PLANS to build a new superstore in Leominster could be derailed because of the proposed site’s proximity to a level crossing.

Network Rail has objected to the building of a Sainsbury’s store on the site of the Dales factory at Mill Street due to safety reasons.

The company said it could only consider the proposal if the level crossing was replaced by a new road bridge taking traffic over the railway.

In a letter to Herefordshire Council planners, Barbara Morgan of Network Rail said: “The proposed development will significantly increase the use of the level crossing on Mill Street which may have safety implications.

“The increased use of the crossing cannot be looked upon favourably by Network Rail.

“It is an automatic half barrier crossing which will see an increase in road vehicles potentially zig-zagging around the barriers.”

Mill Street is part of the signed route for A44 traffic going through Leominster.

The regular traffic flow includes 40 to 50 HGVs and articulated lorries an hour and holidaymakers towing caravans to and from mid- Wales.

Ms Morgan also wrote: “Network Rail is likely to withdraw any objection if an acceptable solution can be found regarding the potential safety issues associated with the increased use of the level crossing, therefore we cannot express strongly enough the need for a new road bridge to be provided as part of the overall scheme and the closure of the level crossing.”

The Friends of Leominster action group – which is calling on council planners to reject the Sainsbury’s plan – said this week that Network Rail’s objection had strengthened its case.

Group member Joan Thwaites said: “The development would involve erecting an additional set of traffic lights in Mill Street by the Sainsburys entrance a short distance along from the level crossing.

“We have raised concerns over potential problems from the backing up of the traffic queue to the crossing and increased congestion.

“What with the threat to the trade of our town centre shops and stores, this highways issue underlines the case for rejecting the superstore plan.”