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 Mr Kirk Trewin

Representation

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