1,000 signatures reached
To: Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Stop the building of the Strategic Rail Freight Interchange at Castle Donington
Dear Minister, We ask that you reject the proposal for the construction of a massive Strategic Rail Freight Interchange on agricultural "green" land adjacent to East Midlands Airport at Castle Donington, Leicestershire. This is an environmentally damaging, polluting and unnecessary development which we believe will benefit the few at the expense of the residents of Castle Donington, Hemington, Lockington, Breedon, Kegworth and surrounding villages. We respectfully ask that you reject it.
Why is this important?
The building of a new Strategic Rail Freight Interchange at Castle Donington, close to East Midlands Airport, should not go ahead for the following reasons:
1. The SRFI would be sited on 650 acres of "green", agricultural land. The Castle Donington area has already suffered from very significant depletion of its "green" land over the past ten years or more. In our opinion this development would add to the environmental damage already caused. The footprint of the warehouses alone would be several million square feet.
2. We do not believe that the Midlands needs another SRFI. A very similar development is already operational at Daventry, less than forty miles away. In what sense, therefore, can this one be considered to be "strategic"? Is it the strategy that there should be a patchwork of such sites across the country each forty miles from the other? We believe not.
3. The SRFI would be sited close to Junction 24 of the M1 which is already one of the busiest junctions on one of the busiest stretches of motorway in the country (hence the widening of the M1 in the surrounding area). It appears likely that this development would add to already high levels of traffic congestion.
4. Nottingham has the highest level of air pollution in the country (WHO air quality report 2014). The combination of the M1/A42/A453/A50/A6 and East Midlands Airport means that this is already a very polluted area. In our opinion the proposed SRFI would make the area more polluted. We understand that some local councils a few miles to the north are considering asking for the introduction of speed controls in a bid to limit pollution from traffic on the M1 which reflects their own concerns about pollution. Local GPs recognise the serious implications of existing levels of pollution on the health of people who live in this area. This development would undoubtedly make this worse. Is it right that a development should go ahead at the expense of public health?
5. Claims that this will generate up to 7000 "new jobs" seem to us to be vastly overblown and designed to appeal to the understandable desire to get the economy moving again as quickly as possible. Whilst we of course support that aim, we believe that these claims are groundless and far from proven. They need to be examined in far greater detail and their accuracy verified. In the unlikely event that they are proven then, of course, 7000 "new jobs" will generate very significant extra traffic around junction 24, on surrounding roads and in all nearby communities, and add to congestion and pollution.
6. Finally, we are very deeply concerned that this application is being "fast tracked" when issues of strategic need as well as the environment, traffic congestion and pollution - all of which remain of critical importance to local residents - have not, in our opinion, been properly addressed.
1. The SRFI would be sited on 650 acres of "green", agricultural land. The Castle Donington area has already suffered from very significant depletion of its "green" land over the past ten years or more. In our opinion this development would add to the environmental damage already caused. The footprint of the warehouses alone would be several million square feet.
2. We do not believe that the Midlands needs another SRFI. A very similar development is already operational at Daventry, less than forty miles away. In what sense, therefore, can this one be considered to be "strategic"? Is it the strategy that there should be a patchwork of such sites across the country each forty miles from the other? We believe not.
3. The SRFI would be sited close to Junction 24 of the M1 which is already one of the busiest junctions on one of the busiest stretches of motorway in the country (hence the widening of the M1 in the surrounding area). It appears likely that this development would add to already high levels of traffic congestion.
4. Nottingham has the highest level of air pollution in the country (WHO air quality report 2014). The combination of the M1/A42/A453/A50/A6 and East Midlands Airport means that this is already a very polluted area. In our opinion the proposed SRFI would make the area more polluted. We understand that some local councils a few miles to the north are considering asking for the introduction of speed controls in a bid to limit pollution from traffic on the M1 which reflects their own concerns about pollution. Local GPs recognise the serious implications of existing levels of pollution on the health of people who live in this area. This development would undoubtedly make this worse. Is it right that a development should go ahead at the expense of public health?
5. Claims that this will generate up to 7000 "new jobs" seem to us to be vastly overblown and designed to appeal to the understandable desire to get the economy moving again as quickly as possible. Whilst we of course support that aim, we believe that these claims are groundless and far from proven. They need to be examined in far greater detail and their accuracy verified. In the unlikely event that they are proven then, of course, 7000 "new jobs" will generate very significant extra traffic around junction 24, on surrounding roads and in all nearby communities, and add to congestion and pollution.
6. Finally, we are very deeply concerned that this application is being "fast tracked" when issues of strategic need as well as the environment, traffic congestion and pollution - all of which remain of critical importance to local residents - have not, in our opinion, been properly addressed.
