HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

MONDAY, 20 JULY 2009, AT 10.00 A.M.

ST ALBANSCITYDISTRICT - APPLICATION FOR STRATEGIC RAIL FREIGHT INTERCHANGE: FORMER RADLETT AIRFIELD, NORTH ORBITAL ROAD, ST. ALBANS.SADC/5/2009/0708

Report of the Director of Environment and Commercial Services

Author: Steve BailesTel: 01992 556293

Local Member: Aislinn Lee

(Adjoining Members: Caroline Clapper, Mike Ellis, Chris Brazier)

1.Purpose of Report

1.1To further inform the Development Control Committee of the above application so that the Committee can make a formal response to St. AlbansCity and District Council.

2.Summary

2.1This report refers to the proposal for a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) at the former Radlett Airfield south of St. Albans. Members considered a detailed background report at their meeting on 23 June 2009 which described the proposal, the committee’s views on a previous application in 2006 and the Inspector’s findings from the 2007 Public Inquiry into the refusal of that application.

2.2The County Council has been consulted on the current application because of its statutory responsibility as Highways Authority and on rights of way, ecological, landscaping and restoration issues.

2.3This report addresses concerns raised by members at the Development Control Committee in June taking account of the Inspector’s report from the 2007 inquiry. Issues dealt with in the report can be summarised as;

  • The Role of the Proposal in regional strategy
  • Potential Prematurity
  • Alternative Site Assessment
  • Employment and sustainable Travel to Work
  • Highways

2.4The former Strategic Rail Authority in 2004 identified a need for 3-4 SRFIs to serve the wider south east region. It has not been specified that there is a requirement for a SRFI within the East of England region, however, policy T10 of the East of England Plan determines that at least one should be provided in the region if the need is not met elsewhere. To date, no technical work has been carried out at an inter-regional level to identify specific locations for SRFIs in the wider south east region, therefore there is a possibility that more suitable sites could come forward that are capable of delivering such a development.

2.5An element of prematurity could therefore be considered to apply to the proposal. In addition, the proposal pre-empts and subsequently could prejudice the forthcoming publication of the ‘National Networks’ National Planning Statement due out for consultation in the autumn.

2.6 The applicant claims to have identified a need centred on west Londonthat could not readily be met by other sites in the region.The Radlett proposal therefore, would meet the need at a supra-regional level. The location of Radlett would mean that the SRFI would not contribute to the wider development strategy of the East of England but the demand for the development is driven by a wider need.

2.7At the Inquiry, the Inspector found the applicant’s Alternative Sites Assessment to be seriously flawed. A new Alternative Sites Assessment was submitted with the current application. There are still officer concerns about the soundness of this technical work. The assessment is currently being considered by expert consultants who have been appointed by St AlbansCity and District Council.

2.8When fully operational, the development would employ over 3,000 people. Due to the relatively low unemployment rates in the local area there is an identified need for a large proportion of the workforce to be sourced from outside the Radlett/St Albans area. It will also be necessary for a high proportion of workers to be sourced outside of Hertfordshire.

2.9This requirement for the development to source workers from a wider area casts doubt over the proposal’s ability to meet the 35% sustainable transport mode share identified within the applicant’s Travel Plan. If the target mode share is to be met, significant changes to the Plan will be required, although this could probably be achieved through planning obligations and considerations.

2.10 As with the previous application, there are still some officer concerns with the impact of the development on the surrounding highways network. In the short timeframe between the two applications there have been no significant changes in traffic flows on the A414 near the sites. Flows have increased on the A5183 south of Radlett and the development’s impact on this road is inadequately assessed.

2.11There is now concern about the potential levels of congestion at junction 21A of the M25 and sections of the A405 taking account of the M25 widening, and the proposed development and the traffic impacts from the newly developed Butterfly World located south west of the proposal. Work on the impacts of the development on this part of the network is still ongoing jointly between the County Council and Highways Agency. The County Council as Highway Authority is therefore not in a position to respond to St AlbansCity and District Council until the results of the joint analysis with the Highways Agency are known.

2.12There are a number of areas where the proposal is considered deficient. Officers are not satisfied that the applicant has made a sufficiently robust case for this development in the Green Belt, however, at this time it is considered it might be difficult to substantiate firm grounds for refusal on those areas on which the County Council has been consulted.

2.13There is an argument that the current proposal pre-empts emerging national policy due out later this year but it is a decision for St Albans District Council whether or not the application should be deferred for this reason. No permission can be granted until the Highways Agency remove their holding objection, which should not be before their joint analysis with the County Council is complete.

3.Suggested Resolution

3.1That at this stage of the consideration of the proposal the Committee resolves to inform St AlbansCity and District Council that:

1.It considers the proposal to be out of scale in the area and inappropriate in the Green Belt.

2.It is not satisfied the applicant has made a sufficiently robust case for the need for this development at this location in the Green Belt sufficient to demonstrate the very special circumstances required to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm.

3.It considers the proposal should be reviewed in the light of the draft National Planning Statement on ‘National Networks’ which should be published later this year and no permission should be granted prior to its publication.

4.The proposal remains inconsistent with the Strategic Rail Authority’s policy for SFRIs to be located with regard to the ‘proximity to the workforce’ and the role it could play in providing employment in areas which would benefit. With employees being drawn from such a wide area it will be difficult to realise sustainable modes of journey to work.

5.It requires more time to consider, with the Highways Agency, the implications of the development traffic on the A405. However, the impact on the A5183 south of the site continues to give cause for concern.

6.There are a number of areas where the proposal is deficient but could be improved if the applicant were agreeable. These areas include the Travel Plan and the works (including tree planting and ecological enhancements) and management of the county park areas. However, it is not suggested that such improvements could in any way mitigate the overall unacceptable impacts of the proposal.

7.The proposal offers no significant benefit to Hertfordshire. Any benefit of the county park would be minimal as the area is already of ecological and public access benefit and benefits to Frogmore and Park Street from the bypass will be offset by disbenefits to Radlett and Elstree. The level of ‘sustainability’ benefit (in terms of emissions) will largely depend on the net level of savings in road traffic from transferring road freight traffic to rail taking account of employee road trips and this could be further addressed before any permission is granted.

8.It is for the City and District Council consider whether to defer any decision and whether deferment is until the draft National Policy Statement on ‘National Networks’ is published or until the results of further work on traffic issues is completed (or both).

9.The Director of Environment and Commercial Services following discussion with the Chairman of the Development Control Committee be authorised to provide additional information to St Albans District when it becomes available.

4.Background

4.1This report relates to the proposal for a strategic rail freight interchange (SRFI) at the former Radlett Airfield south of St. Albans. Members considered a more detailed background report at their meeting on 23 June 2009 which described the proposal, the Committee’s views on the previous application in 2006 and the Inspector’s findings from the 2007 Public Inquiry into the refusal of that application.

4.2It is not the intention in this report to repeat that information (available This report seeks to provide information on those matters raised at the June meeting (a full list was included in the Minutes) and to provide commentary on those issues on which Members are expected to want to respond to St. Albans City and District Council.

4.3The County Council has been consulted as Highway Authority on highway matters and on restoration, ecology and rights of way. St Albans District Council is to determine its decision on the evening of 20 July and this Committee is now asked to agree a response to the District to feed into their decision making.

4.4The issues dealt with in the report are summarised as:

  • The Role of the Proposal in regional strategy
  • Potential Prematurity
  • Alternative Site Assessment
  • Employment and sustainable Travel to Work
  • Highway implications

4.5These issues are considered in the light of the Inspector’s findings at the 2007 Public Inquiry and of any changed circumstances.

4.6It is of course a matter for Members of this Committee as to whether they wish to raise other matters in their response to St. Albans.

5.Role of Radlett SRFI in strategy for East of England

5.1Policy guidance for SRFIs in the greater south east stems from the Strategic Rail Authority’s (SRA) 2004 policy that there should be 3 to 4 SRFIs in the whole region. These would serve to take freight off the roads by providing the facilities for trains from the ports, the Channel Tunnel and elsewhere in the UK to carry freight into the region to be unloaded, repackaged and carried to the market by road. They would also facilitate export of freight by rail from the region.

5.2Policy T10 of the East of England plan gives priority to maximising the proportion of freight carried by rail and states that provision should be made for a least one SRFI in the region unless more suitable locations are identified within London or the South East for all 3 to 4 interchanges. Since the RSS was published (2008), EERA have produced a Regional Freight Strategy for the region but no study has yet considered potential locations.

5.3SRFIs being very large warehousing developments (200,000 sq metres plus) with relatively high levels of lower skilled employment can also play a positive role in a region’s employment strategy. The SRA’s policy recognised this in 2004 and one of their criterion for the suitable location of an SRFI was ‘proximity to the workforce’ and the role it could play in providing employment in areas which would benefit.

5.4While EERA have not carried out any locational study, it is apparent that the area east of London, Thurrock/Thames Gateway, could both serve elements of the London market and provide much needed employment in an area with a surplus of suitable employees. The Core Strategy Preferred Options for Thurrock, consulted on in 2008, identified potential rail freight terminals at London Gateway and West Thurrock as Key Strategic Transport projects and a Business and LogisticsPark at London Gateway as a Flagship Development.

5.5One of these sites (or a combination or others in the area) may be able to meet the other criteria for a SRFI, sufficient size and access to a suitable rail line and to the motorway network especially the M25. If so the location could be expected to provide for the needs of the East of England region as identified in Policy T10 and to contribute to the wider employment strategy of RSS.

5.6The applicant for the proposed Radlett SRFI claims to have identified a need centred on west London which could not readily be met by an SRFI in Thames Gateway, or by that now permitted at Howbury Park, Bexley, Kent (see previous report paragraph 4.6). Radlett’s location within the East of England Region is, it would be argued, immaterial as the proposal is aimed at a supra-regional market, particularly western London.

5.7The location at Radlett means a SRFI would not contribute to the wider development strategy of the region but the demand for the development is driven by the need, as the applicant sees it, for rail freight facilities in the western part of the greater south east.The obvious competitor site to Radlett, as recognised in the applicant’s Alternative Sites Assessment, is that at Colnbrook near the M4 south of Slough (see section 7) which could both serve the same market and could be considered to have some rail operational advantages over Radlett.

5.8Market driven evidence of the need that Radlett is intended to serve does not form part of the application. The SRA guidance of 3-4 SRFIs on which the applicant relies was determined in 2004 and there have been some changes in anticipated rail freight operations since then.

5.9The proposal therefore does not form part of either the East of England region’s development strategy or its freight strategy, except in how it would contribute to the movement of freight from road to rail. Whether Radlett would be a successful rail freight operation must remain in doubt given the lack of specific market evidence and the potential rail operation difficulties (section 7).

6. Potential Prematurity

6.1While the SRFI policy guidance dates back to 2004, there have to date been no regional studies as to the broad locations in which they should be provided. The 2008 South East Regional Plan (Policy T13) requires that regional body to work with stakeholders to identify broad locations for up to 3 SRFIs. It would be expected that London and the East Region would wish to take part in such a study.

6.2The implications of changing origins of rail freight from the UK, the Channel Tunnel and the ports, and changes to freight routes planned by Network Rail do now need to be taken into account. It is anticipated this will be part of the new National Planning Statement (NPS) on ‘National Networks’ (including SRFIs) which is programmed to be published for consultation in Autumn of this year.

6.3The new NPS is unlikely to identify specific sites but it can be expected to point to broad locations where it would be expected the need for facilities would best be met in the light of presently forecast market conditions and intentions regarding rail routes. In responding to the recent SRFI proposal in Maidstone the South East Regional Assembly (SEERA) suggested the application could prejudice the NPS and is premature (letter to Maidstone Borough 10/2/09).

6.4The Inspector at the 2007 Radlett Inquiry made it clear that a prematurity argument would only hold good if there is a reasonable prospect a study is both likely to be undertaken and its findings accepted (IR 16.112). While there is no certainty as to what the NPS will contain or as to what studies it will rely on, it might seem worthwhile to withhold any permission on a new SRFI until at least the consultation draft is published which should be in autumn this year.

6.5St. Albans District Council could be informed that, since the proposal is intended to meet the needs of London and the wider south east, it should consider withholding any permission until at least the consultation draft of the new National Planning Statement on ‘National Networks’ (and SRFIs) is published, assuming that is to be by the end of the year. This should enable the role of this location in meeting the needs as now forecast to be clarified and ensure the future development of any potentially preferred locations is not compromised.

7.Alternative Site Assessment

7.1The development site is located in the GreenBelt. If development is to be permitted it must be demonstrated that ‘very special circumstances’ exist to outweighthe harm to the Green Belt and any other harm to justify granting planning permission. The Inspector and the Secretary of State were satisfied the need for an SRFI could constitute such special circumstances if the developer was able to demonstrate that there are no better or less harmful alternatives to the proposed application.

7.2 At the Inquiry the Inspector found the applicant’s assessment study to be seriously flawed and therefore recommended permission be refused. The applicant has now produced a further study with a shortlist of 5 sites only one of which, Radlett, was in the original shortlist. The shortlisted sites are shown on the map in Appendix 1 together with a table drawn from the study comparing them.

7.3 As can be seen from the table there is no clear point scoring system which demonstrates Radlett’s superiority and some of the subjective assessments could be questioned. An example is the inconsistent approach taken by the applicant towards the ecology and biodiversity assessments where there is concern as to whether or not the comparisons are fair in dealing like with like. This has been raised by Herts Biological Records Centre in their response to St AlbansCity and District Council.

7.4Colnbrook, like Radlett, is located within the Green Belt but it is also within the strategic gap between London and Slough which the applicant regards as a serious impediment to development. However while it is of clear importance this is a local designation and should be considered as a landscape issue alongside all the other local aspects, such as availability of labour, road impacts etc., as well as the operational matters such as the rail access and rail operations. The subjective analysis and the overall concerns surrounding the basic methodology of the applicant’s Alternative Site Assessment are currently being assessed by the District Council and their expert consultants.

7.5The applicant has continued to limit his study to the north western sector (A1M to M4) though it is clear that there is an increasing interest in SRFI provision in the wider region with a number of applications in Kent (see section 4.6 of the previous report). The applicant concentrates on the north western sector as that is where he claims to have identified a market. However there must remain some doubt as to whether a development at Radlett would attract the hoped for level of rail freight regardless of the strength of that market.