In justifying policy BE2 the Proposed Submission relies heavily on the LLEP MDS Strategic Distribution Sector Study 2014, updated in 2016, and the HEDNA report 2017. The LLEP reports forecast the need for additional (i.e. new build) for both rail linked and non-rail linked warehousing/distribution space in Leicestershire. The high estimate forecast (later called a minimum) is for 320k. sq. m. of non-rail linked space by 2021, 435k. sq.m. by 2026 and 607k. sq.m. by 2031. Para. 6.3.1 of the Proposed Submission states "This policy [permitting 700,000 sq. m] contributes towards meeting the requirement .... to 2031." In fact, it does not just contribute to the requirement but exceeds the figure for the entire LLEP area by about 100k sq. m. In doing so it also ignores the fact that since 2014 local authorities have continued to approve, in outline or full, a number of large ( > 9,000 sq.m.) warehousing/ distribution centres. The Sustainability Appraisal prepared by AECOM (August 2017 in the print version, September 2017 in the on-line version) in time for the adoption by the Council of the draft states that "Completions and commitments in the district and across the HMA are sufficient to meet minimum need without selecting a site for allocation," (para18.5.1). Many of these are currently advertised or under construction. The proposed 700,000 sq.m. will lead to a potentially significant and unsustainable over-supply of warehousing in Leicestershire, offering largely low skilled and low paid jobs and heavy in-commuting into areas such as Harborough where unemployment is extremely low and where house prices are the highest in the county. Conclusion: The policy fails to meet the test of soundness. It is not positively prepared in that it far exceeds objectively assessed development needs and ignores new build warehousing at Rugby Gateway, less than 6 miles from Magna Park at junction 1 of the M6. It is not justified in that it has not considered reasonable alternatives. It is not effective in that required road improvements to the A5 are outside the council's (and even Leicestershire County Council's) remit, that essential improvement to the A426 between the M6 and A5 are another county's responsibility, and that there is no plan foreither of these to be deliverable within the plan's timeframe, and is inconsistent with government policy on sustainability and rail-linked strategic distribution.