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 C

Representation ID: 5337

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

Summary:

* Planning application on which Option C is modelled is for just 83.5 ha of distribution land (not 232ha), of which 22ha is accounted for by Option A.
* Option C adds 61.5ha to the operational area of Option A and would account for 78% (of 107ha) and not "significantly exceed" SDSS requirement
* Description fails to recognise range of other uses delivered; green infrastructure (48ha Country Park, 22ha meadow, 33ha structural landscape with public access - 105ha in total), Logistics Institute of Technology (D1 use - 3,700m2) with campus / playing field, Innovation Centre (B1 uses - 2325m2), Company expansion (B1 use - 7,000m2), and Estate Office incl. Local Heritage Centre (300m2). All are relevant considerations for the SA.
* Ought to acknowledge 7ha parcel that includes; a no-low emission road-based Railfreight Shuttle, HGV park and Driver Training Centre
* Option C provides for just 12.5% more distribution floor-space (and less land area given to distribution warehousing) than the combination of Options A + B - a point which eludes ISA2 because of the errors in the description of Option C.
* Option C is also an extension of an existing site and thus satisfies the first preference in the sequential approach to site selection advised by the SDSS.

Representation ID: 5333

COMMENT Environment Agency (Mr Nick Wakefield)

Summary:

According to Environment Agency maps there is an area of land through the site (Option C) which lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3. The LPA should be satisfied that the site is sequentially preferable from a flooding perspective.
To meet the NPPF no development or ground raising on any area that is designated as Flood Zone 2or 3 should be permitted. Appropriate mitigation measures are required to; protect the underlying Secondary A aquifer, and protect the water environment. Additional foul sewage capacity and / or a new private sewage treatment facility required.

Representation ID: 5325

COMMENT Historic England (Mrs Emilie Carr)

Summary:

Earthwork and below ground remains of medieval settlement at Bittesby are a Scheduled Monument designated on the basis of national archaeological importance.

The scheme will be harmful to the monument's significance through the transformation of its historic landscape setting from agriculture. An important north-south axis through the monument and along the Claybrook Steam to Ullesthorpe and Claybrook Magna and Parva is retained, but Bittesby House with its landscape approach and surviving ridge and furrow cultivation remains would be lost.Your authority should weigh harm against public benefits giving great weight to the conservation of the designated heritage asset.

As per the outline element of planning appliication 15/-1531/OUT, Option C preserves under grass the rising ground to the east of the medieval village and retains views and connectivity along the Claybrook Stream. These measures arguably constrain the harm of the scheme to a level below substantial harm. However all harm must be clearly justified and weighed against public benefits.

The transformation of much of the historic agrarian landscape setting of the scheduled monument to one of large buildings, fences and roadways will represent harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset and notwithstanding mitigation measures would tend to the site's isolation from its historic context.

Authority should give great weight to the conservation of the designated heritage asset, weighing harm against public benefits. Assessment of significance should be used as a basis to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset's conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

We draw your particular attention to the impact and necessity to the scheme (Option C) of the loss of Bittesby House and its grounds. The setting contribution made by this undesignated heritage asset to the significance of the Scheduled Ancient Monument should be carefully considered.

In taking a strategic approach to options for Magna Park you should give great weight to the conservation of the scheduled ancient monument and consider whether there is clear and convincing jusification for this specific option, as required for any harm or loss to a designated heritage asset under NPPF para 132.
Should your authority be minded to select (Option C) the retension of Parcel D in postive management and the optimal natural and historic management of the Scheduled Ancient Monument must be secured by the most robust forms of tenure, funds, undertakings and oversight such that further harm or loss in those areas is secured against in perpetuity.

Representation ID: 5321

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: 5315

COMMENT Mr Malcolm Stringer

Summary:

(Option C) proposal is totally disproportionate to individual rights when balanced against the contended benefits.

Option C (a road-served site) threatens the viability of consented rail led sites. This has been reflected in the comments of the adjoining authorities.

Option C is inefficient as a development requiring massive infrastructure. It is elongated and extends unnecessarily into the open countryside as opposed to the alternative of minimal highway works and a compact development at option B.

Representation ID: 5313

COMMENT Mrs Lynn Stringer

Summary:

- provision of Option C threatens the viability of consented rail led sites. This has been reflected in the comments of the adjoining

- Option C is inefficient as a development requiring massive infrastructure. It is elongated and extends unnecessarily into the open countryside as opposed to the alternative of minimal highway works and a compact development at option B.

Representation ID: 5311

COMMENT Ms Kerry-Anne Browne

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 5306

COMMENT Mrs June Whiting

Summary:

Option C would well exceed total provision needed in Leicestershire. As well as increasing in-commuting (resulting in traffic problems, road safety issues and air pollution), a chunk of agricultural land will be lost forever.
I fail to see the point of replacing a tract of open countryside with established networks of walks, bridleways and wildlife habitat and recently planted woodland with a country park of smaller dimensions looned over by vast warehouses.

Representation ID: 5297

COMMENT Daventry District Council (Mr Joseph Qureshi)

Summary:

Option C would meet the identified need for the entire Leicester and Leicestershire Housing Market Area (HMA). Making provision for the full need in one location would prevent sites coming forward in other parts of the HMA and could therefore restrict economic growth in other areas. Option C may also have implications for Harborough District (and adjoining authorities) regarding additional housing growth needed to support the increase in employment provision.

Outside of the HMA, Option C would also compete with Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) and its future expansion (Phase III which is currently under construction). Given the relatively close proximity of Magna Park and DIRFT, it is considered that any additional large scale provision should be focused toward sites with existing rail connections and capacity to expand.

Representation ID: 5293

COMMENT Anglian Water Services Ltd (Mr Stewart Patience)

Summary:

No further comment.

Representation ID: 5286

COMMENT Cllr Rosita Page

Summary:

Totally unacceptable development into open countryside, not suitable and not sustainable as requires massive infrastructure.

Option B and C is by vurtue over provision and totally unacceptable.

Representation ID: 5279

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: 5275

COMMENT Mrs Clare Robertson Smith

Summary:

Option C is unthinkable. The implications as regards traffic congestion, litter, noise and light pollution are too onerous to summarise in 100 words. This is green field land alongside the A5 which is not fit for purpose, in an area of extremely low unemployment and would provide strategic distribution far in excess of the recognised need.

Representation ID: 5269

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: 5264

COMMENT Mr Graham Logan

Summary:

MAGNA PARK IS BIG ENOUGH

Option A has already been approved. Approving Option C would mean exceeding Leicestershire's quota of 107 hectares of warehousing as well as contravening HDC's latest approved Local Plan.

Unemployment in this area is 0.5% and many local organisations struggle to recruit now.

Build new warehouses nearer to those who would value these new jobs and at locations with a rail hub.

Our roads don't cope with existing volumes.

Approving this option would significantly increase HGVs and commuter cars, leading to more congestion, RTAs and road fatalities.

Leicestershire is already 6th worst county in England for road deaths.

Reject this unwanted application!

Representation ID: 5250

COMMENT Mrs Anne Rowlands

Summary:

Option C is more than twice the 107 hectares requirement shown in the consultation document, so should not even be considered. Option B+C, which is a total of 320 hectares, should likewise not even be considered. Option C would have a huge negative effect due to HGV traffic and commuter traffic congestion and associated air pollution. The consultation document shows the creation of a so-called "Country Park" in Option C as a positive effect, however the area that would be built on is already unspoilt countryside with existing public footpaths; this countryside would be destroyed for ever by this development.

Representation ID: 5236

COMMENT Simon Silvester

Summary:

This option would provide 232 hectares of land, which is well in excess of the total needed in Leicestershire. The additional problems that would accompany this development, traffic, road safety, pollution, loss of countryside would far outweigh any benefits. Given that Option A has been agreed along with other non-rail sites in the county/region, Option C should be dismissed as unnecessary.

Representation ID: 5231

COMMENT Ashby Parva Parish Meeting (Mr Tim Ottevanger)

Summary:

Option C would add 232 ha. to the 37 already decided, making a massive total of 269 ha., more than double the presumed total for the county as a whole. This is excessive and I strongly oppose it,. If both it and option B were chosen, the total of 357 ha. would pose unsupportable strains on the road network and cause a huge increase noxious pollution and CO2.

By not being rail-linked, it contradicts government preference for more environmentally acceptable solutions and would undermine such development and make them less viable

Representation ID: 5227

COMMENT Mrs Helen Farquharson

Summary:

Option C should not even be considered as it would result in a gross over provision of land for non-rail warehousing. This could mean that farmland is taken for building sheds which would then lie empty. If 107 hectares of land are needed this can be provided by Option A which is already agreed and other parts of Leicestershire.

Representation ID: 5222

COMMENT Mr John Rowlands

Summary:

Option C is more than twice the 107 hectares needed, and is therefore totally nonsensical. To consider an Option B+C, total 320 hectares, is ridiculous. Option C would have an even bigger negative impact than Option B due to HGV traffic congestion, air pollution, and commuter traffic. For the consultation document to show a positive effect on landscape for Option C, due to the creation of a "Country Park" is outrageous: the unspoilt countryside is currently a haven for wildlife, and a place of beauty for walkers using existing public footpaths; it would be destroyed for ever by this development.

Representation ID: 5219

COMMENT Ms Kerry-Anne Browne

Summary:

Option C: this option would provide 232 hectares of land, which is well in excess of the total needed in Leicestershire. The additional problems that would accompany this development, traffic, road safety, pollution, loss of countryside would far outweigh any benefits. Given that Option A has been agreed along with other non-rail sites in the county/region, Option C should be dismissed as unnecessary.

Representation ID: 5214

COMMENT Suzanne Hayto

Summary:

I reiterate, if this option goes ahead, together with option A and B, it will provide more hectares of land than is required in Leicestershire (and beyond!). This area does not need the employment, more traffic congestion, additional pollution etc etc, We are at capacity already!

Representation ID: 5208

COMMENT Miss Alison Bent

Summary:

There are numerous problems that would accompany this development - increased traffic, road safety, pollution, loss of countryside would far outweigh any benefits. It only takes an incident on one of the nearby motorway networks to illustrate how the whole infrastructure comes to a grinding holt as it is! The area at peak times is already a death trap on occasions.

Representation ID: 5203

COMMENT Mr Neil Ridley

Summary:

this option would provide 232 hectares of land, which is well in excess of the total needed in Leicestershire. The additional problems that would accompany this development, traffic, road safety, pollution, loss of countryside would far outweigh any benefits. Given that Option A has been agreed along with other non-rail sites in the county/region, Option C should be dismissed as unnecessary. No account of the 780 acre site at Burbage has been made.

Representation ID: 5199

COMMENT Mrs Helen Heath

Summary:

With its 232 hectares of land, this option exceeds the total needed in Leicestershire.
Traffic problems, road safety problems and pollution problems would all greatly increase.
We would loose valuable countryside with its rights of way that we all currently value and use.

Representation ID: 5195

COMMENT Mr Tony Farquharson

Summary:

If adopted this option would result in an over provision of space even if neither of the other options were adopted. There is no proven need for this amount of space and it will take away countryside unnecessarily if it is built - possibly to lie empty if there is an over provision. I do not think this option should be added to the Local Plan.

Representation ID: 5190

COMMENT Mrs Shiela Carlton

Summary:

This option matches Gazeley's hybrid application 15/01531 as a further pre=emptive 'drive' to the Local Plan, thus making a nonsense of local consultation.

Representation ID: 5182

COMMENT SHAWELL Parish Meeting (Mr Frank Fisher)

Summary:

This proposal is way in excess of any demonstrated need. The health and amenity of local residents should take precedence over pressure from big business.

Representation ID: 5179

COMMENT Mrs Maggie Pankhurst

Summary:

At 232 hectares Option C would lead to an over provision of space by 125 hectares. Countryside would be taken over by sheds that would never be needed. Too much weight is given to the provision of a country park - which will be smaller and have less amenities than the current land.. There is over emphasis on the benefits of jobs - Lutterworth has little unemployment. Additional warehousing should be built in areas of unemployment. The Impact of Option C would be overwhelming for roads, neighbouring areas and the employment market. No to C.

Representation ID: 5175

COMMENT Mr Alan Pankhurst

Summary:

Option C is completely unnecessary and will lead to an over supply of warehousing space in Leicestershire. At 232 hectares it will in itself provide more than double the area needed of 107 hectares. There is no justification for including this Option in the Local Plan.

Representation ID: 5172

COMMENT Mr Alan Pankhurst

Summary:

At 232 hectares Option C would lead to an over provision of space by 125 hectares. Countryside could be taken over by sheds that would never be needed. Too much weight is given to the provision of a country park - which will be smaller and with less amenities than the current land. There is over emphasis on the benefits of jobs - we have little unemployment indicating that warehousing should be built in areas of unemployment. The impact of Option C would be overwhelming for the roads, neighbouring areas, and the employment market. Reject it.

Representation ID: 5169

COMMENT Mr Alan Pankhurst

Summary:

Option C should be given no consideration at all when agreeing a new local plan for HDC. The 232 hectares are well in excess of the area of warehouse space needed according to the studies. The effect on roads and local employment would be devastating not to mention the loss of countryside. There is a real danger of giving the go ahead to these options only to find that the warehousing cannot be let because of surplus capacity. However our countryside will have been ruined for ever. This option should be completely disregarded.

Representation ID: 5165

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: 5153

COMMENT Mrs Kathleen Rowell

Summary:

This option is huge and speculative, 232 hectares well in excess of identified need. I disagree with the statement regarding creation of jobs, there is little need for jobs in this area, so will inevitably bring workers from a distance, so adding to traffic misery and pollution.
I dispute the statement on provision of a country park, there will be loss of countryside and existing networks, field margins etc are in excess of anything planned. It is nonsense to try to suggest that any proposals would be superior that already created.

Representation ID: 5141

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: 5134

COMMENT Mrs Maria Dimmer

Summary:

Option C should not be pursued because it exceeds the amount of warehousing space required and would have the negative impacts which I have already submitted.

Representation ID: 5132

COMMENT Dr Paul Dimmer

Summary:

This option exceeds the amount of land required for strategic distribution for Leicestershire on its own. Furthermore, the report significantly over-estimates the benefits of the option, while under-estimating the negative impacts. A country park surrounded by warehouses is an odd concept. Existing walking activity in the area would no longer be attractive and would cease. Add to that the additional traffic and pollution that would result the overwhelming conclusion is that Option C should be dismissed.

Representation ID: 5127

COMMENT Mr Gerard Williams

Summary:

Option C ludicrously proposes 116% more hectatres of warehouse development in this small area than is required for the whole of the region. There is not infrastucture to support this and there is no local need for the employment. This proposal does not fulfill central governments policy of having such developments on a rail hub. 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: 5124

COMMENT mr rory mcallister

Summary:

: this option would provide 232 hectares of land, which is well in excess of the total needed in Leicestershire. The additional problems that would accompany this development, traffic, road safety, pollution, loss of countryside would far outweigh any benefits. Given that Option A has been agreed along with other non-rail sites in the county/region, Option C should be dismissed as unnecessary.

Representation ID: 5118

COMMENT Mrs Jaqueline Strong

Summary:

Totally un-necessary development when set against need/quota of warehouse space and planning applications across the county already approved.
All the dis-benefits already itemised under options A and B apply in spades.

This development is
un-needed
un-wanted
un-necessary and
provides hazards for local residents that far exceed any suggested benefits, many of which are overstated.

Representation ID: 5113

COMMENT Mr David Chapman

Summary:

This option would provide 232 hectares of land, which is well in excess of the total needed in Leicestershire. The additional problems that would accompany this development, traffic, road safety, pollution, loss of countryside would far outweigh any benefits. Given that Option A has been agreed along with other non-rail sites in the county/region, Option C should be dismissed as unnecessary.

Representation ID: 5108

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