I oppose the objective because I do not think it realistic.. Building SRFIs is an expensive business, while building a non-rail-served centre along an existing trunk road or motorway junction is cheaper. Lower construction costs of the latter can be passed on to the occupiers of the warehouses, thus making them more competitive and undermining the environmentally less damaging SRFIs. The nearest SRFI to Magna Park is DIRFT, only 9 miles away via the A5. DIRFT is currently undergoing expansion. To approve expansion at Magna Park on the scale envisaged in the draft Plan could put the success of further lettings at DIRFT in jeopardy. (Please note, I have no connection with DIRFT whatsoever). Another approved SRFI in the LLEP study area is the East Midlands Gateway, on which work is already underway. A 75,000 sq.m. rail-served non-strategic centre at Ashby de la Zouch has had consent and has been advertised for the last two years (during which time two applications for expansion totalling 700,000 sq. m. at Magna Park have been waiting for approval) without any takers. Are potential clients waiting for a cheaper option to come on stream soon?

Non-rail-linked centres place more pressure on the road infrastructure (in this case the A5 and A426 in particular, both in terms of congestion and damage, and cause more pollution.

Policy BE2 is in conflict with the National Policy Statement on National Networks (NPS), 2014.