5.0 Policy BE2 Strategic Distribution
5.1 Policy BE2 states:
1. Magna Park, as identified on the Policies Map, is safeguarded for strategic storage and distribution (Class B8). Proposals for redevelopment at the existing site will be permitted where:
a. each unit has at least 9,000 sq.m. gross floorspace; and
b. any new building or the change of use of an existing building(s) is for Class B8 and ancillary use only; or
c. the proposal for any non-strategic storage and distribution use is small-scale, proportionate in scale to the strategic storage and distribution use and ancillary to the use of individual plots.
2. Additional development of up to 700,000 sq.m. for non rail-served strategic storage and distribution (Class B8) use will be permitted where it would:
a. form an extension of, or be on a site adjoining, Magna Park;
b. support or at least have no adverse impact on the viability and deliverability of existing or further Strategic Rail Freight Interchanges (SRFIs) within or serving neighbouring authorities and Leicestershire;
c. increase employment opportunities for local residents, including training and apprenticeships;
d. include measures to enable an increase in the proportion of the workforce commuting from locations within Harborough District;
e. not lead to severe traffic congestion anywhere on the nearby strategic and local road network, particularly the A5, whether within Harborough District or outside; and
f. ensure 24 hour operations do not have an unacceptable environmental, community or landscape impact in the immediate and wider surrounding area".

Consideration of Policy
General Comments
5.2. Prologis and RRSLP do not seek to repeat comments made above on the scale of the Magna Park extension but note that Prologis and RRSLP are concerned that the Council has not taken full account of evidence in the L&LSDSS which states that "in order to maintain and enhance the competitive position currently enjoyed by the region/sub-region, it is vitally important that the market in future is offered a geographical spread of commercially attractive sites available to satisfy individual operator locational requirements" [para 3.9]. Prologis and RRSLP considers that the Council has not robustly justified the spread of sites and in particular the implications of directing a substantial amount of their employment land requirement to the Magna Park Site. It is also considered that there are a significant number of strategic distribution sites within close proximity to each other and whilst the Council has drawn the line within the Leicestershire FEHMA it is considered that the implications of the Magna Park extension go beyond this area and affect the future success of DIRFT III and other rail linked sites.
5.3. The L&LSSDS notes that there is a need to maintain competitive advantage with continued development of new commercially attractive strategic sites in the East Midlands, a significant proportion of which will need to be directly rail-served (in addition to the usual requirements for high quality connections to the strategic highway network) (para 2.2.9). Whilst here is a need for road based strategic distribution development it is considered that this scale of development in one location is not justified.
5.4. The L&LSSDS notes Leicestershire and Local planning authorities should have a clear understanding of business needs within the economic markets operating in and across their area and work together with neighbouring authorities and Local Enterprise Partnerships to prepare and maintain a robust evidence base to understand both existing business needs and likely changes in the market (para. 3.5). Prologis and RRSLP consider that the Council's evidence has not fully considered the implications of promoting such a substantial road based B8 allocation in this part of Harborough.
5.5. Whilst the L&LSSDS Update identifies that there are Key Areas of Opportunity for road linked and rail linked strategic distribution development and Magna Park falls within this area of need, the L&LSSDS Update does not specifically recommend that the entire Leicester and Leicestershire B8 employment land requirement should be provided at Magna Park. Indeed, it recommends that "delivering new commercially attractive strategic sites within at least two of the key areas of opportunity simultaneously cannot be undertaken by local planning authorities working alone. The NPPF now places a duty to cooperate on planning authorities when covering issues that cross administrative boundaries, particularly those which relate to the strategic priorities. Given the above, delivering the identified need will require continual long-term strategic and collaborative planning across the county of Leicestershire, and potentially with authorities in neighbouring areas outside the county" (p.25). It is clear from the Duty to Co-operate Statement that there is still work to do to confirm agreement within the Leicestershire planning authorities, the County Council and Leicestershire LEP that Magna Park is the correct location for this scale of development. It is also clear from the evidence that requirement should be spread to more than one location.
Implications on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) and rail-based fright distribution
5.6. Prologis UK Limited and RRSLP objects to Policy BE2 on the basis that the policy promotes the potential release of a significant road-based distribution development in proximity to an approved Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP), which seeks to deliver the government's agenda of rail-based fright distribution. Policy BE2 therefore has the potential to impact negatively on the delivery of national planning policy.
5.7. Given that the DIRFT III Site is situated just beyond the boundary of the Functioning Economic Market Area (FEMA) the effects of proposed extension to Magna Park on DIRFT III are not considered to be robustly sufficient. Whilst Prologis and RRSLP welcomes the policy criteria 2 (b) which places a requirement on the applicant to demonstrate "no adverse impact on the viability and deliverability of existing or further Strategic Rail Freight Interchanges (SRFIs) within or serving neighbouring authorities and Leicestershire". It is highly likely that Magna Park will displace demand for units at DIRFT III as well as have implications on the availability of employees to work on the DIRFT III Site and other consented sites in the locality. Indeed, the Logistics & Distribution Sector Growth Action Plan Final Report notes that LLEP Business Survey 2015 found that just under 40% of logistics and distribution sector companies had undertaken recruitment activity in the past 12 months, with 18% reporting difficulties in filling vacancies in the Leicester and Leicestershire LEP Area. The Action Plan notes that issues are concentrated on two job roles - vehicle drivers accounting for 73% of all hard to fill vacancies and warehouse operatives a further 15% [para 2.2.3]. It is noted that whilst the Magna Park Employment Growth Sensitivity Study identifies that it has sought to consider where the additional workforce might come from. This is invariably a complex issue, influenced by accessibility, transport links, demographics and housing provision. The Study starting point has been to consider existing commuting patterns to Magna Park.
5.8. Prologis and RRSLP urge the Council to fully consider the implications of allocating this scale of extension to Magna Park, given that potential occupiers who may well currently be considering rail-based options for their distribution networks, will be provided with a road-based alternative. Whilst those occupiers who have invested in rail are beginning to see the benefits of such a modal switch, it remains an on-going educational process, to the extent that providing an alternative road-based option has the potential to undermine this process. Clearly, such an alternative could well deter the on-going investment at the DIRFT, to the detriment not only to its operation as the Country's leading SRFI, but also the implementation of the DCO-approved expansion scheme issued by the Secretary of State. Equally, the sustainable transport benefits of this project, delivered through an increase in rail-based distribution traffic that were pivotal to the success of the application, will be placed at risk.
5.9. There is a further implication of allowing non-rail related distribution development close to DIRFT III or any Rail Freight Interchange due to the relatively lower cost of bringing forward non-rail based development (without the added financial burden of securing rail linkages and the associated infrastructure). Typically, because they do not carry the same level of infrastructure costs, non-rail developments can secure a competitive advantage in terms of rent and accommodation costs they are able to offer thus do not compete on a level playing field with rail-linked schemes. This is likely to then have the effect that occupiers gravitate to the non-rail-linked schemes and hence the government's objective of securing a movement of freight by rail is prejudiced.
5.10. Prologis and RRSLP draw your attention to the Report on the Examination into the West Northampton Joint Core Strategy Local Plan (December 2012) in relation to the proposed expansion of J16 of the M1 for strategic B8 employment uses where the Inspector found that "given the potential alternative sites available near, including the recent approval of a major extension of 345 ha to DIRFT for rail linked freight, there is no overriding local need for a major new strategic employment allocation on a greenfield site in the open countryside". Furthermore the Inspector, acknowledged that the development of "very large B8 uses, might well provide direct competition to DIRFT to the detriment of the delivery of both, potentially also discouraging the increased transfer of freight to rail" [Appendix 2].
5.11. The Council will also be aware of the decision by South Northamptonshire Council when granting planning permission for Class B2, B8 and ancillary B1, provision of a 2ha lorry park and associated infrastructure on land at Junction 16 of the M1 that they sought to not conflict with operations at the DIRFT III Site [LPA ref: S/2016/0400/EIA]. The Condition states: "that any building exceeding 40,000sqm in gross internal area shall only be occupied and operated by an existing Northampton based employer". The Reason states: "To ensure that units exceeding 40,000sqm that are not occupied and operated by existing Northampton based employers are directed towards DIRFT, to comply with the requirements of Policy E8, criterion e) of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy".
5.12. RRSLP and Prologis note that DIRFT III to J.16 M1 (Midway Park) is 11.4 miles according to AA route planner and is of greater distance than DIRFT III to Magna Park. Magna Park to DIRFT III (Danes Way) to Parkway Magna Park is a lesser distance at only 9.5 miles. Given that an Inspector had concerns with the impact of Junction 16 of the M1 on DIRFT it is highly likely that Magna Park would have a greater influence. Whilst RRSLP and Prologis acknowledge that it is right for the Council to define an area of assessment, it is clear that the implications on DIRFT III go beyond the defined FEHMA.

Predetermined Evidence
5.13. Prologis and RRSLP considers that the evidence to justify the extension to Magna Park is based on pre-determined assumptions to justify the approval of the planning applications to extend the Magna Park Site1. There are various references through the Council's evidence which demonstrate such an approach.
5.14. The Harborough Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal (SA), also points towards predetermined evidence, and states that given the presence of three live planning applications. The SA notes that it was considered useful to base the options on the broad growth and distribution being proposed in the planning applications either individually or in combinations with one another. This resulted in five alternatives being appraised as follows:
1. Option A - 37 ha (100,844sq.m.) of growth corresponding with the location of planning application 15/00919/FUL.
2. Option B - 88ha ( 278,209sq.m.) of growth corresponding with the location of planning application 15/00865/OUT.
3. Option C - 232ha (432,425sq.m.) of growth corresponding with the location of planning application 15/01531/OUT.
4. Combination of A+B - (125 ha / 379,053sq.m. of growth).
5. Combination of B+C - (320 / 710,634sq.m. ha of growth).
5.15. This approach is fundamentally flawed. There is no evidence to justify the strategic allocation at Magna Park. The Council has not robustly considered any alternatives despite the L&LSDSS Update requiring two locations.
5.16. The Magna Park Employment Growth Sensitivity Study (2017) does not justify the scale of the allocation proposed at Magna Park. It is clear that this assessment work has been modelled to support the assessment of the planning applications at Magna Park1. The report essentially provides evidence justifying additional housing needed to support the growth of Magna Park.
5.17. Prologis and RRSLP are surprised by the policy U- Turn that the Council has taken to extending Magna Park because they inherently conflict with the District's current Core Strategy Policy CS7(h): "Protect Magna Park's unique role as a strategic distribution centre (B8 uses / Min unit size 10,000m2) of national significance and an exemplar of environmental performance. No further phase of development or large scale expansion of the site, beyond the existing development footprint (to be defined in the Allocations DPD) will be supported."
5.18. Furthermore, the Harborough District Council Core Strategy DPD Inspector's Report (November 2011) indicated that the future expansion of Magna Park is not required noting at [para 109 - para114] its links to the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) some 15km away, stating that Magna Park itself has no rail connection.
5.19. While now revoked, the East Midlands Regional Plan (RS) did not identify Magna Park as a preference for strategic distribution. The RS established a clear priority for sites which can be served by rail freight and can operate as intermodal terminals.
5.20. It has not been demonstrated why the Council has suddenly gone from no further expansion to Magna Park to now promoting substantial expansion to it. RRSLP and Prologis consider that it is in response to the applications submitted at Magna Park. The reasons for such a change are not fully justified by evidence.
Tests of Soundness
5.21. Prologis UK Limited and RRSLP consider that Policy BE2 fails to meet the following tests of soundness because:
1. Positively Prepared: The preparation of the policy has not take account of necessary cross-boundary discussions with neighbouring authorities (West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit and Daventry District Council) in relation to the quantum of strategic distribution development and, importantly, the location of such development - recognising that commercial demand for strategic distribution development does not adhere to local government administrative boundaries.
2. Justified: The Council has not robustly justified the amount of strategic B8 development needed within Harborough or that Magna Park is the most reasonable location out of all alternatives..
3. Effective: The policy is not effective as it not based on effective cross boundary planning but is based on predetermined evidence used to justify the approval of planning applications at the Magna Park Site.
4. Consistent with National Policy: The Plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the polices in the Framework. The proposals at Magna Park conflict with the overall strategic aims of the Framework which seeks to reduce carbon emissions through promoting sustainable transport modes, and the National Networks National Policy Statement ('NNNPS') which prioritises distribution and warehousing sites served by rail.

Recommended Change
5.22. In order to address the conflicts identified above and ensure that BE2 is sound, it is requested that Harborough Council:
1. Undertakes further consultation with neighbouring authorities as it is clear that the duty to cooperate has not been fulfilled with regards to the justification of the extension to Magna Park. It is clear from comments made by Daventry and North West Leicestershire that they are not convinced that Policy BE2 is effective or justified. Harborough Council has failed to justify delivering such a substantial extension to Magna Park and have not secured agreement with all the relevant authorities. Until this work is done Prologis and RRSLP consider that the plan is unsound and should not proceed.
2. Provides evidence justifying why it is appropriate for the Council to extend Magna Park and justify why it is appropriate for the District to allocate more than double the requirement for non-rail served sites required in Leicestershire as well as delivering in excess of the gross land requirement for strategic B8 development for Leicester and Leicestershire by 2031 in one location.
3. Provides evidence that the Council has robustly fulfilled its duty to cooperate with regards to meeting the concerns of Daventry and North West Leicestershire in terms of allocating in excess of the identified need for the whole of Leicester and Leicestershire in one location.