Strategic planning consultations

You can view all available strategic planning consultations. To make a comment on a current consultation you must sign in to your account.

Representations on New Local Plan Options - Q8. Which Strategic Distribution Option(s) do you favour? You can select a single option, a number of options or suggest a new or hybrid option or suggest another location.

Representation ID: 4951

COMMENT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

Archaeology Comments
Options A and B pose particular concerns with regard to the impact of development upon the nationally important designated archaeological remains of the deserted medieval village of Bittesby, as well as its setting and landscape character, and upon the survival of undesignated heritage assets within the development area, the latter including Bittesby House. In addition the proposed development will impact significantly upon the wider historic landscape, with particular concern identified in respect of Option A and impact upon setting of the conservation areas at Ullesthorpe and Claybrooke Parva. Option C poses similar impacts upon the local heritage, including the conservation area at Cotesbach.

Representation ID: 4871

OBJECT Mr Michael Lenihan

Summary:

I strongly object to A, B and C as they are totally unacceptable, bias, premature and developer lead and will create over provision of employment land. There must be other options, near to Junction 20 of the M1.

Representation ID: 4852

SUPPORT Tarmac Ltd represented by Ms Jenna Conway

Summary:

We agree with the assertions within the Local Plan Options that there is an undersupply of non-rail served strategic distribution / B8 sites within the District. We also strongly support the 'open for business' approach of the Plan but would like to highlight a potential contradiction between the approach of the Plan and all of the options put forward for strategic distribution.
Whilst the Shawell site is unlikely to be suitable for large scale distribution (compared with options adjoining Magna Park), we maintain support for the inclusion of this site for employment purposes in future draft Plans, as it assists in providing a range and choice of employment sites.
To address the under-supply, a potentially more appropriate Option would be the promotion of a more dispersed spatial strategy for B8 uses and recognise that oppotunities for B8 development are not limited to those areas adjoining Magna Park.

Representation ID: 4780

SUPPORT C. Walton Ltd

Summary:

We propose a Local Plan planning policy framework which will allow for continued activities at Bruntingthorpe Proving Ground and to allow for any potential employment facilities subject to all new development falling under the ambit of reasonable controls. Potential wording provided for a policy relating to Bruntingthorpe Proving Ground.

We propose a larger allocation of industrial land to be governed by an enabling policy. The extension is proposed within the contiguous parcel of land comprising the site (i.e. replacing some of the existing proving ground). Potential wording provided for a policy relating to Bruntingthorpe Technology Park (Industrial Eastate).

Representation ID: 4670

OBJECT Cllr Rosita Page

Summary:

These options are unacceptable, biased, leading, developer and submitted application lead. These proposals are not sustainable, will create over provision of employment land in this area and nationally. They will lead to over intensification of traffic and unacceptable air pollution in Lutterworth and surrounding villages.
It will create rat runs and have other negative on the far wider road network, negative environmental impacts, like noise light and on the landscape.
Archaeological loss is unacceptable. The NLP should seek provision to create knowledge based industries to meet local needs and create opportunities .

Representation ID: 4242

OBJECT Prologis UK Limited represented by Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners (Mr Justin Gartland)

Summary:

Objects to the Options:
a) They take no account of policy to ensure that land for strategic distribution are rail linked;
b) They introduce the potential to undermine the delivery of nationally significant infrastructure,
c) The options do not take account of a consideration of the potential for rail-served distribution development in the district or wider Leicestershire area; and
d) The options do not take account of necessary cross-boundary discussions with neighbouring authorities in relation to the quantum of strategic distribution development

Representation ID: 4149

OBJECT Dr I.D. v.d. Ploeg

Summary:

I do not support any of the proposed options as I do not support any expansion of Magna Park as it already is too large and does not need to be expanded as it will be to the detriment of the surrounding villages and the people living in it.

Representation ID: 3877

OBJECT ASHBY PARVA Parish Meeting (Mr Tim Ottevanger)

Summary:

Ashby Parva Parish Meeting consider any growth at Magna Park to cause harmful effects on the environment and quality of life, particularly in terms of traffic, pollution and the destruction of valuable and much needed agricultural land. A no growth option should be provided.

Representation ID: 3793

OBJECT Miss Margaret Wild

Summary:

Magna Park is Big Enough. Further development will dramatically increase the traffic and as a result increase air pollution, congestion, noise and litter. It will impact on lifestyle due to increased light pollution and reduced safety on the roads.
Lutterworth should not be expected to provide the majority of the required increase for the whole of Leicestershire. I suggest further use of East Midlands Parkway or towards Leicester shouldering the M1 and M69.

Representation ID: 3726

COMMENT Miss Ruth Thompson

Summary:

In another location i object to A B C

Representation ID: 3705

SUPPORT Mr Simon Smith

Summary:

in other locations i object to A B C

Representation ID: 3632

OBJECT LUTTERWORTH TOWN COUNCIL Parish Council (Andrew Ellis)

Summary:

Lutterworth Town Council has previously submitted its comments of objection for development at Magna Park as follows:

i) detrimental impact on road infrastructure in terms of increased volume and speed of traffic;
ii) lack of a strategic overview that the proposed development would have on Lutterworth and surrounding area;
iii) resultant deterioration in air quality within the immediate vicinity;
iv) impact of noise pollution owing to increase in traffic movement, particularly HGV traffic;
v) lack of direct benefit to the local community in terms of employment;.
vi) detrimental increase in light pollution

Representation ID: 3561

OBJECT mrs Gaynor Wood

Summary:

I strongly object to this proposal.
The roads cannot take the increased amount of traffic coming off and onto the motorway. The smaller roads in the surrounding villages will become vastly overused by commuters. The surrounding roads will be busier and more dangerous.
The wildlife will be damaged and lost forever.
The noise will become unbarable. I can currently hear the existing warhouses in Magna park if i leave my bedroom window open at night. I can hear the fork lift trucks and reversing vehicles.
Lutterworth does not suffer from high unemployment so would not benifit from job creation.

Representation ID: 3515

COMMENT Dr Stuart Rimmington

Summary:

I have a preference for no further Magna Park expansion with the alternative option availability at Leicester Forest East and East Midlands Parkway in areas of better infrastructure at lower cost.

Representation ID: 3457

COMMENT Leicestershire County Council (Mr Richard Clark)

Summary:

Options A and B pose concerns with regard to the impact upon the nationally important designated archaeological remains of the deserted medieval village of Bittesby, its setting and landscape character, and upon the survival of undesignated heritage assets within the development area, the latter including Bittesby House. In addition the proposed development will impact significantly upon the wider historic landscape, with particular concern identified in respect of Option A and impact upon setting of the conservation areas at Ullesthorpe and Claybrooke Parva. Option C poses similar impacts upon the local heritage, including the conservation area at Cotesbach.

Representation ID: 3364

COMMENT Environment Agency (Mr Nick Wakefield)

Summary:

In line with the National Planning Policy Framework, all new development should be steered away from areas at flood risk. According to the latest information available to the Environment Agency there is an element of Flood Zone in Option site B and Option site C. Notwithstanding this, the Environment Agency has provided formal comments on the recent planning applications for sites A and B, and is considering the planning application submission for Option C. It will be for the Local Planning Authority to decide, which, if any, of the proposals should be taken forward as sites for future growth.

Representation ID: 3113

OBJECT Mrs Alison Hull

Summary:

Further distribution hubs or growth should be located elsewhere, where there is need for employment. Ideally not in Harborough district as there is no need for this number of additional jobs, and requires people to travel from a distance away, including attracting increased numbers of migrant workers. But, if it has to be here, then for example, around the new Catthorpe interchange where high traffic volumes are expected and there will be less impact on the villages through which this traffic currently comes to get to and from Magna Park.

Representation ID: 2987

OBJECT Zoe Ridley

Summary:

None of the options are suitable and I have expressed my views on each below. Distribution centres should be placed close to motorway and rail heads to ensure maximum use of available transport links, whilst minimising environmental impact. They should also be placed where unemployment levels are high and not in areas of low unemployment.

Representation ID: 2955

OBJECT Revd. Terence Colling

Summary:

The A5 Road is overused by Heavy Goods Vehicles.
The roads through the villages will have vastly increased car traffic and an increase in HGVs. The environment will be greatly poluted.

Representation ID: 2944

OBJECT Emma Ridley

Summary:

None of the options are suitable and I have expressed my views on each below. Distribution centres should be placed close to motorway and rail heads to ensure maximum use of available transport links, whilst minimising environmental impact. They should also be placed where unemployment levels are high and not in areas of low unemployment.

Representation ID: 2925

OBJECT Mr Neil Ridley

Summary:

None of the options are suitable and I have expressed my views on each below. Distribution centres should be placed close to motorway and rail heads to ensure maximum use of available transport links, whilst minimising environmental impact. They should also be placed where unemployment levels are high and not in areas of low unemployment.

Representation ID: 2837

OBJECT Edmund Hunt

Summary:

With the 100% business rates HDC and LCC need to be transparent in where this money may be invested. It will be millions of pounds and a significant addition to HDC bottom line. If any plans do go ahead, commitment needs to be given that a diplomatically agreed amount of these rates need to be provided to Lutterworth Town.

Representation ID: 2550

OBJECT Susan Jukes

Summary:

Objection to process whereby Planning decisions may be made ahead of Local Plan consultation. Is the developer tail wagging the local dog?

Objection to all 3 options based on questions regarding lack of employment need, environmental cost esp traffic and pollution, loss of countryside. Plea that local policy be made in light of national/regional strategic planning taking into account employment need, transport routes, national policy regarding use of railheads, environmental burden and cost.

Alternative sites close to railheads would represent a wiser strategic plan in line with national policy.

Representation ID: 2497

OBJECT Mrs Shiela Carlton

Summary:

All 3 options A,B and C pre-suppose expansion of Magna Park in line with current but as yet outstanding planning applications.Magna Park is already huge and further expansion would create an intrusive mass of buildings in open coutryside, where there is poor public transport. The corresponding increase in HGV traffic would be beyond the capacity of the road network and the massive increase in workforce commuting in an area of low unemployment would add unacceptably to the use of village routes as "rat-runs". There must be a 4th option to prohibit expansion beyond the current site footprint.

Representation ID: 2454

COMMENT Mr Ian Madeley

Summary:

No further Magna Park extension.

Consider availability at Leicester Forest East, or the East Midlands Parkway first!

Representation ID: 2448

OBJECT Mr Simon Howes

Summary:

No further Magna Park expansion but as an alternative suggest towards Leicester shouldering M1 and M69 (Leicester Forest East) or further utilisation of East Midlands Parkway as allocation doesn't need to be in Harborough District but in broader Leicestershire.

Representation ID: 2301

OBJECT Mrs Shiela Carlton

Summary:

I object to all 3 options A,B and C. The 4th option is to prohibit any further expansion of Magna Park beyond the footprint of the present site as defined in 2011/12, under the then Local Plan Core Strategy section 7. The site is already an overwhelming intrusion into open counntryside and generates an unacceptable volume of traffic beyond the capacity of the local road system, especially commuting labour force traffic, of whuich about 50% traveks from more than 20 miles away and uses villages as "rat-runs"

Representation ID: 2055

OBJECT Mr John Turner

Summary:

Magna Park is not a suitable site for further expansion. It is not at a rail head & all associated traffic would be by road, creating a range of negative environmental impacts. Far more suitable sites exist, notably at DIRFT. There is very little in the proposals to benefit Lutterworth & certainly they would impose significant net costs on local residents.

Representation ID: 1768

OBJECT Mr Clive Grimwood

Summary:

Request for a Fourth Option, Option D: 'Respect the existing policy for No Further Expansion of Magna Park.'

Representation ID: 1596

OBJECT Mr Scott Munton

Summary:

None of the options A, B or C should be allowed as this type of development should only be sited on railheads and be in areas of high unemployment

Representation ID: 1516

OBJECT Dr Paul Dimmer

Summary:

None of these options is acceptable. The case for an expansion is flimsy and of no benefit to the local community. The proposals are also in direct conflict with this draft plan's objectives, because:
they are not on previously developed land - as the original development was;
there would be an adverse impact on the natural environment, being on open countryside.
there would be a negative impact on neighbouring villages (visual, noise, pollution, increased traffic).

Representation ID: 1449

COMMENT CLAYBROOKE PARVA Parish Council (Maurice C Howell)

Summary:

All these options are unacceptable, bias, leading and are developer lead. They will create over provision of employment land.

Representation ID: 1270

OBJECT Mrs June Whiting

Summary:

Developments of this nature would be better located closer to motorway junctions, at railheads and in areas in need of employment.

Representation ID: 1164

OBJECT Mr Lewis Freeman

Summary:

I cannot support any of the proposals as they contradict everything that has been said before re. the quality of rural life in this area! To double the size of Magna Park will ruin Lutterworth as a pleasant market town. It's sheer size, the necessity for employees to travel from well outlying areas, the huge increase in the volume of traffic ( both heavy goods and workers) increases in pollution-both air and light with little or no benefit to the local area. An academy plus country park are sops to the planning authority and not really viable!

Representation ID: 1121

COMMENT Mr Ian Duffield

Summary:

Further development of Magna Park is not appropriate for the area. There are a number of more appropriate locations where further development would not impact locals communities to the same extent. In psrticular, the local infrastructure is in no position to support the proposed growth.

These include:
DIRFT
Locations in and around the M69/M1/M6 junctions
East Midlands Airport location

Representation ID: 1116

OBJECT Alex Farnell

Summary:

Excessive traffic, other areas of the country need jobs as there's little unemployment in the Lutterworth area

Representation ID: 888

COMMENT Susan Sharpe

Summary:

No further Magna Park expansion and alternative option availability at Leicester Forest East and East Midland Parkway in areas of better infrastructure at lower costs.

Representation ID: 839

OBJECT Mrs Jaqueline Strong

Summary:

No further developments at Magna Park!!
better locations are Leicester Forest East and East Midlands Parkway

Representation ID: 686

OBJECT Mrs Joy Burgoine

Summary:

I object to Option A Gazeley DHL warehouse because if granted would the the "thin end of the wedge" before further extensive development in an area already saturated by lorries and pollution

Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult