Skip to main content

Planning – Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

19/01388/VAC | Variation of Condition 1 (transport movement) of 98/00130/FUL to include operational plan for transport movement | Bruntingthorpe Proving Ground Peatling Parva Road Bruntingthorpe Leicestershire LE17 5QS
  • Total Consulted: 64
  • Comments Received: 37
  • Objections: 36
  • Supporting: 0
  • View all comments icon

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 37|1|2|3|4|

(Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 20 Jan 2020

Please see document tab to view comments.

Comment submitted date: Sun 22 Sep 2019

As residents living on the Bruntingthorpe Rd/Bath Lane (as it's referred to in the application) we strongly object to the planning application 19/01388/VAC.
This application is mearly a way to ratify the increased numbers that they are currently operating at, (this being 3 times their original allowed numbers) we are concerned of the wider consequences of this application. There operational plan states they anticipate an average of 600 'TWO WAY' movements per week, this means in one year there will be an average 41,600 Transporter movements past our property.
The 2016 data they have submitted for their modelling does not show a true record of the number of vehicles on a typical week senario, the traffic survey was carried out over a Bank Holiday weekend when there were limited movements on the Monday. Their accident statistics are only based on the crossroads. We know of at least 2 accidents involving Transporters on our road (whilst neither were caused by the transporters if they had not been on the road the outcomes may have been different) there are many accidents that go unreported where cars have ended up in ditches or fields which we do not know the cause of, the road to the site from the A5199 is not suitable for these vehicles and often the grass verges get carved into the road where two HGV's have met and one has gone off the edge of the tarmac surface, the road has depressions appearing in the wheel track areas.
There has been no Environmental Impact assessment submitted with regard Air Pollution, noise pollution, or impact this application will have on the countryside and wildlife along there designated routes. The applicant believes this is not needed, we disagree. Transporters that leave the site loaded often have car alarms going off as they pass our property, during darkness this also has the added disturbance of the flashing hazard lights.
The figures they have quoted in their associated documents only cover 2 set 'peak' periods starting at 7.15am whilst the Transporters and other HGV's enter the site from 7am to 7pm and are on the local roads before these times, there is a constant stream most weekday mornings before 7am.
The Appendix shows average speeds of 54.4 mph Northbound and 50.2mph Southbound with these recordings being taken at a Give way sign this means that 50% of the vehicles in this survey will be travelling above these figures. These roads are currently in a consultation period to reduce the speed limit to 50mph.
Paragraph 37 item C of there covering letter states opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use are identified and pursued, none of these activities are now possible on the Bath Lane, indeed we cannot even walk up to our neighbours during the week. All this is predominantly due to the proximity of transporters to other road users. This was once a road used by horse riders and still has the 'beware horse' signs on it but again this has stopped due to the Transporters.
The Bruntingthorpe Rd/Bath Lane has been widened to accommodate increased traffic movements past our property, we understand this was completed to provide additional room for the transporter movements. This action has led to a significant reduction in visibility from our home and farmyard gateways and it is becoming increasingly hazardous exiting the property. Our property entrances lie just below the brow of a hill and the road curves counterclockwise, meaning it is no longer possible to see approaching traffic without entering the carriageway. Increasing transporter movements also increases the risk of a serious road traffic accident at this point. At a recent consultation event we invited their agent to visit us to gain a better understanding of this problem, whilst they promised to visit this hasn't happened.

(Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 09 Jan 2020

I object to the routing agreement outlined in these plans. The route via Warwick Road, Kibworth is unacceptable and unsuitable for vehicles of this type.
It should be pointed out that HGV car transporters are taking this route already, presumably in breach of existing planning permissions.

Warwick Road now has many residential properties and was designed as such. Sending HGV along this route is irresponsible.

The A6 junction is already proven to be operating well in excess of its planned capacity and the proposed mitigation measured (needed due to the pressures by other developments) will not resolve this.

Add to that the proximity of the proposed route to the AQMA I cannot see how this application can possibly be considered sustainable on environmental or economic grounds.
The applicant has chosen to focus on areas of the NPPF that are purported to support the application but totally overlooked the areas that this application would contravene. I trust that the planners take note of this.

(Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 04 Dec 2019

The proposed use of the blue route along the Warwick Road in Kibworth is totally unacceptable and must be outlawed. The road is single file over the main railway bridge in Kibworth and is narrow beyond towards Fleckney. There are dangerous corners with sharp bends and poor sightlines at the Warwick Road/Fleckney Road, Kibworth Road/Fleckney Road and Kibworth Road/Shearsby Road corners. The possible use by long, wide car transporters is simply a serious accident waiting to happen.
The whole use of the A5199 and, especially, the B5414 (Pincet Lane) roads by these vehicles is already a problem for all road users and it has been established that vehicle movements already exceed allowed limits. The situation is intolerable for residents of villages close to Bruntingthorpe and I support the many objections from local residents.

(Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 28 Nov 2019

There is already too much traffic, pollution and congestion in this area without adding to it further. These large vehicles are very slow and cause the traffic to build up even more. In addition, these roads are country roads not major ones and can not cope at the moment without further adding to them with these large vehicle carriers. I strongly object

(Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 26 Nov 2019

To whom this may concern,

I would like to add my objection to planning application 19/01388, concerning the blue route of car transporters using the Wawrick and Fleckney road to reach Bruntingthorpe.

The reasons for my objection to the plan as as follows.

1) Can the Warwick road and Fleckney road bridges over the railway line and Canal cope with the increased weight and numbers of vehicles?
2)There is already a route available via the M1 and Pincent Lane in North Kilworth
3) Fleckney road is not wide enough to take an increase amount of car transporters. Pincent Lane is roughly the same size road and there are on-going issues with the road falling away and having to be replaced with gravel. This does not last and combined with the farm traffic that uses Fleckney road, this would increase the danger of driving along muddy, slippery roads with worn away sidings.
4) There are no road markings on Fleckney road for the transporters to stick to their side of the road. They would straight line the road over the Fleckney Road canal bridge, as the camber of the road changes here and potentially cause danger to oncoming traffic who are then squeezed.
5) The Junction of Warwick road and Fleckney road is on a tight bend and most transporters do not want to stop at the give way. I have experience of this whilst driving to work at 6:30 in the morning. They do not want to come to a full stop, so continue to move over the line. This is unnerving when you are approaching the junction into, or out of the village. This would also be dangerous in the fog as the lines already need re-painting at the give way markers
6) Are the roundabouts at the junction of Wistow Road and Warwick Road really suitable to cope with the weight and turning circles of the transporters?

Thank you for reading and taking note of my objections,

Yours Sincerely,
Gemma Coller, Kibworth Resident.

(Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 20 Nov 2019

The proposal for HGV traffic to use Warwick Road as a blue route will have an adverse effect on the two villages of Kibworth Harcourt and Kibworth Beauchamp. There are more residential houses along the proposed route. There is a traffic light single road bridge over the Midland main line railway. The A6 is already above nationally acceptable levels of pollution, with the on going detriment to people's health. The A6 is already at maximum capacity as an artillery route for emergency services. There are limited cycle ways around the village. The sharp corner of the Warwick Road and the Fleckney Road on the outskirts of the Kibworths, with increased transporter lorries significantly risks an accident. None of these increases in lorries, car transportation lorries is addressing the environmental impacts of climate change and the green agenda, which is what councils should be preparing for. Bruntingthorpe proving ground has better access by major route ways of the M1, A14 both giving access to the M6 and the A1. This traffic does not need to be diverted over to two villages already under pressure from road and other infrastructure amenities. Whilst wanting to divert traffic from Bruntingthorpe, Peatling Parva and Gilmorton, this plan will exacerbate the traffic problems already experienced by the two villages of Kibworth Harcourt and Kibworth Beauchamp, which are being totally overlooked.

(Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 20 Nov 2019

It would seem that the level of HGV flow will have an impact on the roads and villages. They were never designed for this type of vehicle and the blue route in particular borders on an area of ever expanding housing into Kibworth and along the Warwick Road, which is so very tight.
The levels of HGV's passing through Kibworth Beauchamp itself has increased and an increasing number might appear to be above the current weight restrictions.
The greater levels of use to the Bruntingthorpe Proving Ground will put pressure on other road users, and alternative routes will be found which will generate their own impact.

(Objects)

Comment submitted date: Fri 01 Nov 2019

I am a resident of Peatling Parva and although not living on one of the current or proposed transporter routes I am frequently affected by car transporters and traffic related to BPG as I drive on local roads. This village is also impacted by the additional traffic arising from the car storage, auctions and related developments.
As with many of the objectors to this application I am concerned that the increase in activity at BPG has been allowed to occur despite its unsustainable location- no public transport access and a rural location served by little more than country lanes.
Clearly HDC has been unable to enforce transporter movements either in numbers entering and leaving or by the routeing via the A5199 to North Kilworth. Even BPG's own fleet of transporters regularly use the Saddington and Kibworth route to the A6.
It is not up to members of the public to enforce routes as BPG suggest in their application.

The recently adopted HDC local plan states that development at BPG will only be permitted if
' f. traffic to be generated by the development would not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety or severe residual cumulative impacts on the road network;
and g. highway mitigation is provided where necessary taking into account total traffic to be generated by existing and proposed development within the Proving Ground and the Industrial Estate, with all access taken via the main gate to Bath Lane.

The application seems to be requesting retrospective permission for the expansion of transporter movements that have already occurred well over and above the permitted number as well as recognising that in the future these could increase from the current allowed 45 movements per day to 200. Comments from others indicate concerns for safety and the cumulative impacts on the road network. This also includes wear and tear by heavy transporters on country lanes unsuited for such use. Future expansion and the phase 2 plans for development at BPG will only increase pressure on local roads and communities.
There is therefore a need for highway mitigation measures not only for the impact of the transporters on the existing and proposed new routes but also in villages that are not on these designated routes but are affected by the increase in other traffic that results from the expansion of activities linked to the increased movements.
We are told that 850 people are currently employed at BPG, they will be commuting to and from work by a range of routes through local villages, along with delivery vans servicing activity at BPG, individual cars being delivered/collected along with others on small transporters that do not use the designated routes. Villages such as Bruntingthorpe, Upper Bruntingthorpe, Peatling Parva, Ashby Magna, Gilmorton, Kimcote and Walton are affected by this in the immediate surrounds of BPG.
I support the suggestion that BPG pay for an independent consultant to meet with villagers and propose mitigation measures with BPG funding the improvements required. Some method of clearly linking traffic passing through villages with BPG could be needed using ANPR cameras etc. and traffic calming measures at key points such as road junctions with limited sight lines eg Ashby Road junction on to the Gilmorton to Bruntingthorpe Road and the approach to the village from Ashby Road at Peatling Parva where speeding traffic is often reported.

The decision on this application should be referred to committee rather than be an officer decision as the impact on many communities within the Harborough District is great and representatives for these communities should be involved.

(Neutral)

Comment submitted date: Tue 29 Oct 2019

This application was discussed at our recent Parish Council meeting.
Comments were made regarding the need for traffic calming measures in Gilmorton. Trade plated drivers regularly speed through the village and cars are being parked in the village after being purchased at auction and awaiting later collection often causing disruption to local residents Any future in transporter numbers, which do not in general travel through Gilmorton, would result in an increased volume of other traffic and exacerbate the current issues..

(Objects)

Comment submitted date: Fri 18 Oct 2019

This application was discussed at the last meeting of Bruntingthorpe Parish Council and the following comments should be noted.
This application seems to be covering current transporter numbers- these numbers of transporters are already using our rural roads and causing significant damage. As the current numbers would seem to breach the current planning permission does this suggest the restrictions already in place are not respected? Would any permitted increase be strictly adhered to, and how would this be monitored by HDC? Residents feel unable to use the footpaths and bridleways in the vicinity as they have safety concerns sharing the rural road network with such large transporters. Single trade plate drivers are also using local roads through Peatling, Bruntingthorpe, Kimcote and Gilmorton, many with complete disregard for speed limits and road conditions as they are themselves under pressure to deliver the cars/vans within a limited timescale to and from BPG and purchasing customers.
We feel the site, and surrounding rural infrastructure is already at capacity.
Traffic Routes often not complied with, transporters travel to and from Fleckney and Kibworth to use the A6, which is not their designated route, again to save time.
Small local rural roads being asked to take large heavy lorries, we find it hard to understand Highways approval to this. Locally, Magna Park is wholly serviced by dual carriageway for example.

An additional point to make concerns the camber of Bath Lane which is awkward- dangerous to large vehicles as it tilts them toward the middle of the road at their highest point, when vehicles meet in opposing directions the distance between them at their top is minimal.
Cases of respiratory Alzheimer's cases have been reported in Gilmorton, there are children with asthma all around the area. Is this related to Pollution? Recently HDC has been keen to point out pollution levels in Lutterworth have reduced. Have levels in this area increased? Can Air quality be measured and data be obtained regarding pollution related illnesses. There is not just an increased number of lorries proposed - there will be a resulting increase in single trade plated drivers also.
Regarding accidents at the A5199 junction, one Parish Councillor has witnessed 3 accidents in the last month- It would seem not all accidents are reported to the Police.

Parking of large vehicles is causing a nuisance in the area while waiting for site to open. We understand extended hours have been suggested/ offered. However, many people have the opinion that the operating hours should be shortened to avoid the rush hour totally .i.e. 10-4pm to improve safety. This would allow use of footpaths and bridleways which currently cannot be used.

Showing 1-10 of 37|1|2|3|4|

an Idox solution