Back to list Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange

Representation by Residents of 6 Wortley Cottages (Residents of 6 Wortley Cottages)

Date submitted
20 June 2023
Submitted by
Members of the public/businesses
  1. No Requirement for HNRFI 1.1) Government policy is that “It is important that SRFIs are located “near the business markets they will serve (NPS paragraph 2.56)” and with the existing nine distribution facilities already in the immediate area, we do not believe that there is a need for HNRFI, as the above requirement is already met. 1.2) Current high levels of employment in the area will either result in local industries suffering due to losing employees to HNRFI or will require additional traffic movements into the area. 2) Destruction of local greenspaces 2.1) HNRFI is being inserted right into the middle of a small area which is surrounded by Hinckley and six villages– namely Elmesthorpe, Stoney Stanton, Sapcote, Sharnford, Aston Flamville and Burbage destroying most of the local greenspace which separates them and is disproportionate. 2.2) This seems to be at odds with government policy in the “Green Infrastructure Framework” for local access to green areas. 2.3) The proximity of HNRFI to Burbage Common and its SSSI will inevitably significantly impact and degrade the main green leisure facility used by the local population despite any proposed mitigation measures (e.g. visual impact, site and rail noise, wildlife etc) 3) Noise and Vibration 3.1) No noise and vibration collection points have been defined near our property despite being the largest residential area that is closest to the railway line and HNRFI, and therefore the impact is unknown or mitigated against. 3.2) The impact of the additional train movements and vibration upon our 19thC Grade II listed property have been totally ignored 3.3) We understand from Tritax that trains may have to queue on the mainline near our property to access HNRFI resulting in extended periods of noise and vibration. 3.4) Train access to HNRFI will also occur overnight resulting in noise which will affect our sleep and mental health. 4) Traffic in Elmesthorpe The proposed new link road between the A47 and M69 may mitigate rat runs on the B581 through Elmesthorpe from the NW to the M69, however: 4.1) Statistics used by Tritax ignore the proposed housing development between Stoney Stanton and Elmesthorpe, and therefore traffic projections are inaccurate 4.2) The new M69 slip roads should not be opened until the new link road between the A47 and M69 is open. 4.3) The B581 has had at least two fatalities, and numerous accidents so additional measures should be considered to deter usage e.g. 30 mph limit. 4.4) The proposed re-routing of footpath T89 onto the B581 needs to be reconsidered as it results in pedestrians crossing the B581 on a blind bend (photographs available). 5) Public Transport Inaccuracies 5.1) The PEIR Chapter 8 Transport and Traffic item 8.259 is incorrect. “Local services are also available from Hinckley and through to Nuneaton. These include higher frequency services 158 and 48 which pass close to the site from the A47” The 48 and 158 buses do not pass near the HNRFI site at all, they go north towards Market Bosworth then turn right into Barwell and Earl Shilton, and then to Leicester and v.v. 6) Public Footpaths 6.1) The data used by Tritax is inaccurate as it was gathered pre-Covid and local footpath usage has increased significantly. 6.2) Reports that state that footpaths are unused or blocked by Tritax are incorrect – examples available 6.3) Tritax has merely pushed footpaths to the development boundaries, resulting in them running alongside either the M69 or the railway line – visually unattractive and subject to traffic fumes and noise. 6.4) Replacement footpaths should be in place before HNRFI development starts to allow continued access to Burbage Common from Elmesthorpe. 6.5) In rerouting and closing footpaths Tritax have taken the least cost options resulting in additional mileage for the walker merely to continue his journey, whereas additional rail bridges would avoid this (examples available) There is little evidence of the claimed investment and improvements and additional facilities.