11 Apr 2023
Why is Herts county council ignoring good reasons not to sell the former Radlett airfield site for development as a rail freight terminal?
That is the question at the heart of the latest round of legal arguments surrounding the Green Belt land, with fresh evidence suggesting the sale is unnecessary.
Both St Albans MP Daisy Cooper and an internal report at County Hall have said HCC has failed to look for any material changes offering good reasons not to sell to developers Segro.
Now campaign group Save St Albans: Fight the Freight has compiled a detailed dossier outlining concerns about HCC’s failure to address key points about the future of the site.
They used government data from the Office of National Statistics and Office for Budget Responsibility, plus reports from Network Rail, the Rail Delivery Group and freight network studies, and also examined the situation in Northampton where Segro have planning permission for a rail freight terminal but applied for the rail conditions of that application to be waived.
The group says the OBR shows a diminishing demand for rail freight terminals with a huge 18 per cent drop in imports from the EU since Brexit.
With two nearby alternative rail freight terminals at Willesden in north-west London and Sundon Quarry near Luton the group says there is no strategic demand for the Radlett site and HCC has failed to answer concerns that the rail element of the project will be dropped – leaving the site as a lorry-to-lorry distribution centre.
The campaign group says an internal report from HCC’s resource and performance team failed to investigate traffic volumes, trends in freight movement and commerce and the alternative rail freight interchanges built since planning for the Radlett site was approved in 2014.
Their report to councillors dated March 27 stated: “HCC officers have considered whether in their professional opinion any of the matters raised by those opposed to the SRFI could constitute changes in circumstances sufficiently important that, had they been before the Secretary of State in 2014, there is a realistic prospect that the SoS would have reached a different decision, and which might justify a decision not to sell the land to Segro without risk of successful legal challenge.
“HCC officers have concluded that there are no such changes in circumstances.”
Campaign leader Terrie Smith said: “The report was rushed, ill-considered and poorly researched. Our legal team have now sent the council our dossier with the information they should have investigated.
“As they point out, if the rail part of the project is dropped, as council leader Richard Roberts recently suggested, then the whole project would require fresh planning permission. It would also provide one of the good reasons lawyers say the council require if they are to refuse to sell.
“The council say they are reluctant sellers. Legal counsel said they can refuse to sell if they have good reasons concerning significant material changes since 2014. We have now provided them with evidence that the Radlett site is no longer of strategic national importance and unlikely to become a fully operational rail freight interchange as envisaged when planning was approved. They have the good reasons. They now have to stop the sale.”
The new rail freight terminal at Sundon holds numerous advantages over Radlett including a new road providing direct access to the M1 at Junction 11A, four sidings capable of taking the 775m long trains and a loop that allows connections to the north and south Midland Main line tracks.
Radlett, which is on the same rail line, can only take trains heading north. Freight trains heading south would have to go into London and then out again. Tight bends means the 775m long trains, which have to cross north and south bound commuter lines, will only be able to access the site at slow speeds. Radlett has no direct motorway access meaning an additional 15,000 vehicles a day will be using already congested local roads.
Strategic rail freight interchanges are supposed to handle shipping containers, but these are too big for two tunnels, nearly 3km long, between Radlett and London at Elstree and Belsize. In addition to the cost of structural work on the tunnels to make them freight friendly, the developers would face additional compensation payments to train operators for the loss of the tracks while work is carried out.
In Northampton, where Segro applied for the rail conditions to be waived, local MP Dame Andrea Leadsom had expressed concern before the start of the development that the site would not operate as a rail freight interchange because of capacity problems on the West Coast Main Line rather than because of gauge concerns.
In a letter to the Planning Inspectorate on September 20 last year, she said: “My constituents and I are furious to see this cynical proposal for a fundamental change to the entire project being put forward as a ‘non-material’ issue…
“It is clear that if the change is granted, a devastating precedent will be set, making it highly likely that other rail terminal projects could apply for similar changes, and that future development proposals will be put forward safe in the knowledge that if the rail link proves tricky, the valuable income from logistics and warehousing will likely be secured through a similar change to a DCO [Development Consent Order].”
Lawyers from Richard Buxton Solicitors, representing Save St Albans: Fight the Freight, highlighted HCC’s vision to create “a cleaner, greener, healthier Hertfordshire” and accused them of not only failing to meet these objectives, but contravening them through the sale of the Radlett Green Belt land.
“The SRFI [Strategic Rail Freight Interchange] will create a greater road usage – pollution, blight the lives of the residents – denying them a healthier life, not create sustainable services but increase road utilisation – HGVs being diesel based, and by ignoring over 6,300 citizens who have signed the petition against the sale fails to provide excellence in its service to the community affected by this development.”
