Representation by Mr Stephen Turner
- Date submitted
- 12 May 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I do not agree with the need for this site for the following reasons. There is adequate capacity at other sites within 60 miles, these facilities are not running at full capacity and it would be far more cost effective to extend these if required rather than building a new facility Tritax seem to have a solution looking for a problem, there first submission as well as not taking into account existing road infrastructure constraints that already exist, they claimed this was required for the automobile industry. Now that the Gigafactory is being built in Europe rather than Coventry, this need has gone away, so Tritax have invented different reasons which do not stack up, as there is no massive increase in demand from anywhere else. Tritax claim this facility will move traffic from road to rail thus improving the environment and reducing CO2 output, yet by their own estimates, this facility will add c.20,000 additional road traffic movements. This argument does not hold up The local road infrastructure is already overloaded with the A46/M69 junction, the M69/M1 junction and the A5. /M69 junction having tailback of up to 2 miles most weekdays during morning and evening rush hours. The incremental traffic will have nowhere to go, and will make the situation worse causing delays for all local and pass through commuters as well as generating incremental exhaust gas emissions. Local roads and M69 already in terrible state of repair with potholes across all lanes, the additional traffic will make this worse, cause additional emissions and potentially an accident. The building if the facility as well as the operating of it will have a hugely detrimental effective to local nature and wildlife, particularly Burbage common and Woods which are directly adjacent to the proposed facility. Also local farm land will be destroyed as wel as open field walkways (with clear views), and existing local farm businesses will be shut down if this goes ahead. Building new walkways through and around massive warehouses is not a suitable replacement. Burbage Common will likely lose most of its bird life due to the light, dust and noise pollution that will be generated during both the building and operating if the facility Burbage village already suffers huge congestion and has a number of narrow tight bends which are not capable of taking large trucks, there are 4 schools and a large nursery in the local vicinity and additional truck traffic coming into this area, will cause traffic disruption for all residents and risk children being injured as the area almost purely residential. There are 2 low bridges locally which the tallest HGV do not fit under, these are hit roughly once a fortnight resulting in A5 closure and disruption to Hinckley Town Centre, as well as diverted traffic causing safety issues on roads not designed for that volume of traffic. Putting additional freight traffic through these will increase the number of incidents. Noise, Light, and dust pollution from the building and operating of the facility will have a negative health affect on Burbage and Sapcote residents close to the facility, as well as disrupting their daily lives through the significant increase in road traffic that this facility will create. Tritax claimed at the public reviews held locally that no site or operating traffic will be allowed back into Hinckley/Burbage even when the M69 is gridlocked, how will this be enforced ? Cameras etc were mentioned by Tritax, but it's not clear how enforcement would work. Will fines from contravention of the above be given back to the local communities ?