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 12 July 2018
From 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?