Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)

Representations received regarding Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange) and their relevant representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Marsh
"From Anthony Marsh about TR050004? The foundation of any SRFI is, of course, both rail and road access. However, concern is raised here over an adequate provision for access to the local road network. This because the trunk road A43 and the junction between A43 and the motorway M1 is presently carrying heavy traffic, not just at the oft-quoted peak periods which in this case are not restricted to one hour. By 2021 or 2031 the traffic is expected to increase by 25% or 34% respectively and these are figures used by the transport analysts, TPA, who are providing an assessment of challenges that this project will present to the local road network. TPA’s analysis totally omits any traffic pulse from the movement of shift workers; they include only “9 - 5” staff and conclude that a sufficient modelling of the pressure on nearby public roads needs to consider only movements at public peak times (0800 - 0900 and 1700 - 1800hrs). Here my objection to the Rail Central proposal is based on their presentation being flawed, mainly in the omission of shift worker movements. In addition, and importantly, there is a concern is that if the project is granted then there will be severe road congestion experienced by local traffic. Concomitantly, as TPA advise, traffic will spill out at times of high congestion stress into local roads, lanes and some nearby villages. This would considerably inconvenience (and distress in some cases) thousands of local residents, including myself, presently enjoying a village based country life. The assertion that in assessing traffic problems one needs only to concentrate on ‘the general peak times’ is said by TPA to be one that is accepted by the NCC and HE. This promotion of such narrow view appears to give credence to TPA’s analysis, exhibiting that concentration, and tends to suggest that local problems may persist only for one hour at each peak. I will directly contradict this implied scenario. I propose to analyse their consultant’s (TPA’s) data and demonstrate my concern in some numerical detail. The detail I offer is presented to combat the rather natural assumption by examiners that the proposer’s own consultants would “know best”. However there is obviously a sly veneer that aims to obfuscate. The mitigation proposed for the M1J15a is included in this NSIP. However, if it is deemed to warrant a separate NSIP proposal then its cumulative impact would be of key importance and essential to the assessment of this NSIP; ie; an NSIP concerned with the M1J15a should be neither logically nor temporally decoupled from the Rail Central NSIP. The M1 junction mitigation that has so far been proposed is clearly inadequate in preventing congestion in peak periods, ie. both general peaks and shift-change peaks. I argue that A43 conditions would clearly amount to being unusable and that the scheme would be an abominable overcast for the village of Blisworth. I formally object to Ashfield Land’s application because (a) it is very likely to generate impatient traffic coursing through Blisworth and other villages, (b) the manipulation of data in the presentations renders it dishonest and (c) it obscures a real congestion problem for the A43 highway on at least 6 separate occasions."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ashley Warden
"A shocking proposal that will ruin 3 villages in everyway. Huge 24hr noise pollution will be unavoidable with warning beepers cobstantly going. Air pollution from the proposed thousands of lorry movments per day. Traffic into the area will increase massively, even now during morning rush hour it can take upto 30mins to travel 1.1 miles to take me youngest to school in neighbouring Blisworth. An apparent 8000 new jobs created, those emploees won't be travelling to the site by rail. There is also a huge rail freight terminal (Dirft) only a short distance up the motorway, does Northamptonshire really need another? Im lead to believe that Dirft is nowhere near capacity. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine Barber
"Environmental impact on area Effect on community health Lack of local workers Sustainability of big railway depot with another railway depot in the county which has expansion capability."
Members of the Public/Businesses
J Javes
"This site is not the place to build such a project. It is open countryside and although it is close to M1 and A43, the minor roads surrounding the site are inadequate to cope with the high levels of traffic and polution that will result from this project. The local communities will be engulfed by this project and will no longer be able to be identified as the communities they are intended to be i.e. rural. DIRFT, just up the road, is not at full capacity and further development is being planned just north of that project. There is not need for this huge project to be considered."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Hill
"I believe that this proposal would be detrimental to the area as a whole. I think that, if allowed to proceed, the development will only increase the amount of traffic on our roads. This in turn will lead to more air and noise pollution. The area has relatively low unemployment which would mean that workers would have to be recruited from further afield. This would put pressure on roads which already suffer from congestion. I also feel that the proposal does not fit into the overall future plan for the area and that the development would be too close to the existing Rail Freight Interchange at DIRFT. The rail network would not be able to cope with the amount of extra journeys and there is a danger that the development would turn into yet another warehouse depot with lorries going in and out constantly."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Matthew Foster
"I would like to oppose this monstrosity! I live and chose to live in a rural community and to have this proposed rail fraight dopot forced upon the community is ludicrous.there is not the infrastructure to cope with all the extra traffic it will create an also the impact on the local environment will be massive!also to the quality of life for locals. I do not see the need for such a development with drift just up the road ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Neil Jagger
"I OBJECT TO RAIL CENTRAL AND SUMMARISE SOME OF MY REASONS BELOW- 1) THE 'WEST NORTHANTS JOINT CORE STRATEGY' (WNJCS) IS THE FOUNDATION FOR ALL PLANNING IN OUR AREA BUT DOES NOT ENVISAGE A SRFI UNTIL AFTER 2029 2) MILTON MALSOR PARISH COUNCIL PARISH PLAN 2005 REQUIRES THE PARISH TO BE GREEN FIELD 3) AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLANNED ON A SITE NOW ADJACENT TO RAIL CENTRAL HAS NOT PROGRESSED SINCE ASHFIELD SUBMITTED. 4) LAND OWNED BY TWO VILLAGE TRUSTS WOULD BE COMPULSORILY PURCHASED 5) PINS HAS ALREADY REJECTED A SRFI ON THIS SITE 6) ADEQUATE SRFI CAPACITY IS ALREADY AVAILABLE IN THE AREA AT DIRFT 7) A 'LOCAL GAP' IS DESIGNATED BETWEEN MILTON MALSOR AND BISWORTH; RAIL CENTRAL COMPLETELY FILLS IT 8) NOISE, AIR, LIGHT AND VISUAL POLLUTION AT THE VILLAGE WOULD BE INTOLERABLE, ESPECIALLY IF 'NORTHAMPTON GATEWAY' ALSO GOES AHEAD 9) RAIL ACCESS HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN, AND IF FOUND WOULD PREVENT GROWTH OF PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES FROM NORTHAMPTON STATION 10) A FURTHER RECONFIGURATION OF M1 JUNCTION 15 WILL BE OUT OF SCALE AND LEAD TO PROBLEMS ON LOCAL ROADS 10) RAIL CENTRAL IS AN INDUSTRIAL SITE ADJACENT TO MILTON MALSOR VILLAGE WHICH IT WOULD OVERWHELM AND DESTROY AS A QUIET RURAL VILLAGE IN AN AREA WITH EXTENSIVE NEW HOUSING 10) "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nick Paul
"Given the volume of available warehouse’s available on nearby industrial estates namely, Swan Valley & Brackmills along with current empty units and construction sites to expand DIRFT, what benefit is there to building additional ones in this plan. Not forgetting the vacant units at Junction 13 Milton Keynes awaiting occupants. Northamptonshire and the East Midlands is fortunate to be a low unemployment area, where will the employees come from? My guess would be Coventry and the West Midlands that being the case why come to Northampton? Should this go ahead the quality of life for those making use of the road network will be adversely affected. The safety of my family will increase in risk with the increase of traffic using local villages as cut throughs as is the case daily, and significantly increased when the M1, A43, A5 is at a standstill which is almost daily. I am concerned at the additional poor air quality with an increase of vehicles negatively affecting asthma sufferers. It’s taken me 10 years of living in a clean air environment to appropriately manage my [Redacted], improving my quality of life. Submitted for your consideration. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
R Lowin
"I believe the proposed application is unnecessary, delaterious to the local environment, and will badly affect local traffic. The countryside and existing population must be a priority. It was shown that there is a public demand for this in the Brexit vote. The profit motive should not be the sole determinant of what happens in this country"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stoke bruerne Parish Council
"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 Rail Central 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 strongly objects 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 Rail Central which would add thousands vehicle trip a day with many being diesel HGV’s. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Bell
"1 - Rail Central is not needed as there is 8 million sqft of space being built, or rather not built at the Railport at Junction 18 of the M1 which is considered sufficient for the needs of the area for the next period, 10+ years. Interestingly the development of this area is slow as there are not the tenants to occupy the units. 2 - There is an alternative centre directly opposite the M1 which has already got permissions so why have a second so close. 3 - Should the development ever get tenants it will push more traffic onto the already overloaded A43 which runs from the M1 to the M40. At Towcester this is blocked due to excess traffic at several times during the day and the addition of a third roundabout at Towcester due to the large housing development will only exasperate this situation further. 4 - The development will destroy the countryside between Blisworth and Milton Mansor and should it ever be filled will degrade the environment for those who live in the area. "
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
Barbara King
" object very strongly to the proposals for the construction of Rail Central, which will swallow up the open countryside and farmland between the rural Northamptonshire villages of Blisworth and Milton Malsor, where I live. Hearing about the Rail Central proposals, and living with the shadow looming over us for the past 2 years has upset me greatly. I live in the conservation area at the edge of Milton Malsor village, with countryside walks on the door-step, with an abundance of wildlife, including owls, woodpeckers, jays as well as mammals, which will disappear. That countryside, if Rail Central goes ahead, will disappear under hundreds of acres of concrete covered with huge unsightly warehouses, following years of mess, noise and disruption during its construction and that of the surrounding road proposals. Once the countryside has been swallowed up in this way, there will be no going back. Since living here, the natural environment – which is now put at risk by this proposal – has done much to enhance my well-being and that of my family and friends. There is increasing evidence that having access to the natural environment (natural capital) has a significant positive impact on people’s well-being. My concern rests with the impact this will have on our way of life – we will no longer be able to enjoy the countryside enjoy walks at evenings or weekends to visit our friends in Blisworth, or to access the towpaths of the peaceful nearby Grand Union Canal. Besides what we stand to lose, I am also concerned about what we will get in its place – air, noise and night pollution around the clock, with greatly increased HGV and works traffic. Despite the plans as set out, there is no doubt in my mind that the current peace of the villages will be swept away, with significantly increased traffic through them, and vehicles hanging around in the area waiting for their slot at the facility. Much of this proposal will be in direct conflict with the objectives set out in the Government’s recent 25 year environment plan, including targets to enhance beauty, heritage and engagement with the natural environment; increasing future flood risk; and destroying rather than increasing woodland. Besides the detrimental effects outlines above, I fail to understand the need that it will address. There is ample current and future provision for rail freight in the Midlands, including Roxhill’s adjacent proposal for the Northampton Gateway, with no indication of demand for these facilities. There is also no local unemployment to speak of, so the development would attract large numbers of workers from afar, increasing NO2 emissions in the area. The proposal appears to me to be a cynical and speculative approach by the developers to take advantage of the NSIP process for a site which would largely operate as a logistics park, with limited use as an interchange. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bryony Kedros
"The increase in traffic, not only the lorries but cars going to the workplace.The disruption of the Village life. Air pollution. Effect on the unspoilt Counytyside & wildlife. Lack of need for the proposed development as other depots in the vicinity are not used to capacity & there isn’t an unemployment problem in Northamptonshire."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Caroline Cater
"The site for the rail freight is roughly 30m away from my front door. Mine and my family's life will change forever. I worry about the air pollution that this will cause. Myself and my youngest daughter have [Redacted]. I worry about the amount of traffic that will go straight past my house. I will no longer be able to walk my children to school! I worry about the flooding this will cause. This land already floods! I worry about the noise this will cause 24/7. Will we be able to sleep?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charlotte Etheridge
"Destruction to wildlife that has been long established in the proposed area and the ruin of the countryside. Ruin of a picturesque historical village. Immoral behaviour of the proposers when a similar site already exists barely 10 miles away at the Daventry DIRFT site where it is common knowledge there is a large number of warehouses remaining unoccupied. The pre existing site at Grange Park for warehouses and industry making the proposal of this site redundant. No concrete evidence that this is a necessary site, purely estimations and guess work. The infrastructure of the roads are already at breaking point without the extended use of HGVs and vehicles overwhelming the already over used roads in the area. Noise and general pollution to residents, air quality depreciation. House prices will plummet leaving almost all residents in negative equity. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christie Pearson
"I am registering as an interested party out of concern as a resident of Blisworth. I am concerned the following will have a detrimental impact to Blisworth and have not been fully considered and their impact fully appreciated to those local to the area; Another freight terminal (DRIFT) is only a few miles away which could be looked at expanding. The increase in noise pollution from those travelling to the site and the freight itself and impact it will have on family life. The increase in air pollution from those travelling to the site and the freight itself and impact it will have on family life. The impact the changes to landscaping and public right of way will have on those who use those areas on a daily basis. A walk around the interchange is not the same as the open countryside. I have a young daughter and want to bring her up in the countryside which is why we chose Blisworth. This interchange will dramatically change the look and feel of our village. "
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 am retired and I look forward to spending the remainder of my days here. Having the Rail Central SRFI "shoe horned" in between Milton Malsor and Blisworth villages, both conservation areas, would be devastating for residents. The significant increase in traffic movements 22,000 a day, 6,688 being HGV`s generated by this SRFI will lead to traffic chaos, on the already congested roads in the locality. Besides the increase in air pollution which this SRFI will generate, due to the thousands of additional daily vehicle movements, is a major issue. Air Pollution by Nitric Oxide and Diesel Particulate lorry and machinery emissions will directly affect the health of residents, as well as , those in neighbouring villages. The harm caused by Diesel Particulates is a national issue. There is little prospect in the immediate future of HGV`s being powered by electricity. Furthermore, the noise and light pollution generated 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). There is no policy or evidence in the WNJCS to suggest the need for an SRFI on land in open countryside between Milton Malsor and Blisworth. However the need for an SRFI is identified in the WNJCS, as the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) on junction 18 on the M1, (approximately 18 miles from junction 15) where planning permission, has been granted for logistics space and for a new rail terminal. Therefore, there is no requirement for the proposed Rail Central SRFI. I call for this unnecessary and unwanted developer driven proposal to be refused. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clare East
"As someone who lives very close to the infrastructure being planned I'm very concerned about The increased traffic both lorry's and car's driving past and through the village, which is already a rat run. All these vehicles will need to pass the village park which is on the edge of the village and car's tend to drive past at speed potentially endangering the children who use the park. I'm also very concerned about the increased noise from the rail track as it runs past where I live, which the rail fraight trains cause a lot of noise that last for a while. I'm also very worried about the impact on the wild life as this area is full of different animals that live in the surrounding files."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elaine Reagon
"My health and quality of life will be impacted by this development. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Frank Finch
"I am concerned about the proposed development on a number of grounds especially in regard to the adverse effects on the local community and nearby villages, increased traffic on local roads including the A43, air pollution, etc. This is even more concerning given the adjacent development and expansion of Towcester which is already fundamentally changing the area’s characteristics and contributing massively to increased traffic flows on the roads infrastructure. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gary Ward
"I totally disagree with this rail interchange because it will destroy the wildlife in the local area of the project. It will also detrimentally affect the local villages. I also believe it would be better to expand the Daventry depot because it has room for expansion. Together with the fact that the two sites are much too close together to justify having them both. Thank You"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Fraser
"I oppose the application as an interested party on the following grounds: The business would provide noise pollution and traffic congestion around my property and to every route out of my estate. It would destroy the landscape, local villages and peacefulness of local villages, parks and countryside. House prices, including my own, will decline as the accessibility, noise and aesthetic appeal of the area will diminish - this has already started to happen with the planning application made public. There is no urgent need for such a project; especially in this area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Chick
"Given major, similar and geographically close both North and South of this proposal pkus already congested traffic links there is no good commercial argument that supports this proposal."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jon Dunckley
"The building of this interchange will bring about pollution (both fumes and light), congestion and significant danger to local residents who are already swamped by HGVs. It is already dangerous to the point where near misses are a daily occurrence and accidents are too frequent. The plans to not take sufficient consideration of the prior interests of local homewoners and breaches their rights "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karen Wharfe
"Impact on local environment-interested party as this will have an energies detrimental impact on the village I live in Negative impact on health-ligh, noise and general pollution No proven need for this project Lack of research by submitting company Failure to fully utilise existing similar projects"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr P Thornton
"I object strongly to the development on the grounds of increased worsening of the air quality. Of the threat to our small community due to a large increase in heavy vehicles. And particularly that the hook of ‘road to rail’ that the developer is using will not be accomplished, it is purely a means to use land stock. The development will destroy local amenities and two villages. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Eva Mair
" I have really loved living in Milton Malsor, a beautiful rural village in open countryside for the past 33 years. I am retired and I look forward to living here with my husband for the rest of our days. The thought of having the proposed Rail Central SRFI on my doorstep is my worst nightmare imaginable. I object very strongly to this developer driven proposal, which is both unwanted and unnecessary. Currently I can walk straight out of my front door, and enjoy the lovely walks in the open countryside. Being an enthusiastic walker, I am absolutely astounded that Rail Central are proposing the destruction of the local footpath network. In particular, the footpath over beautiful open countryside with lovely views, between Milton Malsor and Blisworth, that would be diverted along the very busy Northampton Road (A43T). This road, is not suitable by any stretch of the imagination, for the enjoyment and pleasure of walking. This is totally unacceptable. The increase in air pollution this proposed SRFI will generate, due to the thousands of additional vehicle movements (22,000 a day, 6,688 being HGV`s) is another nightmare scenario. I am very concerned that the Air Pollution by Nitric Oxide and Diesel Particulate lorry and machinery emissions will be detrimental to my health, as well as to other residents in the locality. This is of course a national issue. I also object very strongly to the noise which will be generated by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers. Also the light and noise pollution from night time operations would be unbearable. Again I strongly object to this proposal as it`s contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS). The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only a short distance away from this site, serves the same local area and has the capacity for expansion for many years to come. So there is no need for the proposed Rail Central SRFI. For all these reasons I urge that this developer driven proposal is refused. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paula Chaplin
"The increase in traffic level which will affect pollution levels. The increase in traffic through my village. The complete disregard of the fact that more suitable sites are available. The knowledge that the proposer has owned some of this land for a number of years already and that their previous experience of development has only been in commercial offices, not something as major as this proposal."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Lea
"Traffic chaos, loss of countryside, no need for the jobs in this area, DIRFT not 15 miles away and under capacity, air, light and noise pollution, loss of village identity for Milton Malsor/Blisworth."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Phyllis Power
"Road infrastructure Light, noise and traffic pollution Villages being completely surrounded by industrial warehouses Close proximity of other rail central depots that are allegibly not used to full capacity "
Members of the Public/Businesses
R Graley
"As a daily user of the A43 I am extremely concerned about the increase in traffic. Also having DIRFT a few short miles up the road, I am yet to be convinced that this massive undertaking is really necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Jeffery
"“I object to the development of "Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)" because; 1. There is no requirement for the warehouse occupiers to use the rail freight option. It could easily be used as convenient centrally located warehousing adding even more lorry journeys than proposed. 2. The West Coast Mainline rail infrastructure in the area and the UK doesn't have much capacity left to deliver more slow freight. The number of passenger trains will have to be reduced and slowed down 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 and better road connections. 4. Noise, light and Air pollution is going to be a major issue, especially as it will be 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and next to residential areas. 5. Northampton and surrounding areas have very high employment and warehouse companies are struggling to find staff, thus causing more traffic and longer commutes. 6. Additional vehicles on the roads will cause significantly more traffic, delays, pollution and noise problems. More traffic will be expected if warehouse operators are not using the rail service. The road improvements so far suggested will have minimal improvements or worsen traffic flows. 7. The area is currently fields and some established wildlife areas with the rail line embankments acting as wildlife corridors. The rail depot will remove these areas and the affect on wildlife diversity and habitation will be very damaging. 8. Increased flooding will happen down stream in Northampton. Even with new flood mitigation systems, parts of the town are still flooding with heavy rain. 9. All the above points will be further compounded as there is approved planning for over 1000 homes on the north side of the M1 (J15 to J15a), which is also next to another rail freight depot "Roxhill" in the planning process, and this proposal."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rosemary Warner
"Where I live on Blisworth Park, the view from my home will be blighted by this monstrosity. There will be light pollution and extra noise and will take away the beautiful countryside that I enjoy on my walks. Plus the extra traffic using the A43 will impact on getting into and out of the village. Also why do we need it with DIRFT up the road which is not running at full capacity. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Coyle
"Massively concerned about the impact on open countryside, air and noise pollution it will generate, impact on road system that is already not coping with volumes of traffic. The site is unsuitable for the proposal. Alternative locations exist at DIRFT (not at capacity) or on Swan Valley, two already industrialised areas. Please leave our villages and green space alone. The combination of this and Roxhill development will be devasting for our rural communities."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sharon Mackenzie
"I’m totally opposed to the planning application for Rail Central for the following reasons. The 8000 or so jobs it will give will cause a massive increase in traffic, for an already busy area. This will add increased amounts of dangerous pollutants to the atmosphere, noise pollution (due to shift working), and light pollution to a beautiful rural location. This will adversely affect the health of adults and children! More traffic will render the local highways more dangerous for the local population.Roads are too busy already. 1160 acres of local farmland will disappear, and be covered by concrete! This affects several things, loss of wildlife habitat, destruction of 4 conservation areas, and loss of beautiful rural views. The development isn’t needed I. This area, as we have DIRFT, which is nowhere near full capacity, only approx 20 miles away. It would be of more use in an area that has high unemployment, and needs the jobs. There are too many of these in our area, and they should be strategically placed around the country!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Alan George Mitchell
"The consequences of building Rail Central's rail freight interchange 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
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
Steve Rowe
"Object for the following Insuffient data to show this will reduce road traffic Insuffient plans to show that rail will be used to satisfy strategic justification for planning Local roads will not cope with new traffic and insuffient plans in place to handle new traffic Too much noise Not enough local Labour "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stop Rail Central Ltd
"Stop Rail Central Limited (SRC) is a non-political, non-profit making Organisation formed to represent the local community. SRC strongly object to Rail Central 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 Rail Central does not conform with several of these policies including air quality, environmental impact, local workforce availability, proximity to residential areas, road safety, quality of life and establishment of a national network of SRFIs. 2. TRAFFIC CONCERNS We do not believe, for the reasons summarised below, that Rail Central 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 percentage of rail connected warehousing is too low, compared to the overall size of the development, to facilitate a beneficial modal shift. This is confirmed by the Applicant’s forecast that 90% of containers will arrive or depart from Rail Central by road d) 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 e) 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 f) The distance to all the major ports in England is too short to make most journeys economic by rail g) An additional 21,823 vehicle movements per day would be generated with at least 70% predicted to use the M1 J15a and the busiest section of the M1. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate the effects that perturbation of this critical artery will have on the surrounding village roads h) 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 currently being built. 3. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE The alternative sites assessment fails 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 East 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’. The Applicant’s study focused on an area of the country already well served by SRFIs, ignoring those that are ‘poorly served’. The Applicant has also failed to select the site which would cause the least environmental impact. 4. VISUAL IMPACTS There are significant adverse visual impacts on a large number of receptors that are not, and cannot be, mitigated by the proposed provision of bunds and trees. The applicant has failed to grasp the significant adverse impact that replacing rural views with an industrial landscape will have on the quality of life of a rural community. 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 three 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 other local plans. The Important Local Gap would be leap-frogged and future development and infill of marginalised land would be inevitable, resulting in the coalescence of Milton Malsor, Blisworth and Roade into the Northampton conurbation. The individual identities of these historic villages would be lost. 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 by their additional length and proximity to the intermodal terminal, warehouses 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 identify the most damaging impacts of the scheme in that some local residents will have their homes demolished and a number of others will be forced to sell them in order to secure their future financial security (or, alternatively, live within 50 metres of an industrial building). These are the most significant of adverse impacts (amongst many) that the Applicant has under-played. 9. ECOLOGY The proposed development would almost exclusively build on currently productive farmland (not brownfield as recommended by the NPS NN) which cannot be regarded as sustainable. There would be extensive loss of habitat for wild life and the total loss of many veteran and notable trees. The proposed mitigation for these losses is inadequate. 10. CUMULATIVE IMPACT The (very limited) assessment of the cumulative impact of building Europe’s largest warehouse park (Rail Central and Northampton Gateway combined) on productive agricultural green fields is inadequate as it fails to address the impacts on: the efficacy and success of a strategic national network; passenger rail services; strategic and local road networks; the availability and resilience of power supplies; the loss of recreational utility associated with significant footpath diversions; the physical and mental health of the community; socio economic factors (most fundamentally the disruption to the employment market); the ecology and environment. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart Dean
"The proposal is neither "strategic " or ecologically sound. The location of the proposed development is not strategic in the fact that there is another established Rail Freight Interchange which has the same objectives as this proposal and which is currently undergoing its third phase of development at DIRFT and is within a distance of 20 miles of this proposal. This surely negates the " strategic "element of the proposal. The development, apart from taking many hectares of arable and valuable countryside ,will create an extremely large number of vehicle movements, most of which will be heavy goods vehicles, over a 24 hour period when the site is in operation , added to the considerable disruption and pollution which will occur during the period of its construction. The A 43 and M1 are at periods running at practically maximum capacity , there are weekly delays on the M1 between junctions 13 and 16, any further increase in traffic density would only serve to exacerbate these problems in addition to the increase in pollution that such delays would inevitably create. The hypothetical increase in local employment opportunities is flawed in that local employment levels are at a high level and hence any numbers of staff will have to be sought from outside the area, creating even further vehicle movements to the site. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tess Scott
"I disagree very strongly to this application. It fails on so many grounds. Firstly I believe that there is no practical need for a Rail Freight Terminal and strategically there is a large Rail Freight terminal just a few miles up the M1 at DIRFT. If planning is granted it will have a disastrous effect on 2 villages with increased traffic, noise, light and air pollution and the loss of wildlife habitat. Northampton has very low unemployment and there are very many existing warehouse parks around the town with unsold or unlet warehouses. We do not need more. If good agricultural land is to be built on let it be for houses that are needed not huge empty metal 'sheds'. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
William Lindon
"I object to this interchange because 1/. The roads and infrastructure is inadequate for this size of construction and will cause unreasonable delays and holdups for a large area around. 2/. The adjacent Motorways have so many non efficient contractors working on them that they will not be able to cope with a major increase in traffic volume especially as work is taking so long that maintenance will now be ongoing and slow the whole system down for many years. 3/. The cost of this project plus HS2 plus Foreign Aid plus relaxation of prudence will push our Debt/GDP up to 100% meaning that the EU can throw us out or take control of our finances and country as happened to Greece 4/. As has happened to any Government project they always overrun and cost double the quoted estimate they must get efficient and active contractors and unfortunately there aren't any"
Members of the Public/Businesses
C.P. Eads
" My objections relating to the proposed Northampton Rail Central 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 networks ie, the M1 Motorway at junction 15, 15A and the A43/A45/A508 trunk roads. 02. Increased road congestion on the already overpopulated and congested M1 motorway and adjacent trunk roads A43/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 Blisworth and Milton Malsor. 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 also 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 a fully operating rail freight terminal element that will comply with the government policy. 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. 08. There does not seem to be any “joined up thinking” regarding these speculative developments. Local Planners have recently given the go-ahead for a huge 870,000 sq.ft warehouse development adjacent to Junction 16 of the M1 Motorway [Redacted] Will this approved development be taken into account when deliberating on the Rail Central application?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carl Johnson
"Increased road and rail traffic locally will result in deterioration in air quality and consequent threat to health. Proposal will result in unacceptable level of road congestion especially when M1 motorway is closed and M1 traffic is diverted onto local roads."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carol Thorn
"This proposed development is ruinous to our local ecology, community and well being. It will affect every aspect of our lives, with 24/7 noise, light and other pollution, increased crime both during construction and operational phases and appalling congestion on all local infrastructure and the negative impact on safety that goes with it. There is no need for a further Rail Freight terminal in the locality as DIRFT which is still expanding is only 15 miles away and this therefore does not fall within the strategic national plan to provide RFIs across the country - not to group them all in one small area. Warehousing in Northamptonshire is currently under utilised so adding millions more square footage will only add to the issue. Warehousing jobs locally are difficult to fill so any future employees will need to commute from other areas, again increasing traffic etc. Appears to be purely with intent to make money for a very small minority."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laura Herrington
"My main concerns with this development are as follows; Uncertainty for homeowners & residents living in compulsory purchase areas The size of proposal and the close proximity to villagers homes Increased traffic and the lack of infrastructure on surraounding roads to cope with this increase The affect on wildlife & the environment. Increase in noise, smell & light pollution Lack of desire by freight companies to move to rail distribution That Northants already has a rail freight terminal "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Sarah Smith
"The local area and infrastructure is not able to handle the increased traffic that will result, and will have a detrimental affect on the local community"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicola Wood
"I object as this development just doesnt make sense, figures and stats do not provide the whole truth or indeed correct. The train lines ARE AT capacity and will impact trains to London, employment is not needed in these roles already jobs available but are not taken up in surrounding industrial areas. Traffic around the area is gridlock this will only add to the is issue. Rail frieght is not the way forward it'll just be empty warehouses that'll being crime to the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ruaridh Hook
"I oppose the rail freight based on: - the impact to the local traffic. Often traffic backs up from J15 to near Roade and when turning out of Courteenhall road onto the A508 you have to wait a huge amount of time already until you can turn out - causing significant delays for those that live locally - damage to environment and countryside in an area with lots of industrial building already - the lack of stratgic need for the development - effect on nearby villages and developments putting people off living there and stopping regeneration"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steve Borondy
"I object to this development proposal. It would destroy beautiful countryside for ever. This is not a place for a development of this nature. There are many other brown field areas in the Midlands that can be considered before this site. Regards Steve Borondy "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Vincent
"Blisworth is a quiet rural village surrounded by open fields, such a large development will forever destroy this and join it with concrete to Milton Malsor. Despite having a bypass, the village is used as a rat run by people wanting to avoid junction 15 of the M1, this development will bring yet more traffic through the village which is not capable of handling. Being out in the countryside when you go outside at night it is dark and the stars are visible, with the 24hr nature of the development will create so much light pollution it will be as though we are in a city. Since there isn't the housing capacity locally for the workforce this development, nor a local employment need then where will the employees come from and how will the get to the development. I don't believe that there is a need for such a development when only 30 miles away just south of Rugby there is another such development which uses the M1 and the same rail link. The DRIFT project as I understand has yet to complete its stage two which is passed the planning stage."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jamie Cooke
"I wish to object to the rail freight exchange. More traffic on the road heading through Roade will cause even more accidents. We have already had 2 fatalities in the space of 10 days so with extra vehicles comes extra risk, especially with two schools in the vicinity. I don't want the extra numbers because we have had an increased crime spree in the past few weeks, including vehicle thefts. Increased numbers of workers will increase the risk of more crime. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lyn Bird
"I strongly object to the planning application known as Rail Central 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 on or in proximity to the site. My concerns extend to physical, physiological and mental health inequalities which will be exacerbated by the pending application if it were allowed to proceed. The loss of homes and the close proximity of the site to dwellings will have a profound impact upon those home-owners. I require time to review the applicants current submission documents but so far Ashfield Land 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
Marie Gale
"I have just bought a house locallly and shall be moving to Milton Malsor in the new year. Rail central will bring pollution. Air quality will decrease, I have a son with [Redacted] who this will affect. The traffic will be terrible, the roads can hardly cope as it is. The loss of countryside will be tragic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Simon P Jones
"PLEASE NOTE THIS SUPERCEDES THE PREVIOUS SUBMISSION MADE IN ERROR I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION The West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) completed, found to be sound by PINS and formally adopted in 2014 specifically rejected a request from 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 Rail Central. 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 to the idea of providing Strategic National Importance simply in order to bypass local planning. Northamptonshire is a mainly rural county with only a few medium sized towns, 3 freight terminals (DIRFT, Rail Central and Northampton Gateway) would be vastly in excess of the needs of the local market. 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. Travelling by road to the village on the A43 from the Towcester direction involves crossing west-bound traffic on the A43. (the Blisworth/Milton Malsor Turn). This is already a dangerous junction and the increased traffic due to the development would see drivers avoiding it by rat running through local villages. What guarantees preventing this or from using the local villages as a car park by employees? 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. 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. 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 views over what is currently mainly open countryside would be totally destroyed by massive warehouses and high earth mounds (bunding). These earth mounds would be a completely alien feature and a blot on the landscape. There is a large network of ancient footpaths that connect Milton Malsor with other local villages. The freight terminal would completely destroy these rights of way and we would lose hundreds of acres of productive agricultural land when the country needs to produce more food."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Sharp
"I would like to raise the following concerns, the proposed development is on a significant amount of fields, we need to protect our environment and the animals living there not destroy it. The roads are clearly not able to take any additional traffic- every day there are accidents on m1, a43 and a508 which has a knock on effect to Blisworth! There is no need for more employment, south Northants had very low unemployment so the "jobs" would actually just mean more people travelling from afar (again more pollution) moving on from this, there is discussion about moving freight to train, and this is more environmentally friendly- but if you have 1000's of staff driving into work (as there is such low unemployment in the area) surely this has a more detrimental impact. Plus there is only very few opportunities for there to be freight trains used. We moved to the area to be in the countryside for our children to be able to grow up in a nice area (we paid a premium for this and have previously lived near an industrial estate) our son has [Redacted] so this would have a huge detrimental impact on our children. This is a monstrosity and would be an absolute disgrace to get through planning- especially with DIRFT so nearby which is not at capacity. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
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
Dr Andrew Gough
"Objection to Rail Central TR050004 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. Planned investment in the Strategic Rail Network targets the major freight flows from Felixstowe and Southampton to the West Midlands, effectively bypassing Rail Central 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. The application is therefore premature. Deficiencies in the Assessment of Alternative Sites result in significant non-compliance with planning legislation. Deficiencies in the socio-economic case highlight non-alignment with NPSNN policies on availability of labour. The proposed scale of the development is in excess of that needed in Northamptonshire, according to Network Rail’s own forecasts. Market demand for Rail Central is primarily driven by a shortage of high-quality, large-footprint buildings, not by any proven desire to enact modal shift. The design of Rail Central is inappropriate for its intended use as an SRFI. Comparison with the design approaches of consented schemes such as DIRFT III and East Midlands Gateway show that a substantial revision of the Rail Central masterplan will be required to meet market expectations for rail-served buildings. The proposal contravenes NPS 4.86 as it is in extremely close proximity to residential areas. No amount of earthworks or landscaping can provide satisfactory mitigation. The proposal contravenes NPS 2.45 and 2.56 in that it is not located in close proximity to conurbations, major centres of population, nor near the markets it claims it will serve. Brownfield sites have been ignored as viable alternatives, contrary to NPS 5.186. 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. We are effectively being asked to approve “DIRFT IV”. 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 Rail Central 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. A combination of the already-consented capacity at East Midlands Gateway, DIRFT III and the proposed Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange would provide an optimum network solution, sufficient to meet both market needs and national policy objectives in the medium term. I am not convinced that Rail Central has made the case for a SRFI development of national importance, in this location, at this time. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Ferrie
"1) Destruction of many hectares of good farmland. this will reduce the biodiversity of the area and give rise to other 'me too' development applications along the A43 corridor. The developers application discusses how they will improve bio diversity but the facts and the logic of their case are incorrect and amount to a misrepresentation to the Minister of State. 2) This development will not provide new employment for the area. Official statistics show that South Northamptonshire already has full employment so any jobs will entail travelling from outside the area. This is not taken into account in the application. Factual evidence can be provided in DIRFT where 50% of the staffing of Tesco Distribution is provided by immigrant Romanian people. 3) The infrastructure of the area will be unable to deal with the additional road traffic especially at peak times between 5.00am and 9.00am. This will endanger the lives of the schoolchildren who rely on road transport in this area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Grazyna Ferguson
"I would like to object to the proposal. I have moved in to Blisworth as it's over beautiful rulral village setting that i was looking for while moving away from big towns with huge developments. By allowing this development to go through you will destroy natural land and animals natural habitats. The noise level will raise significantly. I currently live opposite the rail tracks. To have additional train traffic will disturb the quiet villages and make difficult to sell properties. The pollution will raise significantly as you will be directing execive traffic this way. With the current economy and constant warehousing developments around the area how the developers plan to fulfil resourcing. Our area has no unemployment, will the owner poach employees and creat other business to fail? Why not build where there is no jobs? What's the point of additional rail interchange between our villages if you already have one few junctions up from j15. Can that be expanded to meet the need for rail forwarding strategy? "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Sarah Smith
"Junction 15 of the M1 is already unable to cope with the flow of commuters like me travelling from Northampton to Milton Keynes or further afield on a daily basis. The upgrade of the smart motorway will take until 2022 and has made me late by half hour everyday since it started. The A5 and A508 cannot cope with the extra flow since the m1 upgrade started. There is one single traffic incident in the morning rush hour and it all grinds to a halt for hours on every route! How on earth is this area going to cope with thousands of lorry' s every week? It simply will be an unmitigated disaster for the local residents trying to simply get to work on a daily basis. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Pam McManus
"I WOULD LIKE TO STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION. I was lead to believe that the idea of an SRFI was to remove traffic from the roads and improve air quality. This project would do neither of these things. It is also supposed to be part of a strategic plan. There is no strategic element to this plan. Indeed there is another similar proposal being looked at and another working site only a few miles away, with enough spare capacity for at least ten years. I suffer from a terminal lung condition,[redacted] and my husband and I were allocated a bungalow partly because of my medical needs because our previous home was considered unsuitable and dangerous for my condition. If this proposal goes ahead the air quality in this area will be worse than where we were previously, effectively leading to an acceleration in deterioration in my health. In addition the road network will become more congested leading to an increase in difficulty for me in getting to essential medical appointments and possibly preventing medical help getting to me quickly. We already have to try to arrange appointments outside rush hours because the roads are already congested so badly during these times that travelling even the short distances to our doctor's surgery at Blisworth and our local hospital in Northampton has become very difficult. We are told that this proposal will lead to around 8,000 new jobs. If we were in an area of high unemployment this would be great but we are not. This means that the workforce will either have to drive here or be driven here by the employers, as the public transport system will not be suitable for this purpose, this will mean that there will be extra vehicles coming through our village and probably even having to park here if, as we suspect, the proposed pedestrian access to the site becomes the main access for the workforce. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Jelley
"I write on behalf of myself and my young family. We strongly object to the proposal based around the light and noise pollution that will be created by the increase in traffic. My son suffers from [Redacted], which is part of the reason we moved to a country village. Secondly, The sites at DIRFT 1 & 2 are currently either constructed or have the facility to have more warehousing. These sites are not currently utilising the rail infrastructure, which the planning was based around. I would request that a survey to monitor the day to day running of these sites, and how and if the rail network is being utilised, before a decision is made on this application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tom McManus
"I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS PROPOSAL in my opinion there is no strategic element to the proposal and it is just a ploy to circumvent normal planning procedures. This applicant has tried, unsuccessfully, in the past to obtain planning permission for this site and but labelling this proposal as an SRFI they are hoping to cash in the value of the land. In addition to this I would like to make the following points. There is another similar application being looked at and neither applicant seems to have done any meaningful cumulative impact assessment. There is a fully functioning road rail infrastructure only a few miles away at Crick which has spare capacity for at least ten years. The local road system is running at a.most full capacity before at present and addition traffic quoted for this plan would cause major disruption. We live in a sheltered housing area which would be only a few metres from the sight. Many of the redidents suffer from COPD and my wife suffers from [Redacted] a life limiting lung complaint. The deterioration in air quality, light pollution and the noise from this site would have a major negative impact on her life and the life of others suffering from lung complaints. To be perfectly clear, I fully support the government's aim to move freight from the roads to the rail network and if I thought that this proposal would achieve thismImwould support it but I firmly believe that this is not going to be the case, indeed there is not even any assurance from Network Rail that there will even be enough spare rail,capacity to service the plan. I fear that, if it goes ahead, it will be a road based warehouse network, which entirely contradicts the government's stated aims. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
William Root
"I strongly object to the proposed development for the following reasons: I believe the proposal is a cynical manipulation of the planning system on the part of Rail Central to gain permission to develop a site they have had for some time but would not have got through the local planning authorities as it is contrary to local planning policy. The proposed SFRI cannot be regarded as genuine national infrastructure due to the area already being well served with rail connected warehousing; not least of which is the expansion of DIRFT. Rail Central has not seriously examined alternative sites as required; they simply want to profit from the site they already have. The proposed development is utterly foreign to the historic rural setting of Blisworth and Milton Malsor. Its size dwarfs both villages and replaces open countryside with a vast hard development. The local environment would be irreparably damaged; no effective mitigation is possible. This part of Northamptonshire is already a hub for the logistics industry. The development will create more local traffic, and at best, will result in minimal modal shift away from roads due little capacity being available on the West Coast Mainline Railway. The 24-hr nature of SFRI operations will result in significant nuisance to those living nearby due to noise and light pollution. SFRIs should provide a clear environmental net benefit. This one would result in huge environmental damage for very little modal shift from road to rail. Such developments on green field land cannot be regarded as sustainable. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Hargreaves
"I strongly object to the above proposal on several grounds such as,impact on air quality on a section of motorway M1 which is already subject to Air Quality management issues,added congestion to an already overstretched highway network in the area,direct impact on residential properties a number of which will be demolished,both within and immediately adjacent to the proposal.impact on the conservation area,cumulative impacts of rail connectivity with Dirft 3 Northampton Gateway,existing services passenger and freight on the Northampton Loop of the WCML. Whilst the applicants have produced traffic modelling which suggests the additional traffic will have little impact the reality and my experience of existing road traffic issues paints a totally different picture,over the course of the last 24 months the number of issues effecting the MI corridor between Junction 15 to 16 has almost become a weekly occurrence,traffic jams on the adjacent road networks A43 Tove Valley A45 and A508 Queen Eleanor junction become a daily norm,I question why the applicant has not yet produced a stress tested Saturn model which reflects this reality,and to date no cumulative highways assessment has been produced including the potential of Northampton Gateway. Rail connectivity has still to be proven,despite the fact that Network Rail originally stated at Scoping opinion 2016 that early engagement was crucial,a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange without rail connections simply becomes a road served warehouse site which we currently have plenty of in the area,which will only serve to add to road congestion. The only proposed entrance to the site for the circa 23000 extra vehicle movements daily is via a raised grade separated junction which runs the whole length of Blisworth Arm and the GU canal,both of which are conservation areas,the Arm has several residential properties which will all be seriously adversely affected by noise and light pollution,air quality issues all created by the 24hr seven days a a week operation,no mitigation has been put forward in the design of this GSJ by the applicant to counter these issues."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Bodman
"Application TR050004 for Rail Central strategic rail freight interchange I strongly object to this proposal Rail Central 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, road congestion and safety, cumulative impact and historic environment. Rail Central is also non-compliant with several policies within the National Planning Policy Framework many of which overlap with those listed above. Rail Central is also non-compliant with the West Northants Joint Core Strategy and the South Northamptonshire Council’s local plan. Rail Central 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 satisfactory 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 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 Rail Central’s train paths. This project has reached Network Rail’s GRIP level 2 which means its associated risks are unacceptably high. Rail Central 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 A43, A45, A5076, A5123 and minor roads in the vicinity. Rail Central would create major delays on nearby roads at peak times. Additional traffic would be generated on the A43 which is already been monitored due to its high accident rate. It is considered that the traffic forecast by the Northamptonshire Strategic Transport Model has underestimated likely volumes for 2031. Approximately 45% of the additional traffic movements created by this SRFI are forecast to pass through one of the two immediately adjacent air quality management areas. Ashfield Land has 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. Rail Central 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
Barbara Mary Clarke
"Excessive Noise and pollution levels 24/7 within 250 mts of my property endangering the health of my family. Making a complete eyesore of the surrounding countryside, spoiling all the pleasant country views, killing all wild life and birds in immediate area. Northampton is a low unemployment area so work force will have to travel by motor transport etc creating more noise and pollution, plus traveling through surrounding village roads and creating more parking problems. Devaluing all local residential properties. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Leslie Clarke
"Having previously made complaints to the excessive noise levels this new application will more than quadruple the traffic noise and pollution levels which are within 250yds from my property to A45 proposed access/exit points, which would further endanger my health and my family. Noise levels will continue 24 hours a day, every day and night, 365 days per year every year. It will take away the natural beauty of the enviroment with monstrous warehousing spoiling the views, and killing the animal and bird life in the area. Surrounding village life will be destroyed with many vehicles taking short cuts on narrow country roads making them rat runs to the site. Vehicle parking in local roads and villages by Lorries and staff. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Geoffrey Mellors
"L strongly object to this outrageous proposal. I am 87 years of age and have lived in Milton Malsor for 51 years,enjoying the beauty and tranquillity in this delightful rural village. I strongly object to this proposed SRFI as it is a departure from the West Northants Joint Core Strategy. Besides there is no need for this as there is already a rail freight terminal nearby on junction 18 of the M1 known as DIRFT. I am also very concerned that the sir pollution generated by the thousands of additional traffic movements per day, will have a serious impact on my health. The harm caused by diesel particulates is a national issue."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Wreford
"The extra traffic on junction 15A and on the motorway would be unacceptable most weeks it is stationary either north or south bound on at least 3 days. There is not enough HGV parking and toilet facilities allocated for overnight stays, this area already has too many trucks parking in roadways as there is no allocated parking on other sites around the town. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Mavis Brewer
"I object very strongly to this SRFI. It is an unnecessary and inappropriate proposal. Unnecessary because there is already a rail freight terminal nearby on junction 18 of the M1. So there is no need for another one here in Milton Malsor. In any case it's contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy. The thought of having the proposed Rail Central SRFI on my doorstep is my worst nightmare imaginable, bearing in mind I have enjoyed living here in my cottage in Milton Malsor for the past 55 years. The increase in air pollution this proposed SRFI will generate, due to the thousands of additional vehicle movements a day is another nightmare scenario. I am very worried that the air pollution by nitric oxide and diesel particulate lorry and machinery emissions will be detrimental to my health, bearing in mind I am 85 years of age. I also object very strongly to the noise which will be generated by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers. Also the light and noise pollution from night time operations would be unbearable. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Pauline Mellors
"L strongly object to this proposal for an SFRI on land in open countryside between Milton Malsor and Blisworth, as it is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy. Having this SRFI squeezed ln between the two villages, both conservation areas, would be absolutely devastating for residents..I am a pensioner of 85 and have lived in the village for 51 years. I am very concerned that the sir pollution generated by the thousands of additional traffic movements per day, will have a serious impact on my health. The harm caused by diesel particulates is a national issue. In any case there is no need for this SRFI as there is already a Rail Freight Terminal nearby on junction 18 on the M1 known as DIRFT"
Members of the Public/Businesses
NATS LTD
"Dear Sirs, NATS anticipates no impact from the proposal and has no comments to make on the DCO application. Regards S. Rossi NATS Safeguarding Office"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Northampton Rail Users Group
"Northampton Rail Users Group (NRUG) object on the basis of the adverse effects this proposal will have on passenger services. Any assertion of 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, including at Northampton, are well documented. Locating a new terminal in the middle of these well documented restrictions makes no sense. 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. The WCML will continue to host a significant number of “conventional” intercity services, as the ES for the revamp works at Euston makes clear. There is no case for an assumption of significant capacity release for freight over this part of the WCML outside of a very short term window. None of the strategic freight corridors shown in the NSPNN and Freight RUS include the WCML south of DIRFT, which might have been expected given the limitations identified in the various studies. Northampton station is a pinch point for freight, with no identified solutions from Network Rail to solve this. Further, as the pinch is caused by the narrow corridor between the station and river, any required changes to the track layout at Northampton station to accommodate more freight are impractical following the building of the new station. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Angela Passmore
"I strongly object to this Rail Freight Terminal. I am the owner of a small cleaning business and already find it difficult to recruit people to work for me due to there being a very low level of unemployment in the area. A development of the size being proposed would need to employ thousands of people which would make it impossible for small businesses such as mine to compete for workers. My second objection is related to traffic. Currently during the morning and evening rush hours many of the roads around the town become very congested causing many delays. Despite what Rail Central say it is enevitable that the situation will get worse with the thousands of additional vehicles that the site would generate on the local roads. A significant issue that appears to have been overlooked is that when there are problems on the M1, a regular feature, traffic around Northampton comes to a standstill. This does have a significant impact on myself and fellow workers who need to reach clients on time."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barry Elliott STEER
"I object to the proposal for the following reasons: No strategic need because DIRFT is close and is far from being fully developed. There is little or no spare rail capacity. There is inadequate capacity on local roads too. There is no local labour pool, so the work force would have to travel in from outside creating even more congestion and pollution. We live in a wonderful relatively unspoilt 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 be harmful to the local population, flora and fauna and the general environment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Denis Passmore
"I object to Rail Central. My wife and I run a small business operating in Northampton and surrounding villages. Currently our biggest problem is the ability to recruit and retain staff. Over the last few years the labour market in Northampton has become very tight and we are finding it almost impossible to recruit workers. Should the Rail Central project go ahead creating thousands of jobs we would be unable to compete with the wages and benefits larger companies can offer. We know of many other small business owners who are in the same position as ourselves and would ask you to give real consideration to the significant distortation in the labour market that this rail terminal would cause and the detremential effect it would have on the local business community. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dennis Bryan
"I believe the proposed plan development will have no socio-economic benefit to the people of Northamptonshire and only has commercial interest. There is also the effect on the natural environment that these planned proposals will cause which will be irreversible and detrimental to the countryside and wildlife natural habitat. In addition future generations will also be negatively effected by these planned proposals and not receive the benefit of the proposed planned works."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Geoffrey Binks
"I object very strongly to this unnecessary and unwanted developer driven proposal for the Rail Central SRFI, squeezed in, between Milton Malsor and Blisworth villages, both of which are conservation areas. The increased traffic congestion on roads in the locality due to the thousands of additional vehicle movements a day generated by this SRFI, will lead to traffic chaos, on the already congested roads in the area. Besides the increase in air pollution generated by this SRFI, due to the thousands of additional daily vehicle movements, is a very real concern to me. Air Pollution by Nitric Oxide and Diesel Particulate lorry and machinery emissions will have an adverse affect on my health, as well as, for those in neighbouring villages. The harm caused by Diesel Particulates is of course a national issue, with little prospect in the immediate future of HGV`s being powered by electricity. Furthermore, the noise and light pollution generated from this SRFI operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, would be devastating making my life unbearable. I also strongly object to this developer driven SRFI on the grounds it`s contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS). There is absolutely no policy or evidence in the WNJCS to suggest the need for an SRFI on land in open countryside between Milton Malsor and Blisworth. The need for an SRFI is identified in the WNJCS as the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) nearby on junction 18 on the M1. Therefore there is no need or requirement for the proposed Rail Central SRFI. My wife and I have enjoyed living in Milton Malsor for the past 44 years. Now that we are retired we look forward to continuing to do so, without having the Rail Central SRFI which would totally ruin the enjoyment of living in this peaceful and idyllic village."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gillian Jaynes
"I object to the Rail Central Strategic Infrastructure submitted by Ashfield Land in the STRONGEST possible terms for the following reasons. * My understanding is that the Governments' Rail Freight Strategy should cover the entire country. This does not appear to be the case.The East Midlands has several warehousing/rail freight depots already with room for expansion.The proposed site of RailCentral/Northampton Gateway is a small area between a few villages, and attendent warehousing will completely fill in all land leaving no space for for those who love this area and use it to it's full capacity. * Blisworth Arm is a community on the banks of the Northampton Arm Canal and is a Conservation Area. It comprises of historic buildings and businesses and is an important part of the countrys' Industrial Revolution. It is constantly used by walkers, riders, anglers, shooters, dog walkers, families, boaters, trip boat users. Ashfield Land own a small acreage of land called Arm Farm situated in the Arm . It has been allowed to become derelict during the 20 years it has been in their ownership. The site of the huge roundabout access into the Warehouse Park will be on these ridge and furrow fields found in this place. The proposed road system is at the roof height of these historic houses and businesses, and where there is currently almost dark skies at night there would be 24 hour light ,noise and air pollution. At this roundabout heavy goods vehicles and works traffic would have access to the small lanes around the affected villages, so that when the M1 and other arterial routes are at gridlock which they are, every day, these vehicles could drive through our villages to find alternative routes out and in to the area. * The proposed area is very small with no room for expansion. * The site of this proposed development is at one of the most congested areas of the M1. With thousands of extra vehicles coming in every day, the already congested roads would be completely gridlocked and drivers would find alternative routes through the tiny lanes surrounding these villages. * Ashfield Land have tried, unsuccessfully in the past to develop their small land ownership. They appear to be using the Governments' Rail Freight Strategy to bypass local planning, and are presenting a distorted view of the area. On many of the maps shown at public exhibitions, Blisworth Arm is not shown. P,ease note: it does exist and will be underneath the vast road works in their proposal. * I hugely dislike the concept of bullying, and am aware that the Government is trying to stamp out such behaviour in the Commons. Developers who make elderly ladies cry at their public meetings, and families move away are no more than bullies. They came to our community over 2 years ago announcing that they were working for the Government, and that they intended to take away our quiet and peaceful rural life to build a warehouse park and attached rail freight depot. This prospective development company under the leadership of James Digby hails from Bristol, and has no care or interest for our way of life. They have not taken into consideration any local views and opinions, and the consultation process has been farcical. I feel violated by Ashfield Land, and I object to this proposal in the strongest of possible terms."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Braband
"I am registering as an interested party to stop the senseless rail freight terminals and warehouse it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lesley Anne Pyke
"Dear Sir I write to register my OBJECTION to the proposal by Ashfield Land to construct a rail freight terminal on land immediately adjacent to my home in Milton Malsor. I have lived in our Grade 2 historic house for 38 years. The village is an ancient community with strong local ties and loyalties, with an agricultural base, which faces effective destruction by the forced insertion of massive heavy industry within a few hundred yards of the village boundary. 24 hour heavy road traffic, rail movements, light and noise pollution will adversely affect the physical and mental health of all residents, particularly the children at the popular and highly rated primary school. Please ensure that my village community survives. I OBJECT to Ashfields Land, application. Yours Sincerely LESLEY ANNE PYKE. R.G.N."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Brenda Binks
"I enjoy living here in Milton Malsor with my husband, and have done so for the past 44 years. It`s such a delight to live in such a pretty rural village in open countryside. Needless to say we are looking forward to spending the rest of our days here in peace and quiet without the very real threat of being poisoned by air pollution! I therefore object very strongly to the proposed Rail Central SRFI due to the increase in air pollution which this SRFI will generate, due to the thousands of additional vehicle movements a day. Air Pollution by Nitric Oxide and Diesel Particulate lorry and machinery emissions will seriously affect my health, which is of great concern to me. Also the noise and light pollution generated from this SRFI operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, would be simply unbearable. I also strongly object to this developer driven SRFI on the grounds it`s contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS). The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only a short distance away on junction 18 on the M1, so there is no need for the proposed Rail Central SRFI. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Pyke
"Dear Sir/Madam I write to STRONGLY OBJECT to the proposal by Ashfield Land to construct a Rail Freight terminal on land between the villages of Milton Malsor and Blisworth, South Northamptonshire. These are rural communities, set in ancient agricultural country. The proposal will overwhelm the area with a heavy industrial site. The "mitigation" proposals of bunding and planting will do little to prevent the effective destruction of the local environment by noise, light pollution, atrmospheric pollution, and loss of amenity. The proposal is made without thought or care for the lives of the citizens of the villages and in direct breach of the West Northants Strategic Plan. It should be rejected on the above grounds. Please register my OBJECTION to the application. Yours Sincerely ROBERT PYKE."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Walder
"Sixty-eight years ago I purchased land and built a bungalow in the delightful village of Milton Malsor and have lived there ever since with my wife Together we have also brought up a family and had hoped to live out the rest of our lives in peace and tranquility breathing in the county-side fresh and fresh air. I object very strongly to the proposed Rail Central SRFI being built on my doorstep - this would be an absolute nightmare. This developer driven proposal is both unnecessary and unwanted. The thousands of additional vehicle movements horrifies me. The air pollution by Nitrous Oxide and Diesel Particulate lorry and machinery emissions will, I am sure, be detrimental to both my health and to that of my family; not forgetting the population of the village which is becoming more elderly. I object very strongly to the noise and light pollution the operation will inevitably produce. I also object strongly to this proposal as it is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy(WNJCS). The Daventry Terminal(DIRFT) is only a short distance awayfrom this site, serves the same local area and has the capacity for expansion for many years to come. There is therefor no reason to build the proposed Rail Central SRFI. For all the above reasons I urge that the proposal is refused "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Valerie Hayward
"I object to the Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange) proposal Ref: TR050004. I object to the loss of good quality agricultural farmland which currently yields grain for the production of flour at the nearby Heygates mill. The Rail Central proposal will have a detrimental significant cumulative effect on sustainable food production in this area. I object to being exposed to reduced air quality and constant noise at all times of the day and night due to the 24 hour operations at the site and additional traffic passing my house. The Rail Central proposals are harmful development with cumulative adverse impacts to the environment and human health, which cannot be made acceptable by any mitigation. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Lewis
"1. This 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 views over what is currently mainly open countryside would be totally destroyed by massive warehouses and high earth mounds (bunding). These earth mounds would be a completely alien feature and a blot on the landscape. 3. All the land between Milton Malsor and Blisworth is currently open countryside that provides a haven for wildlife. All of this would be totally lost to the area. 4. The loss of valuable 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 Blisworth that would be diverted along the Towcester Rd. 6. Increased traffic through the village when there is congestion on the M1 & A43 7. Increased traffic congestion on roads in the locality due to the thousands of additional vehicle movements a day, generated by this Rail Freight Terminal 8. Increased Air Pollution due to the thousands of additional vehicle movements a day. Air pollution by nitric oxide and diesel particulate lorry and machinery emissions, (a national issue), will directly affect the health of residents in Milton Malsor 9. Noise created by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers. 10. Light & noise pollution from night time operations. 11. The area has very low unemployment so the majority of workers for the operation will have to travel some distance to work adding to congestion and air 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. This proposal is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) refer to attached WNJCS summary 15. The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only a few miles from the Rail Central site and has capacity for expansion for around 10 years. There is no need for another rail freight terminal in the area. 16. Holy Cross Church in Milton Malsor, has owned a large field in Barn Lane for hundreds of years and is an important open space. The building of massive warehouses on this field would be a major loss to the whole community. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cheryl Gannon
" am a resident of Milton malsor. Today it took me over 45 mimutes to get to work in milton keynes. Yesterday took me over an hour because the m1 had issues. Amy additional traffic on the road would cause absolute chaos to the local infrastructure which is already unable to cope with existing traffic. To make matters worse I do not believe there is any need for this development in amy economic form to be built on my doorstep. Not only should the suggestion be quashed, the general process should be evaluated to prevent the years of pain this is causing to people's lives. There is a similar build up the road in daventry which is vacant. There are empty warehouses already in Northampton and Milton Keynes. This shouldn't even be a consideration. There is also questionable capability to deliver the rail capability. No no no"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Walter
"I strongly object to the Rail Freight terminal that would be right next to Gayton Marina. For some years now we have used this as a base for our walking holidays using the excellent network of footpaths around the area. It has been brought to our notice that many of the footpaths in the Gayton/Milton Malsor/Blisworth area would be diverted away from countryside and placed alongside railway lines or roads. Frankly, the proposed diversion routes would offer no appeal whatsoever. They would suffer from both noise and air pollution and the current long distance views would be replaced by trains, cars and the dreadful grey metal fencing alongside the railway. Why would anyone want to walk by that. If this goes ahead we would certainly stop using Gayton Marina as a base and take our custom elsewhere."
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Sharp
"I strongly object to the rail central terminal being built in this area. The impact it would have on the area would be catastrophic. The roads at present already struggle to deal the traffic, the m1, a508 and a43 seem to constantly have serious accidents on them, and the surrounding roads are regularly in a state of gridlock, the area simply would not be able to cope with the volume expected to be generated by this rail freight. Dirft is only a short drive away and under utilised, so it seems that there is simply not a need for another terminal so close. Indeed if the aim is strategicly placed terminals, they should be spread out , not close together as this doesn’t move goods from road to rail- quite the opposite. In fact it seems that Ashfield land having sat on land for a long time unable to get planning rights on it have stumbled on the idea of calling a rail freight and therefore in national interest to bypass local planning regulations. On a personal note I am my family moved from the town to the village for cleaner air. We have son who suffers with his chest and feel the additional pollution this would bring would be detrimental to his health"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karen Lewis
"1. This 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 views over what is currently mainly open countryside would be totally destroyed by massive warehouses and high earth mounds (bunding). These earth mounds would be a completely alien feature and a blot on the landscape. 3. All the land between Milton Malsor and Blisworth is currently open countryside that provides a haven for wildlife. All of this would be totally lost to the area. 4. The loss of valuable 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 Blisworth that would be diverted along the Towcester Rd. 6. Increased traffic through the village when there is congestion on the M1 & A43 7. Increased traffic congestion on roads in the locality due to the thousands of additional vehicle movements a day, generated by this Rail Freight Terminal 8. Increased Air Pollution due to the thousands of additional vehicle movements a day. Air pollution by nitric oxide and diesel particulate lorry and machinery emissions, (a national issue), will directly affect the health of residents in Milton Malsor 9. Noise created by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers. 10. Light & noise pollution from night time operations. 11. The area has very low unemployment so the majority of workers for the operation will have to travel some distance to work adding to congestion and air 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. This proposal is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) refer to attached WNJCS summary 15. The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only a few miles from the Rail Central site and has capacity for expansion for around 10 years. There is no need for another rail freight terminal in the area. 16. Holy Cross Church in Milton Malsor, has owned a large field in Barn Lane for hundreds of years and is an important open space. The building of massive warehouses on this field would be a major loss to the whole community. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Matt Gannon
"I am a resident of Milton malsor. Today it took me over 45 mimutes to get to work in milton keynes. Yesterday took me over an hour because the m1 had issues. Amy additional traffic on the road would cause absolute chaos to the local infrastructure which is already unable to cope with existing traffic. To make matters worse I do not believe there is any need for this development in amy economic form to be built on my doorstep. Not only should the suggestion be quashed, the general process should be evaluated to prevent the years of pain this is causing to people's lives. There is a similar build up the road in daventry which is vacant. There are empty warehouses already in Northampton and Milton Keynes. This shouldn't even be a consideration. There is also questionable capability to deliver the rail capability. No no no"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nick Dougill
"My representation would centre on traffic issues for the surrounding area including where vehicles would access from and the existing local road structure plus any noise and environmental issues that would arise. And any additional issues that would arise as plans develop. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Wildlife Trust for Beds, Cambs & Northants
"Ecological and Green Infrastructure issues. The over-riding need to deliver a nett planning gain in favour of the local biodiversity. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Trish Kumar
"Environmental concerns and welfare concerns need to be further addressed. I am concerned for the potential disruptions to wildlife and residents. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Wendy Steer
"My objections to your proposal are:- A huge area of agricultural land, lovely countryside, and historic villages will be lost while unlet warehouses exist at nearby DIRFT. While the M1 is already often brought to a standstill, local roads could not cope with any increase, and there is little spare rail capacity. Labour force could not be filled locally, resulting in an influx of people, so more houses traffic, pollution etc. Many will lose their homes and jobs. Property here is already difficult to sell. and small businesses will disappear. What happens to these people? "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Maisey
"1. The majority of local residents are wholly opposed to the development of the Rail Central proposal; thus, I must question why this application has progressed so far. The developments do not serve the local community - any benefit to local residents is very difficult to quantify. 2. The plans to date for the developments do not outline road improvements to Saxon Avenue specifically which show no improvement to traffic management for vehicles exiting this road onto Junction 15 over the M1. The traffic situation had already deteriorated due to the overbuilding of industrial units in Grange Park; at peak times there are long queues of traffic. The proposed increase in traffic is going to make it more difficult to exit Grange Park to Junction 15 and make journeys longer. 3. Air Quality. This is already very poor in the areas surrounding the proposed new developments. [Redacted] (government data) shows very concerning readings. Projected traffic increase and large-scale industry are going to worsen air quality. I see no mitigation in the plans for this. Traffic/industrial noise is also a concern. 4. Visual impact. As more countryside is turned into concrete and buildings, this will diminish the local environment. 5. Building more logistics infrastructure should take second place to smarter logistics. Has the latter been fully explored to eliminate or reduce the need for this development? 6. I understand that Northampton DIRFT has been indicated by many as a more suitable candidate for this development. Therefore, why is DIRFT not preferred over a greenfield development? Common sense as well as academic review suggests it is better equipped to meet the needs of the proposed developments and logistic growth in the midlands. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Catherine Capewell
"This plan will have a severe impact on the village I live in with noise pollution, pollution, traffic and the destruction of habit, wildlife, rights of way. People will be driven from their homes whilst others will have huge warehouses at the bottom of their garden and now cannot sell their homes. It is not needed so close to another site (DIRFT) and Northamptonshire cannot cope with the amount of traffic passing through as it is without adding further traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Field Operations
"CenturyLink and its incumbent companies, own live assets in the area of the development, on both the public highway and Network Rail land/infrastructure. Whilst we do not object to the works please note that we require unhindered access to our asset at all times. Should our asset on the public highway require moving a formal C3/C4 request should be submitted to our appointed agent Instalcom at [Redacted] Should our asset on Network Rail or TOC owned land, within the Network Rail infrastructure/boundary require moving a request should be sent to [Redacted] Any works that are in the immediate vicinity of our asset, but no contact will be made with our asset (exposing of ducts or excavation works in the public highway or works in trough route or excavation works next to trough route in Network rail land) then please advise [Redacted] so a HAZCON can be raised "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joel Burton
"My representation will include strong objection to this development of the grounds of: - Environmental impact - Overabundance of logistics/warehouse developments in this area - Proximity to DIRFT - Impact on the character of the region - Impact on the roads and traffic congestion in this area - Impact on local communities - Unsuitability of the proposed site I live within a few miles of the development, therefore its impact on me personally will include a potentially serious impact on my commute/ journey to work, a reduction in quality of life and enjoyment of my local area, a negative impact on the value of my home, a breakdown of the local communities of which I am a part - in short, I struggle to see any positives to this development for myself, for local communities or for the region, and I note that the developers/landowners themselves have not offered any positives whatsoever (employment is the only thing that is often cited, but this region does not have particularly high unemployment rates and there is already no shortage of logistics/warehousing jobs). These are some of the key points that I would intend to make in my full representation and I look forward to the opportunity to do so. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Moss
"My property is a grade 2 listed situated on courteenhall road, high street and northampton road.. It is an extremely busy junction especially at commuting times and when there are incidents on the M1 and A43 which causes extreme traffic congestion in the village and outside my home. My main concern when this occurs would see an even bigger influx of HGVs past my home and as a rat run trying to get out of the village with everyone else. The main entrance to rail central development is on the A43 however any disruptions will result in the access and egress would be on the northampton road an emergency exit. This will mean all hgvs no alternative than to use northampton road through Milton malsor and Blisworth to get on to the M1 and A43.Our property alongside many others in the village adds interest and contributes to the local countryside with tourists stopping for visits and photographs of our properties. I totally oppose the development owing to the adverse effects it would have on our properties and other listed buildings in the village and the conservation area in which we live. The above proposals would adversely effect our home and village through noise, nuisance, traffic, pollution and general disturbances. We regularly experience vibrations to our home from Hgvs and large delivery trucks yet unable to be granted planning permission to replace single glazed windows which also let out heat and cold and noise in. As retirees we chose to live in Blisworth having moved here in 2009. Our aim is to remain "guardians" of our listed property circa 1750 and to protect and enhance our most beautiful village against all unwanted and unnecessary developments. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Jane Pinnock
" Having had the pleasure of living in the delightful rural village of Milton Malsor for over 25 years, I object very strongly to the proposed Rail Central SRFI on the grounds of: 1) The significant increase in traffic movements amounting to thousands a day, many of which are HGV`s which will be generated by the SRFI, will lead to traffic chaos, on the already congested roads in the locality. 2) The increase in air pollution, generated by the thousands of additional daily vehicle movements, will directly impact on the health of residents in Milton Malsor, as well as, for those in neighbouring villages. Air Pollution by Nitric Oxide and Diesel Particulate lorry and machinery emissions causes immense harm. This is a national issue. 3) The light and noise pollution generated by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal will be unbearable for residents in Milton Malsor, due to the railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers. 4) This developer driven proposal is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy. As the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only a short distance away on junction 18 on the M1, there is no need for the proposed Rail Central SRFI which is both unwanted and unnecessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs M Murphy
"I moved Blisworth to be in the countryside not to live in the middle of a warehouse. The countryside around Blisworth and Milton Malsor has plenty off wildlife we don't want fumes from lorries lights on 24/7 and we do not want the traffic. Its bad enough when the M1 or A43 has an accident on them which seems to be quite often So leave our villages alone "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Neil Mcconchie
"I wish to oppose the application which will change the character, charm and community spirit ofhistoric villages, Roade, Milton Malsor and Blisworth. The alleged strategic importance is overstated, with the Dirft interchange some 20 miles away with expansion plans and potential space to develop still further, an existing rail freight terminal. Investment should be concentrated at Dirft where there is limited effect on either villages or the environment - the Dirft site can deliver everything that is required to switch freight off road and onto rail. Why destroy communities where the only beneficiaries are exiting landowners? "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Office of Rail and Road (ORR) (Office of Rail and Road (ORR))
"We are a regulatory body that enforces Health and Safety legislation on the railways ; this includes existing, new and improvements to railways. We are a statutory consultee along with Network Rail, who own and maintain the UK rail infrastructure."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Daniel Marchant
"I am writing to object to proposed warehouses that could be built near Junction 15A of the M1 . There is no doubt that the extra traffic that would be generated by this development would cause major problems for local people. There will clearly be major disruption when roadworks take place and 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 problems with traffic congestion and this would 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 already have very low unemployment in the Northampton area and trying to recruit people to work in her business is becoming more and more difficult."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs E Weeks
"My husband and I moved to Blisworth for a peaceful existence, it is a lovely village and the surrounding villages are beautiful, this project will ruin all our lives. For once in this time of big business dictating the future of our English countryside can you please think of the little people for a change. Our children and grandchildren deserve to have what we have had growing up, green fields and open countryside."
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, and other developments already in the Midlands area. SRFIs are supposed to be spread through the regions, not all concentrated in one area. This goes against Government guidelines. The local road network will not be able to cope with the extra traffic generated by this development. The local roads are already close to breaking point whenever there is an indcident on the M1, A43 or A508. Stressed modellling has not been undertaken by the developers, which is a huge oversight. The loss of farmland and countryside will be incalculable for future generations. The impact of noise, light and in particular, air pollution on the local area. Air pollution is already very high in this area. The development is purely speculative, as there is no requirement for another SRFI in this area. 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
Jill Hope
"I object to this proposed development. The main reasons for my objection are as follows: 1. There is absolutely NO hard evidence that Network Rail will allow access to the line for the modular interchange at this location. I believe that this is a cynical attempt to bypass local planning laws, and build a massive warehouse park in open countryside. Once it is established that no modal shift is possible, the developer will say 'what a pity, we'll just have to use it as an industrial park instead'. 2.Unemployment is very low in this area, we don't need low-skilled jobs. Most of the workers will have to commute which will add to traffic problems in small villages not remotely suitable for this type of traffic. 3. The pollution from the M1 in this area is significant already, with a high incidence of asthma among primary school children, especially along the line of the prevailing wind from the M1 towards Northampton. Adding this massive industrial park and increasing the traffic around Junction 15 weill make this problem even worse. 4. We already have a modal shift hub at DIRFT in nearby Rugby, and there are other very large industrial developments happening at Junction 16 and in Silverstone, both close by and provided for in the Joint Core Strategy. If there is a need for modal shift developments, they should be spread out across the UK not clustered in one place. That goes against the basic intention of these sites, and the Planning Inspectorate as the Strategic Authority should ensure that they are dispersed throughout the UK. 5. This is an attractive, quiet rural area with historic footpaths and small, unspoilt villages. This development will completely swamp these villages. A development like this should be positioned on land well away from existing dwellings and on industrial, brownfield land, not on fertile greenfield farmland current in use for both arable crops, sheep and cattle. 6. The noise and light pollution will destroy the harmony of all the surrounding villages. There will be heavy industrial equipment in use 24/7 with bright industrial lights. The noise of the cranes will carry across all the open countryside and will not only wreck lives in the immediate vicinity but further afield. We will be listening to HGV reversing alarms instead of the current noise of owls hunting in the orchard at night. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Loredana Harley
"I strongly object to the Ashfield Land/Gazely proposed Strategic Rail Freight Interchange between Milton Malsor and Blisworth. As a Milton Malsor resident I was horrified to read about such proposal as the Ashfield development will seriously impact on the residents' quality of life, not to mention their health. The National Press has been recently highlighting the deleterious effect of air pollution ; the village population includes many elderly residents and also children, who are also much more prone to respiratory problems and other health conditions arising by diesel fumes generated by thousands of lorries. I am also deeply concerned about the destruction of hundreds of acres of local countryside when the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal would be more suitable for such a proposal and, I believe , has capacity for expansion. The increased traffic through a rural village would be totally unacceptable and continuous night time operations would generate high levels of light and noise pollution which would further mar the life of the residents. The West Northants Joint Core Strategy is at odds with the Ashfields proposal. We must not also forget the aesthetic impact that such massive development will have on the landscape and impinge on the enjoyment of the open countryside which is so vitally important to both people and wildlife."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sam Green
"Driving up the M1 daily I see many warehouse units unused I am shocked we are still considering destroying more countryside, causing more congestion and pollution which seems unnecessary. Personally I live in Blisworth and the noise and light pollution will affect me and my family more directly but there are so many more environmental issues here. I love my village and this will ruin more than one beautiful village in Northamptonshire. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Shaun Hope
"I object to this development for the following reasons: 1.Travelling by road to the village on the A43 from the Towcester direction involves crossing west-bound traffic on the A43. (the Blisworth/Milton Malsor Turn). This is already a dangerous junction and the increased traffic due to the development would see drivers avoiding it by rat running through local villages. 2. None of the local plans show any large development on this site. It is vital to keep this land as open space as it ensures that there is an effective barrier between town and country. 3. Northamptonshire has a very low rate of unemployment so the thousands of employees that would be needed would have to travel a considerable distance to get to work. This would be the cause of increased congestion in the area and create far more air pollution. 4. All the land between Milton Malsor and Blisworth is currently open countryside that provides a haven for wildlife. All of this would be lost and many species of farmland birds would be totally lost to the area. 5. The Daventry Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only a few miles from the Rail Central site and has capacity for expansion for around 10 years. There is no need for another freight terminal in the area. 6.Increased Air Pollution due to the 22,000 additional vehicle movements a day. Air pollution by nitric oxide and diesel particulate lorry and machinery emissions, (a national issue), will directly affect the health of residents in Milton Malsor 7. This proposal is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) 8. 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. 9. The views over what is currently mainly open countryside would be totally destroyed by massive warehouses and high earth mounds (bunding). These earth mounds would be a completely alien feature and a blot on the landscape."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Brinkman
"I have some major concerns with the plan for the SRFI, as it will have a negative affect on a number of levels which is why I strongly object to the proposal. The idea of an SRFI is to get HGV traffic off the roads and therefore benefit the environment, with the DIRFT interchange very close by and the DRIFT site being expanded it is very unlikely that the proposed interchange with be of significant benefit to the area. The area where the SRFI is being proposed is an area of low unemployment which will mean that most of the workers on the site would have to commute having a negative affect on the levels of pollution. The ensuing light and noise pollution from the site will severely affect the lives of those living and growing up in the two close by communities of Milton Malsor and Blisworth. The air pollution from the 24 hour HGV traffic will have a negative effect on the long term health of the residents of these two communities. The proposed site will wipe out some footpaths and bridelways currently allowing the general public to enjoy the natural beauty of the area. The removal of such a large area of green belt will surely affect the local wildlife. For the reasons above I strongly object to the planned SRFI in this area and consider the notion that this is of strategic importance to be no more than a way of bypassing the local planning process "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Lunch
"I strongly object to the proposal. I have lived in Milton Malsor since 1980 and have always valued its rural tranquillity and open countryside. I am particularly concerned by the increased air pollution by Nitric Oxide and Diesel Particulate due to the thousands of extra traffic movements every day that would result. Suffering as I do from [Redacted], the effect of vehicle emissions can be a serious health risk. The effect of significant extra traffic will of course be a major issue on local roads, where already we see the effect of M1 congestion causing substantial delays on the Blisworth to Milton Malsor road. Some 20k extra daily movements are forecast, 1/3 of which will likely be HGV, leading to chaos and total road standstill. I fear substantial noise and light pollution from the proposed terminal. This would constitute a major reduction of our enjoyment of this lovely region. I strongly object to the proposal because it runs totally contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS). There is no need in the WNJCS for an SRFI on open countryside between Blisworth and Milton Malsor. The Daventry International Rail Terminal (DIRFT) is only approx. 20 miles north and has capacity for expansion for at least 10 years. It has gained planning approval for substantial expansion and is ideally located at J18 of the M1. There is therefore no need for an additional rail/freight terminal in this region. All the land between Milton Malsor and Blisworth is currently open countryside that provides a haven for wildlife. All this would be totally lost to the area. For these and many other reasons, I hope these unnecessary and unwanted proposals will be refused. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ben Redding
"I belong to [Redacted] and our community scout hut is located on the playing fields that overlook the whole of the site that Ashfield Land and Gazeley want to turn into an industrial park. My Scout Group uses the playing fields for camping and the footpaths for night-time hikes and nature walks. We would no longer be able to do these activities as the land will be taken away from us and also because of the noise and light pollution. Our leaders have told us that it would also be too dangerous to camp next to a large industrial site due to the number of unfamiliar people that would be in the area. My family and me walk our dog on the playing fields every day and often over the fields towards Milton Malsor. If the warehouse park goes ahead we could not bear to watch the countryside being slowly destroyed over the next 10 years. It would be too painful. We would no longer be able to walk our dog over these fields and would no longer want to use the playing fields due to the destroyed views and noise. I am also worried about the increased traffic through our village which is already very busy. The pavements are narrow and it is often quite scary when HGVs pass me on the narrow roads. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Beverley Czyz
"This application is superfluous to requirements as there is already the DIRFT which is only 10 miles away and which is nowhere near capacity and won’t be u TIL at least 2030 onwards. The volume of traffic will be detrimental to the road networks in the area and the building of the SRFI will destroy acres of green field countryside. The resulting air pollution will cause harm to those with respiratory issues."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brian Lewthwaite
"I write to raise my objections to this proposal for the following reasons. 1. It is doubtful that there is either the rail capacity or user demand for this monstrous development. There does not seem to be any evidence to support the viability of the proposal. Unless, of course you happen to be a developer seeking to speculate and magnificently enlarge the capacity of your bank account. 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? Or could this be merely an excuse to build a huge warehouse site (with of 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. The effect of this RFI on local traffic will be outrageous. Junctions 15 and 15A are 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. 4. 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. Whose children suffer? (not the developers I'm sure). 5. For the better part of my life I have lived in the country and would not consider town dwelling as I suffer from [Redacted]. It now looks as if the village of Roade (to which I moved 6 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? 6. 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. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ella Georgina Redding
"I object to Rail Central. The Applicant states in their Environmental Report [27.155] ‘Overall, no significant residual effects are anticipated in relation to population and health’ In the three years since the proposal became public knowledge, those that stand to lose most have been put under an incredible stress that has already seriously impacted their mental, as well as physical, wellbeing. A number of those affected are elderly and particularly vulnerable members of our community. With at least another year to go before resolution, the stress levels already experienced will only intensify. If the development does proceed then the air, noise and light issues will add further to the overall health impacts. The owners of Rathvilly Farm and Flowercraft stand to lose their homes and businesses when they are compulsorily purchased. The elderly residents of Willow Lodge and Deveron House will be surrounded on all sides by massive warehouses, an underpass and a bus station. Railway Cottages is a residence of 12 terraced cottages dating from the mid 1800’s. 25 people inhabit these cottages, a mixture of young and old, some of whom are second generation residents. The members of this small community will be faced with either living next to a construction site for the next 10 years and industrial park for evermore or moving from their homes and community and suffering financial hardship as a consequence. There are 16 properties located wholly within the boundary of the site, a further six properties that will share a boundary with the development and 33 houses whose rural views from either the front or rear of their properties will be replaced with views of an industrial landscape. Blisworth Arm and the adjacent Grand Union canal are Conservation areas and home to 14 residents. Numerous boaters live in the two adjacent marinas and along the cut taking the number of permanent residents up to around 40-50. The proposal would see them living in the shadow of a massive grade separated junction with 24 hour traffic movements, light, noise and air pollution. There are circa 3,000 residents in the villages of Milton Malsor and Blisworth who will not be able to escape the ever-present environmental, social and visual impacts of Rail Central. The impacts will extend far beyond these villages. The above impacts need to be considered in the context of the National Policy statement which stipulates: NPS [2.53] ‘The Government's vision for transport is for a low carbon sustainable transport system that is an engine for economic growth, but is also safer and improves the quality of life in our communities’. NPS [3.3] ‘In delivering new schemes, the Government expects applicants to avoid and mitigate environmental and social impacts … deliver environmental and social benefits as part of schemes. NPS [4.79] ‘National road and rail networks and strategic rail freight interchanges have the potential to affect the health, well-being and quality of life of the population. They can have direct impacts on health because of traffic, noise, vibration, air quality and emissions, light pollution, community severance, dust, odour, polluting water, hazardous waste and pests’. That the Applicant has the gall to state that “no residual effects are anticipated” beggars belief. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hamid Hashim
"I question the need for a Rail Freight Interchange in this region when the current DIRFT exists. I also have major concerns about the impact on the environment and area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hywel Davies
"I do not consider the addition of a further Road/Rail organisation as it is very clear that DERF is operating and has two further elements for which they have planning permission. Siting such another such organisation in countryside shall be a blight on the countryside and even worse people having to have hundred of trucks per day passing there door. Given that the railway itself cannot cope with all of the freight that is proposed I consider that less than 10% of all freight would be on the railway and the remainder by road. Traffic on the A43 is heavy at all times as it links the M40 to the M1 and an addition of 12000 approx. trucks on this highway shall create huge backlogs. The rural area shall be spoilt. It is not, in my mind, required as DERF which is only a few miles away could carry all of this traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Harley
"I strongly object to the Ashfield proposal. As a Milton Malsor resident I am shocked and concerned about such proposed development for a Rail Freight which will result in irreparable damage to centuries-old landscape and environment. The traffic will be horrific,will increase air pollution and, furthermore, it is my understanding that the local authorities are not supporting such scheme. The damage to scenery and way of life would be very significant and I cannot understand the reason why the Daventry Dirft cannot be expanded . The loss of farmland would deprive the area of locally-produced food thus increasing the need to import from abroad or from faraway. Ancient routes and footpaths will be destroyed for ever and, once gone, cannot certainly be replaced. I understand the need for such developments but, surely, existing structures like the one in Daventry, can supply the solution. I appeal to your common sense ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jean Halcrow
"I strongly object to this application because of Noise pollution, the increased traffic through snd aroundvthe village. The loss of countryside, the increased air pollution. l suffer from accute [Redacted]."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katie Redding
"The Government has four policy objectives in relation to SRFIs 1. Reduce road congestion 2. Reduce carbon emissions 3. Support long term development of effective rail freight logistics distribution 4. Support growth and create employment Rail Central will fail to meet these objectives for the following reasons: 1. The development is being brought forward on the most congested section of the M1 at a time when a number of other developments are also being brought forward in this area. Congestion on this critical section of road will strangle the strategic road network. The implications for the local roads are severe and there is no effective mitigation or alternative routing in the event of perturbation on the SRN. 2. There are significant carbon emissions associated with the development and operation of a SRFI. All these emissions are new. The only potential carbon benefits are from the transfer of some freight from road to rail. The Applicant has provided a biased carbon assessment using modal shift assumptions that will never materialise, due to many factors, but primarily due to the limited capacity on the West Coast Mainline (WCML). Their aspirations to service 16 trains per day does not align with their intent to prove they can service the minimum of four. Any carbon savings from this modest modal shift will be negated by the increased travel distance of the workforce. The carbon calculation related to employee travel distances is missing from the Applicant’s Sustainability Assessment. 3. The siting of multiple SRFIs in the East Midlands is contrary to the policy intent of delivering a network across the regions and at a wide range of locations. The excess warehouse capacity; the finite capacity on the WCML; the competition for rail paths and clients and the economics of rail freight versus road (at this location) are all sound arguments for NOT building more SRFIs in the Midlands (especially whilst considerable unused capacity still exists). Effective rail freight distribution will be achieved only through strategic oversight of the national landscape. Rail Central is not needed and is in the wrong place to further the development of an effective strategic rail freight network. It will inevitably end up a road based operation. 4. Warehouses are used to store and distribute goods that are primarily imported from overseas. Apart from the jobs that handling and transporting these goods creates, this type of activity does not contribute to growth; the importing of consumer goods is a net outflow of capital. The proven low unemployment rates in the local area mean that a large proportion of any jobs created will be filled by migration from other similar facilities in the locality and by increased in-commuting. The vast increase in logistics jobs will also further unbalance the local economy and create an over-reliance on this industry (which the local planning process has sought to avoid). The development will not attract industry and will damage the local employment market rather than bring any benefits. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kenneth Johnson
"I strongly object to the proposed Rail Central SRFI for the following reasons: I am in my eighties, I was born in Milton Malsor and have lived here for all my life. I am absolutely horrified Ashfield Land want to build an SRFI on land in open countryside between Milton Malsor and Blisworth villages. This will result in the loss of valuable farmland when the country needs to produce more food rather than importing it. The views over what is currently mainly open countryside would be totally destroyed by massive warehouses and high earth mounds (bunding). These earth mounds would be a completely alien feature and a blot on the landscape. Having the Rail Central SRFI squeezed in between our two villages, both conservation areas, would be devastating for residents. The significant increase in traffic movements generated by this SRFI, amounting to thousands a day, will increase the risks associated with air pollution. I am very worried about this, as air pollution by nitric oxide and diesel particulate lorry and machinery emissions will be detrimental to my health. This would make my life unbearable. The noise generated by the 24/7 operation of this SRFI would be intolerable. What with the railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers, as well as the light pollution from night time operations. Besides, this proposed SRFI is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy. The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only a short distance away from Milton Malsor, so there is no need for proposed Rail Central SRFI."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Brinkman on behalf of Laurie Brinkman
"I have some major concerns with the plan for the SRFI, as it will have a negative affect on a number of levels which is why I strongly object to the proposal. The idea of an SRFI is to get HGV traffic off the roads and therefore benefit the environment, with the DIRFT interchange very close by and the DRIFT site being expanded it is very unlikely that the proposed interchange with be of significant benefit to the area. The area where the SRFI is being proposed is an area of low unemployment which will mean that most of the workers on the site would have to commute having a negative affect on the levels of pollution. The ensuing light and noise pollution from the site will severely affect the lives of those living and growing up in the two close by communities of Milton Malsor and Blisworth. The air pollution from the 24 hour HGV traffic will have a negative effect on the long term health of the residents of these two communities. The proposed site will wipe out some footpaths and bridleways currently allowing the general public to enjoy the natural beauty of the area. The removal of such a large area of green belt will surely affect the local wildlife. For the reasons above I strongly object to the planned SRFI in this area and consider the notion that this is of strategic importance to be no more than a way of bypassing the local planning process "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Green
"I strongly oppose the building of the Strategic Rail Freight Interchange as there is absolutely no need for it with DIRFT just down the road not fully utilised. It will only bring increased traffic and air pollution to the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Matthew Heavens
"My representations are based on the close proximity of my property to the developments and associated changes to the village of Roade all of which will have an adverse effect on the value of my executive home. The value of my property is likely to reduce as a result of this development and thus I will be financially out of pocket as a result."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Sandra O'Connor
"Light and noise pollution - minor irritation - Our planning restrictions when we built the scout hall included no floodlights the reason given it would disturb Milton Malzor residents. When doing the presentation for the scout hall project I was asked by councillors about possible noise if we held large gatherings. These plans will affect both villages with light and noise. Our scouting programme uses the area and views towards Milton Malzor to watch the Buzzards, Kites and wildlife in their natural environment as well as being an ideal spot for star gazing and introducing astronomy to our young people, this will diminish if plans go ahead. (light and noise pollution day and night) Scouting uses the area overlooking proposed sight to introduce sleepovers and camping, to sleep outdoors in the dark is a steep learning curve for particularly our younger members, to use an area close to home that they know and understand is extremely useful. This learning experience will also be diminished as our site overlooks proposed development.(light and noise pollution) The footpaths that presently run across proposed site are used regularly by all scout sections, not only helping the young people to understand the natural environment and how to care for it but being safe, walking on fields and open countryside without traffic and away from populated areas. The proposed redirection of the footpath between Blisworth and Milton Malzor will be longer which may impact on the younger sections and is sandwiched between the road and the railcentral development, eliminating some learning experiences for the youngsters and presenting other risk factors to be taken into consideration. (Environmental, Personal Safety) The proposed plans do include areas such as pocket parks and wildlife zones but all are positioned further away from Scout headquarters closer to the A43 and Junction 15a of the M1 . To use these areas would necessitate transporting youngsters or walking to the sites adding to time and safety restraints. Development operating 24 hours would mean increase of personnel in and around site having an impact on a very rural group where the safety of our young people is paramount."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Marchant
"I object to to Rail Centrals proposed warehouse development. 1. The major roadworks that would be required, over a large area, that would be required to accomodate all the additional trafic would cause untold misery for local people. Once completed significant congestion would occer on the local road network during busy times of the day I, along with other small local firms, would find it increasingly difficult to operate in the Northampton area, 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. The planning rules say that " the existance of a local workforce will be an important consideration" when deciding on an application. There is no local workforce available to Rail Central. The vast majority of the workers would have to travel long distances to get to the site and therefore travel costs would probably preclude them from doing so. 3. No proper account appears to have been taken of the cumulative traffic impact of all the other housing and warehouse developments that are taking place in the area particularly along the A45 and Roxhill on the A508. In addition in October this year the new University campus opened near Northampton Town Centre with around 13,000 students and hundreds of staff travelling there each day. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Morrison
"Negative impact on the countryside, damaging the surrounding views and uniqueness of small rural village life. Impact on additional road usage and impacting current journey times. Increased disruption during the expected build stage. Alternatives can be sought in more developed industrial areas. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Edwards
"This industrial estate will ruin 3 to 4 villages Increase traffic to intolerable volumes on back roads The workforce will all travel to the site as there is almost full employment in South Northants "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Sorkin
"I drive the Milton Malsor/Blisworth route occasionally and even during "quiet" periods, the roads can be dangerous. With more traffic I envisage more accidents and queuing which can itself lead to accidents with frustrated drivers."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Amanda O'Brien
"I write to OBJECT to the application by Ashfield Land to construct a Rail Freight terminal between the villages of Milton Malsor and Blisworth, South Northamptonshire. I was brought up & married in Milton Malsor and my parents still live there. The prospect of a scenic & ancient rural landscape ruined by constant noise 24/7 with roads filled with heavy freight is a nightmare for the residents who live there. My parents have been there for over 35 years and our family home is on the edge of this proposed development. Years of dedication to a rural and peaceful life as they approach their 80s would be ruined & would leave them in an untenable and extremely distressing situation. Milton Malsor has become a thriving community with a well-regarded school since we moved in. People move from afar to join the village due to the caring, busy and community-based life that the residents lead. This sense of community is becoming increasingly rare in our country & the proposed development would see an end to the future of this young and thriving community as Milton Malsor would be no longer desirable. The air pollution with NO2 and Diesel Particulates would affect the children’s health in the school and those of the villagers. The villages of Milton Malsor & Blisworth are linked by paths & well walked by locals. The noise pollution caused by large vehicles on the local roads would destroy this and lorries would be constantly cutting through the village on narrow, winding roads at great danger to the locals. Rectory Lane is particularly dangerous & is an obvious cut through. DIRFT is 18 miles only away up the M1 and is the largest RFI in the country, with room for, and plans for large further development. There is no need for an RFI at Northampton. The WNJCS (West Northants Joint Core Strategy): in 2014 an inspector from the Planning Inspectorate judged that our villages should NOT be areas for industry. This is a purely speculative application in attempt to bypass local planning by applying as a national infrastructure project On the above grounds I register my OBJECTION. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elizabeth Dyke
"Stop Rail Central. This really is not the right place in the country for such a large project. The villages all around are so congested already with houses, and traffic The air pollution levels are so high at the moment ,for children walking to school,babies in prams and wheel chair people who at the level of the exhaust pipes in the passing traffic is not good for there health. The amount of very large lorries going through the village every day (including Sundays) is so high. The A508 do not cope with this very well at all.The lorries such you towards them as they pass. The roads are in such a poor state of repair now , more traffic would only increase this problem. Every time we have a problem on the M1 the traffic have too come via Roade or Blisworth village. Regularly we have both roads A508 and A43 with accidents on them so the area in the country is almost at a standstill. By concreting over all this land will cause flooding to so many villages . Please rethink this plan for this area. The warehouses all around us are not full now. Plus we have not enough people to fill the work places . Work in this area is at its highest and not enough people to fill . Houses are being built as fast as they can to house the local people and the schools and Doctors surgery cannot manage the amount the people now. Stop this unrealistic plan, it is not needed"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eric Meakins
"I strongly object to this outrageous proposal. I am 73 years of age, I was born here and I have lived in Milton Malsor all my life. The increase in air pollution which this SRFI will generate, due to the thousands of additional daily vehicle movements is of great concern to me. Air pollution by nitric oxide and diesel particulate lorry and machinery emissions will directly affect the health of residents in Milton Malsor, as well as, for those in neighbouring villages. The harm caused to peoples health by diesel particulates is of course, a national issue. Having the Rail Central SRFI squeezed in between Milton Malsor and Blisworth villages, both conservation areas, would be devastating for residents. The significant increase in traffic movements of thousands a day, generated by this SRFI would lead to traffic chaos, on the already congested roads in the locality. The noise generated by the 24/7 operation of the SRFI will be intolerable due to the railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers. Furthermore, the light and noise pollution from night time operations would be simply unbearable. It would also drive away the wildlife for ever. I also strongly object to this developer driven proposal, as it’s contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy. In any case, there is no need for an SRFI in Milton Malsor, as the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal referred to as DIRFT is only a short distance away, which is, the largest, and is expected to remain the largest SRFI in the country. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julia Sparks
"I strongly object to this application due to the increase in noise and light pollution. There are significant traffic issues in this area anyway without adding 24 hour industrial traffic, including lorries through residential areas 24 hours a day. We have low unemployment in this area and therefore most of the workforce would come from outside of the area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lorraine smith
"I live in the railways cottages in the midst of this proposal. I am concerned about the effects on the quality of my and my family’s life. Concerns include the effects on local and national Travel, air polution, enviorment factors, and impact on our wild life, and the grotesque ugly buildings which will be an utter eye sore. I and my husband saw this, the place I was born in, would be the place we continued to live in throughout our retirement years, our foster son saw this as his forever home. Home is our sanctuary, our safe place. Should this development go ahead I feel this will have been stolen from us. Devastated is an understatement. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martine Lunch
"I am writing to object most strongly to the proposed Rail Freight Terminal between Blisworth and Milton Malsor. I moved to Milton Malsor with my husband and family 38 years ago. We have lived in the village longer than in any other location since we were married in 1968 and have a deep affection for the village, its people and the lovely countryside surrounding us. We drive frequently to Blisworth, for example to the Doctor's surgery or the Post Office and have, in recent months, been looking with increasing dismay at the fields between the two villages that are the subject of this proposal. It is inconceivable that such lovely countryside should be abandoned to ugly warehouses (as in many other locations in the County) for such dubious and illusory reasons as are put forward by the Developers. Apart from the beauty of the countryside that is in jeopardy, the lovely walks that could be lost and the wild life that would suffer, all in the cause of profiteering land grabbing, there are very real worries about the future were this plan to go ahead: - the harm to the environment and to individuals from some 22,000 additional vehicle movements a day, at least 1/3 of them involving HGVs with diesel engines. The Air Pollution will be critically serious, particularly for older residents, children and those with respiratory problems. Nitric Oxide and Diesel particulates are becoming a national issue and should be a top priority for the Inspectors. - further harm to the environment and individuals from the substantial increase in congestion on the local roads. On frequent occasions, such as major problems on the M1, the road from Milton Malsor to Blisworth comes to a standstill from the railway bridge into the village and delays of 30 minutes can occur to get through Blisworth. This will be nothing compared to the turmoil that will be commonplace should this appalling Interchange project be allowed to proceed. - Light and noise pollution from the 24 hour terminal will make our gentle countryside location a living hell. The effect on the local populations, old and young, will be devastating. These human issues are what keep me awake a night. But behind them is a very practical issue which should have put a stop to all this many months ago; the proposed terminal is not needed! It is a vastly expensive real estate deal which conveniently ignores the reality of the situation; that a huge and very efficient Rail Freight Terminal is operating at roughly half capacity just 18 miles to the north, twenty minutes up the motorway. DIRFT has enormous capacity and has permission to expand. It is on the same railway line as the proposed Rail Central Interchange. Nothing will be gained by building a vastly expensive new facility here, but an enormous amount will be lost. I therefore repeat my objection to this entirely unworthy plan and hope that it will be refused within the shortest possible delay. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Anthea Meakins
"I strongly object to this proposed Rail Central SRFI, on the grounds of the destruction of farmland, ancient trees and local rural amenities. It will render a beautiful area a barren wasteland, that is full of vehicle pollution, light and sound pollution which would drive away local wildlife. It would also make life intolerable for residents. It would especially be so, for my own health as I suffer from [Redacted] and [Redacted] problems. Finally this proposed SRFI is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy. In any case, this is an unnecessary proposal, as the Daventry International Rail Freight Taerminal known as DIRFT is only a short distance away from Milton Malsor."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patricia White
"I object wholeheartedly to this application As a resident of Blisworth, I am concerned about the following things that will impact adversely on our community • There will be a vast increase in volumes of traffic on the surrounding national and local road networks. The M1 is already full and frequent hold-ups cause traffic chaos in all local areas. The A43 will have an increased load from such a development and is used as a detour to the inadequate A5. Towcester is not bypassed in a north south direction so the impact of M1 holdups is doubly bad. • The local traffic is generally heavy and like other areas is particularly bad at peak times. Those who live in the village already experience difficulty with both vehicular movements and as pedestrians. I know the lorry traffic will be directed via the A43 but it is anticipated that workers from the south will try to get around the long detour required by parking in Blisworth. There is not enough capacity • The A43 crossover junctions from Blisworth to the Towcester roundabout are dangerous because the national speed limit of 70 mph applies. Reduce this to 50 mph in both directions, enforced with speed cameras. • The footpath between Blisworth and my family in Collingtree will be removed and the alternative far too long. • Light pollution in the hours of darkness, air pollution throughout the day and night and likely sound pollution will all affect our locality • Crime associated with the proximity to a massive industrial park with an unknown, unrecognisable and transient workforce will increase • In my opinion, the concept of SRFI sites will not be fulfilled by this site. It will become yet another lorry distribution park. I am particularly concerned that there is no obligation for the tenants to use rail freight if it doesn’t suit them. • I have many more objections that will be voiced by knowledgeable others I have followed the path of this planning application for the past 3 years and am in full support of the submissions of the local councils and bodies who are opposed. They and other parties have expertise in areas that are beyond my knowledge and will have voiced more learned objections, which I endorse. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philip O'Brien
"I write to OBJECT to the application by Ashfield Land to construct a Rail Freight terminal between the villages of Milton Malsor and Blisworth, South Northamptonshire. I was married in Milton Malsor and my in-laws still live there. The prospect of a scenic & ancient rural landscape ruined by constant noise 24/7 with roads filled with heavy freight is a nightmare for the residents who live there. My in-laws have been there for over 35 years and their family home is on the edge of this proposed development. Years of dedication to a rural and peaceful life as they approach their 80s would be ruined & would leave them in an untenable and extremely distressing situation. Milton Malsor has become a thriving community with a well-regarded school. People move from afar to join the village due to the caring, busy and community-based life that the residents lead. This sense of community is becoming increasingly rare in our country & the proposed development would see an end to the future of this young and thriving community as Milton Malsor would be no longer desirable. The air pollution with NO2 and Diesel Particulates would affect the children’s health in the school and those of the villagers. The villages of Milton Malsor & Blisworth are linked by paths & well walked by locals. The noise pollution caused by large vehicles on the local roads would destroy this and lorries would be constantly cutting through the village on narrow, winding roads at great danger to the locals. Rectory Lane is particularly dangerous & is an obvious cut through. DIRFT is 18 miles only away up the M1 and is the largest RFI in the country, with room for, and plans for large further development. There is no need for an RFI at Northampton. The WNJCS (West Northants Joint Core Strategy): in 2014 an inspector from the Planning Inspectorate judged that our villages should NOT be areas for industry. This is a purely speculative application in attempt to bypass local planning by applying as a national infrastructure project On the above grounds I register my OBJECTION. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tamasine Thompson
"Rail Central is unnecessary in my opinion and would have little or no benefit to logistics, the locale, the region or the country as a whole. DIRFT is easily accessible right now, close to the M1 with no need for added congestion on the A43. If this were to go ahead - even in part - the local roads will become congested by staff, and impassable by vehicles trying to access this site when the A43 is congested – which is likely to be a lot of the time. We need proper data to support what Rail Central are trying to do, and realistically how it will impact the local landscape and communities. Also, the Stop Rail Central site states: over half the site cannot be served by rail due to its bisection by the Northampton to Towcester Road. So this application must be denied to allow current residents and business to move around I fully agree with the Stop Rail Central statement: “The impact of this scheme on the local villages and their communities will be both huge and permanent and no amount of mitigation can change this. The activities of rail freight interchanges produce air, light and noise pollution, the effects of which CANNOT be adequately mitigated especially with two villages in such close proximity” “Rail Central is only the start. Granting of permission for this development will inevitably lead to further applications for housing and associated amenities leading to further unwanted development and loss of precious countryside and rural communities” Stop this development and instead make proper use of existing infrastructure "
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 Ashfield 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
Vicki Eads
"I very strongly object to the the Ashfield Land/Gazeley - Proposed Rail Central Strategic Rail Interchange proposal for reasons I give below:- Increased air pollution - with the thousands of additional vehicle movements a day, air pollution by said vehicles will directly affect the health of residents in Milton Malsor. Increased traffic congestion on roads in the locality due to the thousands of additional vehicle movements. Light and noise pollution from nighttime operations. The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only a few miles from the Rail Central site and has capacity for expansion for around 10 years. There is no need for another Rail Freight terminal in the area. In conclusion, this proposal is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) and as such should not be approved."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Caroline Taylor
"The roads are already gridlocked in rush hour if there is even a minor RTA. On a good day the traffic is always at a crawling pace on the main roads. I have to take to the minor back roads to halve my commute time, which really affects the small villages and the wear and tear on my car and the roads. I cycle to work the 10 miles in the months when there is daylight to cut down on pollution and traffic congestion. More traffic on these minor roads puts cyclists off, example being a bad accident in Milton Malsor this autumn involving a cyclist which needed the ambulance services and many hours of NHS care too. I am also worried about house prices too as who is going to want to live in a high congestion area?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charlotte Hook
"I am against the planning for the rail freight interchange for the following reasons. 1. traffic congestion on the A508 is already at a stand still at peak times and Wootton Road will be affected equally badly. 2. Light and noise pollution will increase in the area and affect the quality of life of residents in the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Eirwen Williams
"My family and I have lived in rural Northamptonshire for over 25 years and this proposal would have a devastating impact on our lives and those of many of the surrounding communities. We are totally opposed to it for many reasons and feel that there are absolutely no benefits to be gained were approval to be granted. Firstly it will destroy the surrounding countryside on a huge scale both visually and environmentally. The development would be an eye-sore on what is currently beautiful countryside and would impact negatively on many of the natural habitats. There will be a dramatic increase in air,noise and light pollution over a vast area which may well have negative health effects on local people. Another major concern is the effect of the inevitable increase in traffic particularly HGVs. There will be a further increase in pollution. There are road safety implications especially in the surrounding villages. The local main roads particularly the M1,A43,A5 and A508 are already subject to frequent delays and this can only worsen were the proposal to go ahead. It is my belief that the local rail network is almost running at capacity, but that this has not been properly studied by Network Rail or Ashfield Land. Surely adding more freight trains to an already stretched system will just add to the stress of commuters with more delays and cancellations. Furthermore DIRFT is close by and has significant future capacity, and so I struggle to see any benefit of a further rail freight terminal. The argument that the proposal will bring employment opportunities to the area I believe is flawed as this area already has high levels of employment. I cannot stress enough what devastation and harmful effects this development would cause were it to proceed. It is on such a vast scale that it would decimate many villages and local communities and virtually destroy the lives of the people that live there. I hope therefore that the Inspectorate will take into consideration the massive concerns of local residents and the huge opposition to this proposal and refuse the application. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hayley Jelley
"I have lived in Milton Malsor for the past year with my husband and two children, previously living in Blisworth. The main reasons for choosing to live in this area is its a quiet village and has beautiful open countryside for us to bring up a young family. Therefore I strongly object to the proposed Rail Central SRFI. As a family we like to go on walks and bike rides within the area and strongly oppose to the destruction of the local footpath network especially between Milton Malsor and Blisworth that would be diverted along the busy Towcester Rd, this road would not be suitable for walking or cycling with young children. There will be a significant increase in traffic congestion on the roads in the locality due to thousands of additional vehicle movements a day, generated by the SRFI and could cause a lot of disruption. I am very concerned about the increased air pollution this proposed development could generate with the additional vehicle movements many of them being HGV's, and the air pollution by nitric oxide and diesel particulate lorry and machinery emissions (already a national issue) will not only affect the health of residents in Milton Malsor, but would have a detrimental affect on my sons health as he suffers from [Redacted]. The Light and noise pollution from working 24 hours a day everyday would be impossible to live with. I strongly object to this proposal as its contrary to the West Northants Joint Core strategy (WNJCS). The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal is only a short distance away from the proposed site and planning permission has been granted for logistics space and a new railway terminal, therefore, there is no need for the proposed Rail Central SRFI to be sited on the land between Milton Malsor and Blisworth, and urge that this proposal is refused. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Ideson
"I wish to object to the Gazeley/Ashfield Land (Rail Central) rail freight terminal between Milton Malsor and Blisworth. I enjoy walking in this area with my handicapped daughter and this development will spoil our walks. The extra traffic -lorries and employees cars will cause so much pollution it will affect my granddaughter who has [Redacted]. As [Redacted] --Chief Medical Officer said " As a society we need to focus on pollution as a threat to human health." The noise and 24 hour lights will spoil the rustic nature of our villages. We will lose beautiful, ancient farmland for short term monetary gain which may be short term."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philip East
"I oppose and strongly object to this development for the following reasons. It will completely change the rural nature of the footpaths it covers, which I walk every day. I walk to from Milton Malsor to Blisworth and to the Grand Union Canal, all the footpaths to Blisworth will be destroyed or unacceptably diverted, one of the two footpaths leading to the canal from Milton Malsor will be similarly affected. Increased noise, light pollution and increased road traffic will have an unacceptable negative impact on quality of life in all the surrounding villages. Loss of good quality arable farmland, being covered in concrete and industrial buildings is wrong and is clearly bad for the local environment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roland White
"I live a few hundred yards from the railway line and with the present amount of traffic the noise of the “ half mile long” trains is a nuisance. The pollution caused by the diesel locomotives hauling this amount of wagons up the gradient (puffing out thick black smoke) is too much without the extra number of trains we would get if this monstrosity is built. Road congestion is already considerable,light pollution would be a nuisance. During construction disruption caused by upgrading gas, electricity,sewage and roads would be ongoing for years with no benefit to the surrounding area.DIRFT is not yet full and this development is only a speculative venture. With the amount of housing being built in Northampton and the extra traffic caused by this developement it would be virtually impossible to get in and out of our village I have taken dB level readings from the noise generated by the railway, the increase is considerable at the present time. I have also measured the light levels around us which in this rural area are at present what you would expect,this developement wil cause massive light pollution.Noise from the 24/7 operation will be unbearable.If this goes ahead we will also be losing valuable food producing areas (more traffic to bring in food from abroad) higher costs, and again more pollution. For the record I am qualified as an electrical engineer, a radio/TV engineer, an electronics engineer, a lift engineer and a technical teacher since 1964/5. For the sake of the environment and the sanity of the LOCAL population this monstrosity MUST BE STOPPED. I am also informed that since DIRFT was built the crime in the surrounding area has INCREASED. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roy Bunyan
"As a regular visitor to Milton Malsor to meet with friends I object to the Rail Central warehouse proposal. My wife and I are keen walkers and we really enjoy walking the footpaths between the villages around the Milton Malsor and Blisworth area. These footpaths currently run through open countryside with long distance views over farmland, hedgerows and small areas of trees. In addition there is a path alongside the Grand Union Canal. Most of these walks will be destroyed if this development goes ahead because the proposed diversions would see these paths run alongside the railway lines, busy roads and/or have extensive views of warehousing and other industrial buildings. The additional noise and air pollution that would be created would mean that these paths could no longer be used for recreational purposes and would have a negative effect on us, our friends and all the local people who enjoy walking in the open countryside. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Samuel Hogben
"I am completely against this and any plan to turn this area into a rail depot. The area for the proposed is made up of country side and small developments which gives a welcome break from the busy M1 and A43 nearby. It is lovely to walk and cycle through and this would all be lost if this depot was built. There are already severe traffic congestion issues at peak times and adding hundreds of lorries coming in and out would make it unusable. The junction 16-14 stretch of the M1 is notorious for congestion and incidents and simply cannot cope with the addition of all the lorries which would travel to and from the proposed site. The area is close to nearby schools and nurseries which will be affected by air pollution from the extra traffic and the local roads would also be damaged by heavy lorries. The existing road infrastructure cannot cope with the proposed development. There would be noise 24/7 and this would be heard from all the surrounding areas. There is already a rail depot by just 5 junctions north up the M1 so I do not understand why another so close by is needed. I strongly object to the proposed development for the above reasons. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Bland
"I wish to strongly object to the application on the following grounds/ - lack of need - inappropriateness of location - proximity to DIRFT - pollution - destroying open countryside - affect mine and my children’s futures and health - affect on the road networks - inappropriateness of junction at M1 - not large enough to cope with amount of traffic as it stands "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tim preece
"I have lived in roade for three years during this time traffic has already increased to an extremely high level ,during this time there have been numerous accidents along the a508, and more recently it has resulted in the death of two people, I fear this will not be the last ! With the increased traffic levels and in particular heavy goods veichle this will only escalate !"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alfred Thompson
"The destruction of land that cannot be replaced. We need all the agricultural land we can get to help feed our expanding population. There is already a rail freight terminal a few miles away. Our roads are already congested,further inevitable traffic will cause gridlock causing further pollution. We need space to escape and enjoy our network of ancient rights of way."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Annabel Bass
"I strongly object to Ashfields Rail Central due to a number of reasons that will effect my daily life and the lives of others around me. We are a rural county and seem to be overcome by freight terminal applications when DRIFT isn't even full? The pollution to light, air and traffic will be unbearable on so many levels for health and well being alongside the destruction of the countryside. Please do not allow this to happen."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Dancer
" My family and myself are totally opposed to this proposal from both a strategic and a local perspective. There are a significant number of technical planning reasons why the proposal is unacceptable, primarily in that it is completely in conflict, and totally contrary, to the commercial, transport, employment and housing objectives of the whole region. More development of this type and scale will result in a complete imbalance of the adopted core planning strategy. Furthermore, with DIRFT in the very near vicinity and with significant future capacity and a number of other intermodal hubs located in the wider East Midlands region, the proposals do not exhibit any form of ‘national strategy’ and, given the relatively short distances involved, the suggested benefits of a transportation modal shift will not occur. From a local perspective, my family have lived in this area of Northamptonshire for over 25 years and the proposal will have a devasting impact on the quality of life in both our community, and a large number of the surrounding communities. In what is currently rural, open countryside, the direct and immediate effect on all local villages will be both huge and permanent with the massive scale and nature of the proposals, coupled with the area topography, creating a significant visual impact over a large swathe of South Northamptonshire. The site required will irrecoverably destroy a vast area of prime agricultural land, along with a number of rare habitats, and the site operational activities with associated increased HGV and worker traffic will generate very significant increases in air, light and noise pollution. Also, from the traffic predictions submitted within the application, it is very clear that the trunk road network cannot accommodate the increased vehicle movements, which in turn will put an untenable strain on all the surrounding village access roads. No amount of suggested ‘mitigation’ will be able to rectify any of these impacts. In summary, the proposal is simply a speculative, road-based, ‘big shed’ scheme driven by online retailing storage requirements that delivers no local or national benefits whilst destroying our local communities and I urge the Inspectorate to refuse the application. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Derek Cook
"I am concerned about the environmental effect this project will have on the road infrastructure where I live. Towcester is a small town saturated with traffic -especially heavy lorries - which use the A5. Local major roads include the A5, A43 and A508. The A5 runs through the centre of Towcester and is already highly congested. The A43 is a very heavily used road and this project seems likely to increase the volume of traffic using these roads. When there is an accident / blockage on the M1, the primary diversion routes used are the A5 and A43. Diverted vehicles add to the existing environmental problems of congestion, noise, and engine emissions. It seems that this new project might matters far worse."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gary Rimmer
"I categorically strongly object to this proposal with the following reasons:- Complete destruction of wildlife habitat. Massive increase of traffic levels and parked cars in the village. Using DIRFT as an example there will also be a significant increase in crime in the local area. The rail infrastructure this is proposing to use barely has any spare capacity! The A43 between the M1 and Towester is at capacity for the majority of the day already with a minor incident causing gridlock now so to add more HGV traffic to is illogical. Extra employment for the area is not required as unemployment is currently very low. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gemma Jackson
"Fully against this proposal, traffic all the way along the A508 to Stony Stratford can not cope, in addition to the significant congestion already in place on the J15 M1 roundabout which these proposals do not make the required improvements. The development is not needed or wanted, is too near the existing rail freight terminal near Daventry and destroys the beautiful countryside views. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Bodfield
"I object to proposed rail central between Milton Malsor and Blisworth, because of increased traffic, roads already overloaded, increased air and noise pollution, the proposal is contrary to West Northants Joint Core Strategy, there is already a terminal at Daventry. I was born and raised in Milton Malsor and it is a tragedy if this beautiful area is spoilt forever our green spaces/history need protecting."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Hannam
"The proposal will have a negative effect on the neighbouring villages, such as Blisworth where I frequently stay with my parents. Noise pollution, traffic pollution, visual pollution. There is already a huge traffic problem in and around Towcester. This will only be elevated should the proposal be granted. When there is an issue on the M1 where does the traffic go? - It goes onto the A5 through Towcester. This causes chaos and frustration for local drivers."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jasper Hijink
"I object to the development of RAIL CENTRAL, because: - it ruins the country side. 'Brown land' should be re-developed for these type of sites. Farmland with footpaths and bridle ways will be ruined and eyesores of 20m+ block warehouses will be created. - it has a large impact on the surrounding villages that currently are in the countryside, but will then be leaning against a large industrial estate - it has will have a massiv impact on traffic (lorries) in an already overcrowded location. All roads (M1, A508, A43 and A45) already show long delays. The junctions are already hard to negotiate as it is. - The activities will bring air, noise and light pollution to the area that will impact health - it brings mainly low-skill employment to the area. Un-employment is already at low rates and there will be no or very limited economical benefits for the area. If anything, it will increase pressure on the housing market, if after Brexit the low-skill labour can be found in the first place."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katy Marshall
"I strongly object to having rail central so close to my home it will impact on parking in village and increase in crime. Loss of beautiful agricultural lane. Increased crime pollution and traffic."
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 and now our communities are being targeted for two SRFIs. 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. Traffic along the A508 is already causing congestion and there have been 3 accidents in recent weeks.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
Mark Redding
"I vehemently object to the application for the following reasons: It contravenes NPS 2.54 and 2.58 in that it would fail to contribute to the delivery of a strategic network ‘across the regions’ and ‘at a wide range of locations’. It also contravenes 2.50 in that it is not in an area poorly served by such facilities. DIRFT has massive expansion potential on the same rail line, EMG is under development and there are in-process applications at Hinckley, Northampton (Gateway) and Gailey (WMI). The region is, potentially, severely over-served. It will fail to deliver on over-riding Government objectives of reduced carbon emissions and road congestion due to its failure to comply with NPS 2.10, 2.44 and 2.47. It contravenes NPS 4.8 as it does not follow investment in the strategic rail network; it would add further traffic to the busiest railway in Europe. It is contrary to the national freight strategy of routing traffic away from the congested West Coast Main and north London lines. It contravenes NPS 2.52 and 4.87 as it is not in close proximity to a readily available (local) pool of labour. It contravenes the EIA Directive in that the alternative sites assessment was developed AFTER the site was selected; it does not consider the “national” perspective and has not resulted in the site with the least environmental impact being selected. It fails to meet the criteria of a Strategic RFI in accordance with paragraphs 2.43 and 2.44 of the NPS and should consequently be examined as a “non-strategic sub-regional” RFI as defined in the “Strategic Rail Freight Interchange Policy 2004” It contravenes NPS 2.45 and 2.56 in that it is not located in close proximity to conurbations, major centres of population or near the markets it claims it will serve. It contravenes NPS 4.86 as it is in extremely close proximity to residential areas (50 metres away from the nearest housing at its worst). Brownfield sites have been ignored as viable alternatives, contrary to NPS 5.186. It contravenes NPS 2.53, 3.2 and 3.3 as it does not provide a safer transport system nor does it improve the quality of life in the community. It contravenes NPS 5.184 in that it extinguishes the recreational utility derived from the current network of footpaths and greatly increases their length. Contrary to NPS 4.29 the siting of Rail Central in the middle of three historic conservation areas is not “sensitive to place” nor is it sensitive to its surroundings (NPPF 85). NPS 5.122 clearly states ‘Significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting’. Air quality impacts over the wider area have been ignored (especially AQMAs in the local vicinity) in contravention of NPS 5.10, 5.11, 5.12 and 5.13 Already dangerous and congested stretches of the strategic road network will be further stressed, in contravention of NPS 4.66, 2.16 and 2.17 and NPPF 85 The destruction of 44 veteran trees is contrary to NPS 5.32 and NPPF 175c The Applicant has categorically failed to make the case that any marginal benefits from limited modal shift will outweigh the very significant disbenefits to a very large number of people. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mary Thompson
"This is a rural community. We will have to face air, noise and light pollution if this project goes ahead our roads are not of the quality to take all the extra capacity expected.Dirft is only miles away and not working to full capacity so why do we need another one. This is an inappropriate use of open countryside which should be used as was intended for agricultural use . We need to provide food to feed our expanding population,not to cover in large warehouses. Once covered the land is gone forever. We are already having problems on our roads and this development will only add to the difficulties we are having,along with air noise and light pollution which will increase."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Kirk Trewin
"I am writing in conjunction with the recent planning application that has been submitted by Ashfield Land to build railway infrastructure to support freight and road movements as part of the national strategy to remove freight movements from our public highways. I Strongly Object to this notion and wish to lodge my objections to this proposal on a number of grounds: 1. The impact upon the villages and surrounding villages in terms of their character, pollution, vastly increased road traffic activity and appeal of the villages if this development proceeds. 2. The fact that the area already is home to the UK's largest freight terminal; DIRFT only 10 miles away near Daventry. Surely this site can be expanded to accommodate the needs of the strategy! Why build something in an area of natural beauty for what appears to only satisfy the requirements of greedy land developers for which zero impact is felt. 3. The proposal completely contradicts the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS)whereby no policy or evidence exists to support such a development. 4. The Light and Noise Pollution that will be created by an operation that will run 24/7 365 days per year will be horrific and gravely concerns me. 5. Junction15 of the M1 is already poorly laid out and heavily congested regardless of the modifications that will be done will never cope with the increased traffic, making the whole reason to remove freight form the roads (to reduce congestion and pollution) become counter-productive! On the whole, the entire development is almost bordering on the ridiculous in terms of the size of the site, the location and the rationale that has been provided. Therefore I hope that you consider the points raised above and categorically dismiss this proposal. Regards Kirk Trewin"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Oliver Dancer
"I am absolutely horrified by the above proposals and totally opposed to them. I have lived in the village of Gayton for nearly 4 years and enjoy living in an unspoilt rural community. These proposals if they go ahead will cause untold and irreversible damage to many of the surrounding communities. They will wreck the lives of hundreds if not thousands of local people for many reasons. The environmental damage will be catastrophic with huge increases in levels of noise , air and light pollution and destruction of natural habitats. No amount of landscaping by the developers will be able to hide the hideous blot on the landscape that this proposal would become and it's size is frankly staggering. There will be an unacceptable increase in the amount of traffic particularly HGV,s and this is bound to impact on local villages and on the main roads which are already subject to frequent delays. The Rail network I believe is also nearly at capacity so I doubt very much would cope with the addition of freight trains. I also believe that there have been no studies done by the developer as to the feasibility of the proposal on the rail network. All of this when there is DIRFT just a few miles up the road with more capacity for the future. I urge the Inspectorate to take into account the views of the vast majority of local residents and refuse the application. "
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) In any case, there is no requirement for clients of the site to use the rail link, which calls into question its status as an SRFI, and the supposed benefits of reduced road traffic. 4) There is no guaranteed extra capacity on the main rail line to service the site, and Northampton Gateway proposes using the same access, adding to the problem. 5) 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. In particular, houses in Milton Malsor adjacent to the site would be very badly affected , and lead to a drop in value with no prospect of redress. 6) 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. 7) Nevertheless , car traffic through nearby "rat runs" is already at severe levels and any increase would be intolerable. Any suggestion of access via Northampton Road (near Blisworth), which would allow car traffic through the nearby villages, would be disastrous. 8) The existing road network would be overloaded by the increase in HGV traffic, and the modifications to M1 Junction 15a and elsewhere are minor, and may be insufficient. 9) 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
Peter Anderson
"I strongly object to this proposal. I previously lived in Milton Malsor for 28 years before moving the short distance to Bugbrooke but visit my father who still lives in Milton on a regular basis. My work involves travelling to Blisworth and Roade both villages affected by the proposal and at times even now traffic flow is extremely busy through these villages. The significant increase in HGV movements and increased emissions will make life unbearable for residents, with extra traffic flow having a knock on affect on Bugbrooke as well. I also strongly object to this proposal as it is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS). There is no Policy or evidence in the WNJCS to suggest the need for SRFI on land in open countryside between Blisworth and Milton Malsor. However if the need for an SRFI is identified in the WNJCS then there is the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) on junction 18 on the M1 where planning permission has been granted for logistics space and for a new rail terminal, Therefore there is no requirement for the proposed Rail Central SRFI."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Wootton
"I believe that this development is away around the normal planning system, which would normally go through the county council. I do not think that this development is needed, because there is sufficient planned and started warehouse developments in and near to this site. There are under a number of under developed rail sites in the Midlands area This development will destroy a beautiful rural area of this countryside and produce a unsubstainable amount of HGV traffic and worker vehicles, on local roads, there isn't a sufficient local workforce to fill these proposed new warehouse job's."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Hagan
"There is a lack of road infrastructure to support this in my area, also why are you building so called needed warehousing when there are empty warehouses at DIRFT with more being built. There are flood planes that need natural release with no legitimate plans to disperse the standing water. With the many thousand truck movements that come along with this size of project the noise and light pollution will be catastrophic to the local community. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stacy Trewin
"The entire proposal that is being submitted by Ashfield Land is appalling. It not only will destroy the area that I have lived in for most of my life, but will vastly deteriorate the natural beauty that our village and the surrounding villages currently enjoy. With this in mind, I Strongly Object to the development that is proposed and wish to lodge my reasons below: A) The increased levels of pollution from the vast increase in road traffic vehicles will be unbearable B) The noise that the development will produce over a 24 hour period 7 days per week will have a profound effect upon our lives and to all people living within the affected areas. C) DIRFT is literally a few miles up the road, located on a distinctly quieter junction/link to join the M1 than J15. This site has the potential to be increased dramatically and contains all of this activity to one area. The links for both road and rail lines is ideal here (the West Coast Mainline and Northampton Loop) are by far more suitable than what is proposed here. D) Developments of this size and magnitude will literally destroy the character and appeal of the surrounding villages. It is wholly unacceptable to consider that is is justifiable and ethically correct. This area is not an industrial estate and should not be turned into one purely to satisfy the financial desires of land owners who do not live in this area and see this purely as a financial transaction as opposed to trying to develop the site in the name of reducing highway freight demand. With all of this in mind, I Strongly disagree and oppose the development that is being proposed! Regards Stacy Trewin"
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Coal Authority
"I have checked the proposed development area for the Proposed Rail Central Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (Drawing No. RC-ALG-PLN-2.1 Revision 3.1 – 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. In the spirit of efficiency of resources and proportionality, it will not be necessary for you to consult the Coal Authority at any future stages of the Project. This letter can be used as evidence for the legal and procedural consultation requirements. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tim Thornton
"The development will despoil local beloved countryside and two villages. The local and national road and rail links are are nowhere near sufficient to cope with the proposed development and usage. In addition the effect on Towcester and the A5, currently impossible during M1 traffic difficulties , will become generally an increased bottleneck. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anna Fox
"Preliminary strong objection :- the potential for this area to become polluted by 24hr lighting from the site, exhaust fumes, traffic congestion, village roads becoming rat runs. A development of this enormity will have a far greater impact over a wider area than we have been led to believe and any amount of reassurance by the developers does little to convince me that it will be hardly noticed.None of the supposed benefits do not wring true either."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carol Thorn
"I absolutely oppose this proposal - it would be ruinous to several communities and beautiful countryside. There is no current need for this to be sited within 15 miles of DIRFT which is still expanding, and as yet the proposer has not been able to provide sufficient evidence in my eyes that there is rail capacity, or need for this development. They suggest it will increase employment, but Northamptonshire has a low level of unemployment and many unfilled warehouse positions already - adding another 8000 would not help! There is also a large amount speculative warehousing already locally which is still lying empty, with no businesses apparently interested in utilising the space, again, adding a ridiculously large development would just add more competition for a limited market. The extra traffic both during construction and in day to day actvities for this development would be catastrophic for our local infrastructure which is already severely affected by issues on the M1. This appears to all intents and purposes to be purely a money grabbing scheme proposed at the cost of the lives of the communities affected"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine Larkins
"I strongly object to the Ashfield Land/Gazeley application. We moved to Milton Malsor in 2010, it is a very idyllic countryside location, very convenient for retail therapy and within easy reach of Northampton and Milton Keynes. Having recently retired we, along with all villagers here, are looking forward to enjoying the area for many years to come. Bearing in mind the location, how is possible for developers to consider it is acceptable to build a large scale industrial development in the middle of a rural area, particularly right on the doorstep of adjacent villages, the whole surrounding area is residential. The application for planning permission to build another SRFI here appears to me to lack logic and common sense because any requirement for additional rail freight space is already approved at Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT). DIRFT already has a planning approval to build phase three allowing it to expand until 2031. I have real concerns about the large increase of HGVs in the area, the M1 is so congested in Northamptonshire that we have experienced on numerous occasions severe traffic congestion in the area when motorway traffic is diverted off onto local roads, yet the Ashfield Land/Gazeley would, without motorway traffic, give the potential to create unprecedented chaos. Also, I am seriously concerned about the effect of the numerous causes of pollution, air through exhaust fumes- noise and light pollution from 24/7 continuous operations on the site. The Ashfield Land/Gazeley application is for a 24/7 operation, all this on the doorstep of residential areas, surely this application has to be refused. Air pollution is a growing national issue, whilst this is equally important to me so is the light and noise pollution, which is potentially horrendous, the movement of containers, railway shunting loading and offloading of materials, HGV reversing sirens, noise like this travels a long way. I am also saddened by the thought of the loss of countryside, wildlife, footpaths, and open space. The proposed development is totally out of keeping for a predominately rural and residential area. Furthermore: - 1) This Ashfield Land/Gazeley Rail Central 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. 2) 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 I strongly object to this Ashfield Land/Gazeley application and trust that for reasons stated above that this application for planning permission will be refused. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dominika Pawlitka
"I strongly object to the proposal because the project doesn't make any sense. Destroying the nature for even more warehouses before brexit when import and export terms can't be granted. Please be considerate to the people who live in the nearby villages and who's life would be affected by this unnecessary act. Reuse and recycle, fix what's broken instead of piling up another centre of operation on the beautiful village lands."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma Closier
"I am writing in order to object to the building of these massive warehouses on what is currently open countryside and excellent walking country. Firstly, my family and I really enjoy long walks with our dog, there are many footpaths around the Blisworth and Milton Malsor area and it seems to me that the Rail Central plans would completely destroy the ability to use these. The footpath from Milton Malsor to Blisworth via Barn Lane is a source of recreation and currently provides very attractive views over open countryside. It is also very safe for dog walking as there is no traffic for almost the entire route and only the very occasional car near the plant nursery. The proposed diversion only goes half way between the two villages, nowhere near its existing start/end points, and ends on a main road which one would have to cross in order to get to an existing path. Nobody walking dogs would use this route due to the noise, pollution and danger from traffic. Presumably the law does not allow a developer to close and destroy an existing right of way without providing a similar usable route. Secondly, as a biology student, I take an interest in all living things and I can say that I have seen many important trees and hedgerows in the area of the proposed warehouse site and to destroy these would deprive future generations of an important part of our heritage. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Faith Fehr
"I have lived in Blisworth for fifteen years. I raised my son here. I choose to live in a village because I love village life and appreciate the surrounding countryside, the beautiful country walks, seeing wildlife for whom that countryside is home, breathing clean air and a level of tranquillity absent from town life. Our villages and beautiful countryside is constantly under threat from a relentless tide of proposed developments, once granted the loss of that beautiful countryside and wildlife is lost forever. Too much of our precious countryside has been lost already. When will common sense prevail, such outrageous developments should be instantly thrown out. Brown field sites should be the only acceptable option, and the genuine requirement of any development proposal scrutinized. I do wonder why it is considered acceptable to come into someone else's backyard, destroy and build, with no regard for those who's home this is. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Closier
"I object to the Rail Central proposed Rail Freight Terminal. As a senior manager based in the Head Office of a major chain of national Estate Agents I have real concerns about the proposed development. Our local staff spend much of their time travelling to view property and traffic congestion can result in arriving late for client appointments. The vast increase in traffic that would result from this development can only make this problem worse. Another issue is that of being able to recruit staff for our offices in Northampton. Due to the very low rate of unemployment in the area and the high level of competition for staff we often have to transfer people from other parts of the Midlands to fill gaps at local offices. This brings extra expense to the Company and inconvenience to the staff concerned. This development will have a massive effect on the local labour market and will create a significant problem for all companies in the area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
J Ward
"I object to the proposal on the following grounds: 1. Site Location - questionable strategic need/capacity as DiRFT is only 18 miles from the proposed site and, unlike DiRFT which has a larger buffer zone between villages, this site would be tightly squeezed into green space land between local villages. This close proximity to local villages will not only blur the boundaries with Northampton but will make it difficult to mitigate the operational impact of the site. 2. Adverse effect on living conditions due to noise, light, and air pollution. 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. 3. Lack of adequate road access - limited access/egress routes to strategic and primary networks which are already congested. Inadequate proposed measures for HGV movements in the event of congestion on A43/M1. Existing congestion problems result in 'rat-running' on local roads with narrow canal bridges and weight restrictions resulting in damage to these structures. 4. 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. 5. Safety. 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. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michelle Harvey
"I have lived in this beautiful village for over 20 years and this monstrosity will cause total devastation to this tranquil village and the surrounding area. The volume of traffic and noise will become unbearable and dangerous for all concerned. It will ruin the countryside and the environment. Wildlife will be impacted and it is already causing distress to all who live in the surrounding areas. We do not want large volumes of traffic constantly driving through the villages. Why destroy the beauty of Northants all we have is lovely villages we don't have a town centre because that has been demolished and left empty. Leave the villages to be what they are quaint and quiet! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Russell Langridge
"I am against the proposed Rail freight development between Blisworth and Milton Malsor because it is unnecessary and unsustainable. My view is supported by the fact we have a rail freight centre only 15 minutes away in Daventry so we do not need another so close. Also, the idea that another one is needed in the midlands does not follow the government’s plan to spread the rail freight centres out nationally. We already have enough low paid jobs in Northamptonshire and not high unemployment! In addition to this, the roads cannot be sufficiently improved to deal with the amount of congestion this development will bring. The small roads that are between the village of Blisworth and Milton Malsor cannot be developed enough to sustain the increase in traffic The noise and light pollution will be unacceptable, in what are already extremely busy villages, and it will affect the health of many. The development will begin the slow and painful process of the urbanisation of these beautiful villages and the characteristics of these villages and surrounding areas should be preserved. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs E Turner
"I strongly object to the proposal because none of the local plans show any large development on this site. It is vital to keep this land as open space as it ensures there is an effective barrier between town and country. I have lived in the village for 57 years, my inlaws for generations (mostly adjacent to Barn Lane) and have seen the increase in traffic using the roads as rat runs. This proposal would vastly increase the volume of traffic with associated air pollution. Mrs E Turner"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Emma Langridge
"I am against the proposed Rail freight development between Blisworth and Milton Malsor not least because this development is not strategic but rather convenient to the people who stand to make money from this. It is unnecessary and unsustainable. My view is supported by the fact we have a rail freight centre only 15 minutes away in Daventry so we do not need another so close. Also, the idea that another one is needed in the midlands does not follow the government’s plan to spread the rail freight centres out nationally. 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. WE do not need another warehouse-type development to ruin the landscape and bring low paid jobs. We already have the DIRFT facilities nearby and have too many warehouses at junction 15. We already have enough low paid jobs in Northamptonshire and not high unemployment! In addition to this, the roads cannot be sufficiently improved to deal with the ridiculous amount of congestion this development will bring. The small roads that are between the village of Blisworth and Milton Malsor cannot be developed enough to sustain the increase in traffic Not only will the noise and light pollution will be unacceptable, in what are already extremely busy villages, it will affect the health of many children of school age and the elderly. Northampton already struggles to be attractive. We have our beautiful villages; however, this development brings unnecessary, and unwanted, development to those. The development will ruin beautiful fields and 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 instead of being sacrificed for greed and commercialisation. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Lesley Johnson
"I am in my eighties, and have lived with my husband raising a family, in our lovely stone cottage in Milton Malsor for more than fifty years. The idea of having a rail freight terminal virtually on my doorstep is simply awful. It will make my life unbearable. Therefore I object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed Rail Central SRFI for the following reasons: a) The significant increase in traffic movements generated by this SRFI amounting to thousands a day, will increase the risks associated with air pollution. This is very concerning, as air pollution by nitric oxide and diesel particulate lorry and machinery emissions will directly affect my health. This would be very worrying for me. b) The noise pollution generated by the 24/7 operation of this SRFI would be intolerable making my life a misery, due to the railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers, not to mention the light pollution from night time operations which would be ghastly. c) In any case, this proposed SRFI is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy. As the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only a short distance away from the village, there is no need for this unwanted and unnecessary developer driven Rail Central SRFI. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Pam O`Shaughnessy
"I love living in our stone cottage together with my husband in Milton Malsor, and have done, for over 20 years. The thought of having this dreadful SRFI on my door stop is horrifying. We are in our seventies, and we want to continue living in [Redacted) for ever. Quite frankly this is the wrong place for an SRFI "shoe horned" in between Milton Malsor and Blisworth villages, both conservation areas, close by to residents. In any case, this proposed SRFI is clearly contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy, so I strongly object to this proposal on these grounds alone. Besides, the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal is nearby on junction 18 on the M1, where planning permission, has been granted for logistics space and for a new rail terminal. Therefore, there is no need or requirement for this proposed developer driven Rail Central SRFI. I also strongly object to this proposed SRFI for the following reasons: a) The increase in air pollution generated, due to the thousands of additional daily vehicle movements will be appalling. I am very worried about this, as Air Pollution by Nitric Oxide and Diesel Particulate lorry and machinery emissions will be detrimental to my health, and of course, for other residents in the locality. Air Pollution is a national issue, b) The noise which will be generated by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers, as well as, the light and noise pollution from night time operations would make my life unbearable. c) All the land between Milton Malsor and Blisworth is currently open countryside that provides a haven for wildlife. With an SRFI all of this would be totally lost to the area. Furthermore, there would be a loss of valuable farmland when the country needs to produce more food rather than importing it. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Tina Adams
"The proposed commercial development would cause devestation to existing farmland,devalue the lives of local people and would also be wrongly positioned so close to the transport hub at Crick."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicholas Turner
"I wish to strongly object to this application. The proposed development is unacceptable, in scale, size and proximity to my house. Also, there is no need for such a development; there is already adequate unused capacity in similar sites within this area of the country. The developer(s) is not really interested in providing a facility for a rail terminal; it only really wants to undertake 'speculative' warehousing and has no interest in the detrimental effect it would have on residents. Also, it's proposals for screening, noise mitigation/reduction and floodlighting are inadequate; the warehouses would be too close. They would destroy the character of my village, in which I have resided all my life."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nick Lincoln
"I strongly object to the proposals on the following grounds: The increased air pollution in the area from all the extra road traffic. The increase of traffic in the area of heavy goods vehicles and workers commuting from outside the area to work on the site given the low unemployment rates in Northampton, especially on already congested roads in Northampton. The expected noise levels for the unloading and loading of freight, particularly at night. The loss of open countryside and footpaths that i use for dog walking and which attracted me to buy in the area. The dubious claims that this will operate as a rail freight terminal, given the poor take up of other RFI schemes and the already congested train timetables meaning there is little or no capacity for the train lines to be used for freight."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philip Elliott
"I strongly disagree with this planning application, my main objections are; The impact to local traffic in an area that is already heavily congested particularly during rush hours. The environmental impact, the loss of vast swathes of farm and woodland that help reduce the impact of a busy and heavily polluted area to concrete and additional pollution. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philip Westerman
"It is my belief that should this development go ahead the increased heavy goods traffic using the A43 between Junction 10 of the M40 and Blisworth will cause chaos, particularly around Towcester. This in the light of attempts to improve the roundabouts at the A5 junction and the previous one at Greens Norton which still regularly back up for miles. Both need an underpass which is unlikely, attested by the previous low budget 'fixes'. Air pollution in Towcester is already in excess of acceptable levels. Add to this motorists using local villages as 'rat runs' every time there is traffic disruption nearby and the negative effect on residents lives and health is clear. With DIRFT at Rugby so well placed and so close, one can only assume that this new development will not profit the national interest but a few developers whose interest is profit."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard O`Shaughnessy
"It simply beggars belief that Ashfield Land consider it suitable to build a massive Rail Freight terminal, close to the residential villages of Milton Malsor and Blisworth. The thought of having this on my doorstep just doesn`t bear thinking of. I am in my seventies and have lived with my wife, in our delightful stone cottage in Milton Malsor for over 20 years. Having this proposed SRFI would make life unbearable for us. It goes without saying I strongly object to this outrageous proposal on the grounds of: 1) The destruction of the local footpath network. In particular, the footpath over beautiful open countryside with lovely views, between Milton Malsor and Blisworth, on which, I frequently enjoy riding my bike, as well as, walking our dog. This I will no longer be able to do, thus taking away my enjoyment of living in the countryside. The idea of diverting this particular footpath along the very busy Northampton Road, is both unrealistic and absurd. 2) The increase in air pollution this proposed SRFI will generate, due to the thousands of additional daily vehicle movements will be dreadful. This is very worrying, as the Air Pollution by Nitric Oxide and Diesel Particulate lorry and machinery emissions will directly my health, as well as, for other residents in the village. Air Pollution remains a national issue, and there is little prospect in the immediate future of HGV`s being powered by electricity. 3) What is more, the noise and light pollution generated from such an operation working 24 hours a day, seven days a week, would be devastating making life intolerable. 4) I also strongly object to this proposal due to it being contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy. Besides there is already the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal nearby, so there is no need, for this unwanted and unnecessary developer driven Rail Central SRFI."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Terry Larkins
"I strongly object to this proposal, as a long term resident of Milton Malsor I fear that this proposed development by Ashfield Land/Gazeley in this location will reduce the area to nothing more than another industrial site, the increase in HGV traffic, the pollution, and noise generated from a 24-hour operation is totally unacceptable in a residential rural location. Consequently I find it objectionable that the proposed Rail Freight Terminals by Ashfield Land/Gazeley 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)”. WNJCS requires that any further SRFI development should take place at the DIRFT site” - end quote. DIRFT - phase 3 planning permission has now been granted, this allows for additional expansion at DIRFT until 2031. It appears that both developers Ashfield Land/Gazeley are ignoring WNJCS and the reality that additional rail freight is not required in this area, this is really all about profiteering with little or no consideration of the effect on the environment. And as I understand it the rail network has insufficient capacity for any increase in rail traffic. I ask the question, what will the proposed Ashfield/Gazeley developments achieve that DIRFT cannot provide, there is no positive answer to the question, but I strongly object to the proposal 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, of particular concern is the vast volume of HGV movements in and around local villages, 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, I urge that this planning application proposal be refused. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Howes Percival LLP on behalf of Willow Inns Limited
"We are instructed on behalf of Willow Inns Limited (CRN 1816724) (“our Client”) in relation to the Proposed Rail Central Strategic Rail Freight Interchange Development Consent Order (“the DCO”) affecting their land at Upton Way, Northampton. Our client’s land is described by works: • W23/4 (listed as approx. 113 square metres of adopted highway…excluding all interests of the highway); • W23/10 (approx. 99 square metres of adopted highway… excluding all interests of the highway); and • W23/11 (approx. 80 square metres of adopted highway excluding all interests of the highway). It would appear that the promoter of the DCO has been incorrectly informed in relation to the above parcels of land as the parcels should not form part of the adopted public highway. Pursuant to an Agreement dated 31 March 1999, our client transferred land to the Commission for the New Towns for the purpose of facilitating undertaking highway works. It is clear from that Agreement that the above parcels were not proposed to become part of the public highway. The land forming the above parcels have remained in our client’s ownership and our client has not dedicated the land as part of the public highway. However, it appears that our client’s land has been incorrectly identified as part of the public highway and without our client’s consent. Our client strongly objects to the DCO and the development as a whole due to the unnecessary inclusion of their land. Our client’s land is unnecessary for the application for the following reasons: 1. As set out above, our client’s land should not form part of the adopted highway and is not required to accommodate the existing highway arrangement; 2. Our client’s land is not necessary for the works to be carried out. The scope of works indicated on the plans does not show any works to be carried out within our client’s land; 3. Given that no highway works are proposed to our client’s land, there is no need for the subsoil to be acquired for the scheme to come forward 4. There is not a compelling case in the public interest for the inclusion of our client’s land. The Statement of Reasons suggests that our client’s land is needed for highway widening; this is not the case as the highway works do not appear to extend into our client’s land; We would note that our client has not been approached, contrary to the Statement of Reasons as a principal owner of the Order Land, to reach an agreement with the Applicant for the acquisition of their land. As can be seen from the above, our client’s land should not currently form part of the public highway and there is absolutely no reason why it needs to be acquired to enable the DCO scheme to be delivered. It is considered necessary for the land to be removed from the proposals. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Osborne
"My wife and I pooled all of our savings to move to Blisworth six years ago to live in a quite village [Redacted] I believe the proposed rail-freight interchange would devastate the area in terms of the extra noise, pollution and traffic it would bring. The additional traffic at M1 J15a would also cause on a knock on effect to others entering Northampton, something which I believe has been overlooked. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Fiona McKenzie
"I object strongly to the planned Rail Central development. It has been clear from the start that the impact on local communities will be horrendous. We will lose treasured greenfield land. The visual impact of huge structures will overwhelm Blisworth and Milton Malsor. Light, air and noise pollution will have long term effects on physical and mental wellbeing, not just for us, but for the generations to come. The increase in road traffic will be enormous, and just think what will happen when the M1 is closed due to accidents - which is a frequent occurrence. In fact the Rail Central site will be at a stand still. The rail network cannot sustain the extra traffic. Not so far away warehouses are standing empty or understaffed. There is no need for huge developments on the scale proposed. Rail Central has not made a case for need - much is only speculative. I ask, and indeed pray, that sense will prevail, and that the community that I love and value as my home, will be spared the monstrosity that is Rail Central. Fiona McKenzie"
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Batten
"We already have a significant issue with articulated vehicles coming through the historic part of our village, because they are following their sat nav directions. The local roads are not equipped to deal with this traffic and even though road signs are in place advising Max weight restrictions, that has no effect. The proposed development will make the number of such vehicles on village roads a danger, will impact on the quality of life and damage historic buildings (ours being grade II listed). I have lived in the area all my life and and what attracted me to stay was the country way of life. Large business is looking to concrete over large parts of our countryside and impacting some of the nicest villages in the county - many having won ‘best village’ competitions. That won’t happen in the future with this proposed development. I don’t understand why this development is even being considered particularly as DIRFT is only 10 miles up the road. PLEASE STOP THIS DEVELOPMENT."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael H Baker
"I am absolutely appalled by this proposal which I strongly object to on the grounds of: 1) 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. 2) Having the Rail Central SRFI squeezed in between Milton Malsor and Blisworth villages, both conservation areas, would be simply devastating for myself and my wife, as well as, for all residents. The massive increase in traffic movements, amounting to thousands a day, generated by this SRFI will lead to traffic chaos, on the already congested roads in the locality. Furthermore, this will lead to increased traffic through our small and narrow roads in Milton Malsor, when there is congestion on the M1 & A43. 3) Increased air pollution due to the thousands of additional vehicle movements a day. Air pollution by nitric oxide and diesel particulate lorry and machinery emissions, (a national issue), will directly affect my health. This is of great concern to me. 4) The constant noise generated by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers, as well as, the light and noise pollution from night time operations, would be intolerable for myself and my wife. 5) This proposal is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy, so there is no need for another rail freight terminal in the area, as the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is nearby on junction 18 on the M1. Finally, for all the above reasons this unwanted and unnecessary developer proposal should be refused."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs 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 beautiful home we have built, enjoying the peace and tranquillity of the lovely countryside in Milton Malsor. Having the proposed Rail Central SRFI on our door step would be dreadful and will ruin our lives. I therefore strongly object to this proposal for the reasons as shown below: a) The Rail Central SRFI "shoe horned" in between three conservation areas; Blisworth Arm as well as, the villages of Blisworth and Milton Malsor would be devastating. The huge increase in traffic movements amounting to thousands a day, generated by this SRFI, will lead to traffic chaos, on the already congested roads in the locality. What is more, there will be an increase in traffic "rat running" through the small and narrow lanes in Milton Malsor, when there is congestion on the M1 & A43. b) Increased air pollution is a very worrying and serious concern, due the thousands of additional traffic movements a day. Air pollution by nitric oxide and diesel particulate lorry and machinery emissions (a national issue) will directly affect my health. This serious threat to human life can so easily be avoided, by the expansion of the existing Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) in accordance with the West Northants Joint Core Strategy. (WNJCS) c) This proposal is contrary to the WNJCS, with DIRFT nearby on junction 18 on the M1, which is the largest and is expected to remain the largest, SRFI in the country. So therefore there is no need for the proposed SRFI to be sited on land in open countryside between Milton Malsor and Blisworth. For all these reasons I call for this unnecessary developer driven proposal to be refused."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Suzie Batten
"We already have a significant issue with articulated vehicles coming through the historic part of our village, because they are following their sat nav directions. The local roads are not equipped to deal with this traffic and even though road signs are in place advising Max weight restrictions, that has no effect. The proposed development will make the number of such vehicles on village roads a danger, will impact on the quality of life and damage historic buildings (ours being grade II listed). I have lived in the area all my life and and what attracted me to stay was the country way of life. Large business is looking to concrete over large parts of our countryside and impacting some of the nicest villages in the county - many having won ‘best village’ competitions. That won’t happen in the future with this proposed development. I don’t understand why this development is even being considered particularly as DIRFT is only 10 miles up the road. PLEASE STOP THIS DEVELOPMENT."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dermot Roff
"I object to the proposal for the following reasons: Mainly lack of safety and can be summarised as follows • [Redacted] The noise from the containers, railway and warehousing will penetrate my home which is probably the closest road to the development. My family and my daughter all enjoy the garden environment and it would be noisy and the views blighted by the development. I fear my daughter would refrain from using the garden due to this which would further limit her ability to spend time outdoors. • Loss of privacy and being overshadowed by the development is a concern to my family. I also anticipate walkers across the field behind Rectory Lane towards the development which would cause a big change in the way we are able to use our home. • I worry my daughter will be at risk of passing traffic which will increase substantially if the development goes ahead as she is not 100% road and traffic aware. I also worry that with so much passing traffic she is more exposed and at risk of being approached by strangers to the village which would put her in an extremely vulnerable position. • Noise and air pollution would almost certainly increase from 3 aspects of my home (South – development, North – increase in traffic and East – new railway), which would cause a disturbance for my family (especially my daughter who needs peace to concentrate on schoolwork) and myself as I often work from home. • The visual impact is extremely negative as the warehouses are so high. Even with the camouflage and colouring this would totally transform the landscape negatively. This is out of scale and out of character with the surrounding area. • The character of the villages of both Milton and Blisworth would change beyond recognition as the traffic flow increases and many strangers to the village are passing through on a daily basis. This would also increase the risk of crime in the villages. • The loss of views would severely impact the village (particularly Rectory Lane) adversely. • Highway safety in the village would be a huge issue as would speeding. Parking issues may also arise if people decide to park in the village and cut through the fields which is a possibility • I am concerned about the local wildlife which is abundant in this area (bats, many species of birds many others) which would be devastated by a development of this size. • The local community facilities and roads cannot cope with the extra footfall and traffic and the atmosphere of the village would change significantly as a result. • I’m concerned the emergency access road onto Northampton Road may be opened up which would mean the now fairly quiet country road would become exceptionally busy and very dangerous for the residents (especially my daughter) • DIRFT is only 18m and has capacity to expand "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gail Albrow
"I strongly object to this proposal. There is already a rail interchange within less than 15 miles away, which has spare capacity for a decade or more. There is no reason to destroy the beautiful views and wildlife habitats of the surrounding area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janis Brown
"I feel the development will damage the countryside and permanently destroy the relative peace and tranquillity. I can see no reason why such a large development is required when there is already one at Rugby."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katie Lincoln
"I strongly object to the proposed rail freight terminal between Blisworth and Milton Malsor as I do not believe that the M1 or A43 will be able to cope with the massively increased trafific flow. These roads are already at full capacity during rush hour and I believe this will lead to increased traffic flow through the villages. I also believe that the additional light and noise pollution (as well as the increased air pollution) caused by the development will have a negative impact on the residents of both villages together with the surrounding areas. The development will clearly have a detrimental impact on the wildlife in the area and mean the loss of valuable countryside, agricultural land and rights of way which are regularly enjoyed by many including myself as a dog owner. I do not see the need to develope an area surrounded by residential housing for another freight terminal when there is still huge capacity for expansion at the Daventry Rail Freight Terminal."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lisa Franklin
"STOP RAIL CENTRAL We moved into Blisworth just over a year ago as a family, and love being part of such a great community. As my husband uses the M1 to get to work every day as a royal mail driver, we are well aware of the traffic issues on this particular stretch of the M1. It has constant incidents for road use into Northampton. If planning permission is granted for Rail Central these issues will at least double build up of traffic, there will be more accidents / incidents on an already troubled spot on this part of the M1.When there are accidents /incidents on this part of the M1 excessive traffic then moves onto the A508 0r A5 with drivers taking a short cut through the village. For myself working in Milton Keynes, I've found on many occasions when there have been incidents on the M1 that traffic diverts through the village, with especially large lorries trying to get through small narrow roads can become dangerous. Northampton Council are stretched with no funding to repair already badly damaged roads in Blisworth, so with added traffic cutting through the village it would mean only bigger problems. Another concern and only something we are aware of by living in Blisworth, is a potential accident waiting to happen concerning the large group of horse owners.There are a large group of horse owners that keep their horses in a field and stables on the outskirts of the village, taking daily rides on some very windy roads . If drivers aren't aware of these circumstances on these roads when cutting through the village, there is some risk of a fatal accident. We are concerned about air and noise pollution on our environment and find it hard to understand why there needs to be another freight rail so close to a large one in Daventry where there are 20 more super hubs being built now!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Eunice Humphrey
"I strongly object to the proposed Rail Central SRFI for the following reasons: All the land between Milton Malsor and Blisworth is currently open countryside that provides a haven for wildlife. This would all be lost to the area. What is more, it would also be a loss of valuable farmland when the country needs to produce more food rather than importing it. The total destruction of the footpath over beautiful open countryside with lovely views between Milton Malsor and Blisworth, which I have enjoyed so much over the years whilst walking my dogs. Rail Central`s idea of diverting this footpath along the very busy Northampton Road is not only an appalling proposal, it`s an unrealistic alternative, which does not in anyway emulate the beauty and tranquillity of the existing footpath. Having this SRFI so close to Milton Malsor, Blisworth and Blisworth Arm will be devastating for everyone. The significant increase in traffic movements generated by this SRFI, amounting to thousands a day will lead to traffic chaos, on the already congested roads in the locality. Furthermore, with congestion on the M1 and A43, there will be an increase in vehicles "rat running" through the small and narrow lanes in Milton Malsor. The increase in air pollution which this SRFI will generate is very worrying indeed. Air pollution by nitric oxide and diesel particulate lorry and machinery emissions will directly affect my health. The thought of this happening is my worst nightmare. The noise created by the 24/7 operation of the SRFI including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers, as well as the light and noise pollution from night time operations, would make life unbearable for me. I also strongly object to the proposed Rail Central SRFI, as it`s 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 site, (DIRFT) located nearby on junction 18 on the M1. So therefore, this developer driven Rail Central proposal is both unnecessary and unwanted."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs 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
Mrs Sarah Heavens
"I am concerned that the development and the new network of roads which will have a close proximity to my house will adversely affect the value of my home. The new bypass will run across the back of the field near our property which is currently open green space. This will have a negative effect on house prices and thus affect me financially. In addition, there is a compulsory purchase order on the Lane we live on. I don’t know what impact this will have on the future; it may be a green light for other developments to take place near our home which currently can’t happen because of access."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Humphrey
"I strongly object to the proposed Rail Central SRFI for the reasons shown below: 1)It will destroy hundreds of acres of local countryside, resulting in the loss of valuable farmland when the country needs to produce more food rather than importing it. Also, all the land between Milton Malsor and Blisworth is currently open countryside, that provides a haven for wildlife which would be totally lost to the area for evermore. This can never be replaced. 2) It`s inappropriate for an SRFI to be situated between three conservation areas; Blisworth Arm, Blisworh and Milton Malsor. The increase in air pollution generated by the SRFI will be horrific and damaging to life. This is of great concern to me. With thousands of the additional vehicle movements generated daily by this SRFI, air pollution by nitric oxide and diesel particulate lorry and machinery emissions, will make it unbearable for me to live here, as well as, being a real danger to my health. 3) The significant increase in traffic movements which will be generated by this SRFI, amounting to thousands a day, will lead to traffic chaos, on the already congested roads in the locality. Besides, there will be an increase in traffic "rat running" through the small and narrow lanes in Milton Malsor, when there is congestion on the M1 & A43 which is already a frequent occurrence. 4) The noise generated by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers, as well as, the light and noise pollution from night time operations, would ruin the enjoyment of my living in this lovely tranquil rural village. 5) This proposal is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy. 6) With the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) only a short distance away on junction 18 on the M1, there is no need for another rail freight terminal in the area, as DIRFT is the largest, and is expected to remain the largest, SRFI in the country."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Scarfe
"I STRONGLY OBJECT against Rail Central/Ashfield Land from building a Rail Freight terminal between the villages of Blisworth and Milton Malsor for the following reasons. 1, Daventry Rail freight terminal is less than 10 miles away and has capacity for expansion. 2, Increased air pollution from the increase of HGV and smaller vehicles using the local roads. 3, The increase in noise from the 24 hour 7 day operation from trains shunting, HGV’s moving in/out and around the site. Staff arriving and leave the site as well as the loading and unloading of trains and vehicles. 4, The increase of light pollution and the long term effects that this has on both people and wildlife locally. 5, The loss of natural habitat for the local wildlife. 6, The increase of local traffic on what are already poorly maintained and inadequate local roads. 7, The increase in crime to the local area which seems to follow large developments of this kind. 8, The increase of these gigantic storage and distribution warehouses that seem to just get bigger and bigger with every new development which case massive shadows impacting on plant growth, wildlife losing habitat due to lack of sun light as well as being unsightly and creating a faceless intimating environment for all."
Members of the Public/Businesses
RogerLaurence TYLER
"1. The alleged need for either one or two Strategic Rail Freight Interchanges (SRFI) in this part of Northamptonshire has not been proved when the locality is so near to the already existing Crick SRFI. One SRFI in my view is unacceptable in the Milton/Blisworth/Roade area. TWO SRFIs are totally unthinkable! 2. The local Planning Authority's views of this proposed scheme do not appear to be taken into account, the final decision due to be made at national (central government) level with no regard for local democratic procedures. 3. Just one proposed scheme covers an area equal in size to a large country town. 4. A huge increase in the number of HGV and other vehicle movements would result and cause widespread congestion and further pollution on and around already over used local roads and motorway (M1). 5. The loss of a huge area of productive farmland, unspoiled countryside and wild life habitat, would be totally unacceptable and would contravene the West Northants Joint Core Planning Strategy. 6. Loss of so many historic footpaths, bridleways and rural surroundings could be described as no less than "criminal"! 7. The effects on the local villages and farms together with the reduction in the quality of life of local village communities would be a total disaster for present and future generations. 8. Noise and light pollution levels of the SRFI (one or both) and the resulting traffic increases would be totally unacceptable to local communities. 9. Due to the limited freight paths available on local rail lines, the vast majority of rail movements are very likely to be at night, resulting in significant noise and diesel fumes, many freight trains being diesel hauled. 10. The proposals, if approved, would encourage further applications for industrial and urban development on nearby land. Consequently the local green belt would gradually (or rapidly) disappear. This would be a total disaster for this part of Northamptonshire."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Shane McDermott
"I strongly object to this proposed development. The rural villages of Blisworth and Milton Malsor would be ruined by the massive warehouses and large earth mounds, with the consequent air, light and noise pollution, and increased traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Shane McDermott
"I strongly object to this proposed development. The rural villages of Blisworth and Milton Malsor would be ruined by the massive warehouses and large earth mounds, with the consequent air, light and noise pollution, and increased traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Shane McDermott
"I strongly object to this proposed development. The rural character of the villages of Blisworth and Milton Malsor would be ruined by the massive warehouses and large earth mounds, with the consequent air, light and noise pollution, and the increased traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tessa L Roff
"I strongly object to this proposal for the following reasons: - Unacceptable noise levels at unsociable hours and within working hours - Appearance of the development not in keeping with the environment - Increased traffic - Increase in local crime levels - Highway safety in the village would be a huge issue as would speeding/parking. - Loss of habitat for local wildlife (bats, many species of birds and many others) - The local community facilities and roads not designed to cope with extra footfall - Air pollution would increase - No unemployment locally means more traffic bringing workers from other counties - Dirft is less than 20 miles away and has room to scale up and develop further - Railway is not equipped to take the extra rail traffic from this area - Loss of local footpaths "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thomas Harries
"I am concerned about the lack of local infrastructure to support such a large project. Local roads are already congested and will struggle to cope with the additional traffic this will bring, even with improvements. I am also concerned that surrounding villages such as Tiffield will see more commuters shortcutting the congestion. Our village recently saw such a problem due to local roadworks. I believe the ability to run additional freight trains has been overstated on an already busy line so worry the aims of the project won’t be met. In summary, this proposal will devastate local communities and destroy a lot of land which could otherwise be used for food production and wildlife habitat."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Whitmore
"I object to the proposal. I have lived in the area my whole life, I moved my young family to Milton Malsor to have the enjoy the countryside as I did. This proposal will leave us with noise and light pollution 24 hours a day 7 days a week. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brian Gallen
"The proposed development is an outrageous attempt by local landowners and devious entrepreneurs to make a quick buck at the expense of the local environment. There is absolutely no need for another rail freight terminal in this area which is already very well served by DIRFT, a mere 15 miles up the road. And there is plenty of empty space available to rent at DIRFT for organisations that need a logistics base in the South Midlands. There is simply no need for further commercial warehouse capacity in our area. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Cadent Gas Limited
"Representation by Cadent Gas Limited (Cadent) to the Rail Central Strategic Rail Freight Interchange Development Consent Order: 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 Rail Central Strategic 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 and associated below or above ground apparatus 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. Adequate protective provisions for the protection of Cadent’s statutory undertaking have not yet been agreed between parties. 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
Caroline Matthews-Maynard
"I feel Rail Central will have a very detrimental impact on the countryside and roadways around the area and will also have a major impact on Towcester, the town I live in. The Northamptonshire countryside in this area is beautiful and should not be ruined in this way. I also cannot understand why this to would be built so near to the DIRFT railway link in Rugby."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Faye Whitmore
"I object to this proposal. I have lived in Milton Malsor my whole life the new development would ruin the peace and quiet of the village. The noise and light pollution would be 24 hours a day 7 days a week. The roads surrounding the villages are busy enough now without all the extra traffic this proposal would add. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gemma Smith
"Concerns with both local traffic increasing and how the a43/motorway junction will cope with increased traffic. Loss of countryside and merging Northamptonshire villages with Northampton. With the number of warehouse premises already in the area, do we have enough workers to fill jobs... if not... where are they going to live?! (Including social infrastructure to support). "
Other Statutory Consultees
Health and Safety Executive
"We have searched through all related documents on the Planning Inspectorate website but have been unable to locate acknowledgement of HSE's advice. We therefore repeat the following text: “The project has the potential to affect existing non-major accident hazard utility services. In particular, the applicant is advised to ensure they consult the British Pipeline Agency Ltd regarding the agency's Kingsbury - Buncefield pipelines which appear to pass under the land”. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tom McManus on behalf of John Buckley
"I strongly object to this proposal for the following reasons. 1. My wife and I are in our eighties and live in [Redacted] very near the proposed site and we think that the noise and air pollution will be excessive. 2. We have to go to doctors appointments in Blisworth, the other side of the proposed site, and we feel that the increased road traffic will make this very difficult. 3. We have had to be taken to Northampton hospital several times recently due to our poor health and we think that this will become more difficult as the road traffic in this area increases."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Judith Mackintosh
"I strongly object because all fields, walks and wild life will be affected. There will be nothing but concrete from here to Blisworth. Flooding, light pollution, noise, air pollution. Lorries will be going through the village day and night. The roads round here are bad enough when the M1 has problems. To have 100s more lorries and cars will just be ridiculous. The need for more warehouses round here is a very poor reason when we have empty ones at Crick DIRFT, and at Milton Keynes, junction 15 at M1 also has empty warehouses how on earth can people justify more. If people need to spend money on needless warehouse why can't they spend it on things we really need such as the NHS and schools. There will no longer be villages because we will be just a blob in a concrete warehouse estate. House prices will plummet. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Scott
"I would like it to be known that I and my family strongly object to Rail Central. It may be necessary for you to have this facility but you have chosen completely the wrong place. There are far better places you could have chosen with better road links already in place. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tom McManus on behalf of Mary Buckley
"I strongly object to this planning application because we live in a bungalow very near the site and we will suffer badly due to the inevitable increase in air, noise and light pollution. We are also very worried about the increase in road traffic locally which will come from the site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Maura Clarke
"I am writing to object to the warehouse development being proposed by the Rail Central organisation. I have been involved in the recruitment industry for over 30 years and currently the Northampton area is one of the most difficult places in the Midlands to find suitable job candidates mainly due to the low rate of unemployment in the area. Indeed HGV drivers and warehouse operatives are almost impossible to find. A particular issue with warehouse workers is the fact that a high proportion of the available jobs are on a two or three shift system which considerably restricts the candidate population. Many local companies have to resort to recruiting labour from many miles away although as wages in places south of Northampton such as Bedford and Milton Keynes are much higher than Northampton this is mainly restricted to more northerly areas. In recent years even this market has become more difficult as potential employees would tend to travel to the Daventry Rail Freight Terminal and not further south to Northampton. The Rail Central development with its proposed thousands of jobs would make it impossibe for businesses in the area to find sufficient labour as indeed would Rail Central."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Rebecca Whitmore
"I object to this proposal. As we live in a very peaceful and lovely rural village and I strongly feel that this development will destroy what we are very proud to be part of. Having the development between Milton Malsor and Blisworth would be devastating for all the residents concerned. Not to mention the noise, extra traffic and air pollution. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rosie Whitmore
"I object to the proposal. I have lived in Milton Malsor all my live and enjoy walks and bicycle rides around the surrounding countryside. This proposal will take all the countryside from around us and leave us with noise and traffic. This would make the roads etc around us a complete disaster. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ruth Steventon
"I strongly object to this application because: My friends in Milton Malsor and Blisworth whom I visit frequently will be seriously affected by the noise, excessive traffic, increased air pollution. It will be harder and take longer to get to them as the roads will be congested. I also feel that this is an unnecessary development as there is another such base at Crick. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thomas Whitmore
"I object to the proposal. This proposal would be a massive environmental nightmare! The proposal would see all the countryside between the villages ripped up and us left with huge warehouses. The extra traffic as well as the noise would ruin theses lovely villages."
Members of the Public/Businesses
William Yule
"I wish to raise the following points 1 the traffic density on M1 and the related roads from the M1 to Northampton/Roade/etc are already extremely busy. I would like confirmation that all the proposed developments around Northampton have been taken into account when modelling traffic flows e.g Northampton University increase, all warehousing and housing developments in the pipeline or already approved. 2 Pollution : noise, air quality. These already exceed acceptable limits 3 Why bother having a local plan if it is ignored? 4. Why build on good farming land when there is plenty of capacity at Dirft Rail terminal just 16 miles up the road. This cant be in the National Interest or a Strategic requirement"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bob Pollock
"I consider that the project will cause increased traffic in the area and in particular will adversely affect journeys I and my family make between Towcester and Northampton."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tim Hancock Associates on behalf of BP Oil UK Limited
"Upton Way Service Station, Upton Way, Northampton, NN5 4EG, Rothersthorpe North & South Motorway Service Area, M1 Northampton, NN4 9QS and Towcester North Service Area, Towcester, NN12 8UA I confirm that I am instructed on behalf of BP Oil UK Limited, which operates the above-mentioned petrol filling stations. These strategic sites are all of significant importance and my client is concerned that the proposals have the potential to have a severe adverse effect on their operation and value as well as significant severe impacts during the construction period. I would be grateful if you would kindly acknowledge receipt. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jennifer Abbiss
"will effect the local wildlife will cause over development of the area junctions 15 & 15a already overstretched"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mike Haynes
"Developments such as the Rail Central project that form part of the strategic national infrastructure need to take into account the geographic spread of the type of infrastructure they represent. Rail Central and the adjacent Northampton Gateway proposals are situated less than 20 miles from the main DIRFT rail freight interchange at Daventry. Infrastructure already exists to service this interchange so surely if greater capacity is required within the same part of the country then the logic would be to expand that site. It does not make sense to construct a whole new site the size of the small town in a location that will destroy several rural villages and countless acres of surrounding countryside. Surely the right thing to do, which would be far more in the interests of the strategic national infrastructure policy, is to locate a new SRFI in other key locations of the country to create a national rail freight network. For example, around Birmingham, Bristol, Dover, Felixstowe, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and York? Neither the existing rail network serving the proposed Rail Central site nor the surrounding road network is capable of handling the additional traffic that would result. The M1, A43 and A5 within this locale are all at capacity now and whenever the M1 gets congested around Junctions 15-16 (which is very frequently), the A5 and A43 quickly also grind to a standstill. The railways have also confirmed they do not have the spare capacity to service these developments. Nearby residential areas will also suffer a considerable increase in pollution. Current studies show that pollution in these areas is already exceeding acceptable levels (according to the Government's own rules) so any decision to allow the Rail Central development to proceed would have to be brought into question on this point alone. An example is the town of Towcester, which becomes congested with HGV traffic on a daily basis, but the Department for Transport is refusing to fund a bypass that will de-trunk the town centre, despite over the years other towns such as Brackley and Stony Stratford getting them. The point of using the rail network to transport freight has always been to ease the burden on the country's road network. The proposed Rail Central development will achieve the exact opposite of this, as it will focus disproportionate amounts of freight onto the road network in and around Northamptonshire, rather than helping to distribute freight to key parts of the country before it hits the roads. Finally, this part of the county does not have an unemployment issue. Surely it would be better to locate such a development in an area that's in greater need of additional employment?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Neil Douglas
"I strongly object to the rail central development on the grounds of the loss of rural countryside between the villages of Milton malsor and blisworth,light pollution lighting will be on all through the night spoiling the night sky for miles around,the damage to the environment just does not bare thinking about"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Garwood
"This Rail Central Project will seriously impact on the whole area with the extra Heavy lorries arriving and leaving 24 hours a day 7 days a week, not to mention staff traffic coming and going, we will suffer with the Noise pollution, Light pollution and even more conjestion on the local roads which struggle to cope with the volume of Traffic now. Also why do we need another Huge Wharehouse site just off junction 15 of the M1 when there is a site at Junction 15A (which still has empty units after its completion) and there is ahuge complex being built at Junction 16 of the M1 which is less than 20 miles away, plus the local infrastructure can not cope with the increased strain on already stretched resources. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roger Abbiss
"1. Overdevelopment of the area and possible increase in flood 2.Emissions already exceed EU regs on M 1 by junction 15/15a where traffic is already heavy- So diesel emissions from the lorries and trains which are bound to be diesels and not electric will increase it more so disregarding the health of the people that live in the vicinity 3. Unnecessary with the continued expansion of DRIFT near Rugby 4. Will destroy wild life habitat 5. Bovis have plans to build 1,000 houses the other side of the M1 on Collingtree park with the increase in traffic (min of 2000 cars) thus increasing emisssions and damaging health"
Parish Councils
West Hunsbury Parish Council
"West Hunsbury Parish Council objects to the proposed Rail Central development. Our County is already blighted by huge warehousing which provides relatively little employment and West Hunsbury Parish Council would prefer to see priority given to higher skilled employment within the area. 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 fully built and stands 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. The agricultural area under threat is currently in full production and home to a variety of wildlife habitats. There is no capacity on the West Coast mainline so this is just speculative mass warehousing led by the desire to cash in on the prime location for links to the main roads network. We suggest that most movements will be by road with very little by rails thus not adhering to central government policy. In order to ensure that freight is removed from the road then West Hunsbury Parish Council would suggest that the application needs to be considered after HS2 is built and capacity is know/tested. If this application is permitted then West Hunsbury Parish Council would ask the Inspectorate to ensure that the development includes many wildlife refuges and areas, natural pathways and vehicle controls such as electric shunters rather than diesel. The priority also needs to be that the junction layouts and road links ensure that at all times HGV flow is maximised so to prevent increased issues for local traffic. We also ask that diversion routes avoid residential areas such as West Hunsbury."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Easton Neston Parish Meeting
"For reasons of worsened road safety and increased travel delay the Easton Neston Parish Meeting has serious concerns about the ability of the local road network to meet the additional traffic demands of this development even with its proposed junction improvement schemes."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Burton
"I write to strongly disagree with the application that is being made. The traffic situation in the village and on the outskirts is already extensive e.g. Stoke Road, A508, Courtenhall Road and the old A43 in and out of the village. For this application to be agreed will increase congestion, accidents and pollution."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Keith Parker
"I strongly object to the Rail Central SRFI proposal. I have lived in the peaceful environment of Milton Malsor for 32 years, bringing up my family here and playing an active part in this small rural village. I am now retired and looking forward to living in peace and tranquility. If the proposed Rail Central was to be built between Milton Malsor and Blisworth village, it would destroy hundreds of acres of local countryside and bring industry into an area that is an important gap between town and country. The destruction of the local footpath network would mean we would have to use a footpath along a busy road that would have massively increased traffic. This would endanger lives for all, children and older people especially. The significant increase of traffic movement, 22,000 a day, 6,688 being HGV generated by this SRFI, would lead to traffic chaos in the already congested roads in the locality. There would be increased air pollution due to the thousands of additional vehicle movements a day. Air pollution by Nitric Oxide and diesel particulate lorry and machinery emissions (a national issue) will directly affect the health and well-being of residents in our village. The noise created by 24/7 operation of the rail terminal, including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers, the alarms and buzzer systems which are mandatory during operation, together the light from floodlights would make the area unbearable to residents. I also strongly object to this proposal as it is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (see WNJCS). There is no policy or evidence in this WNJCS to suggest the need for a SRFI on land in open countryside between Milton Malsor and Blisworth. However, the need for an SRFI is identified in the WNJCS, as the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal, DIRFT, at Junction 18 on the M1, (approximately 18 miles from Junction 15) where planning permission has been granted for logistics space and for a new rail terminal. Therefore there is no requirement for the proposed Rail Central Terminal. I strongly object to this proposal; it is totally developer-driven, and should be refused immediately."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patricia Parker
"I most strongly object to the Rail Central SRFI proposal. As a resident of Milton Malsor, I have lived in this peaceful and beautiful rural village for 32 years, happily bringing up my family and playing an active part in this environment. If the proposed Rail Central was to be build between Milton Malsor and Blisworth villages, it would destroy hundreds of acres of local countryside and farmland, and bring industry and pollution into an area that is an important gap between town and country. The significant increase of traffic movement, 22,000 a day, 6,688 being HGV generated by this SRFI, would lead to traffic chaos in the already congested roads in the locality. There would be increased air pollution due to the thousands of additional vehicle movements. Air pollution by Nitric Oxide and diesel particulate lorry and machinery emissions (a national issue) will directly affect the health and well-being of residents, young and old in our village. The noise created by 24/7 operation of the Rail Terminal, including railway shunting, loading and unloading of containers, the mandatory alarms and buzzer systems during operation, together with the light from floodlights would make the area unbearable to residents. This 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 air pollution. Furthermore, the destruction of our local footpath network would require us to walk along a road with vastly increased traffic movement. This would endanger the lives and safety of all, especially those with children and elderly people. I strongly object to this proposal, as it is contrary to to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (see WNJCS). There is no policy or evidence in this WNJCS to suggest the need for a SRFI on land in open countryside between Milton Malsor and Blisworth. However the need for an SRFI is identified in the WNJCS, as the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal DIRFT at Junction 18 on the M1, where planning permission has been granted for logistics space and for a new rail terminal. DIRFT is only 18 miles away. Therefore there is no requirement for the proposed rail central terminal. This developer-driven proposal is totally unnecessary and should be refused immediately. Please accept my strong objections."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Hillier
"I intend to make a personal written representation. The areas I wish to cover are: 1. The suitability of the location for a SRFI 2. A general description of the area and its history 3. The effect upon the environment, individual villages and community 4. The capacity of the rail network 5. The effect upon the road networks and transport 6. Various aspects of pollution, including noise, air quality, & light 7. The strategic considerations in a national context 8. The economic viability of the project and its consequences 9. The social and human impact of this project"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carl Johnson
"I object to the proposal for these reasons:- it will lead to a deterioration in air quality for residents due to extra road traffic the local roads will become unbearably congested, especially when the M1 has to be closed and the traffic is diverted onto local roads. Similar facilities to the proposal already exist at Crick, Northamptonshire, not many miles away."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katie Spruels on behalf of Harry Spruels
"I strongly object to this proposal because it will ruin our countryside. It will take away vital farmland that the country needs to produce its own food. It will take away natural habitats for our local wildlife. It will make our roads even busier and will increase the noise and air pollution."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katie Spruels on behalf of Jack Spruels
"I strongly object to this proposal because it will ruin the local footpaths that have been there for many, many years and I will like walk the footpaths with my family. This would also destroy the local habitat for the wildlife. There will be lots more cars, vans and lorries on the roads which will increase the air pollution."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jean Owen
"I strongly object to the building of the rail central because it will cause air pollution noise pollution and light pollution To three villages and their residents in the immediate area "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katie Spruels
"I strongly object to this proposal for a number of reasons. The first being the increase in air pollution from the thousand and thousands of cars, vans and lorries that will be using the local road network. Secondly because of the loss of hundreds and hundreds of acres of agricultural land. We need this precious land to produce more food within our own country. Thirdly because of the loss of natural habitat for the wildlife. The land between Milton Malsor and Blisworth is open countryside, all this would be lost along with species of farmland birds. Finally the loss of ancient footpaths that currently connect Milton Malsor to many local villages. Myself and my family like to walk along these paths and enjoy our beautiful countryside."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Keith R Whitburn
"There has been little consideration to the access and egress of the Villages along the A508 from junction 15 of the M1 to Stony Stratford. There has been no indication as to whether the SRF Interchange will store nuclear, bio-harzard or chemical weapons materials. The proposed security fences around the SRFI warehouses do not appear strong enough to repel a terrorist attack or criminals seeking to break into the site. There has been no consideration as to the traffic problems the SRFI will have on the M1 at junctions 16, 15a, 15 and 14 in both directions or the A45 crossing the M1 junction 15 on to the A508. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Malcolm Brice
"I do not consider this is at all necessary in view of capacity at DIRFT and other locations that are more suitable than this largely greenfield site. I do not think the Rail Network people will want this site in this location as a plan to build an additional station for Northampton just north of Milton Malsor was shelved some years ago. The plan for this site would completely alter the pleasant and convenient road that links traffic from part of rural Northamptonshire to the A43 and the A5. Disruption like this is not necessary and the disturbance to local people's lives should this development be created will be intolerable and utterly without benefit to the current local residents whose lives will be disrupted. This country urgently needs a law whereby road users held up by developers working for their own benefit should be paid £1 on the spot for each delayed journey."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicola Johnson
"I strongly object to this proposal. The resulting increased road traffic will lead to toxic levels of exhaust pollution for residents. At present when a road 'incident' leads to a road closure and diversion, this results in gridlock, especially when the M1 motorway is closed. If this proposal went ahead, the traffic flow would be unbearable whenever an accident /breakdown led to a road closure. There is already a transport hub to the north at Crick. We do not need another so close to an existing one. "
Parish Councils
Roade Parish Council
"Roade Parish Council wish to strongly object to the proposed Rail Central strategic rail freight interchange, and wish to be regarded as an ‘Interested party’ with reference to this application. Roads around Roade 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, as will become the minor roads for rat-running, and we cannot see how adding thousands of 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 complete standstill causing air pollution affecting resident’s health, there is no possible mitigation for this. Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal DIRFT is available nearby, and has proposed capacity up to 2031, and is located only 17 miles from the proposal. At the current likely rate of rail/freight interconnection it is likely to be many years more that this before rail/freight interconnection is close to capacity. 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 convincing documentation that this ‘strategic’ rail development has any market here, this is just another speculative warehouse scheme. Two sites We are aware of an alternative scheme called Northampton Gateway, who are seeking to develop a similar scheme at junction 15 of the M1, 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. This speculative developer is coming forward with an application to build on the greenbelt like land around our villages, using the ‘SRFI’ label merely as a method of circumventing local democracy. Consultation For many many months the Parish have been providing delegates to engage in the consultation process with Rail Central. However, the consultation has been in name only, and the hours wasted by our Councillors in attending these meetings has not resulted in any meaningful changes to the proposed scheme. Our concerns regarding, pollution, traffic, need, loss of green open space, existing rail capacity and conflict with existing rail users, and the lack of consideration of possible cumulative impact remain unaddressed. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robin Kelso
"My concern about this proposed terminal is that it will cause an intolerable amount of light pollution to the surrounding area. My other concern is that due to the movement of numerous freight lorries day and night on the A43 trunk road from the terminal, there will be greatly increased movement of local traffic on the country roads in the area. The road through Gayton is already a "rat run" at rush hour and this will only get worse. If there are diversions following motorway problems, it will be grid-lock."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Spruels
"I strongly object to this proposal because of the increase in traffic in our village. This development would mean lots more cars, vans and lorries on our roads, which are already extremely busy. As the Daventry Rail Freight Terminal is only a few miles from the proposed Rail Central site, it has capacity for expansion - there is absolutely no need to have another one in this area. Northampton, as a whole, has a very low rate of unemployment, so the thousands of people that need to work on this site, would need to travel a considerable distance - which will increase congestion on the local road network and increase the air pollution. A number of people will lose their homes and businesses, including our village flower nursery. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan West
"I believe that this application will drastically change our village and the surrounding areas. Currently the villages of Blisworth and Milton Malsor are beautiful traditional Northamptonshire villages whose character will be totally obliterated. The road system around the area already under pressure will not cope with this development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Friends of Milton School
"We strongly object to this proposal because of the increase in traffic that this development would bring. The local road networks are busy and we certainly do not need the extra traffic from the workforce. Along with increased traffic this would then increase the air pollution. The site itself would increase the noise and light pollution with its 24/7 working. The loss of homes and local businesses would be devastating and we would lose our village flower nursery. The loss of beautiful countryside would be devastating too. We would be surrounded by concrete and warehousing. The loss of ancient footpaths that link our village to other local villages. The loss of wildlife and vital farming land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andy Ballinger
"I object to this application for the following reasons 1. The destruction of the footpath through the farmland between Milton Malsor and Blisworth 2. Increased traffic through the village when there is congestion on the M1 & A43 3. Increased traffic congestion on ALL roads in the locality due to the thousands of additional vehicle movements a day, generated by this Rail Freight Terminal. The area has very low unemployment so the majority of workers for the operation will have to travel some distance to work adding to congestion and air pollution. 4 Increased Air Pollution that will directly affect the health of residents in Milton Malsor 5. Noise created by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers. 6. Light & noise pollution from night time operations. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Colin R Seaton
"I am totally against this development mostly but not exclusively on the following grounds. 1 It is totally contrary to the already agreed development plan for this area. 2 This will add even more strain to the traffic issues that are all already bad and are set to worsen in the coming years with other developments that have been granted permission. 3 This will worsen the air quality issues that already exist and are all set to increase. 4 This development will have unacceptable impact on the local villages most especially from the perspective of housing and noise pollution. It is my considered opinion that Rail Central have completely overstated the strategic importance of this development "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma Parker
"Whilst I no longer live in Collingtree, I grew up there, as did my parents, grandparents and great grandparents. What they’re proposing is an abomination on the local countryside. I work in a village on the A508 and if there’s a hold up on the A45 or M1, it has a huge knock on effect on traffic, which then impacts on the A5. Put simply the roads cannot sustain any more traffic, regardless of traffic measures. The network cannot cope. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graeme Joll
"I strongly object to this proposal which adversely affects the amenities of both my own village and the neighbouring Milton Malsor, both Conservation Areas There is no policy in the local Joint Core Strategy for an SRFI to be built upon this land particularly as a rail freight terminal already exists at Daventry, less than 20 miles away, and is underused. Traffic movements are forecast at 22,000 per day of which 6688 are HGVs. Being so close to Junction 15 of the M1 the local roads are already congested and this proposal will cause regular grid-locking. These traffic movements will generate further air pollution and directly affect the health of local residents. The noise and pollution resulting from this operation working 24 hours each day, seven days a week, will make life unbearable to all local residents. There is no need for the proposed Rail Central and its effects would be disastrous to the inhabitants of Blisworth, Collingtree and Milton Malsor."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Heather Closier
"I wish to register a very strong objection to Rail Central. The local road network is already overcrowded and a certain times of day there are always delays due to congestion.The increase in traffic that this development would generate around junctions 15 and15A of the M1 and particularly along the A45 would make the situation much worse. Our family are keen birdwatchers and we use the network of footpaths around the Blisworth area in persuit of our hobby. This will be impossible if these warehouses are built as the farmland birds would loose their habitat and we would not want to walk along the proposed replacement footpaths as they would suffer from noise and pollution from trains and road traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
K Foster
"My main points relate to issues relating to traffic and the inability of the local infrastructure to cope with a major project like this. I have lived and worked locally for over 20 years now and have seen road traffic increase hugely during this time. The A508 has been the location for a number of fatal accidents. Delays in commuting times have increased and the local village roads have deteriorated considerably due to heavy use. The improvements proposed to the local road system will do little to offset the increase in traffic. I am also concerned about how the character of the villages affected will be irretrievably affected by the proposed development due to the noise and visual impact. Local wildlife will be displaced (birds, insects and small mammals) and the rural nature of the area lost."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Joll
"I strongly oppose the proposal to build a Rail Freight Terminal on open agricultural countryside which will badly affect the village amenities of Milton Malsor, Collingtree and Blisworth. This proposal is contrary to the local Joint Core Strategy particularly as the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is less than 20 miles distant and is not fully used. This proposal will generate 22000 vehicle movements PER DAY, of which 6688 are HGVs. The resultant noise from 24 hour working causing air and light pollution will be intolerable to the local inhabitants. The local roads are already overcrowded causing regular traffic jams particularly by Junction 15 of the neighbouring M1. This will be exasperated by the current proposal for Bovis Homes to build over 1000 houses in the local area adjoining Collingtree and together must result in daily gridlocks. This proposal will be detrimental to the health of the inhabitants of these three villages and be contrary to the stated government policy of restricting pollution nationwide. This proposal should be refused. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mike Hawkins
"This development is unnecessary and will destroy the local environment. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Anita Tasker OBE
"I am 89 years of age and have enjoyed living in Milton Malsor for the past 40 years. I am absolutely horrified that anyone of sound mind, seriously considers that our lovely village is suitable for the construction of a rail freight terminal with mass warehousing. I strongly object to the Rail Central proposal on the grounds of: a) All the land between Milton Malsor and Blisworth is currently open countryside that provides a haven for wildlife, all of which, would be totally lost to the area for evermore. b) The loss of valuable farmland when the country needs to produce more food rather than importing it. c) The total destruction of the footpath over the fields, in beautiful open countryside with lovely views, between Milton Malsor & Blisworth. The proposal to divert this footpath along the very busy Northampton Road is unrealistic, as it would not be enjoyable for residents due to the heavy traffic. d) The increased traffic congestion on roads in the locality due to the thousands of additional vehicle movements a day, generated by this Rail Freight Terminal. As well as, an increase in traffic "rat running" through the small and narrow lanes in the village, when there is congestion on the M1 & A43. Which is a frequent occurrence. e) Increased air pollution which is of great concern to me, due to the thousands of additional vehicle movements a day. Air pollution by nitric oxide and diesel particulate lorry and machinery emissions, will directly affect my health, as well as for everyone else, which is very worrying. f) The noise generated by the 24/7 operation of the rail freight terminal including railway shunting, the loading and unloading of containers, in addition to the light and noise pollution from night time operations. All this would make life unbearable. g) This proposal is clearly contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy. Besides, the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is nearby on junction 18 on the M1, with planning permission for expansion for many years to come. So there is no need for the Rail Central Rail Freight Terminal in Milton Malsor."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rod Sellers on behalf of Parishes Against Pollution (PAP) (Parishes Against Pollution (PAP))
"We wish to register the ‘Parishes Against Pollution’ group as an interested party in the Rail Central Examination process. PAP is a group of 30 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: Alderton - 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 2peventing both new and existing developments 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” As a group 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 ‘Rail Central 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
Richard Dimbleby
"I wish to strongly object to this planning application. We purchased a house in Milton Malsor attracted by its position in open countryside whilst also close to the amenities of Northampton. This application would totally destroy the environment and wildlife around this and other local villages, not only removing good farm land and an attractive environment but also bringing noise, light and air pollution through heavy lorry traffic which is likely to be 24/7. Traffic congestion on the M1 and local trunk roads is already severe and to add this proposed significant increase is totally unacceptable. T But more important than this objection which may be seen as nimbyism, the information I have seen from Rail Central does not convince me that there is a need for this Rail Freight facility. This proposal is in the wrong place since it is only a few miles from DIRFT at Daventry which is still developing and has capacity for expansion. I agree with the principle of moving freight from road to rail where this is practicable but such interchanges need to be dotted around the UK and not concentrated in the central Midlands. As part of your inspection of this application it is essential that you are satisfied that this SRFI is focused on rail/road transfer and not primarily a proposal to increase the amount of road served warehousing of which there is already a great deal around Northampton and Milton Keynes. Finally I strongly object since this proposal is contrary to the approved West Northants Joint Core Strategy. I recognise that this application is made as a national infrastructure project but this should not ride rough shod over local panning approvals democratically agreed by local authorities, businesses and citizens. DIRFT provides what is required for now and into the future. I strongly urge you to reject this unnecessary proposal: it is the wrong application in the wrong place."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Charles Mackintosh
"I strongly object because not only will we be losing our very precious countryside and all the walks and wild life. Roads will be congested beyond belief . At the moment when the M1 has problems around these villages it is gridlocked. I moved to this wonderful village so that I could enjoy fresh air and all the walks with my grand children showing them the way the country side works with the crops growing and the wild life the changing of the seasons and what happens in the country side. Concrete warehouses will bring nothing but flooding, air pollution, light 24/7. If you look round this country you will see empty warehouses ever where, why do we need more it does not make sense. I would ask the people who make these decisions to think, if it was where they lived would they like concrets our lovely green countryside. If they want, and say we need warehouses, then build them where they live. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rod Sellers
" I object strongly to Ashfield Land’s Rail Central development application for the following reasons: • It is entirely ‘developer led’ rather than ‘plan led’ and seeks to take advantage of existing land options rather than provide a genuine rail linked strategic benefit. It is yet another road based warehousing scheme dressed in SFRI clothing. • It conflicts with all national and local planning legislation and guidance and most specifically with the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy • It would inflict enormous environmental damage on a substantial area of open countryside and arable farmland and would undermine the quality of life in several long established and growing communities. • As a consequence, it would bring into disrepute, the role and intentions of the National Policy Statement for National Networks (NPSNN). • It will impose yet further pressure on an already overloaded local road network and generate additional diesel HGV traffic to an area already at risk of breaching legal limits of air pollution. • There is no local employment pool on the scale required and therefore long distance commuting would be increased. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Elliott
"I object to the proposal for multiple reasons. DIRFT is already just 10 miles up the road. The area does not have the infrastructure to support the extra road traffic hat would be created. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Beryl Andrews
"I object strongly to the proposed Rail Central development. It is not in an appropriate position, on productive farmland, sandwiched between 3 historic Conservation Areas whose environment and views would be totally destroyed. It is far too close to residential properties on and bordering the site with the resulting serious effect on health and sleep patterns. The new elevated junction at Blisworth Arm will have a massive impact of noise and light pollution on the residents and on the Grand Union Canal Conservation Area. A main public road bisects the site and the proposed 2-lane underpass connecting the 2 sides has a high flood risk. Any blockage would leave the east side stranded unless the emergency exits were opened causing a safety risk in the villages. The development would be totally contrary to local planning policies. This area is designated by the South Northants local plan as a strategic gap to maintain its rural character and village identity and prevent coalescence of the villages south of the M1 into the Northampton conurbation. The West Northants Joint Core Strategy (JCS) states that large warehousing developments will be provided for at DIRFT, only 18 miles away. This is NOT a strategic location for a national network, with multiple SRFIs 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 National Policy Statement for National Networks (NSPNN) requires SRFIs to be near business markets, not adjacent to residential or environmental areas and within close proximity of a local workforce. South Northants has one of the lowest claimant rates in the country (0.7%) and the distance travelled by workers will negate any carbon benefits. The connectivity of the site is overstated, with no direct link to the motorway. A single access point on the A43 for the anticipated 22,500 vehicle movements per day is insufficient for a development of this scale and the local road network is totally inadequate to deal with the increase in traffic. The JGC states that the existing infra structure is already at or close to capacity and that traffic congestion must be addressed. The A43 is a busy trunk road between the M1 and the A5, but is also used extensively by local and farm traffic and a bus route. It is crossed by 4 footpaths, 2 bridleways and 4 at-grade junctions to access local villages and has 2 bus stops and 6 lay-bys. The accident severity index is already 3 times higher than average and the Tove roundabout is frequently gridlocked. Extra traffic would increase congestion and accident risk. The M1 J15 - 17 is predicted to be the most severely congested road in the country by 2040 and accidents and closures are frequent, totalling over 87 hours in 2017. There are no contingency plans for these scenarios. Air pollution in Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) at J15 and at Tove roundabout is already non-compliant with the European Directive. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Taylor
"I object strongly to the development of this project. It has a serious number of flaws, environmental, lack of rail infrastructure to meet the road demands, unnecessary given the empty storage capability only 20-miles further north (Crick) on the M1, it lacks ambition in terms of the longer term transport requirements of the country and commerce. Lastly, other than meeting the greed of both the property developer and landlord, there exists little facts as to exactly the advantages this site gives given the capability and capacity of similar sites both north and sound of Northampton."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma Bailey
"The negative impact on local traffic flow during development The negative impact on traffic flow after development, particularly around M1J15 where peak traffic is already unacceptable, including the impact of traffic taking alternate routes through Northampton due to that additional congestion Redirection of access and footpaths Impact on water table and run off including groundwater pollution Monitoring of all environmental impacts including but not limited to the woods to be preserved, noise, light and water table pollution. Lack of necessity for this development with both DIRFT nearby and better sites near M1/M6 junctions. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kelly Lea
"I oppose this aplllocation due to the following: Traffic chaos for a village where traffic issues and a daily occurrence Noise pollution Loss of village community The loss of precious countryside Potential of empty warehouses Changing landscape of villages that hold historical value "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marcus Woolley
"The level of pollution from the M! is already causing poor health for both my wife and I. [redacted]. The extra heavy goods emissions will make the situation much worse. The extra traffic and people in what is a rural/residential are is just not appropriate. If this was a real road and rail interchange I would have less objection but very little if any of this freight will be carried by rail. The development should really be entitled huge warehouse superhub with a tiny bit of rail freight, If we are to face facts DIRFT still has expansion available and the governments rail freight strategy doesn't identify as this necessary. In summary, it will spoil a excellent rural/residential location, add pollution, which the developers admitted at an open meeting they had not modelled except in the immediate area and therefore cost lives and increase flooding in the area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marjory Drummond
"The rail freight interchange in the Blisworth and Milton Malsor area would bring total chaos to the area and disrupt the usage of the roads. The disruption and increased road usage would spread out into the surrounding area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ruth O'Donegan
"I am a local resident who's quality of life will be impacted by this development. Air quality in the area is already very poor. Additional vehicle movements will make this worse. There is no evidence of available rail capacity on the route to accept freight from this development. There is capacity at DIRFT, an existing rail freight terminal in the region. There are no facilities to support the increase in trucks servicing the RFT such as services or truck parks. The unemployment rate in Northampton is already extremely low, it is likely that employees would travel to the site from outside the town increasing vehicle movements beyond those estimated. The M1 acts as a development boundary between south northants and Northampton, see local development plans. This development would breach that boundary and encourage further development on rural land. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma Clayson
"As a local resident I am against the development for a number of reasons - including the destruction of the environment; light pollution, noise, traffic problems, loss of village, unnecessary building of industrial buildings when other sites are nearby not fully used etc please contact if more info is needed"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Heather Hudson
"I grew up in Blisworth and grew to love the surrounding area. Whilst the M1 and a rail line pass through or near the area neither spoil the beauty of my village. During my early years the A43 still passed through the village and the traffic was a dangerous and toxic part of life. Since the bypass has been built the village has become what it should be; a quiet and peaceful corner of our land. Building this monstrosity will make the bypass pointless as the village atmosphere will be ruined as great swathes of beautiful land are covered in concrete and tarmac. I am 45 now and, whilst I no longer live in Blisworth, my parents still do and my heart bleeds for them and the planned destruction of their home. If this construction was needed and there was a truly valid reason for it I might be able to accept it, but it strikes me as completely unnecessary and will exist solely for the purpose of making money. "When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten and the last stream poisoned, you will realize that you cannot eat money." This construction will take us one huge step closer to this realisation. Please, block the application of something that will greatly diminish the lives of the people who live in the area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Pritchard
"I am concerned that a 'realignment of pedestrian pathways' along Danes Camp way, and the roundabout by Hunsbury Hill Avenue and Hunsbarrow Road has been mentioned, but the plans submitted do not show the existing, or any proposed footpaths or pedestrian access. The Hunsbury Hill estate is currently very cut off, and the only access to the shops at Camp Hill is either by car or via a long walk along Danes Camp Way, through the underpass and then through Camp Hill, although as the crow flies the shops are actually very close. It appears that the footpath is being dug up to accommodate the extra lane on Danes Camp way, but there is no mention on the plans of new footpaths or crossings, or what will happen to the underpass. Without this the estate would be even more cut off than it is currently. As there will be traffic lights added it would make sense if a pedestrian crossing was incorporated into this."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicole Dowson
"We are intending to move to Milton Malsor in 2019. This development would be detrimental to the lives of those living nearby, in terms of noise and environmental pollution. The proposed development is unacceptably close to housing. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Smith
"My representation will be based on the economic need for such a development in this area and the effect on the environment. With similar developments in the local vicinity under utilised and no significant unemployment in the area the building of a rail freight interchange on green belt land appears to be unnecessary. There are brown field sites available for such developments though out the country where the resultant job creation would help with regeneration."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Bennett
"My family have lived in Roade since 1972 alongside the A508 and not surprising the traffic volume has naturally increased. If this project is approved the traffic impact on our village would be horendous. It is bad enough now and will only get worse, especially during the construction period. I regurlary travel pass the DRFIT development and note the Vast boxes of ugly warehouses with all the mainly foreign lorries waiting to be sorted out. Our area of green open countryside does not deserve to be destroyed like that."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Shaw
"I appose to this planning application as the noise, pollution, congestion and big ugly buildings will spoil the surrounding villages. If the M1, A5 or A43 have hold ups your not telling me the lorries will not use the small village roads and small/weak bridges to bypass the major roads, this already happens but it would be greatly increased noise, pollution and congestion. With the wind direction we hear the trains now, but if this plan goes through it will be increased greatly not just the trains but lorries and warehouse noise, pollution. This is the views from 4 members of this household plus my 2 elderly parents who live in a bungalow in [Redacted]"
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 A34 will be significantly increased as evidenced by the proposed alterations at M1 junction 15A. 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, especially as there is already an application for Northampton Gateway using the same rail line. 5 With a proposed 24/7 operation both light and noise pollution is unavoidable. Similarly, air pollution is unavoidable. There is already a problem with pollution along M1 between junctions 15 and 15A. This pollution will not be confined to the immediate locality. 6 At present, the M1 is frequently blocked in this area and consequently there is a considerable increase in traffic through Blisworth. Should this development go ahead and coupled with the possibility of the already applied for similar development “Northampton Gateway”, the frequency of M1 blockages will increase significantly. This will have a knock on effect on our village. We live on the High Street so we will bear the full brunt of any increased traffic. 7 This is an unacceptable loss of good productive farmland and will also have an impact on wild life. 8 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. 9 Blisworth has hitherto been a rural village separated from Northampton by open countryside. Should this development go ahead, the journey from the village to the town will no longer be through fields but through an enormous industrial estate. I consider this a reduction in the quality of our lives. 10 There would be no possible way of mitigating the intrusion on the countryside and I can easily see house prices severely eroded in the area if this plan goes ahead. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Clarke on behalf of Edward Colin Anderson
"I live 100mts from the proposed entrance and will be blighted 24/7 365 days of year with contiuous exsessive noise levels which i have previousely complained to the Ministry of Transport, who took test etc. a couple of years ago and reported the levels then were border line with just normal road traffic use. I also suffer [redacted] 24/7 and the extra pollution is going to be exsteamly detremental to my [redacted] with more dificulty in [redacted]. The massive wharehousing will also effect the light and views from my property and also destoy the wild life including the Bats which live in the surrounding barns on the farm. The local hamlet I live in will be completely changed by further excessive traffic and vehicles taking short cuts through on a one track road and aalso cause further parking problems, in an area wich is very popular with walkers and hikers. This project will completely change my life and health and I am completely against this Planning Application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr S Bunting
"I strongly object to this proposed Rail Freight Terminal. The proposal is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy. DIRFT is only a few miles away with current space and capacity for expansion for approx 10 years. Noise pollution and disturbance - bad for humans, bad for wildlife, bad for farm stock. Light pollution and disturbance - bad for humans, bad for wildlife, bad for farmstock. Increased Air Pollution - HGV and Vans increase as well as cars, bikes and bicycles. Increased traffic and Increased traffic congestion. Villages already used as cut throughs when problems on M1, A14, A43. Loss of local footpaths - particularly between Blisworth and Milton Malsor - would need to walk along inadequate path adjacent to an already unsafe road. Loss of valuable farmland. Loss of open valuable countryside - have for wildlife and environment - eco systems. Loss of open countryside for a not needed site. Strong objection. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs L Bunting
"I object to the proposed Rail Freight Terminal. What is currently open countryside between a number of rural villages would be totally destroyed. This countryside is a haven for wildlife. This countryside is a haven for people - people need to have freshair, exercise and safe spaces. Loss of valuable farmland - we need to produce more food, particularly plant based rathger than import products - local business, local employment. This development does not improve local employment. Loss of local footpaths. Increased vehicular trafficthrough villages. Increased cycle traffic on village footpaths - in the dark - based on evidence near other warehouse sites. Increased Air Pollution due to vehicle movements - particularly on and around site - shunting around produces more pollution. Light and noise pollution and disturbance by the 24/7 operation. DIRFT is underused and has capacity for expansion. Absolutely no evidence of requirement for additional site - merely conjecture. This proposal is contrary to the West NOrthants Joint Core Strategy."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roy Warren
"I wish to make more detailed objections and submit, inter alia, photographs supporting my objections at the appropriate time. My objections are based on two main aspects. The first is that the proposed siting in a beautiful and currently rural part of South Northants is not appropriate. The second objection is that there is no need for a Strategic Rail Infastructure at this proposed location as it is sited only 18 miles from a huge similar development at Crick, namely the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT)- a development that is moving to is Phase B- with an additional 7.86 million square feet ready for development, with initial infrastructure already in place and all the initial groundwork done. Planning for that is secured. Its location is far superior to the proposal by Rail Central as it is adjacent to Junction 18 of the M1- one junction from the M6/A14 interchange and one junction from the M 45. Upon further representation I will provide details that the current availability of Warehouse space at DIRFT- far exceeds the current demand. I reside in[redacted]Blisworth a road that already is heavily overused by motor vehicles of all descriptions. My home, along with many other properties directly affected by this application in both Blisworth and Milton is a Grade 2 17th Century property- and such were built without foundations making them very susceptible to heavy vehicles. This proposed development would forever ruin two historical Northamptonshire villages"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Zoe Closier
"I object to Rail Central Building warehouses on what is currently mainly farmland. As a dog walker I am very concerned about the diversions that are being proposed to the footpaths that run through the countryside around the villages of Roade, Blisworth and Milton Malsor. I have read through the 'Public Rights of Way Strategy' (doc 7.6) produced by Rail Central and consider that this is misleading as it fails to mention the footpath along Barn Lane (KX15) that goes towards the Courtenhall Road and onto the village of Roade. This is a key route and the suggested diverted route for this, found on the rights of way plans, is frankly, totally useless as it is muchlonger than the current route, would require two additional high bridges over the railway and would run alongside the railway lines for almost all its length. This would make it noisy and the view would be of Network Rails high grey railings. It is also a complete nonsense to suggest that the diversion of the Blisworth to Milton Malsor footpath (KX13) should be diverted mainly along the Northampton Road. There is already a footpath along this road and is no use for walking a dog as it is very busy with traffic, very noisy and polluted with traffic fumes. I believe that Rail Central are trying to mislead the planning inspectors into thinking that they have provided suitable alternative routes. They certainly have not,the proposed changes are totally useless for recreational or dog walking purposes."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Daphne Jones
"My objection points: Way of life in a country village environment being totaly destroyed. Will no longer be a rural lifestyle. Loss of Countryside around the village of Roade. Amount of traffic affecting every aspect of moving out of and around the village. Air pollution. 3 friends affected by [Redacted] having chosen a rural location will be endangered. Noise pollution. No respite as Terminal will be 24 hours a day. Roads already several times a day at a near standstill, being overloaded even more. M1 junction 15 &15a already not coping. Passenger trains being reduced on a busy commuter line, to make way for freight. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Pamela Jackson
"Dear Sir This whole development is ill-advised. Firstly the southern side of Northampton is already blighted with pollution from the railway, the M1, the A43, A45 and the various industrial estates between Junctions 15-16. If this development is allowed to proceed it will increase pollution to unacceptable levels. Secondly the delightful villages of Milton Malsor and Blisworth will essentially be destroyed with noise and HGVs sneaking through to avoid congestion Thirdly the congestion in the area is already ghastly and the extra traffic movements will cause gridlock which again impacts on pollution levels"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bernice Hennessy
"Increase in traffic, noise and pollution. Insufficient workforce live in the immediate area so employees will be travelling in from more distant places. Insufficient demand locally for goods to justify a site of this size, so it will need to become a distribution hub increasing traffic on local motorways and trunk roads There are other Railfreight interchanges within a 50mile radius which have spare capacity. The major centres of population and hence demand in the area are further south eg Milton Keynes and Greater London, it would be much more environmentally efficient to move the depot closer to them."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ellie
"The Wooley is an age old tradition which if it was to be stopped would have a detrimental impact on the community. The railway would prevent this tradition from continuing and the benefits of enlightening people to participate in outdoor activities and the health benefits could be inpacted. This causing a bigger threat to the health system if the railway took away this activity and the outside opportunities the land brings."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Harry Bowman
"I believe that the development proposed will destroy the local environment and ruin a local tradition of the wild and woolly off road motorcycle race what was held for the 93rd time this year and is believed to be the oldest off road motorcycle race in the world. It would be a great shame to loose this with so many motocross tracks and off road venues being shut down across the country. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Sharon Skinner
"The young people of Northamptonshire and beyond have been coming to this site for well over 30 years for the Wild and Woolly Motocross scramble race which takes place on Boxing Day. The local community also benefit from this event due to food and beverages being purchased. The event needs to keep going on this site as it is another one of Northamptonshire's historical sporting meetings, the same as Silverstone was and still is. Your progress isn't progressing only killing off the wild life and our youngsters enjoyment of our countryside pursuits "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Hennessy CEng
"It will damage the environment and living conditions for over 2000 people living in Blisworth, Milton Malsor and surrounding villages. It will increase traffic and pollution in the area. A5/A43 junction is already congested in spite of recent attempts at remedial work. Traffic on M1 in the area is frequently stationary as a result of accidents, this development can only make the situation worse. Warehouses and gantry cranes on the site will tower above the railway embankment destroying the rural setting of the conservation area of Blisworth Canal and Village. Railway lines in the area currently have few spare paths, it will be at least 10 years before HS2 has any impact on this and it that time load may have increased so there is still insufficient capacity. There is currently little demand for high speed freight services in the area, Royalmail express trains already pass through Northampton station every day and do not stop because there is no demand for the facility"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Andrews
"Resident of Blisworth "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anne Rackhan
"This development will impact on the countryside and community, the road network will not be able to manage causing delays and pollution in surrounding areas. Junction 15 is already struggling and cannot take anymore traffic "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Debbie Adams
"I strongly oppose this planned development. Blisworth has been my home for 20 years. I raised my family here and this is where my children were schooled. I am the Scout Leader in Blisworth and have been using this land for many of our outdoor activities. The countryside will be ruined and we will not be able to take the children out for rambles and experiences in our beautiful local wilderness. Wildlife habitats will be destroyed. We do already get enough noise from trains running through on the mainline. This is tolerable but the noise and light pollution that will be created from the proposed monstrosity will have a serious impact on all of us. The increased traffic on the A43 will have a serious impact on my journey to work as well. Traffic calming measures were put in place when the by-pass was built 20 years ago but it will not stop everyone trying to cut through the village. There is no need at all for this to be built. DIRFT is just a few miles away and that looks like a ghost town not being fully utilised. I do not believe that it will bring increased employment to the area. Blisworth & Milton Malsor are such lovely villages I vote that we keep them that way."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr. Elizabeth Brown
"Dear Sir or Madam, I am very concerned by the proposed development, and do not feel that the benefits that Rail Central claim would be brought about by the development, even in the scenario in which they all came to pass, would justify the costs to the community. First, the choice of this site appears to be clearly a commercial, not a strategic one, that would benefit the developers greatly, but the county little, and the local community even less. I have seen no convincing arguments that this development would have a transformative effect on the local or county-wide economy, and this makes the cost to the community unjustifiable. From a medical perspective, I am particularly concerned about the effects of increasing air pollution in the area - this would be an unavoidable consequence of the additional road traffic. The damaging effects of air pollution on people's health, including on the health of children, are only now beginning to be widely appreciated, but the scientific evidence is incontrovertible. It seems wrong to me for the local authority to allow such a project that would have clear and certain negative impacts on the health of the local population, with uncertain (if any) benefits to other areas such as the economy to mitigate this impact. I sincerely hope that you will reconsider the choice to go ahead with this development. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elaine Reagon
"It will have an adverse effect on the quality of air and lifestyle as we won’t be able to walk around as much due to the air pollution and I’m [redacted]. The natural habitat will be affected. Blisworth village roads will deteriorate due to vehicles using it when other roads are congested. House prices will be automatically reduced in price. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elizabeth Shirley Yule
"I WANT TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING POINTS:- Traffic; The M1 and roads around Northampton are already congested. Please ensure that all the already approved plans which will affect the road traffic are taken into account when modelling the traffic Flows. eg University extension, All housing and Warehousing around Junction 15,15a and 16 etc Pollution: Noise, Light and air quality. Effect on health Strategic need - or rather the lack of it. With an under-utiised rail terminal a few miles up the road from the proposed site, why put one or possibly 2 on greenfield sites next door to it Excuse for building warehousing rather than a rail terminal. What guarantee has been given to ensure that the warehousing is genuinely rail terminal linked and would not be required otherwise. Employment: Northampton has a very low unemployment rate so people will have to come from other areas thereby increasing road traffic. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma Collins
"I would like to register my objection to the planned rail freight interchange in Northamptonshire. As a resident of Stoke Bruerne I feel this will have a major impact on the traffic levels within the village. The management of traffic speed is currently poor and I believe the risk of a major incident will increase with this development. The roads in the villages around this development are not suitable for heavy traffic. I also don’t agree that more green space should be lost for future generations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Percival
"I am a very very interested party an want to express my serious objection to the outrageous proposal made by Rail Central for the development between Blisworth and Milton Malsor I was born in 1939 so my own life might not be blighted by this project but I have lived in Blisworth for 60 years and now my daughter and grandsons have homes here. Their lives would be hugely affected as would those of all local residents by the increased levels of noise, light, traffic and air pollution; all of which are detrimental to general and mental health. This is an historic area, recorded in the Doomsday book, many homes were built in the 18 hundreds and have no foundations, mine is one of them, the increased traffic levels - of even just the employees getting to work would shake many of them to pieces. Has the implementation of the effect that Brexit may have on the need for this odd proposal been fully investigated? I think not! Objections to this dreadful proposal would not have been so very strong had it been for the development of badly needed homes in this green and pleasant area. Much work has been done by many many residents to combat this curse. IT MUST NOT GO AHEAD IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Leah Perry
"I am registering my interest as I believe this should not be considered as it will ruin the sourrounding area and put many people out of their homes. The existing road network will never cope with the extra traffic and the residents will have to deal with noise pollution and lorries trundling through villages 24 hours a day. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lee Hunt
"This area of land is surrounded by beautiful villages, a canal and the development will have a severe impact on the environment. We do not need addtional road and rail traffic in this area and Northamptonshire should not become the defacto "logistics central". This is how its already known to an executive of one of the UKs largest logistics companies (a personal friend of mine) and its an image that I do not think does the county justice. In addition, land that is earmarked for this development is used annually on boxing day for a motorcycle race that has been running for 93 years. It is the world's longest running off road scramble and it would be a great shane to lose this for a concrete jungle. I feel extremely sad for the local residents that are having to fight their corner against big business that we just do not need. A sad loss for the species that inhabit this vast area that will be lost."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michaela Becker
"This development will destroy hundreds of acres of beautiful Northamptonshire country side which is currently enjoyed by dog walkers, horse riders and hikers alike. It will cause noise and light pollution affecting the wild life and also the people who live in the surrounding villages. The increase in traffic will be unsustainable for the local roads especially the A508 and A43, both roads are already dangerous and have many accidents. Access to the M1 Junction 15 and 15A will be extremely difficult. Also there are many empty warehouses in existence already and these should be used prior to building more unnecessary warehouses. Finally Northampton does not have enough unemployment to warrant this development and if new housing would have to build, schools and doctors surgeries wouldn’t be able to cope."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Stuart Cruickshank
"It will cause noise and light pollution affecting the wild life and also the people who live in the surrounding villages. The increase in traffic will be unsustainable for the local roads especially the A508 and A43, both roads are already dangerous and have many accidents. Access to the M1 Junction 15 and 15A will be extremely difficult. Also there are many empty warehouses in existence already and these should be used prior to building more unnecessary warehouses. Finally Northampton does not have enough unemployment to warrant this development and if new housing would have to build, schools and doctors surgeries wouldn’t be able to cope. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs J E Cahill
"I will have lived in Blisworth for 50 years in 2019. In that time, housing development in neighbouring towns and local commercialisation of farmland has seen traffic with its' noise, pollution and threat of accidents increase significantly. There are certain times each day when it is best for residents not to attempt to cross the through roads in the village. Regarding the commercialisation of farmland, a survey within the last ten years revealed that not one person employed in those developments actually lived in this village. This leads me to believe that the workforce for the proposed Rail Central would recruit from nearby towns, increasing traffic. Despite the Blisworth bypass reducing the noise, pollution and damage to roads and properties, the rise in decibels of traffic on not only the bypass, the A508 and the M1, already high will further increase."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs J Nelson
"As a frequent visitor to this area of beautiful English countryside, I am concerned about the devastating impact of the proposed development on the centuries old villages, country lanes, canals and wildlife. In addition, along with many hundreds of others, I have for many years attended the world's longest running moto-cross race, the "Wild and Woolly", which is held here annually, and which raises thousands of pounds for charity. The proposed development would obliterate the venue used, without providing an alternative site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicholas Nelson
"I am a regular visitor to the area where this development is proposed. At present the the villages nearby are quiet and peaceful, with a good community atmosphere. All this would be destroyed by this development. The lives of many people living nearby would be severely affected. This development is totally unsuited to the area - there must be a more suitable industrial or brownfield area that would be more suitable, instead of ruining some countryside. I also attend the world famous motocross race that takes place here every year - the oldest such race in the world. It would be left without a venue by this development, and no suitable alternative has been offered."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Glover
"I object to this planning application and have detailed my concerns below: 1. What will be the true visual impact of 8 million Sq m of 18 high warehouses? 2. Where will the 8,000 workers come from and more importantly how will they get to work? There is already a lot of work traffic that comes through the village and I think any more would be untenable. 3. If the M1 or A43 are blocked or congested, where will the HGVs be directed to? 4. Why has a huge industrial site been planned within such close proximity to villages? 5. What will be the impact of noise and pollution from a 24 hour operation be on the local environment and residents? Have you even considered this?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan John Lewis
"I wish to object to the proposed development on the following grounds: 1. The proposed development site is between two attractive villages, Blisworth and Milton Malsor, and will destroy all of the natural countryside between them. It will blight both villages and the scheme offers very little in return. When viewed on a map, the development is seen to be so large that it almost dwarfs the villages. There is also no major infrastructure development to alleviate the resulting traffic increase. 2. There is already a SFRI some 18 miles north at DIRFT and this will not reach capacity for a number of years. It is more than adequate to supply the needs of the area both now and in the foreseeable future. 3. The developers have failed to show that air pollution, already a problem, will further deteriorate. The site is low lying and where the A43 and M1 motorway intersect, there are already serious traffic issues, especially when there has been an accident. 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. 5. The developers quote figures for suggested increase in employment but Northampton already has nearly full employment and the jobs created would be largely unskilled. 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 use of the NSIP process. Indeed there has been some cynical use of the NSIP process to obtain consent only for the rail connection to be abandoned and the site adapted to warehousing only. Furthermore this is in addition to a similar scheme being put forward by Roxhill Ltd for a 5 million sq ft warehouse and rail interchange adjacent to Junction 15 of the M1 motorway. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barbara Dillon
"I have really loved living in the village of Milton Malsor and for the past 13 years enjoyed the beauty of the village and the surrounding countryside along with the peace and quiet. It is my hope that I and my husband can enjoy our retirement in this village. The prospect of having Rail Central SRFI located on our door step is our worst nightmare. I strongly object to this development which is both unnecessary and definitely not wanted. The proposed development would have a seriously detrimental effect on the environment, destroying the beautiful country side between Milton Malsor and Blisworth. It would also destroy the network of local footpaths. There would be a significant increase in traffic with thousands of additional vehicle movements (22,000 per day, 6,688 being HGV’s) which in its self will increase air pollution by Nitric Oxide and other diesel particulates which would be detrimental to our health and other residents. From an operational perspective we would be subjected to noise pollution, 24/7 and light pollution from night time operations, this would be unbearable. From a planning perspective this proposal is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS). 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
Brian Ash
"I strongly object to this development for the following reasons: 1) The present road and rail infrastructure is already reaching its usable capacity and any increase will lead to severe congestion. Therefore to cope with the intended increase further potential development in these areas will lead to spiralling pollution and disruption and further reduce available land for crop production. 2) The desecration of the farm land lost is beyond description. The proposed development and infrastructure needed to support it would not only seriously affect the wildlife present but would destroy many acres of arable land from which a degree of food production may be needed in the future after Brexit! 3) Further warehousing is not needed given that the DIRFT complex is approximately 18 miles away by junction 18 of the M1, and the continuing development of “speculative” storage facilities between junctions 15-16 of the motorway (M1) and Northampton. 4) The potential increase in pollution especially around the M1 J15 and M1 J15A and the surrounding road systems due to increased vehicle activity especially during the construction, development and then the operational stage of the proposed development. The pollution levels at present appear to be extremely high as often observed by palls of blue/grey haze over the junctions. 5) Pollution is not just restricted to vehicle exhaust. During the lifetime of this proposed development (from construction to and during the 24/7 operation) there will be increases in light, noise and on-going air contamination which will affect the surrounding areas not just the road systems. 6) As with many similar developments, reported increases in the crime rate seems to result (DIRFT has experienced a 176% increase since 2000/01). The potential for this is a major concern for all the surrounding communities especially for those adjacent to the propose development. 7) Why do we need another (if any) extra warehousing given that "Northampton GATEWAY" is already in planning! Hopefully this will be rejected also."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Caroline white
"The proposed Rail interchange will have a catastrophic effect on two beautiful villages Milton malsor and Blisworth brining 24 hour light and noise pollution as well as a massive increase in traffic which will have a detrimental effect on the village life of all of the residents including school children that walk to and fron the local school, which is hugely important as many children from outside Blisworth and Milton malsor Acces these schools "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Frances Andrews
" My reasons for strong objections to this horrendous proposal are these, the complete destruction of a vast area of countryside, farmland and wildlife. The Dispoiling of strong local communities. The volume of traffic overloading local roads and highways, solutions suggested are not viable. Visual impact of such gigantic structures over such a huge area would be appalling. Air pollution already at dangerous levels, plus noise and light twentyfour seven. An already fully loaded railroad. Increase in crime and threat to local communities. Other nearby sites not fully utilised."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joan Walder
"I have lived in Milton Malsor for the last 57 years and had hoped to spend the rest of my life in the peaceful tranquility of the village for the rest of my life. I therefor object strongly to the proposed Rail Central SRFI which is both unwanted and totally unnecessary. The increase in air pollution that this project will generate is totally unacceptable. The noise and light pollution are other factors which will make living in the village unbearable. I therefor ask you to please ,please reject this application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kathryn Dodington
"I live in an adjacent village to Blisworth but any development of the scale suggested in the plans will not only impact on the villages of Blisworth and Milton Malsor but also on the small surrounding villages; e.g. Gayton, Stoke Bruerne, Roade, Shutlanger and the larger conurbation of Towcester. I am concerned about the visual impact of the development and the huge increase in vehicular traffic in an area, that includes the surrounding villages, that has minimal bus services."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kim Burn
"Now more than ever we should be protecting England's rural landscape not destroying it further. Our beautiful villages will be swallowed up by this proposed colossal development and our fauna and flora will be destroyed forever under a concrete jungle. I moved to this beautiful village of Blisworth to enjoy living a country life, away from urban monstrosities such as the one being proposed. The noise pollution, traffic congestion and general disturbance it would bring to the surrounding residents would be totally unacceptable and we should not be subjected to it. There are no positives for the us, only sadness and disgust if this should be allowed to proceed. Build it in an area that's already ugly and spoilt. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lynda Payton
"While there is a clear need for widely spread SRFI’s across all national regions, I doubt the need to place a second one within 15 miles of an existing one (DIRFT) which I understand has capacity for the next 15 years, and bearing in mind other substantial SFRI related warehousing either constructed, under construction or applied for in the East Midlands region including the current application for Northampton Gateway adjoining the Rail Central site provide capacity far in excess of regional need. Further to this, this development is contrary to the adopted West Northamptonshire West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) and will conflict with agreed planning objectives. The local road network is already far too congested to support the scheme and the proposed 20,000 additional vehicle movements per day will worsen air pollution which will impact local villages and their communities, not to mention a potential extra 16,500 vehicle movements for Northampton Gateway if approved giving a staggering combined total of 36,000+ vehicles per day on surrounding roads. It is unlikely that government targets for reducing emissions and improving air quality could be met and the ability to meet Air Quality directives compromised. At this time I understand there has been no confirmation that the Northampton Loop or West Coast Main Lines can support additional freight capacity therefore there is a possibility that the SRFI will not be able to accept any freight by rail even if it has capacity to do so. Furthermore, I am aware concern has been expressed that any increase in freight rail services will be at the expense of passenger services which need to increase and not reduce to meet the needs of increasing local populations. At present there is no incentive for freight operators to switch from road to rail and without such incentive the modal shift will not happen. Therefore there is a high risk that the development will serve road users and provide warehousing only. Northamptonshire has very low levels of unemployment and therefore a new workforce will have to travel from afield putting even more pressure on the local road network and increasing levels of pollutants further. Since there is no capacity within the local workforce, granting of permission for this development may result in further applications for housing and associated amenities leading to further unwanted development and loss of countryside and rural communities. This would be over and above the loss of over 1,150 acres of green infrastructure caused by this and the Northampton Gateway applications combined. Much of the northern boundary of the site borders the attractive Grade 2 listed 200 year old Northampton Canal Arm with its iconic lift bridges and 17 narrow locks. The rural setting of the canal will be adversely affected by noise, light and air pollution as well as visual blight of this industrial development. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
M Brown
"I am writing to register my opposition to the above development. I have lived in [Redacted]now for 28 years and have enjoyed the quality of life that comes with living adjacent to such an unspoilt area of natural beauty, an opinion that is shared by the other residents in the area, as well as those who come from further afield to play sports, relax and enjoy family days out, use the children’s play area and mourn at the crematorium. The above development will destroy all this tranquillity with increased levels of traffic and noise pollution and is totally out of line with the character of the area, not to mention also any further development applications in the future that will surely also receive the go-ahead after this one. I am also writing to advise you to consider the impact upon the great diversity of wildlife that uses the area and in particular the Great Crested Newt which is now a protected species and whose breeding habitat cannot be destroyed without a government license. Back in 2003 permission for a lesser development in this area was refused and the reasons then are just as applicable now, and so I urge you once again to consider the wisdom of reaching a similar decision this time around. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr A Adkinson
"Living within 200 m of the proposals. I would like to formally object to the highways proposal to change the junction on the A 5076 Dane Camp and the A5076 Upton Valley way the Urban strategic ring road for Northampton. This ring road is already at maximum capacity during the mornings and evenings weekday with normal commuter traffic and out of Northampton and traffic from the M1 and adjoining industrial, resulting in traffic coming to a standstill for long periods. This current level of traffic is exasperated by any problems on the M1 traffic is diverted via this ring road. Thus there is an increasing the level of pollution and noise for the residents that abut this ring road. At weekend during the winter sports season this ring road if blocked with traffic to both the football and rugby stadiums."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Marion Aveling
"My objections to this proposal are as follows. We do not need another rail freight terminal as a) the one at Daventry is not up to full capacity. B) there is another one near East Midlands being built. As Northamptonshirehas one of the lowest records of unemployment we do not need it to provide jobs. The amount of noise, light and air pollution will be greatly increased. The roads around the countryside are not built to take the amount of traffic that is proposed. It will not take traffic off the roads and on to the railways simply because lorries have to be on the road in the first place to bring the goods ! The railways themselves do not have the space to take the extra trains that are proposed. Much of our lovely countryside will be lost, along with many wildlife habitats , many of us moved here to be in the countryside not next to or for some in the middle of an industrial estate. This will also devalue property in the area as it won't be the idyllic area it was.."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Mary Elisabeth Lewis
"I wish to object to the proposed development on the following grounds: 1. The proposed development site is between two attractive villages, Blisworth and Milton Malsor, and will destroy all of the natural countryside between them. It will blight both villages and the scheme offers very little in return. When viewed on a map, the development is seen to be so large that it almost dwarfs the villages. There is also no major infrastructure development to alleviate the resulting traffic increase. 2. There is already a SFRI some 18 miles north at DIRFT and this will not reach capacity for a number of years. It is more than adequate to supply the needs of the area both now and in the foreseeable future. 3. The developers have failed to show that air pollution, already a problem, will further deteriorate. The site is low lying and where the A43 and M1 motorway intersect, there are already serious traffic issues, especially when there has been an accident. 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. 5. The developers quote figures for suggested increase in employment but Northampton already has nearly full employment and the jobs created would be largely unskilled. 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 use of the NSIP process. Indeed there has been some cynical use of the NSIP process to obtain consent only for the rail connection to be abandoned and the site adapted to warehousing only. Furthermore this is in addition to a similar scheme being put forward by Roxhill Ltd for a 5 million sq ft warehouse and rail interchange adjacent to Junction 15 of the M1 motorway. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Dillon
"I have lived in Milton Malsor for the past 13 years and thoroughly enjoy the beauty of the village and the surrounding countryside along with the peace and quiet, this was the main reason for relocating from the town. The prospect of having Rail Central SRFI located on our door step is our worst nightmare. I strongly object to this development which is both unnecessary and definitely not wanted. The proposed development would have a seriously detrimental effect on the environment, destroying the beautiful country side between Milton Malsor and Blisworth. It would also destroy the network of local footpaths. There would be a significant increase in traffic with thousands of additional vehicle movements (22,000 per day, 6,688 being HGV’s) which in its self will increase air pollution by Nitric Oxide and other diesel particulates which would be detrimental to our health and other residents. From an operational perspective we would be subjected to noise pollution, 24/7 and light pollution from night time operations, this would be unbearable. From a planning perspective this proposal is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS). 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
Richard Roberts
"These are some of the points I wish to make :- Why we need this project when the Daventry terminal still has plenty of unused capacity . I am concerned regards noise and light pollution. I'm also concerned regards the increase in HGV traffic, the damage to the natural environment, the loss of arable farmland. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rosemary Roberts
"increase in vehicles using the already crowded roads Destroying countryside and natural habitats light Polluntion general Polluntion. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Suzanne Edwards
"I strongly object to this for many reasons. 1 My family have lived in this beautiful rural countywide all their lives and it will be ruined and devastated by these plans. 2 The air pollution will be greatly increased from the extra cars, vans and HGVS using the roads in this area 3 The traffic through these villages (Milton Mslsor and Blisworth) will be astronomical. 4. We will lose an immense amount of agricultural land at a time when we need to produce more food. 5 The land between Milton and Blisworth is a haven for wildlife. All of this would be lost and would be devastating for these species. 6. The footpaths which connect Milton to other villages would be destroyed. 7. Northamptonshire only has a few medium sized towns and another huge freight terminal is not needed 8. Our unemployment level in Northamptonshire is very low and so therefore employees would need to travel long distances to get to work thus making more and more air pollution. 9. Crime levels will increase if the area is industrialised (DRIFT is a prime example of this). 10. Our villages will be used for parking by the new workforce. 11. The noise pollution will be constant and ruin the peace of a quiet countryside village. Light pollution will also be a big problem. 12. Our views of the countryside, which is one of the reasons we moved here, will be totally and utterly ruined by huge ugly warehouses. 13. It's just discusting that this is even being considered!!!!! It's not needed or wanted and will devastate our whole community if it's allowed to go ahead. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Terry Richardson
"As a resident of Stoke Bruerne I feel the extra traffic which will be using our village is going to make life intolerable in what is a 'Tourist village'. we already have in excess of 1.1 million vehicles a year using our through road which has a Primary school and a 20mph speed limit. The developers at various meetings quote a volume of approximately 16,000 vehicles per day leaving the site, supposedly over the night shift! The proposed road structure from the site restricts vehicles from leaving the site in a easterly direction, thereby taking them directly on to the M1/A508 westwards.There is no restriction on the vehicles returning from the east thereby overloading the very busy A508. Also the amount of smaller vehicles at shift changeover times will be enormous in a short space of time. Hence the concern of traffic through our village. This has never been mentioned at any meeting."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Duncan Riley
"Being a resident of Blisworth there are many points of concern which are applicable to this planning application. The rail link is very close to 3 villages and will cause light pollution, traffic congestion, noise, environment issues on green belt land and of cause health problems. The infrastructure in the villages and the road and proposed roads are not adequate for the large development and it will completely wreck the life of the residents in all the affected villages. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Felicity North
"I am opposed to this project on the grounds of : • Excessive pollution, light, air and noise. • The fact that the developers are using a loophole of a National Strategic Rail Freight Interchange to by-pass local planning when there is no proven capacity for such rail freight now or in the near future. • The destruction of countryside which is providing a barrier for the existing high levels of pollution from the M1. • There are very high levels of employment in the area and the existing Interchange at Daventry is having problems recruiting sufficient staff. • The area has an enormous number of empty warehouses already and there is no guarantee that the huge area proposed will be any easier to fill. The area around Blisworth is rural England at its best but it is already subject to high levels of pollution due to the many and varied types of haulage vehicles using the M1 and other roads in the area. Almost every day there is a problem on the Motorway resulting in unsuitable traffic through our village and others nearby. No amount of mitigation can adequately compensate for the loss of the countryside and the huge impact on the lives of everyone in the area but particularly the residents of Blisworth and Milton Malsor. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Bodfield on behalf of George Richard Anderson
"I strongly object to the rail freight interchange between Milton Malsor and Blisworth. It will damage the environment, cause pollution, cause excessive traffic problems on the already overloaded roads."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Bellman
"I make representation against this proposed development, due to the location and environmental consequences , along with the impact on the local infrastructure, which will not cope with this development. There are local sites which are not near capacity which need to be utilised before this development goes ahead. There are more suitable brown field sites that could be used, rather than the proposed green field site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Riley
"I have lived in the village of Blisworth for a period of thirty years and have seen many changes. I am deeply concerned about the proposed Rail Central plans of development.There will inevitably many disastrous effects on the local environment. We have already noise pollution from A43 and the many links to the M1. The volume of traffic through the surrounding villages is horrendous. If this freight interchange is allowed, three villages, Milton Malsor, Collingtree and Blisworth will experience greater effects of light, noise and air pollution to the detriment of all inhabitants. With the present concern for preserving our green land this planning application is totally wrong."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martin Entwistle
"Dear Sir/Madam, My principle objection is that a rail freight terminal is simply not needed in Northamptonshire. This is a blatant attempt by a land owner to make money by taking advantage of the government policy on SRFI’s. They have given no consideration to whether their proposal actually delivers against the governments intentions. Rail Central themselves describe this land as ‘being of strategic importance due to its location’ but that is only true if you envisage it being occupied by companies who want national distribution centres (NDC’s) in the centre of the country. In this model freight would arrive from the continent by rail and would then be moved by road to where it is actually needed. Adding more NDC’s in the centre of the country will not therefore save road miles, it will add them. Delivering fewer road miles requires SRFI’s located close to the populations that they are intended to serve. Northamptonshire and surrounding counties already have DIRFT in nearby Daventry and do not therefore need another SRFI. Given the impact on local communities would be horrendous I believe this application should be thrown out at the first hurdle. Kind regards Martin Entwistle "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Loftus
"I wish to object to the proposed Rail Central development. My objects are detailed below; 1. It will have a detrimental effect on my family that live locally as they will be deprived on lovely countryside and open fields on their door step. 2. The increase in lorry traffic will make local traffic even worse. 3. The increase lorry traffic will lead to more air pollution and will make my asthma even worse and damage my quality of life. 4. The increase in lorry traffic will lead to more noise pollution, resulting in a decrease in my quality of life. 5. The development will lead to a fall in value of my house so damaging my finances. in conclusion this development will have a detrimental effect on my health , wealth and quality of life an adverse effect on the "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roger Allen
" I wish to registeran objection to the Rail Central warehouse proposal. We are regular users of the footpath between Roade and Milton Malsor which crosses the main railway line. The Rai Central diversion of this path would see it moved from its current position along countryside tracks to a position alongside the railway lines. As well as having two bridges over the Northampton loop line the only views from the diverted path would be of the railway metal fencing. There would also be a lot of noise from the trains and the loading and unloading of containers. In short there would be no point in using this path in future as there would be no enjoyment in it and the extra crossings of the railway lines would make it much more difficult for people of our age to negotiate."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Roasblade
"1. Three applications for rail distribution depots within this part of the system is excessive with this planning application being falsely represented. We already have Daventry DRIFT 1,2, 3 and a planned 4. 2. It will cripple the Northampton line with “slow” trains crossing and entering these Warehousing projects. Most of the trains will come from the east coast via north London. Is the capacity there for four incoming trains a day let alone 16 and extra planned passenger trains? Platform length may not be suitable for future growth and can the trains really come in and leave the site at 40 mph so not to cause disruption? It is planned to operated most rail traffic in the working day which cannot be a good idea. This will create a rail choke point at completely the wrong point on the line. Forward planning by Nation Rail is a bit vague at the moment with HS 2 and seems at a very early phase. Acceptance regarding this application will be short sighted at this stage. 3. The loop line is backup for fast line maintenance but not the other way around which will put it out of action for long period. A place is need where the full four lines are available from both directions 4. More air pollution due to slow traffic with an overloaded infrastructure that will choke us all to death with small and large particulates on the windward side. There is also light and noise and water issues. This will encourage more local road traffic with the M1/ A43 /A45/ A508 blocked most days. 5. Suitable workers and public transport is in short supply around here and it could do with a passenger train station to make it feasible. 6. And more to come out in the wash such as application appeals at cost to HMG. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tom Andrews
"My objection to this plan is that it will decemate acres of valuable farmland that will be needed in the future. Pollution levels are far above EU levels for this area , further pollution would be extremely damaging. Traffic congestion is already far too dense for this area. The quality of life for the surrounding villages would be intolerable. The M1 is not capable of carrying further volumes of commercial traffic. When there are problems on the junctions 16 15 and 15a our villagers become “ratruns “. The whole idea of building these enormous wharehouse does not make sense when there is more than enough capacity at the Daventry Dirf. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Vincent
"As a resident of Blisworth, I wish to object to the Rail Central proposal for its Road/Rail interchange. The first of my reasons for my objection relates to the nature of Blisworth, it is a small rural village surrounded by open fields, the proposed development will effectively join Blisworth to Milton Malsor with the concrete of this development. Secondly, the village of Blisworth already suffers from traffic trying to avoid the jams at junction 15 of the M1 by shortcutting through the village to Junction 15A, this shortcut passes the Infant school. At peak times for the school, the traffic can backup two-thirds of the way to Milton Malsor. The other main issue is that with the Interchange working 24/7 the light pollution for a village normally bathed in darkness will be excessive."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Compton Johnson
"I wish to confirm my strong objection to both this and the 'rival' attempt to build a rail freight terminal on a 'green field' site right between two villages. There are also other nearby villages which would be impacted. The fact is the existing facility, some 16 miles away, in Crick is still under utilised and capable of expansion on 'Brown field' land. The nearby M1 junctions (15/15a) are already heavily used and as local employment is extremely high staff would be travelling to site from afar adding to existing congestion and increasing pollution in the area. At the recent hearing, 19th December, QC's from the rival companies spent over an hour at the start of the meeting bickering amongst themselves. Totally unprofessional and an insult to the locals in attendance. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Hunter
"Dear Planning Dept. Please consider my following objections. The proposals will overload any existing infrastructure that is already a nightmare at rush hour for me and my working family. DIRFT is already providing what you are proposing to replicate. The value of my property will drop significantly should this become a reality. We live down wind of what will in no doubt bring significant air/noise/light pollution. Brexit will bring recession, so having built what you are proposing, are you going to find any tenants that you can trust to keep paying the rent. We already have DIRFT to the north, Swan Vally and Pineham, Moulton park and Brackmills. Please, Enough is enough! Do not let this proposal go ahead. I hope you read this far. Kind regards, David Hunter."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Mander
"I object to this scheme on the basis that it is; 1) unnecessary 2) harmful to the local environment 3) will overload the already congested local road networks "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janet Pallister
"The planned Rail Central is within 15 miles of an existing rail distribution centre. When travelling the UK it is clear that the Midlands contains proportionately more warehousing than other areas of the country. This places disproportionate amount of pressure on the infrastructure. Whilst the number of schools in Northamptonshire has increased , the number of hospitals has not. Northamptonshire County Council does not have the capacity to cope with the pressure of an increased population. Rail Central is contrary to the adopted West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy. The local road network is already stretched to capacity. When driving through DIRFT it is clear to see that the roads are congested with lorries . The M1 between Milton Keynes and Lutterworth is already an accident hotspot. An increase in lorries joining the M1 at junction 15 or 15A will add to this. When at capacity the Rail Central traffic would double the vehicles using the A43. This will have a hugely negative impact on local peoples wellbeing and work life balance. It would also have a negative impact on pollution. The jobs created by warehousing are not highly paid jobs. The housing market in the local area is not accessible to the wages of these employees. The noise pollution , light pollution and air pollution will make the local villages less desirable. Professionals will not be drawn to the area , this will have a negative impact on the recruitment of staff to schools and hospitals and Surgeries. There is already a challenge to recruit, with schools employing Supply Teachers and Doctors employing Locum Doctors to plug the gap. These staff cost significantly more and provide less to the communities they serve. I ask for statistics for these concerns to be collated before a planning decision is finalised. The Midlands used to be known for its lush arable pastures. Dairy farming was its identity. The landscape is changing at such a pace the impact on the environment is huge. With global warming becoming almost irreversible, decisions made today will have a greater impact than ever before. I ask for any planning decision to be based on the worst case scenario and not the pipe dream that is provided . "
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Percival
"The devastating effect of this plan will ruin for ever this rural area of outstanding beauty. I live in Stoke Road which is already an over used route to Milton Keynes with through traffic and many heavy lorries. The proposal will add to this with disastrous effect on my and many other properties which have no front garden and are directly on this narrow lane which is not even a 'B' road. There is no traffic calming or speed restriction beyond the basic 30mph and there is no response from the local council to add any To consider going ahead with this proposal in this area is corporate vandalism. Please note my serious objection to it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kevin Dupont
"i don't believe this development should go ahead for the following reasons: - the development would lead to the destruction of the countryside and rural life. -removal of well used footpaths. - destruction of wildlife habitats. -huge increase in traffic congestion in and around the villages. -increase in light pollution 24/7. -insufficient workforce available to fill job vacancies. - significant increase in air and noise pollution. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Leslie Tebbutt
"I strongly object to the planned development for the following reasons:- 1) The Derv area at Crick is under utilized and still under development. 2) Blisworth and Milton Malzor are very historical villages which cannot accept this sort of development. 3) There is at least one closure of the M1 motorway for a minimum of one per week, what will happen to the lorries, as The High Street through Blisworth will not take the traffic or the foul air produced by the diesel fumes. 4) Unemployment in this area of Northants is very low, meaning that the 3000 jobs will have to travel through a very busy High Street which is unacceptable. 5) Arable land is needed to feed people in this country particularly with the event of Brexit. 6) The value of properties in this area will be affected."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Northampton Ramblers
"Northampton Ramblers (140 members as at 30 December 2018) wish to object to the proposed Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange), Reference TR050004, for the following reasons: 1 The destruction of the local footpath network 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
Stephen Ward
"The area suggested for this project lies betyween two very old and attractive villages and the development would swallow them both up and distract from their natural beauty. Additionally the roads serving this site and generally in the Northampton area are already close to capacity and this would further frustrate people trying to commute to work. I ave seen nothing in the proposal that will provide benefits to the local population, Northamptonshire countryside is being consumed by warehouse complexes. It is time it re-think this rather insane project. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tina Dupont
"i don't believe this development should go ahead for the following reasons: - the development would lead to the destruction of the countryside and rural life. -removal of well used footpaths. - destruction of wildlife habitats. -huge increase in traffic congestion in and around the villages. -increase in light pollution 24/7. -insufficient workforce available to fill job vacancies. - significant increase in air and noise pollution."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Wendy Johnson
"I wish to personally object to the attempts to blight the Green field farmland between Blisworth and Milton villages with a rail freight site. Not only would it affect these two villages but others in the surrounding area. The current road infrastructure is already under severe pressure to due residential expansion locally causing excessive traffic on nearby back roads cutting through to junctions 15/16 of the M1. Furthermore, bearing in mind the under utilisation of the existing freight terminal at Crick, barely 16 miles away, how can a similar operation be justified? Local commercial expansion, along the nearby M1 corridor, is also adding to daily congestion and unnecessary increases in pollution. Should planning be granted, as the workforce will need to travel from outside what is a high employment area, further pollution will ensue. Please think again!!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adrian Bottrill
"I strongly object for the following reasons 1. Increased traffic congestion on roads already congested e.g. M1, A5 and A43 2. Increased air pollution by the movement of thousands of vehicles in an area surrounded by residential homes 3. Light and noise pollution effecting many thousands of residents in the villages of Milton and Blisworth and surrounding villages and part of Northampton 4.The proposal is contrary to the West Northants Core Strategy 5.Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal situated at junction 18 ,a short distance away ,has excess capacity and will be expanding for the next ten years . 6. We live in an area of low unemployment - the strategic rail plan was to site these interchanges where there was high unemployment and spread cross the uk not all in the midlands.!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adrian Peacock
"I object to the proposals and have serious concerns over the following: 1 The negative impact additional freight trains will have on the main train line from Northampton 2 The negative impact the proposal will have on the local countryside, the development is proposed in an area of nature beauty 3 The negative effect the proposals will have on the local road network, the existing road network is already busy. 4 Rail central is not needed as the current interchange at Daventry is under utilised 5 "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Douglas Gray
"I believe that the proposed plans will have an irreversible negative impact on Northamptonshire for several reasons. 1. Infrastructure - there is insufficient investment proposed into the supporting infrastructure to allow it to cope with the increase in flow in traffic density. The M1 between junction 14 and 15 is already inadequate the increased volume of traffic caused will undoubtedly increase the number of accidents and severe delays in the area. 2. Community - there will be a significant human impact unfairly lumped upon those living in local villages including Milton Malsor and Blisworth. 3. Conservation of historic villages - again the villages of Blisworth, Milton Malsor, and indeed a number of others proximate to those will be irrevocably tarnished by the increase in flow of HGVs in particular. 4. There is also a broader environmental impact caused by insufficient waste disposal capability to manage the increased waste and pollution caused as a bi-product of the increased rail routing. I believe that the benefits have been unfairly taken represented against the full extent of the adverse impacts that would be caused. I would well want to see an more detailed social and environmental impact analysis to hold in balance against the proposed business case"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Bland on behalf of Edward Bland
"I oppose the development of Rail Central on the following grounds - inappropriate location only a few miles away from another interchange which is under capacity - traffic increase on already congested narrow country roads, and M1 junctions which cannot cope - loss of open spaces for children to play - loss of Public footpaths which we use regularly - loss of wildlife which is irreversible - pollution - air, light and noise."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gordon Johns
"1. It is difficult to argue that this is a site of strategic importance, given the presence of an unconnected existing such site less than 15 miles away operating well below capacity. There is no requirement for SRFIs to accept any freight by rail provided that they have the capacity to do so. 2. Road congestion will worsen given that the terminal will be primarily road not rail based. The local road network is already far too congested to accommodate this scheme and cannot be improved sufficiently to mitigate the impact. The road from Blisworth to Milton Malsor in particular is completely unsuited to further pressure from commercial and commuter traffic, as is the main road connecting Blisworth to the A43. 3. Existing rail lines are unlikely to have the capacity for additional freight when DIRFT 3 is running at capacity. 4. If either Application were to be approved this could result in a reduction in passenger rail services from Northampton. 5. Substantially more local air pollution would be created, with indisputable deleterious effects on the health of the local population. Light and noise pollution would also significantly affect the quality of life in the adjacent villages."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Bland on behalf of Henry Bland
"I oppose the development of Rail Central on the following grounds - traffic increase - loss of open spaces - loss of wildlife - pollution - air, light and noise. - inappropriate location "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Henry Christopher Newby
"Please see below an outline of the principal submissions I intend to make in relation to the application – an application against which I must object in the strongest possible terms: • Within 'An introduction to Rail Central, January 2016', the Applicant stated that: “The rationale for this site is driven entirely by its strategic location and direct connections to key rail and road networks”. The Applicant has failed to prove the case for the site’s “strategic location”. • The Applicant’s Alternative Site Assessment (ASA) has been wholly inadequate. • The Applicant has also failed to prove the case for “market demand”. The Midlands is already well-served by the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) – the country’s premier road and rail distribution hub – and will soon also be served by the East Midlands Gateway Rail Freight Interchange (EMGRFI). There is, therefore, a very real risk of significant over-supply in the Midlands, whilst other regions continue to be poorly served (for example the South-East). • The 'National Policy Statement for National Networks, December 2014' sets out “the need for an expanded network of large SRFIs across the regions”. This need will not be addressed by establishing a cluster of SRFIs in the Midlands. • The Applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence of the ability of the rail network to support its proposals. The capacity of the West Coast Mainline is already severely constrained. • The Applicant has acknowledged that: “Road traffic using the local road network will increase during the construction and decommissioning phases and also during the operational phase of the project” - 'Rail Central – Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR): Stage 1 Part 1, April 2016'. Despite this, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that it has taken reasonable steps to mitigate the impacts on the surrounding transport infrastructure to acceptable levels including transport networks. • The Applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence that: “Overall, Rail Central will result in a net reduction of HGV movements on the UK strategic highway” – 'Welcome: Consulting the community' document published by the Applicant. • The Applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence of “the existence of an available and economic local workforce”. • The proposed development is not in accordance with the local development plan (West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy). • The site is far too close to residential accommodation and the resulting noise, light, vibration and air quality issues will have a significant effect on the health, wellbeing and quality of life of the local population. • The proposed development would lead to the destruction of 250 ha of open countryside and would result in a marked and permanent change to the landscape in the vicinity of the site, which could not be fully mitigated by landscaping, whilst also harming the character and appearance of the wider area. • The Applicant has also failed to provide sufficient evidence of its ability to prevent rat-running and village intrusion during both the construction and operational phases of the proposed development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hilary Bottrill
"I most strongly object to the Ashfield land/Gazeley proposed rail freight interchange for the following reasons:- 1) I am [redacted] and the increased air pollution from the many thousands of vehicles accessing this site is of serious concern to both myself and the other residents in Milton and Blisworth, it could seriously effect our health . 2) Light and noise pollution from 24 hour operation. It will cause distress to the residents of Milton, Blisworth, Collingtree and Roade, because sound travels it will impact on Gayton and residents on the southern side of Northampton. This will seriously impact on many thousands of people. 3) This proposal goes against the West Northants Joint Core Strategy 4) The Daventry International rail freight terminal is situated within a short distance; it will be expanding for the next ten years. 5) M1 and A5 are already effected by the above (4)"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jason Ramskill
"I oppose the application and planning for this development due the personal discomfort I believe this will cause me and my family. living in one of the beautiful surrounding villages I can only forsee such a change to the area will result in unmanageable volumes of traffic causing noise and environmental pollution, and not least serious risk to accidents in the small village cut throughs (short cuts) near schools and residential properties. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jennifer Tufnell
"My MAIN concern is the amount of additional traffic using the dual carriageway A43 which is already a major link between the M1 and M40. Trying to join said road from Blisworth during busy periods can be stressful now when both lanes are busy. It can surely only get worse unless there are major improvements (increasing to 3 lane motorway?) and at great expence. Blisworth already has as inordinate volume of traffic using the narrow Stoke Road as a rat-run. This is worse in rush hours but is now busier than in the recent past. None of the meetings I have attended have provided adequate explanations to any of the traffic concerns."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jessica Horton
"Good Afternoon, I strongly object to this planning application for a rail freight interchange because, - the noise, air and light pollution it will cause which in turn will cause much misery to local residents - loss of green belt farmland and wildlife which would be detrimental to the whole area - there is still also enormous unused capacity less than 20 miles away at junction 18, Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal. Jessica Horton "
Members of the Public/Businesses
John White
"I would like to object very strongly to the proposals for the construction of Rail Central at Milton Malsor and Blisworth. This development if it goes ahead, will consume large areas of outstanding countryside and natural beauty, and of course all associated farming in between. It will end up a massive concrete and steel jungle with road noise, accompanied with air and night-time pollution I suspect on a 24 x 7 basis Whilst I do not live in this immediate area, I do enjoy frequent walks in there along the foot and tow paths by the canal, taking in the beauty of the wild life there, and admiring the various species of birds that reside there. I have no doubt that if this development goes ahead then that too will all disappear. This would be an absolute and unforgivable travesty My understanding is that this proposal will conflict directly with Government objectives set out in the recent 25 year environment plan, which includes targets to increase natural beauty, heritage of the natural environment, notwithstanding increasing potential future flood risk; and the destruction of woodland as opposed to increasing it The residents of both villages stand to lose greatly in every respect and will see nothing in return other than misery for the loss of their natural environment. Their countryside will be decimated beyond repair I fail to understand why this, and indeed the Northampton Gateway proposals are in anyway required. There is the current development at East Midlands in progress and at Daventry (DIRFT), where expansion is currently underway but is going to take several years to fulfil. Is there any requirement for any further development(s) just 16 miles down the M1 corridor which I believe will be dormant for several years as a result of the above? It strikes me somewhat to be another typical and mercenary approach by the developers to take advantage of the NSIP process for an unwanted site which as I see it, would operate as a simple logistics park, without any advantage of an interchange facility "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jonathan King
"Dear Sir I’m objecting very strongly to the proposed plan to build “Rail Central” This project will completely destroy the beautiful countryside that I live in. The effect this will have on the villages of Milton Malsor and Blisworth will be devastating! Milton Malsor And Blisworth are both small country villages, set in some wonderful countryside between Northampton and Towcester, this development will help to link the villages to Northampton and we will become suburbs of Northampton. This development will surround over half of our village! Whilst the development is taking place, we will have to put up with the noise, smell and light pollution that we won’t be able to escape from. Once the project is completed, we will still have the noise, smell and light pollution to put up with, this won’t be a temporary thing! I regularly go out walking in our countryside with my wife and family, but this development will destroy the very ground we walk on, it will be replaced with warehouses, roads, lorry parks and railway sidings. What is going to replace this? I believe that there are too many rail/road logistics parks around this area already and there is no need for another one. If this development did go ahead, I know what will happen. Our countryside will get churned up and a new road network constructed, but only two or three warehouses will actually get built, the rest of the land will just be allowed to rot and that won’t benefit anyone except the developers, who will of already made their money and disappeared! There is only going to be one road into this development and will be connected to the A43, but what happens when the M1 gets blocked, as it does regularly. All the traffic is going to get backed up within the development and we’re going to have to breath all of that pollution in! Then all the workers will start cutting through our village to get home. We were promised that this development will create 8,000 jobs, but there isn’t a high need for employment around here! Most of the workers will most probably be brought in from abroad? Jonathan King [Redacted] "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jonathon Horton
"Dear Sirs, I most strongly object to this rail freight application. My reasons for this are as follows; - there is no shortage of employment in the area so 8000 new jobs are uneccesary. We would not have the housing to accommodate these workers which would result in people coming from other areas resulting in more traffic, pollution etc. . - the pollution that would be caused by this development in both its construction and operation would be extremely detrimental to the health and happiness of local residents - the loss of green belt farmland would also destroy the habitats of a considerable amount of wildlife - DIRFT is less than 20 miles away at junction 18 and has considerable unused capacity. Why would this not be fully utilised before new developments are considered. Yours faithfully JJ Horton "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julia Lindsay
"This proposed development will destroy homes and countryside with relatively little benefit in return. The noise and light pollution will be significant. Road danger will increase. Shultlangers village plan shows that road danger was highlighted as the biggest concern for residents. Police and residents have assessed the situation with schemes like speedwatch and it is clear that there is a speeding problem through the village. More traffic coming through the village above the speed limit will increase road danger. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
June Patrica Hawkins
"The site is inappropriate because of the access onto the already overcrowded M1 It will destroy the local villages and environment with noise and traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kate Entwistle
"I strongly object to the Rail central strategic rail freight interchange for the following reasons; The destruction of acres of farm land The impact on local villages - this development is in my opinion far too close to surrounding villages to allow any measures to mitigate the impact. Reduction in air quality The significant impact it will have on the road network around Northampton - the existing roads already suffer from too much congestion and the changes to the roads suggested will do little to mitigate the impact. In the last 12 months there have been numerous incidents causing roads on surrounding villages to be gridlocked - this development will only exacerbate the situation. The area is already served by a 'strategic' rail freight interchange approx 16 miles away therefore it should be built in an area not currently served by rail freight."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lisa Hayworth
"I strongly object to the planning:- - Increased Air pollution - Increased Noise by 24/7 operation - Increased Traffic - The loss of vital rural countryside, I moved to the village because, it of it's size and I love the open fields for walking, this is going to be a great loss. - The loss of habitat for the wildlife that make our village so beautiful. -If I wanted to live in a place engulfed in industry, I would of brought a house in a town or city. STOP Ruining our countryside for the benefit of the rich and making more money, we are loosing our fabulous countryside DON'T DO IT. I STRONGLY OBJECT!!!! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Withers
"The local infrastructure cannot cope with the demands of the present day traffic without an addition of a proposed massive warehouse complex. The loss of valuable productive farmland. The high level of vehicle exhaust emissions from the lorries entering and leaving the site will be harmful to people living near the proposed complex. The fact that the Dirft site at Crick is not being used to maximum capacity and is seeking to double it's size thus rendering the proposed rail link at junction 15 of the M1 not necessary"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michele Horton
"Dear Sirs I most strongly object to the planning application for this rail freight interchange (TR050004). My reasons are as follows, The loss of farmland, wildlife, footpaths (regularly used by many). The noise and pollution that will result in the construction and operation of such a development and the misery that this will cause to those people that live in the surrounding villages. Northampton does not currently have a shortage of employment opportunities so this cannot be stated as an advantage. There is already a huge rail freight interchange at J18 of the M1, which is less than 30 miles away. Furthermore there is still enormous development opportunity there which has not yet been taken up. Thank you for taking the time to listen to my objections. Yours faithfully Michele Horton "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Bland on behalf of Oscar Bland
"I oppose the development of Rail Central on the following grounds - inappropriate location in the middle of open countryside - traffic increase on already congested narrow country roads - loss of open spaces for children to play - loss of Public footpaths which we use regularly - loss of wildlife which is irreversible - pollution - air, light and noise. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Moss
"I wish to register my opposition to the proposed development of the above planning application. Our property is a Grade 2 listed thatch property situated on the corner of [redacted]. It is an extremely busy junction especially at commuting times and when there are incidents on the M1 and A43 which causes extreme traffic congestion in the village and outside our home. One of our main concerns is that if there were any disruptions on the M 1 or A 43 we would see an even bigger influx of HGVs coming past our property using the village as a rat run. The main entrance to rail central development is on the A43, however, any disruption to the A43 will result in the access and egress will be on the Northampton road, an emergency exit. This will leave no alternative for the HGVs then to use the Northampton road through Milton Malsor and Blisworth, to then access the A43 and M1. The setting of our property is an essential part of the buildings character. We are one semi of a large thatched property which sits prominently on the edge of the village within the Conservation area. Our property adds interest and contributes to the local countryside. It also combines with other properties in producing visual harmony and enriches the setting of the conservation area.. We totally oppose the Rail Central and Northampton gateway owing to the adverse effects these developments would have on our property and that of all the listed buildings and the conservation area in the village. The above proposals because of their nature of use, would adversely affect the character of this setting through noise, nuisance,traffic,pollution and general disturbances. Our property is thatch and stone built, circa 1750. We regularly experience vibration within our home caused through HGVs and large delivery trucks as the proximity of road to the property. Our windows are single glazed and not energy efficient, letting out heat and letting noise in. We are unable to get planning permission to replace with double glazing as is the nature of listed building consent. It will be unbearable as the HGVs go trundling past day and night. Approaching retirement we chose to live in this lovely area of south Northamptonshire, more especially Blisworth. Our aim now is to continue being " guardians" of our listed property, to protect and enhance it and our beautiful village, incidentally Best Kept award 2012 and 2017. This is not only for ourselves but for all who live in the village and the many visitors who can continue to value and enjoy what we currently have in Blisworth. In addition to the above, issues of increased pollution to the already close proximity of motorways. Increased noise levels and light issues from the proposed development working around the clock on this vast sized proposed development. I travel around the country and witness on virtually every junction of our motorway networks developments of warehouses and I must question on how many warehouses are actually needed. On numerous sites I have seen, there are advertising boards displayed stating that warehouses are "to let" which again I question on how many warehouses are actually needed. Blisworth is only 14 miles from the Dirft development at junction 18 of the M1. This development is continually expanding and again I would question the feasibility of another development so close. In anticipation that the above facts are considered, I remain. Paul Moss [redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simone Gray
"I feel this application will have a severely negative impact on the surrounding communities and the environment. 1. The ancient surrounding villages will be ruined. 2. The traffic that would be generated would cause havoc for local people in their day to day lives. 3. The M1 junction is already regularly overloaded with heavy traffic that spills out onto local roads making commutes to schools and work a traffic nightmare. 4. The ,coal infrastructure can not withstand the additional heavy good vehicles that this project will generate in its building and operation. 5. There is not the local infrastructure to sustain the additional employees, their families and children this project will generate. 6. Is this project actually needed? Is it needed in this area. 7. The negative environmental impact on the health and well being of the local communities must be a high priority. This project will will a catastrophic for local villages and people without any positives for them."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Bland on behalf of Thomas Bland
"I oppose the development of Rail Central on the following grounds - inappropriate location in the middle of open countryside, an only a few miles away from another interchange which is under capacity. - traffic increase on already congested narrow country roads, and also at M1 junctions which are heavily congested and unable to cope with any further increase in traffic movement. - loss of open spaces for children to play, for walkers and for maintaining the rural character of the area. - loss of Public footpaths which we use regularly - loss of wildlife which is irreversible - pollution - air, light and noise."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adam Woby
"I strongly object to the Ashfield Land/Gazeley Rail Central proposal. It is contrary to the planning policy set out by the West Northants Joint Core Strategy WNJCS for the next ten years. The WNJCS requires that any SRFI development should take place at the Daventry Int'l Rail Freight Terminal and NOWWHERE else within the districts of Daventry, S.Northants and Northampton Borough. DIRFT is set to double in size within the next ten years and already has permission to expansion for the next 22 years. Therefore there is no need for the proposed Rail central development. Additionally the development of a SRFI between Milton Malsor & Blisworth will result in the destruction of valuable countryside, increasing traffic and significantly effecting air quality due to the thousands of additional vehicle journeys. Light and Noise pollution will negatively impact local residences and wildlife, the use of high mounds of earth will only create a blot on the landscape and ultimately do little to hide any visual impact or significantly reduce noise and light intrusion. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Aeryn Woby
"I strongly object to the Ashfield Land/Gazeley Rail Central proposal. The SRFI development between Milton Malsor & Blisworth will result in a huge increase to local traffic and the destruction of farmland & valuable countryside, significantly affecting air quality and the quality of life to thousands of people. All of this land provides a haven to many species of local wildlife, which would be lost if this development goes forth. Light and Noise pollution will be very disruptive and negatively impact local residences and wildlife, the use of bunding will create a blot on the landscape and do nothing to hide the massive warehouses and gantry cranes or reduce 24/7 noise and light intrusion. This will all affect the health of many vulnerable local residents in the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Muir
"I wish to support the proposal as I believe it will bring long term benefits to the immediate community and to industry in general in the region"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charrower on behalf of B harrower
"The rail frieght association had a demand study made. It stated 7.2 million sq. ft were nneeded by 2030. THIS GREEDY ENTERTPRISE DELIVERS 6 MILLION SQ FT! Without consideration of paralell developements by ROXHILL at Derby and now Northampton. I constantly here reports of unfilled warehousing in this area and the INCREASE FRIEGHT RAIL TRAFFIC WILL IMPACT NOISE AND VIBRATION ON THE PEOPLE CLOSE TO THE LINE ON THE OUT SKIRTS OF NORTHAMPTON WHERE I LIVE. I HAVE TO AGREE WITH THE REST OF MY FAMILY THAT THIS IS GREED DRIVEN. The vacant warehouses and forecast projecti9ns surely speak for themselves. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
C harrower
"I live in thr urban area(Hunsbury) that borders Towcester road, off an off shoot (Ladybridge) that leads through to the roundabout on the edge of Upton Park accessing M1 and A43. During the 5 years here there has been a noticable difference in the amount of traffic using Ladybridge as a ‘rat run’ including barred heavy lorries. The same is true of the route through to Blissworth (daily commute). The local environment is already under pressure from pollution and noise from the M1 and current PLANNING APPLICATION at MILTON HAM FOR HUGE WAREHOUSES and a large new developement currently being built in nearby Kisslingbury It is common knowledge that both the Corby Eurohub and Daventry Freight Terminal are under utilised and there is PERMISSON FOR A RAIL FRIEGHT INTER CHANGE AT DERBY. This latest developement will DEVISTATE centuries old communities. These villages are also POPULAR RECREATI9N DESTINATIONS for the people of NORTHHAMPTON. THIS IS A CYNICAL MONEY MAKING VENTURE, THE LOCAL ENVIORNMENT WILL NOT COPE WITH THE NOISE AND DESTRUCTION TO PEOPLES LIVES AND EVEN MORE OF OUR PRECIOUS GREEN COUNTYSIDE AND WILDLIFE HABITATS DESTROYED..CONCRETED OVER. WE ARE ONLY A SMALL COUNTRY! THERE ARE MANY EMPTY WAREHOUSES, PLEASE CONSIDER THIS IN YOUR DESICION."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charrower on behalf of David harrower
"Please consider the unused warehouses at nearby rail interchanges EUROHUB CORBY, DRIFT, AND PLANNING FOR DERBY GRANTED! Offficail forcast for the rial freight organisation by MDS Trans modal predicts warehouse capacity needed is 7.2 millon sqare feet by 2030 bot this development is 6 million!!!! IT IS NOT NEEDED. THE LOCAL DESTRUCTION IS NOT NEEDED. GREED IS DRIVING THIS GREED GREED GREED!!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hollie Underwood
"The main concerns around this development relate specifically to air, light and noise pollution as well as congestion on the local road networks which we use on a daily basis and feel that no amount of good mitigation can counter."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julie Alliott
"JULIE ALLIOTT Objections to rail freight interchange. Lack of any proof of a strategic need. Large number of developments already in the area. 32million square foot of warehousing etc within 50 miles of each other. By passing of planning regulations. Lack of any obligation for warehouses to use the railway – prohibitive costs? Overcrowded lines already – Northampton loop already passes the Daventry development. Network rail do not release new traffic predictions until the development is complete – why not? Traffic increases and road changes in the area – overcrowding on already busy roads, proximity to the M! and breakdowns make it worse. Huge traffic air pollution – what about the schools and young children. Noise pollution 24/7 loading and unloading and train traffic, and light pollution. Potential increase in crime. Open productive farmland being built on , country walks and footpaths lost, affect on the local wild life (glow worms) and bird life. Open aspects between Milton and Blisworth gone. No visible benefits to the local community. Main Objection – superfluous to needs and bypassing of planning laws. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katherine Taylor
"It is being proposed as a "Strategic" Rail Freight Interchange - there is nothing strategic about it. Strategic would suggest that its location was determined by a nationally directed strategy that outlined a national spread of Rail Freight interchange locations. Bearing in mind that there is a massive SRFI (DIRFT) merely 10 miles away, which is currently expanding and will not be at capacity for a number of years, how can there be a strategic need for another one as proposed by Rail Central? The decision by Ashfield Land et. al. to propose one on this location is purely financial on their part and opportunistic in that they noticed a loophole in this type of development that circumvents local planning decisions. There is barely enough rail freight capacity on the West Coast Mainline to meet the growing demands of DIRFT, therefore it is unlikely that Rail Central will have the necessary freight routes available to make it viable as a Rail Freight Interchange ever. It is therefore likely that the proposed development will never actually make use of the alleged "rail served" location. The location is thoroughly unsuitable for a variety of reasons: It will be destroying greenfield land, whereas a more appropriate choice of location would be to reuse a brownfield site. Within the area are a large number of hedgerows and mature/ancient trees that currently provide habitats to a wide range of animals. The removal of this will have a hugely negative impact on the local ecosystem. There is a danger that this part of Northamptonshire will become nothing more than a vast warehouse location, taking into consideration the recent developments along the M1 corridor. Traffic on the M1 around junction 15-15A and the surrounding area is already way beyond capacity with regular hold-ups often caused by accidents that are possibly as a result of the concentration of lorries in this area. The knock on effect brings the local roads to a complete standstill which demonstrates that they are not equipped to deal with the additional capacity that would be needed for the thousands of lorry journeys, to say nothing of the thousands of additional car journeys that will be made by long distance commuters (there is no need to jobs in the local area). This will also have an impact on air pollution due to increased carbon emissions, in what is currently open countryside and existing residential areas. Employment in the local area is already high therefore the point they make about creation of jobs is irrelevant and in many ways a negative as they will either struggle to fill them or they will be creating an additional traffic nightmare with the number of people commuting into the area for work. Overall, whilst I support the government's attempts to remove lorries from the road and onto rail transport, I cannot see that this development would be in any way appropriate or form part of a strategic process to do this effectively."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lisa O'Connor
"I came to Roade 10 years ago, to a little village surrounded by green fields so my children could breath cleaner air and be away from over populated areas but close enough to not be secluded. I understand about change but these changes bring pollution, congestion and overpopulation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Louisa Woby
"I strongly object to the Ashfield Land/Gazeley Rail Central proposal. This SRFI development between Milton Malsor & Blisworth goes ahead it will lead to a huge increase in traffic to the local area and the destruction of farmland & valuable countryside, which will significantly affect air quality and impact the daily life to thousands of people. Many species of local wildlife, inhabiting this land could be lost if this development goes ahead. Light and Noise pollution will be very disruptive and have a negative impact to local residences and wildlife, the use of bunding will create a blot on the landscape and do nothing to hide the massive warehouses and gantry cranes or reduce 24/7 noise and light intrusion. This will all affect the health of many vulnerable local residents in the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Menasakanian Janine
"I am deeply concerned about the level of traffic and pollution that will occur as a result of the proposals. The disadvantages far outweigh any benefit that may be generated"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Knox
"I am a Blisworth resident. I already face long delays commuting due to roads unable to cope with current traffic levels, which immediately worsens as soon as there is a problem with the M1 motorway. Deliberately increasing volume of vehicle movement by any significant margin will not only lengthen my time in a vehicle, but hugely increase local air pollution and the likelihood that there will an increase in accidents. Current users of the main A roads will try to find alternative routes through the villages to avoid junction congestion."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Miller
"I feel the proposed development is too large for the area/ villages and will spoil the area for ever. It is a lovely area and the development should NOT go ahead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Alliott
"PETER ALLIOTT Objections to rail freight interchange. Lack of any proof of a strategic need. Large number of developments already in the area. 32million square foot of warehousing etc within 50 miles of each other. By passing of planning regulations. Lack of any obligation for warehouses to use the railway – prohibitive costs? Overcrowded lines already – Northampton loop already passes the Daventry development. Network rail do not release new traffic predictions until the development is complete – why not? Traffic increases and road changes in the area – overcrowding on already busy roads, proximity to the M! and breakdowns make it worse. Huge traffic air pollution. Noise pollution 24/7 loading and unloading and train traffic, and light pollution. Potential increase in crime. As a railway buff some specialist knowledge of processes and systems. Refer you to the RAILWAY MAGAZINE JANUARY 2019 editorial. Open productive farmland being built on , country walks and footpaths lost, affect on the local wild life and bird life. Open aspects between Milton and Blisworth gone. No visible benefits to the local community. Main Objection – superfluous to needs and I have a reasonable knowledge of current interchanges. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Norris
"Main concern is the impact within the area environmental impact to the residents of Blisworth which is a pretty Northamptonshire village that if this application is put through will impact the residents it won best village over a number of years not only this village impacted by increase traffic and noise other surrounding places will be impacted no A5 bypass then Towcester will become a large car park. Please consider alternative locations that have less impact to village life and town life ther must be othe options that fulfill business requirements with a balance of existing villages and towns please consider this representation Peter Norris"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rebecca Howard
"Having lived in the neighbouring village to the proposed development for over 15 years, I want to express my dismay at the prospect of the Strategic Rail Freight Interchange between the villages of Blisworth and Milton Malsor. There are numerous reasons why this will adversely affect these communities and they include: 1) Air pollution. A worldwide blight being linked to numerous respiratory and other conditions. 2) Light pollution. Poor sleep and all the impacts that entails. 3) Noise pollution. A quiet village location will be transformed. 4) Excess traffic. These roads are already congested and in poor condition (especially potholes in the villages). 5) Demand for housing. With 1150 agricultural acres being paved over for the development, yet more land would be needed for housing. 6) Proximity to other SRFI site. I wonder if the owning of the land is pushing this rather than a strategy. 7) Potential reduced rail services from Northampton. Greatly affecting commuters and leisure travellers, particularly in a time of deprioritisation of bus routes. 8) Environmental impact beyond that to humans. In a rural location especially, we share our environment with flora and fauna that would be destroyed. Thank you taking the time to consider this representation and I hope you receive many more that express the depth of feeling against this proposal in the local community."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Bailey
"I totally object to this development for a number of reasons. Firstly it is not required plenty of warehouse space on existing sites.. Secondly the environmental damage this will cause to wildlife , the ecosystem, the air polution for surrounding villages etc. Thirdly the additional traffic. Regardless that this is a rail franchise employees will drive and the volume of traffic is already disruptive to commuting to work. Even a bypass won't help those living in Roade. This is totally unnecessary and cannot be justified in any way. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Knox
"Blisworth is a small village with a primary school at the first junction from the proposed site. At the other end of the village is a junction where there already is almost daily "nesr misses". This is just outside my apartment windows. The additional traffic that this development will create , directly and indirectly, will greatly increase the risks of an accident and injury."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sean Woby
"I strongly object to the Ashfield Land/Gazeley Rail Central proposal. The development of a SRFI near Milton Malsor will result in the destruction of valuable countryside, increasing traffic and significantly effecting air quality due to the thousands of additional vehicle journeys. Light and Noise pollution will negatively impact local residences and wildlife, the use of high mounds of earth will only create a blot on the landscape and ultimately do little to hide any visual impact or reduce noise and light intrusion. This may also affect the health of a few of the residents that live or visit Milton Malsor."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Will Brooks
"To whom it may concern Jo, my wife, and I moved to Blisworth in June 2015 from Briar Hill, Northampton and had this proposed development been close to our former home, we would not have really objected as we chose at that time to live in an urban area of which development is just part of the deal. Prior to our move, it would be fair to say that we had experienced a couple of years of challenging circumstances - my wife's grandfather[Redacted]and two weeks after his funeral, her mother was also diagnosed; I was also being forced from my job through workplace bullying and having come through it all, my wife and I decided to turn the corner and move on with a new chapter of our lives, that being to start a family. At the time of searching for our "forever family home", Blisworth was not within the area we were looking but back in November 2014. we viewed [redacted] and found it ticked everything we needed (or at least had the potential to) and found ourselves wondering why we'd not put Blisworth top of our search area in the first place as this community has it all and then some! Although we'd put in our offer early November, our offer was neither accepted or declined for a further 6 months - even the vendor's agents were telling us to give up and look elsewhere. We stuck it out though and finally our perseverance paid off when moved into our beautiful home. Although we have been residents in Blisworth a relatively short time compared to many, we feel very much at home here. We attend different events and enjoy our new rural lifestyle to the full, taking in country walks and Jo goes out for early morning runs which she never felt safe enough to do before. Our home occupies a unique position in the village - a corner plot with the fields to the back and side that can be viewed from 3 sides of our home - right on the edge of the village boundary. Our large garden has already attracted interest from property developers hoping to purchase our land to the side in order to build an additional house. Although we have absolutely no interest in entertaining the idea, we decided to get our property re-valued following a renovation project and in doing so, asked the agent about the value should another property be added in our side garden as had been the proposal we had received. The agent informed us that any additional building to the side of our property would de-value it considerably - it is our unique position and rural outlooks, along with the spacious gardens on three sides that make our property worth more than others in the same street. Rail Central's proposal of building on 250 hectares of rural farmland will therefore directly de-value our home and damage beyond repair one of the main factors that made us wait so long for our dream home... we want to raise children in a safe community and for them to experience a true rural upbringing. Rail Central will damage the rural views that attracted us to buy our home, de-value our home, cause light and noise pollution, destroy the rural walks my wife and I enjoy taking regularly over these fields, damage the environment and the heritage of both Blisworth and the beautiful surrounding villages and in doing so, the quality of rural life we had specifically chosen to live when we moved from our urban home to the village, will be gone forever! Additionally, as the residents of the first property as traffic enters the village, we notice that on the days there are problems on the M1 or A5, there is a significant increase in traffic using the village as a cut-through. This is already a busy road, being the main route through the village that links Roade and Milton Keynes, Towcester and Northampton. Much of the traffic that comes alongside our home exceeds the speed limit as drivers use the point of entering the village 30mph zone to further up Courteenhall Road where cars are parked on the street as a stretch of road that can be driven at speed and only reduce it when they reach the parked car obstacles. Increasing the traffic further is going to be unsafe as well as not in keeping with a rural setting. Rail Central's belief that there will not be an increase of lorries and other traffic is misguided. Blisworth already suffers increases of traffic at peak times with commuter traffic - add this to round the clock lorries and all the new workers created by vast increases of Rail Central employment, the traffic will be intolerable. As villagers, we know how congested it also becomes right outside the primary school on the tight bend - cars can scarcely pass and when the bus is en-route, traffic actually has to stop. Imagine if there was the inevitable increase in commuter traffic and lorries!! Our children would not be able to safely walk to school, even though we are 10 minutes walk away, not just because of dangers from traffic but dangers from increasing the number of strangers passing through which has a direct impact on increasing the vulnerability of children. This would not be the world in which we'd imagined raising our family in a tight-knit rural village when we chose to leave our urban life behind. Any major increase in population always has the potential to increase crime and anti-social behaviour and this proposal will impact on Blisworth, voted Village of the Year, the surrounding villages and some of the best countryside in Northamptonshire. This development is simply totally unsuitable for the site proposed and will be an irreparable scar across the landscape, heritage and quality of life of everyone in the community, which no amount of extra jobs (which are not needed locally), road restrictions (how will farm workers manage their land?) or big tall hedges will ever hide. Your exhibition described how Rail Central would take measures such as using greys and greens to colour the warehouses to help reduce its visual impact and by adding screening would reduce the noise of the 24-7 activity to that similar to a quiet URBAN area during the night time when, by your own admission, the noise will be noticeable. This is the equivalent to me stating that I will park a double height American RV permanently on the edge of your own garden, leaving audible levels of noise equivalent to what you would expect from a quiet urban area playing all day and all night, every day and night, and hoping that you will not lodge a complaint if I ensure the vehicle blocking your view and disturbing your sleep is painted in the same colour as your driveway so it blends in. Really??? So how will this affect my family personally if Rail Central gets built? We have two options: stay and lose value on our home, the quality of rural life we moved here for and the security of a close-knit village community; or leave, losing both capital and selling fees on our home, losing our "forever" family home and struggling to find another property that can offer us: 1. Access to our respective jobs in Northampton and Newport Pagnell 2. Rural views to 3 sides of our home 3. A close-kit, established village community 4. A property that has scope to be converted over time to accommodate both a growing family and my increasing degeneration of mobility (our home has the potential to include a lift for a wheelchair to access all floors of the house and easy access between rooms) 5. A local primary school, shop and pub within walking distance 6. Safe for my wife and future children to walk unaccompanied in the local area 7. Gorgeous walks on our doorstep (fields, stables, woodlands and canal) 8. Heritage 9. The Good Life - gardens large enough to have chickens, vegetable plots, fruit trees and an abundance of flowers; watching the changing seasons as the farmer tends crops; chatting to dog-walkers over the hedge; being outdoors whatever the weather; being cosy around a real log fire on those chilly nights; knowing children can run around and play safely and happily outdoors, not just stuck on an X Box..... the list goes on! 10. Affordable I am not against development on appropriate sites - the new houses to the left of Briar Hill (Hunsbury Meadows), the development of Upton Park, the continued build of DIRFT in Daventry, the re-generation of brown land in Northampton town. I am, however, strongly opposed to thoughtless development on inappropriate sites - the new houses built at the expense of losing a chunk of the gorgeous Harlestone Firs and the proposed development of building a Rail Interchange consisting of 8 million square feet of warehousing, rail sidings, lorry and container parks and industrial cranes by destroying 250 hectares of farmland, the rural heritage of surrounding beautiful Northamptonshire villages, local communities and the quality of life of all those who live within its monstrous sight and sound of it. Rail Central's proposed development site is not appropriate or in keeping with the rural setting, nor does it bring anything that will enhance the many villages such a development will affect and therefore my wife and I strongly oppose this proposed development on every level. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alastair Anderson
"Rail Central development risks decimating a peaceful rural area, destroying many lives and changing the living conditions for the vast majority of neighboring village residents. The pre-application process has already caused significant unrest, upset and stress due to the lack of credible information, detail, clarity and integrity from Ashfield Land and its representatives. I have moved my family to Gayton as a direct result of the stress this situation has caused however the impact is still significant if the development progresses and I cannot express my concern strongly enough about the long term physical and psychological affect of this development. Wrong place and wrong time. Poor conduct and communication from Ashfield Land and its representatives and a complete disregard for the affect on peoples lives. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Dillon on behalf of Alex Paul Dillon
"I moved to Milton Malsor 13 years ago with my parents and I have really enjoyed living in the village. It is my hope that sometime in the future I can afford to buy a house in the village as it is the ideal place to raise a family. I really enjoy the peace and quiet and the surrounding countryside. The prospect of having Rail Central SRFI located on our door step is my worst nightmare and I strongly object to this development which is both unnecessary and definitely not wanted. The proposed development would have a seriously detrimental effect on the environment, destroying the beautiful country side between Milton Malsor and Blisworth. It would also destroy the network of local footpaths. There would be a significant increase in traffic with thousands of additional vehicle movements (22,000 per day, 6,688 being HGV’s) which in its self will increase air pollution by Nitric Oxide and other diesel particulates which would be detrimental to our health and other residents. From an operational perspective we would be subjected to noise pollution, 24/7 and light pollution from night time operations, this would be unbearable. From a planning perspective this proposal is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS). 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
Andrea Downhill
"1.I drive to and from work along the A508 each day. Rush hour is very busy and the roads are not suitable for any more traffic let alone heavy freight traffic. The recent road works in Towcester that shifted traffic onto the the A508 caused a lot of disruption and traffic chaos and demonstrated that the local road infrastructure is not suitable for such a large development. 2.A planning application by IKEA was rejected by the local planning authority for development at junction 15 on the basis that the traffic would be too great for the local roads. That would have been tiny compared to this application. 3. Northamptonshire is short of housing and has a lot of low paid warehouse job vacancies. The workforce needed for this development is not available locally and will add to the traffic burden. 4.Assuming the work force will want to move here, there will be a need for additional schools, doctors and shops as well as other support. There are no plans to accommodate this and will fall to this county to fund. The County Council is already financially inept and lacking funds for basics. This will be too much. 5.I have not seen a good reason for the development to be built in Northamptonshire. There are other better sites. 6.Given the local opposition and support from local MP proper weight should be given to the objections to the proposal and planning should not be granted."
Parish Councils
Anthony Hillier on behalf of Blisworth Parish Council Northamptonshire
"I am submitting this representation on behalf of Blisworth Parish Council who wish to be considered as an interested party. I am one of the councillors on the PC. In our written submission we will be making comments under the following headings: 1. Validity of the site in a national strategic context 2. The nature of the site in terms of history and environmental protection 3. The current nature of the habitat and agricultural use 4. Access to and capacity of the existing rail network 5. Capacity of the existing road network 6. The assessment of alternative sites 7. Issues relating to workforce and employment 8. The visual impact of the site within the locality 9. Issues relating to Pollution notably air, noise and light 10. Issues surrounding the loss of public rights of way 11. Concerns relating to flooding 12. Issues relating to the human and social impact within the community and locality"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brian Lymn
"Since adjoining Ladybridge Drive is already becoming a rat run to the M1 it is clear that heavy goods lorries will use the suburban road as a shortcut from Milton Malsor with a large increase in heavy traffic noise and pollution. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Read
"We live adjacent to the proposed development site and are writing to ask that the Planning Inspectorate refuse this planning application from Rail Central. I am a charted surveyor (MRICS) and my wife is a teacher. Herein are our comments and objections relating to this planning application: The proposed buildings will overlook our property; this will lead to a loss of privacy and will certainly impact on the peaceful enjoyment of our home and garden. Many in the village have moved here to enjoy a better quality of life, the peaceful surroundings are conducive to promoting a healthier work life balance and help with wellbeing. The stress of such an intrusive development will have a detrimental impact on individuals and families. Furthermore it will pave the way for further industrial development destroying a village that has been awarded ‘best village’. Surely, it is vital to maintain such peace and tranquillity within the village. The buildings will be visually overbearing. It is an inappropriate design for this part of Northamptonshire. Such large buildings would be totally out of keeping with the neighbouring properties, which are mainly smaller cottage style houses and single storey bungalows. Parking for workers will overflow into the village and be adjacent to our garden and home causing noise, pollution and dust at all times of the day and night. The village roads are already busy and congested; this additional concentration of traffic and roadside parking will cause traffic problems and create a safety hazard for other motorists. In Blisworth there are accounts of constant convoys of lorries in 30 mph zones, violations of the agreed HGV access routes, mud on the roads, damage to kerbs and traffic movements outside of the stipulated site delivery times. There is not suitable infrastructure in the village (that is bypassed) to cope with additional worker and freight traffic. It is anticipated that there will be over 14,000 additional vehicle movements caused by this development. At present we see significant impact on the village when the MI or the A45 are impacted by accidents, this will only be further amplified by the development. The M1 and A45 are regularly diverted traffic down the A5 or the A508 and the result is traffic including HGV’s short cutting through the village and the roads outside our house. The use of the rail line by slower freight trains will mean further trains being routed along this line outside of existing times and overnight disturbing the countryside throughout the night. The resulting light and sound pollution will additionally impact the quiet enjoyment of our property. This area of the countryside is blessed with wildlife and a canal promoting a rural community and this type of development will destroy the independence of local villages and the underlying wildlife that inhabit this community. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clare Read
"We live adjacent to the proposed development site and are writing to ask that the Planning Inspectorate refuse this planning application from Rail Central. My partner is a charted surveyor (MRICS) and I am a teacher. Herein are our comments and objections relating to this planning application: The proposed buildings will overlook our property; this will lead to a loss of privacy and will certainly impact on the peaceful enjoyment of our home and garden. Many in the village have moved here to enjoy a better quality of life, the peaceful surroundings are conducive to promoting a healthier work life balance and help with wellbeing. The stress of such an intrusive development will have a detrimental impact on individuals and families. Furthermore it will pave the way for further industrial development destroying a village that has been awarded ‘best village’. Surely, it is vital to maintain such peace and tranquillity within the village. The buildings will be visually overbearing. It is an inappropriate design for this part of Northamptonshire. Such large buildings would be totally out of keeping with the neighbouring properties, which are mainly smaller cottage style houses and single storey bungalows. Parking for workers will overflow into the village and be adjacent to our garden and home causing noise, pollution and dust at all times of the day and night. The village roads are already busy and congested; this additional concentration of traffic and roadside parking will cause traffic problems and create a safety hazard for other motorists. In Blisworth there are accounts of constant convoys of lorries in 30 mph zones, violations of the agreed HGV access routes, mud on the roads, damage to kerbs and traffic movements outside of the stipulated site delivery times. There is not suitable infrastructure in the village (that is bypassed) to cope with additional worker and freight traffic. It is anticipated that there will be over 14,000 additional vehicle movements caused by this development. At present we see significant impact on the village when the MI or the A45 are impacted by accidents, this will only be further amplified by the development. The M1 and A45 are regularly diverted traffic down the A5 or the A508 and the result is traffic including HGV’s short cutting through the village and the roads outside our house. The use of the rail line by slower freight trains will mean further trains being routed along this line outside of existing times and overnight disturbing the countryside throughout the night. The resulting light and sound pollution will additionally impact the quiet enjoyment of our property. This area of the countryside is blessed with wildlife and a canal promoting a rural community and this type of development will destroy the independence of local villages and the underlying wildlife that inhabit this community. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Colin Adams
"Destruction of rural landscape and irepairable consequences to local communities"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Crafty Yarns
"We would like to strongly object to this planning application. We are a group,who meet in Milton Malsor and we feel,that this is a spurious application with no strategic merit. There is no need for another rail freight development in an area which already has capacity for the forseable future. Our main worry is that,,if permission is granted, the site will become just another warehouse development serviced by road. Even if there is any rail,input the increased traffic will lead to increased pollution and traffic congestion, meaning that our members will have difficulty getting to,us. In Addison we notice on the plans that there is a proposed pedestrian access in Barn Lane in Milton Malsor, as well as proposals to,widen the footpaths in that area. In our opinion this is a ploy to,allow workers to,park in the village and walk the short distance to the site. This would mean that local residents and our members would have great difficulty parking anywhere in an old village with narrow streets and already limited parking."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David George Faulkner
"i have lived at my present address for more than 12 years now,and my property will be severely affected by the proposed development.As the proposed warehouses will be positioned only 50 metres away from my home. This will ruin the beautifull open countryside aspect that i have enjoyed for the last 12 years,which one of the reasons i purchased the property in the first place. The destruction of the open countryside and impact on the residents within the blisworth and milton villages of noise, light pollution huge traffic and workforce numbers that would be using this uneeded facility is totally unaceptable "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gavin Whitham
"I do not approve of the idea for Rail Central as it will significantly change for good a rural area of Northamptonshire. The Blisworth and Milton Malsor area is a rural area that should be preserved and not covered in concrete and short life steel buildings. The fields in this area still show signs of strip farming from the middle ages and should not be destroyed by a plan that may have a very limited life. The roads in this area are rural and used by cyclists and runners for vital exercise, building Rail Central will push the urban limits of Northampton outwards by several miles and will mean that cyclists and runners will no longer be able to exercise safely. Finally, as the global economy increasingly shows signs of a slow down I would question whether the Rail Central plan is actually needed. It would be a terrible shame to start this scheme and destroy the countryside for an industrial area that could lie empty for many years during a recession."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julie Fennymore
"Blisworth,Northamptonshire,about impact on a boxing day motocross race "Wild and Wooly," that has been running for 93 consecutive years on farmland on edge of Blisworth, this would no longer take place as land would be took over by rail link.It is our family yearly tradition that we have attended for years and our son is hoping to ride the race [redacted].This should not be lost as it is the longest running motocross yearly race to still continue as others have been lost in previous years.It is attended by hundreds of people and run by Northampton Motorcycle Club. This local tradition needs to continue and not be lost. There is plenty of other locations for the railway to go.just not here. Kind Regards Julie Fennymore "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katherine Freeman
"I completely object to the Rail Central development for the following reasons – The development is not needed or required, the site would offer a second SFRI just 15 miles away from a current one that may or may not be at capacity until. 2033 Increased air pollution, the increased number of vehicles that this interchange will bring to the area will cause a huge increase in air pollution. I moved my family from London to live in Roade; one of the main reasons for my move was to protect my family’s lungs. I was encouraged by the improved air quality offered in the area. This development would nullify that decision. Increased traffic pollution – studies will show that junction 15 of the M1 and the A43 are both at or over capacity in terms of the amount of traffic and HGV;s they can handle. The development of the interchange will result in in excess of 20,000 additional vehicle movements a day on the A43 and surrounding roads, which they simply cannot manage, the result will be frequent gridlocks on the small village roads in the area a situation we do not want to live in. – Another reason why I left London. Loss of 1150 acres of beautiful countryside and agricultural land. This land is so precious it must be protected for the wildlife that call it their home and for generations to enjoy for years to come. Once it’s gone its gone and we cannot get it back. Another reason I moved my family from London to Roade was to offer them more of a rural environment to grow up in. If Rail Central goes ahead I may as well have stayed in central London. The impact of this scheme on the local villages and their communities will be both huge and permanent and no amount of mitigation can change this. The activities of rail freight interchanges produce air, light and noise pollution, the effects of which CANNOT be adequately mitigated especially with two villages in such close proximity. Rail Central is contrary to the adopted West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) and in conflict with the commercial, transport and housing objectives of the whole region. A further development on this scale will result in a complete imbalance of planning objectives. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kathleen Duffy
"I am a local resident in the area and I cannot see the business need for this application and believe the building and running of this interchange would have a significant negative impact on the area that is not built to cope with major haulage traffic and I cannot see that suitable changes to the road infrastructure have been planned as part of the application. There is not sufficient business need for an interchange of this size, given that the current capacity in DIRFT is not filled and unlikely to be in the near to mid future. This does not fit with local planning strategy and object to the central planning route being used in this way."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Rogers
"I wish to object against the proposed Rail Central development by Ashfield Land/Gazeley for the following reasons: 1. The East Midlands area is already over-served by logistics parks which are not fully utilised, including the DIRFT facility which is approximately 18 miles away from the proposed development. There are already other sites under application or in progress including Northampton Gateway, Dirft 3, J16 and Brackmills, all with unused capacity. Introducing yet another such facility within this area does not meet the requirement for a network across a wide range of locations in the UK in order to be economic and effective. This is also the most congested strategic road network which already suffers regularly from delays and closures with subsequent rat running through Blisworth and other local villages, so this development will overload the road network and exacerbate this problem. The information put forward suggests that, at best, there would be a marginal shift from road to rail; this, added to all the ‘final mile’ movements which will be made by road, will only serve to make the transport problems worse, not better and therefore not meet policy requirements. 2. The low unemployment rates in the immediate area and wider Northamptonshire population, means that the roles created will be filled by people migrating from other roles both from the wider Northamptonshire area and beyond, such as Milton Keynes and Coventry, therefore bringing no employment benefit to the local area at either the construction or operational phase and does not meet the requirement for there to be an available and economic workforce. With the majority of roles created likely to be unskilled or semi-skilled, this also creates an over reliance on warehouse work, rather than a diverse skill set, which will not contribute to the growth of the area. This level of in-commuting will significantly add to the amount of traffic on the local road network. From my experience within Human Resources in the logistics field, I am aware there is a recognised shortage of warehouse and LGV drivers meaning that existing logistics employers already struggle to fill existing vacancies, particularly at peak times. 3. The size and location of the proposed development will devastate the local environment which no amount of bunding or landscaping can mitigate, given that it would be sited between local conservation areas and built within 50 metres of the closest housing. As well as the obvious visual impact, there is the noise and light pollution arising from warehouses operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, as well as the carbon emissions from the operation of the site and significant number of additional vehicle movements in the area, which will all be new. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Gyori
"I am a local resident in the area and I cannot see the business need for this application and believe the building and running of this interchange would have a significant negative impact on the area that is not built to cope with major haulage traffic and I cannot see that suitable changes to the road infrastructure have been planned as part of the application. There is not sufficient business need for an interchange of this size, given that the current capacity in DIRFT is not filled and unlikely to be in the near to mid future. This does not fit with local planning strategy and object to the central planning route being used in this way."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Miss Baljender Deed
"This is too disruptive to the way of life and local community with another facility at Daventry available. My property backs onto the Northampton to London line so is busy enough with both passenger and freight trains at all time of the night and day - I don't want to ingest any further pollution or increase the level of noise pollution as I moved to get away from it. The consideration should be for preserving the local culture, wildlife which has no place else to go, and of quality of life over commercial consideration. Go build it in Milton Keynes instead where there is land to be developed along with freight needs to regenerate areas like Bletchley or Fenny Stratford or Wolverton instead of destroying the local community. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Paul Mcgregor
"I object to this development for the following reasons : LOCATION : I question the developer's claim that the proposed site is of strategic importance. The DIRFT terminal is 15 miles away, is expanding, has substantial capacity for the future and benefits from direct links to the A5 and motorway network. The interconnectivity of the site is questionable. There can be no benefit in terms of rail freight capacity by a link to the Northampton branch line which has limited capacity and does not serve any location of strategic importance. Only a small amount of the proposed development can be served by the rail link. The majority of traffic would be road based. The proposal would therefore appear to be a purely commercial one rather than a strategic one. There is capacity for commercial property development elsewhere within structure plans. LOSS OF AMENITY AND RURAL ENVIRONMENT. As a keen walker I regularly walk the footpaths and byways between Blisworth , Collingtree, Gayton and Milton Malsor. The development would cause loss of agricultural land, rural amenity and wildlife. The visual impact would be severe and detrimental. This area with nearby canals forms an important amenity for residents of surrounding villages and the expanding population of Northampton. The M1 is an established boundary between Northampton and rural areas to the south and west that should be maintained. TRAFFIC The local road network is congested. This problem will be compounded since the development appears to be mostly for road based logistics. The road junctions connecting Blisworth and Tiffield to the A43 are already dangerous. Any increase in traffic at these points would be unacceptable. Any permitted development should include planning benefit to the community in the form of highway routes relieving the villages of Milton Malsor and Blisworth of commuter and commercial traffic and provide safe junctions with the A43 . HGVs awaiting access to warehouses or taking statutory rest periods will need to ‘park up’. The proposals do not appear to provide for this. HGVs will inevitably be forced to use surrounding roads. Existing lay-bys on the A43 are already overused particularly at night. NOISE There exists considerable background noise pollution from the A43, M1, the main WCL and branch line. Parked HGVs and slow freight trains at night are particularly intrusive. Activities associated with the development are likely to cause unacceptable additional noise pollution. LIGHT POLLUTION The unavoidable increased level of light pollution from the development will be detrimental to residents and wildlife AIR QUALITY The energy requirements and vehicle usage associated with such a development can only have a detrimental effect on air quality in the area. SUMMARY There is no justification for such a development in this rural location. The proposed development could have a detrimental impact on my safety, quality of life and possibly health and equally that of other residents within surrounding villages, outlying farms and homes. The development is likely to cause environmental damage and unacceptable loss of rural amenity. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Jean Packham
"I would like to voice my very serious concerns over the future of my property and my own personal well-being. [redacted] has been my home for over 25 years and is surrounded on all sides by open country side and farmland with unspoilt views. In the distance I can see the A43 and small industrial units in close proximity to Elite Caravans but experience no noise or inconvenience from either. The building of the warehouse park in this location would make my life hell with the obliteration of rural views on all sides and the increased noise and light levels 24 hour per day, every day. The elevated position of my property would exacerbate these detrimental factors and the close proximity to the proposed underpass (estimated usage of around 15,000 vehicles per day) and bus station would be unbearable. Not to mention the increased air pollution and potential 10 to 15 year build period with its associated construction noise. I am not a good sleeper and the increased light and noise causes me concerns over my health. The proposed tree planting (on one side only) would do little to hide the massive warehouses and would take many years to grow; years that I do not have. I would also mention the upset to wildlife around my property. I know there are bats, owls, foxes, badgers, rabbits and native birds in and around my garden and each year Swallows visit and nest in my stables which would be only metres away from a 20 metre high warehouse. All of this is a big upset and worry for me as I am not a young or middle aged person and without my friends and family to help support me through the last 3 years I do not know what I would have done. I have lived here for the past 25 years and want to stay in my home for the foreseeable future. With what is proposed I cannot see how I would be able to do this. All the plans and changes to plans are causing me great stress at a time when I really just want to be left alone to live out my remaining years in peace. I am also very concerned that if this development goes ahead it will drastically reduce the value of my property. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Olivier Bernard
"My main concerns for this project is as follow: 1) The local road network is already far too congested to accommodate this project and I am very worried about the impact on additional traffic and heavy vehicles going through my village and Local community. 2) I do not see any economic benefit to the the surrounding villages for this development. 3) I do not understand and agree that a second SRFI should be place withing 20 miles of an existing one...It would be like placing Stansted 20 miles away from Heathrow...does not make sense from an economical or strategycal national transport point of view."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter R Child
"I wish to make my unreserved objection to the proposed Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange) based on the vast acreage of land to be taken up between Milton Malsor and Bliswoth with vast warehousing complexes operating on a 24/7 basis. The sheer volume of HGV vehicle congregating along the A5076 and A5123 is guaranteed to snare up the intersect at Hunsbury Meadow causing a breakdown in traffic flow throughout the day and night. When Travis Perkins applied to build a warehouse depot at Hunsbury Meadow it was suggested that the traffic volume there may havre impacted on traffic flow. However the planning department dismissed this stating that it would like breakdown should there be additional increased traffic movements from additional developments. Well it is clear that the Rail central proposed dwarfs the TP proposal. Further more. The sheer volume of air pollution that would be generated would not only impact on the two main villages, it would have major impact on air quality throughout the region. NCC has already identified the high levels of pollution throughout the county. This will takes over over the top. There is also the overwhelming impact to social and domestic life which will have fare reaching effects through negative house prices. Breakdowns in social welfare and community relations. Living in West Hunsbury we know how noise, congestion and pollution will whittle away at the environmental advantages of living on the rural edge of town. Vehicles will never stick to a designated route therefore when motorways are congested all major arterial roads around Northampton will be blockaded by lumbering HGVs all seeking alternative routs to the depot. Once again causing a blight on an otherwise idealic countryside. In no way should this ill planned project be accepted. These people are speculators gambling with peoples lives and futures. To blatantly tell people at the first of the consultation meeting that if needed their houses would be compulsory purchased is just absurd arrogance considering they had no mandate from the government to even be looking at this proposal. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roy French
"The proposed development will be next to an Air Quality Management area and exacerbate an already existing problem. A tributary of the already over loaded Wootton Brook runs through the proposed site under the motorway via a culvert creating an aflux which floods the area regularly. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Ash
"I object to the Rail Freight Terminal and warehouses being proposed by Rail Central. Whilst not living in the area we are regular visitors as we have a number of friends who would be effected by this development. We enjoy the countryside and canalside walks that we can do and most of these would be devastated if these warehouses were to be built. The views would be ruined and there would be noise from the trains and the traffic as well as air pollution from all the diesel cars and trucks. As farmers we also understand the value of agricultural land in producing the food that this country needs. We already have to import much of our food and every acre of land taken out of production means even more imported food. As the world population increases food will become more and more expensive to import which will have an adverse impact on the UK economy. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Viney
"Absolutely shocking the traffic around northampton is a nightmare why on earth would you want to make it so much worse when the deal is done you can not go back why blight peoples lives with this rubbish. I am trying to moderate my language here but i am so incensed please dont let this happen "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Valerie Reeve
"I object to this proposal for the following reasons: 1. Increased traffic through our quiet village. 2. Destruction of hundreds of acres of local countryside 3. Noise from the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal - this will be right behind my house. I bought my house here because it was a quiet village! 4. Increased air pollution from the massive numbers of extra cars and HGVs 5. Destruction of the habitat of local wildlife. 6. The proposed 'No right turn' at the junction of Courteenhall Road and the A508. This will cause additional traffic through the village of Blisworth."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Vera Vincent
"I strongly disagree with this Rail Central Project going ahead. DIRFT is 18 miles from here and has all the required infrastructure to operate and is not yet at capacity and so firstly 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. A strategic road rail link does not use a local branch line. 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. The only winners will be the developers. The building phase will also be very disruptive to our communities. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
F Stuart C Manson
"I and my wife, [REDACTED], have lived in Milton Malsor for over 45 years. Our daughters attended the [REDACTED] and local secondary schooland 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 the Rail Central proposal was to proceed. WE STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED RAIL CENTRAL STRATEGIC RAIL FREIGHT INTERCHANGE. In particular, our concerns and main points of objection are as follows:- Planning Policy The proposal is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS, formally adopted in December 2014 and 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 we cannot believe that any mitigation will reduce the noise and vibration - from increased train paths, braking, accelerating and shunting, together with that from HGVs and fixed and mobile machinery at all hours of the day and night - to acceptable levels. Air Quality My wife suffers from [REDACTED] and her health and enjoyment of life will be seriously impacted by reduced air quality. Lighting Considering our southerly aspect and proximity to the site, we are very concerned at the prospect of light pollution at night. Ecology/Ornithology The destruction of huge areas of bird and wildlife habitats gives great concern. Many birds are increasingly rare and/or endangered and the loss of eg nightingale song - heard for many decades - would be a tragedy and amount to nothing less than emotional deprivation. Landscape and Visual The destruction of a vast area of natural and unspoilt countryside is appalling and the scale and size of buildings and machinery cannot be adequately screened. Highways We are convinced the development would greatly increase traffic, including on minor roads in and around local villages, increasing congestion and accident risk. General I enjoy cycling but the increased traffic, congestion and accident risk would seriously and adversely impact my enjoyment of this healthy leisure activity. I enjoy country walking but the loss and diversion of the footpaths would effectively destroy them. The proposals would result in the locality becoming more urban/industrial in character, with higher crime rates - as evidenced at Daventry (DIRFT) - and eg increased home insurance costs. Property values in the immediate area would be adversely affected. It is of huge concern that there appear to be no guarantees that, IF the development is consented, the rail connection will be operational and used for a significant portion of goods movement. We have real concern the development could be a predominantly road distribution depot in disguise. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jenny McGee
"I wish to object to the plans as below: The local road network is already congested and cannot be improved sufficiently to mitigate the impact. The main access road is already very busy and for a scheme of this size, the pressure it would put on the local roads would be completely unacceptable. The impact of this scheme on my community in West Hunsbury and surrounding villages will be both huge and permanent and no amount of mitigation can change this. The activities of rail freight interchanges produce air, light and noise pollution, the effects of which CANNOT be adequately mitigated especially with two villages in such close proximity. We can hear the noise pollution from the M1 motorway and this scheme would inevitably create more local pollution. We have a young family that enjoy the open parkland nearby and it worries me a scheme such as this will create more air pollution and destroy the local communities and landscape. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Judith Chambers
"I wish to object to this planned development in the strongest possible terms on the following grounds: 1 It is not needed. The DIRFT terminal is only 15 miles away and is not used anywhere near to capacity. Large areas of warehousing are standing empty. To the south is another storage facility. This is just not needed. 2 It will destroy the three thriving communities of Blisworth, Milton Malser and Blisworth Arm, who will be lose their rural status. No one will wish to live there with huge warehouses dominating and in some cases destroying their homes. 3 It will remove large areas of Northamptonshire farmland and natural habitat and will destroy the ecological diversity currently connected to the area. 4 It is being developed on the basis of profit and not need - to sell on to the highest bidder by people who have been buying up areas of land in the locality for some years. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lara Selmassi
"I am a relatively recently arrived resident of Blisworth. We've been here 18 months. We bought a house bordering the Grand Union Canal, as we used to live on the A508 in Roade, didn't want to leave Roade, but could only find an affordable available house to buy in.Blisworth, and such a different and quiet location attracted us enough to move villages. We have 2 children remaining in [REDACTED]. If you're not local, and not familiar with this area, I need to tell you that the A508 gets gridlocked when there are problems with the M1 nearby. If you know your stuff, you will be aware that there have been many accidents along the 508/London Road, on the bends. Serious traffic calming measures are needed. There have also been accidents on the Courteenhall Road between the 508 & Blisworth. Further traffic locally will only exacerbate an already lethal situation. Blisworth & surrounding villages are a big pull for tourists and new residents who are looking for tranquillity, history, natural beauty & village life, and to bring their children up in a safe environment, away from heavy traffic & industry and all the pollution & disruption that's associated with it. The land owners wishing to make a speculative profit off this land will, I'm sure, be able to retreat to their own bit of tranquillity elsewhere, leaving behind pollution, increased traffic problems, disrupted communities, compulsory purchases from elderly residents, who will be at risk of health problems or dying if they're moved out. Coming from south Wales, and knowing how badly people need employment there, I thought that local people would be desperate for work. However, I'm assured that this is an area of high employment, and that workers would very likely be bussed in from elsewhere, rather than this providing employment for locals. I'm also assured that there are opportunities elsewhere within Northamptonshire, eg Daventry for warehousing & rail link, and that from a logistics point of view, the land between Milton Malsor and Blisworth is not ideal. As a speculative sale & build, it would be against basic human rights to allow residents to be forced to leave their homes, compulsory purchased, disrupt settled communities for nothing, for no guarantee of the massive warehouses being used, for no knowledge of what they will be used for, and what long term impact it will have on the area. I have to obtain planning permission for the smallest of adjustments to my home. 3 people might object to an extension. In this case, I understand thousands are objecting to this. The UK are supposed to be reducing air pollution. This build will not comply with such regulations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lisa Mylett
"My children attend [Redacted] and at the moment we drive through Milton Malsor to get to school 5 days a week. I am also an active member of the PTA at the school and I feel if it goes ahead I will have to move schools for my children’s sake. The journey will not be straight forward and would cause unnecessary delays in getting them to school. My children love the school and would be very upset if they had to move. Blisworth would not get any children from around the Hunsbury area if this was to go ahead. It will be deemed too far away and not in the catchment area anymore. Without these pupils the school would not thrive and go into decline. It would be a blight on the countryside and as we already have something similar in the area, why is it needed? The surrounding A43 is already congested along with the A5, having rail central here is going to cause more problems to an already crowded area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Norman F Bonham
"1/ The entire development would be an environmental disaster for the residents of Milton Malsor and Blisworth, in terms of noise, air pollution, increase in traffic, and visual amenity. 2/ There would be no separation possible between the Rail Central road traffic and that operating otherwise around Northampton, which would consequently suffer. The whole Project is too close to the town. 3/ As a frequent rail traveller I am already aware of delays caused to the very busy London to Northampton passenger service by the insertion of freightliners which cause delays at any point between Wembley and N'pton. At present, though, they are not actually stopping south of N'pton. But the northbound freighters would be having to slow down cautiously on a 1-in-200 descent to enter the depot, which must impact on the passenger service. Equally, trains pulling away from the depot would place an extra burden on line occupation. For most of the day, access from the high-speed WCML would be almost impossible due to line speeds. 4/ Further to above scenario, I foresee a safety issue in terms of the risk of less well maintained freight consists becoming derailed on the crossings, which is not uncommon with heavy freight trains, and often severe in effect. In 2000 N'pton lost its passenger service for weeks following a derailment blockage of this section between Roade and N'pton. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr PRW Jaynes
"I strongly object to this proposal for the following reasons: -there is already a concentration of Rail Freight Interchanges in this region with projected spare capacity.Post Brexit the national interest is best served by greater distribution across the country,the rationale behind HS2 and the Northern Powerhouse policy. -the limited rail capacity growth should be retained for passenger use to support house building proposals and the already crowded commuter routes. -this area has low unemployment and the job growth would be better utilised elsewhere -the environmental and pollution damage would be extreme and the impact upon the already congested road traffic situation unsustainable with regional economic damage. -the area is too small for the proposal and is historically sensitive.The proposal rides roughshod over the Conservation Area status of much of the site and has little regard for the protection such status should offer. -the developer has proved untrustworthy viz poor consultation process,exclusion of properties from maps,bullying of property owners in the proposed site etc. and appears to be using the Strategic RFI policy to ignore legitimate local planning concerns. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicola Richards
"I am completely opposed to this development. More than 1100 acres of beautiful fields and countryside will be obliterated by a huge monstrosity. Planting some new hedges and natural screenings (as suggested by Ashfield) will not compensate for this. Already the major roads in this area (M1, A45, A508 and A43 to name some), are under huge strain. As soon as there is an incident on one of these roads, the others are gridlocked. Unemployment figures in the area are low, so the jobs will be filled by people driving in from outside the area - again adding to the number of vehicles on the road. The developers have admitted that even though rail transport is available and, indeed that is one of their key points of this development (used in order to bypass the local planning authority who, incidentally, are against it), none of the companies occupying the units in the development will be required to actually use the railway - they just have to have the capacity to do so. Air pollution would be increased, thus negating one of the many positive aspects of living in a rural village such as Blisworth and Milton Malsor."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Luker
"Rail Central is contrary to the adopted West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) and in conflict with the commercial, transport and housing objectives of the whole region. A further development on this scale will result in a complete imbalance of planning objectives. Rail Central have overstated the strategic location and interconnectivity of this particular site:- 1) The local road network is already far too congested to accommodate this scheme and cannot be improved sufficiently to mitigate the impact. The main access road is already overstressed and a secondary route through a small village is untenable (The scheme relies on utilising the existing road between Milton Malsor and Blisworth as its only other alternative road: this is completely unacceptable for a scheme of this size (7.5m sq ft.), which would normally require a second connection to a major trunk road) 2) The Northampton loop line unlikely to have the capacity for additional freight when DIRFT 3 is running at capacity. Rail Central’s claim that both the Northampton loop and the WCML lines will be available are unfounded as WCML is highly unlikely to accommodate slower freight trains throughout the day. Northampton Highways Authority and the Northampton Rail Users Group have expressed concern that if either Application were to be approved this could result in a reduction in passenger rail services from Northampton. Road congestion will worsen rather than improve with the terminal being a mostly road based logistics park (over half the site cannot be served by rail due to its bisection by the Northampton to Towcester Road).  Rail Central would result in in excess of 20,000 additional vehicle movements a day on the A43 and surrounding roads. This would be in addition to the 16,500 extra daily vehicle movements that would result from Northampton Gateway. Both would be operating 24 hours a day. To put this into context, over 16,000 vehicles currently use the A508 every day. This would inevitably create more local air pollution, especially in the two Air Quality Management Areas (between J15 and J16 and on the A45 near Wootton). The impact of this scheme on the local villages and their communities will be both huge and permanent and no amount of mitigation can change this. The activities of rail freight interchanges produce air, light and noise pollution, the effects of which CANNOT be adequately mitigated especially with two villages in such close proximity The economic landscape is such that there is currently no incentive for commercial organisations to switch from road to rail. Given the relatively short distances involved and without Government subsidy the required modal shift will not occur (There is no requirement for SRFIs, once constructed, to actually accept any freight by rail: they merely have to have the capacity to do so. This is the loophole currently being exploited by Developers) As a consequence of the above the carbon objectives of this proposal will never be met (at least within any realistic timescale). Rail Central’s claim of “Sustainability” has been challenged Rail Central is only the start. Granting of permission for this development will inevitably lead to further applications for housing and associated amenities leading to further unwanted development and loss of precious countryside and rural communities. Over 1150 acres of agricultural land would be covered in concrete by these two developments.  The M1 has been a natural barrier to development spilling over into the rural areas of South Northamptonshire. Rail Central would overwhelm Milton Malsor. The demand for unplanned housing would rise resulting in development spreading to other areas, especially along the A508. People will lose their houses, homes and community."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rob Tee
"I do not believe this will be a good result for Northamptonshire as itll mean more lorries through our villages and loss of wildlife and a sense of village life will be lost especially in Blisworth."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ruth Steventon
"Milton Malsor has a great deal of elderly and unwell people whom have been placed in Milton Malsor because of their conditions. The extra traffic will stop people who need to get to their doctors either in town or Blisworth will be held up. You are proposing a lot of extra bodies in a concentrated area. This will mean more call for local housing which will change the whole aspect of a quiet village with elderly slower lifestyles. I believe if this project goes forward you will have considerable problems with roads, residents accommodation and pollution. There may even be compulsory purchase which can kill village life. I am completely against this project. My friends who live in Milton Malsor whom I visit frequently will be less easy to get to purely from the extra traffic alone. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sam King
"This will only destroy two lovely rural villages and create traffic mayhem for everybody living there. The idea it will take traffic off the roads is a total red herring, the railhead will only be used 4 times a week - if that. The midlands does not need this facility, there is plenty of capacity elsewhere eg Crick. Do not let corporate greed ruin the lives of thousands and the history of these two great villages. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Dyes
"As a person living just off the M1 / A508 / A43 interchanges I feel that the impact to the local road network work which is already experiencing overload will be worsened significantly thereby increasing the air pollution - something the move to rail is supposed to improve. The fact that the Daventry road interchanges are better suited for this level of traffic does not appear to have been addressed. In addition, the land take of green field sites is disproportionate to that which is expected to be redeveloped brown field sites. It appears that all developers are looking to make easy money from green field sites at the detriment to the local habitats and fauna. In particular the local ancient drovers roads and footpaths relating to Blisworth hill will be cut off from those living on the Northampton side of the M1. I am not in favour of the visual pollution of acres of warehousing and the loss of trees and hedgerows."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tom McGee
"I wish to object to the plans as below: The local road network is already congested and cannot be improved sufficiently to mitigate the impact. The main access road is already very busy and for a scheme of this size, the pressure it would put on the local roads would be completely unacceptable. The impact of this scheme on my community in West Hunsbury and surrounding villages will be both huge and permanent and no amount of mitigation can change this. The activities of rail freight interchanges produce air, light and noise pollution, the effects of which CANNOT be adequately mitigated especially with two villages in such close proximity. We can hear the noise pollution from the M1 motorway and this scheme would inevitably create more local pollution. We have a young family that enjoy the open parkland nearby and it worries me a scheme such as this will create more air pollution. I attend the Wild and Woolly event with my 2 sons each year which I have also supported for many years. A scheme such as this will destroy the surrounding landscape and local communities. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Hargreaves
"I object to this proposal and have several concerns about the impact it will have on our already congested roads,the potential of the land between two rural villages being turned into a building site for years to come and the lifetime legacy the final scheme will bring,health impacts from toxic emissions created by the tens of thousands of extra daily vehicle movements which this scheme may create.The loss of acres of natural agricultural land and veteran trees which exist on the land in question.I do not believe that this scheme provides any benefits which would out weigh the totally adverse effects this proposal would actually create."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Featherstone
"I strongly object to this application. The views and village atmosphere will be completely destroyed for the local villages."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anna Bignell
"1. The proposal to build a rail freight interchange in this location is not required by the Government as part of strategic planning. 2. It is unnecessary in this location given the proximity of the rail freight terminal at Rugby which is not fully and has never been fully utilised. 3. The proposal will devastate the countryside, filling in areas of farm and conversation between villages with huge buildings that will blight the landscape for all future generations, for our children to be able to walk or ride across these fields as they can at present, to be able to walk from one village to another using existing paths and bridleways. 4. The proposal only works by bringing huge numbers of lorries and commuters transportation into this environment, along with the associated air pollution, light pollution and ground pollution. Whilst proposals may be made that appear to mitigate these issues, it must be acknowledged that there is not this pollution at present in this area. 5. The proposal brings few low paid jobs to the people who will have to live with and next to the terminal. 6. This is a poor proposal, in the wrong locations, for the wrong reasons."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham F. Sturman
"Over the past months I have received mailshots from Rail Central and its associates concerning their proposals to establish a Road/Rail Freight interchange in the area between Milton Malsor and Blisworth. My concerns over these proposals are set out betow under the headings of Need, Rail and Road Infrastructure, and Environmental issues. Need - with the existence of the established DIRFT site, only approx 20 miles to the Northwest of the proposed development, there seems to be little justification for this proposal. There is currently a major expansion to the DIRFT site underway, on land between the A5T and M1 motorway, which will significantly increase capacity into the future. Incidentally, DIRFT is rail-served from the Northampton loop off the West Coast Main Line, the same route with which connection is proposed under the Rail Central proposals. (See also comments below under "Rail Infrastructure"). Rail Infrastructure - The proposal refers to rail connections to both the Northampton loop and to the West Coast Main Line. I believe there to be major concerns here - The Northampton loop already serves to provide rail freight access to and from DIRFT, as well as carry other freight and passenger traffic -in addition it serves as an alternative route when engineering possessions occur on the West Coast Main Line (WCML). Maintaining sufficient paths to accommodate further traffic off the proposed Rail Central site is likely to cause severe congestion to the surrounding rail network. The proposal to effect an "Express Connection" directly to the West Coast Main Line seems even more impractical, given the density of existing High Speed Passenger services on both up and down lines. Connectiions to the Northampton Loop and the WCML, both of which are only twin-track, would necissitate installation of double crossovers on both routes, leading to significant interference with services already using these routes. Regarding the proposed connection to the WCML, there is also a civil engineering issue - much of the route of the WCML alongside the proposed development site is significantly elevated above the surrounding land, and thus a connection would be either unfeasible or requiring steep gradients on the access tracks. Slow-moving freight trains leaving the site would therefore interfere even more with high-speed WCML traffic. Road Infrastructure - The Rail Central mailshots that I, and my neighbours, have received (presumably because we live close to Dane's Camp Way) contain some details of proposed changes to the major road junctions in our vicinity, as well as to J 15A on the M1 Motorway. It is assumed that these proposed changes would seek to ease congestion resulting from the increase in road freight traffic associated with the Rail Central project. Being a long-term resident of the Northampton area, it is my opinion that the proposed road junction "improvements" are largely cosmetic and therefore unlikely to give the hoped-for results - the main highways already become badly congested at peak periods, and changes such as minor increases in lane widths at junctions will not offer significant improvement. An additional factor is that when major incidents on the M1 motorway result in its full or partial closure, the available alternative routes involve the same road network peviously referred to, often resulting in major congestion and gridlock, sometimes for hours. Environment - I have a major concern regarding the consequences of run-off of precipitation falling on large areas of impermeable surface (Roof structures, roadways and hardstanding/parking areas). The topography of the area affected by these proposals means that run-off will first go into the Milton Brook, and then in turn into the Wooton Brook, before entering the River Nene in the vicinity of the Pineham/Swan Valley developments. Much of this course is through what is, or has been, flood plain. There are already concerns re flooding around Wooton Brook, and if major flood events occur in future, even without the extra runoff from the Rail Central site, there is likley to be risk of flood damage to both domestic and commercial premises. An additional concern relates to air pollution. It is certain that the prime movers of both rail and road vehicles will be diesel powered, with significant increse in atmospheric pollution, from both gaseous and particulate emmissions. Such a significant concentration of these pollutants will result in the risk of increased exposure to those already residing in the affected area. In summary, then, based on the issues outlined above, I believe the Rail Central proposals to be ill-conceived, unneccesary, based on a poor understanding of many of the practical considerations, and motivated more by the attraction of commercial gains than by the needs of the community at large. G.F. Sturman C.Eng., M.I.Mech.E. (Retd.)"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ivan Good
"I strongly object to this proposal. I lived in Milton Malsor for many years and now return regularly to visit old friends and enjoy the beauty and tranquillity of this lovely rural village and neighbouring Blisworth which would be completely destroyed by a rail freight interchange with 24-hour operations, excessive lorry movements and inherent noise, light and air pollution. I strongly object to this proposal in that entry to/exit from the M1 motorway at junction 15 is already heavily congested for many hours of the day and the increase in lorry movements involving the A5, A43 and M1 would certainly reduce the quality of life in Milton Malsor, Blisworth and neighbouring villages to an unacceptable level. I strongly object to this proposal as it is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy formally adopted in 2014 which 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 additional rail freight interchange so close to DIRFT, off junction 18 of the M1 motorway, which itself is set to double in size over the next 10 years. I strongly object to this proposal which on available evidence fails to report on any proper community impact study or environmental risk assessment. I believe that independent professional reports of this nature would reject the proposed development out of hand. Finally I strongly object to this proposal on simple humanitarian grounds. The expansion of Northampton town over the last 40 years has swallowed up/spoilt too many surrounding villages already. There is no need for this developer led proposal. I believe the thriving village communities of Milton Malsor and Blisworth deserve to be left in peace, providing a rural escape for urbanised townsfolk right on their doorstep. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Bramley-Brown
"I OBJECT TO DESECRATING GREEN BELT FARMLAND FOR THIS PROJECT WHEN THERE IS LAND STILL AVAILABLE AT THE ORIGINAL DIRFT WHICH IS NOT FARMLAND. also, THE EXPANSION OF THE ORIGINAL DIRFT IS BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, AND IS ANOTHER IRFT REALLY NECESSARY ESPECIALLY AS A NEW ONE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION NEAR CASTLE DONNINGTON."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joseph Wroczynski
"I strongly object to the proposed Rail freight Terminal which will have a severe detrimental impact on the local environment and general wellbeing of local residence. An industrial project on this scale will have severe air and noise pollution which will impact the health of all the surrounding villages. Exhaust from transiting and idling lorry’s means there will be a persistent source of dangerous Nitric Oxide and Diesel particulates. We are a young couple seeking to start a family in this area. The building of a rail freight terminal will mean leaving our home in order to ensure we are able to raise a young child in a safe environment conducive to developmental health. The harm caused by Diesel Particulates is a national issue and the volume of traffic, up to 22,000 a day, is of extreme concern to me and my family. Such an action will make life unbearable and virtually impossible to raise a family. I moved to this area because of the safe environment it offered, and building an industrial complex between two lovely villages in beautiful countryside will impact, in an extremely negative way, every resident’s way of life and long-term health. Additionally, the proposal is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy and presents a redundant capability with the Daventry international rail freight terminal nearby and which is slated for expansion. I strongly object to this proposal which threatens people’s health and wellbeing in every possible way. I call for the government to reject this proposal. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Malcolm Platt
"I am a resident of Blisworth, in close proximity to the canal, and therefore the boundary of the Rail Central proposal. There are multiple practical, amenity and , frankly, emotional reasons why this proposal should not go ahead. I will start with the practical reasons and work down..... 1. The Northants area is overwhelmed with warehousing facilities because of it's centrality. I do not know the capacity utilisation of the storage which has been assembled on the premise of build-it-and-business-will-come, but I suspect it is lower than in the associated historical proposals. Why do we want to despoil the countryside with yet more of these monstrous structures on a speculative basis ? 2. The road network around Blisworth and Collingtree - A45, A43, A5 - is already congested, frequently with inappropriate vehicles for the roads and villages. Adding an incremental 20-30% heavy vehicles and additional travelling employees will bring chaos. 3. I have no idea of the capacity utilisation of the proposed rail route to be used by the proposed freighting ; I assume this has been adequately covered by the proposal without unduly optimistic assumptions. 4. As I understand it, Northampton has low unemployment . and staffing of the proposed warehouses will be from outlying districts - causing more traffic and more pressure on the existing housing inventory in an area with one of the highest rates of house price inflation in the country. 5. I can understand in principle the strategic logic of an RFI. But at what point is saturation coverage reached in a single geography ? Is every part of the countryside in Northants to be a desolate wasteland of warehouses and it's surrounding infrastructure ? And what happens when they fall into disuse, which they will eventually. Who will reassemble the lives and environment ? 6. Effect on amenities : a large number of people in this area have had their lives blighted to date by a particularly aggressive and unpleasant group of staff associated with RC, whose position has largely been that this is a done deal and resistance is pointless. Why on earth would RC not make a proposal elsewhere which does not so adversely impact the lives of so many ? This is not a life-changing economic enhancement for the country ; it is an opportunistic grab for profit at the expense of local people, and no-one except RC would suffer consequences from it's demise. 7. Proposers assumptions : it would be interesting to know the extent to which previous RFI proposals have met their targets and promises in seeking to gain acceptance from planning authorities. I am very well versed in the review of major capital projects - much larger than this one - and it is endemic in these proposals that very few are better than 50 / 50...i.e. they have as much chance of being wrong as right. And in the context of peoples lives and everything else that is at stake this is not good enough. In terms of an overall cost / benefit assessment, this proposal makes no sense. It damages local amenities ( countryside, roads, environmental ) beyond repair following a period of massive disruption, adds an increment of warehousing that is likely entirely unnecessary in an area which is becoming submerged in these facilities, has no employment benefits unless staff are bussed in from a distance, and is just plain wrong. I know of no-one in the Northampton area who believes this is a good idea. When do we stop the destruction of green-field sites ? And in this case, for what ? Malcolm Platt"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Bradley M.B.E
"I would like to register my objection to this proposed development. This development is totally inappropriate for the area. The size of the development, its proximity to two rural communities and the amount of rural landscape destruction make it in every way imaginable wrong. The nearby DIRFT Terminal at Daventry will not be completed until 2020. There is ample land at that location to expand without blighting local communities. Northamptonshire's historic and beautiful landscape is rapidly disappearing under acres and acres of warehouse developments. How many more does the Country really need? The destruction of the rural landscape, the blight to local communities with years of construction and increased heavy traffic flow, make this a wholly inappropriate development proposal."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Holton
"I would challenge the strategic element of the application due to the close proximity of a rail port at Dirft which is expanding and the application of a second similar development in the immediate area. The latter needs to be taken into account with this application. The impact of light pollution,rail and traffic noise and emissions on the villages in the immediate vicinity will be significant affecting the quality of life. The roads through the villages of Blisworth and Milton M. are already congested at rush hour on a daily basis and frequently gridlocked by frequent incidents on the M1 A43 A5 A508. the estimated increase in traffic volumes will exponentially increase these. The introduction of a smart section of motorway has not seen a tangible reduction in accidents and closures. The work force requirements, (which I challenge as being under egged at the first consultation it was 11000 at the second it was 8000)will mean that workers will need to travel from as far afield as Coventry. (According to one of the directors at a consultation) Adding to vehicle pollution and road congestion. At shift change there will be double the numbers of employees on site for the overlap and the parking shown is inadequate to handle this. There is not an employment issue in the South Northants region. It appears when leaving the EU there will be a lack of labour from Eastern Europe upon which the logistics industry is heavily reliant. I have tried to find out the spare capacity of the current rail line from the directors of the proposal with out success.My understanding is it is at capacity. They seem to be relying on HS2 to provide any extra capacity required. This project (HS2) has yet to get off the drawing board and I would question the validity of this statement in light of this. There was an inadequate answer to the volume of trains that it it envisaged will use the railport by the directors. There seems to be no minimum guarantee of rail traffic and therefore I would question the validity of the proposal as a strategic rail port. If built there is a real prospect of existing businesses simply re locating to the area having a negative impact on local economies such a Lutterworth. There is close to 2 million square feet of warehousing being built at Junction 16 of the M1 which will add to the transport congestion in the area and put into question the need for the volume of warehousing proposed. We moved to Blisworth 11 years ago. The reason being it is a village surrounded by open country . The sheer scale of this proposal will destroy the village (s) character for ever. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mohsin Shameem
"The rail freight terminal will cause havoc with the local community, transport and environment "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Gyllian Ash
"No,no,no & no! I object strongly to this proposed developement. This area is already experiencing significant pollution, due to too much traffic, especially around J 15 of the M1. The developement & the attending increase in vehicle activity, travelling to and from the proposed site 24/7, would generate higher air, noise & light pollution to a totally unacceptal level & prose a major health risk to people living nearby. Often,at present, especially in hot weather, without any new developement, the region around J15 on the M1 has a visible blue cloud of exhaust fumes hovering over it. This proposed developement would be superflous & unnecessary with DIRFT, which is expanding, only 18 miles away, & potentially the proposed "Northampton Gate Way" project right on connecting land to this proposal. Acres of the land in this area, have been concreted over & lost to food production & wild life habitat. The warehouses that have aready been built on them are sometimes seen standing empty & unused, monuments to short term policy & commercial greed. Giving the go ahead to this unnecessary developement only increases the chances of yet further developement, 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 truely poisonous cocktail all round."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Jayne Watson-Jones
"A strong objection to the Rail Central (SRFI) 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 8 million sq ft of warehousing were to spread eastwards to the Roxhill site 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 2000 HGVs and over 8000 employees and there vehicles daily in and out for the proposed Rail Central, 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 8000 car journeys 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 Rail Central proposed site only 20 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 yet more 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 Rail Central will no doubt see a huge increase. With over 8000 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
Nicholas Lindon
"I have lived in the adjoining village of Blisworth for 20 years and would like to note these points: Traffic is already bad in the village especially when there is trouble on the main roads around the area - the addition of a major distribution hub would surely increase traffic to levels that will bring the village to gridlock with the amount of workers required who would undoubtedly use the village as a rat run. I work within a 2 minute drive of my house in Blisworth, when traffic is bad it can take 20 minutes to get home without the addition of thousands of extra vehicles. Property values will be decreased due to the proximity of the hub and resulting traffic. The identity of the village will be lost as we will inevitably be joined to the neighbouring village of Milton Malsor. If this development goes ahead surely then this paves the way for more development. Before too long we will be joined to the town. I work within the construction industry and know of the disruption and noise this type of project will cause to the local community. Is it fair or necessary that we should be subjected to years of disruption. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patricia Hargreaves
"I strongly object to Rail Centrals application because:- I don't believe its strategic, DIRFT is only 15 miles away and still under construction, Northampton Gateway has put in a similar application for a SRFI adjacent to this and there are several in the Midlands region, with others in pre-application phase this hardly constitutes a Network. The Idea of SRFI's as I understand it was to take vehicles off the road and transfer onto rail, should this development go ahead along with Northampton Gateway this would bring 40,000 extra vehicles to this area a day, both to come off junction 15 and 15a of the M1 one of the most congested stretches of the motorway. South Northants has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the Country, Employment will come from out of the area causing more traffic, or from similar businesses in the area. I don't believe that the cumulative effects of Rail Central and Northampton Gateway have been properly covered. One of my major concerns is the impact it will have on residential homes adjacent to the site, the conservation area of Blisworth Arm, the whole village of Milton Malsor, lives will be blighted forever, this is to close to peoples homes, its a 24 hour operation, 10 year construction phase and no amount of mitigation can disguise against the dust, light pollution and traffic. nobody should have to live next to this! 'Policy 4.86 NPSNN states SRFI's tend to be large scale operations which need 24 hour working in terms of location therefore they often may not be suitable adjacent to residential areas'"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Pallister
"This scheme is unnecessary as there already exists a virtually identical development 20 miles away at Crick. The roads in Northamptonshire simply can not cope with any further increase in traffic, every day there is a serious road blockage somewhere in the south of the county due entirely to the excess of traffic on the roads. At present the hospital in Northampton is struggling to cope with demand, any increase in demand from the increase in population that would result from this development would result in unacceptable pressure on the hospital as well as doctors and dentists around the county."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sylvia Crossley
"I object to the proposed development as there is no proven case that it is a necessary improvement to rail infrastructure. It will have an extremely damaging effect on the villages and communities of Blisworth and Milton Malsor and the surrounding area. There will be significant increase in road traffic in the area which is already congested and the loss of rural land will impact on local people as well as wildlife. I do not accept that it will provide employment as large warehousing developments of this nature do not require large numbers of employees. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dennis Albert Hoare on behalf of The Hoare Family
"I am representing myself and family of wife;Pamela and daughter;Tracey all living at the above address. We have lived here for 6 years and before that at Buttmead, NN7 3DQ for 48years. The village will be spoilt for ever for future occupants and we are of the opinion that this can only be unnecessary in view of the opening for similar reasons of the DIRFT appoximately 40 years ago and only within 16 miles away.We anticipate that the noise, air pollution,additional traffic will be horrendous and also dispute that "thousands of jobs will be available",when the Computers and Robotics are already in Industry. One final thought is that the possibility of housing,schools, hospitals and local surgeries has been covered. My working time was mostly Import and Export worldwide with the movement of various goods and systems, travelling mainly in Europe before we joined the EUR."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alison Brookes
"Application TR050004: Rail Central strategic rail freight terminal. I strongly object to this proposal and believe it will fail the Government four policy objectives for an SRFI 1. Carbon emission reduction. Huge carbon emissions are produced from the manufacture of concrete and from the operation of an SRFI. The only possible saving of carbon emission is road to rail freight transfer, yet this site will be limited due to the limited capacity on the West Coast Mainline. Any carbon saving brought about by road to rail freight transfer will be offset by employee travel distances which are not quoted on the Applicants Sustainability assessment. 2. Support long term rail freight logistics distribution. The location of multiple SRFIs in the East Midlands is contrary to the policy intention to provide a network across the region and link to wider locations. The competition for rail paths on the WCML limits Rail Centrals ability to operate as an SRFI, this inevitably will lead to a road based operation. Rail Central is therefore in the wrong place to form a strategic network of SRFIs. 3. Create employment. Northamptonshire has a proven low unemployment rate, jobs will be filled by migration from other facilities and will increase traffic as a result. This is not creating employment merely relocating existing workforces. 4. Reduce road congestion. This development is proposed on the most congested section of the M1 at a time when a number of other developments are planned in the area. Extra traffic on the roads around Rail Central will bring the network in the area to a standstill, no effective mitigation or alternate routes are suggested, no alternate measures are in place should the M1 become blocked. Rail Central has continually reduced the mitigation measures it first proposed in the draft document to levels that would be ineffective by the final application. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Hayes
"Representation regarding the impact of the increase in volume of traffic coming through Towcester and its environs."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anne-Marie Newton
"I am objecting to the Applicant's proposed development on the basis of the following concerns: - Increase in traffic - Noise and light pollution - Degradation of the rural community - Negative impact upon the future of the young people in the village - Doubts about whether the proposed development will deliver the employment benefits set out by the Applicant - Whether the warehouses will be in keeping with the rural surroundings"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Allwork
"I regularly walk in the fields proposed for development with my dogs and am part of the local shoot which manage the countryside currently. The damage to the countryside would be catastrophic if the huge development went ahead. There is an abundance of wildlife in the surrounding fields that are regularly seen, barn owls, badgers, foxes and bats being some of these, their habitats would be destroyed. The building work would last in excess of 10 years so during that time our house would be more or less unsaleable and would I believe devalue dramatically. I have not seen enough evidence to convince me that the traffic on the roads around our house would not increase and the noise and light pollution generated from the development would destroy our quality of life. Building higher and higher bunds do not solve this problem. The basic road infrastructure whilst under construction will impact on our journeys to and fro work on a daily basis. Everywhere we look there is warehousing being built, huge developments already and 15 miles up the road we have a rail freight terminal that as far as I understand is not yet running to full capacity so why build more? This a development that would destroy two beautiful Northamptonshire villages and effect hundreds of peoples ways of life. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barry Ferguson
"1. The developnent will be unsightly 2. Unemployment in the area is low 3. Damage to enviroment and the rural area of Blisworth and Milton Masor 4. Road congestion will be unmanageable 5. Quality of life in the local are will deteriorate 6. I commute on a daily basis and i can forsee this will cause me an aditional travel due to increased traffic if the development will go ahead 7. Polution levels in the are will riase due to the incresed traffic"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bernard Ingram
"I am opposed to the proposed Rail Central SRFI. I am concerned about the large amount of traffic some of which will use minor roads in this area. This will involve HGVs, vans and employees travelling to and from work. These minor roads will not be able to cope with the additional traffic. I am concerned about the ability to enforce weight limits and other restrictions (e.g. by number plate recognition) on minor roads. This site will add to air pollution, noise, loss of tranquillity and flood lighting at night which will all adversely affect the local population as a result of 24 hour working. Noise will be created by gantry cranes, refrigerated containers, reversing “bleepers” on lorries. Lorries waiting in the area prior to unloading/loading will also create further nuisance. The building of this SRFI will add to the urban sprawl of Northampton. People move to live in villages as they don’t want to be part of towns. Those aims will be spoilt. The location is not considered to be suitable and I would question whether this will have significant use by rail. It is more likely to be a road based logistics operation. I am concerned by the loss of green space, habitat, agricultural land and scenic footpaths. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bernard Rose
"My main concern other than the exorbitant levels of traffic coming through my village, is the illegal immigrants that will come in on the trains and disperse around Blisworth and Milton Malsor. This means we have the duty to house and care for them. plus the crime rate will rocket. Plus the round the clock noise and light pollution. These developers are doing this entirely for gain, We are doing this to protect our rural heaven and our beautiful countryside which is disappearing rapidly."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brenda Jenks
"I wish to register my strong objection to the Rail Central proposal for a Rail Freight Terminal and accompanying warehouses on land between the villages of Milton Malsor and Blisworth. This area is open countryside with ancient public footpaths across it, these are still used and are a valuable amenity for local residents and also to walking groups from around the local area. Northampton is becoming ever more industrial and green open spaces are vital to the health of residents and wildlife. The volume of traffic that this site will create and consequent pollution is a major concern for everyone. There is a sheltered housing complex close to the Northampton loop line and this site, elderly residents who already suffer with breathing issues will be even more seriously impacted by the increased level of pollution. Parts of the Northampton area are already at maximum air quality levels and it is inconceivable that a development such as this should be considered for consent. The M1 motorway south from J15 is about to be converted to ‘smart running’, this is not the panacea the developers are claiming it will be. There will still be frequent stoppages due to accidents and stationary vehicles create pollution, this fact cannot be denied. Local roads are already heavily congested at peak times, so called ‘improvements’ to the Motorway junctions will not reduce the number of vehicles on the roads! The West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS), which was approved by an Inspector, states that there should be no development south of the M1. How can this document be overridden by developer led applications? The Daventry International Freight Terminal (DIRFT) a short distance away with spare capacity for some years to come is all that is needed to serve this area. RFT sites should be spread evenly across the country and not centred in one area as is currently happening. Northampton Gateway is already under consideration by the Planning Inspectorate, this site is adjacent to this application. This site will be a blot on the landscape, it will destroy the peace of the Blisworth Arm of the Grand Union Canal and no amount of mitigation can limit the effect on my village Milton Malsor. Air, noise and light pollution 24/7 365 days per year! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Calolyn Young
"I object to the proposed Rail Central SRFI I am concerned about the significant amount of extra traffic on minor roads in the local vicinity. I am not convinced that access from the Northampton Road will only be used for emergencies; it could be used on other occasions too. There are many unused warehoused in the Northampton area and these should be used before any new warehousing is built. Furthermore the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal has an expansion capability until 2031 so there is no need for another SRFI so close by. I discussed the lack of rail capacity with James Digby of Ashfield Land at a consultation in Blisworth Village Hall and I remain unconvinced that there is sufficient capacity on the West Coast Main Line to accommodate additional paths for freight trains. I am very concerned at the loss of good agricultural land especially in the light of Brexit which may require additional food production in this country. There will be also a loss of wildlife and wildlife habitat through the removal of hedgerows and other open land, This application appears to be designed to avoid the local planning process. The site will be operated on a 24 hour basis which will give rise to additional noise and unwanted lighting during both the day and night. There is a lack of available local employees which will result in workers having to drive long distances to reach their place of work. I am concerned that the site could be further expanded and may also lead to additional housing being built to support this SRFI. There will be a lack of infrastructure (hospitals, schools, GP surgeries, etc.) to support this SRFI. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Catherine Gunn
"I strongly object to the proposed rail freight terminal and not in a, "not in my backyard" way. I am all for progress where it is appropriate, but, as stated in the commissioned independent planning inspector's report issued in October 2014, there is NO NEED for it as there is enough land allocated in the West Northants Joint Core Strategy on junctions 16 and 18 of the M1. If this abominable project goes ahead, the whole area will be blighted with noise, air and light pollution and the already fragile road infrastructure will mean that daily travel will become a nightmare. Nobody will want to live in our beautiful village, which will be swallowed up into a vast industrial area and all for the sake of a developer-driven proposal. In my opinion this is a regional and national scandal and it should not even have been considered in the first place. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charlotte Brookes
"Application TR050004: Rail Central strategic rail freight terminal. As a horse rider and frequent user of the countryside I strongly object to this proposal, especially with its total disregard for the natural environment. The West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) clearly states: ‘These landscapes, both man-made and natural, are what makes the area distinctive and there is a pressing need to preserve and enhance many of the features, such as the biodiversity, ancient woodlands, heritage assets, townscapes and rural settings.’ The building of a SRFI in this location will destroy this Vision for South Northamptonshire. Trees and hedgerows are valuable areas that once lost can never be recreated. Over 150 trees within the SRFI area have Tree Preservations Orders currently in place or active submissions in process, as a consequence the Woodland Trust also strongly objects to this development. The list of Amphibians, birds, reptiles and insects that are within the proposed area, that will loose there natural habitat, is huge. The effect of noise pollution, light pollution and a reduction of air quality from an operational SRFI will have an effect not only on the proposed SRFI area but also the wildlife beyond the perimeter of the proposed site. Rail Central plan a dedicated pocket park adjacent to the Grand Union Canal, to enhance the area, such areas already exist on the area of the proposed SRFI with wildlife already established in them. No NEW areas are therefore being created only taken away. There is no mitigation possible for what is proposed, we are not apart from nature but of it! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Daniel York
"I am objecting to this application for the following reasons: - Environmental considerations - Increased traffic and congestion. Particular concerns about HGVs travelling the villages - Whether there is a strategic justification for locating the proposed development in this area - Loss of village identity (Blisworth has previously been awarded 'Best Village of the Year') - Concerns about the need to build additional housing to accommodate workers from the proposed development - Whether there is a need for another development given its proximity to DIRFT - Concerns about road safety, particularly for young children in the village - Potential impact upon local schooling in terms of whether they will have sufficient capacity"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dave Allen
"In strongly object to the building of Rail Central as it is a speculative development with no known or confirmed tenants. I do not believe that it is the right location to facilitate a shift of traffic from road onto the rail. The local residents will be the ones to suffer from its failure to work as a rail interchange. This already congested section of the M1 will be further throttled."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Denise Ingram
"I object to the proposed Rail Central SRFI I am concerned about the large amount of traffic some of which will use minor roads in this area. This will involve HGVs, vans and employees travelling to and from work. These minor roads will not be able to cope with the additional traffic. I am concerned about the ability to enforce weight limits and other restrictions (e.g. by number plate recognition) on minor roads. This site will add to air pollution, noise, loss of tranquillity and flood lighting at night which will all adversely affect the local population as a result of 24 hour working. Noise will be created by gantry cranes, refrigerated containers, reversing “bleepers” on lorries. Lorries waiting in the area prior to unloading/loading will also create further nuisance. The building of this SRFI will add to the urban sprawl of Northampton. People move to live in villages as they don’t want to be part of towns. Those aims will be spoilt. The location is not considered to be suitable and I would question whether this will have significant use by rail. It is more likely to be a road based logistics operation. I am concerned by the loss of green space, habitat, agricultural land and scenic footpaths. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
E clayson
"I strongly object to this development because of light and noise pollution , increased traffic, unnecessary commercial building - there is a development in a entry which is very close. Loss of village . "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eleanor Brookes
"Application TR050004: Rail Central strategic rail freight terminal. I strongly object to this proposal Noise and light pollution from a 24 / 7 operation will have a huge effect on the two Historic villages of Milton Malsor and Blisworth, no other SRFI has a village road bisecting the development. This road also means the rail head and access road are at opposite sides of the development, should the underpass become blocked the site can not operate. Loss of community with a migrant workforce who have no connection to the area and an increase in crime will bring huge disadvantages to the locality. Loss of countryside, extra traffic, disruption to wildlife habitats are just the thin end of the wedge! Employment in Northamptonshire is extremely low and as such the employees will travel in from outside the area thus adding to the traffic congestion. No mitigation can alter the poor location of the grade separated junction onto an already busy A43 that comes to a standstill on a regular basis. On the whole I can see no reason why this SRFI would be proposed as ‘Strategic’ when the largest SRFI , DIRFT, in the UK is only 15 miles to the North. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Estelle Rose
"When traffic is diverted through our beautiful village due to incidents on the M1, we can't get in to the village due to heavy traffic coming down courteenhall road. This will be happening every day if this goes through, as no ne in their right mind will queue to go through Towcester when they can knock a good half hour off their journey to work in Blisworth by cutting through. Stoke road will be the same. Also the noise and the air pollution will be horrendous. We have a lovely community here in Blisworth. I fear we will lose that as many people will move away."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gail Hayes
"I oppose Rail Central as all of our local roads are congested already, when the M1 is closed, which can happen frequently, many roads come to a standstill for hours. If Rail Central goes ahead it will ruin this area forevermore. The volume of traffic will be unbearable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Grace Allwork
"We live on the corner of Gayton Road and Towcester Road. We regularly walk in the fields around our house with our children and dogs, it is the reason we moved here. The damage to the countryside would be catastrophic if the huge development went ahead. There is an abundance of wildlife in the surrounding fields that are regularly seen, barn owls, badgers, foxes and bats being some of these, their habitats would be destroyed. The building work would last in excess of 10 years so during that time our house would be more or less unsalable and would I believe devalue dramatically. I have not seen enough evidence to convince me that the traffic on the roads around our house would not increase and the noise and light pollution generated from the development would destroy our quality of life. Building higher and higher bunds do not solve this problem. The basic road infrastructure whilst under construction will impact on our journeys to and fro work on a daily basis. Everywhere we look there is warehousing being built, huge developments already and 15 miles up the road we have a rail freight terminal that as far as I understand is not yet running to full capacity so why build more? This a development that would destroy two beautiful Northamptonshire villages and effect hundreds of peoples ways of life. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Bodfish
"We don't to spoil more villages and countryside and wildlife for more concrete and especially rail hub which we already have one in the countie . It will put more pressure on surrounding roads and villages making it more unsafe for pedestrians and other road users , it will also bring more crime to the villages and policing being cut even more that brings problems . May not mean nothing to the people who sort these things out but it probably won't because it's not there villages or countryside that is being spoilt by unsightly building covering fields wildlife and spoil in village life. Move it to the Dirft site where it's already had land ripped up extend this site and it's straight of junction 18 and not running through villages "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Cox
"I am totally against the development of rail depot within this area for numerous reasons. 1) TRAFFIC: East Hunsbury area particularly around Rowtree Road , is already an absolute nightmare during rush hour periods and with the building of approx 1000 new homes in Collingtree Park about to get underway and with an average of 1.2 cars per household , this will amount to an extra 1200 cars on already crowded roads. The prospect of additional lorries and employees in there hundreds and more probably thousands on top of existing will result in absolute gridlock. 2) AIR POLLUTION: The area already as high levels of air pollution so pretty self explanatory as to the effects all these additional vehicles would have. 3) DESTRUCTION OF COUNTRYSIDE AND WILDLIFE : Huge swathes of our countryside would be completely destroyed along with wild lifes habitat. 4) FLOODING : residents are now being discouraged to hard landscape large areas of their properties to allow surface surface water to escape yet in turn, authorities would approve of hundreds of acres of land being built upon ! FLOODING !! Several of my near neighbours in Lichfield Drive were flooded out this year due to drains being unable to cope along with a small brook flooding. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Jenks
"I strongly object to the Rail Central application to build a Rail Freight Terminal (RFT) with associated warehousing on land between Milton Malsor and Blisworth. This site will abut two historic villages with associated air, light and noise pollution. The local area is already suffering severe traffic congestion and air pollution levels are high with the M1 J16 to J15 already classed as an Air Quality Management area. This site will generate a massive number of vehicle movements a day as it will mainly be a road based logistics park. The Northampton Gateway application for another RFT on adjacent land will, if both should be consented, destroy the quality of life for the communities in the surrounding area. Valuable open countryside with public rights of way will be wiped out, a green lung will be lost. Daventry International Freight Terminal is within 20 miles distance, well established and with capacity until at least 2033. The Government strategy to reduce freight on the country’s roads is failing as developers are looking to place these terminals where they feel it will be an’ easy option’ it highlights the need for a national strategy. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Vernon Riley
"I live and work in Roade and the surrounding area. I run two community groups, one a Choir and the other an Orchestra, both are being affected by the volume of traffic at the moment. Road closures and delays mean members off the community that play in these groups often struggle to get to rehearsals on time or at all. The rail freight interchange will make this worse. Commuting and road traffic accidents on the 508 near Roade are getting much worse. Our communities are being damaged. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Frith
"My objections are: 1. The visual impact of the site on the surrounding villages 2. The increased air pollution due to the site usage 3. The noise pollution of the site by 24 hour working 4. The light pollution due to all night working Other factors, delays due to single entrance from the A43 by excessive traffic. The Blisworth/Milton Malsor road is for emergency access only, not lorries. I assume these objections will be taken into account when this application is considered."
Members of the Public/Businesses
AlanHargreaves on behalf of Janet Fall
"I OBJECT TO THE APPLICATION I LIVE IN BUTTMEAD ONLY HALF A MILE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE NOISE THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL CAUSE WHICH WILL GO ON ALL DAY AND NIGHT.THIS IS A COUNTRYSIDE ENVIRONMENT WHICH WILL BE DESTROYED WTH NO REAL BENEFIT COMING TO THE VILLAGE.AIR POLLUTION WILL BE JUST ONE OF THE MANY ASPECTS OF LIFE HERE WHICH WILL BE DAMAGED BY THE OPERATION ITSELF AND BY ALL THE TRAFFIC WHICH WILL COME THROUGH THE VILLAGE"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jo Frogy
"I strongly object to the proposal as it will ruin the rural views and add to the traffic congestion in the village. It will also destroy the open fields over which I walk my dogs. I am not convinced that a development of this size is needed given the huge amount of other warehouse developments in the area. It will ruin our rural community as we become absorbed into the Northampton conurbation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stop Rail Central on behalf of John Chapman
"I object to the proposed Rail Central SRFI. I am concerned at the loss of farming land which provides food for the nation. The loss of this land will adversely affect the current wildlife. The traffic generated by this strategic rail freight interchange will significantly add to the vehicles using minor roads in the Blisworth area, which will make it harder to join the Courteenhall Road, and there will be additional noise and air pollution. At night, the site will be illuminated due to its 24 hour operation. This light will adversely affect local residents who currently experience very dark skies at night. Rail Central will completely change the rural countryside views and replace them with ugly views of tall warehouses. Rail Central will generate noise from its additional train movements at all times of the day and night and the additional traffic will of course generate further noise. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Exley
"Application TR050004: Rail Central strategic rail freight terminal. I strongly object to this proposal: Rail Central is non compliant with the national Policy Statement for National Networks on several matters including national network, near to major markets, available local networks, sustainability, air quality, adjacent to residential areas, green belt, road congestion and safety, cumulative impact and historic environment. Rail Central would be situated 15 miles from Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal ( DIRFT ), the largest strategic rail freight interchange ( SRFI ) in the country, DIRFT has expansion capability until 2031. The application would therefore not create a national network of SRFIs as placement to DIRFT is non strategic, nor has the developer demonstrated that there is demand for an additional SRFI in this location. This development is therefore purely speculative. The additional traffic movement generated by this SRFI would have significant impact on the users of A5, A45, A43, A508 and minor roads in the locality. Rail Central will create major delays particularly on the A43, the volumes of traffic forecast by the Northampton Strategic Transport Model have been underestimated. Rail Central have elected not to run the Northamptonshire Strategic Transport Model ( NSTM ) with the full data for Northampton Gateway and Rail Central simultaneously, the lack of such a cumulative assessment is totally unacceptable, Rail Central is in breach of EIA regulations in respect of the shortcomings of its cumulative assessment. Rail Central have failed to understand the local road network and have not stress tested the NSTM, when the M1 in the area is congested or blocked there are no provisions in place to deal with the extra traffic from the development. Rail Central have continually reduced the mitigation measures with regard to roundabouts and roads in the area, from the first draft to final application, the levels they suggest were, and still will be wholly ineffective. Air quality in the area around Rail Central is already over the Government guidelines, 55% more traffic due to the development will cause stationary traffic, creating more air pollution. The mitigation measures proposed to reduce pollution appear to be ineffective, monitoring the vehicles that deliver to the SRFI along with employee vehicles and expecting them to be emission compliant is simply not enforceable. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Suzi Clarkson on behalf of June Clarkson
"My OBJECTIONS to the proposed Rail Central Project are: A Rail Central on land adjacent to junction 15 M1 is NOT NEEDED – DIRFT I, DIRFT II and DIRFT III, are only 12 miles north. The DIRFT SITE has: • Access to West Coast Mainline rail via, • 3 Intermodal rail freight terminals • Extensive provision of flexible warehouse space • Lorry parking with support facilities • It is located adjacent to junction 18 M1, only 4 miles from M1/M6/A14 interchange • The DIRFT site is NOT fully developed. The location already has the infrastructure / road network in place to accommodate considerable further expansion in an area which is already designed for the purpose. The proposed Rail Central adjacent to junctions 15/15a of M1 will: • Create an Industrial Zone in virgin agricultural countryside • Increase Road Congestion on the A45, A43, A508, A5123 and A5076 • Increase congestion avoidance traffic on lesser arterial roads • Create slip road exit queue tail backs onto M1 at junctions 15 and 15a • Increase air pollution • Increase light pollution • Increase noise pollution • Destroy wildlife habitat / ecosystem of the area to way beyond the proposed site • Integrate the villages of Milton Malsor and Blisworth into an industrial zone • Promote further unwanted industrial development in the area • Promote urban sprawl • Ruin footpaths across a pleasant area for walking and exercise without getting into a car • Is a totally Needless Obliteration of countryside to benefit the financial gain of a minority, who DO NOT live in the area, AND shameless landowners who have sold out their neighbours • Create massive disruption and inconvenience for tens of thousands, if not millions of people during extensive alterations to junction 15 M1 flyover and during the actual site development "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda A Curtis
"I strongly object to Rail Central because: My grandchild has a medical condition[REDACTED]which is exacerbated by poor air quality and other members of my family suffer from [redacted]. We have chosen to live in the country because of the better air quality and the health benefits. This and other developments in the area will have serious health implications. I am concerned about the noise and light impacts especially at night when we currently have dark skies and peace. I can clearly hear noise generated by current maintenance activities on the railway and am concerned that the noise from major rail works will be far worse. The complete destruction of the rural environment will break my heart. I am not sure how I would be able to witness such devastation on daily basis. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stop Rail Central Ltd on behalf of Linda Stephanie Hack
"I object to the noise that will be created which will interrupt the sleep patterns of some elderly and ill friends in the community. I object to the night-time light generation for the same reason. This may ultimately drive some people away from their homes (which has already happened). I am concerned about the additional traffic that will come through the village. It is a serious safety issue given the narrow roads and school traffic. Air quality will also suffer. I object to the loss of footpaths and access to the countryside and wildlife."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lyn Allen
"I strongly object to Rail Central because of: The build up of traffic despite the by-pass having been built. The impact of the extra traffic on already congested roads through the village and surrounding area. Concerns over the safety of pupils of Blisworth school and their ability to access the village when roads are congested. The loss of rich agricultural land for the growing of crops to produce valuable staple food. The loss of the ancient footpath connecting Blisworth with Milton Malsor which people use for healthy and safe exercise. The extra air pollution and its effects on health in an already heavily polluted area. The noise and light pollution and its effect on health and sleep. I cannot see how these enormous buildings covering a vast area can be of any benefit to the health and well being of Blisworth residents and those of the surrounding area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marc Jenks
"I strongly object to the Rail Central application to build a Rail Freight Terminal (RFT) with associated warehousing on land between Milton Malsor and Blisworth. The area is already served by Daventry International Rail Terminal, which has capacity until 2033 and is around 16 miles away and served by J18 of the M1. I can see no reason why another terminal is needed so close to this one. The Government strategy to reduce freight traffic on the roads is not working, it is not a ‘national strategy’. It is purely developer led! Two development companies are vying for land either side of the Northampton loop railway line, if both should be given consent then the area around and between historic villages will be decimated. The air pollution, already of great concern, will increase dramatically even if only one of these proposals is agreed. Even if one proposal is accepted the impact on air, noise and light pollution will be extreme and destroy the quality of life of those who live so close to the development. Should the lives of local people be sacrificed for this ‘Government Strategy’? "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Hargreaves on behalf of Maureen Florence Rumble
"I WISH TO OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION I LIVE IN COUTEENHALL ROAD JUST HALF A MILE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT.I WILL CLEARLY BE ABLE TO SEE THE MASSIVE WAREHOUSES AND WILL SUFFER FROM THE NOISE ALL DAY AND ALL NIGHT.THE NIGHT TIME LIGHT WILL DISTURB MY SLEEP.I AM ALSO VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC WHICH WILL COME ALONG COUTEENHALL ROAD TRYING TO AVOID THE CONGESTION ON THE A43.PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF MY OBJECTIONS"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Milton Malsor Parish Council
"Milton Malsor Parish Council (MMPC) strongly objects to the proposed Rail Central (RC) Strategic Rail Freight Interchange. 1. The West Northants Joint Core Strategy, South Northants Local Plan, Milton Malsor Parish Plan & draft Neighbourhood Plan all preclude any form of industrial development on this site which should remain as valuable farmland with mature trees. 2. A Milton Malsor village charitable Trust and the Village Church own parcels of land within the boundary of the proposed site and are scheduled for compulsory acquisition. This would have a significant adverse impact on villagers. 3. A small, long established specialist flower nursery operates from within the site boundary. The compulsory acquisition of this nursery would have major adverse effect on the owners, villagers and the far wider community in Northamptonshire. 4. The residents of Rose Acre, a home situated within the site boundary would become homeless following compulsory acquisition. 5. Due to the close proximity to the site of a significant number of residential properties in Milton Malsor, many village residents would suffer from various forms of pollution. Air pollution is the major concern with the prevailing wind from the site blowing directly over the village. The UK government is rightly concerned about the levels of nitrous oxides in the air. The large number of cars and HGVs using this proposed site would make this situation far worse and have a major adverse impact on the health and well-being of local people. Other forms of pollution, noise, light and particularly during the construction period dust would also have a major adverse impact on all villagers, not only those living in close proximity. 6. The proposed destruction of the ancient footpaths that serve the residents of Milton Malsor and the surrounding area has been met with almost universal condemnation. these rights of way are regularly used for recreation, dog walking and as a safe means of travelling between villages. The proposed diversions for most of these paths would see their open countryside view being replaced by close up views of roads and railway lines along with significant noise and air pollution. A specific concern relates to the footpath between Milton Malsor playing fields and football pitch and the Blisworth playing fields and football pitches, an easy, convenient and safe way to travel between these points. The proposed diversion of this is along a route that already exists and is neither easy, convenient or safe as it involves two crossings of the busy Northampton Road, and is far longer. 7. For a number of years MMPC along with South Northants Council have been working to achieve a Government objective to provide more homes, particularly affordable ones. A planned development of 30 homes on a site near the RC development has been postponed as house builders await the outcome of the RC proposal. Should the RC development go ahead, the site would not be viable and these badly needed homes would not be developed. 8. MMPC is mystified as to why RC is proposing to widen the current footpath along Barn Lane. This appear to be totally unnecessary an cause considerable inconvenience to residents. 9. The visual intrusion of the site will not be masked by the hundreds of meters of earth bunds, themselves and alien feature on the landscape. Yours sincerely, Ann Addison (Mrs) Clerk to Milton Malsor Parish Council"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Angela Moseley on behalf of Miss Alice Moseley
"I live in the village of Blisworth, in a 17th Century Listed Building which runs parallel to Courteenhall Road, directly on the pavement. Being an historic building and in line with many others in our village, there is no front garden and so we are located approximately 1 metre from the road. My bedroom is located on the front elevation of the house. I;m an adult with [redacted] and I suffer with [redacted] so my Mum is completing this form on my behalf. I object to the proposed 'Rail Central' development, due to concerns around noise and air pollution, and road safety. I’m worried about additional traffic noise, particularly at night and from lorries as I find it hard to sleep and disturb my family if I’m unable to sleep. I also have [redacted] which I’m worried may worsen with the air pollution caused by queuing traffic on the road, under my bedroom windows. I've lived here for 12 years and I like living in a village as everyone knows me here. With an enormous logistics park just down the road, I’m worried that life will change here and Blisworth will become really busy and with all the extra traffic the local roads won’t be safe for me any more. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Angela Moseley
"I live in the village of Blisworth, in a 17th Century Listed Building which runs parallel to Courteenhall Road, directly on the pavement. Being an historic building and in line with many others in our village, there is no front garden and so we are located approximately 1 metre from the road. I object to the proposed 'Rail Central' development, due to concerns around noise and air pollution, road safety, risk of damage to our significant collection of heritage buildings and the industrialisation of our green spaces. Due to our Grade II Listing, when we recently had to replace all of our windows, we were only permitted to have single glazing and so we are already exposed to quite significant traffic noise and pollution, during peak periods. Whenever there is a problem on the M1 Motorway, the A508 or the A43, there is a continuous stream of queuing traffic on the road outside our house and in spite of the 'Lorries only for local access' signs at all entry points to our village, 40' lorries as well as all other types of vehicle, consistently use Blisworth as a shortcut to reach the M1, Towcester and Northampton. If this development were to go ahead, we could have lorries and staff vehicles running through our village night and day, 7 days a week, disturbing our sleep and the relative peace we get outside of peak hours. The village primary school is located directly opposite our house and due to very limited parking for parents, this part of Courteenhall Road, Blisworth High Street and the whole of Elm Tree Corner is already exceptionally busy during school start and end times and motorists frequently lose their patience as it is. In order to ensure the safety of the children, the village has to self-fund a school crossing attendant. I understand that this project has been deemed to have 'strategic importance' and this is why our local planning authority has been excluded from the planning process. Due to my clear vested interest, I am very worried that this proposal may be determined by unelected officers, unconnected to our local area and who would be unaffected by this proposal, were it to be approved. I’m also wondering what determines its ‘strategic importance’. In recent years there has already been a significant increase to the amount of Logistics capacity in this area including access to the rail network. Over this time, the insufficiency of the east bound A45 at M1, J15 has become more and more obvious, often resulting in traffic queuing on the M1 because the roundabout is gridlocked. I understand that there are proposed improvements to J15 via the A508 which would improve northbound access to the M1, but fail to see how this will alleviate the eastbound congestion that is clogging the roundabout. Furthermore, with high employment and little available housing in the local area, staff recruited to work at Rail Central will require accommodation, school places, doctors etc. Unless they commute to the area, what strategic plans are in place to address this? "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stop Rail Central on behalf of Mrs Ann Chapman
"I object to the proposed Rail Central SRFI. I am concerned at the loss of farming land which provides food for the nation. The loss of this land will adversely affect the current wildlife. The traffic generated by this strategic rail freight interchange will significantly add to the vehicles using minor roads in the Blisworth area, which will make it harder to join the Courteenhall Road, and there will be additional noise and air pollution. At night, the site will be illuminated due to its 24 hour operation. This light will adversely affect local residents who currently experience very dark skies at night. Rail Central will completely change the rural countryside views and replace them with ugly views of tall warehouses. Rail Central will generate noise from its additional train movements at all times of the day and night and the additional traffic will of course generate further noise. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Ingall
"I strongly object to this proposal mainly due to environmental and health issues. Not only will this project destroy vital habitat for wildlife, there will be an increase in air pollution from thousands of extra cars, vans and HGV's using the roads in the local area. There will be a loss of hundreds of acres of productive agricultural land, producing food and also areas for wildlife to live. As a resident living in the village, i am concerned about the noise levels this 24/7 project will produce, also the light pollution from night time activities. A huge majority of employees at the facility will travel by car, increasing congestion and creating even more air pollution to the residents living here. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Hargreaves on behalf of Noel David George Stubbs
"I OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION,I LIVE ON THE COUTEENHALL ROAD JUST HALF A MILE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT.I WILL SUFFER FROM THE NOISE CREATED ALL DAY AND NIGHT AND WILL CLEARLY BE ABLE TO SEE THE HUGE WAREHOUSES MY SLEEP WILL BE DISTURBED BY THE NIGHT TIME LIGHT I AM ALSO VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC TRYING TO AVOID CONGESTION ON THE A 43 WHICH WILL COME ALON COUTEENHALL ROAD PLEASE TAKE NOT OF MY OBJECTION"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Olwyn Oliver
"Damage to rural life, Blisworth village is currently a rabbit run for access to M1 and Milton Keynes commuters. We have already lost green fields, where brown field sites should have been used in development. Numerous Warehousing sites unused, new ones sprouting up everywhere, is this necessary why not revamp exisiting? What countryside will be left for generations to enjoy, our children will never be able to enjoy what is a basic human right !! Increase in road traffic which can be compounded when incidents occur on M1 Spoiling of the countryside which is already being bought up for financial gain with no regard to the effect on wildlife, what was once Green and Pleasant land is now just Warehousing which ever way you turn. Pollution of light, noise, air additional litter, damage to already inferior road surfaces. I still do not understand what the benefits are of this proposed rail freight as more Vehicles will be need to transport the goods further over road, hence increasing road traffic, pollution, hold ups as roads witihin the area already struggle with the volume of traffic. We already have a site at Dirft which is still under developed, and just 12 minutes up the road, also a site near Leicester which is just being completed. Why do we need another one in such close proximity. Beggars belief, Planners do not appear to be very reasonable nor responsible when looking at long term picture of what these effects will have on people life, health general well being. The destruction of so many communities should not be taken lightly and should certainly be considered when reviewing this application, I personally feel very sad that such destruction could be allowed to happen and hope and pray that someone takes resposibility and has a conscience about the ruination of these lovely areas. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Pat Conlon
"I object to the development of Rail Central because: 1 J15 of the M1 is already a bottle neck for traffic crossing the M1 in both directions. 2.The A508 through Roade is often severely congested whenever there is a problem on theM1. 3.The A508 cuts the village of Roade in two making it hazardous for children going to school.The pollution level would be even higher with increased traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Pauline Johns
"I am opposed to these plans. 1. It is difficult to argue that this is a site of strategic importance, given the presence of an unconnected existing such site less than 15 miles away operating well below capacity. There is no requirement for SRFIs to accept any freight by rail provided that they have the capacity to do so. 2. Road congestion will worsen given that the terminal will be primarily road not rail based. The local road network is already far too congested to accommodate this scheme and cannot be improved sufficiently to mitigate the impact. The road from Blisworth to Milton Malsor in particular is completely unsuited to further pressure from commercial and commuter traffic, as is the main road connecting Blisworth to the A43. 3. Existing rail lines are unlikely to have the capacity for additional freight when DIRFT 3 is running at capacity. 4. If either Application were to be approved this could result in a reduction in passenger rail services from Northampton. 5. Substantially more local air pollution would be created, with indisputable deleterious effects on the health of the local population. Light and noise pollution would also significantly affect the quality of life in the adjacent villages. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Hargeaves on behalf of Ray Eldridge
"I WISH TO OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION PLEASE NOTE THAT I AM CONCERNED BY THE NEEDLESS DESTRUCTION OF THE COUNTRYSIDE .I AM ALSO WORRIED ABOUT THE 24/7 NOISE AND THE RISK OF AIR POLLUTION"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Jenks
"I wish to object to the Rail Central application for a Rail Freight Terminal and warehousing between the villages of Milton Malsor & Blisworth. Daventry International Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is located only 18 miles away and still has spare capacity until 2033. Is it necessary to build another rail terminal so close when other locations may well be more suitable to ensure an even spread of rail terminals across the country? Network Rail has not given assurances that there is spare capacity to accommodate the extra rail traffic. It is a fact that the local area, specifically J16 to J15 is already experiencing levels of pollution in excess of recommended limits. The massive increase in traffic which this site will generate could render the area virtually uninhabitable for local residents. The West Northants Joint Core Strategy stated there should be no further development south of the M1, this was considered by an Inspector and found ‘to be sound’. This development proposal should, therefore, not even be a consideration. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roger Charlton
"I strongly object to the proposal to build a rail freight terminal between Milton Malsor and Blisworth for the following reasons- Increased traffic through the villages when the M1/A43 is congested Light pollution and noise resulting from the 24/7 operations on the site The Daventry Rail Freight Terminal is only a few miles from the site and has room for expansion for at least 10 years and hence there is no need for a further terminal None of the local plans for the area show large scale development for the area. This land is productive agricultural land and is needed to provide an effective barrier between town and country"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roger WarrenT
"This development will turn this area of South Northamptonshire from a rural area into a industrial zone with a loss of substantial area of farm/agriculturial land.It will have a massive impact not only on the residents of Milton & Blisworth but also surrounding villages, which as a result of the development will lead to a substantial increase noise,light and air pollution, which is not acceptable. This with a massive increase of vehicle movements on already congested road could lead to gridlock. Rail Central has NOT explained how it will deal with these problems. Finally, we already have DRIFT within 15 miles of this proposed development which was opened in 1997 and will not reach capacity until mid 2030 at the earliest. Rail Central proposal is more speculative than strategic"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rosemary Good
"I strongly object to this proposal. I lived in Milton Malsor for many years and now return regularly to visit old friends and enjoy the beauty and tranquillity of this lovely rural village and neighbouring Blisworth which would be completely destroyed by a rail freight interchange with 24-hour operations, excessive lorry movements and inherent noise, light and air pollution. I strongly object to this proposal in that the increase in lorry movements requiring access to the A5, A43 and M1 would certainly reduce the quality of life in Milton Malsor, Blisworth and neighbouring villages to an unacceptable level. In fact it would lead to traffic chaos on the already congested roads in the locality. I strongly object to this proposal as it is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy formally adopted in 2014 which 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 additional rail freight interchange so close to DIRFT, off junction 18 of the M1 motorway, which itself is set to double in size over the next 10 years. I strongly object to this proposal in that it plans to obliterate heritage rural walking paths between local villages in established conservation areas. Finally I strongly object to this proposal on simple humanitarian grounds. The expansion of Northampton town over the last 40 years has swallowed up/spoilt too many surrounding villages already. There is no need for this developer led proposal. I believe the thriving village communities of Milton Malsor and Blisworth deserve to be left in peace, providing a rural escape for urbanised townsfolk right on their doorstep. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Samantha Whitaker
"The proposed rail central site is completely unnecessary for the area. The main point that it is a rail central site is incorrect due to most of the proposed buildings having no access to the rail line that passes through. This proposed site is nothing more than warehouses being erected that will rely upon road freight transport which is harmful to the environment. A vast swathe of Northamptonshire Green areas will be built over destroying local wildlife and their habitats all for more lorries on the road. The impact on locals will include additional pollution both noise and environmental. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Hargan
"According to the applicant this application may affect my rights relating to service media and drainage as contained in a transfer dated 29 January 1985 made between Northampton Development Corporation and Bowden Park Holdings Limited. Regrettably a copy of this transfer in not available from HM Land Registry nor has a copy been supplied by the applicant and I think that a copy should be supplied to me ias part of this application process. Without sight of this transfer it is impossible to assess the affect of this application on my land. I wish to reserve the right to make further representations when a copy of the requested transfer has been made available to me. I look forward to receiving this as soon as possible. If this cannot be supplied then plans showing adopted services in or adjacent to the curtilage of my property should be supplied by the applicant."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sheila Charlton
"I strongly object to the proposals to build a Rail Freight Terminal between the villages of Milton Malsor and Blisworth for the following reasons Increased air pollution from many extra cars, vans and HGVs using the local area Increased traffic through the village when the M1/A43 is congested The village being used for parking by the workforce who will have to travel to the site to work Increased crime in the area as shown by the experience from the Daventry Terminal (DIRFT) DIRFT is only a few miles from the proposed site and has room for expansion for around 10 years "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Hargreaves on behalf of Steve Fall
"I OBJECT TO THE APPLICATION I LIVE IN BUTTMEAD HALF A MILE FROM THE PROPOSAL.THE NOISE FROM THE OPERATION WILL BE A CONSTANT NUISANCE AND WILL BE EASILY HEARD BECAUSE THERE IS NO NATURAL BARRIER BETWEEN HERE AND THE MASSIVE WAREHOUSES THIS IS A COUNTRYSIDE ENVIRONMENT WHICH WHICH WILL BE DESTROYED WITH NO REAL BENEFIT COMING TO THE VILLAGE.AIR QUALITY WILL BE JUST ONE OF THE MANY ASPECTS OF LIFE HERE WHICH WILL BE DAMAGED BY THE OPERATION ITSELF AND BY ALL THE TRAFFIC WHICH WILL PASS THROUGH THE VILLAGE "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Suzi Clarkson
"My OBJECTIONS to the proposed Rail Central Project are: A Rail Central on land adjacent to junction 15 M1 is NOT NEEDED – DIRFT I, DIRFT II and DIRFT III, are only 12 miles north. The DIRFT SITE has: • Access to West Coast Mainline rail via, • 3 Intermodal rail freight terminals • Extensive provision of flexible warehouse space • Lorry parking with support facilities • It is located adjacent to junction 18 M1, only 4 miles from M1/M6/A14 interchange • The DIRFT site is NOT fully developed. The location already has the infrastructure / road network in place to accommodate considerable further expansion in an area which is already designed for the purpose. The proposed Rail Central adjacent to junctions 15/15a of M1 will: • Create an Industrial Zone in virgin agricultural countryside • Increase Road Congestion on the A45, A43, A508, A5123 and A5076 • Increase congestion avoidance traffic on lesser arterial roads • Create slip road exit queue tail backs onto M1 at junctions 15 and 15a • Increase air pollution • Increase light pollution • Increase noise pollution • Destroy wildlife habitat / ecosystem of the area to way beyond the proposed site • Integrate the villages of Milton Malsor and Blisworth into an industrial zone • Promote further unwanted industrial development in the area • Promote urban sprawl • Ruin footpaths across a pleasant area for walking and exercise without getting into a car • Is a totally Needless Obliteration of countryside to benefit the financial gain of a minority, who DO NOT live in the area, AND shameless landowners who have sold out their neighbours • Create massive disruption and inconvenience for tens of thousands, if not millions of people during extensive alterations to junction 15 M1 flyover and the actual site development "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sylvia Davies
"I am objecting to this application for the following reasons: - Light pollution - Noise pollution - Increased traffic - Bullying tactics employed by the Applicant - The proposed development is simply too big for the area - It will lead to the destruction of the rural nature of the surrounding villages (Blisworth and Milton Malsor) - The proposed development will be the thin edge of the wedge and will be likely to lead to further development - The lack of any clear benefit to the local community"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Viv Frogy
"I object to the Rail Central proposal as it will destroy our village life. There is no way that a development of this size can successfully co-exist with small rural communities. The residents will suffer and many will be forced to move away. The development will take away the fields and footpaths we use daily to walk our dogs. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
William Davies
"I am strongly opposed to this Application for the following reasons: - Significant impact of noise and light pollution - Increase in traffic in the surrounding area - Loss of open countryside - Concerns about further industrial development "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alison Skillen
"I STRONGLY OBEJCT TO THIS APPLICATION MILTON MALSOR POORS' TRUST The Trustees of the Milton Malsor Poors' Trust strongly object to the Rail Freight Development being proposed by Ashfield Land. The Trust owns a parcel of land near the centre of the proposed development, this being the only asset of the Trust. The Trust, which has been in existence since the 18th century uses the income from renting this land to a local business to pay small sums of money to the poor and needy of the village at Christmas time. The Trustees are concerned that the indicative compensation sum that would be paid to the Trust on compulsory acquisition of this land would not generate sufficient income to compensate for their loss of rental income thereby reducing the income of the Trust. The Trustees therefore ask that this application be refused on this basis that it would deprive the Trust of its only tangible asset and have a significant detrimental long term impact on its ability to fulfil its obligations to the poor and extremely vulnerable of the village of Milton Malsor."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrea T Holton
"I live in Blisworth which is a small village adjacent to the proposed development and almost as close to the Northampton Gateway (Roade) another proposed railport and distribution centre which must not be ignored when considering this application. I have a number of concerns not least the impact on the air through pollution but also my quality of life with the number of vehicles that will pass through our village. The developer will tell you they will provide access roads avoiding the village but the M1 (3 miles) and A43 and A508 (within 1 mile of the centre of the village) regularly have accidents/closures/congestion and the traffic piles through our village – this will be a total gridlock if the proposal goes ahead. The developers suggest they will provide employment but our county does not have spare capacity nor an employment problem. Their response is to say that they will bring people from Coventry where unemployment is higher. The railport at DIRFT (no more than 16 miles away) would surely pull from this area first. The developer originally said they would employ 11,000 people and then reduced it to 8,000 – however, car parking is very limited and would not cover this amount of employees and in particular create havoc at shift change. The employees themselves will add to the traffic congestion as there is very limited bus routes through the villages affected and no other form of public transport. Current distribution and industrial estates rely on EU workers for their labour – this is already drying up due to Brexit and will only get worse. The developers said HS2 will provide capacity for the Railport – HS2 is looking increasingly unlikely in the next decade There is close to 2 million square feet of warehousing being built at Junction 16 of the M1 which will add to the transport congestion in the area and put into question the need for the volume of warehousing proposed and the developers have not confirmed the demand for the Railport which would appear to be guesswork It is my view that if this proposal is approved, there will be a heavily congested industrial estate spilling into the surrounding villages and an unused or underused railport. I believe that the application for the railport is secondary and being used as a mechanism for obtaining planning permission by means of a positive impact on the environment by taking traffic from the roads which will not be achieved. I am confident that there will be a review by the Secretary of State of the impact of the existing railport and based on the strategy for reducing road traffic, where new railports should be strategically placed. I am certain this review will reject Northamptonshire as a suitable or relevant location. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anne Goss
"Since the development of Dirth J18 M1, I have seen the M1 and surrounding roads become more and more congested with HGV’s, often bringing the M1 and surrounding roads in Northampton to a standstill. Dirth is still being developed further, This will further increase the road congestion. Not to mention the other developments in progress in and around Northampton. With the proposed development of the so called ”Rail Freight Terminal” which is a glorified speculative industrial development, with very little to do with the movement of freight by rail. Majority of freight will be moved by road (when not congested). This development will destroy the surrounding countryside and villages, Clog up the roads in Northampton and the surrounding areas. Not to mention the environmental and Green issues that it raises, the lives, community and the glorious countryside it will destroy. Stop this madness. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carole Middleton
"-This development will blight the countryside and destroy habitat for wildlife and local residents -Will increase local traffic and the accompanying air pollution has implications for the health of local inhabitants. -The increased number of vehicles will cause major traffic problems as it will add to the volume of cars and lorries on roads which already can't cope when the M1 has incidents. -It has not been proven that this infrastructure will be 100% utilized in the future, thereby being a potential total waste of money. -Two local villages will be unnecessarily decimated. -There is already a similar facility not 20 miles up the road which could be expanded. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cecilia Edwards
"I strongly object to the proposal. I moved to Milton Malsor in 1980 when I was just 4 years old. I grew up in the village and only moved away when I went to university. As my parent still live in the village, I am a frequent visitor and am horrified at the thought of the proposed Rail Freight Interchange. I have always valued the area around Milton Malsor and Blisworth for its open countryside and rural tranquillity. I am particularly concerned by the increased air pollution by Nitric Oxide and Diesel Particulate that would result from the thousands of extra traffic movements every day that would result from this huge proposed development. With a small baby, I fear that the effect of vehicle emissions would be a serious health risk. The significant extra traffic will of course be a major issue on local roads, where already we see the effect of M1 congestion causing substantial delays on the Blisworth to Milton Malsor road. I strongly object to the proposal because it runs totally contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS). The Daventry International Rail Terminal (DIRFT) is only approx. 20 miles north and has capacity for expansion for at least 10 years. It has gained planning approval for substantial expansion and is ideally located at J18 of the M1. There is therefore no need for an additional rail/freight terminal in this lovely region. All the land between Milton Malsor and Blisworth is currently open countryside that provides a haven for wildlife. All this would be totally lost. For these and many other reasons, I hope these unnecessary and unwanted proposals will be refused. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine Woolhead
"I moved 5 years ago to live in Northampton - closer to family members - and after viewing several properties fell in love with the Victorian Railway Cottage where I now live. The cottages are surrounded by the lovely Northamptonshire countryside in an area of beautiful villages. This small community of cottages, which are situated 0.5miles outside the village will, if this destruction takes place, be surrounded by mammoth warehouses and heavy traffic. The small community, the countryside and style of living chosen by many of the inhabitants will be demolished. I feel it will be a Hobson's choice of living in dirt, noise and chaos or, if it can be afforded, moving to inferior accommodation. The community - 12 cottages in all - meets the Government’s (verbalised) statement of communities helping the 'old and lonely'. It is a mixed group, of couples: families (with wonderfully polite children) singles and elders. It is an area where I feel safe and in which, without interfering in my busy (old and lonely?) lifestyle, any health problems have been met with the support of the neighbours. The above may be considered an emotional tract and certainly does not mean anything to the developers and I also have to question whether it does to UK Governments? I cannot argue facts, we have a protest group better able to do that and they are working hard without it seems true, certainly very little, information of what is happening. Concerns I hold are that such developers can present plans in such a way as to by-pass local authority agreement. Also that this Government has no strategy on where such developments take place i.e. that countryside can be destroyed not for need, but for an easy profit to a few regardless of the financial loss and destruction of a lifestyle to a community. "Nature never did betray the heart that loved her". [redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Paul
"As a resident of the locality I have grave concerns about the scale of the development and the current infrastructure in the area that is already at breaking point without more traffic, more buildings, more pollution and will potentially either cut off several rural communitiies and their services further or flood them with unwanted environmental issues such as noise, light, traffic pollution as well as taking away the green belt that protects rural South Northants from the town and industrial estates of Northampton."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clare Bailey
"I am from Blisworth and I have now along side my husband and 2 children bought our "forever" home in the Village. We came the decision 6 years ago to invest ALL our money and set up here.[REDACTED] We MUST live in a clean environment and stay away from the pollution this will bring to the village. PLEASE stop and think about this, let my son live in the village I grew up in and be a healthy happy boy. We are also very much aware that DIRFT that sits only a few minutes drive away sits very much empty. You can walk for ages through the empty warehouses and not see anyone or anything. This has been the case from the moment it was built and is still the same now. Why can DIRFT be utilised and filled before we just "build" more unused warehousing and destroy the countryside that sits along side Blisworth. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gary Costello
"My representation revolves around all forms of pollution and the effect on natural habitat. In my opinion the construction of industrial units and then the subsequent use of these will cause air, noise and light pollution affecting the residents of two villages. It will also have a detrimental affect to the natural habitat and wildlife in the area. I see no advantage of the development given the close proximity of DIRFT."
Members of the Public/Businesses
George Brain
"This development: is entirely unnecessary as there are numerous unlet warehouses in the surrounding area. will be the largest in Europe and cause the maximum damage to the environment and bio diversity. will cause large lorries to use the surrounding unsuitable road network and pass thought the nearby small villages. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gillian Ballinger
"I object to the proposed scheme for the following reasons; * Noise and disruption during construction * Light pollution * Noise during evenings, nights and weekends * Loss of walking routes * Loss of valuable green space * Number of traffic movements every day increasing number of vehicles on rural roads"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helambu Trust Nepal
"I object very strongly to the proposals. I have managed this Charitable Trust, which is based in Milton Malsor, for the past 18 years. I have valued the rural tranquillity of the village and the open countryside. The effect of significant extra traffic will be a major issue on local roads as seen already when M1 congestion causes substantial delays on the Blisworth to Milton Malsor road often with traffic at a standstill between the two villages. With large numbers of extra daily movements forecast, many of them HGV, this could become far worse. The area has very low unemployment so the majority of workers for the operation will have to travel some distance to work adding to congestion and air pollution. In addition, all the local plans show this site being retained as farmland and open countryside not industrial development. The site contains a number of mature trees that will take many years to replace. I am very concerned by the increased air pollution by Nitric Oxide and Diesel Particulate due to the thousands of extra traffic movements every day that would result. The effect of vehicle emissions can be a serious health risk. I strongly object to the proposal because it runs totally contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS). There is no need in the WNJCS for an SRFI on open countryside between Blisworth and Milton Malsor. The Daventry International Rail Terminal (DIRFT) is just a few miles north and has substantial capacity for expansion It has gained planning approval for further expansion and is ideally located at J18 of the M1. There is therefore no need for an additional rail/freight terminal in this region. I therefore hope these proposals will be refused. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jackie Christie
"This is going to some damaging to our local country side, the wild lif will be effected, the local roads can not take the extra traffic and the light and noise pollution will be horrendous."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Lack on behalf of Jacob Lawrence
"My points are as follows; Destruction of the countryside. Forcing people out of their homes. Dirft is so close why does it need to be here. Taking our villages away from us. Noise pollution. Light pollution. Disruption. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jacquelyn Jones
"I strongly object to the proposed Rail Central Strategic Rail Freight Interchange for a number of reasons. I moved to Milton Malsor three years ago to move into one of the remaining local areas of Northamptonshire that are surrounded by natural beauty, valuable farmland and mature trees. Should this go ahead not only will this be destroyed, but we will be loosing the long-standing footpaths that serve us and the surrounding area and any visitors and it will take away our lovely fresh countryside walks and a safe means of travelling between our local villages. The proposed changes to most of these paths would replace the open countryside views with the views of roads and railway lines along with significant noise and air pollution. Many of us in the village would suffer from various forms of pollution. Air pollution is the most concerning with the prevailing wind from the site blowing directly over the village. I have two young children and the move that we made from Wootton to Milton Malsor was made to move away from this risk of the levels of nitrous oxides in the air, which the UK Government have rightly raised concerns over. The large number of cars and HGV’s using this proposed site would make this situation far worse and have a major adverse impact on the health and wellbeing of my family and our fellow villagers. Other forms of pollution, noise, light and particularly during the construction period dust would also have a major impact on us all living in close proximity to the site. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jennifer Vaughan
"Dear Sirs, I wish to object to Stop Rail Central from a personal point of view and also how it will affect my community. I am a retired lady, having retired 7 years ago. Before moving to Blisworth I resided at Fosters Booth and Pattishall and was badly affected by the A5 traffic noise, pollution and congestion. I was looking for a quiet village location, which also had plenty on offer in relation to activities and community spirit.I decided to move to Blisworth, as this village ticked all the boxes. I now find myself in a worst position to that from which I had moved. I am unable to move house again, due to a financial position and I feel that life will be pretty much unbearable should this rail freight terminal be given he go ahead. There is only a very short distance from my house, there being a football pitch and 1 field between me and the proposed site. I am led to believe that there will be constant noise 24 hours a day, the site will be floodlit all night and the traffic and pollution will far exceed that experienced n Fostes Booth. Of late the M1 motorway has been conjested and all traffic use our village as an escape route, in particular Courteenhall Road. Having attended several meetings, it is abundantly clear that Stop Rail Central have no interest whatsoever in removing vehicles from roads, thei sole aim is money, money, money and they hope to obtain this by renting of the various units, which will in turn bring more traffic to the area, causing more pollution and congestion . There are plenty other sites along the motorway corridor that could be used, thus saving our village and the surrounding villages. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karen Evans
"The volume of traffic this development will bring to this area will be unbearable, the air pollution, noise pollution are all things that will ruin this lovely countryside. Crime levels will no doubt rise. I moved here to bring up my family in the countryside, surrounded by open fields not to be looking at your monstrosity of a warehouse, rail freight terminals. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karen Gill
"Our friends and members of our community are likely to be forced out of their homes or left to suffer the severe consequences of a destroyed environment. There are 16 properties located wholly within the boundary of the site, at least two of which will be demolished (both family homes with associated business premises), and at least one of these following a compulsory purchase order. There are a further six properties that will share a boundary with the development and 33 houses whose rural views from either the front or rear of their properties will be replaced with views of an industrial landscape. In addition, the properties in Blisworth Arm will have full view of the grade separated junction which will be at the same height as the roofs of the houses. There will also be clear views of the warehouses beyond. Ashfield Land has assessed the social, environment, health and visual impacts as negligible to minor and on a par with the impacts of Northampton Gateway (which directly affects only one resident in a similar way). The impact on local residents has already been massive and will only worsen. The Applicant effectively appears to have conveniently airbrushed the impacts on these people out of the picture. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kate Phillips
"I do not believe this application is necessary and will impact on my route to work"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katie Skilton
"I strongly object to the proposals of the rail development between Milton Malsor and Blisworth. I have lived here in Milton Malsor for nearly 11 years and have loved having beautiful countryside walks on our doorstep. I have 2 young children and we regularly walk the designated countryside bridle ways and Barn Lane an area that will be gobbled up by unsightly warehouse buildings if this development goes ahead. This is a time where we are being reminded by the likes of [redacted]not to destroy the fabulous environment we have as we will never be able to get it back. I think myself lucky to see the beautiful birds, trees, cows, sheep etc in their natural habitat and will be devistated to loose this. I am very concerned the affects the development will have on my family with concerns of light, noise and environmental pollution! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Keith Davies
"My family and I strongly object to the proposed Rail Cehtral planned for Milton Malsor and the surrounding villages. We all support the 9 point letter that has been submitted by Milton Malsor Parish Council. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kerry Herrington
"I strongly object to this application because: 1) The effect on the environment, both from diesel pollution, sound and light 2) Loss of farmland that makes for stunning views across the countryside as well as footpaths constantly in use by dog walkers 3) Decrease in the value of my property and others within the village 4) Loss of habitat for wildlife 5) Increase in road traffic, making it longer to get to work and a less safe environment 6) lack of desire for transport companies to use rail freight, therefore warehouses sitting empty 7) Northants already have a terminal just 15 minutes away 8) stress and anxiety put on villagers in regards to compulsory purchase"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Haigh
"I strongly object to the proposed Rail Central Strategic Rail Freight Interchange for a number of reasons. My daughter and her family moved to Milton Malsor to move into one of the remaining local areas of Northamptonshire that are surrounded by natural beauty, valuable farmland and mature trees. An area that would still give her easy access to the M1 to be able to visit family and have support from us with childcare. Most of the Northamptonshire area up the M1 is already destroyed and this is one of the only remaining areas that haven't yet been destroyed. Should this go ahead not only will this be destroyed like the others, but they will be loosing the long-standing footpaths that serve us and our grandchildren and the surrounding area and any visitors, and it will take away lovely fresh countryside walks and a safe means of travelling between the local villages. The proposed changes to most of these paths would replace the open countryside views with the views of roads and railway lines along with significant noise and air pollution. Many of the locals and regular visitors like us would suffer from various forms of pollution. Air pollution is the most concerning with the prevailing wind from the site blowing directly over the village. I have two young grandchildren and my daughter made a move to the area to move away from this risk of the levels of nitrous oxides in the air, which the UK Government have rightly raised concerns over. The large number of cars and HGV’s using this proposed site would make this situation far worse and have a major adverse impact on the health and wellbeing of my family and other villagers. Other forms of pollution, noise, light and particularly during the construction period dust would also have a major impact on us all being in close proximity to the site. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Local Enterprise Ltd (t/a Business Link ExpoQuest) (Local Enterprise Ltd (t/a Business Link ExpoQuest))
"I object very strongly to the proposals. Having run my business in Milton Malsor since 1983, I have valued its rural tranquillity and open countryside. The effect of significant extra traffic will be a major issue on local roads. We already see the effect of M1 congestion causing substantial delays on the Blisworth to Milton Malsor road often with traffic at a complete standstill between the two villages. I understand that large numbers of extra daily movements are forecast, many of them HGV. This could lead to total road standstill and chaos I am very concerned by the increased air pollution by Nitric Oxide and Diesel Particulate due to the thousands of extra traffic movements every day that would result. The effect of vehicle emissions can be a serious health risk. I strongly object to the proposal because it runs totally contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS). There is no need in the WNJCS for an SRFI on open countryside between Blisworth and Milton Malsor. The Daventry International Rail Terminal (DIRFT) is just a few miles north and has substantial capacity for expansion It has gained planning approval for further expansion and is ideally located at J18 of the M1. There is therefore no need for an additional rail/freight terminal in this region. The land between Blisworth and Milton Malsor is currently open countryside that provides a haven for wildlife. All this would be totally lost to the area. I therefore hope these proposals will be refused. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lucy Palmer
"We believe the Rail Central proposal is unnecessary due to the proximity to the DIRFT depot only a short distance away in Daventry. DIRFT still has capacity to expand, which begs the question, why do we need Rail Central? This new proposed development will swallow up a huge area of farming and conservation land that will be lost forever should this plan go ahead. Blisworth, Milton Malsor, and all the surrounding villages will be affected by increased noise pollution, air pollution, traffic and will decrease the desirability of the area, leading most likely to a fall in house prices. Blisworth already suffers from a large number of HGV vehicles travelling through the village, and causing havoc along the roads, in particular near the school, where all too often they are mounting curbs, and driving down pavements. An increase in this type of traffic will surely lead to accidents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Luke Palmer
"We believe the Rail Central proposal is unnecessary due to the proximity to the DIRFT depot only a short distance away in Daventry. DIRFT still has capacity to expand, which begs the question, why do we need Rail Central? This new proposed development will swallow up a huge area of farming and conservation land that will be lost forever should this plan go ahead. Blisworth, Milton Malsor, and all the surrounding villages will be affected by increased noise pollution, air pollution, traffic and will decrease the desirability of the area, leading most likely to a fall in house prices. Blisworth already suffers from a large number of HGV vehicles travelling through the village, and causing havoc along the roads, in particular near the school, where all too often they are mounting curbs, and driving down pavements. An increase in this type of traffic will surely lead to accidents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Maria Mckeown
"I object to this development infrastructure on the grounds that is is not required and significantly impacts our village and surrounding areas, it will directly impact my quality of home life and working life due to the increased congestion it will cause our already stretched road network. There is already huge infrastructure in daventry which is not at full capacity and is less than 20 miles from my village. Not to mention the impact to noise and environment pollution impacting wildlife and my children there is not enough housing to accommodate. Please do not let this pass. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Underwood
"I am heavily opposed to the application made for a Rail Freight Interchange. The proposed site is: - Very close to another large RFI (DIRFT) which is not at capacity - A poor and inefficient use of land that is ideally situated for new housing development My other objections are as follows: - This is a commercial venture, not a strategic one. It seeks to make private investors rich at the cost of the local community. - The road links in the area are already stressed - this proposal would only make matters worse throughout build and operation thereafter. - I am a very light sleeper and I'm very concerned about any noise created by the RFI during construction or operation. - I find the proposals unsightly - The increased particulate and NOx emission from HGV vehicles would pollute the local air. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Wilson
"I do not think the development is necessary or in scale with the surrounding peaceful villages and land that would form part of the development. The existing DIRFT development nearby appears to be adequate for the needs of this area, this second development seems unnecessary and would stress an already over burdened motorway junction. I have lived in Milton Malsor and Grange Park for the past 7 years and feel there is no benefit for residents only years of construction disruption."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Wreford
"Do we need another one this close to DIRFT !"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Matthew Bowden
"i object to the application due to i) the severe environmental impact of the additional vehicle movements produced by the SRFI, ii) the impact on local road infrastructure and iii) the impact on the local community. Air pollution is a critical issue and the UK Government has already lost several court cases as it's plans to tackle the issue have been found to be unlawful. As the vast majority of the additional road traffic will be diesel powered, the effects on local pollution/air quality will be significant. I also understand that existing roads are to be used for the SFRI which are already heavily congested. Finally, the impact on the closest two villages of Milton Malsor and Blisworth would be considerable and spoil two beautiful English villages unnecessarily."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Edwards
"This development is unneccessary as theer is an underused freight terminal (DIRFT) just a few miles away. It will DESTROY large areas of green belt countryside and make the lives of those living in the surrounding areas unbearable. Despite plans and assurances on traffic issues this would cause massive problems in local towns and villages. Even now, each time there is a problem with the M1 or any of the major local roads villages are inundated with traffic. It is also inevitable that staff employed at this site would find ways to access it via back roads to avoid busy main roads."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michelle Higgs
"Firstly, I appeal for your better judgement to reason why another rail depot is needed when 17 miles down the M1, DRIFT, is not yet nearly full. Secondly, I ask you to think about the impact on our beautiful countryside, the wildlife and the devastation it will have on people of the surrounding villages, the noise and light pollution, the reducing value of our homes, the crime rate increasing, the dog walkers, the horse riders, the walkers- our footpaths gone, trees that have taken years to grow bulldozed away. I was born in Roade and have brought my family up here, I can not envisage living here with a concrete jungle so close by, If you lived here you would realise the devastation it will have on our lives....."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Miss Madeleine Skillen
"I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION There would be an increase in air, light and noise pollution due to thousands of extra vehicles using the roads in the local area. Alongside noise from 24/7 operation of the rail terminal such as railway shunting and loading and unloading of containers. Light pollution from night-time operations. A substantial increase of traffic through the village where the M1/A43 is congested. Travelling from Towcester to the village on the A43 involves crossing west-bound traffic - Blisworth/Milton Malsor. This is an extremely dangerous junction and has seen many fatalities. Increased traffic due to the development would see drivers avoiding it by rat running through the local villages. Due to a workforce the village would be used for employees to park their vehicles. There are many ancient footpaths connecting Milton Malsor with other villages. The freight terminal would destroy these rights of way and hundreds of acres of productive agricultural land would be lost especially when the country needs to produce more food. The land between Milton Malsor and Blisworth is beautiful countryside that is a haven for wildlife. This would be lost and many species of farmland birds would be totally lost to the area. The village of Milton Malsor church has owned a large field off Barn Land for hundreds of years and is lovely open area. Building of warehouses on this land would be a dreadful loss to the community. Milton Malsor village has a Poors' Trust that has existed since the 18th century. Due to the ownership of land that it rents out in Barn Lane it is in the position to provide small sums of the money to the poor and needy of the village. The land would become part of a Compulsory Purchase and compensation would be incapable of providing a similar level of income. Daventry Rail Freight Terminal is not far away from the Rail Central site and has capacity for expansion for approximately 10 years. There is absolutely no requirement for another freight terminal in this area. Northamptonshire is a rural county with only a few medium sized towns, three massive freight terminals would be in excess of the needs of the local market. DIRFT has also seen an increase in crime following the industrialisation in the area. The particular proposed site has a number of mature trees that will take several years to replace. It should also be noted that this proposal is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy. it is vital to keep this land as open space as it ensures that there is a barrier between town and country. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr John Thompson
"As the plan shows an area of vegetation including some trees is taken between the end of the front garden and the existing duel carriageway, which give us some protection from the duel carriageway, however this duel carriageway has obviously got busier over the 20+ years we have lived in the property, I see no plan for what you intend to put in its place to shield us i.e. (fence) from further road noise and possible damage to our property when will this become clear? "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Jordan Smith
"Please find below my personal opinion, in bullet points, to why I oppose the Rail freight interchange; - High concentration of traffic around the area, estimated to be around 22,000. There are no proposed plans of improving the infrastructure to cope with this. - Poor air quality from the increase in traffic - Destruction of picturesque ancient countryside - Noise pollution - Destruction of habitat - Proposing new jobs however these are not needed in this area, therefore meaning more people will be travelling to the area therefore increasing traffic and congesting smaller villages surrounding this. Further to this, I understand there is a big site at Crick, in which could be improved and upgraded and used without the need to build a new one. There is also one being built currently in Hinkley. I do not understand the need for such a place to be built when we already have 2 structures in such close proximity to each other. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Mark James Pinto
"I STRONGLY DISAGREE TO THIS APPLICATION My father lives in Milton Malsor and I grew up in the village. Northamptonshire is a fairly rural county with a few medium sized towns, three freight terminals (Daventry international Rail Freight Terminal, Rail Central and Northampton Gateway) would be outrageously in excess of the needs of the local market. Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal has shown an increase in crime following industrialisation within this vicinity. The proposal will destroy hundreds of acres of beautiful countryside bringing industry into an area that is an extremely important gap between a town and country environment. The Milton Malsor Village Trust has been in existence for hundreds of years and due to its ownership of land that is rented out in Barn Lane is able to provide small sums of money to the needy and vulnerable of the village. This land would become the subject of a compulsory purchase and compensation would not be able to provide a similar income. There would a vast increase in air pollution from thousands of extra vehicles i.e., cars, HGV's and vans all using the local area. Night pollution would rise due to night time operations and there would be noise created by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal, loading and unloading containers. Traffic through the village would be increased due to increased congestion on the M1/A43. Milton Malsor village would become a car park for the workforce. Scenic views over mainly open countryside would be destroyed by ugly, enormous warehouse and high earth mounds. The bunding would be very alien and a blot on the landscape. Hundreds and hundreds of acres of agricultural productive land would be obliterated when the country needs to produce more food. There is already a significant low unemployment thus thousand of employees that would be required would have to travel a long distance to get to work. This again would increase congestion in the area and a rise in air pollution. The proposal of the development would result in the local flower nursery losing it livelihood. The nursery always show at "Chelsea" and this would be a great loss to the community. There are a network of ancient footpaths connecting Milton Malsor with other local villages. The proposal of the freight terminal would destroy these delightful rights of way. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Victor Giles Pinto
"I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION The West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy, South Northants Local Plan, completed, found to be sound by PINS and adopted in 2014 rejected a request from Ashfield Land to include a provision for a SRFI. The strategy clearly stated that new rail freight interchanges are not deliverable within the plan period and that major new industrial development should be on three sites namely - Silverstone, Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal and around junction 16 of the M1. A Milton Malsor village Charitable Trust and the Village Church own parcels of land within the boundary of the proposed site and are scheduled for compulsory acquisition. This would have a significant and adverse impact on villagers. Since the 18th Century the Milton Malsor Poors' Trust through it ownership of land that it rents out in Barn Lane is able to provide a small sum of money to the needy and vulnerable of the village. This land would be subject to a Compulsory Purchase and compensation would be incapable of providing a level of income. The development would result in the loss of a long established local flower nursery. The owners of the nursery often show at The Chelsea Flower Show and this would be a major loss to the community. A compulsory acquisition of this nursery would have an enormous effect on the owners. They would become homeless. A planned development of 30 homes close to the Rail Central development has been postponed as building companies await the decision of the Rail Central proposal. Should development go ahead these needed homes will not be constructed. This goes against the government's objective in providing affordable housing. There is a large network of ancient footpaths connecting Milton Malsor to other local villages that serve the residents. The freight terminal would destroy these rights of way and hundreds of acres of agricultural land would be lost when the country is in need to produce more food. The land between Milton Malsor and Blisworth is currently open countryside that is a haven for wildlife. This would be totally lost and species of farmland birds would be lost to the area. Daventry Rail Freight Terminal is not far way from the Rail Central site and has more than adequate capacity for expansion for the coming 10 years. There is absolutely no requirement for another freight terminal in the near vicinity. Also DIRFT has also shown an increase in crime following the industrialisation of this area. There is already a very low rate of unemployment in Northamptonshire. Thousands of employees that would be required to commute a fair distance to get to work. This would cause an increase in congestion in the area and also an increase in air pollution due to thousands of extra cars, vans and lorries. There would also be an increase in traffic through the village from the M1/A43 due to congestion. The village would be used for parking for the workforce. Beautiful views over mainly open countryside would be destroyed by ugly warehouses and high earth mounds. These earth mounds would be an alien feature and completely blot on the landscape. Local plans do not show any large development on this site. It is imperative to keep this land as farmland and countryside and not an industrial development. There would be an overall increase of air "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Alison Skillen
"I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION The Milton Malsor Poors' Trust has been in existence since the 18th Century and through its ownership of land that it rents out in Barn Lane provides a sum of money to needy and vulnerable of the village. This land would be part of a compulsory purchase and would have a significant impact on villagers. An established local flower nursery operates within the site boundary. The owners of this nursery have shown at "Chelsea" and it would be a significant loss to the community. The church of Milton Malsor for hundreds of years has owned a large field off Barn Lane and is an important open area. Constructing warehouse on this field would be a total loss to the community. The lovely views over open countryside would be destroyed by constructing enormous ugly warehouses and high earth mounds. The earth mounds would be totally alien and a complete blot on the landscape. There are a large network of ancient footpaths connecting Milton Malsor with other nearby villages. The freight terminal would utterly destroy these rights of way and hundreds of acres of productive agricultural land would be lost when the country currently needs to produce a great deal more food. Northamptonshire already has a very low rate of unemployment therefore thousand of employees would need to travel a considerable distance to get to work. The consequence of this would be an increase in congestion in the area and create unnecessary air pollution. There would also be workforce that would use the village for parking. The local road network is inadequate to deal with potential increased volume of traffic from HGVs along with potential new employees that do not live within the area using the site on a daily and also 24 hours basis. Travelling on the A43 from Towcester requires crossing west-bound traffic on the A43 (Blisworth - Milton Malsor). This is an extremely dangerous junction and has already seen my lives taken. An increase in traffic due to the development would see drivers avoiding it by rat running through the nearby villages. There would be an increase in traffic through the village where the M1/43 is congested. This proposal is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy. The Daventry Rail Freight Terminal is only a few miles from the Rail Central site and enough capacity for expansion for over ten years. There is absolutely no need for the construction of another freight terminal in the area. Since the development of DIRFT there has been an increase in crime in this area. Northamptonshire is mostly a rural country with only a few medium sized towns, three enormous freight terminals:- Daventry, Rail Central and Northampton Gateway, would be totally in excess of the needs of the local market. The operation will create unacceptable light, air and noise pollution destroying the lives in at least two rural communities and endangering peoples health and their general well-being. The impact of 24/7 noise, light and air pollution will be considerable for residents of the local villages some of whom already suffer with significant with breathing disorders such as COPD. Also the residents of Roseacre a family home situated within the site boundary would become homeless following the compulsory acquisition. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Audrey Ramshaw
"I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION The land between Milton Malsor and Blisworth is lovely open countryside for all sorts of wildlife. This sadly would be lost and species of farmland birds would be totally lost to the beautiful local area. There is a network of footpaths that link Milton Malsor with local villages. The freight terminal would destroy these delightful walk ways. Beautiful views over open miles of open countryside would be destroyed by enormous and ugly warehouse along with unsightly earth mounds. This would completely mask the landscape. Milton Malsor church for hundreds of years has owned an extremely large field off Barn Lane, this is a lovely area and the construction of building warehouse on this field wold be an enormous loss the community within Milton Malsor. The owners of the local nursery Flowercraft have presented at "Chelsea" and this would be a total catastrophic loss the village community. There would be a rise in air pollution from the thousands of vehicles using the roads in the local area. The village would be turned in a car park for the workforce. There is already low unemployment, so the workers for the operation would have to travel a far distance to work adding again to congestion and a rise in pollution. The Daventry Intern. Rail Freight Terminal is not far away from the proposed site, it already serves the same local area has the potential for expansion for at least another 10 years. There has been an increase in crime due to the industrialisation of the Daventry Intern. Rail Freight Terminal. This proposal is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Janet P Lyons
"I object to this planning application because of the effect it will have on the environment viz: increase in traffic congestion causing increase in the current levels of traffic chaos and pollution. Increase in the danger to children and the elderly. How can the workers be housed and where will they come from? The effect that it will have on property prices and the possible increase in the level of crime in the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicola Newby
"Please see below an outline of my principal submissions in relation to this application: • That the proposed development would have a significant adverse effect on the local transport infrastructure. The M1 is already severely congested in and around Northampton and in the event that there are any incidents on the M1 (or A43) there are then major issues on the surrounding road network, including significant additional vehicle movements through our village (Blisworth). These additional vehicle movements dramatically increase issues of road safety in the immediate area. • I understand that the proposed development would only have one access point off the A43 with emergency access being provided off the Northampton Road. In the event that there is a problem on the A43 and vehicles are unable to use the access point on the A43, I am deeply concerned that vehicles will instead be allowed to enter and leave the site from the Northampton Road. This would be completely unacceptable, not only because of the sheer volume of additional traffic on local roads but also because of the nature of that traffic. The local road network is simply not able to cope with heavy goods vehicles passing through the villages in large numbers. • I am concerned that even during the course of the ‘normal’ course of its construction and operation the proposed development would lead to significant rat-running – something that will be almost impossible to mitigate. • That the proposed development would significantly alter the rural nature of the surrounding area, in particular the historic villages of Blisworth and Milton Malsor. • That the proposed development would lead to the destruction of 250ha of open countryside – countryside which is currently subject to frequent recreational use by local residents including dog-walkers, ramblers and joggers. It also provides a safe environment for local children to play. • That the proposed development is far too close to residential accommodation. I am deeply concerned about the resulting noise, light, vibration and air quality issues. • That the proposed development would have a significant adverse effect on the quality of life of local residents – residents who made a conscious decision to live in a rural, rather than an urban, environment. • That the proposed development would have a significant adverse effect on the value of residential properties thereby severely constraining the ability of local residents to sell their properties in the event that they decide that they no longer wish to live in an area where the nature of that area has been changed beyond all recognition. • That the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact upon the historic nature of the surrounding environment. As a resident of a Grade II listed property in very close proximity to the proposed development, I am of the opinion that no amount of mitigation could overcome this."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katie Skilton on behalf of Oscar Skilton
"From the words of my son he strongly objects as this is where we go on family walks and ride our bikes. I don’t want to have lorry’s coming through my village and hear the trains!!!!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Finson
"I strongly object to the proposals for the following reasons: 1. this will increase noise for a significant number of residents in the locality 2. this will very significantly increase the amount of lorries in the area; the type of roads locally are not adequate for this, and this will increase the noise and will decrease air quality"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Goss
"expressing the concerns about the proposed rail and warehouse development. This will destroy village life in the surrounding areas for a lot of people. I would like to re-enforce the points made, • It will have a workforce of 7000 what transport will it use? • Where will all the articulated lorries and vehicles go? The MI is a nightmare now. Listen to travel news each day! This will bring the M1 to a standstill. Not to mention the A43, A508, A5 and surrounding roads. • The pollution is over the acceptable levels now. We will go back to the poisonous days of smog. • Where will all the trains go? The main line is running at full capacity now. Midland Trains recently increased the speed of their trains from 100mph to 110mph, in an attempt to increase the number of trains on the line by four a day. They achieved two. Hence one of the arguments used for the need of HS2 (no capacity on present network) Perhaps this folly could be used on this? • Why do we need such a development? What’s its purpose? We need more localization not globalization. This will greatly increase the mileage footprint of goods. • When I went to one of the roadshows, the presenters could not give any justification for this development, just the normal political evasive answers. Just red faces. In fact I asked about the land which has now been annexed. I was told nothing was proposed. Lies! I suppose they will acquire the rest of Land to take up it to the M1. • We are experiencing difficulties in accessing our public services now. • Our Social Services, doctors, schools are at breaking point. • Our Hospital is under immense pressure now, and at breaking point. The increase of people having to use its services will break it completely. • What other farmland will be acquired to provide the housing needs for its proposed workforce. • Who are the actual faces behind this folly, who will profit from this. Not our community. Would they suffer this blight. I doubt it. Please stop this insanity now. This will destroy our Green and Pleasant Land for generations to come. Once it’s gone its gone Peter Goss [REDACTED] 23rd March 2018 I am writing to you regarding the two Rail Central developments between Milton Malsor and Blisworth south of Northampton. This will be the largest warehouse and distribution development in Europe. This will invade the Green Belt, destroying 1000’s of acres of farm land and blighting many homes and lives’. It also goes against the local plan. My concerns are that the people outside the immediate developments are not aware of the impact that it will have on their lives. These developments have been disguised as Strategic Rail Freight Terminals, when in fact only 4% will be transported by rail and maybe 10% at best if HS2 is built. The remaining 90/96% by road. The West Coast Main West Line is running at capacity now, Midland Trains increased the speed of their trains from 100mph to 110mph in an attempt to gain 2 to 4 extra trains a hour on the line. I have spoken to many people outside the immediate vicinity of the developments. I am amazed they are not aware of the impact that it will have on Northampton, Towcester and the surrounding areas. These developments involve major alterations to the M1 junctions, 15, and 15a. Major alterations to the A508 and the surrounding roads. An underpass at Milton Malsor. Another new roundabout and road works on the A43 between Towcester and junction 15a M1. These alterations and road work will cause endless disruptions and delays to our already congested road network. When these works are completed, where is the estimated increase of 9000 extra HGV’S and 20,000 other vehicles a day going? The M1 is nearly at capacity now, bearing in mind that Brackmills, Sixfields, Grange Park, Milton Keynes and Dirft are being developed further. The traffic from the 100’s of new homes that will have to be built will also add to the congestion. It will put an unsustainable strain on our already stretched infrastructure and public services. Northampton General Hospital is overcrowded now, (recent death due to overcrowding). Bearing in mind Northampton County Council is bankrupt and has no money to spend on infrastructure, the deterioration of our roads will be catastrophic, there will be no roads left to drive on. Gone our green and pleasant land! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Townsend
"I object to this developemnt because of the following concerns 1. There will b e an increase traffic of both he major and minor roads in the era, and will force more lorries into the villages. 2. There will be constant light pollution in a rural location. 3. There will be in an increrase in dust and general pollution in the area. 4. There is no need for tow strategic rail freight interchanges in the area and this is the second application lodged. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Quinn Palmer
"We believe the Rail Central proposal is unnecessary due to the proximity to the DIRFT depot only a short distance away in Daventry. DIRFT still has capacity to expand, which begs the question, why do we need Rail Central? This new proposed development will swallow up a huge area of farming and conservation land that will be lost forever should this plan go ahead. Blisworth, Milton Malsor, and all the surrounding villages will be affected by increased noise pollution, air pollution, traffic and will decrease the desirability of the area, leading most likely to a fall in house prices. Blisworth already suffers from a large number of HGV vehicles travelling through the village, and causing havoc along the roads, in particular near the school, where all too often they are mounting curbs, and driving down pavements. An increase in this type of traffic will surely lead to accidents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ricky Dickens
"I strongly object..as I believe the disruption to our Local area will be massivley detrimental. I feel there is no need for another rail terminal as there ate another 2 within a 100 miles of here"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ron Haigh
"I strongly object to the proposed Rail Central Strategic Rail Freight Interchange for a number of reasons. Should this go ahead it will destroy one of the remaining areas local to Northampton, of natural beauty, open farmland and countryside air, it will also take away the long-standing footpaths that serve us and our grandchildren and the surrounding area and any visitors, and it will take away lovely fresh countryside walks and a safe means of travelling between the local villages. The proposed changes to most of these paths would replace the open countryside views with the views of roads and railway lines along with significant noise and air pollution. Many of the locals and regular visitors like us would suffer from various forms of pollution. Air pollution is the most concerning with the prevailing wind from the site blowing directly over the village. I have two young grandchildren and my daughter made a move to the area to move away from this risk of the levels of nitrous oxides in the air, which the UK Government have rightly raised concerns over. The large number of cars and HGV’s using this proposed site would make this situation far worse and have a major adverse impact on the health and wellbeing of my family and other villagers. Other forms of pollution, noise, light and particularly during the construction period dust would also have a major impact on us all being in close proximity to the site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Lack
"My points are as follows; Destruction of the countryside. Forcing people out of their homes. Dirft is so close why does it need to be here. Taking our villages away from us. Noise pollution. Light pollution. Disruption. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stacy Palmer
"We believe the Rail Central proposal is unnecessary due to the proximity to the DIRFT depot only a short distance away in Daventry. DIRFT still has capacity to expand, which begs the question, why do we need Rail Central? This new proposed development will swallow up a huge area of farming and conservation land that will be lost forever should this plan go ahead. Blisworth, Milton Malsor, and all the surrounding villages will be affected by increased noise pollution, air pollution, traffic and will decrease the desirability of the area, leading most likely to a fall in house prices. Blisworth already suffers from a large number of HGV vehicles travelling through the village, and causing havoc along the roads, in particular near the school, where all too often they are mounting curbs, and driving down pavements. An increase in this type of traffic will surely lead to accidents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
T R Lyons
"I object to this planning application because of the effect that it will have on the environment viz. increase in traffic congestion causing increase in current levels traffic chaos and pollution. Increase in the danger to children and the elderly.How can the workers be housed and where will they come from? The effect that it will have on property prices.possible increase in crime levels."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Lack on behalf of Todd Lawrence
"My points are as follows; Destruction of the countryside. Forcing people out of their homes. Dirft is so close why does it need to be here. Taking our villages away from us. Noise pollution. Light pollution. Disruption. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Victoria Jenks
"I wish to strongly object to the Rail Central application for a Rail Freight Terminal and warehousing between the villages of Milton Malsor & Blisworth. This terminal will generate air, noise and light pollution, air pollution is already a serious issue for the local area. There is no confirmation from Network rail that rail paths will be available to take the extra traffic the developers are claiming will be required. There are other strategic freight terminal proposals within a 50 mile radius and all need access to the West Coast Main Line (WCML). The Daventry International Rail Terminal (DIRFT) is within 18 miles it is well established and has capacity estimated to last until 2033. I question the need for another terminal within such close proximity? The Northampton Gateway proposal at J15 of the M1 adjacent to the Rail Central site is also being examined by the Planning Inspectorate. The impact of even one terminal with warehousing has massive repercussions for the local area. The Government’s aim to reduce HGV’s on the roads is being abused by developers who are putting applications forward, bypassing local governance, under the ‘umbrella’ of National Infrastructure Strategic Rail Freight Projects. The countryside which will be lost is now ‘open green space’ with trees and wildlife and ancient footpaths crisscrossing the agricultural farmland. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Carter Freng MA DPhil Ceng
"i am a resident of Blisworth and my representation against the application is based on: Traffic - the measures for M1 J15, A508, Stoke Road (ie sat nav bypassing) are inadequate and will exacerbate already very difficult traffic conditions Need - the 'strategic' need has not been demonstrated in my view. The word 'strategic' is overused and seems an attempt to bypass normal measures and controls. it seems that multiple 'strategic' rail-freight interchanges are on the table; all of these cannot be 'strategic'. In addition any additional 'strategic' need will have to be reassessed in any post Brexit scenario. 'Strategic' will likely migrate to 'White Elephant'. Please note that i am in favour of truly strategic economic development and enhancement of the Uk infrastructure, provided this is environmentally sensitive in its execution. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ann Husbands
"The whole idea of having a freight terminal in the middle of a small village is abhorent We have a freight terminal not far from here, so use that one The village will not be able to cope with the noise pollution or the fuel pollution I do not want to bring my grandchildren up in a village with this running through it The village will not be able to cope with the extra traffic The village will not be able to cope with the extra personnel which they will need to service the freight terminal DO NOT LET THIS GO AHEAD"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Louise Bodsworth on behalf of Bethany Foster
"I'm interested in this proposal as I'm concerned for my villages future and my own "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cameron Higgs
"I strongly object to this development on the grounds that it would be extremely detrimental to the surrounding countryside and communities, this area is one of outstanding natural beauty. It would be a huge error on behalf of the government if this area were allowed to be developed into a massive industrial development with an increase in traffic throughout the surrounding areas not only from the freight movements but also at all times of day and night by the employees who are not likely come from the immediate surrounding areas. Capacity of the West Coast Main Line should be assessed first with the existing (and currently being developed) rail freight terminals at capacity to see if there is actually demand & a requirement for this."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carl Hamilton
"One of my main concerns is that the inevitable increase in traffic to and from the site would erode the rural nature of many small villages in the area and increase both noise and emission pollution. Our village has stables with horses being exercised on local roads every day. Large volumes of traffic would make such pursuits both difficult and dangerous. To make matters worse there is a chance that two SRFIs could be granted planning permission. That would have a huge negative impact on local communities but, despite this, Ashfield Land (to the best of my knowledge) have failed to plan for such an eventuality. Perhaps because there is no plan that could make two sites acceptable when there is little local support for even one. Last but not least, is this the right place for a SFRI? Surely further north with rail links to the East coast would be truly strategic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Catharina Arthurs
"This is not a site of strategic importance and Rail Central are simply promoting it as such because they own it. Furthermore, it is clearly a commercial, rather than a strategic decision to place a second SRFI within 15 miles of an existing one; one that will not be at capacity until 2033. Surely for it to be strategic it should be linked by a strategy that has been devised nationally and not driven by which developer happens to own a piece of land. This currently does not appear to be the case. Rail Central is contrary to the adopted West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) and in conflict with the commercial, transport and housing objectives of the whole region. A further development on this scale will result in a complete imbalance of planning objectives. Rail Central have overstated the strategic location and interconnectivity of this particular site: i) The local road network is already far too congested to accommodate this scheme and cannot be improved sufficiently to mitigate the impact. The main access road is already overstressed and a secondary route through a small village is untenable (The scheme relies on utilising the existing road between Milton Malsor and Blisworth as its only other alternative road: this is completely unacceptable for a scheme of this size (7.5m sq ft.), which would normally require a second connection to a major trunk road) ii) The Northampton loop line unlikely to have the capacity for additional freight when DIRFT 3 is running at capacity. Rail Central’s claim that both the Northampton loop and the WCML lines will be available are unfounded as WCML is highly unlikely to accommodate slower freight trains throughout the day. Northampton Highways Authority and the Northampton Rail Users Group have expressed concern that if either Application were to be approved this could result in a reduction in passenger rail services from Northampton. Road congestion will worsen rather than improve with the terminal being a mostly road based logistics park (over half the site cannot be served by rail due to its bisection by the Northampton to Towcester Road). Rail Central would result in in excess of 20,000 additional vehicle movements a day on the A43 and surrounding roads. This would be in addition to the 16,500 extra daily vehicle movements that would result from Northampton Gateway. Both would be operating 24 hours a day. To put this into context, over 16,000 vehicles currently use the A508 every day. This would inevitably create more local air pollution, especially in the two Air Quality Management Areas (between J15 and J16 and on the A45 near Wootton). The impact of this scheme on the local villages and their communities will be both huge and permanent and no amount of mitigation can change this. The activities of rail freight interchanges produce air, light and noise pollution, the effects of which CANNOT be adequately mitigated especially with two villages in such close proximity The economic landscape is such that there is currently no incentive for commercial organisations to switch from road to rail. Given the relatively short distances involved and without Government subsidy the required modal shift will not occur (There is no requirement for SRFIs, once constructed, to actually accept any freight by rail: they merely have to have the capacity to do so. This is the loophole currently being exploited by Developers) As a consequence of the above the carbon objectives of this proposal will never be met (at least within any realistic timescale). Rail Central’s claim of “Sustainability” has been challenged Rail Central is only the start. Granting of permission for this development will inevitably lead to further applications for housing and associated amenities leading to further unwanted development and loss of precious countryside and rural communities. Over 1150 acres of agricultural land would be covered in concrete by these two developments. The M1 has been a natural barrier to development spilling over into the rural areas of South Northamptonshire. Rail Central would overwhelm Milton Malsor. The demand for unplanned housing would rise resulting in development spreading to other areas, especially along the A508. People will lose their houses, homes and community. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine Ward
"i object on the grounds of noise and air pollution. This is a massive development bringing no benefits to the area. We have Pineham and Swann Valley developments. The noise levels from these and the motorway are already substantial.I feel that the Rail Central will make our situation much worse."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christy Nolan
"I am objecting to his development as I feel it will have a negative effect on the area"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Colin 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 almost certainly require a reduction in passenger service to Northampton. As the town is still increasing in size, and its greater area is likely to, top 0.4 million. Thus we should be looking to improve rather than to reduce services. Further as freight is slower than passenger services, journey times will Lengthen. This would affect 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. In all probably 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 can provide an adequate labour pool. All this would then create knock on effects. There are other sundry reasons such as crime increase and loss of wildlife habitat "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Featherstone
"Any suggestion that this project is of strategic national importance is false For many reasons this location would not be selected as strategic eg due to lack of capacity on the rail line and the proximity of existing sites. Why are so many sites in this area when elsewhere in the country is bereft The application is a trojan horse to avoid local accountability bypassing local planners. IT is nothing more than yet another application for warehouses on a green field site It will create pollution locally and where will I walk my dog in future ? For these reasons I strongly object"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Digby Annie
"i have been living in Milton Malsor for over 30 years and I very strongly object to the proposed Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) between the rural villages of Milton Malsor and Blisworth as it will badly affect this part of the countryside. It will not only create unsightly earth mounds but also destroy wildlife habitat, which is already threatened by mankind. I also strongly object to this proposal as it will have a detrimental impact on noise levels caused by increased traffic when the M1 and A43 are already badly congested and by the constant operation of the rail terminal including railway shunting. Light pollution is an additional major concern. Noise and light pollution have very serious detrimental consequences on human health and the local residents' wellbeing and quality of life will be affected by this proposal. The proposal will also have consequences on crime levels as the experience from DIRFT shows an increase in crime following the industrialisation of the area. I object to the fact that this proposal contravenes the West Northants Joint Core Strategy. In addition, all the local plans show this site being retained as farmland and not industrial development. The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only a short distance away from this site and has been granted planning approval for expansion. Therefore there is absolutely no need for the proposed Rail Central SRFI to be sited between Milton Malsor and Blisworth. There is enough land allocated in the WNJCS for this purpose, on Junctions 16 and 18 on the M1. This proposal must be stopped. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
E Jarvis
"This development is out of keeping with the rural landscape, make access to the countryside near wootton more restricted. The increase in HGV traffic and employee commutes will exacerbate the traffic problems around Juntion 15 and the already overloaded A45. The air quality and noise issues, which have already been highlighted in the inspection of the adjoining Roxhill application, will be made worse. There is adequate HGV povision locally at Crick already. This one is unnecessary and a blot on the beautiful Northaptonshire countryside "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elaine Clarke
"I strongly object to this development on the grounds that it would be ruinous to the surrounding countryside and communities. Development of Northampton has always been prevented from going beyond the M1 for good reasons, this area is one of outstanding natural beauty. It would be a huge error on behalf of the government if this area were allowed to be developed into a massive industrial development with an increase in traffic throughout the surrounding areas not only from the freight movements but also at all times of day and night by the employees who are not likely come from the immediate surrounding areas. I fear this influx of "minimum wage" employees is also likely to increase crime in the area. Capacity of the West Coast Main Line should be assessed first with the existing (and currently being developed) rail freight terminals at capacity to see if there is actually demand & a requirement for this."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma Britton
"Local road networks will not cope with the increased traffic No strategic need for a rail terminal Current rail terminal in close proximity in Rugby that provided service this project intends to perform. Massive impact to local residents with the loss of a large section of farm Land effecting local house values and dams gong the environment. All points above are all directly impacted by this proposal. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Erin Clarke
"I strongly object to the proposals on the grounds that it will destroy what are beautiful villages and countryside areas. The local communities will be changed forever and not for the better. The warehouses will be real blots on the landscape for all to see from the main line whilst traveling past the lovely Northampton... or what was."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Louise Bodsworth on behalf of Ethan Foster
"Iam interested in my future and the future of my village due to this proposal "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Guellec-Digby & Co Ltd
"Our company has been established in Milton Malsor for almost 15 years and we strongly object to the proposed Rail Central Strategic Rail Freight Interchange between the villages of Milton Malsor and Blisworth as it will contribute to further traffic congestion caused by increased traffic through Milton Malsor. There will be 22,000 additional vehicle movements a day. In addition, as the area has very low unemployment, the majority of workers for the operation will travel some distance to work and this will result in increased congestion and pollution in the area. Part of the attraction of working in Gayton Road in Milton Malsor is its easy access from the village itself but congestion issues will have a detrimental effect on all local businesses. Furthermore, there is no valid reason for the proposed rail freight interchange to be located between Milton Malsor and Blisworth. The Daventry Internation 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. There is no policy or evidence in the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) to suggest the need for a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) on land in open countryside. We also strongly object to this proposal on the basis that the proposal is contrary to the WNJCS formally adopted in December 2014. The need for a SRFI is already identified in the WNJCS as the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) for which planning permission has been granted for not only logistics space but also 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 of Daventry, South Northants and Northampton Borough. Therefore there is no need for the proposed Rail Central SRFI to be sited on land in open countryside between Milton Malsor and Blisworth and we strongly object to it. It totally ignores the detrimental consequences that it will have on the local population and it must be stopped."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Haydn Clarke
"I strongly object to this development on the grounds that it would be ruinous to the surrounding countryside and communities, this area is one of outstanding natural beauty. It would be a huge error on behalf of the government if this area were allowed to be developed into a massive industrial development with an increase in traffic throughout the surrounding areas not only from the freight movements but also at all times of day and night by the employees who are not likely come from the immediate surrounding areas. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hilary Rowe
"This is a commercial decision & doesn’t take into consideration the loss of people’s homes, pollution, traffic, destruction of local environment and loss of nature. There is another STrategic Rail Freight Interchange within 15 miles and this is not near capacity. Rail Central is contrary to the adopted West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) and in conflict with the commercial, transport and housing objectives of the whole region. The A43, A508 and J15 of M1 is already far too congested to accommodate this scheme and cannot be improved sufficiently to mitigate the impact. Accidents are on the increase on both roads. Road congestion will worsen rather than improve with the terminal being a mostly road based logistics park (over half the site cannot be served by rail due to its bisection by the Northampton to Towcester Road). Rail Central would result in in excess of 20,000 additional vehicle movements a day on the A43 and surrounding roads. This would be in addition to the 16,500 extra daily vehicle movements that would result from Northampton Gateway. Both would be operating 24 hours a day. To put this into context, over 16,000 vehicles currently use the A508 every day. We currently can hear trains 24 hours a day - the impact of this scheme on the local villages and their communities will be both huge and permanent and no amount of mitigation can change this. The activities of rail freight interchanges produce air, light and noise pollution. The economic landscape is such that there is currently no incentive for commercial organisations to switch from road to rail. Given the relatively short distances involved and without Government subsidy the required modal shift will not occur (There is no requirement for SRFIs, once constructed, to actually accept any freight by rail: they merely have to have the capacity to do so. This is the loophole currently being exploited by Developers) As a consequence of the above the carbon objectives of this proposal will never be met (at least within any realistic timescale). Rail Central’s claim of “Sustainability” has been challenged Rail Central is only the start. Granting of permission for this development will inevitably lead to further applications for housing and associated amenities leading to further unwanted development and loss of precious countryside and rural communities. Over 1150 acres of agricultural land would be covered in concrete by these two developments. The M1 has been a natural barrier to development spilling over into the rural areas of South Northamptonshire. Rail Central would overwhelm Milton Malsor. The demand for unplanned housing would rise resulting in development spreading to other areas, especially along the A508. This is life changing and determental to the people & area which we live and to the future of our children & is irreversible. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Newton
"I am concerned about the impact on the M1 and A45 at junction 15 of the m1. There is not enough capacity on the A45 north of M1 j15 at present nor the county roads surrounding it. The village roads are already rat runs during peak hours"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jan Meagher
"I am concerned regarding the environmental impact particularly air pollution and impact on quality of air. Significant increase in traffic volumes and lack of road infrastructure to cope with demand. The wider impact on the countryside our wildlife and the absolute necessity of this project going ahead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janice Corner
"I am objecting to the Planning Application for the Rail Freight Terminal between Blisworth and Milton Malsor for the following reasons: Loss of habitat for innumerable species of native flora and fauna, loss of ancient footpaths and green space, destruction of ancient hedgerows. Increased traffic on local roads. Noise, air and light pollution. Negative impact on village caused by compulsory purchase orders of land. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joan Barbara Homer
"I strongly object to this proposed development because of the following reasons. 1)The increase in traffic 2)Noise 3)Pollution 4)Harm to wildlife Just to name a few."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joan Beezley
"This representation includes an infringement of my Human rights in respect to my mental and physical well being. Having moved to this particular area for some peace and quiet and a less stressful environment, I am now face with the proposition of this being invaded by the suggestion of this Railinterchange, to pretend that this interchange will not increase the chaos on already congested roads in the area is complete folly, to say nothing of the pollution which we could do nothing about, and also the blight on the environment and the country side. Apart from the personal effects to each and every individual in the areas of physical well being and HEALTH is the obvious reduction in the value of individual property of anyone living in what previously was a well sought after area. Having this absolute eye sore on ones doorstep Is a disaster for our environment in so many ways. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joanne Williams
"I object to the proposed development on the following grounds 1 Rail interchanges The majority are being placed in this area which therefore does not establish a strategic network. Such a network should be devised nationally and then put out to development with sites suitably located and interconnected. Over half of this site cannot be joined to a rail service in any case and is therefore necessarily road based. 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. Both the Northampton loop and the West coast mainline are at capacity and could only accept freight with the loss of passenger services. 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 access roads to the site are inadequate. 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' I therefore contest the levels of pollution modelled by the developer. Pollution leads to early deaths, respiratory disorders and dementia (I am a general practitioner working locally). High levels of pollution will lead to acute exacerbations of respiratory disorders (asthma and COPD) and result in increased admissions to hospital. 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 wildlife habitat "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joseph Charles Homer
"I chose to live in a Village which is quiet, peaceful with fresh air & beautiful Countryside. All this will be lost if this massive/unwanted development goes ahead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katherine Featherstone
"I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION! One key issue with the rail freight interchange is that the capacity will be too small to make the site hugely beneficial and stand out from other terminals around the country. I think that this is an important consideration as building of the terminal will have many consequential impacts on the local areas community and wildlife. Moreover, this will be further impacted as this would be 3rd terminal locally and thus will provide too many sites for the demand of this rural county. So often, these sites may be found to be of waste and therefore this benefits will not exceed the losses. This extends into the road network within the county that will provided goods to the terminal and also for the construction of the site. The traffic will not only cause chaos on the roads but will increase pollution in the area. This should be considered as chemical components released will consequently harm the wildlife and humans (respiratory diseases). Furthermore, conversion of rural land contributes significant quantities of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, which is an element that contributes to climate change. However, pollution in this form is not the only concern, the development will also add light and noise pollution, severely impacting local communities."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ken Beezley
"As I am already a [redacted] with a [Redacted] I cannot aford to live in an environment where pollution will further compromise my health, an increase in any more vehicles on the already congested roads in this area will be a disaster for both me and the environment in general, given the obvious rise in pollution levels. As it is movement of vehicles around this area and through the Village at an all time high, and a further increase will compromise safety. To increase on this number will be unacceptable, and what should be a quiet peaceful Village will be no more. In addition to the pollution, I fear that the noise levels will increase dramatically, in the whole area, this is also unacceptable, what was once a very desirable place to live, will become a place to avoid. The value of individual properties will decrease, this is inevitable, and no one in there right mind would, wish to have this built on there doorstep."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kevin Amies
"- No strategic need due to the nearby location of DIRFT (an existing, larger facility only 15 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 of another existing one which itself will not be at capacity until 2033. - The agreed Strategic Plan for the area explicitly excludes industrial development at this location. I posit that this scheme is therefore 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 20,000 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 hundreds of acres of open land, 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. - The impact of this scheme on the local villages and their communities will be both huge and permanent and no amount of mitigation can change this. The activities of rail freight interchanges produce air, light and noise pollution, the effects of which CANNOT be adequately mitigated especially with two villages in such close proximity. - Granting of permission for this development will inevitably lead to further applications for housing and associated amenities leading to further unwanted development and loss of precious countryside and rural communities."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kristy
"I am against rail central as it will destroy out historical village, it will cause so many problems on the roads. The roads in the surrounding area are already facing a big strain and each time there is a problem or an accident thd roads become gridlocked and chaos happens. Silverstone weekend for example would just end up being more of a nightmare than it already is. I live facing where this will all happen and just the thought of the building process make me feel that i feel it will become an awful place to live! There are serveral far more appropriate sites for this project including unused developed areas, there is absolutly no need to desimate this beautiful area for greed and money. The pollution in itself should be a valid reason to reject the aplication, its not fair to the residents of the area children and school to inflict this health issue on them. We do not have an uneployment problem in our are and do not need jobs creating. This is a terrifying prospect for our village and our health and lives please dont let them do this to us"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lee Clarke
"I strongly object to this development on the grounds that it would be ruinous to the surrounding countryside and communities. Development of Northampton has always been prevented from going beyond the M1 for good reasons, this area is one of outstanding natural beauty. It would be a huge error on behalf of the government if this area were allowed to be developed into a huge industrial estate. Capacity of the West Coast Main Line should be assessed first with the existing (and currently being developed) rail freight terminals at capacity to see if there is actually demand & a requirement for this."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Liam Oakey
"I am appalled and outraged that this ridiculously huge buildings will be built so close to these villages. I've lived here for most of my life along with my parents, grandparents and other family. My children have all grown up here enjoying the peacefulness of the country side, the clean air. We chose Blisworth village for the open spaces and the beautiful green fields that we often walk along as a family and with our dog. We can hear the trains from our house so can't even begin to imagine what noise we will be dealing with during the construction and once the rail depot is built. You have already confirmed 24hrs working so there will be no peace and during the summer months when we have our windows open I can see no rest. The site doesn't make sense especially when it comes to the traffic it will cause, you say that it's all covered with bypasses but that only works until the m1 has issues or the dual carriage way to Towcester. It already gets severely congested so with all the traffic to and from your site we will not only gridlock the village, increase more traffic therefore endangering my children with increased risk of rta and not even mentioning the pollution. It doesn't feel well thought through at all and a complete disregard for anyone living locally. I currently feel safe allowing my children to explore the village but with this monstrosity being built we definitely do not. I feel the government need to rethink the location as there are plenty of other sites that would be much more suitable and less detrimental to people, wildlife and the very small amount of green space we have left. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Louise Bodsworth
"I'm registering as an interested party as a resident of blisworth Im interested in this proposal as I'm concerned for the future of my children and the future of our village . "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lucy Phelps
"The effect the proposed development will have on the overall environment, pollution (air and noise),the day to day living of a small community so close to the proposed development, and concerns that I have with regards to increase traffic both in the roads surrounding and on the rail."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Melvyn Peter Ward
"We live south west of the town near to junction 15A of the Mi.traffic noise levels are already high and the influx of more traffic, especially HGVs will make this much worse. I know our town suffers from air quality problems, again this will get worse for us, the local residents. I have been told there is low unemployment locally so we do not get any trade off. I can see where you would think destroying two villages and surrounding farm land is a small price for the community to pay as the enterprise will create many jobs for local people. This is not the case so all we get is the downside of a massive and permanent disruption to local rural life in the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mike Freeman
"I am opposing the planning consent of Rail Central. As a local resident I have huge concerns regarding the volume of vehicles this project will bring to an already over-capacity road network. The high street of Towcester is likely to suffer the most. It is already over-run with HGV traffic that brings the town to a standstill several times in a day. The a43 is already not fit for purpose, with regular severe accidents, even fatalities. Increasing the number of HGVs to the proposed levels would also bring this road to a standstill numerous times each day! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Belinda Brown
"I am registering my opposition to the proposal. The strategic case for has not been made, and is not justified by any national decision. There is an existing SFRI only 15 miles away which is not operating at capacity and is not projected to do so for the next two parliaments at least. The enormous size and 365 day, 24 hour a day operating hours will completely destroy the area and communities. Neither the roads nor rails in place will be able to accommodate the proposed volumes. Local roads are already severely congested. Given that uNemployment levels are low in the area, these proposals will therefore suck in additional people to an area where the schools/doctors and infrastructure are overloaded. The size, increased noise light and traffic pollution proposed is so enormous that it will not simply reduce the quality of life of local inhabitants, but destroy it. The mitigations offered proposed are inadequate and incapable of being adequate. For example, the steps to reduce the 24 hour a day increased noise reduce the decibels by only about 3 of 43. When asked about the impact on the rush hour traffic (which already results in long queues in the area) the developer response was that this would be fine because their period of peak activity (and therefore noise) would be at 4.30am. This will clearlyimpact on health as well as wellbeing. The impact is not just on the local villages, it will distort the whole of South Northamptonshire creating an industrial park of unprecedented size in the middle of England in response to a need which has not been justified. The proposals are clearly driven by profit not strategic need."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rachel Edwards
"I have lived in Blisworth for 15 years. Worked just outside Blisworth at the JBJ business park for 22 years. If this goes ahead it will have a huge impact on the traffic and noise to the village. Why oh why does this need to go ahead when there is Crick not far up the road with empty ware houses. This will not benefit Blisworth at all"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rachel Gammon-Harrison
"I think it is a mistake to the community for this project to be approved, the damage upon the local villages will be massive. There must be better locations away from villages , peoples homes where this development can go ahead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rachel Sears
"The main points being there is no requirement for a rail freight terminal with an under used Dirft so close by. The massive loss of wildlife and farmland to the local Area The increased traffic passing through an already strained rural area. Noise pollution The sheer size of this structure in a small beautiful location when there are more suitable areas to consider. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Russ Husbands
"The whole idea of having a freight terminal in the middle of a small village is abhorent We have a freight terminal not far from here, so use that one The village will not be able to cope with the noise pollution or the fuel pollution I do not want to bring my grandchildren up in a village with this running through it The village will not be able to cope with the extra traffic The village will not be able to cope with the extra personnel which they will need to service the freight terminal DO NOT LET THIS GO AHEAD"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Russell Irwin
"I Adamantly oppose the construction of this rail freight terminal. The information put forward is not consistent for the need of a rail freight terminal in the area. With one in close proximity in Rugby I do not see the need for such infastucture here, the detrimental effect it would have to the local area and road network would not be outweighed by the benefits it would bring to the area. The road network locally cannot cope with the current level of traffic using it. To add a rail freight terminal that would rely on increased HGV traffic would cause absolute chaos to the area. There is no strategic need for this proposed site. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sabrina Oakey
"I am appalled and outraged that this ridiculously huge buildings will be built so close to these villages. I've lived here for over 20 years, my children have all grown up here enjoying the peacefulness of the country side, the clean air. We chose Blisworth village for the open spaces and the beautiful green fields that we often walk along as a family and with our dog. We can hear the trains from our house so can't even begin to imagine what noise we will be dealing with during the construction and once the rail depot is built. You have already confirmed 24hrs working so there will be no peace and during the summer months when we have our windows open I can see no rest. The site doesn't make sense especially when it comes to the traffic it will cause, you say that it's all covered with bypasses but that only works until the m1 has issues or the dual carriage way to Towcester. It already gets severely congested so with all the traffic to and from your site we will not only gridlock the village, increase more traffic therefore endangering my children with increased risk of rta and not even mentioning the pollution. It doesn't feel well thought through at all and a complete disregard for anyone living locally. I currently feel safe allowing my children to explore the village but with this monstrosity being built we definitely do not. I feel the government need to rethink the location as there are plenty of other sites that would be much more suitable and less detrimental to people, wildlife and the very small amount of green space we have left. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephanie Dewis
"I am objecting to the proposal for a Rail Freight Terminal (RFT)and warehousing on land between Milton Malsor & Blisworth, my reasons follow: This development will be built on open countryside and will destroy valuable agricultural land, the trees and wildlife that inhabit this area will be decimated and ancient footpaths destroyed. Loss of green space and vegetation is to the detriment of air quality, we all know that trees help to improve the atmosphere. The Northampton area has a low unemployment level and the developer has not adequately explained where the staff will be drawn from to serve 8 million Sq Ft of warehousing. The volume of service traffic entering and leaving the site will compound the air pollution created by the thousands of lorry movements. The local area is already deemed to be at maximum air quality levels, specifically J16 to J15 of the M1 motorway, this development proposal will further impact on the health of the local community. There is another RFT within 18 miles distance, this has capacity until at least 2033 and more terminals are being put forward within 50 miles of this site. The Government’s strategy to reduce lorries on the country’s roads is failing if developers are allowed to pick and choose where they build RFT’s on the back of the Government National Infrastructure Strategy and, therefore, bypass local Governance. The local area will be blighted not only by air pollution but noise and light intrusion, no amount of ‘mitigation’ the developers are claiming can ever make this proposal acceptable. The impact of an RFT on the locality will be devastating and should not be allowed. The Northampton Gateway application for another RFT, at J15 of the M1, is now under examination by the Planning Inspectorate. Can two adjacent terminals possibly be economically viable using the same stretch of the Northampton Loop Line, and the West Coast Main Line, especially as Network Rail has made no commitment to rail paths? In conclusion I feel strongly that the developers are misusing the National Infrastructure Strategy, this should be truly ‘National’ and not developer led! The Northampton area doesn’t need and can’t cope with any more warehouse parks; the highways will not be able to cope with the extra traffic. There is no proof that Logistics companies will actually use RFT’s, if it is cheaper to haul on the roads then that is what will happen! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Blyth
"RAIL CENTRAL: A STRATEGIC PROPOSAL? The application for Rail Central (RC) was accepted as strategic for examination purposes but fails to accord with policy aims, to create a national network of SRFIs as: 1) Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT), 18 miles from RC already fulfils that function for this region, and with expanded capacity (Phase III, up to 730k m²) will continue to do so. The historic take-up of space at DIRFT is less than 50k m² per annum. Unless a major change in buyer behaviour occurs, or can be proven, DIRFT III will provide capacity for over 15 years. Granting consent to RC would risk the success of DIRFT by creating a situation whereby both sites would compete for the same train paths. DIRFT has growth plans for the next 20 years and a new settlement being built beside it (Houston). The workforce will be there, minimising travel, the base rail link is there, and could and should be extended - it represents one stop for 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 favour maximising DIRFT, not dividing its rail supply route. 2) RC is halfway between major centres of production/consumption, Birmingham and London. This flouts policy to place SRFIs at major nodes, and would unnecessarily magnify products’ carbon footprints. Planned investment in the Strategic Rail Network targets freight flows from Felixstowe and Southampton to the West Midlands, bypassing RC to West and North. Only if paths were released by HS2 would there be prospect of significant modal shift. Future capacity should not be used as justification for consent; it cannot be guaranteed. 3) Alternative sites exist better able to realise investments in infrastructure schemes, such as M1 J13, adjacent to the Bedford-Oxford link, on the planned route of HS2 in the Northern Powerhouse, development of port-centric logistics, and sites with specific investments in increasing rail freight capacity. This is a significant non-compliance with planning policy, disregarding the principal aim of NPSNN to establish a “network across the regions”. 4) There is virtually full employment in RC’s area, contradicting the policy to locate SRFIs near locally-available workforces. It would magnify in-commuting and cause extra pollution – 24/7 noise, vibration, light, dust and toxic fumes - nullifying any claimed benefit from the intended modal shift of freight from road to rail - contrary to policy and EC directives. 5) Oversupply of SRFIs in this region and undersupply in regions poorly served or altogether lacking would magnify regional economic imbalances, undermining national policy. 6) A rail freight operator states that RC is too close to points of origin to permit economic use of rail freight. The minimum viable rail freight range is 200Km for bulk commodities, not goods requiring processing, sorting and/or repackaging, which require greater ranges. RC would not cater exclusively for bulk commodities. Therefore, given the relatively short distances involved, the required transport modal shift would not occur at RC. Also none of the strategic freight corridors shown in the NPSNN and Freight RUS include the WCML south of DIRFT. RC is not located on any identified strategic freight route so, in policy terms, cannot be said to be strategic. Also, the applicants admit that less than 10% of throughput is expected to use RC’s rail facility. We understand that DIRFT’s rail facility is also underused. Shortfalls in rail freight demand at Eurohub near Corby meant that its planned rail link was never laid. In any event, there is no requirement for Strategic Rail Freight Terminals to accept any freight by rail. Furthermore, the rail network does not have capacity and the proposals appear not to be fully supported by the rail operating authorities. It is also likely that increases in freight paths would erode available passenger services on the WCML. 7) The applicants stressed in consultations that RC lies within a Golden Triangle for logistics. The term relates to road haulage only, not road and rail, a fundamental misconception. 8) The proposed scale of development exceeds that needed in Northamptonshire according to Network Rail’s own forecasts. Market demand for RC is primarily driven by desire for high-quality, large-footprint buildings, not by any proven intent to enact modal shift. The inference is that the real aim is opportunist, not strategic: to build speculative warehouses in a region already oversupplied, plus a cosmetic rail facility to bypass the Local Plan. 9) The consequences of consent would include loss of a substantial, important green space, magnified pollution, gridlock, and an undesirable precedent for development south-west of the M1, fostering urban sprawl, and coalescence of Northampton with nearby villages. It would undermine both the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS), and national policy for a balanced UK network of SRFIs. 10) RC claim that the region could accommodate itself and Northampton Gateway (NG) without causing cumulative oversupply of facilities or substantial environmental damage. (It is unclear what would become of the area common to each applicant’s scheme.) This would be on top of ongoing development of Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) Phase III. But Roxhill assert that RC would not be viable if run in parallel with NG. They have therefore done little study into the cumulative effects of combined operations. In view of the fact that DIRFT is designed to meet all regional demand until at least 2031 it is patently obvious that oversupply would occur, with consequent cumulative adverse impacts on all three schemes, as well as starvation of resources available to other regions. Furthermore it beggars belief that creation of two huge industrial sites covering over 500 hectares of ex-rural land would not have severe adverse effects on road and rail traffic, landscape, agriculture, and ecology. Proposed mitigation measures would be insufficient to control magnified local pollution and congestion. The cumulative effect of the combined developments would, in reality, be disastrous. 11) RC have made little reference to the Government’s Localism Policy; but, if more than lip service is to be paid to it, due weight is owed to local opinion. A Plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011, published by the Department for Communities and Local Government states : “Instead of local people being told what to do, the Government thinks that local communities should have genuine opportunities to influence the future of the places where they live (p. 12)...The Act places significantly more influence in the hands of local people over issues that make a big difference to their lives (p. 18)” The Panel will be aware from relevant representations of almost unanimous opposition to both applications from individuals, Parish, Borough, District and County Councils. Stop Rail Central and Stop Roxhill Northampton Gateway Action Group between them have also collected over 20,000 written and online signatures in petitions opposing the applications. I believe that RC’s claimed strategic status is refuted by the above. Absence of compelling strategic factors makes the application tantamount to an abuse of process, all the more egregious for its bid to override the WNJCS, and rights of residents whose lives have already been blighted by the proposal. This and many other submissions demonstrate that RC is unfit for purpose. It is in the wrong place at the wrong time, and would do little or nothing to achieve the national modal shift envisioned. Rather it would handicap chances of successful nationwide realisation, diverting resources from regions lacking SRFIs to an oversupplied Midlands cluster. This is not a small matter. Nationally, the scheme would at best perpetuate, at worst magnify regional economic imbalances. Locally, it would increase pollution, and destroy significant rural green spaces. Wildlife habitats, already impaired by intensive farming methods, would be sterilised. It would intensify the misery of countless road and rail users, and permanently blight the existence of c. 12,000 inhabitants. The environmental, health, and economic costs are too great for the scheme to proceed. If a DCO for RC were granted despite the above it would evince the incapacity of current planning procedures to deliver a coherent national network of SRFIs, and make a significant contribution to ultimate policy failure, at costs, in monetary terms and media ridicule, rivalling the discredited Identity Card, or even the 1940s East African Ground Nuts Scheme. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steve
"1. As a long-term resident in South Northants, I object to such a large scale development because of the negative impact on the environment. In particular the increased road traffic congestion from large trucks with polluting diesel engines and the likely irreparable damage to the wildlife in that area. 2. Large modern warehouses generally help the largest multinational retailers operate more efficiently. However, in my view, they already have enough advantages over small businesses and high street only retailers. 3. There is still capacity at DRIFT in Daventry "
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
Susan Sumpton
" I strongly object to the Rail Central application 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 into the area from some considerable distance away. Not only would this defeat the objective of getting traffic off the roads it would 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. In order to 'hide' the warehouses and cranes Rail Central are proposing hundreds of yards of what they call bunding. In fact these are nothing more that massive piles of earth with some trees planted on top. These themselves constitute an ugly feature on the landscape and as can be seen in some of the other warehouse developments around Northampton, particularly at Pineham, do not achieve their objective. 4. My main objection to this proposal is the loss of our local footpaths particularly those between Milton Malsor, Blisworth and Roade. These paths currently run through open countryside and enjoy great views. The proposed diversions have no merit whatsoever simply running alongside local roads and the railway lines. There would be no views to enjoy and would suffer from noise and pollution. In fact these diversions would be totally useless as no one would use them."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tricia Ducker
"I don't believe this development fulfils the strategic criteria and should have gone to local planning. This area already has several of these rail connected warehouse developments I don't believe this rail network has capacity for more and this is just a ruse to build more warehousing which will not deliver on removing freight from the road just add more traffic to local roads which are already gridlocked on a regular basis when there are incidents on the M1. building this rail freight interchange will just result in more warehousing more traffic on the roads distruction of countryside and not delver on its promise to reduce road haulage this is an area of low unemployment so staff would need to be recruited from other more deserving areas. SRFI s need to be spread over the country not concentrated in the centre of the country"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Victoria Amies
"- No strategic need due to the nearby location of DIRFT (an existing, larger facility only 15 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 of another existing one which itself will not be at capacity until 2033. - The agreed Strategic Plan for the area explicitly excludes industrial development at this location. I posit that this scheme is therefore 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 20,000 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 hundreds of acres of open land, 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. - The impact of this scheme on the local villages and their communities will be both huge and permanent and no amount of mitigation can change this. The activities of rail freight interchanges produce air, light and noise pollution, the effects of which CANNOT be adequately mitigated especially with two villages in such close proximity. - Granting of permission for this development will inevitably lead to further applications for housing and associated amenities leading to further unwanted development and loss of precious countryside and rural communities."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alastair West
"The two villagers of Milton Malsor & Blisworth will be devestated & distroyed by the greed of the developers. The current freight facilities within this area meets all the needs therefore it will only be the financial returns to the developers than will benefit. This area of Northamptonshire is already heavily surrounded with warehouse units."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Angela Mc Glone
"As a local resident to this project I am objecting on the basis that our road infrastructure cannot handle the increase in haulage traffic expected from this project. The A5 running through Towcester is at most times at capacity and ruining our town. We are in desperate need of a relief/bypass road which has once already been promised based on successful planning permission for the new housing estate Towcester Grange. However once permission was granted we saw amendments to this relief road delaying it once again. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to put my point of view across. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Chapman
"THE VAST FORESEEN INCREASE OF HEAVY TRAFFIC THAT WILL BE CAUSED BY THIS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY HUB (DIRFT STILL HAS HUGE CAPACITY ) WILL HAVE A HUGE DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON A VAST AMOUNT OF RURAL COUNTRYSIDE AND THE LOCAL VILLAGES. THE HISTORIC VILLAGE OF BLISWORTH ITSELF HAS BEEN HERE FOR OVER A THOUSAND YEARS AND IS MENTIONED IN THE DOMESDAY BOOK. THE DAMAGE LIKELY TO BE CAUSED BY SUCH A GROSS DEVELOPMENT THE LOCAL AREA AND NETWORK OF VILLAGES, CANALS AND PLACES OF GREAT BEAUTY WOULD BE A SAD LOSS TO NOT ONLY THE LOCAL AREA NUT THE COUNTY AND COUNTRY IN GENERAL. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Catherine Muir
" I strongly object to this proposal. My husband spent his childhood in Milton Malsor. His parents chose the village because of its rural quality, surrounded as it is by open countryside. As a family we return regularly to see my husbands retired parents and show our children where their father grew up and became the person he is. While here our family walk our dogs around the fields and I run the local footpaths to train for the charity marathons and half-marathons I run every year. My husbands parents have also been dog owners throughout their 30+ years in the village and have enjoyed their walks through the surrounding fields. The prospect of a development such as is proposed between Blisworth and Milton would not only destroy the amenity of field walks on the existing footpaths but would generate an appalling degree of air, noise and light pollution on what has been until now a tranquil agricultural area. It would change the feel and very nature of the landscape introducing heavy industry into a current green field site. I fear the damage to their health from the increase in air pollution this proposed SRFI will generate.It is public knowledge that HGV movements are responsible for the major Nitric Oxide and Diesel Particulate emissions. Milton is already close to the M1 with its unavoidable pollution and placing another major polluter on the other side of the village appears to be a recipe for a significant increase in local damage to health, especially as this is a 24/7 operating freight terminal. I have first-hand experience of HGVs circumventing proscribed routes and finding rat-runs through the local village. One having damaged my parked car. The substantial increase in HGV traffic off-site will only add to the pollution generated on-site by this proposal. For all these reasons. I strongly object to this proposal. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cecilia Ella Muir
" I strongly object to this proposal. This proposal will destroy hundreds of acres of local countryside, losing valuable productive farmland for food production and destroying an open countryside with massive warehouses and high earth mounds. We know from many years of personal experience there is already increased traffic through the village and on local roads when there is congestion on the M1 & A43. All the additional vehicle movements a day generated by this Rail Freight Terminal will exacerbate this problem. It may be claimed by the developers that vehicles will not have access to the local villages but a simple turn-off from the A43 Blisworth bypass will enable vehicles to double back through the villages to find alternative routes when there is local congestion on the prescribed routes. We have owned dogs for almost 40 years and our walks around the village have been a source of pleasure and good exercise throughout my time here. Such walks would in future would be appalling with the proposed Rail Central SRFI on our doorstep. Not only would field walks be lost (a diverted path alongside a busy road is no pleasure) but my greatest fear is the damage to my health from the increase in air pollution this proposed SRFI will generate, due to all the vehicle movements emitting Nitric Oxide and Diesel Particulate emissions. Towards Northampton and the M1, noise and light pollution is an existing problem. For generations, such pollution to the South of Milton has been non-existent. If approval is given to this 24/7 operating freight terminal, the light pollution and especially noise pollution from night time operations would be unbearable. I am most seriously concerned that this proposal is totally contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS). WNJCS has at its heart a structured development policy for the region. This proposal is entirely speculative and clearly seeks to undermine the strategic developments approved by the Planning Inspectorate which encompass structured growth on the DIRFT site until 2031. The approval confirmed that no additional strategic employment sites were required in open countryside within this timeframe. Given their technical assessment, it seems more than likely that, should this development be allowed to proceed, it will fail in its attempt to compete with the established DIRFT and consequently will unnecessarily sterilise this farming land for decades to come. In conclusion, I wish to reiterate that I strongly object to this proposal. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine Homer
"I strongly object to Rail Centrall There are a number of areas around Northampton including two very close to this site where air pollution is already above government guidelines. The thousands of additional cars and trucks travelling to and from the site each day would make this much worse and have serious health consequenses for local people as well as causing traffic congestion. Northampton already has too many warehouse developments which are a blot on the landscape. The proposed bunds which are little more than mounds of earth are ugly to look at and will not hide the tops of the buildings. The lighting will ruin the night sky and the countryside views will be lost. As a keen gardener I deplore the potential loss of the super little plant nursery in Barn Lane not only would the owners loose their business but local people would loose the benefit of their help and advice on plants. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine Margaret Lea
"I am against Rail Central as it will be a blight on the surrounding villages. It will cause traffic chaos, light and noise pollution and seems ridiculous with DIRFT 15 miles up the M1."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clare Edwards
"I believe this is the wrong location of this development. This is because the local infrastructure is unable to cope with the increased traffic, and the environmental impact will be catastrophic. I also believe it will have detrimental effect on the local communities."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Darren Boor
"My parents live in Blisworth. I grew up there and although I live 500 miles away I still visit the village 5-6 times per annum and it is somewhere that I love. If this were to go ahead it would devastate the local countryside, pollution would increase through the volume of traffic, and house prices in the area would fall. The simple fact is, there are better places for something like this to be built, not between 2 small villages! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Powell
"I think this is an unessary development and will only be a token rail link as a way of circumnavigating planning laws .We already have Dirft in close proximity to the area which I am sure can take extra railfrieight. So i cannot see any reason to damage more green areas and blight the landscape. Where are the houses going to built for the workers more Greenland I suppose just the thin end of the wedge?"
Parish Councils
East Hunsbury Parish Council
"Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange) TR050004 East Hunsbury Parish Council object to the Rail Central SRFI proposal and make the following comments: Traffic • The parish council have significant concerns about the increase in traffic that will be created by this site, both in respect of movements by HGV’s and employees getting to and from work. • The proposed site for the Rail Central development is adjacent to a proposed SRFI being put forward by Roxhill (TR050006), and the cumulative effect of traffic movements from both of these sites should be taken into consideration. You should also be aware of the Northampton South SUE development which will see 1,300 new homes built between East Hunsbury and Collingtree. • East Hunsbury will see an increase in traffic on its main through roads, but particularly Rowtree Road, which will lead directly to the site. The roads are often slow moving at peak times, and especially if an incident has occurred on the A45 or M1. • There is a proposal to include a weight limit across East Hunsbury but this has its limitations as roads will still 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, particularly 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 (which abuts Rowtree Road). Sustainability • We do not believe that this proposal is a sustainable development and does not meet the criteria of the National Planning Policy Framework [point 187, page 45] “to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area”. • DIRFT is less than 20 miles away and is expanding speculatively. There is considerable doubt whether a second (or third) SRFI is needed before HS2 is operational in 2033. • 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, and so 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, as the housing development is intended for people from all walks of life, not just logistics workers. 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 Roxhill should be determined jointly so that the effects of any developments can be mitigated appropriately. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Geoffrey Read
"I am registering my objection to this development as as follows: 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 and capacity needs of strategic 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 environmental impacts of pollution and noise. 4) Negative environmental impact as Freight rail traffic is considerably more noisy and far more polluting than passenger trains thus affecting local residents, particularly with the use of 775mtr long units. 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 and effect passenger capacity. Increasing capacity through overnight use of the lines by freight trains creates a noise issue. 6) I question whether the number of trains using the site can justify the warehousing planned, and that there will be a high level of normal road fed warehouse usage not associated with rail at all. 7) The labour pool required will predominantly be of warehouse worker category, of which the area already has a high volume and reported shortages of such labour. This will lead to an increase in commuting workers along with the associated increase in traffic volumes and pollution. Likewise it does not help build a higher level of skilled work in the area. 8) The development on a greenfield site will have a devastating impact on wildlife in the area. 9) 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. 10) It destroys two pleasant country villages and their associated environment along with the communities on the southern outskirts of Northampton. It is time such environmental issues were given president over the commercial desires of the developers. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graeme Burn
"I disagree with the proposed location of the Strategic Rail Freight Interchange site. The area proposed will disfigure the beautiful Northamptonshire countryside, harming wildlife and destroy the natural farming land boundaries between the historical settlements of Blisworth and Milton Malsor forever. We have a responsibility to the next generations to perverse England's stunning countryside."
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 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 increase premature deaths from air pollution and 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? PPS. It is worrying that there are two applications – I hope that all objections to one proposal will be viewed as an objection to both proposals? "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hayley Hannan
"to stop this planning application going to head tosave our village"
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Alistair Robertson Muir
" I strongly object to this proposal. This proposal will destroy hundreds of acres of local countryside, losing valuable productive farmland for food production and destroying an open countryside with massive warehouses and high earth mounds. We know from many years of personal experience there is already increased traffic through the village and on local roads when there is congestion on the M1 & A43. All the additional vehicle movements a day generated by this Rail Freight Terminal will exacerbate this problem. It may be claimed by the developers that vehicles will not have access to the local villages but a simple turn-off from the A43 Blisworth bypass will enable vehicles to double back through the villages to find alternative routes when there is local congestion on the prescribed routes. Milton Malsor village is already at risk from Air Pollution from the M1. An industrial development like the one proposed will, through the multitude of additional vehicle movements, lead to Milton in future being surrounded by pollution sources; and Blisworth exposed to similar pollution hazards. Noise and light pollution created by the 24/7 operation of the rail terminal including railway will add to the destruction of an existing rural area. I am most seriously concerned that this proposal is totally contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS). WNJCS has at its heart a structured development policy for the region. This proposal is entirely speculative and clearly seeks to undermine the strategic developments approved by the Planning Inspectorate which encompass structured growth on the DIRFT site until 2031. The approval confirmed that no additional strategic employment sites were required in open countryside within this timeframe. Given their technical assessment, it seems more than likely that, should this development be allowed to proceed, it will fail in its attempt to compete with the established DIRFT and consequently will unnecessarily sterilise this farming land for decades to come. In conclusion, I wish to reiterate that I strongly object to this proposal. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jayne Lovell
"I am a local resident and object strongly to this SRFI application. My primary objections relate to the environment. This is a rural community that enjoys some all to rare green space between villages. That said, the weight of traffic through the village of Blisworth is already considerable and we do not have the infrastructure to cope with this kind of development. When there are diversions or accidents on the main roads nearby (which happens all to frequently, sadly) it is not uncommon for traffic to grind to a halt as it struggles to cope. The noise and air pollution would be significant; I saved for many years in order to buy a property here and raise my child in a rural village environment where she would be able to enjoy fresh air. Of course I do not want to live next door to a huge development like this which will not enrich our lives in any way but I especially do want my child exposed to this without any say over her future. This will have an irrevocable impact on village life as we know it without providing anything positive for the local community. Services will be stretched, health made to suffer and the environment destroyed forever. This in turn, will impact the mental health of many residents and be a further strain on the NHS. All for a project which I am yet to understand the real benefits of. This is not just because of my obvious concern as a resident but because the evidence and ‘statistics’ just don’t appear to stack up. I am not a NIMBY; I am a teacher by profession and naturally consider opposing points of view but in this case I can only see the devastating impact on our community causing insurmountable stress and upheaval for our residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Brice
"Mr John Brice [REDACTED] The proposed Rail Central SRFI is totally beyond my belief and I object very strongly to this developer driven proposal, which to me is both unwanted and unnecessary. I am astounded Rail Central are proposing the destruction of such a rural aspect, essential to the wellbeing of the community, not only between Milton Malsor and Blisworth but the neighbouring villages and including Northampton as it continues to expand. The increase in air pollution this proposed SRFI will generate, due to the vastly increased vehicle movements (22,000 a day, 6,688 being HGV's) is of great concern. Any recent major incident on the roadways or motorway has demonstrated very clearly that a complete gridlock is another nightmare and must be measured. I am very troubled that the Air Pollution by Nitric Oxide and Diesel Particulate from vehicles and machinery emissions generated 24/7 will be detrimental to our health, as well as to other residents in the locality and must be a national issue for consideration. I also object very strongly to the noise generated by the activities of the rail terminal including railway shunting, crane operations and the loading and unloading of containers. In addition, my objection is further endorsed as the proposal is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (VVNJCS). The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only a short distance away from this site, serves the same local area and has the capacity for considerable expansion for many years to come. There cannot be any overriding justification whatsoever for this Rail Central SRFI proposal and I urge that this developer driven proposal is refused. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marian Buller
"Please register my objection to the Rail Central application. I strongly object to the potential loss of some of the best footpaths in the area. The walk along Barn Lane has super countryside views and is very peaceful. The diversions that Rail Central are suggesting are useless, serve no purpose and would suffer from noise and air pollution. The visual impact of the warehouses would be devastating. This development, along with the Roxhill one would create total traffic chaos in the area. Apart from the main roads many of the local roads already suffer from congestion. No amount so called junction "improvements" would solve this. I also have an objection to the loss of the field where the 'Wild and Woolly' motorbike event takes place each Boxing Day. This is the oldest bike event in the the UK and raises thousands of pounds for local charities every year. This event has been staged almost every yeay since the 1930's and Blisworth is it's home. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Lea
"the whole prospect of the extra vehicle movement, coupled with noise pollution, light pollution cannot be a benefit to the good living that is currently being experienced living in this lovely village"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mike Alibone
"As a local inhabitant, I would like to register my concern over certain aspects of the development which basically render it a non-viable proposition. These relate to considerable permanent disturbance to the local villagers on the periphery of the proposed development, the destruction of agricultural and wildlife habitat and the inevitable road congestion that the proposed development would bring."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Milton Malsor Historical Society
"Mr John Brice [REDACTED] The proposed Rail Central SRFI is totally beyond the belief of our society and object very strongly to this developer driven proposal, which to us is both unwanted and unnecessary. The society is astounded Rail Central are proposing the destruction of such a rural aspect, essential to the wellbeing of the community, not only between Milton Malsor and Blisworth but the neighbouring villages and including Northampton as it continues to expand. The increase in air pollution this proposed SRFI will generate, due to the vastly increased vehicle movements (22,000 a day, 6,688 being HGV's) is of great concern. Any recent major incident on the roadways or motorway has demonstrated very clearly that a complete gridlock is another nightmare and must be measured. The society is very troubled that the Air Pollution by Nitric Oxide and Diesel Particulate from vehicles and machinery emissions generated 24/7 will be detrimental to our health, as well as to other residents in the locality and must be a national issue for consideration. The society also objects very strongly to the noise generated by the activities of the rail terminal including railway shunting, crane operations and the loading and unloading of containers. In addition, the objection is further endorsed as the proposal is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (VVNJCS). The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only a short distance away from this site, serves the same local area and has the capacity for considerable expansion for many years to come. There cannot be any overriding justification whatsoever for this Rail Central SRFI proposal and the society urges that this developer driven proposal is refused. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Milton Malsor Village Hall
"Milton Malsor Village Hall [REDACTED] The proposed Rail Central SRFI is totally beyond the belief of the Management Committee and object very strongly to this developer driven proposal, which to us is both unwanted and unnecessary. The Management Committee are am astounded Rail Central are proposing the destruction of such a rural aspect, essential to the wellbeing of the community, not only between Milton Malsor and Blisworth but the neighbouring villages and including Northampton as it continues to expand. The increase in air pollution this proposed SRFI will generate, due to the vastly increased vehicle movements (22,000 a day, 6,688 being HGV's) is of great concern. Any recent major incident on the roadways or motorway has demonstrated very clearly that a complete gridlock is another nightmare and must be measured. The Management Committee is very troubled that the Air Pollution by Nitric Oxide and Diesel Particulate from vehicles and machinery emissions generated 24/7 will be detrimental to our health, as well as to other residents in the locality and must be a national issue for consideration. Management Committee also object very strongly to the noise generated by the activities of the rail terminal including railway shunting, crane operations and the loading and unloading of containers. In addition, the Management Committee objection is further endorsed as the proposal is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (VVNJCS). The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only a short distance away from this site, serves the same local area and has the capacity for considerable expansion for many years to come. There cannot be any overriding justification whatsoever for this Rail Central SRFI proposal and the Management Committee urge that this developer driven proposal is refused. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Milton Malsor Village Hall Film Club
"MM Film Club [REDACTED] The proposed Rail Central SRFI is totally beyond the belief of the Film Club and object very strongly to this developer driven proposal, which both unwanted and unnecessary. The Film Club is astounded Rail Central are proposing the destruction of such a rural aspect, essential to the wellbeing of the community, not only between Milton Malsor and Blisworth but the neighbouring villages and including Northampton as it continues to expand. The increase in air pollution this proposed SRFI will generate, due to the vastly increased vehicle movements (22,000 a day, 6,688 being HGV's) is of great concern. Any recent major incident on the roadways or motorway has demonstrated very clearly that a complete gridlock is another nightmare and must be measured. The Film Club is very troubled that the Air Pollution by Nitric Oxide and Diesel Particulate from vehicles and machinery emissions generated 24/7 will be detrimental to our health, as well as to other residents in the locality and must be a national issue for consideration. The Film Club also object very strongly to the noise generated by the activities of the rail terminal including railway shunting, crane operations and the loading and unloading of containers. In addition, my objection is further endorsed as the proposal is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy (VVNJCS). The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is only a short distance away from this site, serves the same local area and has the capacity for considerable expansion for many years to come. There cannot be any overriding justification whatsoever for this Rail Central SRFI proposal and the Film Club urge that this developer driven proposal is refused. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Miss Nicki Walton
"Having finally received a Memory Stick from the library outlining Rail Central's proposals with regards the Strategic Rail Freight Interchange - Planning Inspectorate Ref TR050004 I am concerned that as my property - back garden - directly abuts the A45 ringroad at Hunsbury roundabout, it appears that mine and other properties on this boundary will be directly affected by: 1. An increase in traffic - in the region of 10 to 30% 2. As a result of the above, a definite increase in noise 3. An even larger increase in carbon deposits 4. A drastic decease in the value of my property I have had a brief look at the roundabout plan for Hunsbury but it isnt clear what the proposed works are going to be in respect of the verge below the embankment adjoining my property which is Briar Hill side. As far as I can tell, the roundabout's proposed increase from two to three lanes will directly pass the bottom of my property. These works could render my garden a "no-go" area on health grounds alone. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr K Flynn
"I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION The West Northants Joint Core Strategy found to be sound by PINS adopted in 2014 rejected a request from Ashfield land to include a provision for a SRFI. It was stated that new rail freight interchanges are not deliverable within the plan period and that major new industrial development should be focussed on 3 sites:- DIRFT, Silverstone and around the M1 Junction 15. There is a large network of ancient footpaths that link Milton Malsor to other local villages. The freight terminal would destroy these rights of way and there would be a loss of hundreds upon hundreds of actress of productive agricultural land when in fact the country needs to produce more food. Beautiful views over open countryside would be destroyed by massive and extremely ugly warehouses and high earth mounds. These would be a totally alien feature and an utter blot on the landscape. Northamptonshire is mainly a rural country with a few medium sized towns. Three freight terminals (DIRFT, Rail Central and Northampton Gateway, would be by far excessive to the needs o the local market. Northamptonshire already enjoys a very low rate of unemployment, therefore thousands of employees that would be required would have to travel a fair distance to get to work. This would increase congestion in the area and create more air pollution. Alongside the fact that the village would be used for parking by the workforce. Milton Malsor Village Trust has been in existence since the 18th century and through it ownership of land that it rents out in Barn Lane is able to provide a small sum of money to the need and vulnerable pensioners of the village. This land would be subject to a Compulsory Purchase and compensation would be incapable of providing a similar level of income. The church of Milton Malsor has owned a large field off Barn Lane for hundreds of years and it is a vital open space. Building of warehouses on this land would be an absolute major loss to the community. The proposed development would result in the loss of a local flower nursery. The owners of this nursery shown at "Chelsea Flower Show" and this also would be a tragic loss to the community. Land currently between Milton Malsor and Blisworth is open countryside that is a haven for wildlife. All this would be lost and species of farmland birds would be totally lost to the area. The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is not a great distance away from this proposed site, serves the same local area and has the capacity for expansion for the next ten years. Already the experience from DIRFT has shown an increase in crime following the industrialisation. There would be an excessive increase of air pollution from the extra cars, HGV's and vans using the roads in the local area. Noise would be created by the 24/7 operation from the rail terminal - loading and unloading containers and light pollution from night operations would be increased. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Laura Pinto
"I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION My father-in-law lives in Milton Malsor and my husband grew up in the village, this proposal is completely contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy which was completed, found to be sound by PINS adopted in 2014 specifically rejected a request from Ashfield Land to include a provision from a SFRI. It was clearly stated that the new rail freight interchanges are not at all deliverable within the plan period and any major industrial development should be focused on 3 sites - these being Silverstone, around the M1 Junc. 15 and DIRFT. The Daventry Rail Freight Terminal is not too far away from the Rail Central site has the more than enough capacity for expansion for approximately another 10 years. There is absolutely no need for another freight terminal within this vicinity. Following the industrialisation of this particular area there has been an substantial increase in crime. Northamptonshire is a relatively rural country with few medium sized towns, three enormous freight terminals (Daventry, Rail Central and Northampton Gateway) would be in far excess of the needs of the local market. Northamptonshire is relatively fortunate in that there is a low unemployment - therefore thousands of employees would be required to travel a considerable distance to get to work. This would not only increase congestion in the area but there would also be an increase in air pollution. Not with standing this would see an increase of traffic through the village where the M1/A43 is congested. The workforce would be using the village for parking. Views currently enjoyed of open countryside would be destroyed by enormous warehouses and high earth mounds. These earth mounds would be an alien feature and a blot on this currently lovely landscape. Milton Malsor church has owned a large field off Barn Lane for hundreds of years and is an important open space. The building of warehouses on this particular field would be an awful loss to the community. There is a large network of ancient footpaths that link Milton Malsor to other local villages. The freight terminal would completely destroy these rights of way and the destruction of wildlife habitat in particular, for farmland birds where the habitat loss cant be compensated. There would also be a loss to a number of beautiful mature trees that will take many years to replace. A loss of hundreds of acres of productive agricultural land would be loss when the country is currently in need to produce more food. The Milton Malsor Poors' Trust has been in existence since the 18th Century and through it ownership of land that it rents out in Barn Lane is able to provide small sums of money to the needy and vulnerable pensioners of the village. This land would be subject of Compulsory Purchase and any compensation would be incapable of providing a similar level of income. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nick Garton
"Due to the nature of my work I have moved away, but Blisworth is my home. It is where I grew up and the place in which my community still lives - a community that is currently under threat of an utterly unacceptable infringement upon its quality of life, the local landscape and the future of all who live there. The freight rail interchange is first of all completely unnecessary. There is already a vastly under-utilised facility nearby, the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal, which requires support to deliver the promised improvements to national rail freight logistics and local employment opportunities that supported its construction and expansion. Undercutting DIRFT with a new development further south makes no sense whatsoever. Please - think. A new development on virgin countryside and arable land would ruin the lives of thousands of households in the East Midlands both now and for generations to come. This is a time when the community - both in the villages and those who have only ever sought for success at DIRFT - should be put first."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nick Muir
" I strongly object to this proposal. I spent my childhood in Milton Malsor. My parents chose the village because of its rural quality, surrounded as it is by open countryside. I return on a regularly with my family to see my retired parents. While here we walk our dog around the local footpaths and my wife runs the local footpaths in training for her marathons and half-marathons. My parents have also been dog owners throughout their 30+ years in the village and have enjoyed their walks through the surrounding fields. The prospect of a development such as is proposed between Blisworth and Milton would not only destroy the amenity of field walks on the existing footpaths but would generate an appalling degree of air, noise and light pollution on what has been until now a tranquil agricultural area. I fear the damage to their health from the increase in air pollution this proposed SRFI will generate.It is public knowledge that HGV movements are responsible for the major Nitric Oxide and Diesel Particulate emissions. Milton is already close to the M1 with its unavoidable pollution and placing another major polluter on the other side of the village appears to be a recipe for a significant increase in local damage to health, especially as this is a 24/7 operating freight terminal. I have first-hand experience of HGVs circumventing proscribed routes and finding rat-runs through the local village. The substantial increase in HGV traffic off-site will only add to the pollution generated on-site by this proposal. For all these reasons. I strongly object to this proposal. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicola
"My parents live in Blisworth. This is my interest. I have live in Blisworth for 29 years of my life. The traffic is bad enough on the A508 with accident happening on this road all the time. Creating more traffic in this road will only make it worse with the traffic being much heavier!!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Professor Colin Ramshaw
"I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION Northamptonshire is a rural county with only a few medium sized towns - 3 massive freight terminals (Rail Central, Northampton Gateway and Daventry) are in excessive of the needs of the local market. The Daventry Rail Freight Terminal is not too far away from the Rail Central site and has more than enough capacity to expand for at least another ten years. There is absolutely no requirement whatsoever for another freight terminal in this vicinity. DIRFT has also seen an increase in crime since the industrialisation of this area. The point that the local area will benefit from job creation is totally absurd. Northamptonshire already benefits from low unemployment - the anticipated workforce will have to commute from other areas increasing the pressure on the local road networks. There will be very little benefit if any to the local communities affected other than increased traffic through the village where the M1/A43 is congested thus creating far more air pollution and the village will be used for parking by the workforce. The beautiful views over the open countryside would be totally destroyed by enormous warehouses and earth mounds; these would be completely alien and a blot on the landscape. All the land between Milton Malsor and Blisworth is open countryside, that provides a haven for wildlife. This would be lost and many species for farmland birds would be also lost to the area. There is an extremely large network of ancient footpaths that link Milton Malsor with other local villages. The freight terminal would destroy these rights of way and there would be a loss of hundreds of acres of productive agricultural land just when the country is in need of producing more food. For hundreds of years Milton Malsor church has owned a large field off Barn Lane and this is an important open space. The building of warehouses on this field would be a catastrophic loss to the whole community. The development would also result in the loss of the local flower nursery and this would also be a tragic loss to the community. Since the 18th Century the Milton Malsor Poors' Trust through its ownership of land that it rents out in Barn Lane is able to provide small sums of money to the needy and vulnerable pensioners of the village. This land would be subject of compulsory purchase and any compensation would be incapable of providing a similar level of income. The whole operation will create unacceptable light, air and noise pollution endangering the health and well being for residents within two rural communities. The noise, light and air pollution of 24/7 working will be horrendous for the communities of many of the local villages. None of the local plans show any large development on this site. It is imperative that this land is kept as open space as it ensures there is a boundary between town and country. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Veronica King
"The destruction of such a beautiful rural area does not bare thinking of and all for corporate greed. The development will not take traffic off the roads but in fact increase it. There is more than enough capacity at Crick, therefore this monstrosity must be stopped, for our future and future generations. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Antony Stylianou
"I strongly oppose the planning proceedure and delvelopment of Rail Centrals actions in and around the village of Blisworth, Milton Malsor and Roade, Northamptonshire on the points listed below: Noise and light polution Wildlife preservation Heavy goods vehicles using the villages 24/7 Litter / Polution Vice and Crime Employment and Immigration laws being broken The proposal being too near primary schools General wellbeing of the elderly that reside in the areas Dangerous substances and heavy vehicles endangering life due to proximty. I strongly believe all of the above will affect every resisdent in the proposed areas and encroach on Northampton town as overspill often does."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julian Wills on behalf of Avril wills
"I strongly object to the rail central development. It will cause pollution from both light and exhaust emissions. It will destroy our village community and local countryside irreversibly."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Benjamin Ashman
"As a local resident and a business owner in the local area I strongly object to the proposed development by Rail Central (SRFI). In our uncertain times, this project is a huge financial and physiological gamble. I for one, feel very uncomfortable with the proposal on many levels. Construction and pollution? The proposed site is too large an area of agricultural ground to be put under concrete (which will generate considerable amounts of C02 if constructed). The proposed development will totally and irreversibly change the environment regardless of the success or failure of the proposed development. Once this land has gone it will be uneconomical to return it back for agricultural use. The increase in pollution caused by increased levels of traffic movements added to the construction pollution will be gigantic (the word enormous doesn’t come close to describing the shear size). Natural Habitat and environment The removal of the habitat of the indigenous wildlife flies angrily in the face of conservation. I, like many, recreationally walk the footpaths and bridleways across this land and have a very good perspective of the enormity of this proposal. The area is enormous and will displace or kill most of the wild life within the boundaries, and at a time that we are seeing huge extinction of species across the globe. Roads? The SRFI along with other proposed developments will place considerable demand onto the existing road system. These roads reach saturation point with standing traffic twice daily during ‘rush hour’ and when ever an accident occurs on the mayor roads such as the M1, A43, A45, A5 and A508. Additional traffic will require significant improvements to the road system to avoid tremendous disruption to existing road users such as the daily commuters, myself included. The proposal seems to fall short on a detailed explanation on how the local road network will be modified to avoid aggravating the present traffic congestion. I have to commute through the proposed area to get to my work place on the North East side of Northampton along with other members of my staff, hence the concern. With increased traffic on the local road network, more vehicles will seek alternative through ways and will start using many of the minor roads with dire consequences, especially as the local council seems to be presently in financial turmoil and most of these smaller routes are in very poor maintenace. Employment? With modern warehousing now becoming automated, along with South Northamptonshire’s high levels of employment, the proposal will be questionable on the levels of employment it will generate and raises a big question on where the work force will be found. If it is to be a non local workforce, this will only exasperate the road congestion by the commute into the premises. Impact on the local villages? Speaking personally, I have a small house in Blisworth. It is my wife’s and my main asset. The proposed development will change Blisworth from Rural to Urban and it is fair to assume that the value of property will reflect this. I am sure this will effect many like us by causing concern for our later lives with the increased reliance on our assets to cover for pension short falls, longer life expectancy and an underfunded National Health Service. Security is also a great concern as the DIRFT site has shown that there has been an increase in break-ins and burglaries in the surrounding areas. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brian and Janet drury
"Rail Central We are sending you this email to express our concerns re the above proposed development. Theses are:- 1. This massive development would swamp the area local to it, lose productive farmland and in the process ruin three historic villages - Blisworth in particular, with its associations with canals. 2. The huge box-like warehouses and cranes would be a blot on the local landscape. Conservation areas would be destroyed. 3. This development would increase significantly traffic levels on existing roads (M1, A43 A508 and A5) due to HGV's and commuting workers. 4. There will only be single point rail access to the two developments and because of the few available freight times this would concentrate to night-time operations causing pollution and noise. Noise impact especially from machinery, trains, lorries engines and reversing. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bridget Minter
"Firstly this application is redundant. There is plenty of available logistics space in central England already. The proposed site is in an area that is already prone to serious road congestion, especially when the M1 is closed for some reason. This occurs quite frequently. An influx of heavy goods vehicles will be disastrous, and although this proposal is nominally a rail link, it is inevitable that there will be heavy traffic to and from the rail terminal. Of equal importance is the impact on several villages and the surrounding countryside. As for extra jobs being created, there is little evidence from other similar developments that this happens, let alone benefit the local community. This should not be permitted to go ahead in a location that is self evidently unsuited for such a pervasive and unnecessary development, and of no obvious benefit to the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Canal & River Trust
"The Canal & River Trust (the Trust) is a statutory party as defined in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Interested Parties and Miscellaneous Prescribed Provisions) Regulations 2015. The Trust is a statutory undertaker and is responsible for maintaining navigation on the Grand Union Canal and Northampton Arm of the canal, both of which are affected by the Development Consent Order (DCO) application. The Trust is also a landowner of interests which will be affected by the proposed DCO. The DCO application will have a substantial effect on the Trust, as both landowner and navigation authority, and also on users of the canal. The following works at both the main Strategic Rail Freight Interchange site and the M1 Junction 15a site will affect the Trust’s assets: • construction of a new bridge crossing the Northampton Arm of the canal just south of Junction 15a; • widening of the existing bridge carrying the A43 over the main Grand Union Canal; • construction of the new grade-separated road junction on the A43; These works all have the potential to directly affect the stability/structural integrity of the canal and towpath structure (including also affecting the Grade II listed Rothersthorpe Lock Flight on the Northampton Arm) and may affect the ability of the Trust to exercise its statutory functions as navigation authority. The impact of these works also extends to potential impacts on users of the canal and towpath (including impacts on users of Gayton Marina and Blisworth Marina, both of which are located close to the DCO site) and on the ecological and heritage value and significance of the canal. The Applicant has not provided sufficient detailed information at pre-application stages for the Trust to properly identify the extent of the likely impacts of these works on our land and infrastructure. The Trust has been unable to fully establish the acceptability of these works to us in terms of their impacts on us as a landowner or Navigation Authority, or how they will affect users of the canal (including the marinas) and towpath, whether during the construction or operational phases of the development. The full extent of the interests required by the Applicant in relation to the Trust’s land have not been identified prior to submission of the DCO application. The Applicant has not sought to engage with the Trust to commence negotiations in respect of the necessary acquisition of rights over the Trust’s land prior to submission of the DCO application, despite the Trust indicating a willingness to do so. The Trust does not therefore consider it to be reasonable or proportionate to seek to include compulsory acquisition powers within the DCO. The Trust does not consider that we have had sufficient opportunity to fully review the draft protective provisions and that therefore it has not been possible to properly assess the implications of the proposal for the Trust as both an affected landowner and a statutory undertaker or the adequacy of the draft protective provisions to address the likely impacts of the proposed development. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carly Redley
"I would like to join as would like to voice my opinions on the detrimental effect this will have on our environments and communities. The countryside it will effect, are the habitats to numerous species of wildlife. Lots of people enjoy walking the fields and local are, as a mother of two young boys it's important to teach them about nature and wildlife. It's also important for them to be our in the countryside where it's safe. I'm worried about the extra transport going through the village and the safety aspect for my children."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carol Sarstedt-McCarthy
"I feel compelled to submit my representations to oppose the proposed railfeight interchanges by Ashfield Land Management Ltd and Gazeley GLP Northampton on land between Blisworth and Milton Malsor for the following reasons: 1.The main roads around the area concerned - M1, A45 , A43 and A508 are already extremely busy and frequently congested and any relatively minor incident or accident on any of these roads causes delays and gridlock and has a really detrimental effect on the surrounding villages and the town. If this development goes ahead the number of vehicles converging on the area is set to more than double and the roads will not cope. 2. There is already an existing railfreight site at Daventry, about 15 miles away and this is under-used at present. Why is it necessary to build 2 more in such close proximity? 3. There seem to be no guarantees or plans in place that there will actually be a rail link to either of these proposed developments so in reality the likelihood would be that we are left with just a vast acreage of concrete and warehousing. 4. Noise and pollution of the surrounding area. It is essentially an rural area and the developments will be active 24hrs a day, causing noise, light and air pollution to all residents in the area. The loss to the communities will be incalculable and no amount of "landscaping" will overcome this. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Celia Chester
"This development will ensure unacceptable levels of traffic, noise and pollution for the residents in the surrounding area. There is an identical facility at DIRFT in Daventry, about 15 miles from this proposed development, so i cannot for the life of me see why we need yet another rail freight terminal within such a small area!!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clive Taylor
"As a home owner in Greens Norton, I have to regularly cross the A43 which is extremely busy as it . I also have to use the A5 on a constant basis. This proposal will increase the amount of traffic on both roads. it is already hard to get over the roundabouts when double length lories block access to the roundabout. As a local resident and council tax payer, I would like to be able to access local amenities and not be constantly blocked by an ever increasing commercial traffic problem that this proposal would create."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Danielle Barnes
"This is not a site of strategic importance. Furthermore, it is clearly a commercial, rather than a strategic decision to place a second SRFI within 15 miles of an existing one; one that will not be at capacity until 2033. Surely for it to be strategic it should be linked by a strategy that has been devised nationally. Rail Central is contrary to the adopted West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) and in conflict with the commercial, transport and housing objectives of the whole region. A further development on this scale will result in a complete imbalance of planning objectives. Rail Central have overstated the strategic location and interconnectivity of this particular site: i) The local road network is already far too congested to accommodate this scheme and cannot be improved sufficiently to mitigate the impact. The main access road is already overstressed and a secondary route through a small village is untenable this is completely unacceptable for a scheme of this size (7.5m sq ft.). ii) The Northampton loop line unlikely to have the capacity for additional freight when DIRFT 3 is running at capacity. Rail Central’s claim that both the Northampton loop and the WCML lines will be available are unfounded as WCML is highly unlikely to accommodate slower freight trains throughout the day. Northampton Highways Authority and the Northampton Rail Users Group have expressed concern that if either Application were to be approved this could result in a reduction in passenger rail services from Northampton. Road congestion will worsen rather than improve with the terminal being a mostly road based logistics park (over half the site cannot be served by rail due to its bisection by the Northampton to Towcester Road). Rail Central would result in in excess of 20,000 additional vehicle movements a day on the A43 and surrounding roads. This would be in addition to the 16,500 extra daily vehicle movements that would result from Northampton Gateway. Both would be operating 24 hours a day. To put this into context, over 16,000 vehicles currently use the A508 every day. This would inevitably create more local air pollution, especially in the two Air Quality Management Areas (between J15 and J16 and on the A45 near Wootton). The impact of this scheme on the local villages and their communities will be both huge and permanent and no amount of mitigation can change this. The activities of rail freight interchanges produce air, light and noise pollution, the effects of which CANNOT be adequately mitigated especially with two villages in such close proximity The economic landscape is such that there is currently no incentive for commercial organisations to switch from road to rail. Given the relatively short distances involved and without Government subsidy the required modal shift will not occur. As a consequence of the above the carbon objectives of this proposal will never be met. Over 1150 acres of agricultural land would be covered in concrete by these two developments. The M1 has been a natural barrier to development spilling over into the rural areas of South Northamptonshire. Rail Central would overwhelm Milton Malsor. The demand for unplanned housing would rise resulting in development spreading to other areas, especially along the A508. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Derek Reginald Smith
"At present I have no idea what is proposed, where exactly it is proposed apart from between Milton Malsor and Bilsworth, or just how big it will be and the proposed road connections to it. This together with any proposed local housing to be built with the necessary infrastructure for the 8000 or so staff that apparently will be required to manage this operation. So I would like to see plans for this intended site and operation covering the aspects I mention above. Yours Faithfully Derek Smith "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julian Wills on behalf of Elliot Wills
"I strongly object to the rail central development. It is bad for our village as it will increase traffic and pollution from light and fumes. Footpaths and the countryside will be lost."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julian Wills on behalf of Gordon Prestoungrange
"I strongly object to the rail central development. It will cause pollution from both light and exhaust emissions. It will destroy our village community and local countryside irreversibly."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julian Wills on behalf of Henry Wills
"I strongly object to the rail central development on the grounds of the destruction of natural habitat, the potential for light and air pollution and the destruction of our rural way of life."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Oliver
"1. 18 miles from Blisworth there is already and existing site Dirft which is currently under developed and has better existing road links, to both the M1 and M6 which inludes all infrastructure already in place to serve the development. I cannot understand why it is necessary for another rail link in such close proximity to this already existing one. There are already existing truck stop facilities within this site for haulage. 2. The proposal will impact on the local area immensely by creating extra, through traffic from both cars and lorries serving this proposed facility adding to the already chaotic traffic that exists especially when incidents occur on the M1 motorway. The noise, air and light pollution alone from this increased traffic together with the pollution from the site which is proposed 24 hours opperation will become unbearable. This increase in pollution cannot be good for health, well being of both the population, wildlife, together with the environment. 3. Northamptonshire has one of the lowest employment rates in the country therefore in order to service this proposed facility extra personnel will be needed and these will need housing within the local area, instigating further developements which will put extra pressure on the exisiting area. Currently due to local government cut backs the local roads are in dire condition, this can only be made worse should this proposal go ahead. South Northamptonshire is becoming the warehouse mecca of this country, with "green belt" land being sold off for vast amounts of money. What does this leave for future generations, there will be no countryside left for people to enjoy, its time we took a look at just how important these developments are, when you consider that once this land is lost we can never get it back. !!!!!!! I hope that the powers that be will consider all of these points and have some regard for the environment that we would all like to live in and cherish instead of abuse."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Braband
"This development is not right for this area, traffic congestion, air pollution and destroying the country side."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joseph Morris
"I am opposed to the 'project', and whole heartedly support the SRC"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julian Wills
"I strongly object to the proposed development on the grounds of the destruction of natural habitat, the potential for light and air pollution and the destruction of our rural way of life."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katherine Miller
"I'd like to make an objection to the proposed Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange) Reference: TR050004. Myself, my family and friends did not invest in the local area of Milton Malsor and Blisworth for it to be turned into a giant warehouse. My partners family have lived in Blisworth for years and I find it insulting that the beautiful countryside that surrounds them will be built on. Not by families needing homes but huge companies and massive buildings blotting the landscape. Our lives will affected by the loss of green open spaces that we often occupy and enjoy. The reason why people purchased houses at elevated prices in these beautiful villages will be snatched away from them. More traffic, more crime. This is not what the villagers signed up for. You only have to look at Kilsby as an example next to DIRFT to see what has happened in their village since it was built. Increased traffic, noise , air pollution and crime. Already the noise pollution from the railway, the M1 and A43 is high in the area. rail central will increase these levels. As well as the added air pollution from the same factors which will be at the detriment of our health. I'd suggest utilising the masses of space around DIRFT that is unoccupied. And the warehousing that is unutilised. I'm not just opposing for the people that live in Milton Malsor and Blisworth but for the wildlife and history of the local area. For the health and wellbeing of everyone who uses these spaces. Stop rail central ! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kerry Guthrie
"I believe that this project is not of net benefit either nationally or locally. There is already a n under-capacity resource of this nature nearby (DIRFT) and I do not believe that any of the cited economic benefits (additional employment) would sufficiently outweigh the impact upon the local environment and on local resident's physical and mental health. The local road infrastructure can barely support the volume of traffic passing through the area now and I do not believe that any of the plans for infrastucture improvements associated with the project will be sufficient for the massive increase in HGV movements that will result from this development"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laura Wills
"I strongly object to the rail central development. It is not part of the plan for Northampton and is not a strategic development but simply an excuse to build warehouses. It will cause major traffic problems and bring noise and light pollution. It will also damage our village environment and community."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Louise Cooke
"I am a resident of Roade, living on the A508. The road is an extremely busy road already and can not cope with the additional traffic that such a huge development will bring. I also work at the primary school in Blisworth. The village will be hugely impacted by the proposed development. Residents will be disrupted by the building of the development, some residents forced to move from their houses and the beautiful countryside taken away from them. The school will be affected as numbers will drop. A lot of children come from outside the area and will not want to travel on already busy roads."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Preston
"I object most strongly to this proposed development which is totally inappropriate for the rural villages of Milton Malsor and Blisworth. This vast commercially driven development will have enormous impact ruining the tranquillity and rural beauty of the area, as well as destroying hundreds of acres of open countryside and farmland in a conservation area in which I have chosen to live for the past 45 years. The huge proposed development by Rail Central SRFI comprising rail freight terminal, enormous warehouses, increased vehicular movement as well as several thousand more people would swamp the area. The infill of the proposed strategic rail freight interchange will be on land currently consisting of fields, crops, livestock, some homes and is a horrific proposal totally unsuited to this rural area. I enjoy walking locally the proposal will destroy the current footpath network and, in particular, the footpath between Milton Malsor and Blisworth which is likely to be diverted elsewhere. Many mature trees would be lost within the proposal. The proposal would also cause severe increased air, noise and light pollution - as I believe the site will be operated 24/7. This is a rural environment with cows and sheep, totally inappropriate for train shunting, noise from loading and unloading trains/containers. Local residents will experience increased traffic congestion from HGVs as well as from workers private vehicular access to/from the site. This leading to additional pollution from increased noise, dust, traffic and lighting. Also, causing considerable disturbance and disruption plus blighting the landscape with 13 warehouses. The proposed bunding to hide the development will be utterly alien to the current landscape. At J18 fifteen miles north on the M1 there is DIRFT, a huge commercial industrial hub/development, currently not at maximum capacity. DIRFT has been granted planning for expansion including a new rail terminal. Another rail freight terminal in such close proximity to DIRFT is excessive, driven by commercial enterprise rather than need. Also, huge commercial warehouse hubs are already situated at numerous M1 junctions - J13, 14, 15,15A – at all these sites there continue to be huge signs advertising thousands of feet of spare space still available to rent. I strongly object to this proposed development which sits on the boundaries of two small villages within lovely open countryside. It is contrary to West Northants Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS). The proposal will destroy our small rural communities and ruin our village way of life as well as affecting the mental health and wellbeing of residents, myself included. Our village is NOT appropriate to a commercially based large development infill consisting of a train terminal, shunting of trains, loading and unloading containers and HGVs as well as massive warehouses. Please refuse the proposal. It is unnecessary, unwanted and will blight our two villages forever."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Maureen Whitlock
"1. How can this be strategic planning when there is already a rail freight terminal just a few miles along the M1 2. lack of sustainability, building massive storage sheds means more lorries on the road to service this white elephant 3. increase in traffic on an already intolerably busy road. This will be apart from huge use of village roads when there is an accident, a breakdown or roadworks on the M1. This happens every day. The Applicant cannot regulate this."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michelle Smart
"I lived in Blisworth for fifteen years and moved three miles away last year. Even with this distance, the proposed development will still have an impact on me. It will impact everyone. Traffic is a nightmare at the best of times both in Towcester and in Blisworth. When the M1 is closed (which happens frequently) all the traffic diverts, much of which goes through both Towcester and Blisworth. My youngest son was inches from being run over a couple of years ago when a car mounted the pavement because the main road in Blisworth was gridlocked. Add the traffic from the thousands of people who will work at the development and the goods being delivered to and from it (let's not be naive and think it will all come by train), and you have a recipe for carnage - having a slip road off the motorway won't change that as accidents will happen on the motorway and the traffic will be diverted again and again. On top of all this is the indisputable fact that an eight-million square foot warehouse will destroy not only the natural beauty of the villages it impacts but increase the risk of flooding - much of the land the developers want to build on acts as a natural flood plain. The DIRFT site, comparable in size and usage to this proposed development, is only 20 miles from Blisworth and isn't even fully occupied. Northamptonshire has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country so the majority of the workers will come from neighbouring counties, adding to a road system already creaking at the seams."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Jonathan Sharman on behalf of Miss Hannah Sharman
"I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION The application suggests benefits of job creation which, if correct, won't benefit the local economy whatsoever since employment levels are high. This also means that along with massive increases in HGV traffic employee traffic will also cripple the local road network which struggles to cope currently. The plans for changes to the rod network are ill thought out and don't consider the reality of the situation. 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. 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. There is sufficient future capacity at DIRFT along with Midlands Gateway such that very little interchange of rail freight will take place at Rail Central. The views over what is currently mainly open countryside would be totally destroyed by massive warehouses bunding. These earth mounds would be a completely alien feature and a blot on the landscape. The proposed destruction of the ancient footpaths that serve the residents of Milton Malsor and the surrounding area has been met with almost universal condemnation. These rights of way are regularly used for recreation, dog walking and as a safe means of travelling between villages. The proposed diversions for most of these paths would see their open countryside views being replaced by close up views of roads and railway lines along with significant noise and air pollution."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr DF Powell
"I am against this for the following reasons 1. Increased traffic through the village and surrounding areas including Towcester which already struggles at peak times 2. Poor road infrastructure if main route effected by incidents/accidents 3. Large vehicles frequenting local area 4. Loss of green land "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Simon Jones on behalf of Mr Graham Summerell
"I Strongly object to this application as I don't believe it is anything other than a way to bypass local planning laws to build the warehousing that is sought. The operation will create unacceptable light, air and noise pollution affecting the health of hundreds of families. The massive increase in daily HGV trips and employees arriving from outside the county each day will add to the already critical levels of nitrous oxide and particulate pollution. The West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) completed, found to be sound by PINS and formally adopted in 2014 specifically rejected a request from 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 Rail Central. The purpose of Government strategy is being abused by this application. 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. There is a large network of ancient footpaths that connect Milton Malsor with other local villages. The freight terminal would completely destroy these rights of way and the views over what is currently mainly open countryside would be totally destroyed by massive warehouses and bunding. These earth mounds would be a completely alien feature and a blot on the landscape."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Jonathan Sharman
"I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION The application suggests benefits of job creation which, if correct, won't benefit the local economy whatsoever since employment levels are high. This also means that along with massive increases in HGV traffic employee traffic will also cripple the local road network which struggles to cope currently. The plans for changes to the rod network are ill thought out and don't consider the reality of the situation. 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. 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. There is sufficient future capacity at DIRFT along with Midlands Gateway such that very little interchange of rail freight will take place at Rail Central. The views over what is currently mainly open countryside would be totally destroyed by massive warehouses bunding. These earth mounds would be a completely alien feature and a blot on the landscape. The proposed destruction of the ancient footpaths that serve the residents of Milton Malsor and the surrounding area has been met with almost universal condemnation. These rights of way are regularly used for recreation, dog walking and as a safe means of travelling between villages. The proposed diversions for most of these paths would see their open countryside views being replaced by close up views of roads and railway lines along with significant noise and air pollution."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Marc Kitchen
"I object to this application. If this goes ahead it will create unacceptable light, air and noise pollution blighting our village and endangering the health and well-being for everyone. there will be 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. Due to the close proximity to the site of a significant number of residential properties in Milton Malsor many village residents would suffer from various forms of pollution. Air pollution is the major concern with the prevailing wind from the site blowing directly over the village. The UK Government is rightly concerned about the levels of nitrous oxides in the air. The large number of cars and HGV’s using this proposed site would make this situation far worse and have a major adverse impact on the health and wellbeing of local people. Other forms of pollution, noise, light and particularly during the construction period dust would also have a major adverse impact on all villagers, not only those living in close proximity. The local road network can't deal with the current levels of traffic and it certainly won't cope 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). The plans submitted to mitigate this are totally inadequate. The West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) completed, found to be sound by PINS and formally adopted in 2014 specifically rejected a request from 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. A Milton Malsor village Charitable Trust and the Village Church own parcels of land within the boundary of the proposed site and are scheduled for compulsory acquisition. This would have a significant adverse impact on villagers. We will lose a small, long established specialist flower nursery operates from within the site boundary and several homes through compulsory acquisition which given I believe this is application is just a way to bypass local planning laws to build warehousing, is totally unacceptable. The proposed destruction of the ancient footpaths tis horrendous. These rights of way are regularly used for recreation, dog walking and as a safe means of travelling between villages. The proposed diversions for most of these paths would have people walking alongside roads which will see a massive increase in traffic and pollution."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Claire Cumberland
"I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed SRFI Rail Central. My concerns are as follows: • This is not a site of strategic importance and Ashfield Land is simply promoting it as such because they own it. It seems clear to me that this is a commercial decision to place a second SRFI within 15 miles of DIRFT, which will not be at capacity until 2033. Ashfield Land conducted their assessments to prove the suitability of this site for an SRFI after they had already invested in it. The site wasn't selected because it is ideal for an SRFI, an SRFI was selected because it suited the purpose of the developers who wish to bypass local planning law. • As a resident of Roade village, I regularly see the effects of an already struggling infrastructure of roads. The current network cannot be improved sufficiently to accommodate the enormous increase in traffic movements we would see as a result of Rail Central. 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. The enormous impact that this development would have on the villages and residents in this locality cannot be underestimated. Rail Central will cause light, air and noise pollution. There is no way to mitigate these things for the people who will be affected by them. • I am seriously concerned about the loss of green land that would result from this development. In recent years, we have seen vast amounts of land disappear under new housing estates and warehouses. One of the reasons we chose to live here was because we loved the semi-rural setting. This development would be a huge change to our surroundings. • 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 Rail Central. • Due to the location of Rail Central 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. • It is a huge concern to me that granting permission for Rail Central would simply open the floodgates for further unwanted developments. If this company is given the go-ahead the lifestyle and landscape of local residents will be changed permanently. For all of the reasons listed above, I believe the application for Rail Central should be refused."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Diane Atkinson
"We feel that the traffics through Blisworth is already horrendous and should the Rail Central become a reality it will increase in such a way that crossing the road would be a contin hazard especially for the children going to the village school and also our village roads are not built to have that number of vehicles on them. We are a small village which will be spoilt as well by the number of wharehouses that are planned to be built, I,pairing also nearby houses. We have also considered the light and air pollution which will affect villagers we live in beautiful countryside which will be spoilt for what we consider no reason but profit."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Jan Wood
"1. Effect on traffic flows - J15 improvements will not improve the flow, or lack of it, to the A5 junction at Stony Stratford. It currently takes about 20-30 minutes to get to that roundabout with existing flows in the mornings 2. Pollution levels - increased traffic flows, most of which will be stationary for long lengths of time will affect air quality in and around Roade, Grafton Regis and the edges of Potterspury and Stoke Bruerne 3. Strategy coherence This development cannot be strategic if two are planned, conjoined, and within 20 miles either side of MK Magna Park, and DIRFT at Rugby - both of which are not fully utilised"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Janet Tofte
"That village life will be drastically changed, air quality suffering badly, too much traffic on roads that just weren’t designed for heavy vehicles, desecration of so much wildlife and natural habitat. Serious damage in health and welfare in general "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Larraine Kitchen
"I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION I believe this application is a crude attempt to subvert local planning laws in order to build warehousing by making promises to Government that cannot be supported. The West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS), found to be sound by PINS and formally adopted in 2014 specifically rejected a request from Ashfield Land to include provision for a SRFI. There is sufficient future capacity at DIRFT along with Midlands Gateway such that very little interchange of rail freight will take place at Rail Central. Northamptonshire is a mainly rural county with only a few medium sized towns, 3 freight terminals (DIRFT, Rail Central and Northampton Gateway) would be vastly in excess of the needs of the local market. 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 increased traffic due to the development would see drivers avoiding it by rat running through local villages. I believe our villages will be used as a car park by employees The operation will create unacceptable light, air and noise pollution blighting the lives of Milton and Blisworth endangering their health and well-being. 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. The views over what is currently mainly open countryside would be totally destroyed by massive warehouses and bunding. There is a large network of ancient footpaths that connect Milton Malsor with other local villages that will be lost. These are not merely routes from one place to another but provide green open spaces to enjoy."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Nicolette Sharman
"I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION The application suggests benefits of job creation which, if correct, won't benefit the local economy whatsoever since employment levels are high. This also means that along with massive increases in HGV traffic employee traffic will also cripple the local road network which struggles to cope currently. The plans for changes to the rod network are ill thought out and don't consider the reality of the situation. 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. 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. There is sufficient future capacity at DIRFT along with Midlands Gateway such that very little interchange of rail freight will take place at Rail Central. The views over what is currently mainly open countryside would be totally destroyed by massive warehouses bunding. These earth mounds would be a completely alien feature and a blot on the landscape. The proposed destruction of the ancient footpaths that serve the residents of Milton Malsor and the surrounding area has been met with almost universal condemnation. These rights of way are regularly used for recreation, dog walking and as a safe means of travelling between villages. The proposed diversions for most of these paths would see their open countryside views being replaced by close up views of roads and railway lines along with significant noise and air pollution."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Nicolette Sharman on behalf of Mstr Owen Sharman
"I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION The application suggests benefits of job creation which, if correct, won't benefit the local economy whatsoever since employment levels are high. This also means that along with massive increases in HGV traffic employee traffic will also cripple the local road network which struggles to cope currently. The plans for changes to the rod network are ill thought out and don't consider the reality of the situation. 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. 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. There is sufficient future capacity at DIRFT along with Midlands Gateway such that very little interchange of rail freight will take place at Rail Central. The views over what is currently mainly open countryside would be totally destroyed by massive warehouses bunding. These earth mounds would be a completely alien feature and a blot on the landscape. The proposed destruction of the ancient footpaths that serve the residents of Milton Malsor and the surrounding area has been met with almost universal condemnation. These rights of way are regularly used for recreation, dog walking and as a safe means of travelling between villages. The proposed diversions for most of these paths would see their open countryside views being replaced by close up views of roads and railway lines along with significant noise and air pollution."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nick Jeffs
"Having grown up in harpole and schooled in bugbrooke I am concerned that this development will take far too much countryside from the local community and have a deterimental effect on the community"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Norman
"There are currently two massive warehouse planning applications in for this area, this particular one covers such a size that it will obliterate two villages. I object to such a company as Ashfield land putting in an application to the government that has already been rejected by the local council."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Reverend Charles Wykes
"my principle concern living so close is the airborne dust and particulate matter that will be generated by the construction and use of such a large site. as we are subject to predominantly south westerlies most of west northampton will lie in the fall zone for the dust and air pollution generated by the construction and the vehicles servicing the construction. I have seen no modelling on this risk my second concern is that although this is being pushed as a multi modal rail scheme the likely reality is that similar to DIRFT only a very small percentage of operations will be rail based with the majority being road focused creating hugely increased levels of road borne environmental damage. at DIRFT only 4 out of 34 businesses (12%) are serviced by the railport. I consider this to be a subterfuge to gain monetary and planning support. the vast increase in traffic levels will overfill the surrounding road network causing delays and environmental damage from idling engines. what is now a green and peaceful area of villages and fields will become rat runs for huge construction trucks. I see no get around for this issue - the construction will blight our local environment from the first sod until Elon Musk takes us to Mars"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roger Wood
"I wish to register my opposition to this Rail Central for the following reasons:- 1. It will add to this heavily congested section of the M1 which already has numerous traffic volume related incidents. Also some Rail Central vehicles will use the A508 road increasing the congestion on a road which often grinds to a standstill (with significantly increased polution) at rush hours and when the M1is closed. 2. This is supposed to be a strategic development, but there is already a Rail Freight Interchage (DRIFT) to the North with spare capacity and a large warehouse development in MK to the South again with spare capacity. 3. This development will swamp two small Northamptonshire villages, Blisworth and Milton Maisor, so reducing significantly the amenity value of this area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rosemary Warner
"I live on Blisworth Park and my property is situated at the top of the park and I will clearly see this development from my window. No amount of landscaping or bunding will disguise this monstrosity. I thought we were trying to cut down on light pollution and a lot of street lights have been changed to achieve this. What will happen to the A43 with all this extra traffic using it when the M1 is closed which causes chaos without any extra movement of lorries accessing the site. This will result more traffic using the roads through our villages being used as rat run to those who look for an alternative route, our village roads are busy enough as it is. Add to that the added danger of air pollution being higher.Is this development really required with the DIRFT site just down the road which isn't running at nowhere near full capacity. Can Ashford guarantee that the Northampton road entrance will only be used for emergency vehicles. I see no need for this monstrosity. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sharna Howse
"It’s taking our peaceful village & making it into an industrial estate, there are plenty of alternative areas that already have industry! We don’t want the air polluted for our children. It’s also taking away our amazing countryside! Which provides homes for the beautiful wildlife & provides us with lovely fields to walk through & enjoy in all seasons Keep the green band!!!! Keep our village a village!!!!!!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Rendell Family
"Major concerns are the increased traffic flow on A43 west bound from J15a of the M1 and on to the M40. Problems of major delays on this route, particularly when the M1 is slow or closed owing to accidents. This is already a major problem on the A43 to the A5 leading to gridlock in Towcester for traffic routing south and for traffic going north and this happens often. The A43/A5 junction is now a dangerous five road roundabout controlled by traffic lights on only four of the the roads and currently becomes a potential accident black spot at rush hour and other busy periods."
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Taylor Family
"A development of this size cannot be a sustainable development. It will primarily be farmland that is paved over to import more consumer goods whose production is destroying the planet. This increased consumerism is taking the UK away from their carbon reduction targets. This is not even mentioning the increase in traffic to and from the development during building and while in operation. The roads in this area are already congested heavily at peak times without any new developments. The local roads were not designed for prolific use by HGVs. The A508 already suffers with heavy use by HGVs and extra traffic normally, let alone when there is a problem on the M1, then it becomes a diversion and this is untenable. In addition to this the air quality in the village of Roade is already bad just walking through the village on the A508 and the railway bridge is not suitable for two HGVs to pass at the same time. It is also very dangerous for children walking to school and back along what becomes an extremely busy road during the rush hour and just getting from A to B in the village is impossible. There is no doubt that this development will bring with it much more traffic and you only have to visit one of the smaller villages like Blisworth on a day when there is a problem with the M1 or A508 to know that this becomes a bypass and is not suitable for heavy traffic or HGVs. These villages become rat runs for commuter traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tony Cumberland
"I object to the proposed SRFI Rail Central for the following reasons. • There is no convincing evidence that this site is suitable for an SRFI or that one is needed here. We have DIRFT only 15 miles away that is nowhere near capacity. • It is obvious that the existing road network could not cope and cannot be improved to the point where it could. • The increase in light, air and noise pollution would be unacceptable. It is impossible for the developer to mitigate these increases. • The loss of green land and changing landscape are of great concern to me and my family. • It is likely that this development (if it is granted) would be followed by more – housing, amenities etc. I urge you to refuse this application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Lovell
"I wish to register my objection to the planned SRFI in close proximity to the villages of Blisworth and Milton Malsor. It is my strong belief that that the overwhelming evidence shows that the proposed development is not in the national interest as purported and additionally, will bring a range of significant negative impacts to the local communities from environmental, economic and socio-cultural perspectives. The villages themselves are an integral part of the heritage fabric of South Northamptonshire and have recorded histories stretching to around a 1000 years. The development of road infrastructure in the last 50 years has already had a demonstrative impact on quality of life even with the addition of the Blisworth bypass in the 1980s. Congestion is already horrendous around these villages as Northampton and MK commuters seek alternative routes. If the M1, A43 and A508 have traffic issues then this congestion increases exponentially. Equally, the environmental impact will be substantial with noise and light pollution inevitable as well as the complete destruction of aesethics and irreparable damage to local biodiversity and ecosystems. The proximity of such a large scale development is totally incongruous to the environment that thousands of house owners have decided to call home and have great civic pride in. The need for such a development is put into further context by the existence of DIRFT which already possesses suitable capacity to meet the nations’ rail freight needs for a significant timescale. There is no substantive evidence that there is a shift in the UK economy requiring a modal shift to rail. This development does not adequately consider shifting dynamics of modes of transportation and will effectively represent a white elephant. No level of mitigation, unsubstantiated promises of boosts to the local economy, creation of green spaces (we have them already) or an evidenced national need for this development will give this development credibility from a transparent and evidenced perspective. The sustainability claims of the project have severe weaknesses and lack timescales. Over 1150 acres of agricultural land will be lost and the associated amenities such as housing will have a further detrimental impact in addition to the SRFI. Once developed, the proposed site will cause irreversible damage to thousands of lives. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Audrey Lewis
"I wish to object to the proposed development on the following grounds: 1. The proposed development site is between two attractive villages, Blisworth and Milton Malsor, and will destroy all of the natural countryside between them. It will blight both villages and the scheme offers very little in return. When viewed on a map, the development is seen to be so large that it almost dwarfs the villages. There is also no major infrastructure development to alleviate the resulting traffic increase. 2. There is already a SFRI some 18 miles north at DIRFT and this will not reach capacity for a number of years. It is more than adequate to supply the needs of the area both now and in the foreseeable future. 3. The developers have failed to show that air pollution, already a problem, will further deteriorate. The site is low lying and where the A43 and M1 motorway intersect, there are already serious traffic issues, especially when there has been an accident. 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. 5. The developers quote figures for suggested increase in employment but Northampton already has nearly full employment and the jobs created would be largely unskilled. 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 use of the NSIP process. Indeed there has been some cynical use of the NSIP process to obtain consent only for the rail connection to be abandoned and the site adapted to warehousing only. Furthermore this is in addition to a similar scheme being put forward by Roxhill Ltd for a 5 million sq ft warehouse and rail interchange adjacent to Junction 15 of the M1 motorway. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brian Sumpton
"I strongly object to the Rail Central application for the following reasons:- 1. Government policy stares that SRFI's should be located near the business markets they will serve - major urban centres or groups of centres (NPPS 2.56). Rail Central would not do this. Northamptonshire is a mainly rural county, there are no major urban centres near to the Rail Central site. Northampton is already served by DIRFT currently the largest SRFI in the country and with expansion capacity for at least another ten years. 2. Local businesses already have great difficulty in recruiting staff due to an acute shortage of labour in the Northamptonshire. The thousands of workers that would need to be employed at this development would have to travel from considerable distances to the site. This contravenes planning policy. (NPPS 4.87). 3. Traffic congestion is a major issue for local residents, in particular rat-running through villages. The vast increase in traffic that would be generated by this development would despite so called junction improvements lead to increased congestion on local roads and rat-running. This would be greatly exacerbated when breakdowns/closures of the M1 occur. 4. Local villages are currently served by an excellent network of footpaths (PRoW's) that allow for recreational use, dog walking and as a safe means of travelling between villages. The proposed diversions and extinguishments would totally destroy this network and the replacements would, in most cases be unusable in that they would suffer from noise and air pollution, be of considerably increased length and be far less accessible due to multiple crossings of the raiway lines. This contravenes planning policy (NPPS 5.184) 5. There are two AQMA's close to the development site. The vast increase in traffic that would be generated by this development would severely impact the ability of these areas to achieve compliance with the European Air Quality directive. 6. In order to provide badly needed affordable homes and in line with Government policy to increase the level of housebuilding Milton Malsor in conjunction with South Northants Council has developed plans for the construction of an estate of c30 houses including c15 affordable homes. Due to the sites close proximity to the proposed Rail Central development building companies, both national and local will not commit to developing this site. Should the Rail Central development go ahead this housing site would no longer be financially viable and c30 badly needed homes would not be built. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clare Clark
"I object to the Rail Central SFRI Proposal: There is a better proposal currently being proposed near Hinckley The assessment of alternative sites by the applicant is flawed Ashfield Land own Arm Farm which is part of the site and this is just another in a long list of attempts to build on it The number of available train paths is very limited it is doubtful the site will be anything more than a road based logistics operation which will not take traffic.off the roads and on to the railways in line with the Government’s ambition Northampton has very low unemployment, there are not 6000-7000 people looking for low paid work in this area, this is borne out by a drive around Brackmills Industrial Estate just down the road. There are always multiple occupiers looking for employees. The result of this new development will be to put more strain on these already limited resources and result in employees being bussed in from away. The site is currently a large Greenfield area between 3 Conservation areas (Milton Malsor, Blisworth and Blisworth Arm) The environmental impact will be devastating and cannot be successfully mitigated The issues include but are not limited to: Visual blight the buildings cover a vast area and are very high, no amount of bunding / landscaping will help. My garden looks directly over the site and I currently enjoy views across open countryside. Light Pollution from 24 hr operations in an area which is currently completely dark. Noise Pollution from Trains, Lorries Gantry Cranes refrigeration units towing tractors and vehicles going to and from the site and on the site during the 24 hrs of operation in an area which is currently totally peaceful Air pollution the M1 corridor in this area is already a major concern Traffic the M1 J15A-J15 is already a very congested area and regularly blocked, the A43 to Towcester and beyond is already very congested. The only access to the site is via the A43. I am very concerned about the provision to open the entrance off the road between Milton and Blisworth. There is a traffic emergency on the major roads in the area almost every day which could lead to this entrance being in permanent use. Delivery vans and staff going to work will use the local roads as rat runs when visiting the site exacerbating the current congestion problems. There is not enough provision for HGV parking on the site this will lead to parking in the local area. National statistics suggest increased crime is associated with this type of development .The site will cause the loss of Agricultural land which also has great amenity value to the local residents Development creep- DIRFT is now on phase 3 and the new housing at Houlton next door to DIRFT show what will happen in the future if this proposal is accepted for a DCO. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clementine Deeks
"I strongly object due to the level of noise this will inflict on the village."
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 which is not only ridiculous but totally without justification.."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Harvey
"I strong object to the Application for the proposed Rail central ( strategic rail freight interchange ) The proposed rural location between two villages is completely inappropriate. The outstanding countryside will be completely decimated , with an irrevsrervible effect of the environment , wildlife and local communities. The already overcrowded road network can be seen everyday on the A45,A43 and M1. Additional lorry movements in this area will only further damage the environment , producing additional noise, light and pollute the atmosphere. Inevitably , this will lead to traffic using the rural village routes as 'rat runs' The whole concept of the development, in this historic open countryside is simply wrong. Other developments nearby at DIRFT and the new development at Midlands gateway have much more capacity for warehousing , so an additional facility so close by is unnecessary and unreasonable Again , i strongly object to this proposal. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Derick Nimmo
"Dear sir / madam , With the development proposal from central rail taking place drawing closer, as a local resident, I would like to offer some serious concerns , why I am opposed to the development in our villages . being a pensioner and speaking on behalf of many others in our village, I chose to live here , in our retirement, as a life choice . realistically this may be our final move. What roxhill plans will take is take that privilege away from us , by destroying our community and way of life . The of roads of the surrounding villages will not be able to manage the more than significant increase in traffic that RC will bring . Congestion is already a major issue for us . But driving with the added pressure of about haulage traffic is not something I think I’ll manage easily. Especially as I carry a disability badge and rely on my car to get around the village . At a time of massive government drive in awareness over pollution , air quality and green land preservation. Surely this a contradiction in terms ? how can adding acres of industrial warehouses at the expense of green fields help ease this pressure? A major reason I cannot understand Roxhil’s choice of location is that we have one of the U.K.s biggest strategic DRIFTS nationwide within 20 miles Blisworth . Why do we then need another so close in such a concentrated area ? Can’t Daventry drift already meet this economical requirement? I know of multiple prop search adverts for empty warehouses in daventry and in and around Northampton . wouldn’t this investment be better aimed at regeneration of our existing areas ? Your sincerely Derek Nimmo Blisworth resident "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emily Stone
"I would like to voice concerns about the impact that this will have on the local residents and wider impact in terms of traffic congestion and number of HGVs on unsuitable roads, the loss of open countryside and the proximity to other similar operations. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Florence Deeks
"I strongly object due to the levels of pollution this will bring to the countryside - our environment will be really negatively affected!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Frank Burdett
"Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange) is wholly unsuitable for our area, for reasons relating to strategic site location, capacity on the local roads, environmental impact on a greenfield site, availability of a local workforce, air pollution, and a number of other concerns This is not a site of strategic importance and Rail Central are simply promoting it as such because they own it. It is clearly a commercial, rather than a strategic decision to place a second SRFI within 15 miles of an existing one; one that will not be at capacity until 2033. Rail Central is contrary to the adopted West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) and in conflict with the commercial, transport and housing objectives of the whole region. A further development on this scale will result in a complete imbalance of planning objectives. Rail Central have overstated the strategic location and interconnectivity of this particular site: The local road network is already far too congested to accommodate this scheme and cannot be improved sufficiently to mitigate the impact. The main access road is already overstressed and a secondary route through a small village is untenable. The Northampton loop line is unlikely to have the capacity for additional freight when DIRFT 3 is running at capacity. Rail Central’s claim that both the Northampton loop and the WCML lines will be available are unfounded as WCML is highly unlikely to accommodate slower freight trains throughout the day. Road congestion will worsen rather than improve with the terminal being a mostly road based logistics park (over half the site cannot be served by rail due to its bisection by the Northampton to Towcester Road). This would inevitably create more local air pollution, especially in the two Air Quality Management Areas (between J15 and J16 and on the A45 near Wootton). The impact of this scheme on the local villages and their communities will be both huge and permanent and no amount of mitigation can change this. The economic landscape is such that there is currently no incentive for commercial organisations to switch from road to rail. Given the relatively short distances involved and without Government subsidy the required modal shift will not occur As a consequence of the above the carbon objectives of this proposal will never be met (at least within any realistic timescale). Rail Central’s claim of “Sustainability” has been challenged Rail Central is only the start. Granting of permission for this development will inevitably lead to further applications for housing and associated amenities leading to further unwanted development and loss of precious countryside and rural communities. Over 1150 acres of agricultural land would be covered in concrete by these two developments. The M1 has been a natural barrier to development spilling over into the rural areas of South Northamptonshire. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Freya Bass
"I strongly object to the rail central as it will ruin the lovely villages "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gavin Lewis
"I wish to object to the proposed development on the following grounds: 1. The proposed development site is between two attractive villages, Blisworth and Milton Malsor, and will destroy all of the natural countryside between them. It will blight both villages and the scheme offers very little in return. When viewed on a map, the development is seen to be so large that it almost dwarfs the villages. There is also no major infrastructure development to alleviate the resulting traffic increase. 2. There is already a SFRI some 18 miles north at DIRFT and this will not reach capacity for a number of years. It is more than adequate to supply the needs of the area both now and in the foreseeable future. 3. The developers have failed to show that air pollution, already a problem, will further deteriorate. The site is low lying and where the A43 and M1 motorway intersect, there are already serious traffic issues, especially when there has been an accident. 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. 5. The developers quote figures for suggested increase in employment but Northampton already has nearly full employment and the jobs created would be largely unskilled. 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 use of the NSIP process. Indeed there has been some cynical use of the NSIP process to obtain consent only for the rail connection to be abandoned and the site adapted to warehousing only. Furthermore this is in addition to a similar scheme being put forward by Roxhill Ltd for a 5 million sq ft warehouse and rail interchange adjacent to Junction 15 of the M1 motorway. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gay Geary
"I object to the Rail Central principally that the road system is not adequate for the amount of increased traffic. I’m informed that the main entrance will be the A43 which even now is having difficulty at times with the amount of traffic even though the road system has been improved recently. The M1 around this Northampton area is often at a standstill or very slow. A508 going west is only one lane either way. A45 east is only dual carriage at several places going on towards Peterborough. I’m also informed that two of the roundabouts on the A5076 will be altered which will make it a shortcut between junctions 15 to 16 so that lorries can take this route to avoid traffic. This road goes through mainly residential areas. Lastly, with the increase in rail traffic this would mean increased trains as night going through Northampton or a cut in passenger services as the rail line is on a loop from the mainline."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Georgia Kennett-Johnson
"My son is a[REDACTED] attending the [REDACTED] in Blisworth. The proposed development will have not only a massive knock on effect in trying to get my son to and from school every day not only whilst the development is in progress but afterwards with the increased volume of traffic due to people working at the site. The increased volume of traffic will also bring pollution to the area at an exaggerated level at which my son will have to travel through every day and also be exposed to whilst he is at school using the outside facilities, he already uses an [REDACTED] in the winter months. I also worry about the future of the school, more traffic may deter parents from choosing Blisworth as a school for their child and less students at the school could mean closure and great disruption for not only for our child but us as a family."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Georgina Deeks
"I strongly object to the rail project as this will create so much noise, light and pollution for the surrounding villages."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Glenn Bass
"I strongly object to rail central as I have lived in Milton Malsor all my life, I believe this will change the village dramatically for reasons of traffic, noise and most importantly our surrounding wildlife. Please don't do it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Guy Phelps
"I am registering as part of my objection to this proposed project. I have attended many of the consultation sessions and I am firmly of the belief that the project is ultimately all about commercial warehousing only. I am not convinced that the project offers any rail real rail freight benefit, that is being suggested as its main focus. There is a main DIRFT terminal only 20 miles north, which is not at capacity , and the west coast mainline is already overcrowded. I therefore believe this is window dressing for what is effectively a warehouse park. The impact locally will destroy the identity of the lovely villages of Milton Malsor and Blisworth, and I don't believe the development will create local jobs, as there are constant recruitment banners already of nearby warehouse sites at DIRFT and Brackmills. AT a micro level, I also object to the access points by foot and bike via Milton Malsor. In the event of any road problems, this will tur the village into a carpark for those not wanting to use the main access roads. Finally the pollution in terms of light and noise will be unbearable to those close by, especially in the summer months when windows are open, and I worry for the air pollution caused by the predicted thousands of traffic movements per day "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hamer Francis
"Rail Central: Ashfield Land I STRONGLY OBJECT to this application for the following reasons: Air pollution will be increased and we are already right next to the M1. This will badly affect local residents. I am greatly concerned regarding light pollution and believe both Milton Malsor and Blisworth will be terribly affected. I don't believe we need another rail freight terminal here when there is one just a few miles away in Daventry. Surely it would be strategically better to have one further away in a different area rather than two right next to each other? The development will ruin two beautiful rural villages and would result in the loss of hundreds of acres of open countryside. The proposal is in an area where there is little unemployment so employees will have to travel in from other areas bringing with them yet more congestion and pollution. Why not have a terminal in an area of higher unemployment? I understand the proposal is contrary to West Northants Joint Core Strategy. I am greatly concerned with traffic congestion as it's already chaos on the local roads around the area, particularly the M1 and A45. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Dickens
"I own a house in Blisworth and feel that the planned project will not only have a major impact on the health of my family , cause an environmental impact and also reduce the cost of my property. 1 the noise , dirt and waste from the planned application will have a detrimental effect on the health of my family as the project is in such close proximity. 2 The added traffic to the area will cause polution and the potential of more road accidents as the road Inferstuctior in unable to handle it. 3 The land being used will have a major environmental impact. 4 There is no need for the project as there are seversl other built or ongoing developments in the area that already are already under used. I have spent all my life working to give my family a good criteria of life , i have not sponged of the goverment and have always been a law sbideing citizen , building something that is not needed and will cause so mant issues is in my opinion just wrong and should be stopped . If the planners wish to do a project such as this there are so many places already available built that could be upgraded and transformed rather than causeing such destruction."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joanne Salisbury
"We have two children who attend the [redacted] in the village of Blisworth and I am concerned about their welfare and safety, and the impact the development is going to have on both of these education facilities. Notwithstanding all the other amenities within the village, which appear overstretched as it is. The impact on traffic, disturbance and noise is going to be huge, on what is already an extremely busy and dangerous road."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joe Deeks
"I strongly object due to the level of traffic that will be brought to the area, it will cause chaos and the developers plans for sorting this are completing lacking."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jon Deeks
"I strongly object to the development due to the huge traffic if will cause - This cannot be a realistic proposal. Also the level of noise and light will be horrendous!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
June Lovell
"I think that the proposed site of this rail terminal is completely unsuitable. It will decimate the surrounding countryside and is much too close to Blisworth & Milton Malsor. The attendant pollutions of noise, light and traffic will have a devastating effect on these two villages. There are already severe traffic problems on nearby roads, particularly the A43 from Northampton to Towcester. Blisworth already suffers congestion if there are any incidents on this road or the M1. This is not an uncommon occurrence. Recent health studies have shown a direct correlation between noise, light and traffic pollution and people's well being. The addition of countless lorries and cars accessing the site would cause chaos in an already overworked network. I think it is highly likely that this site will develop into a mass of warehouses with little or no rail movement. It is my understanding that Network Rail are already questioning the feasibility of the required number of additional freight trains and journeys. There are already many warehouse jobs unfilled in Northampton so I do not think it will provide employment opportunities for local people on the scale suggested. More people will have to travel further causing yet more congestion. If the government is to provide a 'strategic rail freight network' then it needs to be exactly that. There is already a preponderance of terminals in the midlands with the one at Crick already underused. This is only a few miles from the proposed development. The effect on landscape and wildlife will also be devastating regardless of how much screening the developers may say they will deploy. There is no hiding the tall cranes and warehouses that will potentially occupy the site and there will be no escape from the 24 hour light and noise it will create.If this development and the other proposed Roxhill development go ahead, we will be witnessing the largest rail freight terminal in Europe. I appeal to the planners to reject this unnecesary, unsightly development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kelsey Bass
"I strongly object the rail central because it will create to much noise and pollution to the lovely villages and will spoil the village feel ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kim Deeks
"I strongly object due to the level of noise this proposal will inflict on our village."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kristie Jones
"I strongly object to the proposal of a Rail Freight Interchange between Milton Malsor & Blisworth. We purchased our property in the beautiful village of Milton Malsor with the intention of starting a family in this quiet rural area. The impact of the proposed work will seriously disrupt this and force us to move if it were to go ahead. Working in logistics I fully understand the implications that will be caused from increased traffic, air, noise and light pollution, not to mention the health implications. Living next to a site that will operate 24 hours a day will be unbearable. Considering the proposal is contrary to the West Northants Joint Core Strategy and only a few miles away from DIRFT in Daventry makes this all the more disappointing and unfair. DIRFT has been identified in the WNJCS as suitable for the area and also has capacity for expansion, further negating the need to cause unnecessary distress to so many people. Once again I strongly object to this proposal and ask that the proposal is rejected. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lesley Darby
"I object to the proposed Rail Central SFRI. The proposal is non-compliant with WNJCS The use of the NSIP process by Ashfield land is a deliberate attempt to avoid the local planning process. This site will never be anything other than a large road based logistics operation, it too close to UK ports to be viable as a rail depot It is too close to DIRFT which is not at capacity There is a better proposal currently being proposed near Hinckley The assessment of alternative sites by the applicant is flawed Ashfield Land own Arm Farm which is part of the site and this is just another in a long list of attempts to build on it The number of available train paths is very limited it is doubtful the site will be anything more than a road based logistics operation which will not take traffic.off the roads and on to the railways in line with the Government’s ambition Northampton has very low unemployment, there are not 6000-7000 people looking for low paid work in this area, this is borne out by a drive around Brackmills Industrial Estate just down the road. There are always multiple occupiers looking for employees. The result of this new development will be to put more strain on these already limited resources and result in employees being bussed in from away. The site is currently a large Greenfield area between 3 Conservation areas (Milton Malsor, Blisworth and Blisworth Arm) The environmental impact will be devastating and cannot be successfully mitigated The issues include but are not limited to: Visual blight the buildings cover a vast area and are very high, no amount of bunding / landscaping will help. Light Pollution from 24 hr operations in an area which is currently completely dark. Noise Pollution from Trains, Lorries Gantry Cranes refrigeration units towing tractors and vehicles going to and from the site and on the site during the 24 hrs of operation in an area which is currently totally peaceful Air pollution the M1 corridor in this area is already a major concern Traffic the M1 J15A-J15 is already a very congested area and regularly blocked, the A43 to Towcester and beyond is already very congested. The only access to the site is via the A43. I am very concerned about the provision to open the entrance off the road between Milton and Blisworth. There is a traffic emergency on the major roads in the area almost every day which could lead to this entrance being in permanent use. Delivery vans and staff going to work will use the local roads as rat runs when visiting the site exacerbating the current congestion problems. There is not enough provision for HGV parking on the site this will lead to parking in the local area. National statistics suggest increased crime is associated with this type of development .The site will cause the loss of Agricultural land which also has great amenity value to the local residents Development creep- DIRFT is now on phase 3 and the new housing at Houlton next door to DIRFT show what will happen in the future if this proposal is accepted for a DCO. When my husband an I were lucky enough to buy [Redacted] at auction in 2011 it was one of the happiest days of my life, we both knew it would be our forever house. We live here with my elderly mother and until recently my late father. If this proposal gets consent our dreams will be shattered, this proposal is monstrous and has no place in this beautiful part of the world. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Francis
"Proposed Rail Central Strategic Rail Freight Interchange I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS PROPOSAL I have been learning more about this planned would like to object because of the following issues: There will be lots more air pollution due to the massive increase of cars and lorries in the area and the M1 already reduces the local air quality as it is. Nighttime will look more like daytime due to all the light pollution, as the facility will be running 24 hours a day. This plan will ruin two beautiful rural historic villages and join them together with warehouses. I don't think we need a rail freight terminal when we have one just up the road. Why not put one where there isn't one already? We will lose masses of open countryside, footpaths, trees and wildlife. I am concerned with the levels of noise that will be generated day and night. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lindsay Westley
"Huge impact on environment in an area where housing stock has increased dramatically and land for animals is shrinking. Unnecessary to build in such a rural area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Madeleine Clarkson
"I am objecting to the rail central being built next to beautiful villages which already have very busy roads with traffic problems already. It will cause pollution to surrounding houses both air and noise and lights. There are lots of warehouse potential already in this part of Northamptonshire and low levels of unemployed people so the workers will have to travel to the site, more cars, more houses built to house them, more congestion and pressure on over subscribed communities. Concerns about the effect on house prices Loss of farm land and the impact on wildlife"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mick McCarthy
"I am objecting to the development of the Rail Central development for the following reasons: Wildlife and farmland being lost in the area, with immediate loss of 3 lovely villages, which is important to me as a local resident of over 40 years. I a do not want the proposed cycleway into the development via Barn Lane, as it will turn Milton Maulsor into a car park , and encourage extra traffic and chaotic movement of vehicles , when the development is actually proposing that there will not be extra traffic in the village. I simply do not believe this is possible. My home will be situated approx. 400m from the warehousing which will not only be an eyesore, but I will be affected horrendously by the 24/7 nature of the rail terminal with all of its light and noise pollution I understand that there are a number of developer led applications for so called Strategic Rail Freight Interchanges However, whilst there is still capacity at DIRFT which is only 25 miles away, I fail to see the benefit of having another interchange placed so locally, with all the impact that means to the local environment. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr David Dalton
"East Midlands S.R.F.I Rail Central Ashfield Land/Gazely We wish to object to the above planning application because of the following: 1. Firstly is there a need for a development of this type. Given that a substantial rail freight interchange D.E.R.E exists within 20m of this location, and another planning application has been submitted within 5miles by Roxhill at junction 15 of the M1 motorway. 2. The development will result in the destruction of over approx. 250 hectares of open countryside primarily farmland which includes bridle ways and public footpaths and rights of way. 3. The development will result in the urbanisation of two distinctly rural villages. 4. The development WILL increase traffic flow through the village of Blisworth with H.G.Vs and employees using the village as a 'Rat Run'. The development will also create excessive light , noise, and air pollution the matter of which already exceeds safety limits at the A43/A5 junction and this will be 24/7. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Alison Root
"I am wholly against this application. It would destroy an iconic canalside village and the length of the canalside where a great many people enjoy living and their leisure time. It would almost certainly cause more traffic through a small village and cause huge increased congestion on the A43. The wild life that lives in and around the area will be greatly affected to the detriment of all people living and visiting the area. There would be light pollution as well as great deal of noise pollution especially during the evening and trough the night. I understand from what has been said by Network Rail there isnt any spare capacity on the rail system making the fact that this proposal is all about 'strategic rail' makes it a farce. This proposal will only make the road systems in around Blisworth dangerously busy. DIRFT is not at full capacity and neither is Gazeley warehousing which edges the M1 at Milton Keynes, so there is no reason to create anymore!!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs M Flynn
"I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION Northamptonshire is a rural county with a few medium sized towns - 3 freight terminals; Northampton Gateway, DIRFT and Rail Central would be in excess of the needs of the local market. Beautiful view over countryside would be destroyed by massive warehouses and high earth mounds. These earth mounds would be a completely alien feature and a blot on the landscape. There is a large network of ancient footpaths that link Milton Malsor with other local villages. The freight terminal would destroy these rights of way and hundreds of acres of productive agricultural land would be lost when the country needs to produce more food. 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. The land between Milton Malsor and Blisworth is a haven for wildlife habitat in particular for farmland birds. All this would be lost and many species of farmland birds would be lost to the area. The village would see an increase in traffic through the village when there is congestion on the M1. This will also have an impact on air pollution from thousands of extra cars, lorries and vans using the roads in the area. Northamptonshire already enjoys a relatively low rate of unemployment, the majority of employees needed would have to travel a considerable distance to get to work and they would then use the village to park their vehicles. 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. DIRFT has seen an increase in crime following the industrialisation of the area. The proposed development would result in the loss of the local flower nursery - this would be a major loss to the community. The owners would also lose their livelihood and home. The church of Milton Malsor also owns a large field off Barn Lane which is an important open space - building of warehouse on this field would be a terrible loss to the village. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Neale Greer
"As a keen cyclist, I often use the country roads around Hunsbury, Blisworth, Roade and Milton Marston. I'm extremely concerned at the impact of increased number of vehicles on the roads and the type of vehicle. In addition how this will impact the villages and countryside in the surrounding areas."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicky Duncan
"The overall impact to our village, community, wellbeing, and countryside"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nigel Chandler
"I'm resident in Blisworth having moved here just over 4 years ago. One of the main reasons was the lovely countryside in the area. I travel daily to Luton using the M1 Junction 15. This is a heavily congested area both early morning and evening. The large amount of HGV/PLG vehicles which service the large amount of warehousing in this area, causes considerable traffic issues at Junction 15. The A508 suffers from serious heavy traffic and is often at a standstill. I'm aware it is planned to route route traffic via the A43 on a new junction. However traffic will still use the A508/M1 local village roads to access this site. It is very obvious when driving around the local area that a large number of recent warehouse builds are vacant and have been for some time. A good example is the Altitude complex near J13. This complex has stood empty since completion around 9-10 months now. We also have the DIRFT complex a few miles north of Blisworth. My understanding is this complex is no where near capacity. It also uses the Northampton loop of the main line. This line is at I believe is at near capacity. I don't see how this line can support further rail traffic into Rail Central (RC). I believe RC will degrade to a road transport hub only, putting further stress of already overloaded local roads. Northampton enjoys good employment levels when compared nationally. The work force to operate this RC Complex will need to be transported in, more road traffic. If the workforce requires housing this will put demands on limited land in the area for new housing. The area around Blisworth and Milton Malsor is mainly agricultural with small industrial sites. If permission is given for RC to be built the landscape and farming land will be lost forever. I don't believe RC is needed in this area. With the amount of warehousing in the area and DIRFT I see a glut of warehousing. I feel RC is a speculative project to supply a warehousing complex to an area, where the need doesn't exist. I hope you find in favour of declining the RC request. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nigel Furniss
"Blisworth and Moulton are areas of outstanding natural beauty, with the railway and canal system running through the area, it is at the moment a quiet and serene spot. A pleasure to walk along the canal system at the moment and with bridleways and public footpaths crossing the historically important area. All this will be lost if this monstrosity goes ahead, without any regard for local peoples needs, this is why we need to fight this blight !!! If this goes ahead I for one WILL NOT be patronising the town of Northampton, or anywhere near it !!! Can you really afford for people to go to other places and NOT the county town ? It would even be worth me relocating to another part of England, to avoid all this, do you really want that?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Maxwell Darby
"I object to this proposal. The proposal is non-compliant with WNJCS. The use of the NSIP process by Ashfield land is a deliberate attempt to avoid the local planning process. This site will never be anything other than a large road based logistics operation, it too close to UK ports to be viable as a rail depot. It is too close to DIRFT which is not at capacity. There is a better proposal currently being proposed near Hinckley. The assessment of alternative sites by the applicant is flawed, Ashfield Land own Arm Farm which is part of the site and this is just another in a long list of attempts to build on it. The number of available train paths is very limited it is doubtful the site will be anything more than a road based logistics operation which will not take traffic off the roads and on to the railways in line with the Government’s ambition. Northampton has very low unemployment, there are not 6000-7000 people looking for low paid work in this area, this is borne out by a drive around Brackmills Industrial Estate just down the road. There are always multiple occupiers looking for employees. The result of this new development will be to put more strain on these already limited resources and result in employees being bussed in from away. The site is currently a large Greenfield area between 3 Conservation areas (Milton Malsor, Blisworth and Blisworth Arm) The environmental impact will be devastating and cannot be successfully mitigated. The issues include but are not limited to: Visual blight: the buildings cover a vast area and are very high, no amount of bunding / landscaping will help. Light Pollution from 24 hr operations in an area which is currently completely dark and the loss of tranquillity. Noise Pollution from Trains, Lorries, Gantry Cranes, refrigeration units, towing tractors and vehicles going to and from the site and on the site during the 24 hr of operation in an area which is currently totally peaceful. Air pollution the M1 corridor in this area is already a major concern. Traffic the M1 J15A-J15 is already a very congested area and regularly blocked, the A43 to Towcester and beyond is already very congested. The only access to the site is via the A43. I am very concerned about the provision to open the entrance off the road between Milton Malsor and Blisworth. There is a traffic emergency on the major roads in the area almost every day which could lead to this entrance being in permanent use. Delivery vans and staff going to work will use the local roads as rat runs when visiting the site exacerbating the current congestion problems. There is not enough provision for HGV parking on the site this will lead to parking in the local area. National statistics suggest increased crime is associated with this type of development. The site will cause the loss of Agricultural land which also has great amenity value to the local residents. Development creep- DIRFT is now on phase 3 and the new housing at Houlton next door to DIRFT shows what will happen in the future if this proposal is accepted for a DCO. Ashfield Land have used a PR company throughout the consultation process they have treated local residents with contempt. [redacted] has paid no more than lip service to the local action group "Stop Rail Central" of which I am a member .Their attention to detail has been casual, they would have you believe that this scheme has in some way evolved during the process. They have in fact not changed it materially from a set of plans which were available on their website before the first public meeting. These were quickly withdrawn and plans with much less detail took their place to give the impression of evolution. Non of the local resident's concerns have been satisfied during this this period by changes made to the scheme. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paulette Kennedy
"I strongly object to this proposal for the following reasons: Firstly, it must be said that this fails the local planning as the West Northamptonshire Core Strategy protected us from a RFI proposal ten years ago. 1.Strategic - means National. The Government identified the need to reduce movement of goods onto roads identifying London and the South West. The clusters of RFI's in the East Midlands is oversupply on a grand scale. DIRFT 3 has only just built one warehouse (not rail connection as yet) with vast acreage holdings up to the Warwickshire border, GAZELEY at Jct 13 M1 warehouse is unoccupied. 2. Rail Capacity - Network Rail has failed to confirm capacity for 4 trains - the 16 RC proposed untenable. The WCML is stretched now - it will be unpopular to reduce passenger usage for logistics. Rail freight is really for long distances as used in the USA. Here the longer journeys will be by road! 3. Employment: 8000 jobs - these will not be locally sourced as we have one of the lowest unemployment in the country. 4. Parking: with staff being bused into the area and many car owners driving (car sharing is a non starter) this will mean every possible road in the area will be filled with vehicles 24/7. The lorry park on site is inadequate meaning that lorries will be forced to park along the A43 and the Northampton Road overnight. This causes pollution and detritus of all types - proof of this degradation can be observed by the villages blighted by DIRFT 1,2 3. 5. Health and well-being: a 24/7 operation of rail sidings, lorry/container parks, industrial cranes, light/air/noise pollution will blight the lives of residents in the rural setting they chose. The loss of visual impact, footpaths, flora and fauna, heritage trees - no amount of replanting and bunding will mitigate. Defra pointed out from 2006 -12 54,000 acres of green spaces converted to "artificial surfaces" . Land is not a renewable resource. 8,000,000 square feet of greenfield land lost. NOT SUSTAINABLE as Rail Central states. 6. Quality of life - with 20 properties under threat of compulsory purchase or living in extremely close proximity to the logistics park - circa 3,000 residents of Milton Malsor and Blisworth compromised losing their independence and character and the infill development that will follow, furthering the congestion as housing will become a priority. 7. A RFI is not suitable eco-system for any sentient living breathing entity. This proposal is not in the right place - crushed between villages - not the right time as new generations are becoming disenchanted with buying "goods" preferring life experiences and living in a healthy more sustainable way. Thank you for your time. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Pauline Sandra Edwards
"1. Vast increase in traffic through small village. This is already noticeable whenever there is a problem on the M1 and the A43 ( a common occurrence causing mayhem in Blisworth). This is predicted to be 50% increased if the project is accepted and will be downright dangerous as well as contrary to Policy. 2. Desecration of this "Green and pleasant land," with destruction of countryside, air pollution, noise pollution and light pollution. With mental illness constantly in the media at the moment it is important as a nation for us to be preserving green spaces which bring good health and well being rather than filling them with vast and ugly buildings which are not needed. 3. It would be better to plan these sites, if they are actually necessary in areas of high unemployment. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Penny Macadam
"I strongly object to this proposal due to the noise it would result in. All the surrounding villages would be ruined by this terribly thought out project!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philip Wood
"I strongly object"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Phillip Hayward
"Please note I object to this application and I may submit further representations based on three major issues which need to be considered during the Examination. 1. The application cannot be shown to be in line with the National Policy Statement for National Networks. a. This is particularly the case in regard to the Government’s objectives in reducing carbon emissions and road congestion (outlined in NPS 2.10, 2.44 and 2.47). b. The proposed location is not in close proximity to a readily available pool of labour (as required by NPS2.52 and 4.87). c. The development will destroy some 725 acres (294ha) of fertile arable land and rural countryside, a clear contravention of NPS 5.168 which states: “Where possible, developments should be on previously developed (brownfield) sites provided that it is not of high environmental value.” 2. The application fails to establish any reliable justification for the proposed location a. The document submitted by the applicant (Alternative Sites Assessment TR050004-003954-7.3. Alternative Sites Assessment.pdf) goes into great detail concerning multiple locations across the UK for SRFI developments. In applying the applicant’s own scoring methodology to the comparisons, it is no surprise that the location in which they have the greatest interest scores the highest value. However, the relative lack of an available local workforce is completely absent from the scoring methodology, as is the distance from the proposed SRFI to the centres of population it is intended to serve, as is the lack of Brownfield status in the land the applicant wishes to cover in concrete. b. The applicant has chosen to exclude these important criteria from its assessments in order to produce the appearance of a high score for the proposed location in comparison with others. These three factors are key parts of the NPS NN and the applicant should be challenged by the Examination to re-calculate all its assessments to reflect all such relevant factors. It should not be possible for the applicant to misrepresent the suitability of this location in this way and the Examination may wish to appoint an independent body to provide a more robust assessment. 3. The application fails to identify any genuine benefits from the development, whether they be national or local. a. The entire Economic Benefits Statement (TR050004 Document Reference: 7.19) fails to mention any quantifiable removal of freight from road to rail. As this is the major aspiration behind the SRFI programme for the Government, the Examination should conclude the Applicant is actually applying for approval to build road served warehouses, an application that would not be considered as an SRFI. b. The employment and strategic claims contained in the same document have nothing to do with the strategic implementation of a network of SRFI locations and are simply statements of the obvious – “if we build this it will bring employment during the construction phase” Please note my objection based on these points and ensure they are properly considered during the examination."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Residents of Greyhouse
"My objections to this Rail Central development are listed below and represent the views of my wife [redacted] also resident at the same address of [REDACTED] The decision to place a second SRFI within 15 miles of an existing one seems illogical, as this is not a site of strategic importance. Rail Central is contrary to the adopted West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (WNJCS) and in conflict with the commercial, transport and housing objectives of the whole region. The local road network is already very congested cannot be improved sufficiently. The main access road is already overstressed and a secondary route through a small village is unacceptable. The Northampton loop line is unlikely to have the capacity for additional freight & could result in a reduction in passenger rail services from Northampton. Road congestion will worsen & Rail Central would result in excess of 20,000 additional vehicle movements a day on the A43 and surrounding roads. This will have a direct impact on our village of Gayton which will be used as a ‘rat-run’ as inevitably traffic will be diverted past our doors. The quality of our peaceful country village life will be destroyed and our houses devalued. This would inevitably create more local air pollution and significant adverse environmental effects in the locality. The impact of this scheme on the local villages and their communities will be vast and permanent - producing significant air, light and noise pollution. Further applications for housing and amenities are almost certain leading to further unwanted development, loss of precious countryside and rural communities. The demand for unplanned housing would rise resulting in development spreading to other areas, especially along the A508. Thousands of acres of agricultural land will be covered in concrete. Rail Central would overwhelm Milton Malsor and Blisworth. People will lose their houses, homes and community. The local population both permanent and transient will rise significantly putting a major additional burden on local medical resources, which are already at historic levels of underfunding, understaffing and enormous strain. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rodney Ansell
"As I live in the Towcester area I am already aware of the congestion in the town and on all the roads passing through or around the area. This development would greatly increase this congestion in what is already a heavily polluted town. I see no reason for this development as there is already a similar development at Crick which is only around 18 miles away with its own rail spur and road access and plenty of land which could be developed It will cause more problems for Towcester and the A5/A43 junction which is already a bottleneck at times. The extra traffic generated by Rail Central using the A43 to access the M40 will make this interchange a total mess at peak times. Trucks will still use the A5 through the town rather than the M1 as they do now especially when there are problems on the motorway. This traffic will cause further air pollution in the town centre. As for roads around the proposed site there is little chance of these being able to cope unless weight restrictions are placed on all local roads, we know that HGV drivers always look for ways to avoid road jams so will undoubtedly look foralternatives when the M1 has problems which happens almost every day."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rory Fraser
"Dear sir / madam , With the possibility of the development from south central rail taking place 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 in the least convinced how the roads of Blisworth, Milton Malsor , Roade, and Collingtree will be able to manage the more than significant increase in traffic that SRC will bring and when we consider a massive rise in HGV,s is not only extremely impractical with our current roads but also 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 SRC 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 SRC ? SRC 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 SRC site will be a major contributor to its strategic success , when SSRC studies have shown this to be relatively insignificant contributor to SRCs 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
Ross Bandey
"I object because it will create a lot of unnecessary traffic through the nice village roads and to much noise for surrounding areas"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rt Hon. Andrea Leadsom MP
"I am registering as an Interested Party for the examination of the Rail Central Strategic Rail Freight Interchange proposed by Ashfield Land (the applicant). I confirm that I am doing so solely in my capacity as the Member of Parliament for South Northamptonshire and on behalf of the hundreds of my constituents who have raised significant and substantial concerns with me about this planned SRFI. I am registered similarly as an Interested Party in the examination of the Roxhill SRFI proposal. I have fully engaged with the applicant's non-statutory pre-application consultations, 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 my Written Representation. 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
Simon Bunker
"Wrong location due to - Close proximity of existing RFI with others in the pipeline - Capacity issues on local road network, which is already problematic - No obvious location for holding site traffic in the event of incidents preventing access to site - Doubts re rail capacity. Concern this is warehousing by the back door - Detrimental impact on rural & conservation area + canal - Existing air quality issues increasing to unacceptable levels - Noise/traffic/light pollution issues for local residents "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Kay
"I do not understand why there is a need for this interchange as there is already an existing one at DIRFT in Daventry only 10 miles up the M1. There is plenty of land there which is in an area away from residential properties, so why not expand that site rather than ruin even more of our lovely countryside and cause further disruption to local communities like Blisworth which is a beautiful village. I live less than a mile from where this is planned to be built and I believe that it will be a blight on mine and the other local residents lives with the increase of commercial traffic, commuters and the added noise and pollution that comes with these types of operations. I understand that we should not stand in the way of progress, but we should object if there are other options. The landscape of Northampton has already been marred by the increasing number of tall industrial buildings in the area. I am extremely appreciative of the surrounding countryside that we have left locally and I strongly feel that we do not want to ruin one of our beautiful villages unnecessarily. Please reconsider and look at other alternatives. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Duck
"Issues: - Unnecessary destruction, pollution and permanent loss of large areas of countryside. along with the additional impact on the adjoining countryside. The area will take decades to recover and will never be a rural community again. - Not a 9-5 development: will be 24/7, 365 days a year permanent intrusion - Traffic implications: Already congested local roads i.e. J15 M1, A508, A45. Additional local traffic through villages, Milton Malsor, Collingtree, Blisworth, Roade Local villages will all become rat-runs Local parking issues - due to access from site and resulting ease of access to other roads/areas rather than via J15 M1 - Noise & light pollution: Will be negative to personal/mental health during pre-construction, construction and ongoing use The impact to my partner and family, including a [redacted]daughter cannot be easily quantified but her ability to move around the village and local area as she gets older will be reduce considerably due to extra traffic and the industrial site on our doorstep No levels of additional noise and how they could be assessed and monitored could be explained at the presentation at Milton Malsor village hall, especially the noise from the large long crane at high level, vehicles moving/reversing around site with warning alarms 24/7 Current noise levels are already very intrusive from M1, A43, A45, A508 and existing rail network lines. The cumulative effect of additional construction and the working site on individuals should not be underestimated, especially during warm months with windows open i.e summer 2018 4-5 months of hot weather You would not be expected to tolerate this pollution in a domestic situation from your neighbours - Existing alternative location: already available near Daventry where local disturbance has already taken place. - Industrial development should remain in the areas on the east side of the M1 to ensure we maintain rural communities - Additional warehousing and distribution required to facilitate this application i.e. Roxhill development - Additional threat of crime due to vehicles parked for long periods and more commuters around the villages - Access from the site to local villages - Depreciation of the local house prices and ability to sell them "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Zoe Furlong
"The increased traffic as a danger to residents, noise and air pollution - damaging to the health and well-being of residents in and around the area. Increased movement of traffic in and around the village at all times - even overnight. This development is not necessary when we have DIRFT at junction 18 of the M1 and the proposed roxhill development at junction 15. Why on earth do we need another development half a junction away? There are numerous warehouses all over Northamptonshire standing empty. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adrian Meadows
"I object as the roads around Milton and Blisworth are bad as it stands and rail central will make it worse."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Brown
"I object to Ashfield as we don't need it. I work around this area and already I see juggernauts stuck in the roads due to sat nav directing them off every day already. It will be awful with this as Sat nav won't update enough."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Angela Phelps
"I object to this because it will create loads of noise to the village and light pollution "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anne Manson
"I have lived in the village of Milton Malsor for 45 years, bringing up a family in a rural village setting. I am appalled at the prospect of the destruction of this way of life by the development proposals and cannot believe that the horrendous impact on the thousands of people affected, can possibly be justified. I strongly object to the Northampton Gateway Proposals, in particular on the following grounds:- 'Strategic' Rail Freight Interchange I can see nothing 'strategic' about the proposals. They are merely one proposed development amongst a number of others, in a confined geographical area, with no guarantees that there will be a modal shift from road to rail or even that rail will be predominantly used. There are no robust assurances that this will not become a vast warehousing operation for lorry distribution. Environmental There will be huge loss of productive farmland; destruction of vast areas of bird and wildlife habitat; destruction of the natural and ancient landscape with no acceptable mitigation. Air Quality This is a major concern to me because I suffer from [redacted]. I fear my health and enjoyment of life will be seriously impacted by reduced air quality caused by the proposals. Noise, Vibration and Lighting I live within approx 200 metres of the Northampton Loop Line and am very concerned at the inevitable increase in noise and vibration levels, together with light pollution - at ALL HOURS OF THE DAY AND NIGHT. Traffic Apart from the impact on noise and air quality, the huge increase in HGV traffic locally will cause severe disruption and congestion and increase accidents. Planning Policy The proposals are contrary to the WNJCS which is the basis for all planning policy to 2029. Walking I enjoy walking the local lanes and footpaths but the proposed diversions round such a huge, unsightly, industrial activity will effectively destroy the local rural footpath network - deplorable. General As has been evidenced at Daventry DIRFT, I have serious concerns at the prospect for increased crime and eg higher home insurance costs, together with lowering of property values, especially in close proximity of the development "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brian Barden
"I objet as this will cause light pollution, more traffic and noise for the area "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Pell
"I object to rail central for many reasons including excess traffic, pollution, noise, house price depreciation, "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clare Swords
"I strongly object to the proposal for the Ashfield Land/Gazeley application to build a rail freight Terminal on land between Milton Malsor and Blisworth. This is a rural area with a network of footpaths and provides a haven for many wildlife. This would be lost if this proposal went ahead. It is also agricultural land and this too would be an unnecessary loss, especially when locally grown produce is the way forward for the environment. The county already has a rail freight terminal, DIRFT, which is vastly expanding already and therefore I do not understand any requirement for further rail freight terminals in the county. If this was to go ahead then it would be a blot on the landscape. The area would suffer increased noise and light pollution from the warehousing and the local roads would become congested. I understand there are plans to improve the road network but any alterations do not take into account the already congested A43 and M1 and if there are any problems on either of these the local roads already suffer. As Northampton has low unemployment, future staff would be travelling to work causing further congestion. I therefore appeal to you to not agree to this unnecessary proposal. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clayton Winsor
"I object because of the pollution it will cause. It will ruin beautiful countryside abd is unnecessary as DRIFT isn’t full"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Colin Stanbridge
"I cannot understand how such an all changing application such as this can be allowed bearing in mind the total devastation it would cause to a small rural community. I cannot see why it is needed as there is already a large freight terminal less than 20 miles distant which could easily be expanded. The plan would not just affect the lives of those living nearby but would seriously affect those of us who live to the South of it in accessing our County town including the General Hospital"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kelly Wimpress on behalf of Darcey Wimpress
"I object because it will cause traffic congestion, noise pollution, air pollution, Light pollution, destroy our wildlife, destroy our field, it is unnecessary compulsory purchase for people who have lived here all their lives, it is unnecessary as DRIFT isn’t full. Basically there are too many reasons to list yet it still carries on!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kelly Wimpress on behalf of Darren Wimpress
"I object because it will cause traffic congestion, noise pollution, air pollution, Light pollution, destroy our wildlife, destroy our field, it is unnecessary compulsory purchase for people who have lived here all their lives, it is unnecessary as DRIFT isn’t full. Basically there are too many reasons to list yet it still carries on!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Agates
"I strongly object of the basis of the level of noise and pollution it will bring to the area - This proposal will really negatively impact our environment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Devine
"Dear Examining Authority, I have serious concerns about this application and the impact on the surrounding area where I live. Firstly, it is completely unnecessary due to the perfectly suitable Dirft rail terminal a few miles away. This has all the required resources and access already available. From a personal perspective, we have young children, [REDACTED]. The long term air pollution created by the initial building process, the increase in carbon emissions omitted by the HGV's and increased rail activity seriously concerns us and the effect on our children's health. In addition, the increase in traffic, is another concern due to road safety. The surrounding village roads have very narrow pathways and to even imagine my children walking/running/scooting along these with the heavy traffic worries me considerably. One would expect an increase in flow of traffic due to new employees and on occasions where the new proposed road becomes congested, I am certain it will have a detrimental effect on the surrounding village roads. Whilst I have seen that the initial plans show the road between Milton Malsor and Blisworth will be closed, presumably to reduce the amount of HGVs passing through the village, this will increase the journey time for anybody in the village who are wishing to travel south on the A43. As this is my direction for commuting to work, it will almost double the time spent travelling and therefore the emissions emitted. Noise pollution is inevitable with a huge development like this and this will not only have a damaging effect on our local wildlife but with our day to day living. With a northerly wind we can hear trains on the London-Birmingham line. The odd train passing is acceptable but increased usage of the rail plus noise from the industrial site could cause a lot of stress for myself and family. I doubt there would be any method available to prevent this. Our children have grown up enjoying the rural countryside and particularly walking, cycling on the safe public footpaths that will be disappear with this development. I sincerely hope that you will take the time to consider the people and the harmful impact this could cause on their everyday lives. As I have already discussed, it is not required due to Dirft so therefore this potential devastation is unnecessary. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David J Gwilt
"I am opposed to the development of the Rail Central development for the following reasons: 1. The local road system is already at maximum capacity. During rush hours the traffic is backed up from junction 15 on the M1 along the A508 to Roade, and equally blocked in the opposite direction. If there are problems on the road, or on the M1 , gridlock occurs as traffic overflows down other local roads. If there is more traffic, more lorries, and people coming to the site to work, the roads will not be able to cope. 2. Light and noise pollution will be a problem at night. 3. DIRFT is nearby and there is no need for another interchange so close. I suspect that DIRFT may not be at capacity, and if so, there is no need to develop Rail Central. It would also seem more appropriate to expand the DIRFT site if necessary, in view of the fact that the DIRFT infrastructure is already in place. 4. It is unreasonable for a green field site to be destroyed in this way. I would like to record and register my objection to the proposal, and express my view that it should be cancelled."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Rose
"I object because I live in Collingtree and the traffic coming through will be increased drastically. DIRFT isn't full it is not needed"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Young
"My representation is based on three main areas: The proposed development is too close to the Daventry International Rail Feight Terminal, (DRIFT), is one really needed in this area, wouldn't another area be more appropriate/more used. There's no requirement for the occupiers of the site/warehouses to actually use the rail freight link. It will overload what is already a severely congested road net work, the proposals only include trying to address the local issues, not issues in the general wider area that would be effected by this development, (in fact from what I've seen the proposals for the changes to the road network in the local area only take into account partial occupation of the site, not full occupation"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dot Parsons
"My husband and I moved to [redacted] four years ago in the hope that we would spend the rest of our retirements in a peaceful rural environment. That hope was shattered when Ashfield Land presented their plans to turn our beautiful surroundings into a massive industrial park. If this development goes ahead my husband and I do not know what we will do. We have spent all our savings on our property which will be worth nothing when sitting in the middle of an industrial estate right next to a busy underpass. Our dark skies, peaceful nights and clean air will be shattered. The effect on my husband's health has been noticeable and the stress will only intensify if this unnecessary and unwanted development proceeds. This proposal will benefit very few other than those that are looking to line their pockets. I hope that the Government can see sense."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elaine Mallock
"The road infrastructure around this area apart from the M1 is mainly rural village roads with all the A roads congested to a level that gridlocks the area whenever there are accidents on the M1, which is frequently. The warehouse development which has commenced building just off junction 15 is already causing tailbacks back up up the A508 when construction trucks are waiting to turn in and out. Our business is on the other side of the M1 In Wellingborough and the roads are so congested that the traffic to get from one side of the motorway to the other is already unacceptable. Further, the use of the ‘strategic’ reason by these developers is disingenuous as we already have the ‘strategic’ rail terminal at junction 18 in Northamptonshire. So with two separate further applications at junction 15 in Northamptonshire, I don’t understand how 3 ‘strategic’ rail terminals in one county could be considered without looking at the whole picture which includes freight rail terminals in Leicestershire and Derbyshire. Strategic means looking st the big long term picture not each application on its own merits, therefore if this is genuinly being considered as ‘strategic’ it is clear that this application also needs to be refused . "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Annabel Bass on behalf of Elizabeth Bass
"My daughter objects to the proposal as she wants to go out in the streets with her friends and not worry about safety on the roads, the increased stranger danger and her health."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma
"I object because it’s going to ruin the country side and pollute the air! We live in a beautiful country that is being ruined. It wouldn’t be so bad if the rail service we have now worked better so to build more rail when the one we have is in such bad way! I object to it whole heartedly "
Members of the Public/Businesses
England's Economic Heartland
"England's Economic Heartland is requesting the opportunity to register as an interested party in the examination of Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange). England’s Economic Heartland established the Strategic Transport Forum in February 2016. Membership of the Forum covers the area from Swindon, through Oxfordshire, Milton Keynes and across to Cambridgeshire, and from Northamptonshire across to Luton and Hertfordshire. The Strategic Transport Forum is the emerging Sub-national Transport Body for the Heartland region. It is the focus for a single conversation on strategic transport issues and maintains the overview of strategic investment priorities. The Forum works closely with the Department for Transport, Highways England and Network Rail, all of whom are members of the Forum. England's Economic Heartland submitted into the representation of Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange on the 22nd October 2018. This representation advocated the need to consider the Strategic Rail Freight Interchange in light of England's Economic Heartland's strategic rail priorities and our wider economic growth aspirations of the East-West corridor. This letter highlighted the need to preserve future line capacity to ensure delivery of connectivity opportunities associated with East-West Rail. The delivery of East-West Rail as a project, both the Western and Central section, remains England’s Economic Heartland’s key rail priority going forward. Delivery of East West Rail infrastructure, in combination with the opening of HS2 (providing relief to the current West Coast Main Line ) provides the opportunity to improve connectivity along an axis which hosts a number of key economic and housing areas. Both Network Rail and England’s Economic Heartland have identified the strategic importance of the Northampton – Milton Keynes – Aylesbury – High Wycombe – Old Oak Common axis and the opportunities this will bring. East West Rail will be a catalyst for this link, we continue to welcome a degree of assurance from the DfT or Network Rail that, where additional freight services infringe on the existing capacity, this is met by an offer of increased investment to ensure through services on the Northampton – Old Oak Common axis are delivered post HS2 opening. Since then, and in addition to the original principles set out in our representation to Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange, England's Economic Heartland is developing a freight study, with a final report due in February 2019. This study has begun technical work to understand the opportunities associated with freight provision along East West Rail in the construction and servicing of unprecedented growth in the Heartland. England's Economic Heartland is working with East West Railway Company, Consortium and Network Rail (System Operator) and many others to undertake feasibility in this area. In summary, the findings of England's Economic Heartland's Freight Study and existing strategic rail priorities are intrinsically linked to this application, as is our need to better understand the design and functionality of this Interchange . It is on these principles we welcome the opportunity to register as an Interested Party. Regards - [redacted] "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Darcey Wimpress on behalf of Fox Wimpress
"I object because it will cause traffic congestion, noise pollution, air pollution, Light pollution, destroy our wildlife, destroy our field, it is unnecessary compulsory purchase for people who have lived here all their lives, it is unnecessary as DRIFT isn’t full. Basically there are too many reasons to list yet it still carries on!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Geoff Mooney
"I strongly object as I believe thousands of acres of countryside will be wasted to build a rail centre that is not needed as i'm informed DIRFT is not at full capacity. Also the traffic that will be created in the area will lead to mass congestion and pollution. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gerald Digby
"I would like to provide the following objections. 1/ Loss of a massive greenspace that currently provides a natural habitat and benefits wildlife, this in turn improves the air quality from the pollution from the M1 corridor and the A43 bypass as well as the local traffic routes and rail routes. This greenspace is important and if this development went ahead there would be no natural greenspace barrier between the villages of Blisworth and Milton Malsor. Our children and future grandchildren could be affected by the poorer air quality due to vast increase in traffic on the M1 A43 A508 including the diesel traction used on container intermodal train movements and the pollution within the site that I do not see as being sustainable. 2/ The road networks within a 15 mile radius of this proposed site would suffer due to the increased traffic serving this site. Access and egress would be via the A43. Presently this road suffers severe congestion at the main roundabouts at Towcester and the M1 junction 15a including the Hunsbury A45 roundabouts. Existing businesses could be affected by the further delays that could be encountered when there are incident’s on the M1 and A43 and A508. 3/ The proposed rail exchange siding and main rail access to the site would be provided via the Northampton loop line. This loop line also provides the main intermodal traffic to the Drift site at Crick. Further train movements to this proposed site would affect the existing movements to Drift and affect the London north westerns railways identified passenger improvements from Birmingham to Euston via the Northampton loop line. These improvements would give customers a faster daily and late night service from Birmingham, similar to those enjoyed when travelling back from London Euston. The other rail site access via the West coast mainline would not be suitable to access and egress intermodal trains due to the gradient that is encountered on the curve down, and the locomotive traction requirements to climb this gradient from the exchange siding. The reopening of the Cambridge to Oxford East West rail line could also decrease the intermodal traffic to this site as the East West rail line could now provide direct trains from Felixstowe to existing sites north of London and the west. 4/ The local traffic network within the villages of Blisworth and Milton Malsor is currently seeing traffic exiting the A508 at Stoke Bruerne taking the back road to Blisworth and could be further used as rat-runs by the construction and site workforce. No matter what signage or plans are put in place the villages could end up as being gridlocked between site operations and especially shift changeover times. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gillian Jakeman
"I object to this proposed development because it will cause an even greater increase in traffic congestion to the area which already struggles to cope; the villages are not suitable for this additional volume of traffic especially of the heavy good variety; which will also cause and vast increase in noise and air pollution. It certainly isnt going to bring in more commerce to the local community; and I fear it will end up and another waste land, ripe for criminal activity increase - this worries me greatly. The development is also known to not be wholly necessary as DIRFT isn’t even used to its capacity, there are already empty warehouses etc on Junction 15 so how does building more help the situation of a dying town? "
Other Statutory Consultees
Highways England
"Highways England submits this relevant representation and wishes to register as an interested party in respect of this application by Ashfield Land Management Limited and Gazeley GLP Northampton for a Development Consent Order for a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange known as Rail Central. 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 Motor