The argument put forward to support provision of an additional 700,000spm of warehousing floorspace is based on a flawed analysis of the available data.

The LLSDS update and refresh of outputs and conclusions (Sept 2017) presents, in Table 2.4, a forecast shortfall in warehousing at non-rail served sites of -5ha in 2020, -48ha in 2031 and -95ha in 2036. However, these apparent shortfalls do not take into account the additional 21.9ha already granted permission at Mere Lane for IDI Gazeley (albeit this is acknowledged in a footnote). Accounting for this additional 21.9ha means that there will be a surplus of provision in 2020 and the projected shortfall for 2031 reduces to only -26.1ha. Why this simple update of the figures was not made at the time of producing this document is difficult to fathom ...

Furthermore, these projections seem to be based on an assumption of "high" demand. Why is this the case and why hasn't a best-estimate assumption been adopted. Please re-present the figures based on a best-estimate assumption and I would also advise an additional factoring-down in order to account for the recessionary pressures likely to result from Brexit (BoE and IMF projections are available).

Also, I would suggest that any prediction out to 2036 is fanciful, and is considered highly unreliable. However, even based on these upper-bound predictions there is no case to support two new developments at Magna Park as this would give rise to a substantial surplus of provision of over 40ha.

I find it incredulous that, in terms of Magna Park, the Local Plan merely re-presents the two pending planning applications. This is lazy and unthinking and represents an incredible turn-around from the previous (and still relatively recent) local plan, which said that development at Magna Park should remain within the boundary of the original airfield site. Also, at previous public planning exhibitions HDC planners have said to me that both developments would not be allowed to go ahead; and yet both are now included in the proposed plan. Why is the local plan so at odds with the wishes of local people and existing local businesses?

No amount of "mitigation" can ever offset the harm that will be done to the environment and to the lives of local people if this plan goes ahead.