AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Multi-modal hubs battle Nimbyism

26th August 2010, Page 18
26th August 2010
Page 18
Page 19
Page 18, 26th August 2010 — Multi-modal hubs battle Nimbyism
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

The whole country could benefit from more rail freight if only local communities could be persuaded to have rail terminals on their doorstep.

Words: Christopher Walton IT NiliCiH I I !AVE happened without fanfare, but earlier this month, the government scrapped plans for a multi-modal logistics hub in the South-East that would have created 3.500 logistics and haulage jobs.

The Kent International Gateway (KIG), a 16-acre rail and road freight terminal and 3.9 million ft' of warehousing, was proposed for development on a 277acre plot of land, east of Maidstone and slap-bang next to J8 of the M20 (see right).

The initial planning process began in March 2007 when Kent International Gateway Ltd (a partnership between property developers Axa Real Estate Investment Managers and DMI Properties) submitted the plans to Maidstone Borough Council.

But local residents in the nearby village of Bearsted were not pleased with the proposals.They mounted a campaign backed by the local media, which can be seen at www.stopIdg.org. to protect land designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. But their main complaint was that the rail freight terminal, while promising to take freight off the roads nationally, would lead to increased HGV movements in the area due to the need for last-mile deliveries. The campaign was successful, and last year Maidstone Borough Council turned down the plans. The rejection was appealed and it went to a public inquiry, but on 5 August, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles made the final decision, dismissing the appeal and refusing planning permission.

Disappointed by rejection

James Owen, senior fund manager at Axa Real Estate, who is the asset manager for clients investing in KIG, said they were disappointed by the Secretary of State's decision.

"The proposal fulfilled all the policy criteria for increasing rail freight and reducing HGV miles in the UK, thereby having a positive impact on the country's carbon emissions," he tells CM.

"KEG would have provided around 3.500 new permanent jobs in the private sector, on top of those created during the construction phases, at a time when government austerity measures mean that job creation initiatives such as this should he highly prized. We will review our options. but fear this may be a lost opportunity by the government to create something positive for the county on a site ideally suited for the purpose."

There is a rival site to the KIG. Barely 40 miles up the M20, and just off J2a of the M26 is a proposed site for the Kent Rail and Freight Terminal (KRAFT). 'Me developers behind the site, Cemex UK. Borough Green Sandpits and the adjoining landowners, promise 2.7 million ft' of warehousing space next to an intermodal rail/road transfer. It would. the developers claim, create 2.000 jobs A spokesman for KRAFT was cautiously optimistic about the chances for the site: "At the moment we are watch ing very carefully what has happened with the KIG decision because. arguably. there was not the space or demand for two sites of this size, -It was clear that there were weaknesses in the KIG application, but we remain optimistic. We are not even at the planning application stage and we are awaiting meetings with the landowners to see how we progress."

Inevitably, there is also a protest group campaigning against the site's development (www.stopbig.org).They too argue that the KRAFT would not deliver any appreciable reduction in the number of lorries on the M20 and, they say, if anything the depot will generate much more traffic.

'the Freight Transport Association (FTA), says that the UK, as well as logistics operators of all modes, needs more of these sites "if we are to get as much freight off the roads as possible". The a! sociation is urging for support for th development of more terminal capacit in "locations driven by the market tiv make best logistical sense". It also warr to see rail freight terminals included h the government in National Policy Stab ments.

Road versus rail Christopher Snelling, head of glob supply chain policy at the FTA, Kt) "Sometimes people think there is a 11 of antipathy between road and rail, bi hauliers can make use of rail freight these sites. If you can get some goo( off the motorway. it will free up ft roads for goods that always need tran porting by road."

He argues that the development these strategically important sites (al the FIA believes that seven are needi across the country to support the desi for increased freight capacity on tl rails) should now fall into the hands the government at a national level. B that means ministers and MPs focusi on the movement of freight and mak i the development of such hubs an imp< tant part of national planning stai me n ts.

"There have been warm words frc the government about migration to r freight, but there has not been a deterr nation to follow them through.

"But if the government really wants get more I IG Vs off the road, saving congestion and emissions, you have to have the right infrastructure in pla But typically the right places are nu major conurbations and people are ways going to object if you build green belt land."

It seems if locals are to continue ca paigning against multi-modal hub do opments. there will inevitably he ( byproduct: the amount of freight on• roads will not fall by a single pallet. •


comments powered by Disqus