Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange

Representations received regarding Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange and their relevant representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Mair
"I strongly object to this proposal. I have lived in Milton Malsor for 33 years, enjoying the beauty and rural tranquillity in this lovely rural village. Thus the reason why I chose to live here. I have retired and I am looking forward to spending the remainder of my days here. Having the Northampton Gateway SRFI "shoe horned" in, so close to the villages of Collingtree and Milton Malsor will increase traffic volumes in an already heavily congested and highly polluted area. Collingtree village adjacent to the M1 is identified as at maximum nitrogen dioxide air quality levels. Having even more lorries travelling in from all directions using the M1 will compound this even further. Furthermore, the noise and light pollution from such an operation working 24 hours a day seven days a week would be devastating, making my life unbearable. I also strongly object to this proposal as it`s contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) formally adopted in December 2014. The WNJCS is the foundation for all planning policy in the area until 2029. There is no policy or evidence in the WNJCS to suggest the need for an SRFI on land in open countryside off junction 15 on the M1. The need for an SRFI is already identified in the WNJCS, as the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT). This is a 7.86 million sq ft site off junction 18 on the M1, (approximately 18 miles from junction 15) where planning permission, has been granted for logistics space and a new rail terminal. The WNJCS requires that any further SRFI development should take place at the DIRFT site and nowhere else within its three districts. (Daventry, South Northants & Northampton Borough areas) DIRFT is set to double in size in the next 10 years, and has gained planning approval for its third phase of development allowing it to expand until 2031. DIRFT is the largest, and is expected to remain the largest, SRFI in the country. So there is no need for the Northampton Gateway SRFI to be located nearby on junction 15. The WNJCS was considered by an independent planning inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate, as part of the Examination in Public hearings held in April/May 2013 and March 2014. The inspector`s report issued in October 2014 concludes there is no need for any new strategic employment sites in open countryside, as there is enough land allocated in the WNJCS for this purpose, on junctions 16 & 18 on the M1. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
CPRE Northamptonshire (CPRE Northamptonshire)
"The detailed submission will cover the matters relating to the loss of countryside, landscape and visual impact of the development and the effects of the development on rural communities. It will also consider the planning balance and weigh the benefits of the development against the harms."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Environment Agency (Environment Agency)
"The Environment Agency is an executive non-departmental public body established under the Environment Act 1995. We are an adviser to Government with the principal aim to protect and improve the environment so as to contribute to sustainable development in line with Government advice. For the purposes of this Development Consent Order (DCO) application, we are an interested party. Scope of our representation Our representations will contain an overview of the project issues, which fall within our remit. Flood Risk Management Water Resources Controlled waters "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gregory Hall
"The areas I will include in my submission are in relation to the following: - Need for Northampton Gateway given Dirft (Daventry/crick) has capacity and is only a few miles away; - Impact of the proposed development in terms of traffic given difficulties already experienced on the M1 (junctions 16 to 14), A43 and A508; - Shortage of warehouse staff in the area of Northampton meaning unnecessary commuting from Leicester and Milton Keynes to fill the proposed jobs being generated by the development; - Lack of available routes on the railway being used by the proposed development; and, - Lack of combined impact accessment provided in documentation regarding Rail Central. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Guy Phelps
"Dear Planning Inspectorate I am writing to strongly object to the planned Northampton Gateway proposal. My primary objection is that I don't agree with its reason for existence. The propsosal classifies itself as an SRFI, but there is nothing strategic about it, in the sense that it is not part of a holistic plan to remove lorries from the road as part of an optimised national network. More that it is an opportunistic attempt by a developer to maximise a warehousing intent by locating it next to a railway line. There is already at SRFI only 20 miles from here with capacity for expansion. In addition, the volumes of actual rail capable goods seem miniscule compared to the overall site movements, negating the point of being an SRFI status. Secondly, a site of this size would destroy not only a large area of prime farmland and natural area, but bring with it the misery of 24 hour noise and light pollution, and huge increases of staff traffic and HGV movements. The quality of life currently enjoyed by my young family will be simply devastated by this project. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Iain Spooner
"I’m opposed to the development on so many levels, e.g. noise, air pollution and traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Lawrence
"I am a resident of Roade village., a village which will be affected by any application to site a Rail Freight Terminal in the area between J15 of the M1 motorway, the A508 west of that junction, and the A43 west of J15A of the M1 motorway. My main concerns relate to LEVELS OF POLLUTION, specifically air pollution, noise pollution and light pollution. The proposed development will inevitably exacerbate air, noise and light pollution levels generated initially by construction traffic and then the increased levels of traffic entering and leaving the site. (1) AIR - In relation to air pollution, it has already been established that legal levels of NO2, NOx, CO, SO2 and Particulate matter are regularly exceeded on the A508 as it passes through our village. Increased traffic will only add to this. (2) NOISE - The developers have stated that the development will not make any significant change to the current noise pollution levels but they have not provided any hard evidence to back up this claim. As it is intended that the site will be operating 24 hours a day, with trains and HGVs entering and leaving the site, the developer's claim must be properly substantiated and if it is not, then further investigation is needed. (3) LIGHT - The development site, together with proposed changes to J15 and the dualling of the A508 west of that junction will have to be lit and will necessarily add to the light pollution that the surrounding area and Roade village suffers. (4) GENERAL - Initially the Developers stated that they would provide a By-pass for Roade village as part of the development, but now we learn that they are not intending to provide it until their RFT is generating a certain level of income, therefore the village would suffer increased heavy traffic during the construction phase of the RFT, during the changes to J15 and the dualling of the A508 south of that junction. I would respectfully submit, if it is intended that planning permission be granted, the permission is worded so that the developer is required to complete said By-pass before site construction is started and is unable to renege on its original commitment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jill Hope
"I object to the application submitted by Roxhill Developments Ltd for the Northampton Rail Freight Interchange. My objections relate mainly to the following: 1. I believe the development is a Trojan Horse - that Roxhill want to build a massive warehouse development on a greenfield site, and that they probably know that they will not achieve the paths to access the West Coast mainline. This means that the development will NOT be a Rail Freight Interchange, but simply a large industrial park 2. The idea behind the strategic rail freight interchanges was that they should be spread around the country. We already have one in nearby Daventry (DIRFT) and one is planned for Milton Keynes. Now two are being proposed for Northampton - this is too much clustering. 3. The traffic around Milton Malsor and Blisworth from the workers coming to the development will be intolerable. 4. The noise, light and air pollution from the lorries accessing the proposed development will completely ruin these two quiet villages. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Maureen Marr
"I object to the proposal on the flowing grounds. Position, proximity to the other proposal, impact on the surrounding areas, impact on the motorway system, possible Pollution through additional traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Malcolm Brice
"The application is not in keeping with the South Northants plan for the use of that land. The traffic at junction 15 of the M1 is already often at a standstill morning and evening. The M1 at this point is very often at a standstill The air quality in this area is already over the acceptable limit and the prevailing wind will blow it over Collingtree, a conservation village just over the M1 to the north. The closeness of the village must surely rule out any concept of 24 hour working. The area already has many distribution sites and another is not needed. Much claim is made that this will be an inland port/ railway facility whereas sensible planning would have such a facility at a coastal port so the traffic does not get on the roads. The rail authorities do not seem to favour it and flooding may be an issue."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ruth O'Donegan
"This application is in close proximity to an existing rail freight site (DIRFT) and there are multiple others in application stage in the immediate area. It doesn't seem to fit with a national network. It's more of a local cluster. The Northampton area has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. The jobs are not needed here. Employees will end up travelling from outside the area to the site further impacting road congestion. There is no evidence of spare rail network capacity on the line this development will connect to. If there is no capacity for rail freight for this development then it is just another warehousing site. The local road network is already extremely congested at peak times. The road improvements proposed only appear to benefit users of this development. They do little to address congestion on the A508 further south than the site. I am concerned about the ability of the site to stop HGV's travelling south on the A508. The development breaches the M1 boundary of Northampton and builds on open countryside. I am concerned about pollution and loss of access to the countryside. If this application is approved there is likely to be further development in this rural area. The developer has failed to secure local planning support for its original plans and has now scaled up those plans under the guise of a national infrastructure project in order to try again."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart Parsons
"What a ridiculous idea. We dont need more freight. We dont need nore warehousing and we certainly dont need yet more environmental damage in the local area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tina Arnold
"I am a resident and I’d like to see evidence there is a business need for this when Rugby isn’t used to capacity : the traffic is horrendous in this area as it is we should not have to take 45 minutes to drive 6 miles because of traffic backlog "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Colin Davidson
"This development is specifically excluded in the local plan This development will lead to a large number of vehicle movements on already crowded roads It is not clear that train paths are available. It is not clear where the workforce will come from. Whilst we all support getting freight onto the railways, it is not clear why we need three SRFI in Northamptonshire, nor is it clear why they are all proposed in the East Midlands"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Darren Gay
"There is insufficient consideration given to the local roads impact to the A508, A45 but also the already regularly congested M1. Traffic flow study's should be completed on the M1 between Northampton and Milton Keynes, the A508 and A45 during peak times - the continuation of the M1 smart Lane should be completed prior to commencement of building. an increase in traffic on the M1 and surrounding roads due to an increase in lorry traffic both during construction and then in use will result in times of gridlock. The development plans should ensure that roads of Grange Park and Collingtree are not usable as rat runs when the A45 is congested. The development is very positive for Northampton and the surrounding area BUT the already appalling road congestion MUST be resolved first. What would be the point of freight interchange if the transport spends time stationary due to congestion. Camera's should be installed to capture details of vehicles failing to obey the traffic lights. Lane hashing should be considered to prevent blocking of the traffic. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eric John Meakins
"I strongly object to Roxhill-Northampton gateway development it is contrary to the west Northants joint core strategy (Wnjcs) Daventry international rail freight terminal (dirft) is only 17 miles away and so Northampton Gateway SRFI at junction 15 m1 is too close to be of use. this proposal will destroy hundreds of acres of countryside. Proposed bunding will be an eyesore.moving ponds and altering water courses will ultimately mean the destruction of the amphibians who live there. This farmland is in constant food production once concreted over will be lost forever. The m1 is already congested thousands of extra cars vans and hgv’s will make this very much worse. Air pollution is already way above safe limits thousands of extra vehicles will make this much worse with increased illness for villagers. Traffic through villages will increase dramatically and make them dangerous places to live. Noise by 24/7operation of the site will disrupt our lives as will light pollution. Mature trees some hundreds of years old are irreplaceable as is the wild life that lives on them. I strongly object to this development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jo Durao
"I live in Grange Park and I am already suffering the consequences of commercial buildings in the area. Not only the area looks bad (my friends often think that they got lost when coming to my house) but the impact on traffic is absolutely ridiculous. I'm certain that air and noise pollution have also increased as a result. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katie Spruels
"I strongly object to this development for the following reasons. The destruction of local footpaths, especially between Milton Malsor and Collingtree. This would be re-routed alongside the M1. The lost of farmland. We need to be producing food within the country rather than importing it. The increase in traffic through the village."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lesley Marr
"This development is surplus to requirements, and will be detrimental to quality of life for those of us living in close proximity to the development. There is already a drift facility in Northamptonshire which is under utilised, calling into question the need for this one. Junction 15 is already over subscribed with traffic volume and unable to cope at rush hour. The increased volume of traffic will exponentially increase the levels of noise pollution and air pollutants. The local area is already subject to high levels of both, and a significant increase will cause nothing but health issues for residents which in turn will put a strain on public services."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Eva Mair
"I have really loved living in Milton Malsor for the past 33 years. It`s a beautiful rural village in open countryside. I object very strongly to the proposed Northampton Gateway SRFI, the reason being, I am a great walker so I am absolutely flabbergasted that Roxhill Developments are proposing the destruction of the local footpath network in particular, the footpath between Milton Malsor and Collingtree that would be diverted alongside the Collingtree Road and the M1 Motorway. This means I will no longer be able to enjoy my walks which is unacceptable. I also object very strongly to the noise that will be created by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers and the operation of the aggregates terminal. The light and noise pollution from night time operations would also make my life unbearable. The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only a short distance away from this site, serves the same local area and has capacity for expansion for over 10 years. So there is no need for the proposed Northampton Gateway SRFI. Furthermore, I strongly object to the proposed no right turns at the junction of Courteenhall Road and the A508. This is very dangerous and would put peoples lives at great risk. It would mean traffic diverting through the centre of Blisworth village passing the entrance to the primary school, as well as past the doctors surgery in Stoke Road which is very narrow and where parking is already a problem. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Sarah Smith
"For those of us in the communities around the proposed site who commute out of Northampton to other areas of work, Milton Keynes in my case and for many others, the routes out of Northampton are already too busy. If the proposed plans for the Interchange were to get approval this will put a significant increased pressure on Jct 15 which already struggles every morning with the flow of traffic and will push more traffic through Roade and onto the A508 which again struggles everyday already. The road improvements to the A5 roundabout with the A508 have had little effect on the traffic queuing from Cosgrove area down to the A5 each morning and any additional traffic will have a significant impact on those routes. The A45 suffers daily due to delays on the M1 which back up as far as Earls Barton in some cases and impacts those trying to get to Brackmills. With this being a major site of employment in the area, there will be an impact on not only those who live in the immediate area but also those trying to get to work in and out of town. Jct 15 to 14 is the longest stretch on the M1 without a junction and there are incident's and delays daily along this route. This will be a disaster in terms of traffic to the local area, not to mention the light and noise pollution to those nearer the proposed site and destruction of local wildlife habitats. Why build another site when DIRFT already has plans to expand over the next 20 yrs and is so close by? the area simply cannot cope with such an industrial expansion without a massive restructure of the road systems of surrounding areas. Any such expansion and restructure of our road network is likely to take years and will have a massive negative impact on the local residents trying to get about their daily lives. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Pam Wright
"I am writing to object for the following reasons. The planned development will ruin the general environment , in particular the local walks. I feel that the village will be ruined and its historic character lost forever. I am the 4th generation to live in Milton Malsor, and I am horrified to think that this beautiful village simply become an annexe to an industrial site. In particular , I strongly object to the expected noise and light pollution from a 24/7 operation. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Shaun Hope
"I wish to object to this proposal. The summary of my objections is as follows: 1. The West Northampton Joint Core strategy rejected a request from Ashfield Land. This proposal is against the Joint Core Strategy 2. We have clean air, owls and nightingales at the bottom of our garden, we don't want this replaced by lorry reversing alarms and the terrible noise of huge cranes working 24/7 3. DIRFT is nearby and already serves the local area. 4. The site proposed by Roxhill damages open countryside. 5. Traffic computer models used by Roxhill have not been used to stress test the impact on local roads. 6. Footpaths and bridleways will suffer from very long diversions and be less attractive to walkers/riders. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ashley Adams
"Great idea to bring jobs to the local area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eileen Lawson
"I wish to register my objection to the proposed Northampton Gateway (NG) SRFI of the following reasons That the proposed SRFI will not contribute to the ambition of a regionally dispersed network of SRFIs. With DIRFT a mere 18miles north, NG relying solely on the same rail line access and having no access to any additional significant conurbation it will bring nothing new to the modal shift goal. It will however enable even more warehouses and "sheds" which rather than use the rail link will rely on an already stretched road net work. I support the governments modal shift ambition but as Northampton has one of the country's largest SRFIs which is planned to grow further I see no benefit to the nation by us having another, in effect, next door. Where will the workforce come from? There is a shortage of warehouse staff in the area already. So the employment will not benefit local people but mean that people will have to travel, by road, from further afield. As low to semi skilled work it offers very little to enhance the skills of the area and adds to Northampton's over reliance on a single industry. I do not believe the proposed bypass of Roade will bring net benefit to the local residents. Indeed it may well mean that the petroleum station/ supermarket becomes uneconomic which would be a significant loss to the village. The A508 will become much busier producing noise and air pollution and the model for the revised J15 will become out dated far earlier than suggested I believe the disbenefits to the proposal far outweigh the benefits when taking into account the loss of rural space, the increase in traffic both on the major network and the ripple affect into the local network and the damage to the local environment from noise light and air pollution. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gemma Jackson
"I am wholly against these proposals. The plans have not adequately addressed the already existing traffic congestion and the plans will significantly make this worse. There is no justification why this site is required when such a similar site exists at Junction 18. Traffic, air and noise pollution will significantly increase for a site that is not needed or wanted by local people. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kate Entwistle
"I am strongly opposed the proposed development for a number of reasons. My main concern is the impact on the local roads. Although measures are proposed in the application to make road improvements the current roads cannot cope when there is a serious incident on the M1 (which is a regular occurence). Adding significant road freight coupled with the traffic of workers will exacerbate the already difficult road conditions. In addition some road changes are proposed e.g. no right turn onto the A508 from Blisworth will create traffic chaos in the village at peak times. I also strongly oppose the destruction of local farmland especially when there is already a large and expending rail freight interchange within approx 20 miles of the proposed site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kirk Trewin
"In my opinion this approval should not be granted! There are a number of key factors that should be taken into account before making his decision. These are: 1) increase of road traffic in the immediate area which will make the surrounding villages become “rat runs” more than they are now. This proposes a serious risk to village residents. 2) local pollution caused by noise, light, vehicle emissions, vibration and generally to the local area by the building of such large industrial units in a non industrial area 3) DIRFT already offers this facility only 12 miles away so why not simply expand on this as it has the same road networks and rails track access as what’s proposed here? Hasn’t the area already contributed to “National Sognificance” by provinding and living with this facility without adding to it? 4) Utterly ruining the area that we live in by joining traditional and small villages together in such a brutal and industrial manor all for the sake of profit and “business progression” These are just a few of my thoughts. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Charles Mackintosh
"I object because the hundreds of acres this development will destroy with concrete will cause massive flooding to the area. There will be a great loss to animal habitats, a lot of the farm land is agricultural needed for the food chain which if lost would amount to price increases in the food market. The well used local foot paths now in open country side with views of animals grazing and crops growing will be replaced with CONCRETE footpaths allong side warehouses which if Daventry is any thing to go by will remain empty for years. The disruption to traffic in the local area will be appalling during construction and greatly increased after."
Members of the Public/Businesses
William Root
"I would like to object to the development on the following grounds. 1. The cumulative impact of this proposal and another SFRI on adjacent land. 2. The impact of the development on the rural community of Blisworth. 3. The suspicion that the rail connection would not be used much and its inclusion is only to make the development "strategic", and so bypass the local planning system where it would be likely to be refused as it is not consistent with local infrastructure plans. 4. The loss of good agricultural land to hard development. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Blisworth Parish Council (Blisworth Parish Council)
"Blisworth Parish Council strongly object to the proposed Northampton Gateway for the following reasons. 1. POLICY COMPLIANCE Strategic rail freight interchanges are required to conform with many policies within the National Policy Statement for National Networks. The proposal for Northampton Gateway does not conform with several of these policies including, but not limited to: air quality; environmental impact (not a brownfield site); local workforce availability; proximity to residential areas; road safety; quality of life; assessment of alternative sites; establishment of a national network of SRFIs ‘across the regions’; and it precedes, rather than follows, investment in the strategic rail network. 2. TRAFFIC CONCERNS We do not believe, for the reasons summarised below, that Northampton Gateway will function as a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) and, consequently, that it will generate greatly increased traffic on the highways and village road network in the local area whilst bringing no, or only marginal, benefits in the form of modal shift: a) It is too close (15 miles) to DIRFT which has sufficient additional capacity (~7,860,000 sq ft) to satisfy the regional need for the next 13 years. Both will compete for tenants and finite rail paths over the same time frame b) It is not close to a major conurbation meaning that the primary objective of reducing the secondary leg of the freight journey by road will not be fully realised c) The location is remote from the industrial heartlands meaning that the rail terminal will only receive goods, not send them: the majority of trains will return empty d) The low unemployment in the area will result in increased employee commuting from outside the area leading to increased, rather than reduced, carbon emissions and congestion e) The distance to all the major ports in England is too short to make most journeys economic by rail f) An additional (estimated) 17,000 vehicle movements per day would be generated with the majority predicted to use J15 and the busiest section of the M1 in the UK. All traffic will have to use the A508. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate the effects that perturbation of these two very critical arteries will have on the surrounding village roads g) The Applicant has failed to demonstrate, at an early stage, that the rail network can provide sufficient capacity to facilitate a beneficial modal shift. The labelling of a RFI as Strategic brings with it higher expectations in terms of modal shift and carbon reduction. The Applicant has also failed to demonstrate that there is sufficient freight capacity (or demand) to support all the SRFIs being built or currently in the application process (a requirement of the cumulative impact assessment). 3. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE The Applicant has not produced an alternative sites assessment to demonstrate that this is the best placed location to contribute to a strategic national freight network taking into account existing SRFIs, consented SRFIs and those SRFIs still in the application process. Given the excessive number being brought forward in one region (The Midlands) the Applicant has provided no evidence that theirs is best placed to facilitate an effective modal shift. Consequently it fails to satisfy the over-riding NPS objectives of delivering a ‘strategic network’ ‘across the regions’. This omission is a major non-compliance with the Planning Act 2008. Furthermore, the fact that the Applicant has attempted to bring forward a number of non-rail connected developments on the same site brings into question their real motivation. 4. ROAD SAFETY The proposed works to the local road network will have the effect of increasing traffic on some country lanes and through the centres of villages; they will not, as the Applicant contends; reduce it. The proposed weight limits on a number of country lanes are not enforceable and are likely to be ignored. There is a significantly increased risk to the safety and well-being of local residents from increased light and heavy traffic on unsuitable roads. 5. HISTORIC HERITAGE Being in such close proximity, the development will cause a dislocation between rural communities and have a significant adverse impact on the historic setting of two ancient villages and conservation areas. The industrial landscape being imposed is completely foreign to, and unsympathetic with, the rural environment which is currently afforded the protection of the adopted West Northants Joint Core Strategy and the South Northamptonshire Local Plan (1988 - 2006) Adopted Oct 1997) (Policy EV8) which designates the area as an Important Local Gap to prevent the coalescence of Milton Malsor, Blisworth and Roade into the Northampton conurbation. The individual identities of these historic villages would be lost and surrounding land marginalised by the industrialisation would be vulnerable to further development pressures. 6. PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY The dislocation of the villages of Collingtree, Milton Malsor and Blisworth would be further exacerbated by the diversion of the footpaths linking the three villages. The attractiveness of the paths to ramblers, dog walkers and local people will be severely diminished (and probably destroyed) by its additional length and proximity to the intermodal terminal and railway. 7. NOISE AND LIGHT This rural environment currently enjoys dark night skies and tranquil evenings. The noise and light pollution generated by the operation (exacerbated by the fact that a large proportion of freight movements and associated activity will be at night) will have a significant adverse impact on the quality of life and health of residents living close by. 8. SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS The Policy Statement advises that Applicants should provide evidence that they have considered reasonable opportunities to deliver environmental and social benefits as part of schemes. No socio-economic benefits are being proposed or would be delivered and the Applicant has failed to fully appreciate (or mitigate) the impacts that increases in crime would have on a rural community. 9. ECOLOGY The proposed development would exclusively build on currently productive farmland which cannot be regarded as sustainable. There would be extensive loss of habitat for wild life; there is no effective mitigation for these losses. 10. CUMULATIVE IMPACT The assessment of the cumulative impact of building Europe’s largest warehouse park (Northampton Gateway and Rail Central combined) on productive agricultural green fields is inadequate as it fails to address (amongst other things): the effect on passenger rail services; the availability and resilience of utilities; the combined impact on the national and local road networks; and the efficacy of the proposed footpath diversions. Contrary to Paragraph 1.6 of Advice Note 17 no consideration has been given to other NSIPs in the region (other than a cursory assessment of Rail Central): the cumulative impact that building multiple SRFIs in the same region will have on the efficacy of a national strategic network has, therefore, not been considered. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Major
"Roxhill developers have proposed a 5 million square foot strategic rail freight interchange adjacent to Junction 15 of the M1 to the west of the A508. The existing traffic congestion on the M1, A45 and A508, is self evident and increases 'rat running' through residential roads. The number of HGV's and additional staff vehicles needed to service the proposed site will add enormous pressure onto our already congested roads. The Roxhill 'Northampton Gateway' will be one of the largest warehouse developments in Europe and their biggest yet. It will displace 460 acres of agricultural land and its support for wildlife habitats. It is in conflict with the adopted Strategy for West Northamptonshire and local and neighbourhood plans. Industry experts say that a Rail Interchange is not needed in this location because the DIRFT facility is only 18 miles further north and has expansion capacity for the next 20 years. The likely occupiers would be non rail freight warehouse operators moving to be nearer to the M1. This would negate government objectives but the policies governing Rail Freight Interchanges do not prevent this."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gary Crook
"This development is ill thought out, unnecessary, and would have a devistating impact on the local environment. There is already a strategic rail freight terminal DIRFT less than 20 miles away that is not even at 2/3rds capacity, the road network around it is constantly being misused by overnighting HGVs who treat the surrounding countryside like a toilet and worse! The proposed road network for this proposal is ludicrous and will not be adhered to. There is no capacity left in the network to supply the site with electricity it would have to be brought in via Northampton town centre which would be an estimated 2 years to complete and would severely disrupt the residents of Northampton, also this not mentioned in the proposal. The horrendous size of these proposed warehouses is enough to question its siting let alone the impact of thousands of vehicle movements per day would have it terms of noise and air quality in what is a quiet peaceful village envrinonment. The developers have not supplied an air quality impact assessment despite being requested as they 'don't see there being a problem' They have been told that the development must not use the Northampton Road in any way however they have a roundabout in the centre of the Northampton Road linking the two halves together, and a proposed bus route bringing in the workforce they think will be from the surrounding area, which once again is completely without evidence, the unemployment rate is not conducive to this claim, and would lead to the same issues that the DIRFT complex suffers as workers are brought in by a fleet of mini buses from considerable distance. The proposed siding is not long enough to to be able to take the freight off of the main line, and has rail track commented on capacity? the last modelling done on this issue found rail track stating that the line from Felixstowe was running at capacity and the chance of them allowing further freight on that line was zero. I find the whole development nothing more than a speculative money making exercise."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gary Skilton
"I object strongly to the proposed development by Roxhill Developments Limited for a Rail Freight Interchange in Northampton. This development will cause increased traffic issues in and around the neighbouring villages as well as on the motorways and their entry / exit junctions / roads. Our village in Milton Malsor will be used as a "rat-run" for traffic trying to avoid traffic jams at the junctions of the M1 at J15 and J15A as people try to sidestep jams at these junctions. Also an increase in the amount of lorry / truck traffic through the neighbouring villages (even if inadvertent) when the road structure in these villages is not suitable to large vehicles. We have a lot of young children (primary school age) in Milton Malsor who are often walking or riding around the village and an increase in traffic puts them at increased risk of injury. We will be exposed to further increased pollution levels being next to the M1 as well as being next to a Freight Rail Interchange (effectively doubling our exposure). The sight needs to be further away from the Motorway to even out the amount of pollutants in the air. Lastly it is a common belief amongst the community that what is really desired by this company is ware-housing capacity, and that the rail-freight interchange development is just a means to an end in this regard. Their is no money to be made with rail-freight interchanges, yet there is money to be made in ware-housing. Milton Malsor is a small traditional english village with a soul. This will be destroyed if Roxhill Developments are allowed to proceed with their monstrous development. I object to this development in the strongest manner!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jacquelyn Jones
"I object to Northampton Gateway for a multitude of reasons including an unmanageable increase in traffic (regardless of likely road changes), noise, light pollution, air pollution adding to the already critical levels of nitrous oxide and particulate pollution around the M1 and destruction of the countryside. My family moved to Milton Malsor 3 years ago choosing the lovely village for its beauty and rural setting away from cramped built up estates to give our little boys (4 and 6) a better way of life, growing up in a small close knit community with fresh air, dark nights with minimal light pollution and country land to play out on and go for walks. We were so upset to hear of the plans as it will take away everything that we moved here to gain. My husband and I have lived in Northampton since studying at Northampton University some 20 years ago. We stayed as we loved the county for what it offered and the picturesque village locations around it, with reams of history still visible today. It has been a really disappointing few years to see the countryside gradually getting taken away from us as a county and Northamptonshire is getting more and more weighted with distribution depots and warehouses, ruining the beautiful countryside. Anyone now driving up the M1 through the county barely sees any of rural Northamptonshire, all they see is warehouses. Having Northampton Gateway will not only be damaging to us as a community, but also to the county taking away its untouched beauty, which is what many of us here love. I understand that these developments are required but to have so much compacted in to a small space up the M1 will be awful. We moved away from this as visible from our last home in Wootton we had the warehouses spring up at junction 15. It almost seems that nowhere is safe. We have to stop this going ahead for me, my family, my community and my county which I am proud to live in."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Judith Mackintosh
"I object to this proposal because it will absolutely ruin the country side. Children will not know what a nature walk or a cow or sheep look like. To build something like this in this area so close to the Daventry DIRFT construction is absolute madness. Most of those warehouses remain empty. The lorries parked all around just cause chaos. The flooding will be awful because there will be nothing but concrete, so no where for the water to run. The influx of workers and the amount of cars that would bring to the area would be unthinkable. People move to the countryside to get away from all this sort of construction. Why can't people think, would they like to have there children living in that sort of environment. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katie Skilton
"I am writing to voice my thoughts as to why I strongly object to the Rail Freight Development in our village. I have 2 young boys and I feel that this will have an impact on their childhood with all the extra pollution, noise and environmentally!! We already have high pollution in this area due to the increased traffic used on the M1 motorway. We are very fortunate to be able to live in a beautiful quaint English village which I fear will become a thing of the past in the UK if you continue to allow these eyesore warehouses to pop up on our countryside. We often take walks through the fields and along the streams where this development is planned and often see nature at its best living in the beautiful surroundings and its things like this that capture the imagination of children and builds on their memories of childhood. Its a terrifying thought that their lasting memory of growing up in Milton Malsor was when the bulldozers moved in to build the Monstrosity that will ruin our village!!!!!!!! I object strongly to the proposed development by Roxhill Developments Limited for a Rail Freight Interchange in Northampton. This development will cause increased traffic issues in and around the neighbouring villages as well as on the motorways and their entry / exit junctions / roads. Our village in Milton Malsor will be used as a "rat-run" for traffic trying to avoid traffic jams at the junctions of the M1 at J15 and J15A as people try to sidestep jams at these junctions. Also an increase in the amount of lorry / truck traffic through the neighbouring villages (even if inadvertent) when the road structure in these villages is not suitable to large vehicles. We have a lot of young children (primary school age) in Milton Malsor who are often walking or riding around the village and an increase in traffic puts them at increased risk of injury. We will be exposed to further increased pollution levels being next to the M1 as well as being next to a Freight Rail Interchange (effectively doubling our exposure). The sight needs to be further away from the Motorway to even out the amount of pollutants in the air. Lastly it is a common belief amongst the community that what is really desired by this company is ware-housing capacity, and that the rail-freight interchange development is just a means to an end in this regard. Their is no money to be made with rail-freight interchanges, yet there is money to be made in ware-housing. Milton Malsor is a small traditional english village with a soul. This will be destroyed if Roxhill Developments are allowed to proceed with their monstrous development. I object to this development in the strongest manner!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Keith Davies
"My wife and I are 100% against this proposal. My wife grew up in this village and we have recently moved back to support her elderly father. Milton is a quite family village and should remain that way. There are residents who have lived her for years and have a huge impact on the shape of the village and the community. The land around the village and the local area must be protected. Why do we need to develop a rail hub that is bigger than the villages around the site? The size of the proposed land take up is enormous. Why does it need to be here? This project will quite simply destroy the local area, increase traffic which is always bad at the M1 J15 due again to the development of the industrial section of Grange Park. What in this proposal is in the interest of the residents of Milton, Collingtree and the other areas potentially effected? Nothing!! Please do not let this go ahead. It is simply another case of land being taken with little to no benefit going to the people most effected."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lucy Phelps
"I am against the proposed terminal and warehousing, because I have some serious concerns regarding, air, noise and light pollution and how it will affect our health and the health of our children, as well as the overall impact on our environment and our village. The green fields of northamptonshire are disappearing fast and being replaced by warehousing. This is effecting the environment for our children and more and more children are suffering from asthma and illnesses that are exacerbated by air born pollutants. Not just from the rail freight but also from the increased traffic to the site I.e.Lorries and cars. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Adam Woby
"By proposing to develop a rail connected industrial estate and using the NSIP process Roxhill are bypassing the local authority who have justifiably rejected industrial estate development proposals at this location previously. If the proposal were to go ahead it will destroy a significant amount of countryside, play havoc with the local transport network and negatively impact air, sound and light quality in the area to all residential areas for generations to come. I find the requirement for a rail terminal of any kind in Northampton within the next 20 years completely unnecessary when taking into account the proximity of other rail terminals, the wide availability of modern warehousing along the M1 from Lutterworth to South Milton Keynes and the large number of warehouses in place or being built directly around Northampton at present."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Simon Jones
"I strongly object to this application because The West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) completed, found to be sound by PINS and formally adopted in 2014 specifically rejected a request from a developer (Ashfield Land) to include provision for a SRFI. The strategy states that new rail freight interchanges are not deliverable within the plan period and that major new industrial development should be focussed on three sites ie. Silverstone DIRFT and around the M1 junction 16. There is sufficient future capacity at DIRFT along with Midlands Gateway such that very little interchange of rail freight will take place at Northampton Gateway. If this is the case then what would differentiate the proposed site from a 'regular interchange park? The suggestion of a SRFI terminal is disingenuous paying lip service to the idea of providing Strategic National Importance simply in order to bypass local planning and make good on their investment. This is short-term thinking that ultimately costs the country in the long run. I would add that recent reports confirm a decrease in the use of Rail Freight by 20% down to 0.4% growth from predictions of 5% increase year on year. The local road network is totally inadequate to deal with the anticipated increased volume of traffic, not only from HGVs but also from those supposed new employees (that don't live in the area) using the site on a daily (24 hour) basis. The major benefit of local job creation is overplayed in an area of low unemployment and that the anticipated workforce will mostly commute from other areas further increasing the pressure on the local road networks. There will be negligible, if any, benefit to the local communities affected. Furthermore, the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) provides for a careful balance between jobs and housing. Unemployment is presently at only 1% to 2% and the JCS states that only 3 ‘strategic employment sites’ – at M1 Junction 16; Silverstone Circuit and DIRFT are needed. The operation will create unacceptable light, air and noise pollution blighting the lives of at least two rural communities and endangering their health and well-being for everyone. 8. The cumulative adverse impact of 24/7 noise, light and air pollution will be considerable for residents of many local villages. The additional daily HGV trips each day will add to the already critical levels of nitrous oxide and particulate pollution around the M1 (an AQMA). The Northamptonshire “Parishes Against Pollution” group (29 parishes) have combined to fight this threat to residents health. There are several local footpaths and bridleways that will suffer from diversions that are both considerably less convenient but also far less attractive due to the loss of countryside views. They will also suffer from increased noise and air pollution when compared to the existing routes. A major concern of local residents is the proposal to make the Courteenhall Rd. junction on the A508 left in left out only. This will cause considerable inconvenience locally and add to the current traffic problems on Stoke Rd. in Blisworth"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Lyn Bird
"I strongly object to the planning application known as Northampton Gateway for many reasons but will focus primarily upon local impact upon human health and perceived health inequalities which would be inflicted upon those who live and work in proximity to the site, as and when I submit my written representation. My concerns extend to physical, physiological and mental health inequalities which will be exacerbated by the pending application if it were allowed to proceed. I require time to review the applicants current submission documents but so far Roxhill do not appear to have provided sufficient mitigation against increased air pollution from predicted vehicle movements, or consideration of the impact of this pollutant upon local residents and road users, where air quality is already known to be poor. Similarly, noise and light pollution mitigation has been scant in consultation documentation. Thank you for the opportunity to object to this application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Shutlanger Parish Council (Shutlanger Parish Council)
"The impact on the local road infrastructure, particularly A5, A508 and A43. • The consequential rat-running through the smaller roads, particularly the Heathencote and Showsley Road. • Noise and light pollution as a result of the construction and subsequent use of the sites. • Unnecessary destruction of countryside. • Further pressure on local housing as the RFI’s will need thousands of people to run them so this will impact on housing requirements/commuting in the area given unemployment is very low locally. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Bland
"I intend to make an objection to this application on the grounds that it will destroy the countryside of Milton Malsor, destroy the historical village, create excessive noise, traffic, pollution etc. It does not make enough improvements to the local infrastructure which will Not be able to cope with the increased level of traffic. It is proposed in completely the wrong location. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tessa Roff
"I object to this application for the following reasons: Devastation of the countryside, significantly reducing habitats for bats. pheasants, hedgehogs, birds etc, as well as plants, trees and hedgerows. The loss of local footpaths (Collingtree to Milton Malsor) Increase in traffic through Milton Malsor Possible increase in crime throughout the local area"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Olsson
"For the following reasons I believe the development unnecessary and unduly harmful to the local environs: - There is existing unused capacity at DRIFT only 18 miles away. - Extensive noise, light and air pollution - Increased threat of further development - No local labour pool - employees would have to travel in increasing traffic - Lack of rail capacity on west coast main line - Local road network is already at capacity - Loss of wildlife and local habitat - Increase risk of crime"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Edmund James
"I object to this scheme for a number of reasons It is contrary to the Local plan - M1 has been seen as a natural boundary to urban sprawl of Northampton this will breach this very tenant The rail study claims only three new routes will be available with one additional route from the relocation of the aggregates plant - therefore doesn't meet policy of 4 trains into site The cumulative impacts modelling with Rail Central is incomplete - the tone of the documentation is to suggest that this site is better than Rail Central - although within the reports it is open and cumulative effects are not well modeled, it is impossible for local residents to understand the full implications and I don't believe they have fulfilled their obligation to model and mitigate the combined cumulative effects appropriately - tone suggests Rail Central site is less suitable and combined effects may be impossible to suitably mitigate. There is nothing to even show if both sites can connect from the same stretch of track - mitigation seem to be on each others land etc. no combine traffic modelling despite knowing numbers of trips generated This will channel additional traffic through Collingtree and Milton Malsor on roads that are not suitable - especially with the stopping right turn out of Courteenhall rd onto A508 It will encourage increase crime activity and lead to parking up in sites around the area that are not suitable or designed for lorries to be parked up for long periods of time, additional spaces on site represent a tiny proportion of trips generated by site It does not fulfill the brief of the policy which is wide network of SRFIs across the Country not concentrated in the region - this does not service any significant conurbation within the immediate area that is not well or adequately served by SRFIs - i.e. the last leg from this site to final destination is significantly beyond what is envisaged within the policy. The workers required for the site are not available locally nor is the housing so workers will have to drive significant distances to the site, adding to congestion, local public transport is inadequate, council is currently cutting services which will encourage more car use. This will change the local landscape, bring light pollution into the local villages, noise pollution to our villages and will cause disturbance to sleep - the only mitigation to what is a greenfield site is seemingly to just build higher and higher bunding which is out of character with the local landscape - policy suggests sites should not be so close to villages The building and operation of the site will significantly impact he village and its residents forever and I don't feel this has been adequately mitigated, and it will affect the quality of life for both me and my family - I have fear over localized pollution, especially air, noise and light impacting the development of my children, and the environment that they will grow up and be schooled in, especially when there is nothing to support the fact the site will ever be used by anything more than a small handful of trains at best "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Felicity North
"I am opposed to the proposed NSRFI because of the damage it will have on the environment together with the increase in noise and light pollution. Traffic congestion on the main roads in the area is currently very high and air pollution is already at a dangerous level. Destruction of such a huge area of farmland and the movement of the number of diesel HGV's needed to service such a huge warehouse operation will increase the levels way beyond what is safe. There has been a lot of research recently which shows that these high levels are detrimental to health particularly in young people. Near full employment in the area will mean that the workforce will have to travel some distance to the site so increasing traffic even more. With DIRFT so close is it really strategic to build another huge warehouse operation. I am convinced that linking this operation to rail is only to get round the planning laws. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hayley Jelley
"I strongly object to the proposed development as myself and my family have recently moved to the area which we chose as it is surrounded by lovely countryside and wanted to get away from the busy Town Center and be in a nice quite village so my children can grow up in a quiet and safe environment. My children like to explore the local countryside and go out on the bikes with the proposed development there is not going to much for them to explore and with the increased traffic and large vehicles and HGV's it may be unsafe for them to do so in the future. The proposed development will have a detrimental effect on our countryside destroying trees and wildlife."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kate Rigby
"I strongly object to this application because: 1. The proposal will destroy hundreds of acres of local countryside and bring industry into an area that is an important gap between Town and country. 2. The site would be surrounded by high earth mounds (bunding) that would be themselves a “blot on the landscape” 3. The destruction of wildlife habitat in particular for farmland birds where the habitat loss cannot be compensated for. 4. The loss of farmland when the country needs to produce more food rather than importing it. 5. The destruction of the local footpath network in particular the footpath between Milton Malsor and Collingtree that would be diverted alongside the Collingtree Rd. and the M1 motorway. 6. Increased traffic through the village when there is congestion on the M1. The M1 is also about to be converted to a 'smart Motorway'. This development will impact on these works and in essence will have to be subject to further changes which will cost more money and increase congestion. 7. Increased air pollution from the thousands of extra cars, vans and HGV’s using the roads in the local area. The local road network is totally inadequate to deal with the anticipated increased volume of traffic, not only from HGVs but also from those supposed new employees (that don't live in the area) using the site on a daily (24 hour) basis. 8. The proposed no right turns at the junction of Courteenhall Rd and the A508. would mean traffic diverting through the centre of Blisworth and past the doctors surgery where parking is already a problem. 9. Noise created by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers and the operation of an aggregates terminal. 10. Light pollution from night time operations.The operation will create unacceptable light, air and noise pollution blighting the lives of at least two rural communities and endangering their health and well-being for everyone. 8. The cumulative adverse impact of 24/7 noise, light and air pollution will be considerable for residents of many local villages. The additional daily HGV trips each day will add to the already critical levels of nitrous oxide and particulate pollution around the M1 (an AQMA). The Northamptonshire “Parishes Against Pollution” group (29 parishes) have combined to fight this threat to residents health. 11. The area has very low unemployment so the majority of workers for the operation would have to travel some distance to work adding to congestion and pollution. The major benefit of local job creation is overplayed in an area of low unemployment and that the anticipated workforce will mostly commute from other areas further increasing the pressure on the local road networks. There will be negligible, if any, benefit to the local communities affected. Furthermore, the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) provides for a careful balance between jobs and housing. Unemployment is presently at only 1% to 2% and the JCS states that only 3 ‘strategic employment sites’ – at M1 Junction 16; Silverstone Circuit and DIRFT are needed. 12. All the local plans show this site being retained as farmland and open countryside not industrial development. There are several local footpaths and bridleways that will suffer from diversions that are both considerably less convenient but also far less attractive due to the loss of countryside views. They will also suffer from increased noise and air pollution when compared to the existing routes. 13. The site contains a number of mature trees that will take many years to replace. 14. The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) and Rugby RFT is only a short distance away from this site, serves the same local area and has capacity for expansion for over 10 years. 15. The experience from DIRFT shows an increase in crime following the industrialisation of the area. 16. West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) completed, found to be sound by PINS and formally adopted in 2014 specifically rejected a request from a developer (Ashfield Land) to include provision for a SRFI. The strategy states that new rail freight interchanges are not deliverable within the plan period and that major new industrial development should be focussed on three sites ie. Silverstone DIRFT and around the M1 junction 16. There is sufficient future capacity at DIRFT along with Midlands Gateway such that very little interchange of rail freight will take place at Northampton Gateway. If this is the case then what would differentiate the proposed site from a 'regular interchange park? The suggestion of a SRFI terminal is disingenuous paying lip service to the idea of providing Strategic National Importance simply in order to bypass local planning and make good on their investment. This is short-term thinking that ultimately costs the country in the long run. I would add that recent reports confirm a decrease in the use of Rail Freight by 20% down to 0.4% growth from predictions of 5% increase year on year."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Louise Edwards
"My main concern ls are the huge change this would make to the use of the land causing massive disruption and completely changing the character of the area. I also am concerned about the traffic disruption in the local area as this area (motorway junction etc) is already very congested in rush hour. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mike Walker
"The planning application is not aligned with the local area requirements to host such a large freight terminal. The road infrastructure will not cope for transferring from rail to road. I highly object to the plans as was shown and feel there are better links like dirt that already have road networks to m6, m45 and m1 much closer. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicky Duncan
"I object on the following grounds: -impact on village -impact on roads -noise and light pollution -danger to life -unused space at rail freight in Daventry - loss of countryside "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ray Maguire
"I object to this proposed development in an area which is defined green belt. The boundary of Northampton development is the M1 motorway; once development is allowed to cross this barrier into rural land,what objections would be allowed to stand against future projects? Then the next thing would be housing for their low paid workers. This is not a rail freight terminal but a thinly disguised application for large scale HGV warehousing and not an essential infrastructure project. To have HGV lorries and light industry affecting a rural community seven days a week 24/7 is simply intolerable and would be a blight on a beautiful landscape. Northampton needs well paid jobs not more warehouse workers on low pay and zero hour contracts. It is well known that Daventry rail freight terminal is not at full capacity and is not likely to ever be in the near future. There are many things which anger me about this whole proposed scheme; not least the sheer size of it and the destruction of a whole community and nature that lives there today. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Dimbleby
"My wife and I object very strongly to this proposal. It is an unnecessary and inappropriate proposal: unnecessary because it is only a short distance from the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal which serves the same area and has capacity for further expansion, and completely contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy formally adopted in December 2014. I have seen no policy or evidence to support the need for an SRFI on this site of open land off junction 15 of the M1. inappropriate because the proposed site would destroy hundreds of acres of local countryside and bring industry into an area that is an important green space between town and country. It would destroy significant wildlife habitat as well as remove farmland producing food which can reduce food imports. The increase of traffic through Milton Malsor and other local villages would add to the already congested traffic problems. The light, noise and air pollution from 24/7 operations even with bunding would seriously affect local villages and beyond. We hope that this proposal will be refused for the above reasons. In principle we agree that more freight should be transported by rail but this proposal is not in the right place, so close to DIRFT and with large amounts local warehousing already available."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roshni Khatri
"I object to the Northampton Gateway Rail Freight interchange because of the loss of farmland when the country needs to produce more food rather than importing it. I also object because it will destroy a number of mature trees and vegetation which provides homes for wildlife. Another reason for my objection is that the farmlands provide public footpaths which will be destroyed. These footpaths contribute to the social health and well-being of the surrounding villagers and would be detrimental to the lifestyle of those who love it. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Jelley
"I write to strongly object to the proposed rail freight / industrial park. I recently moved our young family to the area to escape the increased air pollution in the surrounding town. With this proposed development there will be increased light and air pollution, which will effect my sons []. We are aware of the DIRFT 2 rail freight at Daventry, which still has 10no undeveloped plots and has no further developments scheduled. Surely it would make sense to fulfil the existing undeveloped plots before even contemplating additional unneeded warehousing. There is also a genuine concern regarding the increased level of crime at Dirft and possible mirroring of this at the proposed development. The areas where the development is proposed will destroy the habitat of farm birds and local wildlife, which will not be compensated for. Noise pollution from the road vehicles and rail freight will be significant, not just throughout the day, but mainly at night when people are trying to sleep. This will undoubtedly have negative mental affect on the local residents. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Brown
"I am concerned about the pollution that this development will cause in terms of both emissions, noise and light pollution. The area already suffers due a combination of the A45 and the M1 and to increase the exposure to the area does not seem to make any sense."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Belone
"We do not want the massive increase in traffic to our local roads this development will bring. The loss of wonderful countryside surrounding south Northamptonshire will be devastating. Our children deserve the right to grow up in a clean and quiet environment especially when, like myself and my husband we have overcome adversity to be able to attain good jobs and buy decent housing for our children to grow up. We didn’t move to this county and especially this area for it to be changed completely and fundamentally from what it is and should remain. Stop this development! Absolutely disgusting, we could have stayed in Luton and given that council our hard earned money for council tax -this area is slowly becoming more like an industrial estate and all the decent families will move out, us included "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Terence Tapping
"we live in a small lane ion collingtree linking Milton Malsor to the A45, this lane is already plaged with speeding cars and lorries using it as a short cut to the M1. This is bound to get alot worse if Roxhills gateway is built, it is just waiting for a serious accident to occur. i take our dog everyday over the footpaths to Milton Malsor across where the proposed site will be, this is the only open country side left to us that we dont have to go in a car to get to. the developers say that there will be foot paths around the site, but it is hardly the same. currently there is a pipe that takes run off water from the proposed site under the M1 to farm fields opposite our bungalow, the road in front of this field floods regulary, if the fields disapear under concrete there is going to be a lot more water to flood the road and our home. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bedford Borough Council (Bedford Borough Council)
"For Bedford Borough Council, the potential impact on increased freight activity on the A428 between Northampton and Bedford is of relevance. In terms of additional road freight movements generated by the site, then any steps which can be taken to secure routeing between the site and Bedford to use the M1 / A421 rather than the A428 should be promoted. Bedford Borough Council would like to be consulted on the development of the Traffic Management Plan, and any ensuing Routeing Strategy, in order to understand and influence the potential impact of the rail freight interchange facility at an early stage."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clare Swords
"I object to this proposal as it is too close to the expanding DIRFT site and is therefore unnecessary. It will destroy wildlife and farmland in the area as well as remove several mature trees. It will result in increased traffic in the area causing pollution by the frequent blockages on the M1 causing short cuts through villages, extra staff vehicle travelling to work as there is little unemployment in the area so people will commute in or the lorries required for the warehousing on site. I also object on the grounds of increased light pollution and noise. This is already seen on nearby sites of a similar nature from the M1, either junction 18 or East Midlands Gateway, All in all this will be a massive blot on what is now a beautiful, peaceful landscape."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Colin Brown
"The interchange is ill planned considering the under utilization of a similar facility at Daventry, less than 20 miles away. It will impose significant burden on local infrastructure It will substantially increase road traffic leading to environmental damage."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Declan John Waters
"The proposed Gateway development south of the M1 (near Northampton) has a number of significant issues which mean it should not be approved by the Planning Inspectorate. Rail Depot already at Daventry - There is a railway warehouse depot already at Daventry which is 25 minutes north of the proposed location in rush hour conditions. Two locations this close to each other, using the same railway line(s) from London would add significant and unnecessary redundancy Rail Capacity is already at high levels in the area and this will be worsened as Milton Keynes grows, and more people require travel on the line from London to Northampton Road Capacity on the M1 junction, the A508 and the A5/A508 roundabout is already significantly over 100% of capacity, and taking account of the growth of housing in Northampton, Milton Keynes and Roade will increase further without the warehousing. The capacity calculations of the developers are incorrect, and do not take account of other developments and the capacity of the roads in the area. The A508 is also the diversion route for the M1 between Northampton and Milton Keynes and when this is required current traffic loads cause 'chaos' throughout the region. Unemployment in the area is one of the lowest in the country and the location of the warehouse is not within walking distance of any housing. As such all employees would need to drive to the location causing additional traffic loads not included by the developers. There is no solution to the 30mph through Grafton Regis. Drivers already routinely speed through this village, and the road through the village can't be treated by pedestrians or cyclists as a 30mph zone. The solution to the Roade A508 (bypass) is inappropriate as the village has already filled all the brownfield sites with housing and grown significantly in size. A bypass would enable developers to 'fill' the gap between current housing and the new bypass which would destroy the character of the village, and make it too large for the amenities currently present. As well as the significant number of new homes Roade (and surrounding villages) have already agreed to have a wind farm installed (fully built and operational now). Building south of the M1 would be the first building of Northampton south of this boundary and would significantly impact the independence of the villages in the area. This would likely encourage other building in the area causing further issues, the 'creep' of Northampton and the eventual destruction of Milton Malsor, Blisworth, and Roade. The developers are proposing a 10 year building process and warehouses which do not link with the railway lines. This will have a huge adverse impact on the local area, economy - due to delays and damage to the roads, with no benefit to the local community (due to the low unemployment rate), or local businesses (due to the distance to local amenities). "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janet Brown
"No strategic need - DIRT is less than 20 miles away and not working at capacity The increase in traffic - both freight and employee - will dramatically increase all kinds of pollution in the area. Employment rates in the area are good. The employment opportunities are more needed elsewhere in the country.Locally, we do not have road capacity and the proposed bypass will make access in and out of surrounding villages more difficult and even more dangerous. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kenneth Hancock
"This project is a dream not reality, the road's in this area can not take more large traffic. The rail. System is out dated to take extra trains, there is a depot not too far away that is not full and has room to expand. Where. Will the lorries park, not in designated area but on the roadside causing more chaos. And what about the light bleed taking away some of the important parts of rural life These are my views "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marion Barlow
"I object to the Gateway proposal for several reasons. I live in anorthampton Road, Roade and would be greatly affected if it went ahead. The traffic along the A508 at times is horrendous now, and would be so much worse. Supposedly the lorries would not come through Roade, but workers etc would. We would see a continuous glow in the sky from our garden all night. The habitat would be ruined forever, with the loss of acres of furtile farm land. Unemployment is low round here, so people from out of area would have to take the jobs....where would they live?? There are already 'rail freight depots' within 20 miles which are not used to capacity, so this one is not needed. The proposed by-pass is a red-herring which would make conjestion worse for us who live here. Please see the needs of our comunity before the profits of big buiness"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Ideson
"I object to this development. I often walk the footpath from Barn Lane to Collingtree or down Gayton road along the canal.with my [] daughter on Sundays. She looks forward to this. This development will destroy our walks. One of my granddaughters has [] and she will be badly affected by the pollution caused by 5000 lorries per day. When they stay with us, they (and my wife, daughter and I all the time) will be affected by the night time noise and light pollution. As I often work in local warehouses, I know that the employees are not from the area and so they will have to drive to work from other parts and so there will be extra traffic congestion and pollution during the day. We should not destroy our beautiful countryside for short term monetary gain. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael O'Leary
"I object to this application which goes against the local plan which shows the site being retained as farmland farmland and open countryside and not for industrial development. This plan was drawn up by our local council and has majority support. I object to the environmental impact this development would have - the destruction of the local footpath network, the loss of open countryside and the destruction of wildlife habitat. Further, I object to the 'bunding' - offered as some sort of solution when, in fact it will only make a bad situation worse. I object to the 24 hour operation being proposed. Not only will the operation of the terminal bring its own light, noise and machine/train/railway shunting disturbance to a hitherto quiet rural area but also the flow of traffic of the workforce - a workforce the majority of which would come from outside the area given the current high level of employment locally - not to mention HGVs and other servicing vehicles which traffic will increase air pollution and road/traffic congestion. I object to the fact that we are facing the imposition of a rail freight terminal when the existing terminal - the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal still has capacity for expansion for, I believe, at least ten years. I object to the loss of farmland - the more so when it seems quite clear that the need to produce more of our own food - rather than importing it - is becoming increasingly important in this changing world, Finally, I object the despoiling of our countryside with hugely ambitious and damaging developments - such as this promises to be - which have little or no benefit to the local community who will suffer the consequences, whilst developers can simply move on. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mike Skidmore
"I strongly object to this development. There are two strategic Rail Freight terminals in Northamptonshire already & so I cannot see the need for any further such development. If approved, this development will result in the loss of significant agricultural land & natural habitats for wildlife. Coupled with the above & points below, I strongly disagree that these natural environments should be sacrificed for this purpose. Capacity on the relevant rail line is already under pressure & without further significant development of that (with the resultant land loss), it is likely that passenger services would suffer. There is a significant proportion of Northampton residents who comment to London & elsewhere daily. If allowed, the development would no doubt result in significant additional road traffic both locally & also on the M1. Northampton must be one of the most congested, and therefore polluted environments in the country & this will only addd to that, adversely impacting on the quality of life for residents. Similarly, this stretch of the M1 is regularly over capacity & as such the problems will only be compounded, leading to drivers seeking alternative non motorway routes, creating further local congestion. In summary, this proposals fails on many counts in my opinion and therefore I strongly object to it"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Monty Kutas
"NOISE My main objection is about the noise 24/7 which will be heard over all the village - not only by those living in sight of this monstrous development. POLLUTION Increased air pollution is also a huge concern."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Jane Pinnock
"I object very strongly to this proposal. The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) on junction 18 of the M1 is only a short distance away from the proposed site, serves the same local area and has capacity for expansion for over 10 years. So there is no need for the proposed Northampton Gateway SRFI. In any case, this proposal is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy adopted in December 2014. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nigel Belford
"I am objecting to the proposal of putting further pressure on the infastructure of Northampton . The link via Valley way does (A45 not continue as a dual carriageway for the stretch which joins the A14 at Thrapston. Most of the roads that lead from Northampton are single carriageway i.e. to Market Harborough, Kettering, Newport Pagnell, are single carriageway. We already have a large distribution centre at DIRFT (Crick) so this is duplicating this. The environmental effect must also be considered in the area which would no doubt have a huge impact on many villages in the area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patricia Hargreaves
"I believe that there is no need for this application. There is a Rail Freight Interchange approx. 17 miles up the road that is still under construction and is not running at full capacity. The M1 Motorway between junction 14 and 16 is the busiest part of the motorway and with the worst record of hold up, I do not believe that the motorways or local roads are capable dealing with approx. 20,000 extra vehicles a day, 44,000 if the proposed RFI by Ashfield Land gets the go ahead. Neither RFI's has addressed the cumulative effects to the area with any real seriousness. Neither has got past grip 2 in the process for rail connectivity, and I believe its doubtfull that very little will even be used by rail, it will be another warehouse blight in Northamptonshire. We also have so few people that are unemployed in the area that all employment will have to come from other Towns/Cities, very doubtfull that they will come from MK or South as they get paid more, and if you were to travel North much more likely they will go to work in Daventry as closer to home, with Brexit upon us wont be so easy to get from Eastern Europe who supply most of the warehouse labour."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roger Pinnock
"I strongly object to the Northampton Gateway being sited on land in open countryside off Junction 15 on the M1. Being so close to the rural villages of Collingtree and Milton Malsor would make it unbearable for residents, due to the light, noise and air pollution from the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers and the operation of the aggregates terminal. The other reason why I strongly object to this proposal, is that the Northampton Gateway is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS). The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal off junction 18 on the M1 is identified in the WNJCS for all future SRFI developments. So there is no need for another rail freight terminal to be sited a short distance away on junction 15. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tom McManus
"My wife and I are in sheltered accommodation very close to the proposed site. My wife suffers from [] and the air pollution during the construction and running of the site would cause her serious distress. In addition the increase in road traffic would make it very difficult for her to attend crucial medical appointments. As there is a fully functional site only a few miles away I do not think there is any justification in this proposal."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tom Swords
"I object to the Roxhill proposal for the following reasons; It will destroy hundreds of acres of countryside and bring industry and noise into an are that is currently an important buffer between town and country The proposed high bunds will themselves be a blot on the landscape and will do little to block light pollution The loss of valuable wildlife habitat and of valuable farmland Destruction of local footpath networks in particular that between Milton & Collingtree Increased traffic through the village when there is congestion on the M1 Air pollution caused by extra vehicles in the area 24/7 noise from the rail terminal and associated light pollution Nearby DIRFT is close by and has ample capacity and development potential and serves the same railway line. The experience of DIRFT shows increased crime associated with the industrialisation of the area. Increased HGV traffic caused by a scheme that is 80% road focused Increased traffic caused by workers having to travel a distance to get to the site "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Amal Shah
"I am against this as this would mean expansion to the road outside my house and become closer to my house as show in the documents sent to my house which would mean we would hear more traffic more pollution as the trees are being proposed to be cleared and cut down this would also get rid of lots of nature on the area"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brian Lewthwaite
"1. It is doubtful that there is either the rail capacity or user demand for this monstrous development neither does there seem to be any evidence to support the viability of the proposal. 2. There is already a relatively new RFI (DIRFT) within 20 miles. I understand this has plenty of capacity. Various others (about 30) exist within easy driving distance in or around Coventry. Where is all the new business going to come from that is not already using the nearby DIRFTs? Or could this be merely an excuse to build a huge warehouse site (with or without a rail connection) on cheap agricultural land. The land could be put to excellent use providing us with home grown produce and reducing our dependence on imports especially in the light of BREXIT! 3.There are only two railway sidings in the plan leaving many warehouses without a rail link. This would seem to be plain old fashioned storage facilities with nothing to do with the railway. 4. The effect of this RFI on local traffic will be outrageous. Junction 15 is already a nightmare for drivers of all vehicles - lorries that overturn and cars that get shunted (or even crushed) - and the A508 is often at a standstill especially at around 4.00 pm when it is the end of the school day in Roade. Junction 15 was "improved" several years ago but really to no good effect.There is a limit to what can be achieved in this area and we are clearly already past it. As to new roads see paragraph 2 above. 5. Lots of additional staff will be required but from what source given that unemployment in the county is at 0.7%. They will have to travel using expensive imported fuel and creating a large increase in pollution (both greenhouse gas from petrol cars and the even more deadly nitrous oxide from diesel). The noise pollution and light pollution will also increase significantly and particularly in our village. Whose children suffer? (not the developers I'm sure). 6. For the better part of my life I have lived in the country and would not consider town dwelling. It now looks as if the village of Roade (to which I moved 18 months ago) is becoming a suburb of Northampton (despite the M1). How many years in the future will it be before it becomes necessary to build an M1 Toll to bypass all this local traffic? 7. Are the developers offering any compensation to local inhabitants because of the huge change to their lifestyles? This does not necessarily mean money but could be facilities like doctors surgeries, larger sewage plants, hospital beds, schools, shops, recreational facilities, anti-noise fences or other structures, social club buildings or any other lifestyle improving facilities. 8. If approval is given it is absolutely essential that the Roade bypass is constructed before the opening or the whole road network will lock solid for long periods of the day. 9. Can it please be ensured that the full effects of BREXIT are taken into account. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine Barrand
"The application conflicts with planning policy. The south northants strategic plan exludes building on the proposed land - 500 acres of productive farmland. The land acts as a barrier to already high levels of pollution from surrounding roads, and to urban sprawl. No consideration has given to traffic congestion. The A508 is already overloaded and local villages are already suffering from 'rat run' traffic. There is no evident need for such a facility: the DIRFT expansion will provide sufficeint capacity for at least another 20 yrs and the Castle Donnington rail freight site further up the M1 is under -used. In essence this application is being made as a means to subvert local democracy as Roxhill has previously unsuccessfully applied for planning for warehousing on the same land. Given the availability of warehousing space both in Northampton and its closest neighbour, Milton Keynes additional warehousing space on this environmentally . sensitive land is unneccessary and is not a strategivr requirement. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cindy Hancock
"* Increased traffic on roads that cannot take it *24/7 working means more air, noise and light pollution * There is an existing facility just 18 miles away and crime around that area has increased substantially * Northampton does not have the workforce needed, meaning extra travel for workers to come from further afield * Loss of habitat * Development here would encourage further development, currently the M! provides a boundary for development * Threat of reduced passenger services "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Denise Donaldson
"I will make an objection on the following principles: 1 Noise, light & air Pollution - affecting local population health, our farmland/water/livestock. (the train line runs near my house & i can already hear it at night) 2 Rail capacity - especially if Rail Central are also using the rail lines (aware of HS2 - but this won't be complete for a long while) 3 Road Capacity - especially if Rail Central also get the go ahead 4 Road congestion - Our roads are already congested, so just widening junctions & slip roads will NOT improve our already congested roads, Our region has seen & will see a massive increase in housing, so more people using the roads = more congestion. 5 Is there an actual stategic need due to DIRFT & East Midlands SRFI? 6. concern about wildlife habitat & loss of valuable farm land - "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eve Botterill
"I am objecting to this application as I live close by and my children atten school in Blisworth. My main objection is due to the increase in traffic, and the subsequent light and air pollution that this will bring about. As there is another DIRFT site only 18 miles away, it does not seem necessary to have one sites here too. The local roads already struggle with the amount of traffic, this development would put more pressure on the road network. And finally, the impact on local wildlife and nature would be catastrophic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Frank Waterhouse
"The impact on the local environment will be huge from the pollution emitted by the vehicles required to road transport all the goods to and from site. Noise pollution will be enormous, and the impact on the surrounding roads and villages will be enormous. All this to create something that will soon become a gigantic white elephant. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gary Rimmer
"Indiscriminate destruction of greenbelt land leading to flooding issues. Complete eyesore and ‘blot on the beautiful landscape. Certainly not required seeing rugby site is still not being used any where near capacity."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Louise Wright
"As a local resident of Stoke Bruerne village I strongly object to the proposed plans by Roxhill Developments Ltd for the following reasons: CONFLICT WITH PLANNING POLICY The agreed Strategic Plan for the region, specifically excludes industrial development at this location. A previous application by Roxhill for a 2.67m sq ft Distribution Centre was withdrawn after widespread opposition. BY PASSING LOCAL DEMOCRACY Roxhill argue that the inclusion of a rail link to the Northampton Loop line allows this proposal to be decided by central government as 'Nationally Significant Infrastructure' rather than by the locally accountable planning process. Local residents and businesses should be allowed to voice protest over this proposed plan. HUGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Residential areas surrounding the proposed site are already exposed to high levels of air, noise and light pollution that are already above legal limits. Some of this has been partly mitigated by dispersion over open countryside close by, however Roxhill's proposal will destroy this 'green lung' as well as the wildlife habitat it provides. TRAFFIC OVERLOAD The existing traffic congestion on the M1, A45 and A508, is self evident and increases 'rat running' through residential roads and surrounding villages. The number of (diesel) HGV's needed to service 5 million sq ft of warehousing will be enormous. Roxhill claim that 6,000 people will work at the site. Because of low unemployment in this region, the workforce would be drawn from a wide area and are likely to travel by car. Roxhill have promised to fund improvements to Junction 15 but the changes proposed in their earlier (and smaller) planning application, were judged by planners as unlikely to add to overall capacity. LACK OF STRATEGIC 'NEED' Industry experts say that a Rail Interchange is not needed in this location because the DIRFT facility is only 18 miles further north and has expansion capacity for the next 20 years. In addition, the likely occupiers would be yet more road freight warehouse operators moving to be nearer to the M1. This would be completely against government objectives and an unintended consequence of an unclear policy on locating Rail Freight Interchanges. Is it really in the 'national interest' to wipe out hundreds of acres of productive farmland and wildlife habitat, and create yet more traffic congestion and pollution on an already overstretched road network? On a personal level I am concerned for my village and value of my home given the knock on effect this could have on communities in Roade. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lynda Payton
"I object strongly to the proposal regarding Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange on the following grounds. 1. That Roxhill have failed to make a case for the need of the RFI. Planning policy states there should be RFI's spread evenly across different regions. There are already several RFI's in East Midlands, one at Daventry (DIRFT) is only 18 miles away and I understand has 30 years expansion capacity. 2. I understand the West Coast Mainline/NCC Highways has confirmed a lack of extra freight capacity on the Northampton Loop Line. In order to increase freight capacity passenger services may have to be reduced. With increased house building, particularly in Roade, Towcester, Wootton and Grange Park there is a need to expand passenger services, not reduce them. 3. Northamptonshire has full employment which means there is no available local workforce. Workers would have to travel from outside the region adding to pollution and road congestion. 4. I understand 16,500 additional vehicle movements are predicted on local roads which are already heavily congested with large queues accessing Jnct 15 M1 at peak hours. Increased traffic movement to and from the site will add to pollution. The site will also cause light pollution in a rural area. 5. I believe 520 acres of farmland and wildlife habitats will be destroyed. Part of the site boundary adjoins the Grade 2 listed Northampton Arm Canal lock flight which will be adversely affected by development. 6. The M1 has been identified as a development buffer zone in the South Northants Local Plan. Once development crosses this boundary more will inevitably follow joining up rural villages to Northampton."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart Johnston
"I strongly object to the planned development for the following reasons: It will destroy forever unspoilt countryside and the habitat to many different animals and birdlife present in the planned location. The increase in traffic on the surrounding road network will add to an already congested system which regularly grinds to a halt whenever their is an incident on the M1/A43 or A508. Their is no capacity to cope with the additional HGV journeys to and from the development. The pollution from vehicle emissions due to the additional traffic will affect people living nearby the road network. The need for a development is unproven when we already have DIRFT nearby. The development is situated too close to a number of rural villages and the affect of noise, light and airpollution, and a large increase in traffic to and from the development location during it's construction and operation will have a negative impact on the nearby rural communities. The development has not included enough preventative measures to mititigate the impact on rural communities nearby. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
william yule
"The traffic on the M1, A45 and associated local roads is already causing congestion on a frequent basis and this will only increase as the large housing estates and additional warehousing already approved or recently completed come on line. Collingtree village has an unsafe level of air pollution currently. Additional traffic of 16000 vehicle movements a day from the proposed Gateway would significantly increase this leading to further damage to our children's health. I do not believe that the loss of >500 acres of good farming land is justified to build a facility which is not required in the National Interest as there is significant underutilisation of the nearby facility at Drift. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adrian Bryan
"I strongly object not least because of the massive increase in air and noise pollution. I cycle not just to work 5 days a week, but around the local lanes for recreation - the increase in air pollution is unhealthy and unfair to impose on us here in Milton Malsor. I also feel very strongly about this application being imposed on us when many of us are country folk who choose to live away from built up and busy areas. I myself was born in Blisworth and now live in Milton Malsor - the countryside between the two villages is almost part of my DNA! The fields that will be concreted over are dear to me. They're where i played as a child and where i still regularly go walking and bird-spotting, when the green spaces are gone they can not be replaced, hence i feel very strongly about the environmental and ecological damage that will be done."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cecilia Ella Muir
"I strongly object to this proposal. My husband and I live on Collingtree Road directly in front of the proposed site. The increase in noise and light emissions from the site road and rail movements that will operate on a 24/7 basis, will far exceed acceptable levels, however much the developers claim they will be mitigated. The area is already vulnerable to pollution from the M1 and adding a further industrial development so close to this main artery will increase pollution to above national maximum acceptable levels. Our Parish Council said that the existing DRIFT site has considerable expansion capability including a third development phase giving DIRFT sufficient capacity through until 2031. The current planning authority approvals, adopted by the West Northants Joint Core Strategy provide space (including a rail terminal) obviate the need to destroy excellent farmland and another local environment. I am told even the Planning Inspectorate’s own inspector recommended that further development in this area of Northamptonshire was unnecessary. I am an Old Age Pensioner and as such, spend most of my time at home and therefore will be subjected to most of the disruption and noise this development will create. Were we to move, our large house would be purchased by a family and the younger generations moving in would also be in danger of the pollutants from this development. Milton Malsor is a vibrant village and there are many residents who would similarly suffer from additional pollution. Collingtree Road is a rat-run in the morning and evening rush hours. Between these times, it can be busy but not normally excessively. However I know after past planning approvals, road traffic will not follow defined routes. Inevitably more HGV traffic will use the local minor roads. This will be especially true of vehicles wanting to enter the site when main roads are congested – congestion we know that can be on a daily basis. The most serious current problems arise when large HGVs rely on their satnavs and ignore the ”Low Bridge” sign on the A43/Watering Lane junction. They reach Collingtree Road, driving through narrow village roads, and are forced to stop and reverse up to half a mile to turn round in Collingtree Village. One severe case saw four HGVs stationary on the road - police had to be called to clear the problem. Immediately a problem arises around the site entrance, vehicles seek a way through the villages. Irrespective of any promises, this cannot be policed. Suggested road improvements near the site are a waste of time. Any congestion will move further down the already very busy single carriageway A508 towards Milton Keynes or add to the current heavy traffic on the A43. I strongly object to this proposal. It is damaging to the local population, to the local environment and unjustifiable on planning or business grounds. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christian Mitchell
"I am strongly objecting to this proposed development on the grounds that it will be a major disruption and ruin local beautiful countryside, as well as damaging the 2 villages of Blisworth and Milton Malsor. There will be a massive and negative impact on wildlife and the quality of living for wildlife and people alike, I cant begin to imagine the impacts of noise and pollution and the detriment to the quality of air in a currently peaceful part of Northamptonshire. This is also going to adversely impact the value of my home, meaning I am financially worse off from this build. I have never been clear as to the benefits of building this interchange, when the Daventry interchange is such a short distance away and, as I nnderstand, has the potential for expansion already. Sadly the decision to build this monstrosity is taken by those who dont live in the area and who's life wont be negatively impacted. I do not want this to proceed and strongly object."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Andrew Gough
"I do not consider that Northampton Gateway is well-placed to contribute to the success of the next phase of SRFI development. Northampton Gateway is located on a constrained rail corridor, whose priority is, and always will be, to prioritise passenger capacity to serve the commuter markets to and from London. Planned investment in the Strategic Rail Network targets the major freight flows from Felixstowe and Southampton to the West Midlands, effectively bypassing Northampton Gateway to the West and North. Only when paths are released by HS2 would there be any real prospect of significant modal shift; the mere prospect of future capacity should not be used as justification for consent. Alternative sites exist that are better able to take advantage of investments made in other infrastructure schemes, such as the development of port-centric logistics and specific investments in increasing rail freight capacity. In the East Midlands, Hinckley National Freight Interchange is a far superior site to either Northampton Gateway or Rail Central. The proposed scale of the development is in excess of that needed in Northamptonshire, according to Network Rail’s own forecasts. Market demand for Northampton Gateway is primarily driven by a shortage of high-quality, large-footprint buildings, not by any proven desire to enact modal shift. The site of Northampton Gateway was previously assessed and discounted by Prologis during their successful application to expand the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT III). In my opinion, Prologis’ assessment that the Northampton Loop could only support a sub-regional facility remains extant. Furthermore, Prologis’ assessment that the Highgate facility could “work with” DIRFT III is also correct. Northampton Gateway should be seen for what it is: a sub-regional facility whose primary purpose is to defend Northampton’s position as a logistics centre against emerging competition from Milton Keynes and Leicestershire. Northampton Gateway would not adequately fulfil a national strategic role, but a local one. The historic take-up of space at DIRFT is less than 50,000m2 per annum. Unless a major change in buyer behaviour can be proven, DIRFT III will provide capacity for over 15 years. A combination of the already-consented capacity at East Midlands Gateway, DIRFT III and the proposed Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange would be sufficient to meet both market needs and national policy objectives in the medium term. Granting development consent to Northampton Gateway would risk the environmental success of DIRFT by creating a situation whereby both sites competed for the same trains. Priority should be given to filling gaps in the national network of SRFIs, through schemes that provide new routes to the deep-water ports from locations North of the A14 / M6 corridor, such as Hinckley NRFI and West Midlands Interchange. I am not convinced that the case has been made for a SRFI development of national importance, in this location, at this time. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma Allen
"I live in Collingtree village, the opposite side of the motorway to the proposed rail-freight. Consequences of allowing this rail freight will increase local traffic significantly through our beautiful village, of which people already speed through and use as a short cut from village to village to get to the motorway. The central village high street has a primary school and pre school on it and children will be put at increased risk of accidents with an increase in volume of traffic, mainly of people in a hurry to get to work! Additionally, being so close to a rail freight will have a negative impact on property value in 5e surrounding villages and an increase in noise volume, which is already very significant due to the motorway."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gary Talbot
"I strongly object to the proposed Roxhill freight interchange development at j15 M1. My family moved to Milton Malsor 20 years ago to enjoy the rural village lifestyle. We enjoy the wonderful veiws,clean air and peace and quiet and local walks in the much loved countryside.We do not want pollution of air,the destruction of wildlife habitats and the massive increase in all the traffic that this very bad idea would bring.We do not want the industrial development here ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Geoff rouse
"Increase in noise light and air pollution , impact to property prices nearby and on main arteries feeding the site. Congestion on the roads, impact to wildlife, diesel already kills 40,000 people a year due to particulates, more deaths will arise due directly to higher pollution in the area. No need for DRIFT. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Alistair Robertson Muir
"I strongly object to this proposal. We live in very close proximity to the site and however much the developers claim they will mitigate noise and light emissions, our life will be unacceptably disrupted by the site, rail, and road movements on a 24 hour basis. Pollution from the site will add to the current levels arising from the nearby M1. Since moving here 31 years ago, we have seen motorway traffic increase enormously which we must accept. We do not accept, however, an opportunistic speculative development on valuable agricultural land when the existing DRIFT site, approved by planning authorities and adopted by the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS), already has planning permission for logistics space and a rail terminal. I understand a third phase of development was approved giving DIRFT sufficient capacity through until 2031. Therefore there can be no justification for this current proposal, particularly as the Planning Inspectorate appointed an independent planning inspector to review the WNJCS document who concluded that another SRFI site in the countryside in this area was unnecessary. As a retired business CEO, I have seen many instances where several developers all propose similar expansion projects claiming to wish to fulfil the same hypothetical growth. This proposal seems to be exactly of this type, as it flies in the face of established approved sites and as such is likely to result in a sterilisation of valuable farmland for decades to come. If the developers are forced to encourage logistics businesses to use the site, I believe that noise and light pollution will be sacrificed in the drive to generate traffic. With experience of other past planning proposals, I know that road traffic from the proposed site will not adhere to prescribed routes and inevitably more HGV traffic will use the local minor roads around the site. Stopping such abuse is unenforceable. We already have HGVs who ignore warning signs on Collingtree Road, drive through narrow village roads, and reverse up to half a mile because they find they cannot pass below the existing railway bridge. More will seek short cuts through the three villages to get access to the proposed site. Moreover, any road improvements around the proposed site would be spurious. The congestion will simply move slightly further afield as the A508 is a single carriageway road currently heavily used and the A43 dual carriageway was at its projected capacity the day it opened. I strongly object to this proposal as it is unnecessary, unwelcome to the planning authorities and would be highly detrimental to the local area and its inhabitants. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karen Evans
"I object due to noise and air pollution also the increase in traffic. Would you want this built on your doorstep? My children deserve to grow up in the countryside like I did, their quality of life will be affected."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kathryn Wills
"I object to this strongly on the grounds of loss of habitat for local animals! It would also room the local environment in terms of pollution and loss of light. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kerry Moss
"I am writing to loose the construction for a number of reasons one of the main reasons I moved to this location was for the environment the peace and quite and rural location . With this proposal this will impact the house prices massively and and have counter impacts on areas such as the loss of farmland and increase traffic through a village already struggling with increased volume "
Members of the Public/Businesses
LJ lifestyle Ltd (LJ lifestyle Ltd)
"We strongly object to this development. It will destroy the character of the local community. In addition, the potential for air and light pollution is a great concern. Finally, the additional traffic will swamp local villages. Despite assurances 8000 employees will undoubtedly rat run through collingtree, Milton malsor and Bosworth."
Members of the Public/Businesses
M Baxter
"I strongly object to a major development south of the motorway M1. This will lead to pressure for other developments in this vunerable area of farmland. Already there is conjestion at J15 of the M1, this will become much worse with this development. The capacity of surrounding roads is likely to be comprimised."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Pamela McManus
"I think that this is just a ploy to allow developers to turn the whole of the midlands area into warehouse developments. We have a fully functioning development at DIRFT a few miles away and they have enough capacity for many years to come. Our already congested road system will not cope with the increase in traffic. Much is made of the increased employment potential, however we do not have a level of unemployment in the area to accommodate this. I have heard that warehouse operators in nearby Milton Keynes are having to recruit and bus in staff from as far away as Peterborough, about 50miles away. In the long term, if these people wish to move to this area there would then be a need for an unsustainable growth in house building. There is a sheltered housing development very close to this proposed site with many residents suffering breathing problems (I have [])and the increased air pollution will be intolerable for us, as will the 24/7 noise and light pollution."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul jesson
"I live in Collingtree village, the opposite side of the motorway to the proposed rail-freight. Consequences of allowing this rail freight will increase local traffic significantly through our beautiful village, of which people already speed through and use as a short cut from village to village to get to the motorway. The central village high street has a primary school and pre school on it and children will be put at increased risk of accidents with an increase in volume of traffic, mainly of people in a hurry to get to work! Additionally, being so close to a rail freight will have a negative impact on property value in 5e surrounding villages and an increase in noise volume, which is already very significant due to the motorway."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Cosford
"I am not unduly opposed to change , having lived in Collingtree for thirty five years , however I am vehemently anti this proposed development as we would be living in the middle of an industrial estate . The first thousand houses to be built on green fields adjacent to the golf course have been approved and we expect many more to follow , swallowing up our beautiful countryside . The Rail Freight Interchange development would completely obliterate the remaining green fields this village has access to . Traffic incidents are already a major concern in the area and these will only escalate to unacceptable levels if this development is granted . If as suggested , a Roade bypass was to be constructed , the traffic to the M1 roundabout and the dual carriageway at Brackmills would arrive more quickly and in greater numbers , creating intolerable and dangerous congestion . Surely other local sites are available , with minimal impact on the vicinity eg. Junction 16 M1 and the expansion of the Daventry Interchange . Pollution is a huge worry for all of the locals . I am not qualified to make a statement on this issue but would encourage a professional survey to be undertaken to elighten us all of how the development will impact upon our health ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sally Cosford
"The planned development is in very close proximity to DIRFT and therefore such developments are not fairly distributed around the country. Pollution, congestion, development in this area is already excessive. The road system - M1, local dual carriageways and residential areas are already at a standstill on a daily basis due to quantity of traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Roseblade
"1, Daventry rail terminals within 12 miles, lack of a local work force and rail capacity. 2. No solution regarding Motorway J15 / A45 road congestion and more pollution air/light. 3. Far Cotton was flooded last month can all the immediate run off water be contained? 4. Why two rail projects Milton and Collingtree is it either or? 5. Production of a new brown field site within 10 years - forward Planning. 6. No sensible Public transport plan for this project with no buses to Collingtree available. 7. All freight will come by road from Felixstowe in the end. 8. Seems a speculative move with no clear community gain. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sue Draper
"I strongly object to the proposed Roxhill Freight Interchange development at J15 M1. As a young family we moved to Milton Malsor from Northampton town nearly 20 years ago, predominantly to enjoy a more rural village lifestyle. I am very concerned that this is now threatened; this development will destroy the much loved countryside and the wildlife that this supports. We use the local footpaths a lot and appreciate the peace, feeling of space, clean air, and beautiful views these offer. The pollution of air, noise and light would be disastrous. Our local plans show the area concerned to remain as farmland and open countryside, not industrial development. There is no need for this here, with the Daventry Freight Terminal only a short distance away serving the same area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ben Sheard
"Sirs, I have a number of concerns that can be broken down into the following; Location I am still unclear why when DIRFT just a few miles down the road is struggling to find tenants who will utilise both the space and rail network, why this one so close is a suitable location. Light Pollution I would be interested to see the study and any related papers done on light pollution impact for local residents. Noise Pollution I would be interested to see the study and any related papers done on noise pollution impacts for local residents. Increased Traffic With the increase of traffic, how will the local villages be supported and an already struggling road infrastructure be improved? How will the safety of locals and young people be managed with the increase of traffic and therefore risk (with more carse the probability of an accident increases) Overall the entire planning operation and location appears to be about return and profit for the developers rather than a strategic location. If this is a strategy decision, improve DIRFT rather than build another identical project so close to a struggling one. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Mair
"I object to the above application for the following reasons, The development will be on greenbelt land. I believe that this is not a stratigic development. It will significantly increase light, noise and air pollution. It will impact negatively on local wildlife. It will significantly increase both commercial and commuter traffic in the area. It will remove large areas of countryside walks that my children currently enjoy walking and cycling on regularly. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Roger Birch
"Once again yet another huge warehouse complex (this time with a rail interchange) has been proposed along the M1 in Northamptonshire. There is clear disregard to pollution levels (air & noise), disregard to the major increase to traffic levels in an already full M1 section and no clear reasoning given as to why this needs to be built when only 18 miles away there is the Daventry rail-freight interchange with capacity. For local people this is a disaster in the waiting."
Members of the Public/Businesses
E S Yule
"I most vehemently object to the Roxhill proposed development: 1. The road system around Junction15 is extremely congested already with frequent queues at the roundabout. Extra traffic,especially diesel HGVs, would make a bad situation worse. 2. Areas around the site are already exposed to high levels of air pollution from the M1. 3. This area is productive farmland. Why lose this to warehousing when the Drift Rail Freight Interchange has underused capacity."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elaine mallock
"The roads surrounding this area (with the exception of the M1 and A45 ) are small village lanes , very narrow in places where villagers park their cars on the road further narrowing the roads. The M1 and A45 are frequently closed due to accidents and the ensuing traffic in these villages horrendous as larger vehicles struggle through. In Stoke Bruerne in particular there is a narrow hump back bridge where I have seen large articulated trucks trying to get over, despite warning signs. The A508 is constantly jammed with traffic at rush hours with the resultant fumes affecting the homes either side . Notwithstanding the above , we already have DIRFT at junction 18 which I understand doesn’t operate at capacity so why do we need more of this only 3 junctions south? "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Fiona McKenzie
"The traffic impact would be unacceptable on roads which are already often at a standstill following local accidents etc. DIRFT is not at full capacity and is less than 20 miles away. Locals to DIRFT report increased crime. 24/7 activity would produce a damaging impact on local people and on wildlife, due to light and air pollution, noise and loss of farmland. Northamptonshire as a whole would become less attractive to visit. What is lost will never be recovered. Also Northamptonshire has a good level of employment, so where would construction crews come from, and where would workers live when the place is built. This leads to a threat of further development. A development of this magnitude will have a shattering effect on a way of life which is not stuck in the past but is vibrant and outgoing. It is just that all this is too big - it is a terrifying prospect, and I assure you that our concerns are carefully thought out after months of consultation. Please reconsider - PEOPLE MATTER."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laura Collins
"As a local resident and user of the countryside in the vicinity around coirteenhall, I would be objecting to the proposal for a number of reason - traffic is today extremely busy in the area and the additional employment and transportation vehicles this would bring will have a sognificant impact on the current infrastructure. - the current rail freight interchange at J18 is massively under utilised and still has capacity to be used - loss of green space for families to enjoy and wildlife. - impact on the water table. There was a recent storm where flooding was witnessed in areas that previously had never flooded. New houses were recently built in these areas"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michelle Goodman-Harder
"I strongly object to the Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange on the grounds as follows: -No strategic need due to DIRFT Policy calls for a small number of SRFI's across the region close to the markets they will serve. The Northampton Gateway would be 18 miles from an existing larger facility. DIRFT is not up to capacity yet and Milton Keynes has many new warehouse stood empty. -Noise, light & air polution the development and traffic flowing to and from the site would dramatically increase pollution in the area. The site would be operated 24/7 which will increase pollution through this time frame and seriously affect all living humans/animals quality of life. -Labour Pool Northamptonshire doesn't have the available labour required to serve this development, which means workers would have to travel in from other areas adding to pollution and congestion. -Crime increase The areas around the DIRFT have seen 170% increase in crime since 2000/1. We already have a Police Force that cannot deal with crime now, let alone an increase of this proportion. -Loss of wildlife habitat and farmland Proposed 520 acres will destroy farmland and wildlife habitats and corridors. -Road Capacity Additional 16,500 capacity forecast. We are already exceeding full capacity for vehicle movement within Northampton and surrounding areas. The Department of Transport is already warning of severe congestion on the M1 J15-17 by 2040 without this development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicholas Bird
"Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing to object to the Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange Application. Planning Inspectorate Reference: TR050006. I am live and work in the local area. This development would significantly negatively impact my family's quality of life; There would be an increase in noise light & air pollution in an area which already has control measures placed upon it due to unsafe levels of NO2. The road capacity is already regularly under significant strain with long delays to get work, and the proposed road developments go no where near to mitigate the increase of in planned number of vehicle movements. The DRIFT SRFI has been shown to have bought about, at least in part, a significant increase in crime in its local area. Most of all i object to that there is no strategic need due to DRIFT being but 18 miles away. The application on 'strategic' grounds is a blatant attempt to circumvent local planning and local residents' desires. A reasonable and logical outcome of a strategic rail freight application would be a condition that the vast majority of freight movements would be via rail within say 10 years. There is not enough capacity on the rail network for this to be true and no plans to make it true. It can been seen a priori that this application is being used to circumvent reasonable planning considerations for the purpose of standard warehousing on 'green fields'; which would be served by lorries incoming and outgoing whilst rail would not play a significant part."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Heath
"My objections are: 1) The proposal is speculative as there are no clients yet for the warehousing, so no obvious need exists. 2) Incorporating a Rail terminal in the project is just an attempt to bypass local planning policies - DIRFT is nearby and not at full capacity. It does not qualify as an NSIP. 3) There is no guaranteed extra capacity on the main rail line to service the site. 4) The size of the site will impact badly on quality of life in neighbouring villages with noise and light pollution, and the destruction of a large area of countryside. 5) The claimed number of jobs which would be created is absurdly optimistic and an attempt to validate the value of the proposal, and there is in any case low unemployment in the area. 6) Nevertheless , car traffic through nearby "rat runs" is already at severe levels and any increase would be intolerable. 7) The existing road network would be overloaded by the increase in HGV traffic, and the modifications to M1 Junction 15 are inadequate . The economics of the offer to build a Roade bypass are not credible. 8) Granting this application would be contrary to the wishes of residents and their elected representatives, and would open up the area west of the M1 to further expansion. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ruth Hemmingway
"My complaint is simple 1. I cannot see a single reason to build on something that should be green belt 2. As a HR manager for a logistics company working at winvic sites locally and Roxhill sites nationally, we do not have staff to fill the warehouses locally. Only 1% of Northampton population looking for a job. Once the warehouses are built companies won’t be able to staff them. I can’t currently find staff to fill my warehouse. If you want to build a warehouse build it in Sunderland where there are people looking for jobs not in Northampton where there are more jobs than people. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sue Hagon
"I wish to object most strongly to this application. There is no need for a further SRFI in the area in view of the existing one only 18 miles away (DIRFT). Noise, light and air pollution would increase dramatically as would vehicle movements through and around Roade. In addition 520 acres of farmland and wildlife habitats and corridors would be destroyed by this development. I believe there is no justification for such a development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Amy Lynch
"I am very concerned about the impact on the local road infrastructure which is often congested and unable to cope. Air and noise pollution from both the development itself and the possible bypass are also a worry. Dirft at Daventry has room for expansion and should be utilised. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David L Clarke
"I am most strongly objecting to this project on the grounds that my property which stands within 200yds. of the planned entrance off the A43.(1) This will cause excessive Noise,Light and Air Pollution 24/7 365 days a year and be a great danger to mine and my families health.(2) There isn't a need for a further RFT when the DIRFT is just 18 miles away and which is continuously expanding and as is mainly used as wharehousing and road transport facilities and I believe only has app. 30% used on rail transport.(3)The Northampton and M1 junctions is insufficient to cope with the amount of Heavy Lorries that this would entail and the surrounding villages and wild life would be blighted forever by lorries taking shortcuts.(4) Northampton is fortunate to have virtually full employment there the labour pool would have to travel from outside, further causing more pollution and local resident parking problems in close by villages and roads.(5) Since DIRFT was created the crime rate in that area has more than multiplied 176%.(6) The loss of future passenger rail services to the overload of the loop lines.(7) The loss of wildlife, habitat and farmlands which my property currently enjoys and overlooks, this would greatly de-value my property by many thousands of pounds.... David L Clarke. 8th July 2018."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jacqueline Hall
"There is an under utilised rail freight interchange just 10/15 miles away at Daventry (DIRFT) and this new development is un necessary and will completely ruin what is currently a rural area and will, in effect, join two villages to the town of Northampton. This interchange is not needed in the area and is just being proposed in an attempt to exploit current planning regulations for future profit with no regard to effect on the area and population."
Members of the Public/Businesses
June Lovell
"This development will potentially lie between two beautiful Domesday recorded villages and will destroy their peace and quiet. This area is already notorious for its congested road system including the M1, A43 and A508. This development would see a further overload of the system with lorries and people getting to work. Any small accident on any of these roads would see a gridlock situation in Blisworth (as often already happens). No amount of disguising this development with bunding will eradicate the huge blot it would make on the landscape. I have real concerns too about the effects it will have on the health of local residents through increased carbon monoxide, noise and light pollution 24 hours a day. There is already a large Freight Terminal near Daventry which I understand is not at full capacity so I do not understand why we need another one here. I also understand that National Rail have expressed concerns about the ability of the network to carry the extra trains that would be required. Whilst appreciating the need for a policy on Strategic Rail Freight systems, I thought the whole point was to have them 'strategically' placed around the country and not all concentrated in one area. The area proposed for developement is a beautiful landscape and a haven for wildlife, trees and plants. To concrete over this would be devastating and it would be lost for ever to future generations. In summary, this development would have catastrophic effects on the future of the village, would create noise, light and air pollution and would destroy the local landscape. With other Strategic Rial Freight Terminals nearby, do we really need another one here? Given the already congested road system, how would the area cope with the huge influx of lorries and additional commuters. I would respectfully ask that this submission be considered. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Anita Tasker OBE
"I object very strongly to the proposed Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange, on the grounds it will be built on what is now green fields, in open countryside used for agricultural purposes. This proposal would replace farmland producing food for the country, thus increasing the need to import food from overseas. Furthermore the Northampton Gateway SRFI is completely contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) formally adopted in December 2014. There is no evidence in the WNJCS supporting the need for an SRFI on land in open countryside off junction 15 of the M1. However, the need for an SRFI is already identified in the WNJCS, as the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT), close by off junction 18 of the M1, approximately 18 miles from junction 15. So therefore there is no need or requirement for the Northampton Gateway SRFI. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Shane McDermott
"I OBJECT to the proposal because: 1. The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal is only a short distance away from this site, serves the same local area and has capacity for expansion for over ten years. 2. The local footpath network will be destroyed, particularly the path between Milton Malsor and Collingtree. 3. The proposal will destroy hundreds of acres of local countryside and bring industry into an area that is an important gap between town and country. 4. There will be increased congestion through the village when there is congestion on the M1. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart Burrows
"I oppose the application on 3 counts. 1 They will be a major blight on the open countryside which is used by many people. 2 There would be a massive detrimental impact on the local traffic on what is already an extremely busy junction and section of motorway. Affecting air pollution as well as congestion. 3 There is already sufficient warehouse space in the midlands, much of which is not used."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anita Tasker OBE
"I strongly object to the proposed Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange, as it will be sited on green fields in open countryside which is used for agricultural purposes, for producing food. The loss of these precious green fields, would result in having to import more food from overseas. I also strongly object to having a rail freight terminal on land in open countryside on junction 15 of the M1. It is unnecessary as it`s only 18 miles away from the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) on junction 18 of the M1. In any case, the proposal for the Northampton Gateway RFI is completely contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS), which does not support the need for an SRFI on land in open countryside, off junction 15 of the M1. The WNJCS requires that any further SRFI development should take place at the DIRFT site and nowhere else within its three districts."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Woods
"My main concern about the Roxhill proposal to build a Rail Freight Interchange next to this and surrounding villages is the sheer size of the site. This has to effect air quality as traffic growth will no doubt increase. Collingtree has been bombarded with noise and air pollution since the M1 motorway was built in the 1960s. It is my understanding that local authorities are required to reduce these pollutants, not increase them. The village is already surrounded by warehouses, new homes are being built by Bovis and all this next to the village conservation area which houses my home. I grew up in the village having moved here in 1965. It was surrounded by open countryside, all that will go if this proposal goes ahead. I understand that there is also the prospect of another huge rail linked warehouse park named Rail Central being built on adjacent land, 1,100 acres of open land would be lost if this also goes ahead. All this and I am led to believe that DIRFT just up the motorway is operating at under capacity. I implore you not to approve this ill thought through proposal. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Cumberland
"I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange. My reasons are as follows: • I am extremely concerned about the increase in the volume of traffic that would result from this development. As a resident of Roade village, I regularly see the effects of an already struggling infrastructure of roads. I have read evidence that changes proposed by Roxhill will be nowhere near adequate to mitigate the effect of the development. I believe this would impact my family and me significantly. • In relation to the last point, I am also very concerned about the increase in pollution that we would experience in the area. Some of the residential areas surrounding this proposed site are already suffering from noise, air and light pollution in excess of legal limits – this can only get worse. • As well as the environmental impact of extra traffic and air pollution from the site itself, I cannot overlook that losing 520 acres of green land will have an enormously detrimental effect on our local environment. Not to mention the countless species of wildlife that will lose their natural habitat in the process. • I was shocked to learn that areas surrounding DIRFT in Daventry have experienced a 176% increase in crime since 2000/2001. It worries me greatly that we may see a similar effect in areas surrounding Northampton Gateway. • I have read up on the development, and I am at a loss as to understand where the strategic need for another SRFI is in this area. We already have the larger DIRFT facility 18 miles from the proposed location of Northampton Gateway, which has expansion capacity for the next 20 years. • Due to the location of Northampton Gateway and it’s convenience for access to the M1, it is highly likely that many of the warehouses would end up being occupied by road freight companies. This is in direct contradiction with the objectives of SRFI’s, as it would only encourage an increase in freight being moved by road, as opposed to by rail. • This proposal is in conflict with local planning policy, which specifically excludes industrial development at the proposed location. Roxhill had previously made a planning application for a distribution centre which was withdrawn after strong opposition. • It is quite clear to me that this is simply an attempt by Roxhill to bypass local planning policy. Fully aware that they would have no chance getting this proposal passed at a local level, Roxhill has included the rail link part of this proposal to allow them to go straight to the central government for a decision, as it would be a ‘nationally significant infrastructure’. Companies like Roxhill should not be allowed to find loopholes to bypass laws that are in place to protect people and locations that ought to be protected. For the reasons I have given above, I strongly believe the application should be refused. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Bates
"I object to the plans submitted by Roxhill for their Rail Freight Interchange Proposal. My reasons are the increased noise and traffic through the village when there is congestion on the M1 the destruction of wildlife habitat in the area the loss of farmland and the destruction of the local footpath network between Milton Malsor and Collingtree. David Bates"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Felicity Brady
"I strongly object to this development for the following reasons: The increase in road traffic would incapacitate roads which already struggle to cope with the current volume and already results in severe delays, this development would exacerbate this situation. Added to this there would be increased air, noise and light pollution which is already high due to motorway traffic and warehouses at both junctions 15 and 15A. This issue would also be aggravated due to Northampton not having the manpower needed to staff this facility, which means more traffic and pollution from commuters. The current DIRFT is only 18 miles away, since the policy only calls for small SRFI’s across a region to directly supply the market, there is no real need for this development, especially due to the current facility using the same road network, there is no additional or strategic benefit. I strongly object to the needless destruction of wildlife habitats and countryside at a time when we should be preserving these areas, and cultivating them to increase populations. Crime rates in the local area have shown to increase where one of these facilities has been built, I object to this development since this would be no different and make the local area less safe. The rail lines that would service this development are already some of the busiest lines with many people commuting to London, these trains are already quite overcrowded. This would become worse if passenger trains were to be reduced to allow the increase in freight. This would mean a higher volume of people on fewer trains, leading to potential issues with capacity and safety. Lastly the M1 has provided a boundary against development South of it, allowing the villages and towns safety from large developments such as this. Once this boundary has been crossed once, where would the development then stop? This would allow a precedent to be set and we could lose more villages, wildlife and countryside to future developments. For the above reasons I object most strongly to this development and believe it to be more damaging than rewarding. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jean Halcrow
"I object to this because of air, noise and light pollution. The traffic will be horrific, the M1 is blocked most days and also because of the loss of the countryside. We would be surrounded by concrete and warehouses."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joseph Swords
"I firmly object to the Gateway Rail Freight Interchange on a number of levels. First of all, part of what makes South Northants so desirable is the clean air and green space. This interchange will only sully that image and make it less desirable for residents and businesses - with vastly increased air pollution, undoubted increased traffic and a huge change in the landscape. As a young person, I am shocked that a proposal would even be considered at a time when air pollution is linked to tens of thousands of deaths a year across the country - and this seems an attempt to further increase that number, in spaces where air quality should be most preserved. Furthermore, the huge loss of farmland, at a time when Britain and South Northants must be committed and focussed in produce more homegrown produce - for health, environmental and economic reasons. Part of the reason South Northants is attractive to young people is because of the ability to source local food and enjoy green space - this interchange would ruin that. In addition, the huge increase in traffic would create huge safety issues in Blisworth and Milton Malsor - areas where there is a large number of young people attending local schools - and elderly residents. Both vulnerable groups. Why not extend the Daventry Interchange, where there is more than enough expansion space? It would appear as though this is yet another example of Northants Councils taking short-term profit or perhaps personal greed, rather than pursue the rights and well being of it's electorate and residents. I sincerely hope you reconsider this idea."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julia Sparks
"I object to the proposed development. If one or both go ahead the levels of air pollution and the increase in traffic around this area could be very significant. Headline figures: over 8000 employees with 24 hour traffic movements involving hundreds of HGVs. My main issues are air or light pollution, traffic movement, and loss of countryside."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kim Chapman
"I am writing to strongly object to this proposal as I feel that the increased traffic through our village would be severely detrimental to our life and health. The roads are already severely congested and when the M1 is closed due to accidents, which is unfortunately a regular occurrence, then the roads are gridlocked for many miles around including the A5 and the small arterial roadways that connect the small villages in the area. This along with the extra pollution would have lasting implications on our breathing in the dirty air and the noise from the lorries and extra trains, especially at night, will impact greatly on our lives, as I live just behind the railway line & 100m off the A508. There is no shortage of workforce in the local area so most people will have to travel to the site adding extra traffic to the roads. We already have a huge amount of residential construction in all the local villages and the roads are already showing signs of strain with congestion and surface deterioration due to this. All of this along with the destruction of our wildlife habitat and the likely increase in crime (as has happened at DIRFT) is scandalous especially as the close proximity to DIRFT which has many empty units that could be utilised. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Maddi
"I object because the proposal will destroy destroy my local countryside and the wildlife habitat will also be ruined. The loss of habitat cannot be compensated for. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Moss
"We live in a thatched,a grade 2 listed building, built in circa 1750, in the conservation area of Blisworth. Our property is situated on the junction of courteenhall road, northampton road, and high street. We strongly oppose this development for the following reasons. We retired to the village of Blisworth after spending a long working life serving the community in very difficult roles. We chose this village for its beautiful setting, the thatched properties of which ours is, the grand union canal and its location in the countryside surrounded by fields and open countryside. We are appalled at this proposed development as to the increase of traffic through the village, outside our home , the noise and pollution that this will bring if it is approved. If there are any problems on the M1 or A43 our village is used as a rat run with traffic coming to a standstill, fumes and pollution ensuing. This development will see a vast increase in traffic through the village causing immense problems. As it is any large vehicles coming past our home causes our home to vibrate , you can only imagine what it will be like with constant large vehicles, not only in the development but once it is all up and running. We have many visitors and tourists stoping to take photos in the village as it's so beautiful, this brings people and income to local business, this will stop if this development is approved. As we are grade 2 listed we are unable to get planning permission to replace rotten wooden windows for efficient energy saving, appropriate double glazing which would keep out noise and pollution and keep our home warmer. Yet this development would dramatically increase the noise and pollution to our lives and home. We walk everywhere and through the local villages of Milton malsor and collingtree, this will be ruined by the vast warehouse area covered by this development. Everywhere we travel to there are vast developments being erected, what is happening to our wonderful British countryside? We regularly travel to Rugby and drive through the immense Dirft development, so why do we need another development exactly the same which is only 18 miles away. The south Northamptonshire local plan fully objects to this development, because of the damage it would cause to all our local villages and the threat of potential further devolpments. If there were any problems on the M1 all the lorries, the traffic, the employees would all drive through our village of Blisworth to get to the A43 this would cause severe problems, congestion, accidents, pollution from the exhausts and damage to the roads, i.e. further potholes . I strongly oppose this development, words cannot describe the feelings I have about this development. Everywhere I go there are warehouses alongside the motorway, many I hasten to add have a To Let sign on them so I don't see any need to be building any more in this area. The railway I understand is the busiest railway in Europe so this development would reduce the passenger services for those travelling by train to and from Northampton. As in our area we do not have available labour to serve this development again this will mean more cars on our roads. Finally, I moved to Blisworth for its natural beauty, the wildlife and approaching farmland into and out of the village. I strongly oppose this development and hope that my comments will be considered positively so that our home, our village and the surrounding area can be saved and not spoilt by developments for all our future generations. Thank you. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Tina Adams
"i would completely disagree on this proposed industrial development because it would radically destroy perfectly good agricultural land. There is also a similar sight at Crick that is still being developed not far away."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Willington
"No strategic need due to DRIFT Limited road capacity Noise pollution concerns "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter James
"I totally OBJECT to the proposed plans. This is an unspoilt part of the countryside and the proposed plans would greatly increase air pollution, would have a dramatic affect on light pollution. Given the size and the scale of the plans the increase in traffic movement would make the whole of our community unsafe and full of pollution. I have lived in the area for over 30 years and it is renowned for it beautiful and picturesque countryside, this would be gone and never to return. Alongside this would be the loss and destruction of habitat for many local wildlife species. There are many 'industrial sites' already available, one roughly 30 miles away with all the infrastructure in place - why not fully utilise this site. Just to repeat I totally object to the proposed plan!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Hartley
"I feel that for a small country like ours there is not the need for another railway connection so close to the DIRFT and in such a built up area as ours. The roads are already full to bursting making even a short journey very time consuming and thus wasteful in energy and pollution. We are surrounded by good farm land which is becoming more important for the country as the population increases. The local villages already suffer from heavy goods vehicles using our roads as a short cut to the point that all roads are full. This project will make it unbearable. With this project will come the need for even more house building thus increasing traffic even further. The time has come to stop all this development in this area and perhaps increase the number of ports around the country to allow shipping to deliver their cargoes closer to their final destination."
Members of the Public/Businesses
S F J DANVERS
"I would like to object to the development at junction15 for the following reasons. Junction 14 and the M1 cant cope with the amount of traffic we already have, another 16500 vehicles would be a catastrophe. As soon as the bypass is built developers will start to infill between Roade and the new road. The bypass itself will cut through some lovely wildlife areas and destroy good farmland. With DIRFT only just up the M1 and not full why do we need another terminal on a rail line that is already running at full capacity. As a former railways employee, I know the amount of noise that is involved with trains in yards, coupled with the amount of light needed for working at night, ibelieve this would be detrimental to life in all of the surrounding villages. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steven Magorrian
"I am opposed to the proposed development for a variety of reasons including there is no reason for a second SRFI given DIRFT is only 18 miles away. It is in an area of open countryside on the non-developed western side of the M1. There will be noise, light and air pollution caused by the development and an increase in traffic movements in the area. Currently the road system struggles to cope with Blisworth and the villages around here being rat runs. This is even more so when there are hold ups on the A5, the A43, A508 and M1 and this will be even more so the case if there is further development of the type proposed. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart Brough
"I wish to object to this development as it is unnecessary and would have an unjustified environmental impact. There is no need for another rail freight terminal in the area. The DIRFT is only a short distance away so two facilities in such close proximity seems a nonsense. I also believe this has consent for further growth and development - again something which makes this plan unnecessary. The road network in this area is already over capacity and frequent traffic problems occur. The additional traffic from workers and transport would create much more pollution and delay for all. The M1 is frequently at a standstill so more traffic = more delay and pollution. The development would lead to further developments as the M1 'boundary' to Northampton would have been passed. This would result in the loss or farmland. I have concerns over the rail network capacity for further transport as the line currently serving London and Northampton, is already facing under capacity and overcrowding."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Trevor Boucher
"I strongly object to the proposed Northampton Gateway Development for many reasons but primarily because the development would increase beyond all reasonable belief the traffic in the area around junction 15 on the M1 the A508 and the A43. Anyone using these roads today spent time in queues and the proposed development would lead to much more congestion. There is virtually no unemployment in the area so any workers would be coming in from Milton Keynes , Coventry or Leicester areas all increasing M1 traffic. The DRIFT development approx. 20 miles up the motorway has many vacant warehouses so in my opinion this development is unnecessary and could lead to empty buildings and destroyed countryside"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alistair Kneen
"Dear Sirs, I have been a resident as above for over 20 years and involved at a senior level in major logistics projects for over 40 years. I strongly object to the development on inter alia the following grounds: 1. Pollution 2. Traffic Congestion 3. Fundamental misdescription in that a road transport and warehousing project has been badge-engineered nominally to comply with a rail policy. In the unlikely event that consent were to be given it is highly probable that a Judicial review will be sought. Yours faithfully, Alistair Kneen Chartered Arbitrator "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Vincent
"I wish to STRONGLY OBJECT to the Planning application for a Rail Freight Interchange by Roxhill. Blisworth is a quiet rural village with many historical thatched cottages, however, it already has a problem with traffic coming through it to avoid the congestion at junction 15A. If the rail hub is built then even more traffic will come through the village to avoid all the extra traffic using 15A to get to the rail hub. Blisworth has won Best rural Village a number of times but this Rail Hub will put 520 acres of rural countryside adjacent to the village under concrete and Blisworth will lose its rural separation from Northampton. From Blisworth, it is a short journey up the M1, some 18 miles to the Rail Hub near Rugby called DRIFT. Blisworth is elevated, my own back garden backs on to open fields, and so we shall be looking down on to the site and the light from the site will be clearly visible, what was once in darkness will light up the night sky "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ann Summerling
"I object to the proposal because there is no need for another rail freight interchange so close to the one at daventry only 18 miles away which is still not used to full capacity. If a strategic rail freight is required it should be further away from the current daventry interchange in order to make it “strategic”. There in no capacity for sufficient rail freight on the west coast mainline The impact on nearby villages, wildlife and environment will be devastating and will result in a huge increase in traffic clogging traffic routes already at capacity and resulting in acceptable levels of pollution."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Dancer
"The proposals are contrary to all Local Authority Plans and, specifically, the adopted West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy. The proposals are in conflict with the commercial, transport and housing objectives of the whole region and further development of this type and scale will result in a complete imbalance of planning objectives. This is not a site of strategic importance. The developer is simply promoting it as such because they control it. In reality, it is a speculative ‘big shed’ scheme in an area that already has an ample supply of consented industrial land. Given the relatively short distances involved, the required transport modal shift will not occur and, in any event, there is no requirement for Strategic Rail Freight Terminals to actually accept any freight by rail. Furthermore, the rail network does not have capacity and the proposals are not supported by the rail operating authorities. With DIRFT in the very near vicinity and with significant future capacity, these proposals do not exhibit any form of ‘strategic’ decision-making. The local trunk road network is already too congested to accommodate the vehicle movements that would be imposed by these proposals and cannot be improved sufficiently to mitigate the impact. The scheme would also put an untenable strain on all the surrounding village access roads. In what is a rural, open countryside area, the direct and immediate impact on all local villages and their communities will be both huge and permanent. No amount of mitigation will change this. The scale of the proposals, coupled with the area topography, would create a significant visual impact over a large swathe of South Northamptonshire. The operational activities created by these proposals will produce significant increases in air, light and noise pollution. A vast area of prime agricultural land will be irrecoverably destroyed by these proposals, along with a number of rare habitats and the animal and plant species that currently thrive there. There is now significant evidence, across the UK, highlighting the collapse of high street retailing leading to a reduction in retail employment and service industry careers. Contrary to the claim that these proposals will create jobs, in reality, the demand for ‘big shed’ space is to support online retailing, effectively wiping out jobs. In reality net ‘job creation’ is an illusion - for every low skilled, low paid ‘big shed’ job created, higher skilled retail service industry jobs are being lost. This area of Northamptonshire has extremely strong employment statistics (there is currently a shortage of warehouse workers in Northamptonshire). Any actual new workers would therefore either be forced to commute or move locally causing further strain on the very limited local housing stock and local services. The rateable value paid by large industrial warehouse units is lower than that paid by retail units, therefore effectively subsidising online retailers whilst squeezing traditional town centre retailers. As online retailing grows, causing further deterioration of retailing in Northampton town centre, business rates return received by the Local Authority will fall. The suggested ‘green’ benefits of online retailing need further investigation. Evidence is growing to suggest that van deliveries to individual homes, with no cost, easy returns policies, generate higher total carbon footprints than traditional personal, single-trip, multiple store shopping. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Colin Newitt
"This plan is an unnecessary intrusion into open country side & will serve no us full purpose to any one in the local community. the whole project is using a legal loophole to develop a site that will never be used as a strategic rail freight distribution center As this option is all ready covered by the existing system at Daventry which already up & running & prime for expansion The whole idea is ill founded as it will bring complete chaos to what is a an all ready night mare to traffic congestion with in the surrounding area this expansion would the whole area to become gridlocked There are far more suitable sites available for this type of development where employment is low & people are looking for work this is not the case in the Northampton area as all employers are all ready having problems in recruiting labour & this will only make the problem worse It is wrong to cover what is a natural habitat for wild life the whole area should be left as arable land in keeping with the country side "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gail Albrow
"I OBJECT to the proposal, because: 1. Increased air pollution from the thousands of extra cars, vans and HGVs using the roads in the local area. 2. Light pollution from night time operators. 3. The site would be surrounded by high earth mounds which would be a blot on the landscape. 4. The area has very low unemployment so the majority of workers for the operation would have to travel some distance to work, adding to congestion and pollution. 5. All the local plans show this site being retained as farmland and open countryside, not industrial development. 6. The loss of farmland when the country needs to produce more food rather than importing it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Geoffrey Mellors
"Having lived in the beautiful village of Milton Malsor for 51 years I object very strongly to the proposed Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange, as its contrary to the West Northants Jolnt Core Strategy, which clearly sates that any further SRFI development should take place at the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal located on junction 18 of the M1. Therefore there is no need for the Northampton Gateway proposal."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Meller
"I object very strongly to this application. There are many reasons for objection, but perhaps the most important for my family is the level and type of traffic that this proposal would generate. The projected increase is bad enough, and too much for this little back-road to support, but the worst problems would arise during rush-hours and when there is congestion on the M1 between junctions 8 & 15. Drivers then pour off the motorway and clog up the A5 and A508 - queues at the Stony Stratford roundabout are already ridiculous, but this proposal, in conjunction with the enormous number of new homes being built opposite Towcester Racecourse, will result in traffic chaos with even more people using the Shutlanger road as a rat-run. The Shutlanger road is already unable to safely accommodate current traffic - buses, coaches, lorries and tractors have to stop when a vehicle approaches from the other direction. Or they mount the pavement (where there is one) or they churn up the turf outside my house. So the local environment is damaged and further idling of large vehicles damages air quality. This road is completely incapable of accommodating any extra traffic, let alone freight. The road to Shutlanger from the west is long, narrow and straight but thankfully there is now a chicane outside the Plough to discourage speedsters. However, this results in queues of idling vehicles, which causes a build-up of particulates and nitrogen dioxide. This proposal would result in a dramatic increase in queues of idling vehicles and result in a dangerous increase in air pollutants. However, I have seen no evidence of background monitoring for PM2.5, PM10 or nitrogen dioxide in any of the affected villages. If the applicants wish to rely on air quality modelling, they might make a note of Defra’s recent damning experience in the High Court when they did so. The roads around Blisworth, Stoke Bruerne and Shutlanger are already dangerously crumbling away and pot-holed, particularly at the edges, and this proposal would make the situation even worse. The state of these roads means that a fatal accident is almost inevitable and this proposal would incur even more damage to these narrow, dangerous roads. Finally, I should say that I am generally in favour of proposals that create jobs and benefit the environment without harming the character of the local area. For this reason, this proposal must not be allowed to proceed because it would cause irreparable damage to a number of quiet country villages. These villages epitomise the English countryside and must not be sacrificed on the altar of 'same-day delivery.' PS. we discovered this application when we received notification from a local group against the application - why did the applicants or the Council not write to us?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Hill
"As a resident of Blisworth I am strongly opposed to this application. I believe that there is no strategic need for this development, especially in the light of its nearness to DIRFT which is only 18 miles away. Traffic flowing to and from the site would dramatically increase noise, light and air pollution in the area. Pollution would be further increased since there is no available labour to serve the development, meaning workers would have to travel in from other areas. The additional vehicle movements would cause significant pressure on our already overcrowded roads. There would be significant loss of wildlife habitat and farmland. Once development crosses the M1, more will follow and the surrounding villages would quickly find themselves joined to Northampton, thus spoiling the rural nature of the area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dorothy Mary Parsons on behalf of John Vivian Parsons
"Will cause far greater congestion and air pollution to an already busy area when only 16 miles north there is the DERFE project still less than half occupied. Loss of agricultural land Total devaluation of our property "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Denny
"There is no valid requirement for another rail freight interchange in this area, it is only 17 miles to to the Daventry interchange The submission lists the provision of jobs for local people as a benefit, in this area there is a very high level of employment and workers would have to be brought in from other areas, The extra road traffic generated would have a very bad effect on the local area both from an increase in road crowding and increase of harmful emissions. The loss of countryside providing a green barrier between urban Northampton and the surrounding villages"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Crane-West
"My objections to the proposal are; - there is already a Rail Freight interchange 18 miles up the M1 which is not at full capacity. - the roads are already incredibly congested going into Northampton, on to the M1 and down the A508. In event of accidents (which are quite regular) in any of these roads would lead to many lorries driving through Roade and Blisworth. - Increase in air, noise and light pollution which will lead to a massive change to what is currently a very rural area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Davies
"I object to the application. 1. There isn't a demonstration that there is a need. 2. It has not been shown that the railway infrastructure can cope with the proposed application, which, as a Strategic Rail Freight terminal, it needs to. 3. I do not believe the designs for Junction 15 and 15A of the M1 motorway are sufficient to cope with the additional commercial traffic. 4. The M1 motorway, despite being altered to a "smart" motorway will still not be able to cope, let alone if there's a blocked lane due to an accident. 5. The A45 from J15 M1 cannot cope with existing traffic, without any additional burdens. 6. There will be building beyond Junction 15, M1 which is against Northants council policy. 7. Additional traffic for the 8000 workers hasn't been accounted for with pollution, traffic, hence any "green" credentials for the application will be lost. 8. If workers want to walk/cycle there isn't sufficient housing in the area, which will necessitate more house building on greenfield sites. 9. South Northants has a low unemployment rate. Where will the workforce come from? 10. The local area doesn't require extra employment opportunities. 11. The DIRFT at Daventry isn't near capacity and is close by, so why is there a need for this application? 12. There is huge warehousing capacity near J13, M1. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patricia Brittle
"I am against any development at the A508 junction, the road capacity is not adequate, the roundabout at Junction 15 is not large enough to cope with the existing traffic at peak times without adding the traffic to and from the proposed new warehousing. As soon as there is any problem on the MI the A508 is used as a rat run through to Milton Keynes and Roade is grid locked. The warehousing is a blot on the landscape and as there are plenty of empty warehouses in the area we do not need more and also they are being built on prime agricultural land and we are always being told the Britain should try to be more self sufficient in producing our own food. The proposed by pass is a joke the alternative route from the A508 to Blisworth would be along a narrow road which struggles to cope with the traffic now, the excuse of aleviating the air pollution through Roade is not on, as it would just move it to another part of the village. Building these Warehouses would mean labour would have to be brought in as we have low unemployment levels in the county and the excuse would then be to build more houses for the workers etc. we do not want to be an attachment to Northampton. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Pauline Mellors
"L strongly object to the proposed Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange on the grounds of the following: It will be constructed on open land in the countryside used for agricultural purposes which will be destroyed, and can no longer be used for this purpose. The air,noise and light pollution from such an operation working 24 hours a day seven days a week would be devastating, making life unbearable for residents in the nearby villages. This proposal is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy formally adopted in December 2014. There is no policy or evidence in the WNJCS to suggest the need for an SRFI on land in open countryside off junction 15 on the M1. The need for an SRFI has been identified in the WNJCS as the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal on junction 18 of the M!, which is only 18 miles away from junction 15. Therefore the Northampton Gateway SRFI is not required "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roger Charlton
"I object to the proposed development because of -the increased traffic through Milton Malsor and surrounding villages - the increased air pollution from the increased cars, vans and HGVs - all the local plans show the area being retained as farmland and open countryside - the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal serves the same local area and has expansion capacity for over 10 years"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sheila Charlton
"I object to the proposed development because of - the increased traffic through Milton Malsor, surrounding villages and local roads - the increased air pollution due to the increased traffic, (cars, vans and HGVs) - local plans show this area as being retained as farmland and open countryside - the DIRFT at Daventry serves the same local area and has space for expansion for over 10 years "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stewart Brown
"the development and traffic flowing to and from the site would dramatically increase air pollution in the area .destroying three villages blisworth collingtree and roade plus thousands off lives ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Hair Pavilion (The Hair Pavilion)
"OBJECT. Having managed a small local business for many years we strongly object to this development. The infrastructure will not be able to cope and have a negative affect on our small business. We rely heavily on our local customers being able to travel quickly and easily to our business. We have also taken steps to reduce our carbon emissions, this development will completely eradicate any progress we have made protecting the environment. Northampton already has countless traffic issues and road networks that result in unmanageable air pollution. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Wendy Herdman
"Main points I intend to make the need for a rail terminal only 18 miles from Daventry which is not fully used. This development is an excuse to put warehousing onto farmland. The promised by pass is not being built at the same time as the development. The by pass moves the congestion just a few miles down the A508 The roads around here are already very congested everyday and cannot cope with more traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alison Skillen
"• Overall effect on quality of life • Pollution – noise, light & air quality • Traffic impact on already congested local roads • Low level of unemployment in this area • Loss of open countryside • Ancient rights of way destroyed • Re-routed footpaths & impact on local people • Daventry International Freight terminal just over 15 miles away with growth capacity • No alternative sites identified by the developer to justify the need for an RFT here "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Hargreaves
"the outline of my principle representations/objections/concerns are detailed hereunder:- 1.The potential cumulative adverse impacts this will have alongside Dirft 1 2 and 3,together with Rail Central and impact on passenger and freight services at Northampton Railway station,potentially all sharing a very limited stretch of the WCML. 2.Raised pollution and air quality levels adjacent to Junction 15 Motorway M1,which already has air quality issues 3.Congestion issues on all adjacent roads in the immediate area 4.Ability to provide an available "local workforce"is questionable 5.Concerns that Rail Connectivity feasibility and practicality is yet to be proven. 6.The strategic location is questionable ie its relationship to Dirft3 which is still under construction,is there a proven need for a further SRFI in the midlands area...original policy identified several years ago that the Midlands area was well served with SRFI and since then several others have been approved.... "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alison Skillen
"I OBJECT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS 1. The proposal will destroy hundreds of acres of local countryside and bring industry into an area that is an important gap between Town and country. 2. The site would be surrounded by high earth mounds (bunding) that would be themselves a “blot on the landscape” 3. The destruction of wildlife habitat in particular for farmland birds where the habitat loss cannot be compensated for. 4. The loss of farmland when the country needs to produce more food rather than importing it. 5. The destruction of the local footpath network in particular the footpath between Milton Malsor and Collingtree that would be diverted alongside the Collingtree Rd. and the M1 motorway. 6. Increased traffic through the village when there is congestion on the M1. 7. Increased air pollution from the thousands of extra cars, vans and HGV’s using the roads in the local area. 8. The proposed no right turns at the junction of Courteenhall Rd and the A508. would mean traffic diverting through the centre of Blisworth and past the doctors surgery where parking is already a problem. 9. Noise created by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers and the operation of an aggregates terminal. 10. Light pollution from night time operations. 11. The area has very low unemployment so the majority of workers for the operation would have to travel some distance to work adding to congestion and pollution. 12. All the local plans show this site being retained as farmland and open countryside not industrial development. 13. The site contains a number of mature trees that will take many years to replace. 14. The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only a short distance away from this site, serves the same local area and has capacity for expansion for over 10 years. 15. The experience from DIRFT shows an increase in crime following the industrialisation of the area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carol Blake
"I object to the proposed development of Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange Planning Inspectorate Reference: TR050006 (NGRFI) on the following grounds. There are estimated (Roxhill figures) to be 16,500 additional site-generated vehicle movements every 24 hrs, with over 4300 HGVs and these figures are undoubtedly under estimating the full potential of the site. Mezzanine floors and high density storage would massively increase the number of vehicle movements both for workers and goods transport. Inevitably parking will have been under estimated in this case and therefore off site but on road parking would be inevitable as can be seen in many similar developments. It is evidenced at other Rail Freight Terminals that rail freight is only ever a small proportion of the transport method used and road transport is the predominant means of goods movement. Junction 15 congestion is already causing significant delays during peak times and 60,000 vehicles from other planned developments are forecast to use A45/J15 interchange by 2026 without Northampton Gateway. Since the A508 is a designated diversion route when the M1 is blocked this would create unacceptable delays and congestion should this project proceed. From recent roadworks around Brackley & Towcester on the A43 and the A5/A508 roundabout at Stoney Stratford the forecast traffic volumes have been woefully under estimated. The proposed NGRFI has made similar errors in traffic movement and volumes. Current shortage of logistics workers locally means increased commuter vehicle journeys negating any overall benefit rail transport may have brought. With the current "rail bottleneck" at Ely significantly more freight cannot be transported by rail from Felixstowe Docks meaning the only means to utilise the warehousing space at NGRFI is by additional Truck movements. There are only a very small number of rail sidings planned for NGRFI compared to the proposed number of trains and Truck loading bays. In addition it is not apparent form the consultation how trains will be unloaded, confirming the belief that NGRFI is little more than another speculative warehousing development using Rail as the excuse to make it more palatable from an environmental perspective. Civil engineering works have already commenced further north at DIRFT, 18 miles away on the same loop line with capacity to at least 2031 and in a more strategic area, which the developer has failed to investigate . This is on the disused Telecommunications site which was not prime agricultural land as the NGRFI would be. There cannot, therefore be a need for both developments and there is not sufficient rail capacity to serve both. It is questioned if the NGRFI would ever build or use a rail interchange since the one at DIRFT already exists. An inevitable increase in localised pollution as the majority of traffic forecast to use the M1 and A45, both Air Quality Management Areas leading to increased risks to health. There would be a permanent loss of 520 acres of productive arable farm land with loss of wild life corridors and habitat, together with the degradation of footpaths and bridleway"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charity Harrington
"I strongly object to the rail freight development. Their will inevitably be noise and traffic pollution. There is already a similar development less than twenty five miles away which can cope with all the rail freight for many years to come. The developers of the Northampton Gateway have not taken this into account and should have considered the cumulative effect of two rail freight operations so close together."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Pretorius
"I strongly object to the Roxhill Northampton Gateway proposal for the following reasons. 1. The increased road traffic of 16500 additional vehicle movements will cripple the road network in the area and will make my daily commute to and from work even move time consuming than it currently is. Already I have changed my working hours to avoid spending an hour in the car each way getting to and from MK. 2. The site will mean a loss of 520 acres of farmland and wildlife habitats and this is not acceptable! Many of the UK's native species are already under threat and we have a duty of care to preserve the wildlife to future generations. 3. The noise, light and air pollution will dramatically increase in the area from all the additional vehicles and the fact that the site would operate 24/7. I value the countryside and my health which is why I live in a small village and not a town and this development will snuff out yet another "green lung" impacting the health of everyone in the surrounding villages. 4. Experts say that there is no Strategic need for this development as it would only be 18 miles from DIRFT and I agree. The site is likely to just house more road freight warehouse operators that would not really need the rail connection. There is enough new warehousing along the M1 corridor by Milton Keynes! The proposal is purely speculative on the developers side and goes against the government objectives and the developers are exploring an unclear policy on locating Rail Freight Interchanges for commercial gain! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Buckley
"I strongly object to this plan. It will cause me problems getting to medical appointments due to road congestion. As my wife and I live very close to the site we will also,suffer from increased air. noise and light pollution. There is also a fully operational site a few miles away and I do not think that the developers have made enough effort to look at alternative sights or done enough research into the cumulative effects of having this site so close to DIRFT only a short distance away."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kevin Hicks
"My objection to this and other proposed rail freight terminals in our location is the impact on local villages of the increase on an already stressed local infrastructure of the additional traffic which I believe has not been adequately addressed by the developer."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lesley Anne Pyke
"I strongly object to the proposed Roxhill Rail Freight Interchange Northampton Gateway J 15 / M1. I object to this development within such a residential area with a thriving community life, good schools, churches and clubs, all supported. I object as DIRFT is only a few miles away. DIRFT serves the same locality and has capacity for expansion for 10 yrs. I object to this development as it is not complying to the Core Strategy Plan enlisted in this area. I object on grounds of noise pollution, light pollution, nighttime railway shunting, all conversely affecting the health of the many residents. I object on the grounds of traffic congestion in small residential villages, thus disrupting access to doctors surgeries, local shops and schools. Lesley Anne Pyke 38 High St. Milton Malsor NN73AS"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nick Blake
"I object to the proposed development of Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange Planning Inspectorate Reference: TR050006 (NGRFI) on the following grounds. There are estimated (Roxhill figures) to be 16,500 additional site-generated vehicle movements every 24 hrs, with over 4300 HGVs and these figures are undoubtedly under estimating the full potential of the site. Mezzanine floors and high density storage would massively increase the number of vehicle movements both for workers and goods transport. Inevitably parking will have been under estimated in this case and therefore off site but on road parking would be inevitable as can be seen in many similar developments. It is evidenced at other Rail Freight Terminals that rail freight is only ever a small proportion of the transport method used and road transport is the predominant means of goods movement. Junction 15 congestion is already causing significant delays during peak times and 60,000 vehicles from other planned developments are forecast to use A45/J15 interchange by 2026 without Northampton Gateway. Since the A508 is a designated diversion route when the M1 is blocked this would create unacceptable delays and congestion should this project proceed. From recent roadworks around Brackley & Towcester on the A43 and the A5/A508 roundabout at Stoney Stratford the forecast traffic volumes have been woefully under estimated. The proposed NGRFI has made similar errors in traffic movement and volumes. Current shortage of logistics workers locally means increased commuter vehicle journeys negating any overall benefit rail transport may have brought. With the current "rail bottleneck" at Ely significantly more freight cannot be transported by rail from Felixstowe Docks meaning the only means to utilise the warehousing space at NGRFI is by additional Truck movements. There are only a very small number of rail sidings planned for NGRFI compared to the proposed number of trains and Truck loading bays. In addition it is not apparent form the consultation how trains will be unloaded, confirming the belief that NGRFI is little more than another speculative warehousing development using Rail as the excuse to make it more palatable from an environmental perspective. Civil engineering works have already commenced further north at DIRFT, 18 miles away on the same loop line with capacity to at least 2031 and in a more strategic area, which the developer has failed to investigate . This is on the disused Telecommunications site which was not prime agricultural land as the NGRFI would be. There cannot, therefore be a need for both developments and there is not sufficient rail capacity to serve both. It is questioned if the NGRFI would ever build or use a rail interchange since the one at DIRFT already exists. An inevitable increase in localised pollution as the majority of traffic forecast to use the M1 and A45, both Air Quality Management Areas, leading to increased risks to health. There would be a permanent loss of 520 acres of productive arable farm land with loss of wild life corridors and habitat, together with the degradation of footpaths and bridleway"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Northampton Rail Users Group (Northampton Rail Users Group)
"NRUG object on the basis of the adverse effects this proposal will have on passenger services. The assertion of plentiful capacity on the WCML with no restriction to freight and no interference to passenger traffic by freight is not supported by a number of studies, including the NSPNN and freight RUS. Capacity restrictions DIRFT to Wembley, and at Northampton, are well documented. Roxhill suggest that capacity will be released on the WCML when all the intercity trains are moved to HS-2. This will not be the case: the WCML will continue to host a significant number of intercity services, as the ES for the revamp works at Euston makes clear. None of the strategic freight corridors shown in the NSPNN and Freight RUS include the WCML south of DIRFT. As this proposed development is not located on any of the identified strategic freight routes, in policy terms it can not be said to be strategic. The Northamptonshire Rail Capacity Study, as prepared by SLCRail and presented to Northamptonshire Enterprise Partnership (now integrated into SEMLEP) identifies a 32% market growth for Northampton passenger traffic by 2023 and a 106% growth to 2043, ie doubling the current usage in the next 25 years, bringing the WCML back to its current capacity constraints within 25 years, even with HS-2. A number of flaws exist in the ES, including failure to comply with the EIA regulations, and not having performed a sufficiently robust cumulative assessment. It is a requirement to assess the effects the proposed development has on “people”, which in this case incudes rail passengers, both in construction and operation. This omission is a fundamental non-compliance with EIA regulations. The required changes to the track layout at Northampton station are impractical following the building of the new station. The quoted train speeds MK to Rugby illustrate the specific adverse interference to passenger service speed caused by freight. The transport assessment is flawed and assigns significant beneficial effects where the correct finding would be significantly adverse. Contrary to the position taken by Roxhill, major local effects are commonly identified and assessed in EIAs. The dilution of effects by averaging over a larger area and dismissing significant effects because they are localised does not comply with EIA regulations. The chapter as whole fails to establish the criteria for significance, “material impact” is not the EIA criteria. In EIA methodology, mitigation of adverse effects does not produce major significant benefits as proposed. Part of the proposed development is to build a new road that takes the 1856 HGV movements per day, and 12,200 light vehicle movements per day created by the development. Roxhill then suggest the effects of this new road and this high traffic level to be “permanent beneficial” of “major significance”. This is not is a beneficial environmental effect, it is a significant adverse one. The wrong basis is used for cumulative assessment, resulting in underestimating the effects on habitats. The interpretation of WHO guidelines on noise is wrong. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Rod Sellers on behalf of Parishes Against Pollution
"We wish to register the ‘Parishes Against Pollution Group’ as an interested party in the Northampton Gateway Examination process. PAP is a group of 29 Parish Councils in the South of Northamptonshire that has a shared concern over the environmental impact of major traffic related developments and the increasing cumulative consequences for air, noise and light pollution. The participating parishes are: Ashton – Blakesley – Blisworth – Bugbrooke – Cold Higham – Collingtree – East Hunsbury - Gayton – Grange Park - Great Houghton – Greens Norton – Hardingstone – Harpole – Hartwell – Helmdon - Hunsbury Meadows - Kislingbury – Little Houghton – Milton Malsor – Pattishall – Quinton – Roade – Rothersthorpe Shutlanger – Silverstone - Stoke Bruerne – West Hunsbury – Whittlebury – Wootton All these Parish Councils have minuted their support for the following declaration: "Along with neighbouring Parish Councils, we are alarmed at the number and scale of major traffic generating developments in our area and their likely environmental impact. We draw attention to the specific requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) namely ‘“preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water and noise pollution or land instability”. We strongly urge that this requirement is stringently and robustly followed and the cumulative impact considered when major planning decisions are being taken". Consequently we wish to register our objections to the ‘Northampton Gateway’ Rail Freight Terminal proposed for land between the communities of Collingtree, Grange Park, Milton Malsor, Roade and Blisworth which we believe will have significant traffic and environmental impacts on the whole of this region. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Phillip Thornton
"I VERY STRONGLY OBJECT to the idea that development of Millions of cubic Mtrs of warehouse space be added to J15 & J15a of the M1. The motorway through Northampton is one of the busiest in the country with a very high accident rate despite improvement to smart motorway. The idea that the estimated increase of 20,000 additional HGV movements can be accommodated is ludicrous. Northampton is already oversupplied with logistics, disrupting the sensible movement of residents going about their normal working day. Using the road to rail option as a lever to progress the plan is fiction. A tiny percentage of road to rail transfer ever takes place on those sights in existence. This development is purely companies with land stock finding profitable use with no consideration what so ever for the free flow of the M1, for the noise, light disturbance or exhaust fumes which will result. THIS DEVELOPMENT MUST NOT TAKE PLACE !!!!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Jeffery
"I object to the development of "Roxhill's Northampton Gateway rail freight depot" because; 1. There is no requirement for the future occupiers of the new warehouses to use the rail freight option at all. It could easily be used as convenient centrally located cheap warehousing adding even more lorry journeys than planned. It should be mandatory that the occupiers use the rail terminal at least for 40% of their freight. 2. The West Coast Mainline rail infrastructure in the immediate area and the UK doesn't have much capacity left to deliver more slow freight. Passenger trains will have to be reduced to make way for freight on the Northampton loop. 3. There is already an established rail freight depot 18 miles away (DIRFT) that has expansion capacity. 4. Noise, light and Air pollution is going to be bad. Especially as it will be 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and next to residential areas. 5. Staffing. Northampton and surrounding areas have very high employment and the warehouse companies are going to struggle to find staff without having staff commute long distances, thus causing more traffic. 6. If freight is being delivered via rail, then there will be 16500 additional vehicles on the main roads and will cause significantly more traffic, thus causing delays, pollution and noise problems. Even more traffic will be expected if the warehouse operators are not using the rail service. Major road improvements will be required, the road improvements suggested will have minimal improvements. 7. The site is currently fields and established wildlife areas with the rail line embankments acting as wildlife corridors. The site will remove these areas and the affect on wildlife diversity and habitation will be very damaging. 8. Increased flooding will happen due to minuscule attempts by the developer to capture excess rainfall, putting more flood pressure on parts of Northampton down stream that are already flood hot spots. Its obvious that the current suggested solution will not work and pass the problem on down stream."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Pyke
"I write to OBJECT to the plan by Roxhill to develop a Rail Freight Interchange on land adjacent to the villages of Milton Malsor and Collingtree in South Northamptonshire. I OBJECT TO the above on the following grounds. Industrial rail and Goods activity in immediate proximity to rural villages will have a severe impact upon the lives of all residents. Noise, air pollution and light pollution will adversely affect health and life quality in the villages, by night and day. It is in conflict with the West Northants strategic plan agreed and signed off by the Inspectorate, as agreed to be retained as farmland. The Daventry Railfreight terminal serves the same area and has capacity for massive expansion. On the above grounds I STRONGLY OBJECT to the proposal. [Redacted] "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roy Lovell
"I object to this planned rail freight interchange as the traffic around junction 15 of the M1 would be unacceptable and I use this route on a regular basis."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Pope
"the amount of traffic to the surrounding villages will produce more pollution to the areas, there will be more noise, the amount of animals homes that will be destroyed"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephanie Ashcroft
"I object to the development of Roxhill's Northampton Gateway, on the following grounds. There is already a larger facility in the area; it will contribute to noise, light and air pollution; there is not a large enough labour pool in Northamptonshire to cover staffing requirements, meaning workers will have to commute, adding to traffic and pollution; the service is likely to result in a reduction of passenger services to Northampton; the increased number of vehicles travelling on the M1 J15-17 is likely to cause severe congestion; we would lose 520 acres of farmland and wildlife habitat to accommodate for this unnecessary service; and last but not least, areas surrounding DIRFT tend to have an increase in crime rates. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart Dean
"I strongly object to the proposal as follows : SRFI are designed to be strategically located to serve areas of the country within a relatively short distance of the SRFI, there is already a very large facility of this nature within a distance of 18 miles. The M1 provides a boundary for development as identified by the South Northamptonshire Local Plan, any development to the West of the M1 will inevitably result in further development of a similar nature with concomitant problems that this scheme is already indicating. With in excess of 16000 additional vehicle movements anticipated it is difficult to believe how such an increase can be accomodated on the M1 and the adjoining road systems, smart motorway and " mitigating" roadworks will not provide a solution, the section between junctions 13 to 17 are currently frequently subject to considerable delays and stoppages without this development. The West Coast railway line is currently running at an extremely high capacity and any increase in freight traffic may result in a reduction in passenger services. The proposed development and the increase in traffic movements will inevitably result in an enormous increase in pollution, noise and by virtue of its proposed 24/7 operation ,light pollution . With the proposed loss of 520 acres of farmland and the its wildlife habitat it is impossible to contemplate what " mitigating " measures would be conceivable to rectify that situation. The number of persons employed by this scheme will not be provided by the local area, Northamptonshire benefiting from high employment levels, hence such a demand for a labour force would have to be satisfied by labour coming in from a distance and therefore further increasing traffic ,pollution etc."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Trevor Pinfold
"I object to this development for the following reasons. 1 There will be a vast increase in traffic on all roads in the area. The M1 is already overloaded at this point. It is obviously expected that traffic on the A508 will be significantly increased as evidenced by the proposed alterations between M1 junction 15 and the A5. The “left turn only” proposal for the Courteenhall to Blisworth road junction will cause great inconvenience to Blisworth residents and will put an unacceptable amount of traffic on Knock Lane, which is a very minor road, and also on Stoke Road. 2 There has been no strategic proof that a Rail Freight Interchange is needed at this location as DIRFT is only 18 miles away on the same railway line and is far from operating at full capacity. This implies that this is a speculative warehouse development thinly disguised as a strategic requirement, since there is no compulsion for operators to actually use the rail access. 3 As there is no major unemployment problem in the area and there are allegedly 7500 potential jobs on the site, the workforce will need to travel from some distance by whatever route suits them. This has the makings of an unacceptable amount of traffic throughout the area. Alternatively, this could lead to a demand for more housing in the area. 4 Should the development be used to the full, with rail access, it has the possibility of causing a reduction of passenger services to and from Northampton on the Northampton loop. There is also little space available on the West Coat Main Line which must be used for access to the Northampton loop. 5 With a proposed 24/7 operation both light and noise pollution is unavoidable. Similarly, air pollution is unavoidable. This pollution will not be confined to the immediate locality but all along the length of the Northampton loop if we are to believe the amount of freight that will travel along it. 6 This is an unacceptable loss of good productive farmland and will also have an impact on the wild life. 7 The whole development is contrary to the West Northamptonshire Joint Plan whose whole object was to determine the best way forward for the area. This is not the best way forward. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
V G Pinto
"I object for the following reasons 1. The proposal will destroy hundreds of acres of local countryside and bring industry into an area that is an important gap between Town and country. 2. The site would be surrounded by high earth mounds (bunding) that would be themselves a “blot on the landscape” 3. The destruction of wildlife habitat in particular for farmland birds where the habitat loss cannot be compensated for. 4. The loss of farmland when the country needs to produce more food rather than importing it. 5. The destruction of the local footpath network in particular the footpath between Milton Malsor and Collingtree that would be diverted alongside the Collingtree Rd. and the M1 motorway. 6. Increased traffic through the village when there is congestion on the M1. 7. Increased air pollution from the thousands of extra cars, vans and HGV’s using the roads in the local area. 8. The proposed no right turns at the junction of Courteenhall Rd and the A508. would mean traffic diverting through the centre of Blisworth and past the doctors surgery where parking is already a problem. 9. Noise created by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers and the operation of an aggregates terminal. 10. Light pollution from night time operations. 11. The area has very low unemployment so the majority of workers for the operation would have to travel some distance to work adding to congestion and pollution. 12. All the local plans show this site being retained as farmland and open countryside not industrial development. 13. The site contains a number of mature trees that will take many years to replace. 14. The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only a short distance away from this site, serves the same local area and has capacity for expansion for over 10 years. 15. The experience from DIRFT shows an increase in crime following the industrialisation of the area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
William Davis
"I think the development will provide inadequate economic benefits in relation to the damage to local industry. The roads are near capacity as it is, without the additional mass of employees and freight. The damage would be obvious in that blocking the transportation links with more traffic would not only hamper existing businesses, but make incoming and outgoing shipments from the new plant very slow and disjointed. Thank you for reading."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Amanda morton
"OBJECT"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Lunch
"I object to the proposed Rail Freight Interchange Northampton Gateway on J15 of the M1 Motorway. There is no policy or evidence in the WNJCS to suggest the need for an SRFI on land in open countryside off junction 15 on the M1. The need for an SRFI is identified in the WNJCS, as DIRFT off junction 18 on the M1 (18 miles from junction 15) where planning permission has been granted for logistics space and a new rail terminal. The WNJCS requires that any further SRFI development should take place at the DIRFT site and nowhere else within its three districts. (Daventry, South Northants & Northampton Borough areas). This MUST be respected. In addition, I object to the potential destruction of hundreds of acres of local countryside. It was the beauty and tranquillity of this countryside which was a key reason why we moved here in 1980. Much of the beauty will be lost forever, needlessly. The loss of farming land is also a concern, particularly at a time when we are striving to be more self sufficient. The increase in traffic flow is a major worry. Local roads in Milton Malsor, Blisworth and around Roade are already congested with access to local doctors' surgeries being problematic at the best of times. I object to the noise, pollution and congestion that will become endemic to this rural neighbourhood, all for no good purpose. I object to the light and noise pollution that will result from a SRFI including railway shunting, loading and unloading of containers, and the operation of an aggregates terminal. Also to the possible increase in crime that tends to follow the industrialisation of a rural area. Finally, I deplore the destruction of wildlife habitat that will result from this proposal, with serious effects on the bird population."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carl Johnson
"I object to the proposal for these reasons- Increased air pollution locally Increased traffic congestion on already very busy roads locally Increased motorway traffic on a section of the M1 that already suffers from a high level of accidents and closures I OBJECT STRONGLY"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Craig Griffith
"I strongly object to the planning for the rail freight interchange going ahead because of the direct affect it will have on my home and my village with lighting, noise and traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elliot Wills
"I object to this proposed development because it will be bad for our village. There will be pollution, more cars, more lorries stuck in the village and nowhere to walk our dog."
Members of the Public/Businesses
faye Griffith
"I strongly object to the planning for the rail freight interchange going ahead because of the direct affect it will have on my home and my village with lighting, noise and traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gordon Prestoungrange
"I strongly object to the proposed development. It is in no way strategic but simply opportunistic. There does not appear to be a strategic approach by government to the needs for infrastructure. In addition air pollution and light pollution will undoubtedly be significant. The loss of countryside access is irreversible."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Henry Wills
"I object to this development because it will get rid of local countryside. footpaths will be lost and our village will change forever. there will be pollution too."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Irene Morton
"OBJECT"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jessica Griffith
"I strongly object to the planning for the rail freight interchange going ahead because of the direct affect it will have on my home and my village with lighting, noise and traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Farebrother
"I most strongly object to this proposal due to :Loss of agricultural land and wildlife habitat. Development South of M1 not happened before and will increase the Likelihood of of further development to Courteenhall and Roade villages. Rail traffic increase despite Rail Track saying the line could not accept much more traffic. The fact that there are other similar developments within 20 miles or so that are already developed and under used and they are developing further. This area has a high unemployment record, The increase in the number of people to operate site would have to come from outside thus increasing the number of journeys. Junction 15 of the M1 is already over capacity and despite road improvements could not cope with the volume of increased traffic. The proposal assumes a number of rail deliveries but the is no compulsion for any occupier to have to use rail, all traffic could be by road. The bypass of Roade proposed is too close to the existing village houses and will greatly impact on the vehicle pollution on them, it only shifts the pollution from the existing A508. The by pass will have an adverse effect on the BP filling station and shop resulting it becoming uneconomic to operate thus taking away the facility of fuel and the largest shop in the village. The A508 bypass if to be built should start as traffic comes off Junction !5 or at the entrance to the warehousing and continue to past the Stoke Bruerne Sharp bends which are an accident hot spot. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julian Hill
"I strongly object to the Northampton Gateway development on the grounds of Noise Light and air pollution as I believe that an increase in traffic that will be using the site will dramatically increase the levels of pollution and at the same time remove some 520 acres of farmland and wildlife corridors. I also strongly object to the development on the Blisworth side of the M1 as this breaches the boundary identified in the South Northamptonshire local plan foor development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julian Wills
"I object to this development for the following reasons: Destruction of local environment, loss of countryside access, increase in pollution, increase in traffic especially in small villages right next to the development, change to local community by destroying the rural character of the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julian Wills
"I strongly object to this proposed development. The main issues behind this are to do with air pollution, light pollution and increased traffic. Collingtree already suffers from high levels of air pollution due to its proximity to the M1 and this development will increase pollution. The 24 hour nature of the development will cause significant light pollution in the villages of Milton Malsor and Collingtree. The potential for rat running is huge. Milton malsor and Collingtree are already a rat run from the A43 to A45 and this will increase. Many roads in the villages have no footpaths. The development will be very close to the villages of Milton Malsor and Collingtree with little buffer totally changing the character of the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kerry Dar
"I vehemently object to the planning application submitted by Roxhill for the development of a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange at Junction 15 of the M1. As a resident of Roade village, I already endure high levels of noise, air and light pollution as a result of living approximately just 6 miles from the motorway. The surrounding farm land helps to disperse some of this pollution. 520 acres of countryside will be lost to this development and many local communities will be denied vital 'green lungs' that this space currently provides. As well as the loss felt by local residents, it will cause a devastating loss of habitat for wildlife in this area. In addition to the large volume of HGV's and rail freight which will service the proposed SRFI, Roxhill have also claimed that the site will create 6,000 jobs. As this area has one of the lowest unemployment rates in this region, the majority of employees will commute to the site, adding to the volume of traffic on the already, heavily-congested road networks in this area, namely the A508, A45 and M1. A forecast made by The Department for Transport has warned of severe congestion between J15-J17 on the M1 by 2040 even without this development which will see an increase in vehicle movements in excess of 16,500 each day. 230 Furthermore, the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal is only 18 miles further north on the M1 and has an expansion capacity for the next 20 years. Due to this fact, there is no strategic need for a rail freight interchange at the current proposed location. Whilst Roxhill's inclusion of a rail link to the Northampton loop line has allowed their proposal to be regarded as a 'nationally significant infrastructure', therefore by-passing local planning, Northamptonshire County Council Highways Authority have stated that the 'increasing freight services over the Loop might require a reduction in the passenger service to Northampton' despite the West Coast Mainline being the busiest railway in Europe. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laura Wills
"I object to the proposed development. It is too close to the villages of Milton Malsor and Collingtree and will destroy our way of life. The potential for air and light pollution is high. It will also prevent the enjoyment of the local countryside and the permanent loss of countryside. The proximity of DIRFT suggests that the location is not a strategic one and simply profit and developer led. This facility is not needed for this area and as unemployment is so low in this area workers will need to travel in cars to get to the site adding to pollution and congestion."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Leigh Essery
"I object to this application because of the following: The level of traffic through Roade and towards the M1 is already too much with people travelling between Northampton and Milton Keynes. Further traffic will make things worse regardless of improvements to the road network. There is no need for the Gateway due to DIRFT. The destruction of farmland and wildlife habitat. These projects would be better suited to land in need of regeneration. The Jobs that will be created will be low skilled, low earning jobs mostly. Focus should be on creating more opportunities for more skilled work so that students from nearby universities and colleges stay in the county. There isn’t enough labour to serve the gateway, this will add more traffic to the congested roads. Loss to businesses that rely on tourism of the countryside. Massive increase in noise, light and air pollution from the gateway and increased traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marian Paton
"How can it be a strategic development, when another terminal is barely half an hour away. And is being extended. Hardly a rail terminal when less than 6% of goods will arrive by rail, due to lack of capacity. 94% of goods will arrive by lorries and at least the same quantities will leave by lorry. Roads grid locked when a problem on M1, no amount of new road restructuring will solve the issue. When an extra lane was added to the M25, it was at full capacity instantly. Loss of pleasure and delight in the area in which we have chosen to live, due to enormous buildings, pollution and noise."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Anley
"I wish to object to the development, my reasons are :- The local DIRFT site is not fully developed and could be used instead I strongly object as that is not in the plans. Increased road traffic - I object to the Roade by pass as that will not be viable, I strongly object to the increase in traffic the proposed development will bring. Loss of farmland and wildlife habitat, I strongly object as Roade has seen huge development with houses already. Noise and Light pollution I strongly object to this site linking Roade with Northampton - we are a village !"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martyne Pearson
"I strongly object to this application because of the following reasons: 1. The proposal will destroy hundreds of acres of local countryside and bring industry into an area that is an important gap between Town and country. 2. The site would be surrounded by high earth mounds (bunding) that would be themselves a “blot on the landscape”. 3. The destruction of wildlife habitat in particular for farmland birds where the habitat loss cannot be compensated for. 4. The loss of farmland when the country needs to produce more food rather than importing it. 5. The destruction of the local footpath network in particular the footpath between Milton Malsor and Collingtree that would be diverted alongside the Collingtree Rd. and the M1 motorway. 6. Increased traffic through the village when there is congestion on the M1. 7. Increased air pollution from the thousands of extra cars, vans and HGV’s using the roads in the local area. 8. The proposed no right turns at the junction of Courteenhall Rd and the A508. would mean traffic diverting through the centre of Blisworth and past the doctors surgery where parking is already a problem. 9. Noise created by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers and the operation of an aggregates terminal. 10. The area has very low unemployment so the majority of workers for the operation would have to travel some distance to work adding to congestion and pollution. 11. All the local plans show this site being retained as farmland and open countryside not industrial development. 12. The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only a short distance away from this site, serves the same local area and has capacity for expansion for over 10 years. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michelle Higgs
"I have lived in Roade with my extended family for 49 years, this development will cause devastating obliteration to our surrounding beautiful countryside, destroying 520 acres of farmland and wildlife habitat. We will suffer with increased pollution, the increasing workers traffic to the site, the M1 junction 15 cannot cope now! Northampton is an affluent area for work, we do not need more warehousing to `create jobs` and with DRIFT Daventry just 18 miles down the M1 , I am appealing to any sense of reality to move this terminal further along. DRIFT is not running at its full capacity now, why is the need to create another one so close? We are a close community and I and my family strongly feel this would destroy the lovely village we live in. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Neil Jagger
"I OBJECT STRONGLY TO NORTHAMPTON GATEWAY FOR THE FOLOWING OUTLINE REASONS 1) IT IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE WEST NORTHANTS JOINT CORE STRATEGY (WNJCS) WHICH IS THE FOUNDATION PLANNING DOCUMENT FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT IN OUR AREA 2)ADEQUATE RAIL FREIGHT INTERCHANGE CAPACITY IN OUR AREA (WEST NORTHANTS) IS AVAILABLE AT DIRFT UNTIL AT LEAST 2031 AND RAIL FREIGHT GROWTH OVER THE LAST 4 YEARS HAS BEEN MINIMAL 3) NORTHAMPTON GATEWAY IS NOT ENVISAGED IN MILTON MALSOR'S PARISH PLAN 2005 4) A SIMILAR CAPACITY RAIL FREIGHT INTERCHANGE IS PROPOSED BY ASHFIELD LAND ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE SAME TRACK 5) LOCAL UNEMPLOYMENT IS VERY LOW. EMPLOYMENT LOCATIONS IN OUR AREA HAVE BEEN BALANCED WITH HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BY THE WNJCS WHICH MEANS EMPLOYES OF RAIL CENTRAL WILL NEED TO TRAVEL FROM AFAR ADDING TO ROAD CONJESTION 6)NORTHAMPTON GATEWAY IS A HUGE INDUSTRIAL SITE IN AN AREA DESIGNATED AS 'OPEN COUNTRYSIDE'. IT WILL CHANGE AN ANCIENT RURAL AREA INTO AN INDUSTRIAL ONE AND BLIGHT ADJACENT VILLAGES LIKE MILTON MALSOR, COLLINGTREE AND BLISWORTH 7) THE DISRUPTION TO TRAFFIC LOCALLY AND ON THE M1 WHILE ROAD DIVERSIONS TAKE PLACE - WHICH WILL HAVE TO BE DONE IN PHASES AND LAST ABOUT 4 YEARS - WILL BE AWFUL 8) THE CULMATIVE PERMANENT 24/7 POLLUTION OF AIR, NOISE AND LIGHT WILL HAVE A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON LOCAL RESIDENTS. 9) THE PROPOSER HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED SUFFICIENT NATIONAL ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO OUTWEIGH SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE LOCAL AREA 10)THE TRAFFIC PROPOSALS LEADING TO THE NEW ROAD LAYOUTS HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY TESTED FOR THE CASES OF BREAKDOWN AND ACCIDENT 11) WE WOULD LOOSE THE PLEASANT AND WEL USED LOCAL FOOTPATH NETWORK "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicola Wood
"I object to this proposal as the area can not cope with the increased traffic. One accident on M1 or A5 gridlocks the area without this new proposal. The A45 in the Northampton in the mornings is a nightmare already, changes to the road network will impact the Queen Eleanor section of the road and beyond. The rail freight is being proposed with others relatively close and not at capacity. The promise of lots of jobs with no detail of what the jobs are. Many will be lorry drivers so not based locally."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Penny Howell
"I object to the planning proposal for the following reasons: It is not needed as there is a comparative rail freight terminal (dirft) 10 miles away and it is not up to capacity The scale is disproportionate to its planned location Housing plans have been declined by local councilors for years, so an infrastructure plan avoids local decisions and goes straight to central government - it is gaining plans for anything rather than nothing (making money out of the site) 2 historic villages will be negatively impacted without real research in the need for such a provision Air and light pollution will be seriously affected Increased Traffic will limit traveling in the area"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Bull
"Roxhill Here are the main points I would like submit why I feel so strongly that this application should be turned down. 1 Present state of congestion on the roads. Recently, my wife was totally gridlocked on the outskirts of Blisworth, ALL access roads were jammed because the M1 and the A5 was at a standstill, traffic was coming through the 3 villages most affected by this proposed development using them as a rat run. Can you image how much longer this congestion will be increased when you add all the extra lorries which will be added to this already difficult situation? I CAN, IT WILL BE DREADFUL.! (An actual case of congestion, part of the A5 was closed on July 9th for repair, there was at least a 3 mile queue of traffic on the A508 which had mostly used all the minor roads to get there from the A5 ) 2 There is no compulsion for the Transport Firms to actually use the train services in the Roxhill development! There is nothing to stop them using the proposed site as a transport hub, I can see lorries coming off the M1, unloading , picking up another load, back onto the M1,so there will be much more traffic than the surveys predict! The essence of a lie is the intention to deceive, is the quotation which comes to mind! 3 A challenge to the persons considering this application. Before any decision is made, please come at any rush hour time and personally experience the sensation of travelling on our minor roads, this would convince you, more than anything that this development should be turned down. You would remember this experience for a long time !! More than any paperwork or surveys. 4 Why should you have the power to turn our lovely country way of living, under threat already, to force us more and more into an urban lifestyle? By agreeing to this development you will help to spoil so many things which make living in the countryside such a joy . "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Scurr
"It is my intention to object to the planning application submitted for Roxhill's Northampton Gateway. My reasons are the following: Firstly, I am a local resident of Roade and believe that the traffic congestion , noise and air pollution will rise to unacceptable levels during the building of the RFI and will remain so thereafter. This will make Roade an unhealthy place to live and increase the risk of accidents and fatalities. Secondly, the development of that huge area of land will be ruinous to the character of several surrounding villages who will also have their countryside views spoiled. With the M1 acting as a buffer, residents currently enjoy a rural lifestyle on the whole and the villages themselves epitomise the beauty of Northamptonshire. Thirdly there is no need or mandate for another RFI in the same county according to government documentation on the matter. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philip Wood
"I object. There is no need for such a large development in a rural area. There is space at DRIFT fir further traffic. If it is a road interchange, then there is space at many if the industrial estates in the area. The villages in the area will be destroyed by such a development. Who can support such a criminal act?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Sumpton
"I strongly object to to this proposal on the following grounds:- 1. The M1 currently provides a barrier between town and countryside, the building of a vast industrial estate in open countryside would lead to further development and destroy this important green gap in the built environment. 2. There is almost no unemployment in the local area so the vast majority of employees at the proposed site would have to travel a considerable distance to get to work. Not only would this defeat the objective of getting traffic off the roads but lead to a large increase in traffic on the local road network. The whole area around Northampton already suffers from severe congestion at certain times of the day and during times of problems on the M1. 3. A major concern for myself and many other local residents is the proposal to make the Courteenhall Road/A508 junction a no right turn junction. In order to get to the Roade library, doctors or Village Hall people from Milton would have to travel through the centre of Blisworth where parked cars on Stoke Road particularly outside the Surgery makes this difficult and dangereous. 4. My main objection to this proposal is the loss of our local footpath between Milton Malsor and Collingtree. This path currently runs through totally open countryside and enjoys great views. The proposed diversion has no merit whatsoever simply running alongside Collingtree Road or the M1. There would be no views to enjoy and the noise from the traffic on the M1 would make it impossible to have a conversation. This diversion is so bad that it would be a waste of time as no one would ever use it. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Terry Larkins
"I strongly object to this proposal, I do not believe that this development is necessary, the scale of the Roxhill & Ashfield Land proposals in this location, the increase in HGV traffic, the pollution, and noise generated from a 24-hour operation is unacceptable bearing in mind that any increase in rail freight requirements is already provided for at DIRFT. Consequently I find it objectionable that both of the proposed Rail Freight Terminals (Roxhill & Ashfield Land) are attempting to obtain a planning approval for the proposed developments via a back door application by circumventing the local planning authority for a development that is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) formally adopted in December 2014. There appears to be little need for an SRFI as this is already identified in the WNJCS, to quote – “ the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is a 7.86 million sq ft site off junction 18 on the M1 (approx 18 miles from junction 15) where planning permission, has been granted for logistics space and a new rail terminal. The WNJCS requires that any further SRFI development should take place at the DIRFT site” - end quote. It appears that both developers (Roxhill & Ashfield Land) are ignoring WNJCS and the reality that additional rail freight is not required in this area, this is really all about profiteering. I ask the question, what will the proposed Roxhill & Ashfield developments achieve that DIRFT cannot provide, there is no positive to the question, but I strongly object to the proposals because: - 1. The proposal will destroy hundreds of acres of local countryside and bring industry into an area that is an important gap between Town and country. 2. The site would be surrounded by high earth mounds (bunding) that would be a “blot on the landscape” 3. The destruction of wildlife where the habitat loss cannot be compensated for. 4. The loss of farmland when the country needs to produce more food rather than less. 5. Increased traffic through the village, more so when there is congestion on the M1. 6. Increased air pollution from the thousands of extra vehicles using the roads in the local area. 7. Noise created by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting, the loading/unloading of containers and the operation of an aggregates terminal. 8. Light & noise pollution from night time operations. 9. All the local plans show this site being retained as farmland and open countryside not industrial development. Bearing in mind the above, will the Roxhill & Ashfield Land development proposals to be treated seriously - - - for a development that will provide no additional national benefit, surely not? "
Members of the Public/Businesses
William Griffith
"I strongly object to the planning for the rail freight interchange going ahead because of the direct affect it will have on my home and my village with lighting, noise and traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan North
"I am opposed to the proposed NSRFI because of the damage it will do to the environment. Currently, when standing on the hill top at Blisworth, to the north east, Swan Valley, a large new industrial site (including many warehouses) can be seen near Junction 15A of the M1, to the south east Grange Park, another large new industrial site, again including many warehouses near M1 Junction 15 can also be seen. If the proposal goes ahead the view will be uninterrupted industrial warehousing for over three miles, a true vision of hell. Incidentally less than 10m years ago the same view was entirely rural. Words fail me. Apart from the visual impact we must also endure noise, light and air pollution on a humongous scale. Traffic congestion in the area is already a major problem and even the most minor of the frequent issues on the M1 causes total chaos. Adding thousands of additional HGV movements to the mix would be total madness. Near full employment in the area will mean that the workforce will have to travel great distances to the site increasing traffic even more. With DIRFT not 10 miles to the north is it really strategic to build another huge warehouse operation here. I am totally convinced that linking this operation to rail is only a subterfuge to get round the planning laws, at meeting they have no idea and I am certain, no interest, in how much rail capacity is or will ever be available. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Warren
"We would strongly like to object to Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange Planning Inspectorate Reference: TR050006, for the following reasons: 1. Total loss of amenity in the surrounding area. 2. There is no strategic reason to proceed with this developemnt, whe DIRFT is only 18 miles North of this proposed site and you can see what damage has been done to the local area to DIRFT. 3. There will be massive increased road traffic, on already congested roads that are currently poorly maintained. 4. Dramatic severe loss of over 500 acres of important farm land and wildlife habitat. 5. Severe pollution to the local environment, reducing air quality, increased noise and light pollution at night. 6. Insufficient local labour resource, attracting non resident workers, again increasing traffic further. 7. DIRFT have seen an dramatic increase in crime in the local area, which will be repeated here. 8. The West Coast Mainline is already one of the busiest rail lines in Europe, which this proposed development will only worsen or even further development will be required. To summarise, this proposed development is not necessary, not required, not wanted, badly thought out, misguided and is wasting a huge amount of tax payers money for the investigation. Yours totally astounded. Andrew Warren "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cadent Gas Limited (Cadent Gas Limited)
"Cadent is a licensed gas transporter under the Gas Act 1986, with a statutory responsibility to operate and maintain the gas distribution networks in North London, Central and North West England. Cadent’s primary duties are to operate, maintain and develop its networks in an economic, efficient and coordinated way. Cadent wishes to make a relevant representation to the Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange DCO in order to protect its position in light of infrastructure which is within or in close proximity to the proposed DCO boundary. Cadent’s rights to retain its apparatus in situ and rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus located within or in close proximity to the order limits including should be maintained at all times and access to inspect such apparatus must not be restricted. The documentation and plans submitted for the above proposed scheme have been reviewed in relation to impacts on Cadent’s existing apparatus located within this area, and Cadent has identified that it will require adequate protective provisions to be included within the DCO to ensure that its apparatus and land interests are adequately protected and to include compliance with relevant safety standards. Cadent has low, medium and high pressure (major accident hazard) gas pipelines located within the order limits which are affected by works proposed. As a responsible statutory undertaker, Cadent’s primary concern is to meet its statutory obligations and ensure that any development does not impact in any adverse way upon those statutory obligations. Cadent is discussing the potential impacts on its network with the promoter however any proposed relocations of apparatus or protections including the extent of any land or rights required by Cadent to facilitate works have not been finalised. Cadent wishes to reserve the right to make further representations as part of the examination process but in the meantime will continue negotiations with the promoter with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreement. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cameron Higgs
"I strongly object to these proposals on the basis that the impact of such a development to the local community and countryside would be very bad. The proposed interchange would cause an increase in air & light pollution, in an area of great countryside. The loss of countryside from this development would be devastating to a huge range of wildlife and impact residents enjoyment of this area. The proposals appear to be unjustified in their reasoning and usage when so many underutilised alternative facilities of this type are available just a short distance away (e.g. DIRFT). With regards to the employment opportunities this proposal will supposedly provide, this is also unfounded as the need for these jobs, in this area, are not needed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carol Jacoby
"I am an interested party in this project on the basis that Northampton Gateway represents a threat to the successful development of DIRFT. DIRFT has growth plans for the next 20 years and has a whole new settlement being built beside it (Houston). The workforce will be right there, minimising their travel requirements, the base rail link is there and could and should be extended - it represents one stop for the freight trains which use the same main and loop line as the proposed site. Logic and fulfilment of the government's ambition of modal shift to rail freight would favour maximising DIRFT, not dividing its rail supply route. I am an interested party because I want to support DIRFT, and Northampton Gateway would result in it being suboptimal when it comes to the rail connection."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cecil Bottomley
" 1. Due to the large DIRFT facility just 18 miles north of J15, there is no strategic need for Northampton Gateway. 2. This proposed massive development is expected to create around 7,000 jobs. Yet, Northampton and the surrounding smaller towns and villages already suffer from a severe labour shortage. This means that the Gateway would be drawing in workers from a very wide area indeed, causing local traffic congestion and pressure from developers for a further expansion of Roade and surrounding villages. 3. At present the M1 motorway provides an essential and clear division, a ‘green belt’ between town and country, thus preventing the urban sprawl that degrades much of our environment today. The proposed warehouses, as well as being huge blots on the landscape, would break that essential division. 4. The huge number of traffic movements on the site would create both noise and air pollution 24/7 in the nearby village of Roade and other villages nearby, causing stress and ill-health to the residents. 5. One of the attractions of Roade is that a resident can quickly reach footpaths and bridleways in the attractive countryside that surrounds the village, a significant part of which would be lost. 6. Because of the size of the interchange and associated infrastructure some 520 acres of productive farmland would go under concrete. 7. The proposed bypass, whilst taking traffic out of the village itself, may, in fact, increase the traffic using the ‘new’ A508. Thus moving the pollution but having the effect of increasing it overall – this time near the village outskirts. 8. With the building of a by-pass creating a new ‘boundary’ on one side of the village developers would inevitably press for infill between bypass and village. Should a bypass go ahead then the infill land should permanently be freely ceded to the Parish Council for quiet open space. 9. There is much talk these days of a “northern power house” to create much needed jobs in that region. England is a very small country, and distance is not a problem in terms of speed of goods movement. There is therefore no reason why the planned Gateway cannot be sited near where jobs are in short supply."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Daphne Jones
"I strongly object as proposal will drastically change the landscape and lives of all living in Roade and nearby villages. A country way of living will be lost, ruined by excessive air pollution and noise. Presently surrounded by fields and wildlife which will then become huge warehouses covering extensive areas. A bypass that comes so close to the village as to take away part of an historic farm and run so close to house's and a large secondary school, causing a significant health risk from pollution, and mental well being for all these residents that NEED and have EARNED the right to have a quiet life. Excess traffic added to a very congested A508 and M1 jctn 15 is lunacy and misery for anyone concerned. DIRFT at M1 jnctn 18 not being fully utilised proves that there shouldn't be another rail terminal in the same area. The extra jobs are NOT needed by Northampton, commuters will further add to the road chaos. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Wilson
"I strongly object to the proposal because it will impact my life and the lives of others. I use a season ticket to travel from Northampton each day and the busy loop line that is not very reliable will have reduced passenger services. In July, the frequent cause of delays is broken down freight trains blocking the lines on the busy service. I may return to commuting via the roads if the rail service degrades further. I strongly object to the proposal because truck / lorry operators and drivers will park and sleep in any place they can find to comply with working hours and to cut their costs. Just look around any layby in Northamptonshire and particularly the A43 near Towcester and there are always trucks with blinds in the front cab. Road congestion will increase because of the thousands of extra vehicle movements on already crowded roads. I strongly object to the proposal because the government strategic policy intends to have a small number of SRFIs to serve the market well. We already have a SRFI at DIRFT just up the M1 and I believe more plans to extend it (I see signs at the roadside). The irony of too many SRFI is that it will just encourage truck operators to move to warehouses nearer the M1 and use the roads rather than the rail interchange. I strongly object to the proposal because of increased pollution – noise, light and air. As a nation we want to cut pollution and that also includes reduction in hotspots. This proposal will sharply increase pollution in the surrounding area. I strongly object to the likelihood of increased traffic through my village to avoid congestion on nearby A roads. Right now, Stoke Road in Blisworth and the Towcester Road through Milton Malsor and West Hunsbury are the rush hour rat run between West Northampton and Milton Keynes to cut out the part of the A45 and A508. All cars go from Northampton to Milton Keynes in the morning and all return in the evening. It is easy to see now and it will get worse. I strongly object to the proposal because I fear developers will ask for more infill warehousing West of the M1, in South Northamptonshire after this development crosses the M1 from Northampton. I strongly object to the proposal because of the destruction to natural habitat and wildlife in the area. Anything that turns existing countryside into huge areas of buildings, concrete and tarmac is bad for the environment. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elaine Clarke
"I strongly object to these proposals on the basis that the impact of such a development to the local community and countryside would be extremely detrimental. The proposed interchange would cause a huge increase in air pollution & light pollution, in an area of beautiful countryside that helps make Northamptonshire the "Rose of the Shires". The resulting loss of countryside would be devastating to a huge range of wildlife and negatively impact residents enjoyment of this area. The proposals appear to be unfounded in their justification and usage when so many underutilised alternative facilities of this type are available just a short distance away (e.g. DIRFT). With regards to the employment opportunities this proposal will supposedly provide, this is also unfounded as the need for these jobs, in this area, is superfluous."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Haydn Clarke
"I want to object to these proposals. The building works will be very bad for my village and other villages. The machines and lorries will be noisy and there will be a lot of light in the sky from the building and vehicles. I like to ride my bike and walk my dogs through these fields and I am sad that I won't be able to do that if you let these be built. The motorway has always been the edge of Northampton and I think if they build the warehouses then more and more will build and there will be no countryside left. [Redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
J Land
"No strategic need due to DIRFT; Northampton Gateway is only 18 miles from an existing facility. Noise, light and air pollution; operating 24/7 will cause a significant increase in air pollution. Labour Pool; workers will need to be recruited fromoutside. Ortha pton which will increasethe already over congested roads. Road capacity; 16,500 extra vehicle movements will cause pressure on our already overcrowded roads Threat of further development; once a development crosses the existing boundary in South Northants... more will inevitibly follow.. Rail capacity and loss of passenger rail services; The West Coast Mainland is already too busy so this will lead to cuts in passengerservices. Loss of wildlife habitat and farmland; the destruction of 520 acres of farmland is a crime when there is another depot 18 miles away. Summary: More pollution, more cars and rd activity, more noise, loss of passenger rail facilities and stresson the roads. As there is another depot so close—— is this really necessary? I can see no positives to this plan for Northampton."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jack dougan
"This local area is very pretty, with quaint villages which has not changed much for over 100 years, we need more than ever to keep what countryside we have and not turn it into a concrete jungle and a hub filled with hundreds of lorries all for the sake of a few pounds into the local councils pockets."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lee Clarke
"I strongly object to these proposals on the basis that the impact of such a development to the local community and countryside would be extremely detrimental. The proposed interchange would cause a huge increase in air pollution & light pollution, in an area of beautiful countryside that helps make Northamptonshire the "Rose of the Shires". The resulting loss of countryside would be devastating to a huge range of wildlife and negatively impact residents enjoyment of this area. The proposals appear to be unfounded in their justification and usage when so many underutilised alternative facilities of this type are available just a short distance away (e.g. DIRFT). With regards to the employment opportunities this proposal will supposedly provide, this is also unfounded as the need for these jobs, in this area, is superfluous."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Underwood
"I would like to make my objections known as a resident of Collingtree Village, on how the railfreight will impact ours and surrounding villages. At present the A45 as a extremly high volume of traffic and is at a standstill at least 3 times a week. Yesterday 12th July 2018, the traffic was queuing on the motorway at junction 15 exit as there was an accident on the A45 6 miles further into Northampton. When/if the A45 is blocked our village is used as a cut through and I can see in future large articulated vechiles will do the same. I can hear the motorway most days and nights and if the volume of traffic increases this will become unbearable. The air pollution in our village is extremely high from the motorway already and we have to clean our windows/patio's frequently. Having being to the exhibitions and viewing the plans I am NOT convinced that the measures being taken will resolve any of the above issues and infact will make them worse. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Redding
"I strongly object to this application for the following reasons: 1. The proposed turning restrictions (no right turn in or out) on the Courteenhall Road and A508 junction will divert traffic down far less suitable country lanes (Knock Lane and Stoke Road) and into the centre of Blisworth. This has serious safety and congestion implications. 2. The above situation will be further exacerbated by the construction of the Roade by-pass which will encourage the use of Knock Lane and Stoke Road to access Blisworth and to cut through to the A43 beyond. This has serious safety implications. 3. The inevitable use of local roads by HGV and light commercial traffic cannot be prevented. The maximum weight limits proposed are not practically enforceable. There is a significant safety risk to people, pets and also the myriad equine facilities in the area. 4. There is nothing to prevent site traffic that is coming from the west on the A43 from using Blisworth as a short-cut to by-pass junction 15a on the M1. This has serious implications for traffic in the village and the well-being of residents living alongside the affected roads (particularly at the 6.00am and 10.00pm shift changes when the roads are ordinarily quiet). 5. The huge increased volume of traffic concentrated on a small section of the strategic highway will have a detrimental effect on the quality of life for many communities. The lack of an available pool of local labour will further exacerbate traffic congestion in the wider area. 6. An inevitable increase in crime and antisocial behaviour (including littering) has not been recognised by the Applicant as a consequence of industrialisation of a rural environment and will result in an adverse impact on the quality of life and an increased personal safety risk. 7. No consideration has been given to the implications of other NSIPs (SRFIs) in the region in terms of the cumulative impact on the railway (are there sufficient paths to satisfy all) or the efficacy of a national strategic network. There is very strong evidence that there is insufficient demand to justify all the proposed SRFIs and inadequate capacity on the rail network to facilitate an effective modal shift at this location. 8. Contrary to the NPS NN and the EIA regulations the Applicant has failed to produce an alternative sites assessment. The Applicant, therefore, has provided no clear and cogent argument that this is the least environmentally damaging location for the next SRFI nor that it is the most appropriate location from a national strategic perspective. 9. The development is contrary to a number of local planning policies and would be built on greenfield land designated as an important strategic gap to help maintain the rural character of South Northants and to protect the villages south of the M1 from coalescence with Northampton. 10. The cumulative impact of Northampton Gateway and Rail Central on the local and wider community would be massive and devastating. There is no mitigation that can make the two in any way acceptable but the Applicant has still failed to address the community’s concerns in their formal application "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Underwood
"I would like to register my objection to the above mentioned Rail Freight Interchange. Having lived in Collingtree Village for 17 years or so I already have to jet wash my patio at least twice a year due to the poor air quality predominantly created by the traffic on the M1 and A45. Allowing increased traffic which it undoubtedly will using their own calculations of usage would make this matter considerably worse and I gear very much for the health risks associated to this especially as a the village and surrounding areas is home to many senior citizens. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Jacoby
"I am an interested party on the basis that Northampton Gateway represents a threat to the development of DIRFT. DIRFT has growth plans for the next 20 years, and has a whole new settlement being built beside it - Houlton. The workforce will be right there, minimising their travel requirements, the base rail link is there and could and should be extended. It represents one stop for the freight trains which use the same main and loop line as the proposed site. Logic and the government's ambition of modal shift to rail freight would favour maximising DIRFT, not dividing its rail supply route. I am an interested party because I want to support DIRFT, and Northampton Gatewaywould result in it being suboptimal when it comes to rail connection."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Smith
"I think the development would be a bad idea for a number of reasons: Congestion at junction 15 is a problem sometimes taking 20 minutes to cross the roundabout, therefore adding capacity would make it worse. It would lead to the village of Roade joining up with Northampton area, an expansion not needed or asked for. Pollution would obviously get worse both during any potential build and afterwards. Added to this is the loss of green space. The Northampton area has high employment. Other areas with a lower employment rate would benefit more."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicholas Bryans
"I strongly object to this proposal on the following grounds, The nearby DIRFT facility already meets the (supposed) need for an SFRI in this area, policy states there there be a small number of these, clearly only one is per target area, and it already exists (and even now is under capacity). The developers have already tried to build on this site and been refused, they are now trying again this time claiming the deveopment to be an SFRI this time. The lack of any need and previous attempt to build here witghout using the SFRI angle clearly indicates simple opportunism by Roxhill, using the SFRI angle to avoid local planning decisions (which this is entirely contrary to). Other supposed SFRIs by this developer are being used purely as hubs for road based freight. The railway has very limited capacity to serve the proposed facility, being the very busy West Coast main line, a vital link for passengers from the Northwest, already at full capacity. If the facility ever actually does handle any rail freight I expect that additonal nightime movements will be required, with disturbance to residents living near the railway all along the route. Sleep disturbance is problematic for human health. The immediate area west of the M1 is currenly open countryside, a critcal 'green lung' mitigating the effects of pollution from the M1 on the surrounding villages. Not only will this mitigation be lost but pollution will be far worse due to the extra vehicle movements, which will come from road freight legs and, crucially, workers at the site many oif whom will almost certainly travel from some distance as the workforce required is simply unavailable locally. Again this will lead to onceared pollution and road movements is therefore is in direct conflict with the fundamental aims of the SRFI policy. The damage to the local wildlife environment will be huge, a number of key wildlife sites are directly threatened and widlife will be extinguished. The meadows & woods either side of the railway line provide a home and movements corridor for many species (insects, birds, bats, deer), the proposed Roade bypass (and construction activity) will devastate a widlife rich (and rare) piece of meadow, this is a true wildfile hotspot and nothing quite like it exists for miles around. We can expect to see a huge reduction in the current numbers of all the species using this. The absurdity of this level of environmental destruction in the name of 'the environment' is quite clear to me. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Chambers
"This development will have disastrous impact on the local environment, the roads and infrastructure are totally unsuitable for a development of this size and scope. Any problems on one of the main arterial routes - M1 or A43 will send traffic through unsuitable minor roads and through small villages."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Hagon
"1. This area is already hugely congested with traffic, particularly suffering from a large number of accidents on the M1. The extra traffic generated by both commercial vehicles and staff going to and from their workplace would make an already difficult situation quite intolerable and self-defeating, and the added pollution would create a considerable danger to the health of the local population. 2. There appears to be no need for such a development when there is already an existing facility at DIRFT only 18 miles away. 3. West Coast Mainline does not have the capacity for more trains (except at the expense of passenger services) so to this project is unlikely to be a RAIL Freight Interchange. 4. As the population of this country continues to increase it makes absolutely no sense to concrete over more and more productive farmland - where is our food coming from in the future? More imports is not what we, as a country, need."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Townsend
"1. The site is to have high earth bunding around it to limit the view of the development. The budding itself would be out of place in a flat landscape and a blot on the landscape. 2. The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only 2/3 suction ups the M1 and currently serves this area. It has capacity to expand and makes the proposed site superfluous. In addition with the 2 sites being so close it makes the prosed site less than strategic and it does not fit within Government Guide Lines. 3. Given that the area has a low unemployment level new employees to man the building will have to commute to the area. This will increase road traffic, congestion and pollution and is less than "green"."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rajapha Sumpton
"I am writing to object to the Northampton Gateway development. Some of my family live in Milton Malsor and we visit them on a lot. We very much enjoy walking on the footpath to a pub in the next village a footpath that will be destroyed if the development goes on. I am a national of Thailand but live in England for many years. In Thailand we have no footpaths like England, people here are very lucky and it gives great pleasure to be able to walk on this footpath, enjoy the country views and the birdlife. I take pictures to send back to Thailand and tell them of the pleasure to walk this footpath. Please help ensure that this is kept for people to enjoy rather that the noise from the main roads. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Smith
"By far the majority of the jobs will be fulfilled out of the area, increasing journeys, traffic, noise and pollution, as well as the massive increase in haulage traffic to the area. This influx of new workers will impact the local traffic volume in the surrounding area and will increase in excess of the road structure's capability at peak times, including already too busy A roads and motorway junctions, causing many delays, nuisance and increased pollution for locals residents. The impact to Milton Malsor village (and surrounding villages), their culture and school will be detrimental, including traffic increasing in the village putting residents, particularly children, at greater risk. The local villages are not well designed for traffic, which causes a major safety concern. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sheila Fitchett
"OBJECTION I strongly object to the proposal for Roxhill's Northampton Gateway planning application on traffic grounds. With 24/7 use of the site pollution will increase significantly encompassing air, noise and light pollution. I also consider that there is no need whatsoever for an additional SRFI in this region bringing with it detrimental factors such as the afore mentioned pollution and increased traffic on surrounding roads and through villages near the site. Please bear in mind that Northampton Gateway would be only 18 miles from a larger freight yard. If approved, as well as overcrowded roads which will cause delays, more than 500 acres of glorious farmland will be lost, wildlife habitat will be destroyed, flowers can't flourish when covered with tarmac and concrete and there will be nothing to attract the butterflies and birds. The environmental damage that will be achieved if this unnecessary proposal is approved will be huge."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Veronica Gutierrrez
"There are many reasons for my lodging an objection to this proposal. The main one being the increase in traffic as this area is already congested and often comes to a standstill during peak times. The department of Transport has already indicated that there will be severe congestion on the M1 J15-17 without this development. The proposed Northampton Gateway would be 18 miles away from existing larger facilities meaning a large convoy of HGVs on mass in this area. The site will destroy not only the life and soul of many villages, but the proposed 520 acres contains wildlife habitats that gives sanctuary to many of the wild life species that have been present in this area for hundreds of years. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Gough
"The developer has failed to conduct a proper Assessment of Alternative Sites, presenting instead a simple choice between Northampton Gateway and Rail Central. This is a significant non-compliance with planning legislation and disregards the principal aim of NPSNN to establish a “network across the regions”. The developer has made fundamental errors in the socio-economic chapter, basing their calculations on total population rather than on working population. This has overstated the benefit to South Northamptonshire, whilst simultaneously under-representing commuting from outside of the study area. This implies a significant non-compliance with NPSNN requirements for availability of labour. No Statement of Common Ground has been agreed with Network Rail. The application is premature, since the design has reached only GRIP Stage 2. Northampton Gateway is located on a constrained rail corridor, whose priority is, and always will be, to prioritise passenger capacity to serve the commuter markets to and from London. Planned investment in the Strategic Rail Network targets the major freight flows from Felixstowe and Southampton to the West Midlands, effectively bypassing Northampton Gateway to the West and North. Only when paths are released by HS2 would there be any real prospect of significant modal shift. The mere prospect of future capacity should not be used as justification for consent as it cannot be guaranteed. Alternative sites exist that are better able to take advantage of investments made in other infrastructure schemes, such as the development of port-centric logistics and specific investments in increasing rail freight capacity. The proposed scale of the development is in excess of that needed in Northamptonshire, according to Network Rail’s own forecasts. Market demand for Northampton Gateway is primarily driven by a shortage of high-quality, large-footprint buildings, not by any proven desire to enact modal shift. The proposed site was dismissed by Prologis during the discussion of alternatives for DIRFT III in 2013. In my opinion, Prologis’ assessment that the Northampton Loop could only support a sub-regional facility remains extant. Furthermore, Prologis’ assessment that Northampton Gateway could “work with” DIRFT III is also correct. We are effectively being asked to approve “DIRFT IV”, without a proper assessment of the national network context and justification. The historic take-up of space at DIRFT is less than 50,000m2 per annum. Unless a major change in buyer behaviour can be proven, DIRFT III will provide capacity for over 15 years. Granting development consent to Northampton Gateway would risk the environmental success of DIRFT by creating a situation whereby both sites competed for the same train paths. Priority should be given to filling gaps in the national network of SRFIs, through schemes that provide new routes to the deep-water ports from locations North of the A14 / M6 corridor, such as Hinckley NRFI and West Midlands Interchange. I am not convinced that Northampton Gateway has made the case for a SRFI development of national importance, in this location, at this time. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carol Thorn
"This proposed development will annihilate local communities and vast stretches of beautiful countryside and farmland. There is no current need for this development, as the DIRFT is only 18 miles away and is expanding. The development of further warehousing is unnecessary as there is already an issue within the locality for filling existing warehouses. The suggestion that it will create jobs is also an issue, as Northamptonshire has a large number of warehousing and associated jobs that it is unable to fill from the local workforce. This development would mean additional workforce travelling into the area, or requiring housing in the area which is already in short supply. The additional traffic created both in construction and running of the facility will very negatively affect local road systems which are already overloaded and will also cause additional safety concerns to our most vulnerable residents (old people & children). The DoT already expects severe congestion on the M1 J15 -17 by 2040, and we are already locally seeing the adverse effects of congestion on the M1 diverting heavy traffic through our villages. The level of light and noise pollution from this facility running 24/7 will be unbearable, it is already very noticeable overnight when repairs are carried out on the railway system. It is also doubtful that the rail network is capable of supporting this facility without further rail expansion and removal of passenger traffic. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Howard Elwick
"There are of course interested parties with financial gain as their motivation. The objections of local communities to the project are well documented. This is an opportunity for Planing Authority to demonstrate an awareness of the threat that these local communities feel they are under and respond accordingly by halting the application now. You are urged to listen to the voices of local people who have no financially vested interests and who simply do not want their lives blighted by this proposed development that on all counts is unnecessary. It duplicates an already existing larger nearby facility and is thus surplus to requirements in this location."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Edwards
"This proposal is unnecessary given the similar facilities in the county which are already underused. It is a speculative attempt by a commercial organisation to profit from the destruction of countryside. It would destroy large areas of several villages, lead to major increases in traffic volumes in and around the affected areas and blight the lives of all those living in the villages and other nearby areas. This development is NOT REQUIRED and should be refused."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Neil Douglas
"I strongly object to the Northampton gateway development.junction15 and the a508 are already heavily congested and no amount of tinkering with the road layout will help.Along with the light and noise pollution .All adding to create an environmental disaster"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adam Fox
"I am strongly objecting. I live in Roade and work in Northampton. The roads, particularly J15, are already congested, and the creased rail freight traffic and employee traffic. Most importantly though I can't see the need; there is an international rail freight terminal in Daventry, which is a very short distance away. It seems ridiculous to spend all that money, do all the construction,and create all that pollution when the same site already exists about 20 miles away."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Newbery (Andrew Newbery)
"I would like to register my strong objection to the proposed "Northampton Gateway" scheme as I believe the effects on the locality have been totally underestimated. I was born in and have lived in Blisworth all my 65 years and therefore I have a great appreciation for this area and the beauty of the countryside that we have. I will keep it simple in that in my view the traffic generated by this complex WILL as I see it massively affect the surrounding villages .Having spoken to representatives of the project at a meeting in Blisworth , they were unable to alay my fears with their " computer simulations " of expected traffic / dedicated feeder roads etc. What you cannot get around is the enormous issue of the M1 and what happens when it has to be closed due to accidents ( a regular occurence in these parts!). At the moment this results in the A5 through south northants being the diversionary route , totally inadequate and at a standstill all day .The section of the M1 adjacent to this development is probably the busiest in Europe ! So how can you possibly reassure us that traffic chaos will not ensue at times like that ! I'm sorry but there are too many risk factors in it that would destroy our villages as we know them through traffic chaos....I fervently object ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Wray
"Noise, light and air pollution. Given the development and traffic flowing to and from the site will be operating 24/7, the pollution would dramatically increase in the area. As a local resident this is unacceptable and would be detrimental to my own health and my family. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graeme Cecil Joll
"1 The existing traffic flow around Junction 15 is already clogging the neighbouring roads mostly at peak times and the proposed increased heavy traffic use will render the area unusable. 2. The existing traffic fumes and noise pollution are higher than the government recommendation and this problem will be exaggerated by the increase in diesel vehicles 3. Warehousing in this area is already increasing to add to the above problems and the existing DIRFT some 18 miles away and purpose built has underused capacity 4. The proposal would remove some 500 acres of productive farmland 5. The proposal for this development to be decided by central government rather than elected local planning authorities is not appropriate where national importance is not an issue"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gwyneth Mair Jagger
"I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE PROPOSAL FOR THE FOLLOWING OUTLINE REASONS- 1 THE LOCATION IS INAPPROPRIATE - IN AN AREA OF OPEN COUNTRYSIDE THAT NEEDS PROTECTION AND TOO CLOSE TO SEVERAL RURAL VILLAGES 2 IT IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE WEST NORTHANTS JOINT CORE STRATEGY WHCH COVERS OUR DETAILED PLANNING UNTIL 2029 3 PINS HAVE ALREADY REJECTED A SIMILAR INTERCHANGE FOR THIS AREA. 4 THERE IS ALREADY ADEQUATE CAPACITY UNTIL 2031 AT THE NEARBY DIRFT INTERCHANGE 5 DISRUPTION TO LOCAL ROADS DURING THE LONG CONSTRUCTION PERIOD AND MORE TRAFFIC 'RAT RUNNING' THROUGH MILTON MALSOR 6 IT WILL OVERWHELM OUR LOVELY RURAL VILLAGE AND SPOIL OUR WAY OF LIFE "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Heather Mair
"I object to the above development for the following reasons, It will add significantly too air, light and noise pollution. It will increase both commuter and commercial traffic in the area. It will disrupt local wildlife. It will take away a large piece of countryside from the area that cannot be replaced. We moved to a village to be able to benefit from the things that are potentially being taken away from us now."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jason Lynch
"This development will bring too much traffic to roads already struggling with congestion. I am personally worried regarding noise and air pollution. Dirft at Daventry has room for expansion and should be used to capacity before other developments are considered that are geographically close."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karla Brown
"I am strongly objecting to this development. Northampton gateway will be only 18 miles from an existing larger facility so is not actually necessary. The volume of traffic already cutting through Blisworth as a shortcut to the motorway is already heavy in rush hour and I can only think this trend will worsen if this development goes ahead and as it is 24/7 our village will be subject to constant traffic continuously. The roads around junction 15 regulary come to a standstill due to large volume of traffic and this will obviously get much worse with this development. Aside from air pollution, there are environmental concerns around loss of habitat and farmland with 520 acres being destroyed. The villages on this side of the m1 are currently separate from Northampton but this development will encourage further development joining all the villages up and they will lose the village community feeling. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Keith Robert Whitburn
"I attended the Roxhill presentation in October 2017 at Roade Primary School. There has been no feedback since then with regards to my objections as follows: 1. I live in the Village of Ashton and there is no indication as to whether traffic will come through this Village. Or the intentions of Stoke Road leading on to the A508. The current proposal makes no suggestion as to how people can access or egress Stoke Road on to the A508. I would like clarification on this. 2. Roxhill undertook a traffic survey in 2017 when the roadworks at the end of the A508 at the Stony Road-a-bout had major roadworks and people were avoiding the A508 like the plague. Roxhill's estimations of 800 cars per day are wholly iaccurate. I have stood at the end of the A508 on various Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays and the traffic per hour going from the M1 junction 15 down the A508 to the Stony Round-a-bout is approximately 425 per hour. I would like clarification on this. 3. Roxhill were unable to clarify whether the numbers of trains at night would be 8 or 12 per evening, 7-days a week and whether they would run 24-hours a day and 7-days a week. I would like clarification on this. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lesley Goodship
"I have lived in the village for over 25 years, moving here to live a peaceful life within a village community. The building of a SRFI will destroy both this village and Milton Malsor. There is absolutely no need for a further SRFI when the nearby DIRFT is under-utilised. Warehouse units along the M1 remain unoccupied. HGVs cutting through the village to avoid traffic jams on the M1 and A43 will have a detrimental effect on the Listed historic buildings, mine included. The M1 is already congested at peak times, both at J15 and J15A. There have been continuous roadworks on the M1 between Birmingham and Luton (and beyond) and this will entail further roadworks. Noise from the construction will ruin the peaceful environment and wildlife will leave the area. I strongly object to this proposal. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lucy Watkins-Brady
"Concerns the infrastructure in place will not support and will cause negative impact on local travel"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Rosemary Joll
"The pressure on local roads is already absolutely impossible and there are hold ups and delays often as much as three times a week,making travelling very difficult. The level of air pollution and noise are already well above acceptable levels and local authorities are already charged with reducing levels rather than increasing hem. I cannot accept that yet another warehouse development combined with a rail terminal can in any way be good investment, particularly in view of the fact that Drift at Daventry already is an underused facility. How can it be acceptable to ruin local villages and countryside for no good reason.together with footpaths and beautiful countryside. It has already been proved that large industrial developments give rise to urban crime, so how can it be justifiable to subject villages involved in the plan to crime, when such development is unnecessary Finally I find it totally unacceptable for consent for such a development to be given by central government when Northamptonshire has its own Planning Department and presumably is far more aware of the problems with traffic etc in the local area . "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Matthew Taylor
"I believe that this proposal, should it go ahead, would have the following negative impacts •increased traffic and congestion in ab already busy area •increased emissions and pollution •noise and light pollution The proposed development has failed to demonstrate that it meets the strategic intent of a SRFI, given that there are multiple SRFIs already and under development in a relatively small geographic area. I urge the planning inspectorate to reject this application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michelle Fynan
"We live in close proximity as we live in Collingtree. There is already a lot of noise from the A45/M1 and this will add additional traffic growth and therefore noise pollution. When traffic is an issue, people use Collingtree to cut through and traffic growth would be expected also impacting this. I have just moved here with my husband and we like the countryside around. This will have a detrimental impact on the countryside around. I have heard that there would be direct footpaths coming into Collingtree and this could impact crime in the area. We moved here due to the nice location with our daughter for her to grow in a nice location. Overall, the impact of this would not be nice for us for a number of reasons above and also I believe it will impact the value of our house which we would lose out on. From my reading I have read there are other options in Daventry which is currently being underused. I am unclear on the reasons for the rail freight in Northampton due to all of these reasons. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Clare Reece
"Traffic on the M1, junction 15. The increase in traffic will have a major negative impact on part of the M1 that is already struggling with the weight of traffic. Proposed changes to the roads around the junction do not increase capacity on the motorway, and it already works at a standstill on most days. Traffic around junction 15. This is already an incredibly busy area, with A roads around the junction again working at a standstill on many occasions. Again, the proposed changes will not address these issues heading into Northampton. Pollution. As someone who lives close to the proposed development I am incredibly concerned at the level of pollution this will bring due to the increase in HGVs. There is a lot of research recently released regarding the negative impact on people of pollution from diesel vehicles and I am worried as this is going to impact on my health. Other developments. Already approved is a 1,000 home development close to junction 15 which will incease feeder traffic greatly. This will again increase traffic on feeder roads to the motorway and, as previously stated, there is no plan to increase capacity on theM1 at junction 15. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nick Muir
"I strongly object to the application to create the Northampton gateway Rail Interchange. I grew up within a few hundred yards of the proposed development and understand fully the damage the proposal will create. My parents still live in our family home. We have supported the village that this development will blight for 40 years and i hope to return with my family in the years to come. I believe the proposed development to be surplus to requirement as there is already in construction another national rail freight interchange within a 20 mile radius at the Daventry International Rail freight Terminal. The application is in direct contradiction of a number of local and national core strategies, the WNJCS is the foundation of all planning strategy for the area until 2029. The Daventry development already has planning approval to double in size with a third stage development already agreed. There is no need for 2 international terminals within such a close proximity. This very planning inspectorate in 2013 and 2014 conluded that there is no need for new strategic development in open countryside as there is sufficient land already agreed and set aside alongside the M1 at J16 & J18. This proposal is one of many submitted by this landowner to leverage their historic ownership of land adjacent to a growing residential area. There is need for residential development around Northampton but there is no need for this industrial sprawl when there is already agreed facilities in development within 20 miles. This development will blight an area of open countryside enjoyed by all resident of Northampton and already overburden a road network insufficient to cope with the current levels of traffic. A rail freight terminal by its very nature will increase significantly road usage as trucks leave the site having collected goods from the terminal. Stop this inappropriate overdevelopment of what is currently protected open countryside and protect a number of Northamptonshire villages from being blighted. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ralph Baxter MBE
"There are so many reasons as to why this proposal is so wrong. Firstly, it's not needed. There is an underused freight terminal just up the road at DIRFT. It is therefore quite clear that the rail link one massive red herring, designed to circumvent local planning authorities to decide whether a massive whare-housing facility should be built adjacent to its real target of the M!. The amount of additional traffic on already overcrowded roads would simply cause chaos. Simply putting in a by-pass for Roade and a little bit of dual carriageway will not improve things for people trying to get into and more particularly out of Roade. Past experience of such developments (DIRFT) has seen a massive increase in crime, this should neither be ignored nor inflicted upon local residents. In summary, there will be no benefits whatsoever for local residents and a massive disruption to the area in terms of pollution, loss of wildlife, footpaths etc for what - whare-houses. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sandra O
"Need: DIRFT which is approximately 18 miles away has capacity for a number of years therefore I feel there is not room for another interchange. Environment: We live in a rural setting this development will mean increased noise, light and air pollution affecting the villages surrounding proposed site.This area also has many footpaths which I use both personally and as a scout leader, these will be destroyed and with it the wildlife within those areas. Areas, as scouters, we use to encourage our young people to learn and respect the countryside. Safety: With increased traffic and personnel in this area, which is already frequently congested, safety will be a major issue and the likelihood of more accidents endangering the villages population. Residency: With an increased workforce in the area more houses will be required by workers and their families moving to the area. Resulting in further developments around Northampton towards the villages and an increase in property values already an issue for the younger generation wishing to buy property in their home area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Alan George Mitchell
"The consequences of building Roxhill's Northampton Gateway will mean a) extra freight trains on the Northampton loop resulting in reduced passenger rail service opportunities for Northampton b) increased road traffic on our already crowded roads with the increased air pollution that will create. c) the loss of many acres of farmland and the associated wildlife habitat. These disruptions to people's lives are not really necessary or needed as the existing larger facility at DIRFT is only 18 miles away. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alfred Thompson
"The destruction of agricultural land which cannot be replaced. Once built over can never be used again for farming . We are an expanding population and need food not warehousing. There is already a freight terminal less than 20 miles away which is not working to full capacity Is there really a need for another one so close ?Also our infrastructure is not capable of handling all the extra traffic that would be involved. We have enough problems as it is at the moment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Brinkman
"There are some major concerns with the plan for the Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange plan which will have a negative effect on a number of levels which is why I object to this proposal. The idea of a rail freight interchange is to get HGV traffic off the roads and therefore benefit the environment, with the DIRFT interchange very close by and the DIRFT site being expanded it is very unlikely that the proposed interchange will have a significant benefit to the area. The area of the proposed interchange is currently an area of low unemployment which will mean the majority of workers will have to commute which will overload the current road infrastructure and increase the level of pollution. The ensuing light and noise pollution will severely effect the lives of those living and growing up in the two close by communities of Collingtree and Milton Malsor. The air pollution from the 24 hour HGV traffic will likely effect the long term health of the two communities also. The proposed site will close a number of footpaths and bridleways which will also have a negative effect on the habitat of local wildlife. For the reasons above I strenuously object to the plan for a SRFI in the proposed area and consider the not ion that this is of strategic importance to be no more than a way of bypassing the local planning process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charles Fox
"I strongly object to the Northampton Gateway planning application on the following grounds: • I live on a road, which is a cut through between the A5, via the Banbury Lane, to the A43. Whenever the M1 is blocked around junctions 15 and 16, there is an alarming increase in frustrated motorists driving past our house. This is before an extra 16,500 vehicles use the M1 after the RRI is complete. • Our village is equidistant from Blisworth and Milton Malsor, the two villages to be despoiled by the introduction of the RRI. This will swallow up 520 acres of farmland that was classified between Good and Very Good in a survey produced by Natural England in 2010. Now Brexit has become a reality, we will have to rely less on imported food from Europe and more on our own produce, at the same time encouraging exports outside the EU. • The plans for this development show that enormous warehouses will loom over the two villages destroying their identities. • Our village will have to endure major disruption during the construction phase and will then be subject to continuous noise, light and air pollution as long as the RRI is in action 24/7. • It seems absurd to contemplate this degree of devastation, when only 18 miles away, an effective RRI is in place with room for expansion. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Crispian Besley
"There is no economic requirement or strategic justification apart from profiteering by opportunistic property development companies where there is no demand This is a second concurrent assault on our countryside which will hugely increase traffic in and around the surrounding villages affecting health, safety, noise, light,and will affect the quality of life of my family and neighbours,personally, socially and professionally The combined impact of these two massive warehouse parks will be devastating not on the rural environment but much wider surrounding areas This is based on a theoretical model of a certain number of hubs being required throughout the country rather than a strategic requirement for any in this location when there is already one in the region. Even if the theoretical model has any credence it is based on 2mn square feet not 13mn covering an area larger than Towcester "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Denise Calder
"I very strongly object to this proposed development. My main concerns are noise, light and air pollutions in an area already on limits and local road capacities, I am already living on the A508 and appreciate what any increase will do, as we see on motorway closures presently and the forthcoming Towcester closures, when your pillows vibrate with the traffic volumes, you know this is not a good way to live! I moved to live in a village environment many years ago, now taken in a non strategic proposal with further development threats, no peace from road noise or fumes, who actually will benefit, certainly not local folk generally not looking for this type of employment either. Please look to other existing sites for expansion, eg. Milton Keynes rail/Road linksOxford to Cambridge areas, higher unemployment areas along the motorway corridor."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Glenn Nightingale
"There is no need for this development as there is No strategic need due to DIRFT Policy calls for a small number of SRFI’s across the regions close to the markets they will serve. Northampton Gateway would be 18 miles from an existing larger facility. Noise, light & air pollution, The development and traffic flowing to and from the site would dramatically increase pollution in the area. The site would be operational 24/7 Threat of further development, The M1 currently provides a boundary for development, a strategic gap identified in the South Northamptonshire Local Plan. Once development crosses the boundary more will inevitably follow joining surrounding villages to Northampton. Labour pool, Northamptonshire doesn’t have the available labour required to serve this development, therefore workers would have to travel in from other areas adding to pollution and congestion. Rail capacity & loss of passenger rail services, The West Coast Mainline is the busiest railway in Europe. NCC Highways Authority have stated ‘…increasing freight services over the Loop (line) might require a reduction in the passenger service to Northampton.’ Road capacity, 16,500 additional vehicle movements would cause significant pressure on our already overcrowded roads. The Department for Transport is already warning of severe congestion on the M1 J15-17 by 2040, without this development. Loss of wildlife habitat & farmland, The site would destroy 520 acres of farmland and wildlife habitats and corridors. Crime increase, The areas around DIRFT have seen a 176% increase in crime since 2000/01."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jonathan Moulton
"I categorically and strongly object to this proposal of another Rail Freight Interchange. If this were to be approved it would be yet another RFI within only a few miles of what is already a huge RFI that has the capability to support the needs of any rail freight interchange within the local and South Midlands area and is capable of being expanded for at least the next 10 years. So there is simply no need for this RFI in this immediate area. Approval would only allow for yet another ROAD freight interchange being granted under the guise of a Strategic National Importance. I strongly object for the above reason as my main concern; but with this I strongly object for all of the following knock-on effects and impacts it would have on the local area and community: The local footpath network would be destroyed with existing paths in open countryside being diverted alongside the M1 and the main road between Milton Malsor and Collingtree. There would be increased air pollution for the many thousands of additional vehicles using the local roads. The local road infrastructure is totally inadequate in supporting the huge numbers of HGV's and other vehicles this “RAIL” freight interchange would require. There is a very low unemployment rate in the Northampton area, any new jobs would only be filled by more people travelling in to the area on a daily basis- this doesn't meet the requirements of having a vast local development. Increased noise and more specifically light and noise pollution at night would be unavoidable making local residents lives a misery having windows shut all the time; the area is at present particularly unspoilt by artificial light pollution. The proposal of having huge earth mounds to disguise the development would in themselves actually be an eye sore and spoil the wonderful open views that presently exist. The existing loop line is entirely inadequate in supporting the huge volumes of rail freight traffic that has been falsely claimed to be worthy of this new development. The existing mainline is predominantly for the use of mainline passenger train movement and such would not be able to reduce its' passenger movements sufficiently in order to support such a RFI. The Joint Core Strategy which provides for a planned balance of new jobs and housing states that only 3 strategic employment sites should be considered in the area- Silverstone; Dirft; and M1 Junction 16. Finally, it is without doubt that the extremely vast majority of residents in the local area of almost 30 Parishes object to this proposal; but it is unfortunately unlikely that the vast majority will be able to object in this formal manner- either they do not have the capability to object online; they will have missed the deadline which has not been widely publicised (only by the action groups against the proposal); or simply because they have unfortunately been misguided and think it is inevitable and what is the point. [Redaction]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kim Baish
"The development and traffic flowing to and from the site would dramatically increase pollution in the area. 16,500 additional vehicle movements would cause significant pressure on our already overcrowded roads. The Department for Transport is already warning on congestion on the M1 J15 -17 without this development. The site would be operational 24/7 causing light, noise and air pollution increasing 24/7."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Louise Smith
"Main concerns are the destruction of yet more countryside and wildlife. Loosing our beautiful villages as this will encourage further development bringing Northampton over the M1. Pollution and more congestion. The M1 already has signicant congestion and delays, forcing drivers to seek alternative routes through our villages. Why do we always want bigger and better!!! Its all about money money money, the sad world we live in. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
M P Pell
"I object because it will destroy hundreds of acres of local countryside. The site will be "a blot on the landscape". The destruction of wildlife habitat for farmland birds where the habitat loss cannot be compensated for. The loss of farmland when the country needs to produce more food and not import it. The destruction of local footpath network between Milton Malsor and Collingtree would be diverted alongside the Collingtree road and the M1 motorway. Increased traffic through the village. Increased air pollution from thousands of extra cars, vans and HGV's in the local area. The proposed no right turns at the junction of Courteenhall Rd and the A508. Would mean traffic diverting thru the centre of Blisworth etc. Noise created by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal - shunting,loading and uloading of Containers. Light pollution from night time operations. The area has very low unemployment so the majority of workers would have to travel some distant to work adding to congestion and pollution. All the local plans show this site being retained as farmland and open countryside not industrial development. The DaventryInternational Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only a short distance away from this site, it serves the same local area and has capacity for expansion for over 10 years. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Malcolm Deacon
"A development which will ruin the rural nature of the area for ever, and one which is totally unnecessary as DIRFT is only a short distance away and has capacity for development for the next decade at least."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nigel Chandler
"Ref Planning Application (PA) from Roxhill's, Northampton Gateway. I'm objecting to the PA, my objections are as follows: 1. The close proximity to the DIRFT complex a few miles up the M1. Another logistics park is not needed this close. 2. The promised employment is not needed in this area. Northampton has a low unemployment rate. The requirement to staff this complex could not be met from local supply. We would be in a similar situation to DIRFT, where workers are bused in. 3. I use Junction 15 to travel to work, southbound in the morning and northbound in the evenings. This is a busy junction, I regularly get held up at this junction. Even with the propose changes to J15 I can't see the junction been able to cope with the additional freight and staff traffic. 4. The effect on local wildlife would be devastating. There is a considerable amount of road kill on the A508. I can only see this increasing. Affecting in particular badgers and deer. 5. The area is a framland which has been farmed for centuries. This supplies habitat for local wildlife. Local footpaths would be lost across great countryside. 6. The noise, light and vehicle pollution will be horrific for all living close to the complex. 24 hours site operation requiring flood lighting, vehicle and train movements, including shunting operations will impact seriously on people's sleep patterns. 7. On my movement around the local area there are a number of similar warehouses standing empty. At J13 M1 there is a new warehouse complex, which has stood empty for several months now, still up for its first letting. Also there are building more in the area. 8. I would expect to see crime raise in the area, with truck and rail car theft. With this bringing opportunist thieves into the area, local housing would be targeted. 9. I've read several reports on rail capacity on the mainline and loop rails. The available capacity on the lines is very limited. Rail operators have stated to accommodate this complex, passenger traffic may need to be reduced. This whole proposal is not one that is required in this area. I believe this proposal is against all local interest, and I strongly object to PA been granted to Roxhill. Reagrds [Redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patrick Barlow
"I would like to make the following pints which I believe totally support the rejection of this planning application. 1. The government directive is for small SFR's close to the markets they will serve. There is already a SFR 18 miles from this proposed applicatication which already has spare capacity. 2. The road access of the proposed site would exit on to the A508, a single carriageway road which is already officially over capacity and frequently causes tailbacks of over 1.5 miles and in the event of a holdup on the M1 which passes close by, these tailbacks can extend over 2.5 miles through the village of Roade. This application if passed would add a further 16000 vehicle movements. The developer 'Roxhill' has offered to build a bypass around Roade villiage suggesting that this would solve the traffic problem. However this is not true, it only diverts traffic around the village and does not ease account for the primary traffic on the A508. 3. The additional traffic which significantly increase the traffic pollution in the area, as well as the light and noise pollution. 4. The M1 motorway current provides a boundary between northampton and rural farmland. Any development south of this boundary would inevitably lead to more housing development swallowing up local villages into Northampton. These villages have already had additional large developments and are now suffering from over burdened local infrastucture. This would also mean a loss of farmland and local wildlife. 5. Northampton does not have the required labour to support such a development and therefore this would have to be brought in from outside the area leading to a further increase of traffic, pollution and congestion. 6. NCC Highways Authority have already stated that any increase in rail freight services may may require a reduction in the passenger service to Northampton. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
A P Walgate
"Need It is very questionable whether there is a need for this facility adjacent to this section of the M1 Motorway. My understanding of the criteria for such developments is that they should be placed strategically around the country, not in close proximity to other RFTs. There is already a massive Rail Freight Interchange only 20 miles away on the M1 at DIRFT, which is currently being enlarged. So the need for this development in this location is not proven. Traffic & road congestion Junction 15 of the M1 is already heavily congested with regular periods on a daily basis when traffic is at a standstill. Even if this junction is re-designed it will still continue to create a bottleneck as the A45 and A508 are major through routes with high traffic flows. In addition the A508 south from this junction has already reached practical capacity during busy periods and any development that creates more traffic on this road will inevitably lead to more pollution and a significant increase in the use of the adjacent rural roads as 'rat runs'. The large numbers of HGV movements associated with this development will be severely detrimental to traffic flows on the adjacent M1, A45 and A508. In addition as there is low unemployment in the surrounding areas the vast majority of employees will only add to the congestion, as they will be travelling long distances from outside the area, not only creating unnecessary air pollution but also putting added pressure on the rural road network. The villages of Blisworth & Roade already suffer from daily traffic congestion. Air & Light Pollution The site is at present mainly farmland with little visible lighting except that on the M1 Motorway. The glare from this development will be significant and would create an unnecessary intrusion into this rural locality. The adjacent M1 corridor is already generating high levels of air pollution and to add another 16,000plus HGVs and around 5,000 cars daily to this would be detrimental and cause added health hazards to residents in the surrounding areas. Employment As already stated, there is a low level of unemployment in this part of Northamptonshire, therefore employees at this site would mostly be coming longer distances on already congested roads. Thereby increasing pollution and traffic problems. There is not a current need to generate significant employment opportunities in this area. Planning precedence Any development to the south of the M1 Motorway will be contrary to The South Northamptonshire Local Plan and should therefore be refused. It would also set a precedent for further development to the south of the motorway which would be unacceptable in local planning terms."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carl Bullwright
"I would like to object to the Northampton Gateway Rail Interchange for the following reasons: 1.) Traffic Growth - we live less than a mile away from A45/Junction 15 link and it is already heavily congested at peak hours and often outside of them. There is already increased pressure forecast because of approved new developments expecting to carry 60000 vehicles per day by 2026. If the Gateway was built it would add an extra 16000 vehicle trips per day with over 4000 of these being diesel HGVs. The network simply can't cope. 2.) Pollution - the centre of Collingtree village already has pollution levels above the legal limits. As my wife is an asthmatic, the air pollution levels need to be reduced immediately not added to. There is also significant Noise and Light pollution already. The Local authorities are required to reduce all of these levels - not approve a plan that would increase them. 3.) Warehouse Blight - the county is already dominated by warehouses and the purpose of the designed DIRFT Rail Freight Interchange facility in Daventry is only 18 miles away and has underused capacity. 4.) Local Democracy - if approve this project would be imposed by central government using compulsory purchase powers rather than by locally accountable planning authorities. This is NOT a project of over-riding national importance. 5.) Loss of Countryside - over 500 acres of productive farmland and wildlife habit would disappear altogether with the rerouting of ancient public footpaths."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charlotte Jackson
"I wish to object to this development most strongly as not required in this part of the county when there is already a freight depot at Rugby which can be utilised. Development is no where near the railway so freight will be transported by road which will increase vehicles on already congested infrastructure."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Thompson
"I object to this proposal on the grounds of traffic congestion which is already excessive on the M1 and A45. Both roads are at a standstill each working day and Junction 15 of the M1 is operating beyond capacity for several hours on weekdays. Additionally this stretch of the M1 is about to be upgraded to "smart motorway" with work to extend until 2022. It would be unreasonable to undertake any of the proposed improvements whilst this upgrade was taking place. Other developments in the area will increase traffic significantly. Air quality in the area of the roads is already unsatisfactory. The proposed development area is open farmland, included in any development plan. There are public rights of way which are regularly used by Ramblers and dog walkers. The proposed rerouting is entirely unsatisfactory as it requires walkers to walk alongside the M1 for a considerable distance."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Gidden
"I am concerned that there is little need for a rail freight interchange, existing facilities 20 minutes further North may not be at full capacity. I am concerned about the traffic congestion and air quality impacts. I cycle on the minor roads in this area which may increasingly become rat runs. Any increase in population will increase pressure on GPS and schools. I am not convinced that any economic benefits will be a benefit to the local community."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Orr
"I wish to object to this invasive planning application in the strongest terms. My reasons are varied but include: 1) The wildlife in this area, so badly hit by intrusive development in recent years, is recovering. Small birds, buitterflies, bees, rodents and small mammals are all increasing in population. Further significant disruption such as this will stop the recovery in more than 500 acres of precious farmland and wildlife habitat. 2) History should teach us lesons. My home will be sub jct to an increased risk of crime. DIRFT surounding properties have sen an increase in crime of 176% since the turn of the century. Will the developers be recompensing me for the effect of this on house price and cost in the case of crime - of course not. But they are creating the increased crime isue. 3) DIRFT I object to increase noise, light and air pollution. We paid a premium to escape it from our inner city house. 4) The encrouchment across the M1 boundary opens the door for a development bonanza further damaging the countryside. 5) 16,500 extra vehicle movements would create huge pressure on already overcrowded roads. DOT is already warning of severe conjection on M1 even without this development. 6) Northants does not have the labour pool rwquired to service this facility. Workers wil need to travel in presenting aextra eco pressures and pollution/cojjection. 7) Passenger capaicity on West Coast Mainline likely t be hit as NCC Highways Authority has warned "increasing freight service over the loopline will require a reduction in passenger services to Northampton." Just when we are developing a greater use of railculture."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Diane Dorner
"I strongly object to this development as the road links around the area are already often heavily congested and not necessarily at peak times. If the development were to go ahead this would further increase traffic and cause major disruptions, if and when the inevitable holdups occur on the M1, A45, A43, A508 or A5, with traffic using alternative routes through small villages. Northamptonshire does not have available labour to serve the development and traffic flow would increase even further with workers travelling to and from it. DIRFT is very close and therefore this development is not required. Thank you. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Fiona Hooper
"- There are already high levels of air, noise and light pollution in the area which are above legal limits, the increase in traffic would increase this pollution - Traffic congestion is a huge problem in this area and bypassing Roade is unlikely to solve the problem -The villages on the outskirts of Northampton will be ruined - Unemployment in Northampton is relatively low and with only 22% of unemployed people actively looking for work, it would mean workers commuting from other areas adding to the traffic and pollution problem - Over 500 acres of countryside would be destroyed taking away homes for wildlife -Crime has increase by over 150% near DIRFT in the last 20 years. Why do we need another SRFI so close to this one?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gina Key
"I am seriously concerned about these proposals. I have tried to find positives but cannot. I see the proposal of road improvements around Roade as a bribery towards persuading people to agree to this horrific change to the landscape. The local roads are already congested, the air is already polluted and I am worried for the future of my children if this scheme goes ahead - it will increase traffic, cause additional stress with increased journey times, increase pollution levels and increase poor health as a result. The green and quiet areas full of wildlife and farms - people’s livelihoods would be gone and replaced by terrifyingly huge buildings, with lorries parked in lay-bys, lorry cafes and increased fly tipping and litter. I fully object to Roxhill’s Northampton Gateway."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Metcalfe
"Noise ,Light & Air Pollution. The development and traffic flowing to and from the site would dramatically increase pollution in the area. Gayton would be a cut thro' for traffic from The A5 to Milton Malsor."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kristine Bullwright
"I would like to object to the Northampton Gateway Rail Interchange for the following reasons: 1.) Traffic Growth - we live less than a mile away from A45/Junction 15 link and it is already heavily congested at peak hours and often outside of them. There is already increased pressure forecast because of approved new developments expecting to carry 60000 vehicles per day by 2026. If the Gateway was built it would add an extra 16000 vehicle trips per day with over 4000 of these being diesel HGVs. The network simply can't cope. 2.) Pollution - the centre of Collingtree village already has pollution levels above the legal limits. As an asthmatic, the air pollution levels need to be reduced immediately not added to. There is also significant Noise and Light pollution already. The Local authorities are required to reduce all of these levels - not approve a plan that would increase them. 3.) Warehouse Blight - the county is already dominated by warehouses and the purpose of the designed DIRFT Rail Freight Interchange facility in Daventry is only 18 miles away and has underused capacity. 4.) Local Democracy - if approve this project would be imposed by central government using compulsory purchase powers rather than by locally accountable planning authorities. This is NOT a project of over-riding national importance. 5.) Loss of Countryside - over 500 acres of productive farmland and wildlife habit would disappear altogether with the rerouting of ancient public footpaths."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Leigh Mann
"I am extremely concerned that this project could go ahead without of due consideration for the well being of the people that rely on M1 junction 15 as a way of getting to Northampton and to commute North and South on the M1. there does not appear to be a need for this development whilst DRIFT at junction 18 has many years of further development to come, surely as this reaches it's final phase and HS2 is nearing completion, that would be the right time to consider the UK's infrastructure needs and decide on where another terminal should be located? Please reject the proposal."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lesley Susan Sellers
"This huge development will have a devastating affect on Collingtree Village, Milton Malsor, Roade and Blisworth. I see no justification for what is an opportunistic application which is similar to an earlier unsuccessful application by the same developer. The main issues are traffic congestion and the subsequent air and noise pollution. That this is already an area under pressure and potential breach of Air Quality legislation, is beyond dispute. With the purpose designed DIRFT facility only 18 miles away there is little need for a rail linked interchange in this location and I believe the real motivation is yet more warehousing. The engagement with the local communities by Roxhill has been superficial and compounded by the late addition to the application of an 'Aggregates Depot' with virtually no consultation. There is also the prospect of another huge rail linked warehouse park 'Rail Central' being built on adjoining land. If both were allowed this would see over 1100 acres of open land replaced with 13 million sq ft of warehousing and thousands more vehicle trips on local roads. I object to this proposed development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Haigh
"I OBJECT to the building of this rail freight terminal.Travelling once or twice a week to and from Northampton I have noticed how much traffic has increased on the M1.To put this terminal in a place that already has a lot of congestion is ludicrous.It will cause disruption because of extra traffic in the local villages when there are problems on the M1.The local environment will also suffer.We are already losing a lot of our farmland birds because of building on our green belt. Also the pollution in the atmosphere from the building of this terminal would cause health problems for the people in the surrounding area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lyndsey Harvey
"I object strongly to the proposed Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange, because of the impact it will have upon my family and the local area. I live in Stoke Bruerne, less than 3 miles from the proposed site, with my husband and young sons. This proposal has the potential to significantly reduce our quality of life. Roxhill have not provided any compelling reasons in favour of their plans, so I am drawn to conclude that this is a purely speculative financial proposition that is neither in the local or national interest. My specific objections are as follows: Personal impact a) Road capacity & safety With low unemployment in the area, the 6000 people Roxhill say will work there, will inevitably be drawn from a wider area and travel by car, in addition to thousands of lorry movements. The M1 and ‘A’ roads are plainly already congested. ‘Rat-running’ through Stoke Bruerne has increased in recent years and spikes whenever there’s an accident on the major roads. The road alterations proposed by Roxhill offer little benefit to residents and no significant mitigation of the congestion and road safety risks that will arise to pedestrians and cyclists from thousands of additional vehicle movements. I am unconvinced by Roxhill’s claim that lorries will not navigate local villages. As a parent I am acutely aware of the danger that speeding vehicles pose and I do not want this risk to be increased. b) Noise and air pollution The increase in traffic acknowledged by Roxhill and proposed 24/7 running of the site will inevitably increase these types of pollution. This will negatively affect my family’s quality of life, with vehicle fumes in particular increasing the health risk to children (who are more vulnerable) from particulates and carcinogens. The proposal runs counter to the Government’s longstanding commitment to reduce air pollution. c) Threat of additional development The rural nature of Stoke Bruerne was one of the factors that drew me to the area. Roxhill’s proposal directly threatens this because the M1 represents a boundary for development in the South Northamptonshire Local Plan. If this boundary is breached it will provide a pretext to allow yet more development, fundamentally altering the character of the area. d) Increased crime There has been a substantial increase in recorded crime around the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) site. I do not want the risk to my family’s safety or property to be needlessly increased in the same way. General impact e) Strategic Need This proposal conflicts with the agreed Strategic Plan for the region that specifically excludes industrial development at this location. Roxhill have not demonstrated any economic requirement that cannot be served by the existing and expandable DIRFT. f) Democratic deficit Roxhill’s argument that this proposal be decided by central Government is a clear attempt to bypass the locally accountable planning process. g) Rail capacity The West Coast Mainline is already at capacity and DIRFT can cater for any foreseeable expansion, so there is no benefit in Roxhill’s proposal. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Harvey
"I object strongly to the proposed Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange, because of the impact it will have upon my family and the local area. I live in Stoke Bruerne, less than 3 miles from the proposed site, with my wife and young sons. This proposal has the potential to significantly reduce our quality of life. Roxhill have not provided any compelling reasons in favour of their plans, so I am drawn to conclude that this is a purely speculative financial proposition that is neither in the local or national interest. My specific objections are as follows: Personal impact a) Road capacity & safety With low unemployment in the area, the 6000 people Roxhill say will work there, will inevitably be drawn from a wider area and travel by car, in addition to thousands of lorry movements. The M1 and ‘A’ roads are plainly already congested. ‘Rat-running’ through Stoke Bruerne has increased in recent years and spikes whenever there’s an accident on the major roads. The road alterations proposed by Roxhill offer little benefit to residents and no significant mitigation of the congestion and road safety risks that will arise to pedestrians and cyclists from thousands of additional vehicle movements. I am unconvinced by Roxhill’s claim that lorries will not navigate local villages. As a parent I am acutely aware of the danger that speeding vehicles pose and I do not want this risk to be increased. b) Noise and air pollution The increase in traffic acknowledged by Roxhill and proposed 24/7 running of the site will inevitably increase these types of pollution. This will negatively affect my family’s quality of life, with vehicle fumes in particular increasing the health risk to children (who are more vulnerable) from particulates and carcinogens. The proposal runs counter to the Government’s longstanding commitment to reduce air pollution. c) Threat of additional development The rural nature of Stoke Bruerne was one of the factors that drew me to the area. Roxhill’s proposal directly threatens this because the M1 represents a boundary for development in the South Northamptonshire Local Plan. If this boundary is breached it will provide a pretext to allow yet more development, fundamentally altering the character of the area. d) Increased crime There has been a substantial increase in recorded crime around the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) site. I do not want the risk to my family’s safety or property to be needlessly increased in the same way. General impact e) Strategic Need This proposal conflicts with the agreed Strategic Plan for the region that specifically excludes industrial development at this location. Roxhill have not demonstrated any economic requirement that cannot be served by the existing and expandable DIRFT. f) Democratic deficit Roxhill’s argument that this proposal be decided by central Government is a clear attempt to bypass the locally accountable planning process. g) Rail capacity The West Coast Mainline is already at capacity and DIRFT can cater for any foreseeable expansion, so there is no benefit in Roxhill’s proposal. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rod Sellers
"I object strongly to this speculative development proposal for the following reasons: • The site area is specifically excluded from the agreed West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy. In his Report in 2013, Planning Inspector Nigel Payne said “Consequently, with one exception at J16 M1, there is no need for the plan to identify any further strategic or out of town locations for major new employment development, beyond those already committed, in order to provide a broad balance between new homes and new jobs over the plan period”. • The site adjoins an AQMA where monitored AQ levels are close to or in excess of legal limits. Forecast Traffic growth, particularly of diesel HGV’s must increase pollution. Current dispersion of pollutants from the M1 across open fields will be prevented by a ‘canyon’ of 20 metre high warehouse buildings. Noise and Light pollution will also be increased. • Pressure on local road networks is forecast to grow because of cumulative developments already agreed. The A45/J 15 link is expected to carry 60,000 vehicles a day by 2028. This proposal would add over 16,000 vehicle trips a day, with over 4,000 being diesel HGV’s. • If the claimed figure of 6,000 employees is correct, it would mean substantial inward commuting from a wide area to overcome the low unemployment in the immediate catchment. This would add further to the traffic pressure on local networks. • Over 500 acres of productive farmland and wildlife habitat will be lost as will the semi rural characteristics of the area and its historic villages. Major diversion of ancient and well used public footpath links will destroy their recreational purpose and attraction. • The imposition of a major industrial development close to small semi rural communities will undermine community safety. Similar developments elsewhere have led to substantial increases in crime in the surrounding communities. It is planned that there would be direct footpath/cycle access from the site into the Collingtree Conservation Village which is only yards away. There would be similar direct access into East Hunsbury and Grange Park. This proposal is not of ‘National Significance’ or in the overriding national interest and therefore should be rejected "
Members of the Public/Businesses
RogerLaurence Tyler
"I object to:- (1) The destruction of hundreds of acres of local countryside. (2) High earth mounds (bunding) destroying the landscape & wildlife habitat. (3) The loss of good farmland (we need to import less food) (4) The destruction of ancient public rights of way (footpaths, etc.) (5) The huge increase in local traffic, particularly heavy goods vehicles & fumes. (6) Huge increase in parking problems. (7) Excessive noise (day & night) from the terminal & during construction period. (8) Light pollution due to night time operations (both road & rail) (9) More traffic congestion by workers travelling to & from the Terminal. (10) The scheme is contrary to local planning policy to retain farmland & open country. (11) The many mature trees in the area will take many years to replace. (12) The Daventry Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) already serves the same area and same rail lines and has the capacity to expand for over 10 years' (13) The inevitable increase in crime levels which occur in similar schemes. (14 The consequent extra burden placed on local medical & emergency services."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rory Fraser
"Dear sir / madam , With the possibility of the development from south central rail drawing near , as a local resident, I would like to offer some of my primary concerns , why we as community are not equipped to deal with such a development. Infrastructure:- despite Roxhill assurances , I am not convinced how the roads of Blisworth, Milton Malsor , Roade, and Collingtree will be able to manage the more than significant increase in traffic that Rail central will bring and when we consider this includes a massive rise in HGV,s it is extremely impractical with our current roads and dangerous to over already overburdened roads systems which are all laden with single vehicle access, blind /acute corners and week bridges where ,in blisworth alone, I could pin point half a dozen. Not to mention to hazards it would pose to the school children and pedestrians :- in short if you really need this this here you need a complete remapping of our roads system to reflect the enormity of your proposal . Location :- the biggest perplexing factor in the Rc’s choice of location is the fact that we have one of the biggest strategic DRIFTS in the country with in a 20 miles radius at Daventry. Is this then a competitive business move on the part of Rc ? Rc point at growth and expansion as key factors here, but really what can SRC offer that daventry cannot ? Is the business growth forecast really that hinged on an extra 20 miles closer to our capital? Or the fact the freight rail links to the proposed Rc site will be a major contributor to its strategic success , when campaign group studies have shown this to be relatively insignificant contributor to Rc ‘s overall economical plan . I appreciate communities need growth , and this means jobs , but the short sighted vision of SRC’s longterm plan here cannot go unnoticed, and I suspect the location is not so“strategic” but more of a financial nature , where it’s development will see a few reap greatest benefit . Environmentally:-Finally this desecration of our countryside would rip the hearts out of villages, and undoubtedly destroy our communities. This part of Northamptonshire prides it’s self on it’s beautiful surroundings, and close communities ties . I can’t think of anyway in this would be greater lost forever than a short sighted single move that’s environmentally and natural impacts will last an eternity.. Your sincerely "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Michael Blyth
"I strongly object to the application for a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) south-west of M1 J15, Northampton Gateway, on the following main grounds: 1) It would destroy 200+ hectares of arable fields, hedges, footpaths, and woodland. 2) The change of use would convert rural landscape into an industrial site. 3) It would destroy and fragment wildlife habitats and corridors at the Main Site, and on the route of the proposed Roade bypass. 4) The proposed site, midway between centres of production/consumption (London and Birmingham) is not in accordance with policy: to locate SRFIs at major nodes. 5) The carbon footprint of products handled on site, needlessly magnified by mislocation, would breach environmental policies and climate change protocols. 6) The site is close to Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) (Phase III now under construction) with capacity to meet all regional demand in the foreseeable future. The purported strategic role of Northampton Gateway is therefore redundant. 7) The application is a modification of previously rejected warehouse plans, with a token rail freight facility bolted on in order to comply with SRFI criteria. 8) Tenants would be under no obligation to use rail rather than road. A maximum 10% of throughput is expected to travel by rail - not the intended modal shift. 9) The site would emit toxic gases 24/7 into designated AQMAs, plus particles, vibration, noise and light. Unquantifiable legal liabilities could stem from resultant health issues. 10) The negligible local workforce would lead to in-commuting from remote populations with multiple environmental and health disbenefits. 11) The already congested road network, despite mitigation, could not accommodate 16,000+ additional daily traffic movements. Gridlock would ensue on feeder roads during frequent, unpredictable M1 closures. 12) It is not demonstrated that the West Coast Main and Northampton Loop Lines could accommodate site freight traffic without reducing passenger schedules. 13) There is small evidence of alternative site research in regions inadequately served by SRFIs – eg the Northern Powerhouse – as required by policy. 14) The site would transgress Northampton’s south-western M1 boundary, providing an undesirable precedent for urban sprawl within and beyond an important green gap. 15) Bounded by the M1 and West Coast Main and Loop Lines, site operations could only expand southwards along the A508. 16) The application contravenes the local Joint Core Strategy which earmarks other industrial land in more appropriate locations. 17) The cumulative effect, taking account of Rail Central’s M1 J15A site, would be impossible conditions on the M1 and rail network - already the busiest in the UK. Emergency Services would at best be hampered, at worst unable to attend incidents. 18) The construction phase would create multiple environmental disbenefits. For instance, work on Roade bypass would commence only when the site had 30% occupancy, lasting over a year. Major disruption of A508 traffic would be inevitable. In conclusion, for the above and many more reasons I ask that the application be rejected. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Rigby
"I object to this planning as it will destroy so.much natural landscape. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart Jackson
"There is no real evidence to show that the current rail freight interchange is struggling or at maximum capacity. The road network around the proposed site cannot cope with the additional capacity that will be introduced. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Zoey Wells
"My two major concerns are firstly, the extra lorries on the highways, the roads are already full of potholes and the M1 is already like a freight superhighway. Secondly, air quality and pollution. Why are people’s health going to have to suffer for this? Let alone our diminishing countryside and waterways. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
L C Armstrong
"I strongly object to the proposal on the following grounds: There is already a large SRFI at DIRFT close to this site which has capacity for many more years, a better spread across the country would be more beneficial. There are already large warehouse sites around Northamptonshire (Swan Valley, Crow Lane, Brackmills, Raunds to mention a few) of which many are empty, and the labour pool for these jobs is already stretched, so workers to this site will have to commute from other areas. This would add significant traffic to an already congested local road network, without the HGV's moving the goods off site as well, with the A508 and Junction 15 of the M1 extremely busy at all times, which is already an air quality risk zone. The total loss of productive farmland and wildlife corridors would be devastating, and light pollution on surrounding villages a further impact."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Eames
"I would like to object to this proposal for the following reasons. 1. The proposal would extend the scope of industrial development to the west of the M1 motorway, which currently provides an important boundary between town and countryside. This would contravene existing agreed planning principles. 2. It would irreparably damage the character of the surrounding villages, most of which are designated conservation areas. 3. It would destroy hundreds of acres of open countryside and mature trees, which are an important habitat for wildlife and birds. 4. It would spoil the character of the local footpath network. 5. It would inevitably increase throughput of traffic in local villages and narrow roads which already struggle to cope with the current levels. 6. It would lead to significant air, noise and light pollution in what is currently a peaceful rural area. 7. Since Northamptonshire has a high level of employment, it would inevitably lead to a sharp increase in commuter traffic from a wide area. 8. The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal is only a short distance away, and it still has capacity for major expansion. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Callum
"Road infrastructure is insufficient to cope with extra traffic, cause chaos for local homes and businesses, already have expansion near Grange Park no need for another"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carrie Thompson
"I wish to object to the proposed development of the Northampton Gateway. It is my opinion that we should be trying to encourage more creative localised solutions to our consumer habits and that such freight interchanges are a short-term easy option which do not address our habits and hence fuel the long-term negative environmental impact. Consumers need educating and alternative options or we will not only lose our high streets as we have seen this generation but soon we will also lose local economies which are critical to long-term success and sustainability for our children. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Househam
"I oppose this development on the grounds that it will have a detrimental impact to the local environment destroying both natural wildlife habitat and productive farmland. I also question the stragtegic need for such a development and whether the actual rail freight capacity would be used at all or whether it is just a means to access more road infrastructure causing more traffic congestion and polution. Lastly I believe the development would negatively impact the quality of life of the local residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Morel
"-environmental impact -conflict with planning policy -traffic overload -pollution -by passing local democracy -lack of strategic need -damage to wildlife -create more local congestion -create misery for local people "
Members of the Public/Businesses
George Wood
"I object to this development because of the disruption that it will cause to my frequent visits to Milton Mallory to see my Grandchildren. This will add to my journey time due to additional traffic on the M1 and the roads around Milton Malsor. It will also disrupt local journeys made to local amenities such as Stoke Bruene."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Heather Closier
"I object to the Rail Freight Terminal as it will cause much extra traffic on the M1 and the local road network. My children are members of the Northamptonshire Library service and we regularly travel to the library at East Hunsbury. We also visit the retail park on the Nene Valley Way. In both cases we often encounter traffic problems in the afternoon after school. The increase in traffic that this development would generate around Junction15 of the M1 and along the A45 would probably result in us travelling to Milton Keynes rather than our preferred choice of Northampton."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Heather Hudson
"I would like to lodge a vote against this proposal. I don't believe it is something that would benefit the area, only the pockets of the developers. This area is particularly beautiful and the loss of open area, wildlife habitate, along with the increased traffic, noise, and polution will be a tragedy to the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Hill
"I have grave concerns about the proposed Roxhill project. Pollution is already high and is affecting my asthma. Since moving to the area in October 2016 my medication has been increased. Surrounding rounds leading to theA45 ( Rowtree rd being an example) are working at full capacity during rush hour. With additional housing being built. Redeveloping the J15/ M1 will not resolve the traffic problems on the additional heavy goods vehicles related to Roxhill are added. Accidents regularly occur on the M1 between J 16 & J 14. Resulting in traffic moving onto surrounding roads. The smart motorway will not resolve the problems especially with the Roxhill traffic added. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jeff Lewis
"My main concern is that this is a huge development that "crosses the M1 from Northampton" into the heart of this beautiful rural county. The sheer size of the development threatens the area in several ways, the main one being the increased traffic on a road that is already choked very often and especially when there are closures of the M1, A5, A43. The M1 (along with all other main arterial routes) is already lined with distribution centres, including DIRFT at Daventry and another at Milton Keynes."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Leah Barlow
"Disgusting use of green land. Will turn the beautiful villages into something quiet horrible. I have lived in Roade 42 years, my parents longer and my daughter 16 years. We live in the country not an industrial estate! We should be saving the planet not distroying it! They'll be no world left! So so sad!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Leanne Snapes
"I live in Milton Malsor and my house is on the Towcester road which will lead to the proposed development, I have huge concerns about the impact this will have on the ecosystems of the area, the quality of life with regards to the huge traffic influx and the environmental and social aspects of such a development. The safe guards In place to mitigate against environmental damage and noise damage appears inadequate. The local farm land/green areas will be destroyed, visually the huge warehouses will be awful and will not attract people to the area. This will impact on the tourism bought to the surrounding villages by the canal, (would people rather visit idyllic country village or huge warehouse/rail development). The safety of living in the gateway of this area and all it brings including the additional traffic, the increased amount of large haulage vehicles will leave the young children that play in the area at risk. The house prices will inevitably reduce causing a negative financial impact to those living in the area many of which have moved here for a better quality of life. There is a vast rail development at DRFT Daventry this has huge capacity for further development which begs the question why another so close is required? other than for greed and financial gain for developers. If this awful development is to be approved then Northampton will become engulfed in sea of ware houses. There are already areas that have capacity of further development with existing rail links by continuing to develop areas unnecessarily with no driving force other than greed and financial gain for the few creates little opportunity for improvement of an already struggling town like Northampton. The jobs that have been proposed to being created are irrelevant with such a low level of unemployment in the area, resulting in staff having to be bought to the area to work which will have the knock on effect of increasing traffic in the area of which the local infrastructure cannot cope. the current infrastructure cannot cope with the existing demand, regardless of a proposed new road system, we have seen with the bypass to Towcester people still use familiar roads through our villages as rat runs. Traffic around Blisworth, Stoke road area and traffic in Towcester is horrendous at peak times and often causes build up. I wholeheartedly and passionately disagree with the proposal and feel very upset that large companies show no consideration to the local community and are quiet happy to disseminate this in the interest of there financial gain, I suspect the rail freight is a mask for the true purpose of building units on the anticipation that planning wouldn't have be approved on this basis and by manipulating the government policy of reducing traffic on the roads in favour of rail they will be granted the planning to destroy not just the surrounding of villages but the homes, lives of people in south Northamptonshire and the ricochet of this will have impacts on the wider Northampton town. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Smith
"The proposed rail freight interchange will have a huge detrimental impacts upon the towns and roads of Northampton both from an environmental and quality of life perspective. Currently the M1 between Junctions 16 and 15 is subject to significant queues during peak times, with traffic spilling over to the surrounding roads with resulting congestion and pollution. Junctions 15 and 15A of the M1 are already incredibly busy with traffic frequently queuing back onto the M1 at times when the junctions cannot handle the volume of traffic. Adding a significant number of HGV’s to this, plus the vehicles of people working at the rail freight interchange, would exacerbate this situation resulting in more frequent and longer queues, increased pollution, and increased number of working hours “lost” while queuing in traffic and decreasing the overall effectiveness of the local economy. A large volume of houses in South and West Northampton are situated a close to major roads such as the A45, A5076, A5123, A43 and A508 which are frequently effected by M1 congestion and by traffic traveling to and from the M1. These homes will bear the brunt of the increased volume of traffic directly related to the proposed rail freight interchange, both HGV traffic and also workers at the facility. The additional vehicles will result in increased pressure on roads and junctions some miles from the rail freight interchange, further queues in these areas, lost time for residents and also environmental pollution caused by additional vehicles and by vehicles sat in stationary or slow moving traffic. Pressure on the A roads will inevitably result in smaller local road being used a rat runs, with further pollution impacts and also road safety concerns for families and children in these areas. HGVs travelling to and from the proposed rail freight interchange will be required to park up in areas close to the facility, either due to driving hours limitations or to ensure they reach the facility at the required time slot. This is sadly already evident around South and West Northampton (the very areas which will be impacted by this proposal) due to the large number of warehouses and distribution facilities in the area. Lay bys, roadside verges and side roads will become swamped by HGVs with miles of parked HGV’s becoming a common sight in the area, similar to areas around the Daventry rail freight terminal, impacting the area and local communities. In summary, the area surrounding the proposed rail freight interchange is unable to accommodate the additional vehicles and traffic which will result from the development. The wishes and quality of life of the residents within the South and West Northampton area need to be fully considered as part of the application process, not just those economic objectives outlined by the proposed developer. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Milton Football Club (Milton Football Club)
"The plans do not conform to the agreed Strategic Plan which excludes industrial development at this location. The development would expose the residential areas to high and unacceptable levels of air, noise and light pollution. The existing and upgrading roads will not cope with the massive increase in vehicle movements. The M1, A45 and A508 are already congested ta certain times of the day. With Rugby (planned) and DIRFT at Daventry - not far away this development is not required for the medium term. The effect on wildlife is totally unacceptable. The effect of BREXIT is unknown and it could be that the logistics and distribution industry will change and make this a 'white elephant' in the future. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Naomi Morel
"-environmental impact -conflict with planning policy -traffic overload -pollution -by passing local democracy -lack of strategic need -damage to wildlife -create more local congestion -create misery for local people "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Neil Leete
"I am making my representation for opposition to the proposed development as a local resident. I will be directly effected by this proposal as my property is directly adjacent to the site on Collingtree road and will have huge physical, emotional, health and environmental implications to myself and my wife. There are also very strong reasons to oppose the development such as the effect on the local road network and infrastructure which cannot cope with the current traffic demands especially durning morning and evening rush hours, local environmental effects including wildlife, air pollution and reduction in air quality, increase in local flooding due to inadequate drain away, noise pollution and light pollution. Personal Financial costs in relation to properties being effected. There are other sites in my opinion that could be used for this type of proposal that would have a far less effect to the surrounding area, M1 J16 Would be one such location. Our part of Northamptonshire is a beautiful part of the county with fantastic countryside and greenery, it also has a great and safe environment for recreation and family life. To lose all this would be devistating to the community and a blot on the Northamptonshire landscape. Best regards [Redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Neil Wright
"This is an unnecessary development that will have a massive impact on an already overburdened infrastructure that sees long queues everyday of the week. Not only this but when Swan Valley still has land to develop on, and DIRFT at junction 18 of the M1 is still growing and has plenty of land to expand onto while also still not at full capacity with regard to rail freight."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Grubb
"I would like to register my objection to this proposal. Evidence has been provided by many professional bodies and institutions indicating the lack of any need for such a facility, in this part of the country, and extra strain on the currently overstretched rail and road transport infrastructure needed to support this inappropriate development. They provide overwhelming evidence that such an installation will have a detrimental effect on the local communities in terms of air, light and noise pollution, some of which already exceed acceptable levels. It feel like there is a sustained attack on the part of the county to develop the area to death in terms of multiple unrelated housing, warehousing, multiple transport hubs type developments with no one assessing the big picture and overall effect. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Shellard
"The Northampton Gateway scheme is totally unnecessary. The county already has enough warehouses, some of which are underused or even empty. It will cause massive traffic chaos on the M1/A45 and A43 as well as through small villages like mine, which can barely cope as it is with 1.5 million vehicles pa on a narrow, windy road. It will not take traffic away from roads and onto rail - it will have the opposite effect. Roade might get a new bypass, but at enormous cost in terms of increased traffic elsewhere. It will devastate the countryside, and it will have deleterious consequences for local communities. I ask the Planning Inspectorate to come and consider its effects by standing at my front gate for an hour one day. PLEASE do not let this huge project go through. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Jay
"The development is huge and would take out a vast plot of beautiful countryside. It is way too close to large residential areas, and would have a significant negative impact on the quality of life of local residents throughout the day (noise/traffic/air pollution etc.). The benefits to the local economy seem very small in relation to the significant adverse impacts, and I would argue that it is not even needed given the huge development at Junction 16. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rosemary Bird
"I visit the area often as I have family living there. The building of this proposed interchange will have a huge impact of the surrounding villages and countryside. There will be additional noise which will add to the noise already caused by the traffic on the M1. Constant noise is a factor which causes a great deal of added stress for people to cope with it on a daily basis The pollution will be increased particularly for all people who live or work in the area. There are a number of schools closeby and traffic fumes would impact upon the health of young children and chest and asthma problems are already on the increase. The Salcey forest already is affected by traffic fumes and is the largest old forest in England and cannot be replaced. The additional tarmac area which will be built means a greater run off of water oil and petrol onto the surrounding area. The constant use of the approach roads will impact upon all the community regardless of age and will be a continuous nuisance as the depots will not close but have large lorries coming and going at all times.Northamptonshire was a rural farming area and more usable good farmland will be lost. This interchange would be better sited if put further north away from the villages and the canal into a less densely populated area with poorer agricultural land. The present position is for the benefit of few companies and not for the majority of people who live in this area for peace and quiet and a bit of space."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ruth Thompson
"This project is within the green area dividing Town from country. We need all the farmland we can get to help provide food for our ever growing population. What is now a quiet rural area will be blighted with noise,light and traffic pollution,24 hours a day. Where will they find enough workers to employ.This area has low unemployment so bringing in workers will create traffic to already congested road network. Our infrastructure is not able to cope at present so dread how the future will. The area already has a rail freight terminal a few miles north which is not at full capacity. This is a farming area not an industrial one. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Terry Armstrong
"The developer does not have the agreement from Network Rail to make a rail connection. The developer has not made arrangements to mitigate the adverse traffic impact the development will cause. There cannot be any mitigation of the air pollution the 16000+ vehicles will generate, much of which will be NOX from the L and HGV using the site. The developer has not considered the cumulative impact of their site and the proposal at Milton Malsor. This site, being so close to DIRFT, does not constitute a 'network' of SRFIs as required by the NSIP legislation. The traffic on the northbound A508 will be at direct conflict with the site traffic from jcn 15 of the M1. We are assured that HGV traffic will not be permitted to travel down the A508, but given that this is public highway who will monitor and enforce the ban, what punishments will this attract? It is totally unenforceable. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
The Coal Authority (The Coal Authority)
"I have checked the site location plan against the information held by the Coal Authority and can confirm that the proposed development site is located outside of the defined coalfield. Accordingly, I can confirm that the Coal Authority has no comments or observations to make on this proposal. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Andrews
"The roads in this area are gridlocked every day and 2 or 3 times a week either the M1, A45, A43 and A508 are closed due to collisions. The air quality would plummet even more and quality of life would be affected."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adrian Hosey
"There is no need for either of the two rail freight depots that are planned in this area mainly because of Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) just 19 miles up the road in the same county. DRIFT still has space to expand and also has lots of spare capacity. The unemployment for the local area is very low. This will mean that people who work at these new depots are not from the local area causing extra traffic and pollution as they travel further to work. You just have to look at Government Office at Hanslope Park to see how much traffic this has created through the rural area. The primary use of these depots will be for road distribution. The road infrastructure in the local area is not adequate to deal with the increased traffic. The stretch of M1 between Northampton and Milton Keynes seems to be one of the most dangerous in the county with it being closed a couple of times a month due to accidents causing increased traffic through the local area. The new SMART motorway technology installed on the M1 north of Northampton appears to have helped increase congestion by slowing traffic down. The A508 is single carriageway and goes through some villages at 30mph. And the A43 is dual carriageway but has 7 roundabouts on it with the one at Towcester already causing massive traffic problems. These roundabouts really need flyovers to ease congestion and keep traffic moving. As the North of England needs investment and suffers from low employment, projects like this should be reserved for areas that would actually see a benefit. Only when the last field is built on will we realise what we've lost and that we can't eat money. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Affero Ltd (Affero Ltd)
"The Project is contrary to the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy adopted in 2014 The area already has a Rail Freight Terminal at Junction 18 of the M1 - This is about to double in size by 2031 The Landscape would be spoilt by this development in a beautiful part of the Countryside. The road network in this area is always congested especially when the M1 has major problems and the country lanes are not suitable to deal with any more traffic. Junction 15 is a major problem on a weekly basis when the congestion is appalling. Increased pollution from the heavy volume of increased traffic, namely, Cars, Vans and HGV's Light and Noise pollution will also be a problem with the site operating 24 hours, 7 days a week and this would also mean that the Rail Terminal create major problems with Railway shunting, the loading and unloading of Containers and the operation of the Aggregates Terminal. Finally, the local plans show this site being retained for farmland and open countryside and any development would seriously effect a number of mature trees. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carly Rouse
"I object to the development, as we do not need 6 million sq ft of warehousing when there are so many in the area with empty occupancy, and expansion available at DIRFT 20 miles up the road. Barn Lane will be a rat run for all the traffic should the major roads be blocked. We are very close to the proposed terminal and the 24/7 nature of noise and light pollution will be unbearable, especially in the summer. The village will be ruined by such a huge development , and the prime farm land will not be replaceable in the area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Heaton-Harris
"I am raising my objections in the capacity of the Member of Parliament for Daventry. It is important to point out that I have been contacted by a tremendous number of concerned constituents and to date have received no emails from local residents who support this project. To put this in to some context, so far a local petition on change.org has gathered 1,311 signatures. These notes of objection number in the hundreds. In the interest of brevity I have grouped together the key areas which frequently arise. In due course I will submit a much longer document which will address these areas in greater depth. Conservation - the proposed development will take up approximately 5 million sq ft of arable farmland and surrounding woodland. It has been suggested that this will threaten many protected or notable species in the locality, such as great crested newts through habitat loss and disturbance. Flooding risk – those who know the area well will know that the surrounding area is prone to bouts of flooding. Although the immediate vicinity is categorised as being within a ‘Flood Zone 1’, historically there’s been a high flood risk further downstream at Wooton Brook. Post-development there’s expected to be an increase in the volume of surface water run-off, which will only further exasperate this. Traffic – the increased flow to traffic during and post construction will have an impact on an already overused road network. Noise – unequivocally speaking the proposed development will result in higher noise levels in the due to additional road traffic, additional rail traffic, the operation of the rail terminal and new warehouse buildings and the construction process. This increase in noise will be felt most dramatically at several properties on the western edge of Roade. Air pollution – in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development exists two Air Quality Management Areas as a consequence of high levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) from nearby major road networks. The associated increase in traffic, particularly diesel emitting HGVs will exacerbate this problem. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Daniel Marchant
"I am writing to object to the warehouses that could be built near J15 of the M1. There is no doubt that all the extra traffic would cause major problems for local people. there will clearly be major disruption when roadworks on the various junctions takes place and ongoing problems when there are breakdowns on the M1 or A45. My mother runs a domestic cleaning business and her clients expect on time arrivals.She already encounters many problems which will only get worse with thousands of employees trying to get to work. The area just does not need all these people travelling into it, we have very low unemployment so all these jobe are just not needed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Harvey
"I STAUNCHLEY AND STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE NORTHAMPTON GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT. DESTROYING ACRES AND ACRES OF PRIME FARM LAND TOGETHER WITH THE HABITAT THAT LIVES WITHIN THESE FIELDS IS QUITE SIMPLY WRONG. THE CURRENT 'DIRFT' FACILITY IS ONLY 3 JUNCTIONS UP FROM THIS PROPOSAL AND VAST AMOUNTS OF WAREHOUSING ARE ALSO COVERING SWATHES OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE AND NEARBY MILTON KEYNES. IN ADDITION , A FURTHER FACILITY IS BEING CONSTRUCTED ADJACENT TO EAST MIDLANDS AIRPORT. DESPITE PROPOSALS TO UPGRADE THE ROAD NETWORK , THE CURRENT A45 ,A508 AND M1 IS REGULARLY 'SNARLED' CAUSING A MAJOR ISSUE FOR LOCAL TRAFFIC. A FURTHER DEVELOPMENT LEADING DIRECTLY ONTO THIS ROAD NETWORK CAN ONLY CAUSE COMPLETE GRIDLOCK PROPOSED 24 /7 WORKING WILL CAUSE UNWANTED NOISE AND LIGHT POLLUTION AND JUST ADDING TO CONGESTION 24 HOURS A DAY. [Redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Deborah Freund
"I object most strongly because the development will devalue the environment and we will lose the local countryside. We value the open spaces , and ae concerned about noise, traffic movements, pollution, and the impact on our semi rural way of life. I have lived here all of my life, and there is a major rail freight terminal at DIRST 20 miles away with room for expansion. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr. Bridget Lewis
"I strongly object to this development for the following reasons: 1. The increase in traffic will lead to greater air pollution particularly at Junction 15 where levels are already high. 2. The roads around Junction 15 are already heavily congested at peak times. This is even worse at times when the M1 is closed. The Department for Transport is already warning of future severe congestion, without this development. 3. This development would destroy this part of the Northamptonshire countryside and could lead to further encroachment. At present the M1 creates a boundary for development as recognised by the South Northamptonshire Local plan. 4. There is already a larger facility of this kind only 18 miles away, so this region is already covered by a SRFI. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ean Freund
"I object most strongly because as I have lived here for many years, and feel the development will be awful with the accumulated 24/7 noise from the lorry and traffic movements, as well as the constant trains. I value the countryside, which I have enjoyed here for 35 years, and walk the paths daily with dogs. I feel the development will ruin the villages identity , and wreck local livelihoods. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma Langridge
"I have several strong objections to the proposed development and they are as follows: THE ROADS CANNOT COPE EVEN WHEN DEVELOPED Despite the proposed M1 Improvements there will still be traffic jams along the A45 and A508 when an accident happens on the M1 which is frequently (the whole motorway was closed both ways THREE times in September, 2017 and many more since then) and it impacts negatively on the WHOLE of the town. No improvements made by Roxhill will stop the accidents and extra rail freight lorries will only add to this and further block up the roads. Lorries will speed; take short cuts and do whatever they can to deliver their goods on time despite all Roxhill promises of courteous drivers who won’t use local roads. The token dual carriageway/road on the end of the A508 will not disperse the ridiculously large amount of lorries which will descend upon Northamptonshire. The problems with the A508 cannot be reduced by adding extra lanes then adding rail freight lorries! It will still be a bottle-neck and add traffic to the A508, A45 and the M1. As far as the proposal to ‘not allow any lorries to turn right South up the A508’ idea, this is ridiculous as fines will be ignored and lorries cannot be kept out of villages. It’s impossible to police! DESECRATION OF BEAUTIFUL VILLAGES Northampton already struggles to be attractive. We have our beautiful villages; however, this development brings unnecessary, and unwanted, development to those. We do not need an intersection at the top of Rookery Lane-a beautiful country lane in a conservation village. Nor do we need the beautiful Knock Lane to be ruined by developers. The ring road will ruin beautiful fields and only serves to shift traffic noise and pollution closer to the back of EWS Secondary school and Stoke Bruerne- a conservation village. The bypass will begin the slow and painful process of the urbanisation of these beautiful villages which will be desperately sad to see. The characteristics of these villages and surrounding areas should be preserved. THE COUNTRY DOES NOT NEED A RAIL-FREIGHT TERMINAL HERE! In the 2001 Strategic Rail Authority study, I believe it stated that these interchanges were needed in the West Midlands. We are NOT the West Midlands. In addition to this, we have the DRIFT site already: “Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is a rail-road intermodal freight terminal with an associated warehousing estate in Northamptonshire” WE do not need another warehouse-type development to ruin the landscape and bring low paid jobs. We already have the DRIFT facilities nearby and have too many warehouses at junction 15. The developers haven’t explored the sites and picked the right site for their development; they have simply got hold of some land and wondered what-on-earth they could get approval of (hence the previously failed Howdens development). We already have enough low paid jobs in Northamptonshire and not high unemployment! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gillian Anne Challis
"No Strategic need as DIRFT is only 18 miles away and so makes it very close in a small area. Would it not be better in another part of the country. The traffic flow and the development of the area will significantly increase the noise and pollution to the surrounding area. Assuming it will be 24/7 that will add up to a lot of local pollution. Once a development like this starts where will it stop, it will just keep growing and will only be able to go one way as the railway and the M1 already form a boundary. Road used by a development this size will cause even more pressure on an overcrowded roadway in this area. We live with severe congestion at the M1 J15 now as it is. I come from a Farming family and it means even more farmland going and the local wildlife suffering again. Are there enough people to work this development well the answer is no and so more people move in and more houses are build and more ground is lost, more pollution is building up. More crime will be brought to the area! When will it stop."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jason Rouse
"I object because the Roxhill development will ruin the local countryside. I use regularly the beautiful footpaths for running and dogwalking. I am concerned about the sheer levels of daily commuting traffic and personnel in the area. Northampton has such a low unemployment rate anyway, that I feel it will not add the employment value that the developers claim. There is predicted thousands of daily traffic movement increases which I feel will be horrific for the local area. I love living in Milton Malsor, and did not move here to what will effectively be an annex to an industrial site. We are very close to the proposed terminal and the 24/7 nature of noise and light pollution will be unbearable, especially in the summer. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jo Gordon
"I Strongly object to this development as it will ruin the landscape and add to already problematic traffic levels around the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katherine Finnegan
"1. Added congestion on already crowded roads. 2.It will affect the ability of emergency vehicles to respond. 3. Pollution - noise , light and air pollution will be greatly increased. 4.Loss of countryside. 5. Will it open the floodgate to further development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Larraine Kitchen
"The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT), is not far from this proposed site and still has the capacity for expansion for more than 10 years, so Roxhill would be serving the same area, therefore not needed. The local plans show this site as being retained as farmland and open countryside, not for industrial development. It contains numerous mature trees that would take many years to replace. Destruction of local footpaths would have to take place, in particular the one between Milton Malsor and Collingtree which would be diverted alongside the Collingtree Road and the M1 motorway. There would be loss of farmland, not to mention the destruction of wildlife habitats. Hundreds of acres of local countryside would be destroyed. The residents of Milton Malsor (of which I am one) would not appreciate the increase in traffic through the village when the M1 is conjested or the air pollution from the thousands of extra cars, vans and HGV's that would be using our local roads or the noise created by the continuous operation of the railway terminal. The proposed no right turns at the junction of Courteenhall Road and the A508, would also cause traffic to divert through the centre of Blisworth, thus passing the doctors' surgery where parking is already a big problem."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Vessey
"Strongly Object. It's just a profit making scheme for the developers, another huge area of big sheds is not needed, they generate very few jobs in relation to the space and disturbance that they create."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nick Henry
"No need for further expansion due to DIRFT near Daventry 18 miles from this proposal. I believe the justification was made based on the fact that when DIRFT reaches max capacity then this facility will come into play. However it is not possible to predict future trends due to the business / country complexities i.e what will be left after BREXIT. Additional noise, light and air pollution which is directly contracting the government plan to reduce pollution. This and any new development will inherently further destroy what little rural land there is in this area. Northamptonshire has had much development in the last few years with no sign of this stopping.This development would destroy 520 acres of farmland & wildlife habitats and vital corridors. Current road capacity would suffer with the additional vehicles the road links would suffer further delays or create more accident hot spots. Crime increase is possible as has been seen around the DIRFT development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Harris
"Firstly you have no jurisdiction what so ever to inform anyone of what they can or cannot include in their message. I demand you prove to the people A) you have our consent. B) you have jurisdiction over any single person effected by this monstrosity. C) It is not in the environment's interest and an outdated and retarded idea. D) No one believes in big business anymore or trusts it. E) Councils, government's have no authority to speak on behalf of the people or would we want it, they are all criminals laundering public money. F) We demand to see a paper trail of exact events, decision's and people involved in decision making and any remuneration involved. At least this way we can get everyone involved arrested and behind bars before more damage to our nation occurs. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Skinner
"Firstly, I wish to object on the basis of air pollution. Living in Collingtree 41 years,we can already smell and 'taste on the tongue' the effects of the M.1.traffic the volume of which I believe exceeds that of urban motorway levels. Secondly, as a former Ch/Supt Police (traffic) I have see the steady increase of vehicles in the Northampton area and find it difficult to accept that the projected increase of traffic, (at national level and the result of this development) is not a step too far also generating the use of unsuitable alterative roads in the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philip Couchman
"It is not in the national interest to remove hundreds of acres of productive farmland and wildlife habitat, and create yet more traffic congestion and pollution on an already overstretched road network. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert John Scott
"The proposed development is ill thought out and unsuitable for the Blisworth - Milton Malsor area. There are many reasons the area is unsuited. These being outlined below. 1. There is a Rail Terminal DRIFT based near Daventry, this is under utilised and somewhat negates the necessity for a centre in Blisworth. 2. Plans have been submitted for a Rail Development in Luton, again this would negate a development in Blisworth. 3. There are empty Wharehousing units in the Northampton Area; Swan Valley, Brackmills and further North, near Lutterworth. There is already a plentiful supply in the area, further units being unnecessary. 4. The area has almost no unemployment. Many of the employees would require to be bussed in or driven from further afield. Unable to understand where the benefit for local people would come from. 5. The above would cause significant increases in traffic capacity, the propose alterations to roads and layout in the area would not greatly enhance the capacity. Road capacity at peak times is already vastly overstretched. Should the M1, or A43 become blocked there would be major problems with gridlocked traffic, as there are already . This seem to happen almost on a weekly basis. Road improvements in the Blisworth area would be of little or any improvement but would just increase bottlenecks in and around the village. I am aware that the junctions here would not permit traffic access but I feel sure that access would eventually be overlooked. 6. The area is very wet, almost marshy at times, run off from rain, on the many acres of roofs and hard standing would soon overwhelm any drainage planned. 7.The duration of the build would badly interfere with local traffic, causing blockages on the local Main Northampton Road, in Blisworth and Milton Malsor, these problems would run for many years, or at least until the development was completed. However I feel this would continue long afterwards as a major problem. 8. The height of these buildings is excessive and would be an eyesore in an area, classed as one of outstanding , local beauty. 9. Possible danger of chemical spills from establishments. 10. Decrease in propert prices, certainly this would be the case in the first few years. Many owners possibly finding that the new cost of thei property doesn't cover the cost of their original mortgage. The best that coul happen would be for this plan to be forgotten. I am unable to think of a single benefit that this Development would bring, apart from lining the Developers pockets. Badly thought out and presented. My personal a pinion being the developers are hoping to hoodwink local residents. Not required and doubtful wether it ever would be. , "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sharron Bland
"I live in Courteenhall Village. It is already impossible to turn right towards Northampton due to the amount of traffic using the A508. If there is a problem on the motorway the road is often at a stand still, sometimes in both directions. Any extra traffic feeding on to the A508 can only cause more chaos make leaving our village practically impossible with out having to drive miles out of the way. Also the lane that leads to our village and through to the Wootton - Hanslope Road is already used as an alternative route by people who know they can avoid junction 15. This lane is not well maintained and all the extra traffic just breaks up the edges of the road as it isn't suitable for some of lorries that cut through! I dread to think of the chaos that the development will cause let alone the amount of extra road traffic once it is built."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alison Harvey
"i strongly object to this development going ahead. Albeit not an extensive list i have highlighted my reasons for disagreeing with the development below : The impact of noise on the local environment 24 hours a day with freight & lorry movements taking place during the night and being transferred accross the site. i was informed that there would be night time lighting at the exhibition .This will impact on the environment Although there is a road system being adapted and planned across the site , i believe it will have a great impact on local villages of Collingtree , Milton Malsor , Blisworth , Roade to Mention just a few. Inevitably as the traffic further increases more vehicles are using the villages as 'rat runs' .This is already a big problem. Additional air pollution from increased lorry movements. The destruction of yet more green field land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Allan Danby
"We do not need another rail freight terminal located so close to an existing under capacity terminal at DIRFT. We do not have the labour capacity to run the terminal. Many areas are desperate for jobs and don't have a rail freight terminal within a hundred miles, would that not be a better use of resources and help people who need work. Our road layout is struggling with the traffic that we have already and more will increase the risk of motor accidents. The department of transport is aware that by 2040 we will have SEVERE congestion between M1 junctions 15 and 17. By allowing this project to go ahead billions more will need to be spent improving the roads. The rail network cannot cope with the suggested capacities. Surely this is just spending money for the sake of it without looking at the true situation,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Allen Ensby
"I object to this proposal on several grounds, examples of which (but are not restricted to) Destruction of wildlife habitat Increased traffic through rural villages Noise created by 24x7 operation Light pollution through night time operation DIRFT is not far away and serves the same area and has plenty of scope for expansion for the next 10 years Potential increase in local crime as seen byt areas around DIRFT Increase in air pollution when we are struggling to meet EU guidlines on the matter "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Angie Danby
"Why would we need another rail freight terminal located so close to an existing under capacity terminal at DIRFT. We do not have the labour capacity to run the terminal. Many areas are desperate for jobs and don't have a rail freight terminal within a hundred miles, would that not be a better use of resources and help people who need work. Our road layout is struggling with the traffic that we have already and more will increase the risk of motor accidents and severe pollution. The department of transport is aware that by 2040 we will have SEVERE congestion between M1 junctions 15 and 17, and allowing this project to go ahead will just cost the tax payers billions more to cope with the roadworks that will be essential if this scheme is allowed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hilary Bull
"I object to this development very strongly for several reasons. They include the fact that I believe the project to be unecessary as it is very close to the DIRFT facility which still has greater capacity. There would be a much greater amount of noise and air pollution which is so dangerous to nearby residents. This would have a knock on effect on the surrounding roads and villages with the roads being unable to cope with the increased traffic, both while building takes place and in the ongoing running of the facility. There is a great deal of congestion currently which would only increase and lead to many more problems in the area. The Department for Transport is already warning of severe congestion on the M1 even without this development. Apart from the effect on people the effect on wildlife is also significant. The site would destroy 520 acres of farmland, wildlife habitat and corridors. This could also lead to further development in the area as currently the M1 provides a boundary identified in the South Northants Local Plan. The more this is breached the more it will be breached leading to great deal more distress as outined above. There is also a considerable worry that crime would increase, as has already been the case near DIRFT."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Pickup
"This development is far too close to j.15 of the M1. This junction is already contested and any incident on the motorway causes major problems in the surrounding road systems. It will also affect the air quality in the nearby villages which is already too high! Not only will it increase the lorry traffic, it would also increase the car traffic for the staff employed there. The DERF depot is only 10-20 miles further north so is another rail depot really needed in this location?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
M A Glass
"I have lived in Collingtree for just over 40 years and in that time the increase in the amount of Traffic, Noise, Air Pollution, Congestion and loss of Countryside to Development, has been considerable, including the number of vehicles travelling through Collingtree, this will only increase substantially with this proposed scheme and I feel this is unacceptable. The scheme proposed is in direct conflict with the agreed Strategic Plan for West Northamptonshire. In signing off this Plan, the Planning Inspector said " Because of DIRFT 3 and the large site at Junction 16, there is no need for any further major employment sites within the 2029 plan period" These are the principal reasons for my representation. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marian Morgan
"I strongly object to this proposal that will destroy hundreds of acres of local countryside. The destruction of wildlife habitat in particular for farmland birds where the habitat loss cannot be compensated for. The destruction of the local footpath network in particular the footpath between Milton Malsor and Collingtree that would be diverted alongside the Collingtree Rd. and the M1 motorway. Increased traffic through the village when there is congestion on the M1 & increased air pollution from the thousands of extra cars, vans and HGV’s using the roads in the local area. The proposed no right turns at the junction of Courteenhall Rd and the A508. would mean traffic diverting through the centre of Blisworth and past the doctors surgery where parking is already a problem. Noise created by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers and the operation of an aggregates terminal. Light pollution from night time operations. The area has very low unemployment so the majority of workers for the operation would have to travel some distance to work adding to congestion and pollution. The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only a short distance away from this site, serves the same local area and has capacity for expansion for over 10 years."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martin Grosse
"I live very close to the proposed development, and am concerned about the how this development will affect my quality of life. There will be an increase in light pollution as well as air pollution. There will be a considerable loss of green fields and this will have an adverse effect on the wildlife. M1 junction is already a very busy junction and traffic in and out of the development will increase the number of traffic movements considerably as well as increasing air pollution. There is already a rail terminal at junction 19 just a few miles from this development with adequate space for further development and of less inconvenience to local residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
R Glass
"I have lived in Collingtree for just over 40 years and in that time the increase in the amount of Traffic, Noise, Air Pollution, Congestion and loss of Countryside to Development, has been considerable, including the number of vehicles travelling through Collingtree, this will only increase substantially with this proposed scheme and I feel this is unacceptable. The scheme proposed is in direct conflict with the agreed Strategic Plan for West Northamptonshire. In signing off this Plan, the Planning Inspector said " Because of DIRFT 3 and the large site at Junction 16, there is no need for any further major employment sites within the 2029 plan period" These are the principal reasons for my representation. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
R S Sayers
"1. Traffic - there simply isn't the capacity for this level of extra traffic, already whenever there is an incident on the M1 the whole area becomes gridlocked. 2. Pollution - there will be a massive increase in already high pollution levels from the large numbers of diesel powered HGVs. 3. Wildlife - what is an area rich in wildlife will become a desert. 4. Crime - we know from similar developments crime will soar, this will be a 'traveller' take-away. 5. Innappropriate development - this proposal contravenes the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS). The land to the south of the M1 is protected from development by the WNJCS until 2029, if the project proceeds, further development along the A43 and to the south of the M1 will be inevitable. 6. Strategic requirement - there is no requirement for this development, it is purely an opportunistic application by developers and landowners. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tanya Hughes-Haynes
"It is extremely concerning that the local footpaths that we use regularly between Milton Malsor and Collingtree would be diverted alongside the Collingtree Road and the M1 motorway. The proposed no right turns at the junction of Courteenhall Rd and the A508 would increase the amount of traffic through the centre of Blisworth and past the doctors surgery where parking is already a problem and traffic is already at single file through this part of the road which we use daily. The loss of the local is a going to have a massive impact on our village life we walk along side these fields daily and it will never be the same if this development takes place and our country needs farmland to produce more food rather than importing it. The loss of farmland when the country needs to produce more food rather than importing it. Another major concern is that of light pollution from night time operations at the development.. The site would be surrounded by high earth mounds (bunding) that would be themselves a “blot on the landscape! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
William John McLaren Marshall
"I strongly object to this proposal because; a) the site of this proposed facility is not designated or available for development in the West Northants Joint Core Strategy. b) DIRFT, where there is still land available is within 18 miles of the location and Phase 3 of that facility is currently being developed. c) The land freed up by the Flore by-pass, west of Junction 16 is identified in the WNJCS as the location for this type of large scale warehousing development d) Roxill have acknowledged that just 10% of the traffic is expected to be handled by rail. There is already sufficient (over) capacity for road serviced warehousing in and around Northampton with many warehouses currently standing empty and available. e) the proposals for managing the huge number of road vehicle movements are inadequate. The proposed Roade by-pass might solve Roxill's problem of the narrow rail over-bridge on the A508 in Roade, but will create problems for Roade businesses through loss of passing trade and for users of the A508 both to the north and south of Roade and the A45 beyond M1 Junction 15 by shifting / creating bottle necks elsewhere. f) the case for a strategic rail freight interchange at this location has not been made. If anything, this proposal is for a speculative road freight interchange and should not therefore be afforded the 'special case' privileges available to strategic rail freight interchanges. It will NOT deliver the aims of the national policy statement on SRFIs of shifting freight movements from road to rail "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ann Christie
"In my opinion this development will be detrimental to our village and surrounding areas, there a number of such developments that are not fully utilised. My believe is that these other developments should be fully utilised before considering any further developments that would harm the environment and the wild life around."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine Pinfold
"Forty years age we decided to move to a beautiful village surrounded by countryside. The roads were very busy through the village and a bypass was built which improved things greatly. Unfortunately as we are in the centre of the country we seem to be a good choice for development, and we are being threatened by the building of warehouses. Northampton is the largest town in England, and growing fast. The Roxhill development will further increase the urbanisation of our area. The drive to Northampton will become unpleasant and busy instead of a pleasure. Traffic will increase greatly, and as there is not an unemployment problem in our area, workers will either have to commute or move to the area, taking up more of our pleasant countryside. If the M1 is blocked our village becomes a constant line of traffic passing through, and if there are more cars about it will get worse. Between 8.00am and 9.00am and 4.00pm and 5.00pm it is already difficult to cross from one side of the village to the other over the road. The development will involve a great many lorries on our roads and although we are told that they will not pass through our village if the other roads are blocked, they will take the most convenient route. The alteration to the junction from the village on to the A508 becoming a left only turn, apart from being very inconvenient seems to be an indication that the traffic will increase greatly. The traffic already regularly comes to a standstill on the A45 from the M1 and past Northampton, it can only get worse if this development goes ahead, which will increase pollution, and increase the pressure on our already busy roads. The Roxhill proposal is not needed as the DIRFT site is quite near to us and is not working at full capacity. It seems that developers just want to ruin our countryside so that they can make money out of it. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Harry Spruels
"I object to this Rail Freight terminal because it will have a massive affect on the wildlife and to our countryside. I enjoy country walks with my family and these will be ruined by concrete, warehouses and the re-routed walks along the busy roads and railways."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jack Spruels
"I object to this Rail Freight Interchange because of the amount of farmland that will be taken. We need to produce more food locally and this will turn farmland in to concrete and warehouses. They will be lots more cars, vans and lorries on the roads and the pollution levels for air, light and noise will all rise."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jackie Beak
"I live close to this proposed development and I am very concerned about the impact it could have on my family and the community I live in. I strongly object to it on the grounds of the likely increase in air and light pollution and particularly noise pollution; the inevitable increase in road traffic causing extra congestion on already busy roads; the potential increase in crime levels; the major impact on wildlife due to the significant loss of their habitats and corridors. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laura Curtress
"I am concerned about the air pollution, traffic congestion and the impact on local wildlife. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Browning
"I wish to object to the proposals. My main objections are: - we do not need this development with development existing and planned at Dirft - the development will develop land west of m1 and set a presedent for further development in this area and beyond , especially associated with the bypass at Roade. It will negatively change the character of land and landscape west of the M1 - the proposed bypass at Roade is only required because of this development. The bypass will have significant adverse environmental impacts on land and the landscape around Roade including the important heritage centre at Stoke Bruene. Other negative environmental impacts will be from noise and air pollution (from increased Larry movements) associated with the highway. The cumulative environmental and social impacts of this and other developmet (recent and Planned) in this locality /area are currently inadequate. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Marchant
"I strongley object to Roxhills warehouse development on the following grounds:- 1. The significant road works that would be required to accomodate all the extra traffic would cause untold misery for local people. Even when all the construction work was completed, despite what the computer models say, major congestion would occur on the local road network during all the busy times of day. Myself and other small local firms would find it increasingly more difficult to operate out of Northampton. 2. Local companies already have great difficulty in recruiting staff due to the very low unemployment in the area. This proposal would totally destroy the local recruitment market for small firms. 3. No proper account appears to have been taken of the cumulative traffic impact of all the other housing and warehouse developments that are going on in the area, particularly along the A45. New housing is going up around Wootton with further housing being proposed there. Up to a thousand new houses are to be bult at Collingtree Park. New warehouses are being built at Brackmills and there is the new University campus at the Town Centre. All the traffic from these will feed onto the A45. We also have the Rail Central warehouse proposal that would bring thousands of extra cars and trucks onto our already congested local roads 4.The massive earthworks (bunding) would be a major blot on the landscape. Looking through the plans there would seem to be many hundreds of mtrs. of this eyesore which would destroy the countryside views. 5. The fields in which it is proposed to put these warehouses are a haven for wildlife, particularly farmland birds. If this habitat is destroyed these birds will be lost forever."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rebecca Marriott
"I strongly disagree with this purposed plan. It will absolutely destroy the WILD LIFE and ENVIRONMENT disrupt the PEACE with NOISE POLLUTION. Leave our beauty countryside alone. The whole project is completely unnecessary and you should use old warehouses. I live on grange park and since the amazon and clipper warehouses have gone up so has CRIME in the area and the TRAFFIC is unbearable. Why would you want to make our family area even more POLLUTED and distriped. Look after our NATURE reserves not destroy it. I have heavily invested in my home and these appalling decisions are ruining it "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sharon James
"I strongly object to the plans for the intended Northampton Gateway Rail Freight interchange-planning Inspectorate ref;TRO5OO6. The reasons for my objection are that this area (junction 15 M1) is already an extremely congested part of the county & this complex will put further strain on the close by villages of Roade & Blisworth. This complex will also have a negative impact on all the major roads in the vicinity causing traffic & travel problems and impacting on the local infrastructure in general ! There are not enough main arterial roads to cope with the influx of traffic !!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Spruels
"I object to this development taking place as I feel it will affect all aspects of our village life from increase in traffic (heavy goods vehicles etc), pollution and noise, to beautiful unspoilt countryside and farmland bsing destroyed which is an important part of this area. Producing local foods to businesses will come under threat due to loss of farmland. There is also Dirft less than 20 minutes away which serves this area so I feel there is no need for anything else. My children love the countryside I feel this development will take that love away as no one fancies walking round an industrial estate on a Sunday afternoon."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steve Ferguson
"I object strongly to this development. Please do not let this monstrous construction happen in our rural countryside. The traffic along the A508 is already dangerous and peak time traffic has long queues already at Junction 15. Even without this development, the Dept of Transport is already warning of severe congestion on the M1 J15-17 by 2040. This would both accelerate and worsen that picture. There is NO strategic need for this development- it is only 18 miles from DRIFT- an existing and larger facility. Rail capacity for passengers will be negatively impacted on what is the busiest stretch of railway in Europe. Noise, light and air pollution will rise significantly, and will be 24/7. 520 acres of farmland, wildlife corridors and habitats will be destroyed. It just make NO sense to pursue this strategically unnecessary development in an area which is rural, and struggling to cope within the existing infrastructure. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Caroline Ewin
"I strongly object to this application as it will cause further exacerbation of the problems already being experienced in this part of Northampton. Northamptonshire already has many warehouse developments, all of which cause traffic chaos, even where the roads have been improved to accommodate them. The closest warehouse development is that at Grange Park, which already seriously adds to the traffic congestion in the area, despite road improvements to the M1 junction 15. Usually, during the morning rush period, traffic is already backed up from junction 15 to Brackmills (another large scale warehouse/business development). The traffic caused by a development does not just come from users of the units but from staff accessing their places of work. With regard to the reduction of HGV traffic locally long term, this was also stated when DIRFT was created. This has not happened and indeed again just increases traffic in the area. Coupled with this, DIRFT (another local rail freight interchange) is no where near full capacity. How can another rail freight interchange be justified when the first is underused? The area in question has a number of Rights of Way across it and is an area of countryside that is greatly appreciated in what is already an over developed part of the town. Our village views of countryside will once again be disturbed. When will this unnecessary and over intensive development stop? "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Ward
"I object to Northampton Gateway for the following reasons: 1. No strategic need/capacity - DiRFT is only 18 miles from the proposed site. Industry experts do not believe a Rail Interchange is required in this area. NCC Highways Authority has highlighted potential negative impact on rail passenger services, due to increased freight services, and negative impact on west coast mainline (busiest in Europe). 2. Road Capacity - National Planning Statement on National Networks 2014 states “…proposed new rail freight interchanges should have good road access as this will allow rail to effectively compete with, and work alongside, road freight to achieve a modal shift to rail”. DiRFT has multiple access/exit routes to strategic and primary road networks, Roxhill's plans do not. 16500 extra vehicles will have a significant impact within the immediate area - DfT has warned of forecast severe congestion at M1 J15 by 2040 (this forecast does not include Roxhill’s 16500 vehicles); consequently, Roxhill’s planned improvements to Jct 15 have been judged not to add to overall capacity. Additionally, the M1 will experience significant disruption during 4-years of SMART motorway upgrade. 3. Impact on local infrastructure and safety. Local villages already experience rat-running due to congestion on M1/A43/A5 with HGVs ignoring advice not to follow sat navs or roads with weight limitations, resulting in damage to local bridges, buildings and road surfaces. Due to the already high volume of traffic on the A43, local traffic (including school buses) experience hazardous conditions when joining/crossing the A43. These risks will be exacerbated by an increase in HGV traffic in the wider area. 4. Safety in Design - unlike DIRFT which has multiple site and road access, the Roxhill site is a single entry/exit site onto the A508. There are no other suitable or proposed entry/exit points around the site perimeter - this is a significant safety concern in the event of a major incident necessitating both evacuation of Site personnel/ vehicles and free-flowing access to the Site for emergency vehicles. 5. Employment - the area does not have the resources to serve this development. Labour would need to be transported in and/or additional infrastructure required, all of which would add to each part of this objection. 6. Loss of wildlife habitat and farmland. Significant impact on the natural beauty of this rural landscape and the tranquility of the many public rights of way enjoyed by local/visiting walkers, cyclists and horse riders. The site, with its vast amounts of concrete and the requirement for additional physical highways works on the M1, A43, A45, A508 and other local roads, will inevitably cause irreversible damage to the local environment, birds and other wildlife, including protected species. 7. Adverse effect on living conditions due to noise, light, air pollution and crime increase. The rights of people to enjoy their homes/health will be undermined due to the visual impact, very high noise levels and various forms of environmental pollution 24 hours/day. The areas around DIRFT have experienced 176% increase in crime since 2000/01."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Exley
"Northampton Gateway (NG) is proposed at a site only 18 miles from the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) and will serve the same markets and conurbations. It will utilise the same rail lines and road systems. DIRFT, the largest SRFI in the UK, is planned to grow until at least 2040. The proposals for NG and Rail Central (RC), together with DIRFT, represent the potential for 3 national SRFIs co-located in a single area; a situation wholly contrary to the policy intention for SRFIs. The sheer scale of Northampton Gateway (NG) is such that it would have a very significant impact on the road network in the surrounding area. Highways England requires significant re-modelling of the M1 J15 and additional works to J15A. A Bypass is proposed for Roade together with other modifications to junctions along the A508 corridor between J15 and the A5 at Old Stratford. It is notable that the proposal does not appear to conform to : The legislative context, as it relates to Highways, is laid on in the National Policy Statement for National Networks (NPSNN) (Dec 2014); namely: NPS [3.2] For development (of the national road and rail networks) to be sustainable it should be designed to minimise social and environmental impacts and improve quality of life NPS [4.66] Consent should not be granted unless all steps will be taken to minimise the risk of road casualties arising from the scheme and contribute to the overall improvement of the safety of the Strategic Road Network. A bypass would move existing and additional levels of pollution into the prevailing wind only to be blown back into a currently quiet rural area of village. This is an area that has long been associated with horse breeding, stabling and riding at a number of properties. There is a well used bridle path that would be severed by the bypass, pushing the path under the road with its attendant noise exaggeration in the tunnel. The proposed route passes very close to an historic house with the possibility of causing vibration damage. Noise and NOx would increase from lorries and cars climbing the hill from the south. The Knock Lane roundabout would require all vehicles to slow down and the speed up again, not just some as now, causing additional noise (gear changing and engine revving) and exhaust pollution. Light pollution from headlights and street lights at this point would be an added. Should additional development take place along the bypass corridor it may be necessary to reduce the proposed speed limit thus increasing pollution. The proposed alterations to the Blisworth Rd-Courteenhall Rd junction with the A508 will ease one problem by creating another: rat-running impact through Blisworth will get worse. Traffic from J15 to Blisworth would inevitably continue onto the bypass and turn right down Knock Lane and Stoke Rd. Much of Knock Lane is approximately one metre narrower than Courteenhall Road, which many drivers would have used previously (Stop Rail Central Ltd recorded 166 cars entering Courteenhall Rd from the A508 between 8 and 9 am on Tues 12.07.16 and 270 between 5 and 6pm on Weds 13.07.16). Passing is doubly difficult at night time in such conditions. There will be further issues with parked cars on Stoke Road in Blisworth. Some of these car owners do not have access to garages and simply have nowhere else to park. There is a pinch point on Stoke Rd near the Doctors’ surgery, a destination that attracts more, local, traffic. This proposed alternative to Courteenhall Road is unsuitable for a significant increase in traffic movements. The above issues raise but a few concerns regarding the impact of such a development. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jonathan Murray
"This development is innappropriate due to the proximity to Daventry International Road Freight Terminal which is not operating at capacity and has planning approval for future expansion. The area is not suitable for such a development due to the lack of available existing, local labour resources. This area is essentially a rural environment and not suited to wharehousing development o this magnitude. The local infrastructure will not cope with the added congestion created by this development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Judith Nichols
"There needs to be adequate Strategic Rail Freight Infrastructure across the area but the current location of Dirft and its recent increase in size makes the Northampton development an over supply. There is no need to duplicate resources in such a concentrated geographical situation. The road capacity travelling through Northamptonshire is a significant concern. The M1 is hugely vulnerable to congestion if there are any problems, however minor. The recent expansion and upgrade to Smart Motorway status has eased the situation north of junction 16 but this is only allowing the road system to cope with current demand. Any additional traffic will increase the occasions when business and domestic traffic is gridlocked. As a frequent traveller through the area I have seen at firsthand how vulnerable the M1 is to delays and stoppages. Any further development in the area which places additional demands on the road network will have a detrimental effect on the economy of existing businesses and organisations due to the increased likelihood of severe congestion."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marcus Arnold
"I do not believe there is a need for such a huge development, DIRFT 18 miles to the north is being expanded, 18 miles to the south near junction 13 of the M1 there is currently over 1.1M sq feet of warehousing empty so why build more warehouses to sit empty? The effect of such a development creating an additional 16500 vehicle movements per day, would be catastrophic on the local roads, A45, A508 and M1 motor way, which can barely cope with current traffic levels Surrounding villages would be subject to Noise Light and Air Pollution, increased traffic, increased crime, as per areas around DIRFT have seen a 176% increase in crime since 2000/1. Therefor i very strongly object to this development which will have a dramatic effect on my quality of life,will probably reduce the value of my home which forms part of my pension plan "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marie Whitefield
"I strongly object to the proposed development as I am worried about the environmental impact of building Roxhill and its proposed road links. We have chosen our house as it backs onto farmland, with no pollution and no traffic noise. The proposed bypass would completely change this, with its path cutting through the said farmland, as well as a roundabout, meaning light, air and noise pollution caused by extra gear changes, not just through the day but at night too as the site would operate 24/7. Also 18 miles further up the road, DIRFT is already up and running and not operating at full capacity, is there any real need for a smaller development so close by? Another concern is the fact that this area is not capable of providing enough workers for the said development, as many residents of this village are either retired or nearing retirement. The unemployment rate here is very low. If the labour force has to travel in from other more populated areas, this will add to the impact on this village from commuting through day and night. The increased traffic to and from the Northampton Gateway would cause more delays and congestion on an already very busy M1 and surrounding major roads. Finally, I strongly object to the destruction of acres of farmland, wildlife habitats and pathways. We must take more care for our environment as the impact of its destruction is becoming obvious, particularly as far as climate change, animal conservation and pollution-related health problems are concerned. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Smith
"Would you want this on your door step ? ( NO I DON'T THINK SO) The traffic cutting through our village's at break neck speed is beyond a joke as it is, all hours of the day & night. Accident on the M1 is bad enough the village's are grid locked. This is only more money wasted (One thing this country is good at) when Crick is already. We need our land here for farming eg veg / crops ( Buy British ) We had a wine factory/then a spice mill/ meat plant/garage x 2 shops, we have one shop now. A garden center already brought up by rail central no doubt a few years ago. You only have to drive along the dual carriage way to see entrances that were never used due to these wanting to be used as access points the Government will do what ever they like as no one ever listens to the boots on the ground the people who will be directly affected by it all."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marla Boulton
"We already have a massive transport/rail link at Dirft which is only several junctions up the motorway, why on earth do we need a second one in busy, busy section of country - it doesn't add up. The roads are busy enough, the noise and air pollution would be get even worse than it already is. We keep losing more and more green areas, Northampton just gets bigger and bigger, roads are snagged more and more. Once we have this it will mean more and more will be built. there will no longer be villages just areas of a city that once where villages. Who is going to work 24/7 in these places, we're told east Europeans have stopped coming over with brexit, people will be travelling to work from miles and miles away - more and more traffic on already overstretched motorways and roads. We need the trains we have but are being told they may be reduced so can have more freight trains. The freight will be unloaded - where is it going? if up country it would go to Dirft already, east/west/south why come here? The motorways are constantly congested - when there's a snag on motorway all our roads become gridlocked for hours without all theses extra trucks and cars. Again our country's wildlife looses out. I came to Northampton over 25 years ago and it seemed very rural to me coming from Manchester but now it seems no different except there isn't the road structure in place to cope with it and life is much more unpleasant than it was. I strongly disagree that this is needed or would be of any benefit to the future of Northampton or the country."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Meg Haver
"I oppose the planned scheme as it is strategically unnecessary and represents a serious threat to the environment of the rural area it is proposed in. The traffic impacts are various with unsustainable increases in vehicle flow around J15-17 for the freight itself, the workers for the gateway and a likely negative impact on the passenger train service to/through the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Anderson
"I wish to strongly object to the proposed Rail Freight Terminals (Roxhill & Ashfield Land) as they are contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy formally adopted in December 2014. There is already adequate provisional at the DIRFT site at Crick which has gained planning approval for further development allowing it to expand until 2031. The proposed development would massively increase traffic congestion through the villages of Collingtree, Blisworth, Roade, Gayton and Milton Malsor on roads that are currently inadequate for current traffic volumes particularly at rush hour. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rebecca Kok
"To register my objection to The Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange Order 201X, reference number TR050006, from my view point as a local resident, road user, parent and property owner."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rosemary Anne Cook
"No strategic need due to DIRFT. Road capacity is insufficient. Noise light and air pollution, Loss of wildlife habitat and farmland. I live in Roade and the development will impinge on my daily life. There is no need for this development Junction 15 is unable to cope with the current traffic. There is insufficient housing in the area and the local employment situation means that very few local people would work here meaning that workers would have to come from further afield meaning more traffic on a daily basis. Increasing freight services could potentially lead to a reduction in passenger services. Why is there a need for Northampton gateway when DIRFT is only 20 miles away?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cheryl Whitburn
"I strongly object to this development because; 1. Traffic numbers currently are understated. The recording of traffic using the A 508 was collected when there was significant road works on the A 508 between Ashton and Grafton Regis. The Road works were over several months and all normal local traffic found alternative routes. 2. The proposed change to the junction where Ashton Road meets the A508 will make entering and exiting this road dangerous. It is almost a cross road with Rookery Lane (Stoke Bruerne) and a huge amount of traffic crosses this junction and the only safe way currently is by traffic on A508 blocking this junction to enable cars to cross. Traffic lights or roundabout is the only safe option."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cllr Luke Graystone
"My submission will be in my role as Councillor for Nene Valley ward on Northampton Borough Council, which includes the villages of Collingtree, Wootton and Hardingstone. I have been in contact with the residents from these villages since I became a Councillor and intend to represent their strongly held views about the specifics of the application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Heron
"I wish to strongly object to the Roxhill Northampton Gateway application on the following grounds: 1) As a resident of South Northants district and living about four miles from the application site, I am concerned that the development will cause severe pressure on the local road transport system, with increased delays and traffic jams. These are already a reality for local people and the development will make this much worse. In particular, incidents on the M1 between J15 and J14 can cause M1 traffic to be diverted to local roads and I do not consider that the traffic modelling for the development has sufficiently considered the effect of this mode of abnormal traffic conditions. 2) There will be a loss of farmland which is needed for food production. This will become an ever increasing problem in the future with a growing population and climate change. 3) Air pollution is already poor in this region and I fear that the development will make this even worse, especially as many of the vehicles will have Diesel engines. 4) There will be increased noise and light pollution from a site of this size. 5) This development could well set a precedent for more developments to the West of the M1. 6) Increasing the rail freight on the Northampton loop line may potentially reduce the passenger carrying capacity of the line between Northampton and Milton Keynes. 7) Although the area is at present unimproved farmland there are hedgerows and trees which are an important wildlife habitat and these will be destroyed. This area also has the potential in the future to connect to the landscape scale Nene valley conservation area which provides wildlife habitats and corridors over a larger area. I fear that this opportunity would be lost if the development goes ahead. 8) There is an existing rail freight terminal some 18 miles north of the development, so the development would be a duplication of what we already have. Thank you for considering these points. David Heron "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Westwood
"I strongly object to the proposed development due to the massively increased traffic congestion which will result in air and noise pollution at unacceptable levels and the destruction of such a large area of countryside and farmland. I also strongly object as this development is in direct conflict with the agreed Strategic Plan for West Northamptonshire where it has previously been said that "there is no further need for any further major employment sites within the 2029 plan period". I look forward to hearing how my objections are taken into consideration. Many thanks, Helen Westwood"
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Calder
"I object to the proposal because of the environmental damage to the countryside, the additional airborne pollution to the residents of villages in the area from the vehicular traffic and the proximity of a similar project 18 miles to the north of the proposed site which is still not fully used. Additionally there is still no confirmation that the rail link has the capacity to take the additional goods being delivered to the site and therefor will create more heavy road traffic in the area"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Harvey
"I strongly object to the development on two main issues. Firstly it will destroy a lovely countryside, that is home to many people who enjoy the peace and tranquility and access to this space. Also the additional noise, polution and traffic will significantly damage the quality of life for myself and family."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Phillip Hayward
"I wish you to note my strong objection to the proposed development. My objection is based primarily on 3 significant issues: 1. The increase in traffic in the local area is estimated by the developer themselves to be at the magnitude of at least 16,500 vehicle movements. This additional pressure on already overcrowded roads will spill into and cause lasting and unmitigated damage to the village of Blisworth. Instead of reducing the overall number of road movements involved in distribution, this development would increase it. 2. The proposed development would destroy more than 500 acres of productive rural farmland with no offsetting benefit in any location to ensure local food production remains sustainable. This cannot be seen as an acceptable loss. 3. The proposed site is intended to operate 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. As an industrial site in a rural setting, this would bring a unacceptable increase in ambient day and night noise levels and in night-time light levels. Together with the inevitable reduction in air quality these very local impacts would not be offset or mitigated by compensating benefits, either locally or elsewhere. Please ensure my objection is properly considered within the examination. "
Parish Councils
Roade Parish Council (Roade Parish Council)
"Roade Parish Council wish to strongly object to the proposed Northampton Gateway strategic rail freight interchange, and wish to be regarded as an ‘Interested party’ with reference to this application. Roads and the proposed Roade bypass Our villagers are very concerned that the development will exacerbate the traffic congestion around our village. The A508 north and south through the village are heavily congested, and we cannot see how adding 16,000+ vehicle movements a day can improve this in any way, with whatever mitigation the developer proposes. The M1 in both directions, and the A45 into Northampton are often at a standstill causing air pollution affecting resident’s health, there is no mitigation possible for that. The proposed Roade bypass is unwanted by most villagers, and we are led to believe that this may not happen until the development is already finished. If we have to have the development will it ever be constructed, or will it be up to cash strapped local authorities to seek to fund amelioration piecemeal? The developer should therefore be forced to build the bypass before any other development begins. The bypass will also adversely affect the sustainability of the businesses in the village that rely on passing traffic, resulting in the loss of valuable local facilities serving the villagers. We are not satisfied that the proposed access into the site can handle the traffic northbound on the A508, which is in conflict with the traffic seeking to cross its path into the site, without causing severe congestion. Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal DIRFT is available nearby, and has capacity up to 2031, and is located only 18 miles from the proposal. Employment and need South Northamptonshire has one of the lowest levels of unemployment in the country, the proposed development would need to attract employees from large distances, exacerbating traffic congestion and air pollution 24 hours of the day 365 days a year. We have never been presented with any documentation that this ‘strategic’ rail development has any market here, and as previously applied for, this is just a warehouse scheme. Two sites We are aware of an alternative scheme called Rail Central, who are intending to develop a similar scheme at Milton Malsor, we have seen nothing to suggest that the schemes have been properly considered with reference to the other, i.e. the cumulative effect on all aspects of the proposals. Brownfield sites As a village we have seen a large number of houses (500+) on brownfield sites within our Parish, and these have been accepted pragmatically within our community as a good use of the land. Having failed in 2014 to get permission for warehousing on this site, this speculative developer is now once again coming forward with an application to build on the greenbelt like land around our villages. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rodney Young
"I would like to make my objections to the proposed development. Not only can I see no need for this development as DIRFT already exists in reasonably close proximity but the impact on the local area will be devastating. Pollution levels in Roade are already from traffic emissions and this can only cause further problems. The road network is already heavily used - many heavy goods vehicles pass through Roade and the other villages. There will also be a need for an imported labour pool with consequent increase in commuter traffic. The development will also damage the rural nature of the immediate environment. There are other issues but the above, I consider, to be the most serious."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Lowin
"This proposed development is huge and out of place in a beautiful rural area. People living in the villages around will have our lives blighted by noise, light pollution and air pollution all day every day. There is no benefit for the local community but the local roads will have to bear extra traffic and inconvenience when we need to travel to neighbouring villages and towns to shop, access post and medical services. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Valerie Hayward
"I strongly object to this application because it will bring an unacceptable amount of noise from the operations at the site especially during the night, and an unacceptable amount of traffic passing through the historic village of Blisworth."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Zoe Day
"This is a quiet secure village for []. The village is a close knit community and my daughter feels safe. We relocated from Radlett inHertfordshire as it had become too big and was also under threat from massive over development. My elderly parents also moved to the village for piece of mind and quietness in their later years. This development is not needed and indeed DIRFT has not met full capacity yet and will not for a few years to come, therefore another depot is it needed in this vicinity. The local roads and M1 at Junction 15 are already severely congested and not just limited to rush hour. The area has a number of wildlife which would also be under threat should this development go ahead. I for one and the rest of my family do not wish this abhorrent monstrosity to go ahead. It really is not needed here. If it was I am sure you would not have so much opposition. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Amanda O'Brien
"I strongly object to the proposed Roxhill Rail Freight Interchange as the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal is only a short distance away from this site, serves the same local area and has capacity for expansion over 10 years. The noise created by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal (including rail shunting, loading & unloading of containers & operation of an aggregates terminal) and the light and noise pollution from night time operations. The proposed no right turn at the junction of Courtennhall Rd & A508 would mean traffic diverting through the centre of Blisworth and past the doctors surgery where parking is already a problem. The increased traffic through the local villages when there is congestion on the M1 would immediately congest small country lanes. Amanda O'Brien"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Annabel Bass
"I object strongly to the Roxhill developement as i feel the impact on the countryside will be too great. I moved up from London to escape the industrial lifestyle and embrace the nature surrounding my village, a beautiful nature. There are too many reasons to state why this should not move forward, traffic, pollution, protected wildlife, but it seems unneccessary too as DRIFT is so close and with so much still available for a good decade. At least space out such ventures if required, not all on the doorstep of one. Please. Thank you, Annabel"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Mallock
"I object to this project on the basis that there is already a freight rail interchange in Northampton at Crick as well as excess amounts of warehousing. Whilst I support the government initiative to encourage more freight of the roads and motorways, having multiple freight interchanges in Northampton does not achieve this and they would be surely better sited at intervals across the network. The surrounding road network linking local villages are narrow and rural and would not be able to support the diverted traffic when the M1 was closed, which is a frequent occurrence. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Audrey Ramshaw
"I object for the following reasons: Reasons to Object 1. The proposal will destroy hundreds of acres of local countryside and bring industry into an area that is an important gap between Town and country. 2. The site would be surrounded by high earth mounds (bunding) that would be themselves a “blot on the landscape” 3. The destruction of wildlife habitat in particular for farmland birds where the habitat loss cannot be compensated for. 4. The loss of farmland when the country needs to produce more food rather than importing it. 5. The destruction of the local footpath network in particular the footpath between Milton Malsor and Collingtree that would be diverted alongside the Collingtree Rd. and the M1 motorway. 6. Increased traffic through the village when there is congestion on the M1. 7. Increased air pollution from the thousands of extra cars, vans and HGV’s using the roads in the local area. 8. The proposed no right turns at the junction of Courteenhall Rd and the A508. would mean traffic diverting through the centre of Blisworth and past the doctors surgery where parking is already a problem. 9. Noise created by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers and the operation of an aggregates terminal. 10. Light pollution from night time operations. 11. The area has very low unemployment so the majority of workers for the operation would have to travel some distance to work adding to congestion and pollution. 12. All the local plans show this site being retained as farmland and open countryside not industrial development. 13. The site contains a number of mature trees that will take many years to replace. 14. The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only a short distance away from this site, serves the same local area and has capacity for expansion for over 10 years. 15. The experience from DIRFT shows an increase in crime following the industrialisation of the area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carol Pell
"Noise and light pollution will affect locals in a detrimental way. Traffic increase will cause problems and pollution. The DRIFT terminal is close by at Daventry. We will lose many acres of farmland. We need houses not more warehouses. Low local unemployment,workers driving in means more traffic with all its problems."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Catherine Thompson
"The following outline represents the main points I intend to make in relation to the application. 1. Increase in traffic congestion 2. A reduction in air quality despite it being of poor quality currently 3 An increase in noise pollution from both the M1 and the A45 which is already at intolerable levels. 4. The loss of huge swathes of country/ farmland which will detrimentally alter the landscape of South Northants 5. It contradicts the strategic plan for West Northamptonshire 6 Environmentally it will be disastrous for the flora and fauna."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clare Edwards
"That the local infrastructure including road network cannot cope with the additional traffic The loss of green open spaces will have a detrimental effect on The local environment and wildlife. The loss of countryside will have a detrimental effect on the local quality of life."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Colin Ramshaw
"I object for the following reasons:- Reasons to Object 1. The proposal will destroy hundreds of acres of local countryside and bring industry into an area that is an important gap between Town and country. 2. The site would be surrounded by high earth mounds (bunding) that would be themselves a “blot on the landscape” 3. The destruction of wildlife habitat in particular for farmland birds where the habitat loss cannot be compensated for. 4. The loss of farmland when the country needs to produce more food rather than importing it. 5. The destruction of the local footpath network in particular the footpath between Milton Malsor and Collingtree that would be diverted alongside the Collingtree Rd. and the M1 motorway. 6. Increased traffic through the village when there is congestion on the M1. 7. Increased air pollution from the thousands of extra cars, vans and HGV’s using the roads in the local area. 8. The proposed no right turns at the junction of Courteenhall Rd and the A508. would mean traffic diverting through the centre of Blisworth and past the doctors surgery where parking is already a problem. 9. Noise created by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers and the operation of an aggregates terminal. 10. Light pollution from night time operations. 11. The area has very low unemployment so the majority of workers for the operation would have to travel some distance to work adding to congestion and pollution. 12. All the local plans show this site being retained as farmland and open countryside not industrial development. 13. The site contains a number of mature trees that will take many years to replace. 14. The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only a short distance away from this site, serves the same local area and has capacity for expansion for over 10 years. 15. The experience from DIRFT shows an increase in crime following the industrialisation of the area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Compton Paul Johnson
"I wish to object most strongly to the Roxhill Northampton Gateway proposal on the basis that the DIRF site, some 16 miles away, at Crick is still under-developed and under-used. Not only that there is more than adequate room to expand the site substantially with zero impact on local residential premises. It is also ideally linked to the motorway system at junction 16. This again gives minimal impact to the local villages with regard to the accompanying road transport. The site between Blisworth and Milton is a completely green field site, farmland predominantly, with no direct motorway links and on top of the residential premises adjacent to said proposed site. The MI junction 15 is already a notorious one with potential accidents a daily occurrence."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Edward Colville
"I object to this application. I am a frequent visitor to the local area, and value this site for its unspoilt countryside, footpath networks, wildlife (particularly farmland birds) and trees. This proposal will destroy hundreds of acres of countryside and wildlife habitats (both on the site and in surrounding areas) through direct development, noise, traffic, air and light pollution. It is not clear to me that the proposal would benefit anyone in the local area. Local unemployment is low, meaning workers on the site are likely to travel from some distance away. If additional rail freight capacity is required, this can be serviced by other nearby terminals, which have capacity for expansion."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gillian Jaynes
"I object to the proposed Northampton Gateway in the strongest possible terms for the following reasons: • There is no space for a large warehouse park and rail freight interchange on a crowded and congested urban setting. • There is access to a rail freight interchange (under expansion) a mere 15 miles away in the same county. (DIRFT) • M1, A45, A508, A5 arterial roads connecting the site are already at capacity, and the M1 junctions 14 -17 are at a standstill twice every day, the system cannot take many more thousands of vehicles.(16,500) •There is no need in South Northamptonshire for more employment therefore workers will have to drive in from some distance away. •The road systems in Milton Keynes, Towester, Brackley, Silverstone will be detrimentally affected by the increase of traffic. •My understanding is that the rail system has no capacity for further freight movement therefore making another rail ffeight interchange unecessary. • There is large domestic housing expansion in the Milton Keynes, Stony Stratford, Brackley and Silverstone areas. Commuter trains will be required to take many extra thousands of passengers to work every day. •Air and light pollution will increased. •Crime levels will increase. •There will be loss of wildlife habitat and farmland •The Governments plan for a Northern Powerhouse will have more need for rail freight Interchanges than an area which already has an expanding site at DIRFT. •There is room to the north of the DIRFT site for further expansion without encroaching upon people's quality of lives. • A community of 3/4 million people in the Northampton area will be adversely affected by this proposal. •It is aparent that speculative.developers are hoping to make vast sums of money through the Governments' infrastructure policy regardless of whether such an inland port is needed in this area. This is born out by the fact that currently there are two such proposals in a mere 2 mile radius. I object to thisrail freight proposal in the strongest possible terms."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gyllian Ash
" No,no no & no! I object strongly to this proposed development. This area is already experiencing significant pollution, due to too much traffic. The development & the attendent increase in vehicle activity, travelling to & from the site 24/7, would generate air, noise & light pollution to a totally unacceptable level & prose major health risks to people living nearby. Often,at present, without any new developments, the region around Junction 15 on the M 1 has a visible blue cloud of exhaust fumes hovering over it. This proposed SRFI would be superfluous & unnecessary with DIRFT, which is expanding, only 18 miles away. Acres of land in this area, have been concreted over & lost to food production & wild life habitat. The warehouses that have been built on them are often seen standing empty & unused, monuments to short term policy & commercial greed. Giving the go ahead to this unnecessary SRFI, only increases the chances of yet more development, bringing yet more air pollution, overcrowded roads, noise, disruption & congestion, loss of valuable farm land & wildlife habitat & potentially a considerable increase in crime in the area, as experienced by those living around DIRFT since 2000/2001- a truly poisonous cocktail all round. "
Parish Councils
Hardingstone Parish Council (Hardingstone Parish Council) on behalf of Hardingstone Parish Council
"Hardingstone Parish Council has several objections regarding this proposal: - M1 junctions 15 & 15a, A45, and A43 are already struggling with daily traffic at peak times. This will only increase over the next few years with already agreed plans for Sustainable Urban Extensions at Collingtree and Hardingstone. The junction where the M1 meets the A45 is expected to carry 60,000 vehicles a day by 2026. - the area is already subject to high levels of noise and emissions pollution which are close to or above legal limits - loss of countryside - loss of footpaths and natural wildlife habitats "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Madeleine Skillen
"I object: Reasons to Object 1. The proposal will destroy hundreds of acres of local countryside and bring industry into an area that is an important gap between Town and country. 2. The site would be surrounded by high earth mounds (bunding) that would be themselves a “blot on the landscape” 3. The destruction of wildlife habitat in particular for farmland birds where the habitat loss cannot be compensated for. 4. The loss of farmland when the country needs to produce more food rather than importing it. 5. The destruction of the local footpath network in particular the footpath between Milton Malsor and Collingtree that would be diverted alongside the Collingtree Rd. and the M1 motorway. 6. Increased traffic through the village when there is congestion on the M1. 7. Increased air pollution from the thousands of extra cars, vans and HGV’s using the roads in the local area. 8. The proposed no right turns at the junction of Courteenhall Rd and the A508. would mean traffic diverting through the centre of Blisworth and past the doctors surgery where parking is already a problem. 9. Noise created by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers and the operation of an aggregates terminal. 10. Light pollution from night time operations. 11. The area has very low unemployment so the majority of workers for the operation would have to travel some distance to work adding to congestion and pollution. 12. All the local plans show this site being retained as farmland and open countryside not industrial development. 13. The site contains a number of mature trees that will take many years to replace. 14. The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only a short distance away from this site, serves the same local area and has capacity for expansion for over 10 years. 15. The experience from DIRFT shows an increase in crime following the industrialisation of the area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martyn Guerin
"I strongly object to the proposals for the following reasons: - no strategic or comercial need given that DIRFT is nearby and is not yet fully developed or close to capacity - under-representation of the impact on noise, light and air pollution to the surrounding residential areas; no live data from reference sites has been provided - plans for screening the buildings and infrastructure are sparse and do not indicate the length of time that it will take to be planted and grown sufficiently to obscure the scale of proposed buildings - road infrastructure plans are insufficient to accommodate increased traffic volumes especially at peak travel periods around junction 15 of the M1 - Northampton is increasingly a popular commuter town for Birmingham and London and will require increased passenger rail services whereas these plans "might require a reduction in passenger services to Northampton" - the planned housing expansion for the area (37k new homes by 2021) has not been accommodated in the road infrastructure requirements as the location for this much needed housing stock is yet to be finalised "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mavis Brewer
"Having lived in Milton Malsor for 55 years I strongly object to the proposed Northampton Gateway, on the grounds it will be sited on what is currently agricultural land in open countryside. This will destroy the beautiful countryside which I enjoy living in. I also strongly object to this proposal as it is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy, in which, there is no evidence or suggestion for an SRFI to be sited on land in open countryside off junction 15 on the M1. In any case, the need for an SRFI is already identified in the Core Strategy, as the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal, which is sited approx 18 miles away off junction 18 on the M1. So therefore there is no need for the Northampton Gateway proposal as it is unnecessary. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michele Horton
"I lived in Milton Malsor for 13 years and although I am no longer there I am still a regular visitor as I have many friends living there. Also I use the footpath network in the Milton and Collingtree. I object most strongly to the proposed Roxhill Rail Freight Interchange at Junction 15 of the M1. My reasons are as follows, 1. The destruction of the footpath network mentioned above. 2. The increased pollution in what is already a very polluted area. You can alteady smell the fumes from the motorway sometimes. 3. The increased traffic that will affect both Milton and Collingtree making life less safe for the residents. 4. The noise that the increased traffic will produce. 5. The light pollution that will result from such a development. 6. The destruction of 1000's acres of farmland that is/can be used for producing food. 7. The loss of habitat for so much wildlife. 8. The DIRFT site at Juntion 18 is less than 20 miles away and has massive capacity and scope for further expansion. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Darby
"I object for the following reasons; it is heart breaking to watch the picturesque landscape disappear as this is something happening all over the county. I object that our quiet villages will be destroyed causing the property value to decrease. I object that Milton Malsor will be used as a rat run which would increase road traffic collisions. Even with careful planning there will be a major increase in traffic, increase in pollution which NCC are trying to reduce, increase on wear and tear of the road including potholes which NCC have no money to fix as it is. The main roundabouts on the motorway, dual carriage way, both from Towcester, Swan Valley, Collingtree etc are already at breaking point during peak hours, so I object to putting more lorries on these roads as it will only further delays and accidents. I object because an influx of people visiting these villages could cause a rise in theft and crime. I object because of the reduced privacy to our homes and villages. I object that some people will lose their homes. I object that part of my land is featured in the plans sent out to us last month stating areas of interest. I object that wildlife will be destroyed due to building and habitats ripped away. I object that peaceful dog walking routes will be interrupted and views will be obscured. I dont believe Milton Malsor, Blisworth or Collingtree are ideal places for these giant builds to occur in - it should be further out in more industrial areas, not near historical villages, buildings and churches. A lot of people in these villages are elderly and they should be allowed to live out their older years in peace. I object to the hurt and distress this has caused residents since it first started. I object to this from a personal and logical views and do not believe it to benefit our villages, countryside or our roads. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rachel Heron
"I object to Roxhill's Northampton Gateway because there is no strategic need for it due to DRIFT; there is an existing larger facility only 18 miles away. I object to the Gateway because it will bring about a lot of noise, light and air pollution which will be 24/7. I object to the Gateway because it will bring the threat of further development, the M1 no longer acting as a boundary for development, as the site is on the 'rural' side of the M1. I object to the Gateway because Northamptonshire doesn't have the available labour pool already resident; people would have to travel in from further afield adding to the traffic congestion and pollution. I object to the Gateway because it might require a reduction in passenger train services to accommodate the necessary increase in freight services over the loop line serving Northampton, as stated by NCC Highways Authority. I object to the Gateway because roads in the locality are already overcrowded and the Gateway would cause significant pressure, adding another 16,500 vehicle movements daily. I object to the Gateway because it will inevitably cause loss of wildlife habitat and farmland, building the Gateway will destroy 520 acres of farmland, habitat and corridors. I object to the Gateway because areas around DRFIT have seen over 2.5 times more crime compared to before DRIFT came about. This will inevitably affect all the local communities and make Northamptonshire a less desirable place to live in. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Thompson
"I object to this proposal for the following reasons. Traffic congestion in the area is already a nightmare, this can only make matters worse. Air quality in Collingtree is already poor, the increase in pollution from thousands of extra vehicle movements and the site itself can only make this worse. Noise pollution from the A45 and M1 is already significant, again this will be made worse. The loss of so much countryside and agricultural land is obscene. This is not a strategic development. Already enough rail freight can be handled at DIRFT just up the road. Indeed the scheme is in direct conflict with the agreed Strategic Plan for West Northamptonshire which stated that because of DIRFT3 and the large site at Junction 16, there is no need for any further major employment sites within the2029 plan period. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sonia Chapman
"I live in Roade which is the nearest village to the Roxhill development. Already our village is subject to an enormous amount of traffic which brings its own hazards with it ie pollution from vehicles, traffic noise, light pollution, safety concerns for the residents. I am not sure why the Roxhill development is needed when there is a similar development already up and running in Daventry. I am aware that this development despite its promise is not connected to the railway network. My worry is that this development will follow the same pattern as the Daventry development and only the road network will be used. My further concerns are that if this development is allowed then it will pave the way for further development in the area destroying further natural land between Roade and junction 15 of the motorway. I have lived in the village all my life and have seen a growth in the village over the last few years. I believe that any further development will have a detrimental affect on the village as a whole. I work in Northampton and will need to pass this development every morning and evening and am worried about the effect this development will have on the roads surrounding it. Already the motorway is jammed regularly northbound and southbound which has a serious knock on effect on the village. The extra traffic that this development will bring to the area will overload an already overloaded road network. Also employment will be sourced from other areas who will be using this extremely overloaded road network. The plant will be running 24/7 365 days a year with no let up on the traffic. Also if and I mean IF this development is ever connected to the railway then this will mean that there will be fewer passenger trains available due to the freight rail requirement and this will have a massive impact on a once again extremely overloaded passenger train service to London/Birmingham. All in all this development is not required is far too big for this area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Wendy Steer
"I have the strongest possible objection to the current plans for Roxhill’s Northampton Gateway project for a number of reasons. 1. The plan would almost completely destroy a large area of open farmland south of the M1. and envelop a lovely old village. 2. Driving round the area, including close to the M1, there are any number of large unlet warehouses. Why build more, at considerable cost. DIRFT, just along the M1 is also not working at full capacity. 3. The increase in volume of traffic would be immense on the M1, and also the A43, not a fast road. Both of these frequently come to a stand still around here. Added to this will be the increased noise and pollution. 4. Northampton itself would not be capable of providing the workforce required which would mean a massive increase in local population. 5. The rail loop line is very slow and if heavily used would interfere with passenger services on the main line, the busiest line in the country. 6. Northamptonshire is often referred to as Britain’s Best Kept Secret for it’s history, beauty and historic buildings. If this monstrosity is built were to be built it will become like so many other areas in the country – a vast expanse of enormous grey boxes, surrounded by large and soulless housing estates. There is no infrastructure here to support this. 7. What happened to the South Northants. Local Plan to limit development to north of the M1? And why build Northampton Gateway so far from the markets it will serve? 8. Already property round here is becoming more difficult to sell, and decreasing in value. And what happens to all those people whose jobs are nearby and will lose their homes, not to mention numerous businesses? "
Members of the Public/Businesses
J Hunt
"I strongly object to the development of the Northampton Gateway development by Roxhill because of the following 3 reasons: 1) Increase of traffic through the surrounding villages, both the disruption and increased pollution, light and noise. 2) Increase of rail traffic and therefore reducing the passenger train frequency and reduced capacity. 3) Unclear demand from the development, and the under utilised DRIFT (similar facility) a few miles away in the same county. I hope these reasons alone are enough to not pass the planning. Regards, J Hunt "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Hillier
"I intend to make points in any future written representation in respect of: Suitability of the location for this SRFI Impact on local traffic flow including an assessment of various scenarios Effect upon the environment and individual villages and communities Various aspects of pollution most particularly air quality, noise and light Strategic suitability Economic viability Compliance of the proposal with National policy"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brenda Jenks
"I wish to object to the Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Terminal Proposal for the following reasons: The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is just a short distance away with capacity until 2031. The Northampton Gateway terminal will bring more lorries and ancillary vehicles into an already grossly congested area. The creation of another warehouse park in an area already overloaded with warehouses will only further increase pollution levels. If the Government wishes to reduce pollution across the country it should have a national strategy for a balance of Rail Freight warehousing across the United Kingdom, rather than allowing developer led applications such as Roxhill Developments' Northampton Gateway. Staffing: The Northampton area has low unemployment levels, where will the staff to run the terminal and man the warehouses come from? They will of course be sourced from outside the area, creating more traffic and increasing pollution. Cycle lanes are highlighted in the development plans, the few brave individuals who may use them will make little difference to the levels of motor traffic. The Roade by Pass, will have an access to Knock Lane which leads to a country road between Blisworth and Stoke Bruerne, this route is already a ‘rat run’ and the development proposal will encourage more vehicles to use this ‘shortcut’. The impact on Blisworth is unimaginable, the narrow road passes a Dr’s surgery and residential properties into the heart of a small village! Milton Malsor is a beautiful village with a Grade 2* listed Church mentioned in the Domesday book. The Rail Terminal and warehousing will be within very close distance to the village and this currently peaceful area will be blighted by light, noise and air pollution. The operation will run 24 x 7 and will ruin life for the residents. No amount of bunding/screening will protect the village. Cumulative Impact with Rail Central – no assessment, on the local impact, has been undertaken by Roxhill should both proposals be consented. Public footpaths – ancient pathways, across beautiful open countryside, will be destroyed. The footpath between Milton Malsor & Collingtree will be re routed alongside the Collingtree Road and the M1 motorway. Hardly a countryside walk! An industrial site so close to the villages of Milton Malsor & Collingtree will generate increased crime and can only be described as abhorrent. The local area is already awash with warehouses and there is no illustrative data to prove that logistics companies will sign up to the proposed Rail Freight Terminal - Northampton Gateway. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carol Sarstedt-McCarthy
"My thoughts on this proposed development are: 1. Not required. Existing facilities in Daventry are underutilised so why destroy useful farmland and environments for more warehouses. 2. Major roads around the area will not cope with the vast increase in traffic created by an estimated 6000 employees plus HGV's etc. to the site. At present the stretch of the M1 in this area in very congested and the least incident on any major road causes gridlock to the surrounding roads. 3. Noise, light and air pollution will increase -already at a high level. 4. The environmental damage will be irreversible in terms of lost farmland and wildlife habitat. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine Marshall
"I strongly object to the proposed development because; 1. Northampton Gateway (NG) will not meet the descriptors of how a SRFI works as set out in paras 2.43 and 2.44 of the National Policy Networks. During local consultation, early on in the process Roxhill, in response to a question about potential rail users of the site advised that freight would also move in an out by road, not rail and that customers who took up space at NG would be 'down to market forces'. They have subsequently advised that no more than 10% of movements are expected to be by rail. Thus rail will not '... be used to best effect to undertake the long-haul primary trunk journey...' (para 2.43) nor will the aim of an SRFI (para 2.44) '...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 co-location of other distribution and freight activities.' be met. 2. The proposed road and traffic plan, to and from the south of the site using the A508 will benefit just NG. The proposals are detrimental both to Roade village, where local businesses will suffer due to reduced passing trade and to users of the A508 who will experience significant bottle-necks both north and south of the site. All traffic movements, in and out of the site should be via the already proposed re-developed M1 Junction 15 (in) and out via a dedicated on-slip directly onto M1 northbound between Junctions 15 and 16. Such a design for Junction 15 is feasible - M6 Junction 6,Spaghetti Junction has been in use for more than 40 years - and has the benefit of confining all movements, in and out, from all directions to dual carriageway roads ie A43 (M1 J16), A45 (M1 J15) and M1. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Daniel Harvey
"i strongly object to the Roxhill , Northampton Gateway development for the following reasons : 1. The excessive noise pollution which will be created by a 24 / 7 facility 2. The road network is already grid locked every morning at Junction 15. Further traffic will just compound the problem 3. The industrial facility will attract crime, which has been shown to be the situation at Dirft, brackmills & grange park 4. Quite frankly , industrial 'sheds' of this magnitude are unsightly & a complete 'blot ' on the beautiful Northamptonshire landscape. 5. There is already a facility of this nature at nearby DIRFT - why obliterate the countryside even furtrther."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Frances Andrews
"I wish to register my strong objection to the Roxhill development plan for the following reasons. Its necessity, there is capacity at the Drift site. We need to think more long term, is it wise or right to loose valuable farmland, wild habitat and green space for short term commercial gain? What would the consequences be for this already pressurised area of rural Northamptonshire? The problems due to hugely increased traffic take little imagination,which proposed alterations to the M1 would not alleviate. Already any snarl up here results in grid lock for surrounding country roads, people will always seek an escape route. Even without the development, the Department of Transport itself predicts severe future congestion. Also considerable numbers of workers would be traveling to the site, greatly increasing the problem. So, apart from the horrendous pollution resulting from the development, the traffic alone makes it an untenable proposition. However, already above permissible levels, pollution is reason enough to reject the plan. People matter, lifes and health would seriously suffer by the continuous noise, light and noxious fumes emitted. Plus the threat of increased crime, proven already by the Drift site. It does seem, as ordinary citizens of this lovely country of ours, that sometimes people are expendable. Our local rail service is important to people and the plans could result in reductions in passenger services. The M1 does form an obvious barrier to further development, something recognised by South Northants Development Plan. Once crossed the horrific effects on local countryside and villages would be irreversible. We have a responsibility to present and future generations to be good stewards of this green and pleasant land. We need to care for rural Northamptonshire just as much as we would the better known parts of England. Who will write songs and poems about vast expanses of concrete and monsterous warehouses covering what was once productive farmland?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Bodfield
"I strongly object to the proposed Roxhill Rail Freight Interchange Northampton Gateway Junction 15 M1 Motorway. It is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy. This proposal will destroy valuable countryside and farmland, necessary to produce food for humans and habitat for wildlife. The area is already heavily congested leading to pollution and health issues. It will not be a nice place to live. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jean Packham
"I object to Roxhills proposed Rail Terminal. 1) The development of this site would be a complete disaster for wildlife. The development area is a haven for many species of birds some of which are on the RSPB Red List. This site is a rich farmland habitat which once lost would be lost forever. Overwintering Golden Plover use these fields and it would be difficult for them to find suitable alternative habitat. In addition there are Bat roosts on the site and the vegitation provides food and shelter for many varieties of Butterfly. 2) This site contains a number of small areas of woodland and a large number of mature trees and hedgerows. Despite the developers plans to plant new trees they will never replace what would be lost. 3) The earth bunding that would surround the site would be an ugly feature on the landscape and introduce something totally alien into what is currently open countryside with extensive views. The public footpaths that currently run through the site take advantage of these views and make for an easy way to walk between local villages without the need to cross busy roads. These paths would be lost with these plans to be replaced by paths without any views other than the railway line and roads with their noise and air pollution. As such they would serve no useful purpose and would probably be unused. 4) The area around Northampton already suffers from traffic congestion as the road network is not designed for or fit for current traffic volumes.The M1 is often closed or congested due to accidents and this will only get worse with the vast increase in in traffic that this development would generate. Noise and air pollution would have a really negative impact on the health and wellbeing of local people. 5) The no right turn at the Courteenhall Rd. junction with the A508 would cause a considerable amount of inconvenience to many local residents particularly those who wish to visit the Library or village hall in Roade. The proposed alternative route via the High Street and Stoke Rd. in Blisworth is totally unsuitable due to all the parked cars on the narrow road outside the Doctors Surgery. Any increase in traffic at this point will lead to siginficant problems."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jodie Johnson
"I wish to strongly object to the Roxhill Northampton Gateway development for the following reasons: I understand that the DIRFT site is currently not up to full capacity, in fact it is many years away from this so I do not see the current need for this new development. I believe the development would cause a significant amount of noise, light and air pollution in the area as it will be operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The roads in the surrounding areas are already in a bad state of repair without having additional heavy goods traffic using them. I feel that if this development is allowed to go ahead it may set a president for other developers to do the same. Currently the M1 provides a boundary against this. Once this line is crossed it is inevitable that smaller villages will become joined up with Northampton. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
June Hawkins
"Sheet 1: I strongly object to the development of Roxhills Northampton Gateway. Some Points:- It is definitely the wrong plan in the wrong place! Have all of the implications to the environment been considered. 5 million square feet of warehousing to be constructed near the M1 motorway at Junction 15! 60,000 from other planned developments are forecast to use the A45/J15 16,500 additional site generated vehicle movement every 24hrs plus 3,400 heavy goods vehicles! 16 Diesel trains plus 12 other trains every 24hrs Light pollution and its health hazards is a worrying aspect! Spoiling the environment and the surrounding countryside through the permanent loss of 520 acres of Productive Farm Land Causing the loss of habitat and wildlife corridors! Loss of country walks! Use of unsuitable country roads for the increased traffic! There isn't a need for this development DRIFT is only 18 miles away, on the same loop line? DRIFT will not reach capacity until 2031! This area doesn't need another development of this kind! Therefore I strongly object! Sheet 2: I strongly object to the planning proposal for the following reasons: The M1 Junction 15 and 15a is frequently overwhelmed by the existing traffic on the M1. The plans would destroy the harmony and countryside in Milton Malsor and Blisworth. There is adequate facilities for a rail interchange just a few miles away with capacity for many years. There is no local demand for this facility."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laura Harvey
"The proposal will destroy hundreds of acres of local countryside and bring industry into an area that is an important gap between Town and country. Furthermore, the site would be surrounded by high earth mounds (bunding) that would be themselves a “blot on the landscape”. Additonally this will lead to increased traffic through the village when there is congestion on the M1, which is likely to result in increased air pollution from the thousands of extra cars, vans and HGV’s using the roads in the local area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Les Draper Eames
"I OBJECT to this plan BECAUSE it will destroy many hundreds of acres of beautiful local countryside and destroy habitats for wildlife such as farm birds, all sorts of small wild local animals, ancient trees, insects. It is unimaginable what this project would do to these beautiful country villages all around, loss of needed farmland, and destruction of footpath network around here. I OBJECT to The increase in traffic through the village such as when M1 is congested, all causing unbearable amounts of pollution, especially for people with Asthma like my husband. I object to the pollution from hundreds of extra HGV's cars vans etc, as well as light pollution at night which will block out the stars which are perfectly clear from the village at present time, plus the noise will unbearable 24/7. I object to the proposed no right turns at junction of Courteenhall Rd A508 causing traffic to flow through Blisworth then through Milton. Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is not far away, serves same area has great capasity for future expansion. Increased crime in the area was also a problem there. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Webb
"It is recognised that passenger rail services on the West Coast line will need more capacity and frequency. This project threatens to reduce capacity for those services. The area currently serves a thriving mix of small businesses, including agriculture and tourism, both of which would be adversely affected by pressure on the road network. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicky Chapman
"We live on the main Northampton Road, at the corner of Station Road. Our property is not only our home but also houses 3 holiday lets which are our business. The holiday lets are popular with people who want to walk the canals / be in the countryside/ walk pets / get away from the hustle and bustle of everyday life. We get a lot of repeat business. The rail freight project will take 10 years to complete during which time our business will suffer enormously. The developers have said there will be more people (workers) wanting to stay locally - this is not the trade we want nor the trade we lovingly refurbished our property to accommodate. When we began the renovation of our property, we were encouraged by the Council to develop the outbuildings as holiday lets as Northamptonshire (particularly our area) does not have enough of these and the Council wish to encourage tourism. This development will totally ruin this business. My husband and I will retire in the next two years and had planned peaceful times in our garden whilst running our holiday letting business. This is why we renovated the property. The planned development will make this impossible. We would have to move away - we do not wish to do this."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Northampton Ramblers (Northampton Ramblers)
"Northampton Ramblers (135 members as at 25 July 2018) wish to object to the proposed Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange development, Reference TR050006, for the following reasons: 1 The destruction of the local footpath network, in particular the footpath between Milton Malsor and Collingtree. 2 All the local plans show this site being retained as farmland and open countryside, not industrial development and is, we believe, a conservation area. 3 The site contains a number of mature trees that will take many years to replace. 4 The destruction of wildlife habitat especially farmland birds where the habitat cannot be compensated for. 5 Increased air pollution from the greatly increased number of cars, vans and HGVs using the local area. 6 Light pollution from night time operations and an increase in noise levels created by 24/7 operating. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paulette Kennedy
"I strongly object to this proposal. The East Midlands has supported the National Policy with 39million square feet of warehousing. Dirft 3 minimal start with thousands of acres reaching into Warwickshire. Roxhill has failed to outline their markets. Little to no manufacturing in this area. RAIL CAPACITY: Roxhill have failed show that the WC Main Line could cope with 4 trains per day without endangering passenger travel. Network Rail believe this line is nearing capacity. Roads: 14,116 vehicle movement will have enormous impact on local roads A508, A45 particularly as there is only one entrance/exit immediately before J15. RTA's will mean HGV using local roads for access. AIR POLLUTION: J15 is already above national levels NO2 together with particular matter the increase in traffic will add to unacceptable levels NOISE: 24/7 operation with 27ft cranes, and HGVs backing up LIGHT POLLUTION: countryside setting unbalanced by all night lighting, residents and wildlife affected. ENVIRONMENT: 5,000,000 SQ FT of countryside lost concreted over. Pollutant risk to the ecosystems. Defra identified this lowers crop yields. Rural setting destroyed. ROADE BY PASS: Suggestion unfit for purpose. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Whitefield
"I strongly object to the application for Roxhill Northampton Gateway because I feel there is no need for a new development just 18 miles from the much larger existing Dirft development at Rugby, which is still expanding and currently not even at full capacity. Also I strongly object on air pollution,specifically as I believe the extra traffic 24 hours a day with directly effect my health,breathing & general well being which has improved since I moved away from a similar environmentally unfriendly area. I also feel the road & rail infrastructure will not be able to cope with the increases planned especially if the is a problem M1 motorway which is happening much more frequently due to much higher volumes of traffic, thus becoming a bigger problem with even more traffi I also strongly object on the project being to the west of the M1 motorway which is outside the South Northamptonshire Local Plan & believe that more development would come once this boundary is crossed. I also strongly object because we do not have the available workforce in the area and this will mean more traffic bring the workforce in or more house building on current farmland & wildlife habitats. I also believe crime will increase as it has in the area surrounding the DIRFT development in Rugby "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Akers
"I strongly object to this planning application as it will impact on the villages in the area due to the additional vehicle movements and the additional noise and air pollution this development would bring. The proposed development would result in the loss of 520 acres of farmland and wildlife habitats and corridors which is irreplaceable. I would also point out the number SRFI's already in the close proximity of the application. Both the Department for Transport and Network Rail have already issued warnings of severe congestion and loss of services if this application in granted."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Jenks
"I strongly object to the Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Terminal proposal: Daventry International Freight Terminal is approx 15 miles away and has at least 30% extra capacity until 2031. The West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WJCS) found to be sound by a Government Inspector states that there should be no development south of the M1 Motorway. Open countryside and ancient footpaths will be destroyed. The Northampton area has low unemployment figures, employees for this site will need to travel from outside the area creating more pollution. The adjacent Collingtree Village is already experiencing Air Quality levels above the maximum considered acceptable. The site is close to communities and noise, light and air pollution will impact greatly on their health and quality of life. The site will be in operation day and night. This area is already overloaded with HGV traffic, it is approaching gridlock now especially with the mass housing already being built in the vicinity. No amount of mitigation can make this development proposal acceptable. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Gowland
"I strongly object to this development because the M1, A45 and A508 are already heavily congested; the increased traffic will add significantly to this congestion and lead to a large increase in ‘rat-running’ through residential areas both by cars and HGVs. A Rail Interchange is not needed at this location because the existing DIRFT facility is only 18 miles away on the same line and has expansion capacity for the next 20 years. There will be a large increase in air and light pollution and also noise because of increased traffic; together with loss of some 500 acres of farmland and wildlife habitat. The development also conflicts with the current Strategy for West Northamptonshire and South Northamptonshire Local Development Plan "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anna Fox
"I am strongly opposed to the development of an RFI at Northampton Gateway Ref.TRO50006 for the following reasons: • Northampton Gateway is at Junction 15 of the M1 and it is proposed that the RFI vehicles would access the M1 at this junction causing a significant increase in vehicle numbers on this congested stretch of the M1, between Junctions 15 and 17. • The prospective plans show access to the West Coast Mainline via a spur of the Northampton Loop Line appears feasible but requires complex engineering for the link. • The Planners of the Northampton Gateway are blinkered to the existence of Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) near Crick, Northamptonshire, just 18 miles from the site in question. DIRFT was strategically planned and has been in operation since July 1997 with established connections to the M1, A5, A14 and M6, including a West Coast Main line link via another spur of the Northampton Loop Line. • There is a strong probability that both rail and road travel will be compromised should this development be sanctioned on this site with a prospect of constant delays and congestion not only during the construction but in all probability worsening to an unacceptable level once the site is up and running. • Northampton passenger trains can only connect with the West Coast Mainline via the Northampton Loop Line. Should the use of this line be increased, passengers will be in danger of a reduction in service for anyone needing to commute in or out of the area. • The urbanisation of a rural, farming area, deliberately despoiled agricultural land and the way of life, for a number of villages, two in particular blighted by a speculative and inappropriate development on this site. The prospect that this massive development could be sanctioned and developed to function round the clock to become, potentially the largest Trailer Park in Europe may be an exaggeration however there is truth enough to raise huge concerns about the pollution of urban creep and ultimately what all the villages and farms in the area may fall prey to in future. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Baker
"Dear sirs, my outline points of concern are around the immediate detrimental effect this development will have on the historic village of Collingtree and many other local communities. Furthermore the irreparable damage it will cause to 500+ acres of vital countryside and wildlife. I also have huge concerns about the evironmental and social impact the development will cause and in the long run the local infrastructure on every level simply cannot cope ! The A45 is already grid locked on many mornings and this is before the additional impact the Bovis housing development will bring, which will undoubtedly make this even worse. Quite simply this is wrong for our village/s and county given there is already another site some 18 miles up the road at Crick ! Therefore the strategy is flawed regardless of any other objections put forward."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Brogden
"I strongly object to the Roxhill Planning Application on the following grounds. Our birdlife has already been decimated due to loss of green land, and I rarely see long tailed tits, jays,bullfinches, woodpeckers and wrens which used to frequent my garden. The Gateway development would decimate the bird population further. I strongly object to the light and noise pollution that would result from the development, together with the increased air pollution from thousands of extra vehicles using our local village roads as"rat runs" in our villages. We are constantly suffering from congestion on the M1, when vehicles divert from junction 15 and clog up the A45 and many other roads. I strongly object because our local roads can barely cope with the increased traffic now, and our infrastructure is incapable of supporting the extra traffic that would ensue. I strongly object to the fact that there is already a massive development in phase 2 at the DIRFT site between the A5 and M1. This is a purpose built development in an area where rail and road capacity are optimal. Yours sincerely, Barbara Brogden"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Geraldine Jackson
"Please see attachment"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hilary Bottrill
"I strongly object to this proposal for the following reasons; a) a rail freight terminal is contrary to the West Northants Core Strategy b) DRIFT Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal is less than 20 miles away and has capacity and planning for expansion until 2031, it is and will be the largest SRFI in the country. c) Increased air pollution in villages already suffering from air pollution due to their proximity to the M1 d) Light and noise pollution from night time operations e) Increased traffic on roads already congested f) Loss of farmland and wildlife habitats ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janet Winchester
"I wish to object to the Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Terminal application at J15 of the M1 motorway. The West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) was agreed by a Government Inspector and states that there should be no development south of the M1 motorway. Loss of farmland and mature trees along with the loss of the local gap which will affect the nearby villages as more development is likely to follow. The Daventry International Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only 15 minutes away at J18, it uses the Northampton loop line for its freight business. It has sufficient capacity until 2031. The Gateway site will be operating 24/7 and have varying shift patterns during that time increasing the level of traffic on local roads at all times of the day and night. The computer models have not been stress tested, this should be a requirement as the M1 has frequent closures and this eventuality has not been taken into account. Light, noise and air pollution will affect the area 24/7, no amount of bunding and tree planting will mitigate against this pollution. The height of the warehousing and cranes cannot be obscured. An aggregates terminal has been added to the original plans, the transport for this will require extra heavy transport vehicles, create more dust and extra noise and consequent pollution. Local ancient footpaths will be diverted to go around the perimeter of the site thus lengthening the distance. They will no longer be countryside walks; the loss of virtually all of the local wildlife is inevitable. If this development is consented it will be the end of local villages as we know them today. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Joy
"We do not have the infrastructure on the current road network around the proposed site to handle the increased volumes of traffic. There also appears to be no consideration for the nursery school that the increased traffic will pass causing increased risk to air pollution and risk to children of accident whilst travelling to and from the nursery. I do not see the need for another freight terminal when another is within 20 miles of this site. There appears to be a complete lack of consideration for the local area and the effect this will have on traffic and pollution. The roads are already bottle necked and unable to cope this will significantly compound the issue, the council are cutting bus services as they can no longer afford to subsidize the bus through lack of funding encouraging more traffic as people still have to get to work, appointments etc without this development for this area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicola Richards
"I am firmly against the Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange for the following reasons: - Unemployment in the area is low, which means that the huge majority of workers will be coming from outside the local area, resulting in an anticipated 17,000 extra vehicles every day. - The congestion on the roads will be truly awful. Already when there is a problem on the M1, A5, A43, A50 or A45, the roads through Blisworth become a bottle neck. At peak times (rush hour AM and PM, plus school run times), the traffic through Blisworth is heavy - the roads cannot cope with more. - Even if the developer says there will be routes in place to keep traffic away from Blisworth, it won't happen. Firstly, there will be no right turn into or out of Courteenhall Road which will force traffic down Knock Lane and into the heart of Blisworth and, secondly, people will use the village as a rat run. - Very few houses come up for sale or rent in Blisworth. So, if workers living away from Blisworth wish to move closer, then more houses will need to be developed. With the Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange covering such a large area, our fields and land will already be at a premium. We don't want to lose even more to housing developments. - Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange will, in effect, join Blisworth to the surrounding villages. People tend to choose to live in villages because they want to be away from a nearby town/areas of large population. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
P Luxton
"Please see attachment"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Winchester
"I wish to object to the Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Terminal application. The West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) was found to be sound by a Government Inspector, it states there should be no development south of the M1 motorway. This application goes against this strategy. Pollution levels will increase greatly, air quality management levels are already exceeded in this area. Light and noise pollution are other factors which will affect the area 24/7 and impact on the quality of life of local communities. The changes road junctions and specifically Courteenhall Road A508 junction will mean that traffic would be diverted into the heart of Blisworth village past the Dr's surgery and residential property where parking is already an issue. The bypass will give access to Knock Lane directly into the heart of Blisworth village. Local unemployment levels are very low and labour will be drawn from outside the area further adding to road congestion. This area will be blighted if this development is consented. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philip East
"I strongly object to this development for the following reasons. As a daily user of the local footpaths I would be dismayed by the loss of the affected rights of way, proposed alternatives being noisy and losing their rural nature, with a clear and devastating impact on local wildlife. The increased traffic will impact both travelling around Blisworth, Collingtree and Milton Malsor, the loss the right turn from the Courteenhall Road onto the A508 will mean diverting local traffic through the centre of Blisworth, which will increase congestion in the village. As a cyclist I am concerned about the increase in traffic on our rural roads and the corresponding increase in both air pollution and noise pollution. Living close to the railway line I am deeply worried about the increased noise and light pollution from the rail terminal, both from more trains, shunting, container loading and unloading occuring both day and night. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
R Stirk
"I live very close to this proposed development. I am concerned about the effect this will have on the traffic on the M1 and the surrounding roads including the A45 and the M1 Junction 15 roundabout which is already hazardous. I am concerned about the quality of the air we are breathing here which is already vastly polluted and will deteriorate further with this development. I am concerned about the loss of countryside and wildlife habitat when over 500 acres of farmland will be covered with vast warehouses. Local people are very opposed to this development but our locally elected representatives are unable to use their own planning processes to decide on the outcome of this application. This is not democratic. There is underused capacity at Daventry which is only a matter of miles away."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rt Hon. Andrea Leadsom MP
"I am registering as an interested party for the examination of the Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange proposals in my capacity as the Member of Parliament for South Northamptonshire and on behalf of my many constituents who have contacted me with their concerns about this planned SRFI. I have fully engaged with Roxhill's initial non-statutory consultation and their subsequent pre-application statutory consultation, copies of which have been sent directly to the Planning Inspectorate and which will have also been included in the Consultation Report. There are a number of issues I intend to raise as part of the formal Preliminary Meeting, and I would anticipate providing further written submissions during the Examination stage. These issues include, but are not limited to, the content of my earlier consultation responses, namely: * the strategic location of the site in the context of policy guidance, particularly the National Policy Statement for National Networks and the Strategic Rail Freight Interchange Policy Guidance Notes; * rail capacity on the West Coast Main Line and associated impact on site feasibility; * HGV, workforce and other associated traffic movements to and from the site; * availability of a local workforce; * blight (including visual, auditory, environmental); * other specific site suitability issues. Thank you. Andrea Leadsom MP"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sandra Morley
"I do not understand why we need this rail freight gateway when there is already one just up the road at Daventry (DIRFT). There are always empty units on every industrial estate being advertised for let/lease, use those first. The roads in this area can not take anymore heavy traffic. Huge commercial eyesores built on every green space along the M1 corridor in the county, not to mention the associated pollution and noise. You are expecting residents to go green by recycling, heavily taxing old diesel vehicles etc but seem happy to encourage more pollution by building everything in the same place. We are a small island, the amount of land we have available isn't going to get any bigger, we don't have an infinite amount capacity to keep building houses or commercial units. Please think again."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Coyle
"I am wanting to register my deep concern over the proposed Roxhill development. J15 is already a very busy junction and I do not believe calculations on the impact of additional road traffic nor the road improvements will adequately protect against traffic congestion and increased air pollution. As a resident whose property backs on to the a45 I am concerned about the impact on local villages of Collingtree Milton Malsor Courteenhall and Blisworth and loss of z massive area of countryside. The site is unnecessary given capacity at DIRFT and elsewhere. As a town and county that is already struggling financially this huge blot on the landscape will only worsen the prospects for the town and provide minimal employment per sq ft. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart Manson
"I and my wife, Anne Manson, have lived in Milton Malsor for 45 years. Our daughters attended the village primary school and local secondary school and they and our grandchildren and great grandchildren live in nearby villages. We all chose quiet, rural, peaceful village life and are appalled at the prospect of destruction of this way of life if either the Northampton Gateway or Rail Central proposals were to proceed. WE STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE NORTHAMPTON GATEWAY PROPOSAL. In particular, our concerns are as follows:- Planning Policy The proposal is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS), formally adopted in December 2014. The WNJCS is the foundation for all planning policy in the area until 2029. Noise and Vibration We live within some 200 metres of the Northampton Loop Line railway and the impact of noise and vibration from increased train paths, braking, accelerating and shunting and from Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) and machinery at all hours of the day and night, is horrifying. Air Quality My wife suffers from chronic asthma and her health and enjoyment of life will be seriously impacted by reduced air quality arising from increased trains, HGVs, car and machinery movements. Lighting Considering our southerly aspect and proximity to the site, we are very concerned at the prospect of light pollution at night from the 24 hour operation. Ecology/Ornithology The destruction of huge areas of bird and wildlife habitats gives great concern. Many birds are rare and endangered and the loss of eg nightingale song - heard for many decades -would amount to nothing less than emotional deprivation. Landscape and Visual We chose to live on the outskirts of the village because of the beautiful rural views and life. The destruction of a vast area of unspoilt countryside is appalling. The scale and size of the proposed buildings and machinery cannot be adequately screened. Highways Despite the proposed highway improvements we are convinced the development would greatly increase traffic, including on minor roads in and around local villages. Road congestion and the increased risk of accidents would have a major adverse impact on our quality of life. General -I enjoy cycling but the increased traffic, congestion and accident risk would seriously and adversely impact my enjoyment of this healthy leisure activity. -The proposed development and inevitable associated housing and other construction would result in the locality becoming more urban/industrial in nature, with higher crime rates - as evidenced at similar sites such as the nearby Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) - and eg higher home insurance premiums. -Property values in the immediate area would undoubtedly be adversely affected, which would have a financial impact on us, our family and all affected residents in the locality. -It is very concerning indeed that there appear to be no guarantees that, IF the proposal is consented, the rail connection will handle all - or even the greater part - of goods movement. There is real concern the development could be a predominantly road distribution depot in disguise. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Diana Farebrother
"I am very concerned and terrified that the proposed development should ever take place. A few years ago Howdens proposed a smaller development on the site and was rejected due to similar reasons shown below and strong local opposition. My objections are as follows: Increased traffic on the A508, the proposed bypass will only alleviate through traffic and push the congestion towards the proposed roundabout at the entrance to the development.The bypass is also too close to the village and should start at the junction of the A508 and the turning to Blisworth and continue to past the Stoke Bruerne bends South of that village thus removing a accident black spot. The Blisworth Junction causes congestion when traffic wishes to turn to Blisworth delayin through traffic. The loss of agricultural land as the population increases and our need for home grown food becomes greater. The application uses a Loophole to gain approval by having a rail feed to the site, there is no compulsion for the rail to be used by any occupier as admitted by the developer at a public meeting. There is evidence that there are existing similar developments within 20 miles that are under used, also similar developments have been approved in that area. Most new traffic will have to use Junction 15 M1 that is currently over used and any redevelopment of the junction would barely alleviate that problem. Northamptonshire has one of the lowest levels of unemployment in the UK, any employment will have to come from outside increasing yet further the road congestion. Roade village is over the acceptable level for atmospheric pollution and this will only increase resulting in greater health problems. I see no benefit to the area as a whole for the above reasons and respectfully ask you to reject the proposal entirely. Diana Farebrother "
Parish Councils
East Hunsbury Parish Council (East Hunsbury Parish Council)
"An outline of the principal submissions East Hunsbury Parish Council intend to make in relation to the Northampton Gateway application are as follows: Traffic • The parish council have significant concerns about the increase in traffic created by this site, both in respect of movements by HGV’s and employees getting to and from work. • The proposed site for the Roxhill development is adjacent to a proposed SRFI being put forward by Rail Central, and the cumulative effect of traffic movements from both of these sites should be considered. The Northampton South SUE development will see 1,300 new homes built between East Hunsbury and Collingtree and this development should be considered in the cumulative effect. • East Hunsbury will see an increase in traffic on its main through roads, but particularly Rowtree Road, which will lead directly to the site. • Roads in East Hunsbury will be accessible by HGV’s for loading and unloading, and policing the adherence of the weight limit will be expected to be carried out by the haulage companies themselves. • The traffic created by people travelling to and from work will impact on the parish, as they will be travelling at peak times but also during times when we would normally expect the roads to be quieter. Significant upgrades in public transport will be needed, at a time when we are seeing funding for existing bus routes cut. Air Quality • The parish council are concerned that air pollution will increase, particularly on Rowtree Road, and seek to protect local residents and school children at East Hunsbury Primary School. Sustainability • We do not believe that the proposal is a sustainable development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework [point 187, page 45]. • DIRFT is less than 20 miles away and is expanding. • The proposal relies on the continued growth of the economy and consumer spending to justify its need. Consumer spending is depressed and the economy is not growing as previously forecast. Job creation • Unemployment in Northamptonshire is low, and there are already a high percentage of logistics job available. It is expected that jobs will be filled by employees coming from outside of the county, presumably by car. • The Northampton SUE development is unlikely to provide much of the workforce expansion. Conclusion • The parish council does not believe that there is a need or demand for rail connected warehousing at this site. The proposed scale of the development is in excess of that needed in Northamptonshire, and the parish council believe that this proposal and the proposal by Rail Central should be determined jointly so that the effects of any developments can be mitigated appropriately. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elaine Gowland
"I strongly object to this development because the traffic flow during development and use would result in a dramatic increase in air and light pollution and noise. As the site would be in use 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, the increased pollution would also be present 24/7. The M1, A45 and A508 are already heavily congested; the increased traffic will add significantly to this congestion and lead to a large increase in traffic taking short-cuts rat-through residential areas, both cars and HGVs. An existing larger facility is only 18 miles away, with expansion capacity for the next 20 years. As a result there is no strategic need for this development. The West Coast Mainline is one of the busiest in the U.K and this facility could therefore result in loss of passenger rail services. NCC Highways Authority have i stated ‘... increasing freight services over the Northampton Loop Line might require a reduction in the passenger service to Northampton "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Juffs
"There is no need for any further Freight terminal with DIRFT less than 20 miles away and currently expanding and a further one at J24 is currently under construction.There are already large amounts of warehouse space and warehousing jobs that are not filled in Northampton, adding more brings nothing to the area other than negative results. The local roads ,A43 and M1 J15/15A already suffer from congestion and local roads are already unable to cope with additional traffic when any of these are closed for any reason. Light and noise pollution 24/7 will cause distress and discomfort to residents of the local villages, and their communities and heritage will be destroyed. The proposed development will also stretch our police force even further, as other similar sites have experienced large surges in crime in the surrounding areas both during build and once operational. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian White
"We are currently purchasing the house of our dreams in Milton Malsor and have done so on the basis of the its locality to Northampton and Milton keynes both for work purposes and amenities access. We would object to these proposals based on specific issues as follows: The negligible benefit that one let alone two sites as proposed would bring to the governments National goal for reducing carbon emissions, improving road congestion and removing HGVs from our road networks. The fact that the impact on capacity, efficiency of already approved sites yet to be built or completed and the expansion of the largest existing site yet to be completed would suggest to me that this this is not a scheme of National importance and cannot be considered a neccessary at this stage. Rail structure has to be implemented first for all applications of this type and commercial development second otherwise we end up with large warehousing facilities and no reduction in commuter and commercial road traffic. The environmental impact of both schemes on the air quality, and wildlife that remains in this already 'warehouse heavy' area of the country. That facilities should be placed were there is not already a suitable freight terminal in existence within a suitable distance and that would massively benefit the employment of the local area thus reducing 'long distance driving of individuals to work who live outside the area in question). That whilst History and traditional villages sometimes have to be sacrificed for the greater good the wholesale abuse of legislation loopholes to allow the greed of property developers to flourish has at some point to be challenged and stopped in order to set better quideline's and precedent's for future developments and avoid hugely expensive and protracted planning processes which prove damaging to the local communities and a drain on already stretched local resources. Local authorities need to be able to have an input into the schemes as it directly affects the well being of local communities and natural habitats The areas around Roade, Milton malsor, Stoke Bryuerne have always been well known for their beauty and for representing a genuine reminder of the way Britain once was all over. If we are not very careful the rate of expansion will result in Northampton, Milton Keynes and all the surrounding villages being blurred and merged and individual communities and identities lost. The need to grow crops in the current economic landscape should be considered and at the outside air pollution improved by strategic planting of harmful gas inducing trees that emit oxygen for the improvement of air quality In this area housing is at a premium if we are to continue to support overspill and migration from outer London areas. Development of green land for warehouses and storage facilities when there are so many disused and uneconomical sites that already exist and could be transformed seems, ludicrous. Country walks, engaging with the environment are a persons right and should be encouraged in our young people. Taking away areas of nature on the door stop of recent huge development Urban sprawl makes this almost impossible. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julie Reed
"My main area of concern is the level of traffic this will produce and taking more of our beautiful countryside. Hunsbury is already congested, causing delays to get to work. This will cause more pollution. We do not need further employment in this area as we already struggle to recruit people for warehousing work. This development would be better placed in a more deprived area of the country where more jobs are desperately needed. I would like to oppose this development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Justine Gray
"I object to this proposal for various different reasons that will impact the quality of life for myself and my family. These reasons are, but are not limited to, Air Pollution Noise Pollution Light Pollution Increase in Traffic The destruction of local countryside and farmland (which after brexit will be badly needed!) The fact we have DIRFT less than 20 minutes up the road, which is still not running at maximum capacity. I feel as a whole, that this proposal is something definitely not needed in this area of the country. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karen Hopkins
"I am a resident of Collingtree Parish and have several concerns about the proposed Roxill development by Junction 15 of the M1. 1. Traffic growth and congestion, already Jn15, the A45 and A508 are stretched at the majority of the time. It can take over 20 minutes to go a few hundred yards down the A45 to get on to the motorway junction. 2. Pollution - the air quality levels in Collingtree Parish have already been measured at over the legal limits and this development will only increase this pollution when authorities should be looking for ways to reduce the levels. 3. Loss of countryside - It will be a real shame to loose over 500 acres of productive farmland and wildlife habitat as well as ancient footpaths having to be re routed. 4.Too many warehouses - with the DIRFT facility only 18 miles away is there really a need for yet more warehousing. I am concerned that while put forward as a rail terminal project has the strategic requirement for rail capacity really been explored fully? 5. Impact on the parish of Collingtree as there is proposed to be a footpath / cycle path into the village from the development, will this lead to cars parking in the village and staff walking to work? I am concerned about congestion and safety in the village."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Keith Harry
"I wish to register an objection to the proposed Northampton Gateway. The principal reason for my objection is that a similar facility already exists close to the proposed new site. The result of the creation of a second facility will be to reduce the quality of life in many surrounding towns and villages by placing an intolerable strain on an infrastructure which is already under considerable pressure. I believe that the location of the proposed site is entirely inappropriate and that the proposal should be rejected."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martyn Walker
"I strongly object to this application because The West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) completed, found to be sound by PINS and formally adopted in 2014 specifically rejected a request from a developer (Ashfield Land) to include provision for a SRFI. The strategy states that new rail freight interchanges are not deliverable within the plan period and that major new industrial development should be focussed on three sites ie. Silverstone DIRFT and around the M1 junction 16. There is sufficient future capacity at DIRFT along with Midlands Gateway such that very little interchange of rail freight will take place at Northampton Gateway. If this is the case then what would differentiate the proposed site from a 'regular interchange park? The suggestion of a SRFI terminal is disingenuous paying lip service to the idea of providing Strategic National Importance simply in order to bypass local planning and make good on their investment. This is short-term thinking that ultimately costs the country in the long run. I would add that recent reports confirm a decrease in the use of Rail Freight by 20% down to 0.4% growth from predictions of 5% increase year on year. The local road network is totally inadequate to deal with the anticipated increased volume of traffic, not only from HGVs but also from those supposed new employees (that don't live in the area) using the site on a daily (24 hour) basis. The major benefit of local job creation is overplayed in an area of low unemployment and that the anticipated workforce will mostly commute from other areas further increasing the pressure on the local road networks. There will be negligible, if any, benefit to the local communities affected. Furthermore, the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) provides for a careful balance between jobs and housing. Unemployment is presently at only 1% to 2% and the JCS states that only 3 ‘strategic employment sites’ – at M1 Junction 16; Silverstone Circuit and DIRFT are needed. The operation will create unacceptable light, air and noise pollution blighting the lives of at least two rural communities and endangering their health and well-being for everyone. 8. The cumulative adverse impact of 24/7 noise, light and air pollution will be considerable for residents of many local villages. The additional daily HGV trips each day will add to the already critical levels of nitrous oxide and particulate pollution around the M1 (an AQMA). The Northamptonshire “Parishes Against Pollution” group (29 parishes) have combined to fight this threat to residents health. There are several local footpaths and bridleways that will suffer from diversions that are both considerably less convenient but also far less attractive due to the loss of countryside views. They will also suffer from increased noise and air pollution when compared to the existing routes. A major concern of local residents is the proposal to make the Courteenhall Rd. junction on the A508 left in left out only. This will cause considerable inconvenience locally and add to the current traffic problems on Stoke Rd. in Blisworth "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brenda Jenks on behalf of Milton Malsor & Collingtree Women's Institute
"We strongly object to the application for a Rail Freight Terminal and associated warehousing to be built at J15 of the M1 motorway. The impact of noise, light and air pollution on local communities cannot be overemphasised. Collingtree village is already exceeding maximum Air Quality levels. The huge volume of extra traffic will increase the nitrous oxide and particulate pollution levels. The inclusion of an aggregates terminal will add to noise pollution and bring heavier industrial vehicles to the congested area. The Daventry International Freight Terminal is within a short distance and served by access from J18 of the M1, this terminal has sufficient capacity for expansion until 2031. The M1 through this area is already heavily congested and there are frequent accidents. There appears to be no requirement for traffic modelling by developers to include stress tests, this is a major omission from planning regulations. At peak times the local 'A' roads are almost at gridlock. The West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS), recently found to be sound by a Government Inspector, states that there should be no development south of the M1. Government has no national strategy for RFT's. Applications such as the Northampton Gateway are developer led and it makes no sense to concentrate logistics parks in the East Midlands. There should be a balance across the country if the Government's aim is to reduce pollution nationally. The Northampton area has low unemployment and staff will be brought in from outside this area which will generate even more traffic and consequent pollution. The access to Knock Lane from the proposed Roade by pass will create a 'rat run' through Blisworth village, past a Dr's surgery and residential housing and into the heart of the village. We know the quality of life of local villages will be seriously affected by this application and will impact on the whole Northampton area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Miss L Duncan
"The number of green field sights in this area are being reduced already by construction of new homes, the rail freight site will increase this ten fold. The wildlife will suffer dramatically. The local villages will be surrounded reducing property value and access will be severely affected from the M1 side both to and from Roade. Roade already has a large amount of heavy good vehicles travelling through the centre 24/7 and this will just increase, especially when there are problems on the M1 as the A508 and A5 are already used as a diversion when traffic is bad. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Sheard
"Why does the developer believe there is a need for such a development when DIRFT is located nearby and is only partially occupied. The impact to the surrounding countryside and road infrastructure have been ignored. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Shan Navaratnam
"I own the petrol station at Roade village. This bypass will kill my business. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Duggleby
"Hi, i am concerned about the proposed development and its impact on the local community and my way of life in the area. We moved away from MK for a similar reason due to the widespread construction of warehousing where we lived and were looking for a more rural and peaceful setting. Noise - the round the clock increase in noise of trains, warehouses and the coming and goings of a significant volume of trucks and and workers travelling to the site. Not to mention the sound of the trains unloading and the cranes and containers. I feel the low level bunding proposed is not sufficient to to mask the noise and i have not seen any documentation regarding to managing the noise of the warehouses themselves from air handling units. Light pollution, it is peaceful and dark at night and the impact of a hazy yellow glow will have on the bat population and enjoying the night sky will be negative. The potential for scope creep, once the precedent has been set around this development it will lead to other warehousing being allowed. The loss of green countryside.The scale of this development will destroy acres of farm land and natural habitats. Traffic Blisworth high street is already used as a cut through between the A43 and the M1 and with the volume of traffic increase outlined it will be noisy and the rumblings of HGVs through the village will cause damage to my house. Thank you, Simon"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brian L Ash
"I strongly object to this developement for the following reasons: 1) Further warehousing is not needed given that the DIRFT complex is approx. 18 miles away at M1J18 and is already being extended. There is also continuing development of "speculative" storage facilities between M1 J15/16 & Northampton. 2) The potential increase in polution especially around M1 J15/15A and the surrounding road systems due to increased vehicle activity especially during the construction,developement and then the operational stage of the proposed developement. The pollution levels at present appear extremely high as often observed by palls of exhaust fumes over the junctions. 3) Pollution is not just restricted to vehicle exhaust. During the lifetime of the proposed dev.(from construction to full operation 24/7)there will be increased light,noise and on-going air contamination which will effect the surrounding areas not just the road systems. 4) The present road & rail infrastructure is already reaching its usable capacity and any increase will lead to severe congestion,therefore to cope with the intended increased activities further potential developement in these areas will lead to spiralling pollution and disruption and further reduction in available land for agriculture. 5) As with similar developements, reported increases in crime have resulted (DIRFT has seen a 176% increase since 2000/01).The potential for this is a major concern for the surrounding communities. 6) The loss of approx. 500+ acres of farmland and wildlife habitat is a desaster! We all need open spaces around us and in the future who knows how much land for food production will be required to sustain an increasing population?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alice petherick
"I strongly object to the proposed rail freight terminal at Northampton by Roxhill. I strongly object on the grounds of increased traffic through the villages when the M1 is busy, affecting local life, the noise created 24 hrs a day by lorries and railway shunting to local people, the light pollution caused by the terminal. I also strongly object because there is already a rail freight terminal at Daventry ( DRIFT) which is only a short distance away and has room for expansion."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Catherine Petherick
"I strongly object to the proposed rail freight terminal at Northampton by Roxhill. I strongly object on the grounds of increased traffic through the villages when the M1 is busy, affecting local life, the noise created 24 hrs a day by lorries and railway shunting to local people, the light pollution caused by the terminal. I also strongly object because there is already a rail freight terminal at Daventry ( DRIFT) which is only a short distance away and has room for expansion."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Coln Bricher
"Firstly there are objections on so many fronts which in itself means the development is highly undesirable. My greatest concern is its potential impact on the rail service. The West Coast Main Line is already very heavily used, being arguably the busiest in Europe. Significant increase in freight will probably require a reduction in passenger service to Northampton. As the town is still increasing in size, we should be looking to improve rather than reduce services. Further as freight is slower than passenger services, journey times will lengthen. This would many other places as well as Northampton. As a town that is continuing to grow, the county is struggling to cope with increased traffic as it its. The knock on effect on the town exacerbates its extant problems with congestion and pollution. The quoted additional vehicle movements would cause significant additional pressure on the overcrowded roads. The Department of Transport is already expecting severe congestion on that part of the motorway. There is no reason whatsoever for a freight facility there. It can add little value to the freight market as there is already a larger facility within 20 miles. There is a whole host of smaller but very real consideration. Noise and air pollution: threat of pushing development on the west side of the M1: it is highly unlikely that the county would provide an adequate labour pool which would then create knock on effects:other sundry reasons sich as crime increase and loss of wildlife habitat"
Members of the Public/Businesses
D W Marshall
"THE ROADS TO AND FROM THE M1 JUNCTION 15 ARE NOT ABLE TO TAKE ANY MORE TRAFFIC ESPECIALLY LORRIES "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Isobel Petherick
"I strongly object to the proposed rail freight terminal at Northampton by Roxhill. I strongly object on the grounds of increased traffic through the villages when the M1 is busy, affecting local life, the noise created 24 hrs a day by lorries and railway shunting to local people, the light pollution caused by the terminal. I also strongly object because there is already a rail freight terminal at Daventry ( DRIFT) which is only a short distance away and has room for expansion."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karen Ross
"I strongly object to this proposal on the basis of: Conflict with Planning Policy - the agreed plan for this area excludes industrial development at this location Massive environmental impact on surrounding villages destroying village life as well as the destruction of wildlife habitats Traffic overload - there is already traffic congestion on surrounding roads which will increase not only by the huge number of vehicles needed to service the warehousing but also workforce vehicles as there are not enough local people to fill the proposed 6000 jobs Lack of 'strategic' need - an interchange is not need in this area due to DIRFT (Daventry) and also a further approved scheme near St Albans Is it really necessary to wipe out hundreds of acres of productive farmland and wildlife habitat, destroy villages and create yet more traffic congestion and pollution on an already struggling and overstretched road network. They are also bypassing local democracy who strongly objects to this proposal by arguing it as national infrastructure thereby bypassing the locally accountable planning process"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Pyke
"I strongly object to this application Having been brought up in this quiet rural village and enjoyed its rural location and quit and safe roads on my bicycle as a child it will be ruined by a massive increase in construction traffic. I am a consultant anaesthetist and spend my time trying to keep cyclists alive who have been hit by lorries. also as a doctor I see the effect of air pollution on the health of the population and the mental health and cardiovascular risks of sleep deprivation which will occur due to 24hr noise and light pollution that will be a massive issue. The Daventry site is obviously much more suitable and will have much less impact on the rural residential nature of this location "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Oscar Petherick
"I strongly object to the proposed rail freight terminal at Northampton by Roxhill. I strongly object on the grounds of increased traffic through the villages when the M1 is busy, affecting local life, the noise created 24 hrs a day by lorries and railway shunting to local people, the light pollution caused by the terminal. I also strongly object because there is already a rail freight terminal at Daventry ( DRIFT) which is only a short distance away and has room for expansion."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Lowe
"I am objecting to the proposed development which will bring significant costs and very few real benefits to the surrounding area. The development extends beyond the M1 boundary and if allowed will facilitate environmentally and socially damaging urban sprawl. This will involve the loss of greenfield sites including farmland and wildlife corridors, encroachment on villages, including Roade where I have lived for 26 years, threatening their character and identity, and above all adding huge additional volumes of traffic that are already a major source of pollution and congestion on the M1, A508, A43 and A45 roads close to the proposed site. The roads joining J15 of the M1 have become a major bottle-neck since the Grange Park residential and industrial development began in the late 1990s, and the 'junction improvements' implemented have failed miserably to address the problem. With unemployment low and many people looking for higher-skilled jobs, the local labour market cannot meet the employment needs so the development would simply lead to more commuting or increased in-migration. The close proximity of the DIRFT facility also removes the strategic need for an additional facility in this area. For all these reasons it is clear that the costs will far outweigh the benefits which themselves are far less tangible."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Ross
"I strongly object to this development on the grounds of; Destruction of village life because of; 7 by 24hr noise pollution Light pollution at night Increased local air pollution Road infrastructure routing traffic through nearby villages that are not designed to cope with lorries and juggernauts Influx of construction workers Influx of workers from outside local area when project completed as it has been shown that there are not enough local people needing the jobs that they say are being created Pressures on local housing, schools and other community services due to influx of external workers Destruction of greenfield sites and habitats Rail freight terminals already provided at DIRFT (Daventry) and others already approved e.g near St Albans It is beyond belief that this project plans to destroy and disrupt the lives of so many people "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roland White
"I strongly object to the Roxhill Northampton Gateway Proposal the reasons are listed below:- Destruction of the countryside. Blot on the countryside. Destruction of wildlife habitat. Farmland loss:- reduced food production. Footpath network destroyed. Increase of traffic through the village:- M1 accidents. Increased air pollution from extra vehicles using local roads Proposed junction change on A508 :- cause traffic increase through congested busy minor road in Blisworth. Creation of excess noise 24/7 and light pollution at night. Low unemployment area, workers brought in causing more congestion/pollution Local plan shows countryside/farmland not industry. Mature trees on site:- many years to replace. DIRFT not far away, has large capacity for expansion. DIRFT has brought an increase in crime with the industrialisation of the area. Workers would need to be brought in causing more congestion and pollution:- we are a high employment area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Petherick
"I strongly object to the proposed rail freight terminal at Northampton by Roxhill. I strongly object on the grounds of increased traffic through the villages when the M1 is busy, affecting local life, the noise created 24 hrs a day by lorries and railway shunting to local people, the light pollution caused by the terminal. I also strongly object because there is already a rail freight terminal at Daventry ( DRIFT) which is only a short distance away and has room for expansion."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steven Towell
"Dear sir / madam I would like to register my objection to the proposal. I believe this development would severely impact on the rural area which is rich in bio-diversity - especially farmland and meadow birds. The area has a number of conservation villages. The rural environment is an asset for the country and for those who live and work in the surrounding urban areas. The loss of the wildlife habitats and damage to the local rural culture would be irreparable. Once it is gone it is gone and it would hurt the long term prosperity of the county and its population. I am a manager in a major logistic unit in Swan Valley. In my experience further "large scale" developments are not required. This is an easy solution for industry. If it were denied the businesses would invest in technology (specifically robotics, automation and stock and logistic IT systems) which would massively reduce the physical footprint of required units and reduce environmental damage. I have seen this multiple times over the last thirty years. It is of greater benefit to the country for industry to invest in high tech solutions rather than building large units which rely on significant volumes of low skilled work. If the project were authorised I honestly believe it will be outdated / redundant within ten years time but the damage will never be reversed and we will see increased levels of mental health issues, community breakdown and criminality stemming from the loss of quality of life. Regards Steve Towell "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Stop Roxhill Northampton Gateway Action Group (SRNG) (Stop Roxhill Northampton Gateway Action Group (SRNG))
"SRNG wish to be regarded as an ‘Interested party’ which we strongly object to for the following principal reasons. A full response will be provided after consideration of the application. National Policy Statement for National Networks (NPSNN) The NGSRFI is non-compliant with several policies detailed in the NPSNN. These include, lack of contribution towards a ‘national network’ of SRFIs, being a greenfield site, lack of alternative site consideration, and available local workforce, sustainability, air quality, proximity to residential areas, road congestion, road safety, quality of life, and the potential cumulative impact. Cumulative Effect South Northants Council (SNC) have stated that “the SFRI would be unacceptable. This notwithstanding, it is imperative the cumulative effects are fully assessed.” It is of immense concern that the developer has not chosen to engage with the local Highways Authority (HA) to consider the cumulative impact on traffic. It is therefore questionable as to whether other factors with potentially adverse effects have been fully identified and considered within the cumulative effects framework. NGSRFI and Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) DIRFT is the largest SRFI in the UK, located at junction 18 of the M1, only 18 miles from the proposed NGSRFI, this does not constitute a ‘network’ of sites. DIRFT provides the desired modal shift and has approved future capacity to serve this region’s rail/road intermodal transfer until at least 2031. Major Markets and Urban Centres There are no major markets, urban centres, or commercially active industry in this region that cannot be served by DIRFT. Employment Northamptonshire enjoys high levels of employment with numerous local vacancies for drivers and warehouse operatives. The development would need to attract employees from large distances, exacerbating traffic congestion and air pollution. Urban Creep, Green Fields and Alternatives The NGSRFI proposal would breach the ‘Green Belt’ like gap south of Northampton, resulting in urban creep into the open countryside which is contrary to the adopted West Northants Joint Core Strategy. Rural views and wildlife habitats would become an industrial sprawl. Communities are also concerned at the probable increase in crime rates, as has been documented around DIRFT. The site is currently agricultural land with no brown field element, and there is no evidence of alternative site consideration. Pressure on the area for further affordable housing, and corresponding pressure on health, educational services, and local amenities are not considered. Traffic and Environment There are currently two Air Quality Management Areas within 1 mile of the proposal, and others within Northampton and Towcester. The significant increase in HGV, LGV, and employee traffic can only exacerbate existing air quality and have a detrimental impact on the health of residents, and workforce alike. There are no proposals within the application to address the adverse impact of the increase in traffic to, and from, Northampton along the already severely congested A45. The improvements to junction 15 of the M1, and the access into the site from the A508 would be inadequate to sustain the flow of traffic. The proposal fails to address the requirement for the development to mitigate the consequential impact of light, air or noise pollution. Rail capacity Roxhill have not provided information regarding the ability of the WCML and the Northampton loop line to support NGSRFI, and haven’t assessed the cumulative impact of additional freight trains on future rail passenger services, as detailed in the Northamptonshire County Council HA report. Local roads and Roade bypass The A508 and A45 are already active ‘Red Routes’ due to accident incidence, the Tiffield and Blisworth junctions of the A43 are monitored by Highways England and SNC due to the high number of serious accidents. The Roade bypass is put forward as a significant benefit to its villagers. However the applicant has admitted in conversation that the bypass is not planned to be built until 2 years after opening, or 4 years after the commencement of the development. The proposed bypass would result in the diversion of public rights of way; the proposals are already blighting home ownership in the west of the village; would shift pollution not reduce it; increase traffic along the A508 without resolving its overall problems, and likely lead to the loss of valuable local facilities serving the village. Planning application history of the site The current applicants withdrew a similar proposal for development at this site which would have been subject to consideration by the local planning authority, but it was not in compliance with the locally adopted plan. The only difference between the proposals is the introduction of the rail link thus enabling the development to be considered to be a SRFI, consequently bypassing any local democratic decision making. In conclusion, the proposed development does not fulfil the criteria required for a SRFI development. Furthermore the applicant’s claimed benefits for their proposal are far outweighed by the dis-benefits to local communities, local infrastructure, and the local environment. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Victor Armstrong
"We have not seen any plans for the buildings proposed to be erected. We have not seen any plans for the bypass bridge so we have not had the opportunity to comment on any impact on the Listed Culvert which spans Roade cutting. Minor traffic incidents e.g. vehicle breakdowns result in major hold ups, this will only make things a lot worse, what happens to the villagers if there is ever a real emergency? I object to the application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Annie Digby
"Having lived in the village of Milton Malsor for over thirty years, I strongly object to this proposal. It will affect not only traffic through the village but also noise levels created by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting. The village is already plagued by traffic using the village as a shortcut from Northampton Road to Collingtree and this will make it worse. I also strongly object to the fact that this proposal is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS), which was formally adopted in December 2014. The WNJCS was considered by an independent planning inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate and the inspector's report (issued in October 2014) concludes that there is no need for any new strategic employment sites in open countryside as there is sufficient land allocated in the WNJCS for this purpose on Junctions 16 and 18 on the M1. Another reason why I strongly object to this proposal is the fact that the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal is only a short distance away from this site, serves the same local area and has capacity for expansion for over 10 years. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chelsea McNeil
"Traffic "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Corinna Kerrou
"HUGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Residential areas surrounding the proposed site are already exposed to high levels of air, noise and light pollution that are already above legal limits. Some of this has been partly mitigated by dispersion over open countryside close by. Roxhill's proposal will destroy this 'green lung' as well as the wildlife habitat it provides. TRAFFIC OVERLOAD The existing traffic congestion on the M1, A45 and A508, is self evident and increases 'rat running' through residential roads. The number of (diesel) HGV's needed to service 5 million sq ft of warehousing will be enormous. Roxhill claim that 6,000 people will work at the site. Because of low unemployment in this region, the workforce would be drawn from a wide area and are likely to travel by car. Roxhill have promised to fund improvements to Junction 15 but the changes proposed in their earlier (and smaller) planning application, were judged by planners as unlikely to add to overall capacity. LACK OF STRATEGIC 'NEED' Industry experts say that a Rail Interchange is not needed in this location because the DIRFT facility is only 18 miles further north and has expansion capacity for the next 20 years. In addition, The likely occupiers would be yet more road freight warehouse operators moving to be nearer to the M1. This would be completely against government objectives and an unintended consequence of an unclear policy on locating Rail Freight Interchanges. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elisabeth Carter
"I am strongly objecting to the proposal for the Roxhill rail freight terminal proposed for the Northamptonshire countryside. The main reasons include the closeness to an already existing rail terminal - a mere 18 miles - and therefore I do not see the strategic need. Traffic in the area is horrendous as it is - when there are problems on the M1 our village can become gridlocked. With a large rail terminal close by this can only get worse. I believe the Department for transport is already warning of severe congestion between junction 15 and 17 by 2040. As a biologist and citizen I'm also not happy about the potential impact on wildlife due to habitat loss."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Fiona Marshall
"I strongly object to this proposal. Our family moved to the village of Milton Malsor 31 years ago and enjoy the rural tranquil location. Although I have moved away from my family home, myself and my husband regularly visit our parents house for the weekend as we enjoy the location and village. The proposed development is in very close proximity to my parents house. The development will affect there life greatly and although the developers claim they will do there best to minimise noise and light emissions there will be rail and road movements on a 24 hour basic. The development will have a huge impact on their quality of life and my parents are a retired elderly couple who have see the nearby M1 traffic hugely increase which they have to accept but with this development it will greatly increase the pollution levels and neighbouring village Collingtree has already been identified as at maximum nitrogen dioxide air quality levels and this proposal will only increase the situation. I also strongly oppose this proposal as the existing DRIFT site, approved by planning authorities and adopted by the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) already has planning permission for logistics space and a rail terminal. There is no policy or evidence in the WNJCS to suggest that need for SRFI on land in open countryside off junction 15 on the M1. The WNJCS requires that any further SRFI development should take place at the DRIFT site and nowhere else within its three districts (Daventry, South Northants and Northampton Borough areas). The development will also drastic impact the amount of traffic between the villages of Milton Malsor and Collingtree. As with previous developments traffic does not adhere to the proposed routes and results in a lot more traffic using the narrow village roads as a cut through. We already have HGV traffic ignoring warning signs on Collingtree road and are unable to pass below the bridge so have to reverse up to half a mile. In all this proposal will affect all the residents and Have a huge impact upon the health and well being of my parents. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kevin Dupont
"The proposed development will have substantial negative effect on the surrounding countryside. This includes- • destroying wildlife habitats • destruction of farmland • diverting well used country footpaths, affecting the quality of scenic views enjoyed by many. Noise pollution will also have an impact on this enjoyment Current local road networks are inadequate to cope with the increase traffic. There will also be a significant increase in air and noise pollution 24/7, neither of which will be mitigated by a link road. Quality of life will also be affected by light pollution, again, all day and all night. Due to high employment in the area staff will have to travel significant distance resulting in detrimental effect on the enviroment "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kevin Flynn
"I object for the following reasons 1. The proposal will destroy hundreds of acres of local countryside and bring industry into an area that is an important gap between Town and country. 2. The site would be surrounded by high earth mounds (bunding) that would be themselves a “blot on the landscape” 3. The destruction of wildlife habitat in particular for farmland birds where the habitat loss cannot be compensated for. 4. The loss of farmland when the country needs to produce more food rather than importing it. 5. The destruction of the local footpath network in particular the footpath between Milton Malsor and Collingtree that would be diverted alongside the Collingtree Rd. and the M1 motorway. 6. Increased traffic through the village when there is congestion on the M1. 7. Increased air pollution from the thousands of extra cars, vans and HGV’s using the roads in the local area. 8. The proposed no right turns at the junction of Courteenhall Rd and the A508. would mean traffic diverting through the centre of Blisworth and past the doctors surgery where parking is already a problem. 9. Noise created by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers and the operation of an aggregates terminal. 10. Light pollution from night time operations. 11. The area has very low unemployment so the majority of workers for the operation would have to travel some distance to work adding to congestion and pollution. 12. All the local plans show this site being retained as farmland and open countryside not industrial development. 13. The site contains a number of mature trees that will take many years to replace. 14. The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only a short distance away from this site, serves the same local area and has capacity for expansion for over 10 years. 15. The experience from DIRFT shows an increase in crime following the industrialisation of the area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kyle Dupont
"I strongly disagree with this idea for many reasons. First and foremost, I am asthmatic and have had several asthma attacks when I lived in Towcester due to the pollution. As a result we moved to Milton Malsor to escape the pollution-well that was the idea. Of course with this proposal, all that would be wasted. You see Milton Malsor isn't the place to be industrialised. Expecially not Rail Freight Terminals because everyone knows that there is one in Daventry. Surely not factories because there are several in Grange Park. So there shouldn't be any risk of industrialisation. Most people would agree I'm sure."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Green
"The roads around Northampton area between j15-17 are extremely congested already, to build such a large terminal as this is ludicrous. The area does NOT need this. there is DIRFT and look at that for criminal activity. You already have more warehouses been built around Northampton and still empty to warrant this.They are not being built for a client but built because they can do. The volumes of large vehicles will rise during the clearing of area along with the dust which it will create and also during the constructing of said project. What happens once its been built ? Where do all the delivery lorries go once deliveries are made? What overnight parking is being provided for the lorries. They cannot just vanish off the face of the earth. Surrounding areas are already full of parked up trucks, services are full. The rubbish these trucks leave behind is another issue some people do not seem to realise. The affect on the environment is not just and immediate issue but for generation to come, including the pollution on my own grandchildren. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lynn Brown
"I strongly object to this proposal as there is already insufficient infrastructure to allow hundreds more heavy goods,trucks and juggernauts to clog up our roads. Roade is at a standstill with the current volume of traffic at certain times of the day.Justt trying to get out on to the A508 from side roads is an absolute nightmare. The danger to local residents is obviously an issue ,roads will become in an even worse state of repair than they are now, pollution will increase,volume of traffic will increase significantly and not forgetting The overall effect on the environment. Please consider your view very carefully, you do not have to live here !!!!!! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marion Flynn
"I object for the following reasons 1. The proposal will destroy hundreds of acres of local countryside and bring industry into an area that is an important gap between Town and country. 2. The site would be surrounded by high earth mounds (bunding) that would be themselves a “blot on the landscape” 3. The destruction of wildlife habitat in particular for farmland birds where the habitat loss cannot be compensated for. 4. The loss of farmland when the country needs to produce more food rather than importing it. 5. The destruction of the local footpath network in particular the footpath between Milton Malsor and Collingtree that would be diverted alongside the Collingtree Rd. and the M1 motorway. 6. Increased traffic through the village when there is congestion on the M1. 7. Increased air pollution from the thousands of extra cars, vans and HGV’s using the roads in the local area. 8. The proposed no right turns at the junction of Courteenhall Rd and the A508. would mean traffic diverting through the centre of Blisworth and past the doctors surgery where parking is already a problem. 9. Noise created by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers and the operation of an aggregates terminal. 10. Light pollution from night time operations. 11. The area has very low unemployment so the majority of workers for the operation would have to travel some distance to work adding to congestion and pollution. 12. All the local plans show this site being retained as farmland and open countryside not industrial development. 13. The site contains a number of mature trees that will take many years to replace. 14. The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only a short distance away from this site, serves the same local area and has capacity for expansion for over 10 years. 15. The experience from DIRFT shows an increase in crime following the industrialisation of the area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicholas Lowe
"I have lived in Tiffield for 12 years and have been in freight and logistics management for over 32 years, I strongly object not only to this particular rail interchange development but also the context in which it is being made, almost simultaneously with an adjacent and similar development by another developer ( Rail Central by Gazely / Ashfield Land) My objection is not as a result of a so-called ‘NIMBY’ position ( my house is more than a couple of miles from the Rail Central development and further from the Northampton Gateway site), but more to do with in my view an apparent lack of holistic thinking related to any national strategy to promote and invest in rail freight infrastructure , given the geographical location and my experience as to what such a logistics development will actually comprise in the fullness of time. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philip O'brien
" I strongly object to the proposed Roxhill Rail Freight Interchange as the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal is only a short distance away from this site, serves the same local area and has capacity for expansion over 10 years. The noise created by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal (including rail shunting, loading & unloading of containers & operation of an aggregates terminal) and the light and noise pollution from night time operations. The proposed no right turn at the junction of Courtennhall Rd & A508 would mean traffic diverting through the centre of Blisworth and past the doctors surgery where parking is already a problem. The increased traffic through the local villages when there is congestion on the M1 would immediately congest small country lanes"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart Marshall
"I strongly object to this proposal. My wife’s retired elderly parents live in close proximity to the proposed development and we regularly visit and stay for weekends. The development is on valuable agricultural land and will have a great affect on my parents and there health and well being. The development will greatly increase pollution levels which are already high due to the motorway and other roads which are over there capacity limits. The proposed development will also result in light and noise emissions from a development that will be running 24 hours 7 days a week. This development will have an effect on th local road infrastructure which struggles to cope with the current demand of traffic in the area and will result in congestion moving to further afield. Collingtree road and the villages of Milton Malsor and Collingtree are already used as a rat run for traffic cutting through. There is an existing DRIFT site which was approved by planning authorities and adopted by the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS), already has planning permission for logistics and. Rail terminal and I understand that a third phase of development was approved allowing DRIFT to expand until 2031. The WNJCS was considered by an independent planning inspector appointed by the planning inspectorate. The report issued in October 2014 cloncludes there is no need for any new strategic employment sites in open countryside, as there is enough land allocated in the WNJCS for this purpose on junctions 16 &18 on the M1. This proposed development would greatly affect the lives of my parents and family life and all the residents living within the vicinity which is why I am strongly opposing this development. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Hickling
"I strongly object due to the following reasons:- CONFLICT WITH PLANNING POLICY The agreed Strategic Plan for the region, specifically excludes industrial development at this location. HUGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Residential areas surrounding the proposed site are already exposed to high levels of air, noise and light pollution that are already above legal limits. Some of this has been partly mitigated by dispersion over open countryside close by. Roxhill's proposal will destroy this 'green lung' as well as the wildlife habitat it provides. TRAFFIC OVERLOAD The existing traffic congestion on the M1, A45 and A508, is self evident and increases 'rat running' through residential roads. The number of (diesel) HGV's needed to service 5 million sq ft of warehousing will be enormous. Roxhill claim that 6,000 people will work at the site but because of low unemployment in this region, the workforce would be drawn from a wide area and are likely to travel by car. LACK OF STRATEGIC 'NEED' Industry experts say that a Rail Interchange is not needed in this location because the DIRFT facility is only 18 miles further north and has expansion capacity for the next 20 years. In addition, The likely occupiers would be yet more road freight warehouse operators moving to be nearer to the M1. This would be completely against government objectives and an unintended consequence of an unclear policy on locating Rail Freight Interchanges. It is not in the 'national interest' to wipe out hundreds of acres of productive farmland and wildlife habitat - and create yet more traffic congestion and pollution on an already overstretched road network. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tina Dupont
"My main concerns about this development is the pollution. My [] and having moved from a town situation to the countryside I have noticed a marked improvement in his condition. My family and I enjoy walking and exercise, all of which will be affected along with the changes to the foot paths. It will also have a devastating affect on the wild life. Also the roads are inadequate to cope with additional traffic. In my opinion this will also affect roads beyond the local villages including major junctions at Towcester where despite investment still can't cope. 24/7 Noise, air and light pollution will have a obvious negative affect on the quality of life. This won't just be from the running of the site, but also from workers commuting from outside of the area. This is likely to be the case due to locally high employment levels. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Virginia Henley
"This proposed development will have a hugely detrimental effect on the community of Milton Malsor - the noise, additional traffic and unattractive effect on the immediate landscape will completely destroy the village atmosphere of this beautiful and ancient settlement. It is far far too close to villages and the edge of the town and should be built further away if at all. The prices of homes will plummet but equally importantly it will have a devastating impact on peoples' lives. The plans indicate that it is an enormous site - the noise and the traffic will inevitably impact on the local environment. It should not be permitted to go ahead. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Amanda Jameson
"I strongly object to the outline plans for a new rail freight terminal in Northamptonshire off junction 15 of the M1. I moved to Northamptonshire from Malta 18 years ago and I have raised my 2 children in Milton Malsor during the last 12 years, in a very peaceful,rural and historic village environment which will absolutely be ruined by the total scale of this proposed development. I understand that local government plans the potential for new development which forms the Joint Core Strategy. This proposed development was not considered a requirement 4 years ago when the policies were agreed, so I see no reason why the policies should be ignored 4 years in, surely this will be used in future as a precedent for unknown developments being approved left, right and centre. What was the point of the WNJCS otherwise. The area has outstanding natural beauty and I for one, will be devastated by the increase in traffic, noise, pollution, not to mention my mental health as I already suffer from anxiety. This will affect so many people in a catastrophic way and bring an end to the great community we have int he village and surrounding areas."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Angela Phelps
"I object for so many reasons, i have lived here all my life, the traffic, the fields, the pollution, the noise, the destruction and disruption are all going to destroy our beautiful villages and we dont need it to be here. Its central but we have DRIFT up the road, we need to save some countryside and this is a solid, beautiful cluster of villages, it is rare these days and this needs to be preserved and is more important than having the Roxhill development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barbara Stagg
"I am strongly opposed to this site being built in my area. My partner uses junction 15 of the M1 and he struggles even now to negotiate this junction having to go earlier each day to get to work. The pollution which will be caused by lorries, trucks etc., is not acceptable so near to housing. The infrastructure of this town will not sustain further labour within the area. I know I have worked for the NHS which cannot cope now. The M1 area is congested now without further advancement of traffic. We are loosing more and more green space, my family live in this area and over the years green areas are disappearing at an alarming rate. As soon as planning is granted more and more is added to the list. I am so STRONGLY opposed to planners who do not live here deciding as to what should and should not be built. Therefore this planning application should be REFUSED. Barbara stagg"
Members of the Public/Businesses
C P Eads
"My objections relating to the proposed Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Terminal are as follows: 01. Increased pollution coming from Heavy Goods Vehicles in a rural area that is already experiencing high and action levels of vehicle pollution emanating from the adjacent road network ie, the M1 Motorway at junction 15 and the A508/A45 trunk roads. 02. Increased road congestion on the already overpopulated and congested M1 motorway and adjacent trunk roads A508/A45. Any road traffic incident that occurs on these roads (a regular occurrence) results in these and all other routes including minor roads in the area becoming gridlocked. Additional HGV traffic and other vehicles needing to enter the site would merely create further and more serious incidents of this type. 03. Light and Noise pollution from the site will have an adverse effect on the adjacent historic rural village settlements, in particular Collingtree and Milton Malsor as well as Roade Blisworth and other residential areas such as Grange Park. There are conservation areas within some of these settlements. 04. There is considerable doubt on my part and amongst the communities affected and from expert opinion whether there is actually a need for a rail freight terminal in this location, given that the nearby Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal is currently operating well below its capacity. In addition there is a view that the existing rail infrastructure would be unable to provide the necessary capacity for such a terminal. 05. There is a strong suspicion within the communities affected that the inclusion of a rail freight terminal element for this proposed development is merely a vehicle to enable large scale warehousing on the site served exclusively by ingress and egress of heavy goods vehicles from the already overcrowded road network. There are I gather examples in other locations in the country where this has occurred and the rail freight element has not come to fruition. Without the rail freight element any application would be expected to fail as it would not then comply with government policy of removing heavy goods from road to rail. I would therefore suggest that any warehousing development on this site should only be considered if there is an unequivocal commitment on the developers part to a ring fenced guarantee for the inclusion of the rail freight terminal element. 06. The residents of the rural settlements mentioned above chose to live in rural village locations and not within or on the cusp of a massive industrial site, where noise light and vehicle pollution would become the norm. 07. This whole flawed proposal is already having a negative effect on the residents health and well-being. If the scheme were to proceed that negative effect on those residents would be greatly increased."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Colin Hicks
"we must act now to stop the relentless spread of this`Concrete Cancer`that is covering our green and pleasant land. Distribution centres do not create many jobs but the do create a lot of HGV traffic polluting the air breath and creating `Greenhouse` gases. The road infrastructure in SE Northants is totally inadequate for any increase in vehicle movements. Example the A5 down towards Milton Keynes. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Geoffrey Burrows
"The reason I have asked for this form to be sent to me regarding the NORTHAMPTON GATEWAY RAILFREIGHT INTERCHANGE is the simple reason, its not needed. I travel to RUGBY and LUTTERWORTH alot, so pass the development known as DIRFT at the village of CRICK in Northamptonshire. It has been established there for many years. It is nowhere full to capacity yet. It has decades of Development to go before even an idea of another hub is thought of. Also it is only 18 miles away. Two hubs on top of each other makes no business sense at all. Another reason is that this is prime arable land which feeds a growing population. Northampton is a growing town. The houses built here are £600000 to £700000 in price for London Commuters. I don’t think the workers at this interchange could afford them so more traffic on an already busy Junction 15 would create Grid Lock. This really is a very stupid idea."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Glenn Bass
"i object because the traffic will become unmanageble and jugganaughts will come through the villages causing noise, pollution, disruption and danger. It will make our villages more prone to crime (DRIFT has proved this) and any more industry building around here will put an end to our countryside locally. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Northover
"I am strongly objecting the proposed development for the following reasons: Rail Capacity & Loss of passenger rail services - The West Coast Mainline is the busiest railway in Europe. NCC Highways Authority has stated "....increasing freight services over the Loop (line) might require a reduction in the passenger service to Northampton. Crime increase - The areas around DIRFT have seen a 176% increase in crime since 2000/01. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jonathan Deeks
"I object because the the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is so close to this site, serves the same local area and has capacity for expansion for over 10 years. It also has experienced an increase in crime following the industrialisation of the area. Please move it somehwere else."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jonathan Hands
"I STRONGLY OBJECT to the building of the rail freight terminal at junction 15. This will permanently destroy prosperous farmland and unspoilt countryside, hedgerows and waterways. These valuable assets are already in dramatic decline across the country, forcing our ever diminishing wildlife under even greater pressure. The project will produce a dramatic rise in road traffic to a already heavily congested road network that is poorly maintained without the increase of this extra traffic. This will only be the start of an ever increasing spiral of destroying open farmland and country side and turning it into an urban environment. LOST FOREVER."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julia Smith
"I strongly object to the above application because of the following reasons: 1. The increased traffic this will bring onto local roads. I know they have offered a bypass for Roade, but this has so many stipulations attached to it, that it is obvious this will be sidelined and never be built. 2.The light pollution this will bring to the local area, Roade will become completely illuminated at night, it will be like living in the centre of a town. Not what rural England is suppose to be about. 3. The increase in road and rail traffic that this will generate, when Daventry rail freight depot is still not working anywhere near capacity. 4. Also as like a lot of these developments the rail side or the application will disappear in time with planning alterations to make this just an excuse for further warehousing. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
June Baker
"Having worked hard all my life, I am now retired looking forward to spending the rest of my days with my husband in our lovely home enjoying the peace and quiet of the countryside. Having the proposed Northampton Gateway would destroy all of this and ruin our lives. I strongly object to the proposed Northampton Gateway, due to the noise that will be created by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers and the operation of an aggregates terminal. Furthermore the light and noise pollution from night time operations would make our lives simply unbearable. I also strongly object to the Northampton Gateway proposal, due to it being contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy. It is also unnecessary, as the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is close by off junction 18 on the M1. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kay Diment
"I fail to see the necessity of a rail freight interchange on the outskirts of Northampton which will have a huge impact of the affected villages and the surrounding area. The impact will be felt by all those living and travelling between west and south Northampton towards Milton Keynes. The impact on the environment and communities will be enormous and I do not see any benefits to the local area. A similar (but far smaller that the proposed interchange) is not yet fully utilised in Northamptonshire. The whole proposal is an unnecessary blot on the landscape and benefits none except big business and a few individuals. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Keith Collins
"no need for this developement as DIRFT at daventry is not at full capacity. this developement would cause a considerable increase in the pollution to the surrounding area. this would also increase further developement of the area which our road system will be unable to cope with. this developement would also increase the traffic of outside workers having to travel into this facility. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kimberly Deeks
"I object to Roxhill because the noise created by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers and the operation of an aggregates terminal. We need to presrve some countryside, Grange Park has changed entirely but the Roxhill site will make this seem like nothing. This will be hugely upsetting for all villages and villagers. I understand the possible need to create areas in thery but DRIFT is so large and so close this new site should be placed elsewhere."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Jameson
"I strongly object to the request from Roxhill for the outlined proposal of a Rail Freight Terminal at the Northampton Gateway Junction 15 M1 Motorway. The area is one of outstanding beauty, one of the reasons why I chose to move my family here 11 years ago. There are some be amazing walks and views which will be totally obliterated by the proposed development. The proposed development is 100% contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS), formally adopted in December 2014, another reason for my strong objection. The WNJCS has no policy or evidence to suggest a need for an SRFI on land in ooen countryside off Junction 15 of the M1. The need for an SRFI is identified at DIRFT. There is a 7.86 million sq/ft off Junction 18 on the M1, approx 18 miiltes from Junction 15, where planning permission has been granted for logistics space and a new rail terminal. The WNJCS requires that any further SRFI development take place at the DIRFT site and nowhere else within it 3 districts (Daventry, South Northants and Northampton Borough areas). DIRFT is already set to double in size during the next 10 years and has gained planning approval for its thired phase of development allowing it to expand until 2031. DIRFT is the largest SRFI in the country and is likely to remain the largest hence there being no need for an additional development just 18 miles away. Traffic is already building in the area, the M1 around Junction 15 is always backing up each way, this will only become worse, adding to already high pollution levels as identified in Collingtree village where the levels of Nitrogen are already recorded as being at the maximum level for air quality. I sincerely hope that common sense prevails and the WNJCS is upheld as to go against its original policies, agreed only 4 years ago would set a precedence that would snow ball out of control. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael H Baker
"I strongly object to the proposed Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange on the grounds it is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) adopted in December 2014. There is no policy shown in the WNJCS for an SRFI to be sited on land in open countryside off junction 15 on the M1. The need for an SRFI is identified in the WNJCS as the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) off junction 18 on the M1. So its unnecessary for another SRFI to be located a few miles away (approx 18 miles) off junction 15. I strongly object to the proposed Northampton Gateway, as it will destroy hundreds of acres of local countryside, with the loss of valuable farmland when the country needs to produce more food rather than importing it. In any case, all local plans show this site being retained as farmland and open countryside, and nor for industrial development. Finally, I am a pensioner and my home is next to a brook, and I am extremely fearful of the real risk of flooding, which could so easily destroy all I have worked for during my life. Thus another valid reason why I strongly object to this proposal. "
Parish Councils
response has attachments
Milton Malsor Parish Council (Milton Malsor Parish Council)
"Please see attached letter "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patricia White
"I STRONGLY OBJECT to the proposed Northampton Gateway for the following reasons. TRAFFIC • The M1 is already at very high levels of capacity. To have additional traffic movements in the area of J15 will make matters worse on the M1, A508 and A45. It will impact upon local roads and increase the use of rat runs through Blisworth and Stoke Bruerne • The traffic from Roade to J15 is backed up especially at peak times. Additional traffic from the new Gateway roundabout to J15 together with displaced local traffic will make matters worse. • It is proposed that the Courteenhall-Blisworth Rd junction has left-only turns which restricts access from Blisworth to Roade and from the A508 southbound to Blisworth. Traffic will divert along the proposed bypass & down Knock Lane. Knock Lane is very narrow and ill maintained. Vehicles which would currently enter the village of Blisworth along the Courteenhall Road would then use the narrow Stoke Road with parked cars, a doctors surgery, the village hall, pre-school, byroads and a difficult junction. • The bypass. o - will move pollution to another part of Roade o - will increase noise and diesel pollution from increased rail movements through Roade o - doesn’t solve the overall problems on the A508 corridor from J15 to the A5 POLLUTION Collingtree in particular will be affected being close to J15, the M1 and very close to the Gateway itself • There will be an Inevitable increase in localised pollution as majority of traffic is forecast to use M1 and A45, both Air Quality Management Areas. • There is a potential risks to health, such as asthma • The noise from 400 HGVs permanently in-site & forklifts, all with reversing warnings, idling engines, diesel trains and aggregates unloading in addition to extra site-generated traffic will be 24 hours, almost every day of the year • The external lights will increase light pollution. TOO MANY WITHIN THE GOLDEN TRIANGLE • The government’s intention is for there to be a network of SRFIs which will enable goods to be transported long distances by rail and road only being used to cover the shorter distances to or from a LOCAL SRFI hub. The concentration of SRFIs within the ‘Golden Triangle’ follows a CENTRAL distribution model which is completely at odds with the intention of the SRFI strategy. SRFI proposals need to be carefully examined to ensure that they will actually serve as a LOCAL rail freight interchange serving LOCAL distribution markets. • Getting the freight off the roads is important but it has not been demonstrated that this will be the case with another SRFI so close to DIRFT. CONCERNS THAT SRFI IS AN EXCUSE FOR WAREHOUSING ALONE There is no obligation for the distributors to use the rail side of terminal so it’s just a cloak for the developers to build more warehouses next to the M1. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Penelope Macadam
"I object because of both the light and noise pollution this will cause, especially at night. We accept the noise of the motorway as we chose this when moving here but this will become unacceptable once the Roxhill developement is running. or even as they build it. I am in my 70's, this is just too much disruption across the board. Save the countryside for our villages, please! Penny Macadam"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philippa Bowden
"Subject: PINS I strongly object to this application because The West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) completed, found to be sound by PINS and formally adopted in 2014 specifically rejected a request from a developer (Ashfield Land) to include provision for a SRFI. The strategy states that new rail freight interchanges are not deliverable within the plan period and that major new industrial development should be focussed on three sites ie. Silverstone DIRFT and around the M1 junction 16. There is sufficient future capacity at DIRFT along with Midlands Gateway such that very little interchange of rail freight will take place at Northampton Gateway. If this is the case then what would differentiate the proposed site from a 'regular interchange park? The suggestion of a SRFI terminal is disingenuous paying lip service to the idea of providing Strategic National Importance simply in order to bypass local planning and make good on their investment. This is short-term thinking that ultimately costs the country in the long run. I would add that recent reports confirm a decrease in the use of Rail Freight by 20% down to 0.4% growth from predictions of 5% increase year on year. The local road network is totally inadequate to deal with the anticipated increased volume of traffic, not only from HGVs but also from those supposed new employees (that don't live in the area) using the site on a daily (24 hour) basis. The major benefit of local job creation is overplayed in an area of low unemployment and that the anticipated workforce will mostly commute from other areas further increasing the pressure on the local road networks. There will be negligible, if any, benefit to the local communities affected. Furthermore, the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) provides for a careful balance between jobs and housing. Unemployment is presently at only 1% to 2% and the JCS states that only 3 ‘strategic employment sites’ – at M1 Junction 16; Silverstone Circuit and DIRFT are needed. The operation will create unacceptable light, air and noise pollution blighting the lives of at least two rural communities and endangering their health and well-being for everyone. 8. The cumulative adverse impact of 24/7 noise, light and air pollution will be considerable for residents of many local villages. The additional daily HGV trips each day will add to the already critical levels of nitrous oxide and particulate pollution around the M1 (an AQMA). The Northamptonshire “Parishes Against Pollution” group (29 parishes) have combined to fight this threat to residents health. There are several local footpaths and bridleways that will suffer from diversions that are both considerably less convenient but also far less attractive due to the loss of countryside views. They will also suffer from increased noise and air pollution when compared to the existing routes. A major concern of local residents is the proposal to make the Courteenhall Rd. junction on the A508 left in left out only. This will cause considerable inconvenience locally and add to the current traffic problems on Stoke Rd. in Blisworth Philippa Bowden"
Members of the Public/Businesses
S P Rooney
"I very strongly to the proposed Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange. There are already 3 SRFI's in this region none working at full capacity. The additional vehicle movements will bring even more congestion on our roads, especially with any incidents on the M1. There will be a huge increase in noise, light & air pollution. This proposed interchange will devastate huge swathes of agricultural land, ruining villages. There won't be villages in the future as this interchange will encourage more developments and Northampton will become a huge sprawling town."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sandra Nagy
"I object to this project"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Borondy
"I strongly object to this application because:- The West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) completed, found to be sound by PINS and formally adopted in 2014 specifically rejected a request from a developer (Ashfield Land) to include provision for a SRFI. The strategy states that new rail freight interchanges are not deliverable within the plan period and that major new industrial development should be focussed on three sites ie. Silverstone DIRFT and around the M1 junction 16. There is sufficient future capacity at DIRFT along with Midlands Gateway such that very little interchange of rail freight will take place at Northampton Gateway. If this is the case then what would differentiate the proposed site from a 'regular interchange park? The suggestion of a SRFI terminal is disingenuous paying lip service to the idea of providing Strategic National Importance simply in order to bypass local planning and make good on their investment. This is short-term thinking that ultimately costs the country in the long run. I would add that recent reports confirm a decrease in the use of Rail Freight by 20% down to 0.4% growth from predictions of 5% increase year on year. The local road network is totally inadequate to deal with the anticipated increased volume of traffic, not only from HGVs but also from those supposed new employees (that don't live in the area) using the site on a daily (24 hour) basis. The major benefit of local job creation is overplayed in an area of low unemployment and that the anticipated workforce will mostly commute from other areas further increasing the pressure on the local road networks. There will be negligible, if any, benefit to the local communities affected. Furthermore, the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) provides for a careful balance between jobs and housing. Unemployment is presently at only 1% to 2% and the JCS states that only 3 ‘strategic employment sites’ – at M1 Junction 16; Silverstone Circuit and DIRFT are needed. The operation will create unacceptable light, air and noise pollution blighting the lives of at least two rural communities and endangering their health and well-being for everyone. 8. The cumulative adverse impact of 24/7 noise, light and air pollution will be considerable for residents of many local villages. The additional daily HGV trips each day will add to the already critical levels of nitrous oxide and particulate pollution around the M1 (an AQMA). The Northamptonshire “Parishes Against Pollution” group (29 parishes) have combined to fight this threat to residents health. There are several local footpaths and bridleways that will suffer from diversions that are both considerably less convenient but also far less attractive due to the loss of countryside views. They will also suffer from increased noise and air pollution when compared to the existing routes. There is also the Grand Union Canal and the Northampton arm of it that run through this proposed development, They are both national treasures part of a 200 year old legacy and are both projected by the Canal and Riverboat Trust. The development would not only dissect these treasured waterways but also ruin the environment and the vital leisure industry that these waterways provide. A major concern of local residents is the proposal to make the Courteenhall Rd. junction on the A508 left in left out only. This will cause considerable inconvenience locally and add to the current traffic problems on Stoke Rd. in Blisworth. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Chalk
"I STRONGLY OBJECT to the building of the rail freight terminal at junction 15. It is not needed with DIRFT just up the motorway. It will cause extra traffic on an already heavily congested road and with unemployment at a low within the county this will mean 'workers' travelling from elsewhere or more housing being built which in turn will increase congestion. It will mean the permanent loss of at least 520 acres of productive arable farmland, loss of wildlife corridors and essential habitat which needs protecting with so many of our native species in serious decline. Degradation of country walks by moving the footpaths and bridleway. Increase in light pollution affecting our nocturnal wildlife. Noise pollution as the warehouses built will be open 24/7, HGVs permanently in-site & forklifts, all with reversing warnings, idling engines, diesel trains and aggregates unloading in addition to extra site-generated traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sharon Elizabeth Nola
"I strongly object to Roxhills SFRI & Roade Bypass proposal for the following reasons: INNAPPROPRIATE LOCATION & NO STRATEGIC NEED; DIRFT, only 18 miles away is predicted to have sufficient rail freight and warehousing capacity until c. 2030. PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICES; It has not been proven that the national rail network has the capacity to support their proposal; local commuters are likely to be impacted by a reduction in dependable services. EMPLOYMENT & THE LOCAL ECONOMY; SFRI’s should be located in areas where there is an availability of a suitable workforce. The claimant rate in South Northants is very low, therefore, there will be a significant shortfall locally to fill the predicted 7,500 staff roles that Roxhill estimate. Furthermore, an SFRI cannot exist in isolation; there will be a demand for food vans, provision of materials etc. to sustain the site. Where will all of these employees/service providers be commuting in from? INCREASED TRAFFIC; It is likely that an additional 16,500 vehicle movements each day around the Roxhill site will be the result (24/7) approx. 4,000 of which will be HGV’s. This will mean a significant increase in noise/light/air pollution, congestion and increased/delayed journey times to/ from work for local residents. AIR QUALITY, HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS; Additional traffic will result in an unacceptable increase in nitrogen dioxide levels; local residents are likely to be put at risk of severe health implications such as exacerbated asthma, bronchial symptoms etc. OTHER INTOLERABLE HEATH IMPLICATIONS; Local resident’s health and quality of life are likely to result in stress-related symptoms e.g. anxiety, frustration and aggression as a result of extended commuting times. Furthermore, there is likely to be an increased risk of road accidents. LANDSCAPE & PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY (PROW’S); the loss of open landscape, views, and alterations to PROW’s will have a highly detrimental impact on local residents/the environment. PROW’s will be longer/diverted, open countryside views will be lost and replaced with unnecessary warehouses resulting in damage to the pastoral character of the area and negative impacts to Grade II listed dwellings. As a direct result of Roxhills proposed Roade Bypass, regular users of the public footpath will be forced to walk and/or ride through an underground public passageway. CULTURAL HERITAGE; A number of Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas & and Registered Park and Gardens will be severely impacted, such as Woodleys Farm Day Nursery, Hyde Farm House and associated separately listed dovecote (Hyde Farm House is the oldest secular building in Roade parish and dates from the 14th century), Milton Malsor Conservation Area, Collingtree Conservation Area, Courteenhall (house, school house, stables) & Blisworth Conservation Area. INCREASED CRIME; Whilst the increase in crime is difficult to predict I expect a similar increase based on the DIRFT example; crime in the local areas rose by 176%. LOCAL EMERGENCY (999) SERVICES & LOCAL NHS SERVICES; All will be put under enormous additional pressure to support Roxhills proposal; local residents and the predicted number of new employees will result in a) increased health issues, b) increased traffic accidents and c) increased crime rates. Roxhills claimed benefits of their proposal are far outweighed by the vast number of dis-benefits to local; residents, the economy, emergency/health services and the environment. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Vicki Eads
"Your representation: My objections relating to the proposed Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Terminal are as follows: 01. Increased pollution coming from Heavy Goods Vehicles in a rural area that is already experiencing high and action levels of vehicle pollution emanating from the adjacent road network ie, the M1 Motorway at junction 15 and the A508/A45 trunk roads.02. Increased road congestion on the already overpopulated and congested M1 motorway and adjacent trunk roads A508/A45. Any road traffic incident that occurs on these roads (a regular occurrence) results in these and all other routes including minor roads in the area becoming gridlocked. Additional HGV traffic and other vehicles needing to enter the site would merely create further and more serious incidents of this type. 03. Light and Noise pollution from the site will have an adverse effect on the adjacent historic rural village settlements, in particular Collingtree and Milton Malsor as well as Roade Blisworth and other residential areas such as Grange Park. There are conservation areas within some of these settlements. 04. There is considerable doubt on my part and amongst the communities affected and from expert opinion whether there is actually a need for a rail freight terminal in this location, given that the nearby Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal is currently operating well below its capacity. In addition there is a view that the existing rail infrastructure would be unable to provide the necessary capacity for such a terminal. 05. There is a strong suspicion within the communities affected that the inclusion of a rail freight terminal element for this proposed development is merely a vehicle to enable large scale warehousing on the site served exclusively by ingress and egress of heavy goods vehicles from the already overcrowded road network. There are I gather examples in other locations in the country where this has occurred and the rail freight element has not come to fruition. Without the rail freight element any application would be expected to fail as it would not then comply with government policy of removing heavy goods from road to rail. I would therefore suggest that any warehousing development on this site should only be considered if there is an unequivocal commitment on the developers part to a ring fenced guarantee for the inclusion of the rail freight terminal element. 06. The residents of the rural settlements mentioned above chose to live in rural village locations and not within or on the cusp of a massive industrial site, where noise light and vehicle pollution would become the norm. 07. This whole flawed proposal is already having a negative effect on the residents health and well-being. If the scheme were to proceed that negative effect on those residents would be greatly increased."
Members of the Public/Businesses
M S Owen
"I object to the development for several reasons: - The existing Rail Freight terminal at Daventry, 18 miles away is under capacity - so an extra one is not needed at this site - there is already more than enough capacity in this region - Massive increase in traffic, including cars for workers from outside the local area, as well as the extra HGV vehicle movements 24 hour of the day, would put pressure on the already overcrowded roads resulting in ever longer queues - especially at peak times or in times of motorway closures. The village roads cannot take these extra traffic movements, resulting in huge congestion -the extra traffic,( including the journeys of outside workers to the site as there is not enough local labour to employ) will cause a huge increase in pollution and deterioration of air quality within the local community - Local wildlife habitats and conservation areas as well as much farmland would be totally destroyed - Development on the Roade side of the M1, which at present acts as a natural boundary to development from Northampton, would open the gates to further development, leading to the total change of Roade as a village to just another part of the concrete sprawl of Northampton -There may well be a big increase in crime as has been seen in other areas around these freight terminals "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alison Turley
"I object to Roxhill's Northampton Gateway proposal on the grounds that it will severely affect the quality of life for residents living within the villages of Collingtree, Milton Malsor, Roade and Blisworth. We live in an area which is already exposed to above or near legal limits for air, noise and light pollution. Northampton Gateway would exacerbate these levels further. Our local roads struggle with the existing volume of traffic and are frequently brought to a standstill. Northampton Gateway would add over 16,000 vehicle trips a day with over 4,000 being diesel HGV's. Why do we need even more warehouses? The surrounding area is already dominated by warehouses and the purpose built DIRFT Rail Freight Interchange facility at Daventry is only 18 miles away and has underused capacity. At the present time we enjoy walks in the surrounding fields following ancient public footpaths. With the high level of pollution from the nearby road system we need the opportunity to be able to maintain a healthy lifestyle by walking in the nearby countryside. Why should central government be allowed to impose this project overriding the local planning authorities? There is a concern that there will be an increase in the incidence of crime in the local vicinity to the Northampton Gateway site due to the direct footpath/cycle access into Collingtree, Hunsbury and Grange Park. The incidence of crime in parishes surrounding DIRFT at Daventry has increased substantially since it opened. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alistair Jepson
"I wish to formally lodge a strong object to this application. As way of background I am a local resident of a village adjacent to this scheme (Stoke Bruerne) and I drive daily on the A508 across Junction 15 of the M1 to my place of work in Northampton (Northampton General Hospital). I therefore have a very good knowledge of the area and the substantial, and not infrequent, issues in involving traffic congestion along both the A508, A42, A45 and the M1. The objections I have are in relation to: 1. TRAFFIC OVERLOAD The existing traffic congestion on the M1, A45 and A508, is significant with frequent 'rat running' through local villages already. Roxhill have promised to fund improvements to Junction 15 but I cannot see these are being effective in their current form, especially as the number of (diesel) HGV's needed to service 5 million sq ft of warehousing will be enormous, and then there are the 6,000 or so people that will work at the site. 2.HUGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Residential areas surrounding the proposed site are already exposed to high levels of air, noise and light pollution that are already above legal limits. Some of this has been partly mitigated by dispersion over open countryside close by. Roxhill's proposal will destroy this 'green lung' as well as the wildlife habitat it provides. 3. LACK OF STRATEGIC 'NEED' Industry experts say that a Rail Interchange is not needed in this location because the DIRFT facility is only 18 miles further north and has expansion capacity for the next 20 years. 3. CONFLICT WITH PLANNING POLICY The agreed Strategic Plan for the region, specifically excludes industrial development at this location. 4. BY-PASSING LOCAL DEMOCRACY Roxhill argue that the inclusion of a rail link to the Northampton Loop line allows this proposal to be decided by central government as 'Nationally Significant Infrastructure' rather than by the locally accountable planning process. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Bodman
"Application TR050006 for Northampton Gateway strategic rail freight interchange I strongly object to this proposal Northampton Gateway is non compliant with the National Policy Statement for National Networks on several matters including national network, near to major markets, available local workforce, sustainability, air quality, adjacent to residential areas, green belt, road congestion and safety, cumulative impact and historic environment. Northampton Gateway is also non compliant with several policies within the National Planning Policy Framework many of which overlap with those listed above. Northampton Gateway is also non compliant with the West Northants Joint Core Strategy and the South Northamptonshire Council’s local plan. Northampton Gateway would be situated 18 miles from Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT), the largest strategic rail freight interchange (SRFI) in the country; DIRFT has an expansion capability until 2031. This application would not assist in the creation of a national network of SRFIs. Nor has the developer demonstrated that there is demand for a SRFI at this location. The developer has not carried out a thorough alternative sites assessment which places it in contravention of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regulations and the Town and Country Planning Act. The additional train paths that have been forecast for this SRFI by 2043 are unlikely to be available. What is of greater concern is that existing rail passenger services might be reduced or future rail passenger services are likely to be constricted by Northampton Gateway’s train paths. This project has reached Network Rail’s GRIP level 2 which means its associated risks are unacceptably high. Northampton Gateway is too close to the major container ports at Felixstowe and Southampton to provide economically viable rail journeys from them. Unemployment is exceptionally low in South Northamptonshire meaning there would not be a readily available local workforce. A visit to local logistics sites at Brackmills and DIRFT will always show a number of companies attempting to recruit drivers and/or warehouse operatives. The additional traffic movements generated by this SRFI would have a significant impact on users of the A508, A45, A5076, A43, A5 and minor roads in the vicinity. Northampton Gateway would create major delays on nearby roads at peak times, particularly the A508. Additional traffic would be generated on two Red Routes. It is considered that the traffic forecast by the Northamptonshire Strategic Transport Model has underestimated likely volumes for 2031. Almost two thirds of the additional HGV movements created by this SRFI are forecast to pass through one or other of the two immediately adjacent air quality management areas. Roxhill have elected not to run the Northamptonshire Strategic Transport Model with the full data for Northampton Gateway and Rail Central simultaneously. The lack of such a cumulative assessment has been considered unacceptable. Cumulative impact assessments have not taken consideration of High Speed Two, nor labour force availability. Northampton Gateway is in breach of EIA regulations in respect of the shortcomings of its cumulative assessment. Crime rates are expected to soar in nearby villages if this SRFI is built."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barry Talbot
"I object strongly to the development and construction of the Northampton Gateway Project presented by Roxhill. Briefly, my reasons for strongly objecting are as follows: 1. The A508, in particular, has a very serious traffic problem. So much so, that my travel to work in Warwick or to visit clients that require me to use the A508 to the M1 determine the timing of my journey start. Roxhill have failed to address this issue and have not presented anything that provides me with the level of confidence that the traffic issues will be dealt with in a satisfactory way. At least twice a week, my wait at the A508/Ashton Road/Rookery Lane junction is 10 to 15 minutes. When there is a slight impediment to the flow of traffic either way along the A508, it is impossible for me to make my meetings on time. If this development is approved, with the volume of traffic expected to increase by 16,500 per day, this situation will get worse, rather than better. 2. We already live with unacceptable levels of both air and noise pollution along the A508. We live adjacent to the A508 and cannot see this being reduced with the increased level of traffic expected to be produced by the activities at this development. 3. There is already a strategic rail freight terminal at DIRFT, which is just 18 miles further north on the M1. I understand that they have approval to increase capacity until at least 2031. 4. The infrastructure in the South Northamptonshire area is not able to cope with the addition of a further 7500 new jobs. The housing, schooling and roads are not adequate to deal with this influx into the area. If new employees must travel from adjacent areas, this will simply add to the existing and expected traffic congestion problems. 5. The development will have an adverse impact upon the local wild life habitat and will degrade the existing country walks. The permanent loss of 520 acres of arable land will make the view from surrounding villages quite depressing. 6. The junction at the A508/Ashton Road/Rookery Lane is currently very dangerous. Crossing it in foot is nerve racking at times as most vehicles do not slow down when driving down the hill though the junction. The developers had promised to provide a safe way to cross the junction, but I feel what they have offered will not provide us with a safe way to cross the road. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Catherine Muir
"I strongly object to the application to create the Northampton gateway Rail Interchange. My husbands family grew up within a few hundred yards of the proposed development and understand fully the damage the proposal will create. I believe the proposed development to be surplus to requirement as there is already in construction another national rail freight interchange within a 20 mile radius at the Daventry International Rail freight Terminal. The development will destroy the open countryside in the area and blight the countryside for miles around, it will break up transit routes for wildlife and is likely to cause other environmental damage, changes to water tables, increase pollution from additional vehicle journeys to offload the trains and create a thoroughly unpleasant industrial sprawl in what is currently open countryside. The application is in direct contradiction of a number of local and national core strategies, the WNJCS is the foundation of all planning strategy for the area until 2029. The Daventry development already has planning approval to double in size with a third stage development already agreed. There is no need for 2 international terminals within such a close proximity. This very planning inspectorate in 2013 and 2014 conluded that there is no need for new strategic development in open countryside as there is sufficient land already agreed and set aside alongside the M1 at J16 & J18. This proposal is one of many submitted by this landowner to leverage their historic ownership of land adjacent to a growing residential area. There is need for residential development around Northampton but there is no need for this industrial sprawl when there is already agreed facilities in development within 20 miles. This development will blight an area of open countryside enjoyed by all resident of Northampton and already overburden a road network insufficient to cope with the current levels of traffic. A rail freight terminal by its very nature will increase significantly road usage as trucks leave the site having collected goods from the terminal. Stop this inappropriate overdevelopment of what is currently protected open countryside and protect a number of Northamptonshire villages from being blighted. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Colin L Neal
"The road and rail infrastructure cannot cope with a massive development such as that proposed. I cannot see the need for the proposed development given the proximity of DIRFT just up the motorway."
Members of the Public/Businesses
G Binks
"1) I strongly object to the proposal as it is contrary to the West Northants Core Strategy (WNJCS) formely adopted in December 2014. There is the foundation for all Planning Policy in the Area until 2029. There is no policy or evidence in the WNJCS to suggest the need for an SRFI on land in open country side off junction 15 on the N1 2) The need for an SRFI in the WNJCS as the Daventry International Rail freight Terminal. This site is only 18 miles from Junction 15 and has Planning Permission already granted which will accommodate any expansion required for at least another 10 years. 3) I also object strongly to this proposal as it will destroy 100 of acres of local country side when the country needs to produce more food rather than importing it. 4) I also object to th proposal on the ground that there will be a significant increase in air pollution, light noise pollution by this 24 hour operation. I also object that a number of nature trend will be destroyed, local foot path network and wildlife habitat will also be destroyed. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Guellec-DIgby & CO LTD (Guellec-DIgby & CO LTD)
"I strongly object to this proposal because of the increased air pollution from the thousand of extra cars, vans and HGVs using the road near our office. I also strongly object because the site would be surrounded by high earth mounds (bunding) which would be a 'blot on the landscape'. In addition, I object to this as there is no need for either the proposed Northampton Gateway SRFI (Roxhill) to be located nearby on Junction 15, or for the proposed SRFI (Ashfield Land) to be constructed on land in open countryside between Milton Malsor and Blisworth. This proposal is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) formally adopted in December 2014. There is no policy or evidence in the WNJCS to suggest the need for an SRFI on land in open countryside off Junction 15 on the M1. In addition, I strongly object to this proposal because the WNJCS was considered by an independent planning inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate, as part of the Examination in public hearings held in April/May 2013 and March 2014. The inspector's report issued in October 2014 concludes that there is no need for any new strategic employment sites in open countryside, as there is enough land allocated in the WNJCS for this purpose on Junctions 16 and 18 on the M1."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Shoemark
"I strongly reject and protest against the roxhill gateway development plan situated between roade, bliswoerh villages and junction 15. This development will be a major blight on the landscape of which is beautiful countryside. It has already lowered house prices in blosworrh and views will be subjected to grey warehouse blocks. Traffic via a508 already is extremely heavy with jams every morning and afternoon. Huge lorries role through the conservation area of road village and noise pollution including trains is a disgrace for a village. Traffic pollution, congestion and eye sore. A scandalous plan which benefits no one in the local community."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hilary Spurrier
"I object to the proposed development for the following reasons 1. There is no strategic case to support this development as it is only 15 miles south of the Rail Freight Interchange near Crick and other Rail Freight interchanges have been approved to the south Radlett/St Albans. The west coast main line has very little capacity for more traffic. 2. The developers admit that they will be satisfied if 5% of the traffic uses the rail connectivity - it is therefore disingenuous to describe a large warehouse development as a rail freight interchange 3. The proposed traffic management schemes for this development will cause further congestion on already busy routes such as the A508, MI and A45. These roads are already at capacity at peak times resulting in a high incidence of accidents. 4. The village of Blisworth will experience a huge increase in through traffic resulting in increased congestion as well as damage to the conservation area. 5. This is an area of high employment so the workforce needed for the site are likely to commute in from areas of higher unemployment increasing congestion "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Local Enterprise Ltd (Local Enterprise Ltd)
"Our organisation objects most strongly to these proposals. In particular: - We believe huge unnecessary infrastructure costs will be involved for no good purpose - We regret the loss of some beautiful countryside - We fear substantial additional traffic on local roads - We fear noise and light pollution from the Interchange - As an employer, we know that staff have to travel from some distance. This will become more of a problem should the interchange be established - We are aware that Dirft has unused capacity which makes no sense for the addition of extra capacity in this rural location. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martine Lunch
"I strongly object to the proposed rail interchange: - It is create light and noise pollution - There will be significant increased traffic in villages including Collingtree and Milton Malsor -It is unnecessary as DIRFT is under-utilised and only a few miles away on the same rail line -It will involve loss of farmland, an increasingly valuable resource as populations grow - The road network in the region will become increasingly congested with additional pollution - The tranquil and verdant landscape which we relished when we moved here in 1980 will be severely compromised"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Fritz Kok
"I would like to register my objection to the proposed interchange on the grounds of road safety, on an already busy road, for both drivers and pedestrians. As a resident, living on the A508, I would like to know exactly what measures are proposed to ensure our safety and that of other road users. The road is already very difficult to cross on foot, coming out of our drive is dangerous with the amount of traffic, their speed and the obstruction of view. Traffic noise is severe, and I feel this proposal will only worsen the situation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roger Abbiss
"it is not viable owing to the close proximity to the rail terminal at Rugby which is being extended it will create far more traffic on the local roads let alone the M1 than they can already handle the emissions are already above the limit the trains and lorries will be diesel powered thus increasing the emissions with the resultant health problems. decreases the green space what about rail passenger traffic as Northampton is not well served at the moment and this is likely to impinge on it"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Jenkins
"I am deeply concerned about the levels of increased pollution this development will bring. There are clearly health concerns not just for children and vulnerable people but for all people living in the area. For some, the health implications appear to be very serious."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Timothy Rouse
"I strongly object as there is no policy or eve fence in the WNJCS to suggest the need for SRFI on land in open countryside, either off junction 15 on the M1 ( Roxhill) or on land in open countryside between Milton Malsor and Blisworth. The need for an SRFI is already identified in the WNJCS, as the Daventry International Rail freight terminal (DIRFT) "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tricia Ducker
"I strongly object to this unnecessary destruction of beautiful countryside. There are already similar schemes with empty warehousing struggling to find sufficient staff within 20 miles of this proposed development. This is not a strong manufacturing area and has low unemployment. These need to be built where manufacturing exists with an ample workforce . This is just a cynical way of more warehousing as the rail element will be extremely limited as there isn't capacity on this line unless passenger services are reduced. The hub and spoke method of bringing goods to the centre of the country then going out by road needs to stop, it is ludicrous that goods from Dover come up to Northampton to travel back to Kent by road Local roads are already very busy highlighted by the recent temporary closure of crossings over the A43 for safety reasons doubling my journey home from work. My objection is not one of nimbyism I don't object to developments that make sense this one doesn't where countryside is sacrificed it has to be for the greater good as once gone we can't get it back Tricia Ducker"
Members of the Public/Businesses
A Larder
"Strongly object to the increase in traffic,noise and general pollution of the atmosphere that this non essential development would bring, there is absolutely no need for this development when dirft at daventry / crick is only at 25% of it's capacity I think it is another way for people to earn a great deal of money for little gain to the community, we don't need any more employment so that means people will need to travel to get to work from further afield, causing more traffic movement more noise and pollution "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Sharp
"I am deeply saddened to see yet more of our beautiful and diminishing countryside under threat from warehouse development. Unfortunately the effects of such a development are widespread. My main points are listed below. Local roads will be overwhelmed by traffic generated by the development. Noise, air and light pollution will be considerable. Loss of green space between rural communities. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alastair Inglis
"I object strongly to the Roxhill Northampton Gateway SRFI (NG) proposal for the following reasons: 1. It does not meet National Policy which calls for an expanded network of SRFIs across the regions (not clustered in one area), space to expand is lacking, and there is no evidence of an appropriate alternative sites assessment. 2. Roxhill have provided no evidence of new demand for the rail element in this location, an essential ingredient for the justification of a SRFI, apart from an existing aggregates facility to be moved up-line from Northampton, but resulting in no modal shift. 3. DIRFT is located less than 20 miles away with the same amount of unfilled capacity as the NG site and not planned to reach full capacity for at least 12 years. 4. DIRFT uses the same rail and road infrastructure without the problems associated with two major trunk road systems crossing each other, ie M1 and A508, and has planned housing. 5. Network Rail appears reluctant to confirm sufficient capacity exists on the Northampton Loop line – an essential requirement for a SRFI. 6. NCC Highways Authority predict a likely reduction in passenger rail services from Northampton 7. Detailed traffic modelling is suspect, eg areas close to the site (Milton Keynes) which will inevitably have an impact. 8. The traffic from M1 headed for the site has been planned to take priority over traffic on the A508 heading towards the M1, leading to similar or worse queuing and pollution than currently exists. This would be exacerbated by bus stops and pedestrian crossings at the site entrance. 9. The impact of traffic flows within the site have not been included in the traffic modelling and are likely to lead to unforecast congestion 10. Construction traffic will compete with that on the recently commenced local M1 upgrade to 4-lane running and is also likely to compete with HS2 construction traffic using the A43 11. Proposed ‘improvements’ on A508 do not resolve the overall issues with the section from J15 to A5 at Stony Stratford and add traffic to unsuitable local roads. 12. The proposed Roade bypass would move pollution to a quiet edge of the village, is likely to destroy a major village asset and provide no relief to growing issues on the village eastern side. 13. 24 hour working would produce unacceptable noise and light pollution to neighbouring villages. 14. Suitable labour is currently in short supply and local unemployment extremely low. This will necessitate long-distance commuting and increased pollution through existing AQMA areas. 15. Lack of planned local housing will bring pressure to develop in the vicinity adding to local fears that coalescence with Northampton will result. 16. The destruction of 520 acres of country side, damaging existing recreational benefits of walking and riding paths, and destroying wildlife habitats and corridors. 17. Lack of critical information at consultation stage to properly assess the implications. In conclusion, this is the wrong thing in the wrong place at the wrong time. It does not meet the intentions of National Policy. It would produce positive disbenefits for the local communities. It is clear that Roxhill’s intention is to bypass local planning laws to facilitate the previous proposals for this site and expand it using cheap agricultural land to fulfill forecast demand for mega-warehouses for road-based distribution. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alex Dillon
"In respect of the proposed Roxhill/Ashfield rail freight interchange, I strongly object to the proposal on many levels. The proposed development would have a seriously detrimental effect on the environment, destroying hundreds of acres of local countryside and bring industry into an area that is an important gap between the town and country. This would also have an impact on wildlife which inhabit this country side. It would also destroy the network of local footpaths and in particular the foot path between Milton Malsor and Collingtree. The development is likely to introduce high earth mounds which in themselves would be a blot on our landscape. There would be a significant increase in traffic which in its self will increase air pollution. From an operational perspective we would be subjected to noise pollution, 24/7 and light pollution from night time operations. It beggars belief that we are thinking of another freight terminal when we already have DIRFT which is only a short distance away which has capacity for expansion. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Avril White
"I strongly object to the proposal. Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal covers the region, is not functioning at full capacity, with plans to expand for 10 years. Crime has increased following the industrialisation of the area, cuts in police numbers and rising crime in rural areas causes concern for the safety of residents. This is an area of low unemployment, 80.4 percent of 16-64 year olds in work meaning majority of workforce traveling adding to congestion on our already overstretched roads. Problems on the M1 increases traffic through the villages, No right turns at junction of Courteenhall Rd and the A508 directs traffic through the busy centre of Blisworth past the doctors surgery where parking is already difficult. Air pollution greatly increased in an area already suffering high levels.linked to 40,000 deaths per year.Toxic air costs £20 billion annually ( Royal College of Physicians) Noise pollution, second only in ill effects to air pollution (WHO) would be 24/7. Light pollution from night operations in an area of normally low light. Vibration causes physical and mental distress. Research shows all these forms of pollution cause many illnesses; cancers- breast and prostate, type 2 diabetes, mental illness, damage to developing children,premature births and miscarriages, obesity, tiredness causes excess eating to sustain glucose levels to the brain and male infertility. This adds to the NHS bill coupled with loss of workforce. Destruction of hundreds of acres of countryside and high quality farmland at a time when the country needs to provide more food. Over half our food is imported (2016 Journal Of Royal Society Interface) Losing important gap between Town and country by bringing in industry. Loss of wildlife habitat, fifth of Britains wild mammals at high risk of extinction (13th June 2018 Guardian) and farm birds losing huge numbers in 40 years. (Jane Dalton Independent) Loss of mature trees, taking years to replace. Needed to combat air pollution. All this contrary to local plans showing site to be retained as farmland and open countryside. Footpaths used for generations to be diverted, meaning them less likely to be walked at a time when physical activity is being encouraged. This development and its surrounding binding would be 'a blot on the landscape ' that nothing can disguise. It would also cause the destruction of our ancient and historic villages and village life."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barbara Dillon
"In respect of the proposed Roxhill/Ashfield rail freight interchange, I strongly object to the proposal on many levels. The proposed development would have a seriously detrimental effect on the environment, destroying hundreds of acres of local countryside and bring industry into an area that is an important gap between the town and country. This would also have an impact on wildlife which inhabit this country side. It would also destroy the network of local footpaths and in particular the foot path between Milton Malsor and Collingtree. The development is likely to introduce high earth mounds which in themselves would be a blot on our landscape. There would be a significant increase in traffic which in its self will increase air pollution. From an operational perspective we would be subjected to noise pollution, 24/7 and light pollution from night time operations. It beggars belief that we are thinking of another freight terminal when we already have DIRFT which is only a short distance away which has capacity for expansion. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Beverley Czyz
"I am objecting to this project due to the impact it will create on our lives and the life of other people in the village. It will create a significant increase in traffic which will dramatically increase noise, light and air pollution in the area. As the site will be operational 24/7 this will mean there will be no respite to the pollution. This is likely to have a severe illness detrimental effect on health and destroy the habitats of wildlife and the environment. There is already a DIRFT of significant size and of larger capacity only 20 minutes travel time away. The M1 and other main road routes are already under significant pressure and the additional vehicles that would be travelling to and from the proposed Northampton Gateway DIRFT. There are already traffic jams on a daily basis between nearby junctions on the M1."
Parish Councils
Collingtree Parish Council (Collingtree Parish Council)
"Collingtree Parish and its Conservation Area is the nearest community to the proposed development site with residential properties being less than 200 yards from what will be a large scale, twenty four hour, industrial operation covering 5m sq ft. On behalf of our residents we question and challenge the proposed development on the following grounds. Planning Policy The core principle set out in section 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states: “Planning proposals should be genuinely plan-led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings, with succinct local and neighbourhood plans setting out a positive vision for the future of the area” The proposal from Roxhill is entirely ‘developer led’ based on a landowner making the site available for profit. It is in conflict with the adopted West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy. The JCS specifically excludes the proposed site and submissions that it should be included were rejected by the Planning Inspector. An earlier, albeit smaller proposal on this site was opposed by all surrounding Parish Councils and is in conflict with Local and Neighbourhood Plans. Huge Environmental Impact - The impact on the wider area surrounding Junction 15 will be devastating. The inevitable consequences caused by the sheer volume of traffic using the UK’s busiest stretch of Motorway has always been somewhat mitigated by the open landscape in this part of Northamptonshire. This is particularly important as the prevailing winds are from the west and sweep across Collingtree to the heavily residential areas of East and West Hunsbury, Wootton and Grange Park. Other concerns we have by include the by passing of local democracy, traffic overload and the lack of strategic need."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Edward Dennis
"I am objecting very strongly against Roxhill's Northampton Gateway proposal for the following reasons: • The DIRFT facility exists only 18 miles away. This is currently under-utilised and has the capacity to expand to meet demand for the next 20 years, thus making a further development unnecessary. • The roads around this area are already so badly congested that traffic jams stretch through villages for some 3-4 miles between junction 15 of the M1 and Milton Keynes . To add another 15-17,000 vehicle movements a day is ludicrous to say the least. Added to which, the additional pollution and noise they will bring 24/7 with diesel lorries further exacerbating the already poor air quality in the local area will seriously affect the health and well being of the local communities. • Local unemployment rates are very low, so the anticipated workforce of approximately 4,000 will all need to travel into the local area, and with little or no public transport this will further add to traffic congestion on the A508 which is already a sufficient hazard to be deemed a ‘red route’. • The South Northants Local Plan clearly identified the M1 as the boundary for development southwards and if that plan is disregarded it will only be a matter of time before the surrounding villages will be swallowed up in a Northampton/Milton Keynes metropolis. • This area of Northamptonshire has already shouldered more than its fair share of warehouse development with Swan Valley, Brackmills, Round Spinney, Moulton Park and Grange Park to mention just a few. • The impact of this further development would be to swallow up in excess of a further 500 acres of arable farm land, wildlife habitats and corridors, thus eradicating our once lovely countryside for something which is totally unnecessary with DIRFT only 18 miles away. • To allow this unnecessary development to destroy the quality of life for villages such as Roade, Blisworth, Milton Malsor and Collingtree just isn’t right or fair. Myself and very, very many local residents are extremely angry at the prospect of such unwarranted development in a totally unsuitable location. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eunice Humphrey
"I strongly object to the proposed Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange, as it will destroy hundreds of acres of beautiful countryside in the locality, which I enjoy when walking with my dogs. It will also destroy the wildlife habitat, in particular for farmland birds where the habitat loss cannot be compensated for. Furthermore, the increased air pollution from the thousands of extra cars, vans and HGV`s using the roads in the local area, as well as, the noise and light pollution will be unbearable. Another reason why I strongly object to the proposed Northampton Gateway, its clearly contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy. This states that any further SRFI development should take place at the existing Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal site, (DIRFT) located 18 miles away off junction 18 on the M1. So therefore the proposed Northampton Gateway is both unnecessary and unwanted."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jon Mcconnell
"I am objecting to this project due to the impact it will create on our lives and the life of other people in the village. It will create a significant increase in traffic which will dramatically increase noise, light and air pollution in the area. As the site will be operational 24/7 this will mean there will be no respite to the pollution. This is likely to have a severe illness detrimental effect on health and destroy the habitats of wildlife and the environment. There is already a DIRFT of significant size and of larger capacity only 20 minutes travel time away. The M1 and other main road routes are already under significant pressure and the additional vehicles that would be travelling to and from the proposed Northampton Gateway DIRFT. There are already traffic jams on a daily basis between nearby junctions on the M1."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julia Schumacher
"I strongly object to the proposed Roxhill Rail Freight Interchange as the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal is only a short distance away from this site, serves the same local area and has capacity for expansion over 10 years. The noise created by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal (including rail shunting, loading & unloading of containers & operation of an aggregates terminal) and the light and noise pollution from night time operations. The proposed no right turn at the junction of Courtennhall Rd & A508 would mean traffic diverting through the centre of Blisworth and past the doctors surgery where parking is already a problem. The increased traffic through the local villages when there is congestion on the M1 would immediately congest small country lanes."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Keith Parker
"I strongly object to both of the proposed Rail Freight Terminals (Roxhill and Ashfield Land) as they are contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy, formerly adopted in December 2014. The WNJCS is the Foundation for all planning policy in the area until 2029. There is no policy or evidence in the WNJCS to suggest the need for an SRFI on land in open countryside, either off Junction 15 on the M! (Roxhill) or on land in open countryside between Milton Malsor and Blisworth (Ashfield land). The need for an SRFI is already identified in the WNJCS, as the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT). This is a 7.86 million square feet site off Junction 18 on the M1 only 18 miles from J15, where planning permission has been granted for logistics space and a NEW RAIL TERMINAL. The WNJCS requires that any further SRFI development should take place at the DIRFT site, and NOWHERE ELSE within its three districts. (Daventry, South Northants and Northampton Borough Areas.) As a resident of Milton Malsor for over 30 years, I strongly object to this proposal, which will destroy hundreds of acres of local countryside and bring industry into an area that is an important gap between town and country. The impact of traffic on our village would be devastating! Congestion on the M1, roadworks changing the approach from the M1, and the huge amount of people travelling through our village to work in these areas. There would be increased air pollution from the thousands of extra cars, vans, and HGVs using the roads in the local area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lynn McCallum
"I wish to strongly object to Roxhill’s Northampton gateway proposals for the following reasons: A508 congestion Additional traffic will be inevitable between Milton Keynes and Junction 15 of the M1 causing - significant health and safety issues. - additional air pollution - additional noice pollution - difficulty and safety issues for vehicles and pedestrians crossing the A508 particularly at the junction of Ashton Road and Northampton Road on the outskirts of Stoke Bruerne - A508 is narrow with hills and bends. It was not designed for large vehicles and speeding cars. More (fatal?) accidents are inevitable. Even with current traffic flow there have been a number of car accidents over the last few years. - Significant congestion already caused when there are problems on the M1 around junction 15 which recently has become a regular occurrence. This will be made significantly worse/more if the gateway proposals are adopted. Strategic necessity is questionable DIRFT is only 18 miles away and is not at full capacity (understand it will not be at capacity until at least 2031) Loss of Countryside and Wild Life The area has already seen a significant loss of country side due to new warehouses and housing developments. Valuable agricultural land and countryside/footpaths would be taken for this development. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Madeleine Clarkson
"I decided to live in a village for the peace and quiet, country side, wildlife etc and I feel very strongly that Roxhill's Northampton Gateway is not needed and will have a detrimental affect on the area. There are already several industrial places in the area, DIRFT, Swan valley, brackmills all of which are not fully occupied. The M1 is an extremely busy road, with often problems that make the surrounding roads caotic and adding16,500 additional vehicle on to it will cause much overcrowding, noise and pollution. I very strongly oppose the by-pass close to my house, it will cause light, noise and air pollution. I an very concerned about the loss of wildlife habitat and farmland. I strongly disagree that we need more jobs in this area so workforces will need to drive or be bused in,more traffic and even more housing for the workforce in an area that has seen a vast growth of new housing already."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Preston
"I oppose this application Inappropriate Development: The proposed development site is huge and covers an area of agricultural land situated between several small beautiful rural villages. It will ruin the pleasant environment in which I chose to live. It will totally change my rural landscape. Over Development: Will increase noise levels, pollution, traffic both via new proposed link roads and the railway freight interchange. Which means more people too. I chose to live in the countryside without those intrusions. Other Development: DRIFT is a few miles away at J18. In addition there are vast unoccupied warehouses at J15A and at J15. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Alan Lewis
"I wish to object to the proposed development on the following grounds: 1. The M1 motorway around Northampton is already extremely busy and the surrounding roads also carry heavy traffic. When the motorway is blocked, as it frequently is, there is gridlock. The proposal will lead to increased traffic in all directions. 2. There is already an SRFI some 18 miles north at DIRFT and this will not reach capacity for a number of years and is more than adequate to supply the needs of the area both now and in the foreseeable future. 3. If this development takes place to the west of the M1 it will, in all probability, lead to further housing and industrial development. The M1 has always been the natural barrier between town and countryside. Moreover, there is plenty of land to the east available for future development. 4. This development is predicated on the ability to transfer goods from rail to road. However, the rail networks are extremely busy and no confirmation has ever been given as to the capacity available. It is really another huge warehouse development (one of the largest in Europe) with some limited capacity to accept rail freight. The application is not in response to a national strategy but is really a developer led application attempting to bypass the local planning process by the use of the NSIP process. Furthermore this is in addition to a similar scheme being put forward by Ashfield Land for an 8 million sq ft warehouse and rail interchange between Blisworth & Milton Malsor Finally the benefit of the SFRI’s is far from proven! Leave the countryside alone! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Clare East
"I object to the planning application of the Northampton gatesway rail freight. My concern regarding this project is noise pollution from the extra freight trains, as my home is approximately 200 yards away from the railway track. The noise that we endure when the freight trains pass is very loud and due to their size lasts for a while, I'm concerned that this project will considerably increase the usage of freight trains, causing us distress throughout the day and night. I'm also very concerned about the increase traffic through the village, not just lorrys which often get stuck due to a low bridge, dispite there being warning signs of maximum vehicle height but the thousands of cars cutting through to work in the warehouse putting young children at risk as they will be passing the village park and football club, we already have problems with speeding motorist as it's on the edge of the village when cutting through."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs M C Heath
"I strongly object to the implementation of this development. First off this development represents the threat of further development on the south side of the M1. There is no other large development south of the M1 in this area, and the minute this is allowed it will open the door to other industrial development both large and small. I do not see why when we already have a similar Gateway DIRFT up at Daventry barely 20 miles away there is the need for this. It is going to require extra rail space on a rail line which is already at near capacity and could end up cutting passenger trains. The road capacity in this area is already at a stranglehold. Add something like this in and the amount of traffic using the M1 and the A43 will rise considerably. Despite comments that access to this development will "only be allowed via the A43" there is bound to be an increase in traffic around the country roads down from Northampton, through Hunsbury and Milton Malsor when it comes to the building or use either by hauliers or employers which will make for nightmare conditions for local people going about their business. The A43 from the south and north will be even more heavily congested. We are told that employment in Northampton is high, therefore those needed to work this development will have to come from a wider area and thus extra travel on local roads as people try to find short cuts around the already nearly full roads. What this will be for people living in the nearby villages doesn't bear thinking about; this will be 24/7 working causing light, noise & air pollution. Even here in Hunsbury we are bound to be affected by some light and extra noise when the wind is in that direction. Fact, we can hear the motorway all the time from here. We do not need this adding to. Last of all we shall be losing farmland and also wildlife habitats. At this time when we need every piece of land we can for food production, valuable land is being built over instead of providing us with our food. With the constant threat we are now facing with flash floods land is built on where rain would be able to soak into the ground, preventing flooding and providing much needed water for our rivers and aquifers. I therefore repeat my very strong objection to this development and sincerely hope that the matters raised above will be considered in refusing such development. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Mary Lewis
"I wish to object to the proposed development on the following grounds: 1. The M1 motorway around Northampton is already extremely busy and the surrounding roads also carry heavy traffic. When the motorway is blocked, as it frequently is, there is gridlock. The proposal will lead to increased traffic in all directions. 2. There is already an SRFI some 18 miles north at DIRFT and this will not reach capacity for a number of years and is more than adequate to supply the needs of the area both now and in the foreseeable future. 3. If this development takes place to the west of the M1 it will, in all probability, lead to further housing and industrial development. The M1 has always been the natural barrier between town and countryside. Moreover, there is plenty of land to the east available for future development. 4. This development is predicated on the ability to transfer goods from rail to road. However, the rail networks are extremely busy and no confirmation has ever been given as to the capacity available. It is really another huge warehouse development (one of the largest in Europe) with some limited capacity to accept rail freight. The application is not in response to a national strategy but is really a developer led application attempting to bypass the local planning process by the use of the NSIP process. Furthermore this is in addition to a similar scheme being put forward by Ashfield Land for an 8 million sq ft warehouse and rail interchange between Blisworth & Milton Malsor Finally the benefit of the SFRIs is far from proven! Leave the countryside alone! "
Other Statutory Consultees
Addleshaw Goddard LLP (Addleshaw Goddard LLP) on behalf of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
"Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (Network Rail) owns, operates and maintains the railway infrastructure of Great Britain. It does so pursuant to a network licence granted under section 8 of the Railways Act 1993. Network Rail asks that it is treated as an Interested Party and expresses its wish to take a full part in the examination including attending, and making oral submissions at, relevant hearings. Network Rail is interested in the Rail Freight Interchange Scheme (RFI), to which the Development Consent Order (DCO) application relates in two principal ways. 1. Network Rail's land and rights over land and the existing operational railway Network Rail has an interest in 22 plots (Plots) identified in the Book of Reference in respect of which the Applicant seeks compulsory powers. The Plots include land which forms part of the operational railway network. Network Rail objects to compulsory acquisition powers being granted in relation to the Plots. Network Rail considers that there is no compelling case in the public interest for the compulsory acquisition of rights over the Plots and that the Secretary of State, in applying section 127 of the Planning Act 2008, cannot conclude that new rights and restrictions over railway land can be created without serious detriment to Network Rail's undertaking and that no other land is available to Network Rail which means that the detriment can be made good by them. Network Rail objects to the powers sought to carry out works in the vicinity of the operational railway without appropriate protective provisions being included in the DCO to safeguard the integrity of Network Rail's statutory undertaking. In order for Network Rail to be in a position to withdraw its objection Network Rail requires: (a) an agreement with the Applicant that regulates: -the manner in which rights over operational land and third party land (including the extinguishment of any rights) are carried out including terms which protect its statutory undertaking and agreement that compulsory acquisition powers will not be exercised in relation to such land; and -regulates the carrying out of works in the vicinity of the operational railway network to safeguard Network Rail's statutory undertaking. (b) the inclusion of protective provisions in the DCO for its benefit. Network Rail notes and welcomes the fact that there are protective provisions for its benefit in the DCO and will provide detailed comments on, and amendments to, the protective provisions when it submits its detailed Written Representation in due course. 2. The principle of the scheme and railway capacity In line with Department for Transport policy, Network Rail supports the modal shift of freight from road to rail and recognises that an increase in the number of such strategic rail freight interchanges nationwide is critical to the realisation of new rail freight traffic. The ability of the RFI to realise its optimal rail service throughput will require detailed capacity studies to be undertaken and, until further capacity studies have been carried out, Network Rail's position on the DCO application is neutral in this regard. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicola Hall
"Probable detrimental effects include: Additional road movements on already crowded local roads leading to noise, light and environmental pollution; local wildlife and farmland would likely be badly impacted/lost; influx of workers from out of the area to staff the facility leading to further need for housing and even more traffic movements; other similar facilities are already available in the area and under capacity; further development would probably follow any breach of the strategic gap identified in the South Northants Local Plan."
Local Authorities
Northampton Borough Council (Northampton Borough Council)
"The development proposals extend into and affect Northampton Borough. The Council has already responded to the Inspectorate with regard to Community Consultation and will be submitting a Statement of Common Ground, a Local Impact Report and a Written Statement in due course."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patricia Parker
"I strongly object to the proposed Rail Freight Terminals (Roxhill and Ashfield Land) as they are contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS), formally adopted in December 2014. The WNJCS is the foundation of all planning policy in the area until 2019.There is no policy or eidence in the WNJCS to indicate a need for an SRFI on land in open countryside, either off Junction 15 on the M1 (Roxhill) or on land in open countryside immediately adjacent to both Milton Malsor and Blisworth. (Ashfield Land). Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is situated only 18 miles away, at Junction 18 of the M1 and planning permission has been granted for logistics space and a new rail terminal. The WNJCS stated that any further SRFI development should take place at DIRFT and no where else within its three districts (Daventry, South Northants and Northampton Borough. DIRFT is set to double in size in the next 10 years and will expand until 2031, and is expected to e the largest SRFI in the country. There is no need for a further development to be built so close. The WNJCS was considered by an independent planning inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate, as part of the Examination in Public hearings held April/May 2013 and March 2014. The inspector's report concluded that there was no need for any new strategic employment sites as there is enough land allocated in the WNJCS at Junction 16 and 18. I have been a resident in Milton Malsor for over 30 years and feel most strongly that this rural, quiet area should not, and can not, be destroyed by masses of high buildings, noise and light pollution, created by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal, destruction of wildlife habitat, country footpaths and obliteration of vital farmland. Milton is a quiet village. The increased traffic through and around our village would be unmanageable. The M1 already experiences congestion, but the amount of extra traffic generated by the proposed developments would cause even more congestion. Proposed roadworks leading from Junction 15 would cause heavy delays and problems for commuters. Increased air pollution from the thousands of extra cars, vans and HGVs using the roads in the local area would have a huge detrimental effect on residents. Low unemployment in our local area would mean thousand of workers would have to travel through here at all times of the day and night. As a Governor of Milton Parochial Primary School I am extremely concerned about the safety of our young children when walking to and from school, and their health and well-being due to the air and noise pollution."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Dillon
" In respect of the proposed Roxhill/Ashfield rail freight interchange, I strongly object to the proposal on many levels. The proposed development would have a seriously detrimental effect on the environment, destroying hundreds of acres of local countryside and bring industry into an area that is an important gap between the town and country. This would also have an impact on wildlife which inhabit this country side. It would also destroy the network of local footpaths and in particular the foot path between Milton Malsor and Collingtree. The development is likely to introduce high earth mounds which in themselves would be a blot on our landscape. There would be an significant increase in traffic which in its self will increase air pollution. From an operational perspective we would be subjected to noise pollution, 24/7 and light pollution from night time operations. It beggars belief that we are thinking of another freight terminal when we already have DIRFT which is only a short distance away which has capacity for expansion. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Humphrey
"I strongly object to the proposed Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange as its contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy. It is both unwanted and unnecessary, as the need for an SRFI has been identified in the Core Strategy as the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT), approximately 18 miles away off junction 18 on the M1. Therefore any further SRFI development should take place at the DIRFT site where planning permission, has already been granted for logistics space and a new rail terminal. Furthermore, I strongly object to the proposed Northampton Gateway on the grounds it will result in the loss of farmland when the country needs to produce more food rather than importing it. Also, the noise created by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers and the operation of an aggregates terminal, together with the light and noise pollution from night time operations will make life intolerable. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Avril White on behalf of Rebecca White
"I strongly object to the proposal. Daventry International Freight Terminal ( DIRFT ) is a short distance from the site, not functioning at full capacity, has expansion plans for the next ten years and also serves the same locality. Crime within the area surrounding, and within DIRFT, has increased along with the industrialisation of the area, hence the need to employ their own PCSO’s. Police numbers have been cut, crime is already increasing in the villages; the safety of residents could be put at risk. The regions unemployment rate is very low ( e.g. 80.4% 16-64 year olds are employed in South Northants ), meaning the bulk of staff would have to travel into the area, causing more congestion and pollution on one of the busiest stretches of our overburdened road network. Any congestion on the M1 already adds to excess traffic through the villages. The proposed No Right Turns at the junction of Courteenhall Road and the A508 would mean a diversion of traffic through the already busy centre of Blisworth, past the Dr’s Surgery, where parking is always problematic. Safety of pedestrians must be taken into account. Air pollution/particulate matter from tyres/brakes/exhausts will increase in an area already suffering from high levels ( a Borough Council Report in 2017 linked one in twenty deaths in Northampton to Air Pollution. ) Noise Pollution ( dubbed “ The Black Plague of Modern Times “ ), Light Pollution and Environmental Vibration will all affect residents. Between them, they can cause a long list of serious health conditions, both physical and mental. A 24/7 working terminal will be unbearable for residents. W.H.O. warn noise is a growing hazard , second only in ill effects to Air Pollution; not just an environmental nuisance but a threat to public health. In fact, one in five Europeans is regularly exposed to sound levels that could significantly damage their health. Environmental Vibration from heavy vehicles is found to be deeply depressing and physically and mentally challenging. Light pollution also disrupts the natural cycles of animals, insects and anything relying on the circadian system to survive and thrive. Noise, Light, Air and Vibration Pollution all adds to a toxic mix that eventually ends in NHS bills, loss of productivity and people no longer able to work effectively. The area is full of wildlife, home to all manner of species, farmland birds and migrating birds. A Fifth of Britain’s wild mammals are at “ high risk of extinction “, whilst our birds have been decimated; one in seventy five farms now has nesting pairs of Barn Owls * Barn Owls Trust * No local plans have shown this site to be given over to industrial development. These fields are vital in terms of farmland ( in 2016 more than half the U.K’s food was being sourced from abroad * Journal of the Royal Society Interface * ) and growing the rural economy. They, along with the open countryside and footpaths, form an historic link between the villages, which would also be destroyed. It will be a “ blot on the landscape “ no amount of “ bunding “ can erase. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rosemary Sharp
"Residing in local community I have grave concerns about the increase in traffic both of HGV and other associated vehicles for air, light and noise pollution, and access on already heavily congested roads and dangerous junctions. This development would totally rape the rural landscape and takes no account of other housing and industrial projects already in the pipeline. "
Local Authorities
South Northamptonshire Council (South Northamptonshire Council)
"Traffic/Pollution - Local traffic networks are already set to expand due to many new developments (especially in my Ward of Hackleton which includes Quinton) over the next coming years. The A45/Junction 15 of the M1 link is expected to see 60,000 vehicles a day by 2026. The proposed Gateway would add a further 16,000 vehicle movements per day with a large percentage of these being diesel HGV's. All of these vehicles add to the ever present Air Pollution and any additional mitigation (expansion of roads) in this general area will be lost! Add to this proposal that of the proposed Ashfield Rail Central and the numbers could be doubled - a recent report cited 1 in 11 people die from traffic fumes pollution poisoning attributed to Nitrogen-Dioxide - what are the life chances for local people who live in that general area? I also hear that the nearby DIRFT Rail Freight Interchange has unused capacity so why do we have to get lumbered with 'White Elephants' which will do little for the lost hundreds of acre's of good fertile farmland and their wildlife habitat's? Any promised Roade By-Pass will only be built years after Roxhill has been operating, so if it all goes 'pear-shaped' as the present DIRFT project is, it will never be built! If and when the Government decides to approve the application then it should be on Condition that all the promised Highway and road infrastructure be built first prior to the actual site itself including the Roade By-Pass! Currently the county is already dominated by warehousing which have been built in democratic ways according to local planning policies. These (Roxhill and Ashfield) sites have little, or nothing to do with locally accountable planning authorities, but more of a Diktat from Central Government! To Conclude; The building of Roxhill and possibly Ashfield is going to blight the general area for years to come. There will be masses of construction traffic which will generate traffic hold-ups, mess, noise and light pollution, this in turn will be affecting all the residents in the general area and it's extents. For this reason, I totally OBJECT to this proposed application and that if true democracy prevails it should also be REFUSED by Central Government - thank you. It should also be remembered that Democracy means that the Majority prevail and the Minority fail. Perhaps the proposal would be better suited to the area the Government keep promoting, that called The Northern Powerhouse ! Robert G. Atkinson (Cllr.) Hackleton Ward, South Northamptonshire Council. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tamsin Sapwell
"1. The roads around the proposed site are often full to capacity at the moment. This is especially the case whenever there is an accident on nearby main routes, eg M1, A5, A43 etc. The A508 often becomes gridlocked when this happens and roads through the surrounding villages become incredibly busy. This poses a risk to both pedestrians in the villages as well as to the motorists themselves, who often do not appear to be familiar with driving on country lanes and can be seen driving inappropriately for the type of road. The proposed development would exacerbate this already difficult situation and could drive more people to divert through villages, increasing pollution and noise. The roads around the area simply cannot cope with the volume of traffic that would occur through the development, both with workers coming to and from work at the depot as well as lorries. 2. The noise and light pollution would have an incredibly detrimental effect on nearby villages and residents. The increased traffic directly from the site, would pose a risk to pedestrians and motorists in the village. 3. The impact that this would have on our landscape cannot be underestimated. Blisworth in particular, as part of the Grand Union canal, is a popular tourist attraction for those who wish to walk alongside the canal, or to boat through the tunnel connecting Blisworth to Stoke Bruerne. The tunnel in particular, is an important example of this type of canal architecture and the development would be in direct contrast to the peace and tranquility many visitors come to enjoy. 4. Similarly, there would be a severe impact on local wildlife. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tracey Davenport
"I wish to object to the proposal on a number of points, particularly the continual statement that this is a strategic plan. There is already a large complex at DIRFT which seems very close to this proposed site if it truly is a strategic "spread across the country, it just doesn't add up. This is a huge site and will completely transform the lives of people who chose to live in a village environment. There is no amount of planting that can disguise something so big and as this does not seem to be a robust strategic approach, what is the point? The surrounding roads through villages and along the main roads already carry heavy traffic despite attempts to stop this. I have no doubt that this will increase, especially if people are aware of rat runs etc. We all know the mayhem with an M1 closure. This will bring multiple thousands of journeys regularly onto already overcrowded roads.The pollution and environmental impact will be high, especially light pollution. This will also undoubtedly affect wildlife in the area. I have worked for Amazon in the past and I know that the workers just want to get home via the quickest routes after a long shift. Also, we had trouble recruiting for the Amazon centres, where will the workforce come from? I believe that crime around other centres has risen dramatically since introduction and this is of course another concern. My final concern is where would this end if allowed to go ahead, everywhere we go there are huge warehouses along many parts of the M1 down towards Milton Keynes and I this this would bring about the next phase near to junction 15. The access there is horrendous at peak times and I can see this being the same, despite all best laid plans."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tracey Gould
"I object to this development on the ground that the infra structure needed to support the development is not in place. Road capacity is a joke at the moment. With out this development we face congestion as stated by the gov department for transport. We do not have the labour pool for this development if people move to the area we already have insufficient health/ school provision in the area. As DIRFT is only 18 miles away and is under utilised why do we need another one in the area. there is also large developments in Milton Keynes next to the M1 that are proving difficult to fill. Fill these before building more if this is not full perhaps it is not suitable for business requirements as it would be full if it was. Wildlife habitat would be lost red kites are seen regularly over the proposed area what provision is being made for them. the loss of habitat would be detrimental to them. What provision has be made for the residents who will be affected by this proposed development who have to live and work here. Getting home is already a lottery now what would I face with proposed development Should a development not be beneficial to all not just a few people/organisations for profit with no regard to people who already live there."
Members of the Public/Businesses
William Sellar
"I attended the public consultation meeting by Roxhill on 14th October 2017 at Roade Primary School. I went in with an open mind and to try to understand the why the Northampton Gateway development was being proposed. I spoke with many of the experts on hand to explain the scheme and the strategic need for it. As a result of listening carefully to the experts and reading the various displays I feel very strongly that this proposal will be very detrimental to the local environment and represents yet more warehouse development, so much of which already blights our county. In particular: 1) the impact on pollution (noise/light/air), 2) the loss of wildlife habitat and farmland, 3)increased traffic flows in an already congested area, 4) lack of local labour to fulfil the roles the site will generate; leave me very concerned that this development will make the lives of local people unbearbale both during the construction phase and once the site is operational. I would also like to express concerns over the proposed by-pass for Roade. I was under the impression before attending the meeting that the by-pass was part of the development. After speaking with the expert, it became clear that the by-pass would only be built when "required" which meant when the development reached a certain level of occupation. I was told that it would be very expensive and wouldn't be built as an enabling project for the rest of the development. This was the one part of the proposal which may have lead to some improvement to quality of life for the people of Roade. As a result of the above I wish to register my objection to Roxhill's proposed Northampton Gateway development. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adam Freund
"When I came out of the Army and was looking to buy my first home, I chose to stay in Roade where I had grown up. I liked the open countryside around the villages and the easy commute into Northampton for my new job. If the development goes ahead then it will destroy the farm land between Roade, Blisworth and Milton Malsor. The next planning proposal from the land owner is to infill the space with at least 2,000 new homes and this WILL happen if the rail terminals get permission. With all of the site building work and the changes to the road networks, it will easily double my commute time into Northampton. If the plan goes ahead then I will be amongst the first people to sell up and move - what a huge price my family and I will have to pay for the greed of a landowner who sees this development as a financial win for themselves in the short term. Very bad news all round."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adele Andrews
"I strongly object to this proposal on the following grounds: 1 - the increased traffic along several already very busy roads, the A508 is already a heavy 'trunk' road with a large number of heavy lorries passing through. these already create noise and pollution, to increase the volume of both lorries and cars to this area is unrealistic. regularly there are queues through the village as the area struggles to cope with the existing traffic volumes. 2 - lack of evidence of the 'need' for this development. where is the evidence that these units will be fully utilised and useful? there are empty units in Drift, MK J13 and grange park already - if these are not at capacity why do we need more? who will rent them? 3 - the environment. for me this is the biggest and my greatest concern. I feel very passionately that the value of the countryside for future generations is under severe threat, especially from short sightedness. in 100years time the trees will still be here and the land will still be farmed by the coming generations, however, what will a large warehouse provide to this generation? 4 - Pollution. statistically children and vulnerable people are more likely to suffer from lung related health issues if they live within 5 miles of a major road/motorway and this doubles if there is a high HGV traffic level. we are effectively saying that for the villages immediately surrounding this development that we are happy to poison our children and their children with poor quality air - I am not happy to do this and believe that this is something within our control to prevent."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrea Forbes
"I STRONGLY DISAGREE to this development for ALL following reasons. Noise light and air pollution - the pollution caused to the environment and to the local people living in the area will increase substantially due to the nature of this development. Road capacity - The roads are not designed nor do they have the capacity to carry the substantial increase in cars and lorries . Northampton road network cannot cope with the current volume of traffic and often grinds to a halt due to sheer number vehicles (cars and lorries) Homes in the area were not built to withstand the thundering vibrations lorries would cause . Loss of wildlife habitat and farmland- this will have a detrimental effect on wildlife and crop production. Threat of further development - the M1 provides a boundary for development Once this boundary is crossed the door is opened to more developments and the risk of losing any form of green land around Northampton . No strategic need due to DRIFT This development is only 18 miles from an existing larger facility that has a lot of spare capacity. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anna-Marie Freund
"I object on the grounds of harm to the environment, when Courteenhall Farms are receiving huge amounts of money to meet their declared habitat and wildlife environmental status. The loss of so much prime agricultural land is short sighted and irreversible at a time the UK needs food security top of the agenda. The location should have been embedded in the current DIRFT site which has capacity to spare. The amount of traffic, nearly every week there are huge problems with the flow of the A508. The amount of changes needed to implement all of the new junctions and roundabouts with rat runs like Knock Lane and Blisworth Road already very dangerous. The new layout of J15 with the possibility of a 4 lane motorway - all of that traffic and roadworks will bring South Northants to a standstill. Roade has doubled in size with poor planning and no improvements in infrastructure, PLEASE stop this expansion for the sake of our communities, we all need to be heard!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Beryl Palmer
"I strongly object to this rail freight intrchange as there is already one approximately 18 miles away and therefore unnecessary to service this area and far too close to make this an arguably suitable location. We already have problems and accidents regularly with conjestion on the M1 in the areas between the junctions serving our county and I believe this has been highlighted as a problem for future years by the Dept for Transport even in our current position. This causes all of our roads to be ridiculously blocked. Ikea was turned down from being built close to J15 with a reason being it would cause too much road conjestion but this interchange would just mean more and more lorries on our roads causing far worse conjestion. Pollution with resulting health issues has been a problem in this area but together with the noise levels, which we already suffer greatly, will obviously increase. Regularly on our roundabouts traffic cannot flow properly due to the length of two lorries blocking the distance between exit roads and traffic lights. We do not have the road capacity for increasing the amount of large vehicles and the extra pressure would kill this area. Our council apparently does not have enough money for repairing roads, the Police cannot cope with the accident and crime calls and this interchange could well add to these problems. Now, some of the countryside and farmland we have left is on the brink of being replaced by more warehouses and lorries, all of which we already have in abundance. Please reconsider the impact of agreeing to this development. Beryl Palmer"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brian Sumpton
"I strongly object to Roxills proposed SRFI on the following grounds:- 1. The proposed development is in conflict with all the agreed plans for the local area. The West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (WNJSC) was approved in 2014 and found, by PINS, to be sound. This plan rejected any development on this site. The PINS Inspectors report of October 2014 concluded that "there is no need for the plan to identify any further strategic or out of town locations for major new employment developments beyond those already committed in order to provide a broad balance between new homes and new jobs over the plan period" Furthermore the South Northants Local Plan, the Milton Malsor Parish Plan and the Milton Malsor draft Neighbourhood Plan all reject development of this site. 2. Some of the proposed changes to the highway network would cause considerable inconvenience to local residents. A major concern is the "no right turn" at the junction oh=f Courteenhall Rd. and the A508. Many residents of Milton Malsor use this route to travel to the Library and village hall in Roade. The diverted route through the centre of Blisworth and Knock Lane is not only much further but would also entail passing the doctors surgery in Blisworth where the narrow road and large numbers of parked cars already cause congestion and difficulties for drivers. 3. This site alongside the M1 provides a barrier between town and country. Any development here would lead to further development pressure. This site is a haven for all sorts of flora and fauna. As someone who has been a volunteer worker for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) for over 30 years I know that this site is of considerable local importance for a number of bird species, including skylark and linnet, which are on the RSPB Red List of species in severe decline. Overwintering Golden Plover also use this site the numbers of which make it of countywide importance. The site is also an important habitat for many other birds, bats,and butterflys some of which will be lost to the local area if this development goes ahead. 4. A number of Public Rights of Way cross the site and allow for easy walking and extensive countryside views. Some of the proposed diversions would totally destroy the amenity value of these paths as they would be alongside the railway line or roadside. I am particularly concerned about the footpath between Milton Malsor and Collingtree which would loose all of its countryside views and suffer from major noise and air pollution alongside the M1 motorway. This footpath, KX13, forms part of a circular walk between the two villages and frankly would probably never be used due to it running through what would be an unattractive and inhospitable environment. 5. I am concerned that in many aspects of this proposal that a full cumulative impact assessment with the Rail Central proposal has not been carried out. ADC (Roxhills transport consultants) admit that the full implications of the cumulative impact of both proosals has not been carried out due to a lack of full information of the Rail Central proposal. This is totally unacceptable, the full traffic impact of the combined proposals must be fully assessed. It should also be noted that the Roxhill and Rail Central proposals for the diversion of footpaths KX15 and KX17 are incompatable. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Wright
"As a Collingtree resident I utilise the walkways and pathways around the village for exercise and general enjoyment which is a positive contribution to my quality of life and that of my family. Industrialising those green open spaces will remove completely that element of enjoyment. The noise, pollution and increased traffic movements around my home location will also add additional negative factors reducing quality of life for my family and I. I"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Featherstone
"I strongly object to this development It causes the unnecessary destruction of hundreds of acres of land and it is no more than an opportunistic attempt to profiteer. Any suggestion that this is an infrastructure project of national importance is an attempt to deceive and bypass informed local planners. If it were to be a rail freight terminal of national strategic importance its planning in this location is not sensible ~ it is just in the wrong place The application is no more than a 'trojan horse' for a very, very ordinary yet massive warehouse development that would be out of place in this location. Please, do not be deceived by this developer. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Williams
"I wholly object to the Roxhill proposal for development at junction 15. I do not feel that the speculative development has a case proven for its requirement especially considering the already active site at junction 18 which is only 20 miles away. The environmental impact on the land and the ergonomic impact on the existing road structure will be massive. The local area enjoys low unemployment so any staff employed there will further aggravate this impact. The previous take up of rail freight terminals in the uk has been very low so I don’t believe these will be anything other than road fed distribution centres. This is a poorly considered option with nothing to commend it"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Debbie Jackson
"I object because; There will be increased traffic through the village and I have two small children to walk to school. The destruction of the local footpaths will destroy our ability to exercise in the outdoors on our doorstep Parking already is a problem at Parkslope Surgery, Blisworth and as a user of the surgery, increased traffic due to no right turns at the Courteenhall Rd and A508 are going to make this horrendous. There is already DIRFT which has capacity for expansion. We moved to the village due to the clean air and there will be increased air pollution. From research, it is likely crime will rise in the area so as parents of a young family, this is worrying. You are destroying natural habitats of local wildlife and creating an eyesore, a blot on the countryside, which we love living in. It will ruin our home and surroundings. Please do not let this happen. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dorothy Mary Taylor
"To include: The lack of environmental information available The inadequacy of the local roads to accommodate the ensuing traffic The lack of local community benefits The juxtaposition with the adjoining development The lack of people around here available for employment, with the consequential need for even more homes, more affordable than those already planned, for incoming labour"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ella Redding
"I strongly object to the construction of the Roxhill development near Blisworth. I believe it will put the people of Blisworth in danger. Being a village, there are many people walking on the narrow pavements, crossing the road and children riding their bikes by the road. i beleive the increase in traffic due to the Roxhill Development could be a safety issue to pedestrians and the school children of Blisworth. In addition, I also beleive it will ruin the stunning veiws that many people moved to Blisworth for. Blisworth is brimming with fields and wildlife, and building Roxhill will destroy the beautiful countryside we adore so passionately. Therefore I believe the Roxhill development should not be put forward so close to Blisworth."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gaynor Louise Swithenby
"Impact of the site proposed on this rural area. Environmental and pollution impacts"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gloria Wells
"I have lived in Tiffield for 40 years, buying and remaining remaining here because it is a small village in a beautiful, reasonably quiet location and because It has convenient access, via A43 and A5 to major routes. I have several concerns about the proposed Rail Freight development: 1. The area does not have the infrastructure to support the numbers of workers who would be involved. 2. Noise pollution would be vastly increased. 3. Access to A43, M1 and A5 would be much more difficult because the roads would be very much busier. 4. The beauty of the surrounding countryside would be destroyed and wildlife would suffer. 5. Some local farms could be affected by losing land and disturbance to their livestock. 6. It would turn this area into a less environmentally friendly place for us to live and for children to be raised. 7. Blisworth plays an important role in the life of South Northants and is a thriving, rural community. I fear that this development would destroy that, making Blisworth and surrounding villages part of a large, industrial site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hayley Palmer
"I rent some land in Blisworth to keep my horses and use the local roads and bridleways as places to exercise and enjoy my horse. Changes to the roads would mean excessive traffic on roads of which already are quite busy and always are having roads repairs with current levels of traffic. Unfortunatly all horse riders in the area (of which there are a lot) have to use the roads to access bridleways. Extra traffic on the roads will endanger local riders and their horses and destroy the lovely landscape and wildlife in the area. The roads are also used a lot by ramblers, dog walkers, cyclists inc children etc. Extra traffic will no doubt enjoy all those who want to enjoy country lanes. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Sharp
"Dear Sirs I would like to formally object to the proposal of Northampton Gateway and register my significant concern about it. The local roads are ill prepared for something this big. The impact it will have will be huge. At present there is regularly (i would go so far as to suggest almost daily) incidents on the M1 or the A43 meaning that Blisworth is gridlocked when these incidents happen. The roads cannot handle the current volume of traffic (have you seen the recent state of the roads?) let alone the additional traffic that will be added. I am also concerned about the environmental impact, the additional pollution in the local area will be terrible. We moved to a village so that we could avoid that, and indeed paid a premium for that benefit. now having a son who suffers regularly with his chest, the personal impact would be catastrophic. We would have to move out of a village that we love and our children have grown up in due to the level of traffic and pollution that the Northampton Gateway would cause, as it would have a huge impact on our sons health. I understand that moving freight from road to rail is an initiative the government want to drive, however it doesn't seem to be very strategic. DIRFT is on a few miles away and under used, and with DIRFT, Hams Hall, Castle Donnigton rail freight interchanges so close to this site (in fact there a total of seven rail freight terminals in East Midlands alone) it seems that the developers are using the guise of a rail terminal to bypass local planning by saying they are of national importance, when of course there is clearly no need for rail freight interchange in this area (they are clearly lacking elsewhere in the country) or the ability for the west coast mainline to service it. I sincerely hope that you will find a more suitable location for the Gateway. Mr James Sharp"
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Tyrrell
"My main point is: The area in which the project under consideration lies is not suitable for such a development. The volume of traffic currently in the area is excessive. Between junctions 14 and 15A, the M1 is so busy the slightest hic-up, and these often occur, causes mayhem on all the local roads. These include the A43 and the A5 as well as many smaller roads, which become rat-runs. It takes little imagination to appreciate just how this impacts on the quality of life of the local population. And that is how things currently are. The considerably extra traffic that the project will bring to the roads around and through the area will make a bad situation intolerable. There are plans to improve the local road network if the project proceeds, but these are unlikely to do more than satisfy the growth in traffic that would occur without the freight interchange. Also the improvements do not touch upon the dangers local drivers regularly face when joining and crossing the A43. Dangers which will be much increased by the greater number of vehicles the project will generate, both by its operation and construction. Apart from the road and traffic concerns, I have others about the impact of such a scheme on the environment. I can not believe there are no other areas more suited to such a venture, Places with less crowded links to good roads, with fewer delightful villages to disrupt in many ways. Places more like the DIRFT facility a few miles from Rugby. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Keys
"I strongly object to Roxhill’s Northampton Gateway Aggregates Terminal: Moving existing rail freight paths from the centre of Northampton to Roxhill’s Northampton Gateway in order to meet the NPSNN requirement does NOT increase rail freight Is there really capacity on the West Coast Mainline? A letter from Roxhill to The Rt Hon Andrea Leadsom MP dated 13 December 2017 (published on the MP’s website), clearly shows, Roxhil does have concerns about the availability of freight paths. As the letter explains, due to the uncertainty of enough rail freight paths being available to meet the requirement of the NPSNN, has led Roxhill to negotiate with Galiford Road Stone (GRS) , which is 25% owned by Tarmac. The agreement is for GRS to move their aggregates business from the centre of Northampton (by the station) to Roxhill’s out of town site. The agreement will transfer the 5 freight paths a day that GRS already use to Roxhill’s Northampton Gateway. I fail to see how this is an increase in rail freight paths? This is a transfer of rail freight - so it will stop at a slightly different place. To add to that, the current aggregates traffic will now also increase the traffic congestion at J15, the A45 and the A508. The current location of GRS is ideal to deal with the construction that is ongoing in and around Northampton. As the WCML is already congested, if Roxhill were to find more Freight paths whit would conflict with the need for more passenger rail Rail freight is already increasingly limited by network capacity as passenger demand increases. The issues with mixed traffic on the network are well documented –freight trains travelling at 70mph on the same track as passenger trains travelling at 125mph results in a significant capacity constraint. (reference: Institution of Mechanical Engineers/TRL (2017), Increasing Capacity: Putting Britain’s railways back on track). Whilst freight can travel at night in some areas, this competes with maintenance work, which also needs access to the track at night. Reducing road freight by only one-third would require more than a three-fold increase in rail freight capacity, which simply could not be accommodated on today’s already busy railway. (Reference: Department for Transport (2016), Freight (TSGB0401). There is an urgent need to increase passenger rail capacity on the WCML. Government policy objective to reduce carbon: Will this proposed development reduce carbon emissions? What is the total carbon emission (and other GHGs) calculation that will arise from the construction of this site in its entirety to completion? From aggregate sourcing onwards. What is the calculation for the annual carbon sequestration which will be lost by concreting over of the countryside area? How many years will it take to reach “break even” in terms of carbon emissions? That is when the net benefit to the environment from the proposed warehouses and RFI will exceed the negative impact on the environment from the construction process? This figure should also take into account the additional emissions from operating and servicing the proposed site once commissioned. Only this calculation will really show if this proposed development would actually meet the government’s policy objective to reduce carbon emissions. Not a Strategic location: DIRFT, a major and successful SRFI is a mere 18 miles along the M1. Northampton Gateway will compete with DIRFT for both freight and rail paths. This cannot be in the national interest. I can see no strategic or beneficial reason to build 5 million square feet of warehousing on greenfield land. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jeremy Forskitt
"• I very strongly object to this proposal. • It is in contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) adopted in December 2014.The WNJCS is the foundation for all planning policy in the area until 2029. • The WNJCS was considered by an independent planning inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate as part of the Examination in public hearings held in April/May 2013 and March 2014. The inspectors report issued in October 2014 concludes there is no need for any new strategic employment sites in open countryside, as there is enough land allocated in the WNJCS for this purpose on junctions 16 & 18 on the M!. • The need for an SRFI is already identified in the WNJCS as Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) which is approximately 18 miles away from the proposed site. • DIRFT is set to double in size in the next 10 years and has gained planning approval for its 3rd phase of development allowing it to expand until 2031. • It would decimate an area of rural tranquility and completely ruin the lives of people living in the closest 3 villages. • The destruction of wild life habitat as well as the loss of productive farm land. • The destruction of the local footpath network. • Nitrogen dioxide levels are at maximum within the area and would increase through further vehicular movements. • There is near full employment for the area so the majority of the workers would have to travel some distances to work adding to congestion and pollution. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jess Osborne
"I am opposed to this development. For many reasons such as: It will directly affect me living right on the border, it will ruin the villages, devastate the wildlife and surrounding natural area, create too much noise pollution, light pollution, traffic and make a rural area busy. It harm outweighs the benefits. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jo H
"As residents bordering Towcester road, we are hugely concerned that an increase in traffic will reduce air quality, increase pollution - both air and noise - which we already suffer from being downwind from the motorway. With regard to local traffic the MEREWAY roundabout is rarely without some kind of delay meaning that TOWCESTER ROAD is already a RACEWAY for traffic cutting through along HUNSBURY ROAD and LADYBRIDGE DRIVE BREAKING SPEED LIMITS more often than not! Having lived on a hill where there was lorry traffic we already know how STRESSING the constant VIBRATION FROM HEAVEY LORRIES thundering downhill and the NOISE OF GEAR CHANGING is like, at this point they emit even more BELCHING EXHAUST too! This residential area is a Northampton GEM which should be protected against the pollution of commerce. Children are more sensitive to pollution too!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joanne Freund
"The rail terminal plans are just not right for this area, the freight industry is not based on rail, nor will it ever be with the government making so much money from fuel and road tax - so it is a pipe dream that is going to drain money and resources from local and national government. With all of the financial problems in Northampton Council I am sure that local councils will be unable to competently deal with such threats to our society. The amount of tax payer's money involved in these planning projects need to be investigated, they are wide open to potential corruption and conflicts of interest. The amount of people who will actually be finally employed in the terminal is likely to be less than 100, most on zero hours contracts and minimum wage, not a plan be proud of or endorse in any way. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julie Strickland
"I would like to register my concerns regarding the proposed Northampton Gateway development. The traffic around the M1 and especially Junction 15 is already excessive so to introduce another 16000 vehicle trips per day does not appear to be sensible from either traffic nuisance or air pollution stand points. We live along the M1 corridor in Collingtree where the air pollution is high and have been told that the local authorities were trying to reduce them- this plan does not fit! I also thought that local democracy was an important part of planning but understand that this plan, if successful, will be imposed through central government with compulsory purchase being imposed. This is an opportunist planning application with no overriding national importance and should be rejected. If there is a genuine need for this extra capacity then DRIFT at J18 still has massive expansion and would be the more sensible option but maybe not as profitable for the developers!! Regards Julie Strickland"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kate Attwood
"I strongly object on the following grounds: Air, noise and traffic pollution, my property faces the a43 and any increase in the amount of traffic that this development will cause will severely affect myself and my family’s health through noise and air pollution as this will bring a significant amount of traffic to the a43 No need due to dirft, I cannot understand why this development is required when dirft is already available and I regularly drive past and there are many empty units so dirft has the capacity for this already Road capacity this development will increase our already overcrowded road network specifically the a43, as a Towcester resident the current infrastructure cannot cope and this development would be catastrophic with an additional 16500 vehicle movements Loss of wildlife, habitat and farmland the site would destroy 520 acres of farmland, wildlife’ habitats and corridors "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katie Redding
"I Strongly object to this development for many reasons, including the following: • The impact on local roads. Our village roads are already used as an alternative route for traffic which is avoiding the M1. Blisworth Primary School is on the junction of three roads which come to a standstill when there is any kind of incident on the motorway which is happening with more and more frequency. This development would certainly increase the volume of traffic on our small roads and compromise safety. • The need for this development. Within a short distance there are developments of this kind which are not at full capacity. There are also industrial estates with buildings standing empty. I don’t believe the rail element of this proposal will be fully utilised and it will become just another warehouse park which has snuck through the planning system. We don’t have an unemployment problem in this area so workers (until they are replaced by robots) will be travelling from further afield, adding to the congestion and pollution. Our beautiful countryside is being covered with warehouses and housing developments. Once covered in concrete it is gone forever. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katy Treharne
"I am hugely apposed to this inappropriate development. The A508 will not be able to cope with the extra traffic and junction 15 is already struggling with the volume of traffic. Rail central is a much better sited Development and will cause a lot less disruption to the surrounding villages. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kelly Earl
"As someone who lives and works in Collingtree village, it concerns me greatly. The air and noise pollution from the M1 and A45 are bad enough as it is, and adding to it is just unnecessary. I have 4 children who live with me, and I am concerned for the health and safety should this go ahead. I also walk daily on the land they want to build on, for exercise and my well being! It is just tragic to think that this is even being considered, let alone the prospect that it may actually become a reality."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kerry Palmer
"I have stables on Knock Lane/Stoke Road and this will have a huge impact on my and their lives."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kevin Summerfield
"Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal is only 18 miles away. It is still under development and will be for many years. It is also severely under-used. In fact, the number of freight train movements in Great Britain has declined steadily over the years from approx. 416,000 train movements in 2003/04 to approx. 216,000 train movements in 2017/18 - source http://orr.gov.uk An additional 16,500 vehicle movements per day are estimated in an area already vulnerable to congestion caused by frequent traffic problems on the M1 between J14 and J16. Vehicles often can not enter the motorway due to stationary traffic and vehicles already on the M1 attempt to pull off the motorway. It does not take long for the A508, A45 etc. to become "jammed". "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Brinkman on behalf of Laurie Brinkman
"I strongly object to the proposed strategic rail freight interchange as I believe it goes against the intent of such projects. The main intent is to reduce the amount of freight being transported by road, with the current DIRFT site being in close proximity to the proposed site this doesn't make sense as a viable site as it will not reduce this traffic. There is already a plan to expand the DIRFT site which makes more sense. The proposed site is close to two local communities, Collingtree and Milton Malsor, which will suffer due to both the effect of increased pollution due to the number of HGV vehicles visiting the site but also the environmental pollution from the noise and light from a site that is likely to be operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The proposed site is also likely to have a great effect on the habitat of the local wildlife and due to the removal of several rights of way will prevent people from enjoying the natural beauty of the countryside in this area. The local road infrastructure is also already congested and adding to this with an increase in HGV traffic is not going to make this any better. It is for these reasons that I object to the proposed application"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Forskitt
"• I strongly object to this proposal in every way. • This would destroy hundreds of acres of countryside and productive farm land. • It would destroy the historic footpath network which is enjoyed by many local people and countless visitors to the area. • It would decimate an area of rural tranquility and completely ruin the lives of people living in the closest 3 villages. • There would be an unacceptable increase in traffic within the area and in particular the M1 which currently has major capacity issues between junctions 15, 15a and 16 along with increased accidents recorded on this stretch. • Pollution levels would rise with thousands of cars and trucks using a congested road system. • Unemployment in the area is very low so employees would have to travel some distance which again will increase pollution and traffic. • It is in contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) adopted in December 2014.The WNJCS is the foundation for all planning policy in the area until 2029. • The need for an SRFI is already identified in the WNJCS as Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) which is approximately 18 miles away from the proposed site. • DIRFT is set to double in size in the next 10 years and has gained planning approval for its 3rd phase of development allowing it to expand until 2031. • Only 18 miles from the largest rail terminal in the UK, being served by the same railway line, why? • This is obviously not strategic from a geographical sense and does not serve the UK’s interest of strategic rail freight network. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lorna Hooper
"I have lived in Roade since 1965 and am totally against the plans for rail terminals in Northamptonshire. The plans are extremely inappropriate for the location, this would be more suitable for a brownfield post industrial site in Birmingham for example. This is a case of a development idea that has not been thought through, there is no NEED for such a terminal here, the land is productive as farmland already. The road networks here will not take the changes easily - the time frame for the new junctions alone will be years rather than months of disruption and pollution. The A508 is over capacity now, nearly every day there are accidents and the pollution levels in Roade are way over the acceptable range already. Years of speculative planning blight and threats against our rural villages HAS to stop, we have to STOP this development at all cost."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lucy Harris
"I object to this proposal. Due to: Increased traffic to already overloaded roads. Especially the A43 in relation to both turnings into the village of Tiffield. And the increase in traffic of people using the back roads to avoid the busier main roads. Pollution - noise, air and light will be dramatically increased and detrimental to those living in surrounding areas. Loss of active farm land and wildlife habitat. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Strickland
"I am writing to object to the Northampton Gateway proposal as I believe it will have a negative impact on the surrounding area as follows. Traffic The road network around J15 of the M1 is already heavily congested and with over 1000 new homes being built in Collingtree Park this will get considerably worse. To then allow The Gateway to add yet another 16000 vehicle trips per day would overload the road network. This would also increase pollution. Pollution Local authorities are supposed to be reducing the pollution levels along the M1 where they are above or near legal limits. This Development will add substantially to the levels of pollution along the M1 and affect villages such as Collingtree. Capacity It is claimed that this site is "needed" but there is still huge capacity at DRIFT which is very close by and struggling to fill its space. I hope that local views are taken into consideration when making any decisions Regards Mark Strickland"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mellissa Startin
"The traffic flow down knock lane "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Leszczyszyn
"I purchased my house in West Hunsbury to be on the edge of the county side where I cycle for pleasure, largely free from the dangers of motorised traffic. I like nature, photography & wildlife. The proposed rail interchange will kill this area off for me & anyone living there. I believe we already have a rail interchange close to the M1 (Daventry International Rail Freight Interchange) & I fail to see why more countryside needs to be ruined."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Berrys Chartered Surveyors (Berrys Chartered Surveyors) on behalf of Mr Anthony John and Mrs Gillian Bament
"Mr and Mrs Bament own the 36 acre holding known as Hill View Farm. The property is a busy livestock farm that includes a farm house and extensive range of modern agricultural buildings. Roxhill’s application for a DCO includes the land used as the vehicular access leading from the A508 main road to the house and farmyard at Hill View Farm. This vehicle access as designated as land parcel 5/3 in the DCO application. In 2012 we worked very closely with the local highway authority and planning officer to ensure that the design of the vehicle access to Hill View Farm increased highway safety, whilst also ensures optimum site security at a time of increasing rural crime. Planning permission S/2012/1338/FUL was granted for this new access onto the A508 - the same area of land is now included within land parcel 5/3 of the DCO application. Mr and Mrs Bament object to Roxhill’s DCO application as the design of the project does not currently provide sufficient detail as to the provisions being made to change the access to Hill View Farm. The concern is that an inadequately designed new access will have a detrimental impact on: • Highway safety for large, slow moving agricultural and heavy goods vehicles entering and exiting Hill View Farm. • Gradient, layout and drainage of this farm driveway leading from the highway to farm yard and house. • Site security in an area impacted upon by rural crime – hence the existing heavy duty electric security gates and associated fencing. • Landscaping of the entrance and access route Please note that the above four items of design detail were a material consideration when the local planning authority considered, then granted in 2012 planning permission S/2012/1338/FUL for this existing access. Hence, unless Roxhill also provide such important detail that adequately addresses these same planning issues then the DCO application should be refused. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Sarah Irving
"The reason that i am objecting to are probably the same as most people, I have lived in this village for 24years, we have seen the general increase of traffic over the years, however with this so called plan it would make life unbearable, i work in northampton and as it is the traffic on junc 15 is horrendous without any further building works, which i hasten to add are not needed, we already have unused ware houses on junc 15, even though we have been told that they are not for warehouses. We have an intercharge at crick so no need for more. I also object to the environmental damage that this will cause surtounding our beautiful village i scrimped and saved to buy a house in this village as i wanted a village life. This will also impact on the value of my home which is totally unacceptable. I do not want to see this village ruined by these companies nor politicians. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Natural England (Natural England)
"Dear Sir/Madam, NSIP Reference Name / Code: Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange - Planning Inspectorate Reference: TR050006 User Code: Land west of the A508, south west of M1 Junction 15 and east of Northampton Loop Line Natural England received consultation from the applicant Roxhill Junction 15 Limited on the above dated 27 June 2018, which was received by Natural England on 03 July 2018. Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. Relevant Representation PART I: Summary of Natural England’s advice. All issues regarding direct impacts on interest features of Roade Cutting Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and winter bird surveys relating to the draft Habitats Regulations Assessments have been resolved. PART II: Natural England’s detailed advice. 1.1. This relevant representation contains a summary of what Natural England considers the main biological and geological conservation issues to be in relation to the DCO application, and indicate the principal submissions that it wishes to make at this point. Natural England will develop these points further as appropriate during the examination process. It may have further or additional points to make, particularly if further information about the project becomes available. 1.2. Part I of this representation provides an overview of the issues and a summary of Natural England’s advice. 1.3. Part II of this representation sets out the outstanding issue, and which Natural England advises should be addressed by Roxhill Junction 15 Limited and the Examining Authority as part of the examination process in order to ensure that the project can properly be consented. This is a primary issue on which further information would be required in order to allow the Examining Authority properly to undertake its task or where further work is required to determine the effects of the project to provide a sufficient degree of confidence as to their efficacy. PART 1 1.4. Natural England’s advice in this relevant representation is based on information submitted by Roxhill Junction 15 Limited and its associated consultants in support of its application for a Development Consent Order (‘DCO’) in relation to Northampton Gateway SRFI NSIP. 1.5. Natural England has been working closely with Roxhill Junction 15 Limited and its associate consultants to provide advice and guidance since 18 November 2016. • The designated sites relevant to this application are: the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area (SPA), SSSI and Ramsar site; and Roade Cutting SSSI. • Natural England can confirm that we have had issues that are now resolved regarding direct impacts to Roade Cutting SSSI and the adequacy of winter bird surveys in relation to the on-site Functionally Linked Land to the SPA. • On 19 Febuary 2018 Natural England agreed within a Statement of Common Ground (paragraph 7) that ‘no significant detrimental impacts would occur which would detrimentally or substantially impact upon the Geological SSSI – Roade Cutting’. • The Environmental Statement as submitted addresses issues regarding Roade Cutting SSSI as advised by Natural England. However, as advised in correspondence with the applicant dated 17 November 2017, measures to protect Roade Cutting SSSI from unauthorised incursion during construction needs to be included in the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). Natural England note this has not been included in the CEMP as submitted to date. • On 31 July 2018 Natural England gave non-statutory advice to FPCR Environment and Design Ltd, a consultant of Roxhill Junction 15 Limited, through its Discretionary Advice Service on the acceptability of a draft Habitats Regulations Assessment. Natural England was satisfied that winter bird survey results were adequate to determine no likely significant effects on the SPA. 1.6. Natural England will continue discussions with Roxhill Junction 15 Limited to seek to resolve this concern and agree outstanding matters in a statement of common ground. Failing satisfactory agreement, Natural England advises that the matter set out in sections 2.2.2 will require consideration by the Examining Authority as part of the examination process. 1.7. The Examining Authority may wish to ensure that the matters set out in this relevant representation are addressed as part of the Examining Authority’s first set of questions to ensure the provision of information early in the examination process. Part II: NATURAL ENGLAND’S RELEVANT REPRESENTATION IN RESPECT OF NORTHAMPTON GATEWAY RAIL FREIGHT INTERCHANGE 2. Planning Inspectorate Reference: TR050006 2.1. Natural England has no objection to the project for the following reasons: 2.1.1. The applicant has submitted to us (Natural England), through a DAS consultation, a draft Habitats Regulations Assessment. The result of which (no likely significant effects) we are in agreement with. Therefore, the evidence seen to date demonstrates beyond reasonable scientific doubt that there would be no significant effect on the integrity of the European site. 2.1.2. Following our agreed Statement of Common Ground (19 February 2018), and Chapter 6 (Geology, Soils and Groundwater) of the Environmental Statement as submitted, Natural England is satisfied that the project is unlikely to have a significant impact on Roade Cutting SSSI. 2.2. Natural England’s headline points are that on the basis of the information submitted: 2.2.1. Natural England is satisfied that it is in agreement with Roxhill Junction 15 Limited regarding potential impacts to Roade Cutting SSSI and potential impacts to overwintering bird populations including populations of golden plover. 2.2.2. However, Natural England would be satisfied that the application will safeguard the interest of Roade Cutting SSSI provided that our advice to the applicant dated 17 November 2017 is implemented. We advised that the protection of the SSSI can be handled through a CEMP (rather than directly referenced in the DCO), provided that we are a signatory to the agreed document and the DCO contains a statement that requires compliance with the agreed document. As submitted, the CEMP does not contain any reference to measures to safeguard the SSSI during construction. Natural England 02 August 2018 "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Owen Coop
"I object to the Roxhill development purely on health grounds. This is not a fracking developement that I personally would support (if other words I’m not a NIMBY). My concern is approximate 80,000 vehicles past extremely close to the village I live in per day on the M1; this is bad enough, what Roxhill have indicated a further 25,000 HGV’s on a roundabout per week with all the deadly emissions they churn out yards away from the village. Our Local borough and county council seem more concerned with section 106 payments from Roxhill rather than the residents health. Indicating they are happy with Roxhill air quality readings which I question knowing even multinational companies like VW can give misleading information to benefit their products. I rely on the inspectorate to ensure residents health isn’t affected by ensuring air quality in the village of Collingtree is not affected by this proposed development further than it already is."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Heffron
"I am an 'Interested Party' living within 1 mile of the proposed development. My principal objections to the proposed development are as follows: 1. LACK OF STRATEGIC 'NEED' – I personally have operated within the Logistics sector for the last 28 years and along with expert advice know that a SRFT at this location is not needed for capacity on the existing network and that this location is in the wrong place with the DIRFT facility being only 18 miles further north, which itself has already been granted expansion now, with capacity for the next 20 years, plus feeds onto the same rail lines. In addition, likely occupiers will be organisations operating significant warehousing close to the M1, but with little or no volume of freight actually utilising the rail network. This would be completely against government objectives and an unintended consequence of an unclear policy on locating Rail Freight Interchanges. 2. CONFLICT WITH PLANNING POLICY - The agreed Strategic Plan for the region, specifically excludes industrial development at this location. A previous application by Roxhill for a 2.67m sq. ft Distribution Centre was withdrawn after widespread opposition. Prior to that Howden’s Kitchen’s also look at developing a 1m SQ.FT. + facility on the site and it was refused. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - Residential areas surrounding the proposed site are already exposed to high levels of air, noise and light pollution that are already above legal limits. The development will further significantly destroy this 'green lung' as well as the wildlife habitat it provides. 4. TRAFFIC OVERLOAD - The existing traffic congestion on the M1, A45 and A508, is self-evident. The number of (diesel) HGV's needed to service 5 million sq. ft of warehousing will not be sustainable at the proposed site and motorway junction. Improvements to Junction 15 in the proposal in the developers earlier (and smaller) planning application, were judged by planners as unlikely to add to overall capacity. Therefore, this is unsustainable. Low unemployment in this region and type of work mean new employees will have to be drawn from further afield and are likely to travel by car, even if they can be found. Employers in the region already cannot find enough workers and have hundreds of vacant warehousing and driving jobs that cannot be filled in the area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philip Freund
"I am opposed to the 6 million square foot site, it is totally unnecessary to even contemplate such an enormous endeavour in South Northamptonshire. The environment around Roade has already been scarred by poor planning in the scale of housing expansion in the village with over 350 new houses forced upon us, with no new Doctors surgery as we were promised. Will the same be said of the promised by-pass? It is too short, the joining points with the A508 are too tight and topographically in the wrong places. The loss of wildlife habitat, productive farmland, water table and physical space between villages is of huge concern - the planners have wanted urbanisation from London to Birmingham since the 1960's - but we must protect our farmland to ensure food production security at all costs, especially in these uncertain times for the UK."
Other Statutory Consultees
Public Health England (Public Health England)
"Thank you for your letter that invites Public Health England (PHE) to provide a Registration of Interest relating to the above Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). On this occasion we have no additional comments to provide at this stage of the NSIP application. We note that we have replied to earlier consultations as listed below and this response should be read in conjunction with that earlier correspondence. Request for Scoping Opinion 13 January 2017 Section 42 Request 20 November 2017 Minor changes 18 January 2018 Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns. "
Parish Councils
Quinton Parish Council (Quinton Parish Council)
"Quinton Parish Council would like to strongly object to this application. We are a very small rural community already being blighted by the sheer volume of traffic using our narrow and twisting rural road network. This issue is being compounded by major pressure on other parts of the local network resulting in more and more vehicles including large numbers of HGV’s using Quinton as a “rat run” to avoid congestion at J15 of the M1/A45 etc. and getting to/from Milton Keynes and beyond. Any issue on the M1 results in gridlock for our residents who become virtually barricaded in their own driveways. As this pressure is already forecast to grow the last thing this area needs is Northampton Gateway which would add over 16,500 vehicles trip a day with over 4,000 being diesel HGV’s. Northamptonshire is already blighted with oversized speculative warehousing much with unused capacity and we understand the DIRFT only 18 miles away also has unused capacity. We genuinely do not believe there is a need for this project and would question how much traffic the rail interchange would take off the road when compared to how much this proposal will add to the road congestion? We would also bring your attention to the fact that local labour is in short supply and these proposals confirm that labour will need to be brought in from further afield thus increasing traffic and pollution further. Areas around us are already at the top end of pollution acceptable levels and local authorities are being pressed to reduce these levels – this proposal will just compound local pollution issues. The proposed development site is 520 acres of in-production farmland and home to many wildlife habitats we urge you not to destroy this area which currently gives some green breathing space between rural communities and the high pollution levels of the M1 & A45. Finally we draw your attention to Local Planning policies which clearly use the M1 as a boundary to development and this land forms part of a strategic "gap". We believe that by including a rail link Roxhill is trying to build a predominately speculative warehousing operation by bypassing local democracy and planning policies which would if decided locally see the application turned down out of hand."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Heffron
"I am an 'Interested Party' living within 1 mile of the proposed development. My principal objections to the proposed development are as follows: 1. LACK OF STRATEGIC 'NEED' – An SRFT at this location is not needed for capacity on the existing network and that this location is in the wrong place with the DIRFT facility being only 18 miles further north, which itself has already been granted expansion now, with capacity for the next 20 years, plus feeds onto the same rail lines. In addition, likely occupiers will be organisations operating significant warehousing close to the M1, but with little or no volume of freight actually utilising the rail network. This would be completely against government objectives and an unintended consequence of an unclear policy on locating Rail Freight Interchanges. 2. CONFLICT WITH PLANNING POLICY - The agreed Strategic Plan for the region, specifically excludes industrial development at this location. A previous application by Roxhill for a 2.67m sq. ft Distribution Centre was withdrawn after widespread opposition. Prior to that Howden’s Kitchen’s also look at developing a 1m SQ.FT. + facility on the site and it was refused. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - Residential areas surrounding the proposed site are already exposed to high levels of air, noise and light pollution that are already above legal limits. The development will further significantly destroy this 'green lung' as well as the wildlife habitat it provides. 4. TRAFFIC OVERLOAD - The existing traffic congestion on the M1, A45 and A508, is self-evident. The number of (diesel) HGV's needed to service 5 million sq. ft of warehousing will not be sustainable at the proposed site and motorway junction. Improvements to Junction 15 in the proposal in the developers earlier (and smaller) planning application, were judged by planners as unlikely to add to overall capacity. Therefore, this is unsustainable. Low unemployment in this region and type of work mean new employees will have to be drawn from further afield and are likely to travel by car, even if they can be found. Employers in the region already cannot find enough workers and have hundreds of vacant warehousing and driving jobs that cannot be filled in the area. . "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Sharp
"Dear Sirs I would like to formally object to the proposal of Northampton Gateway and register my significant concern about it. The local roads are ill prepared for something this big. The impact it will have will be huge. At present there is regularly (i would go so far as to suggest almost daily) incidents on the M1 or the A43 meaning that Blisworth is gridlocked when these incidents happen. The roads cannot handle the current volume of traffic (have you seen the recent state of the roads?) let alone the additional traffic that will be added. I am also concerned about the environmental impact, the additional pollution in the local area will be terrible. We moved to a village so that we could avoid that, and indeed paid a premium for that benefit. now having a son who suffers regularly with his chest, the personal impact would be catastrophic. We would have to move out of a village that we love and our children have grown up in due to the level of traffic and pollution that the Northampton Gateway would cause, as it would have a huge impact on our sons health. I understand that moving freight from road to rail is an initiative the government want to drive, however it doesn't seem to be very strategic. DIRFT is on a few miles away and under used, and with DIRFT, Hams Hall, Castle Donnigton rail freight interchanges so close to this site (in fact there a total of seven rail freight terminals in East Midlands alone) it seems that the developers are using the guise of a rail terminal to bypass local planning by saying they are of national importance, when of course there is clearly no need for rail freight interchange in this area (they are clearly lacking elsewhere in the country) or the ability for the west coast mainline to service it. I sincerely hope that you will find a more suitable location for the Gateway. Mrs Sarah Sharp"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Ager
"I wish to Object to this proposal for the following reasons. HUGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Residential areas surrounding the proposed site are already exposed to high levels of air, noise and light pollution that are already above legal limits. Some of this has been partly mitigated by dispersion over open countryside close by. Roxhill's proposal will destroy this 'green lung' as well as the wildlife habitat it provides. TRAFFIC OVERLOAD The existing traffic congestion on the M1, A45 and A508, is self evident and increases 'rat running' through residential roads. The number of (diesel) HGV's needed to service 5 million sq ft of warehousing will be enormous. Roxhill claim that 6,000 people will work at the site. Because of low unemployment in this region, the workforce would be drawn from a wide area and are likely to travel by car. Roxhill have promised to fund improvements to Junction 15 but the changes proposed in their earlier (and smaller) planning application, were judged by planners as unlikely to add to overall capacity. LACK OF STRATEGIC 'NEED' Industry experts say that a Rail Interchange is not needed in this location because the DIRFT facility is only 18 miles further north and has expansion capacity for the next 20 years. In addition, The likely occupiers would be yet more road freight warehouse operators moving to be nearer to the M1. This would be completely against government objectives and an unintended consequence of an unclear policy on locating Rail Freight Interchanges. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Henry H Bletsoe and Son LLP (Henry H Bletsoe and Son LLP) on behalf of Stuart Dunkley
"My client is concerned about the ecological impact of the scheme, the environmental impact of the scheme, the traffic impact of the scheme and the impact which the scheme will have upon his business, in the absence of detailed proposals regarding access to severed land, fencing, maintenance of water supplies to all grass fields, maintenance of the power supply to his holding, reinstatement of land drains, provision of facilities to gather and manage livestock in fields cut off from his existing facilities, etc. Discussions regarding all of these issues are ongoing and hopefully his concerns can be addressed, in which case we will notify the Planning Inspectorate accordingly."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Vera Vincent
"I strongly object to the Northampton Gateway planning application DIRFT is 18 miles from here and has all the required infrastructure to operate and is not yet at capacity and so I question the need for this facility at this location. The M1 is severely congested in this area and it is difficult to understand how further traffic can be accommodated by the means suggested. Local traffic will be badly impacted ie me getting about. This is my route into Northampton. There is no viable rail line, a branch line with limited availability will adversely impact on our passenger services from Northampton. This development, by jumping the motorway, leaves the way open for all further development on this rural farmland and all our villages to be subsumed in this. At present it is reasonable farmland and provides wild life habitat and corridors. Wildlife already under threat will be at further risk. The 24/7 operation means that light and noise pollution will affect us constantly. There will be a constant 'sunrise' in that sector of the sky. I hear the trains so I have no doubt I will hear this facility. We have no indigenous workforce to supply the needs of this facility, so further traffic will be required to bring them in. Personally as a retired woman living alone, the increase in crime rate that will ensue causes me particular alarm (176% at DIRFT). It will be a site for illegal immigrants to decamp from their lorries and seek food and shelter. Desperate people in need are not respecters of property. This facility will totally destroy the community that currently prevails in this area. Blisworth -village of the year - does not deserve this nor do my surrounding neighbouring villages. It is my belief that the location proposed will produce so many unintended consequences that it will not be viable once built and I will find myself forced to bail it out as a taxpayer later on. "
Parish Councils
West Hunsbury Parish Council (West Hunsbury Parish Council)
"West Hunsbury Parish Council wishes to strongly object to the proposed Northampton Gateway. Our County is already blighted by huge warehousing which provides relatively little employment in relation to the space taken and what jobs there are will only reduce as automation improves. We also understand that the DIRFT facility which is only 18 miles away is running under capacity and there is speculative warehousing elsewhere in the area which is un-occupied. Our main trunk roads M1/A45 are badly congested to the point of vehicles finding "rat runs" through residential areas such as West Hunsbury to avoid the queues and everyday hold ups. Pressure on these key routes is predicted to grow further because of new developments already planned and approved. We understand that the Northampton Gateway proposal would add 16,500 additional vehicle trips a day of which 4,000 would be diesel HGV's. Our road system will not cope and pollution levels which are already near to legal limits will be increased further. Local Authorities are being pushed to reduce pollution levels not increase them. The agricultural area under threat is some 500 acres which is currently in full production and home to a variety of wildlife habitats. The land is not in any national or local plan for development and being so close to the M1/A45 is green space which helps to dissipate the pollution levels and noise. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Samantha Johnstone
"I am STRONGLY OBJECTING to this development for the following reasons: Firstly, the damage and impact to wildlife habitat will be severely impacted as it will destroy over 500 acres of farmland. We cannot afford to affect our environment in this way, especially when we already have DIRFT less than 20 miles away. This impact will also come from noise, air and light pollution. With the site being operational 24/7, the impact to not only wildlife but also residents local to the site, will be huge. The area is already over legal limits for, and while some of this has been partly mitigated by dispersion over open countryside close by, this will be lost by this proposed development. There is also the issue of crime that has shown to be increased around these developments, labour that isn't available locally, and the threat of further development to the villages in the area. These are just a few of the areas of concern with this unneeded development, and I hope for the sake of my family and the environment that this development does not go ahead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Abigael Campion
"Having lived in the village of Blisworth for 12 years, I am often caught in the traffic chaos that happens when there is a problem on the M1, A43 or A5. Whatever new road schemes are put in place around the new estate the country roads are able to take the overflow should any of the main roads be closed. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Allan Heath
"Northants Friends of the Earth objects to this proposal> Although appreciating that moving freight from roads to rail can have positive environmental benefits Northants FoE are greatly concerned that in this East Midlands area there is already excess capacity e.g. DRIFT (Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal). A thorough assessment of where such terminals should be placed should be carried out on a national basis rather than leaving to the opportunism of private investment to guess based on profit motives. If built the interchange will destroy a vast area of countryside and biodiversity. More than half of UK species are in decline and at least 15% at risk of vanishing (second “State of Nature” report) with loss of habitat and urban sprawl a major cause. Bees and other pollinators are particularly in decline due at least partly to a loss of 97% of their habitat over the last 60-70 years. By pollinating crops these insects contribute millions of pounds to Northamptonshire’s agricultural economy, so this has impacts beyond just the conservation of our wildlife. The Northamptonshire Local Nature Partnership (N-LNP) is aiming to drive positive change in the county’s natural environment. These plans should take into account full consideration of the partnership aims. We are also greatly concerned about the increase in pollution that such a development will bring to the area, which we have already found nitrogen dioxide to be 59.26 ug/m3 (adjusted alongside government figures) at a position- east side of the A508 opposite Courteenhall Road, Blisworth (OS Ref: SP753531) over a period of 4 weeks around Easter 2017 (a quiet time of year for traffic) and 49.75-60.38 ug/m3 in Collingtree High st. NN4 0NE over a period of 21days end of October 2017 -which if sustained would be above the European Union legal mean annual limit for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) at 40µg/m3. Measurement by NBC as far we can gather have not so far been at or near relevant locations of exposure. There are some plans we gather to mitigate pollution off the A45 by speed limitations. However, a European Environmental Agency study has shown that only a 12% reduction for diesel and 18% for petrol would be achieved under smooth driving conditions and complete compliance*. Under more realistic driving i.e. including some non-compliance there was only a 2-3% fuel improvement. 40,000 premature deaths a year are linked to air pollution mostly associated with road traffic. That's more than obesity or alcohol. Dirty air leads to worsening asthma, heart disease, lung cancer, dementia and smaller lungs and enlarged hearts in children etc.. Apart from the devastating effect this will have on local residents this also places a huge burden on health services and business in the local area. In the UK the costs of illness and days lost from work are estimated to add up to £20bn a year. * https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/transport/speed-limits "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alliance Foster Care (Alliance Foster Care)
"As people who work in offices in this area we feel that it would be a shame to bring noise and light pollution to the surrounding area with the introduction of this interchange. It doesn't seem to be something that is a necessity and wouldn't bring positives to the community already living and established in this area. Not only that but more and more areas are becoming built up and this is having a dramatic effect on our wildlife something that we feel is extremely important. We are unable to see the benefits that this interchange would bring and feel the whole idea is unnecessary. We always have visitors complementing us about the location of our work place saying how lovely it is. We feel that if this interchange goes ahead we will lose what makes this area so special. We hope you will take into consideration our points."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Turley (Turley) on behalf of Ashfield Land Management Limited
"1. RELEVANT REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF ASHFIELD LAND MANAGEMENT LIMITED AND GAZELEY GLP NORTHAMPTON s.à.r.l. 1.1 Ashfield Land Management Limited (Company number 02634101) ("Ashfield Land") and Gazeley GLP Northampton s.à.r.l. (Luxembourg Registration of Commerce Number B221335) ("Gazeley GLP Northampton") are together the applicants for the Rail Central Strategic Rail Freight Interchange ("Rail Central"), which is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. 1.2 The site for Rail Central is located between the villages of Blisworth and Milton Malsor, Northamptonshire, adjacent to the western boundary of the site proposed for the Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange ("Northampton Gateway"). The proposed Order Limits for Rail Central and Northampton Gateway overlap with differing works packages, including an area east of the Northampton Loop Line, works on the Northampton Loop Line itself and improvement works at J15a of the M1 where highway works are proposed. 1.3 It is anticipated that an application for development consent for Rail Central will be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in early September 2018. 1.4 Both Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton submit this relevant representation to register as an Interested Party to the examination of the Northampton Gateway application. 1.5 This relevant representation sets out outline submissions on behalf of Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton to assist the Examining Authority in carrying out their initial assessment of principal issues for the Northampton Gateway examination. 2. RAIL CENTRAL 2.1 Rail Central is currently identified as a project on the Planning Inspectorate's National Infrastructure Planning website. A scoping opinion for Rail Central was published on 9 February 2016 and statutory consultation was undertaken between April and October 2016 (Phase One) and between March and April 2018 (Phase Two). 2.2 The Rail Central project team has met with the Planning Inspectorate to discuss Rail Central, the meeting notes of which have been published on the s.51 advice register. Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton have also taken pre-application advice from the Planning Inspectorate relating to a pre-submission draft Development Consent Order and Explanatory Memorandum. 2.3 As a scheme, Rail Central comprises the following: (a) A Strategic Rail Freight Interchange including: (i) Intermodal Freight Terminal with direct connections to the Northampton Loop Line, capable of accommodating trains of up to 775m long, including up to 3 gantry cranes, container storage, a train maintenance depot and facilities to transfer containers to HGVs; (ii) Express Freight Terminal with direct connections to the West Coast Main Line, capable of accommodating trains of up to 240m long, a freight platform with associated loading and unloading facilities; (iii) Up to 702,097 sqm (Gross External Area) rail connected and rail served warehousing, ancillary service buildings, lorry park, terminal control building and bus terminal; (iv) New road infrastructure including a separated access point on the A43 (T) and an internal site underpass; (v) Strategic landscaping and open space including alterations to public rights of way, the creation of ecological enhancement areas, flood attenuation and the partial diversion of the Milton Malsor brook. (b) Improvement works to Junction 15a of the M1 Motorway to facilitate carriageway widening and configuration, including development of a construction compound to the east of the junction, partial demolition of existing carriageway and ecological mitigation and landscaping around the junction; (c) Other associated highway works. 3. CONSULTATION WITH ROXHILL 3.1 Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton have engaged with Roxhill (Junction 15) Limited ("Roxhill") during Northampton Gateway's Phase 1 and Phase 2 consultations. This consultation is referred to within the Consultation Report (Document 6.1). 3.2 In turn, Roxhill has been consulted by Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton in relation to Rail Central, as part of the Rail Central Phase 1 and Phase 2 consultations. This consultation is referred to within the Northampton Gateway Planning Statement (Document 6.6). 3.3 Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton have written to Roxhill to request an information sharing exercise to benefit both schemes. 3.4 Given the immediate proximity of Rail Central and Northampton Gateway, it is expected that Roxhill will formally apply to be an Interested Party to the Rail Central examination following acceptance of the Rail Central application. 4. OUTLINE SUBMISSIONS 4.1 The outline submissions of Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton on the Northampton Gateway application are set out below. Relationship between Rail Central and Northampton Gateway 4.2 The Northampton Gateway application documentation does not consider the possibility that both Rail Central and Northampton Gateway could be consented by the Secretary of State and be in operation at the same time. The Northampton Gateway Planning Statement (Document 6.6) solely contemplates a circumstance whereby only one scheme can be granted development consent. 4.3 This is not accepted by Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton who consider that if both schemes are consented, Rail Central and Northampton Gateway could operate alongside each other. Rail Central can be implemented as an independent project should Northampton Gateway not proceed, but has also been designed to facilitate construction in parallel with Northampton Gateway, if the Secretary of State considers that both schemes should come forward. 4.4 Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton will submit a Rail Operations Report which will confirm that in terms of operational compatibility, main line access and network capability, no design issues have been identified which would otherwise prevent Northampton Gateway and Rail Central from being able to operate together as Strategic Rail Freight Interchanges in line with the Planning Act 2008 and National Policy Statement for National Networks. Environmental Statement 4.5 The conclusions of the Northampton Gateway Environmental Statement where they relate to Rail Central are not agreed by Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton. 4.6 Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton do not agree with Roxhill's assessment methodology and conclusions of significance, where Northampton Gateway has been assessed alongside Rail Central. 4.7 The findings of the comparative assessment between Northampton Gateway and Rail Central at Appendix 4 of the Planning Statement (Document 6.6) are also not accepted. Cumulative Impact Assessment 4.8 Given both Rail Central and Northampton Gateway are within the immediate vicinity of each other, inter-project cumulative effects will arise. 4.9 Chapter 15 of the Northampton Gateway Environmental Statement (Document 5.2) acknowledges that Roxhill's assessment of Rail Central is at this stage "tentative and interim" in respect of Cumulative Impacts (paragraph 15.3.12). 4.10 It is expected that when the Rail Central application is submitted for examination, full consideration can be given to cumulative effects of both Rail Central and Northampton Gateway as well as other identified projects within the vicinity. 4.11 The cumulative assessment will be critical in order to properly understand the mitigation required, and by when, in the context of the potential for the two schemes to come forward together. Accordingly, requirements on either scheme cannot be drafted in isolation from each other, and must be considered holistically to ensure that the required mitigation will, in practice, be deliverable and achieve the necessary outcomes. 4.12 As a robust and consistent cumulative assessment between both Northampton Gateway and Rail Central against the most recent data sets is required, Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton will make further submissions on this point within Written Representations to the Northampton Gateway examination. Development Consent Order 4.13 Given that the Order Limits for both Northampton Gateway and Rail Central will overlap, Rail Central will propose specific provisions for inclusion within the Northampton Gateway draft Development Consent Order. 4.14 As set out above, there will need to be very careful consideration to ensure that both the Northampton Gateway and the Rail Central Development Consent Orders work in practice alongside each other, providing the appropriate mitigation at the appropriate time where both schemes come forward. Compulsory Acquisition 4.15 Ashfield Land has an interest within the Northampton Gateway Order Limits in the form of an option agreement over parcels 1/7 and 1/12 as identified within the Book of Reference (Document 4.3) and Land Plans (Document Series 2.1; Sheet 1 of 6). 4.16 It is noted in the Statement of Reasons (Document 4.1) that Roxhill has attempted to negotiate with the freehold owners of these parcels, but they are unable to enter into a voluntary agreement as the land is already subject to an agreement with Ashfield Land to assemble land for the Rail Central site. It is stated that Roxhill therefore requires compulsory powers of acquisition to acquire the land and any rights which may be inconsistent with the authorised development. 4.17 Parcels 1/7 and 1/12 form part of the land required for Rail Central to partially offset the loss of farm land, to provide landscape and visual impact mitigation in the form of woodland blocks and to allow the diversion of a public footpath as part of a wider PROW mitigation strategy. 4.18 Rail Central will make representations on the proposed compulsory acquisition of these parcels, and on the need to include protective provisions for the benefit of Rail Central within the Northampton Gateway draft Development Consent Order. 5. CONCURRENT DCO EXAMINATIONS 5.1 Rail Central is anticipated to be submitted in early September 2018. It is expected that if Rail Central is accepted both applications will be considered concurrently by separate Examining Authorities with a period of overlap where both applications are undergoing examination at the same time. 5.2 Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton has raised this prospect in meetings with the Planning Inspectorate, who have encouraged dialogue between the promoters of both schemes. 5.3 Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton would suggest the following to assist in the consideration of the concurrent applications by the Planning Inspectorate and Examining Authorities: (a) Following submission of the Rail Central application, Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton will seek to agree a statement of common ground with Roxhill pertaining to both Northampton Gateway and Rail Central. (b) That Issue Specific Hearing days are held which solely relate to the interaction of Rail Central and Northampton Gateway. The Issue Specific Hearings could consider matters relating to: (i) Cumulative Impact; (ii) Environmental Impact in respect of landscape and visual, heritage and ecological impacts; (iii) Highways and Transport; (iv) Phasing; (v) Compulsory Acquisition; (vi) Development Consent Order provisions. (c) It would be necessary for both Examining Authorities to conduct a Site Visit of both the Northampton Gateway and Rail Central sites. 5.4 Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton would wish to avoid a situation whereby the Secretary of State would receive recommendations from his Examining Authorities which are in conflict with each other or would lead to consents which are unworkable as deliverable schemes or do not account for the timing of cumulative impacts. 5.5 Therefore, Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton would request that the Examining Authorities consider co-ordinating their assessment of both Rail Central and Northampton Gateway, including sharing of information provided to the DCO examinations of both schemes. This could be achieved through a defined protocol and management between both Rail Central and Northampton Gateway's Case Managers and direct liaison between both Panels of Inspectors. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Beryl Andrews
"I object strongly to the proposed Northampton Gateway development as it is in an inappropriate position on productive farmland and is totally contrary to local planning policies. This is NOT a “strategic” location for a national network, with multiple SRFIs built or planned in the same region. It is not close to major conurbations to reduce the secondary leg of distribution and is remote from industrial heartlands. The West Northants Joint Core Strategy (JCS) states that developments in rural areas must be limited, of an appropriate scale for their location and must be well connected to towns and services. They must maintain the distinctive character and vitality of rural communities, including respecting the quality of tranquillity, and protecting good agricultural land. Large warehousing developments will be provided for at DIRFT, only 18 miles away. This area is designated by the South Northants local plan as an “Important Local Gap” to maintain the rural character and prevent coalescence of villages south of the M1 into the Northampton conurbation. Once development is allowed, more will spread into the rural areas. The conditions set out in the National Policy Statement for National Networks (NPSNN) are not being followed. For example “large scale commercial operations involving large structures and buildings may not be considered suitable adjacent to residential areas.” “Consent should be refused if it affects the ability of an area to achieve compliance with the European Air Quality Directive”, eg M1 near junction 15. “The availability of a local workforce will be an important consideration.” South Northants has one of the lowest claimant rates in the country (0.7%) and workers will have to travel from further afield causing an increase in traffic and undermining the Government policy to reduce road congestion and carbon emission. “For a development to be sustainable it should be designed to minimise social and environmental impacts and improve quality of life.” The JCS states that the existing infrastructure is already at or close to capacity and that traffic congestion must be addressed. The local road network is totally inadequate to deal with the anticipated increase in traffic (16,500 vehicles per day). At peak times traffic from the M1 will create a continuous stream to the single access roundabout and having right of way across the A508 will impede the traffic from the south. The proposed reconfiguration on the M1 J15 will be insufficient to cope with the increase, as there are already frequent queues on the A508. 9% of vehicles are expected to travel north on the A508, which is already designated a Red Route because of its significant accident record. The proposed restriction on right turns at the Courteenhall Road / A508 junction will divert traffic down narrow rural roads like Knock Lane and into Stoke Road, where parked cars obstruct the carriageway and subsidence near the canal embankment is continually monitored. The 7.5T planned weight restriction is not enforceable. This will have a substantial impact on the environment and local communities. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charles Fitzroy
"Roads already very congested, as are passenger trains Noise and air pollution Damage to natural environment Council bankrupt so no funds to provide essential additional services "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Robertson
"My concern lies with the natural habitat and wildlife in the area. It is very well established in the area and the destruction would be vast. In addition to this the increase in noise and pollution would be increased ten fold all effecting wildlife and local residents in the area"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Wells
"I strongly object to the proposal after attending presentations and reading submissions, for the following reasons. The case for such a facility in addition to that at M1 Junction 15A/ Rothersthorpe and the Daventry Rail Freight Terminal , plus the recent development of huge warehousing all along the Milton Keynes part of the M1,is not proved. Those and other facilities are alreadyvery large and increasing encroachments on the countryside and adjacent towns and villages. The proposed facility would, during its construction and future operation, create severe disruption with huge numbers of heavy vehicles on the surrounding areas, with their narrow country roads and lanes. It would massively pollute this quiet peaceful pocket of rural England both day and night, with noise of vehicles and heavy machinery, fumes dirt and dust, and light pollution. The argument that this would bring jobs to the area does not stand. Northamptonshire and Milton Keynes already have a high level of employment and more workers would require even more homes and infrastructure in addition to the huge sprawl that is already swallowing up the countryside. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Diana FitzRoy
"Road Capacity cannot take the development - M1 often blocked, A508 already congested ,especially during rush hours and rural gated roads used as 'rat runs'. Low unemployment, so jobs creation would require migration adding pressure on local infrastructure including housing, health, schools etc at a time when Northampton council is effectively bankrupt Threat to the already overloaded rail passenger services if freight takes away capacity on the network from passenger services "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elissa Tennant-Brown
"I object to the proposed rail freight interchange as the road infrastructure is already under pressure from the volume of traffic passing through. The surrounding area becomes gridlocked regularly due to incidents or roadworks on the M1 and further heavy traffic from the rail freight interchange is only going to exacerbate this problem. The proposed rail freight interchange will also decimate the surrounding rural area, a key reason for buying in our village, hemming in the beautiful villages between the rail freight interchange and the town of Northampton. Added to this the development will devalue the houses in the surrounding area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Turley (Turley) on behalf of Gazeley GLP Northampton s.a.r.l.
"1. RELEVANT REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF ASHFIELD LAND MANAGEMENT LIMITED AND GAZELEY GLP NORTHAMPTON s.à.r.l. 1.1 Ashfield Land Management Limited (Company number 02634101) ("Ashfield Land") and Gazeley GLP Northampton s.à.r.l. (Luxembourg Registration of Commerce Number B221335) ("Gazeley GLP Northampton") are together the applicants for the Rail Central Strategic Rail Freight Interchange ("Rail Central"), which is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. 1.2 The site for Rail Central is located between the villages of Blisworth and Milton Malsor, Northamptonshire, adjacent to the western boundary of the site proposed for the Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange ("Northampton Gateway"). The proposed Order Limits for Rail Central and Northampton Gateway overlap with differing works packages, including an area east of the Northampton Loop Line, works on the Northampton Loop Line itself and improvement works at J15a of the M1 where highway works are proposed. 1.3 It is anticipated that an application for development consent for Rail Central will be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in early September 2018. 1.4 Both Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton submit this relevant representation to register as an Interested Party to the examination of the Northampton Gateway application. 1.5 This relevant representation sets out outline submissions on behalf of Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton to assist the Examining Authority in carrying out their initial assessment of principal issues for the Northampton Gateway examination. 2. RAIL CENTRAL 2.1 Rail Central is currently identified as a project on the Planning Inspectorate's National Infrastructure Planning website. A scoping opinion for Rail Central was published on 9 February 2016 and statutory consultation was undertaken between April and October 2016 (Phase One) and between March and April 2018 (Phase Two). 2.2 The Rail Central project team has met with the Planning Inspectorate to discuss Rail Central, the meeting notes of which have been published on the s.51 advice register. Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton have also taken pre-application advice from the Planning Inspectorate relating to a pre-submission draft Development Consent Order and Explanatory Memorandum. 2.3 As a scheme, Rail Central comprises the following: (a) A Strategic Rail Freight Interchange including: (i) Intermodal Freight Terminal with direct connections to the Northampton Loop Line, capable of accommodating trains of up to 775m long, including up to 3 gantry cranes, container storage, a train maintenance depot and facilities to transfer containers to HGVs; (ii) Express Freight Terminal with direct connections to the West Coast Main Line, capable of accommodating trains of up to 240m long, a freight platform with associated loading and unloading facilities; (iii) Up to 702,097 sqm (Gross External Area) rail connected and rail served warehousing, ancillary service buildings, lorry park, terminal control building and bus terminal; (iv) New road infrastructure including a separated access point on the A43 (T) and an internal site underpass; (v) Strategic landscaping and open space including alterations to public rights of way, the creation of ecological enhancement areas, flood attenuation and the partial diversion of the Milton Malsor brook. (b) Improvement works to Junction 15a of the M1 Motorway to facilitate carriageway widening and configuration, including development of a construction compound to the east of the junction, partial demolition of existing carriageway and ecological mitigation and landscaping around the junction; (c) Other associated highway works. 3. CONSULTATION WITH ROXHILL 3.1 Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton have engaged with Roxhill (Junction 15) Limited ("Roxhill") during Northampton Gateway's Phase 1 and Phase 2 consultations. This consultation is referred to within the Consultation Report (Document 6.1). 3.2 In turn, Roxhill has been consulted by Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton in relation to Rail Central, as part of the Rail Central Phase 1 and Phase 2 consultations. This consultation is referred to within the Northampton Gateway Planning Statement (Document 6.6). 3.3 Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton have written to Roxhill to request an information sharing exercise to benefit both schemes. 3.4 Given the immediate proximity of Rail Central and Northampton Gateway, it is expected that Roxhill will formally apply to be an Interested Party to the Rail Central examination following acceptance of the Rail Central application. 4. OUTLINE SUBMISSIONS 4.1 The outline submissions of Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton on the Northampton Gateway application are set out below. Relationship between Rail Central and Northampton Gateway 4.2 The Northampton Gateway application documentation does not consider the possibility that both Rail Central and Northampton Gateway could be consented by the Secretary of State and be in operation at the same time. The Northampton Gateway Planning Statement (Document 6.6) solely contemplates a circumstance whereby only one scheme can be granted development consent. 4.3 This is not accepted by Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton who consider that if both schemes are consented, Rail Central and Northampton Gateway could operate alongside each other. Rail Central can be implemented as an independent project should Northampton Gateway not proceed, but has also been designed to facilitate construction in parallel with Northampton Gateway, if the Secretary of State considers that both schemes should come forward. 4.4 Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton will submit a Rail Operations Report which will confirm that in terms of operational compatibility, main line access and network capability, no design issues have been identified which would otherwise prevent Northampton Gateway and Rail Central from being able to operate together as Strategic Rail Freight Interchanges in line with the Planning Act 2008 and National Policy Statement for National Networks. Environmental Statement 4.5 The conclusions of the Northampton Gateway Environmental Statement where they relate to Rail Central are not agreed by Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton. 4.6 Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton do not agree with Roxhill's assessment methodology and conclusions of significance, where Northampton Gateway has been assessed alongside Rail Central. 4.7 The findings of the comparative assessment between Northampton Gateway and Rail Central at Appendix 4 of the Planning Statement (Document 6.6) are also not accepted. Cumulative Impact Assessment 4.8 Given both Rail Central and Northampton Gateway are within the immediate vicinity of each other, inter-project cumulative effects will arise. 4.9 Chapter 15 of the Northampton Gateway Environmental Statement (Document 5.2) acknowledges that Roxhill's assessment of Rail Central is at this stage "tentative and interim" in respect of Cumulative Impacts (paragraph 15.3.12). 4.10 It is expected that when the Rail Central application is submitted for examination, full consideration can be given to cumulative effects of both Rail Central and Northampton Gateway as well as other identified projects within the vicinity. 4.11 The cumulative assessment will be critical in order to properly understand the mitigation required, and by when, in the context of the potential for the two schemes to come forward together. Accordingly, requirements on either scheme cannot be drafted in isolation from each other, and must be considered holistically to ensure that the required mitigation will, in practice, be deliverable and achieve the necessary outcomes. 4.12 As a robust and consistent cumulative assessment between both Northampton Gateway and Rail Central against the most recent data sets is required, Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton will make further submissions on this point within Written Representations to the Northampton Gateway examination. Development Consent Order 4.13 Given that the Order Limits for both Northampton Gateway and Rail Central will overlap, Rail Central will propose specific provisions for inclusion within the Northampton Gateway draft Development Consent Order. 4.14 As set out above, there will need to be very careful consideration to ensure that both the Northampton Gateway and the Rail Central Development Consent Orders work in practice alongside each other, providing the appropriate mitigation at the appropriate time where both schemes come forward. Compulsory Acquisition 4.15 Ashfield Land has an interest within the Northampton Gateway Order Limits in the form of an option agreement over parcels 1/7 and 1/12 as identified within the Book of Reference (Document 4.3) and Land Plans (Document Series 2.1; Sheet 1 of 6). 4.16 It is noted in the Statement of Reasons (Document 4.1) that Roxhill has attempted to negotiate with the freehold owners of these parcels, but they are unable to enter into a voluntary agreement as the land is already subject to an agreement with Ashfield Land to assemble land for the Rail Central site. It is stated that Roxhill therefore requires compulsory powers of acquisition to acquire the land and any rights which may be inconsistent with the authorised development. 4.17 Parcels 1/7 and 1/12 form part of the land required for Rail Central to partially offset the loss of farm land, to provide landscape and visual impact mitigation in the form of woodland blocks and to allow the diversion of a public footpath as part of a wider PROW mitigation strategy. 4.18 Rail Central will make representations on the proposed compulsory acquisition of these parcels, and on the need to include protective provisions for the benefit of Rail Central within the Northampton Gateway draft Development Consent Order. 5. CONCURRENT DCO EXAMINATIONS 5.1 Rail Central is anticipated to be submitted in early September 2018. It is expected that if Rail Central is accepted both applications will be considered concurrently by separate Examining Authorities with a period of overlap where both applications are undergoing examination at the same time. 5.2 Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton has raised this prospect in meetings with the Planning Inspectorate, who have encouraged dialogue between the promoters of both schemes. 5.3 Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton would suggest the following to assist in the consideration of the concurrent applications by the Planning Inspectorate and Examining Authorities: (a) Following submission of the Rail Central application, Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton will seek to agree a statement of common ground with Roxhill pertaining to both Northampton Gateway and Rail Central. (b) That Issue Specific Hearing days are held which solely relate to the interaction of Rail Central and Northampton Gateway. The Issue Specific Hearings could consider matters relating to: (i) Cumulative Impact; (ii) Environmental Impact in respect of landscape and visual, heritage and ecological impacts; (iii) Highways and Transport; (iv) Phasing; (v) Compulsory Acquisition; (vi) Development Consent Order provisions. (c) It would be necessary for both Examining Authorities to conduct a Site Visit of both the Northampton Gateway and Rail Central sites. 5.4 Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton would wish to avoid a situation whereby the Secretary of State would receive recommendations from his Examining Authorities which are in conflict with each other or would lead to consents which are unworkable as deliverable schemes or do not account for the timing of cumulative impacts. 5.5 Therefore, Ashfield Land and Gazeley GLP Northampton would request that the Examining Authorities consider co-ordinating their assessment of both Rail Central and Northampton Gateway, including sharing of information provided to the DCO examinations of both schemes. This could be achieved through a defined protocol and management between both Rail Central and Northampton Gateway's Case Managers and direct liaison between both Panels of Inspectors. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gill Featherstone
"I strongly object to the Roxhill Northampton Gateway Development. I believe it will ruin our countryside. We enjoy the walks and wildlife in the area and these will be gone forever. The plans are not in line with those in the South Northamptonshire plan. There is also a rail freight facility at Daventry meaning there is no requirement for one in this location. There will be a massive increase in noise, air and light pollution. There would be enormous increase in traffic in the area with additional congestion on both the major roads and the village roads."
Other Statutory Consultees
Highways England (Highways England)
"Highways England wishes to register as an interested party in respect of the application by Roxhill Development Limited for a Development Consent Order for a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange. Highways England is a strategic road authority appointed by the Secretary of State as the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the strategic road network (SRN). In respect of the application our particular interest is in the M1 Motorway and A45 Trunk road. Amongst other things our licence to operate as a strategic highway authority requires us to ensure the effective operation of the network; protect and improve the safety of the network and to conform to the principles of sustainable development. "Sustainable development" means encouraging economic growth while protecting the environment and improving safety and quality of life for current and future generations. The Secretary of State’s policy in respect of the SRN and the delivery of sustainable development is set out in Department for Transport Circular 02/2013. Highways England has been actively engaged in discussion with the applicant (including its consultants) since 2016 with a view to ensuring that the proposed development will not have a severe and detrimental impact on the SRN. Highways England and the applicant have reached agreement on a number of matters as reflected in the statement of common ground submitted by the Applicant, however there are still some issues outstanding that need to be addressed before Highways England can be satisfied that no concerns remain. These include, inter alia: • As mitigation works will need to be carried out to the SRN Highways England requires that adequate protective provisions are in place to ensure that works are carried out to appropriate standards and to safeguard Highways England’s position as highway authority both now and in the future. • Timing of the SRN mitigation works in relation to the phasing of the development. • Alterations to the SRN including road classification. • Further work on the design of the highway works proposed to take place on the SRN. • The provision of necessary signage. • Access issues at M1 Collingtree Bridge ensuring compliance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. • Timing of the highway works to the SRN and the impact of Highways England’s M1 J13-16 smart motorway scheme. Should both schemes be on site at the same time there will need to be close coordination of works both in terms of road space and network occupancy to ensure safe and efficient working. At this time it is not known if this could be satisfactorily achieved. • The impact the highway works on the SRN, and in particular the proposals for work to the motorway slip roads, will have on the design for Highways England’s smart motorway scheme which may require a request to alter the design and/or timing of delivery to ensure a solution is both efficient and minimises the impact to the travelling public. We will continue to engage with the applicant with the expectation of resolving these matters positively, however until such time that all matters have been satisfactorily agreed we are not in a position to fully support the application and therefore issue this holding objection. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
J Fisher
"1) Junction 15 is grid locked morning & evening tail back reaching as far as Northampton on A45 & Roade on A508 many people using narrow country lanes to avoid Junction 15. 2) The M1 motorway between Junc 15 & 15A is know to have poor air quality. 3) In event of M1 closure due to accidents A508 southbound & A45 Northbound become diversions any routes. 4)The land proposed to become Northampton Gateway is 1st class agriculture land. 5) The light & air pollution is exceedingly high."
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Newbould
"I don't want you to build a large warehousing section over farm land that is behind my house that is going to cover such a large piece of land. I cannot see any reason for this to go ahead DIRFT is just up the road and it has empty warehouses. The traffic is already a problem in this area before you add large amounts of lorries onto these roads. You will also be destroying large areas of farm land which will damage local wildlife"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Mills
"The work that is being done will have a 1. negative effect on the wildlife 2. Is not needed. there are many warhorses standing empty"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joanne Williams
"1 Rail interchanges The vast majority are being placed in this area which therefore does not establish a network. Existing interchanges in the area have current capacity and expansion possibilities to cover many years into the future. Existing 'Rail interchange' warehousing has not been joined to the rail network as there is and will be no capacity. The locality plan specifically excludes industrial development at this site 2 Road congestion The roads around this area are already at capacity and suffer frequent stoppages and accidents The proposed changes to junction 15 do not add capacity to deal with the huge amount of additional traffic The proposed changes to junction 15 are dangerous in creating a 4 lane entry to the junction where traffic is crossing from lane 1 to lane 4 and lane 4 to lane 1 at high speeds 3 Employment The local area has a low unemployment rate The existing warehouses cannot secure workers All workers will therefore be travelling into the area and further overloading the road network. As they will be coming in from out of area they will not be using public transport especially as they will be working shifts 4 Environmental The area is already subject to illegal levels of noise, air, and light pollution The increased traffic will increase the levels In addition the extra congestion and stop start travelling of vehicles will significantly increase the levels 'Traditional methods of modelling traffic pollution under-estimate emissions by as much as 60%, particularly in areas where congestion occurs for a large part of the day' Pollution leads to early deaths, respiratory disorders and dementia Loss of hundreds of acres of 'green lung' that until now has mitigated the existing pollution levels Loss of hundreds of acres of productive farmland - loss of food production at a time when the UK will need to produce more of it's own food (Brexit) Loss of wildlife habitat "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joseph T Wroczynski
"I Strongly object to this proposal which by its very nature will destroy the village and surrounding area. The village will become an industrial park which is NOT what we envisioned when we purchased our property. Additionally, There is no need for either the proposed Northampton Gateway SRFI to be located near Junction 15 or the proposed SRFI (ashfield land) to be constructed on land in open countryside between the villages of Milton Malsor and Blisworth. Please reject this proposal which will see beautiful villages absorbed by unnecessary industrial sites. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
June Edwards
"Traffic increase Noise pollution Light pollution Pressure on infrastructure Destruction of countryside Destruction of the way of life in the area These are the main points I wish to make, all these things will affect myself and my family in a most adverse way. I will expand on this in the proper time."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Justin Clements
"SECTION 2- Representation There are a number of objections I would like to raise the Rail Freight Tem1inal. The Interchange would encourage an increase iq freight traffic on an already overcrowded passenger line. An increase in traffic on the Northampton Loop may well require a reduction in passenger services to accommodate the freight traffic. There is no need for this facility nationally, owing to the existence of a larger facility 18 miles away in Crick. Turning to the road network, the local area does not maintain the capacity for a development of this size. The Ml J1 5-17, according to the Department of Transport, severely congested by 2040, due to an increase in vehicle ownership. The Interchange would accelerate this overcrowding and make life for local people and road users intolerable. This would most likely encourage further development. According to the South Northamptonshire Local Plan, outlining economic strategy for the area, the Ml currently provides a soft boundary to development in the area. If the Interchange is built, then it is inevitable that development will continue beyond this boundary. Finally, all of the above effects will have an adverse. The environmental impacts of increased road and rail usage are well documented, leading to increases in noise, light, and air pollution, beyond those one would consider acceptable. The increase in pollution would be further compounded by the operation of this facility 24/7 having further detrimental effects on the local population. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katherine Featherstone
"I object to the development for the following 15 reasons: 1. The proposal will destroy hundreds of acres of local countryside and bring industry into an area that is an important gap between Town and country. 2. The site would be surrounded by high earth mounds (bunding) that would be themselves a “blot on the landscape” 3. The destruction of wildlife habitat in particular for farmland birds where the habitat loss cannot be compensated for. 4. The loss of farmland when the country needs to produce more food rather than importing it. 5. The destruction of the local footpath network in particular the footpath between Milton Malsor and Collingtree that would be diverted alongside the Collingtree Rd. and the M1 motorway. 6. Increased traffic through the village when there is congestion on the M1. 7. Increased air pollution from the thousands of extra cars, vans and HGV’s using the roads in the local area. 8.The proposed no right turns at the junction of Courteenhall Rd and the A508. would mean traffic diverting through the centre of Blisworth and past the doctors surgery where parking is already a problem. 9. Noise created by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers and the operation of an aggregates terminal. 10. Light pollution from night time operations. 11. The area has very low unemployment so the majority of workers for the operation would have to travel some distance to work adding to congestion and pollution. 12. All the local plans show this site being retained as farmland and open countryside not industrial development. 13. The site contains a number of mature trees that will take many years to replace. 14. The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only a short distance away from this site, serves the same local area and has capacity for expansion for over 10 years. 15. The experience from DIRFT shows an increase in crime following the industrialisation of the area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kathleen Spokes
"I wish to state that I strongly object to the proposed development on the land next to junction 15 known as Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange (proposed by Roxhill). The construction of this huge development can only have a detrimental effect for all the residents of the surrounding villages and for those who use the A508 and junction 15 to get to and from work. The proposed site would be in use twenty four hours a day causing great disruption due to air and light pollution and also massive traffic congestion. The A508 already suffers dreadful problems at peak times and the impact of additional sixteen thousand lorries per day (Roxhill's estimate!)entering and exiting the site will surely be catastrophic. It is incomprehensible. Even without this development you only need one break down or a slight accident along the A45 leading up to Junction 15 or along the A508 and the resulting tailbacks are horrendous! The Department of Transport is already warning of severe congestion on the M1 between J15 and J17 by 2040 without this development making this proposal sound ludicrous and entirely unsuitable!! As we are only eighteen miles away from the DIRFT site I fail to understand the need for this costly and needless development. We are told this site would provide employment for approximately two thousand people. Northamptonshire has a very low unemployment rate, therefore these workers would have to travel in from other areas. This would further increase traffic congestion! The site would also destroy five hundred and twenty acres of farmland and wildlife habitats. The M1 currently provides a boundary protecting villages from urban sprawl. If this development goes ahead these villages would inevitably be swallowed up with the further need for houses and infrastructure to support the required workforce. This would of course have a detrimental impact on the mental health and well being of the current residential population. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Roseblade
"I was APPALLED to learn of Roxhill's Northampton Gateway proposal and wish to object in the strongest possible terms. Reasons: Air pollution. Collingtree High St regularly exceeds EU acceptable pollution levels. I have suffered 3 or 4 attacks of Wheezy Bronchitis, even though I am a non-smoker Noise pollution Traffic congestion – the local road network simply could not cope efficiently with the extra volume of traffic There is no need for further warehousing – large site at Junction 16 Contravenes agreed Strategic Plan for West Northants. If permission IS granted, it will be viewed as political decision by central Govt. Loss of productive agricultural land & wildlife habitat. We should be producing more food, especitally in view of Brexit . "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Louisa Woby
"I feel if this proposal to develop a rail connected industrial estate were to go ahead it will destroy a large amount of countryside, mess with the local transport network and negatively impact air, sound and light quality in the area to all residential areas for generations to come.      I fail to see the why another rail terminal of any kind is required in Northampton when taking into account the proximity of other rail terminals,  the wide availability of modern warehousing along the M1 from Lutterworth to South Milton Keynes and the large number of warehouses in place or being built directly around Northampton at present."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marianne Crisp
"I STRONGLY object to this "Northern Gateway" development on the following main grounds: * The Strategic Plan for this region specifically excludes industrial development at this location. If the Plan is overruled and development IS allowed, what does this say about Government promises? And if allowed it would undoubtedly then be used as a precedent to permit further local development. *Calling it a "Nationally Significant Infrastructure" immediately excludes the local electorate - so much for democracy - and if indeed it IS "Nationally Significant," what then was DIRFT, less than 20 miles away, which has plenty of future capacity? * It would inevitably worsen the congestion on our already-congested roads, and J.15 on the M1 can barely cope with the current M1, M45 and A508 traffic, let alone in 10 or 20 years. * The Natural World, which we humans are already busily decimating, cannot afford to lose over 500 acres of current farmland and wildlife habitats - and we may really need that farmland after Brexit... "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Baker
"I am deeply troubled to the fact that this development will add another 16,500 vehicle movements a day to the local area where this development is planned. The present road infrastructure is not adequate for the local traffic, so how on earth will the local roads cope. I suspect that this development is being planned by people who are not locals and there fore it is not in their back yard!! If it was then I'm sure they wouldn't support it. This development must not be approved, if it is it will be the death of the village of Roade!!!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mike Wheeler
"I object to the proposed rail freight interchange as the road infrastructure is already under pressure from the volume of traffic passing through. The surrounding area becomes gridlocked regularly due to incidents or roadworks on the M1 and further heavy traffic from the rail freight interchange is only going to exacerbate this problem. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Neil Mcconchie
"I, along with my family, having lived on High Street Collingtree for 21 years before moving to Milton Malsor. I strongly believe the proposed development will be a massive blight to both beautiful Northamptonshire villages I very strongly object to the proposals for many, all fundamental reasons - 1 - the proposal is contrary to the WNJCS, adopted in 2014, outlining planning policy until 2029. There is little point in having a predeclared planning policy if it is to be ignored.. 2.- there is simply no need - the proposed site is too close to DIRFT which already has significant remaining space for new Logistics expansion. Having sites so close to each other will merely increase vehicle movements back and forth between the two sites. 3 - if a real need is indeed required, there are numerous alternative site already allocated under the WNJCS without destroying village life established over centuries. 4 - increased traffic flows, including LGVs, especially when there is congestion on the M1. Employees on any new development will need to travel, usually by car to get to work. The area has low unemployment and new employees will need to travel. I am aware that my objection is word limited so my strong objection will end with a plea to retain the footpaths, nature and mature trees. My family have dog walked along the footpaths since the children were toddlers - my daughter cried when she heard of these financially driven plans - if approved, you can never go back. I strongly, strongly object to these proposals and trust the plans committed to in 2014 are upheld"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicolette sharman
"Northampton gateway would be 18 miles from an existing larger facility Dramatically increase pollution in the area. The site is open 24/7 so pollution will increase 24/7 Threat of further development. Once it crosses the boundary it will encourage more development Labour will need to come from outside Northamptonshire as we do not have the volume of workers to accommodate Could result in reduction in passenger service to Northampton Road capacity will be affected and the surrounded villages Hugh loss of farm land and wildlife in our area Crime increase drift has seen a 176% increase in crime since 2001 This infrastructure is not necessary for this rural area when there is a freight depot 5 minutes down the road with room for expansion so I oppose this proposal. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Pauline Green
"I strongly object to this project it will cause an increase in traffic we have major problems on local road now and this is worst when there is a problem on the M1 ( most once a week ).More traffic brings more noise, and air pollution more stress trying to get backwards and forwards to our house , lorry and van drivers who are just in a hurry to get to their deliveries on time . The lost of the beautiful countryside that will affect the wildlife and the people who live around the area . Northamptonshire appear to be the place where people seem to think they can build what ever they wish with little or no consideration of the people who live and work in the area as long a profit is to be found what do they care !! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robin Bernard Flight
"The proposed development will cause unnecessary noise, congestion and pollution in an area next the the already polluting M1 Motorway next to my village. With the underused Drift facility nearby, I fail to see the necessity to have another rail/road hub in the area."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Rugby Rail Users Group (Rugby Rail Users Group)
"Rugby Rail Users Group (RRUG) is concerned that the proposed development will reduce capacity for passenger train services, and will be detrimental to both future and existing passenger train services. We therefore object to this development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sean Kukula
"I strongly object to this project for the following reasons: The destruction of a huge area of farmland that is set to be replaced by a concrete jungle of unattractive buildings not to mention the loss of wildlife habitat. The traffic disruption caused by the construction of the project on a road infrastructure that already struggles to cope with traffic volume & the issues caused but the updating of the local road infrastructure. A journey south from Northampton will be a nightmare with alterations to the M1 junction & the other viable route via Milton Malsor & Blisworth The ongoing traffic issues for the surrounding area once the project is complete and the noise & pollution caused by this. Where will all the employees for these factories come from? there is not sufficient labour availability in the immediate locale therefore even more traffic movements will occur with the to & fro of employees. I can't beleive that another large freight interchange is actually required when there is already a huge interchange less than 20 miles away."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sharon Connell
"I strongly object to this development as it would have a significantly detrimental impact on my life and the community in which I live. My strong objections are based on the following points: 1. There is no strategic need due to DIRFT, which has capacity until 2030 and is only 18 miles away. 2. Noise, air and light pollution as the site would be operation 24/7. 3. 16,500 addition vehicle movements in our already overcrowded routes would cause chaos, we have already had more than 15 occasions when the M1 has been closed in the past year 2017-2018 4. We don't have the available labour required to serve this development, thus further increase in road travel. 5. The development would destroy 520 acres of farmland and wildlife habitats and corridors. 6. Increase in crime, the areas around DIRFT have seen a 176% increase since 2000/01. 7. Loss of passenger rail services and the lack of rail capacity to support the development. NCC Highways Authority have stated '... increasing freight services over the loop might require a reduction in the passenger service to Northampton.' Thus seeing an even greater increase in road traffic due to lack of rail or bus services. The West Coast Mainline is the busiest railway in Europe, without this development. 8. No requirement for those using the development to use the rail services, thus turning this into a warehousing development with increased road transport, NOT a strategic rail freight interchange. 9. There are plans for a cross rail connection between Oxford and Cambridge, there is already a warehouse development at J12-J13 of M1 that would meet this cross rail and would make more sense allowing freight to get from East Coast across country before hitting the roads. 10. Threat of further development. The M1 currently provides a boundary for development, a strategic gap identified in the South Northamptonshire Local Plan. Once development crosses the boundary more will inevitably follow. 11. Conflict with Planning Policy. The agreed Strategic Plan for the region, specifically excludes industrial development at this location. A previous application by Roxhill for a 2.67m sq ft Distribution Centre was withdrawn after widespread opposition. "
Parish Councils
Stoke bruerne Parish Council (Stoke bruerne Parish Council)
"Stoke Bruerne Parish Council wishes to strongly object to this proposal. Stoke Bruerne is a conservation area, an idyllic rural settlement of many traditionally built stone and thatched properties with the Grand Union Canal passing through its centre. The Village currently has a temporary 7.5T weight limit in place due to significant road closures around us to prevent thundering HGV's decimating our pretty, tranquil tourist destination. The proposed Northampton Gateway will do nothing to improve Stoke Bruerne for our residents and tourists and much to damage the Village in terms of traffic, pollution and loss of historic character. Stoke Bruerne Parish Council would like to strongly object to this application. We are a small rural community already being blighted by the sheer volume of traffic using our narrow and twisting rural road network. This issue is being compounded by major pressure on other parts of the local network resulting in more and more vehicles including large numbers of HGV’s using rural South Northamptonshire Villages as “rat runs” to avoid congestion on the A508, A5, A43 & M1. Any issue however small on any of these trunk roads results in gridlock for our residents and high levels of noise and pollution. As this pressure is already forecast to grow the last thing this area needs is Northampton Gateway which would add over 16,500 vehicles trip a day with over 4,000 being diesel HGV’s. As you can see from the picture of our road bridge Stoke Bruerne is not meant to accommodate large volumes of traffic. Northamptonshire is already blighted with oversized speculative warehousing much with unused capacity and we understand the DIRFT only 18 miles away also has unused capacity. We genuinely do not believe there is a need for this project and would question how much traffic the rail interchange would take off the road when compared to how much this proposal will add to the road congestion? We would also bring your attention to the fact that local labour is in short supply and these proposals confirm that labour will need to be brought in from further afield thus increasing traffic and pollution further. Areas around us are already at the top end of pollution acceptable levels and local authorities are being pressed to reduce these levels – this proposal will just compound local pollution issues and push levels up. Light pollution is also becoming more of an issue for our residents with "glow" coming from all directions. The proposed development site is 520 acres of in-production farmland and home to many wildlife habitats we urge you not to destroy this area which currently gives some green breathing space between rural communities and the high pollution levels of the M1 & A45 etc. Finally we draw your attention to Local Planning policies which clearly use the M1 as a boundary to development and this land forms part of a strategic "gap". We believe that by including a rail link Roxhill is trying to build a predominately speculative warehousing operation by bypassing local democracy and planning policies which would if decided locally see the application turned down out of hand. If this proposal does get the go ahead then we urge you to protect Stoke Bruerne and its neighbouring rural settlements. As a minimum we insist upon a permanent 7.5T weight limit and traffic management plans in place for all vehicles using the Roxhill site to avoid Stoke Bruerne. We have a primary school in the centre of the Village which sits virtually on the road - daily we see HGV's having to mount the kerb just to pass each other. Our children and families deserve better than this. Once historic settlements are damaged beyond recognition they cannot be returned to what they once were please do not allow a speculative warehousing scheme destroy Stoke Bruerne. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tim Knights
"DIRFT (Daventry) already serves this area, and is expanding. It is connected to the same motorway and rail routes as the Roxhill proposal. The West Coast Main Line is already full. Additional trains from the proposed site would mean existing freight and passenger services would suffer detrimentally. It is a needless intrusion into open countryside and farmland. The trunk roads in the area, A45, A5, A43, M1 are already congested too often with existing level of traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Victoria Amies
"- No strategic need due to the nearby location of DIRFT (an existing, larger facility only 18 miles away). Policy calls for a small number of SRFIs across the region close to the markets they serve there is therefore no requirement for an additional facility within 20 miles. - The agreed Strategic Plan for the area explicitly excludes industrial development at this location. A previous application for this site by developers for a Distribution Centre was recently withdrawn after justifiable opposition. I posit that this scheme might therefore be an attempt by the developers to simply circumvent local planning policy. - Threat of further development: The M1 Motorway currently serves as a boundary for the development of Northampton town into the surrounding rural areas as identified in the SNC Local Plan. This development will negate and contravene this. - Northants does not have available labour to serve this development leading to an increase in pollution and congestion from labour travelling into the area. - Road Capacity: the resultant 16,500 additional vehicle movements would place unendurable, unmanageable pressure on the already heavily, dangerously congested local road systems. - Loss of wildlife & farmland: the proposal would result in the utter decimation of 520 acres of farmland and wildlife habitats, not to mention it's detrimental impact on the local historical residential settlements. - Resultant noise, light & air pollution affecting nearby long established (centuries old) residential settlements along with nature habitats and areas of natural beauty."
Local Authorities
jasbir Kaur on behalf of Warwickshire County Council
"Dear Sirs, Northampton Gateway The proposed development comprises: • An intermodal freight terminal including container storage and HGV parking, with new rail sidings within the site to serve individual warehouses; • Capability to provide a ‘rapid rail freight’ facility as part of the intermodal freight terminal; • Up to 468,000 sq m (approximately 5 million sq ft) (gross internal area) of warehousing and ancillary buildings, with up to 155,000 sq m of additional floorspace provided in the form of mezzanine floorspace; • A new road infrastructure and works to the existing road network, including provision of a new access and associated works to the A508, a new bypass to the village of Roade, and substantial improvements to Junction 15 of the M1. I refer to the above non-statutory stage of consultation of a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) proposed by Roxhill. The site is in a strategically significant location for logistics and distribution activity. Located at the heart of the ‘golden triangle’ for logistics there is considerable market demand and interest in national distribution activity. The site has immediate access to the M1 motorway and a direct rail connection and these connections also link to the Warwickshire highway network and West Coast Main Line rail links. The site is proposed to fulfil the Government’s policy which seeks to encourage a ‘network’ of SRFI. Rugby Parkway Rail Station We would like you inform you that Warwickshire County Council is promoting a new station at Rugby on the Northampton Loop of the West Coast Main Line (WCML), known as 'Rugby Parkway' serving the 14,750 new population within the Rugby Sustainable Urban Extension known as Houlton. The relationship of this scheme to potential rail freight growth is that the new station is likely to require some amendments to existing passenger train services within the Northampton Loop. Work done by the Council has hitherto indicated that calls at the station could be accommodated without significant impact upon passenger or freight services. However the new franchise operator, London Northwestern Railway, has proposed changes to the structure of the passenger service on the Northampton Loop, potentially to commence in late 2018 or mid-2019. These may affect aspirations for enhanced passenger facilities, such as Rugby Parkway, or additional freight paths such as may be required by the Northampton Gateway. Network Rail is understood to be assessing line speed and headway (the minimum time required between successive trains) enhancements to the Northampton Loop, together with re-modelling of Northampton Station, to offer greater future capacity for passenger and freight services, but with none of these being committed schemes at the time of writing. Warwickshire County Council is aware that along with Northampton Gateway there are other aspirational freight schemes which may affect the Northampton Loop, but that, again, none of these currently have committed rail services or supporting infrastructure schemes. Given the strategic importance of Rugby Parkway to passenger access to the National Rail network for south Warwickshire, and its active stage of development by Warwickshire County Council within rail industry processes, the County Council will work with the Department for Transport, Network Rail and passenger and freight operators to seek to ensure that Rugby Parkway will not preclude any strategic development of freight services on the WCML and, conversely, that freight proposals such as Northampton Gateway will not negatively impact the Rugby Parkway Scheme in terms of paths along the route. In application of the principles set out in the preceding paragraph the County Council is about to commence a revised assessment of the impact of London Northwestern Railway’s proposed timetable changes on the Northampton Loop, in discussion with both Network Rail and passenger and freight operators. The outputs of this and any other Network Rail work noted above should necessarily form a material consideration in the feasibility of enhancements such as Northampton Gateway. Should you require any further information to assist please contact me. Yours sincerely, Jasbir Kaur Strategic Planning and Development Manager "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Winterfields Property Ltd (Winterfields Property Ltd) on behalf of Winterfields Property Limited
"The Company are very concerned regarding the health of their tenants due to the extra pollution that the proposed development will make. This in addition to the already high levels of pollution emitted by the M1 Motorway. In addition, the extra congestion from potential traffic both in the building stage and once the development is in operation will result in extra journey time and costs for our tenants."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Featherstone
"I strongly object to this application as we need to protect the countryside."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anne Rackham
"I am against the proposals for rail freight stations in South Northamptonshire as we do not have the road infrastructure to handle the increase in traffic and proposed new roads go little way to manage this. The proposed by pass will ruin our countryside. There is a station near Daventry and this is not fully utilised any future development should be in line with this station and only consider growth at this site when at full capacity. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bev Smith
"I believe the impact of this vast area of highly visible buildings, operating 24 hours a day, with vehicles, cranes and trains generating unacceptable levels of noise, light and damaging air pollution would be utterly devastating! It would destroy the environment, and deprive residents/visitors and holiday-makers of Blisworth's beautiful and historic conservation areas, and pleasure of enjoying the canal, landscape, wildlife and country walks in a natural, peaceful (and clean air) surroundings. There is no "strategic" need for this development. Government Policy calls for a small number of SRFI’s across the regions close to the markets they will serve. A larger, under-utilised facility already exists 18 miles away at DIRFT. The West Coast Mainline railway has also stated "increasing freight services over the Loop (line) might require a reduction in the passenger service to Northampton", this would impact badly on current commuter journeys, let alone new ones. Our local roads would simply not cope with the additional 16,500 extra vehicles predicted. The Department of Transport is already warning of severe congestion on the M1 J15-17 by 2040 (without this development). I am concerned this development would bring an increase in crime, as DIRFT has seen a 176% increase in crime since 2000/01. There would inevitably be a high risk of further developments following and absorbing surrounding villages. We are an area which does not suffer from unemployment, and already meets housing criteria. The area neither needs, nor could cope housing or infrastructure wise, with “up to 8000”jobs. This countryside is vital - for farmland crops and animals, wildlife habitat, exercise and leisure activities and holidays. The physical and mental health benefits of tranquil green spaces and clean air are well documented - once it's gone, we will never get it back! Kind regards, Bev Smith "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carol Coppock
"I strongly object to the plans submitted for Roxhill's Northampton Gateway on the following grounds: The proposed site is too near the existing SRFI at DIRFT The West Coast Mainline is already the busiest railway in Europe and will not necessarily be able to cope with increased freight services without compromising the passenger services The loss of 520 acres of farmland and of wildlife habitats and corridors. There will be a substantial increase in traffic on already overcrowded roads causing an increase in congestion, and noise, light and air pollution. Northampton does not have the labour force required to service a development of this size so this will againincrease traffic congestion and pollution There will be a significant threat of more development in surrounding villages if the development crosses the strategic gap identified in the South Northamptonshire Local Plan. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Catherine Gunn
"I strongly object to this proposal, which is not needed. The DIRFT is close by and is able to expand. This proposal would turn our quiet, beautiful villages into a massive industrial area, destructing wildlife habitat and adding pollution and unacceptable noise. I chose to live in Milton Malsor because of its peace and quiet. This proposal would actually ruin our home life. It seems as if no thought has gone into the traffic congestion either. There is nothing positive for local residents to take from this proposal. "
Parish Councils
No name provided on behalf of Courteenhall Parish Council (Courteenhall Parish Council )
"There is a fundamental flaw with this proposed development.7500 jobs in an area of zero unemployment. A rail interchange in an area of zero manufacturing, this will encourage imports at the expense of exports. At this time of Brexit, that's crazy This investment should be directed to a manufacturing area with high unemployment. That coupled with the fact it would be only 18 miles from a much larger rail interchange with spare capacity. This site has already had a proposed development a third the size turned down by a planning inspector as being" Inappropriate". [Redacted] Grange Park development, the other side of J15 on the M1 which was built a few years ago. In that instance he left a trail of lies, broken promises, and contracts with local parish's and individual's. In this case the glaring lie that is proposed is that all HGV. traffic will go on to the M1 and not along the A508. If this were true the entrance to the site would be directly on to J15. the reason it is where it is. is to give access to the land the other side of the A508. in the future. He wants the whole county to be on big warehouse. Given [Redacted] past performance I dought if the rail link will ever be operational. and I doubt that the bypass would be built, I am sure the fact of the road going through an SSSI. would stop that. In short the man can't be trusted to carry out any promises. This development is in the wrong place at this time. this Investment needs to go to an area which needs it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Darren Davis
"Traffic: With 4245 projected HGV movements per day and 9871 projected other vehicle movements per day, involving the A508 and particularly junction 15, which often struggles to flow at several times of day (often caused by holdups on the M1), the extra stress will not be compensated for by the ‘improvements’ to the J15 roundabout, as was initially found by council traffic modelling. This, however was disregarded by the developer’s model (see below). Redundancy: With DIRFT less than 20 miles away, and DIRFT approved to expand by nearly double the size of the Roxhill proposal, and an opposing application on the other side of the Northampton loop the redundancy of squeezing an extra intermodal freight into an inappropriate space demonstrates that the motivation for this project is solely for profit, not solving a problem, The majority of materials at the proposed dev elopement is more likely than not to both arrive by and depart by road. The area is potentially oversaturated with Intermodal freight depots as a way of ‘railroading’ massive distribution units into otherwise difficult to obtain consent areas. Staffing: With south Northamptonshire having an extremely low unemployment rate, the economic benefit of added low skill jobs will likely result in most of the labour force commuting in (as seen at Grange Park) and is unlikely to benefit the local economy beyond business rates; however the development will impinge and place a burden on local finances (road damage from H.G.V.s etc.) Pollution: Placing an extra source of pollution (e.g. idling vehicles, HGV refrigeration units, queuing traffic) in an area that already suffers from an excessively high pollution level (although this may result in an overall decrease in pollution per unit of freight if the intermodal concept actually functions, it will concentrate a large amount near local residents). Erosion of town boundary / obliteration of countryside: The M1 has conceptually delineated the southern edge of Northampton for many years, this will effectively disregard this convention and open up respected areas of countryside to speculative applications for development under the guise of “strategic importance”. A number of long standing footpaths that lead directly across the suggested site will be rerouted around the site, losing the view and hence most of the amenity value to nearby residents. Lack of information / answers: During the consultation stage, Roxhill’s representatives present were unable /unwilling / unprepared to answer questions, despite being the representative for the particular aspect being enquired about. Attempted scrutiny of the differences between the initial (council provided and showing the “improvements” to be insufficient) and final (Roxhill specific and showing the “improvements” to work) traffic models was explained as ‘we just tweaked some of the numbers’ the follow up question of ‘how?’ was replied to with ‘I don’t know’. A Question of how will Roxhill traffic not block up the A508/A5 roundabout at Old Stratford, was met with a ‘they’ll only be allowed to turn left at the roundabout out of the site’. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David John Coppock
"I write as a resident of a village not far away from the proposed Northampton Gateway development. I MOST STRONGLY OBJECT to the proposals on the following grounds: The site of the development is only 18 miles from the existing Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal which is currently operating well below its capacity. The West Coast main Line is the busiest rail line in Europe. Surely an increase in freight traffic will result in a reduction in passenger services to Northampton forcing more commuters to use their cars leading to greater congestion on the nearby M!. The proposed development site sits on prime agricultural land, much of it in flood plain. Replacing valuable food producing land and associated wildlife habitats, with warehouses and parking for hundreds of HGVs indicates a worrying disregard for the future food requirements of our growing country. I understand that the proposed development will lead to over 16,000 additional vehicles using our already overcrowded road system. The Department of Transport's own research predicts severe congestion between M1 Junctions 15 and 17 by 2040 even if things stay as they are. Please do not take this objection as an example of NIMBYism. If I felt that this development was of strategic National importance then I would have no objection. But it isn't. the Roxhill plan appears to show no proper rail connectivity and most of the warehousing seems to be served by road only. This is just what we don't need. This part of Northamptonshire already has plenty of road-served warehouse space, much of it underused, without adding to it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Pennington
"I would.like to object to this application due to the negative impact this will have on traffic through Roade and J15 of the M1. I am concern3d that in an area with such low unemployment we are creating a site that will require people to travel to the area. We do not have a local train station ao every one traveling will need to come by road. The impact in the environment through pollution. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Geraldine Morris
"I live on the Stoke Road in Blisworth which over the years has become a rat run for traffic, especially during peak times. Surveys show a massive increase in cars per minute to at least one per 6 seconds 2 years ago and it has risen since. This has increased the air and noise pollution for everyone living in the area. Furthermore as soon as the M1, A43, A5 or A508 close or are blocked, for any reason, the through traffic increases dramatically. Satnavs direct drivers to take the country roads. At times we have abusive, frustrated drivers who often speed in order to catch up lost time. These are country narrow roads which were not built to take this level of use. The proposals for this project would inevitably mean a rise in traffic, with the resulting increase in noise and emissions pollution and the inevitable health hazards. Also Northamptonshire does not have the labour to fill the posts to serve this project, so the employees will have to travel outside areas to work at the beginning and ends of their shifts. From meetings I have attended there seems to be no strategic plan from the government for the whole of the UK as far as freight transport is concerned. Northampton Gateway would be only 18 miles from an existing facility so the question of need in this area is pertinent. I do not understand where the need is of this level of supply that cannot be facilitated by DIRFT. Rail capacity is also in question so how much will the rail interchange actually be used? I am also very concerned about the loss of wildlife habitat and farmland affecting the ecosystems in the area. The local areas used for warehousing already have caused the total destruction of swathes of farmland and natural wild habitats. I am very concerned about the lack of forward thinking on the affects of this destruction on, not only ecosystems, but on all of us whose landscape is forever changed. It is well documented that there has been a dramatic increase in crime around DIRFT since it was built. This development will provide a corridor of crime down the M1 and a loss of security for my family and all that live in the area. I strongly object to this development. Blisworth is a country village with a wonderful community which will be eroded, for all the reasons above, if development of this kind is allowed to go forward and from the meetings I have attended, there is not the strategic need for it. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gillian S March
"Our village is already overflowing with traffic. As a through route from MK to junction 15 M1/Northampton the A508 is exceptionally busy. Apart from the noise pollution the countryside that would be destroyed can NEVER be replaced. The whole project is surely detrimental to several villages, not just to Roade. It can sometimes take up to 25 minutes to travel from our house in Northampton Road to junction 15 of the M1, a distance of 2 miles that should take no more than a couple of minutes. This would inevitably become even worse should this project go ahead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Goffrey Middleton
"I wish to register my complete objection to this proposed development. The area is already well served by the RFI at Dirft and more capacity for this function could easily be absorbed there rather than creating another facility. The location of this facility would create overloads on the existing Junc15 of the M1 which already has bottlenecks and dangerous tailbacks onto the Motorway during most days. There would also be an increase in noise and polution from the high volumes of trucks that would be visiting the site and noise pollution (even in our village at Ashton) from the increased Rail Freight."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hilary Crane
"Environmental damage: Increased road traffic and building will seriously damage the air quality in an area already suffering from poor air quality. It will take more than a few trees to deflect the problem. Once such a large area of the countryside has been absorbed Northampton will lose more than a few fields, it will lose the green barrier that protects wildlife AND people, that enables the area to 'breathe' and not become overdeveloped. Traffic: There have been constant problems with traffic this summer without any additional vehicles on the roads. There will be many more heavy lorries plus commuter traffic in an area which suffers over use, endless delays, accidents and closures. Need:There seems little real evidence that this is something which is essential although it would appear that financial benefits for the developers will be certain. Other similar developments seem to be under-utilised."
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Wood
"I will be objecting to this proposal, on the following grounds: There is no strategic need for this development, due to the proximity of DIRFT. The local road network will be heavily impacted by this development. The loss of farmland and countryside will be incalculable for future generations. The impact of noise, light and air pollution on the local area. The development is purely speculative. There is not a large enough local labour pool for the development, meaning that any workers would have to travel further to reach the site, negating any supposed carbon offsetting."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jamie Cooke
"I wish to object to the planning of the rail freight terminal. I live in Roade and have done for 3 years. The roundabout at junction 15 already queues for long periods as it is and so to add over 20,000 extra vehicles into the equation would cause chaos. With all the extra road modifications required we would be in a permanent state of roadworks for many years, which will have a knock on effect to Northampton traffic as well as Milton Keynes traffic. Roade would suddenly not be as an attractive place to live and would suffer for it, not to mention the extra pollution from larger vehicles passing through the village. There must be other areas of the country that could house a rail terminal that wouldn't be affected half as much as Roade would "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jayne Watson-Jones
"A strong objection to the Roxhill Northampton Gateway Traffic noise and pollution If the A508 is busy, or even when it isn’t commuters and business traffic including very noisy and large HGVs will pass through the village as a short cut, more often than not at speeds way over the designated limit, often shaking the car. This causes a safety hazard for our baby and toddler, whom have to wait to get in and out of the car once traffic has passed. If there were an incident, speeding and large vehicles would be unable to break in time. The speeds and noise from this also scares our baby and makes them cry, or wakes them up if asleep. Not really what you should expect living in a village. Whilst trying to enjoy the garden the noise of traffic on the A508 and Northampton Road can be heard. This will only increase with the volume of traffic. We keep hedges and trees growing high to block the noise from the road with bird song and growth as a natural sound barrier. Ruining the view from the garden of the surrounding countryside that we could once see, but now blocked by the high hedgerow to block out the unwanted sound. A site running 24/7 will create more light and noise pollution, and impact on the family health and garden. If the already proposed warehousing were to spread alongside the A508, it would eventually connect Roade to J15 of the M1. Resulting in not only our own back garden, but many others backing onto this project or similar. Not what you would want your family to see, hear or breath on a daily basis. Living on Northampton Road for 7 years, even in this time, there has been an increase in noise. My family already struggle to get to sleep in the warmer seasons, with windows open in the evening and overnight, it’s really hard to get to sleep when general traffic and the sound of large vehicles pass down Northampton Road. Forced to sleep downstairs in the back rooms when the windows need to be open, for a restful sleep. Commuting – A508 Commuting along the A508 is already very bad. Commuting from Northampton Road to Milton Keynes on a daily basis can take 50 minutes to over an hour, to travel 16 miles due to the jams and high volume of traffic passing from or through J15 towards the A5. Speeds can be as low as 5mph from Yardley Gobion to the A5. This problem increases when there are problems on the M1. Travelling along the A508 towards J15 cause tailbacks into and through Roade all the way to J15 and into Northampton. Again with speeds as low as 5mph. With thousands of HGVs and over 6000 employees and there vehicles daily in and out for the proposed Roxhill Gateway, this will increase the volume of vehicles significantly adding to the already severely congested (125% of capacity) local roads. The A45 at J15 is already near or at the air quality management area intervention level as is the A508 running through Roade along which many of the extra 17000 vehicle movements will inevitably pass. With these current traffic issues that would only increase; it is inevitable that more and more commuters, to the site would use Roade and surrounding villages as a thorough fair (regardless of new road infrastructure or bypass). Causing additional noise, pollution to residents and the countryside, and increase of traffic often at high speeds. Increasing freight services on the busiest rail line in Europe may require reduction in passenger rail services, causing further commuter congestion on rail or road. Purpose With Roxhill proposed site only 18 miles away from DIRFT 3, will the site actually be used for it’s declared purposes, or become a huge lorry park. Impact on Roade We moved to the village 7 years ago due to its fairly untouched and peaceful village and beautiful surrounding countryside. Since then we have already seen completion of the new housing estate, merge of the High School with Deanshanger, wind turbines in the countryside and at present the development of another very large new housing estate. The proposal would eradicate another 520 acres of farmland, threatening wildlife. Many locals utilise the public footpaths on a daily basis, and would lose the opportunity to maintain fitness levels. With 176% increase in crime in existing DIRFT areas, areas surrounding Roxhill Gateway will no doubt see a huge increase. With over 6000 new job opportunities and below national average unemployment in our region this will bring in people looking for jobs and local homes. DIRFT 3 needs 6000 extra homes to cater for resulting increase in demand. New developments in Roade are already underway to provide for existing housing needs within the village. The increase of population is already posing its own problems. With medical facilities and Pre-school having to change site to expand. New job opportunities will only increase the requirements for more housing on a village that is already expanding very quickly. How much longer will Roade village, look and feel like a ‘village’ for?!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kevin darby
"I object to noise pollution . I object to air pollution. I object to excess traffic through village I object to loss of farm land. Yet tonight pollution at night I object because the carpentry international rail freight terminal drift it's only a short distance away from this site serve the same local area and has capacity for expansion for over 10 years I have checked because the proposed no right tunes at the junction of core team all road on the a 508 or do you mean traffic diverted through the centre of bliss worth and pass the doctor's surgery where parking is already a problem I have checked because the proposed no right turns at the junction of core team all road on the a 508 or do you mean traffic diverted through the centre of bliss work and pass the doctor's surgery where parking is already a problem I object to light pollution from night time operations "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kirsten Ingram
"Dear Sir I strongly object to this proposal. I grew up in my parents home which is directly opposite the proposed location and they still reside there and have for over 30 years. I have already observed the impact of increased traffic and development, leading to a significant additional volume of cars, vans and small lorries as well as increased littering and general damage to the surrounding area. Milton Malsor was an idyllic, quiet village when we first relocated there as a family, however it has already over time got far busier and been adversely impacted by developmental changes. As regards the new proposal - this appears to be a speculative development on valuable, beautiful farmland which has been submitted despite the existing DRIFT site already having planning permission for additional logistics space and a rail terminal. Furthermore, this development would be contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) formally adopted in 2014. The most important concern I want to raise, however, is the emotional impact upon my parents. This proposal has already caused them considerable destress and they feel hugely unsettled. Both are elderly and feel traumatised by the potential noise and disruption from the building and development of the site if it were to go ahead, and that is before the potentially even more significant impact once operational. Please do all you can to ensure any further Rail Freight development is at the existing DRFIT site as outlined in the WNJCS document and not in the proposed location which is directly opposite to my parents home, and the place I spent my childhood. Yours Faithfully Kirsten Ingram"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laura Fearey
"I am very concerned about this proposed development. The scale of this development will mean that a huge swathe of countryside will be decimated. I appreciate that new infrastructure is always required but as there is a neighbouring proposal I query the need for both. The impact on the countryside will be catastrophic. My biggest concerns however is the increased traffic in the local area. I doubt the proposed road improvements will counteract the effects of the vast increase in traffic caused by people in cars trying to teach the site for employment and worse the increase in hgvs going to and from the site "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Francis
"I strongly object to the proposed Roxhill development. The noise created by a 24/7 operation of rail terminal will be both noisy and will be a huge amount of light pollution. The area has very low unemployment so workers will have to travel some distance to work. It will destroy hundreds of acres of local farmland, just when the country needs to be growing more crops rather than importing. The destruction of local footpaths and increased traffic through the village when there is congestion on the M1. There will be an increase in air pollution which will be detrimental to the wildlife that hasn’t already had there countryside destroyed. The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal is just a short distance away and serves the same area and has capacity for expansion for over 10 years. Why not save what little beautiful countryside we have!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martin Entwistle
"Dear sirs, I am against this proposal because I do not believe this is about meeting a public need, this is an opportunistic land developer trying to take advantage of a Government policy for their own financial gain The following are my main reasons I believe this should proposal be dismissed: 1) An SRFI is not required in this location. Northamptonshire is already served by DIRFT located in nearby Daventry. It would only therefore appeal to companies wishing to locate national distribution centres in the middle of the country and onward distribute by road. That is not therefore reducing road miles. The country may need SRFI’s but near the communities they serve, not next to each other 2) A very large number of local residents are affected by the proposal and the impact would be catastrophic, the proposed warehousing is vast and would bring numerous forms of pollution. 3) Additional employment in the form of warehousing is not required in this area, unemployment levels are very low 4) This land is not designated for development and the proposal does not have the support of the local council Kind regards Martin Entwistle "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Eric Warner
"I am very concerned that the loss of this land for the production of food is not a wise move. Thiis land haes been used for food production all of my 76 years and I donot understand why it is no longer required for this purpose. Once this becomes a large slab of concrete there is no going back to produce food following adverse wheather patterns curently being xperienced both here and on the continent. I am allso concerned by the expected large increase intraffic on local roads by, I understand the 4000 additional car jorneys daily by the people employed to opperate this complex. where are all these people going to travel from, we donnot have that many available in this area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr S Bunting
"I Object, strongly, to the Porposed Roxhill Rail Greight Interchange, Northampton Gateway. The destruction of hundreds of acres of countryside The bunding system proposed - just ugly mounds The loss of farmland - much needed for food production The destruction of wildlife habitat and the subsequent damage / loss of wildlife Loss of local footpaths - lifestyle and fitness is a local and national aim surely. Increased traffic - cars, vans, trucks. Increased cyclists with inadequate cycle routes to and from places of work Increased air pollution. Noise created by such a site - 24 hrs a day 365 days a year. Light pollution. Proximity of Daventry International Rail Frieght Terminal - which appears half used and is already expanding and has capacity for further development. Lack of evidence for such a need and lack of support - financially, employment wise and identified actual need. Surrounding villages road structures - low bridges, weight restrictions, back country lanes with no safe footpath. Increased traffic trhough villages unable to cope with the traffic. Increased traffic by already congested areas of high importance - primary schools, doctors surgery, nursery. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs L Bunting
"I strongly object to the Proposed Roxhill Rail Freight Interchange, Northampton Gateway Junction 15 M1 Motorway This proposal confuses me as it appears to contradict all previous discussions I have heard at Council Meetings. DIRFT - Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal exists - does not appear to be fully utilised, and is already undergoing expansion AND has approval for further development. This site has a high number of under utilised and empty depots. I drive there regularly. The noise generated by such a site would be detriment to all surrounding villages. The increase in traffic through Collingtree, Milton Malsor, Blisworth and surrounding villages would dangerous. Narrow footpaths, twisting roads, blind bends and village primary schools. HGV could be controlled but works traffic, cars, vans, cyclists etc could not. Speeding is already an issue through these villages. Loss of farmland, and local footpaths - along with the subsequent damage to nature. We need to produce more of our own food not import it. This sort of development is not suitable for this location but rail freight is more suitable for heavy industrial production - i.e. Steel works, produce product load straight onto rail. Nothing like that exists here. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Miss L Stinson on behalf of Mrs M Stinson
"This SRFI shouldn’t be in this location. SRFI’s should be located in areas poorly served by such facilities at present, such as the south east of England. The Midlands currently has DiRFT, Hams Hall, Birch Coppice and will have the East Midlands Gateway, there is no strategic need for further SRFI’s in the Northampton area. SRFI’s in areas poorly served by such facilities at present, are likely to attract substantial business generally new to rail. This site is not required as DIRFT has served this purpose. This new facility, should it be given permission will draw businesses from DIRFT, which still has capacity. sRFI’s Are not suitable to be near residential properties which are sensitive to the impact. They are large scale commercial operations which usually involve continuous working arrangements. They have an impact with large warehouses, structures and vehicle movements. The area around this proposed SRFI is small quiet, rural villages. People chose to live in a village because of the setting and this should not be spoilt by a large scale development. In the draft Development Consent Order at section 4 - Parameters of Deviation, in section b) and c) limits of deviation can alter upwArds and downwards by 1.5m for highway and railway works, this deviation should be limited to +/- 0.5m as in other DCO’s granted by the Secretary of State. 1.5m is too large a deviation when residents are trying to assess the impact on their setting. The DCO in section 4 also allows for “except that these maximum limits described in (a) to (c) do not apply to constrain the authorised development when it is demonstrated by the undertaker to the relevant planning authority’s satisfaction and the relevant planning authority certifies accordingly that a deviation in excess of these limits would not give rise to any materially new or materially worse environmental effects in comparison with those assessed in the environmental statement.”. Who assesses the impact of any changes, how is it assessed and how can the local residents assess the impacts of this development if they can be changed afterwards? Schedule 1 part 1 of the DCO refers to a tunnel under the screening bund to be provided as part of Works No.6, is this tunnel able to have environmental screening on it? Further works are referred to in the DCO at 1 (g) it says such other works as may be necessary, this work should be set out in the Environmental Statement and the impacts assessed. Roade Bypass is not required to be built until 2 years of occupation of first warehouse or 4 years after completion of Works No.8, where does all the traffic from the development go during this period of operation and Roade Bypass being built? Detailed design of the site have to be submitted and approved by the relevant planning authority. The detail should be agreed during examination. The Construction Environment Management Plan should be for the whole development and not for phases, so that the whole development can be assessed for construction effects. Flood risk should include Environment Agency’s sign off to ensure this is not an issue. In the past there have bee. Issues from the Collingtree Road under the railway bridge, we need to be assured this will not re-occur. Construction hours vary in the draft DCO to Chapter 8 of the Environmental Statement. The hours are too long on a Saturday and restrictions should be put on these. What are emergency works that can be carried out outside the hours, does that mean that works could be classed out all night? Noise during construction and operation will affect all residents. I see from the Environmental Statement Chapter 8 at 8.3.57 that the effect of goods trains slowing down to enter the site and accelerating to leave the site has not been assessed. As a resident Close to the railway line this noise will seriously affect the enjoyment of my property. There is no environmental protection from the loop line at Milton but residents in Church Close, Collingtree Road, and Stockwell Way will all suffer from the effects of the train noise from the loop line. This affects my human right to enjoyment of my property. The NationalPolicy Statement for National Networks states at 5.195 that developments should avoid significant impacts on health and quality of life and contribute to improvements. This does not seem to be the case for residents in Milton near the loop line or the playing field adjacent to the loop line. The area this development has submitted this application for us not in the Local Plan for development. This application is not required strategically and should not be given planning. The environmental bundling provided in the development do not prevent the view of the warehouses. This area is currently open farmland and provides the rural setting for all who enjoy village life. Any view of the infrastructure should be mitigated fully. The loss of the habitat for wildlife is not mitigated. Chapter 5 of the Environmental Statement refers to increased mortality of badgers. As a protected species that will be disturbed by this development, suitable replacement sets and badger crossings under roads should be provided in suitable locations, which should be agreed with Natural England and local wildlife conservation groups Water voles should not be subject to displacement, they are rare and should be provided suitable replacement habitat. The historic footpaths are to be stopped up as part of this development and long diversions put in place to replace them. This makes it further for local residents to walk and the view from the footpath will be the development rather than countryside. Air quality in the area will worsen due to the traffic generated by the development both during construction and operation. This affect will be far reaching in the villages and the wider Northampton area including the Air Quality Management Area along the M1. Traffic impacts on already congested roads wil be an effect of this development. The M1 J15 and J15a already suffer from congestion at peak times as does the A45 near Brackmills, this will worsen. Accidents will increase with the increased traffic. I see that information on accidents has been obtained from Northants Council. This will only have accidents they are informed of. Reliability of the figures should be challenged. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Marian Barber
"Damage to the environment, pollution, road congestion and the complete destruction of Our way of village life. We would be annexed to Northampton and the door opened for more and more development. The M1 is the demarcation line, it was promised always to be so, now it seems those promises are empty words. We are fully employed in this County so workers would have to be bussed in and inevitably crime would increase. It is outrageous and I strongly object. There are empty warehouses at Luton, we do not need more. The damage to people's lives is incalculable"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs R V L Blyth
" I strongly object to Roxhill (Junction 15) Limited’s proposed Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange (RFI) including a vast warehouse park etc as listed in the Development Proposal description. My main reasons are: 1) There is not a justifiable national need for another RFI so close to DIRFT (which is expanding although underused). However the damaging effects of the proposed development would be nationally significant. 2) The M1 and local road networks do not have capacity for the increase in traffic the development would cause. Holdups on the M1 are frequent and diversions cause havoc on already congested local roads. Increased traffic problems would affect all road users as well as damaging the quality of life of local people. 3) Police and emergency services would be impeded by the increase in traffic. Further overloading such a busy section of the M1 would be a serious risk to road users. 4) The development would cause a significant increase in commuting. The site is in an area of high employment where there are always vacancies for warehouse staff. Some warehouse employees travel as far as 50 miles to work. 5) Air pollution is already at unacceptable levels in the area. Apparently the Government is now ‘working towards’ World Health Organisation guidelines, which are much tougher than the EU limit levels which are already being exceeded. The development would increase air pollution 24/7 both for people living in the area and those travelling through (particularly if caught in traffic jams). This is a major health issue. 6) Noise, vibration and light pollution would significantly reduce local people’s quality of life and could also damage their health. 7) Rail capacity is questionable and passenger services could be reduced. NCC Highways Authority have stated ‘... increasing freight services over the Loop (line) might require a reduction in the passenger service to Northampton’. 8) Warehouse tenants would not be obliged to use rail rather than road - making a modal shift unlikely but enabling the applicant to evade local planning policies. 9) Destruction of farmland and wildlife habitats and corridors. Mitigation cannot compensate for the conversion of an important green space into a vast, noisy and noxious industrial site. 10) Threat of urban sprawl and coalescence of villages. Development next to Northampton’s south-west M1 boundary would not normally be permitted and would set a precedent for urban sprawl. Villages could effectively become Northampton suburbs with pressure on services and loss of identity. 11) Woodleys Farmhouse Day Nursery, a Grade II listed building very close to the proposed Roade Bypass, is not mentioned under Cultural Heritage. Access onto an accident-ridden section of the A508 is already dangerous and increased traffic would add to the risk of further accidents. 12) The disbenefits are such that the proposed development is considered too high a price to pay for a long-desired Roade Bypass. Also work on the Bypass would not begin until the site had 30% occupancy, so there would be years of major traffic mayhem in the village. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Myra Inglis
"I STRONGLY OBJECT: 1. Just down the road from DIRFT which still has EMPTY units. 2. 24 hrs working 3. POLUTION: night time artificial lighting for 24hrs working and air polution from extra Traffic and 24 hrs noise pollution . This will affecti people’s health. Northampton General Hosptal alstruggling finding beds and coping with extra patients. 4.Causing HUGE TRAFFIC JAMS ON A508 AND J15 M1 especially with M1 upgrade and HS2 construction. 5.GREAT LOSS of valuable agricultural land. 6. If BREXIT goes ahead Britain will be in a worse state and industrial units will be left Empty and become a scar on the landscape. DEVELOPERS ARE WRECKERS. THEY WRECK THE LANDSCAPE, PEOPLES DREAMS AND VILLAGES."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nadja Kujanen
"I am against the Roxhill Northampton Gateway. Your plan going ahead would have major negative impacts on the surrounding villages and especially on the wildlife. There would be less fields to grow a crop which would impact the food needed to be imported from other countries. We need more wildlife and we need local, seasonal food. The traffic would be worse than it already is and that would rise the pollution levels even higher. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philip FitzMorris
"I strongly object to this planning application on the grounds that:- 1. It is the destruction of the countryside 2. The A508 already cannot cope with daily traffic volumes, any issues on either the A5 and/or the M1 and the entire area is gridlocked 3. Increased noise and pollution in the local area 4. Increased hazard due to increased HGV traffic on a small country road. We have a 5 year old child and dogs. Increasing the traffic is going to make it even more hazardous to cross the road to get to the village."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Oldcorn
"I strongly object to, and want to register my objection to the Northampton gateway rail freight interchange proposal for Roxhill and Ashfield Land on the following grounds: It would destroy hundreds of acres of countryside that includes wildlife habitat, farmland and the local footpath network, creating a blot on the landscape. These developments are unnecessary this close to the existing Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) which is a relatively short distance away and has capacity to expand over the next 10 years. Developments of this nature, in these proposed locations would bring air, noise and light pollution 24 hours a day, 7 days a week thus ruining the quality of life for the inhabitants of the surrounding villages that would find themselves on the edge of heavily industrialized zones and the increase of crime they would bring proven by what has already happened following the DIRFT development. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rosemary Mccarthy
"I object to noise pollution . I object to air pollution. I object to excess traffic through village I object to loss of farm land. Yet tonight pollution at night I object because the carpentry international rail freight terminal drift it's only a short distance away from this site serve the same local area and has capacity for expansion for over 10 years I have checked because the proposed no right tunes at the junction of core team all road on the a 508 or do you mean traffic diverted through the centre of bliss worth and pass the doctor's surgery where parking is already a problem I have checked because the proposed no right turns at the junction of core team all road on the a 508 or do you mean traffic diverted through the centre of bliss work and pass the doctor's surgery where parking is already a problem I object to light pollution from night time operations "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ruth Hazelgrove
"I have lived in Blisworth for over 20 years, moving from Northampton to escape the pollution, noise, traffic and crime levels to enjoy the peace and quiet of village life. It was a very wise decision for the growing family and I have remained here ever since. I have a dog and belong to the Ramblers' Association, making the most of what the wonderful countryside has to offer. Therefore I have several, personal objections to this potential development, only a few of which I will be able to cite now. I, like most, have a busy life. It is therefore so important to me, to be able to quickly and easily access fields and appreciate the wonderful surroundings of Blisworth village, including the views and wildlife. It really improves my quality of life and I am sure of everyone who lives here. I cannot believe that a development could be allowed that would ruin this precious landscape and environment, not just because of the actual sight of the warehouses and lorries, but due to the increase in noise, light and pollution that they would cause. It is also believed that over 500 acres of essential farmland would be lost, let alone the irrepairable loss to our wonderful wildlife. I have to travel regularly on the M1, just to the Rugby area. Yet even within that short distance, there is already DIRFT, which according to my information is not working nearly to capacity anyway. How therefore can it be considered necessary to build another similar development so close to that. In addition, according to statistics received, there has also been a very worrying rise in crime level around that area, increasing by well over 150%. I certainly do not wish that to happen where I live! Another issue with this development stems from the fact that I already regularly face major problems around Northampton's junctions because of the amount of traffic, whatever time of day and then have to deal with trying to actually access Blisworth village itself. How ever can an increase in lorries be supported by an already overstretched and unsuitable road network, let alone the increase in workers' traffic, as Northamptonshire does not have the available labour for such a massive development and workers will have to travel in to this area from many miles around? Obviously there are many, many more reasons why this is such an inappropriate planning application. As someone who specifically moved to Blisworth to enjoy the countryside and village life, not be engulfed by warehouses, lorry parks, an increase in crime, pollution, noise and even more severe transport issues, I am sure you will fully understand why I am objecting so strongly to it. In fact, it is hard indeed to contemplate that any one looking even objectively at this potential development could consider it at all suitable or in any way necessary for either the local community or the country as a whole."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sandra Joyce Summerfield
"I am strongly against this development for the following reasons:- There are regular constant traffic jams on the M1 around Junction 15 which cause congestion and disruption in both directions which in turn puts extra pressure on adjoining roadway systems. Plus the added noise, light and air pollution extra traffic and lorries will cause. The amount of flora and fauna which will be permanently lost due to lack of habitat (500 acres +) is abhorrent. Northampton is already a heavily congested area. There is already a rail freight interchange 18 miles away which is not being used at this moment in time. Make use of that first. There are many empty industrial units along this corridor and through Northampton which should be put to use before erecting more. Anyone with any conscience would not consider annihilating such a vast area of countryside when so much wildlife etc will be lost. Where is the wildlife meant to exist!! There is not enough housing to accommodate the workforce which will be involved - yet again creating a higher volume of traffic, pollution etc. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sheila Hoy
"I strongly object to this proposal due to the huge environmental impact it will have causing high levels of air,noise and light pollution spoiling the countryside and wildlife habitat. There will be traffic overload on already grid locked roads (M1, A45 & A508). There will be vehicles rat running on residential roads and villages. Definitely an increased number of HGV’s with more road freight and warehouse operations moving to be nearer the M1. With 6000 needed to work on site and such low unemployment in the local area most people will travel in by car causing even more congestion. This site is only 18 miles from DIRFT and this has expansion capacity for next 20 years so this interchange is not necessary. The M1 is a boundary for development and once building starts villages will continue to be swallowed up spoiling the rural life we have chosen. The railway line is busy already and increased freight will mean loss of passenger services."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart shrubb
"I strongly object to the planning application of Roxhill Northampton gateway for the following reason: Road capacity Currently the network around this area is very heavily congested with traffic and the infrastructure cannot cope with what we have already. Most days the main trunk roads (a508/a43 and a45) and the M1 are at standstill especially during rush hours. When unfortunately an accident does occur in that area it brings even further chaos to the struggling road network. To add an extra 16500 vehicles movements a day to that area would be unbearable and costly to the county (which is already at a stage of bankruptcy). The government is trying to reduce the number of vehicles on the road however this particular scheme will go against all government proposals and cause a greater problem for the county and a knock on effect to other counties due to the road links we currently have. If this is allowed to go ahead the government will bring the back bone of Britain (M1) to a standstill and cost greatly for the economy."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tracy Strange
"I am against this planned development due to noise and light pollution and also a huge increase in dust pollution and car /lorry emission pollution that I feel would be detrimental to health .No thought has be given to the devastation of the surrounding villages and our way of life there is plenty of land along the motorway that has no surrounding villages .There is already a development in daventry that only has 60% occupancy there for I feel that this development is not needed as there is little or no need for it ,I understand that they are planning to build another interchange in Leicester which would give them three along the m1 motorway ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Trevor Morley
"I don't feel any need for a further rail freight terminal as we have DIRFT only just up the road (about 15 miles). My understanding is that the rail system don't have any further capacity for freight trains on the West Coast Main Line. I have also always understood that it was the intention for the M1 to be the natural boundary between the development of the town and the villages that border its western side. There is no good reason that I can see that makes it necessary to build speculative warehousing on the western side of the town. We have very little unemployment in the area and I wonder where all the staff are going to have to commute from adding to the road congestion in the area.. It is anticipated that the building of the project would result in 16,500 additional vehicle movements on an already overstretched road network with the additional pollution of noise, light and air quality. My home village of Shutlanger would inevitably see a greater volume of road traffic and it is already a rat run between the A5 and the A508. The adjacent village of Stoke Bruerne (mentioned in the doomsday book) has a very narrow hump backed bridge in its centre and narrow approaches from both side and definitely could not accept any more traffic than already predicted and certainly not HGV's."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Valerie Koch
"I object to the Roxhill development. There is no need for this development as DIRFT is a large facility only 18 miles away! Noise and pollution from increased traffic flow would be detrimental to health and environment. Will cause loss of farmland and wild life. The development will create dangerous traffic problems through road and surrounding villages which will not be able to cope."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Wendy Harrison-Drake
"The reasons for my strong objection centre around the increased pressure with traffic on the M1, which is already overcrowded not matter what time of day you use it. It is now so bad with additional lorries, that it is practically only the outside lane which is available for cars, causing dangerous driving nose to tail, with barely a space between to move, with constant jams and accidents. This development will have a major impact on traffic increasing the load to unbearable levels and the roads just cannot cope. They can't cope now, so how will they be after the development. Other huge concerns are the threat of further development in the surrounding Northampton area. The reason I moved here was to get away from the overcrowding further south. I moved here so I could live closely to the lovely villages and beautiful countryside which sadly will be lost with future development, which will inevitably follow if the Northampton Gateway is allowed to continue. Not only does that impact again on the traffic, which is always a nightmare in Northamptonshire, but it will have a huge impact on the loss of the beautiful countryside and villages in the surrounding area. This inevitably will then affect the wildlife habitats which will also be lost and there will be huge levels of noise and air pollution which I just don't want to put up with. There are of course other concerns like the railway lines as I understand this could also be affected. I strongly believe the arguments against this development are far more important to those who live locally, than the actual reasons for the development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
William Spokes
" I wish to put forward my strong objections to the Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange (planning application by Roxhill) at junction 15 of the M1 motorway. This junction is one of the busiest junctions on the M1 and to add a further 16000 vehicle movements per day (Roxhill figures)would be a catastrophy waiting to happen.Even without this development a simple breakdown or an accident on the A45/A508 or M1 already creates massive tailbacks leading to traffic trying shortcuts on narrow roads through surrounding villages thus creating more problems and traffic jams. This development would also create Noise,Light and Air pollution as it is planed for 24/7 working in an area that already has high air pollution from the M1 and to lose 500 plus acres of farmland and wild life habitat to such a development is distasteful.This development seems to be unnecesary as 18 miles away is the existing DIRFT site. This development has not been designed to remove traffic off the roads and on to the railways as there is no requirement for any business/industry hiring the sheds to use the railways, that is if the railways had the capacity for such a development. I say NO,NO,NO to this development. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adrian Bottrill
"I strongly object because of :- The increase in traffic on already congested roads causing and raising air pollution Noise created by the rail terminal, particularly by the operation of an aggregates terminal, close to residential buildings Light and noise pollution from night time operations The lack of need for this infrastructure with DIRFT only a short distance away and a lack of capacity on an already over stretched rail network Loss of countryside and farmland "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Brittle
"Please find set out below my main objections against the proposed freight rail terminal and warehousing at junction 15 of the M1 1There is no need for another freight termiinal as there is already one at Crick 2 Junction 15 of M1 cannot take the extra traffic as there will still only be 3 lanes across the M1 3The proposed new roundabouts will delay journeys from Roade to the M1 and force traffic onto minor roads such as Knock Lane and Stoke Road due to the restrictions at the junction of 508 and the Courtenhall roade 4 As the 508 wil only be dual carridge way to first rounabout and main entrance to the prosposed site all traffic travelling from the A5 and to the A5 will have to use the single existing carridge way till they reach new proposed rounderabout and bypass and then on other side of Roade would contiue again on a single carriage way to the A5 5 I believe the freight terminal is just excuse to build warehousing and bypass normal planning procedurers and will cause noise pollution and delay to traffic using the 508 and all the minor roads in the area ALAN BRITTLE"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Whittaker
"Northamptonshire is fast becoming a concrete area full of sheds but because of their nature not providing jobs in relation to their size.especially with more robots coming in. By jumping the M1 this would open up the country in the surrounding area for easy planning permissions for more industrial development. The road infrastructure for this area is appalling now so what would it be like if this 500 acre site were developed,it only takes one glitch on the M1 and the main roads in a 20 mile radius become gridlocked with all its inherent pollution and frustration. Dirft at crick is only 18 miles away in open country,expand that and don't spoil our wonderful countryside for negative gain."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alison Wood
"I have concerns with this plan due to the reasons below: Environmental damage Effect on local traffic Volume of HGVs Noise pollution Loss of green belt land There is already capacity at local DRFT in crick Unused warehouse space that could be utilised in local area (eg brackmills)"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Amanda mantle
"I am against this development as it will bring more conjestion to the already overused roads around Wootton. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Bailey
"I strongly object to this proposal for the following reasons: - congestion to our already overcrowded roads - the additional planned roads will not alleviate this - increased air pollution from additional vehicles - increased noise pollution - the loss of precious countryside that will never be replaced All of these will affect us badly. We also have a daughter and young grandson living on Grange Park and I am horrified by the impact that this will have on them."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Irving
"I wish to add my objection to the proposed development. There is little evidence to suggest that the development will be other than injurious to those living, or passing through the affected areas, and the entire project appears to be motivated by pecuniary gain. Principal objections are: a. There is no necessity for the development. b. A large part of Northamptonshire's countryside will be lost forever. c. There will be a massive increase in traffic on already overcrowded roads, with a consequent increase in pollution. d. The cost in terms of the well-being of local residents will be insurmountable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrey Umerski
"I the undersigned strongly oppose the developments of the rail-freight interchanges by Roxhill and Ashfield for the following reasons. The complete destruction of the character of the historic villages of Blisworth and Milton Malsor. The serious detrimental inconvenience and reduction in quality of life that the developments will bring to the residents of these villages through the increased traffic, noise and light pollution, together with the resultant serious reduction in property values in the area. This will be particularly acute during the construction phase but will be an ongoing problem after development. The destruction of a very large area of countryside and the resultant serious environmental impact that will have. The grand union canal is a major part of the leisure industry in this area. It not only provides much needed leisure facilities and attractions for local people, but it also attracts increasing numbers of tourists using the canals, pubs, restaurants and local shops, thus generating considerable income for the local economy. The proposed developments will have a strong negative impact on the peace and tranquility of the canal thereby reducing its attractiveness to tourists and local people alike. The resultant very large increase in traffic to the M1, A43 and A508 and the knock-on effect to surrounding country roads. The M1 is already over maximum capacity in this area, which leads to almost daily accidents and traffic jams between J14 and J16. This results in traffic diverting along the A508 and also the A43 and A5 through Towcester. The increased traffic volume from the proposed developments will lead to more accidents and fatalities and considerable further congestion on surrounding country and arterial roads. Although the developers propose improving junctions 15 and 15A of the M1 this does not address the above concerns. Finally, we do not believe that the relatively minor increase in local employment in any way compensates for: the huge negative impact on the local economy through tourism and leisure; the reduction in property values; the negative effect on wildlife; the serious reduction in quality of life for local residents; the destruction of the character of historic villages; the increase in traffic, traffic accidents and the effect this will have on surrounding villages and Towcester. Andrey Umerski "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anglian Water Services Ltd (Anglian Water Services Ltd)
"Thank for you the opportunity to comment on the Northampton Gateway project. Anglian Water is considered to be a statutory consultee for nationally significant infrastructure projects as identified in the Planning Act 2008 and associated regulations. The following representations are submitted on behalf of Anglian Water as water and sewerage undertaker for the above site: • We have been in dialogue with the applicant prior to the submission of the application and have reached agreement regarding the wording of protective provisions specifically for the benefit of Anglian Water to be included in the Draft Development Consent Order (DCO). Anglian Water is supportive of Schedule 13, Part 5 of the Draft DCO as drafted. • A potable water supply including reinforcement of the existing network is required for the main site of the Northampton Gateway project. Anglian Water has received a water mains requisition application for the site following pre-application discussions with the applicant. • Similarly a connection to the public foul sewerage network is required for the proposal. The expectation is that an existing length of sewer will need to be upgraded to serve the site. Should you have any queries relating to this response please let me know. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ann Husbands
"We do not want or need the extra traffic portion and noise on this village it would completely ruin the beautiful landscape of this village I do not want to bring my grandchildren up in this village so they can look at freight trains The value of the house would also be impacted "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anna Murby
"Having lived in Milton Malsor until just three years ago, I strongly object to the planned proposal for the Roxhill - Northampton Gateway development for a number of reasons. Firstly, the proposal will destroy hundreds of acres of local countryside and bring industry into an area that is an important gap between town and country. Secondly there would be increased traffic through the village when there is congestion on the M1. Thirdly the proposed no right turns at the junction of Courteenhall Rd and the A508. would mean traffic diverting through the centre of Blisworth and past the doctors surgery, where parking is already a problem. Lastly all the local plans show this site being retained as farmland and open countryside not industrial development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barbara Perry
"* DRIFT already fulfils this need, this is within 18 miles of the proposed new site * Noise, light and air pollution; I moved to Milton Malsor to a more rural area with less traffic and resulting pollution. This development would see a huge increase in traffic passing very close to my home, not to mention the additional traffic that would result from the staff that would have to travel to reach the proposed development as this would not be fulfilled locally. * Loss of Wildlife Habit and Farmland, destroying 520 Acres of Farmland and wildlife habitat * Rail Capacity & reduced passenger services from Northampton, which could result in commuters having to make alternative arrangements and further increase traffic/pollution."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barry Steer
"I object to the proposal for the following reasons. No strategic need because DIRFT is close and is not yet fully developed There is little or no spare rail capacity. There is inadequate capacity on the local roads too. There is no local labour pool, so the work force would have to travel in from outside. We live in a wonderful rural area, South Northamptonshire, which will be ruined if this project goes ahead. It will destroy our villages and our countryside. The noise, light and air pollution will have a very negative impact on our environment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brooke Vargyas
"I strongly object to this proposal. This massive complex is planned to be built on over 500 acres of arable farmland, contrary to the agreed Strategic Plan for the region, which specifically excludes industrial development at this location. The environmental impact will be huge, both in terms of the loss of productive farmland & wildlife habitat; and the increased levels of air, noise and light pollution affecting local residents. The Rail Freight Interchange will only be minimally served by rail; the massive increase in HGVs on the roads will overburden the M1, A45 & A508. Roxhill's planned improvements to the layout of Junction 15 have already been judged in their earlier planning application to be unlikely to add to the overall capacity of the junction. As a resident of Grange Park, this impact on me and my family will be detrimental to our ability to leave & access our home at peak times, both during the roadworks to the surrounding road network and when the new Gateway opens and the traffic levels increase. Worst of all, this proposal is purely speculative on the part of Roxhill; there is no strategic need for a Rail Freight Interchange at this location due to the DIRFT facility only 18 miles away having expansion capacity for the next 20 years. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cat Murray
"I object strongly to the development and construction of the Northampton Gateway Project presented by Roxhill. Briefly, my reasons for strongly objecting are as follows: 1. When we bought in Stoke Bruerne, it was not so our house will devalue over time. We live adjacent to the A508 and with the additional expected traffic volumes, we fear our house will devalue, rather than increase in value. 2. The junction at the A508/Ashton Road/Rookery Lane is currently very dangerous. Crossing it in foot is nerve racking at times as most vehicles do not slow down when driving down the hill though the junction. The developers had promised to provide a safe way to cross the junction, but I feel what they have offered will not provide us with a safe way to cross the road. 3. The A508 has a very serious traffic problem. We can’t see that this will be decreased by the changes mooted to deal with the extra traffic. There are so many occasions of traffic clogging the A508 between J15 of the M1 and the Stoney Stratford roundabout, that the additional volumes will make this worse, rather than better. 4. We already live with unacceptable levels of both air and noise pollution along the A508. We live adjacent to the A508 and cannot see this being reduced with the increased level of traffic expected to be produced by the activities at this development. In addition, road dust pollution will have a detrimental impact upon our 150 plus year old house. 5. There is already a strategic rail freight terminal at DIRFT, which is just 18 miles further north on the M1. I understand that they have approval to increase capacity until at least 2031. 6. The infrastructure in the South Northamptonshire area is not able to cope with the addition of a further 7500 new jobs. The housing, schooling and roads are not adequate to deal with this influx into the area. If new employees must travel from adjacent areas, this will simply add to the existing and expected traffic congestion problems. 7. The development will have an adverse impact upon the local wild life habitat and will degrade the existing country walks. The permanent loss of 520 acres of arable land will make the view from surrounding villages quite depressing. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Catherine Blyth
"There is no strategic need for this 'Gateway', which is only 18 miles from another, larger facility (DIRFT). The environmental penalty would be high: not only the pollution (noise, light and air), but the increase in traffic, and with no supporting increase in roads or community amenities. The immediate cost in terms of habitat to wildlife and to farmland will be multiplied by the problems of human habitat change. Crime has risen almost 200% in the areas near DIRFT. There will necessarily be a large influx of traffic and people from outside the area, as the county does not have the workers to service this development. This proposed development seems like a Trojan horse, designed to legitimise the repurposing of greenbelt as commercial and residential land, vastly increasing its value to its owners, but to the detriment of the environment and the community. If this goes ahead, it feels like a stealthy green light for more housing. The county budget is already stretched to breaking, with no money for the services and amenities needed to support an enlarged residential population. According to NCC Highways Authority, increasing freight services would likely lead to a reduced passenger rail service to Northampton, a commuter town. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charlotte Househam
"I strongly object to this proposal as it is not needed in this area, it with poorly impact nature and wildlife, will add tragic which the roads already can’t handle and in fact the M1, A5 are already having major accidents and traffic problems, it will not create jobs as these type of jobs are already available in Northampton and not filled so having poor if not needed. It will create an eyesaw and damage the countryside for ever leaving a horrible legacy for our children, not to mention the poor air quality from building g and traffic to the small schools. I object to the need as well, as there seems to be no evidence that this service is required and in other areas had not been fully used and the tail part never used "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charlotte Mackaness
"Most importantly, there is absolutely no need for this. Policy calls for a small number SFRIs close to their regional markets. There is an existing facility less than 18 miles from the proposed Northampton Gateway. In the South Northamptonshire County Plan, the M1 is clearly identified as a strategic gap, providing a barrier to develop. This proposal would cross this boundary. If an aim of it is to open up more countryside to development, there should be openness about this. Noise, light and air pollution with increase dramatically as a result of this development. Given that this site will be running 24 hours a day, seven days a week, there would be no respite. This is totally unacceptable. This proposal presents a threat to passenger rail services as the West Coast Mainline doesn't have the capacity to deal with increased freight. It has already been indicated that passenger services may have to be reduced to accommodate more freight. This site will generate an estimate 16,500 additional road movements. This will cause increased pressure on the area's roads (even the developers concede that the impact will be felt at the other side of Northampton)."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine Statham
"There is no need for this development as DIRFT is less than 20 miles away. Increase in air, noise & light pollution The A508 is congested during the rush hour and often at a standstill. Problems on the M1 result in traffic being diverted from Junction 15on to A508 , A43 and A5. When this occurs goods traffic turns off on to country lanes not wide enough for 2 lorries to pass and weight retrictions are ignored. The DoT has warned that M1 J15 - 17 will be severely congested in the future without this development and that of Rail Central. The Northamptonshire has low unemployment and labour for this development will need to travel from outside the area adding to pollution and more traffic congestion. Destruction of over 500 acres of productive farmland and loss of wildlife habitats The local strategic plan identifies the M1 as a boundary for development"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Pindar
"To appose "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Williams
"We have frequent problems with road congestion already, this will bring about increased traffic chaos and large volumes of traffic diverting through our village. I also object strongly to countryside being destroyed for this purpose when we already have a massive rail hub a few miles away and this is one of two applications to build rail hubs in our area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Colin Bichener
"Dirty air 0area Roads not capable of handling traffic"
Members of the Public/Businesses
D Nola
"I strongly object to Redhill’s SFRI and Roade Bypass proposal for the following reasons: Not Required DIRFT is 18 miles away and it is not fully utilised Rail Freight Paths There are only 4 paths per day that would serve the SFRI, which is insufficient to enable a modal shift Environment If built the countryside and the environment would suffer irreversible damage Industrialisation of the local area If built, the local areas and villages would become industrial towns "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Darren Cook
"No Strategic need to due to the DRIFT development which is bigger and only 18 miles away. The M1 motorway and A45 are already bad with traffic. The department of transport is already warning of severe congestion by 2040 without this development and all proposed changes to the M1. Northamptonshire doesn't have the available labour required to serve this development so will have to travel in or build more houses in the area which the roads and schools cannot take. Rail capacity and loss of passenger rail services due to the West coast mainline being the busiest in Europe. NCC Highways Authority has stated that a reduction in passenger service to Northampton which is already overcrowded. Loss of wildlife habitat and farmland Noise, light and air pollution with the extra traffic and heavy lorries the site would be 24/7 operational."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Wash
"I am strongly again this project because. I moved to a village to live in the countryside,that’s what a Village is a area to live serounded by fields. This project will put us on a industrial estate,and the noise pollution,the pollution from traffic and the lost of the country side for ever. The villages of Blisworth and Milton malsor will be joint together by warehouses and not fields. Please reject this project now. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dawn Bluck
"I lived in Milton Malsor for many years I was born in 3 Barn Lane and grew up in 25 Barn Lane my Mum and Brother still live there . The House is surrounded by beautiful country side , this is in danger of changing forever and the lives of all the people who live in all the villages . My Mums house is in touching distance of this planned monstrosity. I live in Blisworth and our lives including travel to work will be disrupted for a long time ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dean Chapman
"I strongly object to this going ahead because the traffic issues surrounding this area are already in a bad way. With even more traffic around the m1 and a45 it will cause me serious issues getting to and from work. I commute out of Northampton for work and traffic delays already cause serious amounts of stress to myself and other residents here. It is not fair to use the field which houses lots of wildlife habitats. It is cruel and unnecessary. Statistics show that crime levels will rise, and I pay lots of money to live in a nice area where crime is currently low. I do not want this to change. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr John P Davis
"As a local resident I take interest in any large developments in the area and look at their impact v merit. The proposal presented by Roxhill I do not believe has merit as the main aim is claimed to shift freight transport from Road to Rail but I believe the result will be a major increase in the freight traffic on the local roads in particular that around M1 junction 15 which is already beyond capacity to operate safely and efficiently. At a presentation at a local hotel Roxhill showed a simulation of what they consider the current and future traffic flows around junction 15 after modification as justification for their plans. As an expert on vehicle simulations (Formula One and Automotive) I quickly could tell the simulation was over simplistic and highly inaccurate. First rule for such simulation is the avoidance of accidental collisions which has a large influence on total traffic flow rate. The simulation showed many times 2 or more vehicles occupying the same physical space which is the definition of a Road Traffic Collision. When pointed out to the Roxhill representative it was dismissed as just a graphics error, in real life that would involve potential risk to life and definitely major congestion. If such 'Tools' are to be used to justify the road layout changes proposed, the accuracy must be paramount otherwise the tool is useless and dangerous. I suggest there are majors concerns about the safety of the proposed M1 Junction 15 layout based on the approach being taken by Roxshill. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Edward Gwilliam
"I object to this proposal as there would be a increase of traffic through the village of which is already at a vast amount at the moment. Also with the increase of HGV lorrys coming through that they do not have any place to park up this will end up staying on the road side as they do in many cases already across the town. This is only going to encourage villains to chance it with break ins, so therefore increasing crime rate that is practically none existence at present. This would also increase the amount of Trains that at present you are able to hear and in some cases feel the vibrations from where they are unable to keep up with the work on the rails, also the increase of work that will take place at night disturbing residents close the the Railway. The wildlife would be hard hit in regards to the munkjack deer that is present at the moment, also the field mouse etc that are currently in decline anyway. They have also claimed it would create jobs but this would not be locally sourced as the locals do not have the right skill set to accommodate these, so therefore would increase the traffic for the work force to get there. The quality of Air would be compromised from all the increased traffic and also the light pollution. But over and above all things mentioned it would just turn out like The Dirft just another of Warehouses this was supposed to be for the rail link but did not happen all in all a complete shambles."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Edward Partridge
"To protest the roxhill development, say about noise, air, light pollution, increased traffic, loss of habitat for farmland birds, loss of mature trees, DRIFT having the capacity for expansion and that DRIFT shows an increase in crime following industrialisation "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elaine Reagon
"I seriously object because this monstrosity of a development is going to deny me the quality of air and peaceful lifestyle that I opted for when moving to the countryside. How can you consider transforming the beautiful countryside into a concrete jungle with gas guzzling trucks on our doorstep! Shameful!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elizabeth Tilley
"It’s a major destruction of a village community. We will have major issues with traffic and light pollution. Last night I sat in the garden and saw a shooting star which was amazing. With the light pollution that will be about from the planned project this will stop any sightings like this. I travel to Buckingham along the A508 every morning and evening to get to and from work. With the level of traffic now it can take me 45 mins to get to the Old Stratford roundabout. The road cannot cope with a major increase in vehicles. The villages houses will just become slums in the middle of warehouses and trains. The warehouse and freight will create vast amounts of rubbish to litter the streets along with any countryside that will be left. Our air quality will be poor with all the increased level of traffic. Around Northamptonshire and the who of the U.K. there is vast amounts of empty warehouses without taking good agricultural land to build more on. We are putting to many buildings on the land and taking away our natural flood defences. We do not have any logical requirement as a country to need additional freight terminal."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elizabeth Wilkinson
"Dear Sirs Re: Roxhill Northampton Gateway I am writing to OBJECT to this development for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development will destroy hundreds of acres of local countryside and bring industry to an area that provides an important gap between town and countryside. 2. The proposed development would destroy vital wildlife habitat in particular for farmland birds where the habitat loss cannot be compensated for. 3. The loss of farmland when as a country we need more to produce local food than less. 4. Destruction of our local footpath network on which my family depend for recreational and personal purposes allowing us to use less transportation to access local shops, pubs, and walk ways. 5. Increased traffic through the village when we already have enormous back log of traffic in the mornings and other peak times for access to work. 6. Increased air pollution from extra vehicles using the roads in the local area. Already it is incredibly noticeable from the prevailing winds the colour of the wool of sheep grazing in fields on different sides of the roads and motorways - this is an absolute disgrace and we are breathing this all in at the moment let alone if it is added to considerably. 7.There is proposed to be no right turn at the junction of Courteenhall Road and the A508. This would mean traffic would divert through the tiny roads of Blisworth village and past the local doctors surgery where there is already severe congestion. 8. Noise pollution would be increased significantly and would include the loading and unloading of the containers and operations of the aggregates terminal. On occasion it can be expected that with prevailing winds and warm weather additional noise will be created from cooling equipment for periods of time which may not even have been factored into the proposals, will not be monitored formally, many happen for periods not deemed long enough to warrant investigation when they occur and yet will have a direct detrimental impact on the quality of life in the village. 9. Light pollution would cause difficulties for all residents from night time traffic and operations. 10. We purchased our property on the understanding the local plans reflected the local sites being retained as farmlands and open countryside. This area is not allocated for industrial development, is too close to residential properties for such to be acceptable. 11. A site at Daventry is more appropriate and has sufficient capacity for expansion to provide for the services that are anticipated. There is no justification for a further site at such a close proximity and at such a cost to local quality of life and destruction of the natural environment. Regards, Nicola Strang Campion."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma Grayson
"I am due to move to wootton within the next couple of weeks. Although the building works wont be in Wootton it will affect wootton greatly in terms of pollution and a massive increase of cars on the local roads which arent fit for the amount of people that live in that area at the moment already not to mention the schools, doctors and dentists which are already massivley over subscribed. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Geoffrey Read
"1) The continued development of DIRFT at Jctn 18 of M1 along with the room for further expansion on the ex radio station site should meet the strategic need for rail interchange in the area without the need to destroy another area of green belt. 2) It will provide a dangerous precedent for further development having broached the boundary for Northampton currently provided by the M1. 3) Congestion in the area, particularly on the M1 is significant, the intended location of this development uses the M1 and A43 as its prime routes provided a significant increase in traffic movement and the accompanying pollution. 4) Negative environmental impact as Freight rail traffic is considerably more noisy and far more polluting than passenger trains thus affecting local residents. 5) Capacity on the West Coast Mainline is reported to be at capacity, an increase in the freight traffic will therefore presumably negatively impact on the current traffic used by the line. 6) The labour pool required will predominantly be of warehouse worker category, of which the area already has a high volume and will lead to an increase in commuting workers with the associated increase in traffic volumes and pollution. Likewise it does not help build a higher level of skilled work in the area. 7) The development on a greenfield site will have a devastating impact on wildlife. 8) The visual impact on the Nene Valley cannot be ignored and as such will provide a highly negative impact on the environment for all who live in the area and pass through."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Georgina Bayliss
"I object to this proposal for several reasons. The first and main point is that we have no need another of this type of interchange in Northamptonshire. We have DIRFT only a few miles up the road and this is currently being expanded. The same distance in the other direction there is empty warehousing that has been standing for over a year. In regards to creating jobs, DIRFT struggles to man the site that already exists and bring staff in from Coventry, Birmingham and Leicester. Far from freeing up the roads, they add to traffic. Even all the proposed house building in Northampton happens over the next few years there will still not be enough manpower in the county to staff both DIRFT and the Gateway. Roxhill is not guaranteeing that any great amount of the freight will be sent by rail at all. The M1, A5, A508, A43 and the A45 all suffer regular congestion, and an interchange where it is planned can only make this worse, not only by the trucks but by the staff coming from outside the county. My village, and others in the area, are already used as rat runs when congestion happens and no solutions to this have been put forward. From this and the initial construction there would be increased noise, light and air pollution 24 hours a day right on the edge of rural Northamptonshire. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Geraldine Hastings
"I strongly object to the loss of wildlife habit in particular for farmland birds where the habitat loss cannot be compensated for. I object to the loss of farmland when the country needs to produce more food rather than importing it.. I object to the noise that will be created by 224/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers and the operation of an aggregates terminal. In an area of low unemployment so the majority of the workers for the operation will have to travel some distance to work adding to the pollution and congestion. I object to the increased air pollution from thousands of extra cars, vans, and HGV's using the roads in the local area. I object to the noise an vibration of the trains which I can already hear and feel from my home and will be 24/7 "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Reynolds
"I am extremely opposed to the Roxhill development for many reasons. As a local resident the impact of such a monstrous development on the local community and also the wider Northampton area will be devastating. Wildlife/Open space - the proposal will devastate thousands of square feet of countryside, destroying habitat for many creatures Village life - the proposal simply destroys village life -simple as that! Traffic - the impact of the proposal on traffic will be tremendous. Northampton already suffers from serious traffic issues which drive prospective businesses away from investing in our town, and J15 of the M1 is at breaking point. Even with the road changes laid out in the plan the wider road infrastructure will not be able to handle the increased traffic Pollution - the increased pollution from the additional traffic will be devastating to the environment, as the area already suffers from higher than average pollution due to high traffic levels. This combined with the fact that the proposal wipes out a tremendous area of existing green space means an overall disastrous impact on the environment. Whilst I understand the business reasons as to why a site is required, my objection relates to the choice of site being proposed. The DIRFT facility is only 18 miles further north and has expansion capacity for the next 20 years, so why use the proposed site given all the impacts outlined above. There is no doubt that this proposal will destroy this part of Northampton if it goes ahead, with far reaching consequences to the town and county."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hilary Poole
"As a resident in Roade village I am concerned that there will be significant impact on air and noise pollution through the significant increase in local traffic; there will be significant impact on quality of life for our family through loss of the natural countryside which will never be returned once lost; there will be tremendous impact on the quality of our lives during the subsequent development in terms of traffic congestion and infrastructure development necessary for a development of this size; there will be an impact on the cost of our propert