Representation by Stoney Stanton Action Group (Stoney Stanton Action Group)
- Date submitted
- 21 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Parish councils
This representation is from the Stoney Stanton Action Group (SSAG). The SSAG is a local community led group whose remit is to investigate and raise local awareness of issues that might affect Stoney Stanton, to find out as much possible what local opinion is and to take action that is possible as a voluntary group, e.g. submitting comments about issues and providing our views to local councils etc. SSAG has a committee of 9 members, 311 signed up supporters and 299 Facebook followers. The group represents Stoney Stanton which has a population of 4,600. The SSAG believes that the HNRFI development should not be allowed to go ahead for many reasons, summarized below: 1. Purpose and Need: 1.1 Uncertainty about the Intended Customer Base: The original consultation material claimed that the terminal would serve the car industry predominantly in the West Midlands (e.g. JLR), however the claim now is that it will serve South Leicester, including Magna Park and Coventry local businesses. There is no clarity about who will be served. 1.2 Lack of compliance with the National Policy Statement for National Networks (NN NPS) and National significance: We recognise that the inclusion of a rail terminal makes this a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project however the majority of the site is for warehousing. One of the strong claims in the application documentation is that the location in the so called “Golden Triangle” puts the site in a position where most of the UK can be reached by a 4 hour HGV journey. This is contrary to the intention of NN NPS because RFTs should as close as is practical to their customers. 1.3 Addition of the Hub concept as a purpose: The concept that the RFT could operate as a “hub” was not included in the consultation material. This requires freight to be brought in direct from a port (e.g. Felixstowe) and then redistributed by several separate trains to other RFTs nearer to the final destination of the payload (or vice versa). This does not make sense in this location because: a) HNRFI is not designed for this, and would presumably need a different layout with more rail sidings to allow efficient moving of loads between trains b) HNRFI is only on the Leicester to Birmingham link line – trains would need to be able to be moved onto either the East Coast, the Midland or West Coast mainlines in order to access different ports and RFTs for this hub concept to be beneficial and this has not been factored into any rail traffic dimensioning 1.4 The area is already served by many RFTs: We are concerned that there isn’t a clear need for the HNRFI. Original statements by the applicant were about how important it was to be on the Felixstowe to Nuneaton line, providing direct access to the Felixstowe port, however there are several other Rail Freight Terminals in the vicinity that already have direct access to Felixstowe (e.g. Hams Hall, Birch Coppice, Birmingham). There are also other major RFTs in the immediate vicinity, e.g. East Midlands Gateway (with existing regular services to/from Felixstowe), Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT). 1.5 Excessive amounts of Warehousing in the area: If the Magna Park North extension, which is already under construction, is taken into account, then there will be a surfeit of warehousing in Leicestershire to 2041 according to the “Warehousing and Logistics in Leicester and Leicestershire: Managing growth and change report (April 2021)”. 2 Rail Traffic: 2.1 Narborough Station crossing: The impact on the Narborough Station crossing has been underestimated. We understand that even with the current amount of rail traffic on this line, road traffic often backs up to the main road through Narborough 2.2 Capacity for Increased Rail Traffic on this link line: We would question whether the line has the capacity for the additional number of freight trains that TSH claim the HNRFI will be able to handle. 2.3 Not an electrified line: The link line from Leicester to Nuneaton is not electrified, therefore trains will need to be diesel powered. 4. Location: 4.1 It is too close to several rural villages and a market town: The site chosen is in a greenfield area at the approximate centre of a ring of rural villages and towns, namely (clockwise around the epicentre): Elmesthorpe, Stoney Stanton, Sapcote, Sharnford, Aston Flamville, Burbage, the market town of Hinckley, Barwell and Earl Shilton and will therefore destroy the character of these communities which is valued by residents. Also the well established traveller settlement at Aston Firs is very close to the site. 4.2 Overwhelming the area with Warehousing and Rail Freight Terminals: The national requirement for Rail Freight terminals and warehousing complexes is already met in this area. Continuing to build more and more of these in this area should not be allowed as part of a national strategy for RFTs 5. Road Traffic: 5.1 Lack of agreement about traffic plans: The public was not consulted about any traffic plan that had been agreed by the Leicestershire Highways Authority. 5.2 Lack of consideration of “Sensitivity Receptors” in villages: The applicant did not take into account various important factors when deciding what traffic mitigating factors to offer. The development will make the area much more dangerous to children and vulnerable people. There is nothing in the new proposals to satisfactorily mitigate against these problems. 5.3 Additional traffic caused by site employees: The traffic plan does not take into account the full potential traffic through local villages that will be caused by employees at the site. 5.4 M69 Southbound exit: The applicant cannot mitigate nor control the traffic impact of non-HNRFI HGV and non-HGV traffic through the Fosse Villages (especially Stoney Stanton and Sapcote) caused by the M69 Southbound slip road being opened . 5.5: Inadequate infrastructure in the wider neighbourhood: Local infrastructure in the wider neighbourhood does not support the claimed purposes of the HNRFI 6. Pollution: 6.1 Concentrated increase in local air pollution: There will be an enormous concentration of increased airborne pollution in the immediate area, affecting at least all of the surrounding communities. 7. Ecology and biodiversity: The juxtaposition of the proposed site to an SSSI and to Public Access Land is one of the key issues mentioned by local residents. This proximity raises many concerns, especially with regard to the impact on the flora and fauna of this site and the negative effect on the enjoyment and well-being of visitors. Other areas of major concern: The impact of hedgerow and mature tree removal. Loss of farmland for crop growing and also loss of opportunities for carbon sequestration Loss of aquatic habitat and the effect on dependent wildlife caused by re-routing a stream The effect on and loss of biodiversity within and around the Main Order Limits. 8. Environmental: 8.1 Light, Noise and Vibrations: The site will cause: light pollution, excessive noise and vibrations which will affect all of the local communities and wildlife in the area. 8.2 Flooding: The area is also known to have occasional floods. Changes to the level of the water table and changes to drainage caused by such a huge structure in the area will cause more flooding 9. Power plant: We have concerns about the inclusion of a very large power plant and do not believe this has been properly considered. End