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 A

Representation ID: 5335

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

Summary:

Operational area of Option A is 22ha (as per planning application) not 37ha.
Site is for DHL and does not allow for further expansion of Magna Park, no rationale for adding land or treating site as an option (has planning consent)
Site does not account for 40% of need (even if 107ha were a precise figure)
Site accords 'completely' (not broadly adheres) to SDSS recommended site selection approach & criteria


There is no basis for associating Option A with a local only need. The DHL supply chain operation draws on demand that could be met anywhere in the Golden Triangle.

Representation ID: 5331

COMMENT Environment Agency (Mr Nick Wakefield)

Summary:

Foul sewerage generated by development will need to be accommodated, if via the existing on-site sewerage treatment plant then provision for the extra flow may be required. An application will need to be made under the Environmental Permitting Regulations to increase the flow discharging to the watercourse.

Representation ID: 5329

COMMENT Environment Agency (Mr Nick Wakefield)

Summary:

The existing on-site seweage treatment plant would likely need to make provision for extra flow generated by the development of the site.

Representation ID: 5323

COMMENT Historic England (Mrs Emilie Carr)

Summary:

Some harm to the significance of the scheduled ancient monument (Bittesby Medival Village) will likely result from Option A, in terms of additional intrusion into its setting particuarly in views from the north end of the medieval village looking east. Although this will be to an extent mitigated by the reinforcement of historic boundary planting.

Whilst impacts are not in our view likely to be great, from Option A, they should still be weighed by your authority against public benefits.

You should also ensure sufficent understanding of the extent and potential nature of any impacts upon water supply and flow characteristics to Claybrook Mill (a Grade II listed building).

With regard to comparative and cumulative impacts between schemes (options)adjacent to Magna Park we refer you to the outcome of this consultation and your strategic consideration of options for expansion.

Representation ID: 5319

COMMENT Mr W Carlton

Summary:

Option A at 37 hectares is now permitted development (15/00919) thus pre-empting the Local Plan consultation process.

Representation ID: 5309

COMMENT Ms Kerry-Anne Browne

Summary:

I unequivocally object entirely to any further development and/or expansion to Magna Park.

Representation ID: 5307

COMMENT Mrs June Whiting

Summary:

Option A will undoubtedly have a devastating affect on our local environment because of the nature of the warehouse and its service needs.

Representation ID: 5295

COMMENT Daventry District Council (Mr Joseph Qureshi)

Summary:

It is considered that Options A and B are the most appropriate

Representation ID: 5291

COMMENT Anglian Water Services Ltd (Mr Stewart Patience)

Summary:

No further comment.

Representation ID: 5276

COMMENT Mr Hugh Robertson Smith

Summary:

Apparently approved by HDC but before the Local Plan had been approved. How does that work?
Notwithstanding, if HDC approved this for fear of legal and financial repercussions from Gazeley, banking on the SoS calling it in then HDC guessed wrongly. There will be repercussions now for HDC.

Representation ID: 5272

COMMENT Mrs Clare Robertson Smith

Summary:

Why is Option A still under discussion if IDI Gazeley have already been granted planning permission? Perhaps the Council should have made their Local Plan decisions before hearing the application.

Representation ID: 5267

COMMENT Mr A Adcock

Summary:

This option should not be included given it is already consented, and option C includes the allocation for this land.

Representation ID: 5257

COMMENT Mr Graham Logan

Summary:

MAGNA PARK IS BIG ENOUGH

Thousands of local people are entirely convinced of this.
Please read their written objections and material considerations to all Options.
Road fatalities in Leicestershire are the 6th worst in the country.
Our roads do not cope with existing traffic volumes.
Air quality is some of the worst in the region.
HGVs travel on small local roads, contravening the unenforced restrictions.
Build new warehouses nearer to the people who would take up and value these new jobs. Unemployment is less than 0.5% in the local area, meaning staff would have to inward commute over lengthy distances = more congestion and pollution!

Representation ID: 5247

COMMENT Mrs Anne Rowlands

Summary:

Has Option A already been given planning approval? If so, why is it included in the current consultation? Option A provides 37 hectares of the 107 hectares stated as needed; the remaining area should be found in other areas of Leicestershire.

Representation ID: 5234

COMMENT Simon Silvester

Summary:

This has already been given permission, so why is it included in the consultation? This means we have already provided 37 hectares of the total 107 needed. Perhaps the rest could be found elsewhere in the county/region.

Representation ID: 5225

COMMENT Mrs Helen Farquharson

Summary:

This option has already been given consent so it seem strange to be asking us whether we want it included in the Local Plan. Given a choice I would not want this Option in Local Plan.

Representation ID: 5220

COMMENT Mr John Rowlands

Summary:

Has Option A already been approved? Can approval be rescinded? If already approved, why is it included in the current consultation which considers its positive and negative effects? Decisions made on any planning applications before the new Local Plan has been agreed should have followed the existing HDC Local Plan and Core Strategy, in which case Option A should have been rejected as the current Core Strategy states that there should be no expansion of Magna Park.
Option A provides 37 hectares of the 107 stated as needed; the rest should be found elsewhere, in areas where jobs are needed.

Representation ID: 5217

COMMENT Ms Kerry-Anne Browne

Summary:

Option A: this has already been given permission, so why is it included in the consultation? This means we have already provided 37 hectares of the total 107 needed. Perhaps the rest could be found elsewhere in the county/region.

Representation ID: 5210

COMMENT Miss Alison Bent

Summary:

This has already been given permission (despite opposition from everyone living in the area), so why is it included in the consultation? Perhaps the rest could be found elsewhere in the county/region or in areas where unemployment is high.

Representation ID: 5201

COMMENT Mr Neil Ridley

Summary:

this has already been given permission, so why is it included in the consultation? This means we have already provided 37 hectares of the total 107 needed. The rest should be be found elsewhere in the county/region. No account of the 780 acre site at Burbage has been made.

Representation ID: 5197

COMMENT Mrs Helen Heath

Summary:

Why is Option A included here when it already has permission? With its 37 hectares this area has supplied a substantial part of the identified total. What have other areas provided?

Representation ID: 5193

COMMENT Mr Tony Farquharson

Summary:

This option has already been agreed so not sure why it is being consulted on. However if only 107 hectares if required in the whole of Leicestershire this warehouse option could be placed nearer to areas of unemployment.

Representation ID: 5188

COMMENT Mrs Shiela Carlton

Summary:

This option matches Gazeley's planning application 15/00919 already approved, therefore pre=empting' the Local Plan preparation

Representation ID: 5180

COMMENT SHAWELL Parish Meeting (Mr Frank Fisher)

Summary:

This appears to be a done deal in contravention to the approved current core strategy that ruled out further expansion at Magna Park.
Harborough District has no requirement for additional low wage employment. This will significantly increase unsustainable commuting from distant conurbations.

Representation ID: 5177

COMMENT Mrs Maggie Pankhurst

Summary:

It is unclear why this option is included as 15/00919/FUL has been consented. However if there is a choice about whether this is included in the Local Plan I would not want it included as it will cause considerable problems locally with little perceived benefit to the local community. As the SoS has said this is a local matter then I think we need to think locally when making the decision.

Representation ID: 5173

COMMENT Mr Alan Pankhurst

Summary:

Option A has already received planning consent. Why is it included in this consultation? Does this mean that it the planning consent can be overturned. If not then does it mean that we have already provided our share of the 107 hectares needed in the county. I would not want this Option included in the Local Plan if this option were truly available.

Representation ID: 5170

COMMENT Mr Alan Pankhurst

Summary:

Is this an admission that the 15/00919/FUL should not have been consented as it is not in the Core Strategy? This feels like retrospective planning which in this case is not leading to good/appropriate planning decisions. If this option had not already been consented I would not wish it to be included in the new Local Plan as it will bring little or no benefit to the local area but will bring many difficulties re traffic, loss of countryside, too much competition for labour driving existing businesses of Lutterworth.

Representation ID: 5167

COMMENT Mr Alan Pankhurst

Summary:

This question seems to ask for retrospective approval for Option A as part of the Local Plan so that HDC can justify giving planning permission for this option on 28th January. I do not approve of this being included in the new local Plan and would like the new plan to state no more expansion of Magna Park as per the current Core Strategy.

Representation ID: 5166

COMMENT Ian Lewis

Summary:

The appraisal overstates the benefits that would arise from the creation of jobs. There is little need for jobs in the local area (unemployment is low bringing in jobs increases and competition for labour locally plus the disadvantages of the development because of the increase in traffic, pollution. The country park would be smaller than the open land, network of walks/bridleways and wildlife habitat that currently exists. Add to this the fact that the country park would be alongside huge warehouses, it seems that there will be a negative impact from providing a country park.

Representation ID: 5142

COMMENT Susan Jukes

Summary:

Points apply to all three options. Summarised as follows - see attachment.
1. The Local Plan as currently drafted does not provide a framework against which to evaluate future planning applications. It seems to be more of a reaction to an agenda set by commercial developers: Gazeley/DB Symmetry 'tail' wagging the Harborough 'dog'.

2. Strategic consideration should be given to the cumulative impact of all potential developments on the A5 corridor, including those beyond Leicestershire. This is not being taken into consideration.

3. Environmental impact seems to have been downplayed, and undue emphasis placed on the mitigating effects of a country park.

Representation ID: 5139

COMMENT LUTTERWORTH TOWN COUNCIL Parish Council (Andrew Ellis)

Summary:

There is reference on page 16: Communities that development would improve job opportunities and access to employment within Harborough, in particular Lutterworth. The unemployment rate in Lutterworth is however less than 0.5 per cent and less than 6% of employees are drawn from the population of Lutterworth according to statistics recently provided by IDI Gazeley Ltd.
There are contradictory references to accessibility contained within the report. Lutterworth Town Council does not agree that transport is considered 'reasonable' as it is currently too infrequent and indirect.
Lutterworth's existing status as an Air Quality Management Area is seemingly ignored throughout the report.

Representation ID: 5133

COMMENT Dr Paul Dimmer

Summary:

I find it odd that the public are asked to comment on an option that has already been approved. Does this mean it can be overturned? The Local Plan should have been determined before any planning permission was granted as it may have led to a different outcome.

Representation ID: 5122

COMMENT mr rory mcallister

Summary:

This has already been given permission, so why is it included in the consultation? This means we have already provided 37 hectares of the total 107 needed. Perhaps the rest could be found elsewhere in the county/region

Representation ID: 5116

COMMENT Mrs Jaqueline Strong

Summary:

As I understand it this planning permission has already been given. Why is it included i this new consultation?
Magna Park is Big Enough. Local residents already suffer from traffic pollution, traffic, congestion, traffic hazards (try crossing the A426 near Cotesbach on a working day!).
Air pollution in Lutterworth is amongst the worst in the country.
HGV use country roads rather than motorways and dual carriageways and there is no policing of this.

Representation ID: 5111

COMMENT Mr David Chapman

Summary:

This has already been given permission, so why is it included in the consultation? This means we have already provided 37 hectares of the total 107 needed. Perhaps the rest could be found elsewhere in the county/region.

Representation ID: 5106

COMMENT BROUGHTON ASTLEY Parish Council (Debbie Barber)

Summary:

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

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

Powered by OpusConsult