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 - Provision for Strategic Distribution

Representation ID: 5066

COMMENT IDI Gazeley represented by Now Planning (Ms Nora Galley)

Summary:

Para 130/131.
Update provided on planning application for larger extension site, submitted 6/10/15.
Further uses proposed by IDI Gazeley are important, but are not mentioned by the OCP, and are made feasible by the scale of Option C. Further information provided in full submission.

Representation ID: 5065

COMMENT IDI Gazeley represented by Now Planning (Ms Nora Galley)

Summary:

Para 128
IDI Gazeley retains the ownership of common infrastructure, a number of plots / development parcels and is responsible for Magna Park's management.

Representation ID: 5064

COMMENT IDI Gazeley represented by Now Planning (Ms Nora Galley)

Summary:

Para 128
Size and floor-space figures for Magna Park are incorrect - amended figures and other data provided.

Representation ID: 5063

COMMENT IDI Gazeley represented by Now Planning (Ms Nora Galley)

Summary:

Plan-making requires flexibility, but the OCP only applies it in relation to the number of small, non-strategic, employment sites. Flexibility means that the plans objective assessment of need and the criteria it sets for meeting those needs must allow for the possibility of unanticipated change within the plan period.

Representation ID: 5062

COMMENT IDI Gazeley represented by Now Planning (Ms Nora Galley)

Summary:

The SDS did not produce a Harborough figure for good reasons. Further work the SDS advises has not been done (particularly in respect to the notion of "replacement demand") nor have the authorities collaborated with each other and with the adjoining golden triangle areas to identify and assess candidate sites in line with the sequential site selection approach the SDS advises. The answer, however, is not - for HDC to baselessly carve out a Harborough share of the regional forecast, but instead to properly assess the low, medium and high growth options for the logistics sector in the district.

Representation ID: 5061

COMMENT IDI Gazeley represented by Now Planning (Ms Nora Galley)

Summary:

The ELS and SDS forecasts are not comparable, and it is not justified to take a Harborough figure for warehousing need from the 2013 ELS and use that figure to carve out a Harborough share from the regional and county forecast produced by the SDS. SDS uses a different methodology, and forecasts for different spatial area.

Representation ID: 5060

COMMENT IDI Gazeley represented by Now Planning (Ms Nora Galley)

Summary:

A short account of the up to date evidence should have been included.

Representation ID: 5059

COMMENT IDI Gazeley represented by Now Planning (Ms Nora Galley)

Summary:

Section errors, omissions and misdirection means that the OCP is not complete, accurate or objective enough to allow the public to respond effectively. Further reasoning provided in full submission.

Representation ID: 4952

COMMENT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

Economic Growth Comments:
There is recognition of the importance of the strategic distribution sector to the Leicester and Leicestershire economy; recently reflected in the LLEP's Logistics and Distribution Sector Growth Plan (2015). The three sites on the edge of Magna Park have been put forward Strategic Distribution Sector Study (2014) each represents a significant expansion to the existing Magna Park.
The impact of each option on Lutterworth and the A5 need to be thoroughly considered; it is understood that further assessments are to be undertaken so the potential highways impacts are apparent and the potential interactions with housing and employment options 6, 8 and 9 are known.

Representation ID: 4774

COMMENT dbsymmetry represented by Framptons (Peter Frampton)

Summary:

db symmetry supports the approach taken by Harborough District Council that additional strategic distribution land allocations are required over the Plan period.

A 'do nothing' scenario is considered inconsistent with up to date evidence as to the need for strategic distribution floorspace and inconsistent with the Framework (NPPF para 18 / 20). NPPF supports sustainable economic growth through planning system.
LLSDSS should be given greater weight than ELS 2013 as evidence for LP options.

Supporting appendices provided; Planning Policy Context, Strategic Needs Review.

Representation ID: 4216

COMMENT Mr R Flint

Summary:

Three options are described, all of which contemplate expansion of Magna Park. As the existing Development Plan does not support any expansion of Magna Park, why is there not an explicit fourth option that does not support any further expansion of the Magna Park development?

There is a serious mismatch that exists between the general high calibre of the workforce in the Harborough District and the surfeit of low-skilled jobs,predominately at Magna Park. An unsatisfactory feature of further expansion of Magna Park would be an increase in the magnitude of both out-commuting and in-commuting.

Representation ID: 4059

COMMENT Daventry District Council (Mr Tom James)

Summary:

It is noted that Magna Park is the focus for options to allocate additional land for Strategic Distribution. However it is not currently clear how the study takes into account the allocation for 42 ha of employment land at Junction 16 of the M1, allocated in the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy.
Furthermore in deciding which option is preferred for potential expansion at Magna Park consideration should be given to the role of DIRFT (including phase 3) in terms of both the need for additional floorspace and on the impact on the labour market.

Representation ID: 3675

OBJECT Mr Luke Demery

Summary:

Magna Park is road based, causing yet higher noise, light and emissions pollution to surrounding villages and towns. It is also at odds with the government's own strategy of rail distribution. It is competing with DIRFT and development near East Midlands Airport which are rail based, Any development would be at odds with the Local Plan objectives to minimise environmental pollution. And adding a country park is a poor replacement for open countryside. The jobs it creates are low skilled low wage and will not benefit the local community with plans to transport staff in. Forecasts for need very questionable

Representation ID: 3463

COMMENT Lutterworth East Landowners represented by Gary Stephens

Summary:

LEL have put forward land for strategic distribution as part of the Lutterworth East SDA, recognised in paragraph 129. The land would have the benefit of having direct access to Junction 20 of the M1 and within walking distance of the residential areas and potential future employees to the north within the SDA. This site is also within the Key Area of Opportunity and could make an important contribution to meeting the need for strategic distribution.

Representation ID: 3337

OBJECT Mr David Burton

Summary:

It is extraordinary that these 3 options, simply amount to re-presenting the planning applications submitted by speculative developers. Profit motivation of developers should not be a determining factor in the decision-making process of our publicly-funded planning authorities. The local plan should not be tailored to suit what developers are suggesting. The local plan should be developed in true consultation with local stakeholders before planning applications are made by outside commercial interests. Asking us merely to comment on 3 planning applications that have already been submitted is not proper consultation. Any further development would have a devastating impact on the area.

Representation ID: 3279

OBJECT Mr Paul Rains

Summary:

Unless the road infrastruture around the M6 Junction 1 is improved by creating a dual carriage way from the M6 Junction 1 all the way to Magna Park. then I object to any more traffic being attracted to this area. There are already constant queues of traffic from J1 to the A5 and more traffic might mean it eventually spills back on to the M6 which is extremely dangerous

Representation ID: 3277

OBJECT MR Michael Wilcox

Summary:

There should be a National assessment of the requirements in conjunction with surrounding authorities rather than the present Leicestershire approach

Representation ID: 2834

OBJECT Edmund Hunt

Summary:

You state a site option near Shawell village? Where is the transparency on this option, it is not explained to my knowledge. This should be another option instead of Magna Park locations which are already applications.

Representation ID: 2798

OBJECT Mr David Jones

Summary:

I strongly object to any further development at Magna Park or south of Magna Park due to

i) Highways Safety: detrimental impact on the roads due to increased substantially increased volume & speed of traffic
ii) Economic: lack of a strategic overview that the proposed developments would have on Lutterworth and surrounding area
iii) Air Pollution: deterioration in air quality in the immediate vicinity
iv) Noise Pollution: impact of noise pollution owing to the increase in traffic movement, particularly HGV traffic
v) Economic: lack of direct economic benefit to the local community
vi) Light Pollution: detrimental increase in light pollution

Representation ID: 2680

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

Summary:

See attached letter

Representation ID: 2665

COMMENT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

Extension to Magna Park seems to make sense but need to ensure that housing is also planned there to minimise travelling.

Representation ID: 2663

COMMENT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

Good links to Magna Park to other similar provision e.g. Crick, Rugby etc keeping it all in one area seems a good idea.

Representation ID: 2527

OBJECT Mr Alan Pankhurst

Summary:

The case is not made for placing such overwhelming distribution facilities at Magna Park. Where there is proven need for addition warehousing it should be placed near railheads in areas of unemployment.

Representation ID: 2520

OBJECT Mrs Maggie Pankhurst

Summary:

Distribution warehousing should be placed near to railheads and in areas where there is unemployment of people with the skills and experience needed for the types of jobs that will be created. This will reduce the impact on the local environment of lorry and car traffic.

Representation ID: 2017

OBJECT Mr Sam Weller

Summary:

Magna Park should not expand further, and take up good agricultural land. The road network cannot support the growth in Commercial and private car traffic, the levels of air noise, and light pollution are too high already, and expansion would destroy habitats for flora and fauna.

Representation ID: 1667

OBJECT Mr Malcolm Stringer

Summary:

The need for provision for strategic distribution sites in this locality is overstated. There are other sites adjoining motorway junctions in Leicestershire and in adjoining counties which are contributing to the supply land and for the preferred form of modal transport RAIL. If the duty to cooperate is observed then it will be clearly shown that Magna Park is now off the beaten track rather than at the centre of Distribution universe. It is now outdated and an intrusion into the lives of the community making no real positive contribution anymore.

Representation ID: 1520

OBJECT Dr Paul Dimmer

Summary:

What is the evidence that leads you to dismiss out of hand the original (current) Framework Core Strategy's approach? There are other sites with rail links in the region which are far more suitable for such development so the option of no Magna Park expansion is certainly viable and worthy of examination.

Representation ID: 929

OBJECT Mrs Gweneth Thorp

Summary:

Traffic increase exponentially causing :
.pollution; road surface damage; roads are already saturated with goods vehicles and commuter traffic 24 hours per day; already accident blackspots in this area;damage to the environment; damage to the many small villages in the area.
Light pollution already a major concern with Magna Park.
Over employment in a rural area.
Loss of critical agricultural land, UK cannot support itself.
Expansion in this area with no space between Crick and the major towns around Birmingham, total loss of local identity.

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

Powered by OpusConsult