Representation by Barbara Wistow
- Date submitted
- 14 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I am a Hinckley resident and having attended two local consultation meetings and read widely about the subject, I wish it to be recorded that I am totally against the plan to develop the area adjacent to Burbage Common, Hinckley into a National Rail Freight Interchange (HNRFI). This objection is supported by objections from Leicestershire County Council, our local MP, Dr Luke Evans, Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council, Hinckley Borough Council and Councils from surrounding villages - to my knowledge. There may well be more. I will outline my objections below and then detail them in the main body of this letter. • The industrial estate and rail freight interchange are unnecessary as there are 5 major hubs, one of which is the largest in Europe, within a short distance of the town. • There is no market in the surrounding area for the goods proposed by the developers. • Road systems in the local area are already at a standstill, including the M69 and M1 at junction 21. • The main road into Hinckley which is likely to be used is already hazardous for the many unaccompanied children plus adult pedestrians. • There is insufficient provision in the proposal for walkers currently using public rights of way in the area. • The increase in train, HGV and workers’ noise and traffic is unacceptable in close proximity to a country park. • The pollution caused by such a development is bound to adversely affect the humans and wildlife on Burbage Common. • Drainage is extremely poor on the Common and siting a large industrial estate right next to it is bound to increase these problems and turn the ground into a lake. My detailed analysis of their plans and repercussions follows: THE POSITION OF THIS SITE IS ILL – ADVISED There are already 5 such interchanges in the West and East Midlands and there is significant overlap of these sites - which can be expanded, if demand requires it. Therefore, there is no need for additional capacity. Indeed, Magna Park and the DIRFT hub are only 9 miles away. Surely it would be far more cost - effective and less damaging to the environment to fully rail - link this area (the DIRFT) which already has good rail and road inks and additional capacity. It would be more cost effective and environmentally friendly to fully link the DIRFT site. Government policy on this issue is clear that any new SRFI site should be situated close to the market it is intended to serve. With such an overlap already, it is extremely difficult to understand where the space for new markets would be found in our area and therefore the freight interchange is not required. Further, there is no motor industry in the area, although this is cited in the developer’s justification for the site. Additionally, on a national level, since all local markets are covered by the current rail freight interchange sites, it is more likely that goods would need to be transported to and from sites further afield, thereby negating the government policy for SRFIs which are designed to serve a local community. Therefore, whilst the aim of the site is to reduce emissions, these will increase. Tritax have made no attempt to ensure reduced emissions from HGVs or diesel trains. Although there is a proposal by Tritax that this line will eventually be electrified, since there are no timescales given, one can draw the conclusion that this won’t be any time soon. Without electrification from day one, this scheme should be a ‘non-starter’. Whilst I am in favour of reducing our national carbon footprint, my detailed analysis, below, will further outline how this will actually be increased if this development were allowed. ROADS The developers assert that traffic from the villages and roads to the north of Hinckley will use the road through industrial estate to access the M69 rather than continuing through the town. However, there is no mention of signage indicating M69 access via the road through the estate in both directions or attempts to make the road system through the estate user - friendly for such motorists. My experience says that it’s unlikely that normal road users would choose to drive through an industrial estate - especially one decanting heavy machinery (as is proposed) from trains. Road at the side of the Country Park, Burbage Common: Under the current proposal, the industrial site will be situated across a hedge from Burbage Common, the only easily accessible large open area of ground for miles. It is an extremely well – used and enjoyed area for local people to walk, play with children, walk dogs and enjoy a quiet drink or meal at the small café at Burbage Common entrance. The current proposal states that there will be two - half mile long trains an hour loading and unloading goods at the site. The associated HGVs, vans and worker’s cars needed to service this requirement will travel along the country road adjacent to the Common. The result of this will mean that there will be non-stop traffic day and night right along the whole of the northern side of the Common, which will amplify the constant noise from the trains and the site itself. It is a country park with great diversity of wildlife. If this plan were passed, it would result in constant noise, pollution and risk of accidents with loose dogs and children running and playing. It would ruin this lovely recreational area. Use of perimeter road (Normandy Way) to access the A5 for lorries to and from areas to the west and north of Hinckley: This road is already heavily congested - particularly at the Dodwell’s Bridge end approaching the A5, resulting from the positioning of large industrial estates on either side of the road approaching the A5 and feeding straight onto this road. Mile - long queues on this section of road are a daily occurrence. In the opposite direction, there are very long queues at peak times between the Morrison’s Supermarket turn and the Ashby Road (A447) junction. Residents in these areas already struggle to access the perimeter road from their estates. Further, 1000 more houses are planned along this route with the attendant additional traffic – all of which will make this road an impasse, should this development be accepted. What is needed is for the perimeter road/ Normandy Way to be made a dual carriageway. Additionally, the roundabout on the A5 junction needs addressing (once again) to allow for an improved flow of traffic in all directions. The developers have no intention of any involvement in these areas. Access to the A5 via M69: The developers informed me that they expect some lorries, vans and workers’ cars to access the A5 via the M69 (and vice versa) but the A5 between the M69 and the turning for Nuneaton, The Longshoot (A47), is already another bottleneck with stationary traffic at numerous times each day along the entire section. Again, a dual carriageway together with increasing the height and width of the railway bridge on this section is needed. When this was pointed out to the developers, this did not appear to be within their scoping of the area and they told me that it wasn’t their problem, it was for Highways England to sort out. The residents of Hinckley have been waiting 40 years for A5 improvements to be actioned but it has never happened. I have no reason to believe that this will happen any time soon. In the meantime, surely we are not expected to live with permanently grid - locked roads in our area? This has got to be a major stumbling block to siting the interchange adjacent to Barwell Common. It is inconceivable to think that a proposal such as this should be allowed to go forward without incorporating solutions that cover the total road network surrounding Hinckley. In the meantime, the additional traffic, estimated by Tritax to be 10,000 HGVs journeys a day and 8,400 worker movements daily would catastrophically add to the stresses on this already grid-locked section of road. Access to the M1 via the M69 Another reason behind the positioning of the estate is said to enable lorries to carry heavy goods to the M1 motorway via the M69. However, the M69 has stationary traffic for miles at peak times of the day waiting to leave it via either the M1 at Junction 21 or to travel into/around Leicester. The same is true of the M1 for most of the day, where there is stationary southward queueing traffic attempting to leave at the Leicester junction (Junction 21) and transferring onto the M69. Therefore, if this site were to be accepted, the additional HGVs, vans and workers’ cars are bound to exacerbate this problem and make the M69 in the direction of Leicester unusable. To the developers, these are merely logistical problems for others to sort out over time. All of this is astounding to anyone with a logical brain and a tiny drop of empathy. We live here and are expected to put up with a development ruining our roads, increasing our travel times and affecting our health until ‘someone’ gets round to spending the money to solve these major issues. Pollution The developers state that the aim of the development is to reduce pollution. Clearly, this is not going to happen because the increased traffic resulting from HGVs, vans and workers’ vehicles on already grid - locked roads will result in more idling cars and lorries spewing out exhaust fumes over our town and surrounding countryside - not to mention frustratingly long, costly and polluting waits for local traffic on these roads. Traffic through Hinckley: The developers were honest about saying that the development will inevitably mean extra road traffic travelling into the market town of Hinckley - the obvious route would be along the Leicester Road (B4668). Again, this brings huge issues for the safety of residents. There is heavy traffic turning onto the Leicester Road coming from the Asda Supermarket at the junction between the Leicester Road and Stoneygate Drive. Effect on Pedestrians using the Leicester Road Children going to and from school cross the Leicester Road at the Stoneygate junction, as well as at the Trafford Road junction, at De Montfort Road and at Butt Lane - bound for John Cleveland College (JCC). Vehicle speed display signs have been installed in an unsuccessful attempt to reduce traffic speed to 30 mph along this stretch and to 20 mph immediately adjacent to Parks Primary School, which is also on this stretch of the Leicester Road, during school arrival and leaving times. Despite this, drivers still travel at high speed along this section. There have already been accidents involving children along this part of the road In addition to a number of other collisions along this stretch. Further, the Leicester Road and the side roads feeding onto it are blocked by long queues of traffic and parked cars for at least half an hour at a time at the beginning and end of the school day. Additional to JCC footfall, families with primary aged children walk along and cross this section of the Leicester Road bound for Parks Primary. The path alongside the Leicester Road between the Spa Lane traffic lights and Parks Primary is dangerous since it is very narrow and steeply angled. This path is extremely busy and dangerous at school times, when JCC children walk in groups and, simultaneously, Parks Primary families walk along it. Indeed, there was a fatal accident straight outside Parks Primary school in the Spring of 2023. These groups also use the crossroads at the traffic lights between the Leicester Road and Spa Lane. This is already an extremely dangerous junction. Further, classes of children from Parks Primary regularly walk this route, including the traffic lights, on their way to and from the leisure centre. Crucially, it is impossible for big lorries to turn left from the Leicester Road onto Spa Lane (the route out of town to the M69 and Burbage) without putting passenger - side wheels onto the pavement since the road at this point is a hair – pin bend and is too narrow for the angle need for HGVs to safely navigate the left turn. I have personally seen this happen numerous times. This puts all pedestrians who use this junction to gain access into Hinckley town centre at risk. Additionally, the protective barrier around the central island at this junction has been crashed into many times and caved in - therefore pedestrians are not safe anywhere on this junction - particularly young children who are not always easy to control. For all of the above reasons, if the industrial estate were accepted, it will be inconceivable that HGVs be allowed to travel this section of road and it is crucial for consideration to be given to banning HGVs from travelling along this route on the Leicester Road from the Golf Club up to and including the traffic lights at the Leicester Road/Spa Lane junction. I was informed by the developers that there would be a policy stating that lorries should not be using this route but human nature tells me otherwise unless the law enforces this. The developers told me that no construction traffic would be travelling through Hinckley and that the access to the site would be via the link road from the M69 which would be built first, but they will have no control over drivers once plans have been accepted. Prohibiting through-traffic access to Hinckley for, as a minimum, all lorries and large vehicles should be an essential consideration for this plan. FOOTPATHS It is proposed that the right of way across the railway line at the bottom of the Hinckley Golf Course will be closed and it is expected that walkers will use the bridge between housing along Foresters Road. However, there is currently no public footpath between the bottom of the golf course and this bridge which walkers are then expected to use - and even if one was introduced this would involve a diversion of at least a half a mile. This closure makes it impossible for walkers to use the right of way into Burbage Woods via Hinckley Golf Course. The proposal to close this ‘foot-crossing’ of the railway should be rejected, therefore, and a footbridge at this point be mandated to ensure continuity of public rights of way. It is also proposed to close several other right of way crossings of the rail line which enables walkers to re-cross the railway further upline towards Leicester. These are close to the small road bridge on Burbage Common Road and near to the Upper Common car park. These closures will prevent pedestrians from walking out from the Common into the fields leading to the western borders of Elmesthorpe. When I pursued this with the developers, I was told that instead I would need to walk the whole of the southern perimeter and then the eastern perimeter of the proposed site, (the latter has a very narrow path squeezed between the industrial estate and motorway) then along the whole of the site’s northern perimeter to a new footbridge further along the line! These rights of way need footbridges and the routings of the network of footpaths that currently cross the proposed site need better pedestrian - friendly solutions to ensure that walkers are neither inconvenienced nor restricted as they move through and from the Common to the surrounding villages. DRAINAGE ON BURBAGE COMMON Burbage Common is currently a quagmire each winter. If acres and acres of concrete are sited directly adjacent to it, whatever the assurances of developers otherwise, Burbage Common is likely to become unusable during the winter and wet weather. I was informed by the developers that Burbage Common had been mis-managed for years which is why the area is so poorly drained. This may be a separate issue needing to be addressed by the Borough Council. It is the assertion of developers that the estate will improve the drainage on the Common but I am not in a position to verify this. I am concerned that this will not be the case since open ground would be replaced by tarmac and concrete with a few small ponds and that there will be no redress after the event. ECOLOGY Burbage Common consists of ancient woodland and open fields which support a huge biodiversity of plants, animals and birds. There can be no absolute assurance that noise, chemical - both airborne and waterborne, dust and light pollution and the most likely invasion of rats, scavenger foxes etc will not adversely affect, reduce or even decimate the wildlife on the common. OTHER AREAS FOR SITING THE DEVELOPMENT I asked about other potential sites for the development, but this is the developers’ cheapest option as other areas have drainage issues. Other sites, away from towns, villages and already congested roads have been summarily discounted together with expansion or development of current sites. I suggest the developers should spend time and money to find an area which does not so negatively affect and devastate the lives of people animals, birds, plants and trees. Alternatively, to my knowledge, there has been no feasibility study researching the possibly of constructing an additional branch railway line from the Felixstowe line to join the line from the channel ports and then use the enormous DIRFT and Magna Park sites which are away from towns and have much better road and rail infrastructure. This would negate the need for an additional site and would utilise expertise already gained in logistics. SUMMARY I have demonstrated why, for so many reasons, this site is unsuitable and unnecessary. • There are already 5 major hubs in close proximity. • There is no market for the proposed goods. • It would be necessary for lorries to travel well beyond the ‘nearby markets’ stipulated by Government policy for the siting of SRFIs to reduce pollution. • Local and major road networks to be used to transport goods are already over -capacity. • Roads into Hinckley are hazardous and too narrow and paths are dangerous. • Increased levels of pollution are inevitable in this market town and surrounding area. • The proposed site is right next to a country park where; a. drainage, b. safety, c. pollution, d. loss of public rights of way, e. noise f. safety of the ecology of the site would be major issues. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. I am available to discuss it with you further, should you wish. I give my email address at the top of this letter Yours faithfully, Barbara Wistow