Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)

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

Rail Central (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange)

Received 13 December 2018
From 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.