: [attachment 1] ).

25 November 2016
Alistair Inglis
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Response made in a personal capacity to the Scoping consultation.
Roxhill (Junction 15) Ltd have not yet submitted an application for development consent, and the project is currently in the Pre-Application stage of the development consent process.

As the project is currently in the Pre-Application stage, we strongly encourage you to raise your concerns with the developer directly if you have not already done so. If an application is made, and Roxhill (Junction 15) have suggested a submission date of Q3/Q4 2017, then you will have a further opportunity to register as an Interested Party and raise your concerns. We encourage all parties to access further information about the process via The Planning Inspectorate website. The Advice Note 8 series should provide advice on how to have your say in the planning process (see here: [attachment 1] ).

25 November 2016
Liam Costello
response has attachments
Response made to the Scoping consultation.
As the project is currently in the Pre-Application stage, we strongly encourage you to raise your concerns with the developer directly if you have not already done so. If an application is made, and Roxhill (Junction 15) have suggested a submission date of Q3/Q4 2017, then you will have a further opportunity to register as an Interested Party and raise your concerns. We encourage all parties to access further information about the process via The Planning Inspectorate website. The Advice Note 8 series should provide advice on how to have your say in the planning process (see here: [attachment 1] ).

25 November 2016
Roade Local History Society - Vivian Blyth
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Representation in response to the Scoping consultation and request to attend future events.
Advice given by phone:

Roxhill (Junction 15) Ltd have not yet submitted an application for development consent, and the project is currently in the Pre-Application stage of the development consent process.

As the project is currently in the Pre-Application stage, we strongly encourage you to raise your concerns with the developer directly if you have not already done so. If an application is made, and Roxhill (Junction 15) have suggested a submission date of Q3/Q4 2017, then you will have a further opportunity to register as an Interested Party and raise your concerns. We encourage all parties to access further information about the process via The Planning Inspectorate website. The Advice Note 8 series should provide advice on how to have your say in the planning process (see here: [attachment 1]

Hearings will be held as part of the Examination process, and all those registered as Interested Parties will be invited to attend.

24 November 2016
Rod Sellers
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Northampton Gateway Pre-Application Site Visit
Please see attached note of the Site Visit

24 November 2016
Roxhill representatives
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Response made in a personal capacity to the Scoping consultation, objecting to the proposed development.
See attached.

23 November 2016
Gill Knight
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Introduction Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

10 June 2016
Roxhill representatives