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 17 July 2018
From 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