FREIGHT
Radlett SRFI depot row rolls on
The latest chapter in the long-running planning debate on the potential development of a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) at Radlett has taken a new twist and turn. David Stevenson reports.
In
July this year it appeared progress had finally been made on the potential
development of the Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) on the Radlett airfield in Hertfordshire, next to the Midland Main Line. It has long been divisive, described as “vital” by those keen to increase the share of freight moved by rail, but as a “mindless act of vandalism” by local opponents.
But on 14 July, the communities secretary, Eric Pickles MP, gave the project planning permission approval. However, the SRFI project, which has spent almost a decade in the planning system, and has been subject to several appeals and a public inquiry, could still come undone.
This is because St Albans City and District Council (SADC) has now lodged a claim in the High Court to challenge Pickles’ decision.
Although a date for the hearing has not yet been confirmed, the local authority said it registered the claim because it was concerned about the “legality” of Pickles’ decision in July, on allowing an appeal to be brought by Helioslough Limited, the joint venture between Helios Properties plc, a logistics specialist, and Slough Estates plc.
Legal challenge
The council is challenging the decision on three points of law:
• First it is concerned with the legality of the secretary of state’s approach in taking his decision;
• Second, the misapplication of wording in the National Planning Policy Framework. Section 88 says that ‘very special measures’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The claim says, legally, this test was not proved; • The third ground for challenge relates to
70 | rail technology magazine Aug/Sep 14
procedural irregularity and inconsistency on the rail freight interchange decision (versus the refusal of a nearby waste incinerator).
Cllr Julian Daly, SADC’s leader and portfolio holder for planning and conservation, said: “The council considers that the proposed rail freight interchange at this site will be harmful to the district’s Green Belt. We believe that the secretary of state’s recent decision to grant planning permission is flawed legally. We are therefore taking action to challenge the decision in the High Court.”
SRFI approval
Looking back to July, when Pickles took the decision to allow the Helioslough appeal and grant planning permission, the secretary of state noted that the he was content the SRFI’s
Environmental Statement provided
sufficient information for him to assess the environmental impact of the proposal.
Pickles added that he agreed with an Inspector’s report which said the development of the site would contribute to urban sprawl and cause some harm to the setting of St Albans.
However, he considers that the “factors weighing in favour of the appeal include the need for SRFIs to serve London and the South East, to which he has attributed very considerable weight, and the lack of more appropriate alternative locations for an SRFI in the north west sector which would cause less harm to the Green Belt”.
The document has stated that the 3.5 million sq ft SRFI, which would operate 24 hours per day, could have up to seven or more trains arriving at the facility daily. Previous documents have also estimated that the SRFI could generate about 3,400 jobs; three-quarters being classified as ‘process plant and machine operatives’.
It was stated, though, that none of the SRFI Units would be occupied until the Midland
A visualisation of how the facility would look
The DCLG document added: “The secretary of state has also taken account of the local benefits of the proposals for a country park, improvements to footpaths and bridleways and the Park Street and Frogmore bypass. The secretary of state considers that these considerations, taken together, clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and the other harms he has identified including the harm in relation to landscape and ecology and amount to very special circumstances.”
At the time of Pickles’ announcement the Rail Freight Group welcomed the news. Following the High Court claim by SADC, RFG executive director Maggie Simpson told RTM: “It's disappointing that St Albans have challenged this decision, further delaying progress of this important facility.
“SRFIs are vital for growing rail freight and taking lorries off the crowded roads around London, and we hope this case will be speedily resolved.”
RTM contacted the DCLG about the SADC claim, but was told that as legal action was taking place it would be inappropriate to comment.
opinion@railtechnologymagazine.com TELL US WHAT YOU THINK
Main Line Connection Works have been completed and until an operational rail link has been provided to the relevant Unit.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164