At Prime Minister’s Questions last week, Anne called on the Prime Minister to ensure that those residents affected by rail freight are compensated should the proposal be given the go ahead. In Prime Minister’s Questions Anne said:
“Does my right hon. Friend agree that if a community is obliged to take a strategic piece of infrastructure, there should be agreements for payments and compensation for any blight that is caused by a nationally important piece of structure like a rail freight interchange?”

The Prime Minister responded by saying that: “My hon. Friend makes a very important point. That is why section 106 agreements exist. We need to keep this under active review, particularly with a view to how we are going to handle fracking and shale gas, for instance, where we might need a simpler and more direct mechanism to make sure that communities feel the real benefit of things that benefit the economy overall.”
Following her question, Anne wrote to the Prime Minister reiterating her opposition to the rail freight proposal and highlighting the adverse affect that this development would have on local residents. Whilst Anne has been questioning the Prime Minister, the High Court turned down St Albans Council’s request for a judicial review into why the Colnbrook and Radlett inquires were not conjoined. The Council has subsequently asked for this decision to be reconsidered.

Commenting on the both of these, Anne said:
“I will not stop battling this proposal; there are so many flaws with this application. As I pointed out to the Prime Minister, it would be discriminatory and unjust for any community to accept a strategic piece of infrastructure without recognising any potential blight. There has been no discussion of compensation with my constituents.

“Already properties in and around this site have experienced collapses in the selling chain and difficulties in selling their homes, this is unfair. We must ensure that this application is thoroughly probed and hopefully rejected, which is why I believe it is right that the Council resists it at every stage of the process.

“Until this matter is finally decided I will continue to point out to all relevant bodies the flaws and failings of the project. I still believe this will be a Trojan horse development that will end up as a massive lorry park, the built-in thirty year life expectancy hints at the reality of this. I will continue to lobby Ministers and indeed the Prime Minister on this matter. If this Coalition Government is to
stand up for the defence of the green belt, then it should demonstrate its support by rejecting this proposal.”

| Letter to the Prime Minister, 21st June 2013

PMQs FULL TEXT:

Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend agree that if a community is obliged to take a strategic piece of infrastructure, there should be agreements for payments and compensation for any blight that is caused by a nationally important piece of structure like a rail freight interchange?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. That is why section 106 agreements exist. We need to keep this under active review, particularly with a view to how we are going to handle fracking and shale gas, for instance, where we might need a simpler and more direct mechanism to make sure that communities feel the real benefit of things that benefit the economy overall.

| Hansard