Representation by Michael John Nuttall
- Date submitted
- 22 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
my main comments as to why I oppose the Hinckley NRFI scheme are: HNRFI isn’t close to the market it is intended to serve - We already have DIRFT to the south and East Midlands Interchange to the north and the new Freeport site in Derbyshire along with many other local hubs, including Magna Park. Rail freight is a good idea, but only when the hub is situated close to the market it is intended to serve otherwise the lengthy road trip outweighs the environmental benefits. HNRFI will put 10,000 HGV movements and 8,400 worker movements a day onto our roads and an additional 2 trains every hour onto the railway. Tritax say HNRFI could be used for the automotive industry, but we have no automotive industry locally! The proposed gigafactory at Coventry airport could be better served by hubs located nearer to the site. The level crossing in Narborough won’t take the extra capacity. This has been stated by Network Rail. In addition, the consultation has failed to provide crucial information concerning how the scheme would impact locally Little information was available in relation to the required alterations to the villages, exact HGV and train movements. I call into question, how the scheme in question will result in 8,400 NEW jobs? I would suggest that this number is clarified as my suspicion is that it includes temporary/construction jobs and also possibly a large percentage of existing employed people transferring from Magna Park which it is understood is being impacted by the scheme? A lot has been talked about in terms of the retention of Burbage Common. However, it will, in effect, be totally surrounded by the new development and supporting infrastructure. It is not simply a case of selling the philosophy that the affected land is low grade agricultural land. The development WILL have a significant impact on Burbage Common; both in terms of the flora and fauna but, also enjoyment by the local population. Visual impact – We are talking about Rail and Container Gantries of ~25m in height on the exposed side facing the likes of Earl Shilton and Elmesthrope. We are talking about large 30m high units facing the Common. When considered in comparison with the EM Interchange, this clearly shows how exposed the HNRFI scheme is. EM has been the subject of significant earth movements to reduce visual impact. This, in an area surrounded by roads with limited local impact. The lack of clarity on visual impact and ability to mitigate considering the planned site is in a low spot overlooked by the likes of Earl Shilton and Elmesthorpe. The Year 15 Visuals are not realistic and are misrepresentative of the impact. They are taken from low level (and I mean very low level) and from a significant distance away, unless existing natural tree-lines serve a purpose in shrouding the development. As currently designed and knowing the surrounding area and the Common in particular, the visual impact will be significant and very invasive. Drainage – The land including Burbage Common is already affected by surface water issues. Removing large swathes of open countryside where water can naturally drain away will have significant ramifications for the Common itself. In revisiting my previous point, any ground level reduction to mitigate visual impact would have significant drainage ramifications. Noise – There is little in the way of noise mitigation other than large bunds and acoustic fencing; the latter especially just creating a further visual impact. It is very clear that noise, both in terms of the site movements (loading and unloading) and train movements will have a significant impact. The noise will largely be heard from the rail port during loading and offloading and rail movements. There is little space or evidence of any mitigations measures. Light Pollution – The scale of the development will cause significant light pollution affecting Burbage Common and the surrounding villages; especially those overlooking the development. I do not believe for one second that such a development will only have a “nominal” impact. Local road infrastructure – local roads are already over-capacity. There will not just be disruption once complete (as noted above) but, during construction which will be impossible to mitigate during the extensive build phase. To conclude, I remain fundamentally opposed to the Hinckley NRFI scheme in whole and no, level of mitigation proposed will sway my view that the need for this scheme in this location has not been demonstrated by Tritax. Nor, for the same reasons, should have been considered as a NSIP and hence be the subject of a DCO.