A PROPOSED railfreight terminal would devastate open Green Belt land and would fail in its objectives, a campaign group has told a planning inquiry.

Inspector Andy Mead, chairing the inquiry into developer Helioslough’s second planning application for a “strategic railfreight interchange” on the former Handley Page airfield between Park Street and London Colney, has this week heard legal arguments from group Strife, St Albans District Council and the developer.

Just before the 19-day battle began on Tuesday, campaigners gathered outside the district council’s offices to vent their determined opposition to the plans.

During the opening exchanges, Strife’s barrister Paul Stinchcombe told the inquiry: “The largest shed would be bigger than Terminal Five at Heathrow. “ The proposal would be a gigantic sprawl of a built up area into open Green Belt land. It would result in the encroachment of huge warehouses into the countryside. “ The location poses very profound difficulties indeed.

The Midland main line is already one of the most intensively used lines on the whole network.

“This would be permitted on a false prospectus that it can meet a need for the interchange between rail and road, only for it to operate as a predominantly road-to-road depot.

This would fly in the face of every tier of plannning policy.”

The district council’s barrister Matthew Reed added: “This was unacceptable when it was considered by Inspector Phillipson in 2007 – it is unacceptable now.

“The council will provide substantial evidence to this inquiry, which was not before Inspector Phillipson, to show that the occupiers of the railfreight terminal need not be centered in the north-west sector.

“Alternatives may be appropriately sited in numerous locations In London and the South East.

“There are other, better locations.

“The size, height, mass bulk and scale of the proposed development would be highly damaging to this part of the Green Belt, which provides an important gap between Park Street and London Colney.”

But in his opening statement, Helioslough’s representative Martin Kingston said: “The council has chosen, on a range of issues, not to respect the findings of the inspector and Secretary of State and insists on having another go simply because it disagrees with their conclusions.

“The proposals have been exhaustively examined and been found to be acceptable in all material particulars. The only concern was with regard to the potential availability of an alternative.

“That deficiency has now been corrected and there is now no reason why planning permission should not be granted.”

Outside, protester Dr Sandy Chalmers of Park Street told the Review: “I am very concerned about traffic and the loss of Green Belt. “I know the company says there will be a by-pass for Park Street but as soon as the lorry drivers see the queue they will go straight through Park Street.

“Why don’t they put the railfreight terminal in Sundon near Luton?

“That is a brownfield site and there is a workforce nearby.”