Representation by Elaine Sereda-Barsby
- Date submitted
- 20 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Please could you note the following: 1. Generally - I strongly object to the proposals which I feel are inadequate in a number of areas. Additionally, the construction (over a 10-year period) and operation of this facility will cause nuisance and inconvenience and have a negative impact on my property and my enjoyment of the property on Burbage Common Road, as it will others in such close proximity to the development. 2. Location – already other distribution centres in the area - Magna Park 550 acres in Lutterworth, Hinckley Park DPD Hub 82 acres, and East Midlands Gateway 700 acres in Kegworth which is currently in construction. No “brownfield first”approach. Loss of farmland. Other sites have more retained green space around them and are not so close to existing residents. 3. Traffic & transport – massive number of vehicles and vehicle movements in relation to construction (workforce, deliveries, waste removal etc.), operation, and servicing of the development. Unsafe as Elmesthorpe roads are narrow with narrow pavements only in some areas. Inability to police unauthorised transport routes. No public transport available. 4. Parking – inability to police unauthorised parking in the village and elsewhere. Unsure re EV charging. Inadequate parking provisions - Magna Park now has additional applications 20/02075 and 22/02002 for HGV parking and refuelling with ancillary retail and restaurant provision. 5. Access – Burbage Common Road proposed for access by emergency vehicles only. This will be difficult to control without a physical barrier at the junction with Station Road, but this would be unsightly / not in keeping with the area and also hamper access to our property for deliveries etc. Through access to Burbage Common would also be hampered – the proposed bridleway is considered inadequate and unappealing for current users – cyclists, runners, walkers, dog walkers, horse riders etc. 6. Noise – in addition to construction noise, I do not believe that the proposed noise attenuation will be sufficient. 24/7 operation will create noise from train and vehicle movements, lifting operations, container stacking, and other activities. 7. Vibration – In addition to construction noise, I believe that vibration will be felt 24/7 from train and vehicle movements, lifting operations, loading and unloading, and other activities. 8. Fumes & dust – emissions from on-site plant and vehicles movements during both construction and operation will affect air quality. A large amount of dust is likely to be created during construction. 9. Lighting – the site is a large area which will be illuminated 24/7. 10. Green credentials – No proposed electrification of rail. Extensive use of diesel fuelled vehicles. Gas systems on site. On site power plant with chimney. Not proposed to be a zero carbon / carbon neutral development. Would question whether there is enough electrical infrastructure in place to support the development. 11. Wildlife - Insufficient landscaping / natural habitats for wildlife. Other sites appear to have more retained green areas. 12. Workforce – for construction, operation and servicing of the development. People would need to move to the area to fill they circa 8,000 jobs. Associated traffic movements and/or housing development would be to the detriment of the area as insufficient infrastructure to support these i.e. traffic movement, parking, accommodation, public transport etc. 13. Water – inadequate provision for run off and flooding potential. No acceptance of any responsibility in relation to flood alleviation measures required – the EA would not carry this. 14. Visual impact – circa 20m high buildings cannot be concealed by trees.