Representation by Stephen Cooper
- Date submitted
- 19 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Dear Sir / Madam I would like to formally object to the proposed HNRFI and together its status of being considered as a NSIP. My objections fall into 3 main categories: 1/ the need for such a development 2/ the environmental impact 3/ the local impact and lack of sufficient mitigation In summary this development threatens to have a detrimental impact on 830 acres of farm land and countryside – It will have significant impact on wildlife and the biodiversity of the area - it would be situated next to Burbage Common an area of important recreational use and a habitat to extensive wildlife. It will substantially increase noise levels across the immediate vicinity and also dramatically increase traffic and pollution throughout neighboring settlements such as Burbage, Elmesthorpe, Stoney Stanton and Sapcote – These villages have already been subjected to extensive developments without proper consideration to the infrastructure. 1/ the need for such a development: • The number of units identified for the rail terminal is far lower than the number of units identified for general warehousing and distribution by road – therefore this proposal is being put forward under the guise of being a Rail Freight Interchange but is essentially a ruse to build further warehousing in an already over-saturated part of the East Midlands. • There are already 4 Rail freight terminals in close proximity to this proposed site and they already serve Felixstowe. With the presence of DIRFT, SEGRO, Birch Coppice and Hams Hall, there is more than enough capacity to service the Midlands and North and South of the country to ports like Felixstowe and Southampton – It therefore puts into question why there is the need for a further Rail Freight terminal in an already over-crowded area, when other parts of the country would be better served by such a development. i. The Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) is being expanded to take 32 trains per day– it’s situated in a corridor which was mainly brown field site – and also services Felixstowe and the North and South of the country – this site is less than 18 miles from the proposed HNRFI and is on the A5 which houses Magna Park / Hinckley Park to name just two large distribution parks. ii. The Segro Logistics Park exists just 20 minutes from the proposed HNRFI site with Train links to Felixstowe and Southampton / Motorway links M1 M42 / and East midlands Airport is far better positioned and already exists with significant capacity and development opportunities. iii. Birch Coppice is home to the Birmingham Intermodal Freight Terminal again within 18 miles of the proposed HNRFI site, providing rail freight solutions across the midlands to and from Felixstowe and using the Birmingham/ Nuneaton line. iv. Hams Hall Rail Freight Terminal is another facility just over 25 miles from the proposed site again that supporting the midlands and carrying freight to Felixstowe, Southampton and Tilbury. • The Nuneaton to Felixstowe line is a Diesel line which again poses the question as to why this is an environmentally sound solution when an electric service would be far more effective. • Tritax Symmetry use sensationalised benefit claims in terms of what this development is going to bring to the country and locality – and this is clearly misleading: Firstly they state that there will be a 10% Net biodiversity gain – despite destroying over 800 acres of farm and woodland – If this was as achievable as the attention grabbing headline states, then this would be the answer to climate change and the world’s environmental problems. Secondly they state that it will save 1.6bn HGV kilometers per year – this is at least 9 times higher than would be achievable if it was running at maximum capacity. 1.6bn Km per year equals 4.4m Km per day and with 16 trains a day with 76 HGV loads, this equates to taking 1216 lorries off the road per day. If this was in any way true, each lorry that is being taken off the road would have to be travelling about 3618 km per day and typically an HGV can only travel 400kms per day. (This also ignores the number of HGV’s that will be running to and from the rail terminal – that won’t be taken off the road) 2/ the environmental impact: • Destroying 800 acres of farmland at a time when the world needs to reduce emissions and tackle climate change is hardly the best approach to this world problem. • This land is predominantly unspoilt agricultural land and is home to hundreds of species of fauna and plant life. Now is not the time to destroy our future with an unnecessary development which is only going to benefit the few and not the many. 3/ the local impact and lack of sufficient mitigation: • The proposals have neglected the local impact of this development throughout the construction phase and the ongoing operational phase. Already the M69 generates significant motorway noise – over 80Db measured in a field more than a mile away. With the increases in HGV traffic expected by this proposal, together with the 24-hour operating nature of this development, this will be exceeded considerably. • There has been a serious lack of consideration to the impact of this development to the local villages and settlements. There is no mitigation in place to manage the increase in HGV movements through villages such as Sapcote and Stoney Stanton. By opening the M69 junction 2, to and from Coventry, will also significantly increase general traffic though these villages, as people use these routes as a way to access the M69. It is noticeable that any relief roads / mitigation around Sapcote and Stoney Stanton have been removed from these most recent proposals – when previously potential options had been submitted – this suggests that Tritax originally acknowledged there would be an increase in traffic through both villages, but for some reason they are now unwilling to fund or consider any infrastructure development around them. • There has been little or no consideration for increased rail traffic. In particular the village of Narborough, which is already a bottleneck when the rail crossing is closed – this would be made considerably worse and a real hazard in this small village centre. I strongly object to this development, it is unnecessary in this region - it is simply a project that claims to be a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project when in reality it’s a ruse to build acres of speculative warehousing. In a time of massive disruption, poverty and the impact of climate change – the focus should be in levelling up and improving facilities across the nation (in particular in the North). These developments need to be well thought through and located where they are required if at all. I look forward to hearing back on the objections I have put forward and hope that common sense prevails.