Representation by Mrs Catherine Bass
- Date submitted
- 11 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Noise • As a villager that lives in close proximity to the rail line and the proposed RFI , I feel there will be an impact to my day to day living caused by the increase in noise , this will be the case from initial building phases right through to operational phase. During operational phase this will be 24 hrs a day / 365 days a year. Any increase in noise level overnight would impact residents ability to leave windows open and not have sleep disturbed. • I would like further information as to the rationale behind the decision not to add any further noise attenuation barriers outside of the DCO boundary but along the train line to reduce the impact of noise to local residents. Vibration • A number of my neighbours already suffer with vibration caused by the trains as they pass, this will no doubt worsen with longer and more frequent trains Light • There was very little information given in relation to the lighting strategy. The Calor site in 10 times smaller than the proposed development and the ‘glow’ from there can be seen for miles. I feel that even with strategic lighting , there will be an impact to not only those living locally but also the local wildlife Air Quality • My [Redacted] and the change in air quality is of a big concern to me, initially during the building phase as especially in the warmer months the earth and soil is very dry and any disturbance to this causes 'dust' in the air, this will have an impact on [Redacted], in addition to this there will also be the emissions of the plant machinery, [Redacted] is much better managed since moving to Elmesthorpe than it was when we lived in a busy town. During operation the HNRFI will have significant vehicle movements both around the site and inside all causing an increase in the emissions in the local air. Traffic safety • I feel that there needs to be further investigation into the impact on the local roads , Elmesthorpe is a ribbon village and any increase in traffic will have an impact on the safety of the road ( there have been a number of accidents over the years, mainly close to the railway bridge ) • The addition of an unsupervised crossing on the B581 at the base of the railway bridge close to the entrance to Bostock Close needs to be revisited , this is a very dangerous bit of road and there have been numerous accidents over the years – adding a crossing there will increase the risk to pedestrians. Flood Risk • Burbage Common Road is known to flood as is the area around this, the base of the bridge on B581 at the Bostock Close side is also known to flood • Severn Trent Water has stated that sewerage pumping station and combined sewer overflow in Bostock Close would not be able to manage with the increase demand from the development, therefore Bostock Close would be subjected to further works involved in the improvements required for the pumping station and sewer overflow as these would be fed by the development as they are the closest , as Bostock Close is only a small road consisting of 23 houses and is not a through road so the impact during the work would be very disruptive Public right of way • The plan to close the public footpath T89 at the rail track and for walkers to walk along Bostock and across station road , whilst this may seem a trivial point , this will increase foot fall in the close and past my house • The re routing of the footpaths to Burbage Common will mean that in order to access Burbage Common or the Elmesthorpe Plantation we will have to walk along the new bridlepath , which will sandwich us between the industrial estate and the M69 – not really an attractive option , definitely not tranquil and serene and with nervous animals such as dogs or horses will certainly not be enjoyable. Therefore I feel that Elmesthorpe is being cut off almost completely from the Common. Employment • employment in this area is lower than the national average therefore a large proportion of the staff would need to travel from further afield. Parking • whilst there is a lorry park onsite , it needs be alluring enough and free to discourage drivers using our village as an extended lorry park , there are not many places that you can park a HGV in the village without causing havoc but I’m sure we will still see it happen , also has consideration been made for the vehicles that will park up for a number of days until a return job is available for them , many will not simply drop and go ! staff parking may be available on site but what is to prevent staff from parking in the village and simply walking in as they work at this end of the development and don’t want to queue on the link road at shift change time. Wildlife • I doubt that the wildlife will return to the area once the building phase is complete , it will be bright , loud , high traffic areas , despite the green areas being added to the proposals and the Burbage Common extension it will not be enough for the wildlife to return as their habitats will be destroyed. Visual impact • The visual impact on the village will be catastrophic , the photomontages and visual impact photos did not accurately represent the view or impact from many points within the village , and therefore did not accurately represent the impact on the residential properties. • The landscaping is not sufficient to screen the proposed development , consideration needs to be given to further landscaping to provide screening for the construction phase and year 1 completion – as the landscaping proposed will take 15 + years to mature • Further consideration should be given to ‘ fill in the gaps’ of current vegetation / trees to provide further screening