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., Strategic Distribution Option A

Representation ID: 4776

COMMENT dbsymmetry represented by Framptons (Peter Frampton)

Summary:

Option A does not; provide for the required scale or flexibility of development as set out in the LLSDSS (2014), deliver the necessary level of strategic distribution floorspace for Harborough District to benefit from the economic opportunities this sector offers over the Plan period to 2031, does not provide a choice of locations for inward investment.
Land covered by Option A is understood to be contractually committed to a single named occupier. As such the site provides no choice for other potential occupiers.
db symmetry consider that there should be a scale of expansion of strategic distribution land beyond that envisaged by Option A.

Representation ID: 4671

OBJECT Cllr Rosita Page

Summary:

I object to A, B and C and support possible other small scale other location.

Representation ID: 3952

OBJECT Mr W Carlton

Summary:

Locally, we need a relatively small supply of highly-skilled and high-value jobs, in light engineering, systems and product design, arts and crafts industries, marketing and advertising, health and education, not more low-skilled low-pay jobs essentially aiming at casual labour with insecure terms of employment.
On transport, the main objective is to "reduce car use and the impact of road traffic on local communities" and yet the main employment source idenfified is the unchecked expansion af Magna Park to become the largest distribution park in the world.

Representation ID: 3795

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: 3783

OBJECT Dr Claire Webster

Summary:

Local unemployment is low, jobs created would be disproportionate to local needs. Developers claim they are building for an emerging market, not for specific customers but there is vacant warehousing in the area. Proposals are associated with farmland which should be preserved, especially in areas of pre-existing high-density industrial developments. There will be significant increase in vehicles to local highways already congested with unacceptably high pollution levels according to EU standards. Employees associated with further development to the footprint would be drawn from a wide area and are likely to travel by car through villages and Lutterworth, exacerbating current problems.

Representation ID: 3762

OBJECT Mrs Helen Farquharson

Summary:

this development should be sited near to motorway junctions or on railheads and in areas that need employment not in or near to Lutterworth where unemployment is almost zero.

Taking extra traffic through tiny villages will be dangerous and cause chaos. Dunton Bassett has an infant/junior school which is on the Main Street through the village. At rush hour it will be dangerous as it is already difficult to get through the village at these times.

If this development is built at the specified site farmland will be lost forever..

Representation ID: 3754

OBJECT Dr Richard Webster

Summary:

The development was originally built on a brownfield site, this option would necessitate expansion onto greenfield land. There would be consequent significant elevation of both light and vehicular pollution.
HDC has a very low unemployment rate so jobs created are likely to be filled by people from outside the local area, so limiting the benefits to the local community. The other consequence of this would be to further exacerbate the problems caused by extra traffic as workers commute into the area. In summary this option would have a seriously deleterious effect on the local community and provide no significant gains.

Representation ID: 3727

OBJECT Miss Ruth Thompson

Summary:

object

Representation ID: 3724

OBJECT Miss naomi Tunstall

Summary:

because it will not be good for the environment,for example an increase in noise pollution,light pollution,and an increase in vehicle emissions.

Representation ID: 3706

OBJECT Mr Simon Smith

Summary:

object

Representation ID: 3698

OBJECT Mrs Anne Rowlands

Summary:

There will be a large increase in the number of lorries on the already congested roads. This will increase pollution by carbon dioxide and other diesel-related emissions.
The development is proposed on green-field land which is currently natural open countryside, and which would be destroyed for ever; this type of development should be on brown-field sites in areas needing employment, next to motorway junctions or on railheads.
Local unemployment is low, so new jobs will largely benefit non-local people, who will generate further local traffic congestion as they travel to/from work.
There is currently vacant warehousing in the area to meet future needs.

Representation ID: 3678

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: 3662

OBJECT Miss Claire Worthington

Summary:

I object as the local infrastructure cannot support the increase in traffic. Traffic is bad enough as it is. Pollution will also increase in terms of light, noise and air.

There are other local options available such as rugby junction 1, Leicester Forest East and East Mudlands Airport developments.

Representation ID: 3643

OBJECT Mr John Rowlands

Summary:

There will be a large increase in the number of lorries on the already congested roads. This will increase pollution by carbon dioxide and other diesel-related emissions.
The development is proposed on green-field land which is currently natural open countryside, and which would be destroyed for ever; this type of development should be on brown-field sites in areas needing employment, next to motorway junctions or on railheads.
Local unemployment is low, so new jobs will largely benefit non-local people, who will generate further local traffic congestion as they travel to/from work.
There is currently vacant warehousing in the area to meet future needs.

Representation ID: 3622

OBJECT Mrs Allison Askew

Summary:

There will be a massive movement of lorries and vehicles on the already busy local roads.
Increasing noise, light and air pollution.
Lutterworth has virtually no unemployment,

Representation ID: 3556

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: 3553

OBJECT Mr michael 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: 3537

OBJECT Mr Roger Jones

Summary:

This proposal ignores previous undertakings that Magna Park would not be extended. It may be reasonable that the county as a whole provide more storage capacity but this needs to be more evenly distributed and more stragetically sited.
Employment arguments have little validity when considered againgst the full employment in the area and the very limited new housing provision. The result will inevitably lead to many more commuting journeys on a road network already working at full capacity.

Representation ID: 3517

OBJECT Dr Stuart Rimmington

Summary:

I wish to object to this proposal. The local traffic infrastructure cannot handle the expansion and the proposed upgrade to the road system does not go far enough. It will increase the HGV movement through Lutterworth. There is no justification of building on the green land between Magna Park and Lutterworth. There will be an increase in air and light pollution and also noise.

Representation ID: 3508

OBJECT Mr Graham Logan

Summary:

Strongly object. It would impact adversely upon an already congested and dangerous road infrastructure around Lutterworth due to employees' cars and HGVs.
No certainty in the planning application whether DHL Supply Chain will be owning / tenant, therefore accurate traffic forecasts cannot be made.
If DHL Supply Chain is secured, there is no control over variances in traffic volumes (e.g. DHL Supply Chain demands greater employment and traffic flow than DHL logistics).

Representation ID: 3503

OBJECT Mrs Christine Horsfall

Summary:

The Local Plan currently in place specifies no further expansion of Magna and nothing has changed to make expansion desirable or necessary. The A5 is single carriageway through Wibtoft and cannot support more traffic. Lutterworth already suffers unacceptable high levels of pollution. There is extensive evidence of biodiversity on the farmland which is under threat and public money has been used to develop the habitat.
The area enjoys almost full employment so any further increase means that there will be more cars coming in to the area.
Additionally, this is not a strategic siting, development should be close to a railhead.

Representation ID: 3321

OBJECT Wibtoft parish council (Mr Mark Pierpoint) represented by Wibtoft parish council (Mr Mark Pierpoint)

Summary:

We have voted against all further expansion of Magna park as the roads are already unsafe on our stretch of the a5 with multiple accidents several fatal this year alone, with noise light and vehicle pollution from not just the site but mainly the vehicles accessing the site , we have a massive site on our doorstep and that is enough

Representation ID: 3312

OBJECT Mrs Rachael Edgley

Summary:

Its big enough for its environment and there are better placed locations already recognised which are not close to settlements If wanting to develop this type of industry here then on the M1 junction would be more logical and satisfactory not affecting settlements and pollution. It is clear from the current objections to Magna Parks extension that this is not an acceptable solution in the eyes of those who live here. There are many more suitable logistics locations such as DIRFT, Gateway East and the developments such as Amazon in Coalville.

Representation ID: 3304

OBJECT Miss Megan Tunstall

Summary:

Magna park should not be expanded as, pollution levels will soar owing to HGV's and other vehicles constantly on the move around the A5 and various warehouses. Many houses in the area, will suffer from light pollution due to the warehouse being in constant use 24 hours a day. This planning application will ruin our small village, we do not have the facilities for such a monstrous building.

Representation ID: 3284

OBJECT MR Michael Wilcox

Summary:

This expands MP into open countryside, establishes a new entrance and new roads which will be a platform to Double MP and extabish IDI Gazely with a total monopoly on logistics provision in the area

Representation ID: 3152

OBJECT Melissa Gillbee

Summary:

flooding impact in the area. dhl supply chain could have any type of tenant and forecast benefits may be wrong (e.g. highly automated and does not require FTE numbers.)

Representation ID: 3140

OBJECT Mr Robert Galley

Summary:

Increase in pollution, traffic and disturbance to the town. Lutterworth will not benefit from this development given almost full employment already in the town. Unsure why this cannot be moved further down the A5 away from small town.

Representation ID: 3130

OBJECT Mr Calum Stringer

Summary:

My objection towards this development is due to the negative impact it will have on the local infrastructure, the increase in pollution in terms of light, noise and air, the increased in traffic, journey times, risk to pedestrians and other road users.

There are other options which considers the wider regional or national possibilities, i.e DIRFT, Rugby J1, Leicester Forest East and East Midlands Airport developments which will form part of a more cohesive approach to warehousing and distribution as they are closer to rail and road links..

Representation ID: 3120

OBJECT CLAYBROOKE MAGNA Parish Council (Nick Reseigh)

Summary:

There is little or no public transport to Magna Park. The additional employees would be drawn from a wide area around Magna Park and have to travel by car through the villages and Lutterworth.

Representation ID: 3117

OBJECT Revd. Terence Colling

Summary:

I object on environmental grounds and on the grounds that the A5 is already a dangerously overcrowded road with Heavy goods Vehicles. The local roads and lanes will also have to cope with increased car traffic and more "lost" HGVs.

Representation ID: 3110

OBJECT Mrs Alison Hull

Summary:

This will result in further increases in pollution levels and traffic, and employees will have to drive through villages and from neighbouring towns as there is no need for additional employment in this area.

Representation ID: 3050

OBJECT Mrs Emma Dakin

Summary:

I object on the grounds of human rights, to any extension of Magna Park, as it promotes warehouse work, , that I consider to be dehumanising.

Representation ID: 3038

OBJECT Mr Kenneth Tunstall

Summary:

This application would destroy valuable farming land in "rural Leicestershire" and wildlife habitat. not to mention the air pollution produced by thousands of extra HGVs and cars travelling in an already over congested area. Do not approve this application it is wrong on every level!!!!

Representation ID: 3031

OBJECT Beth Kerslake

Summary:

Valuable rich arable farm land needs to be preserved.
There has been increased logistics development already in Rugby that impairs all local road users- You just can't get to work without queuing.
The local community will suffer increased diesel pollution.
With increased lorry and work force travelling in one area, higher risks of accidents to local people, animal, livestock and wildlife.
WE HAVE TOO MANY LORRIES LOCALLY ALREADY.

Representation ID: 2989

OBJECT Zoe Ridley

Summary:

Lutterworth and area has virtually no unemployment. There is little or no public transport to Magna Park. The additional employees will travel significant distances and have to travel by car through the villages and Lutterworth.
There will be a massive increase in the movement of lorries. The local roads and roundabouts are already congested with unacceptably high pollution levels according to EU standards.
These proposals are for warehousing on current farmland. Once this is lost it will be gone forever.
There is currently vacant warehousing in the area to meet current and future needs.

Representation ID: 2945

OBJECT Emma Ridley

Summary:

Lutterworth and area has virtually no unemployment. There is little or no public transport to Magna Park. The additional employees will travel significant distances and have to travel by car through the villages and Lutterworth.
There will be a massive increase in the movement of lorries. The local roads and roundabouts are already congested with unacceptably high pollution levels according to EU standards.
These proposals are for warehousing on current farmland. Once this is lost it will be gone forever.
There is currently vacant warehousing in the area to meet current and future needs.

Representation ID: 2920

OBJECT Mr Neil Ridley

Summary:

Lutterworth and area has virtually no unemployment. There extremely limited public transport to Magna Park. New employees will come from outside the immediate area around Magna Park and have to travel by car through the villages and Lutterworth.
There will be a massive increase in the movement of lorries. The local roads are already congested with unacceptably high pollution levels according to EU standards.
These proposals are for warehousing on current farmland. Once this is lost it will be gone forever.
The developers are saying they are building for an emerging market, not for specific customers.

Representation ID: 2918

OBJECT Dr anthony kenton

Summary:

Expansion of Magna Park is not needed nor wanted . There is currently little unemployment in Lutterworth. There are no rail links here so workers will have to travel by car which, along with the increase in lorries, will create massive traffic problems and pollution.

Representation ID: 2917

OBJECT Mrs Martine Blackburn

Summary:

As there is little unemployment in Lutterworth and surrounding villages, most jobs will need to be filled from outside of the area. There is little or no public transport to Magna Park and employees would have to travel by car through the villages and Lutterworth, which would have significant safety, congestion, health and environmental issues.

Representation ID: 2835

OBJECT Edmund Hunt

Summary:

Will impact road infrastructure around Lutterworth due to staff and HGVs. No certainty in application whether DHL Supply Chain will be owning / tenant therefore correct traffic forecasts cannot be made.

Representation ID: 2804

OBJECT Mr A Adcock

Summary:

Will impact road infrastructure around Lutterworth due to staff and HGVs. No certainty in application whether DHL Supply Chain will be owning/tenant therefore correct traffic forecasts cannot be made. If DHL Supply Chain is secured, there is no control over variances in traffic volumes (e.g. DHL Supply Chain demands greater employment and traffic flow than DHL Logistics).

Representation ID: 2767

OBJECT Simon Silvester

Summary:

There is little or no public transport to Magna Park. The additional employees would be drawn from a wide area around Magna Park and have to
travel by car through the villages and Lutterworth.

There will be a massive increase in the movement of lorries. The local roads and roundabouts are already congested with unacceptably high pollution levels according to EU standards.

Eventually there would be up to 12,530 jobs created. Lutterworth and area has virtually no unemployment.

These proposals are for warehousing on current farmland. Once this is lost it will be gone forever.

Representation ID: 2761

OBJECT Joan Tapping

Summary:

Proposals A/B/C are made under the heading of employment in the proposed Local Plan. Creating thousands of low paid jobs in an area with no unemployment is not strategic. What we need in the Lutterworth area are employment opportunities for skilled/professional employees not more low paid un/semi skilled jobs. Currently people have to look outside the area for these jobs and this results in many young people moving away to earn their living. These proposals are seeking to solve a problem that does not exist and which will bring many problems to the area eg. pollution/traffic.

Representation ID: 2582

OBJECT Miss Alison Bent

Summary:

There will be a massive increase in the movement of lorries. The local roads and roundabouts are already congested with unacceptably high pollution levels according to EU standards.

Representation ID: 2560

OBJECT Mrs Clare Robinson

Summary:

I feel that Magna park is big enough.. This proposal will cause a considerable increase in the amount of traffic, including HGVs' which local roads wont be able to deal with, and as a consequence of this a raised level of pollution. There will be the loss of a large area of productive farmland and wildlife habitat.

Representation ID: 2504

OBJECT Mrs Avril Tunstall

Summary:

Magna Park should not be expanded, as the traffic ( mostly HGVs) it generates are already responsible for Lutterworth suffering high air pollution levels, while the rest of Harborough District generally has very good air quality. Air pollution ( especially invisible particulates from diesel fumes), can cause miscarriages, disease, and premature death, so is a major concern. HGVs leaving Magna Park are most hazzardous, as their emissions are toxic, until a particular engine temperature activates their catalytic converters. Lutterworth is a small market town, yet has air pollution like London, so creating more is unethical.

Representation ID: 2498

OBJECT Mrs Shiela Carlton

Summary:

As comments above.

Representation ID: 2493

OBJECT Mrs Maggie Pankhurst

Summary:

Proposals A/B/C are made under the heading of employment in the proposed Local Plan. Creating thousands of low paid jobs in an area with no unemployment is not strategic. What we need in the Lutterworth area are employment opportunities for skilled/professional employees not more low paid un/semi skilled jobs. Currently people have to look outside the area for these jobs and this results in many young people moving away to earn their living. These proposals are seeking to solve a problem that does not exist and which will bring many problems to the area eg. pollution/traffic.

Representation ID: 2490

OBJECT Mr Alan Pankhurst

Summary:

There is no evidence that this expansion on a greenfield site is needed. There is no unemployment in the area and there are other sites available for warehousing (some already developed) and next to railheads It ignores the lack of infrastructure to support such a development e.g. roads and takes no account of the environmental damage that will be caused e.g. light and air pollution, loss of countryside amenities/wildlife. Ullesthorpe will become an industrial area rather than a rural village which is why most of us moved here.

Representation ID: 2456

OBJECT Mr Ian Madeley

Summary:

- Negative impacts on local infrastructure,

- Increased pollution in terms of light, noise and air.

- Increased traffic, journey times, risk to pedestrians and other road users.

- Need another option which considers wider regional or national possibilities, as part of a more cohesive approach to warehousing and distribution.

Representation ID: 2450

OBJECT Mr Simon Howes

Summary:

Prefer no further Magna Pk expansion and In the alternative suggest towards Leic Forest east shouldering M1 and M69 or further utilisation of East Mids Parkway as allocation doesn't need to be in Harborough District but in broader Leicestershire.

Representation ID: 2394

SUPPORT Ms Caroline Pick

Summary:

Best option

Representation ID: 2305

OBJECT Mr Bernard Merrick

Summary:

I strongly object to this suggested site allocation as it is an intrusion into the open countryside proposed by developers without rational foundation nor proven tenant or need. This demonstrated by the fact it is included with their second application. It is cosmetic in presentation and context of the footprint of Magna Park. If there is no demonstrable need the footprint should remain defined as unaltered . Any benefits other than ploitical expediency does not justify the disproportionate impact on the countryside and communities from loss of amenity, pollution and unwarranted of traffic.

Representation ID: 2256

OBJECT Mrs Lynn Stringer

Summary:

This is an intrusion into the open countryside for a development which is not supported by commitment or need. The redefining of Magna Park could be within its current footprint because it is only the developers' contention that this is a preferred location. The modal transport is contrary to Govt policy and competes with rail led sites. It's dominance and visual intrusion together with increases in pollution across the board does not confer any benefit on the community. The creation of employment is a red herring in a district of minimal unemployment.

Representation ID: 2002

OBJECT Dr Susan Tebby

Summary:

No more expansion: greenfield-site produces oxygen and food. Magna Park wipes out most vegetation and substitutes concrete, particulates and nitrous dioxides which are particularly harmful to local people. The latter are recognised carcinogenic: Grade 1 (IARC- Times, 27/10/2015).
Countryside has taken millennia to mature, used by many people. DesertedMediaevalVillage(DMV), Bittesby House and surrounding farmland inter-related and inter-dependent: should be recognised as a special heritage asset and supported by HDC and Gazeley, not over-shadowed by big sheds. Villages will be inundated with traffic causing internal pollution and traffic jams. Little or no unemployment does not warrant jobs like those on offer.

Representation ID: 1971

OBJECT MRS JANE FAIRCLIFFE

Summary:

magna park is large enough

Representation ID: 1778

OBJECT mr chris faircliffe

Summary:

no expansion needed

Representation ID: 1692

OBJECT mrs anne thomasson

Summary:

A fourth option should be provided:-
NO FURTHER EXPANSION AT MAGNA PARK OR CLOSE BY

Representation ID: 1688

OBJECT mrs anne thomasson

Summary:

Will be the source of considerable increases in traffic, pollution, loss of countryside and general dominance of the locality by the largest distribution hub in Europe

Representation ID: 1662

OBJECT Mr Malcolm Stringer

Summary:

This does not redefine the footprint it intrudes into open countryside and thereby is offensive to the current Core Strategy. The adjustment of areas is cosmetic and directly contrary to IDI Gazeley's contention for low density development . There is no proven taker for this site in the planning application thereby it is speculative. It would be dominating and visually intrusive and contribute significantly to the whole spectrum of pollution and denigration of the environment.

Representation ID: 1597

OBJECT Mrs Maria Dimmer

Summary:

I object to any expansion of Magna Park because:
1. it has limited value to the local community.
2. the increase in traffic that would result. Some of it is bound to go through villages on roads that cannot cope.
3. the additional noise.
4. the additional emissions pollution. The air quality in the area is already poor and according to my GP is causing a high incidence of asthmatic conditions.
5. it is an eyesore that is not in keeping with its surroundings.
6. the additional light pollution, which is currently a disgrace.
7. the loss of valuable countryside.

Representation ID: 1595

OBJECT Mr Scott Munton

Summary:

To much additional traffic will be generated through the villages from the creation of jobs of which most will not be filled from the local area as Lutterworth has virtually no unemployment. Additional lorries will also add to the traffic along with worsening the already unacceptable high levels of pollution. This expansion is all proposed on productive farmland which is unacceptable when we should be focusing on brown field sites or the use of existing vacant warehousing it should also be essential that permission should only be granted to rail led sites and not road led.

Representation ID: 1592

OBJECT Mr Scott Munton

Summary:

To much additional traffic will be generated through the villages from the creation of jobs of which most will not be filled from the local area as Lutterworth has virtually no unemployment. Additional lorries will also add to the traffic along with worsening the already unacceptable high levels of pollution. This expansion is all proposed on productive farmland which is unacceptable when we should be focusing on brown field sites or the use of existing vacant warehousing it should also be essential that permission should only be granted to rail led sites and not road led.

Representation ID: 1584

SUPPORT mr Peter Mellalieu

Summary:

MH Homeowner.
There needs to be a proven case for enlargement before land is designated for distribution purposes. Furthermore, I am not convinced that enlargement will automatically mean additional employment numbers as technology advances will lead to more not less automated picking.

Representation ID: 1535

OBJECT Mrs Clare Robertson Smith

Summary:

Any expansion of Magna Park would be detrimental on so many levels, with increased light, noise, traffic and litter pollution which are already unacceptable.

Representation ID: 1518

OBJECT Dr Paul Dimmer

Summary:

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: 1502

OBJECT Mrs Karen Farnsworth

Summary:

We do not need any further Magna Park expansion.
Pressure to infrastructure of roads not suitable for increase volume.
Increase to traffic light noise air pollution.
What about DIRFT Crick keeping haulage off roads? Only 10mins from Magna Park.
Why not expand Leicester Forest East and East Midlands Parkway.
Take into account Warwickshire's developments of distribution parks around M6 10mins from Magna Park.

Representation ID: 1501

OBJECT Mrs Karen Farnsworth

Summary:

We do not need any further Magna Park expansion.
Pressure to infrastructure of roads not suitable for increase volume.
Increase to traffic light noise air pollution.
What about DIRFT Crick keeping haulage off roads? Only 10mins from Magna Park.
Why not expand Leicester Forest East and East Midlands Parkway.
Take into account Warwickshire's developments of distribution parks around M6 10mins from Magna Park.

Representation ID: 1493

OBJECT Mrs Kathryn Bonser

Summary:

Any expansion will massively increase traffic and road use. Roads around Magna Park are already congested and would not cope with even more. I am also worried about the environmental impact this will have.

Representation ID: 1446

OBJECT CLAYBROOKE PARVA Parish Council (Maurice C Howell)

Summary:

Object to Option A

Representation ID: 1346

OBJECT Dr ANGELA WINTER

Summary:

Lutterworth has minimal unemployment and Magna Park employees largely commute from areas such as Rugby..

There is already major congestion in the Magna Park area with several local accident blackspots. Further development will increase HGV traffic, increasing danger and pollution.

Expanding Magna Park sacrifices farmland and attractive walking country forever. There are other more suitable local locations such as the distribution centres near Rugby which are adjacent to rail transport and on brownfield sites.

There is also sufficient vacant warehousing in the area to meet current and future needs.

I do not see any need to expand Magna Park at all.

Representation ID: 1333

OBJECT Mr Neil Blackhall

Summary:

The extra jobs created are not required as Lutterworth has minimal unemployment.

There is little public transport to Magna Park, so employees will have to commute via the local villages, increasing traffic.

There will be a massive increase in the number of lorries, further congesting local roads and creating additional tailbacks at roundabouts/junctions, increasing pollution to unacceptably high levels.

These proposals are for warehousing on current farmland/green belt. Once this is lost it will be gone forever. There are other more suitable local locations on brownfield land.

There is also vacant warehousing in the area to meet current and future needs.

Representation ID: 1267

OBJECT Mrs June Whiting

Summary:

The developers are saying they are building for an emerging market, not for specific customers. there is currently vacant warehousing in the area to meet current and future needs.

Representation ID: 1180

OBJECT mr philip frost

Summary:

This option increases the footprint thus taking up farmland which once lost is gone for ever. What about future food production?

Representation ID: 1165

OBJECT Mr Lewis Freeman

Summary:

See answers to Q8

Representation ID: 1145

OBJECT Mrs SM Eales

Summary:

Enough noise , traffic and spoilt countryside from Magna Park without further expansion. No new jobs will be created as DHL recruit from out of area

Representation ID: 1126

OBJECT Mrs Janet Newman

Summary:

I object to any further expansion of warehousing in this area.
It is unnecessary as there is other plans elsewhere in close proximity which are more suitable.
Decisions on distribution should be made on a regional basis not just locally.

These proposals will use productive farm land and an area which has been enhanced for wild life and should remain so.

There would be a massive increase in traffic, diesel vehicles and hence increasing air pollution.
New sites should be near motorways.
Road infrastructure is not adequate.

Speculative building should not be permitted, and need should be assessed regionally.

Representation ID: 1125

OBJECT Mrs Janet Newman

Summary:

I object because of the inevitable massive increase in traffic, many of which will be diesel vehicles, cars and HGV's. The area already has unacceptable levels of air pollution.
The land which would be used is productive farm land and should not be sacrificed for Warehousing.
Current plans will bring this expanded site TOO close to nearby villages,and Lutterworth.
New developments of this type should be near Motorways or preferably use rail.
Looking in the wider vicinity there are plans for other developments and a regional approach assessingg need should be used to fill fill need.

Representation ID: 1122

OBJECT Mr Ian Duffield

Summary:

I object because:
1. The area has practically no unemployment, thus those working on site would travel in causing congestion and even poorer air quality
2. Other more appropriate sites exist that would not have such a negitive impact such as DIRFT, M69/M1 at Leicester Forest East and East Midlands Airport.
The commercial growth plus possible additional house building would adversely affect the long term viability of Lutterworth as a town.

Representation ID: 1113

OBJECT J Bradley

Summary:

This the smaller of the Three options will only act as a key to unlock future development on the North side of Magna Park. The community does not need expansion of more warehousing in the area and the additional heavy goods vehicle traffic that it will produce. The creation of jobs from these type of developments should be sited in parts of the country where jobs are needed, Redcar for instance.

Representation ID: 1094

OBJECT Nicholas Jenkins

Summary:

Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic Distribution Sector Study (2014) might estimate an increased need to 2031 but doesn't state Lutterworth area. Area already oversupplied. Concentration would be too dense when combined with DIRFT & Rugby.
Roads already overloaded, pollution, noise, light
Loss of productive agricultural land.

Representation ID: 1075

OBJECT Kay Wilson

Summary:

I would object strongly to this proposal as it is a greenfield site and as such not appropriate for a development of this nature. Also the current road system, particularly the A5 cannot really support the amount of traffic that currently is generated. I am unconvinced that distribution centres contribute materially to local employment opportunities

Representation ID: 1058

OBJECT Mrs Kathleen Rowell

Summary:

I object because of I obvious massive increase in traffic HGV and cars, more congestion and air pollution.
No need for massive increase of employment in area as Lutterworth and surrounds has very low unemployment..
So also more employees traffic.
Land on farm land, unacceptable to encroach and get so close to nearby villages Ullesthorpe,Claybrookes and Wibtoft.
Road infrastructure even with proposed dialling and roundabouts etc would not cope.
Who will customers be? There are already large numbers of warehouses in close proximity.
New warehousing should be nearer to Motorways.

Representation ID: 997

OBJECT Mr Stephen Willcox

Summary:

Impact on infrastructure. Magna Park is already big enough

Representation ID: 889

OBJECT Susan Sharpe

Summary:

No infrastructure.
Too many lorries and vehicles.
Not enough parking
Increasing noise, light and air pollution which is already of great concern, and above EU limits in Lutterworth.

Representation ID: 883

SUPPORT The Claybrookes Parish Plan Group (Mr T Dawes)

Summary:

Development of land for strategic distribution to the South of Magna Park is preferable, as the land is nearer to the motorway junctions, bounded by dual carriageways on two sides for better access and has low impact on residential areas for access, traffic and pollution.

Representation ID: 878

OBJECT Mr Graham Ruff

Summary:

There is ample warehousing in other areas. and if more is needed any new developments should be sited close to major centres of population which have good public transport(which this site does not have) reducing private vehicle movements. There is relatively full employment in the immediate locality making this unnecessary for local jobs. This option (including present applications) will destroy farm land and add to already excess traffic,noise and light pollution in and around Lutterworth.My option would be for no further development in or around Magna Park.

Representation ID: 716

OBJECT TUR LANGTON Parish Council (Alison Gibson)

Summary:

Do not like this option

Representation ID: 561

OBJECT Mrs Jan Butcher

Summary:

The reasons for no further expansion to MP as set out in the Core Strategy stand and the evidence of need is highly debatable; therefore no change option must be pursued

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

Powered by OpusConsult