PLANS for a ‘nationally important rail’ project have been thrown out by Sandwell Council after claims they had failed to show how local people and the environment would be protected.

The proposal by Network Rail to build a railway sleeper factory on Bescot sidings was rejected unanimously by councillors despite a last minute plea by the company to defer the decision so it could provide more evidence.

The judgement was applauded by campaigners opposed to the plans for a manufacturing plant which would have produced 600,000 cast concrete units per year.

Lead campaigner Wayne Trinder said he could now rest after a long battle to prevent the factory being built.

“I feel absolutely ecstatic, I feel that I can come off the gas a bit after two years of hard work. I can now enjoy a Christmas with my family.”

Asked what objectors will do if Network Rail successfully appeals the decision to a government appointed planning inspector, he said: “We will have to see what doors and options are open to us.  Who knows? The court of human rights!”

He added:  “We are taking on a multi-million pound national company and we are just a bunch of residents, so they got more financial backing and legal support than we will ever have but we aren’t just going to roll over and go away.”

Protesters claimed the plant would add to air pollution in an area already badly effected by the nearby M6, while silica used in the manufacturing process could harm the health of people living close to the site. 

During the specially held planning committee meeting, planning officers recommended refusal saying the company had failed to show how it would protect the area from water run off and the possible land contamination. 

Environment officers said Network Rail’s evidence was based on occupational studies of employees at existing factories and had not addressed the potential impact on people living close to the proposed site. 

Anthony Morley, project director for Network Rail, said the factory was of national importance to the rail infrastructure, adding the council had only asked for additional evidence after it had published its recommendation to reject the scheme.

He argued any decision should be deferred to allow the company time to respond to planning officers’ concerns.