Representation by Gary Rooney
- Date submitted
- 20 April 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
The loss of some 400 acres of good quality farmland is unnecessary and lamentable and will result in an ecological loss of wildlife, due to the destruction of huge amounts of natural habitat such as long established hedgerows, streams, natural corridors and woodland/trees. The changes to this environment will be permanent as will the displacement of wildlife. Land for food production is a valuable national asset and with an increasingly volatile world, the UK’s ability to produce sufficient food is an essential consideration, the energy alleged to be produced by this development could be readily produced by other means on other sites more suited to development, including wind and tidal power sources or solar systems on existing residential or commercial buildings. An area of significant natural beauty will be destroyed as will the ability for residents of the area to enjoy the area as an amenity and visually. The draw for many visitors and walkers to the area will be significantly reduced, impacting local business. Long established footpaths will be lost. The value of the existing environment for human wellbeing and mental health is well established, this will be replaced with a horrible carbuncle if this development proceeds. It is my understanding that during construction there will be numerous HGV and other commercial vehicles moving to and from site every single day. Frankly, the roads in this area are already unfit for purpose, narrow, dangerous bends, soft verges, riddled with potholes and the addition of numerous commercial vehicles on these roads and passing through small villages will simply degrade the road network to the point the roads will be too dangerous for all local residents. The proposal to route major abnormal loads through Coton in the Elms is madness, the roads are simply not suitable, and such a suggestion is utterly dismissive of the rights of residents to peacefully enjoy their environment and property. The pursuit of profit by a company and its shareholders does not trump the rights and needs of residents or the destruction of such a valuable, natural, asset with all the benefits it already affords so many people. We experience regular surface flooding on all roads in the area, the additional hardstanding areas will add to the risk of local surface flooding, and with increasing disruption from weather events being more likely in the future we can only expect this development to make matters significantly worse. There will be unsightly protective screening along roadsides for a decade to reduce the obvious issue of glint and glare being a danger to drivers on local roads, roads that are already a challenge for local residents without these additional dangers being added into the mix. The environmental damage is not limited to the above, there will also be exponential increases in noise, vibration and lighting causing issues for residents and wildlife alike. Sound, in particular, travels in this environment and so this will directly impact on residents over a wide area, including all the local schools. Sadly, experience proves that developers promise the Earth but very rarely, if ever, deliver on promises, on time and in full. The residents of Walton are still waiting for a new Bridge, despite the promise of it by the developers at Drakelow. That development, and this proposed development will place incredible pressure on the local roads and infrastructure. Look at the joke that is HS2 - the lure of profit blinding all to the lack of ‘need’ or justification for the development in the first place, let alone the benefit when all costs, financial or otherwise, are counted. The local residents are being asked to pay a heavy price by the developers, and for what? There are no benefits for the local residents, the environment or wildlife - just disruption and degradation of the local environment. This is a cheap option for the developers to make as much money as they can, at the expense of the local population. The business case put forward is unconvincing, further shades of HS2 it seems. It is also easy to see that there are very real fire risks with Li-ion batteries, that can overheat on a cellular level and start a cascade through a battery that is difficult to control. We only have to see instances of battery fires with much smaller batteries on electric vehicles etc - this site proposes 70+ containers of those batteries - presenting a danger to the locals and environment and placing further demands on the already stretched local fire and police services, as will the inevitable instances of theft and vandalism. This proposal has no merit. Just because you can, doesn’t mean it is right to do so. On a proper critical analysis of the true costs of this proposal, the cost is too much, the potential benefits, negligible.