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 Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016) - Strategic Distribution Option B

Representation ID: 5289

COMMENT Anglian Water Services Ltd (Mr Stewart Patience)

Summary:

No further comment.

Representation ID: 5268

COMMENT Mr Michael Stanhope

Summary:

This proposed development is not adjacent to any motorways and relies on long stretches of already overcrowded single lane carriageway to reach the motorway network. The development will bring more traffic and more pollution to an area already suffering with the consequences of the Magna Park distribution centre.
If approved another vast tract of our precious Leicestershire countryside will disappear under concrete.

This scheme is detrimental to the quality of life of local residents and brings no benefits to the people Harborough District Council represent.

Representation ID: 5255

COMMENT Mr Graham Logan

Summary:

Now that Option has been approved, any approval of either Option B or C would mean exceeding Leicestershire quota of 107 hectares of warehousing as well as a further contravention of the existing approved Local Plan.
Until a new Local Plan has been officially approved the existing one should be used in determining these three Magna Park applications.
Our roads do not cope at present with all the traffic and approving this Option would substantially increase HGVs and commuter cars, meaning more congestion, RTAs and pollution.
I strongly urge HDC to reject this Option and respect the views of those living here.

Representation ID: 5252

COMMENT Mr Graham Logan

Summary:

As Option A has already been approved by HDC despite over 900 written objections.
Any further expansion would exceed the county's quota of 107 hectares and contravene the council's latest (approved) Local Plan.
Building 23 metre high warehouses on farmland is definitely not wanted by those living near Magna Park.
Please do not disregard our views.
Why not build new warehouses nearer to those who would value the new jobs?
Magna Park has no railhead so building warehouses here does not fulfil national government's policy.
These plans would generate >£15M a year in business rates - is it all about the money?

Representation ID: 5241

COMMENT Mr Brian Fowler

Summary:

I would draw attention to the fact that Option A added to Option B would exceed the earlier stated application of 107 hectares and would thus be a further vacuum in labour which would draw even more traffic to the area on overfull roads.

Representation ID: 5230

COMMENT Ashby Parva Parish Meeting (Mr Tim Ottevanger)

Summary:

In providing 34% of the suggested 107 ha. of land for warehousing, by approving 15/0091, Harborough provides more than its share. The 107 ha. don't all have to be in the Magna Park area. Since 'option' A is now a fait accompli, option B would, by adding 88.65 ha. to the 37 approved bring the total to over 125 ha., substantially exceeding the county-wide target.

Option B forcasts almost 3500 employees. Option A forecast around 1200. Harborough does not need anything remotely near that number of jobs, which should be located where there need is

Representation ID: 5213

COMMENT Suzanne Hayto

Summary:

If this option goes ahead, together with option A, it will provide more hectares of land than is required in Leicestershire. This area does not need the employment, more traffic congestion, additional pollution etc etc, We are at capacity already! The warehousing should be put where jobs are actually needed.

Representation ID: 5211

COMMENT Miss Alison Bent

Summary:

If Option A goes ahead then A + B would provide in excess of the 107 hectares needed by 18 hectares. It will create a need for labour that does not exist within the area, bringing huge problems with traffic, road safety, pollution etc as well as causing problems for existing employers recruiting in the local labour market. Additionally, there have been planning applications approved at East Midlands Gateway, Ibstock, Rugby Gateway, which will more than fulfill the need for the additional hectares.

Representation ID: 5186

COMMENT Mrs Shiela Carlton

Summary:

No

Representation ID: 5161

COMMENT Ian Lewis

Summary:

A + B would provide in excess of the 107 hectares needed by 18 hectares. It will create a need for labour that does not exist within the area, bringing huge problems with traffic, road safety, pollution etc as well as causing problems for existing employers recruiting in the local labour market. Additionally, there have been planning applications approved at East Midlands Gateway, Ibstock, Rugby Gateway, which will more than fulfill the need for the additional hectares.

Representation ID: 5152

COMMENT Mrs Kathleen Rowell

Summary:

As Option A has been given permission, if this is given permission it will create jobs that are not needed in this area which in turn will bring huge amounts of extra traffic, air and light pollution. The number of HGV's and inherent problems will become much greater and add to the misery of local people who do not want this
Expansion. The identified need is and can be met elsewhere in the region, East Midlands gateway, Ibstock, Rugby gateway as well as further afield

Representation ID: 5137

COMMENT LUTTERWORTH TOWN COUNCIL Parish Council (Andrew Ellis)

Summary:

Lutterworth Town Council wishes to repeat its previous objections in relation to these options that do not appear to have been addressed to date.

Representation ID: 5129

COMMENT mrs vera mcbay

Summary:

No account account taken of huge traffic loads on country village roads, lay byes already full with parked up lorries and the litter they leave behind

Representation ID: 5126

COMMENT Mr Gerard Williams

Summary:

With option A already having obtained planning permission for 37 hectares additional development would provide over supply of warehousing for the region. This will cause a concentration of warehousing where it is not needed, not wanted by local residents and does not fulfill central governments policy of having such developments on a rail hub. The employment opportunities generated will better suit development in an area with unemployment to meet that labour need.
I strongly urge the planning committee to reject this development and protect our community and environment from the further advance of this superfluous facility.

Representation ID: 5104

COMMENT BROUGHTON ASTLEY Parish Council (Debbie Barber)

Summary:

Broughton Astley Parish Council would not like to amend any previous comments, subject to ratification by the Parish Council, at the meeting to be held on Thursday 17 March 2016.

Representation ID: 5100

COMMENT MR Michael Wilcox

Summary:

This is the best of the worse by not expanding Magna Park but contribution to employment with a minimum impact on traffic through villages

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

Powered by OpusConsult