Representation by Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council (Hinckley & Bosworth Borough Council)
- Date submitted
- 21 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Local authorities
This field is too restrictive to include the Borough Council's comments in full so a complete pdf version has been sent to the planning inspectorate at HinckleySRFI@planninginspectorate.gov.uk for clarity. The Council's overview comments from this document are set out below, but this only represents the summary of the Council's Relevant Representations and the whole document should be read in full: CONTEXT & OVERVIEW Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited (“TSH”) is expecting to submit a Development Consent Order (“DCO”) for the development of Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange (“HNRFI”) at Junction 2 of the M69. The scheme is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) and therefore subject to the provisions of National Policy and terms within the Planning Act 2008. Throughout this report, TSL will be referred to as “the Promoter”. The Relevant Representations sets out the headline matters which the Council wishes to raise with the Planning Inspectorate (PINS); it is not the Council’s detailed response to the proposal, that will come later in the process once PINS commences the examination – these detailed comments are called ‘written representations’. The Council will also be invited to submit its Local Impact Report (LIR) which will also come at a later stage and is intended as an opportunity for the Council to put forward its objective view of the impact the proposal will have locally. This report constitutes the Relevant Representations of Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council (“HBBC”). These Representations reflect the technical opinions of the Borough Council as a key Relevant Authority to the project. By submitting these representations HBBC, as an acknowledged interested party, is able to submit formal written representations and appear at hearings, ensuring that the Council’s views are heard and taken into account. A valid representation, called a “Relevant Representation”, must be made to register as an interested party and therefore have a right to take part in the remainder of the examination process. The best way to do this is online at the National Infrastructure Planning website within the relevant project page. The Representations set out our principal areas of representation reflecting those areas most relevant to the Council, not least our position as it will apply to HBBC as a planning authority, its Environmental Health responsibilities and its key role in Economic Development and Strategic Housing, both within Hinckley and the wider sub-region. The Council also works closely with Blaby District Council and Leicestershire County Council (LCC) in helping to provide services and discharge its statutory responsibilities including in relation to local highways and transport, flood management, landscape and ecological, waste planning, and public health. The Council has been asked to prepare Relevant Representations against all of the material included in the Development Consent Order as submitted by the Promoter. The material including the environmental assessments contained within a detailed Order has also been reviewed by Blaby District Council and Leicestershire County Council as supporting Relevant Authorities who have engaged with the Promoter in reviewing all the material with in reviewing the material through a series of Technical Working Groups (“TWG”). 4 This HBBC Relevant Representations therefore draws on the PINS Advice Note 8.3 in setting out the technical responses in line with the statutory requirements of the Planning Act ’08. 1 . Purpose and Structure of the Relevant Representations This report has sought wherever possible to focus on an understanding of likely impacts of the proposed development as it applies to the territorial area of Hinckley & Bosworth borough. The topics which have been highlighted in the HBBC Technical Review and on which resources were available to undertake an assessment of scope and competencies include the following sections of the Order as submitted by the Promoter • Site Selection and Project Evaluation • Land Use and Socio Economics • Transport and Traffic • National Policy and Drivers of Need • Noise & Vibration • Landscape And Visual Effects • Cultural Heritage • Energy and Climate Change • Cumulative Effects Assessment Summary of Representations HBBC do not support the development proposals as presented by the Promoter as they have considerable concerns about the range of adverse individual and cumulative impacts which identified by the Promoter but which we do not consider to have been adequately addressed in terms of the mitigation of impacts. The principal concern of the Council is that without careful consideration of the Zone of Influence that any Cumulate Environmental Assessment will sewer the overall assessment of impacts. In addition to these cumulative issues highlighted over the period of consultation with the Promoter, our principal areas of concern are flagged as including: Site Description and Surroundings HBBC is concerned that the Promoter has not demonstrated the specific market need for this Scheme in this specific open countryside location. Limited commentary or analysis has been offered on the logic or assessment of alternative sites across the County with no enhancement of the original site assessment undertaken. Appropriate justification for the Scheme needs to be provided. It is a significant greenfield site that if developed will represent a permanent loss of this open countryside. HBB is not satisfied that the Scheme and the currently proposed Requirements adequately ensure the delivery of a rail based scheme, comply with the future direction of the draft National Planning 1 Further guidance: the Planning Inspectorate advice note 8.3 5 Statement (Draft NN NPS), and demonstrate a sustainable access to the SRN which are intrinsic to its consideration as a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange. At present, the Scheme fails to achieve this and does not accord with the amendments made to the Strategic Rail Freight Interchange’s Scale and Design section within the Draft NN NPS.In particular, the Scheme conflicts with the required delivery of rail infrastructure and connected buildings at the outset of the Scheme stated in paragraph 4.84 of the Draft NN NPS. Given the already dense array of existing and recently approved rail freight interchanges and distribution centres in the Midlands, the Promoter will require to focus on outcomes of policy with an already well developed and settled position within Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership’s Strategic Economic Plan 2014-20 (March 2014). The Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic Distribution Study (updated March 2022) recognises that the Hinckley NRFI site being promoted would meet the anticipated demand to 2041 for rail-served warehousing in Leicestershire. Transport and Traffic The Transport Assessment (document reference 6.2.8.1) appears to be predicated on the lower employment level (e.g. paragraph 5.1). This under estimation of workers on site by 24% could significantly alter the quantum of vehicle movements and potential vehicle routing. A consistent approach should be taken, representing the highest level of development achievable within the parameters plan submitted with the Scheme. This inconsistent approach between the technical consultants’ results in inaccuracies being created in terms of the benefits and harms. Any changes to the highway quantum and routing of highway movements will have a knock-on effect upon the other environmental areas such as noise / vibration, air quality reports, and sustainable travel. Concern is therefore raised by HBBC in respect of the accuracy of the assessment undertaken. Wide-ranging impacts of highways congestion and the consequential impacts of that congestion on the long-term sustainability of Hinckley as part of the regional network of economies in the County. The economic implications of congestion have not been adequately considered with TSL having in HBBC’s view, failed to adequately mitigate impact. The Scheme’s transport and traffic related impacts are of significant concern; its impacts, mitigation, and modelling in terms of both the strategic and local road networks and its approach to vehicular movements and sustainable travel is inadequate; moreover, it has failed to appropriately assess the impacts of increased barrier down time on Narborough Level Crossing. The inadequacy of these mitigation measures and assessments is likely to result in significant and wide-ranging impacts including, but not limited to, congestion, noise, air quality and carbon emissions. A significant body of objection continues to be raised by HBBC highways consultant (Markides) in which strong concerns in respect of the highway impacts of the Scheme and the accuracy of the information provided. An overarching concern is the expected level of employment used to underpin highway movements. 6 The Promoter has failed to appropriately mitigate the Scheme’s impacts on both the SRN and the local road network. Issues with congestion on the SRN have been highlighted but no mitigation has been proposed while by-pass options around the southern villages of Blaby District have been prematurely discounted. Moreover, the Scheme’s mitigation has not been agreed with the appropriate highway and planning authorities prior to submission of the application for the Scheme. This is a failing of the Promoter to follow the front-loaded approach envisaged in the Planning Act 2008. To reach common ground on the impacts of the Scheme, HBBC would recommend that technical shortcomings with the existing modelling including limited sensitivity tests and appropriate detailed modelling of Junction 21 of the M1. The consequences of significant changes to the Scheme’s quantum and routing of highway movements are wide ranging across multiple chapters of the ES. The drivers of need for SRFIs Assuming that the basis of the currently adopted National Policy of Transport is material to the proposed NSIP, the drivers of need for strategic rail freight interchanges are set out in the Summary of Need in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.11 of the NPS. While there is recognition that existing operational SRFIs and other intermodal RFIs are situated predominantly in the Midlands and the North the objective of the policy is to ensure an optimisation of the network across several critical parameters. In considering the proposed development, and, when weighing its adverse impacts against its benefits, the Examining Authority and the Secretary of State will consider: • Its potential benefits, including the facilitation of economic development, including job creation, housing, and environmental improvement, and any long-term or wider benefits. • Its potential adverse impacts, including any longer-term and cumulative adverse impacts, as well as any measures to avoid, reduce or compensate for any adverse impacts. In this context, environmental, safety, social and economic benefits, and adverse impacts, should be considered at national, regional, and local levels. Given the lack of clarity in the site selection process – described earlier in the previous section - HBBC would want to understand more fully what weighting was given to these principles against the drivers of need. The main point of concern is these needs case therefore is whether a site selection and masterplanning process is sufficient robust. The environmental advantages of rail freight have already been noted at paragraph 2.40 and 2.41 Nevertheless, for developments such as SRFIs, it is likely that there will be local impacts in terms of land use and increased road and rail movements, and it is important for the environmental impacts at these locations to be minimised. While National Policy recognises that development of the national road and rail networks is expected to be sustainable against its objectives of need, these are expected to be designed to minimise social and environmental impacts and improve quality of life. In delivering new schemes, the policy is explicit in instructing promoters to avoid and mitigate environmental and social impacts in line with the principles set out in the NPPF and the Government’s planning guidance. It is not entirely clear that there is sufficient robust evidence base that considered 7 reasonable opportunities have been completed in the site sifting exercise to deliver environmental and social benefits as part of schemes. Specifically, the Environmental Assessment is dependent on the reliance of an agreed model without which arguably creates doubt that the adverse local impacts on noise, emissions, landscape/visual amenity, biodiversity, cultural heritage, and water resources are fully understood or likely to be comprehensively considered. The significance of these effects in Hinckley and Bosworth and the effectiveness of mitigation is uncertain at the strategic and non-locationally specific level. Therefore, whilst The Promoter has taken sufficient consideration, is it in accordance with National Policy and in an environmentally sensitive way, including considering opportunities to deliver environmental benefits, some adverse local effects of development may remain. The “judgement of viability” made within the market framework must be a factor in defining the needs case for the project. It is not clear whether there has been any engagement with the Government on how it expects to account any interventions. HBBC has concerns that no consideration or examination of the likely social value of the project or indeed the mechanisms through which these interventions are included as part of the business case aligns. HBBC is mindful in the context of needs case, that where terms and commitments are expected to be made or are imposed. Given the importance of social value for all projects of nationally significance, we would expect a good deal more detail to be provided as part of the requirements of development consent. The structure of such commitments will be important where with agreement of the relevant authority and interested parties, that are seen as necessary, relevant to the planning policy commitments, relevant to the development to be consented, enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects. Given the importance of the NPS as the primary source of national policy guidance for The Proposed Development HBBC is not convinced that the planning provisions in the NPS are consistent with the underlying commitment to the principles of securing sustainable patterns of development in NPPF. Conclusions Notwithstanding the concerns highlighted with the adequacy of Consultation and the Promoter’s Environmental Information, HBBC will in this assessment identify constructively where Common Ground might be achieved if the proposed scheme is approved by the Secretary of State following the completion of the Examination. However, to ensure that the adverse local impacts of the proposed Scheme are adequately mitigated, HBBC will propose ways in which adverse local impacts from proposed Scheme can be better mitigated by various mechanisms, such as amended project proposals, planning obligations and requirements (including written approval of detailed mitigation measures). HBBC also identifies areas where the greater benefits from the Project can be achieved to support the local economy and local community.