Representation by Huncote Parish Council (Huncote Parish Council)
- Date submitted
- 23 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Parish councils
Huncote Parish Council’s relevant representations to the Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange proposal Huncote Parish Council (HPC) has considered the application submitted by Tritax Symmetry (Hinckley) Limited (the Applicant) for an Order Granting Development Consent for the Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange (HNRFI) and considers the following should be deemed among the main issues and impacts. Matters are categorised by technical areas and are only in summary form. These will be developed in HPC’s further responses during the Examination of the application. Highways and Transport There is no agreement to the following elements of the proposed development: • Proposals indicate a varied level of employment (8,400 and 10,400 jobs) for the site, with no consistent measure of impact. The scheme also fails to specify the nature of the businesses. This issue is considered important to ensure that the Scheme operates principally as a rail-linked facility and not a road-served distribution centre. o These inconsistencies don’t accurately reflect the greatest impact of jobs on the site, and surrounding area. Who will be coming to the site, where do they live and how will they get there? o All logistical businesses will require vehicle movements to move products along the supply chain. It isn’t unreasonable to suggest that more jobs, means more vehicle movements. We don’t believe the Transport Assessment adequately reflects these variances. o Limited analysis of the housing market has taken place, with any new housing development proposed to deal with the impact of the site further compounding the impact on local roads and congestion, as well as health & welling impacts. o The addition of a lorry park also is inadequately assessed, for trip generation and draw. • The overall design, capacity, phasing and access infrastructure for the site cause great concern. o Routing of the A47 link road, impact on local roads and early dismissal of a southern by-pass option have shown inadequate mitigation, and haven’t been agreed with the local Highway Authority. o There also seems to be insufficient consideration of the impact on the site should the road network; both strategic and local, not be operating at optimal conditions. ? M1 J21 often sees closures with traffic backing up to the site (M69 J2). This will impact worker access to the site and strategic vehicle movements, as well as significantly increase demand on the proposed lorry park facilities. o Visual, health and wellbeing, and amenity impact on local countryside seem inadequately dealt with within the reports, and are inconsistently reviewed. • Mitigation proposals for the impact of movements on both local and strategic junction assessments and design have shown inconsiderate consideration of travel impact between impacted sites. • Impact on existing passenger rail and freight movement proposals, and knock-on impacts at Narborough crossing. • Travel management issues o Impact of Narborough Rail crossing closures o HGV routing strategies and enforcement o Staff travel strategies to/from Hinckley Station and Narborough Station for the site o Cycle network impact of the site o Public Rights of Way strategies and walking, cycling and horse-riding assessments. o Construction traffic management plan and strategy o Sustainable transport policies and solutions • Consideration of lane improvements to the M69 between J1 and M1 J21 seems to have been inadequately considered and assessed. • Cycle network infrastructure seems to have been insufficiently considered o Insufficient safe, lockable parking provision for bicycles at Hinckley or Narborough stations. o Lack of consideration for e-bike schemes • Opportunities missed to utilise the local public transport network to shuttle staff to the site in line with determinable shift patterns, from both Hinckley and Narborough rail stations. • There seems to be an insufficient explanation for the site selection in open countryside, away from significant current warehousing operations, when greater utilisation of sites near Magna Park/Rugby, and the Solent and Felixstowe lines connecting close to Nuneaton, provides the opportunity for a single facility to serve two ports which may represent a more suitable location. Public Health • Air quality management, noise impact assessments and lighting impacts both during construction, development and operation haven’t been adequately considered for human and wildlife health. o It would also be helpful to know if the assessments will be revised once the Government publish revised Air Quality Objectives later this year. • Stress management impact and mitigation both during construction, development and operation (diversions, interruptions to utilities, dust, noise) • Health impacts on neighbouring residents across the wider area of South Leicestershire insufficiently assessed. • Some details remain unconfirmed regarding levels of anticipated noise generation, i.e., gantry crane impact. • Impact on amenity sites in the wider locality has been satisfactorily considered, particularly noting vehicle movement pattern changes once development of the site commences through its operation. • Concerns about capacity and impact on health service provision both during construction, development and operation. • Impact of landfill gas on the site, leaching from any of the many waste landfill sites operating in the vicinity of the site since the 1950s, hasn’t been properly considered. • Impact of barrier downtime on air quality for pedestrian traffic, residential impacts and school children from idling vehicles, adjacent to the Narborough crossing. • The impact of the various lighting proposed around the site on residential windows and amenities such as Burbage Common should be further assessed. • An assessment of nighttime noise levels from the site for the wider community is required. • Proposals for de-restricted road speed limits within the site are not welcomed, with concerns over the audible changes in engine revs and potential for tyre screeching as limits change near significant bends near the railway. Ecology • Impact and extent of mitigation measures such as acoustic fencing on nearby residential properties. • Planting schemes fail to ensure existing communities are protected from increased noise and air pollution, by not ensuring high tree/hedge planting levels are provided along major strategic routes, to limit impacts on communities both in their current form and as they expand in the future. • Failure of lighting strategy to show maximum lighting plans impact across the local area on sensitive wildlife receptors. • Hours of operation for the site cause concern for the impact on wildlife and the residential environment of the surrounding area, with issues of noise, vibration, non-natural lighting and traffic disruption impacting the area. • The impact of hedgerow removal seems to have lacked significant consideration for the impact on wildlife. Net-Zero • Designs allowing for electric car charging points at only 20% of spaces are insufficient and mitigation does not facilitate the transition to ultra-low emission vehicles or decarbonised road freight. • Insufficient consideration for alternative fuel consideration (i.e., hydrogen) and recharging points being practicably deployable for use on or around the site. • Insufficient consideration has been given to the use of ground-source heat pumps and air-source heat pumps on the site. Their exclusion from consideration doesn’t get adequately explained, especially in light of current and future requirements for their use. • It is disappointing not to see greater opportunities taken to improve natural energy production within areas of the site such as car parking, where canopies could be deployed to hold solar panels and generate additional renewable energy for the site. • While many water attenuation ponds are illustrated in plans, there is little proposal for the re-use of harvesting any of this water for simple uses such as lorry washes and flushing toilets. Socio-economics • Concerns of potential impacts on demand for local housing making ensuring community cohesion unviable for future generations. o Limited/lack of analysis of housing market characteristics - undermines conclusions about the impact on the housing market. • Concerns around the benefits of construction for the local population and suppliers will not be appropriately secured. o Consideration of a Training Officer within the draft s.106 isn’t proposed for long enough. o There isn’t enough of a guarantee that spending from the site will happen with local businesses. • Concerns regarding the availability of local workforce to match required skills and how an effective training strategy will be secured. • Impact of barrier downtime on Narborough businesses, due to increased traffic restrictions. • Concerns around the timing of rail movements impacting the viability of rail connections at nearby Croft Quarry. The Applicant has failed to adequately mitigate the Scheme and should propose a comprehensive package of additional s.106 funding should be made available to mitigate all of these concerns. The Council has concerns that this is not a rail-based scheme and is more likely to end up as a warehousing scheme with potential rail access.