Representation by Edward Chapman
- 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, 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: 1. Air pollution arising from the increased rail and road traffic, and the close proximity of the site. Whilst we note that Tritax have 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 the site 2. 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 have 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. 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, 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 construction traffic during the development of the site. As the regular Postman delivering in Elmesthorpe I have witnessed the significant amounts of traffic travelling through the village at peak times, particularly Station Road. It is already proving increasingly dangerous for me to do my job, whether it be getting in and out of my vehicle on the main road or pulling into and out of driveways. The increase in traffic that this development will inevitably cause will simply serve to compound an already dangerous situation. 3. 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 did ask whether if they were in 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 the impact on local residents would, frankly, be our problem and no interest of Tritax. Furthermore, I also note that Leicestershire County Council refused to support the consultation because the traffic modelling results that Tritax used have not been agreed by them. This really does not build confidence 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. 4. 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 Tritax’s 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 established 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. Traffic comes over the bridge at very fast speeds, and with the impaired line of sight 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. 5. 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 will not have an impact, both for us, and also for the wildlife in the area. 6. 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 Tritax did display some projected visuals showing a number of views now, and how they anticipate 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. 7. There will be a significant increase in noise both during the lengthy construction process, and longer term. Following the disruption that will inevitably be caused during the construction phase, the operation of the site together with an increase in HGV traffic and heavy rail freight (train numbers and length) will have a significant impact on my day to day life as i am a key worker delivering mail for Royal Mail this has been especially invaluable during the pandemic. 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. 8. 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. At the consultation Tritax indicated 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). 9. 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. 10. 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 which are protected by Law under the wildlife and countryside act 1981. We also have voles, deer, hares, woodpeckers, kingfishers and birds of prey together with more common types of wildlife. 11. 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 site is planned to be built on greenbelt land and not a brownfield site, i am very concerned this will set a Precedent for all greenfield and farmland sites of Leicestershire! 12. 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 Tritax intend to build is a corridor for wildlife to move between habitats. This will be irretrievably lost as a result of this development. 13. 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. 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. One of these joys is the access to burbage common road, as a family we can walk up and enjoy many of the site of nature, from hares, birds and horses. Not only does the road provide access to the farm shop but also burbage common and woods. Many people use the road for walking, Cycling, running and of course the horse riders. 14. 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. We have been informed that flooding mitigation has been incorporated in the plans, and that ALL of the run off 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 this 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, water birds including kingfishers, voles, dragonflies and other creatures. Since our move to Bostock close in 2009 we have already over 7 separate flooding issue with the stream at the bottom of our garden due to high levels of rainfall. It is well know that large amounts of land in Elmesthorpe has a history of flooding. As the postman for elmesthorpe village in the last 8 years i have seen many of these issues. For example the road into the Fishery had a bridge over the stream that has burst it banks many a times just from excess rainfall. This site proposes extreme dangers not only to residents but road traffic and the wildlife habitat! I have many photos of flooding from our stream to the elmesthorpe fishery over the years which i can attach to this document but i am unable to do so. Can you please provide an email address so that these can be forwarded. 15. As the proposal stands it will result in the loss of Woodhouse Farm, a thriving local family business that is of importance to the village and community in the area which has proven vital to us and many others locally during repeated covid lockdowns and enables us to purchase high quality locally produced meat, reducing our carbon footprint and helping us to support the local economy. In addition to my own varied concerns, having read Tritax’s paperwork and attended the consultation I have further concerns about some of the claims that Tritax have made. They 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 state 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 Tritax 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 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 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, Tritax state that the development of HNRFI will create 8,400 jobs. Who do they propose is going to fill those jobs? When this question was asked at the consultation they 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 the potential benefits of moving freight by rail are further 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 can not, deliver the benefits that Tritax are claiming. 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. Yours faithfully Eddie Chapman