The second planning application for the development of a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI), submitted to the Council by Helioslough Ltd, was considered by the Planning Referrals Committee, at the Alban Arena in St Albans on Monday 20th July 2009 at 7pm.
At the meeting the estimated 350 people who came to the Alban Arena, and the 100 plus who watched the committee on the internet, heard that the Committee refused the application for fourteen reasons, which have been summarised below – the full version is available on the report on the website – see link: Minutes of the Planning Referrals Committee Meeting 20 July 2009.
1. The site is in the Green Belt as defined in the St Albans District Local Plan Review 1994, and permission will only be given for the erection of new buildings or the use of existing buildings or land for agriculture, other essential purposes appropriate to a rural area or small scale facilities for sport or recreation. The proposed development is unacceptable and inappropriate and the harm to the Green Belt is not clearly outweighed by other considerations and accordingly no very special circumstances exist to justify the proposal.
2. The overall size, height, bulk, massing and scale of the proposed development would be highly damaging to the open character of this significant part of the Green Belt, which provides amongst other things an important gap between Park Street and London Colney.
3. The proposal fails to demonstrate that the development can be carried out with the principles of sustainable development.
4. The committee felt that the ‘Consideration of Alternative Sites’ study is inadequate, therefore the need for the proposed SRFI has not been shown.
5. The proposed development is premature and contrary to planning advice:-
• in advance of the National Policy Statement covering SRFI’s (due to be published in 2010),
• before the completion of a trans-regional assessment of the location of SRFI’s in the Greater South East,
• and until demand has been shown to exist through the implementation and occupation of the available SRFI capacity at Howbury Park.
6. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that there are adequate paths in the wider national rail network to support the number of freight trains that the facility is intended to serve, and that the Midland Mainline timetable can accommodate the level of services anticipated.
The viability of the rail connection has not been demonstrated and there is no evidence that the necessary gauge improvements can be delivered between Radlett and points on the rail network with gauge to these standards.
No demand has been shown for rail freight or an SRFI in the north-west sector of London. The proposal is therefore contrary to the requirement that priority should be given to the objectives of the Regional Transport Strategy, regarding the sustainable movement of freight.
7. The proposal for the central development site (Area 1) fails to adequately secure and enhance the quality and appearance of the landscape in this area.
8. The proposals would lead to high noise levels for residents on the eastern side of Park Street / Frogmore and more particularly Radlett and Elstree.
9. The proposals would lead to harmful air quality conditions for residents in Park Street / Frogmore and more particularly within Radlett and Elstree.
10. The proposal for the country park, landscape and ecological improvements intended to mitigate the losses associated with the development, are unacceptable in scale, outcome and detail while the process and funding of a long term management regime is not determined.
11. The applicant has failed to take mitigating measures to offset the harm of the development to ecology and the local footpath network.
12. Insufficient information has been submitted by the applicant to enable the Highways Agency to determine if there have been any material changes in circumstances in relation to the impact of the proposed development on the strategic highway network.
13. No adequate Section 106 obligation has been offered by the Applicant.
14. Insufficient information has been submitted by the applicant to enable the Local Highway Authority to determine if there have been any material changes in circumstances in relation to the impact of the proposed development on the local highway network including the A414, A405 and A5183 and the linkages to the national motorway network.
The District Council’s decision is final although Helioslough can appeal to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. They have six months in which to do so.
Cllr Robert Donald, Leader of St Albans City and District Council said, “this decision is the right one to maintain the uniqueness of our community. Our Sustainable Community Strategy unequivocally sets out our determination to protect the Green Belt, reduce traffic congestion and cut our carbon footprint. Any other decision would fly in the face of all that we are trying to achieve locally.”
Member contact:
Cllr Chris Brazier, portfolio holder for planning and conservation and chair of the planning committee.
St Albans City and District Council
Tel: 01727 863598
Cllr Robert Donald, leader and portfolio holder for community leadership and communications.
St Albans City and District Council
Tel: 01727 841647 Mobile: 07973 208289
Contact for the press:
Davina Mansell, information and communication officer
Tel: 01727 819316 E-mail: davina.mansell@stalbans.gov.uk
St Albans City and District Council
www.stalbans.gov.uk
Notes:
Sustainable Community Strategy – a document published in July 2009 setting out the overall vision for St Albans City and District.