Representation by Joanne Perry
- Date submitted
- 22 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
As a resident of Hinckley, living close to Burbage Common, I object to this proposed project in its entirety, due to several reasons: Need There is no need for a development of this size and nature in this area as there are several other RFIs in proximity, e.g., Northampton Gateway, Wellingborough, DIRFT, Coventry (air freight), Hams Hall (air freight access), East Midlands Gateway, Magna Park, Birch Coppice, Landor Street Birmingham, West Midlands Interchange. The fact that East Midlands Gateway has recently announced that it will be offering a similar service to Felixstowe, with plans for up to 16 trains per day, almost the same as this proposed development, further reduces the need for this development. The South Leicestershire train line is not a main line, it is a linking train line. Other RFIs are all connected to main lines, already serving the same ports. The high numbers of HGV movements per day compared to the train movements per day indicate that this site is designed mostly for HGV distribution and warehousing purposes. Environmental and Local Impact This proposed development is to be situated right on the edge of Burbage Common and Woods. This is very busy and well used area by the local community. There are currently public rights of way across private farmland that link different areas of Burbage Common that will be lost if this development goes ahead, and it is unclear how these rights of way we be replaced. The loss of good quality farmland (soil quality 3) is unacceptable along with the loss of trees, green space, and natural wildlife habitats. The proposal does not include details of how biodiversity will be maintained. The Environmental Act 2021 requires biodiversity to be increased by 10%, which is not possible onsite, so will need to be mitigated separately. Details of this mitigation have not been made available to the public. The proposed size of the buildings means that they will be visible from a great distance and will affect the view when using Burbage Common and Woods. Light and noise pollution from the development will detrimentally affect local wildlife, due to the 24-hour operation of the site. This pollution will also affect users of Burbage Common and residents in the surrounding area. I am concerned that the proposed development of large areas of green land will increase the flooding risk on the surrounding areas of Burbage Common and local residential areas. This development will irreversibly alter the character of Burbage Common and the local villages and communities surrounding it. Traffic The proposal is poorly designed due to the high volume of daily vehicle movements proposed. The proposed number of HGV movements exiting the site at junction 2 of the M69 implies a constant stream of vehicles looking to join the roundabout. This will impact the local community wanting to use the M69 junction. There will also be extra cars due to the number of staff working onsite. Due to low local unemployment, most staff working onsite will be travelling from outside of the local area, resulting in an increase in traffic, pollution, and noise. A travel plan is mentioned in the community explanation document (CED), but no details have been made public. There is a risk of staff parking in local residential areas to avoid peak traffic at shift changeovers. The M69 is a secondary highway, built to link the M6 and M1 and does not have the capacity to manage the proposed number of HGVs. There are existing capacity issues at junction 21 of the M1 that would be made worse by the increased number of HGVs looking to join the M1. This capacity issue is not mentioned in the CED and when raised at the consultation event, staff had no answers. The inclusion of southern slip roads on the M69 will result in further pressure on the local road network. There are similar concerns for other major roads in the local area such as the capacity of the A5 and A47 northern perimeter road. Again, no details have been provided for how these roads will cope with a huge increase in vehicle movements. There is also an existing issue of the A5 with the railway bridge being too low for high side HGVs, with frequent accidents, road closures and tailbacks. A significant increase in the number of HGVs on the A5 will most likely increase the number of these incidents. Again, no details are provided in the CED of how incidents like this will be managed. The new ‘A47 link’ road does not actually join the A47, but in fact joins the B4668. This road is already very busy due to local traffic which be impacted by the increase in traffic. Tailbacks that will occur because of the increase in traffic will impact access to the local facilities, such as Burbage Common and Woods, Hinckley rugby club, cricket club, tennis club and football club. The impact of construction has not been adequately detailed. There will be significant impact to the local area when the site is being built with disruption to local residents and an increase in construction HGVs removing materials. Consultation The event I attended was inadequate, with event staff not fully briefed on all aspects of the proposal, so were unable or unwilling to answer all my questions. The quality of materials on display was poor. For example, the ‘A47 link’ road was not shown on the highways boards and when it was mentioned, it was a generalised ‘blue line’ that did not show any detail, appearing to be added as an afterthought. The member of staff stood in front of this board was unable to answer questions on it. None of the display materials displayed a website address to be able to review the consultation materials online. There was no mention of the proposed gas-fired power plant in the materials on display at the consultation event. I was only made aware of this after the consultation event. This power plant will provide further pollution. There seems to be no modelling or information regarding this plant. The feedback form provided at the consultation event was written in a leading manner, designed to elicit favourable responses to the proposal. There were insufficient hard copies of the Community Explanation Document available for attendees to take away. The current COVID pandemic was used as justification as to why this proposal should go ahead, which I found inappropriate. Overall, I did not feel the event I attended was an authentic consultation, with staff doing the bare minimum required to be able to confirm the exercise had been completed. Once again, please accept this as my formal objection to this proposal.