Campaigners who packed a planning meeting last night burst into applause when coucillors unanimously threw out the second application for a giant goods yard on Green Belt land near Radlett.

But would-be developer Helioslough has confirmed there will be an immediate appeal, with a second public enquiry already scheduled for October 12, heaping yet more expense on St Albans District Council which has already spent nearly £700,000 on the battle.

A special meeting of the council's planning referrals committee heard several speeches against the controversial proposal and one in favour from Simon Hoare of Helioslough.

The meeting heard that the authority had received some 1,200 letters against the project and only one or two in favour, as well as last minute objections from Hertfordshire County Council, Hertsmere Borough Council and the Association of Train Operating Companies.

Adrian Wallace of the campaign group Strife told the panel: “This will turn a substantial section of the Green Belt into a huge industrial complex.

“It will have a detrimental affect on the quality of life of everyone living in the area.

“We know that the cost of resisting an appeal will be substantial, but you must stand firm.”

St Albans MP Anne Main challenged whether the level of goods traffic envisaged by Helioslough was possible on the already busy Midland Main Line. She said: “This is fundamentally flawed. Many of our prosperous parts of St Albans will wither on the vine. We will be left with a massive lorry park.”

Peter Trevelyan, chairman of the St Albans Civic Society, said: “St Albans will appear to a train passenger to be joined with Radlett as one continuous urban sprawl.”

But Mr Hoare said: “If there was an alternative site not within the Green Belt it would be easier, cheaper and far less stressful to choose that for development.

“Your officers say our alternative sites assessment is inadequate – they do not say why.

“We are very confident with our methodology, which is precisely that used for Highfield Park in Kent where a strategic railfreight terminal has already been approved by the Secretary of State.”

The first application was thrown out after an eight-week public enquiry mainly because of flaws in the alternative sites assessment, which purported to show there is nowhere else in the Home Counties north-west of London to build a major rail-connected freight terminal other than the former airfield between Park Street and London Colney.

The renewed application is supported by a new sites assessment, likely to prove critical at the second public enquiry.

Mr Hoare quoted Government advice indicating that developers' appeal costs can be awarded against local authorities refusing planning applications already approved in principle by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

But transport expert and planning consultant Ben Wilson, acting for the district council, said: “We feel there is a lack of objectivity in the site selection report. If you chose a different weighting method it is possible you would get a different answer.”