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 09 July 2018
From Felicity Brady

Representation

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.