Back to list Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange

Representation by Michelle Auger

Date submitted
21 June 2023
Submitted by
Members of the public/businesses

Feedback regarding proposal for the construction of HNRFI Dear Sirs, As a resident of Bostock Close in Elmesthorpe I am seriously concerned about the proposed development of the Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange (HNRFI), and the potential direct impact on my family and our day to day lives, as well as those of our neighbours. That potential impact is huge and varied, and all of the residents in our close have grave concerns about the potential consequences of the proposed development. Our specific concerns arising from our close proximity to the proposed development include, but are not limited to: • Air pollution arising from the increased rail and road traffic, and the close proximity of the site. Whilst we note that Tritax indicated that the units will be built to net zero carbon emissions, there is no commitment to mitigate or try to reduce the air pollution arising from the increased number of diesel trains or increased road traffic (in particular HGV traffic) travelling to and from the site. • Increased congestion on surrounding roads, both locally and in the wider area. Whilst we have been advised that the intention is for all traffic to the site to be routed through the access at the M69 and Leicester Road entrances to avoid traffic coming through Elmesthorpe there seems to have been no thought given to how to enforce this. Furthermore no assurances have been given, and no consideration appears to have been given, to the likelihood of employees choosing to park in Elmesthorpe and walk through to the site. Tritax advised that they will encourage employees to travel to the site on foot or cycle, but the roads through Elmesthorpe are already treacherous for anyone choosing to try to cycle through the village, and the footpaths are similarly dangerous, often overgrown and in numerous places only wide enough to accommodate a single person. Any increase in foot or cycle traffic will make the village a hotspot for accidents and injuries. The proposals do not include any provision for improving the roads in Elmesthorpe, and any increase in traffic, be that motor vehicles, cycle or foot traffic is simply going to create a dangerous level of congestion, with a serious accident being only a matter of time. Whilst, as above, access to the site will be from the motorway or Leicester Road there will still undoubtedly be an increase in incidental traffic in the village trying to reach the main accessways, increased traffic resulting from the roundabout itself having been opened up onto and off of the South/ West bound carriageway of the M69, issues with people being misdirected by sat navs (potentially heavy traffic including lorries etc). There is also the potential for congestion if the site has to be evacuated or emptied through the village in the event of a traffic or safety incident, as we had been given to understand that what is now Burbage Common Road would be kept open at the Elmesthorpe end as an access for emergency vehicles in the event that congestion prevented them from accessing the site in an emergency, and also as a way to allow traffic off the site in the event of such emergency. The existing road through the village is already the subject of a number of safety concerns, with several serious and one fatal accident having occurred in the last few years. We have also been given no assurances with regard to the access intended to be used by construction traffic during the development of the site. • In terms of road network in the wider area, issues with congestion already affect the M69, particularly where this joins the M1, A5, A46 and other major routes which already operate at, or beyond their capacity. The addition of significant heavy goods traffic, together with employees travelling to the site (since the location means that proportionally few will be able to walk or cycle) will have a hugely detrimental effect on the movement of traffic in the whole area. When this was raised at the consultation Tritax were unable to provide a satisfactory response to these concerns, and it appeared that they had really not been considered. Given that such highway improvement work would be out of Tritax’s span of control I enquired whether there had been consultation with the highways agency or local authorities to try to limit or mitigate the impact of the increased traffic on the wider road network, or ensure that plans were at least being looked at, and it was quite clear that this has not been incorporated as part of the project – so should HNRFI proceed as planned clearly it is going to be other agencies or central government who are going to have to pick up the pieces in terms of paying for work to enable the wider network to cope with the level of demand, and in the meantime this would have significant impact on the village. Furthermore, I also note that Leicestershire County Council refused to support the consultation because the traffic modelling results used by Tritax had not been agreed by them. I can see no evidence that suggests that Tritax have thoroughly investigated the impacts of this site or undertaken any real work to try to mitigate it. The concerns in terms of increased capacity are also not limited to the road network. It is quite clear that the current rail network would struggle to cope with the increased rail traffic, the level crossing in Narborough being just one point of particular concern. • Should the proposal go ahead the pedestrian crossings over the railway line would be required to be closed, and in particular here I am referring to the one behind Bostock Close. I note that the intention is to re-route pedestrians through Bostock Close to then cross the main road at the bottom of the railway bridge. When questioned on this point at the consultation I was told that the intention is to provide dropped kerbs to facilitate crossing by pedestrians. Any redirection of foot traffic to the end of Bostock Close with the expectation that they will be able to safely cross at that point is seriously misguided. Due to the bend in the road at that point it is impossible to see in both directions when trying to cross into Bostock Close from the other side of the road, and the very narrow footpath would make it difficult for any more than one or two people to be able to move safely off/ away from the carriageway. Traffic comes over the bridge at very fast speeds, and with the impaired line of sight caused by the bend in the road it is a very dangerous place to cross, as is any point really much before The Badgers Mount Hotel some hundred yards further along. I am aware of at least one instance of a pedestrian incurring life changing injuries having been struck by a car at that point, and any increase in foot traffic at that point will merely result in the next serious accident coming sooner. • Light pollution from the site. We are told that this will be ‘directed downwards’ to minimise the impact, but since we live very close to the proposed site there is no way that the amount of increased lighting cannot have an impact, both for us, and also for the wildlife in the area. • The visual impact of such huge units, and larger, more frequent trains. We live a few hundred metres from the railway line itself and whilst the frequency and length of rail traffic currently is not intrusive large freight trains do result in noticeable vibrations in our property. Any increase in that heavy freight traffic will undoubtedly affect the integrity of our home. With regard to the visual impact, I note that at the consultation some projected visuals were on display showing a number of views now, and how it is anticipated the same view might look in 15 years time should this proposal proceed as set out. Interestingly, all of those visuals were the anticipated view from some distance from the site. None were ‘up close and personal’ in the way that we will have to live with the eyesore that will result. At one of the consultation meetings I requested visuals be provided for the anticipated view form the top of the railway bridge on Station Road, and also from outside Langton Farm Stables, which will give us a better indication of the visual intrusion we (and many others) will have to live with on a day to day basis, but despite chasing up on this I received no reply, and no additional visuals were ever provided, further demonstrating Tritax’s unwillingness to engage and provide complete and honest disclosure as to the impact of the site. • Increased noise during the lengthy construction process, and longer term from the works on the site and as a result of an increase in HGV traffic and heavy rail freight train numbers and length. • We don’t know whether the proposed site is intended to handle hazardous materials, or other materials that have the potential to cause damage to the local environment. I queried this at the consultation and it was suggested to me that the site would service the auto industry in the midlands. My first question would be what auto industry? Any that there might be is based nearer Coventry so would be better served by a different site. But regardless, if this were indeed the case given the move towards electric cars etc, this immediately raises a question around whether battery acid etc, as well as other chemicals and potentially toxic materials might be handled or stored on the site. Tritax have provided no assurances in this respect, merely citing that they cannot comment as they do not know who will be using the units, or what for (assuming of course that they are even able to attract customers to occupy the site given the quantity of warehousing already vacant in the area). • The proposed development would wipe out Woodhouse Farm, a thriving and popular local business which provides high quality, locally produced meat products and holds regular hog roast and farmers market weekends, which are very popular and benefit both local small businesses and the community. This completely flies in the face of any attempt for the local area, and the country as a whole, to become more self sufficient and reduce our carbon footprint in food production. • Clearly we are concerned about the potential decrease in the value of our property as a result of the development, but that is a secondary concern to the decrease in our quality of life and wellbeing living adjacent to such a large development. • The impact on the local wildlife resulting from destruction of their homes, loss of habitat and being harmed as a result of the construction works or the ongoing operation of the site, particularly the risk posed by increased numbers of trains. This includes slow worms, voles, deer, hares, woodpeckers, kingfishers and birds of prey together with more common types of wildlife. • The impact on the local environment – the site will encompass a large area of undeveloped farmland destroying habitats for wildlife and the natural balance of the area as a whole • The proposed site runs right up to the boundary of Burbage Common and Woods – a Site of Special Scientific Interest and vital area of ancient natural habitat for wildlife which will be irreparably impacted as a result of the disruption caused by building and other work required to construct the proposed development, as well as the ongoing disruption and damage to habitat caused by the day to day noise, light and other pollution resulting from the operation of the site. The farmland over which this development has been proposed is a corridor for wildlife to move between habitats. This will be irretrievably lost as a result of this development. • Significant impact on our mental health. A major factor in our decision to move to Elmesthorpe is our ability to quickly and easily access the countryside on foot from our own front door, and the need to his is even greater now that I am working from home (and will continue to do so indefinitely). Following covid, and at a time when our collective mental health is claimed to be a core principle of government policy, the unnecessary destruction of a large swathe of countryside is completely opposed to these principles, especially when there are plenty of existing sites either already in operation or in development that will provide the same sort of infrastructure as that proposed, not to mention brown field sites where the employment is actually required, for example by re-opening the Ivanhoe line between Leicester and Burton. • Such concerns affect not only myself but also a great number of people. I regularly walk along Burbage Common road on different days and at different times, and I love to see the hares especially running the fields, but what always strikes me is the extent to which vehicle traffic using the road is greatly outweighed by the number of people walking, with and without dogs, running, cycling and horse riding along the lane. • As if these concerns were not sufficient, we are deeply concerned because our property adjoins the small stream that runs along the back of some of the properties on Bostock Close and is fed by rainfall and runoff from Burbage Common and Woods across the existing farmland. The water levels in the stream can already be subject to sudden and dramatic increases during periods of prolonged or heavy rain, and anything that would increase the amount and speed of run off is highly likely to have a devastating impact on the ability of the watercourse to cope with the volumes of water that it is expected to carry. The result of which would be flooding directly into our properties. Since moving into our property in 2009 we are aware that the stream has flooded some 5 or 6 times, and with increasing frequency in recent years. For illustration I am able to provide photographs showing the changing water levels from flooding on 28 January 2021, and for comparison the more normal winter stream level on 13 February the same year but unfortunately i am unable to include these here. Is there an email address to which image can be sent? Whilst at present the flooding affects the flood plain on the opposite side of the stream and change to this water course could gave a catastrophic effect on our property. We have been informed that flooding mitigation has been incorporated in the plans, and that ALL of the run of from the site will be collected and released into the watercourse over a prolonged period to prevent flooding as a result of the concreting over of large areas of agricultural land. However, we do not have any confidence that the scale of the issue has been taken fully into consideration, nor seen any evidence that convinces us that any proposed mitigation would be sufficient to protect ours or our neighbours properties in the event of any significant rainfall. The proposed route for the accessway onto Leicester Road crosses land adjacent to a site which was being developed for a crematorium, but work there has had to cease because of the high water table, meaning that any attempt to dig down more that a few feet is hampered by running water. Would the water from the Leicester Road side of the development also be collected and released into the watercourse adjoining our property, meaning that the stream was actually carrying a larger volume of water? Any change to the levels or behaviour of the watercourse (including a rise on the constant level of the water) will have a devastating impact on the ecosystem that it supports, which as I have said, includes fish, waterbirds including kingfishers, voles, dragonflies and other creatures. In addition to my own varied concerns, having read the paperwork provided and attended several consultations I have further concerns about some of the claims made. Tritax rely heavily on the environmental benefits of moving freight by rail rather than HGV, and whilst in principle this is a fine notion, in reality I do not believe that this development itself has the ‘green credentials’ to support and maximise the benefits of this idea. Tritax claim that all units will be “built to net zero carbon in construction” but there is no wider commitment to making the site itself carbon neutral, or placing any expectation on the occupiers of the site to meet environmentally friendly. Whilst they state that they will encourage employees to use environmentally friendly transport, in reality few people will live close enough to walk to the site and cycling in from whichever direction would be dangerous to the point of being preventative on the existing infrastructure (especially through Elmesthorpe) so the vast majority of staff will drive to the site. Furthermore, the notion that transporting freight by rail rather than road can only deliver benefits where the end market is sufficiently close to the rail hub. The proposed site lies 25km from Hams Hall RFI, 20km from Birch Coppice RFI and 15km from both Prologis Park RFI and DIRFT, not to mention the close proximity of Magna Park, Europes largest distribution park, and the newly developed distribution centre near to the Hinckley Island Hotel at the A5/M69 roundabout in Burbage. Quite aside from the fact that these existing sites are not being used to their full capacity, reflecting a possible over provision of warehousing in the area already, it is difficult to see what market the proposed HNRFI could possibly serve that is not already sufficiently served by the existing interchanges. And whilst I am on the subject of the other existing interchanges, it has been claimed that the development of HNRFI will create 8,400 jobs but there is no clear indication as to who these jobs will be filled by. When this question was asked at the consultation Tritax seemed confident that as a result of the existing sites there is already a workforce with the required skills to service the development, and whilst this may be true, those staff are already employed. Unemployment levels locally are below the national average, and in view of the fact that Magna Park have had to start bussing staff in from as far afield as Milton Keynes to fill posts that already exist I struggle to see what benefit the additional jobs will be to the local area. And again, if staff are driving significant distances to work at the site then locally road traffic is increased, and the potential benefits of moving freight by rail are reduced by virtue of increased road traffic by employees. To be clear, I am completely opposed to the proposed development. The location of the proposed development is such that it will not, and cannot, deliver the benefits that Tritax are claiming for the development. There is nothing in the proposals that will benefit the local economy or environment, and the impact on infrastructure in the wider area, which is already operating over capacity, and with no clear plan for mitigation, will be devastating. The proposed development is quite simply in the wrong place in terms of infrastructure, proximity to other distribution centres, distance from end market, lack of need for jobs in the area, impact on the local community and impact on the environment and surrounding areas. The potential benefits simply cannot be realised and the site will cause irrevocable harm for little or no benefit.