West Midlands Interchange

Representations received regarding West Midlands Interchange

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on West Midlands Interchange and their relevant representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Parish Councils
Brewood and Coven Parish Council
"• The development would result in further urbanisation in South Staffordshire. • The development would be inappropriate in the Green Belt with no special circumstances demonstrated. • Alternative sites were available and would be more appropriate, i.e. Stoke-on-Trent, where unemployment was high. Having studied the consultation documents the Parish Council would like to make the following comments: Site Suitability With regard to the suitability of the Four Ashes site for a strategic rail freight interchange, this Parish Council does not believe that an alternative site assessment has been comprehensively investigated. Green Belt Considerations With regard to the National Policy Framework, very special circumstances have not been demonstrated in our opinion. We are concerned about the impact on our residents and on our Green Belt. Cultural Heritage The effects of the proposed West Midlands Interchange on the cultural heritage (above ground) have not been fully explored and we are concerned about the impact on our residents. Ecology and Nature Conservation The effects of the proposed West Midlands Interchange on ecology and nature conservation have not been fully explored and we are concerned about the impact on our residents. Air Quality and Carbon Emissions The effects of the proposed West Midlands Interchange on air quality and carbon emissions have not been fully investigated and we are concerned about the impact on our residents. Landscape and Visual Impact The effects of the proposed West Midlands Interchange on the landscape and the visual impact it may have has not been fully investigated and we are concerned about the impact on our residents. Socio-Economic In relation to employment impacts of the development, the reasoning outlined in the documentation has not been adequately demonstrated. The information given does not correlate with the South Staffordshire Locality Profile 2017. Transport Networks The information given is subjective and is not supported by up to date figures. Noise The information given is subjective. Consultation Period Although the consultation period ran between 5th July and 30th August 2017, the actual window of opportunity for local residents and businesses to explore the huge impact of this proposal with presenters of the exhibitions was restricted to an 11 day period only. (11th July to 22nd July). On behalf of our electorate, we consider this wholly inadequate for such a major development. Those Parish Councillors who were able to attend the exhibitions felt their questions to the presenters were unanswered or responses were lacking in knowledge or detail. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Richard Taylor
"Inadequate alternative site searches Green belt incursion. Iadequate traffic management Storage use unncnected with rail hub"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Russ James
"I object to this application for various reasons. The location is totally unsuitable as it is valuable Greenbelt land. The impact of 16,000 extra vehicles per day is not sustainable by the existing highways (which are already heavily congested). My biggest concern however, is the impact on the health, safety and well being of the current residents (young and old) with the massive increase in HGV traffic and resulting poor air quality due to a huge increase in CO2 emissions."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kevin Kearney
" I am unhappy with the extra traffic that this scheme will bring to the area. I have read that there will be several thousand cars and lorries each day and In don't think the area can cope with that extra traffic. The claim that the scheme will provide numerous jobs is irrelevant as there is no unemployment in the area, so I believe the scheme should be related to other areas, such as the Potteries, where there is a need for unemployment. Why erect such enormous buildings on green field sites when there are ample brownfield sites with existing links to Motorways and Railways that are in need of this type of development, again the Potteries are a good example."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mick Clews
"Objection to the proposal due to catastrophic impact on local environment. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Winnie Millington
"Protect the Green Belt Negative Effect on the Environment / Pollution / Air Quality / Noise / Light Negative Effect on Local Highways and Traffic Negative Effect on Local Health Negative Effect on the Local Flora & Fauna (Ecology) Loss of Agricultural Land & Countryside Wrong Location - Stoke on Trent would be a more suitable location and they would like the Interchange to be there Other more suitable locations available Brownfield land more suitable Regional employment has not been considered Bussing in employees for other regions damages local economy Is not in accord with Local Planning Policy Negative Effects on Local Business "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alison Stirling-Edge
"I am making this representation because I am concerned about… Protecting the Green Belt Negative Effects on the Environment / Pollution / Air Quality / Noise / Light Negative Effects on the Local Highways and the Increase in Traffic Negative Effects on Local Health Negative Effects on the Local Flora & Fauna (Ecology) Loss of Agricultural Land & Countryside Negative Effects on Local Business"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anita Anderson
"I am strongly objecting to this application for the following reasons: Not only will this destroy nearly 700 acres of our greenbelt/agricultural land and countryside, it will destroy many of our leisure facilities, compromise the health of our population, particularly the elderly. The average age of people in South Staffordshire is 43, while the median age is higher at 45. Overall, 20.2% of the population are of retirement age or older The most rapidly increasing sector of the population is the 85+ age group. The local Sustainable Community Strategy consultation identified that 2 of the top priorities to be focused on were: 1) health and 2) quality of the local environment. Health & Wellbeing Priorities: • Support older people to stay healthy and independent. • Promote healthy lifestyles of adults and young people. • Reduce health inequalities. It will have a negative impact on the environment in terms of pollution, air quality, noise and light. It will have a negative effect on local highways and will increase traffic. It is not strongly linked to the trunk road network. There are more suitable sites on brownfield land. Regional employment has not been considered, there is little unemployment in South Staffs and employees will be transported in from other areas adding to the road congestion. This does not fall in line with local planning policy or local air pollution strategies. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Peak
"I object to this application because I am concerned about the negative impact to noise, air quality, health and traffic on local roads. I think there are more suitable locations available and brownfield land would be more suitable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Howard Percival
"I object to this application because I am concerned about… Protecting the Green Belt. Negative Effects on the Environment/Pollution/Air Quality/Noise/Light. Negative Effects on the Local Highways and the Increase in Traffic. Negative Effects on Local Health. Loss of Agricultural Land & Countryside. Negative Effects on Local Business. There are other more suitable locations available. Brownfield land would be more suitable. Regional employment has not been considered properly. Busing in thousands of employees from other regions could damage our local economy. And is not in accord with Local Planning Policy. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
James
"REFUSE THIS APPLICATION THIS APPLICATION TO BUILD THIS ON GREEN BELT SHOULD BE REFUSED GREEN BELT OTHER SITES AVAILABLE (STOKE ON TRENT) WOULD WELCOME EMPLOYMENT TRAFFIC LANDOWNER HAS NOT EXPLORED OTHER SITES CORRECTLY AS HE HAS AN INTEREST IN SELLING HIS OWN LAND "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr C. Clark
"I have objections to the proposal. The location and the reasons given for the proposal are inconsistent and contradictory. Due consideration of the location being within designated Green Belt has not been taken into account. Due consideration of the proposal's impact on the environment has not been taken into account. Due consideration of the proposal's impact on the immediate and wider residential population has not been taken into account. The data projections for employment created, reductions in road haulage, benefits to the local and national economy are misleading. The principle upon which the reasons for the proposal rests is false. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Derek Taylor
"The roads are struggling with the traffic at the moment around here. Only yesterday the A5 was grid locked, I had to cut through four ashes, even Saturday the A5 was grid locked again. Last night the traffic was queuing at the gailey island. Any work they do round here causes misery for everyone who lives or uses the roads round here. Why does it need to go on green belt land, I was refused a 12ft x 12ft extension on my house which would have been on my drive, because it's green belt. So why can that go a head? If you travel on the train from penkridge to birmingham there are loads of derelict buildings and waste land, which is a disgrace and a mess, why aren't these sites being used, there along the railway line and in commercial areas. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Anne Moseley
"The 18624 lorries per day clogging up the road from Junction 14 (Dunston) to Junction 13 (Gailey) of the M6 will be bringing traffic to a standstill. When there is an accident local roads (A449 and A5) which all lead to Gailey island are brought to a standstill already. All our school children are taken by coaches along the A449 to the high school (Wolgarston) in Penkridge and their journey to and from school will be very badly affected by the heavy increase in traffic. The CO2 emmissions will be detrimental to us personally, there are three schools here in Brewood as well as five in Penkridge, where the children's health will be affected, and a majority of elderley residents will suffer from pollution from extra lorries. This proposal is for rented automated warehouses, so not many jobs for our area then, but who will keep the properties clean, litter free, and tidy up after the lorries have dumped their cargos? There is a real worry about this level of traffic that we already have where the main roads merge at Gailey, Ambulances and other emergency vehicles already struggle to get to Brewood at the moment! The Hospital at Stafford is already a crowded journey for visiting times, it could cost lives if the roads have to carry another 18000plus lorries per day!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Christine Smythe
"I am objecting to this application because: I am concerned about; the loss of our beautiful green belt and want it protected. the negative effects on the environment/pollution/noise the negative effects on local health/local fauna and flora loss of agricultural land and countryside, which will effect food production negative effects on local businesses brownfield land would be more suitable It is not in accord with local planning"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs M Taylor
"If this is put on green belt land, then any green belt land any where in the country will not be safe and will be destroyed. If there's one rule for them, then it applies to everyone. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Natalie Armitage
"The application for a rail freight hub in this location is completely untenable for a number of reasons: - Firstly, the current road infrastructure is already pushed to its limits in this area. The M6 is one of the busiest stretches of motorway in the UK, and having lived in close proximity for many years I can attest to the wide-reaching impact of the traffic if there are any incidents. If there are issues with the M6 in this area, then traffic is diverted onto the A449 and through Stafford, Penkridge, and Wolverhampton. The road infrastructure of these towns and the surrounding area is not sufficient enough to cope with this traffic as it is, the addition of thousands more lorries a day would cause routine delays, gridlocked roads, and deeply impact upon the lives and well-being of the local communities. For an example of the roads inability to cope with increased traffic volume, perhaps it would be worth looking at the impact the traffic for V-Festival had over the last 10years in the area. All local residents were aware that attempting to travel during this weekend would be futile, as the increased volume of traffic gridlocked the A5, A449, and surrounding roads - this would be an everyday occurrence if the planning for this development went ahead. However, this is just assuming an incident on the motorway, and not taking into consideration the routine congestion that affects this stretch of road. If I need to travel into Birmingham for work the journey should take 30mins, however, with current traffic levels this can easily be anywhere between 1-2hrs. With the extra traffic created by the lorries using the freight hub, this would only add to an individuals commute time and make the journey to work for many people in the region impossibly difficult. - I would also like to raise the issue of the environmental and health impact that this development would bring. There is already a high level of respiratory illness in the area (due in part to pollution from the M6), adding to this with thousands more vehicles a day would have a hugely detrimental effect upon the local residents. There would also be a significant health and well-being issue for the people living in close proximity, as the noise, traffic, and the likelihood of being trapped in their homes due to gridlocked roads could have a severe effect upon their mental health and well-being. - I would also add that this sets a worrying precedent about the use of Green-Belt land. Especially when there are far more appropriate sites, such as abandoned brownfield, that would be better suited to this type of development. And the subsequent loss of agricultural land in the area is deeply concerning. - Finally, I would like to add that despite the planning applications claims that this development is needed in this area to create jobs and help the economy, I would have to disagree with this claim. This is a predominantly rural area and unemployment is comparatively low, therefore the workers that would be looking to take these jobs would also have to commute in to the freight hub (adding even more traffic to the roads). This is also an industry that is fast-moving towards automation, so what is the longevity and job-security of any of the jobs that are being created here? Consequently, this development will have little to no positive impact for the local residents, and it will have very little benefit to the local economy once it is completed. I am not against development opportunities, but having carefully looked at the plans and proposals and taken into consideration my knowledge of the local area, I cannot see any benefits to anyone locally, but, perhaps more importantly, do not agree that this is the correct strategic placement of such a development. The local infrastructure is already saturated, the proposed impact on the roads would not just mean local people are affected, but also that the hub itself cannot function in the way that it was intended. This alone should be reason to reject the plans of this development. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Petula Hughes
"This is a totally inappropriate site, mainly in green belt and open countryside - there are far more appropriate brownfield sites within this court. It will have a very negative effect on the local highway structure with a huge increase in volume of traffic. Our roads already suited terrible congestion everyone there is a problem on the M6, bringing Penkridge to a standstill. Not to mention the effect on the environment - pollution, noise, air quality, wildlife and flora. The development will damage our local economy, workers will be brought in from outside our area therefore not beneficial in terms of employment. Finally this development is not in accordance with our local planning policy and should not be allowed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sue Quinton
"I think this is completely inappropriate for the proposed rural location and is an attack on the Greenbelt. I don’t believe it will increase jobs to the people living in the area and will merely cause pollution and traffic congestion to the locality which is a beautiful area despite the motorway."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Adams
"I am a resident of Penkridge and have significant concerns relating to the proposed development at Gailey (WMFI) I do not believe that sufficient or even if any consideration has been given by the developers to the road structure and capacity of roads within a three mile radius of the proposed site From J13 of the M6 The town of Penkridge is 3.1 miles In the event of an accident on the motorway between any of the three junctions south bound That's J12 the A5, J11 the A460, J10 the A454 All within 7 miles of this proposed development The southbound traffic fills the motorway and it comes to a standstill The traffic build up fills the A449 within 10 minutes The A449 comes to a standstill 3 miles of stationary traffic Penkridge with 9500 residents finds itself absolutely log jammed Emergency vehicles would find it almost impossible to gain access to anyone in need of urgent medical assistance Please check the number of incidents in the last three months where the motorway has been closed for periods in excess of one hour There are countless other reasons why I object to this development I do thank you for taking the time to read my objection to this development "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anne Tucker
"I object to this application because from the information I have read: There will be an increase in traffic with no planned improvement to the road infrastructure. The main A449 road through Penkridge already experiences major gridlock if there is even a minor incident either north or southbound on the M6. I understand that there are some minor changes being made to road layout for access and egress but this will not be sufficient for the anticipated increase in traffic. The project will have a negative effect on our environment causing poor air quality (my husband suffers with [Redacted]), increased noise and light pollution. There will be a loss of countryside, agricultural land, local flora and fauna which will be detrimental to our ecology The location for such a large site is wrong. There are many more suitable brownfield land locations within the Midlands area that should be utilised for this project. Supporting road and rail infrastructure is already in place in these locations Consideration regarding local employment has not been fully reviewed. Population in Penkridge has increased due to a number of residential developments. I do not believe there is capacity for any further increase in housing therefore it is unlikely that employees would find housing within the area. This would mean additional transport issues for them to get to work from other regions. There would be limited benefit to the local economy."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Debbie Gibson
"I object to this application because I am concerned about the negative effects of the environment, pollution, air quality, noise and light. Loss of prime agricultural land and Greenbelt. Destruction to over 2000 trees and miles of vital hedgerow. The location is unsuitable due to the road infrastructure and the fact that south Staffordshire has very little unemployment. Only four of the warehouse are rail connected. Within the boundaries there are many sporting and leisure facilities that would be lost/destroyed. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Denise Rogers
"I live in Penkridge and strongly disagree with this monstrosity being built in such a beautiful area. Using green belt land is so so wrong i do NOT have the words. Its makes a mockery of the very idea of the term 'green belt' They say that the traffic will all be on the M6 that is so nor true and what happens when M6 is closed or at a standstill which OFTEN happens and the traffic all comes through Penkridge which is a small market town NOT a big city with the infastructure to cope. Sometimes when the M6 is closed the traffic already tails back from stafford to Penkridge. What about the pollution? Like many others Isuffer from [Redacted], this will affect all of us. I know it will provide jobs, but we dont need them around here, send it to somewhere that needs the jobs "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gill collins
"In a 12month period 2016-2017 there were 1000 occasions when M6 was completely or partially closed ( stats from Highways ) and during these occasions the surrounding area was at gridlock. When this happens again as it will , if there were all the extra lorries etc will exacerbate the problem . Every day there is enough commercial through traffic on M6 and A 449 to cause significant air pollution and environmental damage ,therefore an increase as proposed by this development would seriously damage the health of the population over a wide area in addition to the environmental issues."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Didlock
"I object to this application because I am concerned about the negative Effects on: The Environment from Pollution / Air Quality / Noise / Light; local Highways - volume; local Health; local Flora & Fauna (Ecology); loss of Agricultural Land & Countryside; local Business; the round house as a listed building AND I am concerned the Location is wrong, because there are other more suitable locations available on brownfield land. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Collins
"This is an unnecessary, unwanted blight. To include the destruction of green belt, increase air pollution, resulting in premature deaths, chronic road congestion. Increased light pollution and environmental disruption. The M6 on this section is already congested and subject to closure and disruption due to traffic incidents on an almost daily basis, resulting in even more congestion which inturn will blight peoples lives. Unemployment in the region is low and the workforce will have to commute along already crowded roads. I understand there is a similar site near Stoke where unemployment is much higher and the local community would benefit from this. This project needs to be stopped."
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Powell
"Protecting the Green Belt Negative Effects on the Environment / Pollution / Air Quality / Noise / Light Negative Effects on the Local Highways and the Increase in Traffic Negative Effects on Local Health Negative Effects on the Local Flora & Fauna (Ecology) Loss of Agricultural Land & Countryside Negative Effects on Local Business I object to this application because I am concerned the Location is wrong, because… There are other more suitable locations available Brownfield land would be more suitable "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Padmore
"I strongly object to this planning application. It will totally ruin and rip the heart out out of so many surrounding communities. As a person who has to travel to and from Penkridge to Wolverhampton everyday for work I know the stress and strain the already busy traffic flow can cause. I leave at 7.15 am every morning to get to my place of work 9 miles away so I can miss the traffic build up around Gailey Iskand. I if there has been an accident in the M6 then I leave earlier as it is a nightmare on the A449,A5 and A460. Penkridge is snarled up and getting off Boscomoor Way from St Modwena Wsy becomes hellish. To try to go a different route makes no difference as it is all clogged up to. The knock on effect of this is that the school transport systems not just for Zpenkridge schools but for Stafford, Cannock and Brewood schools are in total disarray. This is also same affect if accident happens in the afternoon or early evening. Chaos, stress and gridlock. It doesn’t matter what time an accident happens on M6 or surrounding road structures it causes chaos. AND THEY WANT TO ADD MORE HGV!s and traffic to an already overstretched,overused road structure - this is definitely NIMBY. On a more personal note I am typing this from my hospital bed at Stafford County Hispitsl ( a different cause I know but a fantastic place). I was rushed here on Thursday having had a serious life threatening [Redacted] and was also suffering from [Redacted]. The fantastic ambulance crew acted brilliantly but so was in a very bad way they got me from my home, leaving at 19.13 to Stafford Hospital at 19.20 - 7 minutes. The blue lights were on and They went through the traffic. Luckily there were no snarlups on the roads. However if there had been extra traffic due to motorway issues or more traffic on roads ( like there would be if this went through) I woukdnt be typing this now. I am not exaggerating about this I because of our wonderful NHS staff. This monstrous, ill thought out structure should not be allowed to happen. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Bailey
"I live in a small village off the A5 in rural south staffordshire. The proposed development is bordered on two sides by the A5 and A449 I am concerned about the increase in Large container vehicles on these roads, which are vital to local people to acess their workplaces, shops and schools. Crossing these busy roads from rural lanes will become very difficult and dangerous especially at peak times. I am also concerned about the increase in pollution from these large container lorries, both air and noise, having moved to a rural environment to avoid, road pollution and traffic noise. The rural aspect along the A5 will go and wildlife and watercourses will be affected. Local people and businesses will suffer in various ways. I am also concerned about the visual and social impact of the siting of the proposed large warehouses, turning what has been agricultural land for hundreds of years into a giant storage facility, which will probably then lead to more and more undisirable development in the area. I am concerned that the individuals who have put to gether this massive proposal, the landowner, the MD of the railhub provider and the London based money provider all stand to profit from this (even if it turns out to be an environmental and social disaster) They have gone for the easy option of a greenfield site with one owner. Instead of brown field sites near existing industrial development. We the local people will be the ones who Will have to live every day with the consequences of this ill considered, proposal."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mary Jones
"My objection to the proposed application is primarily on the grounds of Air Quality in the area, Increase volume in traffic, loss or Greenbelt, and the disintegration of local village life."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Felton
"I object to the proposed planning due to the detrimental infrastructure impact and environmental consequences to green belt land. The huge impact and safety issues from M6 closures with traffic building through the village of Penkridge are already a concern. Having lived in the village for 45years and live on the Stafford road with my young family we are already affected by pollution and inconsiderate drivers. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Janet Crossley
"The Area selected for this is unsuitable and not the best location for this extensive development. The reasons for this development here seem to be a view not really representing some of the facts for this area. There is low unemployment in the area. The roads already are congested and are frequently gridlocked especially when the M6 is closed Lack of access to the site for staff - only way will be by vehicle - as all to do with Rail seemed inconceivable no Rail link. Have been told company are going to have shuttle buses running from local stations POLUTION IN THE AREA"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Wayne J Blackwell
"I object to this application because I am concerned that, There is no planned improvement to the road infrastructure, the M6 and A449 are already over capacity where a simple minor accident throws the whole area into gridlock Notwithstanding the issues of.... The Green Belt Negative Effects on the Environment / Pollution / Air Quality / Noise / Light Negative Effects on the Local Highways and the Increase in Traffic Negative Effects on Local Health Negative Effects on the Local Flora & Fauna (Ecology) Loss of Agricultural Land & Countryside Negative Effects on Local Business I Further object to this application because I am concerned the Location is wrong, because… There are other more suitable locations available, such as brownfield land this project would be more suitable in Stoke on Trent or Birmingham where the population and supporting infrastructure already exists. Regional employment has not been considered properly and bussing in thousands of employees from other regions could damage our local economy, and is not in accord with Local Planning Policy "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Tait
"I object to this application on the grounds of the negative effect it will have on local and national highways."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ann Farr
"I am concerned about the massive increase in traffic on motorways and roads in the area, the M6 is struggling in this area to cope with the traffic it has at the moment, I do not think this will provide the number of jobs the applicants claim and will destroy the local environment , there are other brown belt areas where such a massive site can go with out destroying the countryside . "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carol Bancroft
"I object to this application because I am concerned about the following issues: * Protecting the Green Belt * The negative effects on the environment by pollution/air quality/noise/light * The negative effects on the local highways and the huge increase in traffic * The negative effects on local health * The negative effects on the local flora and fauna * The lose of agricultural land and countryside * The negative effects on local business * I also object because I am concerned that this location is wrong for the following reasons - . There are other more suitable locations available . Brownfield land would be more suitable for this interchange . Regional employment has not been considered properly . Bussing in thousands of employees from outside the region would have a detrimental impact on the local economy . It is not in accord with Local Planning Policy"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chloe Burns
"I feel this proposal is in completely the wrong location. I am worried about the loss of so much greenbelt land and currently farmed land. I don’t think the current road infrastructure will cope with such a massive development. I am also concerned that in the plan only four warehouses are linked to rail and that our local railway is not suitable either."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dianne Hughes
"I object to this application because I am concerned about : PROCTECTING THE GREEN BELT THE NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND POLUTION OF AIR QUALITY THE NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE LOCAL HIGHWAYS. THE INCREASE IN TRAFFIC IN ALREADY CONGESTED ROADS AND VILLAGES"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gary Farr
"I object to this application because I am concerned that if it is allowed to proceed it will destroy green belt land forever, when there are adequate brownfield sites in existence where it could be sited. Should it go ahead there will be an increase in air pollution,extra noise and light pollution which will have a negative effect on health. It will certainly have a negative effect on local flora and fauna,agricultural land and countryside will be lost forever. There will be a negative effect on local business. I object to this application because I believe the location to be wrong when brownfield land would be more suitable. Regional employment has not been considered properly. Bussing in thousands of employees from other regions could damage our local economy. The application is not in accord with local planning policy. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janet Perry
"Objection to the west midland interchange because of loss of 600 acres of greenbelt land , road infrastructure can not take the increase amount of traffic 6.300 HGVs and 12.300 cars and vans per day Health risks to local residents from diesel fumes. Death of much wildlife in this area and loss of habitat for wild life and loss of woodland and many mature trees. Building this interchange in the heart of small rural villages , causing unacceptable noise lighting and air pollution . A danger to inland waterways"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Keith Burton
"There are many reasons that i object to the proposed West Midlands Railfreight interchange site at Four Ashes. 1.The scale is far in excess of what the location can cope with, 2.Two thousand Trees to be felled along with churning up 700 acres of Green Belt land 3,When fully operational,it was stated that Lorries would be entering and leaving complex every 15 seconds amounting around 6,000,plus other vehicles entering as workers there. 4.10 trains 3/4 of a mile long each hour through the night. 5.Air and noise pollution would be an unacceptable level. 6.This complex would be ring fenced by the M6 & A449, both running in parallel either side,plus the A5,completing a "U"bracket around the complex, 7.There are major delays on the M6 and of result with at time gridlock through the Village of Penkridge,with again unacceptable levels of pollution. 8.Impact on the landscape,that will change this area for ever. 9 Loss of habitat for wild life and many other species will also disappear. 10.The Medical are very concerned what Nitrate Oxide emissions have on health,with one case pending that may result in someone actually dying from such emissions. 11.The complex is so big,it will also affect an area of South Staffordshire,which the SSCC have never ever contemplating building any development there due to the sensitivity of the are to development"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lauren Tait
"I object to this application because of the negative effect on the local highways and transport connections as well as wildlife. This is in the wrong location on green belt land when other more suitable brownfield sites are available."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Donna Gilmartin
"I am opposed to this development because it is the wrong location, it is green belt land used for many years to grow crops. It has an abundance of wildlife including very old woodland that is virtually untouched that will be destroyed. There are a number of protected species in the area to be developed. It's also within the conservation area of Staffordshire & Worcestershire canal. The road network here often gets gridlocked, especially when there is an incident on the M6. If the extra traffic is added we will be unable to get anywhere. The rail network is already busy with commuter trains how will the network cope with so many heavy long freight trains and how will they be provided with slots on the already busy sysyem. There are many other valid objections I could raise and will do at the examination stage "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paula Appleby
"In my opinion the building of this SRFI would be disastrous to this area. It will destroy hundreds of acres of Greenbelt land and have a significant impact on the local wildlife. The road infrastructure in and around the proposed development are unsuitable for the extra traffic, they cannot cope with the traffic now, the A5 and the A449 are often gridlocked when there is an accident on the M6, which is a regular occurrence. The local communities would be greatly impacted upon, causing misery for hundreds of local residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philippa Elsmore
"This is a completely inappropriate development for our area, as it is green belt land that is the proposed area for development it shouldn’t even be considered. Ultimately I am worried about my children’s health, safety and quality of life, the extra pollution and air quality are my main worries, along with the safety due to extra people and traffic coming through our village. This is not the right area for this development, it will ruin our village and farming community."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rhonda Bridgart
"I want to register to object the wmi going ahead I live near a5 and the flow of traffic is already high and with this going ahead will have a great impact on our lives "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rosie Blackburn
"I am against this application because as a daily user of the A449 currently I suffer from the frequent traffic congestion and am extremely worried about the added impact of the proposed traffic increase. I am unhappy with the visual impact and loss of green belt and recreational land to this development and the negative impact on air quality for the local community. I do not believe that there will be a beneficial effect of job creation, the area does not have an unemployment problem and workers would be relocated from other areas. There are other more suitable areas in the Midlands region that already have a rail infrastructure, that use brownfield sites and where job creation is more needed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Samantha Collett
"This cannot go ahead. This affects my children, the wildlife, and at what cost? "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bill Jinks
"I strongly oppose this planning application because of the negative effects on local highways & the increase in traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Calvert Stonehouse
"1. Green Belt - the development is inappropriate and will be harmful to the enviroment and will outway any benefit to the existing community. 2.The enviroment - the air and niose and visual pollution will be inappropriate. 3.Highways - there is insufficient provision in the proposals to improve the road network in the area and no direct link to the M6 4.Traffic - the increase in volume without adequate improvement to the existing infrastructure is unacceptable. 5.Location - the developers have not shown that this is a suitable loaction for a SRFI in South Staffordshire. 6. the Rail Hub does not serve all the units - therefore many more vehicle movements will be required to service this deevelopments than shown in the proposals."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma-Jayne Smith
"I object to this application because I am concerned about: * Protecting Our Greenbelt * Negative Effects on the Environment/Pollution/Air Quality/Noise * Negative Effects on the Local Highways and the Increase in Traffic * Negative Effects on Local Health * Loss of Our Countryside * Negative Effects on Property Values I also object to this application because I am concerned that the Location is wrong: * There are more suitable locations available * Brownfield land would be more suitable Kind Regards "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jackie Armitage
"I am against the proposal for the West Midlands Interchange for the following reasons: Erosion of the green belt buffer zone between Stafford and Wolverhampton. Increased traffic flow on the M6 and consequently the A449 from Gailey to Dunston which is already unable to cope with the level of traffic when there is an issue with the M6 between 11 and 14. Unsuitable infra-structure to take increased level of traffic. Increased pollution, noise. Erosion of the rural nature of Penkridge and the surrounding villages with no discernible benefits for the existing community. Threat to wildlife and enjoyment of areas of natural beauty in the adjacent area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joan Jinks
"I strongly object to the proposed plans because of the negative speffect on the environment, pollution, Air pollution, air quality, noise & light pollution."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michelle James
"I object to this application because I am concerned about: Protecting the Green Belt Negative Effects on the Environment / Pollution / Air Quality / Noise / Light Negative Effects on the Local Highways and the Increase in Traffic Negative Effects on Local Health Negative Effects on the Local Flora & Fauna (Ecology) Loss of Agricultural Land & Countryside"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Brian Hancher
"Unnecessary development and in wrong location"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Lynne Hancher
"I object to loss of substantial area of green belt and to the increase in traffic in an already congested area with the added pollution it will bring"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brian J W Cox
"I object to the proposed use of Green Belt Land. I consider that the proposed highway arrangements are incomplete. If the Interchange is to go ahead, the highways arrangements should be part of an area transport plan which recognizes this proposed development alongside others such as the i54 extension (101.93 hectares) the future development of the Royal Ordnance site at Brinsford (14 hectares) Hilton Cross (4.93 hectares), the huge retail development at Cannock and a significant number of smaller sites. The transport arrangements do not deal with the problems which will inevitably arise when the M6 is blocked for whatever reason. Mr. Frost stated that Interchange traffic would not be allowed to use A449 through Penkridge but completely refused to say which routes it would be allowed to use. The Application asks for a railway interchange with 'sheds' connected by rail, together with other 'sheds' which would not be so connected. I fear that these 'shed' would simply become large warehouses and production units not connected in any way with the rail interchange. I object to these properties being part of the application. The area around M6 Junction 12 was an area with very poor air quality, but this has been significantly improved. I object to the proposed development because it would undo much of the very considerable improvement which has been achieved. I object to the noise which the development will cause for most of the 24 hours of each day. The noise will come from trains entering and leaving the site; shunting of train sets; loading and unloading containers; moving containers within the site; and lorries and cars entering and leaving the site. This endless noises will impact on the local environment and the people who live nearby. In my opinion, the impact on the A5 between M6 Junction 12 and Gailey Island will be very serious. If the development were to be allowed then the A5 must be made a dual carriageway and the island at Gailey very much bigger. The present island could not cope with significant numbers of large lorries and would soon be destroyed. I believe that there are other sites which are more suitable - eg Stoke on Trant and Tamworth, and I strongly object to the choice of the Gailey site rather than one of the others."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Crocker
"i object to this application as i am hugely concerned about the the following: The loss of vast swathes of Greenbelt. The negative impact on the Environment, Pollution, Air Quality, Noise and Light. The colossal increase in traffic to our already overcrowded Local Highways and Motorway network. An additional 18,000 vehicular movements per day, cars, vans, including more than 5000 HGV'S Concerns on Local Health. The blight to the Landscape. The loss of Agricultural Land and Countryside. The negative impact on the Local Flora & Fauna. I consider the location as inappropriate: There are other more suitable locations. Brownfield Land is more suitable. Regional unemployment is amongst the lowest in the country, the vast majority of 'new jobs' will be created from outside of South Staffs, Bussing in thousands from other regions which may impact negatively on our local business and economy. This is not in accord with Local Planning Policy "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nigel Glyn Phillips
"I am concerned about the impact of more traffic coming through Penkridge causing more pollution and dangerous road conditions which are already bad when they close the m6 off between junctions 12 and 13 , what route would the hgv lorries take from the hub when this happens when they need to travel north on m6 the only way is through Penkridge it would feel I was living on a motorway .Why rip up more of our green belt when there is a brown field site at stoke that could be used creating jobs in a town that needs them, this hub is putting money before health you have to look at the impact it could have now and in 30 years time when my grandsons will be living here."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Powell
"loss of an established four generation business who employs local people, no meaningful attempt to agree the purchase of the land in advance – terms offered but completely unacceptable, refusal to consider providing a replacement site for the business within their scheme or on adjoining land, the scheme could easily have been adjusted to avoid the business site and/or the house as these are shown only as landscaping Protecting the green belt, negative effects on environment and local health, loss of agricultural land & countryside. Places available more suitable such as brown fill."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Imogen Lewis
"I object to the proposals, i already struggle Daily with traffic volume at and around gailey island morning and evening during my commute without increasing the traffic massively. I also worry about what would happen to nature and the wildlife that live on this land currently, we don’t need any more eyesores near four ashes it’s ugly enough as it is. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan T Stevens
"My objections to the scheme are as follows. 1 distruction of green belt between inhabited areas, which provides separation of communities in a traditional UK way. Otherwise we shall soon become just another suburb of Wolverhampton 2 the vast increase in large heavy vehicles along the 449 road, estimated at 100's per day along an already well used commuter route. 3 a vast increase in air pollution in a countryside area 4 a proposed 700,000 m2 of industrial buildings, this area equates to approx 10,000 new homes, which are more needed than this proposed scheme, which would be more beneficial than gloryfied 'sheds'. 5 the expense is considerable, when other areas have existing facilities or more suitable and isolated land available. 6 access routes around the Penkridge area would become 'grid locked' at specific times of the day - every day!!! 7 this expensive project along with the HS2 folly would need great funding, when other areas are more needworthy, ie. NHS and social care, schools,elderly care,road repairs, better local road and rail infrastructure, police funding instead of ignoring the crime wave. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Evans
"Loss of Green Belt Land "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jennifer Raynor
"I regularly visit my mother who lives on the A5 at Gailey. I object to this development on the grounds of the additional traffic it will bring to already extremely busy roads, with increased pollution, in an area with few alternative routes. I am also concerned about the environmental impact on the local countryside, and understand that there are other, more suitable, sites, where the development would have less impact on Greenbelt land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tom Edwards
"I am opposed to this development because i am concerned about protecting the green belt and local environment. The addition of thousands of additional vehicles to a local road network that is already struggling to cope will lead to long queues of traffic. When this is combined with the emissions and exhaust fumes from these vehicles the impact on the surrounding area will be substantial. Furthermore the developer has advertised that this development will bring thousands of jobs to the area. Whilst this is normally to be applauded, in this instance, it is misguided. The local area doesn't have the need for these jobs as unemployment rates are below the national average. There are more suitable locations across the midlands including Stoke-on-Trent amongst others."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ivan Owen
"On the 29th. September 2018, a Road traffic accident on the M6 motorway closed the northbound carriageway between junction 12 and 13 the consequence was the village of Penkridge was gridlocked for most of the day. This section of motorway is prone to closure several times a year, so the massive amout of extra traffic this development would cause would not only affect Penkridge but many other towns in the area. There are other brownfield sites in the West Midlands who would welcome this development without spoiling our greenbelt and this totally unsuitable site. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
J S Goodwin
"Wolverhampton and surrounding area is already grid locked with traffic, the situation locally exacerbated when accidents occur on the motorway. The increased volume of traffic will further exacerbate the sittuation. An unacceptable increase in diesel pollution will occur. There is no support locally for the proposed scheme. There is no requirement locally for low skilled logistics jobs There are already freight hubs in the near vicinity A brown field site is available in Stoke upon Trent, and the development would be welcome there. Such a large industrial development will have a major inpact upon the local area"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicola Speak
"As I local resident I totally oppose the proposed interchange for several reasons. The increased volume of traffic will essentially make the village I live in an ‘island’ and have a huge impact on the surrounding roads which will not cope with this increase. Because of the scale of the proposed interchange I feel this will have a massive impact on residents due to increased noise and air pollution. The irreversible damage to our green belt areas would be devastating and beyond repair. I feel that this area is totally unsuitable for a development on this scale and the surrounding villages would lose their identity. I therefore would like to register my opposition to granting this planning application. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rebecca Adcock
"The local road network is already congested and poorly maintained. The WMI proposals cannot but lead to further congestion, damage to the roads and negatively impact on the health and well being of local residents. The employment rate is high in the local community therefore it follows that the 8500 jobs that are expected to be created will be filled by commuters, which will further increase congestion and decrease quality of life for residents and the greenbelt land around us. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Brooks
"I am registering my objection to this Proposal due to adverse affect it will have on surrounding roads and the environment. There is no benefit to the local area and removes precious green belt land. Whilst jobs will be created, the likelihood is that people will not be employed from the local area. The road infrastructure in the surrounding area is already overloaded with heavy goods vehicles and the knock on effect when there is a problem with the M6 is that the smaller roads are filled with traffic. In terms of using green belt land, this is called green belt land for a reason and brownfielsmsites should be considered as an alternative. Once green belt land goes, we never get it back. A large turkey farm has recently passed planning in the local area, which will increase the volume of heavy goods vehicles on country lanes. Eventually a bottleneck will be experienced and quiet country lanes will become filled with vehicles not suitable for them as there are no passing places in many lanes."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Amie Newell
"I object to this application because I am concerned about protecting the local area and the impact this will have on Green Belt land. This proposal does not consider the use of brown belt land in other more suitable locations. The A449 is already a busy road and can just about cope with the traffic it has. With this proposal, it will encourage more cars to be present on the roads. Even with staggard working patterns, ANY extra cars will lead to chaos. The air quality is already poor. When I run alongside the A449 using the footpath I have contracted [redacted] and have had [redacted]. My doctor believed it was down to the air quality of the road I was running along. I hadn't suffered from this before and had contracted the same illness 4 times in a row in a short period of time. With the development the air quality will become worse. We must consider public health. Or think about the health implications. We live on a junction and the A449 is already the main route for commuters in and out of Stafford and Wolverhampton. The noise levels are extremely loud already. I dread to think with the work and the extra traffic what the impact will be. I also think the timing of the data collection for environmental factors was calculated. During the August school holidays when many people are on holiday and not in the area. A comparison should have been made in September- December (not during half term) as August was not realistic. At the moment there are roadworks in Wolverhampton and during rush hour the m54 is terrible. I do not know how the roads will cope and I do not think there is enough consideration into this. Agricultural Land & Countryside will be lost due to the interchange. In a time when our farming communities have extreme pressures, why are we taking away from the green belt? This is the identity of our community and you will be stripping this away from us and replacing it with giant warehouses. Regional employment has not been considered properly. Unless the jobs are guaranteed to be well paid and improve skills in the local area then there is no point advertising. Jaguar Landrover has just axed jobs and they only employed a large proportion of their staff with temporary contracts. They do not even look at people who do not want an apprentice or hold a degree. People need permanent jobs and at a fair wage. I would insist that this is the case if this development is accepted. Bussing in thousands of employees from other regions could damage our local economy and it would not be of benefit to them as the jobs are normally not even permanent contracts. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helene Stevens
"This will destroy green belt land Increase pollution in an area which people have chosen to live in precisely because it has a rural feel and less pollution than living in a town or city, this could particularly effect those with breathing and lung related health issues. Merge distinict communities into larger ones which do not have the infrastructure to cope with increased traffic Roads themselves will become even more congested and travel around the area worsen at peak times, which is already stretched especially when vehicles are forced off the M6 / M54 for diversions and on market days in Penkridge "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kelvyn Soars
"I object to the application because:- I want to protect open countryside and green belt. The devastating negative effect on the environment The vast increase in traffic which is already nose to tail on the a449 and a5 The negative ecological impact This is the wrong location:- More suitable sites are available Brownfield land Regional employment has not been considered Not in accord with local planning policy Negative effects on local business Bussing in employees from outside of the region will damage local economy Overall this will be disasterous Kelvyn Soars"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Leeds
"I object to this application because I am concerned about the increase in Traffic on Local Highways. I am also concerned about the negative impact on the environment with increased air and noise pollution."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Jennifer Brookes
"Taking away the green belt. Increased traffic flow through our village. Killing staffordshire villages. Depreciation of to the value of property. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Hunt
"The question I would like to seek the answer to is why it is found to be acceptable to replace a beautiful expanse of greenbelt countryside with an heavily industrialised freight terminal which will hold nothing but a negative impact on the surrounding villages, highways, environment and ecology. Not only will the the local areas suffer the loss of countryside that they have so rightly been accustomed to for so many years but local farmers would in turn lose valuable and much needed agricultural land. Added to which there would be a great increase to air pollution in turn reducing air quality which in turn has a detrimental effect on the surrounding population! Not to mention the local wildlife and ecology. Local traffic will also increase immensely to add to the problems of the already overworked A5, A449 and M6 collectively. Surely a more appropriate site could be imposed upon thus saving the permanent destruction of the already, rapidly dwindling British countryside (greenbelt at that!!). Maybe we as a nation need to start conserving our countrysides more and not trying to replace this natural beauty with monotonous bricks and metal. One last question I'd like to pose is have you considered brownfield land much further away from where my family and I reside?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Angela Gracey
"i object to this application because i am concerned about the following: * Protecting the Green Belt *Negative effects on the environment / pollution/air quality/ noise/ light. * Negative effects on the local highways and the increase in traffic and possible fatalities. * Negative effects on locals health * Negative effects on the local flora & fauna (ecology) *Loss of Agricultural Land & Countryside Negative effects on local businesses I also believe the location is wrong, because; *There are more suitable locations available *Brownfield land would be more suitable * Regional employment has not been considered properly *Bussing in thousands of employees from other regions could damage our local economy. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anne Bott
"I am writing to object to this application as the land proposed for "development" is Green Belt. There are plenty of brown field sites closer to industrial locations and the the railway within the West Midlands conurbation or Stoke-on-Trent. The road infrastructure between M6 Junction 12/A5 and A449 is already extremely congested and cannot cope with additional vehicles. Whenever there is an accident/incident on the M6 in South Staffordshire (a regular occurrence) all roads around Penkridge and Gailey are completely gridlocked. This will have detrimental effects on small local businesses as people will be reluctant to stop in Penkridge. It has been argued that this will create local jobs but given that unemployment in South Staffordshire is well below the national average there is a greater need to locate this site to areas of higher unemployment. Usually within a freight centre the majority of loading or unloading is an automated function, so does not create large quantities of jobs for human beings. The diesel fumes created by additional lorries in an otherwise rural area is detrimental to people's health; given that city centres are imposing congestion charges to counteract pollution levels it is complete hypocrisy to increase pollution in a rural area. In short, there are areas of the geographic West Midlands that are in greater need of this hub (if indeed one is even required given the potential economic impacts of Brexit) than the proposed location."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Daker
"I object to this application because of the following reasons: It is to be built on Green Belt land. It will cause absolute havoc with the traffic on the A5 (East & West) the M6 (North & South) both of which are at a standstill several times a week at present, due to the amount of extra vehicles that it will add. This is both Transport vehicles & employee vehicles ! The "Extra Jobs" they talk about will not be filled by the immediate local area resulting in even more traffic clogging up our local A & B roads by employees driving in. Most of these roads require major structural work at the moment therefore putting even more traffic on them is going to result in a very dangerous situation ! Needless to say, the effect of pollution, noise etc would be disastrous to the local area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Craig Gracey
"I object to this application because i am concerned about : - Protecting the Green belt - Negative effects on local businesses - negative effects on local fauna and flora - negative effects on local health - negative effects on the local highways and the increased traffic - negative effects on the environment/pollution/air quality/ noise/light - loss of agricultural land and countryside Also, i am concerned that the location is wrong because: - brownfield would be more suitable - there are other more suitable locations available - regional employment has not been considered properly - bringing in thousands of employees from other regions could damage our local economy"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Willits
"I wish to make representation against the West Midlands Interchange as follows and object to the proposals on the following grounds 1)The negative effect on local highways and traffic. Having lived in Penkridge for 40 years and commuted to Wolverhampton or used the M6 the existing traffic will be dramatically impacted with a further 18,624 vehicles a day. Areas of concern are as follows. a) A449 in Penkridge which already is bumper to bumper if the M6 is blocked and Market Day. Lorries will take the easiest route and a dual carriage going North is an obvious route, There is also increased traffic from the increased housing development in Penkridge with a further 300 homes recently built b)Gailey island where the A5 meets A449 is always congested by current commuters and traffic heading North to J13 including the existing 4 Ashes traffic. Traffic backs up to the J12 M6 island. The A 5 which is single lane is unable to cope and if it could the Gailey Island would make traffic congestion inevitable c) Increased traffic on the Cannock Road in to Penkridge as farm lorries and commuter from Rugeley and Cannock make their way to Penkridge railway station. This road will be further congested as traffic uses the lanes around Hatherton to avoid the congestion on the A5 westbound and M6 J12 island. I understand studies have not been taken at peak times. 2)The negative effect on pollution, air quality and health. Penkridge is in a valley and pollution lies in the valley. Already with the M6 extremely close the additional traffic, especially with pollution from diesel engines will make life unpleasant and impact on health. Pollution already carries from 4 Ashes and sits in the valley. 18,624 extra vehicles a day will dramatically increase the pollution firstly for residents of Gailey and Calf Heath but all the other area of growing population in Brewood and Penkridge.The health centre already is unable to cope with the ongoing population increase 3) The choice of site makes little sense with brownfield sites in Stoke on Trent being more suitable. This does not require infrastructure, does not lose green belt, and gives much needed employment against South Staffordshire which has full employment Furthermore there is already an interchange in Daventry which is only 50 miles away ie less than 1 hour "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Wright
"i believe the development will have profound negative effect on my life, by operating 24 hours a day my sleep patterns will be severely disrupted resulting in a detrimental lowering of my general health. I think the loss of green belt land with all the effects of local wild life, is totally unacceptable-I have observed many species of animals in and around the area to be developed that will be lost once the development stars namely-lapwing, snipe, green wood peckers, common buzzards, a breeding pair of ravens, skylarks, a permanent colony of long tailed tits, deer, badger, otters, newts and frogs, I do not think local roads will be able to cope with the severe increase in road traffic the development will cause and dos not warrent the destruction of calf heath village. I believe the development is being planned by people who have not considered the feelings of local residents, or the major effects and changes it will have on our lives. I think the pollution this development will have on local air quality will severely impact the health of our children and grand children. after moving to calf heath some twelve years ago for the sole purpose of living in the countryside and all that it represents, feel this development will have profound negative affects on my lifestyle, health and mental well being to warrent the development being rejected. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gina Smith
"I object to the proposals for the West Midlands Interchange on the following grounds: - the site is predominantly greenbelt land - traffic on the A5 and A449 would increase substantially to the detriment of local residents - potential tenants are free to use the site as a standard industrial estate thus undermining the benefit of the infrastructure link - the perceived benefit of increasing local employment is not proven as employees could come from further afield given the strategic location of the site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Baker
"We strongly oppose the building of the West Midlands Interchange. The green belt will be severely damaged and with it the local wildlife.It will disrupt the lives of residents living in the area - villagers rely on key roads (A449/A5) for access to vital services. The dramatic increase in traffic will result in an increase in delays, accidents and will impact on health issues. The infrastructure will not support such a development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hilary Lewis
"I strongly object to the freight hub for many reasons 1. The extra traffic on our roads, that are already in such a bad state with potholes that are being reported but not repaired immediately. As a car driver and a cyclist, and lifelong Penkridge resident, I have never known the main A449 in such bad condition. How can extra freight possibly be a good thing for our roads in their current state? can immediate pothole/subsidence/cracks repairs be guaranteed? 2. With the already noisy M6 running parallel to where we live (off Wolgarston Way) what promises can be made that there wont be even more noise coming from the direction of the A449? I would imagine none and Penkridge will just be enveloped in large lorries and additional cars from the workforce working there 3. Lush green fields will be lost and birdlife/wildlife will flee - there is already a shortage of birdlife in our gardens - this will virtually wipe them out 4. How will the main trainline through Penkridge and linking areas be extended? The Penkridge line is only two lines wide... how would this effect commuter trains? 5. I can see no benefit whatsover for proposing to build the freight hub at Four Ashes. It may bring extra jobs to the area but will they be guaranteed for local people? I am thinking not The freight hub needs to be located in a much less rural area in my opinion which has already outgrown its roads and rail line"
Members of the Public/Businesses
james barfield
"As a local homeowner to the proposed WMI, I would like to strongly object to the project. When we purchased the family home it was understood to be on a greenbelt site. This is main reason why we bought the property in the first place. Why do big business constantly feel they can ride roughshod of planning permission? Will the work also be happening at the same time as the planned M6, M54 M6 Toll work?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Haynes
"I have great concerns on the effect of the West Midland Interchange at Four Ashes will have on local villages ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mary Obrien
"I travel on the local motorway structure on a daily basis. One of my concerns are regarding the amount of extra lorries that will be using the motorways and local roads. Calf Heath is currently a pleasant edge of countryside area to live in. I don't believe this will continue to be the case however many heaps of tree lined grounds are created. The air quality must be affected by the extra traffic and trains. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Matthew Gubbins
"As a resident of Calf Heath the proposed interchange at Four Ashes, on the land west of Junction 12 of the M6 if given the go ahead would upset me deeply. A huge increase of traffic in & around my area would be frustrating seeing as though we moved here to benefit from quiet, countryside living. I think it’s disgusting that it’s even being considered. A large amount of Greenbelt land would be destroyed & replaced wirh ugly, pollution inducing depot’s. I urge anybody in power to put a stop to these plans. Regards Matthew Gubbins "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Karla phillips
"I object strongly to application for the west midland interchange. My reasons for this objection are as a mother of [redacted] children I have concerns for the negative impact on their wellbeing. I feel the increase in traffic will be dangerous for them walking to and from school forcing me to take them by car. This will also have a negative effect on their health due to the air and noise pollution that will be increased in the area. I feel there has been a noticed increase in traffic already from recent housing developments and the traffic system can not cope with any further commercial vehicles especially HGV’s. Also as someone who has personally worked in Rugeley and watched the towns decline in employment I feel it would make a perfect location and welcome the opportunity of jobs created."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs S E Palmer
"Having lived in Penkridge for 16 years, I fully appreciate its value as a large village in South Staffs. I feel the worst problem regarding the proposed hub/interchange will be the greater increased volume of traffic using our local roads, which already cannot cope whenever there are problems on the M6. It is a bonus for us in Penkridge that we are so close to 2 motorway junctions to enable easy access to many places, but I do feel this would also backfire in the case of the interchange - whilst extra traffic may initially be encouraged (by their firms) to use the M54 instead, truck drivers would very quickly catch on to the fact that they could use the M6 instead and stop off for refreshments in Penkridge. Before long we would be a glorified truckstop, not just at night for less disruption (which is an argument I've already heard in favour of the interchange) but throughout the day. This will create longer twice-daily journeys for the majority of people in Penkridge who travel to work outside the village. Indirectly this will then impact on the currently beautiful natural environment of Penkridge and its surrounds, together with peoples' health from vehicle fumes. Is it correct that of all the sites put forward for this development, most were brownfield sites which are eminently more suitable? - why then is this greenfield site even being considered? There are several lovely, successful farms in the area which could be subjected to massive loss. Penkridge also does not have an unemployment problem, so cannot be used as a valid reason for bringing in thousands of extra jobs - this has not been thought out properly. I therefore strongly believe the Four Ashes submission is a huge mistake and should not considered. Mrs Sue Palmer."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Neil Lewis
"My concerns about the proposal are:- Traffic - traffic is already heavy on the A5 and A449, any M6 incident immediately log jams these roads - which are already busy and in poor condition. I commute every day by cycle from Penkridge to Wolverhampton along the A449 - extra traffic is going to make this more difficult and dangerous. I am concerned about the impact on the environment for my family living in Penkridge village, pollution, difficulty accessing our home when traffic jams up. The site is not well chosen - there are brownfield sites that are better suited for this development - the west coast mainline cannot support extra trains for this development"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Neil Steventon
"i am whole heartedly against this development, the size and quantity of buildings and vehicular activity is unnacceptable to the green belt and the people in the locality."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Neil Whitehouse
"Green belt land should not be built on, it is green belt for a reason and should remain so. We have enough pollution from traffic on the A5 which is down the lane and we don’t want this to increase. Noise would increase if this proposal goes ahead and surely air quality would affect out ecology. There are other locations which could be used rather than destroying our beautiful countryside. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Phil Smith
"The development of this interchange would bring traffic and pollution levels never seen before in this area. We recently moved to this area for work and the peaceful environment. This would be majorly disrupted and cause us to rethink our location in the west midlands. The area designated for this interchange is also very close to Cannock Chase AONB. The additional traffic and heavy goods would be a serious risk to the area and the wildlife residing in this area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Reverend Robert Lintern
"The proposal will require the devastation of over 680 acres of green belt land and will be environmentally disastrous. Wildlife would suffer irreplaceable losses and those living within a ten mile radius of the site would have their lives ruined by heavy goods traffic on already overcrowded roads. We can ill afford the loss of so much good agricultural land to a development which would be far better suited to a brownfield site where accessibility is not such a major problem and where the environmental consequences would be limited."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart Smith
"I strongly object to the proposed development which will evidently sacrifice greenbelt land, increase pollution and is likely cause a significant increase in traffic on the already busy road network in the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sue Harper
"As a resident of Penkridge I wish to register my personal objection to the planned rail hub which links to the A449and M6 .My main objections to the scheme are the additional traffic that will be using an already congested area with the additional environmental burden by pollution from the increased traffic the hub will produce. The development of the hub on green belt land is unnecessary,the green belt should be protected where possible.There are brownfield sites that could provide suitable space in an area which has lower employment regionally and has an established infrastructure to bring employees into the brownfield sites. Kind regards Sue Harper "
Members of the Public/Businesses
William clews
"This developement is totally inappropriate for the area being built on greenbelt land, and will create a massive increase in traffic and pollution for the surrounding area. It will not create the employment stated and if it does they will not be local jobs thus creating even more traffic and pollution."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Witney Tully
"I am Objecting strongly due to ththe the increase in traffic which w Ok be backed up through the village and down a449, the amount of noise and air pollution having a negative impact on health and well-being for the village residents. Not to mention the increase in danger to the village residents and children caused by the influx of traffic and people."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adrian Murray
"I write to object to the proposed West Midlands interchange rail freight hub on the following grounds: Highways: Through my regular use of the A449, A5 and M6 at various times of day, I would say these roads cannot support the increased vehicle movements this development would bring. Not just locally where this development will increase HGV's on the A5 by 321% but also to the wider national road network; the M6 is already heavily congested southbound from Junction 10A to Junction 6 from 6am onwards. Suitability: I do no believe this location is the most suitable. More likley it is the most cost effective for the developer. Similar developments have expanded significantly from the original approved plans, further into the greenbelt. This location will be constrained from expanding west by the A449, A5 and M6 and so where will it expand in future? The development of the Community Parks by some way of mitigating the impact appears tokenistic and ill considered. The idea of dodging HGV juggernauts with my family in the car en-route to a park in the centre of a rail freight depot doesn't really appeal thanks. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Aston
"I wish to object to the proposed West Midlands Interchange - The Gailey Freight Hub. I believe there are other more suitable brownfield sites rather than destroying green belt land and the subsequent loss of agricultural land and countryside. The proposal would greatly increase traffic on the A5 and A449 with the potential for more delays more accidents, increased pollution and poorer air quality."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brenda Lloyd
"I live on the A449 in Penkridge. My main concerns are: The extra noise and HGV/traffic pollution that will be generated with the additional HGV’s and other traffic 24 hours a day We already have experience of this when the M6 is closed and traffic diverted The heavy traffic using the A449 as a shortcut off the M6 at J13 which will happen The additional congestion on the A449 at the roundabout outside our house approaching both northbound and southbound adding to noise and HGV/traffic pollution and at Gailey Island The additional congestion from J12 of the M6 along the A5 that is already congested at peak hours. The adverse affect the proposal will have on the greenbelt land. I object to the proposals."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brett Heighway
"I object to this application because I am concerned about… Protecting the Green Belt Negative Effects on the Environment / Pollution / Air Quality / Noise / Light Negative Effects on the Local Highways and the Increase in Traffic Negative Effects on Local Health Negative Effects on the Local Flora & Fauna (Ecology) Loss of Agricultural Land & Countryside Negative Effects on Local Business I object to this application because I am concerned the Location is wrong, because… There are other more suitable locations available Brownfield land would be more suitable Regional employment has not been considered properly Bussing in thousands of employees from other regions could damage our local economy And is not in accord with Local Planning Policy"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Brown
"I object to this application because I am concerned it will have many negative impacts on the environment, increasing pollution, reducing air quality, creating further light pollution and increasing noise levels. It concerns me that this will have detrimental effects on local health and the traffic created will impact significantly on Coven, which is a peaceful village where elder generations feel safe and comfortable. I believe there are many other brownfield sites ripe for redevelopment that would benefit and reducing our precious greenbelt should be avoided."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher LLoyd
"I object to this application because; a) it will have a negative effect on local highways and traffic, b) loss of agricultural land and countryside, c) there are larger brownfield sites neare and more suitable"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Colin Lloyd
"I live on the A449 in Penkridge. My main concerns are: The extra noise and HGV/traffic pollution that will be generated with the additional HGV’s and other traffic 24 hours a day We already have experience of this when the M6 is closed and traffic diverted The heavy traffic using the A449 as a shortcut off the M6 at J13 which will happen The additional congestion on the A449 at the roundabout outside our house approaching both northbound and southbound adding to noise and HGV/traffic pollution and at Gailey Island The additional congestion from J12 of the M6 along the A5 that is already congested at peak hours. The adverse affect the proposal will have on the greenbelt land. I object to the proposals."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Selwood
"I am vehemently against this develeopment. It is a total invasion into greenbelt land with the consequent destruction of wildlife, pollution and traffic to the surrounding areas. When I travel on the train line between Birmingham and Wolverhampton I see many large sites of derelict industrial buildings that must be put to use for a project such as this rather than the invasion of countryside and the spread of urbanisation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma Pedley
"I object to this application because I feel at the moment that with what is happening in Penkridge already there is a loss of Agricultural Land and Countryside and our Green Belt is diminishing. If this goes a head there will be a negative effect on the environment, pollution, air quality, noise - we already have motorway noise and pollution so I feel we should not be expecting to put up with more. There will be a negatice effect on local highways and traffic, this is already a problem when motorways are blocked and the increase in housing in the area is not helping either. I feel there are other more suitable locations that are available without putting more of a burden on our Green belt and town."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gordon Heatley
"I wish to object to this application as it would be built on green belt land. In my opinion it would have a devastating effect on the environment affecting air pollution,noise and increasing levels of traffic to a unbearable situation. This could have serious consequences for health and general wellbeing. In the event of an incident on the M6 between junctions 12 and 13 is bad enough now but with the increased traffic generated by the proposed development would lead to total gridlock. I am sure there are more suitable brown field sites available elsewhere to accommodate this proposal. It seems unthinkable that acres and acres of beautiful agricultural land and countryside would be completely destroyed if this application were to be approved."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jackie Palmer
"I believe there will be a negative effect on local highways and traffic. Roads especially A449 and A5 are already congested. We already have new development (i54) which is already affecting local roads. This development will also have an additional negative effect on the environment, pollution and air quality in the local & wider area. Massive negative effect on greenbelt land when there are other brownfield areas that are available."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Bray
"I wish to object to the application because of the loss of agricultural land and countryside as other brownfield land is more suitable, the negative effect on local health, highways, traffic and ecology."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Hancox
"Object to planning application Green belt impact Increase in traffic Increase in air pollution Impact on the landscape "
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Preston
"I have read all the above I oppose it it will be a health hazard also the traffic will be unbearable"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jonathan Frazer
"I am a local resident and am wanting to register my objection to the 4 ashes development. We already experienced unreasonable amounts of congestion whenever there is the smallest problem on the M6 in our area. This rail hub will simply clog the roads up to the point that they are unusable. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katrina Heighway
"I object to this application because I am concerned about… Protecting the Green Belt Negative Effects on the Environment / Pollution / Air Quality / Noise / Light Negative Effects on the Local Highways and the Increase in Traffic Negative Effects on Local Health Negative Effects on the Local Flora & Fauna (Ecology) Loss of Agricultural Land & Countryside Negative Effects on Local Business I object to this application because I am concerned the Location is wrong, because… There are other more suitable locations available Brownfield land would be more suitable Regional employment has not been considered properly Bussing in thousands of employees from other regions could damage our local economy And is not in accord with Local Planning Policy"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lisa Gilkes
"I object to this application because it will have a negative effect on the local environment, by way of increased pollution, and in particular on air quality and noise, effecting the health of the local community and thereby putting pressure on already stretched NHS resources in the area. By building on green belt land, there will also be a negative effect on the local flora and fauna, and a loss of agricultural land and countryside. I do not believe that this is the right location for a proposed development of this size and the existing infrastructure will not be able to cope with the proposed 18,600 vehicles per day. The M6, A5 and A449 would be overwhelmed with this volume of additional traffic. Currently, the A5 and A449 struggle to cope with any kind of incident on the M6 where traffic is diverted on to these road as is becoming a regular occurrence. This amount of traffic would negatively effect on local businesses as would bussing in employees in from other regions. I think there are other more suitable locations utilising brownfield land than this site for the proposed development which I believe is not in accordance with local planning policy. I therefore represent that you decline this application based on the above. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
M. Birt
"I live alongside Wolgarston Way B5012 which currently experiences a large volume of mixed traffic including articulated lorries and quarry lorries plus large farm vehicles. The unclassified road from Pottal Pool is heavily used by these vehicles feeding into the B5012 and through Penkridge to Junctions 12 and 13 of the M6, and A5. I would prefer to see a reduction in this traffic rather than an increase. The surrounding road infrastructure is inadequate for the present demand."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael James Corbett
"We must protect the Green Belt at all costs and development could only be for consideration in extreme cases and then for housing If west midlands interchange is necessary it should be built on Brownfield land,plentyof sites available in West Midlands. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs D. Clark
"I shall be objecting to this development proposal for the following reasons:- Unsuitability of the development within the area. The scale of the development. The impact upon the local environment - noise, light, increase in traffic, visual. Inaccuracy of projected benefits. Loss of local amenity. Loss of Green Belt. Loss of valuable agricultural land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Kim Shenton
"I have deep worries of the impact of the environment as well as the negative impact on health to the community, caused by the extra co2 emissions from the thousands of extra vehicles using both the A449 and the A5 all this extra traffic is going to have to come from the M54 or the M6 which is already massively congested. I live in Coven and fear it will become a rat run by vehicles trying to access the A5 without having to go to gailey island which in turn will not be able to cope with the extra traffic. Any jobs would have to be filled from outside the area, which in turn would mean more traffic. It is all detrimental to our lives and health and safety, and that of our children and grandchildren for the development to go ahead, when there are much better places available also were there is more unemployment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patricia Lloyd
"I object to this application because; Negative effect on the environment/pollution/air quality/noise/light negative effect on local health other more suitable locations available (i.e. sidings at old ammunition factory at Brinsford"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Dibble
"I strongly oppose the proposed West Midlands Interchange Proposal. I chose to live in Penkridge approximately 15 year ago, as this was a quiet community with a suitable infrastructure. The building of this Interchange will completely destroy that. New housing recently completed has already put a strain on the community as a whole. The recent M6 works has also had a lasting effect due to diversions overnight through the village adding physical, environmental and structural stress to the existing roadways and buildings. Penkridge as a village is teetering on the verge of being able to manage the volume of traffic and people as it is, any further residential or commercial building will have strong negative impact on the existence of this village, not to mention the environmental destruction."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Jones
" It would be in the Green Belt Serious increase in traffic on A5 and M6 Increase in traffic on A449 through Penkridge day and night, especially when problems on motorway Penkridge and Gailey people would suffer from increased pollution and noise Wild life in the area will be affected "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Langford
"Environmental issues Negative effect on local highways and traffic Negative effect on local health "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Lloyd
" I live on the A449 in Penkridge. My main concerns are: The extra noise and HGV/traffic pollution that will be generated with the additional HGV’s and other traffic 24 hours a day We already have experience of this when the M6 is closed and traffic diverted The heavy traffic using the A449 as a shortcut off the M6 at J13 which will happen The additional congestion on the A449 at the roundabout outside our house approaching both northbound and southbound adding to noise and HGV/traffic pollution and at Gailey Island The additional congestion from J12 of the M6 along the A5 that is already congested at peak hours. The adverse affect the proposal will have on the greenbelt land. I object to the proposals. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Samantha O'Connell
"I strongly oppose the proposed West Midlands Interchange Proposal. I chose to live in Penkridge approximately 15 year ago, as this was a quiet community with a suitable infrastructure. The building of this Interchange will completely destroy that. New housing recently completed has already put a strain on the community as a whole. The recent M6 works has also had a lasting effect due to diversions overnight through the village adding physical, environmental and structural stress to the existing roadways and buildings. Penkridge as a village is teetering on the verge of being able to manage the volume of traffic and people as it is, any further residential or commercial building will have strong negative impact on the existence of this village, not to mention the environmental destruction."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Shannon Davenport
"I object to this planning application because it is being built on Green Belt that should be protected. It will have a very negative impact on the immediate environment and ecology as well as surrounding areas due to increased pollution, reduced air quality and increased noise and light. As such I worry about the affect it will have on the health of me and my family, as well as the abundance of wildlife in the area. I believe that a brownfield site, nearer Birmingham, would be more appropriate and in-keeping with local environments. Local unemployment is already very low and therefore we will not benefit from the current proposed location. Other areas may welcome the opportunity for employment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alastair Crookston
"I am a retired HR Director with professional experience within the Automotive, Construction and Logistics sectors. I am first to appreciate the strategic benefits which can derive from a national freight and distribution strategy and the overall national economic and environmental impacts which can be achieved. However, as a local resident, I am perplexed by the extent to which local traffic would increase as a result of the SRFI. In particular, to have up to 18,600 additional commercial vehicles (HGVs of various tonnages) through our village via the A449 on a daily basis is barely believable! Our local roads would be overwhelmed by such volumes of slow moving, commercial traffic. Most working people living in Penkridge would want to access the M6 either via Junction 12 or 13 on a daily basis and I just cannot envisage how much traffic congestion will impede their access to work... The weight of this commercial traffic would affect the integrity of our road structure and pollution from the diesel units would very adversely affect our air quality. What would be acceptable is to zone the commercial traffic away from Penkridge."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Amanda Tranter
"I strongly object to the planning proposals for a west midlands interchange on the suggested Gailey site for the following reasons: 1 - The proposed area is green belt land! A Brownfield site should be selected so as to preserve the local flora and fauna from absolute and irreversible destruction in this countryside and agricultural area. This site will obliterate the character of the area. There are natural and historic villages and areas, within, and close to the suggested site that will be detrimentally, ruined forever. 2 - I am severely concerned by the increase in traffic which will cause air pollution for my two young children [redacted]. [redacted] has been present in one of my children so this is a medical concern for our family. 3 - Noise pollution is already heard from the M54 in Brewood, so an additional noise from the A5 and A449 will add further to the noise pollution in the area. 4 - Traffic congestion - I use the A5, A449 and M6 on a daily basis. These roads are heavily congested with lorries already and extra heavy goods traffic being drawn to the area will further cause absolute chaos! Daily traffic jams clog the motorway and all surrounding roads between junction 10a and 12 every weekday! This interchange will attract even more lorries into this area. Featherstone, is a traffic nightmare as I drive past it every morning, due to traffic off the M54 trying to get onto the M6 north carriage. It will be absolutely demolished by even more traffic! This is also the same for Penkridge, lorries try to bypass M6 queues so another historic village will be ruined. 5- The roads aren't suitable for additional traffic, lots of single lane roads. More destruction to our area to widen them! 6- NO LOW unemployment - Our area does not need extra jobs, therefore the people working at the interchange will have to travel into the area! this will cause even more traffic! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barry Chisnall
"I object to the West Midlands Interchange application because: It will increase pollution and noise in the area The current roads A5, M6 and A449 cannot handle existing traffic at times, let alone the vast increase proposed There are many more suitable sites available eg brown field This is not in agreement with local planning policy "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Colin Price
"I am concerned about the destruction of our disappearing green belt, increased traffic, increased number of heavy goods vehicles and the increased pollution resulting from this. The destruction of a number of homes, the unnecessary nature of this project and the disregard of a vast majority of the local populations wishes by those pressing for this project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Spare
"Damage to the Greenbelt Local roads are inadequate Quality of life affected Damage to wildlife"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Diane Nelson
"I strongly object to this proposal on several grounds: 1. The location is not appropriate. It is not adjacent to a large conurbation/manufacturer/end user therefore it involves double handling to the end user. This doubles the local pollution and congestion. It is possible that the advantage of using a potential rail connection will not be made (see later points) so the pollution will be far greater. 2. There will be a huge negative impact on local traffic. Much of the area is gridlocked already whenever there is an incident on the nearby M6. Please assess this to verify this point. It happens at least 4/5 times per month, if not more. The number of extra vehicles planned with the interchange will completely overwhelm the area. 3. Although the developers are suggesting that jobs will be created, South Staffordshire has low unemployment, therefore regional employment has not been considered. Consequently, it will involve employees having to be bussed in/use the west coast rail & bus/ or use their own transport from other areas, causing even more traffic to that already scheduled. 4. The nearby rail line is already extremely busy as a passenger line from London via Birmingham to Liverpool, a west coast mainline. A link, if made at all, of less than 100 miles cannot be financially viable. However, it is not certain that the link to this mainline will be made and it is possible it will be used as a standard industrial estate. The site in total covers 800,000 acres, the vast majority of which is Greenbelt. 5.The amount of extra traffic will have a negative impact on air quality, noise, light and pollution, which at the moment is green belt with all its associated flora and fauna. It will also have a direct impact on the health of people living in the area, who already cope with high pollution from the nearby motorway network. 6. There will be a huge loss of agricultural and farming land in the area. 7. There are other far more suitable sites which are brownfield and where there is high unemployment. An example here would be Stoke on Trent. 8. It is not in accord with Local Planning Policy. 9. It means a loss of Greenbelt, which I would like to protect for future generations. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Frances Benton
"I am writing to object to the proposal for the West Midlands Interchange on the basis of the points set out below... -This area is not one of high unemployment, nor is it easily accessible by public transport, therefore it is neither practical nor desirable to create 8000 jobs in this location. Currently local transport is so poor that local residents cannot hope to benefit from this scheme. -I believe the amount of traffic created will be detrimental to the health of local residents by freight and employees vehicles. - I believe the amount of traffic created will force commuters to reroute through local villagers to the detriment of residents. - My commute to work requires me to access the A5 and Junction 12 of the M6. I believe the proposal for the West Midlands interchange would significantly increase my commute and possibly force me to cease teaching at the school I currently work at. Congestion in this area is not good at rush hour currently and the significant increase in traffic will no doubt affect motorway congestion also. - "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Frank Peach
"Negative effect on the environment. Much more air pollution. Noise pollution. Light pollution. Major negative effect on local highways and traffic. Effectively the destruction of my way of life in my village as I know it. Loss of agricultural land and countryside It is in the wrong location. More suitable locations are available including those on BROWNFIELD LAND. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gemma Jones
"I object to the proposed development for the following reasons: Development would be inappropriate in the Green Belt with no special circumstances given. Alternative sites (including Brownfield land) is available and would be more appropriate. There is very low unemployment in this area. Situate the hub where there is a higher unemployment rate and not in the Green Belt. Development would result in further urbanisation in South Staffordshire. There would be a huge negative impact on ecology and nature/wildlife, air quality (pollution), light pollution, noise pollution and a loss of agricultural land and countryside and a negative effect on local highways and traffic. Please protect our Greenbelt. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian winter
"We object to this planning application to protect the green belt,pollution and the negative effect on local highways and there are better sites available."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Irene Govier
"I object to this application because of - the negative effect it will have on the local environment because of increased traffic. There are already frequent traffic jams through the village because of problems on M6. This will only worsen with additional traffic to and from the interchange. - air pollution / noise / air quality / light levels will all become much worse having a detrimental effect on health and wellbeing of local residents. - loss of green belt land and agricultural land - negative effect on local wildlife and flora - brownfield land would be much more suitable. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
James castree
"To even consider having something of this proportion on my doorstep is frankly outrageous and extremely worrying. The potential loss of even more precious green belt land in this area is sickening. The amount of traffic and pollution the WMI will bring will completely ruin the surrounding villages. This development quite simply CANNOT be allowed to happen "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Phillips
"I object to the proposed Interchange at Four Ashes. The proposal would increase traffic on the A5 and A449, increasing pollution, and the potential for accidents. The proposed site is Greenbelt, and totally inappropriate. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jannette Bevan
" As a long time resident and tax payer in this area who has to commute via the A5/A449/M6 the traffic situation is already intolerable. On several occasions recently it has taken 3 hours to make a journey which should take 30mins. The man hours lost at local businesses already due to traffic has not been considered adequately. The loss of more green belt is simply unacceptable. Planning departments all over Staffordshire are allowing the green belt and established hedging and trees to be grubbed up and chopped down with impunity. The current rail fiasco notwithstanding. There are hundreds of of houses being built around our area and having personally checked there is not one development which includes either adequate replacement or preservation of the current greenery or indeed any like for like replacement of what already exists nor is there any solar, rain water harvesting, green drives to prevent flooding, or even this years favourite home charging points. Within a very short period of time (and it is already evident in our area) our air quality which is rapidly decreasing will become substantially worse - particular black spots on my own route are A5/A449/M6/A34 where regular queuing traffic makes the air measurably worse and those on the pavements are doubtless risking their health whilst walking to work schools shops etc. This is undoubtedly going to be made substantially worse by this development. The changes caused by the actual build will in no way be offset by any remnants of green belt left around the site. This rail hub and its increase in traffic pollution and loss of green belt must be stopped on this site and a brown field / commercial site in a more appropriate area utilised. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Ashfield
"The area proposed for the West Midlands Interchange will infringe on the Green Belt - the proposed warehouse buildings will adversely affect the local wildlife, (birds, animals and reptiles), taking away a large swathe of their natural habitat and food. The plants that support the wildlife (and also contribute to the clean fresh air) will also disappear, due to the resulting pollution. It must not be forgotten that the residents (with elderly; and less active ones among them)will have their quality of life negatively affected by air pollution, as a result of traffic emissions The residents also will be affected by the roads becoming more congested and less safe (with the extra traffic, consisting of HGVs as well as cars and vans). The area is well known and is popular with both ramblers and cyclists offering healthy outdoor activities. These activities will no longer appeal and, crucially, could also not be possible, with the construction of the WMI - air pollution, loss of natural beauty plus unsafe walking and cycling. We have, recently, had to reluctantly accept a newly commissioned waste recycling plant, in Four Ashes - at the time of its acceptance, the residents naturally expected this recycling industrial development would be the final extension of any form of industrialisation (and, therefore, erosion of their healthy quality of life) - the introduction of the proposed WMI is a 'step too far', having no consideration of its adverse effects on the local environment. During investigations for a suitable location to construct such an interchange, it is understood that brownfield land was identified. Such land is, surely, far more suitable (the brownfield land will already have been used for industrial/commercial use, thus not affecting any Green Belt areas). No number of 'newly created green spaces' will substitute or replace the existing natural Green Belt - to suggest that this is possible appears to be treating the local residents as gullible. This is also a farming area - the WMI will take away farming land and, subsequently, make local farming infeasible and unprofitable. In my opinion, the idea of putting the WMI in the area under consideration is a dreadful proposal, when all of the negative results are fully understood. I am sure that other peoples Representations will show many more reasons for objecting to the proposed WMI. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Clifden Scotton
"1) I have vey serious concerns about the huge increase in diesel / vehicle fumes and the air quality in our home area and village especially as we have young children, one of whom suffers with[redacted]. I also work along side the M6 in Penkridge as a vet and the increased fumes and noise is a significant concern for our business and for examining horses at our practice. 2) as a vet doing large animal and horse work locally I am very concerned about the increased traffic and traffic jams on our local roads especially the A449 and the A5 especially as we are often driving to genuine emergencies. 3) one of our longstanding clients has beef cattle and their farm in directly inside the proposed site and the loss of agricultural land and countryside in this green belt is not acceptable and we need to stand up and protect our green belts and out farmers."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lenora Manon-Jones
"I do not find this proposed development appropriate for the following reasons. 1. The increase in traffic will have a profound impact on our environment, our health, our timely access to local areas. Swathes of green belt will be destroyed and the area industrialised. The impact of industrialisation will pollute the air, waterways, and soil which may never be improved. Noise and light pollution will effect all of the communities surrounding the site. Each type of pollution will have health consequences for all locals from exacerbation or instigation of respiratory problems to sleep disturbance which can responsible for both physical and mental health problems. 2. The thousands of extra vehicles that will clog our local roads daily will not just pollute but change our environment by the sheer voume of increased traffic. As an area with 1% unemployment the majority of jobs will attract those who live outside the area who need to travel. 3. The loss of green belt, agricultural land and countryside and the impact on wildlife and plant life is immeasurable. Other more suitable brownfield sites have been identified This plan would cause irrevocable damage to our communities, changing them and polluting them to the detriment of every person living in this area. We are not against industry but we are against plans to swamp us with giant structures which need to be supported by massive changes to our environment and lives. 4. One estimate suggests we would have an extra 150,000 tons of traffic a day. Possibly 18,000 extra vehicles. Our villages would become rabbit runs with traffic suffocating our streets and increasing risk of accidents, delays, more road damage to already poorly maintained roads and inevitable health issues. The scale of the development is in my view totally out of character for the area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
lynn Pinson
"I feel it is a massive development , far too excessive. The impact on the local area will be massive with huge volumes of lorries cars,which will increase air and noise pollution. The loss of green belt, agricultural land and countryside is not acceptable, with a wide range of habitats being destroyed, which currently are inhabited by a diverse range of wildlife and fauna. It has been shown there are a number of brown field sites which are just as suitable for this venture. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Matt Davenport
"I object to this planning application because it is being built on Green Belt that should be protected. It will have a very negative impact on the immediate environment and ecology as well as surrounding areas due to increased pollution, reduced air quality and increased noise and light. As such I worry about the affect it will have on the health of me and my family, as well as the abundance of wildlife in the area. I believe that a brownfield site, nearer Birmingham, would be more appropriate and in-keeping with local environments. Local unemployment is already very low and therefore we will not benefit from the current proposed location. Other areas may welcome the opportunity for employment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Humpherson
"The elements that this proposed development will impact are enormous. Greenfield impact. Some 700 acres of greenfield will be destroyed by this development. If the interchange is really needed it should be placed in a brownfield location and closer to the larger population areas that will gain from the interchange. Local traffic disaster. In the area we very frequently suffer from the problems on the M6 forcing thousands of vehicles onto the A5 and A449. The interchange will make a lot of roads locally virtually unusable for locals."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael woodall
"I object to the proposed development on the following grounds, A negative effect on the environment B to protect the the environment including the Green Belt. C loss or agricultural land D negative effect on local highways and increased pollution E negative effect on local health F other more suitable sites on brownfield sites available in Stoke . G no need locally for employment "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr David Hunt
"1-Green belt. The proposal is on green belt land, which has already been eroded locally for housing needs. But to use it unnecessarily for this industrial purpose is not justified-there are better brownfields options locally. 2-Common Land. The area was originally common land which was enclosed by act of parliament in the 1800s and gifted to a local landowner. It is against natural justice for a personal profit now to be made from it's sale for this use. 3-Local roads. The local main roads are already heavily used. This development would bring the area to a standstill by causing a huge increase in traffic volumes. 4-Air quality. The exhaust fumes from 18,000 extra vehicles per day would cause detrimental health issues in the local population."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr. I. T. Mayne
"My main objections to the proposed development are as follows; 1. Whenever there are problems or roadworks on the M6 the A5 and A449 tend to result in gridlock. Apart from freedom of movement on the A5 and A449 any road vehicles trying to access or leave the proposed site would severely hamper the efficient operation of the site. 2. Vehicles are likely to use roads across the local Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty i.e. Cannock Chase thus disturbing wildlife. 3. Extra traffic on local roads will severely hamper the police/fire/ambulance need for quick access to problems with possible loss of life due to delays. SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVES ON BROWNFIELD SITES a) RUGBY railway sidings with existing warehouse space and good access to M1, M6, M6 Toll and other motorways. b) CREWE railway sidings which could service the northwest and West Midlands with good access to M6 c) Possible use of redundant RAF airfields such as High Ercall or Gaydon "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Denise Wilde
"I have lived in Penkridge for the past twelve years and have already seen the area expand beyond its capabilities in terms of housing, medical facilities and schools; this proposal would now exasperate the challenges that we already face and leave us with increased traffic and pollution at a time where we are already an increased number of closures on the M6 which subsequently hit traffic volumes hard within the area; the young and old shall be particularly vulnerable as a result of the said, noting also that we have a considerable populous of over 65's in the area. As a Community First Responder, I see an ever increasing number of patients suffering from respiratory type conditions and this proposal can only assist with the promotion of that trend."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs R Paddock
"I am a resident in the area where planned applications have been made for the interchange. I object to this planning application for the West Midlands interchange for the following reasons: This is green belt land and I feel strongly that this should be protected. With the additional vehicles this site would bring to our roads namely the A449 and the A5, I worry for the added congestion particularly at peak times when I and my husband travel to work, the air pollution from the additional vehicles on the road and the increased risk of serious accidents. Whilst I appreciate that job opportunities will increase for the local area, the current rate of unemployment in this area is less than 1% meaning that we will not really see any benefit to this at all. I chose to live in a rural area and paid premium prices so that myself and my family could benefit from the countryside, the reduced amounts of traffic, air and noise pollution etc. This interchange will rob us of all of this. For all of the above mentioned reasons I object to the plans and request that my reasons are considered properly. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr. I.T.Mayne on behalf of Mrs.W.L.E.Mayne
"I am concerned about traffic on the A5 and A449. It is very busy with lorries especially if there is an accident or road works on the M6 with resultant noise and pollution. Land is already being taken up with buildings already which means more traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
P. Wilkes
"I am concerned that the A449 and A5 will not be able to cope with the increased traffic. This would a negative impact on a Penkridge. Already the traffic is frequently gridlocked when problems occur on the M6. I feel it will increase the risk of a serious accident putting people's lives at risk. This includes children on their way to school and families crossing to use facilities on either side of the main rode which splits the town. Elderly people need to cross the road to get to the health centre. The increased traffic will results in far more noise and reduce air quality. Traffic will continue throughout the evening. I can only believe that this will be detrimental to people's health. It is wrong to use green belt when other brown field locations are available. Rugeley power station has rail infrastructure that could be developed. It's important to maintain areas of green belt to the north of Wolverhampton. It provides the lungs for the city. For the reasons above I object to this application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Clifford
"My reasons for objection are as follows: * Protection of the green belt * Negative impact on the environment - pollution/air quality/noise * Negative effect on local highways and traffic volumes * Negative effect on local flora and fauna (Ecology) * Loss of agricultural land and countryside * This is the wrong location for all the reasons above and more suitable locations are available including brownfield land"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Robinson
"I believe that the proposed development will have a seriously detrimental effect upon the area: The extra traffic will cause additional congestion, pollution, light pollution and noise pollution. An additional 60+ homes are due to be built on School Lane in Coven, near to the A449 junction. The additional traffic from this development will also feed directly into the equation. Since re-working of the 'Vine Island' on the A449 to serve the i54 business park, considerably more cars now use Coven as a 'cut through'. From 6.30 am, a constant stream of vehicles enter the village via Lawn Lane and turn right onto Brewood Road to join the A449 and the process is reversed around 5pm. This load is likely to increase yet further if the proposed development goes ahead. The loss of greenbelt and agricultural land will have a fundamental effect upon the character of the area and the construction of so much warehousing will create an eyesore in this semi-rural location. The proposed 'community parks' which are a sop to local residents will never be used - who wants to go to a park in the shadow of an enormous rail terminal? The same tactic was used in construction of the i54 business park and those areas remain completely unused. In recent years we have had to endure construction of the i54/Jaguar Landrover plant (which is now seeking expansion into more of our precious greenbelt land), widening of the M54 J2 area, construction of the incinerator at Four Ashes which can be seen (and is an eyesore) for miles around, construction of additional industrial units and large-scale quarrying at or near Four Ashes and the expansion of the A449 junction at Gravelly Way. There is a vast area of brownfield land at Pleck near J9 of the M6 and in the vicinity of Horseley Fields, Wolverhampton. Both of these sites are adjacent to the railway. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Walton
"The WMI will have a negative effect on the local environment not only will excessive noise be produced by heavy goods but the a449 and the a5 are not adequate to take such an increase in traffic. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Ball
"I strongly object to the WMI proposals for a number of reasons: The hugely increased traffic will damage and have a negative effect on local residents' health The hugely increased 24/7 traffic will damage and have a negative effect on local plant and animal life & ecology Increased pollution hugely increased 24/7 traffic will negatively impact local leisure and business Green Belt land in the area is fast disappearing. Brownfield sites would be more appropriate for this kind of development The hugely increased traffic will damage and have a negative effect on the local environment in terms of pollution, air quality, noise & light. The hugely increased 24/7 traffic will damage and have a negative effect on local highways and access into, through and around surrounding areas Rural and semi-rural landscapes will be destroyed "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roy Huckin
"The proposed development is largely on Greenbelt and will mean the loss of agricultural land and will have a negative effect on the environment in terms of air pollution and noise. Many thousands of extra HGV's will be effecting the A449 the A5 and junction 12 of M6. Due to the relatively low unemployment in the area the jobs created will mean that most of the employees will have to commute to and from the area, greatly increasing car traffic on the roads previously mentioned. Areas like Stoke-on-Trent have much higher unemployment and Brownfield sites available with equally good access to the motorway network. In short the development is totally inappropriate for this rural location."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roy Vickers
"I strongly object to the West Midlands Interchange at Four Ashes. This area has already had major development with an Incineration Plant, Filtration Plant and a large Quarry. The road traffic is already a major congestion problem in Vicarage road and with the local unemployment being less than 1% most of the workforce for this development will commute so adding to the disruption. The Straight Mile I feel will become a rat run which is very popular with horse riders, cyclists and walkers, it has already had one fatality and I can only see this development with large volumes of traffic adding to the risk of more accidents. In an environment where we are losing more and more green belt and loss of wild life, why destroy hundreds of acres of green belt when other sites have been highlighted which would be more suited with virtually no impact on local communities. I genuinely believe this development will bring massive disruption and a catastrophic effect that this area and community will never recover from. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Wheway
"Local roads are inadequate to support the volume of traffic the development will generate. Traffic levels will create pollution. We moved out of town due to my sons [redacted]. Traffic levels will create congestion on roads which are already busy, especially during rush hour. The area is supposed to be green belt so must not be used for this purpose. The damage to wildlife will be terrible. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Terence Roberts
"I object to the application because of the negative effect on the local Environment, the need to protect the green belt when a brownfield site would be more suitable for a development of this type, also the massive increase in traffic that this scheme would bring to the already busy roads in this area, together with the increase in pollution that the extra vehicle movements would cause."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tracy Dooris
"I strongly object to this application because of all the extra vehicles that will be on our roads which are already busy, also causing more emissions in the air, we have enough with the M6, which cause health problems and noise. Also more trains day and night nightmare in summer months with noise. Green belt should be left to wild life and should never to built on. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Wendy Kerry
"I strongly object to this project as I feel it will have an impact on my day to day living, the volume of traffic will have a massive impact on all those that live in Penkridge."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Yvonne Buckland
"The location of this development is inappropriate as the rail network is already under pressure on this line and also the scale of the planned industrial development is an excessive encroachment on the green belt. A more appropriate location would be closer to the Trent Valley line because (a) it has already been developed into a four track line and (b) it is closer to the planned HS2 line."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Badger
"Spoliation of a very large area of green belt land to provide a facility that needs to be sited centrally within major population areas. Brownfield sites have already been identified. In SStaffs high quality jobs are needed as at I54 to to some extent at 4Ashes not lower skilled posts filled each day from elsewhere. Main line rail yes but desperately substandard road connections which will be only marginally altered. The area represents an attractive semi rural area providing much needed breathing space (literally) to the north of W’ton."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Bolister
"I object to the Gailey Freight Hub because it is in a location which would entail the destruction of green belt which contains valuable agricultural and recreational land. It would have a negative impact on the environment by greatly increasing noise and pollution. Other locations on brownfield land are available, and are thus more suitable. The Hub gives no access to an East/West rail route. This area of South Staffordshire already suffers from the noise, pollution and traffic jams resulting from the current M54/M6 interchange. Because of the locations of these motorways, it is inevitable that South Staffordshire will be chosen for another motorway junction from M54 north to M6. Hence the Hub ought to be moved north where there is access to the railway system in an East/West direction."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Antonia Murphy
"loss of an established four generation family business who employ local people, no meaningful attempt to agree the purchase of the land in advance – terms offered completely unacceptable, refusal to consider providing a replacement site for the business within their scheme or on adjoining land, the scheme could easily have been adjusted to avoid the business site and/or the house as these are shown only as landscaping.“I object to this application because I am concerned about… •Protecting the Green Belt •Negative Effects on the Environment / Pollution / Air Quality / Noise / Light •Negative Effects on the Local Highways and the Increase in Traffic •Negative Effects on Local Health •Negative Effects on the Local Flora & Fauna (Ecology) •Loss of Agricultural Land & Countryside •Negative Effects on Local Business •“I object to this application because I am concerned the Location is wrong, because…?There are other more suitable locations available ?Brownfield land would be more suitable ?Regional employment has not been considered properly ?Bussing in thousands of employees from other regions could damage our local economy ?And is not in accord with Local Planning Policy "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carol Lee
"I am opposed to any building on the green belt. I am opposed to the increased traffic from vehicles attending the site and the increas in employees vehicles to the site. The height of the buildings will be an eyesore. There will be a negative affect that on air quality with increased noise and pollution. Local roads will be damaged by increase in traffic. Impact on local wildlife and greenery. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Catherine Frazer
"I object to this application as proposed build is on greenbelt land when brownfield land would be more appropriate. I also believe this build will have a negative effect on the local area and infrastructure."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Guy
"I object to this application because it will cause major disruption to an already congested area. The traffic from the M6 junction to Gailey roundabout on the A449 is already constantly tailing back onto the M6. This has a major detriment to the environment with severe levels of pollution, air state & traffic congestion. The proposed site will destroy green belt land with all the subsequent damage to our countryside. Brownfield sites should be used. The unemployment levels in the area are fortunately low and the proposed employees from other regions could damage our local economy I understand that this is not in accord with Local Planning Policy or common sense."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christina Guthrie
"I object because I live in the area and this will have a negative effect on the environment with the noise and the pollution all those extra vehicles will bring, the traffic will treble and the countryside will be ruined. Christina Guthrie"
Members of the Public/Businesses
cllr Trevor Downing
"I have a number of concerns regarding this hub but they are related. I am concerned with the impact of the amount of traffic this will generate. The fact that the M6 is nearby is cited as a major reason why this site was selected but this section of the motorway is often affected by problems and the subsequent diversion of traffic. This results in gridlock on our roads and through our village as the Wolverhampton Road from junction 11 of the M6 is a diversionary route. This results in congestion which does affect public safety but also health. I have severe asthma and I am very concerned how this pollution will impact on my health. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Armer
"I object to the creation of the West Midlands Interchange - Gailey Freight Hub at Four Ashes for the following reasons: 1) Why use 643 acres of greenbelt farming land when there are many derelict brown field sites with the West Midlands conurbation? (Travel between Wolverhampton and Birmingham by train and see the vast areas of undeveloped brown field sites). 2) Warehouses in this area would be a blot on the skyline, just as they are between junction 14 of the M6 motorway and the A34 in Staffordshire. 3) There is already low unemployment in this area, and the prospect of the creation of several thousand new jobs will not benefit the local population of this area, but will create much commuting to the site from outside the area causing disruption to local people on the roads and rail services. 4) The creation of the interchange will create enormous number of heavy vehicles using the A5 and A449 roads, which are already busy, and congested at peak times. This will cause longer travelling times to the population of the local area in travelling to work. 5) As a result of the much increased traffic in the area, especially, by heavy goods vehicles, air quality in this region will deteriorate affecting the health of the local population. I sincerely hope that the Planning Inspectorate will consider the above objections to the development, and reject the proposal. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Williams
"I am a long term resident and small business owner in Penkridge. My serious concerns and subsequent objections to the Midland Interchange proposals are as follows: 1) Negative effect on Air Quality/Pollution. 2) Negative effect on local health 3) Negative effect on local highways and traffic 4) Negative effect on local services "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dianne Johnson
"I object to the construction of the interchange for the following reasons Increase in traffic on roads that already over used especially when there is a problem on m6. This causes a gridlock situation. The associated effect of air pollution in a village that is already next to m6. I live approx 250 yds from m6 and 1/4 mile from 449 route. Influx of people wishing to work in this semi rural are that does not have the houses, infrastructure , schools , and medical assistance to cope. I believe these things would destroy the local community that is already threatened by expansion of homes business that are unsuitable and not supported by increased services."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Edward A Phillips
"My major concerns are for the protection of the greenbelt, along with the gross negative effects this will have on the environment in regards to pollution and air quality. The flora and fauna will be permanently changed, if not wiped out.The additional traffic cannot be supported by existing roads without causing major disruption. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Geoffrey Walker
"I object to this application because there will be loss of agricultural land and countryside"
Members of the Public/Businesses
H G Dalton
"Protecting the green belt Negative effect on the environment,pollution,air quality ,noise Negative effect on local highways and traffic Negative effect on flora and fauna Loss of agricultural and countryside Itis the wrong location because other more suitable locations are available including brownfield land"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Isabell Walker
"I object to this application because it will have a negative effect on the environment, local highways and traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Jones
"I completely object to these plans on the following basis 1) The plans are hideous and destroy the green belt land within its planning area. This will have an impact the environment and wildlife, The pollution from the mass volume of traffic will have an impact on the health of local people and wildlife. (pollution includes noise, fumes and other emissions from vehicular or other traffic) 2) The local road infrastructure is just not designed to support this mass development. The roads are already a disgrace and full of potholes. This development will create a mass of traffic issues, further damage to roads and verges. The current public transport systems are not supportive to ensure alternative ways to work. 3)Local people who enjoy running, cycling and other hobbies will lose a loss of enjoyment within the community that they live due to this hideous development. The development will create a lack of community spirit/enjoyment. People will no longer care for and only have apathy for their community. 4) Following above - This will have an effect on health outcomes in terms of the public health agenda, obesity, heart disease, lifestyle alternatives and mental health. the cost of the development is far reaching..... 5)There are FAR MORE suitable locations, a couple of miles away, just off the M54 is a brownfield site of the old Ordnance depot in Brinsford/featherstone. This land is decayed and serves no useful purpose. This WOULD be a far better location in terms of location and infrastructure rather than depleting our already depleted greenbelt."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Wright
"I object to the proposed West Midlands Interchange as a resident of Cross Green. As a resident of a property overlooking the A449, the increased traffic will increase the already very high rate of air pollution and will decrease the air quality in the area. We are unable to open windows at the front of our property because of the exhaust fumes from the traffic so an increase of vehicles would be catastrophic for us. We have traffic noise throughout the night which would increase considerably and have difficulty accessing our property due to the heavy traffic. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jillian Evans
"It is not in West Midlands but in rural Staffordshire and therefore in the wrong location because other more suitable locations are available on Brown field sites in West Midlands."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joseph Roy Simms
"This application is an invasion of the green belt, will have a negative effect on local highways and traffic thereon, will effectively create a loss of valuable agricultural land and countryside, and, more suitable locations within the west midlands conurbation can surely be found without having such a catastrophic impact upon the local community."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kedwards. Harriet Margaret Ann
"Government guidelines should be followed and the proposed development should take place on a suitable brownfield site as originally mooted namely at Rugeley which has always been a mining village. Brewood on the contrary has its roots in agriculture.and tourism. The volume of traffic descending on the area and subsequent air pollution would be detrimental to the population living nearby. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ken Swan
"Protecting the Green Belt Negative Effects on the Environment / Pollution / Air Quality / Noise / Light Negative Effects on the Local Highways and the Increase in Traffic Negative Effects on Local Health Negative Effects on the Local Flora & Fauna (Ecology) Loss of Agricultural Land & Countryside More suitable site already exists with same , possibly better, infrastructure suitability[ motorways and rail and a local workforce Brownfield land would be more suitable Regional employment has not been considered properly Bussing in thousands of employees from other regions could damage our local economy "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roy Spicer on behalf of Linda spicer
"I object to this site being built most strongly. The reasons are, We need to protect our greenbelt Negative affect on the enviroment/ pollution/air quality/noise. Increased traffic Damage to the ecology/flora/fauna Loss of farm land&countryside. It is the wrong location,there are more suitable brownfield sites available. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Lee
"I am opposed to any building on the green belt. I am opposed to the increased traffic from vehicles attending the site and the increase in employees vehicles to the site. The height of the buildings will be an eyesore. There will be a negative affect that on air quality with increased noise and pollution. Local roads will be damaged by increase in traffic. Impact on local wildlife and greenery. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Matthew Gibbons
"I consider this application to be deeply inappropriate to the area leading to a huge loss of countryside ; a vast increase in traffic and congestion on local roads and is better suited to a brownfield site, for example as proposed in Stoke-on-Trent where they would welcome the Hub with its consequent regeneration and job creation. The proposed area has very little local unemployment meaning that in the short term even more traffic will be created as workers commute in and in the longer term even more pressure to build large amounts of housing to the further detriment of the local area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Marks
"The plan will ensure sig increases in traffic and diesel fumes. Noise and pollution will cover the area and have a negative effect on green belt. Local roads more hazardous for children"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael O'Brien
"I would like to register my objection to the proposed Interchange on the basis of its negative effect on local highways and traffic, as well as the negative effect on the environment. I live on the A449 at Coven Heath and the traffic build up during morning and evening rush hours is horrendous. The noise/air pollution is already bad so allowing more vehicles to be on the local roads is completely mad. Many times I am unable to get on or off our drive due to the sheer volume of traffic. I have lived at the current address for 6 years and have had reason to complain to the highways agency on numerous occasions. The thought of even more traffic is one I am struggling to cope with. Please, take the feelings of the local community into consideration and say NO to the Interchange. Thank you, Mike O'Brien "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Short
"traffic is already at an extremely high level along the A449 and A5 especially during the so called rush hour. on some occasions, along with other parents, i have to travel the A449 to penkridge to collect my son from school, which can take upto 45 minutes. the island at Gailey is a constant bottleneck. the addition of 100s of HGV's coming out onto the surrounding roads would at peak times bring the local area to a standstill. i appreciate that there is sometimes a need to build on green belt land but this 700 acre slice of green belt is a bit much to take."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr C Rogers
"I strongly oppose the building of this development as I believe it will only add to the already heavily congested local roads. It also means the loss of irreplaceable green belt land in this semi rural area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs A Dalton
"Protecting the green belt Negative effect on the environment/pollution/air quality/noise Negative effect on local highways and traffic Negative effect on local flora and fauna Loss of agricultural land and countryside It is the wrong location because other more suitable locations are available including brownfield land traffic "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Jean Jones
"“I object to this application because I am concerned about… •Protecting the Green Belt •Negative Effects on the Environment / Pollution / Air Quality / Noise / Light •Negative Effects on the Local Highways and the Increase in Traffic •Negative Effects on Local Health •Negative Effects on the Local Flora & Fauna (Ecology) •Loss of Agricultural Land & Countryside •Negative Effects on Local Business •“I object to this application because I am concerned the Location is wrong, because…?There are other more suitable locations available ?Brownfield land would be more suitable ?Regional employment has not been considered properly ?Bussing in thousands of employees from other regions could damage our local economy ?And is not in accord with Local Planning Policy loss of an established four generation family business who employs local people, no meaningful attempt to agree the purchase of the land in advance – terms offered completely unacceptable, refusal to consider providing a replacement site for the business within their scheme or on adjoining land, the scheme could easily have been adjusted to avoid the business site and/or the house as these are shown only as landscaping "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs R M Moore
"I wish to lodge my strong objection to the proposed West Midlands Interchange at Four Ashes because it is not feasible as the roads in this area are not capable of coping with the amount of traffic forecast. The A5 in each direct from the M54 to M6 is already extremely busy as is the A449. At peak times traffic queues around Gailey Island are horrendous causing delays to the daily commute. If the interchange goes ahead at Four Ashes the roads will be gridlocked."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Beaman
"Having investigated the potential implications of this scheme, I feel this would be a totally inappropriate development in this location. There has already been significant works undertaken to provide access to additional warehousing and factory accommodation on the A449 between Gailey and Wolverhampton. In addition to this an extension to the i54 site, together with a link road between the M6 and the M54, are planned. Collectively I feel that this is already too much for the local environment and will inevitably lead to increased traffic, resulting in further pollution, an increase in noise, and reduction in air quality. In addition it will also use invaluable agricultural land and impact on the greenbelt between Wolverhampton and South Staffordshire"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Beason
"I object to the building of the West Midlands Interchange for several reasons. As a local resident of Coven I think it will have a very negative effect with the large increase of traffic on the local roads. This can already be very bad when there are problems on the motorway or any road works. Every morning and evening hundreds of vehicles already drive through our small village on their commute. This extra traffic will create more pollution and noise. I am also concerned about the noise coming from the interchange will be audible throughout the day and night which we would hear from our properties.We would also be losing a massive area of green belt land which would be replaced with huge ugly buildings and concrete causing a massive effect on wildlife. There are better locations available where brownfield land could be used."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Pauline Tavernor
"WMI What a shame to lose over 600 acres of good agricultural land and such valuable natural conservation areas. We must ensure that we have food for our growing population, the land is vital for our local economy and employment for all generations. The young people of today and tomorrow, wherever they live, must have the chance to see wild flowers, kick leaves, pick blackberries or hear the cuckoo. We can’t keep on using green sites when there are brown sites waiting to be utilised. In this rural area and in the villages there are children walking to school, poor and often no pavements. 3000 lorries a day and all the cars used by employees, 24 hours a day is Staffordshire able to make necessary improvements to the roads, bridges, pavements, parking in South Staffordshire It’s not a case of not in my back yard! It’s a case of once this land is lost it will never come back. If an interchange is needed please look carefully at sites that have a BETTER infrastructure, better roads, parking for HGV, brown sites. Please listen to the people that know the area. Not just to the investors who may be looking for financial reward without thought to the loss to our wonderful country side. Thank you "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Robbins
"Traffic The area covered for the site will not be able to cope with the amount of traffic involved each day. There has been a significant increase since J.L.R Land Rover moved into the their site off the M54. and are building another factory on the same site which I believe will cause further traffic problems due to the extra staff they will employ. Coven, where I live has seen extreme problems especially during the hours 7-30am - 9am and 4-30- 6pm. Greenbelt This will be lost. Surely there must be a brownfield land site available to accommodate this Freight Hub ? "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Petra OHara
"Protecting green belt Noise pollution Natural environment Increase in traffic noise Loss of wildlife its in the wrong location "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philip Moore
"I am objecting to the West Midlands Interchange at Four Ashes based on the already congested and busy roads within the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Fee
"Living only a couple of miles from the planned development I object in the strongest possible terms as this will have a massive negative impact on the local area. The infrastructure around the A5 is already extremely busy and simply cannot cope with the huge increase in traffice this would create. The roads in the area are shocking - there are potholes everywhere and this will only get worse with more traffic. If this goes ahead it will be a massive, polluting blot on our green belt. No. No. No. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roy Spicer
"I strongly oppose the construction of this site..it is totally in the erond place."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Scott Goode
"I would like to register my objections to the freight hub, the roads are busy enough as it is especially during rush hours when the A5 can have 1/2 mile queues just to navigate gailey island. The extra traffic will obviously have environmental issues resulting in poor air quality from exhaust fumes causing more pollution, and not to mention the extra noise too. The area is supposed to be green belt so it would be better suited on brownfield land, this would then stop the negative effect on local flora and fauna and keep the agricultural land and countryside that the people of south Staffordshire know and love."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sofena Phillips
"I am concerned about the negative effects on the environment re pollution and air quality and the devastation of the flora and fauna. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart Faulkner
"The West Midlands Interchange will be disruptive to the lives of residents creating additional air pollution and noise pollution. Planning permission for The West Midlands Interchange should be defused. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Su Pickering
"i moved to coven almost 7 years ago for a quite location. I am applauded at the proposal of the freight hub. Not only will it be destroyed a large part of the surrounding green , but i cannot see where all the added rain fall will drain away with so much concrete. this will surely give rise to more flooding in the area with the already changing climate. As far as added noise and traffic is concerned i can any see this a horrendous notice and air pollution. Coven is due to increase in size with the proposed building of over 100 houses in school lane adding to the already high volume of the working population here. All spilling onto the main Wolverhampton to Walsall road . The destruction of a large portion of the green belt will destroy the habitat of already dwindling wild life. In conclusion, i am totally against he freight hub .Leave our green countryside alone....."
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Coal Authority
"I have checked the site of the West Midlands Rail Freight Interchange against our coal mining information and can confirm that, whilst the proposed development site falls within the coalfield, it is located outside the defined Development High Risk Area meaning that there are no recorded coal mining legacy hazards at shallow depth that could pose a risk to land stability. Accordingly, I can confirm that the Coal Authority has no specific comments or observations to make on this proposal. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adam cunningham
"I strongly disagree with this planning proposal. The negative impact it would have on the wildlife, pollution/noise pollution, traffic would be devistating. There are plenty of other sites that are not green belt land that could be put forward. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Amanda Hayes
"I am against the WMI proposal for numerous reasons 1) The distruction of masses or beautiful greenbelt line 2) The fact it will ruin the face of where we live and make it look like a concrete jungle 3) Will de value the villages near to it 4) Air pollution to our families 5) The huge increase in traffic on roads that already can't handle the volume of traffic 6) The sheer size of it on the landscape is offensive "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Richardson
"As a resident of Penkridge and regular user of the A5, A449, M6 and Toll I am writing to oppose this development on the grounds that this would have a significant negative impact on the area in regard to the following: - Air quality through very high levels of additional CO2 from exhaust fumes. This is on top of what we already experience from the M6, A449 and A5. I am getting more an more concerned on the effect this is having on my and other children's and family members health. - Excessive and dangerous levels of traffic through the village. We already experience this when there are issues with the M6. The extra amount of traffic would result is a chokehold on local roads and access points. This is significantly exacerbated at night time, and impacts directly on residents sleep patterns, thus potentially creating further health issues. - additional commuters into the area (employees at the Hub), again increasing traffic Even now on a return journey home I am always sitting in traffic from the M6/A5 junction to Gaily island. If the roads is not suitable now, how can it possibly cope with the projected traffic increase; especially from larger HGV vehicles. If such a proposal is desperately needed, why is a direct access to the motorway not considered? As this would be a much more logical approach to linking directly into the main arterial road network. Thank you for taking the time to read my objections."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chelsey Rose
"I would like to strongly object to the proposed West Midlands interchange due to the detrimental effect this will have on our green belt countryside. This will consequently have a devastating effect on the environment and air quality due to increased pollution from both the interchange itself and the increased pressure on the already busy highways and local traffic. I feel that the proposition is unnecessarily placed here on our green belt land which should be protected by the govnment to protect our rapidly shrinking countryside and agriculture. I wish to preserve the green belt land and upkeep the premises for wildlife and human safety. Thank you for reading. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cieran Lewis
"It will increase traffic when I am trying to access the motorway and Brewood, which I do regularly. It will pollute the local air, which can impact greatly on my lung health. It will make the local landscape look bad, which will ruin the amazing greenbelt we have. I really don't want this to go ahead, because I value my health and do not want my local community to have more traffic than it already does. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David sharratt
"I have registered because I wish to express my objection to the West Midlands interchange proposal. I am concerned the site of this rural location is completely wrong, because a large amount of greenbelt land would be destroyed and built over, of which I think is unacceptable due to habitat and environment issues. My biggest concern though, From information I have received, is the massive increase of traffic this development would create, mainly thousands of extra lorries and vans every day on the A449 & A5 roads. Consequently this would have a huge impact on surrounding villages & towns. For locals, the roads are already extremely busy and this would cause very substantial congestion and disruption for those living in these areas such as myself. Also this would significantly increase noise and air polution resulting in much poorer air quality for everyone living in the surrounding areas. This massive increase in heavy traffic will lead to the deterioration in road conditions, potentially more accidents? More deaths? And create more health issues. I am a local resident and I believe this proposal would have an extremely negative impact on mine and my families lives, especially my daughter who is [redacted]. This development could be damaging, devastatingly to our local areas and I sincerely hope that this proposal is thrown out."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dawn thomson
"I object to this application as we should be protecting our green belt land and environment. This development if it goes ahead will have a negative effect on the environment ie wild life and flora with the increase in pollution and traffic on our local highways. The councils should be looking to utilise brownfield land which would be more suitable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Debra Bate
"The local road network struggles to cope with the current volume of traffic. The increase in traffic will bring local traffic to a standstill. There is a high accident rate on the A5 already which would only increase with heavier, slower traffic as more motor cyclists try to overtake. The AONB and SSSIs if Cannock Chase and Mottey Meadows are close enough to be negatively affected by the increase in pollution. Green belt should not be used for such a purpose. It is inappropriate development for the area. The impact on air quality on what is currently a rural area is unacceptable. Hundred of children live in surrounding villages and should not be exposed to such levels of emissions."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma macdonald
"I am opposed to the West Midlands Interchange proposal as it is seriously going to effect the landscape and take over a large proportion of green belt land. Furthermore it will effect an already very busy road network with a large increase in vehicles."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Howard Munslow
"I object to this development because it will encroach onto green belt land and will have a negative effect on traffic using the A449 and the A5."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hugh Smith
"1. Very large increase in traffic in and around the proposed development will have negative effect on local roads and traffic flow. 2. The large increase in traffic wiil increase air pollution to an unacceptable level and be contra to Government objectives to reduce air pollution. 3. There are large areas of brownfield land alongside the railway between Birmingham and Wolverhampton which support derelict buildings or heaps of scrap or rubble. Use of this land would not only tidy up these eyesores but link in with similar existing developments."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian greatrex
"I object to the application due to its adverse impact on the Green Belt, negative impact on the environment, creation of noise, air and light pollution and excessive demand placed on local highways infrastructure which is already at capacity. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janet Davies
"I object to this application because it will have a detrimental effect upon the local roads due to a massive increase in traffic. An increase in traffic will have a negative effect on the health of the local population due to air pollution, and an increase in noise and light at night. It is not the right place for the site because of the loss of farmland and countryside and it would mean the loss of local fauna and flora. It would be sited in the wrong place because there are other suitable brownfield sites available. Unemployment in the local area is low so new employees would put pressure on housing demand or would cause an increase in commuter traffic. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joanne Robinson
"I object to the building of the new rail terminal for the following reasons: The local area has been subjected to development over recent years which is already placing considerable strain on the local road network. There is increased traffic passing through local villages now on a continual basis. Further development would lead to the local area becoming totally overwhelmed by the increased volume of traffic and all of the associated problems such as pollution, noise etc. The local community will gain no benefit from this development. The inclusion of a small recreation area in the plans I feel to be totally cynical as the development will remove a vast area of local countryside, playing fields and footpaths from use by the general public. To suggest that this is being offered to the local community as an enhancement in lieu of the destruction of our local environment is beyond belief. Also I can see no need for a Railhub in this area. There is a large rail depot alongside the local motorway at Bescot, which is empty most of the time and has been for years. Surely looking at sites such as this were the rail network is already in place would make more sense, should such a development be required. That investment has never been suggested for Bescot suggests that there is no demand for a huge rail freight terminal. This development is purely speculative and the claims of any benefit are not supported by any evidence other than from those few who stand to gain financially. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karl Paulins
"I object to the proposal because: • We should protect the Green Belt, there are better brownfield sites available with infrastructure already in place • There will be a negative effect on pollution, noise and air quality • This will lead to loss of local flora and fauna • The local transport infrastructure cannot cope with a project of this scale. This applies to the A5, A449 and M6 • Jobs are unskilled and not suitable to the local work force "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laura Cochrane
"I object to the west midlands interchange due to the damage to the precious green belt. I also object to additional traffic onto already congested roads that aren't designed for more traffic"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lisa Bramwell
"I object to this application because it will increase the traffic in the local area which will affect me as I'm a resident of nearby Penkridge. I also believe this is not a suitable use for green belt land which should be protected from development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marie Nicholls
"Negative effect on the environments/pollution/air quality. More suitable locations available Negative effect on the local highways and traffic "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Gibbs
"I believe that the extra traffic, pollution, noise and consumption of Green Belt land is detrimental to this area, as a whole and will damage the lifeblood of the surrounding communities"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Molly Frances Burns
"I am against this planning application as I have serious concerns for the welfare and health of the people of Penkridge and all surrounding areas who will be impacted by the increase in pollution if this goes ahead. I am also against it due to the negative impact it will have on the wildlife in the area and surrounding areas. I also know there are other sites which are not greenbelt land where this could be built or developed on other sites which already exist instead of destroying greenbelt which should be protected. Also, The road direct to the proposed sight and surrounding roads are already at high capacity and 1 breakdown or accident has serious negative impact and causes the roads around the proposed area to become at a stand still and grid locked which has a knock on affect to all areas. For all these above reasons i strongly appose it. Regards, M.Burns"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rachel Rathbone on behalf of Mr H Powell
"The land you are going to use for the interchange is all green belt land, and this is good agricultural, food producing land - which we strongly feel would be of better use. It'll have a negative affect on the environment in terms of pollution, noise, and traffic. It'll affect the local highways and traffic, which is already struggling to cope with current congestion. Newts, Buzzards and Song Thrush are found in this area and all three of these animals are protected by our laws. All the water off of this land will go into the river Penk, and this will result in localised flooding. It's the wrong location, as there are green field areas in Featherstone and Brownfields which are more suited to this development. We live on the A449, and we are both in our 80's, and should emergency services need to get to us in an emergency, we feel this development would hinder that process. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Wendy Talbot
"I object to the application because it will have a negative on the local community. It will produce intolerable amounts of traffic in an already congested area. Incidents on the M6 and resulting detours already frequently impact on the village of Penkridge. This creates a negative on the environment which can only worsen with this development and will prove detrimental to the health and welfare of the inhabitants in this area This is green belt farming land which must not be a considered choice whilst there is more suitable brownfield locations available "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Neil Nicklin
"I would like to register my objection relating to the building of the West Midlands Railway Freight Interchange at Gailey, South Staffordshire. My wife and I live in Coven which is very close to this proposed site. Although I understand and agree with the fact that the creation of many jobs is possible with this development, I feel that the downsides to the project far outway the benefits. Coven will experience vast amounts of disruption, in my belief, through increased traffic and its associated pollution effects, more greenbelt will be lost, fauna and flora will be impacted negatively. The traffic at Gailey island on any rush hour is pretty bad now - it will be horrendous if this goes ahead. Thank you."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Marshall
"I object to this application because it will have a negative effect on the Environment in respect of Pollution and Air Quality. Excessive traffic will have a negative effect on local highways. The area already suffers if an accident occurs on the nearby M6 motorway, with motorway traffic using the A5 and A449 to avoid such accidents. Additional traffic to service such an Interchange would bring the area to a standstill. We need to protect the Green Belt. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roy Titmus
"My objection to the planned location of the Gailey freight hub, are based on. Protecting the green belt land. Negative effects on the local environment, pollution/ air quality/ noise Seriously effects on local highways and traffic at all times of the day. The i54 site North of Wolverhampton approx 2.5 miles away, already causing serious traffic buildup on the local roads dispite direct access from the M54 motorway. It’s totally the wrong location when brownfield land which is available and would cause far less effect on the local area based on the above reasons."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sharon reynolds
"The A449 and A5 and M6 is always very busy and when an accident happens it is gridlocked on these roads for hours which includes coven village penkridge village brewood village gailey village four ashes coven heath then the impact causes Featherstone Brinsford shareshill wedges mills and then further impact goes on into cannock four crosses bridgtown cheslyn hay and then fordhouses bushbury Wolverhampton the list can go on and this is sometimes the case with one lane closed on the motorway m6 and then it clogs up all the following road in bad weather it can be hours to get home the pollution will be horrendous in our villages can imagine that in years to come children will all have some kind of lung cancer with the toxic fumes from lorries and diesel trains the land is green belt with wildlife and old woods with very old trees going to be ripped up and green land destroyed oh yes can put a few new saplings in but these trees are 100 years old and put here by families that have farmed the land for centuries we don't need this destroying our green belt polluting the sir and the noise to spoil all the villages quality of life let it be built on one of the people behind it on there constituency and leave ours alone we are going to fight for fresh air for not so much our generation but the next and the next we need green belt for them as well not dirty pollution lorries throwing plastic bottles of urine out of the lorries onto the footpaths and verges along the a449 and A5 on route as we know this does happen and littering our area we are a community of villages and we will fight to stop it "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Askew
"I object to the proposal on the grounds that there are plenty of brown field sites in the West Midlands with excellent rail and road connections which should be used for this important piece of infrastructure for us all. I realise that using one of the many excellent brown field sites may be more expensive for the developer to decontaminate, however I believe that this is a cost that the developer should simply have to cater for in order for us to protect agricultural land from unnecessary development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steve Davis
"I wish to object to the proposal for the West Midlands Interchange-Gailey Freight Hub This is the most inappropriate development on green belt land which should be protected against such large scale development If allowed to be developed this project will have a completely negative effect on the environment. It will generate untold pollution and have a detrimental effect on air quality for miles around the proposed site. The pollution from the estimated vehicle movements of over 18,000 will cause in the region of 16.3 tonnes of CO2 emissions every day The noise pollution from the warehousing and traffic generated from the project will be immense The traffic movements will cause untold problems to an already congested road network There will be irrecoverable damage to local ecology both wildlife and flora and fauna The loss of acres of agricultural land and open countryside to allow a development of 643 acres is inconceivable This proposal is in a totally inappropriate location,if this freight hub is definitely required and I question that it is there are much better locations available for such a vast project that does not require the use of greenbelt for the development. There are brownfield sites much better suited to a scheme such a this If we care about our green space, ecology, air and noise quality this development should be absolutely REFUSED and I urge you to ensure that it is "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tom Stockin
" The proposal would greatly increase traffic on the A5 and A449 Building over a large amount of greenbelt land People employed from outside the area would add to local traffic. Increase in noise and air pollution The scale of the development would have a detrimental affect on the character of local villages character of the local villages "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adrian Clarke
"I object to the proposal as it will cause increased traffic problems and pollution in the area. Whenever there is a traffic problem on the M6 motoway The area gets totally log jammed with Penkridge A449 being the only diversion route. The extra traffic from the proposed development would severely increase this problem."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Sims
"I object to this application on the grounds of negative impact on the local roads, services and countryside. Further to this is the increased vehicles in the surrounding areas caused by the increased workforce required travelling sites when there is no extra gain for the local community and in fact will have a greater negative impact on the current facilities. The use greenbelt land is ridiculous when so many brown field sites are more suitable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barry James
"1. Traffic congestion through Penkridge will become unbearable on the A449. It is already difficult to turn right onto the A449 at peak times. Traffic accidents will increase substantially with a huge increase in HGV's and cars. 2. There is already a bottleneck in Penkridge with the market, traffic lights and the 30mph limit. Thousands more vehicles will cause the A449 to be jammed solid at peak times, causing intolerable air pollution for Penkridge residents. 3. The council should be seeking to REDUCE local air pollution, in line with EU legislation, NOT seeking to increase it with this development. 4. Gailey island and the A5 will be jammed with new traffic, causing unlawful levels of air pollution and dangerous negative effects on the health of residents. 5. Emergency services will be delayed via the A449 at peak times. 6. Traffic noise levels will be intolerable to Penkridge residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charles Ian Phillips
" I object to the proposed West Midlands Interchange development, for the following reasons; this would mostly be sited on mainly green-belt land and the additional influx of traffic using both the A5 and A449 will create health hazards for the surrounding villages. On a Wednesday and Saturday, Penkridge is already gridlocked due to the local market! Any traffic accidents on the nearby M6 are already directed through our villages. The proposed increase in traffic can only result in more pollution, more accidents and more noise pollution! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Edward Roddie
"Gailey Freight Hub Consultation – Objections I am writing to strongly oppose and object to the proposed Gailey Freight Hub. I attended the public exhibition at the Haling Dene Centre in Penkrdge on 20 July where the revised proposed plans were available. I discussed with a number of the FAL representatives, and after considering the proposals, there are many reasons for my objection, many of which haven’t changed from the initial proposal, which are summarised as follows: 1) An attempt at publishing expected traffic flows on the various roads around the site are misleading. The revised proposal includes the construction of a roundabout on the A5 between M6 Junction 12 and the A449 (Gailey). The FAL representatives stated that lorries using the Freight Hub would use that new roundabout meaning less congestion around the Gailey roundabout where the A449 crosses the A5. The expected traffic congestion of minus 5% (-5%) between Gailey and the new roundabout is clearly wrong. Any vehicle that crosses the A449 (A5 Eastbound) will continue to the M6 and will actually be slowed by this new roundabout into the Freight Hub, thus causing significant congestion and more pollution 2) Similarly, the expected traffic flow South of Station Drive at Four Ashes has been estimated at plus 10% (+10%) whereas the stretch just North of Four Ashes toward the other new roundabout has been estimated at plus 41% (+41%). It is again misleading to suggest the traffic flow along the A449 Northbound will be any different to the increase of 41% expected 3) There has not been an air pollution study commissioned either by FAL or the Local Authorities. Such an enormous development, and the expected movement of hundreds of HGV’s every single day has got to increase the volume of air pollution. FAL are quick to point out that this is a “Rail” Freight Hub, thus reducing HGV traffic in the UK. Whereas that may be the case between the port when freight enters the UK and the Hub, the surrounding area will see a dramatic increase in the movement of large vehicles, leading to substantial air pollution, traffic congestion and noise increases 4) The expected traffic flow projections have not been carried out for the A5 immediately to the West of Gailey roundabout (toward Telford) and the A449 immediately to the North of Gailey (toward Penkridge). These routes are very busy, particularly at peak hours, and the proposed road infrastructure developments by FAL will create significant congestion in those areas. The recent road works on the A449 between Gailey (A5) and Coven have been a clear indication of the impact congestion has on this area, and they have been a temporary issue, rather than permanent which is what the Freight Hub would be 5) This 700 acre site is situated in a Green Belt area. Such Green Belt areas should be protected from development, particularly of this scale, as much as possible to ensure our countryside does not suffer permanently 6) This area is very nearby Cannock Chase which is classified as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) 7) There are many “Brown Field” sites in the West Midlands that are also in close proximity to the railway network that would be more suitable than the destruction of Green Belt land. Such Brown Field sites along the route of the M6 and M5 motorways near Walsall, Sandwell and Birmingham have previously been industrialised and would be more suited to such a Freight Hub. At their public meeting on 20 June, FAL stated there had been 4 sites reviewed including Gailey. One of those site near Dunston (J13 of the M6) is clearly unsuitable and I question the actual level of detail that has gone into reviewing those other sites 8) It is difficult to understand the scale of the development simply from two dimensional drawings. I drive down the A449 every day, and the stretch between Gailey roundabout (A5 junction) and Four Ashes where this proposed development will be situated is not blighted by industry at all. The whole stretch is green fields and trees which would be obliterated by enormous warehouses and container yard. FAL have admitted the proposed “screening” banks would not be of sufficient height to fully hide that development. Many development and construction companies now use Building Information Modelling (BIM) tools prior to construction to demonstrate how a development will look. A BIM 3D model of the proposed construction should be created as part of the consultation process which will clearly demonstrated the environmental impact of such a development 9) There will be a significant increase in Rail Freight journeys on the rail line through Penkridge. As admitted by FAL on 20 June, these journeys will often take place during the night due to passenger services using the line during the day. This rail line passes a large number of residential properties which will have a very detrimental effect on those residents 10) The road infrastructure (A5 and A449) is not suitable for the amount of Heavy Goods Vehicles that will be using it to transport goods in and out of the Freight Hub. At the consultation meeting on 20 June, the road infrastructure “expert” stated neither the A5 nor A449 would be widened 11) Events at nearby Weston Park on the A5 such as the V Festival, Camper Jam and Annual Game Festival bring significant disruption to the area’s roads. These events bring much needed revenue to the area, and as they are relatively infrequent, are accepted by the local communities with the disruption to the road network. This Freight Hub would be like having the traffic of the V Festival on a daily basis throughout the whole day bringing significant traffic congestion every single day 12) FAL have confirmed that some of the warehouses at the Freight Hub may be leased by distribution organisations that are not mandated to use the Rail Terminal. This only serves to increase the road traffic in the local area without the benefit proposed by FAL for the development itself 13) I already live on the A449 and when the M6 is closed (either for planned maintenance or due to an incident / accident) the A449 is the only road which takes this traffic, classed by Highways England as an “arterial route”. This means that it is not permitted to impose vehicle size restrictions, therefore that would not be an option for FAL to use in the proposal for this development. Lorry drivers would have no hesitation to use the A449 in the event the M6 was busy (even just usual motorway congestion) to access the Gailey Freight Hub. This would bring unnecessary congestion through our village. The FAL representatives said that Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) equipment would be installed on the A449 immediately North of Gailey, and HGV’s using the Freight Hub would be financially penalised if they used the A449 rather than the M6. Firstly, this does not seem a very tough deterrent for the haulage companies (FAL could or would not say how much those fines are expected to be), and secondly, FAL (on 20 June) admitted the fines would go back into the company managing the Hub estate, and therefore there is no incentive to enforce HGV’s to use only permitted routes 14) FAL made much of the creation of a “Community Park” within the development. This is nothing more than an attempt to say they are “… putting something back into the community …”. Who is going to use a Park in the middle of an enormous industrial area with noisy cranes, trains and lorries, and 40 metre high warehousing? 15) Penkridge, Four Ashes and Coven are good, prosperous areas with a good standard of living, and low unemployment. Such a massive development will significantly affect the value of property in the area as well as the health and wellbeing of the local population. FAL representatives on 20 June admitted that they do not expect support from residents in the local area, and that this site is the most suitable. Comparisons have been drawn with a similar development near Daventry in Warwickshire. That particular development started as a similar size to the Gailey Freight Hub, and over years of subsequent development is now considerably larger. Other than the profiteering of Four Ashes Limited and its shareholders, there are far more negatives associated with this development than positives."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Alsop
"I am a local resident near to where this Interchange is proposed. I wish to object to the project on the grounds that vital Green Belt land will be destroyed. Also, current infratructure in far from adequate to meet the demands of such a project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Glennon
"I object to the proposed West Midlands Interchange:- 1. Despoiling 618 acres and building mainly on Greenbelt land 2. Interchange proposals include warehousing & other associated development (NOT ONLY the Interchange) and is thus a typical commercial development that could be used for OTHER industrial uses. 3. Increase in traffic on A5 (a narrow two lane highway already overloaded by HGV's to & from Telford and wales) & A449 (a main artery to people working in Wolverhampton). 4. Warehousing creates low skill, low paid jobs; and the people employed will come from a wide area, thus adding further to local traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Robert Erskine
"I object to the West Midlands Interchange on the following grounds: It is in the wrong location. It is vital that we protect the green belt, agricultural land and countryside. There are more suitable locations available, including brownfield land. The interchange would significantly increase the volume of traffic on already heavily used roads, including the A5, A449 and M6. That would have a knock-on effect on extra traffic using the small lanes running to the small villages surrounding the proposed location, thus increasing the risk of road accidents and decreasing the quality of the roads (thus increasing the cost of road maintenance). Further, the increased number of HGVs and passenger vehicles on our roads would negatively impact the environment due to increased pollution, noise and decreased air quality. There are also ecological issues to consider; the building of interchange and the heavy traffic associated with it would seriously diminish the local flora and fauna. I hope that the Planning Inspectorate considers all of these important points. In summary, the interchange would have an extremely negative impact on the local environment and transport infrastructure. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Glyn Green
"The development will greatly increase the level of traffic on the a5 and a449. The a5 in particular is unsuited to such an increase being a single carriageway. Further the m6 is already unable to cope with its current load. An increase in traffic would not be feasible. This would have a detrimental affect on the local economy. From an environmental perspective there would be an increase in pollution from the diesel lorries using the port. The local landscape is rural. Why spoil this when there are abundant brown field sites in need of regeneration "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janet Fisher
"“I object to this application because I am concerned about… Protecting the Green Belt Negative Effects on the Environment / Pollution / Air Quality / Noise / Light Negative Effects on the Local Highways and the Increase in Traffic Negative Effects on Local Health Negative Effects on the Local Flora & Fauna (Ecology) Loss of Agricultural Land & Countryside Negative Effects on Local Business “I object to this application because I am concerned the Location is wrong, because… There are other more suitable locations available Brownfield land would be more suitable Regional employment has not been considered properly Bussing in thousands of employees from other regions could damage our local economy And is not in accord with Local Planning Policy"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julian Souter
"As a local resident in South Staffordshire and based on the information I have received regarding the proposed West Midlands Interchange, I wish to lodge the following objections: 1) the Interchange will cause irreversible damage to green belt land that should be protected 2) the increase in traffic from HGVs and other vehicles will have a significant negative impact on the environment through pollution, loss of air quality and noise as well as on local roads and traffic. This will impact on the lives of South Staffordshire residents 3) there will also be a significant negative impact on local flora and fauna 4) other suitable locations in areas where there is much greater unemployment, particularly on brownfield land, are available "
Members of the Public/Businesses
kenneth wharton
"Ruining Green Belt &Countryside .Heavy traffic on already congested roads.We are blessed with three prisons in the area. with all the extra traffic locals will hardly be able to move."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Whitehouse
"The West Midlands Interchange will have a huge negative impact on our lives. Our major concern is that our roads can't cope now with the volume of traffic. Frequently the motorway is at a standstill resulting in traffic coming off the motorway and clogging up the surrounding villages. Any increase in traffic exacerbates this situation. This stationery traffic poisons the atmosphere now. How much worse will extra traffic make this problem? Some of the propoganda published mentions the number of extra jobs it will create. Bearing in mind the latest government statistics of very low unemployment, this can only result in any new jobs being met from people travelling longer distances and probably some unfilled jobs having to be met by further immigration. Both of these meaning even more traffic. Our health is a major concern. Extra emissions will cause more unwell people, creating a further drain on our health service which is struggling to cope now. Our green belt is being eroded unnecessarily when there are so many abandoned local sites that could be used instead. Why take the easy option? I suggest interested parties travel by train between Wolverhampton and Birmingham to see far more suitable sites. It is lazy planning to pick on agricultural fields and destroying wildlife. There is more to life than making money. Riches come from beautiful countryside and wildlife as well. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Liz Scrivens
"I object to this application because I believe it will have a negative effect on local highways and traffic, on the environment and on local ecology. I believe we should protect the green belt and this application will result in the loss of agricultural land and countryside at the expense of an unnecessary development. Further, the impact on local business has not been considered. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Maria Dzimira
"1. It is unacceptable to destroy green belt land. 2. There is to much traffic on the A5 and A449 causing serious accidents, polution and congestion without further HGVs adding to the existing chaos. HGVs should be based with direct access to a motorway and should be restricted to travel during off peak travel times. 3. We should endeavour to reduce air polution in this area as we allready have to suffer significant air and noise polution from the A4601 A460 A449 A5 M6 M6 toll and M54. The A4601 is not designed for use by the significant numbers of HGVs that regularly use this road as a rat run to the M6 & M54 exceeding 30 mph."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Fisher
"“I object to this application because I am concerned about… Negative Effects on the Environment / Pollution / Air Quality / Noise / Light Negative Effects on the Local Highways and the Increase in Traffic Negative Effects on Local Health Loss of Agricultural Land & Countryside Negative Effects on Local Business I also object to this application because I am concerned the Location is wrong, because… There are other more suitable locations available Regional employment has not been considered properly Bussing in thousands of employees from other regions could damage our local economy And is not in accord with Local Planning Policy"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michelle Poulsom
"I object to this application because it is planned on the green belt. The green belt is essential for preventing the West Midlands conurbation from merging with local villages and towns. A brown field site would be more appropriate and would not have the negative effects on the local high ways and traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Edward Roddie on behalf of Mr Nathaniel Skipp
"I am writing to strongly oppose and object to the proposed Gailey Freight Hub. I attended the public exhibition at the Haling Dene Centre in Penkrdge on 20 July where the revised proposed plans were available. I discussed with a number of the FAL representatives, and after considering the proposals, there are many reasons for my objection, many of which haven’t changed from the initial proposal, which are summarised as follows: 1) This 700 acre site is situated in a Green Belt area. Such Green Belt areas should be protected from development, particularly of this scale, as much as possible to ensure our countryside does not suffer permanently 2) This area is very nearby Cannock Chase which is classified as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) 3) There has not been an Environmental Impact Assessment carried by either FAL or the Local Authorities. Such an enormous development, and the expected movement of hundreds of HGV’s every single day simply has to increase the volume of air pollution. The documentation by FAL that this is a “Rail” Freight Hub, thus reducing HGV traffic in the UK, has a detrimental effect on this area. Whereas that may be the case between the port when freight enters the UK and the Hub, the surrounding area will see a dramatic increase in the movement of large vehicles, leading to substantial air pollution, traffic congestion and noise increases 4) The published expected traffic flows on the various roads around the site are misleading. The revised proposal includes the construction of a roundabout on the A5 between M6 Junction 12 and the A449 (Gailey). The FAL representatives stated that Lorries using the Freight Hub would use that new roundabout to access the Freight Hub meaning less congestion around the Gailey roundabout where the A449 crosses the A5. The expected traffic congestion of minus 5% (-5%) between Gailey and the new roundabout is clearly wrong. Any vehicle that crosses the A449 (A5 Eastbound) will continue to the M6 and will actually be slowed by this new roundabout into the Freight Hub, thus causing significant congestion and more pollution 5) Similarly, the expected traffic flow South of Station Drive at Four Ashes has been estimated at plus 10% (+10%) whereas the stretch just North of Four Ashes toward the other new roundabout has been estimated at plus 41% (+41%). It is again misleading to suggest the traffic flow along the A449 Northbound will be any different to the increase of 41% expected 6) The revised proposal also include a restriction where Station Drive joins the A449. The proposal is that traffic will be unable to turn right at that junction to join the A449 Northbound. With a vastly increased volume of traffic throughout the day (24 hour working at the Hub), forcing all traffic to turn right at that junction will lead to a significant increase in traffic past our property a few hundred yards Southbound on the A449 from the junction. We already have to contend with Lorries on the Lorry park opposite our house. This would be unbearable 7) The expected traffic flow projections have not been carried out for the A5 immediately to the West of Gailey roundabout (toward Telford) and the A449 immediately to the North of Gailey (toward Penkridge). These routes are very busy, particularly at peak hours, and the proposed road infrastructure developments by FAL will create significant congestion in those areas. The recent road works on the A449 between Gailey (A5) and Coven have been a clear indication of the impact congestion has on this area, and they have been a temporary issue, rather than permanent which is what the Freight Hub would be 8) There are many “Brown Field” sites in the West Midlands that are also in close proximity to the railway network that would be more suitable than the destruction of Green Belt land. Such Brown Field sites along the route of the M6 and M5 motorways near Walsall, Sandwell and Birmingham have previously been industrialised and would be more suited to such a Freight Hub. At their public meeting on 20 June, FAL stated there had been 4 sites reviewed including Gailey. One of those site near Dunston (J13 of the M6) is clearly unsuitable and I question the actual level of detail that has gone into reviewing those other sites 9) It is difficult to understand the scale of the development simply from two dimensional drawings. This proposed development will be situated in an area that is not blighted by industry at all. The whole stretch of that part of the A449 is green fields and trees which would be obliterated by enormous warehouses and a container yard. FAL have admitted the proposed “screening” banks would not be of sufficient height to fully hide that development 10) There will be a significant increase in Rail Freight journeys on the rail line through Penkridge. As admitted by FAL on 20 June, these journeys will often take place during the night due to passenger services using the line during the day. This rail line passes a large number of residential properties which will have a very detrimental effect on those residents 11) The road infrastructure (A5 and A449) is not suitable for the amount of Heavy Goods Vehicles that will be using it to transport goods in and out of the Freight Hub. At the consultation meeting on 20 June, the road infrastructure “expert” stated neither the A5 nor A449 would be widened 12) Events at nearby Weston Park on the A5 such as the V Festival, Camper Jam and Annual Game Festival bring significant disruption to the area’s roads. These events bring much needed revenue to the area, and as they are relatively infrequent, are accepted by the local communities with the disruption to the road network. This Freight Hub would be like having the traffic of the V Festival on a daily basis throughout the whole day bringing significant traffic congestion every single day 13) FAL have confirmed that some of the warehouses at the Freight Hub may be leased by distribution organisations that are not mandated to use the Rail Terminal. This only serves to increase the road traffic in the local area without the benefit proposed by FAL for the development itself 14) I already live on the A449 and when the M6 is closed (either for planned maintenance or due to an incident / accident) the A449 is the only road which takes this traffic, classed by Highways England as an “arterial route”. This means that it is not permitted to impose vehicle size restrictions, therefore that would not be an option for FAL to use in the proposal for this development. Lorry drivers would have no hesitation to use the A449 in the event the M6 was busy (even just usual motorway congestion) to access the Gailey Freight Hub. 15) FAL made much of the creation of a “Community Park” within the development. This is nothing more than an attempt to say they are “… putting something back into the community …”. Who is going to use a Park in the middle of an enormous industrial area with noisy cranes, trains and lorries, and 40 metre high warehousing? 16) Penkridge, Four Ashes and Coven are good, prosperous areas with a good standard of living, and low unemployment. Such a massive development will significantly affect the value of property in the area as well as the health and wellbeing of the local population. FAL representatives on 20 June admitted that they do not expect support from residents in the local area, and that this site is the most suitable. Comparisons have been drawn with a similar development near Daventry in Warwickshire. That particular development started as a similar size to the Gailey Freight Hub, and over years of subsequent development is now considerably larger. Other than the profiteering of Four Ashes Limited and its shareholders, there are far more negatives associated with this development than positives."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs B J Cook
"1. I would like to object to the proposed development because it is taking away green fields for warehouse development when it would be more appropriate to seek a brown field site which was formerly in use for industry or other business but is now derelict. 2. The proposed site is surrounded by villages which have narrow twisty lanes. We already suffer when there are problems on M6, A449 or A5 and drivers, including those driving heavy lorries, try to take a route round the hold up. At times articulated lorries find themselves stuck because they cannot make the turnings in our village. 3. The effect of diesel fumes is worse in a village where vehicles have problems navigating the awkward spots and are delayed for longer, churning out this form of pollution. 4. Not just local to my village but nationwide I would like people to look for dilapidated and unused sites in areas where jobs are needed and where new development would improve an area rather than spoiling one where there are green fields and not a shortage of employment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Edward Roddie on behalf of Mrs June Skipp
"Gailey Freight Hub Consultation – Objections I am writing to strongly oppose and object to the proposed Gailey Freight Hub. I attended the public exhibition at the Haling Dene Centre in Penkrdge on 20 July where the revised proposed plans were available. I discussed with a number of the FAL representatives, and after considering the proposals, there are many reasons for my objection, many of which haven’t changed from the initial proposal, which are summarised as follows: 1) This 700 acre site is situated in a Green Belt area. Such Green Belt areas should be protected from development, particularly of this scale, as much as possible to ensure our countryside does not suffer permanently 2) This area is very nearby Cannock Chase which is classified as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) 3) There has not been an Environmental Impact Assessment carried by either FAL or the Local Authorities. Such an enormous development, and the expected movement of hundreds of HGV’s every single day simply has to increase the volume of air pollution. The documentation by FAL that this is a “Rail” Freight Hub, thus reducing HGV traffic in the UK, has a detrimental effect on this area. Whereas that may be the case between the port when freight enters the UK and the Hub, the surrounding area will see a dramatic increase in the movement of large vehicles, leading to substantial air pollution, traffic congestion and noise increases 4) The published expected traffic flows on the various roads around the site are misleading. The revised proposal includes the construction of a roundabout on the A5 between M6 Junction 12 and the A449 (Gailey). The FAL representatives stated that Lorries using the Freight Hub would use that new roundabout to access the Freight Hub meaning less congestion around the Gailey roundabout where the A449 crosses the A5. The expected traffic congestion of minus 5% (-5%) between Gailey and the new roundabout is clearly wrong. Any vehicle that crosses the A449 (A5 Eastbound) will continue to the M6 and will actually be slowed by this new roundabout into the Freight Hub, thus causing significant congestion and more pollution 5) Similarly, the expected traffic flow South of Station Drive at Four Ashes has been estimated at plus 10% (+10%) whereas the stretch just North of Four Ashes toward the other new roundabout has been estimated at plus 41% (+41%). It is again misleading to suggest the traffic flow along the A449 Northbound will be any different to the increase of 41% expected 6) The revised proposal also include a restriction where Station Drive joins the A449. The proposal is that traffic will be unable to turn right at that junction to join the A449 Northbound. With a vastly increased volume of traffic throughout the day (24 hour working at the Hub), forcing all traffic to turn right at that junction will lead to a significant increase in traffic past our property a few hundred yards Southbound on the A449 from the junction. We already have to contend with Lorries on the Lorry park opposite our house. This would be unbearable 7) The expected traffic flow projections have not been carried out for the A5 immediately to the West of Gailey roundabout (toward Telford) and the A449 immediately to the North of Gailey (toward Penkridge). These routes are very busy, particularly at peak hours, and the proposed road infrastructure developments by FAL will create significant congestion in those areas. The recent road works on the A449 between Gailey (A5) and Coven have been a clear indication of the impact congestion has on this area, and they have been a temporary issue, rather than permanent which is what the Freight Hub would be 8) There are many “Brown Field” sites in the West Midlands that are also in close proximity to the railway network that would be more suitable than the destruction of Green Belt land. Such Brown Field sites along the route of the M6 and M5 motorways near Walsall, Sandwell and Birmingham have previously been industrialised and would be more suited to such a Freight Hub. At their public meeting on 20 June, FAL stated there had been 4 sites reviewed including Gailey. One of those site near Dunston (J13 of the M6) is clearly unsuitable and I question the actual level of detail that has gone into reviewing those other sites 9) It is difficult to understand the scale of the development simply from two dimensional drawings. This proposed development will be situated in an area that is not blighted by industry at all. The whole stretch of that part of the A449 is green fields and trees which would be obliterated by enormous warehouses and a container yard. FAL have admitted the proposed “screening” banks would not be of sufficient height to fully hide that development 10) There will be a significant increase in Rail Freight journeys on the rail line through Penkridge. As admitted by FAL on 20 June, these journeys will often take place during the night due to passenger services using the line during the day. This rail line passes a large number of residential properties which will have a very detrimental effect on those residents 11) The road infrastructure (A5 and A449) is not suitable for the amount of Heavy Goods Vehicles that will be using it to transport goods in and out of the Freight Hub. At the consultation meeting on 20 June, the road infrastructure “expert” stated neither the A5 nor A449 would be widened 12) Events at nearby Weston Park on the A5 such as the V Festival, Camper Jam and Annual Game Festival bring significant disruption to the area’s roads. These events bring much needed revenue to the area, and as they are relatively infrequent, are accepted by the local communities with the disruption to the road network. This Freight Hub would be like having the traffic of the V Festival on a daily basis throughout the whole day bringing significant traffic congestion every single day 13) FAL have confirmed that some of the warehouses at the Freight Hub may be leased by distribution organisations that are not mandated to use the Rail Terminal. This only serves to increase the road traffic in the local area without the benefit proposed by FAL for the development itself 14) I already live on the A449 and when the M6 is closed (either for planned maintenance or due to an incident / accident) the A449 is the only road which takes this traffic, classed by Highways England as an “arterial route”. This means that it is not permitted to impose vehicle size restrictions, therefore that would not be an option for FAL to use in the proposal for this development. Lorry drivers would have no hesitation to use the A449 in the event the M6 was busy (even just usual motorway congestion) to access the Gailey Freight Hub. 15) FAL made much of the creation of a “Community Park” within the development. This is nothing more than an attempt to say they are “… putting something back into the community …”. Who is going to use a Park in the middle of an enormous industrial area with noisy cranes, trains and lorries, and 40 metre high warehousing? 16) Penkridge, Four Ashes and Coven are good, prosperous areas with a good standard of living, and low unemployment. Such a massive development will significantly affect the value of property in the area as well as the health and wellbeing of the local population. FAL representatives on 20 June admitted that they do not expect support from residents in the local area, and that this site is the most suitable. Comparisons have been drawn with a similar development near Daventry in Warwickshire. That particular development started as a similar size to the Gailey Freight Hub, and over years of subsequent development is now considerably larger. Other than the profiteering of Four Ashes Limited and its shareholders, there are far more negatives associated with this development than positives."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Lucy Erskine
"I object to the West Midlands Interchange on the following grounds: It is in the wrong location. It is vital that we protect the green belt, agricultural land and countryside. There are more suitable locations available, including brownfield land. The interchange would significantly increase the volume of traffic on already heavily used roads, including the A5, A449 and M6. That would have a knock-on effect on extra traffic using the small lanes running to the small villages surrounding the proposed location, thus increasing the risk of road accidents and decreasing the quality of the roads (thus increasing the cost of road maintenance). Further, the increased number of HGVs and passenger vehicles on our roads would negatively impact the environment due to increased pollution, noise and decreased air quality. There are also ecological issues to consider; the building of interchange and the heavy traffic associated with it would seriously diminish the local flora and fauna. I hope that the Planning Inspectorate considers all of these important points. In summary, the interchange would have an extremely negative impact on the local environment and transport infrastructure. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Davies
"I strongly object to this proposed development on the grounds that; We all need to protect the Green Belt from continuous over development and erosion - It will have a negative effect on the environment, create and increase the levels of pollution, have a detrimental effect on the air quality creating unnecessary health risks, increase noise pollution for local residents - It will have a negative effect on the local highways which are already neglected and feeling the strain, leading to more traffic congestion leading onto the risk of an increase in the accident rate - It will have a negative effect on local residents heath and a reduction in their quality of life in general - It will disrupt, create an imbalance and in some cases destroy the local ecology something that we should all be striving to protect - It will lead to a loss of agricultural land and local countryside - It is the wrong location because more suitable sites, location wise and 'brownfield' land have been identified and proposed, why opt to destroy local green belt and habitats? - Regional employment has not been considered in that the local area is not defined as being 'high unemployment' many of the jobs created will mean the bussing in of employees or more car journeys, adding to the strain on the already overcrowded local road network - It is not in accord with 'local planning policy' - There will be negative effects on local business - The proposed development at this location must not be given the go ahead "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Samantha Sims
"I object to this planning application due to the following reasons: The negative impact to the local environment due to this being proposed on Green Belt land when there are other suitable brownfield sites that are more suitable. This scheme is totally inappropriate for this rural location and is an attack on Greenbelt land. The increase in negative air pollution due to the increased number of vehicles that will be using the local area in particular large HGV lorries and vans who omit increased C02 emissions which are harmful to location communities health and wellbeing. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Ball
"I wish to object to the proposed West Midlands Interchange- The Gaily Freight Hub for the following reasons: I am concerned about the negative impact on the environment including the pollution, air quality & noise generated by the predicted extra vehicles per day - 18,624. This extra traffic is predicted to produce 16.3 tons of extra co2 emissions every day. This will impact on the health & well-being of all of us who live near the proposed hub. I run & cycle around this countryside & should this proposal go ahead it will no longer be possible to enjoy running & cycling around the area. The impact on our health will in turn impact on demands made on local Health Services. This is green belt land & the proposed 643 acres of warehousing will have a negative impact on the both the landscape, Flora and animals that live on this land. There will be loss of agricultural land & countryside. There are brownfield sites that would be suitable. The increase in traffic will in turn impact on the quality of the local roads eg more pot holes created. This will impact on local government spending on the maintenance of highways at a time when central government funding of local government is diminishing & will end."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Lawson
"I am strongly opposed to the proposed development for the following reasons: - the proposal is for the use of Green Belt land, which, by its very definition should prohibit such developments - the amount of extra traffic and resulting air pollution will have an adverse effect on the area in terms of highways management and public health - the resulting loss of agricultural land and countryside will lead to a negative effect on local flora and fauna - the promise of the creation of thousands of jobs ignores the fact that the employees will not be drawn from the local area, but will have to be brought in from other locations, thus contributing to the above mentioned problem of further traffic and pollution - there are more suitable sites for a development of this sort i.e. brownfield land - "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Victoria Roddie
"Gailey Freight Hub Consultation – Objections I am writing to strongly oppose and object to the proposed Gailey Freight Hub. I attended the public exhibition at the Haling Dene Centre in Penkrdge on 20 July where the revised proposed plans were available. I discussed with a number of the FAL representatives, and after considering the proposals, there are many reasons for my objection, many of which haven’t changed from the initial proposal, which are summarised as follows: 1) An attempt at publishing expected traffic flows on the various roads around the site are misleading. The revised proposal includes the construction of a roundabout on the A5 between M6 Junction 12 and the A449 (Gailey). The FAL representatives stated that lorries using the Freight Hub would use that new roundabout meaning less congestion around the Gailey roundabout where the A449 crosses the A5. The expected traffic congestion of minus 5% (-5%) between Gailey and the new roundabout is clearly wrong. Any vehicle that crosses the A449 (A5 Eastbound) will continue to the M6 and will actually be slowed by this new roundabout into the Freight Hub, thus causing significant congestion and more pollution 2) Similarly, the expected traffic flow South of Station Drive at Four Ashes has been estimated at plus 10% (+10%) whereas the stretch just North of Four Ashes toward the other new roundabout has been estimated at plus 41% (+41%). It is again misleading to suggest the traffic flow along the A449 Northbound will be any different to the increase of 41% expected 3) There has not been an air pollution study commissioned either by FAL or the Local Authorities. Such an enormous development, and the expected movement of hundreds of HGV’s every single day has got to increase the volume of air pollution. FAL are quick to point out that this is a “Rail” Freight Hub, thus reducing HGV traffic in the UK. Whereas that may be the case between the port when freight enters the UK and the Hub, the surrounding area will see a dramatic increase in the movement of large vehicles, leading to substantial air pollution, traffic congestion and noise increases 4) The expected traffic flow projections have not been carried out for the A5 immediately to the West of Gailey roundabout (toward Telford) and the A449 immediately to the North of Gailey (toward Penkridge). These routes are very busy, particularly at peak hours, and the proposed road infrastructure developments by FAL will create significant congestion in those areas. The recent road works on the A449 between Gailey (A5) and Coven have been a clear indication of the impact congestion has on this area, and they have been a temporary issue, rather than permanent which is what the Freight Hub would be 5) This 700 acre site is situated in a Green Belt area. Such Green Belt areas should be protected from development, particularly of this scale, as much as possible to ensure our countryside does not suffer permanently 6) This area is very nearby Cannock Chase which is classified as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) 7) There are many “Brown Field” sites in the West Midlands that are also in close proximity to the railway network that would be more suitable than the destruction of Green Belt land. Such Brown Field sites along the route of the M6 and M5 motorways near Walsall, Sandwell and Birmingham have previously been industrialised and would be more suited to such a Freight Hub. At their public meeting on 20 June, FAL stated there had been 4 sites reviewed including Gailey. One of those site near Dunston (J13 of the M6) is clearly unsuitable and I question the actual level of detail that has gone into reviewing those other sites 8) It is difficult to understand the scale of the development simply from two dimensional drawings. I drive down the A449 every day, and the stretch between Gailey roundabout (A5 junction) and Four Ashes where this proposed development will be situated is not blighted by industry at all. The whole stretch is green fields and trees which would be obliterated by enormous warehouses and container yard. FAL have admitted the proposed “screening” banks would not be of sufficient height to fully hide that development. Many development and construction companies now use Building Information Modelling (BIM) tools prior to construction to demonstrate how a development will look. A BIM 3D model of the proposed construction should be created as part of the consultation process which will clearly demonstrated the environmental impact of such a development 9) There will be a significant increase in Rail Freight journeys on the rail line through Penkridge. As admitted by FAL on 20 June, these journeys will often take place during the night due to passenger services using the line during the day. This rail line passes a large number of residential properties which will have a very detrimental effect on those residents 10) The road infrastructure (A5 and A449) is not suitable for the amount of Heavy Goods Vehicles that will be using it to transport goods in and out of the Freight Hub. At the consultation meeting on 20 June, the road infrastructure “expert” stated neither the A5 nor A449 would be widened 11) Events at nearby Weston Park on the A5 such as the V Festival, Camper Jam and Annual Game Festival bring significant disruption to the area’s roads. These events bring much needed revenue to the area, and as they are relatively infrequent, are accepted by the local communities with the disruption to the road network. This Freight Hub would be like having the traffic of the V Festival on a daily basis throughout the whole day bringing significant traffic congestion every single day 12) FAL have confirmed that some of the warehouses at the Freight Hub may be leased by distribution organisations that are not mandated to use the Rail Terminal. This only serves to increase the road traffic in the local area without the benefit proposed by FAL for the development itself 13) I already live on the A449 and when the M6 is closed (either for planned maintenance or due to an incident / accident) the A449 is the only road which takes this traffic, classed by Highways England as an “arterial route”. This means that it is not permitted to impose vehicle size restrictions, therefore that would not be an option for FAL to use in the proposal for this development. Lorry drivers would have no hesitation to use the A449 in the event the M6 was busy (even just usual motorway congestion) to access the Gailey Freight Hub. This would bring unnecessary congestion through our village. The FAL representatives said that Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) equipment would be installed on the A449 immediately North of Gailey, and HGV’s using the Freight Hub would be financially penalised if they used the A449 rather than the M6. Firstly, this does not seem a very tough deterrent for the haulage companies (FAL could or would not say how much those fines are expected to be), and secondly, FAL (on 20 June) admitted the fines would go back into the company managing the Hub estate, and therefore there is no incentive to enforce HGV’s to use only permitted routes 14) FAL made much of the creation of a “Community Park” within the development. This is nothing more than an attempt to say they are “… putting something back into the community …”. Who is going to use a Park in the middle of an enormous industrial area with noisy cranes, trains and lorries, and 40 metre high warehousing? 15) Penkridge, Four Ashes and Coven are good, prosperous areas with a good standard of living, and low unemployment. Such a massive development will significantly affect the value of property in the area as well as the health and wellbeing of the local population. FAL representatives on 20 June admitted that they do not expect support from residents in the local area, and that this site is the most suitable. Comparisons have been drawn with a similar development near Daventry in Warwickshire. That particular development started as a similar size to the Gailey Freight Hub, and over years of subsequent development is now considerably larger. Other than the profiteering of Four Ashes Limited and its shareholders, there are far more negatives associated with this development than positives."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adam Tatton
"I object to this application because the negative impact on the environment, pollution in a very populated area. The affect on the highways and roads that are already conjested with traffic. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Antonio Pupino
"I object to the proposed development on the following grounds: - The increase in the number of vehicles using the roads will destroy the nearby villages; - The volume of traffic will significantly increase the amount of dangerous emissions which will be detrimental to the health of those living nearby; - The loss of green belt land and the loss of biodiversity;"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barry Tivey
"1. Protection of the areas green belt. 2. There will be a negative effect on the environment/ pollution/air quality and noise. 3. There will be a negative effect on local highways and traffic. 4. There will be a negative ecological effect on the local flora and fauna. 5. There will be a loss of agricultural land and countryside. 6. It is the wrong location because other more suitable sites are available including Brownfield land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bernard Evans
"I object to this application because of the negative effect it would have on the local environment causing, Pollution effecting Air Quality, and increased Noise. Traffic congestion on the A5 & A449 at Gailey and M6 island is already heavy in mornings & afternoons this development will only make matters worse. Loss of quality Agricultural Land when other Brownfield sites would be more suitable. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brian Spear Wyatt
"My objection is based on the following: - Construction on green belt - Increase in heavy goods vehicle traffic in the A5 / A449 / M6 region, and Penkridge / Dunston in particular. These roads are already heavily used and when the M6 is closed they are regularly grid locked - Increase in smaller vehicular traffic for employees on the site - Impact on vehicle emissions in a region already adversely affected by particulates and NOX emissions - The construction of large building on the site with a significant impact on the visual envirnment"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cheryl Christina Corbett
"AIR POLLUTION WILL INCREASE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL 18,624 EXTRA VEHICLES PER DAY.YET THIS GOVERNMENT IS NOW HIGHLY CRITICAL OF COUNCILS WHO FAIL TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION SURELY THIS IS THE EVEREST OF HYPOCRISY"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cynthia wynn
"The idea of this is just horrible. Safety Heath pollution. Where do we start. The area can not cope with the traffic we have the roads are in a poor state. It's wrong to put it in green belt land the wildlife doesn't get a say as usual. We do t need it... Things will only get bigger if this goes ahead. Not here"
Members of the Public/Businesses
D Felton
"I wish to object to this project due to its impact on greenbelt. Also due to the increase in co2 emmissions plus the impact of the enormous increase in traffic on the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Taylor
"I object to this application on the following grounds: 1, It will have a negative effect on local highways and traffic 2, It will be detrimental to the local environment, creating pollution, noise and impacting on air quality 3, It is Green Belt land 4, It will have a negative effect on the local flora and fauna 5, Other more suitable Brownfield locations are available"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Derek Green
"I believe that this road/rail interface in wholly wrong in this area for several reasons. 1 The massive loss of green belt land would adversely affect Penkridge and the surrounding villages . it would also be the thin end of the wedge opening the area to further development and eroding our valuable green spaces . 2 The projected increase in traffic is totally unacceptable. the A5 and A449 roads are currently affected by hold ups at peak times and when problems occur on the M6. The roads cannot take such a vast increase in traffic and this would make life in Penkridge intolerable at times . 3 The pollution created by the development and operation of the site as well as the increase in traffic in and around Penkridge would be a serious impact on the health of the residents of Penkridge. 4 The proposal claims to increase employment in the area , however we are told that there is no significant unemployment in our area so people would need to be brought in from elsewhere , thus further increasing the traffic problem. 5 The point of the project it to take traffic off the roads and use the railway for goods traffic. AS the site is only on the extreme northern edge of the West Midlands conurbation ,There would be need to be an increase of traffic taking goods from this site back into the industrial areas. This would put extra traffic on the already stressed motorway system. The whole plan seems poorly thought out with a view to the impact on local communities."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma Tatton
"I object to this application because it will have a negative effect on the local highways and traffic and will also consequently have a negative effect on pollution and air quality of the area "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Frances Huckin
"My strong objections; To yet more precious green belt land being lost to another project which could be sited on brown field land in an area where more jobs are needed. The increase in traffic on the A5 and A449 which are already badly congested and not adequate for more HGVs. The increase in noise and pollution for the residents along both roads. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gail Taylor
"I object to the application because; a, It will have a negative effect on the environment, creating more pollution, more noise and reduce air quality. b, It will increase traffic, congestion and the potential for accidents. c, It will have a negative effect on local health. d, It will be detrimental to local flora and fauna e, The proposal includes the use of Green Belt land. f, Alternative Brownfield land is available"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Bray
"I object to this application because our Green Belt should be protected, Brownfield land is more suitable. Also because of the negative effect on the environment : pollution, air quality and noise caused by the huge increase in HGVs using local roads. Increased pollution will have a negative on the health of people in our village and surrounding areas. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Maddocks
"I object the use of green belt land for WMI and believe a brownfield land site should be found. I also object on the grounds of loss of agricultural land and Staffordshire countryside."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Liggins
"I object to this application because of the following: 1. To protect Green Belt land which has been put in place to protect. 2. Blot on the landscape - this is a huge development that has a negative impact on the ecology. With freight containers being en extreme eye-sore. 3. Negative effect on the environment, it's absurd how many extra vehicles (large HGVs at that) will be hitting the roads and causing vast amounts of extra pollution 4. It is completely the WRONG location. The roads as they stand can not cope with the current levels of traffic from the A5, A449, M54 and M6. So that will mean in time, this will expand even further out to make sure the road infrastructure is sufficient (larger and more land taken). We moved to our property over a year ago because of the countryside, the tranquil surroundings and taking us away from sites like this! I for one, will fight this all the way."
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Walker
"The location proposed for the interchange is inappropriate for the following reasons: Too large a development for green belt land which is already under pressure from I54, Four Ashes development and the ever increasing southward development from M6 junction 13 The development is intended to be a hub for the West Midlands county. The implication is that much of the traffic generated will be from or towards the south using the M6. This section of the M6 is already congested. The additional volume of HGVs will casue problems If the development is for the benefit of the West Midlands, it should be built in the West Midlands, not in Staffordshire The area already suffers pollution (noise, noxious gases etc.) due to the proximity of the M6, 54, A449 and A5. The extra traffic, particularly HGVs, generated by this development will only make a poor situation worse."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jan Tate
"I strongly object to this planning application because of the impact it will have on the area that surrounds me "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joanne Sproson
"I want to protect green belt. Concerned about traffic in a semi rural area. Totally wrong location for this hub "
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Davies
"As a resident of Calf Heath and particularly with a property on the Straight Mile Road I strongly object to the interchange proposals. The Interchange is going to be far to large for the surrounding villages and roads to cope with, the proposed plans show new roundabouts being built on the two surrounding roads A5 & A41 which would be completely irrelevant to the service of the development. The traffic is to increase by 1000's of vehicles into an area which already struggles with traffic at the best of times through Motorway maintenance, accidents and events. The Straight Mile is already an over used short cut to the Four Ashes Industrial Estate and a dangerous route due to speeding on an every day basis.This I see, as only becoming worse and without any consideration being taken. There are similar roads and lanes in the surrounding villages with the same problem, all of which will be compounded by the interchange and lack of significant infrastructure changes. The balance of concerns are the rural ones, green belt destruction, wild life habitat and pollution all of will be destroyed for ever. In an area where so much has been made of over the years by local authorities against residents developments of there properties etc, it all seem a very biased view and lack of respect towards the communities in general."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katherine Turner
"I have very serious concerns for:- 1. The lack of protection for the Green Belt land 2. The negative affects on the environment and damaged being caused by Pollution, Air quality, noise and light 3. The negative affect on local Highways caused by increase in traffic. 4. Negative affect on local health 5. Negative affects on Local Flora and Fauna and the ecology in general. 6. The loss of Agricultural land and Countryside. 7. Negative effects on the local community and businesses. I strongly object to this Application as I am concerned the location is totally wrong because:- There are more suitable locations available The regional employment has not been considered properly. The use of brownfield land for this development would be more appropriate. Employees coming from other regions could damage the local economy. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Sutton
"I am the County Councillor for the whole of the area covered by the development in the proposal, the representations I wish to make are mine and not necessarily the views of Staffordshire County Council. I believe that the proposal do not make an adequate case for the need for such a development and that examination of alternative sites has not adequately been considered and investigated. The location of the proposed site at the centre of the national roads network A5, A449, M6, M54 and A460 creates a fundamental issue of substantial increased traffic congestion something that such proposals should aim to reduce not increase. The plans do not include sufficient mitigation and it would be difficult to understand what could be introduced to mitigate against this. There will therefore be a severe impact on traffic congestion locally a regionally. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Sanders
"To build another Rail Terminal here at Four Ashes is lunacy when there is already a Terminal not being used at Telford. This terminal should be adapted for its correct use rather than inflict thousands of vehicles and numerous trains onto the people living in and around the site being suggested. Traffic is already extremely high on the main A449 and regularly becomes congested with M6 closures. The pollution to which our attention is always drawn would be nothing less than horrendous."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr A Renfrew
"I object to the proposed Interchange for the following reasons: The Building of monstrous Industrial sheds on Greenbelt land. The loss of Agricultural Land & Countryside. The associated negative impact on the environment - including the loss of Flora and Fauna. Light, noise and air pollution from the industrial handling facility and as a result of the increased traffic from heavy container Lorries. The increase in congestion on local roads – preventing people from going-about their daily business including to and from work – a situation that is already a problem when the M6 frequently becomes blocked. The inevitable increase in littering, general ruination and further Industrialisation. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Jon Yeomans
"I object to the proposed west-midland interchange being built at Gailey due to; i. Protection of Green belt land ii. Negative effect on the environment - pollution - air quality - noise etc iii. Negative effect on highways - vast increase in traffic iv. Negative effect on local flora and fauna, loss of agricultural land and contryside etc v.Wrong location because other more suitable brownfield sites are available."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Tony Tavernor
"This proposed development is in an area of outstanding natural beauty and on agricultural land. Our minister, Mr Gove, is encouraging us to preserve our natural environment and help to protect endangered species. If this very large acreage is covered in tarmac and concrete it will kill thousands of endangered plants and animals. The young people of today and tomorrow will never have the chance to see these species, our environment will damaged for ever. Mr Gove is encouraging our farmers to produce food for us; food produced environmentally friendly. Over 634 acres will be lost for ever. Green belt land everywhere must be protected; brown field sites are the place for such developments. Such development will lead to vastly increased heavy traffic on a road system of single carriage roads and narrow lanes. Diesel and noise pollution damaging the environment. Who will benefit from this development? Will it just be investors. Who will loss out? Our endangered species, our children will be unable to walk to school or ride cycles, the roads will be over crowded leading to accidents, our seniors will be disrupted with noise, Please listen to the experts, the locals, the children. This is not the area for such a development. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Joanna Dungey
"I live in Coven and work in Stafford and use the A449 every day to get to work. My objections are primarily: Negative impact on local highways and traffic. This already impacted by M6 issues, A449 and A5 are already very busy roads. When there is an accident traffic gridlocks Penkridge and tails back to Four Ashes. These accidents are increasing in frequency, two in September, 1 in October already. Negative impact on environment/pollution/air quality/noise. I have [redacted] and run in the local area and this summer I have suffered several attacks. Protecting green belt - this will be a massive site and will destroy the green belt being visible from the road and at a distance as the Waste2Energy site already is at Four Ashes. Negative impact on local flora & ecology these will be badly effected by this significant development. Loss of countryside and agricultural land. A more suitable location on a brownfield site should be found and there are others in the West Midlands."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Lisa Yeomans
"I object to the proposed West Midlands Interchange being built at Gailey due to; a. Protection of green belt land b. Negative effect on the environment. Increase in pollution, poorer air quality increase in noise pollution c. Negative effect on local roads due to vast increase in traffic / lorries d. Negative effect on local flora and fauna e. Loss of countryside and agricultural land f. Wrong location. More suitable brown field sites are available."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs S A Lloyd-Fell
"As a local resident I object to this planning application for a number of reasons: There will be a considerable negative impact on the local roads & highways. There is an current issue with the increasing amount of traffic locally, particularly on the A5, A449 & M6. Further development will only compound the existing problem. This will also cause problems for our local services (ie ambulances, police & travelling to local services) & may have a negative impact on local health. Additional traffic, particularly HGVs, will generate substantial air pollution creating a negative effect on local flora & fauna. I also have concerns for the loss of our local agricultural land. There are far more suitable brownfield land locations available rather than building on precious green belt land. I would be grateful if you would seriously consider local objections to these plans. Thank you in anticipation. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Terence Smith
"my main objection to the interchange is that it will be unbearable to live in Coven with the amount of additional vehicles going through the village. It is bad enough now between the hours of 7.30am - 9am and 5pm - 6.30pm without having more vehicles. I live in Birchcroft and at times you could do with temporary traffic lights to get on the Brewood Road. I am not exaggerating that the traffic from the A449 island is as far back as Jules garage because people use the village to get to their workplace rather than stick to the A449. I guarantee someone will get seriously hurt, especially when entering the Brewood Road from Lawn Lane. If these schemes go ahead that someone with someone with common sense needs to look at the bigger picture and see what it does to the surrounding areas. House prices will drop dramatically in Coven because it is getting to the stage where it is starting to lose its village feel. Forget the interchange and do something about the existing transport infrastructure or it will ruin our villages."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philip Wynn
"I feel very strongly about this development. I think it will increase air pollution and traffic to the local roads. It will have a negative impact on wildlife and green belt, this would be lost forever!. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Norris
"I am objecting to the proposals for the Gailey Freight Hub on the grounds that: We need to protect the green belt It will have a negative effect on on the environment due to air and noise pollution It will have a negative effect on our ecology There will be a loss of agricultural land and countryside It is in the wrong location because there are other more suitable locations including brownfield land This will be an environmental disaster for this area and will not offer anything in terms of local employment which is at less than 1%"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sally Wormall
"I strongly object to the proposed development as it will have a negative impact on the environment & will decimate a huge swathe of Green Belt Land which should be protected where possible. I believe more suitable Brown Field Sites are available this facility and that these have not been explored properly. The surrounding Roads will almost certainly be unable to cope with the huge increase in traffic to the facility. The proposed site would be on prime agricultural land and will also result in the loss of essential flora and fauna for protected wildlife. There are also issues with pollution and damage to the health and lifestyle of the surrounding inhabitants. I believe that a massive development of this nature will change the landscape of South Staffs and our much needed agricultural heritage will be lost. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Samantha Humpage
"I object to this proposal due to it being on green belt land, the affect it will have on local highways and traffic, along with a negative effect on the environment/pollution/air quality/noise."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Chave
"I do not believe the freight hub is needed in this area and the proposed plan represents an misguided and unnecessary intrusion into our green belt. The pollution from increased road traffic, the increased volume of traffic from staff that will inevitably use the narrow lanes around calf heath, the increases in lorry volume around calf heath and the surrounding area will all increase pollution levels and reduce quality of life for residents. Furthermore there are no paths within the village and I have serious concerns that there will be an increased threat to pedestrations through road traffic accidents. There are a number of routes through calf heath to the proposed location of the freight hub. Access from the A5, A449, A460, m6 junction 11, m6 junction 12, toll road are all possible and will inevitably be used. The volume of traffic through the village will increase to intolerable levels with adverse impact on residents. The are a number of empty, existing warehouse locations within the vicinity of the WMI and there is simply no need for the increased warehouse capacity outlined in the proposal. For example, At time of writing there is a large, empty, new build 144k warehouse within 3 mile of the plan. The proposal rail hub and warehouse structures will also be an eyesore. Operational hours and associated noise pollution will also be disruptive to residents. Calf heath and the surrounding area have seen major upheavals to the sourrounding green belt over the last 25 years. We have accommodated the calf heath quarry, open cast mining in cheslyn hay, the recent upgrades to m6 and the Major green belt change associated with the M6 Toll. Now in my fifties, I was born in cheslyn hay and have lived in calf heath for the last 18 years and have seen green belt destroyed and rural villages compromised. Enough is enough, it is now time for our politicians and communities planners to protect the interests of this local community and stop these monstrous plans. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen wynn
"I feel that it is all to close see to many villages and our roads will not cope with this amount of traffic let alone the pollution this will cause.the impact is far to great for our area. And we all know once this happens it will only get bigger. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Wendi Sutton
"I am concerned that the development would result in further urbanisation in South Staffordshire. The surrounding of the villages of Four Ashes, Coven, Coven Heath and Brewood with yet another major industrial development after the I54, Bericote and the proposed development of the ROF, the NEW m54 link would have major impacts upon local residents and communities health and well-being and is a further erosion of the green belt between the vast sprawl of the Wolverhampton conurbation and the preserved countryside of South Staffordshire. This development would be inappropriate in the Green Belt with no special circumstances demonstrated and I do not feel that the case for another Strategic Rail Freight Interchange has been actually been adequately or comprehensively explored, in view of the fact that there are nearby underused Rail Freight Interchanges. . The suitability of the Four Ashes site for a strategic rail freight interchange, I do not believe, has been correctly or comprehensively investigated. Alternative sites are available, if required, and would be more appropriate, having close links to rail networks, transport networks, less impact of greenbelt land and where unemployment is high. e.g. Stoke-on-Trent, Stafford, Rugeley. The impact upon the local transport network has not been correctly or comprehensively investigated. The information given in the documentation appears subjective and is not supported by up to date figures. Although the consultation period ran between 5th July and 30th August 2017, the actual window of opportunity for local residents and businesses to explore the huge impact of this proposal with presenters of the exhibitions was restricted to an 11 day period only. (11th July to 22nd July). This was wholly inadequate for such a major development. I, as a local resident, parish and district councillor did attend the exhibitions on two occasions and the presenters, when questioned, were vague, lacking in either knowledge or detail or just did not or were unable to answer. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adrian Cooper
"I object to the West Midlands Interchange on the following grounds. 1. Negative effect on the environment. 2. The traffic it will create in and around local villages. We already experience a gridlock situation every time there is a problem on the M6. 3. Pollution as a result of No.2 4. Noise as a result of No.2 5. Negative effect on health as a result of No.2 6. Wrong location because the local road structure, even with improvements, will not handle an addition hundreds of lorries per day. 7. Its Greenbelt, surely there are more suitable Brownfield sites that are more suitable for consideration. 8. There will be negative effects on local businesses. 9. It's not in accord with local planning Policy. Adrian Cooper "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ashley Smith
"I am against this proposal because of the environmental impact on my local community."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barry Littlejohn
"point 1 with unemployment in south staffs running currently at 1 % the influx of over 8000 people will be a nightmare for local residents on ALL roads in the surrounding area. The traffic at rush hour on the A449 the A5 and the A460 is intolerable NOW. point 2 The impact of incoming employee traffic along with over 6000 hgv s every day MUST go against government policy on the reduction of CO2 emissions. point 3 Currently the rods in our area are falling apart due to weather conditions and over use of traffic. The potholes are NOT being repaired NOW what will happen when the extra traffic turnsup. I object in the strongest terms to the west midland Interchange."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carol Kenney
"I object to this application because the project is being built on Green Belt and it will also have a Negative Effect on the Environment i.e Pollution and Air Quality. I am sure there are more suitable locations available, that will have less impact on Environment and without building on Green Belt Land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Caron Short
"This scheme is completely inappropriate for the proposed rural location and is an attack on the Greenbelt. It will impact on our health and safety, our environment and landscape... and will be a major disruption to everyone living by, or using the A449 or A5"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine Smith
"We feel that the roads through Great Wyrley and Cheslyn Hay are already heavily congested. Getting out of drives any time of the day is time consuming and a nightmare at peak times. Over the years both villages have had numerous new homes built making it feel we are no longer a village, and will feel even worse with even more green belt land being built on. No one wants this land to be built on, so why not take notice of what the village residents say."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire macquarie
"I am completing this form for myself tho make my views known. Having lived in Brewood for 22 years, we have enjoyed that we live in a pretty rural area that has easy links to the motorway system. However, at peak times the traffic volumes are at times somewhat testing. It is especially bad at times when traffic is diverted off the motorways And has to use the a449 and A5. I am totally opposed to the proposed plans as the traffic volumes will be far too great and our current road system will not be able to cope. Secondly I think it’s discraceful that you would want to erode more of our green belt when there are much better brownfield sites available in areas where population are keen to have the hub! The emissions from the fuel from vehicles will affect health and I find it incredulous that no consideration is being given to the population of Brewood and surrounding areas! Finally our little village will just become a suburb of Wolverhampton! If I had wanted to live in a suburb I would have bought a house in one."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Hughes
"Negative effect on the environment/pollution/air quality/noise."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Lloyd
"I am strongly opposed to the interchange for the following reasons: - This development will disrupt my families lives with unwanted air pollution, noise, traffic and general quality of life. - The scale of the development is too large affecting the local area with loss of green belt and the loss of local character. - I do not accept the need for such a facility to be located in this area when other brown field options exist and more suitable areas without the above impacts clearly exist "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Seward
"The current infrastructure will not support the increase in vehicles. At bust periods during the day the roads surrounding this area are already chaos. The increase in olution coupled with the m6 will impose serious health benefits on my family and I and generations to come."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dean
"I object to this application because I use the A5 every morning and get caught in congestion so how can this even be thought about being passed with figures of over 18 thousand extra vehicles A DAY using this already overpopulated outdated single carridgeway not to mention the pollution ,loss of agricultural land,noise and the destruction of yet more green belt land when there must be more suitable brownfield land elsewhere not to mention over 16 tonnes of co2 emissions what effect is that going to have on our children absolute appalled that this monstrosity can even be considered "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Denise Cresswell
"We in this area have already lost considerable land to i54 with a knock on effect of more heavy traffic on A449 with pollutiion and noise both at times unliveable. This interchange would effect our wildlife and countryside which already cannot cope. Our area is largely older people and noise tolerance should be considered. We as residents cannot build on green belt so why is it possible for such schemes to even be considered. Finally I strongly oppose this scheme !!!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Douglas Lloyd-Fell
"I object to this application because it is inappropriate for the rural location and is a gross attack on the Green belt. I also think it will have a profoundly negative impact on the environment particularly with respect to pollution, in terms of air quality, noise, light, and general waste. You only have to look at volume of plastic waste, old tyres etc left for months if not years around interchanges junction 12 and 13 of M6. At some point human civilisation will have to recognise what we are doing to our planet rather than paying lip service. We all have to take individual responsibility for our children and the other animals and plants we share this earth with. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ed Parry
"I fiercely object to the planning of this development. It will absolutely ruin a peaceful and beautiful area of British countryside natural beauty. Please do not allow this to happen. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emily worth
"Not wanted by local area Local area object Too big for such a small community Too much tragic for local roads Extra emissions bad for my health Loss of green belt land "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Francis Kerr
"The proposed development will result in loss of farmland, walking paths, and habitat for birds and other creatures. Other currently derelict industrial sites are available nearby in West-midlands and Staffordshire but not researched for the declared purpose of this planning proposal. It will also make some negative impact on local traffic, noise and air quality of the immediate and nearby district whereever it is located but I recognise that there may be some benefits in employment opportunities for our existing and future residents of neighbouring areas but there could be even more certain benefit to more deprived populations adjacent to some of the other derelict or ex-industrial areas in the wider region which are near existing rail and road transport infrastructure. I note that one of the attractions of location proposed by Four Ashes Ltd is the land is mainly held by few owners but for such a project compulsory purchase orders presumably can overcome the difficulties of multiple existing owners of some of the alternative sites. If the Hub is justified for part of national infrastructure surely its location should be decided by examining the plus and minus of all possible sites by our national planners and not just by allowing or rejecting a single proposal from one interested party. faithfully yours Francis Graeme Kerr ]d, "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Bonner
"I wish to register my objection to the WMI due to concerns about the massive increase of traffic it will engender, the environmental issues and the encroachment into more of our precious green belt in order to enable goods destined for Birmingham and the "Black Country" which would mean distribution from the site would be returned via our already overloaded roads and motorways. An overwhelming percentage of our residents and also our local MP Gavin Williamson are opposed to this proposal."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jayne Price
"I object to this application because I am concerned about protecting the green belt and the negative impacts this project will have on the local environment and as a local resident I am greatly concerned about the increased volume of traffic which will clearly increase the local population's exposure to diesel pollutants. Additional heavy goods traffic in and around Featherstone and Coven will only serve to increase the volume of traffic through the village centres which can only have a negative impact on our schools and local communities. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jennifer Seward
"The proposal would greatly increase the amount of traffic on the A5, as well as building over ‘green belt land’ This is disgusting!!! Are we not losing enough of our natural habitats as it is???"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jennifer Williams
"I object to this application because of the impact of 643 acres of warehousing will have on current greenbelt land, resulting in its loss and to the loss of productive agricultural land and countryside with the subsequent loss of wild life, hedge rows, trees, all local flora and Fauna. There will be a massive vehicle increase to use the site, impacting on local people using the A449 and surrounding roads, making these roads more dangerous, having to allow extra time to complete journeys. The extra vehicles using the M6 motorway will increase the current traffic volume making it longer to travel through the West Midlands. As a regular user of the M6 it is necessary to currently allow extra time to travel from junction 12 through to Birmingham just for the current volume of traffic. This extra traffic volume will effect everyone using M6 increasing the length of their journeys. Currently if there is an accident on the M6 the knock on effect is to cause grid lock not only on the motorway, but also on the A449, local roads, surrounding villages, Stafford and Cannock. Increase in vehicle traffic has the potential to increase the number of accidents. There is a negative effect on the local environment from the extra vehicle pollution, air quality, increase in noise levels. There is already light pollution from the west midlands and this site working 24 hours will only increase the light pollution further having a negative impact on local people and the environment. It has been projected that the site will create 8500 jobs for local people, where will these people come from when the local employment rate is currently less than 1%. The knock on effect of 8500 people working on the site will also increase vehicle traffic. There is insufficient public transport to support moving this amount of people locally to the interchange. This is the wrong location for this interchange, why not increase the levels of usage at Telford rail terminal, or use the brown field sites in the Stoke on Trent area next to the west coast line."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jillian Peak
"I object to this application because it is not in accord with Local Planning Policy. It is a huge development with alarming implications for the environment - loss of agricultural land, countryside, wildlife habitat. Quality of life for local people will be adversely affected by pollution, noise, congestion and damage to road surfaces. The proposed site is the wrong location. In addition to the above, our small local communities do not have enough workers to fill the number of proposed jobs, they would have to come from elsewhere. There are other more suitable locations available. Brownfield land close to a larger conurbation where jobs are needed would be more appropriate and beneficial to the local economy."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Sutton
"I object to this proposal on the following grounds: * contrary to green belt policy * negative effects on the environment due to air pollution, air quality, and noise * negative and wholly undesirable effects on the local highway system * loss of agricultural land and countryside * adverse impact on local villages and residents' health and amenities * the location is another example of prioritising the use of greenfield/greenbelt land instead of brownfield sites - this is not acceptable on economic, environmental or social grounds "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kenneth Moseley
"I believe that this application is wrong in principle because of the impact on the green belt, the likely pollution effect due to the anticipated traffic increase, the unlikely ability of local roads and lanes being swamped by this traffic over a large area which already suffers as a result of frequent M6 problems. The loss of ancient agricultural land and ancient woodland will also badly affect the ecology, and other possible brownfields sites are, I understand, available."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Leila Blakemore
"Negative Effects on the Local Highways and the Increase in Traffic, negative effects on health of local people. Environmental factors including loss of green belt."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Malcolm Webb MBE
"Centres on the the greatly increased traffic and concerns about widlife and general health as a result of the pollution."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michelle Green
"Devastating loss of valuable agricultural land and green belt countryside. This will have a very negative effect on local flora, fauna and wild animals. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Andrew Price
"I object to this application because I am concerned about the impact this will have on the surrounding area and green belt. As a local resident I am also concerned about the increased volume of traffic along the A449 / A5 which will have a negative effect on pollution and air quality which in turn will impact the health of local residents. The increased volume of heavy goods traffic will invariably lead to a rise in the volume of local traffic taking short cuts through Coven, Brewood and Featherstone in efforts to avoid what will become a heavily congestion main route (A449/A5). There are clearly other more suitable sites in brown field locations that would not be impacted quite so dramatically by this project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr John Parton
"I wish to register my serious concerns regarding the proposed massive development approx. 800,000 square metres which will obviously impact on the loss of greenbelt, seriously increase traffic congestion , noise and air pollution, seriously affect the character of the small local villages, possibly congest many of our local quiet lanes as employees attempt to short cut to work on this site. This is already happening to the Shareshill lanes as works traffic cuts through the village to avoid the Cannock road."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Paul Arnold
"Protecting the Green Belt Negative effect on the environment, pollution, air quality, noise pollution Negative effect on the local highways and traffic Negative effect on the ecology of local flora and fauna Loss of agricultural land and countrywide There are more suitable locations such as brownfield land "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Thomas Barnsley
"I am worried about the potential traffic implications and impact on the rural communities in the area. I am also interested in the potential ecological impact that could happen in the event of this going ahead. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Arosemary Taylor
"green belt. no special reason available brown field sites.with higher/greater need for employment inadequate road system 80%more warehousing than needed for rail hub"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Deborah Hardman-Wilson
"I believe that the chosen location for the West Midlands Interchange is not an appropriate location. The site is mainly greenbelt. There is absolutely no compulsion upon the operators of the proposed site to utilise rail, therefore I do not believe that it should be classified as a Strategic Rail Freight Hub. There is not capacity for every proposed warehouse to be attached to rail and there is very little remaining capacity on this rail line to be utilised, certainly not sufficient for all of the warehouses. It would be perfectly possible for all users to only move freight by road, completely making a mockery of local people and Local Planning Policy. The proposed site is in one of the most densely traffic populated areas in the country. The M6 has already had to be widened due to capacity issues. The additional vehicle movements would create gridlock for a number of miles around the site. This is already a common ocurrence when incidents happen on the M6, it regularly takes an hour to travel one mile; this can only get worse and it happens almost daily. The majority of the post construction employment will be in warehousing, the highest risk area of employment for mechanisation. Almost every logistics company is finding it difficult to recruit sufficient numbers of drivers. In addition the unemployment level in the district is less than 1%, so even more vehicles and people will be commuting into the area in order to provide sufficient staff. The impact of so many additional vehicle movements in the area will create considerable health concerns as a result of increasingly poor air quality and road traffic accidents. Emergency Services will struggle to access sick and injured people. Additionally the area has a rich environment, a wide variety of flora and fauna and is fertile agricultural land, which the nation needs in order to feed a growing population. With existing and/or planned freight hubs at East Midlands Parkway (49 miles), Daventry [DIRFT 1/2/3] (63 miles), Northampton's Rail Central (74 miles) and Doncaster's iPort (87 miles) I do not acknowledge the requirement for a further facility in this location. When other SRFI's are running below rail capacity, building another SRFI here makes no sense. The plans have not been submitted according to acknowledged need, it is not planned to be built in a strategically recognised location, it is planned and proposed to be built by developers where land adjacent to a rail line is sited. This is absolutely the wrong location for any such development. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Elizabeth Roberts
"I object to the proposal because I live in Penkridge and more traffic on the A5, the A449 and the M6 will have an enormous impact on the village and the surrounding area. Pollution is a very worrying topic at the moment nationwide and the freight hub would be far too close to the local villages and communities. This would only exacerbate pollution, air quality, noise and light. Our two grandchildren attend school in Penkridge so not only would the hub have a negative effect on myself and my husband but on them too. This area is theirs for the foreseeable future and I do not want to leave them a legacy of a negative effect on pollution, health, ecology, loss of countryside and well-being. It is stated that the hub will give employment to many people, but they would be travelling in from other areas constantly. I am sure there must be more suitable places than the one proposed and as a long term resident of Penkridge I am totally against this proposal going any further."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Lucy Barrett
"Negative effect on environment with pollution, noise and reduced air quality. Loss of agricultural land and loss of countryside. Negative effect on local highways plus the increase in volume of traffic. Negative effect on ecological system with impact on local flora and fauna. Protection of the green belt. The proposed development is in the wrong location as other more suitable locations are available including brownfield land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Ruth Grocock
"I would like to attend any future planning meetings as I object to any further developments on Greenbelt Land without ensuring the entire local community have been informed and made aware of your plans to develop their ‘green space’ .... we are fast running out of country side and turning in to a concrete jungle. I also don’t think our roads are capable of servicing such a huge development living on one of the most gridlocked parts of the M6 which on a bad day has the ability to bring all of Cannock and Stafford to a grinding halt. Please let me know when the next planning meetings are as I would like to attend. Thank You Ruth Grocock"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Tracy Arnold
"Protecting Green Belt Negative effect on the environment/pollution/air quality/noise Negative effect on the local highways and traffic Negative effect on the local flora and fauna Loss of countrywide and agricultural land There are more suitable locations such as brownfield land "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicola Woodhouse
"•Protecting the Green Belt •Negative Effects on the Environment / Pollution / Air Quality / Noise / Light •Negative Effects on the Local Highways and the Increase in Traffic •Negative Effects on Local Health •Negative Effects on the Local Flora & Fauna (Ecology) •Loss of Agricultural Land & Countryside •Negative Effects on Local Business "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Olwyn Carrier
"Safety and health hazards due extra vehicles. Hazard with extra traffic on roads, and health with extra noise and air pollution. Jobs will not go to local people but to people travelling in, thus even more vehicles and pollution. Green belt land should not be used for this, there are plenty of brown field sites available. Even a freight terminal not that far away that could be redeveloped at Bescot. All this would have a severe detrimental effect on wildlife even with so called parkland. Look at the environmental impact. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patricia Edwards
"Protecting the green belt Negative effect on the environment/pollution/air quality/noise Negative effect on local highways and traffic"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Heitzman
"The A449 is already a very busy road and to allow extra thousands of HGV vehicles and cars will be catastrophic for the area. There is already high CO2 emissions in the area due to the close proximity of the M6 motorway and thousands of extra HGV lorries would increase it enormously. It is completely wrong to use green belt to accommodate such a monstrosity"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter buss
"I have lived in Penkridge over 20 years and seen the a449 become ever more congested and gridlocked by lorries due to motorway closures. I also travel past the proposed hub early morning rush hour and evening rush hour. I have noticed that most on days the a5 is gridlocked between j12 m6 and gailey. I believe the hub would mean a lorry would be in or out of the hub every 12 seconds? This would be impossible as the a5 is already at capacity. I was also assured at Haling dene exhibition that anpr cameras would prevent hgvs turning towards Penkridge, I do not believe this statement. Penkridge has gradually turned into a lay by of the m6 with trucks regularly parking on double yellows, blocking junctions, destroying footpaths and grass verges, we do not need any more trucks. There is plenty of employment in the Penkridge area, why not build a hub in stoke where employment is really needed and the rail network is already in place. I do not believe a single large planning application has been turned down in this area within the last ten years, be the first to actually consider residents and stop this monstrosity!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Jones
"I object to the building of this rail hub on green belt and the destruction of the trees, flora and wildlife habitats. The increase in air pollution from the increase in the amount of lorries on the roads especially along the A449 through PENKRIDGE when there is a problem on the M6 motorway which creates a gridlock through PENKRIDGE regularly. What would happen if the Railways decided it was not viable for them, it would then become a another eyesore on the landscape with unfilled units."
Members of the Public/Businesses
REV Cynthia Heath
"The land is green belt -a vital breathing space between major roads - A5, A449, M6. 1. These roads carry extremely heavy traffic at the moment. Any incident on the M6 results in hold ups on all these road e.g. a journey of 15 minutes between Brewood and Penkridge has become 45 minutes in the past. The increase of daily traffic estimated with the proposal would mean that traffic would be at a crawl or standstill for the majority of the time - and that is before there is an incident on the M6! And there would be less green belt to filter the increased exhaust fumes. 2. Once the green belt area is covered with tarmac and cement, all the ecology is destroyed for ever. This area has provided habitats for flora & fauna for centuries. What gives us the right to take it from them? 3. The earth was given to humankind to take care of. In destroying habitats in this way, there is an increasing danger that humans destroy their own environment to their own harm - air quality; noise; pollution. 4. Offering 'Community park areas' in midst the proposed hub is an insult to the people whose natural environment will be destroyed. 5.Inherited land, passed down through the generations, is a gift for future generations. It is not something to be misused for temporary gain. 6.There are other more suitable locations including brownfield land around the West Midlands without this rape of the countryside. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Warren
"The infrastructure of the surrounding villages is not large enough to cope with the extensive increase in traffic that would come as a direct result of this proposed development. Living close to two prisons and a youth offenders unit, we were promised that the increase in traffic would be monitored !, sadly this is not the case with the majority of cars lorries traveling well in excess of the 40MPH limit, it will only be a matter of time before there will be a loss of life on the New Road Featherstone. This problem would only increase with the added traffic using already congested local routes. The surrounding village residents to this development do not deserve to be treated with such contempt, we have already had to suffer the new incinerator on the four ashes site, visible for miles around as an un slightly eyesore, take a visit around the area and take notice of these points. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rosemary Thompson
"I am deeply concerned about the impact that the West Midlands interchange will have on the local environment . Firstly this is a greenbelt area . I believe that the location is unsuitable as there are other brownfield sites available in the area which would be more suitable for a project of this size. . If the project went ahead the impact on the countryside would be catastrophic, valuable agricultural land and green open spaces would be lost and great damage would be done to the local wildlife. The ecological balance in the area would be over turned causing loss of species in plant, insect and bird life in the area. This is an area which should be kept as greenbelt. If the interchange were to be built the environment and those of us living in the area would be damaged irrevocably. Air pollution would increase dramatically and noise and light levels would also rise. In additionthe local infrastructure would have to be rebuilt to accommodate the extra increase (18,642 vehicles per day) which would destroy the quality of life for those of us who live in the area. I strongly urge the planners to reject this project as a rural area with relatively poor infrastructure is totally unsuitable for such a development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sandra Woodman
"1) Since moving to the West Midlands, my son has developed [redacted] not attributable to any other causes other than the current air pollution. To increase traffic along the A449 and surrounding roads is an early death sentence for both myself and my children. The area is already heavily polluted. 2) The A449 is already heavily congested. I am unsure how the local roads feeding the A449 will cope, in particular of interest to me is Old Stafford Road. This road is used as a cut through, and although the speed limit is 40mph, traffic travels at speed and there are no pavements. This is dangerous. 3) Living close to the railway will mean long trains thundering past. This is yet more noise and vibration pollution. 4) The land is greenbelt. Green belt usually means that it stays green. How is it possible simply to bend the rules at the beck and call of business. Save our greenbelt. There are plenty of other areas, that are already in a state of disrepair that can be reclaimed for this project. Stealing greenbelt to save money is raping the earth more. 5) Stop ravaging the countryside. Stop the greed. Stop the collective dissociation of the extensive and damaging impact that this project will have if it goes ahead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Smith
"We have lived in Brewood for 18 years and have always struggled with the existing volume of traffic in the road network surrounding the village, especially at peak times. In particular the A449 and the A5. Both highways can not cope with the volume of traffic in rush hour as it stands, let alone if the Interchange were to go ahead. There has been an increase in traffic in recent months at Junction 2 on the M54. We worry about the impact of the traffic through our village. It is predicated that a very small proportion of employees would be local. Many would be from further afield and have to commute to work. More traffic and more pollution. Our village already struggles with traffic (it would be used as a cut through), parking and the narrow streets and lanes are very dangerous, especially "rush hour" when the children are on the way to school.We also have concerns re pollution and levels of noise. Recent times have brought to the attention the damage pollutants, particularly fossil fuel vehicles have on the health of the local population. Particulate matter (PM) levels will increase and are directly attributable to respiratory damage. There is currently no way of addressing this. a VERY REAL ISSUE. Given the prolification of fossil fuel as the main power source for most vehicles, cars and commercials, it is clear that health WILL be impacted by the massive increase in traffic. We can already hear the train line and A449. The land is Greenbelt and in a time of increasing population we should protect this at all costs for the benefit of future generations. Surely there are alternative Brownfield sites available, where health issues are possibly already affected rather than creating another? Our local environment not only supports a wealth of much needed wildlife but also contains areas of natural beauty and historical importance. We do not support this development as it would severely damage all of these elements and consideration must be given to protect these areas and look at alternative sites elsewhere. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sue Talbot
"I have concerns regarding the increase in traffic especially HGVs along the A449 and A5 these roads in my opinion are not robust enough and would not withstand the increase with predicted amount of lorries. this in turn would lead to an increase in air pollution, noise and poor road surfaces. There are currently plans to build a new road to move the traffic away from the A460 to avoid Featherstone to decrease noise, pollution and to steer the lorries away. Yet by building this hub the same problem will be encountered along the A449 and A5. The proposed new development, would make Featherstone an island surrounded on 2 sides by motorways and the the third side a huge increase in traffic on the A449. Would there be a potential for lorries to use the New Road in Featherstone as a shortcut to get from the A449 and A460 ??? This area of South Staffordshire has seen a lot of changes to the environment with a loss of green belt land. In the last few years, new buildings and roads have increased air pollution and noise this greatly impacts on the health and wellbeing of the local residents and also damaging the green belt and the wildlife."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Langford
"I wish to protest at the proposal to build the warehousing system with a rail interchange on protected greenbelt land at Gailey, South Staffordshire. This area has, over the last few years suffered from extensions, upon extensions to planning applications to the point where a few companies have eaten into protected greenbelt area. We have suffered enough from the pollution from these factories and a huge incinerator in our area. The increase in traffic on our road infrastructure is unsustainable. This area currently has very low unemployment and the increase in jobs will pull further traffic from outside the area to an area of incredible beauty. Greenbelt land was designated to provide `lungs' to our environment and population. There are plenty of derelict areas within Wolverhampton or Stoke on Trent which would benefit hugely from redevelopment rather than eroding further into the countryside to save the effort of clearing brownfield land. This area is home to an incredible range of wildlife and flora and should be protected for further generations. The developers `hope' and this is a direct quote that once the warehousing is built that business will come to fill them - they actually admitted they had added the warehousing system to offset the cost of the rail interchange which is actually a `tag on' to what they were originally stating was a requirement for the trains. The roads in this area are already struggling to cope with the increased traffic and the scale of this development will gridlock the entire area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Thomas
"Protecting the green belt. I think it will have a negative effect on Wild life. I think that the infrastructure will not be able to cope with the amount of increase in traffic. Together with causing a bottle neck around Gailey island to get to the M6. At rush hour it already has a problem with traffic flow through the island with tail backs along the A5 and the A449 I think it will be detrimental to the local residents with increased noise and air quality. The site is in a rural spot and this rail intersection will destroy the local countryside. We already have problems with heavy goods lorries travelling to the Four ashes industrial estate to and from the m6. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Terence Edwards
"Protecting the green belt Negative effect on the environment/pollution/air quality/noise Negative effect on local highways and traffic"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Terence Rhodes
"To whom it may concern, I am a local resident of more than 25 years, living in Four Ashes. Over this time the area as seen a great deal of development and growth. No one can or should stop progress if it is required. I like others feel this is not the case with this proposal and we will be completely overdeveloped and swamped with traffic, the area is already regularly gridlocked and this will create mayhem with the slightest hiccup. The wildlife will become almost none existent and I’m sure it will become an extremely undesirable area to live or visit. I pray this does not go ahead, there can be no benifit whatsoever for the area or people of South Staffordshire, only pollution and concrete on a massive scale. What quality of life can be possibly left for anyone in this proposed development area. Kind regards, Mr. T. L. Rhodes "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anne Richards
"I object to this application because I'm concerned about protecting the Green Belt and the negative effects on the environment, increased pollution, poor air quality, increased noise. Also the resulting detrimental effect on local ecology. I feel strongly that the proposed location is wrong because there are other more suitable locations available. Regional employment has not been properly considered. Thousands of employees having to be bussed in or having to drive into the area will further increase the damage to the environment, increase pollution etc. This application goes against local planning policy. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
C. W. Blower
"I object to this application because: The developer refers to a reduction in pollution elsewhere yet ignores the fact that the increase in HGV movements will concentrate vehicle exhaust pollution as well as noise on the village. Both the Middle School and Wollaston Scool sit beside tha M6 and are affected by the existing levels of pollution. Having lived in the village for over 50 years and have lived on the Cherrybrook estate for 34 years I have personally experienced the rise in noise pollution over those years. The village has the A 449 passing through it and I’d bordered by the M6 to the east and the A5 to the south. Whenever theere is a major hold up on the M6 between junction12 and junction13 traffic seeks a alternative route and that is the A449 through the village. Also if the development goes ahead any vehicle leaving the site, supposedly via the M6, will seek the alternative route northwards which is again the A 449. The village already experiences tail backs through the village on market days so the effect of the increase in traffic volumes through the village will be extremely negative. This increase in noise and pollution will have a detrimental effect on local health. Earlier forecasts for south staffordshire did not see the need for a development on this scale. We should be protecting the green belt and redeveloping existing brown field sites both in the West Midlands and in the Stoke on Trent area. At the public presentation in the village last year on of the illustrations of the movement of goods , whilst showing the surrounding towns, did not show Stoke on the map! As though Stoke should be ignored as a possible location for the rail head. There are several warehousing developments already in the area:Cannock, Lichfield and north Stafford.should the old Rugeley power station site be used for the rail head as the railway runs directly passed the site. Whilst the possibility of increasing the availability of jobs in the area, the level of unemployment in South Staffs is at minimal levels and so would appeal the people in the West Midlands conurbation. This again will increase the levels of pollution in and around Penkridge. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carol Trubshaw
"I object to this development on prime green belt land which should be protected in this rural area. The main reason however is the impact on the traffic in the area and villages. The main A449 is already at grid lock because of the huge development that has, and still is taking place on the I54. The roundabout/ junction M54/A449 is causing chaos at peak times on an ordinary day, and when there is an incident on the M6 the traffic uses the A449 + A5 making the situation worse. These roads simply cannot take the volume of traffic this development would produce. HGV plus commuting workers."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Evans
"I object to this application because: this will be a beach of the greenbelt which, if allowed, will be closely followed by others north and south. the volume of traffic before and after completion will cause serious problems on the A5, A449 and M6 ( one of Europe's busiest roads). air, noise and light pollution in a relatively quiet area. more appropriate brownfield sites are abundant elsewhere. I am sceptical about the proposed railway link ever being built."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Darren Brittain
"We do not want this hub"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Donna Vann
"I am writing to voice my objection to the proposed West Midlands Interchange. I live very close to the A5 and approx. 1 mile from Gailey Island. The traffic in this area is already very heavy and some mornings it can take 15 - 20 minutes to travel the mile from my house to Gailey. There is also a knock-on effect through Brewood village as commuters look for alternative routes. In the event of problems with the motorway this will cause the traffic down the A5 & A449 to significantly increase. The noise pollution is particularly heavy and in the evenings this can actually increase with articulated lorries. Air pollution obviously cannot be seen but I have no doubt we are suffering. I am concerned that the increase volume of traffic & noise /environmental pollution will completely ruin a beautiful greenbelt area. I also have concerns about increased noise from railfreight which will undoubtedly be travelling 24 hours a day???? I strongly believe that this development will fail to produce the level of employment we are promised, as the nature of the businesses attracted will be highly automated & low paid. This development does not justify taking away our greenbelt area when we are already surrounded by an overstretched motorway facility and very busy towns in all directions (i.e. Stafford, Wolverhampton, Telford & Cannock). "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elizabeth Singleton
"I have been a resident of the village of Brewood for 35 years. I strongly object to the siting of the West Midlands Interchange on the proposed site at Four Ashes for the following reasons: 1. The scheme is totally inappropriate for the rural site and will use up 643 acres of Green Belt land, affecting people and wildlife in the area. This is the same as concreting over 430 football pitches. 2. The scheme will add a projected 18,624 a day to the traffic in the local area, including 6,319 HGVs. Already, traffic jams are a regular occurrence whenever there is an incident on the M6 causing traffic to be rerouted onto the A5, A449 and A41. More traffic potentially equals more accidents,more deaths, more delays and more pot holes. 3. This extra traffic will lead to 16.3 extra tons of CO2 emissions daily and this poorer air quality will impact adversely upon the health of local residents. 4. The warehouses and stacks of freight containers will be 30 metres high, taller than the church in nearby Penkridge. They will be a visual blight on the landscape. 5. It is stated that the Interchange will create 8,500 local jobs but unemployment in the area is currently less than 1%. There are plenty of areas where these jobs are desperately needed and Brownfield sites where the impact of this project would be minimal eg in Stoke on Trent. For all the above reasons, I hope that the Examining Authority will reconsider the siting of the Interchange at Four Ashes and will instead look for a more appropriate site elsewhere."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gary Hydes
"I object to this application because of the potential negative effect on traffic volumes in an already very busy local road network and the environmental consequences of increased pollution, degraded air quality and extra noise from heavy goods vehicles."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Herbert John griffiths
"Protecting the green belt. Negative effect on the environment pollution air quality/noise negative effect on local highways and traffic. Negative effect on ecology. Loss of agricultural land and countryside. It is in the wrong location because other more suitable locations are available including brownfield land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Mawdsley
"The amount of traffic will have a negative effect on the environment 're pollution and air quality. The A449 is already a busy road and the proposed site will have a negative effect on this roads and surrounding minor roads as traffic seeks to find a way to avoid jams. There are other sites that could be used that wouldn't impinge on green belt land. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Leek
"My reasons for objecting to the Four Ashes Interchange are as follows The loss of agricultural land and the countryside alongside the A449 and the A5 this would diminish the green belt. How much further would this project go if it goes ahead, would it get bigger and bigger as time goes on. The effect that this would make on both the A5 and A449 with increased traffic noise and pollution especially with diesel emissions from large vehicles. The effect on commuters to and from work places increasing their time on the roads with delays because of the increased traffic, all they want to do is get home or to work. The effect of children travelling to schools on coaches with the heavy traffic. Would this put them in danger. I believe this project is in the wrong position, and cannot understand why this position has been chosen. There are large areas of brownfield sites that must be available to use why have these areas not be investigated, I have heard that Stoke on Trent is crying out for this type of infrastructure to restore jobs to that area. Four Ashes and the surrounding areas are not large areas of unemployment other areas are, why bring in a workforce from unemployed areas why not take this project to the areas that need employment. I live in Brewood which is a few miles away from this proposed site, I regularly use the A5 and the A449 to pick up grandchildren in Stafford, I do not want to be stuck in traffic that this project would bring. Although I live out at Brewood you can still here trains and traffic. I would also like to bring up the traffic problems that occur when the M6 is closed at Gailey if there is an accident on the motorway, Traffic is diverted down the A5 and A449 and causes major congestion. The same happens when the M42 is closed at Telford or Albrightontraffic is diverted down the A5 and again causes congestion. I strongly object to this proposal and hope that common sense prevails and this development is put in an area whereby it helps an area that needs this kind of development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jean Care
"I object to this application because I am a great believer in protecting green belt areas and think there must be brownfield land more suitable. There is also the effect of heavier traffic on our local highways, added to that is noise, pollution and traffic holdups. I wish to register NO most strongly to this project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karen Lowe
"I wish to object to the planning application because 1) We should be protecting the green belt land 2) It will have a negative effect on the environment, affecting air quality, noise and pollution 3)It will have a negative impact on local roads with an unacceptable increase in traffic 4) There will be a loss of agricultural land and countryside, affecting a wood and local flora and fauna. 5) this is the wrong location, a brownfield site should be used."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lynn Whitehouse-Male
"I object to the building of the interchange at Four Ashes near Wolverhampton on the basis that it will significantly reduce the green belt land in an already developed area. It will also increase the amount of traffic on roads which are already busy being link roads to the M6. I believe that the quality of life for residents both in the immediate and surrounding areas will be reduced by the increased traffic and depletion of green belt land. There is also the impact on the environment in terms of noise pollution and air pollution on the communities in the immediate vicinity of the interchange. I believe that the proposal should be refused and that the views of the local community should outweigh those of outside agencies whose primary driver is profit above all and at the expense of local residents. I strongly object to this project being given planning permission. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lynne Lake
"I would like to object to the West Midlands interchange mainly due to the area being unable to cope with the overwhelming traffic it would bring. 18,624 extra vehicles a day? At present, when there are issues on the M6 (and these occur on a regular basis) the impact that diverted traffic has on the A5 & A449 is horrendous which surely demonstrates that it's not feasible to approve this application. Not to mention the fact that it's proposed site is on greenbelt land. Having lived in Wheaton Aston all my live (50yrs) I am more than familiar with the local area and am absolutely horrified at the daily chaos this proposed site would cause."
Members of the Public/Businesses
M J GLennon
"amount of traffic and pollution will be unsustainable "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Worton
"Dear Sir, as a local resident I feel I have to urge each person involved in this project to reconsider. These are my reasons- TRAFFIC, have you travelled along the Stafford Road at peak times ? It’s sometimes unbearable. To add to this the congestion caused will be horrific.I feel the beauty of the land, the Flora and Fauna will be disstroyed FOREVER. What’s the effect on our health? Pollution, air quality. Who has chosen this area. There are many many sights more suited to this development. Take a good look at brownfield land before it’s to late to turn back. As someone who has from my youth looked upon this earth not as ours but keepers to hand on to future generations. What a legacy you are creating. In view of this weeks comments please reconsider. I truely feel the company’s who are hell bent on forging ahead live many miles away and will not see the results of this awful idea."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mary Jean Roberts
"This site is totally unsuitable due to the volume of traffic that it will engender - neither the A5 nor the A449 can cope with this amount of traffic. The pollution from this volume of traffic would have a dreadful effect on the health of villagers for miles around; My husband and I moved to a country village to get away from urbanisation and hopefully have a healthier life style - this would ruin that. As I understand it there other more suitable sites and certainly a brownfield site would be better"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Melvyn Harwood
"I object to this application on the following grounds: * Size. To build a facility this big would generate more traffic - both road and rail, but principally road - than current highway and railway infrastructure could deal with, causing traffic problems on the A5 and A449, with consequent increased air pollution and detriment to local transport. * Position. Although the proposed site is undoubtedly served by main roads with ready motorway access, it's not the only possible position and alternatives are available locally on brownfield sites on the Wolverhampton side of the County boundary; admittedly not as large as planned but as I said earlier the planned site is too big anyway. * Use of green belt land: At a time when authorities are being encouraged to defend local flora and fauna this proposal will damage the natural environment. This would not happen if a brownfield site was chosen. It would also have the effect of reducing available scarce agricultural land when our future agricultural needs are still to be determined following Brexit. There is also the attendant risk of flooding by concreting over such a large area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Robin Fennell
"1.This site is situated in green belt land. The purpose of the green belt when it was introduced was to prevent the spread of towns and cities into the countryside. The industrial nature of this development will regate the purpose of the green belt and encourage the expansion of the urban area between the Wolverhampton city border and the four ashes site. 2. This site will increase the traffic on roads leading to the site. These will include the M54 and the A449 Stafford Road. I live at the junction of these two roads and therefore will suffer from increased traffic to and from the site. This will increase noise, pollution and the amount of traffic on these roads. The increase in noise and pollution will negatively affect the environment around the proportion near the roads. The increase in the amount of traffic will make it more difficult for residents using the roads. 3. The increase in traffic and the need for workers on the site will encourage the development of land between the 4 ashes site and the Wolverhampton city boundary which will destroy the rural character of the area. The site itself will also adversaily affect the rural nature of the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Barbara Hodgson
"This proposal would greatly increase the road traffic on A5, A449 and the M6 junctions 12 & 13. as the potential tenants at the Four Ashes site would not be required to link to the railway. There are already traffic problems are these roads and this can only exacerbate the problem."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Mrs Janet Goadsby Williams
"Please see attached"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Mrs Pauline Sexty
"Please see attached"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Phil Marshall
"I object to this application because I feel that; -It will have a negative effect on local roads due to a large increase in heavy traffic -as a consequence of the above there will be an increase in noise and pollution and a decrease in air quality -there will be a negative effect on local health as a result -we are losing a large area of greenbelt which we should be protecting -as a result there will be further decline in many species of flora and fauna that are already rare -Agricultural land and countryside is being lost, to be replaced by warehousing the size and scale of which is totally out of proportion with the local area -there are other more suitable locations available -Brownfield land would be more suitable -local unemployment is less than 1% meaning that most of the employment created will be filled by people who have to commute into the area causing even more disruption on the roads -It is not in accord with Local Planning Policy and will have a negative impact on many local conservation areas"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rachel Pierce
"I do not believe that the local roads ie A5 and A449 will be able to cope with the extra traffic. 10 days ago the A449 and the smaller roads around Penkridge became gridlocked due to an accident on the M6 - this always happens when the motorway is partially or fully closed and with the increased volume in traffic this will cause chaos for local residents . I have no objection to building on greenbelt but worry about the traffic impact on the surrounding areas, which can already be extremely busy during rush hour."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Barrie Kewley
"My proposed representations will relate to :-Green belt/Increased road traffic/pollution/ lack of adequate highway improvements/Necessity for development in this location/ Loss of agricultural land /Negative effects on wildlife/Question benefits for local communities. `"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephanie Green
"I oppose this application on the grounds of building on green belt land. Our countryside must be protected for future generations. There is wildlife in that area that will be destroyed by this application and this process is irreversible. There must be alternative brownbelt land that is better suited to this application. If a further railhub is required in the Midlands which I am not convinced it is as there are already hubs in the Midlands then we must as a nation build on brownbelt land first. There is so much vacant property in central Wolverhampton which has sat empty for years and now we are looking to destroy our beautiful countryside with further developments when land in city centres sits abandoned. I firmly believe that in the interest of protecting our environment this application must be refused."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Vanessa brittain
"I would like to register my Objection to this interchange proposal. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Vanessa Springthorpe
"I wish to object to this particular proposal for a number of reasons outlined below. I believe that the road infrastructure in the area is not suited to this development. When there is an accident on the m6 between 11 and 13, there is a dramatic increase of traffic on the a5 and A449. I believe that the a5 is not a trunk road and therefore should not be subjected to the volume of traffic predicted by the developer 4 ashes Ltd (FAL). Living in brewood, less than 5 miles away from the proposed site there have been instances of lorries using villages lanes as a diversion around a problem on the A449 and/or m6. Accidents on the m6 are more frequent, with my own personal experience being one every week for the last 3 weeks alone. I am concerned that this proposal is being put forward as a 'freight hub', yet in discussions I personally had with the developers at their consultation event not one Tennant of the warehousing will HAVE to use rail.... so I fail to see why this isn't going through as warehousing and container storage and should therefore be considered by local planning, not yourselves. In terms of alternative sites proposed by FAL I strongly believe that they have not looked far enough north to make this a viable option as a freight hub. It is too close to other hubs in the Midlands. In addition, the unemployment rate ins south staffs is currently 1%, so where will his hub find its workforce? They will come from elsewhere in he midlands meaning more transport coming to the area. I am concerned for the loss of greenbelt: the sheer size of the land, and the destruction of trees that have taken generations to grow cannot be compensated for. We have problems with flooding now, and I am not sure how the local are will cope with such an expense of land being lost to concrete. I am concerned for the wildlife and the lack of thought that has gone into th loss of habitat. At the consultation event FAL representatives said that bat boxes would be located to more suitable parts of the development, but no thought as to the impact upon these anI'm also having to relearn flight paths, not to mention the impact of light pollution (from 24hr working) upon nocturnal hunting and existence. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Vivienne Mawdsley
"I feel strongly that this development will have a negative effect on the air quality in this area affecting people that live nearby. The main road is already busy and the amount of extra traffic this project will cause will cause traffic jams and delays on the surrounding roads as drivers try to avoid delays Lay bys on this road either side of the M6 motorway are already filled to capacity as drivers overnight in them..Our green belt is precious and should be conserved as much as possible if other brownfield land is available. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Wendy Elaine Finan
"I AM DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE EFFECT THIS PROPOSAL WILL HAVE ON THE FOLLOWING:- Massive increase in traffic The impact of that on health, delays, potential accidents, more deaths and even more pot holes. Threat to green belt and wildlife."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Andrews
"I am objecting to the application because the detrimental effect this application will have on the local environment - in particular the impact of thousands of additional heavy fuelled trucks and lorries to the local road infrastructure. The application is presently sited adjacent to the M6 and M54 motorways, yet there is no provision of new 'dedicated motorway links' to the proposed site. Instead vehicles will be channelled to relatively minor 'local' roads - roads that have never been designed for the volume of heavy vehicles proposed. Living very close to the proposed site for over 30 years, I have seen the negative impact additional vehicles add to these minor roads, when there is an incident or congestion on the M6 and M54 motorways. This is before the proposed development will add further vehicles. The A449 is a single carriageway road that presently becomes a road block when issues occur on the M6 as drivers seek to avoid delays. The impact of these additional vehicles through the ancient village of Penkridge, is that all traffic stops and everyone becomes delayed. The effect of slow moving or standing vehicles is that pollution detrimentally degrades the health of children, parents and grand parents alike. There are many local opinions that this proposal has already been rubber stamped, if this is the case then new additional traffic conditions need to be imposed on all vehicles who will occupy and use the proposed development. I suggest that these must include the provision of new 'dedicated motorway link' routes from/to the M6 and M54 motorways. In the case of incidents on the M6 or M54 motorways, then drivers of vehicles using the proposed development must be prohibited from using 'local' access and link roads including the A449 and A5. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Powell
"The choice of site in relation to independently published strategic development reports The labour market for the type and employment numbers published by the applicant The detrimental effect on commuter traffic along the West Coast Stafford to Rugby Loop railway line The detrimental effect on air quality, noise and traffic on surrounding roads Proposed transfer of developed and productive green belt agricultural land to rented logistical site "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrea Grew
"Dear Sirs, I live local to the planned site and suffer from [redacted], my family have lived in Brewood for 400 years. I am deeply concerned regarding the huge increase in expected traffic caused by this installation and the increase in emissions, especially regarding health and the pollution caused by such. I am also deeply concerned re the increase in traffic round village roads due to the congestion caused on the the 2 main roads to this site, namely the A5 and A449, which are both total inadequate for such increase. The new build of houses that is being sanctioned for Brewood will already bring a huge increase in traffic volume without cars diverting through the village to get away from the congested A449 and A5. I am also deeply concerned about the destruction of greenfield sites and the green belt area this installation will destroy. I am deeply concerned concerning the 'creeping' of villages into each other - we are told to expect 800 jobs from this installation, all i assume will require housing. This puts a strain on already overflowing local schools and services."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Pritchard
"Protecting green belt Negative effect on local highways and traffic Wrong location more suitable including brownfield land Loss of agricultural land and countryside"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charles Silvester
"I object to this application because of the negative effect on local highways and traffic,environment and pollution of the local ecology. Important to protect the Green Belt."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Poore
"We are concerned about the increase in traffic which is bound to occur because of the vast number of HGVs, vans and employees vehicles which will be using roads already congested. There will inevitably be an increase in air pollution. We are totally opposed to the use of greenbelt land for this development in a recreational area bisected by the Staffs and Worcester canal and close to nearby reservoirs."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Danielle Redmond
"I feel that the application should be declined as this amount of increased traffic on our already strained transport system will have a a massive negative implication on the local environment and green belt. Rather than using already limited green belt land other locations in the UK would be more suitable and already have better transport links. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Richards
" Dear Sirs, I write to protest and object to this development based on the following aspects: The additional volume in traffic will be horrendous for this area. The massive increase in air pollution will have huge medical repercussions for the people within the local. There will be a significant increase in the sound and noise pollution, again making the route and local an unfit place to live and work."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Debbie Blower
"I object to this application because it will destroy hundreds of acres of green belt - we need to protect green belt land for the generations to come and once built on, you can never restore its original condition. Wildlife and birds will also suffer. It would cause untold traffic disruption: already the A449, A5 and Penkridge come to a standstill in the event of an accident - emergency services would have even more difficulty in getting where they were needed. I am concerned about the pollution that will result from all the additional traffic expected 24 hours a day. Other sites are available where there is also a need for more local employment. There is currently low unemployment in this area, causing more traffic/disruption."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Edwin Briscoe
"I strongly disagree to this proposal for the West Midlands Interchange for numerous reasons. Firstly I feel that there would be a significant increase in pollution and noise, and this in turn would affect air quality and would have a negative affect on the local environment. Traffic in this area is already very heavy at times, and unbearable when there are problems on the motorway system and traffic is diverted off. We cannot tolerate any further increase in traffic, which of course brings more noise, & pollution and increases local peoples journey times to work, which are already significantly effected. Owning a business nearby, I feel it would greatly affect my staff and make working and travelling in and out of the area unbearable. We would lose much needed green belt land and this would have a negative effect on wildlife, and our general health. I believe Brownfield sites would be better suited, and that this location is totally unsuitable. I do not believe this would benefit local people with employment as there would be a negative effect on all local businesses which in turn,would out way any advantage that may come from building it here. I am surprised this application has been considered so strongly ,as this is not in accord with local planning policy, and would clearly have a most negative effect on both local businesses and everyone who lives in the surrounding areas. Kind regards Edwin Briscoe."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elizabeth Norris
"I am very concerned about the impact The West Midlands Interchange will have on the local environment with regard to air quality, noise, and consequent physical and mental health of our community. The increase in heavy vehicle traffic will undoubtedly impact existing congestion and highways maintenance. I believe the project to be totally inappropriate for a rural location. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Grenville Heath
"This proposal is designed to allow prime agricultural green belt land to be permanently destroyed. In its place the intended Hub would create a concrete and tarmac covering in order to accommodate the vast amount of storage, car parking and roads, needed to make the project work. The overall effect on the local environment, as such a lot of the present green belt disappears, firstly for the wildlife and local flora and fauna, and then on the local inhabitants, is tremendous. Brown Field sites would surely be less problematic ecologically. Stoke, which has a suitable site for a hub, has expressed a wish for it to be built there. Stoke has a high unemployment figure, the hub would be of great benefit to the City. The admitted number of vehicles to be travelling to and from the hub, non-stop day and night, added to the traffic already using the roads around the intended site, can only add to the existing problems encountered, at the moment, every working day. These problems occur a/ at the beginning and end of every working day b/ at the beginning and end of every school day c/ when the motorway becomes blocked/closed (quite a regular occurrence) d/ when an event takes place at a local venue such as Weston Park – c/ and d/ of these often means a tail-back of several miles. The area of this proposal lies in an area with a very low unemployment figure. The hub, in that respect would be of insignificant benefit to local inhabitants. The workforce, therefore, would have to come from outlying areas. This means adding more vehicles to the total to be travelling to and from the site on a regular basis. Car parks are shown on the plans for this workforce which will, out of necessity, be on shift work. The whole project will create constant noise, pollution, and loss of air quality everywhere around the site while strangling commuter routes to and from local villages. To take away the existing green belt land and try to justify this by offering parks enclosed within this site can be seen as an insult to the local inhabitants. If these parks are intended to attract visitors from outlying areas, the visitor would have to run the gauntlet created be the traffic problem to get there, while adding to the vehicular congestion. They would then be breathing in the polluted air and be enclosed by the high-rise storage containers while listening to the steady drone/noise levels of the continual traffic movement. A picture of lorries travelling a set distance apart, each one loading/unloading in an arranged sequence in order to keep everything working smoothly, falls down at any moment where there is a holdup in traffic anywhere on the route. To think that this wouldn’t happen is unrealistic. Large hold-ups are inevitable on a very regular basis. This hub can be seen to be planned for the wrong site, the consequence for local inhabitants can be seen as disastrous. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
H J Mason
"I wish to register my Objection to this proposal. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ivor Hind
" With regards to the proposed application,I am very concerned at the destruction of so much green belt land. I ask the question :- do we not have alternative sites on areas that are already underused and partly developed. This project according to the estimated additional traffic will need the existing road system to have a major upgrade, which is not in the proposals. There is a possibility I believe that a large no of the proposed warehouses will not be used for the interchange, but let to any co that can use them, is this true? if so this is a deception! to achieve further storage near to a motorway junction. Finally:- ARE YOU SURE THIS REALLY IS THE RIGHT PLACE FOR THIS INTERCHANGE? Thank you for considering my points. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janet Buxton
"I am objecting very strongly to the development of the Gailey Freight Hub, this development is in completely the wrong location, there are other more suitable sites that are available that are on brownfield land and will not affect our precious green belt. This means the loss of agricultural land which we need to protect along with our countryside which is becoming more and more eroded. There will be a very adverse affect on our local highways, already the County Council cannot keep up with road repairs in the local area and the increase in traffic will result in more and more heavy traffic diverting onto local roads to avoid the inevitable traffic congestion on the A449 and A5 that this development will cause. The negative impact on the environment, the pollution, poor air quality and noise from all the additional traffic will be massively to the detriment of the local area. This area has very low unemployment and therefore employees will either have to drive in or be bussed in from further afield which in itself creates even more congestion. To build this Hub in this area on Green Belt would be a poor decision and it needs to be relocated to an area that will benefit much more from the investment and employment opportunities "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janet McShane
"There is more evidence every day about the serious effects of air pollution on health and this proposal would greatly increase local traffic. If such a hub is needed ( and the evidence is not convincing) it should not be on green belt land when there are brownfield sites available. Green belt land is valuable not because it looks pretty but because it provides a pollution and noise 'buffer and is a haven for our rapidly disappearing flora and fauna. I strongly object to this proposal."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jeff Bagnall
"There are a few points that I would wish to make and they are not necessarily in the order of priority: This proposed site is almost all on greenbelt land and we need to protect our local and national environments. With such developments it will not be long before cities merge in to countryside. This development is called West Midlands Interchange but is not located in the West Midlands - it is in South Staffordshire, but clearly it is intended to service the West Midlands and beyond and the benefits for the people of South Staffordshire are minimal. The road infrastructure is just not in place for such a development - given the expected numbers of large HGV's that would utilise this facility. There are no facilities in the plan for lorry parking, facilities for drivers who are required to take daily rest periods - the current lay-bys and truck stops are ALWAYS full every night - any additional requirement will result in parking of HGV's in residential areas close by. At this time there is already anti-social behaviour of drivers using lay-bys as toilets and any more (expected in the thousands) will make it intolerable. When the M6 is blocked or closed the surrounding villages of Junction 13, Junction 12 and Junction 12 are totally blocked even at this moment in time - resulting in schoolchildren and parents becoming anxious when collecting their children from the numerous schools - particularly in Penkridge and Dunston. With additional traffic I feel that this would be happening more often than not. The road between Gailey on the A449 to the M6 at Junction 13 is single track in the main and cannot cope with any more traffic - with out without this proposed development. This route has in the past been an accident black spot and if traffic is increased it is likely to once again be dangerous and a fatal accident waiting to happen. I am fearful that the building will be erected for warehousing etc. before the rail hub has been completed - and who knows the buildings could remain when the rail hub is deemed to be unnecessary and cancelled - leaving the eyesore of high rise storage facilities blotting the landscape for ever. Whilst the developers will say that this development will create jobs - it is unlikely that they will be sustained for the local residents - it will initially be for the construction industry and as time progresses for truck drivers travelling through our countryside and leaving shortly afterwards - unless they have to overnight in our already overcrowded lanes. Please refuse this application for the benefit of all the local residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jennifer blower
"I object to this application because of the negative impact on local highways and traffic. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lyn Frampton
"I object to the application because the extra traffic will cause a massive increase in pollution, noise and traffic jams on already busy roads. This will be detrimental to the health and well being of the local community. The hub will not increase local employment and workers commuting from other areas will increase the traffic even further. Building this hub on greenbelt land will adversely affect the flora and fauna on the site and completely change the area. It could be built on a brownfield site without such disruption and give an area of low employment more opportunities. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
M.Fellows
"Increase in traffic Congestion which is already a problem in the area. Protection of the green belt. The negative effect this development will have on the environment including air pollution and noise. This is the wrong location, there are more suitable brownfield sites available. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marguerite Francis
"I wish to object to the use of a green field site for the West Midlands interchange at Four Ashes. Its far too large and will have too large a negative effect on Staffordshire and its countryside. It will harm flora, forna and the quality of life for local residents. The planning applcation should definately been turned down. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marie Louise Wain
"I am objecting to this project because there is other land available and the green belt needs to be protected. Also, the roads will not cope with the traffic of lorries and commuters coming into the area for jobs. Finally this could be used a a means to build warehouses on greenbelt. A more suitable location is: 1, Bescott Stadium at Walsall, which is brown fill, has rail access , and where unemployment is high; 2,Rural land is available. 3,Stoke-on-Trent where unemployment is high. 4, Donnington SRFI which is 55% underused and has rail freight acess The project area has 0.7% unemployment so staff will have to travel into the area and the roads (A449,A41,A5) will not cope. Roadworks which narrowed lanes on the A499 caused 20min delays this week at 9am. This is the route when the motorway is closed and the traffic state is bumper to bumper. This project does not ensure it is a rail freight only and could be a backdoor for warehouse development on green belt , there is no provision in the plan to ensure it is used only as a railway hub. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Matthew Wood
"My concerns are as follows: 1) Loss of Greenbelt Land 2) A surrounding transport structure which struggles to cope with existing traffic loads, especially at peak times. 3) More traffic will increase accidents and roadwork necessity, leading to more gridlocks and delays. 4) Increased pollution as a result, hence increased health impacts on surrounding residents and hospitals. The latter being unable to cope with present demands, let alone further demands. 5) The building of this hub in this location is very narrow minded. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Clare Yates-Ward
"Protection of green belt Air/ noise pollution Destruction of village character & environment Negative effect on traffic & wildlife Desecration of countryside "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Pamela Bryant
"Firstly I object to the use of so much green belt land for more so called progress. There are plenty of brown sites that could be considered. I believe that as long as there are brown sites in the country, no green belt should ever be touched. The disruptive effect on the local area will be massive. The road structure is busy enough already and with this it would become a total gridlock. The noise and pollution would be huge. I moved to this area to get away from city life and large, ugly noisy businesses. If this keeps going there will be no villages with beautiful countryside left. The impact on local wildlife would be immense. We have certain species around here that are on the Amber list and this could easily kill them off. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Phil Tattersall
"I object to this application because I am concerned due to its negative effects in relation to traffic, noise pollution and the impact upon the local highways. Notwithstanding the additional issues in relation to regional employment and the effect upon local businesses and related issues. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rosemary Linda Tomkins
"I am objecting to proposed development because the site is green belt and open countryside and there are other brown field sites e.g. Stoke-on-Trent ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sophy Gowan
"1. Protecting the green belt and the resident flora and fauna. In a time when the government are warning us that global warming is a real threat they intend to destroy >600 acres of photosynthesising plants and replace with diesel choking vehicles. What hypocrisy. Who gives you the right to displace our already diminishing wildlife such as owls, woodpeckers, bats, hedgehogs etc the majority of whom will die. 2. Having worked at the PDSA in Stoke for 11yrs and met 1000s of people living in abject poverty surely this will be a much better location. There are already miles of disused industrial land along the rail tracks in this area. 80% of people in Stoke are on benefits. This city really needs an injection of investment and the people deserve an opportunity to work. It has good road links to the motorway. 3. Local unemployment to the proposed site at Gailey is only 1% so it is not beneficial for any of the local residents. Workers will have to commute and this in turn means increased traffic and air pollution. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Pritchard
"Protecting green belt Negative effect on the environment/ noise/ air quality It is in the wrong location more suitable locations including brown belt Negative effect on local highways and traffic Loss of agricultural land and countryside"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alison Hindley
"MY OBJECTIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS TO THE PROPOSED WEST MIDLANDS INTERCHANGE 1. There will be an obvious impact on traffic in the surrounding area. Already the area becomes congested as soon as there are issues on the M6 with large volumes of traffic on the A5 (A Roman Road) and the A449 . 2. We need to keep the identity and the beauty of the historic surrounding area's, the small villages and the market town of Penkridge . Will the archaeological sites around the area be protected with the works to be undertaken 3. The destruction of the green belt and the wild life in the area, that would never return 4. The air pollution would be excessive as there is already traffic pollution from the Motorway and this would increase immensely not only for the local residents but the wild life and animals 5. The noise pollution would also increase for the local residents and wild life 6. There are other areas that can be considered that would not cause the negative effect that the Gailey Freight Hub will 7. People will no longer want to pay a visit or live in the small villages and the surrounding areas because the area they have known, with its local agriculture, wild life, beautiful countryside will be destroyed by a Freight Hub, therefore breaking up small communities 8. What would happen to the protected species in the area, has this been considered 9.Small villages, Farms and its agriculture and countryside must be valued and protected and brown belt must be given 100% consideration "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anita Griffiths
"This proposal will cause noise and air pollution to the local area. Increased traffic into the local community will have a large negative impact on the quality of life for all local people. Added to this the extra load on the already heavily congested M6 will be a nightmare for all concerned. The destruction of such a large part of the local green belt will forever change the feel of the local area and drive down the quality of life in the local rural area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ann Hodson
"I object to this application because we need to protect the Green Belt, and will have a negative effect on traffic, local health, pollution, noise and air quality."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Hartwell
"I am extremely concerned of the negative effects on the local roads with the increase of Traffic. The roads are already congested and any issue on the M6 already causes chaos and gridlock on many surrounding roads without the additional vehicles this scheme will bring."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carol Megarity
"I object to this application as I am concerned about the negative effect it will have on the increased traffic through Penkridge, on the A449 and the A5. The unemployment leave is already at low in the area any anyone who works there will also drive a vehicle, bringing yet more cars / diesel / fumes to the area"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Celia Strickland
"As a local resident I totally oppose the construction on local greenbelt land. The proposed site will massively increase local traffic on the A5 and the A449 to and from the site. Prevention of constant day and night heavy goods vehicles coming through our village will be impossible. At present the A5 from the motorway to Gailey island already often stretches to the motorway slip road. I cannot see how the extra lorries will be accommodated. Proposed extra jobs will mean more traffic as the '8,500' extra jobs cannot be made up of local people. There are other hubs in the locality and their failure should be a lesson learnt. another site in Stoke on Trent would be welcomed and not have the same environmental impact re greenbelt, rural,transport links and job availability "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Richards
"I think this is a further deterioration of the green belt around Featherstone. The village agreed to the addition of the additional motorway junctions when I was a child and despite being told it would not affect the village it has, the addiction would have a further negative effect on the environment, pollution, air quality, noise and the effects of the health of the local citizens. The roads are currently poorly maintained and this would have further negative effect on the condition and upkeep of local highways. This would also have a negative effect on the overall village environment ecologically. We have lost a huge amount of agricultural land over the last 40 years and this would be a further eroding to agricultural land and the overall countryside. Several business suffered with the addition of the orbital junction. I feel that this further addition will have further negative effect on local business. I feel that this location is wrong and that more suitable locations are available and I understand that the people of Featherstone have voted as such. Brownfield land would definitely be more suitable. Regional employment has not been considered properly and thousands of employees commuting from other regions could damage our local economy. This is NOT in accord with Local Planning Policy. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Hodson
"I object to this application because we need to protect the Green Belt, and will have a negative effect on traffic, local health, pollution, noise and air quality."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Diana Mckinley
"The A5 and A449 are very busy roads and are under extreme pressure when the M6 and M54 close or have holdups. Heavy lorries will use the surrounding lanes to avoid traffic and as shortcuts even though the lanes are too narrow. Four Ashes Industrial Estate is expanding and absorbing a large factory from Cannock.It already generates a large amount of traffic The jobs created will cause traffic with people commuting into the area. We are an area .of low unemployment. North Staffordshire and areas of West Midlands have high unemployment and brown field sites "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Diana Poore
"I object to this application because the West Midland Interchange will take away a very large acreage of greenbelt land in an area which has agricultural and recreational use. The Staffs and Worcester canal runs through the area. It is also adjacent to the reservoirs. There will be a vast amount of extra traffic generated. The vast number of HGVs, vans and employees transport will impact detrimentally on the roads serving the area. The roads are already often very congested. This project will cause air pollution, noise and have a negative effect on the ecology of a large area of countryside. We do not want an industrial site as enormous as this encroaching on our rural environment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma Gregory
"I strongly oppose the West Midlands Interchange Save our green belt and rural life. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Squires
"I object to this application because I am concerned about protecting the Green Belt and that this proposal is not in accord with Local Planning Policy. I feel that the location is wrong and that Brownfield land would be eminently more suitable. I am also concerned about the negative effects on the Local Highways and the increase in traffic pollution. Forecasts predicting 18,000 extra vehicles per day (inc 6,000 HGV's) are frightening. Not only will the local road network be unable to cope, additionally local residents will suffer detrimental effects from huge amounts of extra CO2 emissions every day. At a time when Birmingham is considering introducing a city centre clean air zone charge targeting high polluting vehicles, is it fair to inflict massive air pollution on the local population of this rural location? "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Wharton
"My reasons for objecting to the proposed West Midlands Interchange are as follows: Traffic will be increased on already busy roads (particularly at peak times). The extra pollution caused by this increase in traffic will contribute to poor air quality. The deterimental effect this prosposal will have on our environment means a loss of beautiful countryside and endangers our wildlife as well as having a negative effect on flora/fauna. The urban sprawl from the M54 is already taking place and this proposal (if it goes ahead) would be built on green belt land which should be protected. If we continue to build on 'green belt' there will be no open spaces. There are plenty of 'brownfield' sites - why aren't we making the most of using this brownfield land? This proposal will have such a negative effect on the environment. We must continue to protect and respect our countryside - not only for ourselves to benefit from but for future generations too."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julian Hayes
"Loss of green belt land when more suitable brown fields sites available."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lauren Greenhough
"I object to proposal of the West Midlands interchange due to the increase in traffic in the area which is unable to cope with an increase without even further building and the use of land which is set out to be green space "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lisa Currie
"I object to this application due to the increased amount of traffic on surrounding areas and pollution this will cause. Morning rush hour is already busy and does not move when there is an accident on the M6 as all traffic then use A5 & A449. This will become unbearable for commuters and this will also effect small local businesses."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Madeline Jones
"This proposal would greatly increase traffic on the A5 and A449 an estimated 18,624 vehicles per day an extra 6319 HGV’s every day. 150,000 tons of traffic extra per day and 16.3 tons of extra CO2 emissions every day. Contributing to poor air quality and poor health. I live in a surrounding village and the impact of SMART motorway is already a concern re noise and emissions. This proposal would build over a large amount of Greenbelt land. The scheme is inappropriate for this rural location and an attack on greenbelt land. This proposal will create jobs but it is likely given the location that the people employed will come from a wide area thus adding to further local traffic.NOTE:local unemployment is currently less than 1% "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Malcolm Gadsby
"I would like to register an objection to the development of the proposed West Midlands Interchange for the following reasons: a. the need to protect the Greenbelt, b. the loss of agricultural land and countryside, and c. the negative effect on local fauna and flora."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marilyn Buckham
"I have several major objections to the proposed West Midlands Interchange- The Gailey Freight Hub: 1. It will have a negative effect on the environment in terms of pollution, noise and pollution. 2.There will be a huge increase in traffic on the A449 and A5 which could also result in an increase in traffic in Crateford Lane. 3.This is the wrong location because there are brownfield areas of land available which will therefore not... 4.result in loss of agricultural land and countryside. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martin Pugh
"With so much greenbelt land to be built on to provide warehousing space, one has to ask why such a large development is not being conduction on brownfield sites that are actually within the West Midland areas of high unemployment? I know of sites next to Bescott Sidings in Wednesbury that are still empty many years after the companies closed down and the town as a whole has high economic inactivity. These areas are right next to the motorway network. You must question any planning activity that prioritises greenbelt development while such brownfield sites remain unused. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Bunce
"I feel that this proposal will destroy the feel of the local area, cause mass congestion to an already heavely congested part of the motorway network and have a negative impact on the quality of life for me and my fellow locals due to increased traffic and noise pollution. I feel that there is no inherent benifit for the local population and the quality of their lives."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Sadler-Brookes
"I object to this application because of the very negative effect that the increase of vehicular traffic will make on the local highways and environment, especially the increase of traffic proceeding east along the A5 to the hub as there is no direct connection to the M56 other than along the already overcrowded interchange with A449 and the I54 industrial estate. Heavy goods vehicles already largely avoid this route to the M6, preferring to use the much smaller A5 so avoiding the bottleneck. Additionally with very low unemployment locally, most employees on the site will have to travel in from a considerable distance further increasing traffic in the vicinity. A more suitable location would be in the Stoke area which has Brownfield Land rather the Green Belt and has a more serious unemployment position."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Alan Peate
"I disagree with Gailey Hub Development because of the destruction of green belt, pollution of the atmosphere due to extra traffic. The loss of farm land and its effect on the wildlife. There is are more appropriate sites that could be re-developed rather than using green belt land. On the 29th Sept 2018 there was an R.T.A on the M6 between junc 10 and junc 12. The result of this was instant gridlock on the A5, the A449 and the side roads. If any increase in traffic effected this area on a daily basis the result would be constant overload of both the local area and motorway as at present all roads are carrying in excess of vehicles that they were designed for, or ever expected to carry; this RTA happened on a Saturday morning, if this had been a normal weekday the effects and results could have been much worse eg. disruption of school run, emergency vehicles struggling for access and consequent increase of pollution. The Gailey Hub Development has no benefit for the local economy, and will have a negative effect on climate change."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr John Martin Cook
"I object to the planning application on the grounds that it will seriously decrease the amount of greenbelt land in the area in question and will increase massively the amount of heavy vehicle traffic in the nearby residential village of Brewood and the surrounding area generally."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Maurice Botham
"In my opinion the proposed W.M.I would make only negative contributions to local communities, principally in the form of increased pollution with its attendant health risks and vastly increased traffic flows on already busy roads that are often under extra pressure whenever there are problems on the M6. A substantial area of greenbelt, habitat and wildlife will be lost forever. A W.M.I. would encourage the development of an urban/industrial sprawl along the corridor of the A449. There would be a significant reduction in agricultural land at a time when future food security should be an important planning consideration."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Celsus.h Roberts
"I strongly object to the west midlands interchange being constructed & the Gailey Freight hub development. Please, Planning Inspectorate refuse consent due to the following concerns. Our green belt must be protected & not eroded, especially as other more suitable locations including brownfield land are available. An increase of traffic on the A5 & A449 would be unacceptable. I live 2 miles from Gailey Island & when attending hospital in Cannock or Stafford I have to allow 1 hour due to the volume of heavy traffic for journeys which should take 15min-20min. The M6 north & south also impacts traffic due to accidents & road works diverting traffic to A449 & A5. Likewise pollution, air quality & noise levels would be devastating to the residents of our South Staffordshire villages, having negative effects on health. These issues are also of national concerns, in fact global. The loss of agricultural land would be a negative on ecology of our local flora & fauna. I respectfully request that the Planning application be refused."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Janet Mciluenna
"The greenbelt should be protected and there are other more suitable locations including brownfield land. There will be a negative effect on the environment ie pollution/ air quality and noise. This will create a great deal of extra traffic and the surrounding roads, especially the A5 will not be able to cope. It will create a loss of agricultural land and countryside. I vehemently disagree with this planning application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nolan Harvey
"I live in Wheaton Aston which is just under 5 miles from the proposed Interchange and wish to register my objection to the development. I object based on the increased pollution which will affect myself as an [redacted] and my young children; the need to protect this stretch of green belt and associated loss of countryside; the negative effect on the already busy A5 and A449 with increased traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patrick Megarity
"This site is 'bordered' by four villages Brewood, Coven, Calf Heath and Penkridge. The estimated number of vehicles which would have to access the M6 through Penkridge, if the motorway is closed between junctions 12 and13, would bring the village to a standstill. Some vehicles may wish to use the A449 through Penkridge irrespective of any motorway problems. There would be no job benefits to the local community as unemployment is currently negative."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter H.S.Kelley
"Traffic flow in Brewood Some 83% of employees are expected to travel by car throughout a 24 hour period. The roads around Brewood are not suitable for such high volumes of traffic particularly in commuter periods. The roads through the village could become even more of a rat-run than at present. Noise The 24/7 operation will create much nighttime noise in what is at present a quiet village at night."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Middleton
"We strongly object to this application because: • The proposed development is within designated Green Belt the development which would have a devastating effect on the ecology of the area. Approaching 700 acres of Green Belt countryside will be affected which would result in loss of the areas eco system, local flora and fauna, destroy wild life and result in the loss of many mature trees. Allowing the development of Green Belt compromises protection from urban sprawl, the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment, and sets a precedence of potential future further industrial development. There are no special circumstances to overcome the harm the development would bring to the Green Belt. • With a predicted increase in excess of 18000 vehicles a day and over 6000 extra heavy goods vehicles per day either entering or leaving the development on a 24 hour 7 day week basis this would have a severe and devastating impact on the existing local road network. Vehicle numbers of this magnitude would without doubt bring about total chaos to the areas roads by causing clogging of the already bursting road system. This additional volume of traffic which together with the three new proposed islands would have the effect of slowing traffic flow even further. The A5 west, the A5 east between the A449 at Gailey and M6, and A449 north from Gailey, through Penkridge up to the M6 Junction 13 are all single lane roads unsuitable for carrying high volumes of Heavy Goods Vehicles. These latter two sections of roadway are at times extremely congested and can and be and are reduced to gridlock for what can be hours on end when an incident has occurred on the M6 between Junctions 12 and 13 when motor way traffic is regularly diverted north or south along the totally unsuitable road A449 through Penkridge. • The predicted number of Heavy Goods Vehicle movements will, without doubt, be a significant contributor in the reduction of air quality. With up to 16.3 tons of additional CO2 every day air pollution levels can only increase with a resultant negative effect on the local health and given that air pollution is proved to be linked to around 4000 premature deaths per year with transport movements accounting for around 25% of the countries greenhouse gas emissions this development can only add to the problem by causing a potential concentration of pollution to local communities. • An unprecedented increase in noise and vibration will be bought about by not only the increase in Heavy Goods Vehicle movements but also the up to 10 trains per day necessary to service the development. These trains comprising freight wagons of up to 775 metres in length will constitute a continual source of pollution, noise and vibration with the added risk of possible structural damage to properties located adjacent rail tracks. As train movements through necessity are likely to be made during night time periods in order to eliminate conflict with passenger train schedules this can only exacerbate the nuisance and disturbance to those living nearby the site and railway lines. • Consideration to regional employment has not been given. Currently there are very low levels of unemployment in South Staffordshire. The 8500 jobs being suggested that the development will bring to the area is both over optimistic and not based on any credible evidence. It is likely some employment would be provided by businesses relocating onto the development from other existing locations but these would bring some of their existing employees from their present location. Other new job opportunities are likely to be lower paid automated warehouse jobs that more than likely will need to be filled by people from outside the area thus bringing about further road and rail congestion and air pollution from an increase of people either commuting to the area or relocating to the area and bringing about further pressure on already much overburdened local housing education and medical services. • We feel that the proposed location is inappropriate firstly because the 2012 Black Country & Southern Staffordshire Regional Logistics Sites Study concluded that there is no need for a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange in the location of the proposed development and that Strategic Rail Freight Interchange locations should be considered over a much larger area than South Staffordshire and the Black Country. Indeed an argument exists that the location of these facilities should extend at least over the West Midlands and perhaps the Midlands as a whole and secondly because it is not in accord with Local Planning Policy. • The proposed development is in extremely close proximity to the villages of Penkridge, Gailey, Calf Heath, Coven and Brewood. Its overbearing and unacceptably high density is out of scale and character in terms of its appearance in comparison to existing developments in the vicinity. Its considerable visual impact would without doubt affect the character of what are rural surrounding neighbour hoods and bring about loss of privacy for local residents in terms of becoming overlooked and with an increase in both noise and air pollution from plant, equipment and rail and road vehicle manoeuvring movements during and ongoing operation . • Alternative locations should be considered for a development of this type and magnitude that are both in need of redevelopment and are more appropriate for this type of use. A Brownfield Site Redevelopment and Repurposing First Policy should be adopted which would be more appropriate with respect to noise, pollution and visual impact caused and has more suitable and established road infrastructure to meet the Heavy Goods Vehicle movement criteria required rather than a policy that brings about the overburdening of local unsuitable South Staffordshire rural roads and industrialises Agricultural and Green Belt land bringing about the loss for ever of the areas wildlife and ecosystems. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
R P Lister
"Negative effect on the environment Pollution of air quality Negative effect on local highways & traffic Negative effect on local health due to increased emissions A more suitable brown field site location would be better"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Pucknell
"I object to this application on the grounds that: it will increase traffic flow on roads within a short distance of my home , increase air pollution, destroy a large area of green belt land and increase noise. I consider that a site nearer to Junction 13 on the M6 would allow vehicles travelling to or from the site to join or leave the motorway without the need to occupy roads such as the A5 and A449 "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sheelagh Worrall
"As a resident of Shareshill, South Staffordshire I am extremely concerned about the adverse effects on the population in the areas affected by WMI. There is quite a lot of evidence available now that such pollution as will be experienced will have an very detrimental effect on the health and lives of the people of this area. It is completely ridiculous to have such a large development on an area of green belt and I am sure that there are plenty of other areas much more suitable for such a railway interchange - such as Bescot, Crewe and Derby. Traffic congestion is already an immense problem in the area and it is absolutely impossible to deal with any more traffic than we have at present."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon M Phipps
"I object to this proposed development on the ground outlined below: Adverse impact on the local highway network; Adverse impact on local flora and fauna; The location and layout concept is wrong for the development proposed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Hayes
"Loss of green belt land when far more appropriate brown field sites available."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tim ludlow
"I object to the development of the proposal of the West Midlands interchange due to the increased volume of traffic on the local roads resulting in further infrastructure being needed. The destruction of green belt land and the negative effect this could have in the local villages and the surrounding communities."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Valerie Kitchen
"I object to this application because I strongly believe we should protect the Green Belt. The impact on the environment with particular reference to pollution, air quality and noise will be marked. The massive increase in traffic will not only clog up the surrounding areas, but will also add to the pollution issues. The loss of agricultural land will be detrimental not only to the countryside, but again the environment because of the lessening of any potential carbon capture. As a result, this will have a negative effect on the health of local residents. Surely there must be a Brownfield site that would be more suitable. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Wendy Cox
"Negative effect on local highways and traffic. Negative effect on local environment due to increased pollution and noise. Protection of green belt. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anna Kelley
"I am objecting to the above development on the grounds of the increased traffic, noise, the use of green belt land and polution. Hundreds of lorries exuding diesel into the atmosphere could affect the health of local residents and their families. The offer of parks does not compensate for the loss of the natural habitat of green belt land. The traffic in this area becomes gridlocked whenever there is an incident on the M6 and the addition of lorries and employees in their own cars travelling to and from work will only add to the problem."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carrieanbe Hyde
"I object to this application because it is destroying precious green belt .. will have a negative effect on environment . Will greatly increase noise pollution .. air pollution and light pollution .. it will have an adverse effect on local roads especially the A5 .. which will innturn wffect my health and my children’s health as we live on the A5 ... ecology flora and fauna will be lost as well as agricultural land .. this is a selfish proposition when there are more suitable Brownfield sites available "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charlotte-Anne
"I object to the development of the West Midlands interchange due to the loss of green belt land especially since this development would be better suited to a brown land area. The local roads are not set up for the increased traffic especially the use of HGVs and commuting will be a particular problem increasing the level of traffic dramatically. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Clifford
"I am deeply concerned regarding the proposed development of the West Midland Interchange and would like to object to this application on the following grounds. It is vital that we protect the green belt and this proposed development will have a very serious impact on the green belt in this area. There must surely be more suitable locations available on brownfield sites where the impact of such a development will not be so great. Also with all of the present debates at government level regarding clean air, this development would have a very serious negative effect on the air quality in this area and surrounding towns and villages caused by the vast increase in heavy lorries and other traffic that will be created. This extra heavy traffic will also cause other problems for the local people, including noise and clogging up the local roads especially when there is a problem on the M6 motorway which is a very regular occurrence. I do not feel any thought has gone in to this application regarding the effects this will have on the area itself, but more especially the devastating impact on the lives of all the people who live in the surrounding villages. I therefore would like to register my strong objection to the proposals to build the West Midlands Interchange. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Hudson
"I am concerned about the negative impact on the local environment, including (but not limited to) - noise - air quality Furthermore I am concerned that the expected volume of traffic would exceed the capacity of the planned road modifications, and sceptical that there is scope to upgrade this local road network sufficiently to substantially mitigate the increased traffic flow. Alternative suitable locations are potentially available for this development, including brownfield land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cynthia Middleton
"I strongly object to this application because: • The proposed development is within designated Green Belt the development which would have a devastating effect on the ecology of the area. Approaching 700 acres of Green Belt countryside will be affected which would result in loss of the areas eco system, local flora and fauna, destroy wild life and result in the loss of many mature trees. Allowing the development of Green Belt compromises protection from urban sprawl, the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment, and sets a precedence of potential future further industrial development. There are no special circumstances to overcome the harm the development would bring to the Green Belt. • With a predicted increase in excess of 18000 vehicles a day and over 6000 extra heavy goods vehicles per day either entering or leaving the development on a 24 hour 7 day week basis this would have a severe and devastating impact on the existing local road network. Vehicle numbers of this magnitude would without doubt bring about total chaos to the areas roads by causing clogging of the already bursting road system. This additional volume of traffic which together with the three new proposed islands would have the effect of slowing traffic flow even further. The A5 west, the A5 east between the A449 at Gailey and M6, and A449 north from Gailey, through Penkridge up to the M6 Junction 13 are all single lane roads unsuitable for carrying high volumes of Heavy Goods Vehicles. These latter two sections of roadway are at times extremely congested and can and be and are reduced to gridlock for what can be hours on end when an incident has occurred on the M6 between Junctions 12 and 13 when motor way traffic is regularly diverted north or south along the totally unsuitable road A449 through Penkridge. • The predicted number of Heavy Goods Vehicle movements will, without doubt, be a significant contributor in the reduction of air quality. With up to 16.3 tons of additional CO2 every day air pollution levels can only increase with a resultant negative effect on the local health and given that air pollution is proved to be linked to around 4000 premature deaths per year with transport movements accounting for around 25% of the countries greenhouse gas emissions this development can only add to the problem by causing a potential concentration of pollution to local communities. • An unprecedented increase in noise and vibration will be bought about by not only the increase in Heavy Goods Vehicle movements but also the up to 10 trains per day necessary to service the development. These trains comprising freight wagons of up to 775 metres in length will constitute a continual source of pollution, noise and vibration with the added risk of possible structural damage to properties located adjacent rail tracks. As train movements through necessity are likely to be made during night time periods in order to eliminate conflict with passenger train schedules this can only exacerbate the nuisance and disturbance to those living nearby the site and railway lines. • Consideration to regional employment has not been given. Currently there are very low levels of unemployment in South Staffordshire. The 8500 jobs being suggested that the development will bring to the area is both over optimistic and not based on any credible evidence. It is likely some employment would be provided by businesses relocating onto the development from other existing locations but these would bring some of their existing employees from their present location. Other new job opportunities are likely to be lower paid automated warehouse jobs that more than likely will need to be filled by people from outside the area thus bringing about further road and rail congestion and air pollution from an increase of people either commuting to the area or relocating to the area and bringing about further pressure on already much overburdened local housing education and medical services. • We feel that the proposed location is inappropriate firstly because the 2012 Black Country & Southern Staffordshire Regional Logistics Sites Study concluded that there is no need for a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange in the location of the proposed development and that Strategic Rail Freight Interchange locations should be considered over a much larger area than South Staffordshire and the Black Country. Indeed an argument exists that the location of these facilities should extend at least over the West Midlands and perhaps the Midlands as a whole and secondly because it is not in accord with Local Planning Policy. • The proposed development is in extremely close proximity to the villages of Penkridge, Gailey, Calf Heath, Coven and Brewood. Its overbearing and unacceptably high density is out of scale and character in terms of its appearance in comparison to existing developments in the vicinity. Its considerable visual impact would without doubt affect the character of what are rural surrounding neighbour hoods and bring about loss of privacy for local residents in terms of becoming overlooked and with an increase in both noise and air pollution from plant, equipment and rail and road vehicle manoeuvring movements during and ongoing operation . • Alternative locations should be considered for a development of this type and magnitude that are both in need of redevelopment and are more appropriate for this type of use. A Brownfield Site Redevelopment and Repurposing First Policy should be adopted which would be more appropriate with respect to noise, pollution and visual impact caused and has more suitable and established road infrastructure to meet the Heavy Goods Vehicle movement criteria required rather than a policy that brings about the overburdening of local unsuitable South Staffordshire rural roads and industrialises Agricultural and Green Belt land bringing about the loss for ever of the areas wildlife and ecosystems."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Darren Hyde
"This proposal is descreation if green belt land flora fauna and I cannot believe that it has even got to stage when there are more suitsble Brownfield sites which should be regenerated .. there is nothing positive about this plan .. the roads surrounding including the A5 where I live cannot cope as it is if the motorways have problems so how are local people supposed to get anywhere ... the effects on health from car pollution and noise pollution will be terrible ... this is a pretty corner of the midlands if it is ruined now it will be ruined forever for future generations and that is a big cost "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Broadhurst
"Protection of Green Belt. Large increase in the amount of traffic, particularly HGV and LGV. Dramatic effect on local wildlife. Grave concerns about environmental effect regarding pollution, air quality,noise, and general disturbance to a relatively quiet area. Loss of a huge swathe of agricultural land. A totally unsuitable location for a transport hub. initial misrepresentation as a Rail Hub, when it is no such thing."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Brook
"I object to the West Midlands Interchange Proposal. The proposal will damage and consume a very large area of greenbelt land. It will have substantial impact on the local highways and traffic, and in particular the A5/A449, which are already heavily loaded. Traffic in the area will increase substantially, which will damage local businesses and added congestion will damage the lives of local residents. The scheme appears to be justified on the basis of rail freight but much of the scheme is not directly related to this and the developers have not shown that they have the rail slots that justify a scheme on anything like the scale proposed and it is highly questionable that there will be enough local companies requiring a rail connection. The fundamental basis for the scheme is flawed and it cannot be justified. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Langford
"The Greenbelt needs to be protected, it provides important wildlife habitat and is even more important considering the effects of global warming, we should be planting trees not removing them and replacing with concrete structures. Not all of the warehouses will use the rail link,there are plenty of brownfield sites around the west midlands that can be developed if additional warehouses are indeed required. There is low unemployment in the area, the claimed employment levels will result in thousands of additional vehicles using the local roads as public transport is poor. Add this to the additional HGV movements and the area will suffer badly from additional road congestion,road damage,air pollution, light pollution, noise and litter to which i object. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Alan W. Evans
"I attended an earlier viewing of the intention to build a large rail intersection. The assessment of the associated traffic, the number of lorries lorries, the number of cars has been greatly underestimated. Even if this were not so the local A5 and the M6 are often queueing due just to volume of traffic but also due to accidents (often caused by lorries), leading to excessive traffic on other roads eg A449, A34, M54 in the area. Increased traffic means more pollution by definition, but the choice of the site is a long way away from any major possible user of the interchange so all goods would have to travel further just to get there than for a different site making the use of the interchange dubious at all and also making pollution even worse. You will also know that in this local area, there is little unemployment and so employees will have to 'drive' to the site increasing traffic and pollution still further. I have not even mentioned green belt.... and other brown belt areas perhaps being closer to anticipated users. From what I can gather, the area will turn into a very large storage facility and the rail interchange will be a very minor part of the process, that is if the rail interchange part ever materialises."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Skidmore
"My reasons for objection are: 1) The negative effect on the local environment/pollution/air quality and noise due to the size of this proposed development. 2) The negative effect on local highways (including cross country 'shortcut' lanes) and increase in traffic not only due to the increase in lorries but also the increase in cars due to the number of proposed jobs. 3)It is the wrong location because other more suitable locations are available including brownfield land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jackie Hipkiss
"I wish to register my objection to the Proposed West Midland Interchange- The Gailey Freight Hub for the following reasons. -the plans show a complete disregard for the protection of the green belt, when there is so much brownfield land that could be used instead. - the negative effect on local traffic and road networks. Currently Penkridge and Stafford and local villages become totally gridlocked when the M5 is blocked. If the Gailey Freight Hub goes ahead the effect on local villages and communities will be even more devastating as people will be unable to get around their local area due to being trapped in traffic jams with the extra volume of some 9000 plus vehicles - the extra pollutants and emissions created by the amount of traffic that will needed to support the proposed Gailey Freight Hub will have a massive negative effect on the local ecology and concerns are raised about the protection of the local environment. -the loss of agriculture land and country side will be detrimental to the local environment. - the negative effect on the air quality and the excessive noise that the extra traffic will create "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Hopley
"I feel that the intended hub will have a detrimental effect on an already busy village. Penkridge does not have the capacity to support the massive increase in road use that this hub will generate. The pollution and risk to life with an increase in traffic will have a negative impact on the lives of people that live here. I bought my home here before this project was proposed and I don’t want it. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julie Bagnall
"My main concerns about the West Midlands Interchange are as follows. For a start, it is called WEST MIDLANDS Rail Hub, but is in fact in SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE. Why should it impact on our local area when it is not going to benefit us? The local road infrastructure is not suitable for an increase in traffic of this size, whether the depot is sited at Gailey or the other proposed site at Dunston. From Gailey to Junction 13 of the M6, there is only a short amount of dual carriageway. The rest is single carriageway, with speed limits ranging between30 and 60MPH. The A5, in both directions is also single carriageway. These roads also have a lot of slow moving farm vehicles at times at the moment which causes traffic to be slow. The roads are frequently grid locked if there is a problem on the motorway or surrounding roads, which then causes havoc in quite a wide area. This has a knock on effect on local traffic, going to work, school etc. Local businesses also suffer. The volume of traffic would also impact on the already full lay-bys. There does not seem to be any provision for parking. Lorries park anywhere already, (Last night they were in bus stops, Penkridge market entrance, on the forecourt of the Beacon Charity shop and the slip road to turn left to Levedale) because of a lack of facilities. The "Truck Stops" in the area (The Hollies, Truckers Rest Standeford Cafe and Hilton Park Services) are also well over capacity every night and this also impacts on the area. The mess in the lay-bys and on grass verges along the A449 is already disgusting. I frequently walk along the footpath and have to negotiate all sorts of rubbish from bottles of urine, human faeces with strategically placed toilet paper, waste food,food wrappers etc. The smell is awful! The Interchange will impact on the Green Belt. Why has the old Rugely Powerstation site not been considered, if they are determined to build this in Staffordshire?. It has already been developed and is on an existing train line. I am sure that there are also other sites in the WEST MIDLANDS that could also be considered This will also have an adverse effect on wildlife and farming in our area. During the construction and afterwards. Animal deaths on the roads are already high. We have been told it will create extra jobs. From past experience, local people are not considered for the jobs and the workforce will be recruited elsewhere, thus bringing even more traffic to the area. I very much doubt the jobs for local people will last and will probably only benefit the construction industry. The buildings will be a blot on the landscape. Industrial areas are slowly creeping into the green areas. Soon there will be non left! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kathryn Smith
"concerned about the added traffic on already congested roads,Stafford Road,Cannock Road and A5.Although jobs being created will not benefit locals."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kay Brew
"I object to this planning application, because I am concerned about the negative effects on the environment, in terms of increased air quality ,pollution and noise. I feel it would impact negatively on public health , and the prospect of long term health problems should not be ignored. Surely, this can never be considered as a preferable site, when it is highly populated, and there are alternative (brownfield) sites available ? "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Davies
"My reasons for objection are: 1. we need to protect the green belt 2. it will be a negative effect on the environment ,pollution, air quality and noise 3. also negative effect on the local roads and traffic 4. also on the local flora & fauna (ecology) 5. a great loss of agricultural land and countryside 6. it is the wrong location because other more suitable locations are available including Brownfield land.."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lindsey Baker
"I object because of the amount of traffic that will be travelling along the A5. There is already a considerable amount of traffic especially on the part that comes from Gailey towards Telford, where there is no traffic calming in place. I also think that the loss of our green belt land would be wrong there seems to be too much green belt land being built on and I am sure there is other areas possibly where areas are run down to put the hub. I live in a Cottage along the A5 and while I know its a main Road the sheer amount and speeds of traffic is not acceptable where are our speed cameras where are our traffic calming (traffic lights etc) how come this stretch has been unrecognised for traffic calming? Back to the hub well this is only going to make traffic, noise, pollution and air quality worse than it is already. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mandy Georgina Gibbons
"I wish to completely and utterly register my objection to this West Midlands Interchange"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Anthony Gibbons
"I wish to register my objection to the West Midlands Interchange."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Cooper
"To whom it may concern, I object to this application due to the following reasons: - the negative effect on the environment (noise and pollution) from increased traffic and business activities, - loss of agricultural land and countryside - increase in road traffic and the negative effect this will have on local highways - it is not in accordance with local planning policy I feel that there are other more suitable brownfield sites available in the area that should be used instead. Yours faithfully, Mark Cooper"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Matthew Crook
"I object to the development of the West Midlands interchange in its current suggested location. The main reason for this is that the loss of greenbelt land for this use concerns me - especially given that other locations would be available on brownfield land. I also have concerns that the local road infrastructure is currently insufficient to support the additional traffic that would be produced - not only in terms of the HGVs but also the extra traffic commuting to the interchange - Gailey island and the M54 island already get very busy and conjested with the current level of traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michaella Gibbons
"I wish to register my objection to the West Midlands Interchange."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Millie Rose Hyde-Jones
"I am only young but I like where I live and I would like future generations to enjoy where we live .. it is selfish to chop up and destroy green belt land when there are Brownfield sites that require re-use ... we cannot keep destroying landscapes then leaving them to rot when we have no use for them as it is easier to ruin fresh green fields.. sites should be regenerated and re-used for future generations and countryside should be left alone for the future .. we should be protecting not ruining our open spaces ... I am firmly against the destruction of the countryside and the negative effects of light noise and air quality that will ensue."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Brian Birch
"The proposed interchange would take over 700 acres of green belt, which would include warehousing 30M tall on what is considered to be some of the remaining but diminishing countryside. Not only would green belt be replaced by industrial building, but it is estimated an extra 18,000 vehicles per day would be using already overcrowded motorway and rural roads & lanes. Also there would be negative effect on environmental pollution, air quality and noise. With the proposed HS2 also proposed in the area, it would surely it would surely turn S.Staffs countryside into just another urban township."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr M.H. Allcott
"I object to this application because I am concerned about. Loss of Agricultural Land & Countryside. Protecting the Green Belt. Negative Effects on the Environment / Pollution / Air Quality / Noise / Light. I object to this application because I am concerned the Location is wrong, because…There are other more suitable locations available. and is not in accord with Local Planning Policy. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Peter Carey
"The principle of a rail hub is sound- in fact when I first heard of the proposal my reaction was " it will help to get a lot of HGV's off the roads in this area" It appears that I could not have been more wrong. The environmental damage to a wide area around the hub will be immense, quite apart from the damage to the lives of everyone living within this area - and they and their descendants will have to live with all the problems the hub will cause far into the future. These problems are already evident whenever there is a full or partial closure of the M6 anywhere between junctions 11 and 13 To summarise my view: Right idea, Wrong location"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Bobby Morrell
"Traffic through Penkridge FAL suggestion that ANPR camers will be used to stop lorries coming through the village unworkable. Not what ANPR is for. Please tell the truth. We already have lots of lorries coming through Penkridge from the motorway. This area does not have low unemployment so staff coming from outside- extra traffic. C02 emissions pollution- childrens health cut village in 1/2 unable to get to the doctors. Harm to the environment green belt. You have other places to put the hub which are more suitable. Who is gaining from this? Who in the government has viewed this? openness transparency & impartiality how we wish I understand the railway is not big enough"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs H Fellows
"As a local resident who uses all the roads surrounding the proposed development I wish to express my concerns in the following areas.. The increase in traffic on a road network that regularly has to cope with M6 traffic diversions both north and south directions.. The devastation caused to the beautiful countryside that we are unfortunately losing at an alarming rate in the U.K.. The increase in fumes from the extra heavy goods vehicles and other vehicles that will be using the site. This area is surrounded by villages and properties who’s residents and families will suffer from the increased exposure. This area is not industrial, it is green belt and should be given protection. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Anthony Blakemore
"I feel this development will have a major effect on local traffic and highways , more houses have just had planning accepted in coven 80+ houses =100 extra vehicles on lanes to small for traffic now ,pollution is also a serious concern we already have the chemical plant at the four ashes we do not need more pollutants .P A Blakemore"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Phil Scott
"The proposed West Midlands Interchange is wrong for so many reasons. The use of a greenfield site for this sort of development is morally wrong. There are a number of Brownfield sites around the Midlands where housing development would be difficult but would be much more suited to industrial regeneration. Rugely power station being a prime example. Where the pressure on housing development is so critical, if greenfield has to be sacrificed housing must be the priority. If the proposal is to reduce the amount of lorry movements it does not seem to work for this area. The M6, M5 and M42 are all working over capacity and the slightest interruption on and of these main arteries causes gridlock on the surrounding roads for hours. Current overnight closures on the M6 already cause miles of queues and delays of up to two hours. Adding another 6,000 lorries per day would surely overstretch the existing road capacity. An obvious solution for the increase in traffic would be to use the A449, either north to Stafford or South to Wolverhampton. The current upgrade of the road has taken nearly two years and caused disruption locally. Any traffic travelling north would travel through Penkridge, a village of 8,500 inhabitants where the doctor’s surgery is located on the Northwestern edge of the village, the wrong side of the A449 for 80% of the residents. Penkridge is also the Middle School for the area and the weight of traffic depositing an extra 17 tonnes of CO2 exactly where children from all the local villages are concentrated. The claim to create 8,500 jobs for locals is a conundrum. Unemployment is South Staffs is quoted as 1,700. Even if all these souls could commute another 6,800 workers would need to be found. These people would need to be housed, (more green fields disappearing) their children educated, their medical needs catered for and their cars added to the 8,500 lorries already planned. Local amenities would be swamped by such an influx. Offering to create two new community parks is insulting. The damage to the countryside, local wildlife and biodiversity by concreting over 700 acres of land is not negated by such a cynical offer. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rebecca Nightingale
"I object wholeheartedly on the proposed West Midlands Interchange, the reasons being are as follows: A negative effect on the local highways and traffic. The roads cannot cope with the amount of traffic as it is Loss of agricultural land and countryside Pollution and air quality will be effected Noise "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ronald Buckham
"I object to this development on the grounds that it will have a negative effect on the local environment(pollution, air quality, noise), it will have a negative effect on traffic congestion on all roads in the locality, it will destroy greenbelt land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma ratcliffe on behalf of Stuart Ratcliffe
"The West Midlands interchange will irreversibly damage the green belt land that is so crucial to the area. This damage will be furthered with the increase in traffic that will significantly impact the living conditions and air quality that people will have to endure in the local villages. Villages being the key word as we need to be protected. There are much more suitable sites for the rail hub that will provide jobs for the consortium who need them. Our area is not significantly affected by unemployment which means that the workers will be causing additional congestion and air pollution. The roads already struggle with the volume of traffic and it is difficult to commute in bad weather - this is not a suitable, or viable, option for this location. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tracey Richardson
"I object to this application because I am concerned the chosen location is totally unsuitable. It is too close to busy villages and an already congested road network. The amount of extra traffic will have a detrimental affect, causing traffic jams at the Gailey Island. There are already queues of traffic at this location during rush hours. Plus it is already difficult and dangerous when pulling out onto the A5 at Ivetsey Bank and there have been a number of traffic incidents at this junction. The extra lorries and staff vehicles will make utterly impossible. The developers are claiming that it will help the local unemployed but we do not have a high unemployment rate anyway!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alistair Cowie
"I object to the planning application for the proposed West Midland Interchange because I believe it will have a detrimental effect on the whole local area and beyond. It will have a negative effect on local highways and traffic which are only just coping now and cannot cope when incidents occur on nearby motorways when traffic spills on to local roads. It will have a negative effect on the environment also, with increased pollution, increased noise, reduction in air quality, more light pollution. and a negative effect on local flora and fauna.We need to protect the green belt and the potential loss of agriculture and countryside. I believe this is the wrong location because other more suitable locations are available including brownfield land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anne Hall
"As a member of Wildlife Trust it concerns me the amount of habitat that will be destroyed on the Green Belt.Also the whole environment will be polluted due to the large amount of emissions which will result from increased traffic and HGVs. The A449 which will be affected is already congested whenever there is a problem on the M6.We live in a village off the A449 and it is our route to towns in each direction.Extra traffic will have a negative effect on our life and wellbeing. There appear to be other more suitable locations for this development which I feel should take precedence. Do not destroy our wish to live near the country side and enjoy it ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brenda Dyke
"This new Interchange would not only be noisy day and night but the pollution would be unbearable.The main connecting roads the A5 and the A449 would be more congested than they are now.It seems that most people that are for this Interchange do not live in the affected area so would not have to worry about the many changes that would occur."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brian Williams
"I believe that the building of the West Midlands Interchange will cause damage to our green belt It will have a negative effect on local highways and traffic It will have a negative effect on the environment,pollution, air quality, and noise It will have a negative effect on flora & fauna A loss of agricultural land and countryside It is the wrong location more suitable locations are available "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bridget Parsons
"Far too much traffic. Already huge problems on M6/A5/449. Building going on in penkridge has already increased volume of traffic. Roads not kept in good state of repair. Doctors schools etc already full to capacity. Cannot remotely see the point of this project"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Colin Macpherson
"1. There are alternative sites available which have less impact upon the green belt at Featherstone and Dunston. The basis upon which the Developer claims these are unsuitable is fundamentally economic viability. 2. The volume of traffic generated by the scheme will have a negative impact upon the local environment and generate significant levels of noise and air pollution. The developer's own team advised that the volume of traffic will increase by 40%. 3. The proposal has limited transport improvements focussed upon access and egress from the site. There is no upgrade at the major junctions at the A5, M54 or M6. This will create significant traffic congestion and contribute further to the noise and air pollution levels described above. 4. The ecological impact will be significant and will effectively destroy the habitat for all wildlife."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Craig Perry
"I object to this application because I am concerned about:- Protecting the Green Belt Negative Effects on the Environment / Pollution / Air Quality / Noise / Light Negative Effects on the Local Highways and the Increase in Traffic Negative Effects on Local Health Negative Effects on the Local Flora & Fauna (Ecology) Loss of Agricultural Land & Countryside Negative Effects on Local Business I object to this application because I am concerned the Location is wrong, because There are other more suitable locations available Brownfield land would be more suitable Regional employment has not been considered properly Bussing in thousands of employees from other regions could damage our local economy And is not in accord with Local Planning Policy"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gail Wainwright
"I think we should protect the green belt, environment, air quality, flora and fauna, agricultural land and countryside. I also think there will be a negative effect on the local highways and traffic. There are better brownfield sites that could be used."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hazel Cowie
"I object to the proposed West Midlands Interchange - The Gailey Freight Hub on bullet points listed below . Increased traffic on surrounding roads, which already get congested, especially when problems on surrounding motorways use A449/A5 .Green belt impact, loss of habitat for wildlife and agricultural use .Environmental impact light/noise/ air quality .Not using brownfield sites"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Irene Dakin
"Protecting our green belt is important. Pollution,air quality and noise. Lots in the news at the moment on air quality, Birmingham heading it on diesel fumes at the moment, we don't want to be the same. Roads around here are not built for this, already gets grid locked if m6is out of action. Ecology will suffer from the air quality. Loss of countryside and farm land Wrong site for this when Brown field sites are available and other towns asking for it. Surrounding villages will see vehicles that are lost coming through or those trying to find alternative routes when gridlocked elsewhere"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Growcott
"Negative effect on the local highways and traffic. Negative effect on the environment, pollution, air quality and noise. Protecting the green belt as there are more suitable locations which are brownfield land in stoke for one. Loss of agriculture land and countryside."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jillian Evans
"It is in the wrong location as it is in rural Staffordshire as opposed to Urban and Industrial West Midlands"
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Credland
"I wish to object to the above application. My reasons being that the proposal will greatly increase traffic on the A% and A449 as well as building over a large area of Greenbelt land. Although I fully understand that this project will create jobs the people employed will come from a wide area thus adding to the increase in commercial traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John DC Evans
"Loss of Greenbelt and negative effect on local highways and traffic "
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Redshaw
"I wish to object to this proposal on the following grounds:- (1) It will have a considerable negative impact upon the Green Belt (2) There will be a negative impact upon the environment with increased air pollution and noise which will seriously affect the wildlife, trees, plants and habitats of the wildlife of the area (3) There will be a huge increase in heavy, commercial and private vehicular traffic which will have a significant negative impact upon our local highways and byeways (4) There will be a considerable loss of good agricultural land and general countryside (5) Brownfield sites should be developed for this type of proposal before taking vast areas of the Green Belt"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karen Perry
"I object to this application because I am concerned about:- Protecting the Green Belt Negative Effects on the Environment / Pollution / Air Quality / Noise / Light Negative Effects on the Local Highways and the Increase in Traffic Negative Effects on Local Health Negative Effects on the Local Flora & Fauna (Ecology) Loss of Agricultural Land & Countryside Negative Effects on Local Business I object to this application because I am concerned the Location is wrong, because There are other more suitable locations available Brownfield land would be more suitable Regional employment has not been considered properly Bussing in thousands of employees from other regions could damage our local economy And is not in accord with Local Planning Policy"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Leonard Henry Robinson
"Protect the green belt for future generations . "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Linda Jackson
"This is a rural location of green belt land which is totally unsuitable in many respects for this huge industrial development. The road infrastructure will never cope with the amount of extra traffic that will result from it. As a resident of the area I am very concerned about the noise, air pollution and light pollution that it will cause. The Canal Round House and canal basin at Gailey Wharf and also the reservoires and ancient woodlands will all be ruined by this blot on the landscape. This is just not the place for this, our countryside should be respected, once it's gone it will never be replaced, there are other places more suitable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Belfield
"I object to this application because:- 1) It is building in green belt which needs to be protected 2) It has a negative affect on the environment 3) It has a negative affect on pollution (and we live very close to the A5) 4) It has a negative affect on air quality 5) It has a negative affect on noise pollution from the additional traffic 6) It has a negative affect on local wildlife 7) It has a negative affect on local highways and traffic, the highways are already in a very poor condition 8) It has a negative affect on local health 9) It loses agricultural land and countryside 10) It will not bring the jobs predicted due to mechanisation and minimum staffing 11) It is the wrong location because other more suitable locations on brownfield land are better for all concerned 12) Once the warehouses are built even if the railway terminal isn't they will remain 13) The developers traffic studies are not representative of the proposed development 14) It will lead to extra rail traffic on the west coast mainline which is already running at capacity during the daytime and if the trains are during the night then that is additional noise pollution while residents are attempting to sleep "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Wainwright
"Protecting the Green belt including the wildlife that rely on it for food and shelter"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Amelia Berry
"I am writing to object to the said plans for West Midlands interchange. I believe it will have a massive effect on the local environment and as a mother to two young children I have serious concerns for the pollution and quality of the air in our surroundings. We already have quite a large volume of traffic here using Penkridge as a thoroughfare, I would hate to think of it getting worse. I'm sure there are better areas for the site to be placed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Alexander
"never has there been a time when we have all the knowledge of mistakes and consequences of our actions of previous planning consents given that has made a dreadful impact on people and the environment it should be constructed to be connected to HS2 in the potteries"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Antony Land
"I wish to register my objection to the above proposal to site an industrial freight hub in Four Ashes due to the following points: Destruction of greenbelt land for industrial use wholly unsuited to the surrounding area . Excessive noise and environmental pollution to the locality during construction and operation of the freight hub. Excessive increase of vehicular traffic to roads already struggling to cope with peak traffic demands not only during construction but also during operation as employees will not be local due to full employment in the local area. There are locations within the county where such a facility would be far more suitably sited."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carol Webb
"I wish to register my objection to the above proposal to site an industrial freight hub in Four Ashes due to the following points: Destruction of greenbelt land for industrial use wholly unsuited to the surrounding area . Excessive noise and environmental pollution to the locality during construction and operation of the freight hub. Excessive increase of vehicular traffic to roads already struggling to cope with peak traffic demands not only during construction but also during operation as employees will not be local due to full employment in the local area. There are locations within the county where such a facility would be far more suitably sited."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Blount
"I have been a resident in Penkridge for many years and wish to register my strong objection to the above scheme for the following reasons * the green belt is under severe pressure in South Staffordshire and this development would be a major blow,particularly to the area north of Penkridge. * Development in recent years has had already impacted on local wild life (disappearance of cuckoos, swallows and bats amongst others) and this development will only add to the destruction of wildlife). * Both the M6, and more particularly the A449 are severely congested through many parts of the day. This development will add huge increases to lorry traffic. The uncertainty of both rail demand from client companies and rail availability from the Railway network could increase further the volume of vehicles over numbers currently projected. * There is no provision for lorry overnighting. Even now, without the development lay-byes and some roads are blighted by lorries parking up over night. This, I believe will become a major problem if the development goes ahead. * When there are currently problems on the M6 - which is frequent - the A5 and A449 get gridlocked. With this development it would become unimaginable. * We were informed by the Developer lorries would be forbidden to travel North through Penkridge. I believe this is unenforceable. Real problems would occur particularly on market days. * The West Midlands is rich in brownfield sites which would be more suitable foe a development of this kind. * The development is not in accordance with Local Planning Policy. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Reynolds
"The sheer scale of this proposed development in this area cannot help but destroy the environment not only within its confines but also along the lines of communications leading to it. Fauna, flora and ultimately the people around this site will suffer for what? The 'green' way would be to redevelop a brownfield site in an area of high unemployment, perhaps not the cheapest option but one were it would probably be welcomed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dean Smith
"I object to this application because of the negative effect on: - Local highways and traffic - Local Health - pollution levels both noise and air - Loss of greenbelt Other more suitable locations are available, utilising brownfield land"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Delia Fowler
"I strongly object to this application because:- 1) It is building in GREEN BELT which is supposed to be protected. 2) It will have an enormously negative affect on the environment impacting on pollution (I live very close to the A5), air quality, noise from the additional traffic on what is already a very busy stretch of road, increasing traffic accidents and also detrimental to local wildlife 3) It will also impact heavily on the local highways and traffic, the roads are already in a sad state, pot holes galore!!! 4) It loses agricultural land and countryside - GREENBELT!!!! 5) It will not bring the jobs predicted due to mechanisation and minimum staffing 6) It is the wrong location because other more suitable locations on brownfield land are better for all concerned 7) Once the warehouses are built even if the railway terminal isn't they will remain 8) The developers traffic studies are not representative of the proposed development 9) It will lead to extra rail traffic on the west coast mainline which is already running at capacity during the daytime and if the trains are during the night then that is additional noise pollution while residents are attempting to sleep It is a travesty, shame on those promoting this. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Derek Harris
"I would like to submit my objection to the proposed interchange which would be built at Four Ashes, on land swest of junction 12 of the M6. This hub will create more traffic, more pollution and destroy the greenbelt."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Donna Land
"I wish to register my objection to the above proposal to site an industrial freight hub in Four Ashes due to the following points: Destruction of greenbelt land for industrial use wholly unsuited to the surrounding area . Excessive noise and environmental pollution to the locality during construction and operation of the freight hub. Excessive increase of vehicular traffic to roads already struggling to cope with peak traffic demands not only during construction but also during operation as employees will not be local due to full employment in the local area. There are locations within the county where such a facility would be far more suitably sited."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gareth Berry
"I object to this application because of the negative effect the increased levels of traffic will have on the local environment, pollution levels will increase as well noise and poor quality of air. There are more suitable locations for the said site, without destroying green belt land. Surely brown belt land elsewhere would be more acceptable. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Geraldine Popplew
"I believe that the building of this site will have irreversible damage to our green belt, damaging wildlife, together with causing more traffic congestion and air pollution in the vicinity. It will severely change the character of the local villages and the identity of the whole area. In a time of climate change and global concerns to the environment we should be using brownfield land and protecting agricultural land and reducing not increasing pollution levels. The argument of it bringing jobs to the area is also a concern, as with the i54, lots of jobs are filled from outside the local area again causing traffic congestion. Together with the fact of Brexit and companies now saying they will take a lot of their business abroad. We already see Jaguar Landrover cutting working hours in Solihull. If this becomes a trend the environmental damage caused will not be worth the job increase locally. I strongly feel that a brownfield site needs to be investigated and that West Midlands interchange - Gailey Freight Hub does not go ahead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Glennis willits
"Dear Sir/Madam I am a resident of Penkridge and have been since 1979 having brought my family up here and worked at the local schools and wish to make representation and object to these plans on the following basis 1)The negative impact that the traffic and increased industrial activity in the area will have on pollution, noise and air quality 16.3 tons of extra CO2 emissions every day. Already, my family suffer from [redacted] Penkridge lies in a valley and pollution transfers from the motorway and from chemicals from 4 Ashes. This additional amount of pollution will have a detrimental effect on this growing residential community. 2) The negative impact of the unacceptable increase in traffic from Lorries accessing the site and workers commuting from Wolverhampton but also from Stafford and Stoke where needs for jobs in the Potteries are greater.18,624 extra vehicles a day will be devastating. The existing roads are unable to cope with traffic. Examples of this are market days at Penkridge Saturday and Wednesday and V festival at Weston Park when the road network around Gailey virtually closes down. At peak time the A 5 from junction 12and from Wolverhampton A449 at Gailey island is completely blocked and I have to go to Penkridge via Hatherton and the Cannock road increasing traffic there. The M6 problems already diverts traffic through Penkridge This inevitable and substantial increase from the Hub which will mainly be Northbound and there is already a hub 60 miles away at Daventry means lorries will choose the quickest route which will be Penkridge as the A5 will be unable to cope to the M6 as a single lane road. Whichever way you look at the road network it is congested. Penkridge is congested, Gailey Island is congested, The M6 Southbound is congested and Junction 10 is probably the worst in the country and the Nortbound is often congested. Gailey island cannot cope . Additional traffic at this level will devastate the road network. 3)There are more suitable locations and this area does not need the jobs as employment is good. Penkridge and Stafford have high levels of employment and the north side of Wolverhampton has benefited hugely from I 54. There is little need for jobs in the immediate area therefor increased commuting from further afield will increase traffic and pollution. There is already a hub at Daventry which is near and substantial and alternative sites in Stoke on Trent where jobs are much needed in this low wage economy and has missed out on HS2. The road network is already in place, the area is brownfield and it is further North to cover the Northern parts and further from Daventry Regards Glennis Willits "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Josy Fleetwood
"I object to the application because this site is not suitable due to the infrastructure around the surrounding areas. The A5 and A449 are already highly congested already and any problems on the M6 (which there are many) will bring everything to a standstill. It will have a negative effect on our countryside leading to the loss of agricultural land. the pollution will be horrendous as will be the noise from the amount of vehicles which will be using this area. (approx. an extra truck every 6 minutes) More suitable sites have already been mentioned and which people want in their areas. This must be taken into consideration."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lara Fowler
"I strongly object to this application because:- 1) It is building in GREEN BELT which is supposed to be protected. 2) It will have an enormously negative affect on the environment impacting on pollution (I live very close to the A5), air quality, noise from the additional traffic on what is already a very busy stretch of road, increasing traffic accidents and also detrimental to local wildlife 3) It will also impact heavily on the local highways and traffic, the roads are already in a sad state, pot holes galore!!! 4) It loses agricultural land and countryside - GREENBELT!!!! 5) It will not bring the jobs predicted due to mechanisation and minimum staffing 6) It is the wrong location because other more suitable locations on brownfield land are better for all concerned 7) Once the warehouses are built even if the railway terminal isn't they will remain 8) The developers traffic studies are not representative of the proposed development 9) It will lead to extra rail traffic on the west coast mainline which is already running at capacity during the daytime and if the trains are during the night then that is additional noise pollution while residents are attempting to sleep It is a travesty, shame on those promoting this."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Maureen Kerr
"Protecting the green belt. Loss of agricultural land. Negative effect on local highways and traffic. It is the wrong location because other more suitable locations are available including brownfield land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mel Fellows
"I object to this application on the grounds that it will have an adverse affect on green belt land,it will have a considerable negative effect on the environment, cause high levels of pollution,in the surrounding communities, the local infrastructure is not geared for an increase of so many more vehicles,the traffic chaos would be a nightmare. other brown field sites would be a lot better suited to the project,and I believe it is not in accord with local planning policy."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Judith Harvey
"The traffic congestion when M6 is closed which occurs approximately twice weekly means all the surrounding roads are blocked for hours now without any more lorries and car's adding to the congestion. In my village alone it feels like your trapped and causes problems for vital hospital visits and other vital appointments. It will be an every day occurrence if this plan goes ahead as there are so many major roads in the area"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Linda Lane
"I wish to object on the following grounds a) It is the wrong location because other more suitable locations are available including brownfield land with existing rail link b)loss of green belt, agricultural land and countryside c) negative effect on local highways, traffic, pollution, air quality and noise."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patricia Morris
"The reason for my objection is that it will have a negative effect on the highways and traffic. Also I have two small grandchildren growing up in the area and I am concerned about the negative effect on the environment and air pollution. Also loss of lovely countryside, Brownfield land would be more suitable. I think this proposed site is totally the wrong location. All the wildlife, birds, and flowers will be affectionately."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patricia Skidmore
"I object to the application because of the:- 1. Negative effect on the environment, pollution, and air quality. 2. Negative effect on local highways and traffic. 3. Negative effect on local heath."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rachel bower
"I am totally against the proposed infrastructure that is planned namely the West Midlands Interchange. I have lived at Penkridge since birth and I am now 60 years of age so I have experienced the increased volume of traffic through the village over the years. Basically when the M6 has a calamity or an incident on the A449 North or South the village becomes a no go area this occurs quite frequently so with the addition of the proposed infrastructure it was exacerbate the issues aforementioned. Also sadly Ive been diagnosed with [redacted] which is a serious respiratory disease and the effect of major pollution expelled by copious lorries and vehicles churning out fumes does not help people with my condition. The air quality will even more be polluted and with the amount of vehicles using the planned hub. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rachel Smith
"I object to this application because of the negative effect on: - Local highways and traffic - Local Health - pollution levels both noise and air - Loss of greenbelt Other more suitable locations are available, utilising brownfield lan"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rebecca Jones-reading
"To register my objection to the proposed interchange - gailey freight hub on the following grounds - it is destroying much needed green belt that should be protected - it will have a negative effect on the enviroment - pollution, air quality, noise - it will have an immense negative impact on local traffic and local highways. - it will have a negaive impact on local fauna and flora - it will see the loss of an immense amount of agriculture land and countryside - It is the wrong location because there are other more suitable locations available including brownfield land. Overall thesite would have a negative impact on the area as a whole and is totally unsuitable for the proposed area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Bateman
"I object to this application because of the reasons below. 1. The negative effect on the local highways and traffic in an already very busy area with the M6 and A449 creating copious amounts of traffic. Adding to this by allowing the West Midlands Interchange will cause massive delays to local traffic and traffic delays to the M6 near Junction 12 and 13. Currently when there are accidents or lane closures on the M6, the A5 and A449 become heavily congested as traffic use Penkridge and the local roads as a detour to re-join the motorway. The WMI would add to this chaos causing delays for the public but also local business. 2. The negative effect on the air quality and pollution increase caused by the added HGV traffic if this goes ahead. 3. I object to allowing the loss of the countryside when there are better suited brownfield sites that could be used instead of ruining the greenbelt. 4. The WMI will also cause a negative effect of the local flora and fauna which is why a lot of people moved to South Staffordshire in the first place. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Hancher
"I object on the following grounds: - I believe the proposed development is in the wrong location, specifically that other sites exist on brownfield sites within the West Midlands, which were incorrectly excluded during the developer's site selection exercise. - The proposed development will cause significant and irreparable harm to the greenbelt. And given the consideration that brownfield sites may be equally suitable in the region, this damage is unnecessary. - The proposed development will have a significant negative effect on local highways and traffic. Both local and strategic roads in the vicinity already suffer from significant congestion. Far from improving this, the proposed development will significantly worsen this, in particular in relation to HGV traffic which I believe will cause damage to existing infrastructure (using local roads as rat runs) and increased accidents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Morris
"I object to this planing application on several points it can only be negative to people who live I. The area because on increased traffic mostly diesel using lorries in an already busy A449. A5 and M6 surrounding villages especially Penkridge have the A449 run ing through its centre the extra traffic will cause extra pollution for villagers.There will be a great deal of extra noise from lorries will be made.Please do not allow this application to go ahead .Please do not spoil our environment t any more. Regards Stephen Morris"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steve Leeson
"I object to this application because of negative effect on local highways and traffic. I also object to this application because of negative effect on the environment / pollution / air quality /noise "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tina Alexander
"if this backhanded planning application that is knowingly in the wrong place gets permission I hope I can sue the council officials in the future the fact is we all know what diesel fumes to peoples health and if any of my grand children get cancer or asthma and any other children to which they will do without a doubt we should be able to ask what caused it and who is at fault (council officials) who gave the permission it is just like the german officials who gave permission to gas the jewish people its a death sentence in the end SCRAP IT AND THEN FIND THE CORRECT PLACE TO CONSTRUCT IT "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Trudy Clemson
"It is the wrong location, by having it near Gailey it will have a negative effect on the environment, pollution, air quality and noise. There are more suitable locations that are not on green belt land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Wendy Kay Jones
"I believe that the building of this site will have irreversible damage to our green belt, damaging wildlife, together with causing more traffic congestion and air pollution in the vicinity. It will severely change the character of the local villages and the identity of the whole area. In a time of climate change and global concerns to the environment we should be using brownfield land and protecting agricultural land and reducing not increasing pollution levels. The argument of it bringing jobs to the area is also a concern, as with the i54, lots of jobs are filled from outside the local area again causing traffic congestion. Together with the fact of Brexit and companies now saying they will take a lot of their business abroad. We already see Jaguar Landrover cutting working hours in Solihull. If this becomes a trend the environmental damage caused will not be worth the job increase locally. I strongly feel that a brownfield site needs to be investigated and that West Midlands interchange - Gailey Freight Hub does not go ahead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
William Kenneth Dolman
"what is the WEST-MIDLANDS Interchange and why is it being proposed to be built in South Staff's. As I see it, it will bring nothing to our area. Congestion of our roads and pollution of our air, yes. It is claimed that it will bring jobs to the area?. We have one of the lowest unemployed figures in the country. Looking to the future, I see the need to build more houses to house the workers needed to run this project. I propose that it be built in the West mid's where it is needed, there is plenty of brown site land not being used, and there is a work force crying out for jobs, and no need for them to travel, thus reducing in some way the air pollution that any kind of travel entails. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
William Tarbuck
"I object to this application because: The negative effect on the environment caused by pollution, reduced air quality and noise Destruction of Green Belt Negative effect on local highways through massive increase in road traffic Negative effect on local health caused by pollution, reduced air quality and noise Negative effect on ecology/loss of local flora and fauna. Loss of agricultural land and countryside. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adrian Severynen
"I object to this proposal on the following grounds - Protection of green belt Adverse environmental impact Adverse impact on local roads/transport infrastructure Permanent destruction of valuable countryside, agricultural land and wildlife habitats Unsuitable location for such a large and environmentally damaging development"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anita Gardner
"I strongly object to this application for the following reasons: 1) Once we turn our arable farm land over to industrial use we are unable to get it back - as a nation we do not have enough arable land to feed ourselves as it is, having to rely on imports of grains and other food. 2) The Green Belt is important to maintain the character of the area and the environment and this development will have an adverse effect on the ecology of the region. 3) Regeneration of existing Brownfield sites in deprived areas would seem more logical. 4) The proposed area is a rural location - any workers for the proposed development would have to travel to the site, resulting in increased traffic congestion and pollution. 5) Increased litter in the area - look for example at the roads around the incinerator plant at nearby Four Ashes, which are littered with rubbish which escapes from the containers and lorries carrying the rubbish for recycling. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Sinclair-Wellings
"Object to the use of greenbelt land. The road infrastructure is not, and cannot be made, capable of taking the additional traffic involved with the proposed site. The A5 is not capable of being widened. The junction 12 of the M6 cannot accept an ease of access to the motorway ie. additional junction. Additional traffic already being noted along the A449 at the Gailey roundabout and associated congestion/bottlenecks at that point. This is without the additional proposed lorries, vans and other associated traffic from the site. Accidents and congestion on the motorway already is causing problems through Penkridge and surrounding areas. The Highways have already in the past put up temporary signs to stop lorries speeding through Penkridge at night. The train traffic will seriously affect home holders close to the rail track. 90 second per train every night and possibly 20 each night. Penkridge has an unemployment rate of about 1%. The jobs they are talking about will increase more traffic in to the area and particularly Gailey roundabout. I do not agre with the number of jobs stated. The majority are construction and not permanent. These could be better used in the construction of housing elsewhere in the country, desperately needed. The lorry driving jobs are only shifting from elsewhere and not new jobs. Would think the actual new jobs is more like 500. The site is in the wrong place. A more suitable site surely would be close to the I54 set up and along the M54 at some point farther towards Shrewsbury. I believe Stoke in Trent have asked for the hub to be there. They have better access to the northand south via the M6, Wales through Nantwich and Northwich and east via the A51. I feel the planning has been ill thought out by people not living in he area and the local people, councils and MPs should have their knowledge used. Those I spoke to at consultation meetings came from Hampshire and Bristol areas. What do they know about the roads around this area. THIS IS NOT OF BENEFIT TO THE AREA OR PEOPLE. LISTEN TO THEM, LOCAL COUNCILS AND MPS"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cathy Knight on behalf of Brewood Civic Society
"Brewood Civic Society believes that the West Midlands Interchange planned for Four Ashes should not be given planning permission on the grounds that it will destroy a huge area of green belt land. The society also feels that more appropriate brownfield sites, such as the one at Bescot in Walsall, should be considered as being more appropriate."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Jefferies
"The green belt shouldn't be destroyed. There will be a negative effect on the environment with air and noise pollution. Local roads and lanes will be adversely affected by the massive increase in road traffic. The loss of agricultural land and countryside in general will have a huge negative effect on local flora and fauna. This proposed development has chosen the wrong location, other more suitable locations including brownfield sites are available."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Jonathan Mann
"I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the proposed Gailey Freight Hub. I am objecting as this interchange will be built on green belt land with a negative impact on the environment due to pollution ,air quality and noise. I believe there will be a negative effect on local traffic and highways. Traffic in this area is already far too heavy. We will lose beautiful countryside and valuable farm land and there will be a negative effect on our local Eco system. I fail to understand why this project is planned to destroy green belt land when other brown field sites are known to be available. I am not convinced that this project can be justified on the grounds of local employment as this is currently less than 1%."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gillian Starling
"Concerned over losing more Green belt land, limiting opportunities for Farming to progress and diversify for younger generations. Other brownfield sites would be more suitable. For example the orbital near Cannock would provide ample space to develop as it has the infrastructure in place to accommodate this project already with the necessary road links and land. Concerned with the amount of pollution already generated by commuting vehicles. Regular road closures happen along the A449 causing miles of delays and impossible diversions. Extra lorries around this area will only increase pollution, reduce air quality and increase noise levels during the evening, as the idea to 'combat' extra traffic is to have lorries running 24/7 if the plans go ahead. This will have a impact on the well being of local residents and disturb local farming and wildlife. Certain plant and animal species will be greatly affected, reducing land available for animals to thrive will mean a decrease in species and possibly never seeing that particular species in our local area again. Retaining green belt areas are essential to ensure the countryside exists and remains in place for future farming generations to feed and support our nation. Without greenbelt land, we are limiting families to food sources and forcing farmers to close the doors on their businesses which have been handed down through many generations. Green belt land is essential for drainage of surface water. Large areas locally to this area suffer from flooding and current drainage systems in place do not meet the needs to remove the water."
Other Statutory Consultees
Highways England
"Dear Sir/Madam, Highways England submits this relevant representation and wishes to register as an interested party in respect of this application. Highways England has been appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport as a strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the Strategic Road Network (SRN). In respect of this application Highways England’s particular interest is in the A5 Trunk Road, the A449 Trunk Road and the M6 Motorway. Amongst other things Highways England’s licence to operate as a strategic highway authority requires it to ensure the effective operation of the network and to protect and improve the network’s safety. The Secretary of State’s policy on development impacting the SRN is set out in Department for Transport Circular 02/2013. Highways England has been actively engaged in discussions with the applicant (including its consultants) since 2016 with a view to ensuring that the proposed development will not have a severe and detrimental impact on the SRN. Highways England and the applicant have reached agreement on a number of matters as detailed in the SoCG, however there are still issues outstanding that need to be addressed before Highways England can be satisfied no concerns remain. These include, inter alia: • As mitigation works will need to be carried out to the SRN Highways England requires that adequate protective provisions are in place to ensure that works are carried out to appropriate standards to safeguard Highways England’s position as highway authority both now and in the future. • At this stage the applicant has not demonstrated to our satisfaction that the SRN highway drainage system will not be subject to adverse increases in flow and subsequent unacceptable liabilities on Highway England. • The construction phasing as proposed requires amendment to reflect the traffic management circumstances of the development and the supporting assessments undertaken. Highways England would expect to be a party to the approvals process for matters that may affect traffic flows on the SRN. • Highways England has significant safety concerns regarding the proposed provisions for deemed approval and cannot support the provisions as drafted which could compromise the safety of the travelling public. Highways England will continue to engage with the applicant with the expectation of resolving these matters positively. However until such time that all matters have been satisfactorily agreed we are not in a position to fully support the application and therefore issue this response to indicate our concerns with the application as submitted for examination. We can confirm that our current intention is to appear as an interested party at the examination hearings. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Rushton
" Reasons for objection • Protection & maintaining the green belt. • Negative effect on air quality, noise & local ecology. • Detrimental effect on local roads & traffic levels • Loss of farming land • Brownfield sites should be given priority & if needed financial assistance. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jeremy Harris
"I object to the transport interchange hub which it is proposed will be built in the Four Ashes area. The hub will be built within the green belt, will create extra traffic and pollution in this area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Hughes
"As a local resident I wish to object to the proposed West Midlands Interchange for the following reasons. 1. The proposed site is in Green Belt. This land is protected to provide valuable open countryside for the benefit of everyone. 2. The building and operation of this site would have a detrimental effect on the local area through air and noise pollution. 3. If built this site would impact the health of local residents due to the pollution generated. 4. The facility would generate enormous amounts of traffic, HGVs, vans and cars. The local roads M6 A449 etc are often gridlocked now. It would be impossible for the roads to cope with the level of increased traffic as estimated by the developers. 5. the proposed site is unsuitable due to traffic congestion, the area having low unemployment, hence generating even more traffic from commuters. 6. Destruction of habitat for the local wildlife and plant life. 7. There are more suitable brown field sites in areas of high unemployment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katie Allcott
"This will impact heavily on the local area including negative impact on environment, pollution, air quality. We need to protect our local green belt. Major impact on local traffic and surrounding areas. The local ecology will be destroyed. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laura
"I wish to strongly object to the proposed West Midlands Interchange - The Gailey Hub. I believe it will have a detrimental effect on the local flora and fauna, on the environment with regard to pollution,air quality and noise. We will loose our beautiful countryside and valuable agricultural land. We should be protecting our green belt not using over six hundred acres for warehousing when there are more suitable sites including brownfield land. This will have a massive effect on our local roads which already struggles and the proposed employment of 8,500 jobs will also impact on the roads as our local unemployment is at less than 1%"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laura Simmons
"I object to the applications as I belive that the location is incorrect and that there are better placed for it to be situated if at all it is needed. I think brownfield land would be more appropriate. I also object to the application because... Of the effects of the pollution that will be produced. The increased traffic. Negative effects in local heath and wildlife. Increased noise and light. Loss of agricultural land.. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lee Simmons
"I object to this application because I am VERY concerned about the following... The loss of agricultural land, countyside and greenbelt land. Negative effects of the surrounding local highways and the increase of traffic. Local heath of the public. Bad effects that it will have on the environment with pollution, air polution and noise. I also object to this application as I belive the location is the wrong place because... Brown field land would be more suitable and appropriate. There are other locations available. The application is not in accord with the local planning policy."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lesley Wootton
"I object to this application because of: The use of green belt land when there are many brown field sites along the railway line from Penkridge to Birmingham that could possibly be used. The impact of many extra diesel lorries using surrounding roads when the Government is attempting to reduce air pollution. Thus creating health issues in the local areas. The unacceptable amount of traffic that will pass though Penkridge which already becomes virtually grid locked when there is a problem on the M6. Plus the amount of noise so many lorries would generate as they pass through. The proposed development is too large and will have a devastating affect on the small village of Gailey. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Hughes
"I wish to object to the proposed West Midlands Interchange for the following reasons. 1. The site suggested for this facility is unsuitable. it is Green Belt there are brown field sites that could be used. 2. Pollution, air, noise and light, generated by the site and associated traffic would have a detrimental effect on the health of potential employees, local residents and other people passing through the area. 3. The increased traffic generated would cause major traffic problems. Currently local roads are gridlocked on a regular basis. These roads would not cope with the level of increased traffic proposed by the developers. 4. Building this facility would destroy valuable agricultural land and countryside. Both of which are a valuable assets for health and wellbeing. 5. The proposed facility would destroy the habitat of local flora and fauna. 6. South Staffs is an area of low unemployment so the estimated jobs created would be of no benefit to local residents. The majority of employees would have to travel to the area. Generating even more traffic congestion and pollution. 7.The proposal contravenes local planning policy which is against development in Green Belt."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Pilsbury
"My reasons for objecting are as follows:— Increased traffic on local roads and village lanes which are not capable of an increase in traffic. Significant decrease to air quality, increase in noise levels, increase in light pollution. Will have a detrimental effect on local flora and fauna. This proposed development will not benefit local people and will cause irrevocable damage to our villages, agricultural land and countryside."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr David Holyoake
"I object to this application because of the negative effects it will have on the environment, local highways and traffic. Whilst I applaud the drive to move freight from road to rail, I do not believe the scheme as proposed will do this. As it stands the proposal does not revolve around rail freight. The rail interchange does not appear central to the development and with reference to my MP's investigation, there is no guarantee that the rail freight interchange will be developed following the building of a damaging road freight facility. It appears as though this promise is made to get an otherwise unacceptable development built on Green belt land. At present the land around the proposed site is commonly used for leisure and tourism, in particular cycling, walking and canal holidays. This proposal will turn the area into a sterile network of warehouses and trunk roads. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Ian Carless
"The principle of moving freight from road to rail is good. However in my opinion the Gailey location is about the worst that could be chosen. HGV's will still need to travel long mileages from all UK freight ports to reach Gailey and I see nothing in plans to calculate any saving in freight road miles. It is more likely that there will be an increase. The rail line onto which freight will be transferred is described as the 'West Coast Main Line'. This is a euphemism since at this location it is the loop line from Stafford to Rugby via Wolverhampton, Birmingham New Street, Birmingham International and Coventry. At the proposed Hub location approximately 5 passenger trains per hour run in each direction. This increases North of Stafford whilst South through Birmingham this figure probably doubles. Freight trains at night would be the inevitable and unwelcome consequence. The logical points to achieve the objective are the ports themselves. Statistics are available for Lowestoft, Felixtowe and Hull for example, and rail improvements have already been approved for Felixtowe. Further rail infrastructure would clearly be needed but this is also very much the case for East/West rail traffic at Gailey. Other compelling reasons for objection are damage to the environment and destruction of green belt land. Virtually all the proposed infrastructure is on green belt land surrounding the existing Four Ashes Industrial Estate. This land includes arable farms and woodland and the scale of the development both in area and height would further detract from the appearance of this attractive rural area. This includes part of the Staffordshire and Worcestershire canal which would be enveloped. Gailey Wharf would also be affected. Minimal measures to limit the impact have been mentioned in the proposals. The word 'improvement' is used to describe some of these measures. It is hard not to comment that this is an insult to one's intelligence. Likewise is the suggestion that 2 community parks will be provided. The likelihood of an increase in HGV traffic is one that is shared by very many people. This of course destroys the whole purpose of the proposal. In addition it is certain that much additional van and car traffic would be involved. This would come both from servicing the site and from those working at the site both day and night. The creation of thousands of new jobs would be beneficial in normal circumstances. However the additional pressure on roads in an area of low unemployment would reduce this benefit. Existing major roads in the vicinity of the proposed development are the M6, A5 and A449. These are heavily trafficked at the best of times and the extra congestion would become intolerable. It would lead to drivers seeking alternative routes via minor roads and through nearby villages with dangerous consequences. All of the above factors will cause unacceptable increases in noise and pollution as well as the specific environmental issues already mentioned. In its proposed location and content this development would be a major disaster. A brownfield site in the Stoke-on-Trent region would be unattractive in principle but far more suited to the objective. I consider this to be a reasoned objection argument rather than a NIMBY attitude. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr J Whitmore
"I am very worried about the size of the development and its affect on both the green belt as it is a rural area, and also the local ecology. I also believe that the vast increase in the number of HGVs visiting the site daily will put a greater strain on the local road systems especially the A449 and A5 resulting in more traffic delays and damage to the roads. It will also have a large negative effect on the local air quality causing more pollution and possible detrimental health effects. Finally although it will create more jobs I believe most of these will be filled with workers commuting, thus putting more pressure on the road systems and air quality with little benefit to the local communities. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Sonia ward
"I'm writing to strongly oppose The West Midlands Interchange. I believe it will have a negative effect on the environment with regard to, pollution,air quality and noise. We will loose valuable green belt and agricultural land, not to mention the detrimental effect it will have on local flora and fauna. I believe our local highways will struggle to cope with the massive increase in expected traffic to and from the hub, we already struggle with long delays with traffic queues and the proposal will only add to this problem, as will the 8,500 proposed jobs as our employment is less than 1% so the majority of the workforce will also be traveling from further afield. Gailey is without a doubt the wrong location because other more suitable locations are available including brownfield land! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Sue Holmes
"I object to this application because I am concerned about the negative effects to local traffic as this area is already a bottleneck. I am also concerned about the negative effect on local flora and fauna. I also object to the location of this proposal as there are more suitable options available which would reuse brownfield sites. this application is also not in accord with local planning policy."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Susan Edgington
"I am very concerned about the loss of green belt land and the effect this will have on the environment and wildlife habitats. Also the impact this will have on the small villages close by. Furthermore the infrastructure will not be able to cope with the increased traffic and lorries. And finally I am very worried about the rail line itself, there will much more heavy train traffic and the line will not cope with it and existing passenger trains. The noise at night from the line is considerable, further trains would have a detrimental effect on the lives of people living close to the railway."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Neil Wildman
"I object to the application because I am keen to protect as much green belt as possible. There are brownfield sights near Wolverhampton and Walsall, close to the railway far more suitable for this project. The proposal would have a disastrous effect on local traffic, on roads which are already struggling to cope. The A449 already comes to a standstill with the most minor incident on the M6, with traffic diverting through Penkridge. This build up in traffic not only brings traffic to a standstill, affecting local businesses but the increased traffic, including hundreds of HGVs has an impact on local health with massively increased emissions, polluting the air."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patricia Watkins
"I object to this application because of the vast increase of traffic that will be generated particularly on the A449 through Penkridge, which already has congestion when the M6 is closed due to accidents. Also the increase in rail traffic which together with the road traffic will have a negative effect on local health due to pollution and noise. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Robert Tomkins
"I object to the proposed West Midlands Interchange for the following reasons: the current road network is overstretched and is unable to cope with existing traffic and certain times of the day. negative effect on air pollution, light pollution and noise levels."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Watkins
"I strongly object to this application because of the vast increase of both rail and commercial vehicular traffic that the proposal will undoubtedly generate, which will have negative effect on the environment, pollution, air quality and noise levels. The A449 already has major traffic problems through Penkridge particularly when there is an accident on the M6 and this development will certainly add to the congestion. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rita Jefferies
"The existing green belt needs to be protected. There will be a negative effect on the environment / pollution / air quality / noise. There will be a negative effect on local highways and traffic. There will be a negative effect on local flora and fauna (ecology). Loss of agricultural land and countryside. It is the wrong location because other more suitable locations are available, including brownfield land. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Hemingway
"I object to the application on several grounds: It will: 1. Cause a massive increase in vehicular movements not just on the M6 which is already heavily congested but also in local A and B roads where not only will lorry movements occur every 15 seconds but other vehicles bringing workers or their vehicles will be using the roads too. 2. Cause a significant increase in noise and air pollution due to diesel lorries and buses using the roads 24/7 3. Take away greenbelt land 4. Should be in an area where unemployment is high and brownfield land is available e.g Stoke-on-Trent 5. If the employees wish to move code to their work, then new schools, doctors and dentists as well as a huge increase in the number of houses would have to be provided."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rosemary Rogers
"To protect the green belt. It will have a negative effect on environment/pollution/air quality/noise.Negative effect on local highways and traffic.Negative effect on ecology ie. local flora and fauna.Loss of agricultural land and countryside.It is i feel the wrong location because other more suitable locations are available including brownfield land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steven Douglas
"Dear Sir or Madame , I am writing to you to explain why I'm against the West Midlands Interchange going ahead, please read the following , This will completely destroy the whole area , we do not have the roads to allow this to happen , the M6 is extremely busy as it is and so is the M54 and the A449 , there will be traffic jam after traffic jam . The railway is very busy as it is and will not take anymore trains than it does now . I dread to think of the amount of pollution that's in the air around this area , I live not far from Gailey island , I have double glazing , yet I have to keep a radio on all the time to hide the noise from the traffic , I do not want it getting any worse . I do not want to move from this area , I was born in Penkridge , I would like to live the rest of my life here , but I do not want to live in an industrial area , that is how this area will end up ,if this monstrosity goes ahead . Also I would like to point out about the jobs they are saying it will bring to the area , we do not need jobs here , there is plenty of work . It will just bring in labour from other areas , where will they live ? They will probably build more houses , this is something we do not want or need , Our schools are full , we cannot cope with anymore children , and our local Doctors can't cope , just try getting an appointment now , there is a waiting list a mile long . Also I would like to mention the local wildlife , and the trees that have been here for many years , why would someone in there right mind want to destroy wildlife and trees for our future children to see and enjoy , I hope you take my views into account and I really hope this does not get the go ahead. Kind regards , Steve Douglas ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Bywater on behalf of The Bywater Family
"My intention is to give a fair and balanced view of how I feel the proposed West Midlands Interchange will have on the surrounding area. I have lived in the area and used the roads for over forty years. My main concern is the effect the additional traffic caused by the proposed development would have on the surrounding road system, particularly the A5. The A5 is already a busy track road facilitating traffic onto and off the M6 nearby. It is a main route to Wales and the west with much holiday traffic throughout the year. Events at Weston park just to the west also add to existing traffic flow. There is little unemployment in the area so those who would be employed at the proposed development would have to commute further compounding the problem, mainly I would envisage to the A449. I feel the proposed development would cause high traffic problems as well as all the pollution, imposing an intolerable burden on the area. The proposed development would be a very serious and massive incursion into an important part of the green belt which acts as a rural buffer between the local historic settlements of Cannock Penkridge and Brewood. The development if allowed would be of a scale that would dominate the whole area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brian Kerry
"very concerned about the damage to the environment the huge amount of HGV coming into the area will cause and the loss of local agricultural land and the fact it would be better to use brown field sites or extend present hubs and the fact the local infrastructure can not cope roads will become grid locked and that's without problems on the m6 or m42 the damage to peoples health the extra lorrys will cause "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Catherine Amanda Parkyn
"I object to this application on a number of grounds: 1 It is a violation of our precious Green Belt 2. There will be a negative effect on quality of life in the village of Penkridge, including a) noise and pollution from considerable increase in heavy goods traffic on already busy roads (A449, M6, A5) over a wider area b) harmful effects on residents along and near all the affected roads - research shows that heavy diesel traffic in particular is very harmful to health c) many Penkridge residents live very close to the main railway line, which the application makes clear will be loaded with a heavy increase in goods trains of a length and weight not experienced before. This would be very disruptive to quality of life of those of us affected 3. There are brownfield sites available in the area far more suitable for development of this type 4. This is an area of virtually full employment, therefore the promised creation of new jobs would merely mean a daily influx of people and therefore traffic from surrounding areas, thus further increasing traffic in an already heavily trafficked area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Walker
"The roads in and around Penkridge are already incredibly congested. Penkridge is a natural "hub" for the area resulting in over-use of the carriageways by both lorries and cars. The M6 is one of the most dangerous motorways and frequently has lane closures or full closure between junction 12 and 15 resulting in massive tailbacks affecting Penkridge and the surrounding areas. The M6 often has tailbacks twice a week in this area (Penkridge). When the M6 is closed the A5, and A449, become gridlocked. Often these become so congested that traffic will even divert into Cannock cutting back along the Cannock road into Penkridge - result = all roads in Penkridge gridlocked and Penkridge residents cant leave their homes without a 20/30 minute drive just to get into the village! The government seems to be at odds with itself, one minute wanting to build houses and industry everywhere and the next wanting to ensure greenfield sites remain to fight Global Warming and pollution. Penkridge has doubled in size over the last twenty years, surely now is the time to stop. People moved here for a relative rural life, not a city one. People living here need to be allowed to breathe fresh clean air, enjoy green fields, and live the life they paid dearly for. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine wright
"I am registering my interest as I believe this rail hub being built on green belt land to be wrong. The damage caused to the environment is going to be catastrophic just from the construction. That is without the 5000 extra lorries on the roads which already struggle to cope with the amount of traffic at the moment. I lived in Gailey all of my childhood and my parent still live there. It is going to completely destroy Gailey and the villages around it. The pollution caused by the extra vehicles and the construction of the hub will have a detramental effect on everyone’s health around the area. There is a rail hub in Telford which is not used to capacity so I do not see why another rail hub would be built especially on green belt land. All green belt land needs to be protected for future generations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Gibbons
"I feel that if this went ahead it would risk mine and my child’s health in various different ways. Cutting wildlife and green belt shouldn’t be allowed, the government even promised to protect this on the manifest. We do not require or want anymore houses in Penkridge, there is already to much stress on our doctors surgery. Since the new build on Penkridge this has increased my travelling time to work and we don’t need any extra to add to this. There always seems to be an issue on the M6 already which causes absolute carnage around Penkridge if there was an issue this would make it ten fold. The extra vehicles on the road surely would be no good for our health either. Also I am aware there are more suitable sites around the country, this is not one of them. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Mullett
"I am very concerned about the dramatic impact the West Mids Hub will have on the environment.Firstly our precious green belt land,beautiful fields and wildlife will all be devastated forever.Once they have been built upon,they have gone.The efforts to replace these areas with so called playing areas and green land are completely insufficient and seems obtuse given the green belt land about to be unnecessarily destroyed.They are also a token and completely inadequate.Secondly,having lived in this area for all of my life I know how unable to cope with existing levels of traffic our roads are with current levels of vehicular numbers.This is both the nearby motorways, A roads and side,country roads.The stated increased numbers of vehicles and in particular HGV's on these roads will mean traffic chaos, lengthy delays and severe stress to those living in this area.It is being proposed by people who do not live in this area and do not have to live with its consequences.The air pollution impact seems bizarre given the now understood detrimental effect on people's health that will result from this proposal."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Deborah Middleto
"I have concerns regarding the negative effects that the increased volume of traffic that will be incurred at each stage of the project. Damage to the A449 of the road itself, the air pollution that the increased traffic, most of which will be HGV vehicles, the increased danger of heavy traffic on our already congested area. It will result in the sad loss the green belt that makes this area of Staffordshire an attraction to the local public walks and villages."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma Crutchley
"I do not support this application. I am deeply concerned the proposed buildings would be over greenbelt land and the impact the additional traffic resulting from this proposal would have on local roads. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Garry Mincher
"I Object to this application because I am concerned about The erosion of the green belt The negative impact on my health and all future generation's heath who live in this area as the fumes generated from the massive increase in traffic is totally unacceptable. The noise levels and light pollution will also put local residents under unnecessary stress Because this is prominently a cluster of historical villages the totally over the top number of lorrys using the a449 especially will become dangerous for local drivers. Loss of local wildlife and flora Good quality farming land will be lost for future generations for EVER. I Object to the application because it's better suited to a brownfield site. Regional employment as not been properly considered because this area as very low unemployment. As living here for 46 years in a rural village life the last two years it's been targeted by big powerful companies it feels like we are being surrounded so your proposal for calf heath seems very unwelcome As is not in accord with local planning policy. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gillian Diggett
"I object to this application because I am concerned about •It is against our Local Planning Policy to protect the greenbelt in our district, and this application will destroy 643 acres. • This scheme will result in a massive increase in traffic to this area where the M6 is already one of the most congested roads in the country. Whenever there is an accident on the M6 and lane closures occur, which happens on an extremely regular basis, surrounding roads e.g. A449, A5, A34 and surrounding country lanes unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles become gridlocked preventing essential journeys to work, school hospitals etc... • The increase in traffic will have negative effects on Local Health. Air quality, noise, and light pollution especially as this will be a 24/7 operation. •This application will result in a huge loss to our local fauna and flora along with prime agricultural land. Government policy states that greenbelt should only be used in only the most exceptional circumstances. This site has been proposed only because ONE land owner conveniently owns sufficient land to accommodate this operation. Such sacrifice cannot be made for the sake of convenience when Brownfields sites are available in areas where there is a much greater need for employment. •This is an area of low unemployment, therefore if the scheme will generate over 8000 jobs then prospective employees will either have to travel causing more traffic, therefore negating any benefits of moving freight to from road to rail. Or local housing will have to be provided putting further strain on local services already under pressure. The sustainability of this scheme must be fully investigated to ensure there would be sufficient rail capacity to cater for the amount of freight needed to be moved by rail to make this scheme a viable option otherwise will end up with an enormous warehouse depot with NO benefits to the environment and this rural area of South Staffs will irrevocably altered and damaged in vain. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graeme Allsopp
"Having lived at my current address for the last 22 years I’ve become accustomed to growing traffic volumes and they can be rather frustrating. However this is a fact of 21st Century life. Having perused the plans for the W.M.I. development I am very concerned about the very large effects that such a development would have on our local roads, particularly the many small rural lanes by, what I perceive, would be a great increase in traffic and particularly commercial vehicles. Additionally I believe that there would also be much upheaval and a great deal of environmental disruption and devastation of the larger community as a whole. I am, frankly, quite surprised by the fact that such a proposal ever left the drawing board let alone be put forward as a suitable site!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Jones
"The road network around Penkridge will not be able to cope with the increased traffic levels this development would bring. Penkridge is already regularly grid locked during the day by traffic using the A449 to miss out congestion or incidents between junctions 12 and 13 of the M6. There are also regular incidents or lane closures during the night which cause traffic again to use the A449. The extra vehicle movements the proposed Hub would bring would inevitably make this situation worse. HGV's on a deadline as part of a multi million pound contract will not be stopped by any fine system if they use the A449 as the penalty clauses and cost of losing their contracts will inevitably be higher. In addition the work force at the site will add more vehicle movements at peak times and no doubt through the night through their journeys to and from work. The effect of this will be that there will be frequent days and times when Penkridge will be at a standstill, damaging local businesses and greatly impacting on the lives of the local community "
Members of the Public/Businesses
janet lavinia newell
"I object to the use of over 700 acres of green belt right in the middle of green belt which will have a detrimental effect on the ennironment as regards pollution, local flora and fauna, air quality and noise. It will be a serious loss of countryside and agriculture land. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janet Taylor
"1. The need for this development has not been proven 2.If such a need does exist, there are far more suitable sites. nb This is NOT so-called "NIMBYism" unemployment rates in places such as Stoke for example are high and would therefore gain greater benefit, especially as the motorway and rail network is available there. 3. The roads by the proposed site are already under pressure, especially the knock-on effect if there is an incident on the M6. 4. According to [Redacted] speaking on BBC Countryfile 14.10.18. the national policy is to reduce the negative impact of diesel not add to it; also to support wildlife rather then destroy the habitats essential to supporting wildlife. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joshua Jones
"I object to application for the WMI, firstly is not suitable for the area it is planned to be built it will have a negative effect on traffic and congestion in the area the roads already heavily congested. In addition the proposed site is on Green Belt land we should aim to protect the environment. It could also heavily affect pollution and air quality in the environment. I am concerned the location is wrong because communizing employees to WMI can also have a negative impact on the environment. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kevin lawrence
"Unnecessary destruction of green belt , local villages and infrastructure not suitable for such a development, there are far more suitable brownfield sites available in areas with the genuine need for local jobs not an area that has nearly full employment, the influx of people travelling into to this area would only add to the traffic problem. The area currently has near dark sky’s at night and this would be decimated if this project were to go ahead.i am a member of a local cycle club which use the local roads and unfortunately one poor lad has only recently lost his life in an accident on a road running along side this proposed development .if it were to go ahead I believe all traffic should only enter and exit on the m6 to keep traffic of the side roads if it is not feasible for this site there are plenty of areas running alongside the m6 which direct access would not be a problem.The only local people supporting this monstrosity are ones who put money and profit before the health and well-being of local residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael David Preece
"Negative effect on the environment/ pollution/air quality/noise Negative effect on local highways and traffic Negative effect on local flora and fauna ( ecology) In the wrong location because other more suitable locations are available Loss of agricultural land and countryside Protecting the green belt"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Sable
"I object for the following reasons. 1. A very large acreage of Greenbelt land will be used. A more suitable Brownfield site should be selected. 2. Much more traffic, especially heavy lorries, will use the A5 and A449 together with other local country lane shortcuts. All of these routes are already heavily congested. 3. The adverse effect on air quality particularly from heavy lorries. 4. Unemployment in this area is low, approx. 1% so workers will come from outside the region and most will use own transport. 5. Road quality will deteriorate leading to more potholes etc."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Wake
"Protecting the Green Belt Negative effect on local highways traffic Negative effect on local flora & fauna Loss of agricultural land & countryside It is the wrong location, other more suitable locations are available including brownfield land. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Miss Christine Wake
"1. Protecting green belt 2. Negative effect on environment pollution, Noise , Air quality 3. Negative effect on local highways & traffic 4.Ecology - effect on flora & fauna 5. Loss of agricultural land & adverse effect on countryside 6. Wrong location should be on brownfield site"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Clive Malcolm Bellingham
"I object to the proposed West Midlands Interchange - The Gailey Freight Hub for the following reasons. 1) The effect on the environment by increased air pollution and c02 emissions from HGV's freight locomotives, cars and vans would have on the local villages. 2) The increase in traffic and noise 3) The loss of agricultural land and countryside "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Christine Wylie
"1) I object to this application because loss of greenbelt- agricultural land & countryside. Should not be built on greenbelt when there are other areas ( brownfield) eg. Stafford council plans are afoot for warehousing near Stafford railway station- much more suitable. 2) A449/A5- Extra traffic will cause substantial congestion eg. when there is any problem on M6 traffic is diverted along A5/A449, and causes mayhem, without any additional traffic. 3) Penkridge is located between M6 and A449 which already effects the environment, pollution, air quality noise and light. The effect of the interchange traffic will only add to this sustantially. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Pat Fletcher
"I object to the interchange proposals on the following grounds: . The increase in traffic using the A449 . The fact that Green Belt land is being used and the negative effect that this will have on wildlife . The loss of agricultural land and countryside which will obviously be adversely affected . There are other more suitable locations available using brownfield land where the environmental damage sou!d be far less I am not against improving transport links but feel that this is totally the wrong place to place to site the West Midlands Interchange Hub. This area has an aging population who can do without the increased noise, pollution and extra traffic that this would bring. Please find a more suitable site "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Sally johnson
"The proposal will greatly increase traffic on the A5 and A449 as well as building over a large amount of Greenbelt land. People employed will come from a wide area thus adding to traffic greatly at the detriment of the surrounding infrastructure."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ms Susan Dench
"1) I object to this application because the land is in protected green belt. 2) I consider there are concerns about air pollution, noise and light pollution. There will also be damage tot the environment. 3) he local highway network would not be able to deal with the increased traffic. There is no proposed direct link with the M6. 4) This is the wrong location for the proposal to build a huge rail hub and distribution centre. There are several other sites which the developer has not persued. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Norman Wylie
"I disagree with this application due to the following: 1) Use of green belt land when brown belt land is available in the country (By Stafford railway station for example) 2) Lot more heavy traffic will create further congestion and pollution in the local villages. Especially Penkridge."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janet Taylor on behalf of Rachel Stokes
"Concern about the impact on health, especially as [Redacted] Concern about the danger of increased traffic Concern about the location and the claims being made about employment for example when local employment is low. Concern about the need for such a development when others have been built and are not functioning let alone functioning to capacity Concern that there does not appear to be a national strategy for such developments and their best locations nationally."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roger Nelson
"It will increase the pollution levels in this area It will make the increase in traffic along the A449 and A5 roads substantially above the design of these roads and junctions. The additional noise and possible traffic through Penkridge when there are problems on the M6 and this is used as a diversion route. The roads are already in a poor state of repair with heavy lorries speeding through the village in excess of 30mph and this is poorly monitored."
Members of the Public/Businesses
S Swinn
"With regard to thge Proposed West Midlands Interchange - The Gailey Freight Hub - application from Four Ashes Ltd , I would like to state my reasons for objection. Briefly my major concerns are: * increased traffic on the A499 and other roads in this area, * an increase in harmful diesel and petrol fumes. * increase in noise at all times of the day and night * unsuitability of rural site where agricultural land and rural habitat will be lost, when brown field sites lie idle in areas already built up and would be more suitable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Shaun Pope
"I would like to enquiry as to what considerations are being made to safeguard the environment and wildlife in the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Mills
"Living close to the Motorway already the air quality is already poor, we feel that the extra immense volume of traffic will create air quality conditions that may even be fatal to the young and elderly. At the minute we have a diverse bird population this I am certain would vanish because of the light pollution, noise pollution and the acres of green belt that would be lost forever. Another concern would be the safety of children, walkers and cyclists that would be affected by the extra volume of traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen smith
"I object to this planning proposal because I applied for planning permission for a dorma bungalow on my land and it was refused because it would “change the dynamics of the village” so how would the WMI not!!!. The government are making a big deal about the pollution of diesel fumes so why let an extra 18k diesel vehicles into our village every day!!!. I have no doubt that the WMI will have a negative impact on our village and on our quality of life."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Mincher
"I object to this application because, as an home-owner in Coven for the past 46 years, I am concerned about: Negative impact of increased air pollution, poor air quality, higher noise and light pollution on our health. Protecting the green belt. Negative effect on the local highways and the increased traffic on already congested main roads and village roads and lanes. Loss of agricultural land and countryside, decimation of wildlife in this massive area. I also object to this application because I think the location is wrong because: There are other more suitable locations available Brownfield land would be more suitable Regionally South Staffordshire unemployment levels are extremely low Employees travelling in and out from other regions will cause even more traffic congestion cutting through the villages and using the A449, A5, and motorways. And this is not in accord with Local Planning Policy. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ben Gutteridge
"I wish to register my objection to the location of the proposed interchange. This is on the following points:- 1. The location will involve the destruction of a significant piece of untouched green farming land. 2. Failure of the M6 due to accidents, repair work, or other causes of congestion leaves drivers with no choice but to use the A5 or the A449. Drivers leaving the motorway via these routes cause significant disruption. For example in Penkridge on the 29th September, a two mile journey took 45 minutes to make due to an accident on the M6. These roads were not designed to take the amount of traffic being imposed on them as it is. Adding thousands of more vehicles each day will only make this worse. 3. The location of the site with regards to the M6 means East bound traffic will use the already impossibly congested A5 towards Tamworth. 4. The additional vehicles will emit far more emissions, noise and light. 5. There are better connected sites on the edges of towns and cities that have been left derelict that would serve the needs of this hub, without destroying our wonderful countryside. In short the approval of this massive construction will in effect add a small town's worth of construction to an area of land that should be left for future generations. It will be a blight both on the land and on those that live within the land between junctions 12 and 14 of the M6. Please help to stop paving over our green spaces, once they are gone, they are lost forever."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bev Bish
"There is no need for such a development to be built on a greenfield site when other brownfield locations are available. The current road infrastructure is already at full capacity and will not tolerate additional traffic at peak times."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brian Jones
"I strongly object to the proposed Gailey Freight Hub on the grounds that: - it will have a seriously negative effect on the environment due to air pollution and noise caused by the huge amount of traffic. I live about one mile West of the proposed development and will be directly affected by it. - also on the grounds that the extra HGV traffic generated will seriously worsen the traffic congestion generated. The A5 and A449 are already grossly overloaded. Some of the traffic created is bound to come through our peaceful village."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brian Sumpton
"I object to the proposal for the West Midlands Interchange on the basis that it fails to satisfy the requirements of the National Policy Statement for National Networks paragraphs 2.57 and 2.58. Para. 2.58 states that SRFI capacity needs to be provided at a wide range of locations. Para. 2.57 states that existing operational SRFI and other intermodal RFI are situated predominantly in the Midlands. Adding further SRFI to an area already well served by rail freight interchanges fails to assist in the aim of the policy which is to have a network of SRFI's accross the regions "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine Pace
"I am against this application as it will significantly increase traffic and all its fumes i.e. heavy goods on an already difficult and very busy A449. Community health is very important and increased fumes will endanger the public's health.Traffic from Wolverhampton through Penkridge is very congested at am and p.m. now Children cross the A449 with caution now increased traffic would be horrendous .Please think of our village environment and surrounding areas . This hub would increaseworking traffic to and grow and also increase traffic with its workers daily. This leading to a very busy road twenty four hours a day leading to non stop pollution "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Crole Worth
"Disagree. 1. Extra trafic on the A449 or A5 would make it almost impossible to attend hospital or othe appointments. 2/ Noise and pollution from extra traffic would cause ill healtlth for residents and schools. in the penkridge area I do not believe sufficient research has taken place, this move is already been reported in the express & star ( the work that has been done looks as it is a done deal. I made my views known on 15th Aug 2017 now we rec another feedback form I for our representation : may I ask the council to review information that they already have: I would like to know what feedback was recived from aug 2107. Green belt land should no be used it is a scarce commodity."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dave Myatt
"I object to this application because I am concerned about… Protecting the Green Belt Negative Effects on the Environment / Pollution / Air Quality / Noise / Light Negative Effects on the Local Highways and the Increase in Traffic Negative Effects on Local Health Negative Effects on the Local Flora & Fauna (Ecology) Loss of Agricultural Land & Countryside forever Negative Effects on Local Business I object to this application because I am concerned the Location is wrong, because… There are other more suitable locations available Brownfield land would be more suitable Regional employment has not been considered properly Bussing in thousands of employees from other regions could damage our local economy and add further to the pollution problems And is not in accord with Local Planning Policy "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Deborah Poole
"I am objecting to the proposed development for the following reasons: The site will be built over 618 acres of mainly Green Belt land in an area served by the A5 and A449 and M6 which are already ridiculously busy. Although the development would create jobs the area in question has low unemployment so new employees would travel from outside the area substantially increasing the volume of traffic and levels of pollution. The road infrastructure is inadequate for such a development and would need to be redeveloped at great environmental cost. The Green Belt is vitally important and we should be preserving this for future generations. Developers should seek to utilise existing Brownfield sites. I also strongly object to the development being in the heart of the Staffordshire countryside when it is linked to the West Coast Mainline railway?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elizabeth Marshall
"I am concerned about the impact on local roads as the volume of traffic in the area will increase dramatically. More people may well use the smaller local roads to try and avoid queuing and hold ups . These lanes already struggle to cope with larger vehicles that deliver to Brewood and surrounding villages and any increase in traffic volume will cause more accidents and more pot holes. I also thought that Green belt land was protected and this proposal will be doing the exact opposite "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elliot Goodbody
"I would like it noted that I object to this application for many reasons. Mostly because of the harm it will do to the environment through development of greenbelt land, and the huge increase in local traffic. This will have a detrimental effect on those living in the surrounding areas, with nothing in return."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gerard Gilmartin
"I object to this development for various reasons, the main being that it is in the green belt and our roads will simply not cope with the added traffic. The M6 often has issues that result in the A5 and A449 being completely gridlocked. Also, South Staffordshire has a very low unemployment rate. The developer has also wanted to purchase a family owned property, there has been no meaningful attempt to agree the purchase of the land and a four generation family business. Instead they have listed it for compulsory purchase, there are other land owners being treated in the same way. I don't believe that the alternative sites have been properly explored, it seems that the landowner is a director of the development company and is happy to sell all his land to them whereas other sites have several land owners to be negotiated with. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Fern
"I OBJECT to the application because of the negative effect on the local roads and highways, on the environment and air quality. Locally we often suffer congestion around Gailey Island if there are any issues with the M6 and also at peak times the roads are congested already without significant further traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Inland Waterways Association, Lichfield Branch
"WEST MIDLANDS INTERCHANGE Development Consent Order application Registration Statement by the Inland Waterways Association, Lichfield Branch October 2018 Inland Waterways Association The Inland Waterways Association (IWA) is a national charity which campaigns for the conservation, use, maintenance, restoration and appropriate development of the inland waterways for public benefit. The Lichfield Branch of IWA is commenting on this proposal in relation to the environment of the Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal and the interests of all its users. IWA has previously commented on this scheme in detail to the applicants following an exhibition in July 2016, and again on the Stage 2 Consultation in August 2017. In conjunction with the Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal Society, we have also had two meetings with directors in September 2016 and March 2018. Whilst some efforts have been made to mitigate the impacts of the scheme on the Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal, its Conservation Area and its users, the damage will greatly outweigh the benefits and therefore IWA objects to this application. The boating, canoeing, towpath walking, cycling, angling and sailing users of the canal and its reservoir at Calf Heath include both local people and visitors, and our comments primarily address the impacts on people, the canal heritage and its landscape setting. However, local users will also be particularly badly affected by the wider impacts of the scheme and we therefore also briefly address the wider issues of Green Belt, need, site selection, rail and road traffic. Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal The Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal is a historic waterway and a valuable amenity and recreational corridor, providing leisure boating, walking, angling, cycling and nature conservation benefits to the area. The canal is designated as a Conservation Area throughout for its special architectural and historic interest. The Roundhouse and Wharf Cottage at Gailey Wharf are Grade II Listed buildings. For most of its 46 miles length the Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal remains an essentially rural corridor and, despite skirting Wolverhampton, the only major intrusion of heavy industry until recently was the chemical works at Four Ashes. IWA provided detailed planning comments over many years on the evolving Bericote proposals to redevelop part of the former chemical works on the offside of the canal for warehousing. Our main concern was the proximity of buildings of this size to the canal and the need for additional landscape screening. Whilst some screen planting improvements were made, the adverse visual impact of the two large sheds now being constructed is significant. However, the scale of the WMI warehousing development now proposed is a whole order of magnitude greater and is potentially very damaging to the waterway environment. Canal Environment & Economy The Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal is part of the national waterway system which attracts millions of visits each year from local people and holidaymakers from home and abroad, and is a major component of the nation’s tourism industry. The rural environment of the canals plays a vital role in attracting and sustaining the recreational and tourism use of the whole canal system which helps fund its maintenance and contributes to the visitor economy. The income from boating activities helps support local businesses and provides a major part of the funding necessary for the Canal & River Trust to maintain the canals for public use and enjoyment. Major built developments in the countryside adjacent to the canal system destroy their rural setting that contributes to their heritage interest, wildlife, amenity value and recreational use. Visually intrusive built development alongside the canals damages their tourism potential and economic benefits. This section of the canal currently enjoys a pleasant rural environment that contributes to its attractiveness for recreational use. The canal towpath is open to the public and provides an accessible footpath and cycle route, but the attractive countryside setting of this section of the canal would be lost by these proposals which would diminish its value to the local community and the visitor economy. Visual & Noise Impacts The proposal for 14 massive warehouses, up to 500m in length and 30m high, includes several close to the canal and many of the others will be clearly visible from it. Although some landscaped mounding and planting is indicated, this will only partially screen such large warehouses and the whole appearance of a substantial length of the canal corridor and its Conservation Area will be changed from open rural views to a high density industrial estate. Furthermore, the proposed main access road runs even closer to and alongside the full length of the canal through the site, introducing constant noise disturbance from HGV traffic and destroying the present tranquillity of the canal. There is a boatyard with a hire boat base and both permanent and visitor moorings on the canal south of the A5 at Gailey Lock, which would be affected by noise from warehouse activities and traffic on the spine road at all hours, day and night. This is a popular mooring area as it marks the end of the long summit level of the canal, and is a place to rest preceding or following working the locks down to the north. Some boats are also used residentially for various periods including overnight stays. However, the proposed development would render this section of canal unattractive for mooring and significantly damage the tourism value of the whole canal. The site will also be visible from the canal south and east of Four Ashes through to Calf Heath Junction with the Hatherton Branch Canal and almost certainly even further south given the landforms and the size of the units. The proposals would also seriously damage the setting of Calf Heath Reservoir which is a canal water supply reservoir used for dinghy sailing and angling, and with considerable nature conservation value. The Masterplan layout shows large warehouse units in very close proximity that would be visible above any landscape screening. Changes to the local wind microclimate could also seriously affect its use for sailing. IWA Opposition IWA is therefore opposed to this development in principle but has also sought to make constructive suggestions about how its adverse impacts on the canal might be reduced should it ever gain Development Consent. In opposing the scheme, we also argue that it should be refused for the following reasons: Green Belt The site is in the West Midlands Green Belt where inappropriate development should not be approved except under very special circumstances, and this proposal clearly constitutes inappropriate development. Notwithstanding selective quotations from a National Policy Statement, the National Planning Policy Framework provides the definitive policy on Green Belt, and that requires its safeguarding to protect the countryside from encroachment and to encourage the recycling of derelict urban land. Whilst areas of Green Belt have been under pressure for housing developments in recent years, there is no comparable national shortage of employment land and Government policy remains to protect the Green Belt. Need & Location The map showing existing and planned SRFIs is cited as evidence of need for a very large SRFI in this location, but instead shows that if there is any gap in coverage it is in the Stoke-on-Trent area. The West Midlands conurbation is already well served by SRFIs at Birch Coppice and Hams Hall. South Staffordshire has only limited industrial sites and will be served by the RFI at Cannock, as shown on a Stage 1 consultation map. The larger manufacturing and distribution needs of the Black Country would be better served by one or more smaller sites within that area where they could make use of extensive brownfield land. Even if the argument that such sites are too small could be sustained, which we strongly doubt, then the preference should be for an urban fringe site such as Featherstone and not one remote from its main markets out in the countryside. This proposal is of grossly excessive size for this location. This appears to be a classic example of developers favouring greenfield sites because they are cheaper to build on than brownfield sites that may need assembly, clearance and remediation. But these costs are offset by the proximity to infrastructure and services and the benefits to the community of workforce accessibility, reduced road transport needs and preservation of the countryside. And when the countryside in question is Green Belt that should trump all other considerations. Rail Connection Much is made of the rail connection to justify the site but connecting to a twin track section of the West Coast Mainline (WCML) will reduce its capacity as freight trains slow down to access the site or gradually accelerate on leaving it. It appears that Network Rail have so far only “indicated” that there are sufficient train paths for up to 4 trains per day. The terminal capacity of up to 10 train paths per day may only be achievable with more extensive rail capacity improvements, or many of the train paths may have to be overnight which would affect their utility and economics. There is considerably more existing freight tonnage carried on the adjacent motorways than the WCML and it is clear that the rail connection will take only a small fraction of the total traffic from the site. Only 3 of the 14 proposed warehouses are directly rail linked. The applicant’s reluctance to put any figure on this is undoubtedly because this proposal is clearly a largely road connected warehousing site dressed up as a rail interchange to make it seem more sustainable. Road Traffic The promotional claims that this development would reduce traffic on the M6 is not credible. Freight movements between the site and the industrial conurbation would inevitably all be by road and mostly on the motorway, not to mention the need to bus in most of the workforce. The adjacent sections of the M6, A5 and A449 are already congested and this proposal would significantly increase congestion leading to more accidents and delays for local traffic. Major road improvements would be needed but only minor changes to the adjacent roads are proposed. Canal Enhancement Strategy As a result of representations by IWA, and separate discussions with Canal & River Trust, a Canal Enhancement Strategy has been identified with a number of improvements to reduce or compensate for damage to the canal environment. These include: • Removing the redundant two pipe bridges and a road bridge over the canal adjacent to the Bericote site • Amending the design of the new road bridge over the canal to have brick cladding on the abutments • Improving the canal towpath surface and access points • Creating pedestrian connections to the Community Park at Croft Lane Overall, these changes slightly reduce the impact on the Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal and its Conservation Area, but the scheme still comprises 14 massive warehouses, new roads and rail sidings which will industrialise a large area of open countryside in the Green Belt and bring more traffic noise and visual intrusion to the canal corridor. IWA therefore remains opposed to this development. Further Improvements Required Should this inappropriate scheme be approved, several further improvements are required to minimise damage to the environment and users of the Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal and its Gailey Reservoir. • The roundabout on the spine road within the site should be offset and moved further from the canal to avoid it intruding on the proposed earth mounding and planting, compromising the effectiveness of the visual and noise screening at this point where the traffic will be most intrusive • Warehouses 4010 and 3030 should be reduced in height or size or set further away from the canal so as to be more effectively screened by the canalside bunding and planting • All the screen bunding and landscape planting around the canal corridor should be carried out in advance of building construction, and semi-mature trees used wherever possible to reduce the time for the screening to become effective • The redundant modern Four Ashes road bridge over the canal should be removed and the canal banks reinstated, with the cycle/footpath using the original historic Gravelly Way canal bridge • The warehouses adjacent to the reservoir should be both reduced in height and set further back. Detailed Comments on Plans & Reports: Building Heights and Appearance The Building Heights Parameter Plan does not correspond with the Masterplan layout. The central 30m maximum height zone cuts across 3 of the units (3030, 4020, 4030) which are partly within this zone and partly in the 20m or 24m zones. So unless a stepped profile is intended for these units the plans are contradictory. It is also disturbing to read in the Application Guide that “the number and precise location of the proposed buildings, and their detailed appearance, are not yet known or fixed” so their visual impact may be even greater than indicated on the current plans. Canalside Mounding The Green Infrastructure Plan shows earth mounding between the canal and spine road but close to the road and of variable height. To maximise the screening effect of the mounding, and minimise views of the warehouses for boaters on the canal and walkers on the towpath, the mounding would be better located closer to the off-side bank of the canal, whilst retaining existing trees and bushes along the canal bank. The Illustrative cross sections C-CC and N-NN show sight lines for canal users adjacent to warehouses 4010 and 3030 respectively, but at full planting maturity. The mounds should be constructed at the earliest stage and densely planted with native tree and shrub species using part-grown trees to maximise the early screening effect. But deciduous trees provide a less effective visual screen in winter and have only limited noise reduction properties, so the mounding itself needs to be sufficiently substantial to screen most of the height of the buildings. However, the width and height of the mounding is compromised adjacent to the roundabout between these units. The mounding height is shown as reduced from 6m to 4.5m here and the mound is shown intruding into the edge of the canal, so the roundabout should be offset eastwards to remove this anomaly and to allow a more consistent height. There is another pinch point in the mounding opposite unit 4010 where the height shown is only 3.5m and this also needs to be addressed by moving the road eastwards at this point. Although further from the canal, unit 2010 at 20m height will obviously be only partly screened from the canal by the 6m high mounding shown close to the building, as shown on cross section B-BB. Whilst tree planting within the Croft Lane Community Park will help, the location, density and species of this need to be carefully considered to maximise its effectiveness on sight lines for canal users. The photomontages of Gailey Wharf (Viewpoint 2) show little initial screening and incomplete screening at Year 15. The proposed mounding to the south is also too close to units on Vicarage Road and Straight Mile to have much effect, as shown on cross section K-KK. The buildings are clearly visible above the mounds where seen from the canal as shown in the Viewpoint 7 photomontages, even after 15 years. Instead of the proposed Calf Heath Community Park, with its disconnected areas of land of limited value to the community, it would be better if most of this were densely planted as woodland to provide more effective screening of the warehouses from the canal and Calf Heath village, and to compensate for the large section of Calf Heath Wood to be felled for this development. Due to the proximity of the units and the ground levels, screening of the buildings from Calf Heath Reservoir is even less effective. Although cross section I-II purports to show full screening this is only at full maturity of the trees (50 years?) as the mounding is lower. The Viewpoint 13 photomontages show that most of the warehouses are still largely visible at year 15. The units should be set further back and the height of the mounds increased. Rail Freight Interchange The cross section showing the 30m height of the overhead gantry crane structure and container stacks illustrates that this will have a major visual impact on the Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal and its Conservation Area. The rail depot will be prominently visible from the canal across the chemical works north of Vicarage Road and in particular where the canal runs close to the existing railway south of Gravelly Way. The layout precludes any mounding or planting to help screen the rail freight depot although there may be scope for some planting between the Phase 2 reception tracks and the WCML, and acoustic fencing should be considered to the rear of the towpath hedge where space allows. Design of Canal Bridge The design of the new road bridge over the Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal is dimensionally acceptable, and the abutments and parapet are now to be clad in red brick to better match the historic vernacular architecture of the canal and to limit its impact on the Conservation Area. When the new highway is constructed the existing bridge over the railway is to be removed, and the modern Four Ashes Bridge 78A over the canal will become redundant and should also be removed. This will help compensate for the impact of the new highway bridge on the Conservation Area by reinstating the historic setting of the original Gravelly Way Bridge 78, a typical James Brindley designed bridge dating from 1772 and substantially in original condition. (There appears to be a delayed provision for this in Schedule 2 of the Draft Development Consent Order). Built Heritage The Environmental Statement, Built Heritage report purports to give a professional assessment of the Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal Conservation Area and the heritage structures within it, along with the impacts of the development. However, it is in many places a biased and distorted characterisation with comments that belittle the heritage importance of the canal and exaggerate its industrial elements whilst downplaying its predominantly rural setting. Categorising the heritage value of the Canal, of Gailey Wharf and of Long Moll’s Bridge as Low, and the value of Gravelly Way Bridge as Very Low, is a travesty. Whilst the permanent impacts on the CA heritage in the site are acknowledged to be Medium to High, assessing this against the whole 46 miles length of the canal as Negligible is a valueless and wholly misleading conclusion. Wind Effects on Calf Heath Reservoir The draft Environmental Statement scoped out wind microclimate effects despite the Secretary of State advising against this, and the Wind Effects Study irrationally suggests that warehouses up to 30m high will have no more effect than existing trees about 9m high. Calf Heath Reservoir is used for dingy sailing by a Sailing Club and School, and the proximity of three large warehouses up to 30m high to the southwest, the direction of the prevailing wind, would inevitably affect the wind conditions across the reservoir. By funnelling the wind between the buildings it would create both local wind shadows and stronger, variable and unpredictable wind zones which would have major detrimental effects on the sailing conditions and affect the future viability of the site. The adjacent warehouses should be both reduced in height and set further back from the reservoir. Recreational Users of the Canal The Planning Inspectorate’s Scoping Opinion identifies “Impacts on recreational users of Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal” as a main potential issue, but we have found no evidence that this has been done. Impacts on the many people that enjoy boating, angling and walking along the canal, as well as those who are resident in canal boats on short and long term moorings need to be assessed. It is not acceptable to dismiss this on the assumption that people are only passing through. Many users currently make repeat visits or spend many hours there recreationally. As moorings are generally permitted in any one location for periods up to 2 weeks some boat users are resident for that time, whilst others have designated permanent moorings which they may occupy for various periods including weekends or longer periods throughout the year. The noise impact on these canal users could be significant and discourage or even effectively prevent such continued use of the canal. As well as damage to amenity and recreation this could adversely impact the canal’s economy, including locally the boat yard and canal shop at Gailey. Alternative Sites The Alternative Sites Assessment claims the SRFI map identifies “a gap in the network” between the West Midlands and the Northwest. But an unbiased reading of the map shows that the West Midlands is already well served by 2 SRFIs, comparable with the 2 in the Northwest, 2 in Yorkshire, but with only 1 in the Southwest, and only 1 so far in the East Midlands and in the Southeast. The other striking thing it shows is a cluster of 3 and potentially 5 sites around Daventry which is not one of the major regional conurbations or industrial areas, so clearly factors other than a balanced regional distribution are at play here, and the concept of a ‘network’ is illusory. There is no discussion as to why the Daventry area is so commercially attractive, although its proximity to the A14 as well as the M1 and WCML is undoubtedly important, and the other obvious factor is that it is not in Green Belt and has apparently had compliant planning authorities. There is clearly no national strategy guiding the location of SRFIs, with sites simply being promoted for commercial reasons and often as speculative developments. The attempt to invent a “Black Country and southern Staffordshire” market for a SRFI is unconvincing. Whilst the Black Country is a major industrial area, already well served by 2 nearby SRFIs, southern Staffordshire has relatively limited industrial sites. The main population centre within Staffordshire is in North Staffordshire, and if the SRFI map could be said to indicate any gap at a sub-regional level, it is in Stoke-on-Trent. However, the arbitrary “Search Area” has been deliberately drawn to largely exclude Stoke. The report also ignores the RFI at Cannock which will adequately serve the limited southern Staffordshire market. If additional RFI capacity is needed to serve the Black Country then that would best be provided on a brownfield site within the Black Country. Whilst a site the size of WMI may not be available, there is no need for it to be anything like that size, and it could be a ‘cluster’ of sites with a central railhead serving a group of satellite sites within a few miles with good or enhanced road links. Only if no such site were available, which seems most unlikely given the amount of brownfield land and extensive existing rail infrastructure in the Black Country, should it be necessary to consider a Green Belt site within or immediately adjacent to the conurbation. Featherstone is such an edge of conurbation site, partly brownfield and even if extended only partly Green Belt, and the reasons for ruling it out are unconvincing. Full length rail sidings could be located alongside the WCML as at WMI by extension northwards, and a direct connection to the M54 provided which would be better than with WMI, with roadworks no more onerous than needed around Four Ashes. The report appears to deliberately exaggerate the problems involved here in order to justify the pre-selection of the Four Ashes site. Under no circumstances can a site remote from its principal market, out in the countryside and in the middle of the Green Belt, be justified. Summary The proposed WMI is inappropriate Green Belt development not justified by very special circumstances. The immediate area is already being served by a SFI and the Black Country would be better served by a site or sites in that area and on brownfield land. The rail connections are likely to serve only a small part of the site traffic. It would lead to a massive increase in road traffic and congestion in the area. There would be significant damage to the heritage, environment and visitor economy of the Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal and its Conservation Area. Philip G. Sharpe Chairman & Planning Officer Inland Waterways Association Lichfield Branch "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Keith Macaulay
"I object to this application because I feel that it will have a massive negative effect on local highways and traffic in an area that already suffers from regular traffic congestion. The aim of a rail interchange should be to reduce road traffic in busy areas, but the choice of this location will not have this effect, due to existing M6/M54/Toll Road/A5/A449 congestion. The increased fumes from increased vehicles will also have a negative effect on local health. There are other more suitable brownfield sites available. Green Belt land should only be destroyed where there are no other alternatives. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lisa Richards
"Having moved to this area for a better life for my children I feel this will have a major impact on our local villages and wish to be involved in this process. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lucy Green
"I object to this application as I am worried about the environmental impact. In particular I do not agree with developing on a Green Belt area due to the direct effects on the immediate area (destruction of natural habitat), but also the environmental impact on surrounding areas due to the increase in traffic (air and noise pollution affecting health of local people). I feel that this area for development is not the only option and strong consideration of more suitable (less environmental impact) sites are needed, for example Brownfield sites."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Robinson
"- this is fundamentally the wrong location for this Hub (loss of green belt, loss of agricultural land, access to an already stressed motorway network with regular blockages due to high traffic volumes) - it will impact my environment with traffic levels both of HGVs but also thousands of staff travelling to from work - I fail to see how the hub can employ 8000 people as suggested"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Andrew Elliott
"I object to this application because I am concerned about traffic on the A449, A5 and surrounding lanes. I am a Penkridge resident who lives alongside the A449. As such, I can vouch for the dramatic increase in traffic that any incident on the M6 causes, however minor. My concern is the increased volume of traffic that the interchange will bring. This will tax the already overburdened roads, and increase the use of local lanes as dangerous "rat runs". The emissions caused by this increase in traffic will be hazardous to the health of local residents. Also, the only Pelican crossings on the A449 are in the centre of the village. This makes crossing the main road elsewhere hazardous under "normal" road conditions, let alone with the increased traffic the interchange will bring."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Dennis Burton
"Do not agree with comercial building taking over greenbelt land dispute traffic findings in report over impact of extra vehicles. Disagree with CPO for homes of residents who are pensioners residing for over 60 yrs in the village of calf heath in some cases. Extra pollution on roads is a danger to health"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Joseph Farren
"I object to the rail interchange at Four Ashes, 1/ The entire 634 acres is in greenbelt farm land 2/ AS 10 of the warehouses have no railway connection, there is no reason for their construction there. They could be on a BROWNFIELD site anywhere in the country. 3/ The position of the railway sidings and the remaining 4 warehouses is odd. AS if they are not expected to be built! At this point the rail track is about 3 mt below ground level. All the ground for the 4 warehouses and rail sidings will have to be excavated at track level. At present the railway speed limit between Wolverhampton and Stafford is 80 - 100 mph. When these buildings are in place the speed for ALL trains could be 40mph and for trains turning off will be even lower. To make a low speed choke point in the middle of a high speed line does not make sense, it would be better at an end. 4/ I object to the plans, but if permission is granted the railway sidings MUST be built before any warehouses. After all the justification for the project is a Rail Freight Interchange, NOT 10 warehouses on GREENBELT farm land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Peter Heath
"I use the Staffs and Worcester canal alongside the proposed West Midlands Interchange for recreational purposes and this development would significantly destroy the rural nature of the canal along with a large part of the green belt which can never be replaced. There would be a significant increase in the noise level from this development from trucks and fork lifts reversing which would have an adverse effect on the wildlife along with air pollution along the canal. The additional traffic on local roads and the already overloaded M6 would make moving around intolerable for local people. This development would be more suited to a brown field site in in another location that does not further destroy our already diminishing countryside available for recreational purpose for local people of Staffodshire"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Barbara Walters
"1/ Protecting the green belt ( use a brown site ) 2/ Negative effect on the environment / pollution, air quality, noise 3/ Negative effect on local roads and traffic 4/ Loss of agricultural land and countryside also on flora and fauna 5/ This is the wrong location because other suitable locations area available including brownfield land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Emma Winstanley
"I wish to strongly object to the WMI. This proposed application is going to impact immensely on the local community of Four Ashes & all surrounding areas. The proposal is on a huge chunk of green belt land which is totally unacceptable, surely there are more suitable lands, such as brownfield land which could and should be used. Apart from having a huge impact on pollution, air quality, noise & light it will also hugely impact on highway safety. It may well be increasing job opportunities but along with this comes the huge increase in traffic as people from further afield will be traveling into work causing a huge impact in & around the development, not to mention the huge increase in wagons/lorries from the site it self. There will be loss of wildlife,countryside & the beautiful rural aspect of the area . This proposal is completely out of character for the area and spoil yet more country side. It is with these points in mind that I urge you to object to this proposal. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Robinson on behalf of Mrs H.M. Kirk
"Already far too much traffic in the area. The M6 is very congested already Loss of Green Belt and agricultural land "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Janice Januszewski
"RE: The proposal West Midlands Interchange This development will have a significant effect on the local community and whilst it is true that jobs will be created and an excavated country walk is to be built, this will not be enough to protect the following: -Major erosion of the greenbelt -A huge negative effect on local highways and traffic with a predicted movement of ove4r 16 thousand vehicles daily. -A major cause of air pollution and noise -An attack on local flora and fauna -Other more suitable brownfield sites are available so why the greenbelt? These reasons alone should be cause for concern "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Robinson on behalf of Mrs KMJ Robinson
"- negative impact due to traffic increase. - concerns regarding negative impact to flora & fauna. - detrimental impact on pollution / air quality and noise. - loss of agricultural land. - inappropriate development on the green belt."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Lisa Griffiths
"I dispute the traffic report & believe an indepth report should be undertaken Calf Heath / Four Ashes already has endured distrution of its greenbelt with the incinerator & water works being built, also warehouses behind Four Ashes public house. I believe the community deserves to keep the remaining greenbelt for the large equine land users and to preserve the wildlife which is prolific in the area Brownfield sites would be more suitable + cause no disruption to village residents by taking greenbelt land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Patricia Ashford
"I am concerned as a resident of Shareshill that the volume of traffic, already substantial in this area, will increase significantly should this proposal go ahead. My main worry here potential rise in the lethal particulates emitted by vehicles causing air pollution and which constitute a particular hazard to local people with respiratory conditions such as asthma or chronic bronchitis. I am also concerned about the threat to the beautiful Cannock Chase area as well as other surrounding countryside as well as it being yet another threat to our already diminishing wildlife. This is already a popular tourist destination helping the economy of local businesses, but who will want to visit an area despoiled by fumes and heavy traffic! The potential for fatalities caused by pollution or accidents is too high, in my opinion, for this to be a viable proposition. Also factor in a steep rise in local carbon emissions and the urgent need to reduce these if our grandchildren are to have any kind of future at all and I find myself in all conscience bound to oppose this development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Rita Jones
"We strongly object to this proposal on the basis that it will create a huge amount of heavy traffic which will impact on surrounding villages. It will create excessive noise, pollution and will impact upon resident's quality of life. The amount of green belt which will be destroyed is unacceptable- once it is lost it can never be replaced. The railway line between Wolverhampton & Stafford is too busy to cope with the extra freight trains safely. If this sort of scheme is really necessary, why not build it down south! Why should the Midlands always have to be lumbered with damaging schemes?! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nigel Terry
"I am against this developmeny for a number of reasons. The increased traffic in the area. Almistvdsilt, incidents on the M6 cayse traffic to divert through surrounding villages, especially Penkridge, causing major disruption. Added pollution levels from the additional HGV traffic causing untold damage to local.flora and fauna. The knock on effect of additional housing requirements in villages with already stretched infrastructure, such as GPs Schools etc. 6 weeks waiting for routine GP appointments are commonplace as well as increasing class sizes in local schools. Destruction of green belt land and associated wildlife. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
P Swinn
"Subject: Proposed West Midlands Interchange/Gailey Freight Hub application by Four Ashes Ltd. Reasons for my objection, as follows: - Greatly increased congestion on A449 and other main roads in this area, which are already overloaded every time there is an incident on the M6 or M54 which is frequently. - Existing brown field sites would be more sensible away from agricultural land in a rural area. - Increased fumes from traffic affecting surrounding villages. - Increased noise from heavy traffic round the clock."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Smith
"I live in Coven and am very concerned about the proposed West Midlands Interchange. This will be a very large intrusion of the green belt that has already seen development in the local area with the I54 project. The I54 has already had an impact on traffic through Coven. As the unemployment rate in in South Staffs is very low if the development proceeds it will result in workers travelling from outside South Staffs which will create more traffic and all the negative effects this creates air pollution, light pollution, noise pollution etc. As most of the proposed jobs would result in workers being from outside the local area they would not bring benefits to the local economy. There would be a large increase in HGV movements so again more traffic and pollution. Warehouse and distribution operate 24 hours a day resulting in a negative impact on the environment, light pollution, air pollution etc. This is merely a speculative development and I do not believe proper research done by developers. Unemployment in the local area is very low so large numbers of new jobs not required. There is already considerable warehouse and storage development only 2/3 miles away in Cannock at Kingswood Lakeside Employment Park. There has also been large scale development at the I54 which is also only around 2 miles away. Why is more than 600 acres of warehouse development needed on greenbelt land? Unemployment is more of a problem in traditional industrial areas such as the West Midlands. There are numerous brownfield sites in the West Midlands that would benefit from this type of development and investment to help boost local employment rates and economy. Brownfield land would be far more suitable for development instead of speculative purchase of greenbelt land for speculative development. The large increase in traffic, particularly HGV traffic will have a very negative effect on the local infrastructure that is not designed for this level of proposed vehicle movement increase. Proposal not backed or approved by any of the local councils or MP's so is not in accordance with Local Planning Policy. I object to this application because I am concerned about the negative effect this potential development will have to the local area. The proposed development will use over 600 acres of green belt land. We have already lost green belt land to the recent I54 development and risk being swallowed up by the West Midlands conurbation if more greenbelt land is released for speculative development. I object to this application because I am convinced the location is wrong. This is a speculative development proposal for an area that has less less than 1% unemployment. A brownfield site in an area that has high unemployment would be far more beneficial. The low unemployment rate in South Staffs would mean jobs would be taken by people from outside the local area resulting in more commuter traffic from areas such as the West Midlands which will have a negative effect on local roads, air pollution etc. Developments are needed where jobs and investment are needed. There is already considerable warehouse/distribution development in this region. Kingswood Lakeside Employment Park in Cannock and the I54 are both only 2-3 miles from this proposed site, more speculative warehouse development is not required. We have already witnessed an increase in traffic through Coven since the I54 has opened and developed, this proposal will make things considerably worse with commuter traffic and a very large number of HGV movements. The proposed development will be a 24 hour, 7 days a week warehouse/distribution hub so the increase in car and HGV traffic will negatively effect the local community constantly with noise, air pollution, extra traffic on unsuitable roads, light pollution etc. This application is not backed by any of the local authorities or local MP's so they do not deem it necessary for the local area and as such is not in accord with local planning policy. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Evans
"We strongly object to the principal of this development in the location proposed, regardless of the number of different layout options proposed. We object to it for all the following specific reasons: Loss of Green Belt The proposal will be a major incursion into the Green Belt, requiring massive land take that would set a negative precedent for this policy designation, locally, regionally and nationally. The built mass, height and scale of the development and its detrimental effect on the environment (see below) is totally unacceptable on land designated as Green Belt. Its impact will be much more than its actual footprint, as it will be highly visible from the green belt to the west of the A449. It is completely the wrong location for an industrial development of this kind and scale. It will urbanise and industralise the landscape setting of what is at present rural countryside. If a development of this kind is required, then it should be located on brownfield land and closely tied to an existing city or town, where it can be more tightly contained within the urban envelope. The proposal as it stands makes a mockery of national, regional and local green belt policy and is a development proposal in the wrong place. Loss of agricultural land The development would result in unacceptable loss of agricultural land. In era of national food security, international policy uncertainty with Brexit, changing agricultural markets and global climate change, it is essential for the UK to retain and make more productive its agricultural sector. Losing farmland on the scale proposed for this development is unacceptable, when brownfield land or previously used industrial land (e.g mineral worked or ex-waste disposal sites - of the scale required - 643 acres) should be targeted. The loss of agricultural land is also linked with local planning policy designation of the land in question as open "country side". This therefore flies in the face of agreed countryside planning policy for this part of South Staffordshire. CO2 emissions and traffic impact. The 19,000 additional vehicle movements per day associated with the development will have major impacts on carbon dioxide emissions and Hugh effects upon local highways and surrounded local settlements in and around the green belt. This will result in unacceptable levels of additional atmospheric pollution, clogging up and more regular damage e.g potholes to the local road network, massively increased noise pollution, plus significant light pollution from the development itself. This will have the severe detrimental impacts on the amenity of local settlements and the quality of life of local residents living in the nearby countryside,as well as for people working in the area. No amount of "traffic" management measures will overcome the impact of the huge volume of new traffic that the development will create. Scale of the development We strongly object to the scale, mass and height of the proposed development. It will create the effect of a continuous wall of development between the railway line and the A449. This will impact detrimentally on the landscape and visual amenity of the green belt to the west of the A449. The green belt would not be left with the effect of a solid urban edge, creating industrial intrusion into what is otherwise a rural setting. Linked to this point, the landscaping proposed to mitigate its impact is totally inadequate (see below) Full landscape visualisation of the height, scale and mass of the development is required from various vantage points, including from the properties in Crateford Lane, Gailey, accross the open field views (eastwards) towards the development. This needs to show impacts over time (i.e not just showing at the final development partially screened by trees, which will take 30 - 50 years to reach some-maturity). Totally inadequate landscaping The landscaping proposal and its design is totally inadequate for the scale of the development proposed. It puts forward a paper thin veil of trees and shrubs around the development perimeter, which will not absorb the development in its setting. National designation as green belt warrants a far larger footprint of landscaping in the right places, to mitigate the environmental impact in the landscape. How can the green belt be upheld as a national designation if the visual perception of it does not remain green? The current landscaping scheme shows scant regard for locating the development in a substantially green setting. The quality, design and ambition of the current landscaping does not match minimum standards for this day and age and requires the following: A minimum of 35% green space throughout the development A focus on woodland as the prime habitat, as it is only woodland, due to the height, scale and mass of buildings, that can help to obsorb this development into the landscape. Cut grass verges, shrub beds and other open habitats (e.g wetlands) should be no more than 5% of the 35% green infrastructure. We strongly object to the thin belt of landscaping along the A449 (zones A1, A2 and B of the development). This and the other boundaries to the development, should have 50 meters depth of continuous woodland landscaping. The A449 fronts the green belt to the west and should create a substantive green boundary to the development in this location. The current landscaping proposed here is very poor. The tree species chosen for the woodland should be a mix of fast growing species e.g Poplar, Birch, Alder, mixed Conifers, together with large long-lived broadleaves e.g Oak, Wild Cherry, Lime to fully screen the development in the long-term. Mid height ornamental tree species will not do the landscaping job required. If granted planning permission the boundary landscaping should start on day one, to give some semblance of green cover whilst the development is built out. The landscaping must not be the final after thought. The landscape design aim should be to achieve visual green impact and containment of the development within 5-10 years. A community fund should be used to: - buy land to the west of the A449 to provide off-site woodland planting in the green belt. This will help to reduce the visual impact of the development from residential property views in the open countryside. - free garden trees should be provided for properties on Crateford Lane and in other locations, to further mitigate the effect of the development on residential views. -avenue tree planting should be undertaken along the A449 bordering the development site, within the highway verges. - free hedgerows trees and copse tree planting packs should be offered to landowners to the west of the A499, again to mitigate views to the development and the wider landscape. The impact on the surrounding landscape must be considered as much as the internal landscaping of this development given its impact on the green belt. Summary The cumulative environmental and other impacts of this proposal on the Green Belt of South Staffordshire render it totally unacceptable in this location. It does not meet the tests of environmental suitability or long term sustainability and as such the proposal should be rejected. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Styles and Jupp families of hower M. hon Farm
"Your Ref.TR50005 Our Ref. WMIDS-040 Styles and Jupp families, Lower Mitton Farm, Wish to raise objections to the proposed West Midlands Interchange. We have been resident in the parish on Penkridge for the past 46 years and we object to the development of the proposed interchange between Gailey and Four Ashes. Green Belt Firstly we object for industrial development unnecessarily on Green Belt land. Already too much of this land has been lost but at least to a much more worthy cause, house building. There must be Brown Field sites not far away, which would have had rail connections like old mining sites. Once agricultural land and countryside is lost it is very difficult and unlikely that it can be returned to a more natural state. Pollution The building of this interchange will have a detrimental effect on air quality from the greatly increased exhaust gases from the diesel engines of the lorries and the slowing of traffic will increase that effect. Roads and Traffic The roads around the area are already very busy especially at the times of the rush hours. Forty six years ago it was quite easy to get onto the A449 in the mornings now it can be very difficult. There is no reasonable alternative between Penkridge and Wolverhampton. Penkridge has grown considerably in size since we moved here and it is still growing with new housing developments. The newcomers will need to commute to work. The A449 the A5 and the M6 are very busy and not infrequently the M6 comes to a standstill between junctions 12 and 13 and some of traffic comes off and then flows through Penkridge causing problems. On Wednesdays and Saturdays the flow of traffic in Penkridge is already very as they are market days when without extra traffic it is often very difficult to cross the A449 by vehicle or on foot. There are only two lights controlled pedestrian crossings on the A449 in Penkridge, both near the shopping area. There is no crossing at the south end of this very old village. Light Pollution Another objection is the light pollution a site like this will produce and it will be seen for miles around. Local Planning This development is not part of local planning policy. Rail connection The proposers imply a rail link as if it exists already, but there is no link and the line to which they would wish to be connected is already very busy and network rail have no such connection at present. Without a raill link it would not be an interchange."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Trevor Worth
"1/ The vialation of green belt land is put up as a requirement in most cases. Because of this I am very much against. It should be a matter be left and before any decision on this should be severly checked at present it is to easy a decision to go green site. 2 Traffic- Here again the easy decision is taken as the figures given are now out of date, as in the local media the SS county council approved two weeks ago approved the building of another site on the left hand side of the A449 when proceeding out of Penkridge to take 200 more houses- This increases traffic total through that estimated up a further 200 plus vehicles on this route daily Therefore I can only not accept all decisions taken in respect of all sites so far, as there could be further inclusions in the pipe line not as yet announced."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Vernon Leadbetter
"Increased traffic flow of HGVs along the A5 / A449 and the knock on effect of that both in environmental terms and the increased traffic flow through villages and hamlets as drivers try to find ways of avoiding inevitable delays. Building this on a green/brown field site close to villages? If there is such a need it should be close to a location with a high unemployment level that ensures far less commutes. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Victoria Poole
"I live near the area and will be greatly affected by increased traffic on the A449. I already struggle to leave my street at peak times due to the volume of traffic. The development will also increase noise, pollution, air quality and will have an adverse affect on the local flora and fauna. It will destroy green belt which is vital and we cannot afford to lose any more agricultural land and countryside. There are more suitable brownfield sites available."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Nixon
"I am writing to strongly object to the proposed planning application for the WM Interchange for the following reasons:- 1) Environment- There is already grave concern over pollution in this country by allowing the interchange this is going to fundamentally exasperate the problem in the surrounding area through noise, fumes, light pollution,air quality, local wildlife and fauna. 2)Traffic- This will demonstrably affect local roads and highways not only from the lorries servicing the Hub but also from employees travelling because contrary to the claim that the local community will benefit, we have very low unemployment and therefore the staff will have to travel greater distances to get to and from work 3) Greenbelt reduction. We need all the greenbelt we can provide and agriculture possible. There are more suitable brownfield sites. Why not use them It appears that the only people in favour of this monstrosity are the landowners and the developers. It should not be granted planning permission and we need to save our local community and its health Anthony Nixon"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Schofield
"We believe that if the plans are successful that the valuable green belt will be damaged for the area and impact upon the environment. This will damage us by road congestion and pollution. There are brown field sites that should be considered in or closer to Wolverhampton and Stoke on Trent. The Green belt should be protected from industry and housing, loss on agricultural land and additional emissions will have negative impact on those living close by and the environment. it does nothing to reduce our carbon footprint or our nationally agreed targets"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cannock Chase District Council
"The Council previously made a detailed response on the Phase 2 consultation, on 30 August 2017. At this stage the Council’s response as a 'relevant authority,’ on the proposed West Midlands Interchange is neutral, but the Council wishes to register with PINS as an interested party and reserves its right to appear at any future Hearings to give evidence. Relevant issues for for Cannock Chase Council 1. The implications for the proposed Pentalver, Mid Cannock road/rail interchange? 2. The implications for the Churchbridge M6T/A5/A34/A460 junction and what would be the traffic impact on the A5 through the District? 3. The effect on air quality emissions and Bridgtown and Norton Canes Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) and Cannock Chase SAC and Cannock Extension Canal SAC? 4. The implications for additional HGV movements on the A5 Trunk road and via the A460 to the M6 Junction 11, at times of closure of the M6? 5. Any measures proposed to enhance the canal side environment or potentially the Hatherton Branch Canal? It is recognised that evidence from the previous West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy 2009, has identified a need for six road/rail freight interchanges in the north-west quadrant and the current proposal could potentially help to meet this need. It is also acknowledged that the proposed West Midlands Interchange would potentially create 4,500 jobs at the WMI site and up to 8,550 new jobs in South Staffordshire. It could also lead to the transfer of trunk haul HGV movements off the strategic road network onto rail, reducing congestion and improving air quality and other environmental benefits. These comments are made with the approval of Cllr G Alcott, Economic Development Lead. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Newman
"I strongly disagree with the permission to build the proposed hub at the Four Ashes for many reasons. Mainly being the horrendous traffic , pollution and safety concerns that will be present with such a huge project . I live in Penkridge and am in fear of the extent of traffic and pollution this will bring to my village . I have a young family and enjoy a village lifestyle , if this was to go ahead the safety concerns for me and my family would be attrocious . Over another 6000 HGV's coming through our village EVERY DAY making it unsafe to cross roads , impossible to get around without disruption and a heavy burden on our health is something that I feel could destroy the villagers lives and maybe force people out . We have a huge new building development which is going to bring more traffic and people to our village as it is but with this it would make traffic , confusion and health concerns to many more people than necessary . Along with all this there is the nature and greenbelt to think about , surely there are other sites where this can be situated ie Rugeley (where was approached) . I think this is a disgusting proposition and should be scrapped at all costs ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elizabeth Gooch MBE
"The current infrastructure around the proposed site cannot cope with the current quantity of traffic - especially as this is also a diversion route that is regularly used for the M6. In addition we have circa 1% unemployment so the jobs created will need to be filled by people from outside the area. The anticipated increase in traffic does not allow for this and so the real increase, on already congested roads, will cause chaos and destroy a much wider area of GreenBelt than is suggested"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gary Evans
"Air pollution due to increased vehicle activity Inability to move freely around county due to increased vehicle activity Loss of green belt, damage to wildlife and environment No benefit to local communities with regards to employment as less than 1% of community is unemployed Health issues due to increased co2 emissions Noise and light pollution "
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Patrick Kettle
"I object to this application because there are plenty of BROWNFIELD lands which are more suitable. We need to protect the Green Belt and with it the local Ecology. Furthermore the A5 and A449 are extremely busy roads and often at a standstill when (and there often is!) a problem on the M6. An extra 15,000+ vehicles a day will not only lead to more air and noise pollution but will result in many gridlock days. Local unemployment is less than 1% so employees will have to commute to and from the Hub Dr JP Kettle"
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Caine
"I object to this application because: It will cause a totally unacceptable amount of extra traffic which will cause noise and pollution. It will seriously delay road users on all journeys using the A5, A449 or M6 within a redius of several miles. The claimed "extra" new jobs will mostly be persons already in work but forced to change jobs. As they will mostly live out of this area, the employees will themselvs create un-wanted extra traffic. For these reasons it will have little or no benefit to the local businnsses. It should be built on un-used industrail or brownfield land, not on prime agricultrual land. Especially as imported foods may well become more expensive in the future. As local un-employment is very low, its presence will starve local businesses of labour."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lorna Simmons
"I object to the application because I am extremely concerned about protecting green belt land and I feel that there are more suitable places that this could be situated like brown field sites. I am also concerned about the negative effects it will have on the environment and air quality due to the masses of pollution the will be generated. I belive that if this takes place it will have negative effect on local business. Regional employment has not been considered correctly in the proposals for this application. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Louisa Copcutt
"I feel the west Midlands interchange will be extremely beneficial for everyone affected by it. After reading the information about the suggested work and what has been written against it I feel those apposing it seem very closed minded about the opportunities this development could bring to the area "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Luke Simmons
"I object to the application because I am very concerned about protecting green belt land and I feel that there are more suitable places that this could be situated. I am worried about the negative effects it will have on the environment and air quality due to the masses of pollution the will be generated. I belive that if this takes place it will have negative effect on local business too. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Faulkner
"I oppose the West Midlands Interchange development at Four Ashes. The increase in traffic created by this Transport Hub would have significant impact on the A449, A5 and surrounding roads. The village of Penkridge is already subjected to high volumes of traffic whenever there is a problem between Junction 12 and Junction 13 of the M6 and this development would only exacerbate the problem. Please put an end to this planning proposal? "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr C Harris
"I object to the proposed development for the following reasons:- Increase in traffic in the area and surrounding villages. Loss of a substantial amount of greenbelt land. Increase in noise and air pollution in the surrounding villages - we already hear traffic noise from the A449, M6 and also Stafford - W'ton rail mainline at certain times. Increased pressure on local housing, schools and health care. The loss of valuable agricultural land and wild life in the area. I believe that more suitable brownfield site are available which would prevent any of the above problems. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Henry Hughes
"I object to this proposal for the following reasons. 1/ The site is green belt agricultural land. Green belt should be protected as once destroyed can never be recovered. The land is a haven for wildlife & plant life both of which are vital for the health of the population. 2/ The increased traffic generated will cause chaos on local roads. The A5 & A449 are queued every day at peak times now. The increased traffic will cause gridlock. 3/ This site is not suitable for the reasons above. There are brown field sites in areas of high unemployment that are better suited. 4/ The local planning policy does not allow building on green belt. This application contravenes this policy. 5/The impact of pollution, air, noise and light is damaging to the environment & health of the local residents. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr John penn
"Disagree to this proposal. This will be a further loss to our countryside and open spaces. It will impact on agriculture land and its industry we need to protect this green belt land. The proposal will put increased pressure on our road and highways in our area. The increase in traffic will be agenst our environment with more noise from the traffic and increasing the air pollution. Having now lived in Coven village for 60 years, this proposal would be agenst all the reasons we came to live in Coven village."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Robert Ellis
"I am objecting to the proposed West Midlands Interchange at Gailey. I think it will have a major effect on the traffic situation. There are already frequent queues at Gailey Island often stretching back to the motorway and beyond in one direction and west bound on the A5 in the other. There will be a considerable loss of agricultural land and countryside. We need to protect our green belt. There will be a negative effect on the environment from increased pollution, air quality and noise I am also very concerned about the increased wear and damage to our local road due to the increased number of heavy vehicles. The roads are already in a poor state of repair."
Members of the Public/Businesses
NATS LTD
"Dear Sirs, NATS anticipates no impact from the proposal and has no comments to make on the DCO. Regards S. Rossi NATS Safeguarding Office NATS LTD Safeguarding Office 4000 Parkway Whiteley Fareham Hampshire PO15 7FL T?: 01489 444 687 E?: [email protected] "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Woodhead
"I object to this application because I am concerned about… Protecting the Green Belt Negative Effects on the Environment / Pollution / Air Quality / Noise / Light Negative Effects on the Local Highways and the Increase in Traffic Negative Effects on Local Health Negative Effects on the Local Flora & Fauna (Ecology) Loss of Agricultural Land & Countryside Negative Effects on Local Business “I object to this application because I am concerned the Location is wrong, because… There are other more suitable locations available Brownfield land would be more suitable Regional employment has not been considered properly Bussing in thousands of employees from other regions could damage our local economy And is not in accord with Local Planning Policy"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ross Simmons
"Here I am writing to object to the application of the hub proposals because I am massively concerned about protecting the green belt land and I feel that there are more suitable places that this could be situated. I am also very worried about the negative effects it will have on the environment and air quality due to the masses of pollution the will be generated. I belive that if this takes place it will have negative effect on local business as well. Local employment has not been taken into consideration as the local emlyment rate is very high. I don't think this has been taken into consideration properly. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ruth Goodison
"I object to this application because (1) it will have a severe impact on local traffic density and flow and consequently on local highways (2) it will have a negative impact in terms of air pollution and noise levels, particularly in Penkridge and on the A449 (3) This, in turn, will negatively affect the health of the local population. (4) The Green Belt should be protected and there are more suitable, brown field sites available, for example in Stoke on Trent and Smethwick. (5) Any disruption to traffic on the M6 already produces dense heavy traffic on the A449 through Penkridge and this proposal would make this impact much worse (6) Heavy rail freight already produces perceptible vibrations in properties on the far side of the A449 and this would become more frequent and more severe with this proposal. (7) Given that unemployment is locally low, new employees would be coming from surrounding areas, thus making for heavier traffic on local routes. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sandra Whitehouse
"I am against the building of the interchange. After consideration of any benefit it may bring. The cost of the sustained overall environmental impact it will have on both its proposed site location and all surrounding areas will be nothing less than devastating. Great Britain is effectively a small country with a sizeable environmental footprint. There can be little common sense to add a vast industrial hub to an area that is green belt, sustains both wild life and green flora when other brown field site areas in close proximity to rail links may prove much more suitable. The negative affects including pollution, noise vastly increased traffic on already congested major and minor roads are just a few of the genuine reasons against its build in this particular area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Jeavons
"I object to this application because firstly we must protect the green belt. It will have a negative effect on highways and traffic. The A 449 through Penkridge is already extremely noisey. The air quality will worsen so having a negative effect on local health. There will be a considerate loss of Agricultural land and countryside,there is more suitable locations available. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Trevor Jeavons
"I object to this application because we must protect the green belt and brownfield land is more suitable. It will have a negative effect on local businesses and regional employment has not been considered.It will have a negative effect on local highways and traffic causing more pollution and noise."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Val Hall
"Negative effect on environment/pollution/air quality. Negative effect on local highways and traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anna Woolliscroft
"As a local resident, I am concerned about the volume of development taking place in the immediate area causing unwanted pollution and the effects associated with the 1000s of additional vehicles anticipated. I moved to the area to live in the countryside and enjoy the peace and quiet. We already hear noise from the construction sites in development and are concerned about the increase in noise from the freight tracks and warehouse distribution vehicles. This will also impact local road infrastructure and traffic volume on the A5, A449 and M6 which are already prone to severe congestion during the week."
Parish Councils
Dunston with Coppenhall Parish Council
"We object to the loss of over 600 acres of green belt in South Staffordshire which goes against the policy of South Staffordshire District Council to protect green belt and also the National Policy Statement for National networks section 5.178 The scheme would have a significant impact on the local roads with over 6000 extra HGVs per day travelling to and through the area. In addition, the number of vehicles, other than HGVs, would be significantly increased if the Developer's predictions of the number of jobs that will be generated come to fruition, which could result in a daily increase of over 18000 vehicles per day on our local roads As the M6 is one of the busiest motorways in the country, our Parish, part of which straddles the A449, would be particularly affected if there were to be a closure of the M6 after junction 14 south, which happens frequently. This means that the A449 between Stafford and Gailey (passing through Dunston just south of junction 13) can then become gridlocked for many hours. Proximity of dwellings close to the A449 will be seriously affected by the extra pollution generated by any increased vehicle movements. This could also have knock on effect on the many single track poorly maintained country lanes between Coppenhall and Dunston or Penkridge which provide an alternative route when the A449 is stationary. As some of the extra freight traffic will also be approaching the WMI along the A5 from Telford, this could also impact on our area if the A5 is closed, as traffic could approach the WMI via the A518 again cutting through the narrow country lanes of our Parish. We understand that at the present time the scheme has suggested that ANPR cameras and perhaps some other form of technology which may be available at the time, will be used to monitor HGVs ensuring they do not leave the M6 before the site and a system of fines be put in place. This seems wholly unsatisfactory, unmanageable and there would of course be dispensation if the motorway was shut. Our other concern is the overnight parking of HGV vehicles. We understand that there is to be a lorry park of around 75 spaces on site to accommodate vehicles waiting to unload. The lay-by in our Parish on the A449 is full every night with HGVs with no facilities for the drivers, our residents who walk past the lay-by have to suffer the sight and smell of not only excessive litter but human waste. Every other lay-by between here and Gailey are always full as are the Transport Cafes in the area. Why haven't the developers made major provision for overnight stopovers? Concerns have been raised that if the rail terminal does not succeed, it will become a massive depot which could generate more traffic "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Greensforge Sailing Club Calf Heath
"a) We, Greensforge Sailing Club, are a long established user of Calf Heath Reservoir and use the facility twice a week throughout the season. Additionally it is used by our integrated young sailors in the Sea Cadets and Sea Scouts We are an established RYA Training Centro and many people have been introduced to the sport of sailing through these contacts b) The site's location and open landscape ensures that the prevailing S/SW winds flow easily over the reservoir. c) The proposed building development, their closeness, height and density will inevitably change the characteristics of the prevailing wind, causing the worst of conditions for the dinghy sailor, unpredictable shifting, gusty winds. d) We have, with the support of Veolia Environmental, improved our landing facilities and continue to improve our Club complex and support facility e) In conclusion we would request a much diminished project in the area bordering our reservoir and a reduced height of any building. The extent and density of the Interchange is a massive intrusion on what has been a peaceful most suitable for sailing purposes , it is likely to lead to unacceptable sailing conditions for us in its proposed size/area and density. f) As most of us live some distance from the reservoir we are concerned that the easy access from the A449, Station Road and Vicarage Road is maintained without restriction. Finally i feel that I must make the point that we do not want such a vast sprawling mass of building structures in what is a green and pleasant landscape. If it is so necessary let it be smaller and less dominant. "
Parish Councils
Hatherton Parish Council
"HATHERTON PARISH COUNCIL’S SUBMISSION AGAINST THE WEST MIDLANDS INTERCHANGE BREACH OF PHYSICAL BOUNDARY The desire to breach the physical boundary of Vicarage Road is completely unacceptable. There is no demonstrable need for the site to be stretched in a south easterly direction or to incorporate an entrance/exit to the site from Vicarage Road. This would have a far reaching negative effect on all connecting side roads to Vicarage Road for example vehicles turning off the A5 into Straight Mile, Calf Heath to access Vicarage Road. VISUAL IMPACT The proposed Rail Hub is within 3kms of the toposcope of Shoal Hill Common Local Nature Reserve and will have a very detrimental visual impact on the setting of Shoal Hill Common. The photographic evidence supporting the application is inaccurate and does not reflect the negative visual impact the hub will have on the outward landscape. The Waste Incinerator is clearly visible already and a number of the proposed interchange warehouse structures will not only be of a similar height but also of a much greater scale LIGHT POLLUTION Because the surrounding area will be looked down upon from Shoal Common due to its natural elevation, the pollution from the flood lighting on the site will have an extremely detrimental effect on the tranquillity of the night sky as well as completely compromising the view of the surrounding area. PARKING AND AIR POLLUTION Other Rail Freight Interchanges contain a dedicated parking area for the overnight accommodation of heavy goods vehicles. In the Collective’s view this is an absolute necessity in order to alleviate the problem of fly parking. The amount of heavy goods vehicles which will be attracted to the area will inevitably lead to inappropriate parking in the surrounding locality which will blight our local communities. The Collective believes that it is absolutely essential that a large car park is provided within the Rail Hub itself in order to accommodate such a use. ECOLOGY Serious consideration needs to be given to the protected species on the site, many of which are categorised as Red and Amber and also to the protected species of Bats. Although mitigation is proposed around the warehousing area there will be a lengthy period of time before the Countryside Parks are constructed, accordingly, this is unacceptable in terms of protection of important wildlife. PHASING OF THE DEVELOPMENT The WMI is being compared to the DIRFT however, the DIRFT was constructed in several phases, each with its own individual planning consent. It would be far more sensible to allow time to assess the impact as the development evolves for this application too. STERILISATION OF MINERALS BENEATH THE SITE It is estimated that 50% of the site is rich with minerals and this is acknowledged in Staffordshire County Council’s minerals plan. To develop all of the site will effectively lead to the sterilisation of the available mineral reserves which are protected under the County’s mineral Plan. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joanne Taylor
"• Devastating Impact on South Staffordshire and it’s villages • Needless Destruction of 643 acres of Valuable Greenbelt Land • Needless Destruction of Valuable Wildlife Habitat • Detrimental impact on protected, endangered and declining species • Needless Destruction of Valuable Agricultural Land • The majority of the land is owned by a Director of the Developers, the land has already started to be stripped including illegal tree felling • Significant increase in traffic. An additional 18,624 vehicles per day, causing constant congestion, impact on M6 and strategic diversion route of A5 and A449. • Poor Air Quality – 16.3 tonnes of additional CO2 emissions per day • Contradicts Government Plans for Britain plans to become the world’s cleanest country by cutting greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050. • Noise Pollution – from the site and traffic throughout the area • Light Pollution - from the site and traffic throughout the area • Harmful effects on Health - Air pollution is contributing to about 40,000 early deaths a year in the UK, contributes to many chronic conditions such as cancer, asthma, heart disease, and neurological changes linked to dementia • Developer Strategy is exploiting planning regulations to try and get this approved Developers have classed this as a SRFI as warehouses would never be permitted on Greenbelt Land. It would be built in stages, Warehouses first but then the Freight Hub may never materialise. Only 4 Warehouses would be rail connected, how can this be classed as a freight hub? • No guarantee they would be able to secure slots on the West Coast Loop line, which is already very busy with fast passenger trains • Site location is illogical and inappropriate due to so many reasons, should be built on brownfield sites in Birmingham or the Black Country, the areas this intends to serve, areas with high unemployment and in need of regeneration • Site is away from industry and the areas it would serve – increasing road miles of goods • Brownfield Sites in areas which need regeneration should be used • Brownfield Sites which are more suitable for the activities have been disregarded • Developers advise will create 8,500 jobs, however South Staffordshire Employment Levels are very low so employees would have to travel from Birmingham and the Black Country, areas which have significantly higher levels of unemployment. • Low Level, Low Paid Jobs easily replaced by technology • Destruction and Consequences are irreversible and will negatively impact on generations to come • Plans are trying to merge South Staffordshire into Greater Birmingham and the Back Country disregarding the areas unique character • There is not a need for a Freight Hub in this rural area • There is not a need for Warehousing in this rural area • The consequences are not confined to the development, additional housing would impact village infrastructures (roads, schools, health services) which are already under significant strain • Significant detriment to residents / families who live in the area • Quite Simply this is not needed in South Staffordshire, the Developers plans are exploiting planning regulations to allow Warehousing to be built to achieve profit at the expense of Residents, the Greenbelt and Wildlife. This cannot be allowed to go ahead. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Luke Hayward
"I object to the interchange because of the noise pollution And employees from other regigns damaging local econamy More suitable sites would be brown field sites and not our greenbelt land"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Bradbury
"As a local resident, I am concerned about the volume of development taking place in the immediate area causing unwanted pollution and the effects associated with the 1000s of additional vehicles anticipated. I moved to the area to live in the countryside and enjoy the peace and quiet. We already hear noise from the construction sites in development and are concerned about the increase in noise from the freight tracks and warehouse distribution vehicles. This will also impact local road infrastructure and traffic volume on the A5, A449 and M6 which are already prone to severe congestion during the week. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roger Slowley
"I object to this application because I am concerned about the Negative Effect on the Local Highways and the increase in Traffic. Also the need to protect the green Belt."
Parish Councils
Shareshill Parish Council
"SHARESHILL PARISH COUNCIL’S SUBMISSION AGAINST THE WEST MIDLANDS INTERCHANGE TRAFFIC IMPACT The communities of Shareshill, Saredon and Hatherton are extremely concerned about the potential rat running of employee traffic using the very narrow lanes which are used regularly by horseriders, walkers, and cyclists. These roads all lead on to the Straight Mile and will also impact on our neighbours in Hatherton. Accordingly, we have concerns about the rear entrance into the Interchange via Vicarage Road there should, therefore, not be a physical breach of the boundary at Vicarage Road. STRATEGIC HIGHWAY MATTERS There is grave concern regarding traffic impact on the stretch between Junctions 11 and 12 of the M6. This could lead to accidents and congestion by squeezing too much traffic activity into a very tight pinch point; this will include the link to the M6/M54, M6 Toll Road, construction traffic to HS2 and the retail attraction to Mill Green. At the last consultation none of these cumulative effects had been considered by the applicant. VISUAL IMPACT The proposed Rail Hub is within 3kms of the toposcope of Shoal Hill Common Local Nature Reserve and will have a very detrimental visual impact on the setting of Shoal Hill Common. The photographic evidence supporting the application is inaccurate and does not reflect the negative visual impact the hub will have on the outward landscape. The Waste Incinerator is clearly visible already and a number of the proposed interchange warehouse structures will not only be of a similar height but also of a much greater scale PARKING Other Rail Freight Interchanges contain a dedicated parking area for the overnight accommodation of heavy goods vehicles. In the Collective’s view this is an absolute necessity in order to alleviate the problem of fly parking. The amount of heavy goods vehicles which will be attracted to the area will inevitably lead to inappropriate parking in the surrounding locality which will blight our local communities. It is absolutely essential that a large car park is provided within the Rail Hub itself to accommodate such a use. ECOLOGY Serious consideration needs to be given to the protected species on the site, many of which are categorised as Red and Amber and also to the protected species of Bats. Although mitigation is proposed around the warehousing area there will be a lengthy period of time before the Countryside Parks are constructed, accordingly, this is unacceptable in terms of protection of important wildlife. PHASING OF THE DEVELOPMENT The WMI is being compared to the DIRFT however, the DIRFT was constructed in several phases, each with its own individual planning consent. It would be more sensible to allow time to assess the impact as the development evolves. STERILISATION OF MINERALS BENEATH THE SITE It is estimated that 50% of the site is rich with minerals and this is acknowledged in Staffordshire County Council’s minerals plan. To develop the entire site will effectively lead to sterilisation of the available mineral reserves protected under the County’s mineral Plan. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephanie Palmer-Hayward
"I object the application because of the loss of agricultural land and the incr added traffic that it will bring in to the local area. It would be disappointing to see the area lose such a large amount of land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steven Lycett
"I wish to register my opposition to the proposed West Midlands interchange on the basis of the affect to will have on my locality with regard to: - loss of green belt land - additional traffic volumes in an already severely congested area - significant increases in noise and air pollution In my view planning permission should be refused for the West Midland Interchange scheme "
Parish Councils
The Collective of Parish Councils against the West Midlands Interchange
"THE COLLECTIVE OF PARISH COUNCIL’S AGAINST THE WEST MIDLANDS INTERCHANGE STRATEGIC HIGHWAY MATTERS Grave concern regarding traffic impact on the stretch between Junctions 11 and 12 of the M6. This could lead to accidents/congestion by too much traffic activity in a very tight pinch point; including the link to M6/M54, M6 Toll, construction traffic to HS2 and the retail attraction to Mill Green. The A449 is impacted by closure of the M6 and this high concentration of proposed vehicles will exacerbate the situation. At the last consultation none of these cumulative effects had been considered by the applicant. VISUAL IMPACT • The detrimental visual impact on the setting of Shoal Hill Common. The proposed Rail Hub is within 3kms of the toposcope of Shoal Hill Common Local Nature Reserve. • The applicants’ photo montage does not accurately reflect the negative visual impact the hub will have on the outward landscape. • The County Council’s Waste Incinerator is already clearly visible some of the proposed interchange warehouse structures will be of a similar height and of much greater scale. Clearly, this interruption in the view will diminish the pleasure derived by local residents who spend their leisure time enjoying the AONB. The Collective asks that the Inspector visits the site in order to gauge the full impact on the view from Shoal Hill Toposcope. LIGHT POLLUTION Because the surrounding area will be looked down upon from Shoal Common due to its elevation, pollution from flood lighting will have an extremely detrimental effect on the tranquillity of the night sky as well as compromising the view of the surrounding area. PARKING Other Rail Freight Interchanges contain a dedicated parking area for overnight accommodation of heavy goods vehicles. This is an absolute necessity to alleviate the problem of fly parking. The amount of HGVS attracted to the area will inevitably lead to inappropriate parking in the surrounding locality and blight local communities. It is essential that a large car park is provided within the Rail Hub itself in order to accommodate such a use. ECOLOGY Serious consideration is needed of the protected species on the site, many of which are categorised as Red and Amber and protected species of Bats. Although mitigation is proposed around the warehousing area there will be a lengthy period of time before the Countryside Parks are constructed, accordingly, this is unacceptable in terms of protection of important wildlife. PHASING OF THE DEVELOPMENT The WMI is being compared to the DIRFT however; the DIRFT was constructed in several phases, each with its own individual planning consent. It would be far more sensible to allow time to assess the impact as the development evolves for this application too. STERILISATION OF MINERALS BENEATH THE SITE It is estimated that 50% of the site is rich with minerals and this is acknowledged in Staffordshire County Council’s minerals plan. To develop the entire site will effectively lead to the sterilisation of the available mineral reserves which are protected under the County’s mineral Plan. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Parker Family
"We object to the West-Midland Interchange - 'Hub' being built off the A449/A5 Four Ashes. Our concerns are as follows : Using Green Belt Land when there is Brownfield Land available and more suitable. Pollution and air quality and noise by the extra 'Construction Vehicles' and then all the lorries and commutator traffic of people working there when it is up and running (an extra 18,000 vehicles'. Losing all the agriculture land and all the Units being a blot on the landscape by there size. At Gailey Island the Air Quality is now (2018) over the limit with current traffic. Planning permission is being sort for Additional units at Four Ashes Industrial Estate causing even more pollution and traffic. Infrastructure on A449 Gailey to M54 Island South/North and A5 Gailey to M6 East/West is insufficient with no plans in place to improve, also Station Road Four Ashes is just a Country Lane not a major 'A' Road. Even before the Hub is built traffic is queuing substantially north and south of Gailey Island. Can we ask the question why it is the West-Midland Interchange when it is in Staffordshire and using Staffordshire Land. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eric Robinson
"I object to the scheme as I believe it will increase considerably the amount of traffic on local roads which are already at saturation point and barely able to cope, particularly at peak times. As a resident on Lawn Lane in Coven I witness this on a daily basis. Another concern and reason for objection is the significant detrimental effect this will have on air quality which has a direct effect on public health. Thirdly, my belief is that this scheme will result in excessive noise resulting from the extra traffic. Finally this will have a significant negative effect on local ecology with pollution, noise and loss of habitat."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martin Bave
"1. Why is this using Green Belt Land which South Staffordshire Council have pledged to keep green. 2. Why is there the need for a huge warehouse estate built on Green belt land when the nearby brown field site (the Fetherstone R.O.F. which when built had rail access) has been on the market for over 10 years with no takers(The Sovereign Park). Also the new built 'Wolverhampton 450' warehouse on the Bericote Scheme at Four Ashes is still standing empty. All this points to a lack of interest in South Staffordshire warehousing. 3. Do we really need another Freight interchange in the area. I have done a recent survey of Freight Interchanges already in use (Telford with one train a week). Sites with Planning granted (Cannock Pentalver Container Site). Sites with planning submitted include several to the East of Burton upon Trent. Also the closure of Dudley Freight Terminal due to the lack in use in Birmingham. 4. How will the local roads cope with the enormous load of Lorries (estimated to be around 6,000 per 24 hours) plus the extra cars (An estimated 6.500 to 8,500 people every day mostly by car). The roads are heavily used at the moment and any hint of problems on the M6 (one of the most heavily used sections) causes gridlock in the Coven,Gailey and Penkridge area. Also on roads the proposal to close the A449 north bound access to Station Road Four Ashes are not acceptable as this is the safe and best route from Coven to Cannock. Other Freight Interchange sites in the East Midlands have problems with overnight Lorry parking due to access restriction at the terminals. 5. It is proposed to increase the local Bus service to every 1/2 hour which is an a help but will increase the use of School Lane in Coven which is in need of widening. Also at the last consultation I asked if they had any plans to reopen Gailey Station to reduce the car usage, the answer was no as the line capacity would suffer with an extra stopping point ( how will the freight trains get to the interchange during the day) . 6. The planned community parks are a cheep trick by the consortium. Who in there right mind would want to spend time surrounded by noise, pollution and towering warehouses when Cannock Chase is only a few miles away. Plus who would maintain these parks once built ( I would suspect the burden would fall on the Local Council to further burden the Tax payers). 7. The noise and light pollution on such a huge site will be enormous (the proposal is an industrial estate area twice the size of Coven). Due to the current use of the railway the bulk of train movements and a lot of lorry movements would be during the night causing excessive noise and light. 8. All in all this is an ill thought plan which will increase the urban sprawl from the West Midlands "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Nicholas Griffiths
"I believe the green belt should be protected from purely commercial enterprise. Traffic in the area is already congested and this project would just add to the road problems with many more HGV vehicles per day. I dispute the traffic survey findings. Elderly residents who have lived in Straight Mile for over 60 years will have their homes taken by CPO for this project and destroy there home life in their old age. Calf Heath is a rural village with many types of activities for both the community and visitors. Ramblers, equestrian lovers, kayak teams, fishermen and local cyclists frequent the area and destroying g the green belt will have a large effect on all these activities. Four Ashes already has an incinerator and sewerage works so we have already endured the construction of these two projects. The rest of the green belt should be protected from further development. Both the A5 and A449 are already heavily congested at peak times and if there is a problem on the M6 the traffic is affected from Penkridge as far as Cannock and Wolverhampton, this problem will only get worse with the amount of extra vehicles this project would bring."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Lamb
"TR050005 West Midlands Interchange I object to WMI because it will take up hundreds of acres of land including farm land and wildlife habitat to the permanent detriment of future generations. I object because this development should be planned to use genuine brownfield sites. I object because it will permanently and significantly increase traffic congestion on surrounding roads. I object because a rail hub should mean a rail hub, with transportation of goods and people inwards, outwards and onwards by rail with no reliance on existing roads. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Linney
"1. the Proposal includes warehousing that is not essential for the functioning of a SRFI. While some warehousing is essential, the majority of the proposed warehousing does not need to be adjacent to the SRFI and are very large units, more suitable for national distribution than local distribution. A proposal for a National Distribution centre on this site, without the associated SRFI, would not be approved. National distribution centres may be an element of the SRFI network but are not necessary for every SRFI. 2. The Proposal fails to provide Very Special Circumstances for development on Green Belt land. The only VSC justification for using Green Belt land is that an SRFI is needed in this area. The ASA did look for smaller sites, for a 'SRFI alone' development of 60Ha, however I believe put too much emphasis on motorway connection, because a SRFI solely serving a local market would not need motorway access, and too quickly dismissed the possibility of access to alternative sites by the construction of new rail links. Thus alternative brownfield, urban sites may become feasible. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clare Rockett
"I wholeheartedly object to this proposal. It will be detrimental to our area. Traffic is already a nightmare if there is an accident on the M6 (as there is on most days) and the added vehicles will bring the area to a standstill. Road surfaces and potholes are already a disgrace in the whole area and extra heavy traffic will only exacerbate the problem. This should not be built on our green belt."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David
"I strongly disagree with the proposal to establish the WMI. 1) Pollution both diesel particulate and noise. Residents already contend with high levels of engine pollution from the adjoining M6 , M54, A5 and A449. I believe the massively added levels brought by WMI (and it's construction) would lead to a toxic living area. I am concerned about the health of my two children due to the poor air quality. If left alone the current green fields, trees and filled in quarry area will continue to buffer the M6 absorbing C02. 2) Wind blocking effect on Greensforge Sailing club. I am a long standing member of this 60 year old club. It is situated on an attractive tree fringed Gailey lower pool. The tall warehouses will completely blanket the wind from the prevailing direction. They are planned to be so close to the pool they will be light and wind blocking monstrosities. Sailing and local recreation will cease. 3)Unemployment is exceptionally low in this area due to successful local companies. This cannot be used as a justifying reason. 4) I believe the rail hub is being used as a "cover" to simply build a site of large warehouses for the financial benefit of the local (very wealthy)landowner. Large local industries are already able to transport goods efficiently so which industries are pressing for a rail hub? 5) The Black Country has historically been industrialised but this amplifies the need to protect the pleasant greenbelt fringes and maintain a natural and vital respiration zone for humans. and animals. The priority for our area is to reduce pollution rather than increase it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Debbie Newell
"I am objecting to this project on the grounds of the negative effect it will have on the local roads which are already overly busy, which will cause environmental issues such as poor air quality and noise pollution. It will have a detrimental effect on the local ecology with loss of agricultural land and countryside, effecting the local flora and fauna. It is also in the wrong location because there are more suitable locations on brownfield land. We need to protect our green belt land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elizabeth Bodley
"I am very much against the development of the interchange on 700 acres of Green Belt land at the four ashes. Brown field should be your first chose, I was told Stoke had asked to have it built there. NOT green belt you developers never ever seem to spare a thought for the wild animals birds bats and all the wild life you are going to kill. Having nowhere to live. We are already killing this plant we live on and we certainly don’t need anymore help from you lot. If this does go a head on this site , then I hope you are proud of the devestation that you are going to caused to the wild life and environment we live in. Please tell your children that all wildlife you’ve killed is thanks to you and your developers. Brown field not green. You don’t live here so your not really bothered. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gillian Higgins
"I object to the application because: - we need to protect the green belt for the future health and wellbeing of our children - the increased traffic through the village (Penkridge) and the surrounding areas will dramatically increase both air and noise pollution - the village is undergoing significant residential building which is attracting families from outside the area - the proposed development will add additional risk to the population when attempting to cross the main road - - "
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Cozens
"This development would cause a great amount of pollution of air quality and traffic congestion over a wide area.When there is any closure of the M6 all traffic is diverted through Penkridge village centre causing complete congestion as things are NOW. With the HUB it would be solid with lorries and complete deadlock. The site is unsuitable as most possible workers would have to commute from some distance as there is virtually no unemployment in this area. House building is already restricted as amenities are at capacity levels. The landscape impact is totally unacceptable.I am sure there are brown field sites available with access to rail and motorway facilities."
Members of the Public/Businesses
June Watts
"I object to the proposed West Midlands Interchange-The Gailey Freight Hub for the following reasons. The extra 18000 plus of extra traffic on our local roads will create even more noise and air pollution. I have witnessed two HGVs cutting through Coven past the local school to reach the A449. We need to protect the green belt for the future especially the flora and fauna. The effect of many more HGVs on our highways and traffic will have a detrimental affect on the environment including the highways. Further negative effects will be loss of countryside and more importantly loss of important agricultural land, increase of health issues/deaths or severe injuries. long delays on the roads which will create further disruption locally including the local buses. I’m "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laura Beaumont
"I am concerned that there are no alternative traffic routes to the North when the M6 is blocked or unavailable other than through Penkridge. The traffic through Penkridge is already almost at breaking point, for example, when the market is on in the town the traffic is backlogged past the outskirts of Penkridge. When the M6 is blocked the roads through Stafford are also gridlocked. Adding additional traffic that would include numerous trucks would make the roads in Stafford and Penkridge unusable. Village traffic is adversely affected when the M6 is experiencing problems."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laura Beaumont
"Village traffic is adversely affected when the M6 is experiencing problems."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lisa White
"I wish to dispute the W.M interchange for reasons ; Extreme Pollution levels, traffic, accidents, delays,. Impact on population esp. children, health issues due to pollution extra 500 houses to be built to accommodate the new jobs. Infrastructure- Doctors, schools ,roads, road damage,policing etc not being suitable aesthetics;. blot on the landscape, green belt land promise, wildlife. I chose to live in a semi rural area. due to health issues,this will completely change my environment. The A449 through my village Penkridge will be and already is a direct route through if there is a problem on the M6 this will get much worse if the hub goes ahead. the impact of this is that a great percentage of the village housing is on the opposite site of the A449 to the doctors, how are we meant to get there if we are ill. Jobs! the promise of jobs is silly we have an incredibly low unemployment only 1%, this means all the jobs will be outsiders coming in, which in turn has more impact on the infrastructure, crime levels even more pollution. The Hub will have such a negative effect on our environment, homes and greenbelt land. It seems so pointless when Eutruria in Stoke on trent is only 25 miles away with desperate need regenerating such a run down area with high unemployment and the perfect location. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Davies on behalf of Mary Elizabeth Stuart
"Reasons for objection: 1. Protecting the Green Belt. 2. The negative effect on the environment, pollution, air quality and noise. 3. The negative effect on the local lanes, roads and traffic. 4. The negative effect on the flora and fauna (ecology) 5. The loss of agricultural land and countryside. 6. It is the wrong location because other more suitable locations are available including brownfield land and are willing to take it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Maxine Websper
"I object to this application because it will overload an already groaning infrastructure, if so many extra vehicles are to use the local roads consideration must be taken of what happens now when there is a problem on the motorways/local roads. Noise and pollution will be at unacceptably high levels and as such will have a major impact on the health and wellbeing of the local communities. It would appear that the only reason more suitable brownfield sites have not been chosen is because the developers see yet again an easy way to make more money, having saved the environmental clean up cost. If this is allowed it will open the door to yet more development and this area will go from being rural to urban and the countryside will be lost to future generations. There are too many negatives to allow this development to proceed and we the people expect the planning inspectorate to make a decision in favour of a brownfield site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Davies on behalf of Michael Stuart
"Reasons for Objections: 1. Protecting the Green Belt. 2. The negative effect on the environment. pollution, air quality and noise. 3. The negative effect on local lanes, roads and traffic. 4. The negative effect on local flora and fauna. 5. Loss of agricultural land and countryside 6. It is the wrong location because other more suitable locations are available including brownfield land that are will to take it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs J grigg
"protecting the green belt negative effect on the environment/pollution/air quality/noise negative effect on local highways and traffic negative effect on local flora 7 fauna (ecology) loss of agricultural land and countryside it is the wrong location because other more suitable locations are available including brownfield land"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Patricia Birtles
"My main objection is the total loss of green belt land. I understand that much more suitable locations including brownfield sites are available. The A449 Stafford Wolverhampton Road and the A5 Cannock to Telford are incredibly busy now without the added projected 18,624 additional vehicles per day. The loss of agriculture land and the countryside."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Websper
"I object to this proposal because other far more suitable locations are available that would welcome any employment opportunities resulting from this project. Brownfield sites are a far better option for projects of this magnitude as they help negate the massive impact on the local infrastructure that would arise if the Four Ashes location were to go ahead. Contrary to the developers assertion that the hub will take freight off the roads it will actually increase it at this 24/7 operational location and in the whole of the surrounding area, creating more pollution and noise that will lead to a negative effect on local health. This development is not acceptable to me or moreover the residents who live here and no amount of environmental mitigation will make it so, it's just the wrong location. The A5 and A449 serve as an escape route when the M6 becomes blocked and this must be ring fenced not made inoperable by HGVs coming to and from Four Ashes. Accordingly the inspectorate should reject this proposal without further ado. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Hammond
"I am regerstring my objection to the planning application on the following grounds. The negative effect on the environment caused by the additional traffic increasing pollution, noise and reducing air quality. The negative effect of additional traffic on the local road infrastructure. The effect of vehicles parking awaiting their loading / unloading times on the surrounding areas."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Rockett
"I strongly object to this proposal. The roads are far too busy in this area already with standstill traffic at the slightest sign of any problem on the M6. The M6 already has problems in this area on most days leading to huge waste of time for all in the area and all those trying to travel or do business in and around the area. Large amounts of what is supposed to be green belt land will be destroyed and pollution in the area will increase greatly. Further green belt land will no doubt be taken when houses are built for all the extra employees since there is very low unemployment locally which will lead to a need for extra housing. This is not the right place for such a project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tamara Collis
"I object to this application because the proposed warehousing hub is going to have a huge detrimental effect on all local residents. The scale of the hub is going to mean a huge increase in vehicles on the road. The roads in this area become congested at the best of times especially when there are delays on the M6. Increased vehicle numbers will cause noise /air pollution to a rural green belt area. Added traffic will increase road damage. Who will meet this cost? More than likely Council Tax will increase to cover this added problem and the local residents will pay. Serious consideration needs to be given as to how the road networks will cope with this added amount of traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony watts
"Environmental pollution air quality noise Loss of green belt Other more suitable sites available ( including brown sites )."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barry Phillips
"The massive increase in vehicular traffic will cause far too much disruption to the area and in particular the A5 and A 449 roads."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Dunn
"The A5 and A449 are already very busy roads and with the increase in both commuter traffic and commercial traffic due to the hub will become even worse. The A449 and M54 island becomes grid locked at rush hour but this will be the norm all hours with the building of the hub. This will lead to traffic taking to the smaller b road and narrow country lanes to avoid the congestion. Having commuted to work on my bike using these roads I fear for the safety of pedestrians and cyclist should the hub go ahead. The air quality near the proposed site is currently not very good and this will be exacerbated by the increase in traffic. When the wind is in the right direction the A449 and A5 can be heard in Brewood, this will get much worse. This will be a further eroding of the green belt with loss of agricultural and and countryside. The proposed height of the warehousing and container stacks will affect the usage of the lakes at Gailey with the creation of a wind barrier. Those using the canal will be confronted a 'tunnel to sail, ride and walk through. There are more suitable locations available such as the existing train hubs in Telford and Dudley port and Stoke has a number of brown field sites that could be utilised."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dennis Jones
"I am registering my strong opposition to the proposed West Midlands Interchange project. I believe that a project such as this should not be located in a green belt area, I believe it is much more suitable to a brownfield site. My major objection is to the increased traffic that this project will bring to an already congested area. The increased traffic will not only aggravate the congestion and will lead to chaos on the road at times but will also pollute the air significantly with a huge increase in omissions concentrated in such a small area, which will result in a very concerning level of poor air quality. The additional volume of traffic will slow journeys, increase omissions and create significant problems in the area and through Penkridge. It will be impossible to prevent the additional rail hub vehicles from travelling through Penkridge. We already suffer road chaos whenever there is a problem on the motorway, this project will increase that chaos to an unacceptable level. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ashurst LLP on behalf of First Panattoni UK Development Limited
"As an existing landowner Panattoni would like to register as an Interested Party as the WMI application directly impacts upon its land interest, and in particular rights of access currently held over land that is subject to the application. Panattoni therefore wish to be kept informed of the progress of, and any changes to, the application and may wish to make representations to the examination."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Frank Rowley
"Objection to the project"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gareth Minton
"I am a resident on Station Drive, backing on to the southern perimeter of the proposed Interchange. I object to this proposal for a number of reasons, primarily: Destruction of hundreds of acres of Green Belt Land. The negative impact on local communities, due to general pollution, sound and light pollution. Increased traffic in the local area, on roads which have not been designed for the proposed volume of traffic. The impact of the proposed development on air quality and the impact of this on immediate local residents. No apparent attempt to locate this proposal on brownfield sites South Staffordshire has extremely low levels of unemployment. This means that workers will need to be sourced outside of the local area, with public transport links at present unable to accommodate this, with no proposals as to how to improve this. A lack of resources for truck drivers in the vicinity, with no proposed addition to accommodate this. Station Drive already suffers from an excess of overheight vehicles trying to access the existing industrial estate - multiple occurrences per day. Drivers trying to reverse down the road causes damage to property as well as poses a danger when backing back on to the dual-carriageway. The proposed site will multiply the occurrences of this dramatically. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gillian Preece
"The A5 and A449 already carry heavy traffic causing us noise and pollution and difficulty accessing the main road network. We have low unemployment and there are more suitable locations ie. Stoke"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Health and Safety Executive
"As mentioned, when HSE responded under Section 42 of the Planning Act 2008, there is a licensed explosive site at Gailey which is in the area of the proposed development. HSE should be consulted if any works are proposed within the safeguarding distance for that site. HSE has provided further details, in subsequent correspondence with the Applicant. Page 93 of the Consultation Report acknowledges that: "The HSE raised concerns that the boundary of the Proposed Development falls within the Consultation Zones of a major accident hazard site. HSE noted that they would not advise against the Proposed Development, but if buildings are to be built as part of it, further consultation will need to be sought from the HSE. The HSE also stated that while there are currently no pipelines within the Site, if prior to the granting of a Development Consent Order (DCO) for the Proposed Development there is notification of a Major Accident Pipeline within its vicinity, the HSE reserves the right to revise its advice. It also asks whether a Hazardous Substance Consent (HSC) is needed, and if so, further information on HSC should be sought from the relevant Hazardous Substance Authority”. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jack Preece
"I wish to protect the green belt, there are brownfield sites which can be used. Our unemployment rate is low and there are other areas where this Interchange would be of more benefit to the local population. There is already traffic congestion on our local roads which will be taking extra traffic wishing to avoid the A449 and A5. Air pollution and noise are already a problem in this area especially since the I54 was developed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Vickers
"I wish to express my shock at the sheer scale of the proposed plans for the West Midlands Interchange. Whilst we fully support any proposal that will bring jobs and prosperity to our region, we cannot accept that so much green belt land should be destroyed to achieve this. I would be extremely interested to know if any other locations have been considered and if any were brownfield sites. Surely the purpose of the green belt system is to protect communities from urbanisation and provide natural green boundaries between developments, yet time and time again we see green belt land being put under pressure with the excuse of job creation. In recent years we have seen a collection of ever bigger projects within our area. The creation of the I54, and the building of the Jaguar Land Rover plant. I am in no way decrying these developments as their arrival into the area is brilliant for the West Midlands and has provided genuine jobs and wealth creation. We have had HM Oakwood super prison, the Veolia waste to energy plant, the largest civil engineering scheme in Staffordshire (at the time of construction), which was promised to have minimal impact on the visual amenity of the area, but which in reality dominates the landscape and can be seen for miles in every direction. Each new development is putting more pressure on local infrastructure, with the A449, Four Ashes, Station Road and Vicarage Road and the A5 section from the M6 to Gailey showing noticeable increases in peak level traffic. Coven itself is earmarked for further housing development, again being planned on green belt land. However, these developments are dwarfed by this 700 acre proposal. Reports suggest increases in traffic levels of over 18,000 vehicles travelling to and from this site a day, of which a third will be HGVs, creating a massive increase in noise and air pollution on an already congested road network. Incidents and accidents on the M6 between Junction 12 and 15 already cause significant congestion and disruption at present traffic levels, even the introduction of smart motorway technology on this section surely will not accommodate such significant traffic volume projections. Regarding the argument for jobs - what sort of jobs are going to be created and how much benefit will they be to the local community when unemployment levels in this area are reportedly less than 1%, this surely will mean most people working at the Interchange will need to commute to and from this development. This proposed development will have a huge ongoing impact on the local environment, further erosion of green belt, loss of flora and fauna, increases in noise, air and light pollution and increases the potential for greater flood risk by urbanisation. This scheme destroys the concept of green belt in one stroke and opens up this part of South Staffordshire for further development. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Vickers on behalf of Margaret Smith
"I wish to express my shock at the sheer scale of the proposed plans for the West Midlands Interchange. Whilst we fully support any proposal that will bring jobs and prosperity to our region, we cannot accept that so much green belt land should be destroyed to achieve this. I would be extremely interested to know if any other locations have been considered and if any were brownfield sites. Surely the purpose of the green belt system is to protect communities from urbanisation and provide natural green boundaries between developments, yet time and time again we see green belt land being put under pressure with the excuse of job creation. In recent years we have seen a collection of ever bigger projects within our area. The creation of the I54, and the building of the Jaguar Land Rover plant. I am in no way decrying these developments as their arrival into the area is brilliant for the West Midlands and has provided genuine jobs and wealth creation. We have had HM Oakwood super prison, the Veolia waste to energy plant, the largest civil engineering scheme in Staffordshire (at the time of construction), which was promised to have minimal impact on the visual amenity of the area, but which in reality dominates the landscape and can be seen for miles in every direction. Each new development is putting more pressure on local infrastructure, with the A449, Four Ashes, Station Road and Vicarage Road and the A5 section from the M6 to Gailey showing noticeable increases in peak level traffic. Coven itself is earmarked for further housing development, again being planned on green belt land. However, these developments are dwarfed by this 700 acre proposal. Reports suggest increases in traffic levels of over 18,000 vehicles travelling to and from this site a day, of which a third will be HGVs, creating a massive increase in noise and air pollution on an already congested road network. Incidents and accidents on the M6 between Junction 12 and 15 already cause significant congestion and disruption at present traffic levels, even the introduction of smart motorway technology on this section surely will not accommodate such significant traffic volume projections. Regarding the argument for jobs - what sort of jobs are going to be created and how much benefit will they be to the local community when unemployment levels in this area are reportedly less than 1%, this surely will mean most people working at the Interchange will need to commute to and from this development. This proposed development will have a huge ongoing impact on the local environment, further erosion of green belt, loss of flora and fauna, increases in noise, air and light pollution and increases the potential for greater flood risk by urbanisation. This scheme destroys the concept of green belt in one stroke and opens up this part of South Staffordshire for further development. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Maureen Billingham
" The Hub The proposed development is an environmental disaster. 1) Pollution - traffic congestion - Roads inadequate at busy times. Congestion will spill into nearby villages. 2)Pollution from constant lorries - deisel fumes - delivering to and from these sheds will be substantial - lorries also discard plastic from their loads. 3) Light and noise pollution 4) Loss of valuable farmland and livery business Loss of habitat - Nesting birds, small mamals - little owls rodeuirs , bats lapwings , bees etc Fauna - hedge rows - wildflowers grazing - we should be planting trees not sheds 5) There are brownfiled sites available Please think again Think global warming "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michele Walker
"Negative impact on the environment with increased pollution thereby affecting the health of the local community. negative impact on the local highways and increased traffic, causing traffic issues locally which will impact on our wellbeing. We are losing our countryside with a huge effect on the ecology of the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Betty Gittins on behalf of Mr James Gittins
"I object to the building of the West Midlands Interchange. This is the wrong location as much more suitable ones are available. It will destroy the countryside, the flora and fauna and eat into the greenbelt and agricultural land. It will have a negative effect on local highways, traffic, air quality, pollution and noise. The A449 and A5 are already taking far too much traffic at the moment. The amount of diesal traffic will be greatly increased having a very negative effect on the health of local residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Neil Skidmore
"[redacted] and I have lived together in Brewood for 58 years and we oppose the planning application because: 1 We understand that the proposed warehousing and ancillary work will be built wholly & partly in land set aside as greenbelt. 2 It has been calculated that the proposed interchange will give an additional 18642 vehicles a day providing 16.3 tons of C02 emissions . This is intolerable on what is predominately a rural area. Most of these vehicles will sue the A5, the A449 or both. These roads are already over loaded at peak hours. 3 Brewood medical practice will have difficulty in coping with the potential patients using from the expected 8500 additional employees, these will be in addition the occupiers of 70 new houses expected to be built in Engleton Lane, Brewood. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Richard Perry
"The destruction by building the West Midlands interchange on greenbelt farming land, which the government has pledged to protect from short term financial gain, should be refused. Other brownfield sites are available in this area eg. Rugely power station. The deterioration of air quality, which is already above the legal recommendation and the implicated health problems associated with diesel admissions, the increase in HGV traffic running 24 hours daily which, even with the new road infrastructure will only add to the already congested problem. The proposed large scale development on green belt land, which at the moment is used for growing crops and a sponge for rain water, is reasonably undisturbed with large stands of ancient woodland and streams. To destroy it with large amounts of concrete and warehousing, and the prospect of 8,500 workers and their transport in this rural area will only add to more noise, air and water contamination doing irreversible damage to the local natural environment. The planning authorities have a duty to demonstrate they have exhausted all other reasonable options before considering changes to our protected green belt. [Redacted], our MP, has recommended planning permission should be refused on this rural site. We will need all the farm land for food to feed an ever increasing population. The planned lay-by in Station Drive within metres of a dangerous blind corner under the railway bridge and facing residential properties is not necessary as this road is prohibited for high HGV's because of the low bridge. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Barbara Higgs
"I object to this application because ... To protect green belt Negative effect on environment/pollution Negative effect on local highways and traffic (roads already very busy if motorway in trouble) Negative effect on local health Loss of agricultural land and countryside Not in accord with local planning policy"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Betty Gittins
"I completely disagree with the building of the West Midlands Interchange on the following grounds. It will be built in a green belt area which will have a negative effect on the environment, local flora and fauna. It will have a negative effect on pollution, air quality and noise as well as causing massive problems with local highways and transport. There will be a loss of agricultural land and countryside and it is completely the wrong location as there are other, much more suitable locations available including brown field land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Mary parton
"It is sad that the Gailey Freight Hub would take up 700 acres of green belt land. Another green belt area in school lane. Coven is being built upon with 63 houses which will probably mean 100 vehicles will be accessing this lane which is used as a short cut to the A449 and traffic comes through 24/7. When the M.54 or M.6 is closed the A.449 becomes gridlocked (unfortunately this happens often) I have seen traffic queuing from Gailey Island into Penkridge on these occasions. Today I travelled to Penkridge and a huge lorry came alongside me at Gailey Island and he had difficulty getting round to the A.5. Already very many huge lorries travel along this road and it is very worrying that the vast number of vehicles which would be going to this proposed site would create an even worse effect on the noise and pollution. It is sad that this 700 acre site was once part of a family farm and because some family farms on the nearby Stretton estate are no more it is important that we do not lose more agricultural land. It is the wrong location for this hub as I understand more suitable brown field sites are available which would be suitable. Already we have pollution coming from the large Fourashes Industrial site. Thank you"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Pearl Martin
"I object to the proposed development of the West Midlands Interchange for several reasons: Firstly the loss of greenbelt land set up to give vital breathing space between local towns and villages though originally for aesthetic reasons we now realise how essential trees, hedges and green spaces are in combating the national problem of air pollution and how beneficial for our health, both physical and mental they are. Secondly the number of lorries using the site daily will be enormous, all I imagine fuelled by diesel? Birmingham is considering banning diesel lorries from its centre and diesel cars are being phased out by the government because of pollution and health problems they cause . It is naïve to think that these vehicles will only use main roads and motorways- there are delays daily on the M6 affecting this busy area and drivers find other routes to by-pass them; often through our beautiful and historically important villages. Thirdly, with a growing population, we cannot afford to lose agricultural land to "warehousing". Once developed that land is lost forever and surely producing food is more important?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Vanessa Ashford
"I refer to the proposal for the West Midlands Interchange and would like to register my objection based on the following reasons - Firstly, this proposal to build on Green Belt land can only be detrimental to the important flora and fauna found in this region. This area hosts a wide range of species, some of which are uncommon and I feel that this project will have massive consequences on this ecosystem. The location of this project will mean that the entry to the site on the A449 ( an already very busy road) will increase the number of traffic collisions in the area as the turning for this site is directly on the main Wolverhampton to Stafford route. This road is a national speed limit road and as a result, I am concerned that some of these incidents will result in fatalities. The immense increase in the volume of traffic could also cause commuting drivers to take risks in order to circumnavigate the queues of lorries that this project will obviously bring. In addition, the surrounding roads that may offer drivers an alternative to bypass some of the congestion, are all small lanes. These lanes are too narrow and winding to support the level of traffic that will now try to use them. In fact, I think that the A449 and A5 will become long lines of slow moving traffic that will have a massive impact on commuters as well as the local air quality due to extra traffic, most of which will spend long periods idling and increasing pollution in the area. There are many reason that this area SHOULD NOT be used, but the above are my most pressing concerns. I wish to register my absolute objection to this project and all the very negative impacts it will have on the small towns and villages in the area. Please note, the only positive note to this planning application is that it would provide jobs. However, I am unsure how this is the case. The area has extremely low unemployment figures so the interchange would need to be staffed by people from out of area - who will need to commute and thus add to the already massively congested surrounding roads. In summary, I hope this application is turned down as far too costly a venture (on every level) for the surrounding area as this can be the only rational, moral decision. Regards Vanessa Ashford"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nick Garrett
"The WMI will be bad for the area in which I live. Several times recently, there have been incidents on the M6 leading to a large increase in traffic onto the A449. To avoid these delays, some drivers divert onto the narrow lanes around the Dunston/Coppenhall area, they take this option without thinking if the roads are suitable for their vehicle (or their driving skills). This increase can be dangerous for local people walking or cycling, it also damages the road surface and will lead to increased air pollution. Local people going about their everyday business are also disadvantaged. Hence, I strongly object to the WMI being sighted in this area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Vickers
"I wish to express my shock at the sheer scale of the proposed plans for the West Midlands Interchange. Whilst we fully support any proposal that will bring jobs and prosperity to our region, we cannot accept that so much green belt land should be destroyed to achieve this. I would be extremely interested to know if any other locations have been considered and if any were brownfield sites. Surely the purpose of the green belt system is to protect communities from urbanisation and provide natural green boundaries between developments, yet time and time again we see green belt land being put under pressure with the excuse of job creation. In recent years we have seen a collection of ever bigger projects within our area. The creation of the I54, and the building of the Jaguar Land Rover plant. I am in no way decrying these developments as their arrival into the area is brilliant for the West Midlands and has provided genuine jobs and wealth creation. We have had HM Oakwood super prison, the Veolia waste to energy plant, the largest civil engineering scheme in Staffordshire (at the time of construction), which was promised to have minimal impact on the visual amenity of the area, but which in reality dominates the landscape and can be seen for miles in every direction. Each new development is putting more pressure on local infrastructure, with the A449, Four Ashes, Station Road and Vicarage Road and the A5 section from the M6 to Gailey showing noticeable increases in peak level traffic. Coven itself is earmarked for further housing development, again being planned on green belt land. However, these developments are dwarfed by this 700 acre proposal. Reports suggest increases in traffic levels of over 18,000 vehicles travelling to and from this site a day, of which a third will be HGVs, creating a massive increase in noise and air pollution on an already congested road network. Incidents and accidents on the M6 between Junction 12 and 15 already cause significant congestion and disruption at present traffic levels, even the introduction of smart motorway technology on this section surely will not accommodate such significant traffic volume projections. Regarding the argument for jobs - what sort of jobs are going to be created and how much benefit will they be to the local community when unemployment levels in this area are reportedly less than 1%, this surely will mean most people working at the Interchange will need to commute to and from this development. This proposed development will have a huge ongoing impact on the local environment, further erosion of green belt, loss of flora and fauna, increases in noise, air and light pollution and increases the potential for greater flood risk by urbanisation. This scheme destroys the concept of green belt in one stroke and opens up this part of South Staffordshire for further development. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Rivers
"Disagree Loss of green belt - irreplaceable Loss of farming land - vital - especially with Brexit Destruction of natural habitat of flora and fauna - already under threat Loss of countryside for future generations Poisonous effect to the whole environment with air pollution, noise and quality of life Introduction of yet more traffic to roads already over capacity and under maintained Brownfield sites closer to the manufacturing areas should be used instead of the easy option of destroying our greenbelt. Whilst the economic proposals of the interchange are appreciated, its position and consequences are totally wrong and injurious to this green area, against the governments own recommendations for clean air and noise control."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephanie Minton
"As a resident on Station Drive, the southern perimeter of the proposed Interchange, I object to this proposal for the following reasons: Destruction of protected of Green Belt Land. I feel no development on green belt should be considered until brown field sites are fully redeveloped. The negative impact on local communities, due to general pollution, sound and light pollution. Increased traffic in the local area, on roads which have not been designed for the proposed volume of traffic. The traffic projections provided do not predict how the development would impact the local area upon full completion. The impact of the proposed development on air quality and the impact of this on immediate local residents. South Staffordshire has extremely low levels of unemployment. And so this development is not in a area in need of the jobs. Additionally workers will need to travel to the site, adding to the traffic and limited public transport. We currently have major traffic issues in the locality with HGVs trying to drive under a low bridge and causing large backlogs with the heavy traffic already accessing the industrial estate. I do not believe these plans do enough to cope with the increase in traffic in the area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart Blackburn
"I object to this application because I am concerned about the green belt being lost and the negative effects the proposal will have on the Environment. The environment being related to pollution, air quality, noise and light pollution at night. Further, I am concerned about the effects on the local highways and the increased traffic that will result. Additionally affecting the health of the local population and the ecological flora and fauna. There is an associated loss of agricultural land and countryside. I am concerned about the influence of the proposed plan on local business. I object to the application because I am concerned that the location is poorly considered because a brownfield site would be more suitable. Linked to this the regional employment has not been considered properly and the bussing in of thousands of employees from other regions could damage the local economy. Further, this scheme is not in accord with the local planning policy. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Jones
"I wish to register my strong opposition to the proposed West Midlands Interchange project. I believe that a project such as this should not be located in a green belt area, there is no need to utilise our valuable green belt areas when brownfield sites are available. My major objection is to the chaos and pollution the increased traffic will bring to an already congested area. Frequent issues on the motorway already bring diverted traffic through Penkridge causing chaos and increased pollution. I also believe it will be impossible to police the prevention of the rail hub vehicles from travelling through Penkridge. The additional traffic from this proposal will aggravate the congestion and significantly increase pollution to an unacceptable level both on the motorway and the surrounding area. The additional volume of traffic will slow journeys, increase omissions and create significant problems in the area and through Penkridge to an unacceptable and unsafe level. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sylvia Ulrich
"I am writing to object to the planning application for the Gailey Freight Hub interchange. My objections are that I feel that my quality of life will be severely eroded through the negative effect of noise, pollution and of course the scarring of our beautiful countryside. I have lived in Coven Heath since 1983 and moved into my property one week before the M54 opened. I have watched with growing disbelief over the years at the destruction of this area as the traffic has worsened and the noise has become at times unbearable. One only has to try to drive on the A449 at 8.00 am, which is just lately one giant traffic queue stretching back to Coven and beyond to realise that the infra structure cannot cope with any more traffic, which is exactly what the new hub will cause. The building and extension of the Jaguar plants along the M54 has caused a massive increase in the flow of traffic and noise and congestion start at 5.00 am and pollution levels must have soared. I believe that there are alternative routes and more suitable locations, such as brownfield land, where this hub could be built. I have little faith in the assertions from the applicants that the building of the hub will be of benefit to local residents. If there's one thing I've learnt since living in Coven Heath, is that these applications are rarely to the benefit of residents and once planning application is granted this seems to set a precedent for further applications. The Jaguar complex is one example of this. I strongly object to this application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Gregory Family
"The proposed WMI must not be allowed because of the following:- The scale of such a developed should not be allowed on green belt land. More appropriate brown fill sites should be found. The infrastructure around this proposed development is not capable of supporting the proposed traffic in and out of this development. This applies to local A roads and the nearby M6 and M54. This existing M6 within the West Midlands area suffers major delays with the present traffic volume without adding to the problem. When we recently attended one of the opening days they had only investigated the traffic within two junctions either side of the proposed site and had not looked at the consequences further up and down the M6. The proposed volume of traffic would cause major pollution which would impact considerably on the health of local residents who are already having to deal with the pollution from the existing M6 traffic on a daily basis. The noise from this proposed development would be intolerable with 24 hours' operation and with light pollution. This size of this proposal would cause major disruption to the road network and all surrounding towns and villages within this area.. It was also noted at the open days that none of the representatives had any local knowledge of this area and were not aware of the congestion that occurs with the present traffic flow on the M6 and our A road networks. This proposal will not work but should it go ahead it will be too late, it will be irreversible and will have catastrophic results for wildlife and the environment. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Sedgley Family
"May I stress the objections to this application for the proposed " West Midlands Inter-change" ( i.e. Four ashes LTD) As follows: Detrimental effect to local communities such as traffic increase via village roads lanes. Surface damage. Pedestrian - cyclists safety. Noise and air pollution factors. Diversions from A449 trunk road via local lanes will intensify these concerns. Thank You. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Smallwood
"“I object to this application because I am concerned about the following:- Protecting the Green Belt Negative Effects on the Environment / Pollution / Air Quality / Noise / Light Negative Effects on the Local Highways and the Increase in Traffic Negative Effects on Local Health"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Amrik Sangha
"This proposal will destroy huge acreage of greenbelt and exacerbate traffic problems in the area which are already beyond a joke with constant queuing and congestion on the A449/A5/M6 making a planned journey impossible - getting to work on time with random roundabout closures by police to add to the melee ( eg today 23/10 at j12/j13 despite the M6 flowing freely) is becoming impossible. I object strongly to this development"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Wylie
"I object to this application for the following reasons: 1)The development would destroy a significant area of green belt land removing agricultural land and countryside and with serious consequences for the ecology or the local area. It would lead to the further urbanisation of the area removing a green lung from this side of the West Midlands conurbation. 2) The development would lead to vast increases in road and potentially rail traffic. The road network in the area surrounding the development , notably the A5 and A449 already suffer from significant congestion and the suggested number of employees on the site plus the necessary HGV movements would make the situation significantly worse leading to serious economic damage to the local area. The levels of pollution (both air and noise) for the local area especially the local towns and villages would increase significantly (especially particulates) and could jeopardise the health and wellbeing of the local population. 3) It is in the wrong location. More suitable sites are available for rail connected warehousing and have the backing of local planning authorities eg Stafford which has better connectivity for HS2 and is on a brownfield site. Local rail connected warehousing at Penkridge was demolished as there was no demand. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Antonia Lopez
"The area is already congested and the passing traffic makes it so that there is a constant bottle neck , making it increasingly difficult for residents to enter the A5. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Caryll Horton
"My objections to the proposed Gailey Freight Hub are as follows- -The location is wrong because other more suitable locations are available including brown field sites -This is green belt land which must be protected for future generations -The impact on our local ecology would be devastating. The fauna and flora over a vast area would be destroyed -The large area of countryside and agricultural land would be lost and can never be replaced -Pollution: Everyday our communities will be subjected to an additional 16.3 tons of CO2 emissions. Worse will be the toxic nitrogen oxides from diesel vehicles. The negative effects on the lives and the health of us who live locally will be dire to say the least. The noise pollution for those living nearby will be terrible. -Roads and motorways: It will simply be impossible for the surrounding highways to accommodate an extra 18600 vehicles everyday. Our roads and motorways are already heavily conjested and additional traffic on such a scale would lead to continuous serious disruption."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Best
"[redacted] are not in favor of this as it will effect our family completely air pollution and with a child with medical issues isnt good noise pollution we live in the countryside for the quite and peace kids school bus will bot be able to pick the kids up safely this was brought up in the meetings in summer will effect the whole farming and green belt which is something we should protect we cant live in a warehouse estate it would break us directly in the area of them would distroy all the area of what we love as a family and kids saftey going to canoe club canal walks etc .Getting out will be hard as we have to try go into all the lorries and extra traffic to hub which will be very busy and more dangerous to cross."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Brand
"I object to this application because I am concerned about the following affects on the local area It will increase pollution, degrade air quality thus affect the health of people in the area. Increase Noise and Light pollution in a rural area. It will increase the traffic in the local area affecting the quality of life of residents as well as increasing damage to the roads causing additional cost to the regional and national road agencies The local business will be affected by this development potentially causing loss of jobs. This development will bit into more of the green belt and will reduce agricultural land and countryside. This as at time when there is a need for more land to produce food stuffs. The local Ecology (Flora and Fauna) will be reduced and damaged. Additionally I object to this application because I am concerned the Location is wrong, because there are more suitable locations available that were identified by the WMI but which were discounted. A brownfield site would be more suitable rather than Green Belt Regional employment has not been considered properly Bussing in thousands of employees from other regions could damage our local economy And is not in accord with Local Planning Policy"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Walton
"Introduction I oppose the development plans published and contend the proposed scheme is unsuitably located in respect of the geographical areas of the Black Country / West Midlands markets identified to be served, critically that the planned development is on green belt land that currently protects the natural and semi-natural environment by providing a contiguous habitat network for wild plants, animals and wildlife. I believe the assessment of alternative sites has failed to be objective and is fundamentally flawed. There are alternative sites available within the West Midland region albeit they do not offer the easy cheap option of building on green belt land. Natural Environment Concerning environmental issues, my opposition to the proposals, in broad terms, relates to the impact a development of the size and scale proposed will inevitably have regarding increased volume of traffic on road and rail, the noise, light and air pollution this will generate over the twenty four hour seven day a week operation and the ramifications this will have on sustaining the ecological health and bio diversity of this area of green belt. The purpose of the green belt, the value and benefits this affords the area, wider region and community are totally subjugated and under valued within the development proposals. It is clear that the effect of the proposed development will inevitably further exacerbate existing pressures on the natural environment, significantly during construction, and continuing once the site is operational. The scheme fails fundamentally to recognise that activities creating ecological degradation are incremental and cumulative. The impact of this development cannot be assessed in isolation from the previous and ongoing effects of other development activity undertaken within the area and the subsequent fragility of the ecological balance that exists. Location The scale of the planned development within the proposed location is totally disproportionate and will irrevocably alter the character of the area and surrounding districts due to, the adverse impacts caused by increased traffic flow, the obtrusive operational activities undertaken on site together with consequent environmental detriment and the pernicious effects on community infrastructures due to the volume of additional labour required to be introduced to the locality with the additional burden this will impose on existing road networks, housing, schools and medical provision. Traffic My experience, as a resident of Penkridge for forty years, is that traffic congestion in the area is invariably created by vehicles exiting the motorway to avoid congestion or slow moving traffic. I am not referring to when traffic is diverted off the motorway using a managed approach, these instances are relatively rare. My concern relates to the decisions taken by individual drivers to exit the motorway to avoid traffic congestion and then to access either the A5 or via Penkridge the A449 and A34. This is commonplace at peaks times. The effect of this sudden influx of abnormally high traffic volumes can create gridlock, requiring considerable time to clear. The forecasted increase in traffic volume introduced once the development is operational will inevitably exacerbate this. I do not accept the conclusions drawn from the data produced within the proposals forecasting the relatively benign effect the increased volume of traffic will cause once proposed mitigation measures are in place. Conclusion I contend the submission has failed to demonstrate the "special circumstances" required to undertake development on the green belt. The formulaic approach of the proposals have conspicuously failed to consider the consequential effect on the quality of life of residents and nature in an holistic way or to consider meaningfully alternative locations or approaches to the development of a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange to service the West Midlands. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Dickens
"I strongly believe this proposal is severely flawed on many levels. Firstly and most importantly, the proposed location is currently designated Greenbelt and as such the Planning authorities have an obligation for it to remain Greenbelt. It was originally designated Greenbelt for a reason & nothing in that reasoning has changed. The locality comprises on several hamlets and villages, farmland and woodland. There is a contained area of warehousing and industrial development at Four Ashes, sharing some common ownership with the applicant for WMI. I am no property lawyer but it is my opinion that a desire to further extend Four Ashes Industrial Estate is being sought under the guise of an Infrastructure application. At the public consultations it was clear no provision had been made for the significant increase to traffic the scheme would bring to the area. The rail transportation ends at the proposed warehouses and from there it is onto HGV's into an already at overwhelmed and at capacity M6/A449 network with longstanding congestion issues. There is not even an indication the warehousing will be for use by companies utilising the proposed rail interchange. The local road network made up with the exception of the M6, A5 and A449 is predominantly B roads, lanes and bridle paths. There is no unemployment of significance in the locality and therefore warehouse operatives and employees will need to travel some distance from the wider labour pools of Wolverhampton, Stafford, Stoke putting further strain on the already gridlocked road network. I strongly oppose the scheme for many other reasons - loss of wildlife habitat, the detrimental impact on rural life, the impact on quality of life for local residents, increased noise, light and traffic pollution. I've yet to view any data that guarantees levels of usage of the Rail Interchange to justify consideration for the change of Greenbelt classification. I re-iterate, this is a proposal to extend a warehousing and industrial park trying to utilise the more preferable planning processes to re-designate Greenbelt under a Major Infrastructure application. I implore you to also see this proposal for what it really is. If the Greenbelt is sacrificed, it is gone forever. Kind Regards Claire Dickens "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clive Brown
"I wish to object to the proposed development at Gailey, on the following grounds. Having worked in the transport industry for over 40 years, I believe that the projected numbers of additional vehicles using roads in the immediate vicinity of the site are woefully underestimated by the planners, and would, in practice, far exceed the projected 18/19 thousand vehicles per day, and that the vehicle journeys made would in fact exceed 25,000 per day going to and from the site owing to multi collection by the same vehicles several times per day. Therefore, I believe the viability of the Hub would be threatened by the inadequate road system at and around the area, so proving this Hub to be uneconomical, as well as being a blight to the countryside. The resulting road congestion would not only be a detriment to the businesses of areas surrounding the Hub, such as the bi-weekly market in Penkridge, and the nearby business park, but perhaps more importantly would prove injurious to the health of local people, particularly the children and the elderly who would be subjected to the increased tonnage of emissions from idling traffic in their close vicinity for many hours each day. The scheme of the Hub would be damaging to local enterprises which have recently developed most successfully by using the green belt land to it's full and proper potential. I am referring in particular to the extensive strawberry farming adjacent to the main roads. Other businesses who will inevitably suffer are the garden centre and restaurant, the pub on Gailey Island, with the recently built hotel next door, and the world class art studio close by, all of which are thriving thanks to local initiative and endeavour. All of these businesses, and others, complement the rural area and provide local people with employment while maintaining the environment. Staffordshire has low unemployment, and the many jobs that the Hub has to offer would be better provided in an area of high unemployment with brownfield sites already available. I also have concerns about the light pollution that the Hub site would generate. This will prove to be damaging to the local wildlife, particularly the bird, bee, butterfly and bat populations which are already declining nationally. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Craig Morton
"I believe that the location chosen for the development of this scale is not suitable for the following reasons. Impact on green belt land. Damage/removal of the natural environment of large numbers of wildlife. Inadequate surrounding infrastructure to support the volume of traffic this site will attract. Damage to local villages and quality of life due to congestion."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Webb
"I believe this development will have :- Negative Effects on the Environment / Pollution / Air Quality / Noise / Light Negative Effects on the Local Highways and the Increase in Traffic Negative Effects on Local Health Negative Effects on the Local Flora & Fauna (Ecology) Loss of Agricultural Land & Countryside Negative Effects on Local Business"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Denis Allen
"Green belt is green belt.If building is allowed on green belt what is the point of having a green belt."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Diana Lopez
"I am concerned about the number of fatalities that may occur due to the increased amount of traffic that will be using the roads every single day. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Environment Agency
" The Infrastructure Planning Commission Temple Quay House Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN Our ref: UT/2018/117475/01-L01 Your ref: TR050005 Date: 23 October 2018 Dear Sir/Madam THE WEST MIDLANDS INTERCHANGE: CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION USE AND MAINTENANCE OF A RAIL FREIGHT INTERCHANGE (INCLUDING WAREHOUSING AND ASSOCIATED HIGHWAY WORKS) LAND WEST OF JUNCTION 12 OF THE M6, IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE A5 TRUNK ROAD Please find enclosed the Environment Agency’s Relevant Representation for the West Midlands Interchange project, as notified in your letter of 19 September 2018. The Role of the Environment Agency The Environment Agency has a responsibility for protecting and improving the environment, as well as contributing to sustainable development. We have three main roles: We are an environmental regulator – we take a risk-based approach and target our effort to maintain and improve environmental standards and to minimise unnecessary burdens on business. We issue a range of permits and consents. We are an environmental operator – we are a national organisation that operates locally. We work with people and communities across England to protect and improve the environment in and integrated way. We provide a vital incident response capability. We are an environmental advisor – we compile and assess the best available evidence and use this to report on the state of the environment. We use our own monitoring information and that of others to inform this activity. We provide technical information and advice to national and local governments to support their roles in policy and decision-making. One of our specific functions is as a Flood Risk Management Authority. We have a general supervisory duty relating to specific flood risk management matters in respect of flood risk arising from Main Rivers or the sea. The Environment Agency’s main concern with these proposals is its impact on the groundwater abstraction and remediation scheme that is currently being operated by the Chemical Company, SI Group (UK) Limited. These operations are regulated by an Environmental Permit by ourselves. The groundwater remediation scheme was installed after many years of negotiations with the Company, initially via the National Rivers Authority and concluded by ourselves. It was a protracted process complicated by the groundwater contamination being attributed to several Companies, some still in existence but no longer operating on the site e.g. Croda Chemicals. 5 (of the 13) boreholes in licence MD/028/0003/002 are within the site, the remainder are within 150m of the site. It is crucial to reducing the risk of the nearby Public Water Supply becoming contaminated by the pollution, and to supporting the Water Framework Directive’s requirements for this groundwater body. Despite this, the site drains to the River Penk indirectly drains the site and the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal flows through the development proposals. Both waterbodies are subject to WFD compliance as detailed by the Humber River Basin Management Plan. It is therefore essential that foul and surface water flows discharging from the site are appropriately managed in order to protect water quality and prevent pollution of surface water bodies. The Environment Agency is currently drafting a Statement of Common Ground with the applicant, which will provide further detail on some of the points outlined below and shall be submitted in due course. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information. Yours faithfully Miss Jane Field Planning Specialist Direct dial 020 3025 3006 Direct fax 01543 444161 Direct e-mail [email protected] Relevant Representations on behalf of the Environment Agency Ground Conditions We have reviewed Chapter 11: Ground Conditions of the ES, and supporting Technical Appendix 11.4: Factual Phase II ESA – south-east land, and have the following comments to make. These reports conclude that this land is subject to no significant contamination and thus no risks to Controlled Waters were shown by any of the site investigation work to date in this south eastern part of the site. In fact, there appears to be hardly any pollutants found at all in these agricultural fields, based on the 51 soil and 12 groundwater samples taken apart from some asbestos in 6 soil samples from the three historically landfilled areas in the southern portion of this site and some isolated, minor PAH and heavy metal exceedances in the groundwater. We are therefore of the opinion this does not warrant further risk assessment, and does not require remediating. Remediation Safeguarding Report We have reviewed Technical Appendix 11.5 dated July 2018 and consider that it sets out a robust way of ensuring the existing deep groundwater remediation scheme within the SIG Land will not be comprised by the forthcoming (phased) NSIP project. It is clearly recognised that the groundwater pump and treat system needs to remain unaltered and active until between 2022 and 2028 (pumping in certain areas may be completed sooner), with subsequent MNA monitoring and the potential need for access and contingency measures to remain thereafter. The report also correctly notes that the SIG Land now comprises part of the Part A1 installation covered under the SIG Facility Environmental Permit, with the remediation works controlled by a separate groundwater abstraction licence. The safeguarding measures outlined in Table 1 are based around phasing of the development to accommodate the anticipated timescales of the remediation in order that the construction does not impact the key areas of remediation whilst they are operational. Measures also addressed include the proposed relocation of remediation pipework and abstraction/monitoring boreholes where necessary plus the future access, impact of increased surface infiltration through SuDS and cut and fill details for the SIG Land. We have the following minor observations to make regarding these measures: 1) It should be clear that before any modifications are made to any of the boreholes, this has been discussed and agreed with the Environment Agency and a variation of permit granted 2) Access to replacement wells is to be in arrangement with the rail terminal operator. This arrangement must be easily workable to allow the appropriate access. 3) Protection of the existing wells must be a priority. Measures in place must be robust to ensure that the wells are not damaged as there will be a lot of heavy machinery being used. Cordoning areas off may not offer full protection. The report also highlights how the Environmental Permit in place on this land will require varying to accommodate the proposed works on site. The Environment Agency does not consider the proposed development to pose any permitting concerns in this regard. In light of the above, we are satisfied with the mitigation proposals as detailed within this report. Flood Risk Assessment Technical Appendix 16.1 considers the risk of flooding from all sources, and should be considered alongside Technical Appendix 16.3 relating to surface water drainage. The site is located outside any mapped floodplain within low risk Flood Zone 1. Any flood risk related matters will therefore be under the remit of Staffordshire County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority, and they will lead on advice relating to surface water drainage matters and resulting impacts from climate change. As it is proposed to at least partly discharge the attenuated surface water into the River Penk, this may require an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency under the terms of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2016 for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within 8 metres of the top of the bank of, or within the floodplain of designated ‘main rivers’. This was formerly called a Flood Defence Consent. Some activities are also now excluded or exempt. Water Framework Directive Assessment The Environment Agency have reviewed Technical Appendix 16.2 dated April 2018 and have the following observations to make: Our concerns relating to WFD compliance are split between potential impact on the underlying groundwater aquifer and the surface water catchment. The groundwater has the potential to be impacted from underlying contamination from previous land uses, and from the effectiveness of the continuing groundwater remediation scheme and associated boreholes. Surface waters have the potential to be impacted by contaminated surface water runoff and foul sewerage discharge. We are happy that the relevant water bodies for this project have all been identified and the correct references to the environmental objectives of the WFD and to our Humber River Basin Management Plan have been made. Groundwater The report states that the Staffordshire Trent Valley Permo-Triassic Sandstone groundwater body underlies the whole site and this is a Principal aquifer with high permeability and water-bearing strata. In addition to this, the site lies within the total catchment zone (SPZ3) to two Severn Trent public water supply boreholes, and we recommend this is reflected within the report. The groundwater body currently has poor quantitative status (due to poor water balance from over-abstraction and potential effects on associated surface water bodies) and poor chemical status (due to elevated levels and rising trends of pollutants found, notably nitrates). We support the Ground Conditions chapter of the Environment Statement that concludes that with the proposed Demolition and Construction Environmental Management Plan in place, construction will not introduce significant pollutants and/or additional dewatering of or discharges to the underlying groundwater. The future operation of the site largely on hardstanding should also not lead to any noticeable groundwater quality or quantity impacts. In light of this, we are satisfied with the aspects of the WFD Assessment relating to land contamination and the protection of groundwater Foul Drainage We welcome the clarification within 3.3.4 of the WFD Assessment that foul drainage will be discharged to the public foul sewer. This is supported by a full assessment carried out by Severn Trent Water with regards to network capacity (Appendix D of the Foul Water Drainage Strategy) with attention paid to the entire sewer network including combined sewer overflows, pumping stations and Coven Heath Sewage Treatment Works. We are satisfied that the impact of flows from the proposed development on all assets of the sewer network have been considered and that appropriate measures recommended where appropriate. We also note that the conclusion recommends further assessment be carried out to provide a solution to resolve flood volume and overflow detriment caused by the potential development. Paragraph 3.3.5 of the WFD Assessment details how foul will be managed during the construction phase prior to a long term connection to the public foul sewer being made available. This will either be based upon treated effluent from a package treatment plant (or similar system) being discharged into a local ditchcourse which will then drain into the River Penk, or for it to be tankered away for a treatment facility. Any such discharge of treated effluent into the water environment would likely require an Environmental Permit from ourselves, and as such we have recommended the applicant engage in pre-permit discussions to ascertain the treatment standards which would be applicable. Despite this, tankering the waste away remains an option if the treatment requirements prove to be too onerous. Requirement 28 of the draft DCO states that details will need to be approved prior to each phase of construction, and further details on the above matters should be addressed via this route. In light of this, we have no fundamental concerns with the foul drainage proposals. Surface Drainage Paragraph 3.3.6 discusses the operational phase of the development, and how the surface drainage strategy will discharge through four surface water outfalls into two surface water bodies, after passing through a SuDS system. The Site Wide Surface Water Drainage Strategy (Technical Appendix 16.3) confirms how interceptors will be installed within this system to ensure vehicle-borne contaminants are removed prior to discharge into the natural water environment. As such we are satisfied that the surface water drainage scheme should pose no risk to meeting WFD objectives within the affected catchments. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Frank Gaiger
"I object to this application on the following grounds: The choice of the Four Ashes site maybe suitable for the purposes of the developer but is entirely unsuitable for the local populations in Penkridge,Brewood Gailey,Four Ashes And Calf Heath. Our local roads are part of a strategic road network. When an incident occurs on the M6, a common occurrence, the traffic is routed via these roads and lengthy jams occur.To add an extra 6,300 HGV’s and 12,300 cars and vans ( the developer’s figures) per day would simply be a recipe for disaster for the local area.The developer has suggested that traffic from the site could be prevented from travelling through Penkridge by use of camera surveillance with ‘written warnings and possible fines’ for guilty users. This smacks of trying to placate the village of Penkridge. The M6 itself passing through the local area is one of the busiest sections of road in the UK. This proposal will inject thousands of additional vehicles per day onto the M6 at its busiest point. The developer argues that this SRFI will reduce harmful emissions in the UK overall and attempts to prove this by quoting figures for harmful emissions from a typical HGV. I do not doubt the figures but these same figures can then be attributed to the increase in HGV’s quoted by the developer by the impentation of the plan at the Four Ashes site. The local population therefore suffers a massive increase in harmful gases in an area that already suffers significant pollution from existing traffic on the M6, the A5 and the A449 roads. The West Midlands Interchange at the Four Ashes site would flaunt the purpose of the green belt and disrupt the local road network. The loss of prime agricultural land and the destruction of a vast number of mature trees, flora and fauna can be ill afforded in our local area. All of the afore stated representations will be relevant in the period from 2021 to 2036 and for the years beyond if the developer’s application is accepted but in those years from 2021 to 2036 the local community will additionally suffer significant disruption to local roads during the development period with all of the noise, dust, and inconvenience that such a strategic development would bring. The development period of 15 years is almost 20 percent of the average human lifetime. Nobody should have to withstand such a disruption to their everyday life for such a long period."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gaynor E Caffrey
"I wish to OBJECT to the proposed West Midlands Interchange - Gailey Freight Hub This Four Ashes proposal is an unnecessary,unwanted and unacceptable development of a very large area of Green Belt land in South Staffordshire. This will have the effect of converting it from a mainly "Rural Landscape" to "Heavy Industrial". The Proposal indicates that there will be a considerable increase in the volumes of "Heavy Lorries" using the A449 and the A5. These two routes are already extremely congested during most the day, but are almost gridlocked at peak times. The resultant high levels of noise and CO 2 emissions are an unacceptable price for local residents to pay for the limited benefits of this proposal. Further investigations should be carried out to locate a "Brown Field" site that is more suited to this type of development. The adverse effect on the Health and Quality of Life of the residents presently living in close proximity to the proposed site will be considerable, and totally unacceptable. IT IS THE WRONG DEVELOPMENT IN THE WRONG LOCATION THEREFORE THIS PROPOSAL SHOULD BE REJECTED Gaynor E Caffrey - Brewood Resident [redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gloria Jones
"I object strongly to this development which is entirely against all green belt requirements and the area chosen is entirely inappropriate. there are several alternative brownfield sites which which would make much more sense. The traffic situation around this area is already at a standstill most morning with queuing traffic on the A5/A449/M6 the proposal will make matters impossible and have a detrimental effect on local businesses already struggling with traffic delays. Air pollution and noise pollution added to the already congested M6 conurbation will result in more children in bad health - there are several schools which will undoubtedly suffer let alone the destruction of wildlife habitat in the are. There are no advantages to this proposal for anyone local."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gregory Burch
"The proposed area is greenbelt and has good levels of employment. We are yet to see the impact of development on the M54. This number of vehicles will ruin the area. The small towns need access to each other to keep small local business alove (child care, shops etc) Our area is not the correct location for such a scheme, and they should look to areas where Brownfield sites are available. Stoke-on-Trent has similar rail and road access nearby, a road network that is far more suitable for the increased traffic numbers and a far higher level of unemployed local residents."
Parish Councils
Hatherton Parish Council
"PHYSICAL BOUNDARY OF THE PROPOSED SITE The encroachment of the site beyond Vicarage Lane is not acceptable. Vicarage road is a vey busy commercial access road from the A5 to the Four Ashes Industrial site and the proposal to include an access from the WMI onto this road will only exacerbate traffic issues. PARKING There is insufficient parking on the WMI for lorries because many commercial vehicle drivers will find it necessary to park overnight or in the locality due to driving hours restrictions. In spite of there being lorry parks nearby, already fully used, it will mean indiscriminate parking in lay byes and unsuitable community areas. Additionally there is no significant parking for cars and other vehicles that will be used by employees on the proposed site. From general parking point of view this site layout is not feasible. STERILISATION OF MINERALS Development of the site will negate the opportunity to extract minerals under the proposed site and these important material assets will be sterilised for the foreseeable future, this is not in the interests of the nations ability to obtain underground raw materials. TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTE The main road transport infrastructure surrounding the site, A5,A449, M6, is totally inadequate. The A449, although there have been dual carriageway improvements to the A449 from the Gaily Roundabout to the south have been improved, this trunk road to Penkridge and Junction 13 of the M6 is single carriageway through the village and is incapable of accepting increased commercial traffic the WMI site. Unless the A449 is dual carriageway to Penkridge with a bypass round the village the scheme is unacceptable. The A5 is single carriageway from Cannock to Telford and bearing in mind this trunk road is at the top of the WMI and the main access to the site it is unable to cope with WMI traffic unless the whole stretch is constructed as a dual carriageway. There is no direct access to the M6 from the WMI site and this is the main failure of traffic flow of the whole project. As indicated above a single carriageway to Junction 11 is not practical. WAREHOUSING My concern is that although the main reason for the application is to move goods from road to rail the huge warehousing of the site will lead to pure industrial warehousing with no direct link to the railway system. My request for a covenant to be implemented on the whole site to ensure that all warehouse buildings will only be used for the purpose of the application "Road to Rail and vice versa" has been rejected by the developer. VISUAL IMPACT AND LIGHT POLLUTION As former member of the Shoal Hill Committee I have concerns about this large industrial site impacting on the visual outlook from the common, it will have a detrimental effect from high ground. HATHERTON PARISH COUNCILS SUBMISSION I fully endorse Hatherton Parish Councils submission on the WMI application. Cllr. L. J. Ashley "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Davis-Hunt
"I oppose this application due to the following reasons It is being built on green belt and the loss of countryside and wildlife will be extensive. Penkridge is already an extremely busy place, especially the A449. It is going to bring a huge amount of extra traffic which brings with it, air pollution, noise pollution and extra large vehicles in a built up community. In addition the proposed site close to the M6 is already busy and easily becomes congested We have extremely low unemployment in this area and so it will bring even more traffic as it will have to employ people out of area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Roger Meyrick Jones
"The proposed hub will have a devastating impact on the local area,not only will a vast area of green belt disappear to accommodate the warehouses,the surrounding areas will suffer from increased lorry movements,pollution,noise from refrigeration units, and an increase of house building to accommodate the workers,the surrounding villages does not have the infrastructure to cope with such a large scale project. Travelling around Staffordshire and beyond their are many warehouses already built and stand empty,Donnington is a good example,i understand from local councillors (who insidently voted against the hub)that two other areas bid for the project,one was stoke on trent,which i understand has a vast area that will accommodate the project also employment for the local community."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Larkin
"I object to this application because I am concerned about protecting our Green Belt and agricultural land and the countryside. We should be using Brownfield sites and regenerating already established urban areas. Traffic is already congested in this area. Creating more traffic will have a negative impact on air quality and increase the risk of collisions. This will also lead to congestion in Penkridge and outlining areas which puts local residents at risk. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janet Evans
"I am concerned about the effect extra traffic on our roads and the dissapperance of our countryside. All this has an effect on our well being. Many people rely on being able to walk in the countryside as a way of being fit and helping with any mental concerns they have. Pollution is not the answer ! We need our countryside agriculture and people. !!!!!!! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jeanette Hartwell
"I object to this application because I am concerned the Location is wrong, because… There are other more suitable locations available Brownfield land would be more suitable Regional employment has not been considered properly Bussing in thousands of employees from other regions could damage our local economy And is not in accord with Local Planning Policy. I am also concerned about the impact on the environment and on people’s health given the proposed increase in traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jennie Owen
"Volume of extra traffic, causing grid lock when accidents accure on M6 motor way, with veicals finding other roots which is the A5 and A449 which brings traffic to a stand still for some time. also using narrow lanes to miss the bottle neck. These lanes are country lane hense they are not wide enough to take HGV lorries. The amount of noise twenty four hours a day, also pollustion from veicals the damage it will bring to green belt and wild life, and roads around the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Raven
" West Midlands Interchange ,Gailey , Staffordshire I object to the above mentioned application on the following grounds: 1. It is proposed to build 80% of its warehouse/industrial complex, on over 600 acres of greenbelt land which will not be connected to the proposed railway link. This constitutes a large complex being built contrary to South Staffordshire Council's CORE STRATEGY policy GB1 (Development in the green belt) It is my belief that if this application is approved a large number of warehouse/industrial units will be erected without the appropriate railway workings owing to the large costs involved. 2. The railway line through Penkridge is part of a branch line and not the west coast main line. This line, until recently was classified as a G8 line and therefore, unsuitable for the large European size freight trains. This branch line was conveniently up-rated to a G10 gauge by Network Rail. How thoughtful of them. This branch line, to the north, uses an elderly brick built viaduct, probably unsuitable for heavy freight trains. I do not believe this viaduct has been fully surveyed for the purposes of supporting heavy freight. 3. The reasoning behind the necessity to build this complex is the direct access to freight interchanges from the European Union and beyond. It is my understanding that the United Kingdom is to leave the European Union in March 2019, therefore what is proposed to be constructed will be another warehouse/ industrial complex built on green belt land, and therefore avoiding he need to comply with local Planning Authority. 4. Local employment is currently less than 1%, therefore it is logical to assume that employees travelling to and from the site will be commuters, therefore adding to the already overloaded local infrastructure."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Robb
"I am concerned that the proposed development will have negative effects on the environment and will affect the air quality and cause undue noise with the constant traffic. There are brownfield sites that are more appropriate. It will have negative effects on local highways and the much increased traffic all of which would impact upon local health. There would be the loss of agricultural land and countryside. The bussing in of thousands of employees from other regions could damage our local economy. The local housing and services would not be able to support the numbers needed to work in such an establishment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joyce Marilyn Thickbroom
"Traffic congestion on the A449 will be horrendous with new designated business area at Featherstone also in the offing. Traffic pollution - already very bad where I live at J2 of M54 Green belt rapidly disappearing with new M6 North junction proposed. There are proposed developments at Featherstone through to Four Ashes through to Calf Heath which will destroy acres of green belt and form a ribbon development adjacent to the A449. The proposed hub would be better in Stoke on Trent where they need jobs and have a brown site available. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Judith Aldridge
"Damage to the environment and destruction of the green belt. Noise nuisance and decrease in air quality. Increase in road traffic which is disproportionate and damaging to the local area. No evidence that the development will be of economic benefit to the local area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katy Malkin
"This proposal is at extreme detriment to local people, with a huge increase in traffic on streyches5of the M6 and A449 that ate already troublesome. Local residents do not want increased air pollution, spoiled green belt and disruption of habitat. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Liam Kettle
"I object to this application for the following reasons: We should be protecting the green belt/ countryside not destroying it. The increase in the noise, land, water, air and light pollution will be devastating and will have a negative effect on local health. The location is wrong as there are several Brownfield sites more suitable. Also there are many major traffic problems on the A5/A449 especially when there is an accident on the nearby M6. There will be an estimated 18,000+ vehicles a day to add to the congestion. The local employment is less than 1% so virtually all the employees will be travelling to the Hub adding more and more pollution and damaging the local environment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lindsay Whitehurst
"I wish to object for a number of reasons. The impact on greenbelt, the impact on local roads and on local businesses. The impact on traffic on the A5 and the A449 through Penkridge. Also the fact that there a suitable brownfield sites available- for example in Stoke-On-Trent "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lisa Cuthbert
"This development is detrimental to local residents health and environment due to the increase in air pollution with the vast amount of extra traffic which will be passing through Penkridge. We need to addressing the environmental and health impact not adding to it the proposed land for this development is also green belt i since when did it become the norm to build anything on Greenbelt land there are plenty of brown belt areas which would be better suited. The amount of traffic already using the A449 of which I am a resident has increased significantly over the last few years and when there a problems in the M6 of which there have been quiet a few lately the A449 becomes like a motorway at standstill and the area becomes totally congested. I recently cleaned the shutters in my daughters bedroom and was horrified and the thick black sludge I cleaned from them clearly caused by air pollution I am sure if this was analysed you would be horrified . Green space is very important for our health and the environment it must be preserved at any cost !!! Otherwise it will cost the government ten fold in the long run with health issues and environmental issues.Somethings are more important than money ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lyndon Beasley
"As a member of Greensforge Sailing Club on Calfheath Reservoir, I reject the inadequate environmental assesment of effect on wind due to high buildings adjacent to the reservoir. I object to the use of 'Green Belt' land for commercial gain in this way. I disagree with the alleged need for rail hub and even more warehousing in this area. I object to the huge increase in traffic onto already overcrowded roads and motorway. I object to the proposed traffic management around the site which will increase travel for local journeys."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Dickens on behalf of Lyndon Jones
"I strongly believe this proposal is severely flawed on many levels. Firstly and most importantly, the proposed location is currently designated Greenbelt and as such the Planning authorities have an obligation for it to remain Greenbelt. It was originally designated Greenbelt for a reason & nothing in that reasoning has changed. The locality comprises on several hamlets and villages, farmland and woodland. There is a contained area of warehousing and industrial development at Four Ashes, sharing some common ownership with the applicant for WMI. I am no property lawyer but it is my opinion that a desire to further extend Four Ashes Industrial Estate is being sought under the guise of an Infrastructure application. At the public consultations it was clear no provision had been made for the significant increase to traffic the scheme would bring to the area. The rail transportation ends at the proposed warehouses and from there it is onto HGV's into an already at overwhelmed and at capacity M6/A449 network with longstanding congestion issues. There is not even an indication the warehousing will be for use by companies utilising the proposed rail interchange. The local road network made up with the exception of the M6, A5 and A449 is predominantly B roads, lanes and bridle paths. There is no unemployment of significance in the locality and therefore warehouse operatives and employees will need to travel some distance from the wider labour pools of Wolverhampton, Stafford, Stoke putting further strain on the already gridlocked road network. I strongly oppose the scheme for many other reasons - loss of wildlife habitat, the detrimental impact on rural life, the impact on quality of life for local residents, increased noise, light and traffic pollution. I've yet to view any data that guarantees levels of usage of the Rail Interchange to justify consideration for the change of Greenbelt classification. I re-iterate, this is a proposal to extend a warehousing and industrial park trying to utilise the more preferable planning processes to re-designate Greenbelt under a Major Infrastructure application. I implore you to also see this proposal for what it really is. If the Greenbelt is sacrificed, it is gone forever. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Malcom Robert Buttler
"The proposed interchange will greatly increase traffic on the A5 especially HGV which comprises the majority of commercial traffic and has already reached saturation. There is no respite for residents even at night and weekends with peak overnight HGV traffic often every 3 - 4 seconds and also taking no notice of the 40 mph limit. The white line on the eastern side has been obliterated through Weston under Lizard where HGVs seem unable to pass through without breaching it. The noise created by HGV traffic is horrendous where container and bulk tipper vehicles rattle and vibrate which transmits to housing making life uncomfortable even indoors. There are two other important factors; 1) There is no direct access from M6 southbound to M54 so all westbound traffic leaves M6 at junction 12 and uses the A5. 2) There is no direct access from M54 eastbound to M6 north so traffic uses the A5 (often leaving the M54 at junction 3 via A41 to join A5) to reach the M6 north at junction 12. These two factors will compound further the effects of increased traffic on the A5 and A449 on the proposed interchange. I object to this proposed development most strongly and the effects of the increased commercial vehicles traffic in particular on local communities and resulting reduced property values in the vicinity, not to mention the loss of a large area of green belt land. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Freeman
"I would like to object to this application as I believe it would have a detrimental impact on the area destroying the green belt and wildlife over a huge area. The scale and location of the site is inappropriate. The increased traffic would bring an already congested area to a standstill particulary at peak times and when there are frequent issues with the M6. This would bring increased pollution and noise. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martin Williams
"I would like to register my strong objection to this application. 1) This development is in the wrong place, it will destroy over 600 acres of greenbelt land, cross over a conservation area and cause many problems for the local residents - Noise and traffic pollution. The green belt has been designated as such for very good reasons. 2) Any 'green' credentials in the form of rail transport offered by the development are more than offset by the extra traffic caused by HGVs, LGVs and cars. 1000 of movements a day just for staff that will need to travel long distances as there is little unemployment in the area to satisfy the jobs that will allegedly be created. 3) Residents of Gailey will also have to suffer even more noise and traffic created by the recreational area planned on Croft lane. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mary Owen
"On many occasions the M6 gets blocked thus causing all the traffic to come through Penkridge. This causes the village to be in total grid lock. You cannot leave or enter Penkridge from any direction. If you requir e emergency service or need to get somewhere in emergency, it is impossible. Also we need to use brown sites first and I believe there are more suitable sites than the one proposed. I am also concerned about the loss of green space as we need open areas to act as lungs to enable all life form to breathe . This proposal is totally unsuitable in this area for many reasons."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Miranda Lopez
"This application hasn’t taken into account the sheer amount of pollution and damage to the environment and the local wildlife . The amount of pollution that will be emitted into the air and environment will impact upon the local residents and local wildlife’s health. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr David Pickrell
"My objections to this huge project are briefly as follows. 1) The location is largely green belt, which we are constantly being told is an essential green lung around conurbations 2) the 8000 or so jobs will not materialise on the rapid advance of A.1 and robots will kill them off 3) Local roads will not be able to cope with the huge volumes of traffic and not to mention the vast increase of polution and incessant noise 24/7 from more vehicles. 4) No attempt seems to have been made to utilise a brown field location"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Martin Higgins
"I must object to the proposed west midlands interchange at Gailey freight hub. On the grounds of the negative effect it will have on the local flora and fauna. I regularly see a kestral in that area (between Four Ashes and Calf Heath) hunting, flying to and from it's nest. Also the negative effect it will have on the environment due to air quality, pollution and noise. Not to mention the substantial increase in traffic 24 hours a day. Also it will have a massive attack on greenbelt land. Surely there are better options elsewhere!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Robert Benning
"I object strongly to this proposal; 1)unsuitable site! 2)Intrusion to green belt 3)Unacceptable increase on traffic in the area already used to over capacity! 4)Use brown field areas in W.Midlands conurbation "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Robert Wootton
"The scheme is completely inappropriate for the proposed rural location and is an attack on the greenbelt that has been used for farming for decades. This is what the country needs. Air quality will not be improved by an extra 18,624 vehicles a day, one third being diesel HGV's. we need more mature trees to give us oxygen. The farmland currently acts as a vast sponge, where will all the rainfall be directed so that it will not cause flooding in other areas? It is proposed that the residential area of station drive, four ashes is to have an H.G.V turning area, for vehicles too high to negotiate the low railway bridge, this will be disasterous for all the residents. This is not a rail hub, it is a road/rail hub that should not be built in this area of South Staffordhsire. Will the M6 and M54 motorways link road now be routed elsewhere? Have all other options been exhausted or has this area been selected because it has a lower cost to develop than a brownfield site? Your commitment to the plebiscite is to leave the country in a better state than when you were given control of it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Dickens on behalf of Mr Roy Dickens
"I strongly oppose the development of WMI and request the application is refused. Most significantly because the proposed location is currently designated Greenbelt and as such the Planning authorities have an obligation for it to remain Greenbelt. Once Greenbelt is lost, it is irreplaceable The locality comprises on several hamlets and villages, farmland and woodland. There is a contained area of warehousing and industrial development at Four Ashes, sharing some common ownership with the applicant for WMI. I believe they simply wish to extend their business interests in the area, to the detriment of the local surroundings and residents. At the public consultations it was clear no provision had been made for the significant increase to traffic the scheme would bring to the area. The rail transportation ends at the proposed warehouses and from there it is onto HGV's into an already at overwhelmed and at capacity M6/A449 network with longstanding congestion issues. There is not even an indication the warehousing will be for use by companies utilising the proposed rail interchange. The local road network made up with the exception of the M6, A5 and A449 is predominantly B roads, lanes and bridle paths. Crucially and very significantly, there is no unemployment of significance in the locality and therefore warehouse operatives and employees will need to travel some distance from the wider labour pools of Wolverhampton, Stafford, Stoke putting further strain on the already gridlocked road network. I strongly oppose the scheme for many other reasons - loss of wildlife habitat, the detrimental impact on rural life, the impact on quality of life for local residents, increased noise, light and traffic pollution. I've yet to view any data that guarantees levels of usage of the Rail Interchange to justify consideration for the change of Greenbelt classification. I re-iterate, this is a proposal to extend a warehousing and industrial park trying to utilise the more preferable planning processes to re-designate Greenbelt under a Major Infrastructure application. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Ann M. Barlow
"Please do NOT let this go to planning. Our village is an historical village of some 5/600 years and more. Elizabeth the first stayed at one of our hostelries. We have a vibrant, well established village with young and old residents. My husband and I together with our daughter live in our village and love it. We have lived hear for 42 years and my husbands parents lived hear well before a motorway. They knew a very busy A449 with no motorway. In the Summer the A449 was at a standstill. They used to sell ice creams to the drivers for goodness sake!!! Our infrastructure can't take anymore traffic. Our Doctors can't take anymore patients. Our roads can't take anymore traffic. We are begging you please, please do not allow this monstrosity to take place. I beg you, as a loyal parishioner and staffordian not to allow this. We need our country side and we need to keep our lovely village as a village and not another motorway."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Dickens on behalf of Mrs Christine Dickens
"The proposal should be rejected as it is seriously flawed. Firstly and most importantly, the proposed location is currently designated Greenbelt and as such the Planning authorities have an obligation for it to remain Greenbelt. It was originally designated Greenbelt for a reason & nothing in that reasoning has changed. The locality comprises on several hamlets and villages, farmland and woodland. There is a contained area of warehousing and industrial development at Four Ashes, sharing some common ownership with the applicant for WMI. It is my opinion that a desire to further extend Four Ashes Industrial Estate is being sought under the guise of an Infrastructure application. At the public consultations it was clear no provision had been made for the significant increase to traffic the scheme would bring to the area. The rail transportation ends at the proposed warehouses and from there it is onto HGV's into an already at overwhelmed and at capacity M6/A449 network with longstanding congestion issues. There is not even an indication the warehousing will be for use by companies utilising the proposed rail interchange. The local road network made up with the exception of the M6, A5 and A449 is predominantly B roads, lanes and bridle paths. There is no unemployment of significance in the locality and therefore warehouse operatives and employees will need to travel some distance from the wider labour pools of Wolverhampton, Stafford, Stoke putting further strain on the already gridlocked road network. I strongly oppose the scheme for many other reasons - loss of wildlife habitat, the detrimental impact on rural life, the impact on quality of life for local residents, increased noise, light and traffic pollution. I've yet to view any data that guarantees levels of usage of the Rail Interchange to justify consideration for the change of Greenbelt classification. I re-iterate, this is a proposal to extend a warehousing and industrial park trying to utilise the more preferable planning processes to re-designate Greenbelt under a Major Infrastructure application. Please see this proposal for what it really is. If the Greenbelt is sacrificed now, it is gone forever. Thankyou "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs D Jones
"I object to the application because I think the Green Belt should be protected, Brownfield land would be more suitable. There will be loss of agricultural land and countryside not to mention the negative effect on flora and fauna. Other more suitable locations are available. This development will have a negative effect on the environment causing air pollution, increased noise and light pollution. The air quality will be affected. There will be a vast increase in vehicular and train activity for the local community. Unemployment is low in the area so personnel employed at the hub will travel from other regions creating even more pressure on the road and rail system. All these points will have an adverse on the health of the local community. Also on the economy and local business."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Jean Wakeham
"My objections to his potentially health affecting project. First and foremost the obvious danger to health. All these extra vehicles are adding to the pollution of our air space endangering the young and elderly particularly but everyone generally. The roads in this area are very busy now, but will be conjested even further- if not grid-locked. The M6 is always very busy, both day and night. The A5 is equally busy and the A449 also. Both these roads are just two lanes- where on earth is all the extra traffic supposed to go?!! The area suggested is mainly green belt. We understand that there are other areas with brownfield and would be welcomed by these local authorities. Another thought - perhaps some of the board who are sitting in judgement would come to move into the area suggested and subject their families to the chaos and dangers we are facing"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Kerry Wildman
"I object to the above as I think it will have a negative impact on the environment effecting pollution, noise, and air quality and will generally have an adverse effect within the local area. Also I use the A449 to travel to work 5 days week and when there is an accident on the motorway nearby and the A5 it already becomes grid locked. I also do not have the confidence this will bring any employment opportunities to local people. There are Brownfield sites near all the major towns in the area which are far more suitable than this area of greenbelt. I also believe that the increase of traffic will have a huge negative impact on local businesses. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Linda Dutton
"I strongly object to the proposed West Midland Interchange - The Gailey Freight Hub. Firstly it will desimate 700 acres of green belt. Ruining a huge area of countryside that will never return. The traffic in the area will be massively increased by over 18.,000 vehicles a day. The a449 and A5 are already busy roads. the air pollution will increase greatly as over 6000 of these vehicles will be H.G.Vs.The surrounding villages will suffer intensely. It will create many job vacancies but this area has a very low unemployment. So jobs will come from outside the area or even from abroad. This is a monstrous proposal, nobody in the area wants this and I think the local people should be listened to as it will greatly affect peoples quality of life for good."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Wendy M Thain
"I object to the proposed West Midland interchange to be built at Four ashes (The Gailey Freight Hub) on the grounds that the green belt needs ro be protected and other more suitable locations are available. I also believe that its construction will have a negative effect on the local highways and traffic , notably the A5 in both directions from Gailey roundabout and the A449 particularly from Gailey to Penkridge. These are single carriage ways (with a small exception on the southbound approach to Gailey from Penkridge) and there is already congestion on these roads at peak times. The impact on congestion would be increased by commuter traffic from the anticipated workforce that the scheme would generate. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Yvonne Douglas
"I object to the application because of the extra amount of traffic on the roads, Penkridge gets grid locked on many occasions now, but if this goes ahead it will be on a daily basis, not too mention the, pollution, quality of air that will effect peoples health, I love along side the M6 now and I know how the traffic fumes effect peoples health my health has been effected with pollution, its not going to bring jobs to this area, all it will do is to increase more traffic and fumes with people coming from and outside this area, the ammount of warehouse is ridiculous what about peoples homes, would the people who are proposiy the site it on their doorstep as link not soon there wont be any green belt left in this area, no countryside no wildlife, very sad thought, there must be more site suitable elsewhere."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Yvonne Scott
"1) I totally disagree with the proposal & strongly object 2) I suggest you inspect the affects to the A449 in Penkridge when the M6 J12-13 is blocked or part closed making it very dangerous for pedestrian & local residents. 3)Pollution-extremely hazardous 4)We already have 300+ extra homes built at the A449 with no extra medical facilities. 5) I suggest you use the old industrial sites in Wolverhampton - Birmingham etc. The "intelligent" people who plan these things do not appreciate the affects a situation as suggested would have on our precious ever decreasing green belt & country areas"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Neil Aldridge
"Will dramatically increase the volume of traffic through small villages that cannot cope. Will blight the countryside Will increase noise pollution. Will drive down house prices, Will clog up the A449 which cannot cope already"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Niamh O
"Opposing the application for several reasons including, but not limited to, the following: - Building on a GREENFIELD site is unethical and will cause a range of socio-environmental problems such as severe negative impacts on local environment and ecology; - Source of noise pollution; - Source of significant air pollution at a time where ALL large cities are trying to promote clean air; - Inappropriate location - what about Stoke? (Stoke has good transport links, many brownfield sites, high unemployment rates) - Employees are most likely to be from other regions and commute (little to no positive impact on local economy) - Increase in local traffic (there is already a bottleneck effect from Birmingham commuters, as well as an excess of potholes and other road damage) "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicola Challinor
"I object to this application because; we need to protect the Green Belt not destroy it valuable agricultural land and countryside would be lost there would be a negative effect on local roads with increased traffic there would be an increase in pollution in the area"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nigel Thurstans
"- Inappropriate violation of green belt - Affect on the environment and wildlife - Noise and air pollution - no existing levels have been measured - 24/7 Gridlock of highways with no mitigating measures for locals - Occupants of the proposed units are not required to use the rail hub - The height of the proposed buildings will be unsightly. They have not been illustrated correctly on any proposals - No employment problems in local area (as claimed) hence more commuters - Community parks are a red herring as there will be no local community "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Pat Brown
"I object to this development on the grounds that it will have a massive negative effect on the environment and on the lives of the local residents. I believe it will destabilise the nearby communities and be detrimental to Staffordshire, a county of low unemployment, which has no need of the proposed jobs that may be created, and which cannot afford to lose its most precious asset, it's green belt lands. The proposed development will cause the loss of green belt land which cannot then ever be reclaimed, this will have a truly detrimental effect on the local environment and the health and wellbeing of the people living nearby. The suggestion of building here is particularly galling because there are other brownfield locations available elsewhere, and one Midlands site that has been selected, built upon, and then wasted by never being put into operation, despite being more practically sited than this location. This development will cause unacceptable air pollution by attracting an unsupportable volume of additional traffic to an already busy and over used road system. The road system closest to the proposed site ie A5 & A449 is frequently blocked with queued traffic during commuting hours, and at least 2-3 times a week over the winter months there is standing traffic for longer periods (up to half a day) due to accident or breakdowns. This congestion will be hugely increased with the proposed Hub activity. The resulting noise and deterioration of air quality will adversely affect the lives and health of those living in surrounding villages. It will make the daily commute to work, currently undertaken with difficulty by a large proportion of people from the neighbouring area, most impractical, and will therefore alter and potentially destroy the balance of the stable communities in local villages as working families will be unlikely to settle in the area in future. The development will potentially destroy other small non-polluting local businesses in a wide local area as their custom and operation becomes adversely affected by the inevitable high congestion of the road network. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Collins
"The site is 100% unsuitable, the current infrastructure is not capable of sustaining the extra traffic and should not be considered in green belt land"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Dilkes
"I am resident in the village of Weston under Lizard and wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the planning application that has been made by Four Ashes Limited to develop the site to be known as the Gailey Freight Hub/West Midlands Interchange and make it known that I do not want planning approval to be granted. I have grave concerns in a number of areas: Impact of increased traffic volumes on the whole stretch of the A5 travelling both east & west particularly through our village. I do not believe the quantum of traffic likely to travel through the village has been properly investigated/researched and that this has lead the developers to the view that the prospect of increased traffic in the vicinity of the village where I live to be ignored. The road is particularly narrow for HGVs where there are double white lines through most of the village and a 40 mph speed limit (which we can frequently observe being exceeded). HGVs passing each other (i.e. in both directions at the same time) along this stretch need to exercise extreme care. I am concerned that it is only a matter of time before there is a fatality involving HGVs. Indeed, this is one of the most dangerous stretches of the A5 for motorbikes where there have been a number of fatalities in recent years. Also the size and weight of lorries passing through the village is creating additional pollution, increased noise levels (and I am concerned that this is going to manifestly increase during the night due to truncking operations if the Gailey Freight Hub were to be approved) and is reported to be having an adverse affect on the foundations of houses in Rectory Drive closest to the road. There is already an adverse effect on house prices in the village which will only accelerate if this development is approved. The amount of Greenbelt that will be sacrificed for this development - it is difficult to appreciate the sheer magnitude of the development but driving around the proposed perimeter of the development makes you realise how huge this development is proposed to be, how much greenbelt will simply disappear and how whole communities and villages will be destroyed if the development proceeds with the ensuing huge negative impact on the properties of local residents. The huge amount of additional traffic in the wider area and roads which are expected to carry traffic to and from the site. Whilst the creation of jobs might be applauded, in my view given that local unemployment is less than 1%, the vast majority of workers will travel to their new jobs by car from a wide area also increasing traffic volumes. This is not to mention the horrendous disruption to local traffic whilst the development is in its construction phase were it to be given approval. The local roads along the length of the A5 & A449 in all directions is already beyond capacity at peak times and the congestion would be intolerable at all times of the day. There is absolutely nothing positive about the prospect of this development proceeding and I wish to represent that approval SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED under any circumstances "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Lopez
"The proposal will increase the traffic levels in the surrounding areas to unacceptable levels. The roads, particularly the A5, are not suitable for the volume of traffic or heavy goods vehicles. The level of noise and pollution will rise to an unacceptable level. There will be a significant increase in the risk of accidents caused by such a large increase in traffic volume. The proposal is wholly inappropriate and has no regard for the local residents, who are ratepayers, taxpayers and voters. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Bevan
"This development is entirely against the current green belt policy and the pollution,traffic congestion, and damage to the local infrastructure will be enormous. this area is already under a great deal of pressure from de-greening and air quality is being reduced daily. This huge area will not produce 7000 + jobs and if it were to produce even half that number they would be extra commuters as there is no great unemployment problem in this area. we already queue for long enough to get to work along the A5/A449/M6 I am totally against this planning application"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Leathwood
"My main concern is on the impact caused by the increase in traffic, both heavy and light, on an already congested road system. The M6 in the immediate area has been recently upgraded to a 'smart motorway' and work is well advanced to extend this up above Manchester. Unfortunately drivers using the motorway have not become any smarter and the slightest accident or breakdown results in gridlock on the A5 and A449. The impact on the environment and local population from all these standing and slow moving vehicles is immense and reaches into locations that have had little or no information on the project. In particular Cannock and Penkridge. When I questioned one of the consultance at a resent planning forum he said that smart technology would be used to prevent additional heavy goods vehicles form travelling through Penkridge. If all other options are blocked no smart technology will prevent this from happening. I am a firm believer in using the rail net-work for the movement of freight, but the distance between the railhead to the final destination should be kept to a minimum. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jean Wakeham on behalf of Peter Wakeham
"West Midland Hub My objections to his potentially health affecting project. First and foremost the obvious danger to health. All these extra vehicles are just adding to the pollution of our air space endangering the young and elderly especially but to everyone in general. Places like Birmingham are bringing in taxes for vehicles with bad emissions and we are being threatened we all these extra ones. The roads in this area are very busy now but with all the extra vehicles they will be further congested if not grid-locked.The M6 is always very busy, both day and night. The A5 is equally busy and the A449 also. Both these roads are just two lanes, where on earth is all the extra traffic supposed to go. On top of all this the area suggested is mainly Green Belt and there has been interest from other areas who have Brown Field sites and have much higher unemployment than Staffordshire. Just a thought, perhaps some of the members of the Board who are sitting in judgement of the project would like to move into the area and subject their families to chaos and dangers we are facing."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Public Health England
"Please See Attached "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Raymond Mason
"I object strongly to this application for the following reasons, Erecting buildings on nearly 700 acres on Green Belt Land, which will decimate the countryside. The other Major problem is, how can our road structure around here cope with the extra thousands of vehicles every day. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rebecca Talbot
"The site selected is completely unsuitable. The local villages cannot sustain the impact this will have on their roads, schools, doctors and housing stock. This development will destroy our greenbelt - why here? The main purpose of the green belt policy is to protect the land around larger urban centres from urban sprawl, and maintain the designated area for forestry and agriculture as well as to provide habitat to wildlife. Green belt offers a number of benefits for both urban and rural population. 643 acres of green belt would be destroyed! Is this the legacy I want to leave for my children - NO! NO! NO! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Andrews
"I object to this application because it will have a negative effect on the local environment, it will create significant pollution from diesel engine lorries causing health problems, stretching a local health service that is already over subscribed. It will increase traffic on an already overcrowded road network. A road network that has ground to a halt four times in the last two weeks because of accidents. It will take up a significant area of greenbelt when there are brownfield sites available in Wolverhampton and/or Rugeley, e.g. on the site of the old power station which already has a branch line running to it that carried the coal to fuel the power station. The environmental impact will be more than significant, it's not just the greenfield site that will be lost but the increased traffic in the local area will have a detrimental effect that will extend beyond the route to and from the site as traffic will move further afield in an attempt to avoid the inevitable rush hour congestion that will occur with the WMI workforce getting to and from the site as well as the estimated additional 6000 HGV's that are estimated to need access to move goods to and from the site. In addition to the damage heavy goods vehicles wreak on the road surface there is the sad statistic that the M6 has been dubbed the most deadly motorway in Britain, claiming more than a dozen lives each year on average for the past decade. In total, 160 deaths have been recorded between 2007 and 2016 with 7,342 accidents reported. Increasing traffic in this area is insane. Please stop this process before irreparable damage is done to the environment and more lives are inevitably lost "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rob Smythe
"I object to this application because I am concerned about the location and feel a brownfield site would be more suitable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Hunter
"Having lived in Brewood for more than forty years I have witnessed the steady but gradual development of housing and appropriate services necessary to a growing community. The gradual nature of this has been largely acceptable unlike the hugely significant freight hub proposal which will:- Erradicate 643 acres of local greenbelt, Increase heavy goods vehicle traffic on local roads that are already heavily congested. Create a substantial increase in polluted air. There are other areas of the midlands, particularly in the northen area around Stoke that have plenty of brownfield sites and where the communities are desparate for development. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rowenhorst Family
"1) Loss of greenbelt to a massive building project which will obviously been added onto over the years by other businesses having a dramatic effect on surrounding villages and green belt land. 2) Air pollution by increased traffic and cause overload on already busy roads especially the M6. 3) Villages in the vicinity will cease to be rural villages and will end up suburbs of Wolverhampton. which is already happening. 4)There are other locations not in the greenbelt that would be more appropriate if this rail link is absolutely necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sam lennon
"Main points around increased light and fume pollution to the surrounding area which I believe will be as a consequence of increased road traffic in an already congested area. The roads surrounding this proposed site are already unable to cope with present traffic volumes and there have been a number of accidents already these issues will only be compounded by this new site. The heavy and increased traffic will move Lucas traffic to surrounding lanes non of which are built to support high volumes and are already used as short cut motorways to avoid the a449 and A5. This is not a suitable site for this kind of development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Guy
"I object to this application because of the negative effect it will have on the environment, particularly air, noise and sound pollution. The traffic is very heavy at the best of times and this development would have a significantly negative impact on local highways and traffic. it is the wrong location because it will have a negative impact on the ecology of the area, when there are other more suitable locations, particularly with a better infrastructure."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Bailey
"I am objecting to this ill conceived and unecessary proposed industrial development built entirely on greenbelt land. Projects such as this should utilise brown field sites that are such an eyesore in the west midlands and stoke on trent. This area has been plagued for years by heavy traffic this project when completed will greatly increase congestion on the A5 and A449. During the construction period of 15 years, including the imposition of yet another roundabout, there will be considerable disruption by heavy duty construction equipment. There will be hugley increased diesel Pollution by the many more thousands of HGV vehicles that are forecast to be using the A5 and the A449. Wildlife areas and local woods will be totaly destroyed, landscaping after the project is completed in 15 yrs time, will not even start to compensate for what has been permantently lost. I am afraid that if this development goes ahead, the landowner [REDACTED], will sell the rest of his land opposite for industrial use and creeping industrialistation will stretch the length of the A449 and down the A5 as far as Wheaton Aston and beyond. Developers will cite the proposed warehouse development as an example of existing industry in the area. South Staffordshire, is a pocket of beautiful and ancient farming and woodland, surrounded by major roads, and urban development. We need to protect this area, far better to turn it into a national park, for use by the many surrounding urban dwellers as a local green amenity, and not for the profit of the few."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart Willetts
"I object to this application because I am concerned about protecting the Green Belt and our local ecology as this is important to the country both locally and nationally. I am also concerned about the negative effects on the environment caused by pollution detrimentally affecting air quality, increased noise and light, as well as on the local highways and roads caused by the anticipated additional traffic. Negative Effects on Local Business I also object to this application because I am concerned the location is wrong. The M6 running adjacent to the planned site is already 1 of the most congested motorways in the UK and added more traffic to it is ridiculous. There are more suitable locations available with brownfield land being more suitable. The promise of jobs in an area with very low unemployment means that this has not been considered properly as it will lead to the transporting of thousands of employees from other regions could damage our local economy, meaning even more traffic. This additional traffic is likely to find alternative routes to work to miss all of the HGV traffic on the main roads, and as a resident of Coven we already get considerable traffic taking a "short cut" through the village. Extra cars going through places that are not meant for the traffic, and often at excessive speeds could lead to more accidents particularly around schools. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sue Edwards
"I object to this application because I am concerned about the green belt and the negative effects in the local highways and increase in traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Freeman
"I wish to object to this application on the following grounds: Loss of greenbelt increase in traffic increase in pollution and noise Inappropriate location "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Trevor Horton
" Objections 1/ Staffordshires green belt is a precious resource and must be protected. To destroy some 750 acres of agricultural land and countryside would represent a devastating loss of that resource. 2/Most species of fauna & flora in England, including our birds and bees are rapidly declining. The negative impact this development would have on our local ecology cannot be overstated. 3/The proposed location of the Gailey Freight Hub is a serious flaw in the applicants master plan in that the consequence will necessitate the double handling (at least) of all Freight resulting in Freight being unloaded from trains into storage and from storage onto HGV's coming in and going out. The resulting air and noise pollution would massively impact on the quality of life of local communities. 4/ It has been stated that the West Midlands Interchange will inflict an additional 18000 or more vehicles on the surrounding roads every day. The affected roads are severely conjested already, and to introduce more traffic on such a massive scale will inevitably result in sheer chaos on our roads. 5/ It has been calculated that an increase of over 18000 vehicles on our roads everyday will generate more than 16 extra tons of CO2 every day. Additional pollutants include substantial amounts of diesel particulates and nitrogen oxides and rubber grains from the tyres of those vehicles will seriously damage the health of all the people in the local communities. However the impact on the elderly and young children will inevitably be the most serious. 6/The proposed siting of West Midlands Interchange in rural Staffordshire is plainly wrong. The applicant estimates the project will create 8500 jobs, but the proposed location is in an area of low unemployment which means that most employees would need to commute from distant locations leading to further road conjestion , pollution and disruption. There must be many more suitable brownfield sites in the urban areas of the West Midlands and that is where such a monstrosity should be built."
Members of the Public/Businesses
William R Caffrey
"I OBJECT in the strongest possible terms to the Proposed West Midlands Interchange - Gailey Freight Hub This Four Ashes Limited proposal, disapointingly, with the support of Local Land Owner, [REDACTED] is a wanton destruction of large swaths of Green Belt Land in South Staffordshire, and will change the unique nature of the area for ever. It will increase volumes of traffic, pollution and noise to unacceptable levels, reduce the openness of the area, and adversely affect the Health and Quality of Life of the local population. Most importantly, the limited benefits of this proposal are insufficient for them to be considered SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. This is a fundamental condition necessary for ANY development of the Green Belt to gain approval. IT IS THE WRONG DEVELOPMENT IN THE WRONG LOCATION THEREFORE THIS PROPOSAL SHOULD BE REJECTED. Please Note! - I have a more detailed submission expanding on the points made above for presentation at a later date. Wiliam R Caffrey - Brewood Resident Archivist - Brewood Civic Society [redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alison Gutteridge
"I object to this application because I am concerned about the following:- Protecting the Green space for future generations The massive increase in pollution Traffic is already an issue locally, adding more traffic will create a nightmare. I also wish to point out the following:- Using already developed, but abandoned land is far more suitable The M6 at this junction and several others both north and south are already at breaking point This is against the Local Planning Policy "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ann Ryding
"In my opinion this will impact greatly on the green belt land where the site is proposed. The amount of traffic will have an impact on the quality of air due to pollution from the amount of cars and lorries who will need to access the site. Although the road structure in the area is OK and the moment the roads could not cope with the extra traffic. Indeed if there is any closure on the M6 the local roads grind to a halt. How much worse it would be with the added traffic the hub would create. There must be better sites which would not take the green belt and agricultural land out of use. We need these open spaces to help the environment deal with all the pollution around us already. Please consider a brownfield site which would utilise land currently identified for this purpose and keep some of our countryside green. Thank you"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anna Stimpson
". Completely opposed to the hub. Reasons include Impact on the environment. Relating to both wildlife and air pollution. The area already has poor air quality. As an [REDACTED] sufferer, this is of great concern. Regarding wildlife, the area surrounds Gailey Pools, which is the habitat of many birds, insects and fish. The proposed site also is the home to many species. Woodland has already been cut down, which is an absolute disgrace. Inadequate infrastructure. The infrastructure already in place is struggling to deal with the capacity of traffic. Specifically, the A5, M6 roundabout, M6 and Gailey Island. I am frequently queued up in traffic there now. The roads simply can not take any more. Impact on passenger rail services. If rail freight is used and its not just a rouse to get planning for the site, the WCML is already at full capacity. Adding more slow moving freight trains in to the mix and factoring in them slowing to cross points to access the depot, has the potential to cause chaos. Ultimately the site is impractical and should not even be being considered. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ashley Ashcroft
"Dear Sir/Madam, I would like to register my objection to the proposal for The West Midland Interchange to be built on green belt land in the area of Four Ashes and Gailey. It is my belief that this WMI can only have a negative effect on the surrounding area and will impact not only on the human population but the wild animals, reptiles, insects but also on the flora ie the general ecology of the area. The main transport arteries are already heavily congested and barely fit for purpose without bringing more HGVs and other traffic into the area. When deteriorating air quality, exhaust fumes and noise pollution from the extra vehicles on the roads as well as the noise of the construction site is thrown into the mix I cannot find anything to recommend going ahead with this project. As for the promised 8,500 jobs created I would imagine this number of people employed would only be during the construction period and then when building is finished the actual number of permanent jobs created would be considerably less."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brian Harvey
"I obj.ect to this application because I feel it will have a negative effect on the local environment and countryside. The area already suffers from being in the triangle of the M6 A460 and M54 especially when there are issues on the M6. There are more suitable areas available where the additional employment opportunities are needed"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine Preston
"The proposal would greatly increase the traffic on the A5 and A449 roads which are already busy. It would also be building on a large area of Greenbelt land. Whilst there would be a number of jobs created this would also add to the local traffic as the employees would have to travel a considerable distance to get there."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Connor Wood
"Although deemed necessary by the national government, the West Midlands Interchange is an inappropriate development in the context of the local area, especially on Green Belt land because of the size and impacts of the proposed development. Furthermore, this development directly opposes the Local Plan's Spatial Strategy objective 1 'to protect the green belt in order to maintain the distinctive character of South Staffordshire' as well as 2 'protect and retain the important strategic gaps between existing settlements', and potentially all of the environmental impact Strategic Objectives 3-7. Ultimately at the very least, major changes will need to be made to the application to minimise the conflict with the Local Plan and even with major changes, the impact on the character of our rural community will remain for many decades. There has not been enough communication between the developers and the community this will have an impact on. More engagement, negotiation and mediation is needed to resolve conflicts between the different stakeholders. How much of a say do we really have on the final result? I am also concerned about the future viability of this project. While aiming to have a huge capacity for freight, we do not know how the world will change in the future. In 30 years time, will we still have the need for a SRFI in this location? And if we don't, then a huge tract of Green Belt land has been destroyed permanently out of nearsightedness. Is this a strategic national network of freight hubs to support the sustainability of our future economy and environment, or a speculative network of freight hubs? A strategic network should be strategically placed around the UK yet current and proposed SRFI development is clustered around the Midlands, hardly reducing the road travel time of freight which is one of the main drivers for the development of SRFIs."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Daniel Clarke
"“I object to this application because I am concerned about: Protecting the Green Belt, Negative Effects on the Environment including Pollution, Air Quality, Noise and Light pollution, Negative Effects on the Local Highways and the Increase in Traffic, Negative Effects on Local Health, Negative Effects on the Local Flora & Fauna (Ecology), Loss of Agricultural Land & Countryside, Negative Effects on Local Business, I also object to this application because I am concerned the Location is wrong, because: There are other more suitable locations available, Brownfield land would be more suitable, Regional employment has not been considered properly, Bussing in thousands of employees from other regions could damage our local economy, And is not in accord with Local Planning Policy"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Whistance-Smith
"Having attended a meeting held by our local MPs and campaigners against the proposed West Midlands Interchange, I OBJECT to this planning application for the reasons listed below. 1) The enormity of the proposed development will decimate the green belt area currently protected. 2)There are other areas, brownfield sites, areas requiring regeneration more suitable to site this proposed hub. 3) Local authorities are already eradicating green field sites to provide housing in predominately agricultural areas. 4) The destruction of the area under review, by removing natural habitat will have an adverse impact upon the wild life, both animal and vegetation. 5) The inevitable increase in traffic flow will have a detrimental effect on the environment and the people who live in the surrounding villages. People who 'escape to the country' to avoid pollution, noise, poor air quality and other such social ills. 6) With the increase in pollution there is greater risk in the increase in people suffering respiratory health problems as evidenced by studies carried out in towns, conurbations and areas close to major roads, creating a larger burden on the NHS. 7) The increase in traffic will inevitably cause major problems on the highways surrounding the proposed site. The infrastructure is unable to cope with the expected increase. This would be exacerbated in the event of diversions off the main roads and through the surrounding villages. I would be grateful if the above points are taken into consideration along with the many others I am sure you will receive in OBJECTING to this proposal. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Deborah Alcock
"I strongly object to this proposal. It is totally unnecessary and will cause irreversible damage to an attractive rural area in South Staffordshire. It will also have a significant adverse impact on my families amenity, as well as cause significant traffic congestion on the already congested local roads. This development will destroy vast areas of the Green Belt and will harm all the purposes of including land within it. Most notably by destroying the openness of the Green Belt and causing the coalescence of settlements. It is clear from reading the supporting documentation that the applicants’ have identified the site and then sought to justify it by preparing a very poor and subjective site selection sequential assessment. A development of this scale and magnitude should be subject to a thorough site assessment carried out by the respective Local Planning Authorities and supported by policies included in the respective Local Planning documents. This is what I would expect from a ‘Plan Led’ system. It should not be the subject of speculative planning applications and reliant on the integrity of the applicant to prepare a robust and objective alternative site assessment when they have a vested interest in one of the identified sites. Had the proper process been followed alternative, sequentially preferable sites would have been identified; most notably the Royal Ordnance Depot in Featherstone or brownfield sites within the Black Country. We are informed by the applicants’ that the scheme is meeting a need for a rail freight terminal, however this is a wider West Midlands Demand. There is no locational demand for this development in this area or the infrastructure and supply chain to support this development. This development will be located to the rear of my property. It will destroy my families amenity. The sites 24hr operation will result in significant noise and light pollution which will impact on my families ability to enjoy a peaceful night’s sleep or enjoy relaxing in our back garden. The proposed site is not in a sustainable location or easily accessible by public transport. It will, therefore, be car dependent. The local roads are already heavily congested. This development will make it significantly worse. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dennis Taggart
"I would respectfully suggest that as a Penkridge resident we are frequently inconvenienced by excessive heavy traffic through the village when there is a problem with the M6 locally. The A449 and A5 as single carriageway roads travelling through busy populated areas are totally unsuitable for the current traffic load. The potential increase caused by the proposed development would no doubt prove to become a dangerous disaster area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Diane de Leuw
"I object to the proposed plan for the West Midlands Interchange for the following reasons: The site for the proposed developement is ‘Green Belt’ and there are other ‘Brownfield’ sites which are more suitable and appropriate. The huge increase in traffic would have a massive impact on the area with increased air pollution, noise, accidents and traffic problems. Once built this vast development would forever change the environment to the detriment of this area, which is mainly farmland and forest. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elizabeth Heighway
"I object to the proposed development because of the huge increase in heavy duty traffic. The A449 is very busy now and we do not need the extra traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gemma Cornes
"I strongly object to this application as it will have a negative effect on local highways and already chaotic traffic on the A5 and A449, local health and ecology. I believe the proposal to be in the wrong location, brownfield land would be more suitable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gemma Fisher
"The WMI should not be built on green belt land! There are more suitable sites and theses should be explored. I feel that the effect that build will have on wildlife is not worth the gain. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ghislaine Povey
"I am concerned that this development will greatly congest local roads making work commutes even longer. If the M6 becomes blocked motorway users cut through Penkridge, Brewood, GaiIey and Cannock as it is. The additional traffic will add to gridlocks that run from M6 junction 13 to Wolverhampton City centre as it is. If the M6 blockage coincides with a football match at The Molineux this gridlock in Wolverhampton is further exacerbated. Pollution from exhaust fumes, and noise will be detrimental to residents' health. The land chosen for development is green belt chosen to be the lungs of the city of Wolverhampton and it will be detrimental to the whole city if the green space is lost. Wildlife in the area will be devastated. The noise and artificial lights of this proposal plus the sheer size of the development will irrevocably damaged wildlife habitats that will be lost forever. Local quality of life will be denigrated. The unique and valued local community culture will also be lost. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Alcock
"I strongly object to this proposal. It is totally unnecessary and will cause irreversible damage to an attractive rural area in South Staffordshire. It will also have a significant adverse impact on my families amenity, as well as cause significant traffic congestion on the already congested local roads. This development will destroy vast areas of the Green Belt and will harm all the purposes of including land within it. Most notably by destroying the openness of the Green Belt and causing the coalescence of settlements. It is clear from reading the supporting documentation that the applicants’ have identified the site and then sought to justify it by preparing a very poor and subjective site selection sequential assessment. A development of this scale and magnitude should be subject to a thorough site assessment carried out by the respective Local Planning Authorities and supported by policies included in the respective Local Planning documents. This is what I would expect from a ‘Plan Led’ system. It should not be the subject of speculative planning applications and reliant on the integrity of the applicant to prepare a robust and objective alternative site assessment when they have a vested interest in one of the identified sites. Had the proper process been followed alternative, sequentially preferable sites would have been identified; most notably the Royal Ordnance Depot in Featherstone or brownfield sites within the Black Country. We are informed by the applicants’ that the scheme is meeting a need for a rail freight terminal, however this is a wider West Midlands Demand. There is no locational demand for this development in this area or the infrastructure and supply chain to support this development. This development will be located to the rear of my property. It will destroy my families amenity. The sites 24hr operation will result in significant noise and light pollution which will impact on my families ability to enjoy a peaceful night’s sleep or enjoy relaxing in our back garden. The proposed site is not in a sustainable location or easily accessible by public transport. It will, therefore, be car dependent. The local roads are already heavily congested. This development will make it significantly worse. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Powell
"Dear Sir or Madam Having visited the two exhibitions at the Haling Dene Centre in Penkridge regarding the proposed West Midlands Rail Freight Interchange, I must register my objections as to why I do not feel this site is appropriate for this area. During the forty years I have lived in Penkridge the village has been re-designated as a market town and has become increasingly congested. The speed limit on roads has also been reduced which indicates the increase traffic volume. In 1312 a royal charter was granted by Edward II to hold a market in Penkridge. The market still operates today on Wednesdays and Saturdays. In modern times, this creates a lot of extra traffic which can queue from the traffic island by the Spread-Eagle Public House on the junction of the A449 and A5 to the market in centre of the town. Over the years Penkridge has become a busy cross road for traffic to pass through from all areas, if this proposal is allowed, it will a create a huge extra volume of traffic. According to your proposed plans, 10 trains per day up to 775m long will enter the site, based on the usage of forty-foot container it would require 64 HGV per train or 640per day and 4480 per week 7days week. If the containers are smaller this will require more HGV vehicles plus the vehicles to transport the thousands of the workforce it is said this project will create. The plans indicate that all traffic will enter and exit by both the A449 and the A5 and be distributed by the M6 at junction 12. Everyone living and working in this vicinity knows that the M6 which is one of the busiest motorway in the country has traffic problems on a regular basis. When this situation occurs drivers naturally take the easy option. Penkridge. In your consultation information, you address public transportation to the site, which includes a car sharing portal. This method indicates to me that you foresee a traffic problem. You also speak of A Framework HGV Management Plan and Framework Construction Traffic Management Plan which will ban WMI HGV’s through Penkridge. How do you intend to police this action? Penkridge is the nearest railway station to the proposed site. Over the years as rail transport is promoted as a better way to travel, more people are coming to Penkridge railway station leaving their vehicles as the parking is free. Despite an extra car par in recent years people still leave their vehicle around the streets of Penkridge making life more difficult for its residents. There are only two main routes in this area which are A449 and the M6 and Penkridge is in the middle, so the residents of Penkridge get the full brunt of any traffic problems in this area. If there are any disruptions south, before you reach junction 12, then traffic will exit at the nearest point and travel along the A449 through Penkridge. This also applies if any junction before or at Junction 12 north is blocked drivers try to save time and reroute through Penkridge. You are also assuming that all traffic will travel via the M6 Junction12 for its destinations. It is reasonable to assume that some traffic leaving the site will go to other areas, like the M54 and A5 for Shropshire and Wales, A5 for Cannock and the M42. the A449 to Wolverhampton and West Midlands. This amount of extra traffic affects so many other areas and people’s lives. The government and local authorities are working together to reduce the effects of diesel pollution by vehicle in our towns and cities. In your exhibition, you highlighted the carbon footprint using train power. You forgot to take into consideration the hundreds of HGV vehicles a day that will be using the site adding to the existing pollution in our surrounding road network. The main purpose of the green belt policy is to protect the land around large urban centres from urban sprawl, and maintain the designated area for forestry and agriculture as well as to provide habitat for wildlife. We already have a long-established chemical plant on the proposed site and over recent years in the surrounding area additional industrial buildings have been added. This includes an incinerating plant and a new large factory. With the uncertainty of the agricultural policy until Brexit is concluded with will need our green belt land. If this sort of infrastructure is required there are already other brown field sites available. I bring you attention to an area in Stoke on Trent which has already has been suggested as a more suitable site. If unemployment is one of the issues this area would be best served by basing the hub there. Yours Faithfully Graham Powell "
Members of the Public/Businesses
FBC Manby Bowdler LLP, Solicitors on behalf of Inglewood Investment Company Limited
"1. This objection is made by the landowner (Inglewood Investment Company Limited, 'the Objector') and relates to land parcels 101, 102, 103, 110, 111, 112, 113 as shown on Sheets 4 and 5. This land principally comprises warehousing land (Works No.3) but it also includes highways and structural landscaping. (The Objector asserts title to the disputed freehold parcel forming part of parcel 103) 2. By virtue of s156 of the 2008 Act the DCO enures for the benefit of the landowner. The Objector disputes that it is necessary, or that there is any compelling case in the public interest, for its land to be acquired (save for highway purposes). If the DCO is made and implemented by the Undertaker, so that the principal infrastructure is provided, and if there is in due course a market for the development, then the landowner/Objector themselves can bring their land forward at that time. 3. No case has been made by the Undertaker to suggest that the acquisition of the whole area is necessary for the viability of the WMRFI. Indeed the indicative phasing plan suggests that parcels 101, 102, 103 would not come forward until 2030 whilst the remainder of the objector land would come forward until 2033. 4. The principle of the DCO and of the WMRFI is not contested. The appropriateness of granting planning consent over the Objector’s land is not contested. But whereas there is a compelling case for acquisition of land to establish the rail infrastructure and a viable (smaller) warehousing area, the removal of this Objector’s lands from the DCO would not prejudice the functionality of the WMRFI, which would remain consistent with the policy criteria (NSIP and Explanatory Memorandum 2.3 require a 60Ha site; this site is 297Ha). The removal of an area of strategic landscaping would not prejudice the landscape or visual impact of the development. 5. The DCO incorporates the Mineral Code save for paragraph 8(3). The minerals found within the Objector’s lands are sand and gravel, and are owned by the Objector. The Objector’s understanding is that it is not the intention of the Undertaker to acquire the Objector’s mineral interests; however the DCO is ambiguous as to whether the minerals are ‘expressly named and conveyed’, and this ambiguity should be resolved. The Statement of Reasons 3.12 recognises that an active working of this kind of mineral is inconsistent with the DCO; the Objector’s minerals are not under active working but (as to parcels 101, 102, 103) are allocated in the current development plan. Were it not for the DCO (if granted) the working of this mineral would be permitted. [The parcels are not in fact subject to the tenancy to SSG claimed at 3.19.17 of the SofR]. 6. The Undertaker recognises that the existing consented mineral extraction area is close to exhaustion; but, whilst the Undertaker suggests that these parcels are not of importance, they are nonetheless part of the development plan allocation, and are an area imminently expected to be brought forward into the market place. The effect of the Code being incorporated is to except the minerals from the acquired interests and therefore from the compensation payable for the land. The minerals are surface minerals and extraction would be imminent. Because the minerals are shallow and would be worked from the surface the acquisition of them subject to the Code will improperly limit or interfere with the owner’s right to appropriate compensation. The policy is that the Code should not be incorporated automatically; and the Undertaker has not established a valid basis for incorporation of the Code. The DCO should be amended to provide expressly for the acquisition of the minerals in these parcels if that is what is intended, but if not, for the exclusion of the Code. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jade Smithyman
"I object to this application because I am concerned about: - Negative Effects on the Environment / Pollution / Air Quality / Noise / Light - Negative Effects on the Local Highways and the Increase in Traffic - Negative Effects on Local Health I also object to this application because I am concerned the Location is wrong, because there are other more suitable locations available such as Brownfield Land. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Woodward
"We are supposed to be protecting our Greenbelt for future generations. This land is also home to our ever threatened wildlife which we should also be protecting. I understand one of the farms on the proposed development is undertaking a stewardship scheme to farm in a wildlife friendly way to encourage our threatened farmland birds, what is the point if the land is to be built on? Increase in traffic means an increase in pollution. It's just another example of greed and capitalism at it's most ugly. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jeremy Oakley
"Employment opportunities and effective logistic distribution, are essential for a thriving economy. Therefore it is clear that something like the proposed West Midlands Interchange will be essential to the well-being of the local and national economy. However, it is my opinion that the current possession of the planning application does not serve those two essential requirements. Employment opportunities: Currently unemployment in the area of the proposed site is very low. Therefore people will need to travel to work, to add to the already jammed transport networks. Effective logistic distribution: Congestion is an understated word when describing the daily chaos of travelling M6 from Junction 16 through to Junction 3. The motorways is the biggest carpark in Europe. Please don't consider adding even one car or lorry to the burden locals endure. It's time to start thinking outside the box, rather than adding to more roads and more road users, where is the imagination of a new rail network that meets the modern needs, without adding to the demand on road systems that are already beyond capacity on an island the size of UK."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joanne Cole
"I object to the application on the following grounds: 1. Negative effect on the enviroment/pollution/air quality/noise 2. Negative effect on local highways and traffic 3. Negative effect on local flora & fauna (ecology) 4. Loss of agricultural land and countryside 5. Destruction of the greenbelt 6. Unsuitable location of the interchange on greenbelt land when there is brownfield land available."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jodie Williams
"I’m concerned about the extra pollution & noise from the extra vehicles this will cause in the roads. It will make a terrible impact on the volume of traffic and cause congestion anddidtruption This will ruin the countryside we have left. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joyce Pegg
"I am objecting to the proposed West Midlands Interchange for the following reasons: Over 60 acres of Greenbelt land will be lost - in this area, we can ill afford to blot the landscape further and we need to protect the greenbelt as much as possible. Traffic would be greatly increased - we already have been suffering with the works on the M6 motorway causing massive traffic problems. This project would mean even more traffic in an area already suffering. The environment would suffer greatly from noise and pollution "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julie Barlow
"I strongly object to the proposals for the West Midlands Interchange. There are many reasons why but in particular the severe impact on roads around the area which are already often gridlocked. More pollution,noise and loss of green belt land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julie France
"I am sick of the one law for one,and another law for others such as developers and large corporations. This is GREEN BELT land and if this gets approved the.traffic in particular HGV will increase pollution and traffic in this rural area... The i54 still has empty buildings so what makes the planners think this would be used? There's plenty of other sites with road infrastructure in place such as the M54! If this gets approved then I will be happy to sit on site protesting to prevent work from starting. Whose back pockets are being lined this time? Sick of English corruption "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karen Barclay
"I object to the Weat Midlands Interchange on the grounds of: The negative effect on local highways and volume of traffic The negative impact on the environment The massive loss of agricultural land and countryside To protect the green belt including the flora and fauna There are much more suitable locations which include brownfield land"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karen Scotter
"I have lived in this area for 10 years..and have enjoyed the beautiful scenery i have here...but this will all change dramatically if this frieght hub goes ahead....the amount of traffic it will bring will devastate the A5...A449...not to mrntion the pollution to wildlife... We have a duty to our next generation to keep this precious greenbelt Its not all about money...its about quality of life...be that human or any other We have already recently seen a huge change on the A5 already lately industrial and retail Thank you. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kevin Green
"The land proposed is currently Greenbelt land and such a development will not only eliminate this large area of Greenbelt land, but will also have a significant negative effect on the local environment in terms of pollution and noise from the associated additional vehicular Movements. There are more suitable Brownfield sites in the Midlands & North Staffordshire area which also have significantly higher levels of local unemployment. Whatever the actual number of long term jobs being created, which given the fact that most will be warehousing related , I doubt would be anywhere near the numbers quoted , locating them in an area of higher unemployment would be more logical "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Leigh Townsend
"I highly object to this application as I believe the location if wrong for such a huge proposal and is not in accord with local planning policy. There are far more suitable locations available which would not require the destruction of protected greenbelt. It will have a high impact on the environment and air quality causing health problems on the local population and the surrounding farm land and animals. Which produce is used throughout the country. The local and surrounding road works cannot cope with the current amount of traffic using the roads. With weekly traffic jams and unfortunately recurring car and cyclist accidents the increase of traffic will only make these problems a norm. Employment in the regional area has not been considered properly as it does not have the required work force locally to run such a large proposal. This would only result in recruiting employees from outside the region causing more vehicles to use the local roads. Bussing in thousands of employees from other regions could damage our local economy. There is so much protected land being destroyed throughout the country for large manufacturing which doesn’t live up to expectation. Resulting in greenbelt, countryside and farm lands being destroyed for no reason. Should we not be using waste lands and brownfields etc before destroying more useful countryside and forests that help clean the air of the pollution caused by these factories. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Severynen
"Green belt should be protected Wrong location for a development of this scale Highways infrastructure inadequate Destruction of valuable countryside and agricultural land Noise and air pollution from vehicles Damaging to the rural character of this part of South Staffordshire "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Wootton
"The land on which they plan to build the hub is green belt and should not be used for building.The surrounding roads will become grid locked."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Topham
"My objections are on the following basis, Wrong location, there are more suitable brown field sites available for development. Using green belt must be a last resort. The A449 and A5 infrastructure is not suitable for the extra influx of vehicles, it certainly cannot cope at the moment if there are motorway related incidents, which are frequent. The loss of agricultural land, when again brown field sites are available. The large negative effect on the environment, resulting in large amount of pollution and poor air quality."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mary-Ann Burke
"I object to this application because it will have a very negative effect on the environment in terms of pollution, air quality etc. The effect on local roads i.e. A460 and A449 will be detrimental. The A460 is already frequently congested whenever there is an issue on the M6 or M54. There will be further loss of countryside which in turn affects the local ecology - somethings just can't be replaced by man made parks! Regional employment does not seem to have been considered and this would mean that many employees would have to be brought in by bus or drive in adding further to traffic issues. There are alternative sites that would seem to be more suitable available. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Heighway
"As a mainly Green area we do not need the pollution and extra traffic that this development would bring. The A449 is a busy road already , we do not need the extra traffic in this area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Alan Grieve
"I am concerned about the number of cars and commercial vehicles using the A449 and the A5. These roads are already very busy in the mornings and late afternoon / early evening. Also I understand that there are other more suitable locations available."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Gordon Yates
"The lokation of the proposed West Midland Interchange, must not go ahead. The devastation of destroying approx. 700 acres of green belt land, agricultural land and countryside would be ir-repairable. The local countryside is green quiet and pleasing to the eye, not brown concrete, horrendously noisy and potentially deadly with a decrease in air quality due to the C02 emissions of extra 18,000 plus vehicles per day. H.G.Vs already dominate the A.5 and A449. The potential for more accidents and possibly road deaths is too high a price to pay. The local road network is already busy and accidents would cause H.G.V traffic onto narrow country lanes causing chaos to the local road network and surrounding villages, as already witnessed by M.6 and M.54 road traffic accidents. Visually the site would be a concrete and rusty metal monstrosaty, with containers stacked high and stretching as far as the eye can see, Not green and pleasant land. The proposed site is in the wrong location for the service that is required from a freight hub and must not go ahead there must be a more suitable location available, brownfield land, where the fright hub could actually benefit rather then destroy the local environment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr. R.W. Goodbody
"My objection to the West Midlands Interchange is entirely based on the extra traffic this scheme will create. Junction 12 of the M6 is a very busy link to the A5 and A449 when accidents occur as they often do the traffic through the small villages cannot cope at this present time with the existing road layout. With the additional traffic to and from the interchange created by goods and workers and also the addition of extra roundabouts on both the A5 and A449 to access the West Midlands Interchange this will only add to the traffic problems. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Janet Eyre
"I am a disabled elderly person with [REDACTED]who relies on using a car to get around. In penkridge the main route is the A449 which runs from Wolverhampton to Stafford via junction 13 of the M6 motorway. At Gailey it intersect with the A5 from Cannock via Junction 12 of the M6. Often the A449 is gridlocked due to regular problems on the M6, this also affect the A5. The proposed development, the WM Interchange will see a massive increase of lorries on the road, over a 1000 a day, this will almost certainly impact on local roads, causing gridlock and affecting local air quality, pollution. For the local community and people like myself, the affect will be devestation , not only increasing the likely hood of accidents and offecting health but will make it difficult to commute to local hospitals like I have to at the moment. This project has not been thought out regarding the impact on people like myself as it will be severly detrimental"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Jean Austrums
"I object to the West Midlands Interchange on the grounds that the proposed site is part of our green belt. Also the increase in traffic ( heavy lorries ) would be more than the surrounding roads & lanes could cope with. I am in full agreement with all the objections put forward."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Joan Worrall
"I object to this application because: Massive use of Greenbelt Land Negative effect on the environment Pollution Negative effect of local highways and traffic Effect on local health Ecology Loss of agricultural land and countryside Stoke on Trent have a suitable site and would like the Hub A5 is only a 2 lane road where is dangerous to overtake and will make turning out of my village onto the A5 virtually impossible. Congestion will send lorries into narrow country lanes. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Joyce Albany
"I object to this application because: Massive use of Greenbelt Land Negative effect on the environment Pollution Negative effect of local highways and traffic Effect on local health Ecology Loss of agricultural land and countryside Stoke on Trent have a suitable site and would like the Hub "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Lindsey Harcombe
"I object to this application because: Massive use of Greenbelt Land Negative effect on the environment Pollution Negative effect of local highways and traffic Effect on local health Ecology Loss of agricultural land and countryside Stoke on Trent have a suitable site and would like the Hub "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Boot and Son on behalf of Mrs Lynda Paradine
"1.Loss of Greenbelt.2. Detrimental affect on the visual amenity of the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Maggie Hammond
"I object to this application because: Massive use of Greenbelt Land Negative effect on the environment Pollution Negative effect of local highways and traffic Effect on local health Ecology Loss of agricultural land and countryside Stoke on Trent have a suitable site and would like the Hub "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Mary Jackson
"Villages along A449 and A5 will be virtually gridlocked."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Olwyn May Stacey
"Dear Sirs, I omitted my reasons on the top reference for the project at four ashes near Penkridge NOT to take place. The reasons being. There is enough huge traffic coming through Penkridge at present and although we are on a main road, this is only a village, fhew people at Four Ashes will lose their homes and the next reason - GREEN BELT, eventually we shall have none with building that is going on everywhere!! Massive house building has gone up at the edge of our village!! Yours faithfully Olwyn M . Stacey"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Natalie Fraser
"[Redacted] Four Ashes Limited (FAL) FREEPOST WMI 24/10/2018 Dear Sirs Gailey Freight Hub Consultation – Objections I am writing to strongly oppose and object to the proposed Gailey Freight Hub. I attended the public exhibition at the Coven Memorial Hall, last year where the revised proposed plans were available to discuss with appointed FAL representatives. After reviewing the proposals there are numerous reasons for my objection, many of which haven’t changed from the initial proposal and are noted below. 1) An attempt at publishing expected traffic flows on the various roads around the site are misleading. The revised proposal includes the construction of a roundabout on the A5 between M6 Junction 12 and the A449 (Gailey). The FAL representatives stated that lorries using the Freight Hub would use that new roundabout meaning less congestion around the Gailey roundabout where the A449 crosses the A5. The expected traffic congestion of minus 5% (-5%) between Gailey and the new roundabout is clearly wrong. Any vehicle that crosses the A449 (A5 Eastbound) will continue to the M6 and will actually be slowed by this new roundabout into the Freight Hub, thus causing significant congestion and more pollution 2) Similarly, the expected traffic flow South of Station Drive at Four Ashes has been estimated at plus 10% (+10%) whereas the stretch just North of Four Ashes toward the other new roundabout has been estimated at plus 41% (+41%). It is again misleading to suggest the traffic flow along the A449 Northbound will be any different to the increase of 41% expected 3) There has not been an air pollution study commissioned either by FAL or the Local Authorities. Such an enormous development, and the expected movement of hundreds of HGV’s every single day has got to increase the volume of air pollution. FAL are quick to point out that this is a “Rail” Freight Hub, thus reducing HGV traffic in the UK. Whereas that may be the case between the port when freight enters the UK and the Hub, the surrounding area will see a dramatic increase in the movement of large vehicles, leading to substantial air pollution, traffic congestion and noise increases. This causes great concern given the Government’s strategy on reducing diesel emissions relating to nitrogen dioxide and existing current high levels of air pollution regarding the July 2006 study undertaken Watling Street Cannock. 4) The expected traffic flow projections have not been carried out for the A5 immediately to the West of Gailey roundabout (toward Telford) and the A449 immediately to the North of Gailey (toward Penkridge). These routes are very busy, particularly at peak hours, and the proposed road infrastructure developments by FAL will create significant congestion in those areas. The recent road works on the A449 between Gailey (A5) and Coven have been a clear indication of the impact congestion has on this area, and they have been a temporary issue, rather than permanent which is what the Freight Hub would be 5) This 700 acre site is situated in a Green Belt area. Such Green Belt areas should be protected from development, particularly of this scale, as much as possible to ensure our countryside does not suffer permanently 6) This area is very nearby Cannock Chase which is classified as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) 7) There are many “Brown Field” sites in the West Midlands that are also in close proximity to the railway network that would be more suitable than the destruction of Green Belt land. Such Brown Field sites along the route of the M6 and M5 motorways near Walsall, Sandwell and Birmingham have previously been industrialised and would be more suited to such a Freight Hub. At their public meeting on 20 June, FAL stated there had been 4 sites reviewed including Gailey. One of those site near Dunston (J13 of the M6) is clearly unsuitable and I question the actual level of detail that has gone into reviewing those other sites 8) It is difficult to understand the scale of the development simply from two dimensional drawings. I drive down the A449 every day, and the stretch between Gailey roundabout (A5 junction) and Four Ashes where this proposed development will be situated is not blighted by industry at all. The whole stretch is green fields and trees which would be obliterated by enormous warehouses and container yard. FAL have admitted the proposed “screening” banks would not be of sufficient height to fully hide that development. Many development and construction companies now use Building Information Modelling (BIM) tools prior to construction to demonstrate how a development will look. A BIM 3D model of the proposed construction should be created as part of the consultation process which will clearly demonstrated the environmental impact of such a development 9) There will be a significant increase in Rail Freight journeys on the rail line through Penkridge. As admitted by FAL on 20 June, these journeys will often take place during the night due to passenger services using the line during the day. This rail line passes a large number of residential properties which will have a very detrimental effect on those residents 10) The road infrastructure (A5 and A449) is not suitable for the amount of Heavy Goods Vehicles that will be using it to transport goods in and out of the Freight Hub. At the consultation meeting on 20 June, the road infrastructure “expert” stated neither the A5 nor A449 would be widened 11) Events at nearby Weston Park on the A5 such as the V Festival, Camper Jam and Annual Game Festival bring significant disruption to the area’s roads. These events bring much needed revenue to the area, and as they are relatively infrequent, are accepted by the local communities with the disruption to the road network. This Freight Hub would be like having the traffic of the V Festival on a daily basis throughout the whole day bringing significant traffic congestion every single day 12) FAL have confirmed that some of the warehouses at the Freight Hub may be leased by distribution organisations that are not mandated to use the Rail Terminal. This only serves to increase the road traffic in the local area without the benefit proposed by FAL for the development itself 13) I already live on the A449 and when the M6 is closed (either for planned maintenance or due to an incident / accident) the A449 is the only road which takes this traffic, classed by Highways England as an “arterial route”. This means that it is not permitted to impose vehicle size restrictions, therefore that would not be an option for FAL to use in the proposal for this development. Lorry drivers would have no hesitation to use the A449 in the event the M6 was busy (even just usual motorway congestion) to access the Gailey Freight Hub. This would bring unnecessary congestion through our village. The FAL representatives said that Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) equipment would be installed on the A449 immediately North of Gailey, and HGV’s using the Freight Hub would be financially penalised if they used the A449 rather than the M6. Firstly, this does not seem a very tough deterrent for the haulage companies (FAL could or would not say how much those fines are expected to be), and secondly, FAL (on 20 June) admitted the fines would go back into the company managing the Hub estate, and therefore there is no incentive to enforce HGV’s to use only permitted routes 14) FAL made much of the creation of a “Community Park” within the development. This is nothing more than an attempt to say they are “… putting something back into the community …”. Who is going to use a Park in the middle of an enormous industrial area with noisy cranes, trains and lorries, and 40 metre high warehousing? 15) Penkridge, Four Ashes and Coven are good, prosperous areas with a good standard of living, and low unemployment. Such a massive development will significantly affect the value of property in the area as well as the health and wellbeing of the local population. FAL representatives on 20 June admitted that they do not expect support from residents in the local area, and that this site is the most suitable. Comparisons have been drawn with a similar development near Daventry in Warwickshire. That particular development started as a similar size to the Gailey Freight Hub, and over years of subsequent development is now considerably larger. Other than the profiteering of Four Ashes Limited and its shareholders, there are far more negatives associated with this development than positives and we wish you to reject this application. Yours sincerely Natalie Fraser (Mr) Copies to: [Redacted] Planning Inspectorate Stop the Gailey Freight Hub Campaign "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicholas Hammond
"The increase in HGV traffic on the A449 and A5 will cause endless delays to local people trying to get to work, children travelling to local schools, access of emergency vehicles and deliveries to the surrounding mainly rural community. The A5 is unsuitable for large numbers of HGV's, single lane and prone to traffic accidents, with no easy diversion routes available and poor access for emergency vehicles there will be an increased risk of loss of life. The site will wipe out a huge area of valuable green belt with the resulting damage to the environment - increased pollution, noise and light. There must be more suitable brownfield sites available,nearer to large manufacturing hubs."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicola Best
"I object to this as im directly in this area and have few points ..green belt and farming land i wanted to live in and face living in a industrial park green belt land is something should be protected. Huge warehouses will blight our veiw and light air pollution from all the traffic trains building these warehouse i worry as have a disabled child aswell as our own health ..noise pollution 24hrs traffic is caos here friday nights especially and when there a crash on motorway whole area is so busy already the kids school bus which i mentioned at presentation they wont be able to stop safely to pick them up with the design ive seen and same safety issues with us leaving drive to get on the road with the left lane being used for all these lorries and vans etc wont be able to get safley to canal many more reasons "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicola Williams
"This development will isolate people living within this small hamlet, it will destroy the sense of community to be able to walk safely or ride bikes, horses or push orals to neighbours in relative quietness. The traffic and noise pollution will negatively impact in a dramatic way. As there are so few if us in calf heartbeat we are being bullied into this proposal and feel very ignored and disoespected. To extend into calf heath village itself is not taking into account the sense of community and pride and will cause much unhappiness. The visual impact is huge with tall buildings in full view of stable lane and 24 hour light and noise pollution. The valued green belt is being list for warehousing and distribution with no guarantee that businesses will indeed use freight. The impact on the already overburdened m6 will cause major traffic problems and local pollution. We are totally opposed to the WMI and have been met with wute aggressive attitudes and lies at the local discussions. Our house will be unsaleable and will be unbearable to live in and we will feel in stable lane very cut off from the village."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patricia M Ordsmith
" For two years I was the Chief Instructor for Greensforge Sailing Club, in this role I headed up the delivery of training of new and existing members and the development of the instructor pool. I still help them with their Club development and support their sailing and training activities. A south west to westerly wind is the best wind for sailing at the club and ideal for training new sailors. The proposed construction will seriously disrupt this wind and will make it difficult to train new sailors. Greensforge Sailing Club is an RYA Recognised Training Centre, which delivers sailing training courses to adults and children each year. Training activities are key to the sustainability of any sailing club, as this is a way of attracting, developing and retaining new and existing members. The plan to make the road at the end of the lane one way will add 4-5 miles additional journey time for members of the sailing club and will make access to the club more difficult and less attractive to future new members. In summary my main concerns are the impact on the wind and the road access to the club. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Guest
"The proposed rail hub will have a big impact on the natural wildlife within the area and although more jobs will be potentially created in the area the extra commuters would cripple the already struggling road networks around Gailey."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Pearl Thorley
"I object to this application because: Massive use of Greenbelt Land Negative effect on the environment Pollution Negative effect of local highways and traffic Effect on local health Ecology Loss of agricultural land and countryside Stoke on Trent have a suitable site and would like the Hub "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Walpole
"I object to this application because I am concerned about protecting the green belt, negative effects on the environment / pollution / air quality / noise and negative effects on the local highways and the increase in traffic. I am concerned the Location is wrong because there are other more suitable locations available, brownfield land would be more suitable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gunnercook LLP on behalf of Staffordshire Sand & Gravel Company Limited and Salop S&GSCL
"The proposed development lies over an area of valuable mineral reserve and the proposed scheme should take account of that reserve and protect its current and future exploitation. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Robertson
"The A5 and A449 are already experiencing large amounts of heavy traffic a lot of which are big commercial vehicles. The drivers of these HGV,s are already ignoring the motor way systems that run parallel to these A roads. On any given day you will see a Telford HGV crossing over junction 4 of the M54 to join the A5. On any give day you will see an HGV coming from Wolverhampton ignoring the turn right at Gailey to join the M6 and carrying on up the A449 to Junction 13, taking there heavy loads through Penkridge. I fear that this situation can only get worse if this new project is to go ahead. Regards Steve Robertson "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steve Creed
"I, [REDACTED] and many in the community I have spoken to have concerns about the vast quantity of green belt land being used for this project when there is so much brownfield land sitting unused in nearby areas north of Wolverhampton. In addition, i am immensely concerned about the increase in traffic congestion, additional pollution and the resulting effect on the health of residents that a site of this size is going to introduce, and which is already a problem in the Penkridge and surrounding area anytime there is a problem with the M6 - which is a regular occurrence. I hope that planners and decision makers can rethink this in terms of congestion, public health and better use of brownfield sites and reject the planned infrastructure project Sincerely, Steve Creed"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thomas Pill
"It's a load of rubbish that will only be detrimental to the area. It's all about making money and this is the wrong place to do it. Children are going g to have to put up with this monstrosity and be polluted by all the hgvs passing through the roads"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Val Cox
"I object to this application because: Massive use of Greenbelt Land Negative effect on the environment Pollution Negative effect of local highways and traffic Effect on local health Ecology Loss of agricultural land and countryside Stoke on Trent have a suitable site and would like the Hub "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Victor Doughty
"I wish to object to the planning proposal at Four Ashes. I have lived in Brewood all of my life -73 years, and this development will have a catastrophic affect on our village and surrounding area. My objection is based on - 1. Taking up swathes of green belt land 2. Effect on local highways traffic which has already increased in Four Ashes 3. additional pollution and increased noise"
Members of the Public/Businesses
William Andrew Fyfe Smith
"I object to this application because it is wholly inappropiate for a rural environment in a declared Green Belt. It will have a negative effect on the wider Environment, increase Pollution, affect air quality, increase noise, increase light pollution, all impacting on health in the locale. Negative effect on Local Highways and traffic Damage to local flora and fauna. Loss of a substantial amount of Agricultural land and the Countryside. Would create a huge carbon footprint. Should be located in an urban environment, preferably a brownfield site. Regional employment and infrastrucure has not been considered. An increase of a projected 8500 employees could see upwards of 17000 vehicle movements alone per day. Public transport is not in place for such a venture. It is not in accord with Local Planning Policy. Insufficient monitoring and examination of the current road infrastructure and network currently in operation and projecting the increased traffic volume generated onto the existing system. Short answer it would not cope. Incidents on the M6 creates gridlock in the surrounding area in present time. 6000 plus HGV per day equates to 12000 vehicle movements (each vehicle makes two movements into and out of the Hub), with each vehicle having an axle weight of 40 tonnes, that represents some 480,000 tonnes running over the roads every single day seven days a week. Have they really done the maths? Percentage of freight being carried by rail is down to 8.7% Office of Rail & Road 2016/17 figures and it is declining."
Members of the Public/Businesses
William O'Connor
"Destruction of greenbelt. Impact on environment and air quality. Severe and excessive traffic congestion. No local employment need."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrea Kear
"I am appalled at the plans for the West Midlands Interchange. I do not feel that there is evidence that this is required, and, even if I could be persuaded that there was a need for this type of development, this is not the place for it. Green belt land is protected for a good reason, and should only be used in exceptional circumstances and when no other options are available. The questionable need for the West Midlands Interchange does not demonstrate exceptional circumstances, and there are other brownfield sites which would be more suitable for developments of this kind. Destruction of this green belt will bring with it a detrimental effect upon local flora and fauna. The development will increase traffic on roads which are already struggling to cope at particular times of day and when an incident on the motorway results in traffic leaving the motorway and using local roads. (This is quite a common occurrence.) Air quality will suffer, and this pollution will impact health. In addition to physical health being affected, the loss of green belt and increase in traffic and noise pollution will also affect the mental health of local people. A small green area/park in the middle of this enormous monstrosity is not going to compensate for all that is lost. I have heard the argument that new jobs will be created. Since this is an area with little unemployment, any new jobs created will be for a non-local workforce, the consequence of which is yet more traffic from employees driving into the area. Would it not make more sense to locate in an area where more people need jobs? Please reconsider the need for such a development, and, if there is CLEAR EVIDENCE that it is needed, then look at more suitable brownfield sites which are available. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Archie Maclean
"Objection to planning. The proposal is being put forward as a rail hub and as such that it is an essential part of the national strategy to move freight from the road to the rail network. Whilst I agree for a commercial development that is not rail dependant. Looking at the submitted master plan it is apparent that there is no unit directly connected to rail. The rail hub is a relatively small and independent portion of the overall development with little capacity and no room for future expansion. The other buildings on the development are shown to be of a size more akin to warehousing and distribution. The case in point being that two buildings are of 30m height, a size that is commensurate to a regional distribution centre. The reality is that the nature of the businesses that would be attracted to this estate and it's location would be served by road creating a large net increase in road traffic on an already congested section of motorway and trunk road. I believe this scheme to be another large industrial estate with a passing nod to a rail hub to give it a more acceptable face. The rail hub would have little impact on reducing traffic and may well increase traffic volumes."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Caroline Elliman
"I strongly object to this proposal for a huge industrial development in a protected greenbelt area and is not in accord with local planning policy. despite the presence of the M6 this area is still very much made up of small villages and farmland, with significant natural and historical features such as the canals and buildings which would be devastated if this proposal goes ahead. Thousands of significant trees, flora and fauna would be destroyed having a huge negative impact on this areas ecology. Traffic in this area is already high with the M6 junction and the air quality and noise pollution increasing already. The impact of such a development would be to increase the risks to health for local people, increase the danger on the roads. As a resident who lives near to the A5 fatal accidents are already an all too regular occurance. The location for this is wrong there are other more suitable options in less rural areas. A brownfield site needs to be selected. Greenbelt areas have been determined for a reason, and need to be protected. Please make the right decision for the thousands of local people living rural farming communities that would be devastated by this. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Wright
"The local roads are already congested as it is and when the M6 is blocked the traffic on the A5 and A449 through Penkridge is horrendous so these plans are completely inconsiderate to local residents. The destruction of green belt land is completely unacceptable, this will become an eye sore in the area as well as damaging local wildlife habitats."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Colin McShane
"I would like to object to the proposed development on two main grounds. Firstly this area is on prime green belt land which separates discrete villages and this, together with potential future housing incursions on such land would erode this belt of land which is so precious. However, my main issue is with the impact on the traffic flow in the area. Whilst it may appear to be in a very suitable position near to 3 trunk routes A5, A449 and M6--it is precisely this position which is problematic. There are regular snarl-ups in this area because any problem on the M^ ( of which there are many) then traffic uses the A5/449 as an alternative. Given the immense number of extra vehicles during the normal operation of the hub, it beggars belief as to what would happen when one of the regular incidents causes M6 traffic to be diverted onto this section of the A5. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Bevan
"This proposal is a major infringement on the Green Belt and is entirely disproportionate in size to the local rural area. It will have a significant deleterious effect on local infrastructure, quality of life and health. It is in the wrong place as the surrounding rural environment will be badly impacted by noise and fumes. The size of the buildings are too high in comparison with other local historic buildings. A brownfield site would be more suitable for this project and could be used to clean up an otherwise dormant industrial site. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Norris
"I have considerable concerns with regard to the effect that this development will have on certain surrounding services and community activities. In particular the disturbance that will be a result of the construction of such a large structure will severely effect any activity on the neighbouring Calf Heath Reservoir. As the home of Greensforge Sailing club, it will make the continuation of any sailing activity impossible due to wind shadow and sheer. As a club that over the years has supported not only a viable membership but also a considerable number of both Junior groups and disabled groups this will be a major loss to the community. Whilst a viable club it is not financially in a position to look at a change of venue, if there were one suitable in the area. This reservoir is also the home of considerable wild life including hybrid water fowl that are very rarely seen any where else. It seems highly unlikely that these will survive the disruption that will be a result of this proposed development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eithne Johnston
"The proposed West Midlands Interchange at Four Ashes will have a detrimental affect on the whole area. There will be a loss of agricultural land and the countryside, the local fauna (ecology) and flora. There needs to be protection of the green belt in this area as the neighbouring villages will soon be engulfed by roads and excess traffic. The air quality, noise, pollution in the area will be huge and will have a negative effect. The local roads will be over run with lorries which will not be capable of coping with them. The West Midlands Interchange will be in the wrong location particularly as there are more suitable sites, including brownfield land. The agricultural site at Four Ashes is not the place for the Interchange."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elisha Bateman
"I oppose the proposed freight hub at the West Midlands interchange. I am against the destruction of green belt land in any location, other alternative sites have the infrastructure already in place to avoid the loss of such a huge amount of land. The road systems locally are not equipped to manage such a dramatic rise in traffic and with villages and schools located so close to the proposed hub air quality must be taken into consideration, both land and lives must be taken into consideration when reviewing this application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma Smith
"I object to this application because I am concerned that the development would have a negative effect on the environment including the destruction of green belt which should be protected for future generations and the increase in pollution and reduction in air quality at a time where research shows the significant impact air pollution has on health. I strongly believe that the development will have a negative effect on the Local Highways and the increase in traffic will place significant pressure on an already struggling road infrastructure. There is already significant pressure placed on local communities during busy periods with the existing level of traffic, where commuters attempt to avoid main roads by travelling through villages with narrow, single roads. In addition to the impact on the area surrounding the development the increase in traffic that would be caused by the proposed development would impact significantly on local village communities, impacting on residents health due to the increase in air quality and noise pollution. I also object to the application as I believe the planned location is wrong because there are alternative brownfield sites that could be used in areas where there is greater demand to create employment. I believe the level of regional employment has not been considered properly therefore thousands of employees would need to travel to the site from other areas further increasing the pressure on the road systems and the impact on the environment. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gill Cooper
"I have concerns regarding this project for a number of reasons. I am Treasurer of Greensforge Sailing Club who will be directly impacted by the proposed development. Calf Heath reservoir is directly adjacent to the proposed warehouses and the height and proximity of the warehouses will have a huge impact on the quality and variability of the wind. Our sailing club depends on wind and I think that such large buildings could not fail to have a detrimental effect. The club is used by youth groups, is a training centre and also holds events for disabled groups. Should the wind be too greatly affected then I fear that the club would have to close and those groups as well as our members would lose a great facility. Recently Veolia have made a huge investment in the club by funding the renewal of the frontage to the water and thus in the future of our club. Should the proposed one way system be put in place then access to our club would be directly impacted to the detriment of the club. Additionally to my concerns for the impact on our sailing club I am worried about the impact of further traffic on the M6. I live in Stafford and any incidents locally on the M6 cause traffic to be diverted through the town centre, pretty much bringing the town centre to a stand still. Additional traffic will also affect travel times to the hospital in Stoke which we have to use more and more because the facilities at Stafford County Hospital have been downgraded. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Bowrin
"I object to the West Midlands Interchange for the following reasons - it will be built in the Green Belt which should be protected wherever possible - this will have a negative effect on local wildlife - it will result in an extremely large swathe of countryside being lost - swallowed up by huge industrial units, warehouses and other buildings that will clearly be visible from the A449. The Green Belt is NOT the place for such development - the increased amount of traffic along the A449 and A5 will have a negative effect on the environment with an increase in pollution and noise, and a decrease in air quality - the increase in the number of cars, lorries and vans will have a detrimental effect on local highways. The A449 and surrounding roads, such as the A5, are already extremely busy at peak times. - more vehicles on these roads will inevitably lead to more accidents which, in turn, will lead to more congestion and air pollution. - the congestion on the main roads will result in more motorists taking shortcuts through local villages - surely, there are any number of brownfield sites that would be more suitable and less controversial? "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Jones
"I object to this application because I would like to protect our very precious and rare green belt. The development of this project will have negative effects on the environment including noise pollution,poor air quality increAsed night light levels which will in turn negatively effect the wildlife. There will be a massive increase in traffic causing high risk of delays accidents and congestion in all villages surrounding the area. House prices will decrease due to people not wanting to purchase property so near to the development .Local flora and fauna will be effected causing decline in species. The location is completely wrong and will be a huge loss to the argricultural and countryside for local farmers, plus it will look a complete eyesore in such a pretty area. A more suitable location would be Brownfield sites. I strongly object to this development !"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jayne Burford
"I object to this application for many reasons, 1. The negative effect on local highways and traffic. Penkridge suffers already if there is an m6 issue, if this traffic is added to that we will become totally gridlocked. 2. Local emplyment has not been taken into account, Stafford unemplyed is as low as it has ever been. This would result in even more traffic with extra cars or buses for the staff to get to their job. 3. The negative effect on the local ecolgy and the loss of countryside and agrucultural land. I moved here to live in a rural village surrounded by countryside, I want this for my children and grandchildren. 4. I believe there are other more suitable locations for the project. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karen Cox
"I object to this proposal for several reasons: Firstly to protect the green belt in Staffordshire - it is not in the West Midlands as the name suggests. The loss of agricultural land and countryside will have a negative effect on local flora and fauna, and a negative effect on local health. Our area has poor air quality and this would make it significantly worse. The effect on local traffic would be devastating. The area at the moment is already congested with traffic. The M6, A449 and A5 are too busy already, and most days there is an accident on the M6 with lanes closed. The roads don't have the capacity to cope with the extra HGVs and cars that this interchange would impose. This is not in accord with local planning policy which wants to protect the green belt. It should not be considered as a strategic development just to avoid local planning as there is no proven need for a freight hub in this area. Furthermore potential tenants are not required to link to the railway which means that it would just be warehousing which could be built on a more suitable ie brownfield site. I believe that more suitable locations are available and should be considered. It will also be very unlikely that any freight trains will get slots to operate as the west coast line is already extremely busy with fast passenger rains and other freight already using it. Regional employment has not been taken into consideration.The promise of 8500 local jobs is misleading, the area currently has only 1% unemployment so the jobs would be for people commuting from afar making further traffic problems. In summary, there is no proven need for this freight interchange, there is no need to provide it for local employment, the existing road infrastructure wont cope with it, and it will be wrong to build on 643 acres of green belt land. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kerry Dudley
"Destroy the green belt land Wrong place for a hub Traffic congestion Quality of air Greed of land owners Ruin the community "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kevin Street
"This proposal goes against the human rights of those living within the area. It will cause considerable pollution in the way of noise and fumes within a very rural area. The volume of traffic will rise so much that the infrastructure within the region despite any improvements will cause considerable distress to all those living within a large radius. The M6 already gets massive delays that impacts on the A449. This road struggles to take the increased traffic flow now let alone with an extra heavy goods vehicles going through villages that were never designed to take that flow. All this on top off how can we justify losing thousands of acres of green belt land. This is rural land that must be preserved for future generations to farm. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kim Street
"I have concerns about the traffic around the area. I work in Stafford and live in Coven and the problems currently without the hub when there is an accident brings standstill. I want to see the green belt preserved for my son’s future."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laura Jackson
"Additional traffic in area. Increased pollution. Effects to wildlife "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Crosby
"I object to this application because I am very concerned about.... . Protecting the green belt .The negative effects on the environment/pollution[/air quality/noise/light .negative effects on the local highways and the increase in traffic .negative effects on local health .negative effects on the local flora and fauna . loss of agricultural land and countryside .negative effects on local businesses I object to this application because I am concerned the location is wrong, because... . there are other more suitable locations available .brownfield land would be more suitable .regional employment has not been considered properly .bringing in thousands of employees could damage our local economy .and is not in accord with local planning policy "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lucy Hall
"This is Greenbelt land and should be preserved as such, urban sprawl is a dangerous trend and must stop somewhere. The road infrastructure is already too crowded and could not cope with the extra traffic. This will cause more traffic to use inadequate back routes which will put safety at risk. At peak times our villages are a already dangerous for pedestrians. The levels of pollution, both through fuel and noise pollution that will be caused by the traffic is not acceptable. There are acres of brownfield sites in urban areas that should be considered before greenbelt land. The proposal for this site is putting cost ahead of ecological and environmental realities. This should not be permitted. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lynda Parkes
"I am strongly against this development for a number of reasons. . The huge increase in traffic on the roads in the immediate area. Commuting for work, business and everyday reasons will be severely disrupted. . The additional traffic will affect the air quality in the area, which I feel is unreasonable. . I am strongly against the use of green belt land. There are other sites that should be used before green belt is even considered. Coven has already lost a considerable amount of green belt in recent years, the development of the waste disposL site, the recent development of the 4 ashes site and the huge development at Jaguar Landrover, which is planned to further expand. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Robinson
"Can you honestly agree to this plan, when all news about diesal pollution is telling us we are all in danger, yet you are willing to bring more and more lorries onto our roads. 18,624 vehicles every day is anyone willing to listen to the worries of residents and school children ?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Collett
"Ruin countryside Ruin community village Quality of air Traffic congestion "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Maxine Williamson
"Negative impact on the environment The increase of traffic on already crowded roads The impact on wildlife in the area with the destruction of their habitats The impact on surrounding villages traffic diverting around the lanes to a avoid queues etc "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr David Oldfield
"I object to this application for the following reasons: There will be a detrimental effect on local highways, especially as the area is regularly gridlocked. Air quality will be degraded with an increase in pollution and noise. There are more suitable brownfield sites available. Additional rail traffic will increase noise pollution in local built up areas. A large area of greenbelt land will be destroyed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Keith John
"1) Location of this proposed freight hub Gailey is going to us up more than 700 Acres of green belt farm land. This seems a wast of valuable farmland covered in concrete. As a large amount of our food in this country is imported to reduce more food having to be imported we need to keep our farmland safe. With lots of alternative brownfield sites in our area we could use as suitable locations for this development. Alowing us to keep our precious farmland for farming and protecting our wildlife / plants and flowers for future generations. 2) We are told the project could generate hundreds of new job, This is a rural area and most local people are fully employd, For the extra jobs to be covered staff would have to travel into this area adding more congestion on local roads and small villages. 3) The large increase in the amount of H.G.V's in this area would dramaticaly increase. Together with pollution on roads. Increasing volumes of traffic on roads A5 and A449 at times of the day strugling to cope now. This I hope will cover my objections for Gailey Hub project going ahead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Peter Davenport
"In preparing the its submission the applicant has failed to examine the transport implications on the local road network. In particular, the impact traffic will have on the A449 through Penkridge, the inevitable situation during congestion on the M6 and consequent diversions. The inevitable increases in atmospheric pollution arising as a consequence of this congestion. The site is in an area which is flat with limited ability for it to be set in the landscape. It will result in the development of buildings which exceed the height of any landscaping and will result in the urbanisation of the A449 corridor from Wolverhampton to the A5 in Staffordshire. The land is not brownfield and in an era where the UK imports a substantial amount of agricultural produce land should not be sacrificed for purposes such as the logistics park proposed. In Staffordshire we currently have virtually full employment and as a consequence do not require the creation of low value logistics jobs. The employment need is therefore flawed. Finally the application fails to consider the amenity requirements of vehicles accessing the facility and already seen on the local road network. There is a dearth of HCV facilities and parking in lay-bys lanes etc.. is common place across the area. The rail element is only applicable on the western portion of the site so the applicant should be challenged as to why a more efficient use of that facility would not negate the need for the warehousing proposed. The separation of the elements will inevitably result in double-handling of goods. If the application is permitted it should be the subject of strict targets that are monitor able and enforceable in relation to traffic movements, emissions, and acceptable routes which should not include the A449 north of the A5 and the A5 to the west of Gailey. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs G Wheatley
"I object to this planning as it is completey the wrong location using protected green belt land and there are more suitable locations available including brownfield land. This will also increase flow of traffic carrying a negative inpact on the local highways daily, and smaller roads when congestion and accidents happen: increasing pollution, reducing air quality and increasing noise. Overall this will have a large and negative impact on the health of the pubilic living in the area, increasing costs in maintaining good health and health inequalities for this and surrounding areas and villages. The local ecology will also be affected, agricultural land and the countryside will be lost when other more appropriate sites are available. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Patricia Lowe
"As a local resident of many years , living in close proximity to the A5 the following give me cause for concern: Noise pollution will increase. Night time disturbance will increase. This is already a severe problem. Particulate pollution from diesel lorries and the consequent damage to health. Increased motor vehicles to transport workers causing further conjestion and pollution. The legacy we leave behind for future generations. Erosion of open spaces a worry. Green Belt needs protecting."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Heather Moore on behalf of Peter Jones
"Very concerned about the impact of additional traffic, congestion and pollution in Penkridge and on the A449 and A5 and in surrounding villages. We are already the alternative "M6" through-way and feel that this new proposed development will put additional strain on our already busy roads. We are pensioners and rely on public transport and walking to get about - the increased volume of traffic and pollution caused by this will significantly impact our day to day lives. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Phillip Higgins
"I object to the proposed development for the following reasons - We need to protect the remaining Green Belt in the area already being diminished. Traffic pollution - increased HGV traffic will be routed through heavily populated area of Penkridge to detriment of inhabitants health. Traffic density due to increased volume of HGV traffic & employees other vehicles - roads through Penkridge are already gridlocked on Market days (Weds & Sat) & when traffic is diverted from M6. Surely there must be existing brownfield sites available for such a development which would result in less disturbance."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Jackson
"The building of the interchange will demolish masses of green belt land and change the look of the area forever. Huge amounts of extra unnecessary pollution and a mass of extra vehicles per day will make life terrible for local people who have worked hard to live in this rural location. This is the wrong place for such a monstrostery."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sharon Dennison
"Effect on environment"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Cox
"I object to this application because: 1, negative effect on local traffic 2, destruction of the local green belt 3, loss of agricultural land 4, negative effects on local business In my view it is also in the wrong location because 1, a more suitable location would be on brownfield land, ie ex Rugeley power station site 2, regional employment has not been considered correctly"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steven Mason
"Completely oppose the West Midlands Interchange proposals. This is not simply due to a "not on my doorstep" attitude; I would forbid any destruction of greenbelt land regardless of location. The surrounding road network is already, in my opinion, at capacity and a further increase in traffic would be severely detrimental to the area and it's population. I urge you to reconsider the location of this hub and consider more appropriate (non-greenbelt) land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart Mander
"I am against the building of the hub as it will destroy my sailing club which is some where I have sailed since I was 5 so quite a few years and just because it is small who seams to care "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Terry Vowles
"I object to this application because ........ 1. The infrastructure around this area is already ridiculously overloaded and this proposal could cause gridlock mornings and evenings. 2. If we wish to become a productive nation we cannot live with the above. 3. We live in a semi rural area because we are aware of the danger to the health of ourselves, our children and our grandchildren of traffic pollution, this proposal will ruin this for us and others in our community. 4. We object to the use of greenbelt and farm land when brown field sites are available. 5. This proposal will not help local unemployment or local businesses. 6. Overall we can see no benefits whatsoever for our region, only pain and suffering. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Hughes Family
"Lots more delays on A5 + A449 we have hold ups on these two roads every day, it is going to be even worse, with the hub. Pollution is going to be a real problem to all our villages, which is bad for all our health. The roads at the moment around our area are very badly in need of repair , it will be even worse with , 18624 extra vehicles per day, which we think is not acceptable. There are going to be more accidents + more deaths on the A5+ A449. This is very bad to take away all our greenbelt. Not only it will be a monstrosity to the beautiful countryside. We say no to the hub. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Shaw Family
"Unnecessary destruction of a huge swathe of green belt land, when there are large areas of brown belt land awaiting reclamation and redevelopment in the West Midlands conurbation area. Proposed 24/7 operations will lead to unacceptable noise and Light pollution. Air pollution will undoubtedly rise and being concentrated in one area will impact adversely on public health and well-being and will breach government guidelines all due to projected massive volumes of HGV traffic, this will also exacerbate Road congestion in an area which already suffers from a chronically choked road network. South Staffs has only a 1% unemployment rate so the issue of job creation whilst important on a national level is not a robust argument at a local level. The enormous scale of the development will affect the character and style of living within the local villages and surroundings. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Wallett Family
"1.The A5 and A449 will be overwhelmed by traffic to and from the proposed site. 2. These roads are currently the main access to and from the M6 for commuters in the locality, Telford , North Wolverhampton and beyond. Any major increase in heavy traffic will cause massive disruption to traffic flow. 3. Additional traffic will create significant increased pollution levels along access roads and the M6 corridor. Sited between the A449 and M6, Penkridge inhabitants are at an increasing health risk. 4. Any problems on the north or southbound M6 already result in frequent diversions using the A5 and A449, creating major congestion in the area. 5. Unemployment in the area is exceptionally low and the proposed employment numbers will mean additional traffic from outside the area. 6. The loss of a large area of "protected" green belt land. The hub would establish a precedent for additional private, industrial and commercial development on previously protected land on the east side of the A449, North of the Wolverhampton conurbation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tracy Shepherd
"This will have a massive impact on the countryside. It will affect the habitat of many of our animal species. It will increase traffic that in turn will effect air pollution and problems on our highways. There will also be noise pollution as this project is on such a massive scale. We decided to move to a village so me and my family could enjoy rural life. We paid a premium price for our dwelling. We have a great interest in horses and spend a lot of time out in the saddle. The surrounding roads would become to busy to hack the ponies out safely and it would become unsafe, risking the life of our children. This monstrosity would truly effect the landscape. There is no way it will be screened off with trees as these building are so huge. I understand there is a need for a terminal but not in such a beautiful area that will be completely demolished for future generations. I am aware that there are other sites that offer the same benefits that will not cause such huge impact on our environment. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Sloane
"I object to the proposed Gailey Freight Hub on the grounds of the negative impact which the development will have on the existing local highways and traffic. The A5 and A449 are already heavily used by both HGV and other vehicles and the proposed development will massively increase the amount of traffic on these and the surrounding area roads. The development will also have a big impact on the environment with regard to air quality and noise which will significantly increase as a result of the greatly increased volume of traffic of both HGV and the various service and support vehicles serving the site. The proposed development will also affect the existing green belt and reduce the amount of agricultural land and countryside."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mills & Reeve LLP on behalf of Bericote Four Ashes Limited
"1 Representation 1.1 This representation is prepared on behalf of Bericote Four Ashes Limited (“Bericote”). It is made in response to the application for a development consent order (“the DCO”) having reference TR050005 for the West Midlands Interchange (“the Scheme”) promoted by Four Ashes Limited (“the Applicant”). 1.2 While Bericote does not object to the principle of the Scheme, it has important and relevant concerns, and considers that the DCO should not be made in its current form unless and until those concerns are addressed. This representation therefore constitutes an objection to the Scheme. 2 Bericote Four Ashes 2.1 Bericote is a developer of industrial and warehouse properties. 2.2 Bericote is the developer and freehold owner of part of Four Ashes Park (registered under title numbers SF620207 and SF503421) (“Four Ashes Park”), having acquired the site in October 2016. Part of Four Ashes Park within Bericote’s ownership is included within the DCO limits; the larger part is outside of the DCO limits. 2.3 Four Ashes Park is a significant strategic employment site, as recognised by local planning policy. 2.4 Full planning permission was secured for the erection of 1,139,000 sq ft of industrial/distribution buildings (B1(c)/B2/B8) along with access and servicing arrangements, car parking, landscaping and associated works including attenuation ponds and biodiversity enhancement area, under planning permission ref: 16/00498/FUL, dated 2 August 2016. 2.5 In relation to the units on Four Ashes Park: 2.5.1 Plot 1: has been built out and remains in Bericote’s ownership, with completion of the 38,000 sq ft production and distribution unit taking place in August 2018; 2.5.2 Plot 2: a pre-let of 550,000 sq ft headquarters manufacturing facility to Gestamp Tallent Limited was agreed. Bericote simultaneously sold Plot 2 on completion of the development of the unit to Tritax Acquisition 28 Limited; and 2.5.3 Plot 3: was sold for development to LU UK II SARL in January 2018. A 450,000 sq ft distribution facility was completed in early October 2018. 2.6 The South Staffordshire Site Allocations Document (“SAD”), adopted in September 2018, recognises that “Four Ashes is a well-established freestanding employment site”. 2.7 The Inspector’s Report on the Examination of the SAD by [redacted], Inspector, noted (at paragraph 23)— “the economic importance of strategic employment sites in South Staffordshire to the economy of the wider sub-region, particularly i54, Hilton Cross, Four Ashes and ROF Featherstone. More recent economic and employment studies confirm the sub-regional significance of these sites, as well as the need to meet some of the unmet need for high-quality employment sites from the Black Country in South Staffordshire” 2.8 Policy CP1 of the South Staffordshire Core Strategy, adopted in December 2012, provides: “As part of the strategy for employment and economic development, support will continue to be given to the four existing freestanding strategic employment sites (i54, Hilton Cross, ROF Featherstone/Brinsford and Four Ashes).” 2.9 The importance of Four Ashes Park to the local and regional economy is underlined by the significant support and grant funding provided by Staffordshire County Council and Stoke and Staffordshire LEP to enable development to proceed. 2.10 The majority of the Four Ashes area comprises small scale established industrial and distribution units. The Four Ashes Park development provided the rare opportunity for large scale inward investment and job creation. 2.11 Four Ashes Park is UK Headquarters to Gestamp, a global supplier of car components to Jaguar Land Rover and others, employing some 650 people. 3 Effect of the DCO / Scheme 3.1 If the DCO is granted for the Scheme in the terms applied for, the DCO would confer powers on the Applicant to construct a new rail freight interchange, including: 3.1.1 powers to compulsorily acquire land owned by Bericote, including land which forms access to the Four Ashes Park site; 3.1.2 powers to compulsorily acquire land over which Bericote has rights of way, on which Bericote relies in order to access the Four Ashes Park site; 3.1.3 powers to vary existing rights of way, on which Bericote relies for access to Four Ashes Park, the details of which remain uncertain; and 3.1.4 powers to amend services which serve Four Ashes Park. 3.2 The existence and exercise of such powers have the potential to adversely impact upon Bericote’s interests and the public interest in the successful operation of the regionally-important strategic employment site Four Ashes Park, in terms of permanent and temporary disruption, and interference with access. 3.3 The presence of protective provisions in the draft DCO (Schedule 13, part 5) submitted by the Applicant is noted. So far as the provisions go, they are broadly welcomed. However, they are incomplete and Bericote still has important and significant concerns over the implication of the temporary and permanent works on its site and rights over it. In particular, but without limitation, Bericote would reasonably expect to be provided with protection in relation to: 3.3.1 the detailed design and specification of the proposed access; 3.3.2 certainty surrounding the nature and timing of replacement access rights and arrangements, both on a temporary and permanent basis; 3.3.3 the ongoing maintenance of the access and exercise of rights over it; 3.3.4 preventing the use of any part of the existing access by construction or occupational vehicles connected with the Scheme; 3.3.5 the quality and standard of works and remediation of any defects; and 3.3.6 the nature and timing of any compulsory acquisition of Bericote land. 3.4 For the reasons above, the DCO should not be made in its current form, and development consent should not be granted, unless and until Bericote’s important interests have been protected. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bernard James Pearce
"I object to this application because of:- 1) Increased contamination and air pollution. 2) Massive traffic congestion along the A449 - already whenever there is the slightest congestion on the M6 motorway the village is brought to a standstill."
Members of the Public/Businesses
caroline Emsley
"I object to the west Midlands interchange as it will have a negative effect on the environment it will increase pollution in this area and will have a negative impact on traffic "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hinson Parry and Company on behalf of Chris and Annalisa Phelps
"In layman's terms Mile End Cottage is blighted and unsaleable. Mr and Mrs Phelps have a pressing need to move house due to personal reasons. It is essential that they do so. The promoter has made no commitment to acquire the property now, only to do so when the DCO becomes effective and given approval ie when it suits them. We have submitted a blight notice on their behalf to seek that the promoter acquires Mile End Cottage now but indications are that will be countered leaving us facing lands tribunal proceedings. Promoters of the project mention being given rights under a DCO process, but they must accept the responsibility that goes with these rights. That means treating individuals affected by their proposals in a fair, reasonable and impartial manner."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine A Morgan
"I object to this proposal on these grounds: Loss of Greenbelt, Greenfield and high-quality agricultural land. The Government has stated its “commitment to protect the Greenbelt from development”. The Greenbelt has for many years played an important part in preventing sprawl and ensuring settlements retain their distinct identity. The NPPF states that the fundamental aim of Greenbelt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and Greenbelt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified. Some Greenbelt has already been lost to the Four Ashes Industrial Estate but by comparison this proposal is massive and there are more suitable locations including Brownfield sites available for this development. Negative effect on local roads. The A5 and A449, already busy roads, are the only main roads available to the villages local to the proposed development and also to this site. They give residents access to the local towns and amenities and also access to the M6 which is at present extremely busy in this area. It is anticipated that an extra 6,000 HGVs will be using these roads every day plus the thousands of buses and cars bringing the promised 8,500 workers to the site. There will inevitably be a tendency for vehicles to try to avoid these busy main roads by using the lanes which serve the villages, lanes which are highly unsuitable for anything more than local traffic and villages which were never designed for large amounts of traffic. Negative impact on the quality of life. Air pollution from the extra 6,000 HGV diesel engines and from the diesel freight trains will have a serious effect on the health of local residents, increasing heart and lung disease. Noise and light pollution which are minimal in rural areas will be present 24 hours every day and will seriously affect not only humans but, to an even greater extent, whatever wildlife manages to survive the development. The inevitable increase in traffic on the lanes and through the villages will increase the risk of accidents. On the promise of 8,500 extra local jobs, unemployment in South Staffs is very low and not all of those unemployed would find suitable work at this site, so the majority of workers will commute from outside the area causing the negativities outlined above. Surely this development would be better sited closer to an area of higher unemployment. Finally, this proposal is not in accord with Local Planning Policy. Our local authority, parish councils and local MPs are all against it, with, I am certain, good reasons. I feel that the CLA should also be against this proposal as they claim to safeguard the interests of not only landowners, but also those with an economic, social and environmental interest in rural land but unfortunately the chairman of the local branch has a financial interest in the development. If this development goes ahead it will change the character of the area for ever and affect the lives of thousands of people. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine Grant
"I object to this application because I believe that the local highways, particularly the A449 between Stafford and Wolverhampton is already overused coming through a village(Penkridge) and services such as schools and doctors are on the wrong sides of the A449 for half of the population. I believe it is already dangerous and difficult to cross that road, particularly for children and this will be greatly increased. I also object on the grounds of health, given what will probably be a doubling of diesel particles in the air over and around the village. I also object because I wish to protect the green belt and I believe that more suitable brownfield land locations are available. The A449 is also used when the M6 is closed between junctions 12 and 13, either because of repairs or accidents. When this happens the A449 running through the village of Penkridge becomes gridlocked and this can happen at any time of day or night."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Badger
"The green Belt needs to be protected. It will have a negative effect on the environment/pollution/increase traffic/air quality and also it is in the wrong location because more suitable locations are available including brownfield land. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Geoghegan
"I object to this application because I am concerned about… Protecting the Green Belt Negative Effects on the Environment / Pollution / Air Quality / Noise / Light Negative Effects on the Local Highways and the Increase in Traffic Negative Effects on Local Health Negative Effects on the Local Flora & Fauna (Ecology) Loss of Agricultural Land & Countryside Negative Effects on Local Business Furthermore, I object to this application because I am concerned the Location is wrong, because… There are other more suitable locations available Brownfield land would be more suitable Regional employment has not been considered properly Bussing in thousands of employees from other regions could damage our local economy And is not in accord with Local Planning Policy"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Colin Perry
"My objections are,Negative effect on the environment/pollution/air quality/noise. Negative effect on local highways, the number of lorries travelling up and down the A449 will be horrendous at the moment it it very dangerous to cross this road more lorries will make it impossible. The fumes will not be beneficial to the local school children the school being very close to the road nor will be beneficial to anyone in the village with breathing difficulties as there are a lot of pensioners locally this could be very detrimental to their health. Negative effect to green belt land, loss of agricultural land and the countryside. As there are more suitable areas available I cannot see why one of these cannot be used."
Members of the Public/Businesses
CPRE Staffordshire
"The Logistics and Warehousing element of the proposals. The development is on a predominantly Greenfield site, it is wholly within the West Midlands Green Belt and is clearly contrary to National Policy (e.g. in NPPF) with regard to Green Belt. We object to:- · major loss of Green Belt to development. · scale of the proposal for land use for warehousing is excessively large and unjustified. · scale of the buildings - a number of those envisaged are much too high and intrusive · lack of a link between the size of the logistics and warehousing site and SRFI development and usage · the fact that only a very small part of the scheme, West of the railway adjacent to the SRFI, can reasonably be regarded as rail served. The SRFI element of the proposals CPRE is not opposed to the use of rail rather than road transport and recognises the need for interchange facilities. We object to the proposals:- · In the absence of a clear and tested written commitment, in advance of the Examination, from Network Rail that the route can, and will continue to be able to, accommodate 10 additional freight trains serving the site (20 train movements) per day. (We think it is important that Network Rail be required to attend the Inquiry to answer questions from the Examining Authority in public; including how much spare capacity would be available on the line and whether this could accommodate the second SRFI at Dunston, at M6 Junction 13, South of Stafford.) · The apparent absence of a binding guarantee being given that the SRFI element will be constructed at the commencement of the scheme and brought into use within a specified time from commencement of the development · The lack of a binding assurance given that only rail-using Companies, with a specified requirement to use the SRFI, will be accommodated on the site. Highways and Movement Issues We have concerns as to the impact of the road traffic likely to be generated by the scheme in the area and the wider network We object to the:- · lack of a written assurance from the County Highway Authority that it is satisfied that the scheme will not adversely affect residents and other highway users on the A449 through Penkridge, the A5 west of Gailey, the A5 east of J12 (particularly in Bridgetown area of Cannock) - each of which will carry additional traffic. · lack of confirmation in writing from the Highways Agency that it is fully content with the capacity of J12 and M6 to take the additional traffic envisaged and an indication of how much spare highway capacity would remain on the M6 and M5 to the south of J12 if the scheme was approved and implemented The site is some distance from its likely labour supply and it would be anticipated to be a major employer. It is served by an hourly bus service Wolverhampton - Stafford but not at all from Cannock or Telford. We object:- · To the absence of assured sustainable public transport provision as the preferred mode for the long term for all employees – not just those unable to afford, or unwilling/unable to use, private vehicles. Economic Impact We consider that there will be an impact on existing employment generating development particularly in the Black Country and Central and Southern Staffordshire We object:- · To the lack of an Impact Assessment agreed with surrounding Councils of the likelihood of attraction of existing firms to leave existing premises to re-locate to Gailey or to the closure of existing SRFI. Other matters In raising our objection, we view this to be a wholly unsustainable development in the Greenbelt, due to the disproportionate scale of the development and lack of rail connectivity to the majority of the site. This is in direct conflict with existing and established emerging policy for the enhancement and protection of greenbelt. The protection of the greenbelt is already enshrined in national planning policy and the Governments ‘25-year plan to improve the environment’ clearly seeks to maintain and strengthen commitments to enhance the greenbelt in the future. We have not referred to individual sustainability issues such as air and light pollution, environmental damage, biodiversity, conservation, landscape, impact on existing residents, consideration of alternative more suitable sites and other matters. This should not be implied to mean that we consider that other issues are invalid. We anticipate that these issues will be picked up in detail by other representees. However, given the greenbelt location, we request the Inquiry should examine evidence of measurable improvements to demonstrate ‘environmental net gain’. A principle well established as best practice in the current planning system and will be pursued fully as an immediate ambition for housing and infrastructure in planning under the Governments, A Green Future: 25 Year Plan to improve the environment. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Foster
"negative effect on the environment/pollution/air quality/noise.negative effect on local highways and traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Short
"it is claimed that this project will bring various benefits to the people of South Staffordshire, including employment opportunities and reducing commercial traffic. In fact the area has very little unemployment, so the workforce will more likely be sourced from nearby large towns like Cannock, Walsall and Wolverhampton. In itself that is not a bad thing except for the commuter traffic into and out of the area. In addition, the goods being stored will need to be transported by lorry to their destination - most probably the same three main commercial centres, as well as smaller locations along the A5 towards Lichfield and up the M6 as far as Stoke. This demography suggests an actual increase in the movement of both private and commercial traffic to and from this site, and absolutely no benefit to the local population - in fact quite the reverse."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Doreen Hughes
"This proposal will have a negative effect on air pollution in the area with all the extra traffic. The extra traffic will also make more traffic on the A449 and the A5 which are already very busy. There are also more suitable locations available including brownfield land which would be preferable to using agricultural land and countryside."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Friends of Penkridge Library
"I object to this application because I am concerned about… Protecting the Green Belt Negative Effects on the Environment / Pollution / Air Quality / Noise / Light Negative Effects on the Local Highways and the Increase in Traffic Negative Effects on Local Health Negative Effects on the Local Flora & Fauna (Ecology) Loss of Agricultural Land & Countryside Negative Effects on Local Business In addition, I object to this application because I am concerned the location is wrong, because… There are other more suitable locations available Brownfield land would be more suitable Regional employment has not been considered properly Bussing in thousands of employees from other regions could damage our local economy and is not in accord with Local Planning Policy"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gillian Jones
"I object to this application because I am concerned about negative effects on the local highways and increase in traffic and the negative effects on the environment/pollution/air quality and noise. The traffic queues already on the A5 are considerable and this development will only add to them as there isn't the infrastructure to support the increase in lorries. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graeme Squire
"I will refer to my previous submission to a previous consultation, however I have included some further material also. 1. The suitability of the Four Ashes site for a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange in the West Midlands has been considered against other potential sites in the region. How we have done this is set out in our Alternative Site Assessment. - Site assessment I do not believe that the Four Ashes Site is suitable for development of an SRFI Approval would lead to the following: Increased levels of Poor Air Quality in nearby residential areas. Increased risk of flooding in an area already prone to flooding events. Increased levels of road congestion. Increased levels of noise during any construction phase and post any development. Increased levels of particulate matter during any construction phase and post any development. Loss of Green Belt Land acting as a buffer to the increasing Urban sprawl. Increase in road traffic due to commuting. This site should not be viewed as the best of what you have assessed. The fact of the matter is that the site remains unsuitable and any development will have a deleterious impact on the area. If none of the other sites are suitable then perhaps you should question if the area is suited at all. If you are to persist the I would suggest you look closer at the Bescott area which has huge areas of Brownfield site in close proximity to Rail and Road. This would also benefit an area where unemployment is more of an issue than when compared against South Staffordshire. 2. As part of the consultation, we have produced an illustrative masterplan showing one way in which the West Midlands Interchange could be delivered. - Masterplan I cannot comment as I do not feel the location is at all suited to the proposed development. 3. The West Midlands Interchange will deliver a number of community benefits including new community parks, improving the canalside environment and a community fund. - Benefits This is an area best left alone. It does not need development as a park or community area. Why would you want to increase community attendance in an area where you will be increasing the levels of nitrous oxide and other particulate matter, should your development be approved? Creating parks would also create a burden to the local authority in terms of managing the area. This when Local Authorities are under a huge strain financially. 4. FAL’s proposals would create up to 8,550 jobs once fully operational. We are committed to helping local people in South Staffordshire access these jobs. - Jobs access I do not accept these projections for the perceived benefit to South Staffordshire. South Staffordshire is not an area of high unemployment. As such all you will be creating is a commuter zone for areas outside South Staffordshire. This will increase congestion, noise and pollution. 5. FAL’s preliminary environmental information about the West Midlands Interchange, including the approach to mitigating potential impacts, is set out in the Draft Environmental Statement / Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR) and summarised in the Overview Document. - PEIR You have already identified that the area is not within an AQMA. The nearest AQMA is actually operated by Cannock Chase District Council and was put in place due to concerns over air pollution levels. The levels you have stated in your report are already over the prescribed limits. If you build this development then you will be increasing those levels of nitrous oxide and other particulate matter. Putting this into context: You will be increasing the levels of pollutants in an area which is already exceeding the suggested limits. This in an area where you have close proximity to residential areas including schools. (Penkridge, Coven, Brewood). The increase will arise from increased vehicular traffic caused by commuters to the site, goods vehicles visiting the site and rail traffic including shunting vehicles which are predominantly desil. If the proposed site was in an AQMA perhaps A449/A5 or A5/M6 I would suggest recordings would be in excess already. I base this supposition on the data from the site you have quoted in your report. The National Planning and Policy Framework suggests, 'account should be taken of the impacts of climate change over the longer term'. Local Plans should apply a sequential risk based approach to development in order to avoid flood risk to people or property. Safeguard land from development that is required for current and future flood management. Your own review states the following for the site. South Staffs surface water management plan details Penkridge. • Saerdon Brook 500 meteres of site (this joins the Penk) • Penk 1.6KM away • Ponds on site • Ordinary water courses, drainage ditches within site. • Calf Heath reservoir. • Staffs and Worcester Canal and Hatherton Canal The Environment Agency map shows that some parts of the site may be susceptible to surface water flooding in discreet areas. Existing sensitive receptors • Penk and Saredon Brook • Downstream receptors include people and property • Canals • Calf Heath and Gailey reservoir. • All surface water, drainage ditches and land drains within and adjacent to the site. Risk of sediment run off and construction blocking drainage. It is clear that the site and surrounding land is low level and has numerous water courses present. Flooding already takes place in Coven, Brewood, Water Eaton and Penkridge. I can provide photographic evidence of an image from Brewood Road Coven which was a flood as a direct result of heavy rain. These storms are increasing due to climate change. To my knowledge due to flooding that has already taken place certain homes in Coven are now unsalable. I would argue that the site and surrounding area are already susceptible to flooding. This is acknowledged within the report. This is the type of land that should be safeguarded from development to secure present and future flood management. Removal of woodland as is proposed is exactly the opposite of what is now being recommended to reduce the impact of flooding. The names within the area allude to water and are detailed in the map within the environmental report. Crateford Horsebrook Penkside Water Eaton Marsh Farm Gailey wharf Mere Lane Farm Pool Farm Pool House Biggs Lock Mere View Cottages Some other issues re flooding • The quarry already has issues with standing water. • The Calf Heath reservoir overflow enters the site. An construction on this site will increase the risk of flooding, in an area already shown to be extremely susceptible. In fact you will potentially increase the risk of flooding further up stream to places such as Codsall and Perton which are also on the Penk flood plain. The River Penk is also an area where the white clawed cray fish has been re introduced. The risk of site pollution during construction could significantly damage this project, but also adversely impact on other wildlife. 6. An assessment of the West Midlands Interchange’s impact on the surrounding road network is set out in our Transport Assessment (PEIR Chapter 15). This also includes FAL’s proposals for minimising and mitigating this impact, including road and junction improvements, support for public transport and traffic management measures. - Transport The site is unsuitable and no amount of mitigating work will make it suitable for the amount of traffic this proposal would attract to the area. Goods Vehicles already get stuck under the Four Ashes railway Bridge and use village roads as cut through routes when the A5/A449 becomes congested. 7. Do you have any other comments about FAL’s proposals for the West Midlands Interchange? - Other comments This plan appears to be ill conceived in many ways as I have previously listed. I understand that some very wealthy and potentially influential people have interests in this site and proposals coming to fruition. However it is little more than an attempt to maximise the value of poor agricultural land to increase their wealth at the expense of those living in the community. Examples of poor planning already exist in the area and the proposed development would simply exacerbate the situation. Examples include Four Ashes industrial site where water run off is a serious flooding issue and due to 'mission creep' (where original units with approved useage have now been sold on and alternative usage has resulted in serious parking issues. E.g the chicken factory."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Cooper
"WMI Objection Skeleton – Personal I am a member of Greensforge Sailing Club at Calf Heath Reservoir. I have sailed at Calf Heath Reservoir for over 25 years. I am the Principal and a Trustee of the club. 1) Wind I am concerned that the scale of development, especially as regards the number, height and proximity of the buildings/warehouses adjacent to the reservoir will greatly change the characteristics of the wind. Likewise the plans include the installation of an earth bund some 7-8 metres in height around the South, South-West and Western areas of the reservoir. This would also preclude us sailing safely, especially in stronger winds. The expert opinion is that there is air disturbance on the leeward side of any structure, the distance being up to thirty times the height of the obstruction. So 900m at ground level behind a 30m high warehouse. That is over half a mile and would encompass the whole area of the reservoir and beyond. The modeling of the effect of the wind in the documentation so far is insufficiently detailed, nor indeed is it accurate, in fact the report contradicts itself, it was a desk study after all. For example the height of trees was estimated by looking at Google Earth. Neither author of the report visited the site. This is indicative that the proposers simply haven't addressed the fact that sailing for club members, Sea Scout groups and Sea Cadets may have to cease due to safety reasons after more than 40 years, if this project goes ahead, certainly in its current form. 2) Access There is also the effect of a proposed one-way system regarding vehicle access along Vicarage Road. All members, approaching from whichever direction, would have to travel miles further to reach or return from, the sailing club. Ian Cooper Principal and Trustee, Greensforge SC "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jayne Harvey
"i would like to object to the planned transport hub as it will, in its current proposed state, effectively render the sailing club unfit for sailing. this is due to teh effect teh buildings will have on the wind. i believe that the effect on teh wind has not been thoroughly investigated and therefore incorrect conclusions have been drawn. in addition, the propsed one way traffic system will make the commute around the sailing club a deterrant to future members. away from my concerns regarding the wind, my second objection is with regards to the effect on traffic. the infrastructure around the area is already not coping and any furhter works which bring in more traffic is not to be encouraged. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Grant
"I am objecting to this proposal because it will vastly increase the traffic flow on the A449 through the village of Penkridge. This road is already an exceedingly difficult road to cross, particularly at morning and evening rush hour. It is difficult to cross on foot or by car. Children have to cross this road to go to school and more than half the village have to cross this road to visit the doctor's surgery. The A449 is used as a relief road when there are closures on the M6, either because of road works or traffic accidents. When this occurs, and this can occur at any time of day or night the traffic coming through the village can often be at a standstill. Also an increase in traffic that this proposal would cause would affect any journey between Stafford and Wolverhampton and vice versa. Such an increase in volume would increase the air pollution of the village of Penkridge, Dunston, Coven and other nearby villages. The project would be a blight on the green belt, particularly as there are more suitable locations available which would not destroy the countryside. I live on the A449 in Penkridge and in the past 5 years a man living next door but one to me on my left was killed crossing the road and a woman living next door but one to me on my right was hospitalised after a van crashed into her car as she was entering her drive. The thought of a doubling of traffic fills me with fear, particularly for children. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lesley morris
"I am opposed to the proposed West Midlands Interchange because of the increased traffic on roads already struggling to cope. The fumes are a concern for local health, especially children. I am also concerned about the effects on the environment, air pollution,noise & light. I feel that insufficient emphasis has been given to the fact that there are other more suitable locations on brown belt land in areas of high unemployment rather than on this site of greenbelt in a low unemployment area. Bringing in thousands of employees from out of the area would have a negative affect on local businesses. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lynda Jones
"I would like to register my opposition to the proposed West Midlands Interchange at Gailey The A449 and A5 will not be able to cope with the massive increase in vehicle movements this will cause Penkridge and surrounding areas are regularly having to endure gridlocked roads due to problems on the M6 between Junction 12 and 13. Such a substantial increase in vehicle will inevitably increase the number and severity of these incidents and this will do serious harm to the local economy and local residents. plus raise concerns over road safety in Penkridge. No matter what measures are suggested to discourage them, both the workforce cars and HGV's trying to get round the M6 congestion will use the A449 through Penkridge to try and save time. I am also opposed to this development due to the loss of Green belt land, which is both short sighted and unnecessary"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr A Allsop
"The increase in the air and noise pollution from the site and traffic attending will seriously adversely effect the health and quality of life of the local population.This will cause an increase in sickness which will cause extra pressure on the NHS and absence from work which will effect the economy.The extra noise from the Hub and attending traffic will cause sleep deprivation the adverse health effects of which are well documented it will also degrade performance at work which for those in the emergency services or like occupations may be dangerous i.e driving emergency service vehicles. The huge increase in HGV's at a time when the government are actively trying to reduce diesel vehicles will cause traffic stoppages on surrounding roads the A449 A5 etc especially in view of the fact that the M6 is frequently closed due to problems on it also this will deter people from travelling to nearby businesses adversely effecting their trade.The Trains will also increase Noise and Air pollution.The claim by the proposers is 8,000 jobs will be created I question this as the hub would be automated also South Staffs is not an area of high unemployment Also there is a site nearby in Stoke on Trent where there is high unemployment this site would be welcomed by the local population therefore in conclusion this is not a viable proposal "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Anthony Paul Taylor
"In the very local area are already sited many industries, which are a blight to the ever disappearing country side landscape. Many heavy commercial vehicles are using the small roads and lanes to reach the industrial estates already existing. These include chemical plants/waste recycling factory/the recent rail/container site/quarries and a host of others. The proposed WMI will only increase pollution - noise and damage to the roads. No real benifit will befall the local polulance , quite the opposite! Villages will lose identities, green belt will be lost, health will suffer, jobs created will go mostly to people from outside the area - this increasing traffic which roads already struggle to cope with. WMI should not be allowed to destroy our rural way of life any more than we have already been forced to accept. The concept is ill founded, and should not ride rough shoo over our desire to see it refused."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Gillian Macdonald
"This is in the wrong location its Green Belt. The Pollution, in the air affecting air quality, noise and congestion, This is by A449 and A5 and M6 junction 12 when regularly the M6 is stopped the roads round purposed WMI interchange are Gridlocked making it impossible for motorist this happens often. Its difficult to move now on a daily basic. Also pollution affecting peoples health. Most of all building it by the what was The Midland Tar which was sited their around 1950 was always said it was dangerous chemical plant not sure of todays name. The relocation of Carvers Liquid Gas moved from Wolverhampton as it was to near a new development of student flats as a potential risk zone. I would be grateful if you would take all this into consideration "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Helen Davies
"We have lived in Station Drive, Four Ashes for the last 30 years and the planned rail hub will be sited at the bottom of our garden with only a small field in between. We would besubjectto constant noise 24 hours a day, 365 days a year if planning goes ahead. It is already extremely difficult to get out of our driveway from early morning to early evening, with the extra traffic this can only get worse. We have no chance at present to sell our house if we wanted to because of the plans and if passed our house will be devalued and impossible to sell. Our road is used as a 'rat run' between the A5 and A449 at present due to traffic delays on the A roads, Howare they expected to cope with a much increased flow of traffic which will inevitably happen due to the Interchange and increase in workforce travelling to and from work. We are a retired couple who have worked all our lives to buy our home, which we have done, and it could become a worthless asset due to the 'West Midlands Interchange'. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs J Wilson
"I would like to object to this proposal as I believe it will have a negative impact to the village/environment in which me and my family currently live in, introducing increased traffic, pollution, noise and air quality. With the increased traffic expected this will also impact the local highways. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Lesley Bodkin
"- Penkridge, a village already split in two by the A449, has its side roads grid locked when there is an accident on the M6. An increase of traffic on either of these roads would cause further chaos, noise and distress to the residents. - The volume of traffic would not just be the lorries but the vehicles of those working there. - This proposal would cause a massive increase in air pollution in our area, at a time when we are trying to reduce it globally - Our rail network in the area already has breakdown problems with its current usage, so putting further pressure on it would only exacerbate the situation , if there is an agreement to use the railway line. - This is eating into a large area of greenbelt, destroying farming and wildlife. There are lots of "brown" sites already abandoned which, if it is really necessary could be used. - I therefore feel the quality of life for the residents of Penkridge would be greatly damaged by this proposal and strongly object. - I am a resident of Penkridge "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Mandy Gocan
"I am opposed to the application to build a warehousing complex in my local area. It will have a negative impact on the environment and the loss of irreplaceable farm land and woodland. It will cause a significant increase in air pollution due to the major increase in vehicles using the highways. There have been high profile conferences recently highlighting the danger of increased air pollution. There is already a lot of road traffic both cars and heavy goods vehicles. To have even more traffic on our highways will be a disaster. There are more suitable brownfield sites else where which would be viable alternatives. I don't want my family, friends and other local people to be exposed to the problems allowing this application to go ahead would cause."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Molly Henriques-Dillon
"As resident of the local community I wish to raise my objection to the proposed West Midlands Interchange proposals as this greatly increase the level of traffic on the A449. This will have significant impact on my ability to get to and from work as I work in Wolverhampton and care for my 92 year old mother who also resides in Wolverhampton. When there is an issue on motorway we have difficulty getting out of Goods Station Lane onto the A449 currently. Having increased traffic generated by the interchange will make what is currently an irregular occurrence to the regular occurrences and difficulty for local commuters. Using the train is not an option for me as I have to visit different locations in the course of my work and therefore require the use of a car."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP (Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP) on behalf of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (company number: 2904587) (Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (company number: 2904587) )
"Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (Network Rail) is making this Section 56 Representation in relation to the proposed West Midlands Interchange Order (Planning Inspectorate Reference: TR050005). Network Rail owns and operates Great Britain's railway network and has statutory and regulatory obligations in respect of it. Network Rail is a statutory undertaker in respect of its railway undertaking. Network Rail is also an affected land owner, named in the Book of Reference. Network Rail's interests in the Order Lands are currently excluded from compulsory acquisition powers. Network Rail would object to any proposed compulsory acquisition of its land or any rights in, over or under its land under both Section 127 and 138 of the Planning Act 2008. It would also object to any powers being afforded to the Applicant to enter on to or occupy Network Rail's operational railway land or to interfere with any public or private rights over other land that benefit Network Rail's railway. Network Rail is broadly supportive of the West Midlands Interchange proposal and welcomes the prospect of the new rail traffic the terminal would generate. The scheme would mean a number of changes to the way this section of line (part of the West Coast Main Line, Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford section) will be operated. The timetabling of freight trains accessing and leaving the terminal on a 125mph railway will need to be carefully planned through timetable modelling. Two new sets of point crossovers and turnouts will be required. The construction of reception sidings will minimise the amount of time standing on the main line, instead giving the facility to run directly into the sidings (and giving the signaller control over departing trains). A new bridge (and demolition of an existing footbridge with right of way to be sought to be extinguished) and a new culvert to be constructed underneath the railway, will need careful interfacing with the operational railway. Four Ashes Limited has included draft protective provisions for the benefit of Network Rail). Network Rail will work with the Applicant for these protective provisions to be finalised for inclusion in the DCO, if made. These will cover any demolition, construction, future maintenance, renewal and operational activities which may affect Network Rail’s operational infrastructure. Accordingly, Network Rail supports the proposed draft West Midlands Interchange DCO on the basis that it will include Network Rail's standard protective provisions and subject to the Applicant committing to entering into appropriate agreements with Network Rail for the protection of Network Rail's operational railway. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jones Lang LaSalle Limited (JLL) (Jones Lang LaSalle Limited (JLL)) on behalf of Nurton Developments (Hilton Park) Limited (NDHPL) (Nurton Developments (Hilton Park) Limited (NDHPL))
"1. Nurton Developments (Hilton Park) Limited (NDHPL) is promoting a strategic employment opportunity on land at Junction 11, M6 through the South Staffordshire Local Plan Review process. 2. NDHPL considers its site is particularly suitable to meet the acknowledged shortfall of employment land identified by the Part 1 Economic Development Needs Assessment (EDNA) (2017) produced as the principal evidence on employment land to the ongoing Black Country Core Strategy Review. This report identified a need of an additional 800 hectares of new employment land to serve the Black Country, but a supply of only 262 hectares to meet this need, leaving a shortfall to be found of over 500 hectares. It is recognised by both the Black Country local planning authorities and South Staffordshire Council that part of the shortfall, possibly a significant part, will need to be accommodated outside of the Black Country and within South Staffordshire. 3. This identified need is sub-regional (i.e. serving the Black Country) and spans all types of B class uses (offices, light industrial, general industrial and warehouse) and sizes of occupier requirements. The need identified by West Midlands Interchange (WMI) is national and regional, is restricted to B8 warehousing, and is substantially for large floor plate buildings greater than 350,000 sq ft (reference paragraph 4.4.2 of the Savills Market Assessment), but often as large as 1m sq ft (reference paragraph 4.4.5 of the Savills Market Assessment). 4. As such, West Midlands Interchange and NDHPL’s site at Junction 11 serve distinct markets, with the latter well located to meet the sub-regional demand from the Black Country. However, NDHPL does have an obvious interest in the WMI proposals and would like the opportunity to make further representations through the process. Initial considerations are the justification provided by FAL for:- • The scale of the proposed development, i.e. 8m sq ft. • The extent of the development that can be directly connected to rail sidings (20%) and whether this is “significant” in terms of meeting the test contained in paragraph 4.88 of the relevant National Policy Statement (NPS). • The phasing of the development, with particular respect to when the strategic rail freight interchange will be operational in the context to the wider development, and the controls to ensure it is a truly rail served hub from Day One. • The traffic impact of the proposals, with particular consideration to the impact on and effect of the recent Preferred Route Announcement on the M54, M6, M6 toll link (which post dates the submission and hence at present is explicitly excluded from the assessments). "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Phoebe Nattrass
"Proposal will increase volumes of traffic; worse still will be the increased pollution and noise on surrounding roads. Road usage by lorries is already high on A5 and can only increase to a point where residents will face endless traffic jams. Adverse affect on Health and Quality of Life for local population. Sadly the limited BENEFITS of this Four Ashes proposal appear to be negligible to us residents. "
Local Authorities
Stafford Borough Council
"Dear Sirs Further to a letter received from Mr Frost concerning the West Midlands Interchange dated 19 September 2018, Stafford Borough Council wish to provide the following representation concerning proposals for a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange on land west of Junction 12 of the M6 motorway within South Staffordshire District. Stafford Borough Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Planning Inspectorate as a relevant authority at this formal stage of the application, having been submitted to the Secretary of State for consideration as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project through the Planning Act 2008 and related Infrastructure Planning Regulations. As Stafford Borough is served by Junctions 13 to 15 of the M6, and is a neighbouring authority to South Staffordshire District, the location of the proposed rail freight interchange is a significant development providing warehousing and ancillary service buildings close to the Borough. Since the Plan for Stafford Borough was adopted in June 2014, making provision for 160 hectares of new employment land over the Plan period 2011 – 2031, a number of employment sites have been completed or benefit from planning commitments to support the sustainable settlement hierarchy of the Borough. In particular the County Town of Stafford has 90 hectares of new employment provision as part of the Plan. Whilst it is acknowledged from the associated documents alongside the application form that this new proposal is to serve an existing need for economic development, as detailed through the Market Assessment, there is concern that this scale of growth at Junction 12 of the M6 could have an impact on future employment growth in the Borough. It is noted from the Statement of Economic Benefits (Document 7.1B) that the majority of employment generated jobs are expected to be sourced from the economically active populations within other areas including the Black Country authorities and Stoke. Furthermore these jobs will be a mix of entry level opportunities through to management, administrative and technical roles. Whilst there are employment opportunities within Stafford Borough, there is some concern that the ‘draw’ on economically active people could lead to implications for the local economy. Furthermore with Stafford Town being within the Travel to Work Area for the new development this will lead to increased travel to work movements on the M6 and other key routes such as the A449 and A5 as well as smaller local roads leading to increased traffic generation and pressure on the existing network. Therefore the scale of highway interventions associated with delivery of the proposal should extend beyond roads immediately in the vicinity of the new development, to make suitable provision for both HGV and car based movements, beyond those suggested in the Planning Statement. In addition there is real concern about the timing of this development due to other strategic transport projects taking place in the locality, not least the anticipated construction of HS2 Phase 2 from 2020 onwards and the Stone rail maintenance base with its new M6 access, smart motorway upgrades on the M6 from junction 13 to 15, and plans to significantly improve Junction 15 in the near future. Finally Stafford Borough Council supports the conclusions of the Alternative Sites Assessment (ASA) noting that there are no suitable sites within the Borough for a Strategic Rail Freight Interchange development of this scale. The Borough Council would welcome acknowledgement of this representation and would appreciated to have continued updates on the Examination process as a relevant authority. I look forward to hearing from you in due course. "
Local Authorities
Staffordshire County Council
"Staffordshire County Council along with South Staffordshire District Council are the host authorities for the proposal. Staffordshire County Council wishes to register as an interested party and will be preparing a Local Impact Report and Written Representation in due course. A Statement of Common Ground is being prepared with the applicant. We will also be fully participating in the hearing sessions to assist the Examining Authority. Our principal areas of interest in the proposal are: • Highways and transport, including HGV parking; • Socioeconomics; • Ecology; • Landscape; • Archaeology & the Historic Environment; • Flooding and Drainage; • Minerals and Waste. "
Members of the Public/Businesses