Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange

The views expressed in this page do not represent those of the Planning Inspectorate. This page consists of content submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by the public and other interested parties, giving their views of this proposal.

Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange

Received 03 July 2018
From 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