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: 5336

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

Summary:

* Option B, a new development to the south of Magna Park, is not an extension to an existing site.

* Site does not adhere to SDSS advice on site selection. Not an extension to an existing site (only in proximity to), and does not make use of Magna Park's existing infrastructure or management.

Representation ID: 5332

COMMENT Environment Agency (Mr Nick Wakefield)

Summary:

According to Environment Agency maps land in the south-eastern corner (Option B site) lies within Flood Zone 3. The extent of Flood Zone is limited to the channel of the watercourse at that location, where development is unlikely. Notwithstanding this the LPA should be satisfied that the site is sequentially preferable from a flooding perspective.
No in-principle objection to the development (of Option A), subject to appropriate mitigation measures. However, preferred option for any detailed proposal would be for the watercourse to be retained to convey only existing fluvial flows and that a separate surface water drainage SuDs system is provided to manage surface water run-off from the site. Guidance is provided to ensure no increase in flood risk, or deterioration of the existing waterbody as a result of development and to improve and protect water quality, habitat and amenity.
Development that encroaches on the Padge Hall Brook has a potentially severe impact on ecological value. Opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged.

Representation ID: 5324

COMMENT Historic England (Mrs Emilie Carr)

Summary:

We draw your authority's attention to the importance of the detailed advice of the County Council Development Control Archaeologists in respect of sufficient information to make a safe and evidence based determination.

Additional information should be such that a sufficient understanding of the archaeological potential of the site and the context of historic finds in the vicinity of the site can be properly understood.

Your authority should also ensure that the applicant's assertions (re.Option B) as to lack of indivisibility between the listed buildings in Cotesbach and the site have been properly evidenced and tested to your authority's satisfaction such that Special Regard can be afforded by you in line with the 1990 Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act.

Representation ID: 5320

COMMENT Mr W Carlton

Summary:

Any further expansion, whether by option B at 88 h. and/or option C at 232 h. will far exceed any estimates of need identified for the whole County.

Representation ID: 5310

COMMENT Ms Kerry-Anne Browne

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 5296

COMMENT Daventry District Council (Mr Joseph Qureshi)

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 5292

COMMENT Anglian Water Services Ltd (Mr Stewart Patience)

Summary:

No further comment.

Representation ID: 5282

COMMENT Mrs Donna Hunt

Summary:

The density and impact of this option has been underestimated. In terms of floorspace per hectare it is almost twice as dense as option C, yet this is not mentioned in the report. It is overall very similar in positive and negative impact to option C if you exclude option A, as should be done as it is already consented! Only assess what is additional!

Representation ID: 5278

COMMENT Mr Hugh Robertson Smith

Summary:

Local Plan not yet approved.

Cannot be considered without taking into account the impact of all three Proposals

Total identified demand for such development in the entire county is said to be 103 hectares. Does anyone imagine that this has to be all in one of the furthest reaches of HDC alone.

Representation ID: 5277

COMMENT Melissa Gillbee

Summary:

Total warehousing allocation for option B is little different for the additional warehousing allocation of Option C minus the consented Option A, yet report suggests Option B negative impacts are much less significant than option C...this can't be right!

Representation ID: 5273

COMMENT Mrs Clare Robertson Smith

Summary:

This option far exceeds the distribution requirements for the whole county and should not be considered.

Representation ID: 5270

COMMENT Mr A Adcock

Summary:

- Sensitivity receptors assessed in report for Option B appear to be wrong under Health and Wellbeing. See attachment under Q1 for more information.

- Cotesbach continues to be underrepresented and our public footpaths further impacted by option B

- Report makes no reference to the variation in potential warehouse layouts in option B, as one layout includes a 100,000sq m warehouse which, according to the application and visual assessments, apply much greater impact on Cotesbach and surrounding areas that the alternative layout(s).

Representation ID: 5263

COMMENT Edmund Hunt

Summary:

1) No reference to woodbrig farm air pollution issues made in report, although highlighted in 15/00919/FUL planning officer report.

2) In total, Option B Is little different from total warehousing allocation of option C minus consented option A (see previous comments).

3) Report has underestimated the impact on heritage features - Cotesbach contains a number of grade II listed buildings and application does consider impact on Cotesbach to be significant. The report underplays this.

Representation ID: 5259

COMMENT Mr Graham Logan

Summary:

MAGNA PARK IS BIG ENOUGH

Option A has already been approved despite 900 written objections contains material planning considerations.

Option B would have a detrimental impact on a valued and highly skilled local employer, Semelab.

This plan is for a more densely populated warehouse centre than Option C.

Unemployment in this area is extremely low (0.5%). Build nearer those who would value these new jobs.

Local roads don't cope with current traffic volumes.

Option A + B would exceed Leicestershire's quota of 107 hectares of warehousing and contravene HDC's existing and properly approved Local Plan.

Leicestershire has the 6th worst record for road deaths in England!

Representation ID: 5248

COMMENT Mrs Anne Rowlands

Summary:

Option B together with Option A would provide a total 125 hectares, which is greater than the 107 hectares requirement shown in the consultation document. Option B would increase the existing HGV traffic congestion and air pollution problems, and would cause an increase in employee commuter traffic from outside the region, with no local benefit. Option B would have a negative effect on the landscape, as detailed in the consultation document. Alternative sites in other regions should be used instead of adding to the already massive Magna Park.

Representation ID: 5244

COMMENT Mr Colin Hancock

Summary:

All 3 applications would take 357 hectares of land, well above the requirement for the area. The approval of the DHL warehouse will provide 107 hectares of land. Perhaps it would be more logical to provide the remaining requirement elsewhere
in the region where unemployment is higher. Approval of similar applications at East Mids Gateway, Ibstock and Rugby Gateway will 232 hectares of capacity.....well above the requirement for Leicestershire.

Representation ID: 5235

COMMENT Simon Silvester

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 fulfil the need for the
additional hectares.

Representation ID: 5226

COMMENT Mrs Helen Farquharson

Summary:

Given that 107 hectares are needed for non-rail warehousing in Leicestershire having agreed to Option A there is no need to include Option B as this can be provided elsewhere in the county - perhaps nearer to areas of unemployment. If Options A and B are accepted this will result in an over provision of land for warehousing. Therefore this option should not be included in the Local Plan.

Representation ID: 5221

COMMENT Mr John Rowlands

Summary:

If Option A has been approved, then approval of Option B would provide a total 125 hectares, well in excess of the 107 hectares stated as needed. Option B would increase HGV traffic congestion that is already a serious problem, together with increases in air pollution. Option B would create jobs that are not all needed locally, thereby increasing commuter traffic from outside the region. Option B would have a negative effect on the landscape, as stated in the consultation document. Alternative Strategic Distribution sites in other regions should be used instead of adding to the already massive Magna Park.

Representation ID: 5218

COMMENT Ms Kerry-Anne Browne

Summary:

Option B: 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: 5204

COMMENT Mrs Jan Butcher

Summary:

The report does not reflect the reality of the damage from the development. Damage to the environment, health and wellbeing of locals residents through negative effect on air quality and traffic levels and damage to rural character of the district. HDC should not continue to ignore local views. Jobs should be created where needed , not in an area of low unemployment.

Representation ID: 5202

COMMENT Mr Neil Ridley

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. No account of the 780 acre site at Burbage has been made.

Representation ID: 5198

COMMENT Mrs Helen Heath

Summary:

Options A and B total in excess of the 107 hectares needed by 18 hectares.
Labour would come from outside the area as the Lutterworth area is at ob saturation levels already. This would add to our traffic, road safety and pollution problems.
East Midlands Gateway, Ibstock and Rugby Gateway have all had planning applications approved which surely more than meets the required additional hectares of land.
We do not need Option B!

Representation ID: 5194

COMMENT Mr Tony Farquharson

Summary:

If this Option were adopted it would result in an over provision of space by 18 hectares (37 + 88 - 107). It is not the responsibility of HDC to provide the whole 107 hectares needed so this Option should be rejected because it will bring more disadvantages than benefits.

Representation ID: 5191

COMMENT Mrs Shiela Carlton

Summary:

Both this option and option C will overwhelm Lutterworth and surrounding villages, with a landscape of huge sheds surrounded by a road system inadquate to take the excessive volume of additional traffic. The combination of HGV and commuter traffic is in itself environmentally unsustainable development.

This is not responsible strategic planning by HDC. for the lomnger term.

Representation ID: 5189

COMMENT Mrs Shiela Carlton

Summary:

Thisoption is identical to DbSymmetry application 15/00865 and is thereifre in danger 0f 'driving' the LocalPlan

Representation ID: 5181

COMMENT SHAWELL Parish Meeting (Mr Frank Fisher)

Summary:

There is already ample warehouse/distribution capacity existing or under construction in this locality at DIRFT, East Midlands Gateway and Rugby Gateway.

Representation ID: 5178

COMMENT Mrs Maggie Pankhurst

Summary:

This option would provide 88 hectares in addition to the 37 hectares in Option A. This provides excess capacity of 18 hectares. The 107 hectares need to be provided in Leicestershire and so having agreed to the 37 hectares in Option A there is no further need for HDC to provide more warehousing space. Providing excess capacity is not good planning particularly when the warehousing is to be built on a greenfield site.

Representation ID: 5174

COMMENT Mr Alan Pankhurst

Summary:

Given that Option A has already been agreed then we do not need any more options for warehousing in the Magna Park area. Option B would lead to an over provision of 18 hectares even if no other part of the county were to provide land which I know they are doing - East Midlands Gateway etc.

Representation ID: 5171

COMMENT Mr Alan Pankhurst

Summary:

As Option A has been consented there is no further need for additional warehousing at Magna Park. In Leicestershire there is a need for 107 hectares of warehousing, Option A provides 37 hectares and the remainder can be found elsewhere in the county. Including Option B would lead to an over provision of 18 hectares and does not take account of other approvals at East Midlands Gateway etc. According to the SA there is no need for this Option to be included. I do not want this Option to be included in the new Local Plan.

Representation ID: 5168

COMMENT Mr Alan Pankhurst

Summary:

Option B would provide 88 hectares. 107 hectares are the stated need for the whole of Leicestershire therefore having given approval for Option A which provides 37 hectares then the remaining 70 hectares could be provided elsewhere in Leicestershire rather than providing a concentration in the Lutterworth area where the infrastructure and employee availability does not support such a concentration. This option should not be included in the Local Plan

Representation ID: 5164

COMMENT Ian Lewis

Summary:

. Both Options B and C would soak up the availability of land and deprive other locations of the opportunity to provide high skilled employment where it is needed.

Representation ID: 5140

COMMENT LUTTERWORTH TOWN COUNCIL Parish Council (Andrew Ellis)

Summary:

Option B is most definitely not considered suitable in Lutterworth Town Council's opinion due to its potential to impact dramatically on the area of separation between Lutterworth / Magna Park / Bitteswell.
Section 4 Appraisal Findings: Economy reports that jobs at Magna Park will be generated across a range of occupations, including a proportion of high quality jobs that would benefit the local and wider workforce in the area. The report fails to mention however that the likely development of Symmetry Park would detrimentally impact the existing business of Semelab.

Representation ID: 5123

COMMENT mr rory mcallister

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: 5117

COMMENT Mrs Jaqueline Strong

Summary:

Options A+B exceeds warehouse need/quota for county by 18 hectares.
Job creation not needed locally
Traffic will be increased giving traffic consequences as listed under option A.
Planning applications accepted elsewhere in the county more than cover the need for warehouse construction..
Magna Park is Big Enough!

Representation ID: 5112

COMMENT Mr David Chapman

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: 5107

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