Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange (TR050006) Correspondence received after the close of the Examination at 23:59 on 9 April 2019 No. From Organisation Date Received 1. Paul Minton Northampton Rail Users Group 13 May 2019 2. Emily Bailey Western Power Distribution (East Midlands) Plc 07 June 2019 (“WPD”) 3. Mark Redding Stop Rail Central Limited 08 June 2019 4. Melissa Johnson Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (Network Rail) 08 July 2019 From: To: [email protected] Subject: Howbury Park appeal decision, relevance to Northampton Gateway Date: 13 May 2019 10:23:21 Attachments: 19-05-07_DL_IR_Moat_Lane_Erith_3184205_6.pdf Dear Sir/ Madam Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange (TR050006) Your reference: 20010406 At the latest meeting of NRUG (Saturday 11th May), the members requested that I brought the decision of the Howbury Park freight interchange appeal to the Examiners' attention. The decision to refuse on appeal is attached. A number of issues that equally apply for Northampton Gateway (and have been documented in NRUG's submissions) are addressed,including: - No need for 2 SFRIs within 21 miles of each other, noting that DIRFT lies only 18 miles from the location of the proposed Northampton Gateway facility. - London Gateway operates in its own right to serve London, and another facility to do the same is not required. - Interference with passenger traffic, even at 4 trains per day for the freight terminal, is sufficient to warrant refusal. Additionally NRUG would comment that Roxhill's assertion of "build it and the users will come" is not supported by their decision not to build out Howbury Park in the 10 year window they had consent. Paul Minton Chair NRUG Our ref: APP/D5120/W/17/3184205 & Sarah Fabes APP/T2215/W/17/3184206. Lichfields, Your ref: NLP-DMS.FID299507 14 Regent's Wharf, All Saints Street, London, N1 9RL 7th May 2019 Dear Madam TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEALS MADE BY ROXHILL DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED LAND ADJACENT TO THE SOUTHEASTERN TRAIN DEPOT, MOAT LANE, SLADE GREEN, ERITH APPLICATION REF: 15/02673/OUTEA and DA/15/01743/OUT 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of Mr I Jenkins BSc CEng MICE MCIWEM who held a public local inquiry between 19 June and 27 September 2018 into your client’s appeals against the decisions of London Borough of Bexley, as directed by the Mayor of London, and Dartford Borough Council to refuse your client’s application for planning permission for a cross-boundary outline application for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment to provide a strategic rail freight interchange comprising a rail freight intermodal facility, warehousing, new access arrangements from Moat Lane, associated HGV, car, cycle parking, landscaping, drainage, and associated works (within London Borough of Bexley). Creation of a new access road from the existing A206/A2026 roundabout, incorporating a bridge over the River Cray, landscaping and associated works (within Dartford Borough Council) in accordance with application ref: 15/02673/OUTEA and DA/15/01743/OUT dated 20 November 2015. 2. On 7 November 2017 these appeals were recovered for the Secretary of State's determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that the appeals be dismissed, and planning permission be refused. 4. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions, and agrees with his recommendation. He has decided to dismiss the appeals and refuse planning permission. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government Tel: 0303 444 3594 Andrew Lynch, Decision Officer Email: [email protected] Planning Casework Unit 3rd Floor Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Environmental Statement 5. In reaching this position, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statement which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and the supplementary environmental information submitted before the inquiry opened. Having taken account of the Inspector’s comments at IR1.2.2, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Environmental Statement and other additional information provided complies with the above Regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the proposal. Policy and statutory considerations 6. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 7. In this case the development plan consists of the adopted development plans for the area which comprises The London Plan, March 2016; the Bexley Core Strategy Development Plan Document, February 2012; and, saved policies of the Bexley Unitary Development Plan, 2004 for LBB. The Dartford Core Strategy, September 2011; and, the Dartford Development Policies Plan (DDPP), July 2017 for Dartford Borough Council. Other plans that affect the site are The Mayor’s Transport Strategy 2018 and The Kent County Council Local Transport Plan 4: Delivering Growth without Gridlock 2016-2031. The Secretary of State considers that the development plan policies of most relevance to this case are those set out at IR6.1.3 to 6.2.9. Other local planning guidance considered include the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, 2018 and the Kent County Council Local Transport Plan 4: Delivering Growth without Gridlock 2016-2031 as set out at IR 6.5 8. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Policy Statement for National Networks and the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) and associated planning guidance (‘the Guidance’). The revised National Planning Policy Framework was published on 24 July 2018 and further revised in February 2019. Unless otherwise specified, any references to the Framework in this letter are to the revised Framework. Emerging plan 9. The emerging plan comprises the London Plan – The Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London outlined in the Inspectors Report at IR6.4. The Secretary of State considers that the emerging policies of most relevance to this case include LPe Policy G2, T7, and SD1. 10. Paragraph 48 of the Framework states that decision makers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: (1) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan; (2) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies in the emerging plan; and (3) the degree of consistency of relevant policies to the policies in 2 the Framework. While Examination in Public hearings have taken place since the inquiry closed, due to the early stage of the emerging plan only limited weight is attributed to the policies as outlined in the Inspectors Report at IR6.4.4. Main issues Location of site and Green Belt 11. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given in IR15.2.3 to 15.2.5 that the appeals proposal would cause substantial harm to the Green Belt (IR 15.2.6). He therefore considers that this carries substantial weight against the scheme. In accordance with paragraph 143 of the Framework, inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Character and Appearance 12. For the reasons given at IR 15.3.1 to 15.3.6 the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that both the landscape impact and the visual impact of the appeals scheme would be substantial and adverse. Overall, he considers that it would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area and he therefore attributes significant weight to this harm. Rail issues 13. The Secretary of State acknowledges that given the locational need for effective connections for both rail and road, the number of locations suitable for Strategic Rail Freight Interchanges will be limited. He agrees with the Inspector at IR 15.4.3 that for the proposed rail link to be considered ‘adequate’, it would be necessary for it to be capable of accommodating 4 trains/day as a minimum. For the reasons given in IR 15.4.6 to 15.4.20, he agrees with the Inspector (15.4.20) that the likelihood of passenger service numbers having to be reduced in order to accommodate the appeals site freight traffic appears significant. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion that there is significant uncertainty (15.4.21) as to whether the timetable could be flexed/amended to accommodate four trains per day to/from the appeals site either now or in the future. He agrees with the Inspector that overall this would conflict with the aims of a number of development plan policies that seek to minimize any adverse impact on the wider transport network and safeguard or improve public transport services, and that this should carry significant weight. Highways Issues 14. For the reasons given in IR15.5.4 to 15.5.28, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspectors findings (IR15.5.29) that, by 2031, the residual cumulative impact of the development during ‘normal’ (non-incident) highway conditions on the local highway network would be likely to be severe. He further agrees with the Inspector for the reasons given at IR 15.5.30 to 15.5.36 that, during incidents, the proposal would be likely to have a material, albeit limited, adverse impact, adding to severe conditions.