From: michael elphinstone Sent: 06 April 2015 15:53 To: Ferrybridge Subject: Ferrybridge Multifuel 2 : Deadline 4: 2 April 2015 I write on behalf of Mrs. Margaret Gill, who was an oral contributor at the hearing held on the 17th March at Knottingley Town Hall,and was asked to submit a written synopsis of what she said by deadline 4. First let me apologise for missing the precise deadline. Mrs Gill did not feel confident about her ability to express herself adequately in writing and called upon me, the Secretary of Oakland Hill Estate's Residents' Association, to do so on her behalf. Unfortunately, I have literally just returned from a 4 month visit to Tenerife and needed some time to bring myself up to date. As deadline 4 was 1 minute before the start of the Easter break I assume not a great deal of work has been done by now in considering responses and I also note that the instructions on the submission of written material only say that late submissions MAY be disregarded. Might I respectfully request that our submission is accepted in the light of mitigating circumstances please? We are, after all, residents of a retirement community where all secretarial work is undertaken voluntarily as & when it can be. We are not now accustomed to working to deadlines! SYNOPSIS of ORAL PRESENTATION: Starting in October 2013, and continuing right up to the present day to a greater or lesser extent, residents of Oakland Hill Parkhome Estate have been troubled by significantly increased levels of noise pollution coming from both the adjacent A1M motorway and building works associated with the construction of Multi Fuel 1. Although the hearing was concerned with a planning application for MF2, we consider the foregoing relevant because: a) we were assured that noise levels arising from the construction & operation of MF1 would not exceed "acceptable levels" and, b) the whole process will be repeated again if MF2 goes ahead. Mrs. Gill has been at the forefront of residents' efforts to have our concerns about noise levels recognised. Whereas she has sometimes been treated condescendingly and almost with disdain by some officials - someone had the nerve to suggest she take a hearing test! - she recently conducted a survey of all our residents (blank survey form attached) and found that she was by no means alone in being greatly disturbed by the noise levels now being experienced. I attach a map of our estate showing the location of those respondents to her survey who consider MF1 and the A1M to be "very noisy". We have 91 occupied dwellings on the estate of which 42 (46%) responded to the survey. Of those who responded 29 (69%) clearly indicated that they found sound levels to be disturbing. 9 (21%) had detected a rise in noise levels but could live with them and 4 (10%) hadn't been affected. It is worth noting that the greatest concentration of those affected is in or around Willow Lane. This is the road closest to the motorway, MF1 and, potentially, MF2. Several residents mentioned in their responses that they'd contacted MF1 or Wakefield MDC Environmental health Dept. and had been fobbed off. Mrs Gill indicated at the oral hearing that she had had similar experiences with the Highways

Agency as well. Wakefield MDC seems convinced that the increased noise is coming from the motorway and they are supported by MF1. The Highways Agency, although doing no meaningful research of the matter, insist the noise is due to MF1. Our feeling is that the truth lies somewhere between the two. The motorway sits between our estate and MF1 - and the proposed site of MF2. An embankment on our side of the motorway used to screen much of the traffic noise but, now that the wide, tall, slab-sided structure of MF1 has been placed opposite our estate very close to the motorway, an increased level of REFLECTED traffic noise is evident. This clearly needs investigating and considering before another sound reflector (MF2) is built. Mrs. Gill also specifically mentioned various noises which have affected residents during MF1's construction often ruining the enjoyment we used to have of being able to sit peacefully in our gardens and preventing people from sleeping in some instances. These included the almost constant "beeping" of reversing vehicles and a very disturbing, but as yet unidentified, intermittent deeply pitched rumbling noise, causing houses to vibrate at times. NONE of these noises were experienced before construction of MF1 began. She suggested more could be done to erect noise screening fencing or similar. Finally Mrs Gill supported another speaker from Ferrybridge in expressing our residents' grave concerns about the impending increase in HGV traffic, particularly in the vicinity of the junction between Stranglands Lane and Kirkhaw Lane. This is a notorious bottleneck as there is no room for a right turning lane. Any vehicles turning right will therefore hold up following traffic with knock-on effects at the badly sighted junction of Stranglands Lane and the slip road off the A 162. Computer simulations, produced by the MF2 team, which sought to demonstrate how an increase in HGV movements in the area amounting to about 1 per minute would have no appreciable effect on traffic hold-ups were frankly not believed. Mrs. Gill pointed out that the road often became flooded during wet weather and was completely closed to traffic on some occasions each year. What, she wondered, would happen to all the HGVs in those circumstances? M C Elphinstone Secretary Oakland Hill Residents' Association