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 C

Representation ID: 4779

COMMENT dbsymmetry represented by Framptons (Peter Frampton)

Summary:

There are fundamental heritage constraints and concerns with Option C due to the impact on the setting of the Bittesby Deserted Medieval Village, a scheduled ancient monument and other non-designated heritage assets (Bittesby House and Bittesby Cottages.)

Representation ID: 4673

OBJECT Cllr Rosita Page

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 3954

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: 3798

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: 3787

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: 3767

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: 3757

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: 3756

OBJECT Mrs Gweneth Thorp

Summary:

Air pollution is already in contravention of E.U. directives.
Excessive road traffic already.
Excessive light pollution already, causes environmental changes that are totally unacceptable.
environmental imbalance in this rural area.
Road damage by industrial traffic.
Full employment in this area already.

Representation ID: 3740

OBJECT Miss naomi Tunstall

Summary:

we do not need to destroy the surrounding fields for a country park,there is no need to expand magna park making it bigger then it already is ,

Representation ID: 3730

OBJECT Miss Ruth Thompson

Summary:

object

Representation ID: 3708

OBJECT Mr Simon Smith

Summary:

object

Representation ID: 3701

OBJECT Mrs Anne Rowlands

Summary:

There will be a massive 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 supporting animals and birds, with public access (i.e. already a "Country Park"), 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.

Representation ID: 3693

OBJECT Miss Claire Worthington

Summary:

I object to this development as the local infrastructure already struggles to cope with the current level of traffic. There will also be an unacceptable rise in illusion (air, noise and light), alongside the unacceptable destruction of local countryside and nature. In addition, this development would no doubt destroy local heritage sites such as Bittesby Village.

There are other local developments already in place (Rugby Junction 1, Leicester Forest East and East Midlsnds Airport), making this proposed expansion unnecessary.

Representation ID: 3682

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: 3670

OBJECT Mr John Rowlands

Summary:

There will be a massive 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 supporting animals and birds, with public access (i.e. already a "Country Park"), 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.

Representation ID: 3627

OBJECT Mrs Allison Askew

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: 3559

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: 3558

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: 3555

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: 3550

OBJECT Mr Roger Jones

Summary:

This is a totally disproportionate development on attractive countryside which is an important local amenity to surrounding villages, particularly Ullesthorpe, and of historic significance. The specific piece of land has been the subject of a countryside stewardship scheme, the public investment on which would consequently be totally wasted, whilst it would add nothing to the local communities apart from extra traffic on inadequate roads.

There is little doubt that this scheme, if granted, would in time be allowed to morph into yet more distribution sheds inappropritely placed amongst an inadequate road system.

Representation ID: 3521

OBJECT Mr Graham Logan

Summary:

Strongly object.
This is an outrageous plan that would destroy the rurality of this area forever!
Such a monstrous plan is too vast for a little district council to determine.
Also there must be a conflict of interest as HDC stands to receive millions in additional business rates at a time of severe funding cuts for the council.
The 3 plans represent a more than doubling of the size of Magna Park and this enormity of scale demands a call-in for the Secretary of State to make an impartial and independent adjudication and determination of all 3 plans. HDC should leave well alone!

Representation ID: 3519

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: 3509

OBJECT Mrs Christine Horsfall

Summary:

This is the worst proposal for this area. All the factors I have mentioned in objecting to the other options are relevant multiplied by the outrageous scale of this proposal. This is an area of rural Leicestershire with a medieval village and rich landscape and biodiversity. There is a small local workforce and a congested and dangerous A5 road accessing the site. (Ref road traffic accidents on A5 north of Magna Park)
The economic case for development has not been made convincingly, even less so the case for this location compared with sites adjacent to motorways and railways.

Representation ID: 3362

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

Summary:

E village voted unanimously against expansion of distribution land in our area as the a5 ,bisects our hamlet and is an unsafe junction with speeding cars and lorries causing noise accidents and abuse as we try to gain access as they speed through, as well as the environment intensifying through employees journeys and hgv and other servicing traffic to the increased activity

Representation ID: 3315

OBJECT Miss Megan Tunstall

Summary:

To demolish the beautiful countryside which is home to a vast variety of birds, and other animals and construct a fake country park is so ironic. As we live in the Heart of Rural England, we should be working together to protect and admire the wildlife not ripping apart the fields to insert more warehouses. The Golden triangle will become a black, toxic mess if this continues, scaring away wildlife not attracting it, No body would be interested in walking between humongous and intimidating concrete buildings, people want a nice, relaxing country walk. Our eco system will be destroyed.

Representation ID: 3314

OBJECT Mrs Rachael Edgley

Summary:

There is no need for any more Magna Parks on our doorstep. the Footprint should stay as it already is. Please see additional comments that are in Option A

recommendation would be on the M1 Junction where there is already infrastructure there and it is not impacting on the local road networks and environmental pollution of Lutterworth.

Representation ID: 3291

OBJECT MR Michael Wilcox

Summary:

Strongly object to this massive intrusion into countryside which is not needed and only establishes IDI gazeley having a monopoly of logistics in the area

Representation ID: 3156

OBJECT Melissa Gillbee

Summary:

so significantly large, will result in Lutterworth being an industrial area - not good strategic thinking.

Representation ID: 3143

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: 3131

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: 3124

OBJECT CLAYBROOKE MAGNA Parish Council (Nick Reseigh)

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: 3111

OBJECT Mrs Alison Hull

Summary:

There are already still empty distribution units in magna park and surrounding distribution hubs. Further heavy goods traffic and the cars of individuals having to drive to their workplace will add to pollution and is not necessary as this is not an area for low employment.

Representation ID: 3063

OBJECT Mrs Emma Dakin

Summary:

I disagree with any expansion of Magna Park .Two of my sons have worked there, and both have been treated with injustice , and employment laws were breached. Many others in the community have had similar experiences, so this activity should not be promoted.

Representation ID: 3045

OBJECT Mr Kenneth Tunstall

Summary:

Anyone who worked in magna park would know that any new jobs would be taken by overseas workers, Lutterworth and surrounding area has a low level of unemployment so your statement is null and void. I live in Ullesthorpe and the amount of HGVs trying to get through is increasing daily, there is an infants school here. This is disaster in the making. Mere Lane is also another route into Magan park and that is also becoming a nightmare. DO NOT APPROVE THIS APPLICATION. ON YOUR HEADS BE IT!!!!

Representation ID: 3043

OBJECT Beth Kerslake

Summary:

The local infrastructure cannot cope as it is! Why would you want people to travel to work, sorry, queue to get to work, in Lutterworth, when there are larger areas of unemployment who could access logistic sites far easier than Lutterworth?
Farmland, reducing not increasing pollution and local community are more important. Lutterworth has employment sorted thank you.

Representation ID: 2991

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: 2948

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: 2939

OBJECT Mrs Martine Blackburn

Summary:

My reasons for objecting to this proposal are:
Safety ithe A5 and Wibtoft are notorious for accidents.
Increased traffic in this area, adding to congestion and pollution, (air, noise and light). Also damage to buildings and places of historical interest.. Lutterworth has the highest recorded concentration of emissions in Leicestershire (HDC 2014).
Being the centre of Roman England, it has and of interest to many historians. Also the medieval village at Bittesby would be obliterated. Additionally, the ecology and wild life in the area would be adversely affected forever.

Representation ID: 2924

OBJECT Dr anthony kenton

Summary:

This is an outrageous 'option': the size of Magna Park will cause significant damage to local wildlife and intrude onto greenfield site. Little local infrastructure to support such a huge expansion.
The need for this expansion is really not clear-there is very little unemployment in Lutterworth. The increase in lorries and commuters will create massive traffic problems and pollution as well as noise pollution.
I strongly object to this proposal and indeed to all 3 options to expand Magna Park.

Representation ID: 2923

OBJECT Mr Neil 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: 2839

OBJECT Edmund Hunt

Summary:

such significant expansion. demands input from secretary of state given national significance.
You have not provided a fourth option: NO development, or been fair and included other alternatives that are not already applications.

Representation ID: 2817

OBJECT Mr A Adcock

Summary:

Such a significant expansion that it demands a call-in from the the Secretary of State to make a "multi district" decision, not for one isolated district council.

Representation ID: 2770

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: 2760

OBJECT Joan Tapping

Summary:

Definitely the worst of the three unacceptable options.
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: 2584

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: 2568

OBJECT Mrs Clare Robinson

Summary:

I feel that Magna Park is big enough. The vast increase in traffic including HGV's, would cause considerable problems on local roads, and an increase in pollution. There would be the loss of a large area of productive farmland and wildlife habitat. Footpaths and bridleways used by many people in the local area would also be lost.

Representation ID: 2500

OBJECT Mrs Shiela Carlton

Summary:

As comments above

Representation ID: 2495

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: 2492

OBJECT Mr Alan Pankhurst

Summary:

Same grounds as for A&B: 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 and Cotesbach will become industrial areas rather than rural villages which is why most of us moved here.

Representation ID: 2458

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: 2452

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: 2308

OBJECT Mr Bernard Merrick

Summary:

This is an outrageous proposal from developers and would be a complete disaster for the locality. It is speculative to enable the developer to be in a position to take advantage of a yet unestablished market which may never manifest itself. In the meantime a dark cloud of blight hangs over the locality. It exceeds the under supply of road led land sites by a factor of 3 when taken in context and sucks up the potential for other sites in better locations. Why do we have to believe Magna Park is the only suitable location, what about rail?

Representation ID: 2297

SUPPORT Dr Jon Davies

Summary:

Balancing development with maintaining some open space (via country park) is more suited to the overall character of the District.

Representation ID: 2263

OBJECT Mrs Lynn Stringer

Summary:

I strongly object. This is almost beyond comprehension. A distribution park possibly three times the size of the neighbouring town, bringing what benefits that could outweigh the overall impact on individuals and the community? Who says Magna Park or Leicestershire has to provide speculative consents for a market that may not emerge or shift and does not conform the the preferred form of modal transport. The massive loss of open countryside and the untold injurious affection on the amenity and quality if life and environment in general. ?? the duty to cooperate and adjoining counties.

Representation ID: 1973

OBJECT MRS JANE FAIRCLIFFE

Summary:

magna park is large enough

Representation ID: 1697

COMMENT mrs anne thomasson

Summary:

We need a fourth option

NO FURTHER EXPANSION AT MAGNA PARK OR CLOSE BY

Representation ID: 1690

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: 1666

OBJECT Mr Malcolm Stringer

Summary:

This would be vastly in excess of the predicated need for road led sites and playing into the hands of speculative development. It will merely provide a land bank of cheap land and at the same time blight the whole area, profoundly affecting communities and individuals with no recourse for the adverse effects. There are sites adjoining motorway junctions which would be much more suitable. There is no local need for the jobs created and would further excerbate the problems of incommuting, commercial traffic , pollution, continuing loss of countryside and generally intrude on the overall quality of life.

Representation ID: 1598

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: 1594

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: 1537

OBJECT Mrs Clare Robertson Smith

Summary:

Option C is unthinkable. This is farmland that would be lost forever. The demand for so much more warehousing has not been proven. The A5 is not fit for purpose and all pollution levels would be intolerable. There must be brownfield land in closer proximity to rail head facilities and motorway junctions.

Representation ID: 1517

OBJECT Dr Paul Dimmer

Summary:

Definitely the worst of the three unacceptable options.
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: 1495

OBJECT Mrs Kathryn Bonser

Summary:

As the proposed warehouses are being built for 'future markets' they will be empty and could remain empty. There is no need for these warehouses. Other land nearer motorway junctions and towns with higher unemployment would benefit from these.

Representation ID: 1454

OBJECT Miss Clare Stringer

Summary:

This is a massive intrusion into the open countryside for a speculative commercial development, for which there is no proven need.

With the current standing of empty warehousing at the already existing Magna Park, I feel that a need for continued development is incorrect.

The study indicated that 107 ha of non rail lead land was required, yet the plan stands to include a total of 220 ha, thus already showing that your plans are unnecessary.

This massive oversupply for speculative development would blight the whole locality in terms of amenity, traffic, wildlife, pollution, fumes, light and specific individuals.

I STRONGLY object.

Representation ID: 1448

OBJECT CLAYBROOKE PARVA Parish Council (Maurice C Howell)

Summary:

Object to Option C

Representation ID: 1348

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: 1335

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: 1269

OBJECT Mrs June Whiting

Summary:

Lutterworth and area has virtually no unemployment so the employees would be drawn from a wide area and have to travel by car as there is little or no public transport to Magna Park.. The local villages and Lutterworth would be used as rat runs and rural life blighted.
The current farmland would be lost and gone forever.

Representation ID: 1188

OBJECT mr philip frost

Summary:

Since there is low unemployment in the Lutterworth area this proposed development would be totally dependent on importing labour from all points of the compass having a major impact on already conjested roads particularly at peak periods coupled with a substantial increase in lorry movements. This will lead to an unacceptable level of pollution.

Representation ID: 1149

OBJECT Mrs SM Eales

Summary:

No more units please

Representation ID: 1128

OBJECT Mrs Janet Newman

Summary:

No expansion of Magna Park is acceptable, job creation should be more imaginative, the area has little unemployment and these plans would only provide low paid employment, not providing good opportunities for young people who are well educated and do not wish to do this type of work. The area should seek to provide a good mixed range of employment.

No expansion is acceptable whatever,

Representation ID: 1124

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: 1115

OBJECT J Bradley

Summary:

The local community does not need expansion of more warehousing in the area, this will only add to more congestion & existing housing pressures & community services. In order to maintain a vibrant sustainable place to live and work the local community should NOT be subject to a concentration of warehouse development. The core plan should have an option to maintain the status quo,and represent community wishes. 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: 1100

OBJECT Nicholas Jenkins

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. Speculative application should not be considered, in effect becoming a 'land bank'. Infrastructure can't cope at moment. Visually unacceptable & very close to small communities. All 3 options are way beyond need. Any proven need should be close/at rail heads, on brown field sites in order to lessen road traffic & pollution of which Lutterworth is highly polluted already

Representation ID: 1073

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, let alone an increase of this magnitude.
Also the amount of light pollution currently generated is not really acceptable for the local villages and would only be made worse

Representation ID: 1060

OBJECT Mrs Kathleen Rowell

Summary:

I strongly object to any further expansion of Magna Park,
Does this area need the largest development in the world on farm land with an ancient settlement within the area and in an area where large sums of tax payers money has been used to enhance wild life environment.
New developments should be nearer Motorways to reduce impact on environment and reduce negative impacts.
Once this area has been swallowed up it is too late..
No option proposed is acceptable.

Representation ID: 999

OBJECT Mr Stephen Willcox

Summary:

Impact on infrastructure. Magna Park is already big enough

Representation ID: 891

OBJECT Susan Sharpe

Summary:

As in previous objections to options A& B

Representation ID: 880

OBJECT Mr Graham Ruff

Summary:

See objection to Options A and B
Preferred Hybrid Option for No further developments in or around Magna Park

Representation ID: 718

OBJECT TUR LANGTON Parish Council (Alison Gibson)

Summary:

Do not like this option

Representation ID: 695

OBJECT Mrs Joy Burgoine

Summary:

This is an application, not submitted yet, but will practically double the size of Magna Park and will have a devastating impact on Ullesthorpe, Bittleswell and the Claybrookes. The extra traffic is one of my biggest concerns and I can foresee our area being gridlocked on a daily basis, making commuting impossible.

Representation ID: 617

OBJECT Mrs Jan Butcher

Summary:

the evidence of need for expansion of MP is debatable. the reasons for no further expansion as set out in Core Strategy remain valid. the no change option must be explored

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

Powered by OpusConsult