Representation by David burlingham
- Date submitted
- 23 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
To whom it may concern. My name is David Burlingham, I am, [redacted], adjacent to the proposed development by tritax. I write to communicate concerns regarding the proposed development by tritax (hinckley rail hub). Notably with regard to what appears to be a flagrant lack of consideration for optimising the plans to minimise the impact on the area and its inhabitants, and to highlight a disregard on tritaxs behalf to engage with, and listen, to the concerns of stakeholders within the community. In the first instance I would challenge strongly the choice of location, not on the grounds of being a NIMBY, but based on rational logic and feasibility. It would appear that little consideration has been given to access to the site, and the implications on a transport network that is already over capacitated, never mind the area itself. I would challenge whether appropriate modelling has been conducted to establish existing traffic levels, and the implications of overlaying road and rail traffic associated to the development, both during the build phase, and once operational. The local transport network is already at capacity, physical constraints exist in many instances preventing its expansion i.e increasing roads to dual carriageways (road and verge width constraints) - and there appears to have been no consideration given to this in the planned development. Tritax suggest the creation of potentially 8000+ new jobs - a major selling point it would suggest as a result of the development, at face value one would assume this to be a positive for the area, and i am sure, at national level, without consideration of local unemployment levels will be seen as such. In reality low unemployment in the area, coupled with regional housing constraints would necessitate both the creation of homes and the relocation of workers to support. The plans do not support this. Furthermore public transport within the area is limited, necessitating the use of private vehicles and the associated road congestion and pollution. Tritaxs plans have changed repeatedly. The changes introduced by tritax have sort to reduce costs associated to the build at the expense of the local area and environment. This is evident in the changes made to landscaping and the suggested removal of bunding around the area, to be replaced by 'landscaping', I suspect in part at least to support the stripping, and sale of top soil, and to avoid construction costs. Is there any rational justification beyond cost for removing bunding that provides visual, noise and light pollution protection beyond commercial motivation? This clearly demonstrates tritaxs focus on profiteering from the process, and disregard for the impact on the area and its inhabitants. The plans laid out by tritax, are i would strongly suggest sub optimal, one aspect of this is the complete lack of consideration given to the build phase. The completion of such a build will result in high levels of vehicles, including large construction vehicles entering and leaving the site. In the first instance the local road network is not capable of supporting this. Review of the roads in question evidences that they do not have the width to support vehicles of the size that will be used resulting in safety concerns and the likelihood of accidents resulting from increases in traffic levels, reflected in an increase in large vehicle movement, as well as smaller ancillary vehicles supporting the site. Furthermore resulting in levels of pollution; air, dirt etc that have again not been considered. No consideration has been given to site access during this phase. I am very concerned that burbage common road may be used as an access point, either formally, or as a result of drivers using their initiative... this cannot be allowed for safety reasons. Steps must be taken to prevent this, one option would be to gate the road making it private access. There is a similar risk once operational that burbage common road becomes an informal access route to the site, this must be prevented for safety reasons, it is a single track lane with poor visibility, totally unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles. All road access must be managed directly from the motorway, and I would suggest be time constrained to avoid peak traffic times. With appropriate cleaning of roads to ensure cleanliness. Furthermore the operational suggestion that the road will be used for emergency vehicles is not suitable. The road is a single track lane and is unsuitable for fire engines etc in an emergency situation. The suggestion in untenable. The pollution levels associated with the proposal have not been given due consideration. As a 24/7 operation with high volumes of rail and road traffic the facility will result in signification levels of air, noise, and light pollution. The changes proposed by tritax to the plans are in direct conflict of any consideration to the impact of pollution. The proposed removal of bunding will significantly increase levels of all forms of pollution within the area. This decision must if the development goes ahead be reversed. Visually the development will also be a blight on the landscape. All possible action should be taken to minimise the impact of this, bunding, landscaping, and suitable consideration given to the painting of buildings, and lighting. The development itself is, I understand to be powered by its own gas powered energy plant. In a world in which society is becoming more aware of its impact on the environment, seeking to move away from fossil fuels etc with a focus on sustainability i am astounded that a proposed build a decade away is incorporating a gas power generator on site, and planning to utilise diesel powered trains and trucks for movement of goods. I believe this to be totally unacceptable. The size of the facility provides a wonderful opportunity for the adaptation of renewable energy sources utilising solar power etc. If the development is to go ahead it must be on the basis of adopting the values that we as a country are seeking to drive. Utilisation of aging technologies is shameful. The impact on inhabitants of the development appears to be of limited interest to tritax, not only the human inhabitants, but also the local wildlife population which is currently rich and diverse. Due consideration should be given to the care and management of wildlife during the development ensuring that the development is as far as is possible empathic to its surroundings ensuring suitable consideration is given both during build, and in the operational state. It is evident that tritax do not really have any consideration for the region or its inhabitants. On a generic basis this has been demonstrated in the very poor engagement process operated by tritax. On a personal level even more so. Despite being a neighbouring landowner tritax have no interest in engagement, have failed to respond to previous communications on a personal level, and have not sort to engage with us in any meaningful way. In summary I am enough of a realist to recognise that tritax will, with the financing they have behind them in all probability make this happen one way or another. This is not a decision about what is right or wrong for the area, its wholly financially motivated, I understand that all be it that I find it disdainful. If my assumed sceptism is born out then the development must not continue in the current compromised manner. Plans must be redrawn to minimise the impact on the area, and its inhabitants. Due consideration must be given to both build and operational phases. The current plan is inadequate. Key stakeholders must be genuinely engaged by tritax, and where the development results in compromise to existing landowners compensation offered. From a personal perspective the 12 acres that we own, directly adjacent to the planned build is an equation centre, as are the surrounding properties. I question whether this will remain feasible. Construction of the facility will result in high levels of compromise to us and localised contamination with the prospect of noise, dust, dirt etc being blown over our property. No consideration has been given to us, or any of our neighbours. Frankly I am personally disgusted at what I see to be a poorly managed, profit focused development, enforced on the community with no consideration for the existing populous, and look to the planning inspectorate to ensure the appropriate safeguards are put in place to minimise the impact on the region, its people, and to ensure where appropriate adequate compensation is offered to those that are caught in the steam rolleresque actions of tritax. I would be very happy to offer any further engagement to that end and hope that my comments can be given due consideration. Best regards David burlingham