Register of advice

The list below is a record of advice the Planning Inspectorate has provided in respect of the Planning Act 2008 process.

There is a statutory duty under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 to record the advice that is given in relation to an application or a potential application and to make this publicly available. Advice we have provided is recorded below together with the name of the person or organisation who asked for the advice and the project it relates to. The privacy of any other personal information will be protected in accordance with our Information Charter which you should view before sending information to the Planning Inspectorate.

Note that after a project page has been created for a particular application, any advice provided that relates to it will also be published under the ‘s51 advice’ tab on the relevant project page.

Advice given between between 1 October 2009 and 14 April 2015 has been archived. View the archived advice.

West Midlands Interchange View all advice for this project

08 September 2017
Natalie Fraser

Enquiry

I strongly object to this development and wish to protest at this scale and need for this freight hub.
I have and met with the representatives at Coven Memorial as part of their submission piece on the 22nd July.
My concerns relate to the devastating impact in regards to traffic congestion and air, noise and sound pollution due to increased volume of traffic.
In this location in regards to the A449 we already have significant issues within the Brewood Coven Penkridge area and this development will see increase in pollution and nitrous oxide levels due to the increase in HGV traffic.
I myself have breathing difficulties in regards to asthma and this will have significant impact upon the vulnerable within the community both old and young.
It has been estimated that 5000 HGVs will be making the journey in and out of the hub if it was to proceed.
There has already been a declaration from one of their officials to myself and my neighbours that there are very high levels of existing pollution noted on the A5 truck stop and feel this proposed development should have undertaken a through and robust impact health environmental assessment. The numbers and figures have not been authentically checked and they are weighted. What has not been made clear even during intensive scrutiny of the figures that this operation is a 24 our 7 day a week and therefore the residents of the A449 and A5 will see intensive noise sound air pollution. This area already has issues when the M6 becomes congested.
The developers have not undertaken a thorough needs impact health assessment and have not sufficiently research ed in regards to existing pollution levels on the A449 Stafford Road.This has been requested via our Councillor Sutton to ensure the pollution levels are correctly assessed in order to see how much they would gain. Currently we need to meet these obligations regarding increasing air quality.
My concerns also relate to the significance of jobs which will be low paid and will be few in number. Going forward these jobs would be likely be lowered due to the rise of robot technology. This development will only benefit the landowner who has currently have low rewarding agricultural land but due to this proposal see his assets rise excrementally. Also the hub if not proved to be successful can be later developed into nothing more than another road warehouse facility. I feel (FAL) Four Ashes Limited are using the special measures in order to overcome Greenbelt strict planning restrictions. This location does not provide the road infrastructure to sustain such traffic. Other locations such as Stoke do wish to have this facility therefore this should carry more weight in respect to other sites and wishes of residents regarding these developments.
Most people who struggle with plans will not realise the size and enormity of this development which has been proposed. The height and scale of this proposals is absolutely monstrous. The need has not been proven and the attempt to provide banking and build a park is nothing more than a low grade gesture in order to attempt some form of Community Relations PR exercise which most residents will see
through.
The area and beauty should be maintained, we already have seen other schemes rail- roaded to include the recycle centre and the visual impact and congestion in the area that enough is enough.
I have credibility concerns which I raised to the FAL Representative about the misrepresentation of traffic facts and figures to manipulate their shared outcome to the community within their PR information. All of these figures and claims should be independently scrutinized to ensure the community are provided with accurate facts and figures. We deserve to have FAL data verified and checked as part of the scrutiny process by experts who are independent and not on the payroll of FAL.
The staff were shipped in from London and do not have any knowledge or expertise of the area and the current traffic issues we face every day which shows utter contempt for us living in the community.
Please can you send my email and collate my concerns towards your collective campaign

Advice given

Thank you for including PINS in your correspondence to the Applicant, which raises concerns relating to the proposed development.
We acknowledge that your correspondence was submitted to the Applicant in relation to their Statutory Consultation (‘Stage 2 Consultation’) carried out from 5 July to 30 August 2017. The Planning Act 2008 sets out the legislation and regulations that guides a developer on who and how to consult during the Pre-Application stage - the stage at which the West Midlands interchange project is currently in.
To assist various interest groups, PINS has recently published to our website Frequently Asked Questions ( attachment 1 ) which provides information on the Pre-Application stage of the Planning Act 2008 planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP), which you may find helpful.
Please contact us if you have any further queries related to this project.


attachment 1
attachment 1