01 May 2025
The controversy over the strategic rail freight development currently under construction south of St Albans has taken another turn with the revelation that a tunnel under the rail line could be replaced with an imposing bridge above.
Developers Segro have applied for a non-material amendment to their original planning permission which will see the approved tunnel scrapped in favour of a storey-high bridge overlooking nearby Napsbury Park.
They argue that an alternative approach is required because of a potential risk of flooding and “associated knock-on effects”.
In a letter to SADC submitted as part of the amendment application, assistant planner Sana Miraj from RPS Consulting Services Ltd, acting on behalf of Segro, explained the reasoning behind the changes.
“As the detail design stage has progressed, site investigations have revealed the water table to be higher than previously expected, and the ground conditions permeable.”
It went on to say that there was a risk of water collecting at the base of the underpass, creating a flood risk issue which risked the closure of the road and could significantly impact operations at the site.
The proposals have met with indignation from members of the public, who have questioned why Segro did not carry out a full investigation of the site earlier.
Deb Lancaster, who lives in Napsbury Park, said: “This is NOT a non-material change, and should not be waved through as such. There has been no consultation – indeed we only found out about this by chance.”
Gail Jackson, chair of Sopwell Residents Association, said:L “At the Segro Community Liaison Group meeting in April we were told that an application had been made to St Albans council to change a tunnel that was set out in the original planning application – into a bridge.
“Segro representatives advised that it was likely this would be a ’non-material’ amendment to the original planning application.
“The St Albans district council website provides advice on ‘non-material amendments’ it says: ‘a non-material amendment should be so minor that it would not raise any interest from other parties, nor affect the comments that they made on the original planning application’.
“While there is no statutory definition of non-material – it strikes me that as local residents, who live close to the site, are already asking questions about potential issues of noise and pollution from a bridge carrying in constant lorry traffic; surely it is entirely possible that these changes are ‘material’ amendments to the original planning application for a tunnel.”
There have also been more than 60 responses to the proposals from members of the public on SADC’s planning portal.
Paul Matteucci, who lives in Rosemary Drive, Napsbury Park, said: “The planned bridge will undoubtedly have a significant environmental impact on our home and the surrounding area.
“One of my primary concerns is the issue of light pollution. Bridges typically require extensive lighting, which can disrupt the natural night sky and adversely affect local wildlife. In contrast, a tunnel could minimise light pollution, allowing for a more harmonious coexistence with nature.
“Additionally, noise pollution is a pressing concern. The sounds of vehicles crossing a bridge would permeate our neighborhoods, disrupting the peace and quiet that many families value. A quieter tunnel would mitigate this noise, providing a more serene environment for residents, particularly for children and those who work from home.
“Furthermore, the views from our homes and public spaces will be compromised by the presence of a bridge. Instead of enjoying the natural landscape, we may be confronted with an imposing structure that detracts from the beauty of our surroundings. A tunnel, however, can be designed to blend into the environment, preserving the aesthetic appeal of our community.
“It is also troubling that there has been minimal consultation with the local community regarding this project. Our voices and concerns should be heard and taken into account, as we are the ones who will be directly affected.
“Engaging with residents can lead to better solutions that serve the community’s needs while also addressing environmental concerns.
“Lastly, we must consider the impact of vehicle pollution on our families. The emissions from increased traffic on a bridge will only contribute to air quality deterioration in our area, posing health risks, particularly for children and the elderly. A tunnel could potentially reduce the number of vehicles exposed to our neighborhoods, lessening the overall pollution and creating a healthier environment for all.”
His neighbour Fiona Loud agreed: “It will be right in our faces, reduce privacy and create lots of noise in this currently quiet development where we have lived for over twenty years now.
“This development was originally meant to reduce pollution but so far has only brought trouble, disruption and a blight to the land. It is unwanted, unnecessary and unsuitable.”
Paul Cordell, also of Rosemary Drive, said: “We are already blighted with the visual impact that the rail freight terminal will bring but the increase of light pollution from headlights at window level and moving vehicles constantly at bedroom or living room level is unacceptable!
“We have had no consultation from either the council or any of the companies involved in the development, but in fact, they have shown no consideration or care either of the impact to our lives.”
A Segro spokesperson said in response to residents’ concerns: “The amendment to the planning application has been proposed following a detailed assessment of the site’s complex ground conditions, which could only be fully understood through onsite investigations. It is a practical and technically necessary adjustment based on those findings.
“The proposed change from a tunnel to a bridge has been submitted as a non-material amendment, as it does not create any materially greater impact compared to the permission already granted. This has been verified by technical assessments, including an Environmental Compliance Report, which concluded there would be no significant increase in impacts such as light, noise or air quality.
“Positioned between the Midland Mainline Railway and the permitted buildings, the bridge will be largely screened from neighbouring areas and is intended to support internal vehicle circulation, without increasing overall traffic movements.
“An extensive landscape bund, screen planting and acoustic fencing are already planned to the east of the bridge and remain sufficient to mitigate potential impacts. Full details are publicly available and the application is being assessed by St Albans district council through the standard planning process. We are continuing to work closely with the local authority and remain committed to engaging with the local community as the project progresses.”
To see the plans, search for 5/2025/0154 on SADC’s planning portal or click here.
