A new £750m railfreight interchange near Leicester, potentially creating up to 8000 jobs has been declined by the UK Government, which seems at real odds with the ‘pro-growth’ mantra of that same Government.
Presumably, the financing of this scheme was to be made by its developers Tritax Symmetry, so wouldn’t be on the Government’s balance sheet at all, so why block such a large private investment into the UK’s rail network?
The reasons mentioned seem fairly weak, and probably could have been resolved with a bit of wider thought, if a more ‘can do’ approach had been taken?
With potential for 8000 jobs, and the general benefit of railfreight reducing lorry trips and consequently carbon emissions, especially from long distance lorry trips, then why was it turned down?
One was that junctions on the M69 might not be able to cope with additional lorry movements; if that is the case, then upgrade the junctions if needed to manage flows seems the more reasonable position?
The ”potential highways safety risk’ in Sapcote’ would be interesting to know more details about to again find solutions, rather than simply saying ‘no’.
The Narborough level crossing issue with 775m trains is again something that strikes as a ‘say no’ automated response rather than ‘what can be done at Narborough Level Crossing to fix the problem?’ Given that replacement of level crossings is generally a benefit in itself, then why couldn’t replacing Narborough be looked into?
‘Alexander said she accepted there was a “compelling need” for the development nationally and in south west Leicestershire.‘
If there is indeed a ‘compelling need’ for this scheme, then surely the Government and Heidi Alexander in particular needs to work on what fixes are needed to make it work, not just say ‘no’?
Ryan Hogg 