THE council's argument that the railfreight terminal will cause unacceptable noise has come under a sustained assault.

The authority's expert Simon Stephenson has been accused of not properly reviewing the evidence presented to the previous inquiry before criticising it , and has admitted there has been no important change of circumstances.

Mr Stephenson said this morning that another expert had given flawed evidence to the previous inquiry, which concluded there was no serious noise problem.

But in cross-examination, Martin Kingston pointed out he had been commenting on a document that had substantially modified before it was seen by the first inspector.

He said: “You did not review one of the most significant documents presented to the inquiry did you?”

The witness replied that he had reviewed the modified document , but had not explained this in his own proof of evidence.

The district council committee which refused planning permission was told there were new “radically lower” noise guidelines from the World Health Organisation, but Mr Stephenson has failed to support this.

He agreed when Mr Kingston said: “This difference is not significant is it?”

He also agreed that the first inspector had gone into the question of noise in great detail, and has admitted failing to provide his own report to Helioslough's expert for review.

In a bid to show that Mr Stephenson's evidence is not objective, Mr Kingston has asked for his written instructions from the council.