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 14 December 2018
From Howes Percival LLP on behalf of Willow Inns Limited

Representation

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.