Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 6020

Received: 17/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Timothy Ottevanger

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Policy BE2 clause 2 fails to explain why the council's Core Strategy regarding Magna Park should no longer apply. It doesprovide a justify going beyond what independent studies state has happened, i.e. that identified needs have already been met. It ignores developments close to Magna Park across the district boundary which also serve the 'golden triangle'. It has been poorly researched and is driven by an anxiety to satisfy two developers with outstanding outline applications for warehousing/distribution centres.

Full text:

Policy BE2 appears to be tailor-made for two applicants, dbSymmetry and IDI Gazeley, who each have an outline planning application awaiting determination (15/00865/OUT and 15/01531/OUT) and whose combined total floorspace is 710,634 sq.m. Having said in its Core Strategy (2011), which ruled out any further expansion of Magna Park, that "there are more suitable sites (both rail and non rail-linked) than Magna Park within the the region and sub-region to meet forecast need for strategic distribution to 2026" (para. 5.74) HDC does not now say that this is no longer the case.

My own internet search, conducted in October 2017, of approvals of applications to build strategic ( 9,000 + sq.m.) warehousing/distribution centres within Leicester and Leicestershire, both full and outline, since the LLEP SDSS reports of 2014 and 2016 (also known as the MDS Transmodal studies), reveal upwards of 570,000 sq. m. of approvals. Some of this has been speculative and is currently advertised. The Local Plan ignores the AECOM Sustainability Appraisal (September 2017 on-line version) which states (para.19.5.2) that "Completions and commitments in the district and across the HMA are sufficient to meet mimimum need without selecting a site for allocation." The same paragraph continues "A criteria based policy is favoured to guide future growth above the minimum to avoid prejudicing the treatment of pending applications....." The two applications referred to were submitted before work on drafting the local plan was started, in the full knowledge that the council's Core Strategy ruled out further expansion at Magna Park. It was opportunistic and intended to take advantage of the NPPF before any new local plan was in force.

My survey of recent completions also showed up 14,719 sq.m. at Rugby Central currently vacant and being advertised while at Rugby Gateway 161,972 sq.m. has been completed since late 2014 (a 16,722 sq.m. unit is still unlet). Both these sites, adjoining junction 1 of the M6, are less than 6 miles from Magna Park and are also within the so-called 'golden triangle'. Harborough DC should be taking into account the wider availability of sites outside the district but close to it. In addition to these recent developments, Rugby Borough Council, in its draft local plan submitted for examination, allows for 180,000 sq.m. of warehousing/distribution space on a site adjoining the M45/A45 junction just outside Rugby.

Claims that policy B2 would bring much need employment to the district and 'out-commuting' will be dealt with elsewhere in my responses.