Representation by Catherine Cole
- Date submitted
- 25 May 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
The local infrastructure is completely unable to support a new rail freight interchange – this is both in terms of the capability of the railway line and also the local roads. In addition, the huge increase in levels of local pollution (right next to an area where local children are currently able to enjoy the outdoors in fresh air) Although the aim is to reduce lorries on the roads, once freight had arrived at the interchange it would move onto lorries and onto the surrounding highways. The interchange would have an exit onto the M69. This is a short motorway of only 15 miles so within a very short time of beginning their journey, vehicles would need to join another road. If travelling North East on the M69 the traffic would have to join the M1. The interchange between the M69 and M1 is not a high capacity motorway interchange; there is only one low capacity filter lane from M69to M1 north and all other traffic has to navigate a roundabout that also links to local traffic (shopping centres and suburbs). The roundabout is already unable to process traffic at a high rate so there is very high congestion at peak times every day. A majority of traffic travelling towards the city of Leicester also takes this junction which is already struggling to cope with the current levels of traffic. If travelling South West on the M69 the traffic could join the M6, A5 or the A46 (Coventry outer ring road) The A5 is a major trunk road for much of its length. However, this is not the case within a relatively high distance either side of the M69. Travelling North West the A5 is single carriageway with a low-height bridge, making it unusable for standard sized lorries. Travelling South East the A5 is a winding single carriageway road, unable to take the levels of traffic that a dual carriage road could manage and also including a junction that is an accident blackspot (Smockington Hollow). This would be even more dangerous with the increased levels of traffic that would ensue from the freight interchange. The M69 to M6 is again not a high capacity interchange with only one low capacity filter lane from M69 to M6 North West and one for the opposite journey. There are no filter lanes between the M6 East and the M69. In order for traffic travelling south on the M69 to join M6 East, a lane leads to a roundabout, which also takes the traffic travelling West on the M6 which wishes to join the M69 in either direction, all of whom must navigate another low capacity roundabout that also has local shopping and suburban traffic. The A46 Coventry ring road is accessed by another roundabout, again with no filter lanes and again sharing this junction with local suburban and also local hospital traffic. The local roads within Hinckley are again unsuitable for large amounts of lorry traffic. There is a second low height bridge (which means lorries cannot use the route) and the A47 which has been proposed as a possible second exit from the site is single carriageway in one direction and has multiple roundabouts with local traffic including supermarkets and housing estates in the other direction. The railway itself has a relatively low rate of trains: one per hour in each direction stopping at Hinckley and an additional one per hour in each direction through train, plus a relatively small amount of freight. The two low height railway bridges are both on this line. The A5 regularly appears in the list of the most bashed bridges in the UK with 25 accidents one year. The Hinckley bridge is also regularly hit by lorries. Each time there is a collision the railway line is closed to all trains for a considerable time while the bridge is checked by engineers. On average this is more than once every two weeks and the additional traffic on the line caused by the freight terminal will affect the train services to local people by increasing the delays experienced in these circumstances. Burbage Common contains areas of Ancient Woodland and unspoilt grassland; recent surveys by Leicestershire CC note that at just over 4% cover of mature woodland, Leicestershire and Rutland are particularly poorly wooded. Even more concerningly, the woodland is a biological Site of Special Scientific Interest and must not be threatened by development close by. The woods and common areas are home to a multitude of flora and fauna which would be considerably impacted by the increased levels of pollution and heavy traffic. Leicestershire CC note in their report that woodland is impacted unduly by built development sited too close to existing woodlands and by pollution. Research shows that dust originating from road surfaces can carry pollutants such as heavy metals from roads to nearby habitats and that runoff from roadways and parking lots can produce increased pollutant loadings to wetlands and streams unless the runoff is treated. The dust and pollution run off from the rail freight would be devastating to the ancient woodland and common areas and inevitable given the close proximity of the planned development. There are areas of woodland, rough grassland, common areas, streams and also ponds filled with wildlife. Perhaps the site has been chosen due to it being a cheap option – it is much cheaper for developers to build on greenfield sites than it is to redevelop areas that are already industrialised. It would also appear to have been chosen for what at a quick glance would appear to be good road connections – although on closer inspection in becomes clear that the local infrastructure is far below the standard required to support the huge increase in traffic that would occur. There are already rail interchanges relatively locally at East Midlands (only 20 miles away) and Daventry (less than 20 miles away) both of which benefit from considerably better road networks surrounding them. (4 land M1, 3 lane A50 – with proper road interchanges) Daventry is also on an electrified line so pollution is lower, whereas the Hinckley line would have to use more polluting trains. In addition, neither of the local freight terminals is currently used anyway near to capacity in terms of the amount of rail freight and therefore building another interchange in the same area is completely unnecessary. In conclusion, the local infrastructure is insufficient to cope with the levels of increased traffic, both on the line and on the roads, the level of pollution is unacceptable given the site’s proximity to a biological SSSI and with other rail freight terminals nowhere near capacity there is not a need for a site on this line.