Q1. Do you have any comments to make on the Second Interim Sustainability Appraisal Report - Appraising Options for Strategic Distribution growth (Feb 2016)?

Showing comments and forms 31 to 60 of 71

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5228

Received: 15/03/2016

Respondent: uk oak doors

Representation Summary:

Bad idea
- not thought through
-dosen't make any business sense, or at best many smaller business will be forced to leave in order to simply get the staff
-temporary contract model of these warehouses makes for large seasonal wage fluctuations that smaller business need to bear all year round
- no accomodation
- lutterworth needs general upskilling of the population rather than a higher proportion of wasehouse and distribution employment

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5232

Received: 15/03/2016

Respondent: Mr Scott Munton

Representation Summary:

The inaccuracies to properties on page 16 under the heading Health and Wellbeing/ Nature of Effects and Sensitivity of Receptors.
All three options are not required as this would be an overprovision of the required 107 hectares required in Leicestershire.
Country Park
Low employment in Lutterworth development should be encouraged where jobs are needed (NPPF).

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5233

Received: 15/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs Clare Robinson

Representation Summary:

1. The 107 hectares identified as needed in Leicestershire do not all need to be found in the Magna Park area.

2. If all three options are accepted this would lead to a provision of 357 hectares well in excess of the stated need.
3. The provision of the country park is given great weight. However, the country park would be smaller than the open land, network of walks/bridleways and wildlife habitat that currently exists.
4. The local roads cannot cope with the increase in traffic.

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5237

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Simon Silvester

Representation Summary:

The appraisal overstates the benefits that would arise from the creation of jobs. There is little need for jobs in the local area (unemployment is about 0.5%) and bringing in jobs increases and competition for labour locally plus the disadvantages of the development because of the increase in traffic, pollution etc.
The country park would be smaller than the open land, network of walks/bridleways and wildlife habitat that currently exists. It would be alongside huge warehouses, so there will be a negative impact from providing a country park where better amenities already exist.

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5238

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Mr Stephen Henthorne

Representation Summary:

Please see the accompanying letter which outlines my comments on this report.

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5239

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Mr Brian Fowler

Representation Summary:

It is my understanding that a need has been identified for 107 hectares of land to be made available for development. BUT it is not necessary for all of this land to be added to the overspill of Magna Park

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5243

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Mr Colin Hancock

Representation Summary:

If all the the planning applications are approved, the area of land
used would exceed the requirement for the area. Perhaps, the excess could be used elsewhere in the region where unemployment is higher. This would help in the reduction of pollution, and traffic problems in the Lutterworth and surrounding areas. Planning applications of a similar type already approved will cater for land required in Leics. The road conditions in the area are already dire, potholes etc. Surrounding villlages are also suffering disruption with vehicles travelling to Magna Park.

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5246

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Mr Neil Terry

Representation Summary:

The Report needs to take into account the level of objections which were raised to Option A at the recent public meeting.
As there is scope for addltinal expansion on the existing site, (an example of this is taking place at this time) there is no need for extra land.
The proposals being added to the first Option A exceed the recent land area studies and do not reasonably take into account the road conjestion.

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5249

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs Claudia Terry

Representation Summary:

As Option A has been given approval agaisnst strong local opposition, there is no reasonable argument for any further expansion of Magna Park. Buiding is ongoing at the existing site and there is large expansion a few miles down the road at DIRFT .
Unemployment in the area is low, The inevitable additrional trafic will further intensify the conjestion and air pollution. The roads are not fit for this kind of development.
We should not be carving up precious aggricultural land for warehousing and distribution.

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5251

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Mr Graham Logan

Representation Summary:

Consulting on Option A is utterly pointless as HDC has already approved this plan on 28th January even though it contravenes HDC's current Local Plan.
The 3 options taken together provide 232 hectares more than Leicestershire's quota of 107 hectares for warehouse provision.
Unemployment in this area is very low (under 0.5%) and the appraisal overstates the need for jobs locally. The result would be increased inward commuting and if these plans were approved significantly more HGVs, more pollution, traffic congestion & RTAs. Leicestershire is already the 6th worst county in England for road fatalities!
No one living here wants these monstrous plans.

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5254

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Prologis UK Ltd.

Agent: Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners

Representation Summary:

Representations are submitted on behalf of Prologis UK Ltd. A detailed report is provided that raises concerns regarding the approach adopted within the SA, given its failure to consider alternative development scenarios beyond those promoted at Magna Park; a lack of collaboration with neighbouring authorities; and a role more in keeping with advising development control decisions rather than properly informing the Local Plan preparation.

The representations present and assess alternative development options and include a second report detailing proposals for a strategic distribution development at a new junction (20A) of the M1 motorway.

Content of supporting documents has been summarised in 2 seperate representations.

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5258

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Edmund Hunt

Representation Summary:

1) Assessment appears very "finger in air" and high level, making broad interpretations. I see no evidence how measures were based against planning policy or technical guidelines.

2) There's a major risk of over-supply when all other distribution developments taken into account and there is no consideration of Warwickshire allocations. This is not given adequate weight in the report (only mentioned in 5.3.9)

3) Option A should be removed all-together as consent has been granted. Option C should be reduced by the relevant land allocation of Option A to make comparison apples for apples. See attached for more.

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5261

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Mr Michael Stanhope

Representation Summary:

Objection:
Magna Park does not directly access the motorway network, with the result that the very large volume of vehicles accessing the distribution centre is already causing congestion on the local road network, and adding to the noise and vehicle emissions pollution in the area. Therefore the proposed further expansion of logistics facilities along the A5 between the A426/A5 roundabout and the M69 will greatly aggravate the problem.

The proposals being put forward will replace large areas of farmland with industrial development with negative effects on the environment and the local population.

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5265

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Mr A Adcock

Representation Summary:

- There is a flaw in the assessment as Option C includes land allocation for option A which has already been consented. The report therefore overstates impacts of Option C. What needs to be compared is what is additional to what has already been consented.

-There is little transparency or evidence of cross-authority consideration. Warwickshire in particular has been understated and the management of A5 / A426 south to M6 has not been evaluated adequately.

- Cotesbach as a whole is underrepresented in the report given its proximity to Option B and the significant impacts identified in the application.

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5274

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Melissa Gillbee

Representation Summary:

Condensing all the required road distribution allocation to Magna Park is wrong and not needed.

No reference to safety on the highways is given or considered in the consultation yet Leicestershire is the 6th most dangerous county of road fatalities.

Employment is not needed in the area and benefits to housing and economy totally over-weighted. Social workers in the area hard to find because people are working at Magna Park instead! This was not considered in report.

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5280

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Now Planning

Agent: Now Planning

Representation Summary:

The representation is on behalf of IDI Gazeley. The representation provides an account of the errors of approach, fact and omission which explain our view that ISA2 is deeply flawed. It is our view, therefore, that ISA2 will require significant and objective reconsideration of the basis on which the exercise has been undertaken and be scrutinised to ensure it is not at risk of being seen as an attempt to justify an existing conclusion. As it stands, our view is that ISA2 poses a risk to the soundness of the local plan and may also be legally flawed.

Individual points explained in detailed representation (attached).

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5281

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs Donna Hunt

Representation Summary:

As a Harborough resident I am disappointed to see HDC hiring such established companies to make such significant decisions appear so simple and meaningless.
Dumbing-down these massive applications down to tick-boxes based on little policy or technical evidence with a lack of transparent information is very worrying.
I can only hope and urge that councillors do not make decisions based on documents like these.

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5284

Received: 15/03/2016

Respondent: Northampton Borough Council

Representation Summary:

We have no comments to make on the second interim report appraising options for the provision of strategic distribution growth.

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5285

Received: 13/03/2016

Respondent: Cllr Rosita Page

Representation Summary:

Following points made in comment;
- Properties affected by Option C include; Bittesby Stables, Orchard Lodge, Bittesby Coach House, White House Farm.
- Viability and implementation of Options A and C is limited by the developer not being in possession of Emmanual Cottages.
- Negative impacts on the well-being of residents nearby, in Lutterworth and surrounding villages has not been given enough attention.
- 107ha is identified as needed in Leicester & Leicestershire, not all needs to be found in Harborough.
- Cumulative effect of all options (A, B and C) is well in excess of need and totally unaceeptable
- Account should be taken of other logistics parks (e.g.East Midlands Gateway, proposed Rail Freight Interchange M69 Hinckley)- over provision will lead to long term wider negative economic effects.
- Allocate sites where jobs needed (not in low unemployment area)
- SA overstates benefits of job creation for Option C, approval of DHL application provides enough jobs
- SA understates disadvantages i.e. strain on infrastructure, environment
- Public transport cannot be taken into account as its virtually non-existent to this location,not sustainable due to different shift patterns / annualised hours
- Provision of Country Park is given too much weight - will be smaller than existing open land / network of paths / wildlife habitat, development will restrict access. No positive benefit.
- Development will add to loss of agricultural land and open countryside
- Provision of a Technology College is not sustainable, not needed (one at DIRFT)and not accessible by sustainable modes of transport
- Proposals will deprive other locations of the opportunity to provide employment, where it is in greater need.
- No proper consultation has taken place to establish need and assess the full impact of the proposed options within the Duty to Co-operate, as reflected in the comments of adjoining authorities.

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5287

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Anglian Water Services Ltd

Representation Summary:

No comment.

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5294

Received: 15/03/2016

Respondent: Daventry District Council

Representation Summary:

The approach taken in assessing the different options is supported.

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5298

Received: 18/02/2016

Respondent: Equality And Human Rights Commission

Representation Summary:

Local, parish and town councils and other public authorities have obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) in the Equality Act 2010 to consider the effect of their policies and decisions on people sharing particular protected characteristics. The PSED is an on-going legal requirement and must be complied with as part of the planning process. In essence, you must consider the potential for planning proposals to have an impact on equality for different groups of people. To assist, you refer to our technical guidance.

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5299

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Framptons

Representation Summary:

Noted that paragraph 1.1.10 of the report ".....this interim SA Report does not constitute an 'SA Report' as defined by the SEA Regulations (i.e. the SA Report that should be prepared and consulted upon alongside the draft Local Plan at Regulation 19 stage of the Planning Regulations)....."

We reserve our right to make comments on the SA in the future, particularly as the Council has announced (Press release 8/3/16) that the db symmetry application (ref. 15/00865/OUT), and the IDI Gazeley application (ref. 15/01531/OUT), that the Council has decided toconsider these applications together at one committee meeting.

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5300

Received: 16/02/2016

Respondent: Mrs Gill Read

Representation Summary:

Representation makes a number of points summarised as;
- not clear how to make comments via website
- consultation process is just a box ticking exercise
- consultation documents are too lengthy, not in plain English, nor comprehensible to the layman

Further comments made about planning in relation to Market Harborough.

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5301

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: Gary Stephens

Representation Summary:

Hallam Land Management Limited (HLM) have an interest in land adjoining the M1 Junction 20 (forming part of the proposed SDA at Lutterworth East. Land (c.3ha)put forward to the Council through SHLAA/ELA call for sites request in 2015 as a strategic distribution site for c. 12,000 sq.m of warehousing.
SA Report dismissed the land as an alternative option at para 2.35. HLM disagree with the comments made;
- location adjacent to M1 is considered more attractive ( in highway, ammenity terms) given direct access to M1, therefore fewer vehicle movements on the local road network.
- size small in comparison to Options A-C, and would provide a complimentary role to development elsewhere. However, size does not mean it is less attractive or deliverable.
Opportunity should not be disregard by the SA.

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5302

Received: 15/03/2016

Respondent: Highways England

Representation Summary:

Highways England's principal interest is safeguarding the operation of the M1 and A5.
Main interest in the SA relates to the "Accessibility" criteria. Noted that all options and combinations score between 'Minor negative' and 'Major negative', with the exception of Option A (no significant effects). Whilst we considers that these scores reflect the relatively poor accessibility of the Magna Park area by public transport, it is not evident how they have been derived.
SA contains limited specific evidence regarding accessibility (except statements on page 16).Highways England would question the term "reasonable" in terms of public transport access and considers that, whilst the other comments may appear reasonable, the scoring associated with accessibility should be supported by some evidence in order to ensure that the scorings provided in the SA are robust.
Reference should be made to the potential for commuter traffic to also have sustainability effects. Evidence on this, increased HGV & car traffic and its effects should be available from transport assessments that have undertaken for the sites.

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5303

Received: 15/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs Janet Ellerker

Representation Summary:

Local roads are congested and producing harmful pollution, and the situation is sure to deteriorate once the reconfigured Catthorpe interchange is completed, thus obliging drivers to use the A426 to travel between the motorways.

To consider doubling the size of Magna Park and so adding even more heavy traffic is appalling.
Concern expressed regarding;
- covering even more farm land in tarmac
- loss of open country, which also counteracts the adverse effects of pollution and absorbs water which mitgates flooding. Flooding in Swift and Avon Valley should not be excacerbated.

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5304

Received: 19/04/2016

Respondent: Oadby and Wigston Borough Council

Representation Summary:

No comment

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5305

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs June Whiting

Representation Summary:

Leicestershire need identified as 107ha, Option A already permitted (upto 37ha)- why does the rest need to be at Magna Park, it should be spread elsewhere.

If Option A and Option B go ahead it will result in over-provision, increasing the need for labour in an area that has little or no unemeployment. Concern expressed about ensuing rise in in-commuting resulting in; traffic problems, road safety issues, air pollution.

Why should local villages be made to suffer anymore, Magna Park is Big Enough.

Comment

Sustainability Appraisal - Second Interim SA Report Appraising Options for the Provision of Strategic Distribution Growth (Feb 2016)

Representation ID: 5308

Received: 15/03/2016

Respondent: Ms Kerry-Anne Browne

Representation Summary:

As a resident of Pailton (Warks) the following concerns are raised with regard Magna Park (existing) and any potential / future extension;
- the continual inconvenience & nuisance the heavy traffic flow of HGV's, and/or motor vehicles, and/or motorbikes, and/or buses, which travel through Pailton in order to access the Magna Park
- the huge volume and high frequency of traffic (HGV's, cars, motorbikes, buses) travelling at excessive speeds through Pailton (optimum period 05:00 to 22:00)
- degeneration of the road surfaces through Pailton due to voluminous & frequent, heavy traffic
- dangers to personal safety & hazzardous road conditions caused by the volume / speed of traffic
- danger to pedestrians (particularly the elderly, children, bus users) using pavements in Pailton due to nature / volume / speed of traffic.

It is blatantly obvious that any additional and/or further expansion to the Magna Park Development would intensify & exacerbate & already altogether intolerable & unacceptable traffic-circumstance within Pailton which significantly impacts upon the quality of life and jeopardises the personal safety of Pailton Residents.