HELIOSLOUGH'S planning expert is making a robust defence of the project, stressing that much of the case against it was dismissed at the earlier inquiry.

He has told the hearing the company's decision to restrict the search for alternative sites to the north-west Home Counties had been described by the first inspector as “sensible and reliable”, while the arguments about views and merging of settlements had been considered in great depth.

As he examines his witness, Mr Kingston is attacking the council's arguments that the project is premature because a forthcoming official policy statement may alter the need for railfreight terminals.

Mr Tilley has said that a recent letter from the Department of Transport indicated there was unlikely to be any major change in policy.

Defending Helioslough's strategy of developing a railfreight terminal through a plannning application, he said there were no similar projects proposed independently by local authorities.

He that Luton Borough Council was backing a project at Sundon, to the north of the town, but this was much smaller, and likely to be merely complementary to a larger scheme.

Mr Tilley added there were no large railfreight depots in the South East and not even any under construction, casting doubt on whether the Thames Gateway project near Thurrock in Essex could be a replacement for Helioslough's scheme.