Planning Bill

I might as well speak to the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and to my Amendments Nos. 146 to 151. He optimistically wonders how many new railway lines will be built between Scotland and England. It might happen one day, but his Scottish Government, if I can call them that, are already building the Borders line half way to Carlisle. Perhaps it will go all the way to Carlisle, in which case they will have an interesting project. It is an interesting idea, anyway. My amendments relate to Clause 25 and rail freight interchanges. I put on record my thanks to officials in the sponsoring department of the Bill and the Department for Transport for some interesting discussions. We did not always agree, but we had some useful debates. Amendment No. 146 would reduce the lower limit for a rail freight interchange from 60 hectares to 30. Amendment No. 150 would insert a definition of area, because if we do not have one, what are we talking about? A rail freight terminal—here I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group—includes the area for which you seek planning permission, some environmental protection measures, one hopes, access roads, access railways, sidings, hard standing and sheds. How you define the area therefore has a significant effect on how big it should be. I am talking about the lower limit of something that we are defining as strategic, so the amendment offers a way of defining such an area. If Ministers think that the definition should be different, we will probably end up with a different number. The key thing is to have an area. Sixty hectares is too big for a terminal that is strategic. A network of terminals is needed around the country if rail freight is to make sense. The terminals need to be well distributed if one is to avoid long road journeys at each end of them. In other words, one terminal in London is insufficient, because London is so large that three, four or even several more will probably be needed. Sixty hectares may be fine—even 80 hectares may be fine—for a greenfield site, as many greenfield sites that are anywhere near major conurbations will also be in a green belt, which does not help to get planning permission. However, if a site can be found that is closer to the centre of consumption or production, one might well have to make do with a smaller area because of land values and a lack of land. One should also bear in mind that a terminal needs good road access, good rail access and all the other conditions that I mentioned, which are in short supply. Of the existing terminals, of which there are quite a number, some are much smaller, whereas one or two are larger. However, a network of terminals is needed to enable the Government’s transport policy to be implemented to grow the volume of rail freight, so it would be good if the area limit was reduced to 30 hectares. An application for a terminal in Radlett, which seems to be the home of many Liberal Democrats, was rejected last week for whatever reason. I shall not comment on it, but these things do get rejected, so my Amendments Nos. 146 and 149 propose an area of 30 hectares. My other amendments are quite small. I do not like the phrase ““container train””, because it is not right to say in a Bill how goods are carried in a train. They might be carried in containers or in wagons; it does not really matter. They are being carried, which is the important thing. I want to change the word ““container”” to ““goods””, which is the normal word used in legislation. As regards storing the goods in warehouses, the important thing is for the goods to be stored. The words ““suitable storage facilities”” are not as prescriptive as the word ““warehouses””. Finally, on Amendment No. 151, if the Minister accepts that the words ““container train”” should be changed to ““goods train””, a definition of the words ““container train”” is unnecessary in Clause 25(9). That summarises these amendments.