Representation by Brian Thomas Bedford
- Date submitted
- 21 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Burbage Common, woods and Aston Firs. Albeit the development area will not touch the actual common areas, the impact of an industrial/rail freight area next to the common areas will impact greatly: 1. Be an eyesore. 2. Occupy land adjacent to the common land which for centuries have been used by common people, footpaths and fields. 3. Block off wide natural wildlife corridors. 4. Introduce noise and carbon pollution to one of the few natura green wild areas left in the area. Infrastructure 1. Local roads, even with modification of the M69 near the site, are inadequate, neglected and not fit for purpose even for local traffic due to mass uncontrolled house building. 2. The A47 should have been built as a duel carriage way. It was not due to Leicester county council lack of fore sight and the amount of house building down there does not warrant HGV traffic. 3. The A5 in both directions to Hinckley again neglected in the planning process was modified and left a single road even when building massive industrial units down it's length. Where the A47 joins the A5 it is current chaos most of the time and cannot accommodate more HGV/works traffic which already traverse the A5 and A47. 4. The villages of Sharnford, Sapcote and Aston Flamville will have serious problems with short cutting HGV/additional traffic, with Sapcote having a very narrow double bend in its centre and Aston Flamville set in narrow country lanes, all leading to the proposed terminal. Adding to this the prospect of magna Park, vast industrial complex on the A5 near Rugby, despatching to the proposed terminal, using the said short cuts then life in these villages is going to be pretty miserable. 5. Blocking the A5 between Hinckley Coventry Road and the M69 roundabout near Burbage is a very low rail bridge which is often struck by high vehicles. HGV's getting that far will have no choice but to short cut through Hinckley and probably try to cross a traffic lighted weak canal bridge. Once in/approaching Hinckley and Burbage at Sketchley there is another low railway bridge. 6. Burbage is another area likely to be hit by extra traffic as there is a turn from the A5 near Smockington Hollow,which would lead through the village and onto Sapcote Road to the proposed terminal. Chaos would be expected. 7. The A47 to terminal link road will slice through some of the last wild areas left will destroy pleasure walking down the lane from the Leicester Road, past the common areas, either cutting it off or eyesore bridges in addition to the monstrous eyesore site area. Siting 1. The proposed site will be squeezed into a relatively small area with little to no room for expansion/modifications which will likely affect the common areas in the future. 2.Industry has no right to expand in or near common land, The Peoples Land. 3. The sighting in the proposed areas is very short sighted as there are other places, more strategic and will affect far fewer people, have room for infrastructure modifications which will actually benefit local traffic. 4. There is a huge expanse of land bordering and to the south of the A5 where the Hinckley Coventry Road, A45 and A5 meet. It's also adjacent to the existing Nuneaton, Hinckley, Leicester railway line. New exit entrance roads from the M9 to Nuneaton, long overdue, would reduce A5 traffic, give Nuneaton better travel routes and be relatively out of view. Limited access to a site there would force site traffic to use the M69 or the wide Long Shoot road but ideally the A% railway bridge wants modernising -raising and no matter where the site is located there needs to be a flyover, over the A5 roundabout at Hinckley, over the Long shoot turn towards Atherstone/Tamworth. Conclusion of Thoughts 1. There does not appear to have been much thought to the practicalities of the proposed site because of the wild area destruction, chaos and and massive infrastructure concerns when more appropriate areas are available. 2. For me it raises concerns as to the area of land being sold for this and would want an investigation as to if 'sweeteners' or other corrupt practices are involved. It just seems a very wrong place so why as it been chosen? 3. A site like the area to the South of the A5 would with restricted access, keep traffic for a site on existent main roads and be more efficient, develop better local infrastructure, especially for Nuneaton and be relatively out of the way and if planned right could develop, if required, as required at a later time.