Cyngor i Simon Gibson
Yn ôl i'r rhestrYmholiad
- Oddiwrth
- Simon Gibson
- Y dyddiad y rhoddwyd y cyngor
- 26 Medi 2014
- Math o ymholiad
The proposed SRFI Warehouse Park at Lockington, since it's first incepetion, has been promoted to all concerned under a number of false pretences by the developer and by developers lobbyist, local Conservative MP, Andrew Bridgen.
Namely....
It was origimnally stated from the outset (at the initial public meeting which took place in the Castle Donington Spittal building) that use of this high quality green belt agricultural land on which to site this development was vital, as it was located in a unique position due to the coincident presence of both the airport and a nearby freight rail line.... This has turned out to be totally untrue as it has now been confirmed by the developers representatives that there will be virtually zero air side business benefit crossover and that the proposed development will be operating in, and I quote, "a totally different market" to the air freight operation at the airport. Air freight pre-dominantly deals in small packaging, whereas the propsed development will specifically focus on the large packaging marketplace. So in reality the coincident presence of the airport in relation to the proposed site offers no business or ecological advantage whatsoever and in essence therefore has absolutely nothing to do with the application to use this land.
The development was stated to be a totally privately financed initiative... again, not true as the taxpayer will now have to pay for a £121M subsidy to enable the extension of the HS2 tunnel required to get under this development. The developers representatives confirmed to me personally that HS2, i.e. the UK taxpayer, will be meeting all of these additional tunnelling costs, which would be totally unnecessary should the development be sited elsewhere.
That the proposed capacity required by this project was far greater than already existing, freely available, totally underutilised and identical facilities at the nearby Castle Donington power station development.... Self evidently not true as this site has enjoyed only a 30% takeup over the past fifteen years or so since it's original inception, and remains at this level today. There is masses of vacant space yet to be taken up here which should be fully exploited before building any more white elephant projects where capacity take up projections have been massively overstated. Especially at the taxpayers expense.
It was further stated that the existing road to rail terminal facilities at the Castle Donington site ' belonged' to Marks and Spencer and could not be accessed by any other users. This also self evidently cannot be true as the whole point and scale of the power station freight to rail site was scoped on enabling all site users access to rail mounting facilities. The lobbyists for this project also state that the Castle Donington site is regionally managed and therfore not accessible to potential national users, and outside of the governments national SFRI remit. This is akin to the government choosing not to take account of what exists in a locality before spending money on unnecessary duplication, and is simply illogical nonsense. This is quite obviously a red herring being used by the developers lobbyists to confuse and obfiscate local objections on grounds of sensible utilisation of existing facilities.
A number of assurances offered by the developers lobbyist, MP Andrew Brigden, have already been broken by the developer. Primary amongst these is the backtracking (if that is what it in fact was?) on the measure to prevent both noise and light pollution on the North side of the village from the proposed new rail link and goods yard. Andrew Brigden stated quite clearly to me in writing that the line would be in a 15m cutting below ground level around the North of the village to mitigate against noise and light pollution etc. At the developer 'consultation' event at Lockington Village Hall, it was clearly shown on the plans that no such cutting will be provided, a simple fence being erected in front of the surface level line instead. A cutting was stated by the developer to be 'far too expensive'.
The SFRI initiative in general was designed to get freight off UK motorways and onto the railways. All well and good in principle, and one which I have no objection to, however in respect of the Lockington site, the developers representatives have also stated that a large proportion of the incoming freight for transfer to rail will be driven up to the site by road from the south coast!! This hardly meets the stated intention or sentiment of such an objective, and in my opinion should be strongly challenged in any planning adjudication. This presumably as there is a lack of enthusiasm for siting an alternative development more sensibly nearer to the coast...... Again this serves to illustrate that the whole national SFRI concept has not been sufficiently thought through and siting this development at Lockington will not meet it's conceptual requirements.
Despite repeated requests of the developer and his lobbyist local MP, to produce metricated documentary evidence of the supposed seven thousand long term jobs said to be associated with this development, both parties have repeatedly refused to do so. This fact alone has to be regarded as highly suspicious, given the other 'changes of planning detail' that have transpired since the first round of public meetings.
In submitting these comments, I respectfully request all those who are in a position to influence the planning decision to take detailed consideration of the above facts, and in particular the cost of this development to the UK taxpayer when considering the developers application. The alternaitve site at Egginton attracts no such UK taxpayer subsidy burden and given the now disproved claims by the developer and his MP representative regarding the close proximity of the airport, should be considered as the sensible first choice location for this inept and totally redeundant development should the proposal be allowed to go ahead.
Cyngor a roddwyd
As you are likely aware, on 19 September 2014 the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) made its decision that the application by Roxhill (Kegworth) Ltd was of a satisfactory standard to proceed to be examined.
Importantly, the Inspectorate?s decision to accept the application to be examined did not comprise any consideration of the merits of the application. These issues will be tested in detail by an appointed Examining Authority at the appropriate time.
The examination of the application cannot commence until a ?relevant representations? period has elapsed; a minimum period of 28 days within which anybody can register to become and ?interested party?, enabling them to make written and oral representations about the application throughout the six month examination period.
The applicant advertised the acceptance of the application today (26 September 2014), and the relevant representations period for the application period opened concurrently. In order for the comments comprised within your email to be considered by an Examining Authority, once appointed, I must request that you register as an interested party as described above. The comments comprised within your email concerning the merits of the application should be repeated on the appropriate prescribed form. The form is available by clicking the following link:
Please be aware that the deadline for making a relevant representation is 3 November 2014. For more information on how to register as an interested party please read the Inspectorate?s associated advice note (Advice note 8.3: How to register and become an interested part in an examination), available here:
http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/legislation-and-advice/advice-notes/
The Inspectorate has also produced a short film explaining the process from end-to-end, available here:
http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/application-process/the-process/