Rail hub proposal is detrimental to district
The view presented by the developers in the article “Rail freight interchange ‘benefits the district’” (Hinckley Times, Wednesday, February 22, 2023, page 4) is biased in their favour, although the article does point out that there is a lot of opposition. The proposal is actually detrimental to the district.
The site is totally inappropriate: The site is located in the middle of a rough circle of rural villages, Elmesthorpe, Stoney Stanton, Sapcote, Sharnford, Aston Flamville, Burbage, with also our market town of Hinckley, plus Barwell and Earl Shilton. It is also next to local, much loved, beauty spots and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), i.e.
Burbage Woods, Sheepy Wood, Aston Firs and Burbage Common. The addition of an enormous warehouse complex at this position would totally destroy the nature of the area.
The claim that 300,000 lorry trips a year will be removed from roads is misleading. This is a nominal figure that applies to the whole country (e.g. lorries in and out of freight ports). From information presented by Tritax Symmetry in their Preliminary Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) 555,984 HGV trips per year will travel into and out of the local site. Even if a large percentage of these go straight on to the M69, a small percentage of them will still create havoc, pollution and danger in the surrounding villages and towns.
The article talks about cutting pollution (but it only talks about CO2, not the more dangerous NOx and small particulates), however again that is spread across the nation – what it doesn’t say is that pollution will be increased significantly in our district.
And, separately referred to in a letter later in the same edition (page 10 “Councils have no strategic plan for the area”), there is a claim that 8,000 jobs will be generated, however most of these will not be new jobs. A lot will be displaced jobs from other warehousing sites and will entail employees travelling in and out of the site – mostly by car – on a daily basis, also adding traffic to the local villages. Most of the jobs will not benefit local people.
Our MPs Alberto Costa and Dr Luke Evans have correctly pointed out that allowing developers to position a large number of rail freight terminals and associated warehousing close together in the centre of the country (the so-called “Golden Triangle”) and then distributing to the rest of the country using long HGV journeys does not benefit the country or the region. A more distributed approach where rail freight terminals are located closer to the final destinations (which is called for in the National Strategy) and thereby minimising HGV journeys would be much more sensible. This is not NIMBYism, this is sensible strategic thinking on a national scale and the Planning Inspectorate should consider whether this proposal aligns with the intentions of the National Strategy.
Therefore the proposal is unacceptable because the site is not appropriate, the proposal will cause local traffic congestion and pollution and it does not align with the intention of the National Strategy. There are many other reasons not mentioned here, such as damage to the local environment. Therefore in conclusion; the proposal – if it goes ahead – will be seriously detrimental to the district and will not benefit the nation in the way that the National Strategy intends, and therefore should be prevented.