Strategic Distribution Option A

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 36

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5106

Received: 03/03/2016

Respondent: BROUGHTON ASTLEY Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Broughton Astley Parish Council would not like to make any new comments, subject to ratification by the Parish Council, at the meeting to be held on Thursday 17 March 2016.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5111

Received: 04/03/2016

Respondent: Mr David Chapman

Representation Summary:

This has already been given permission, so why is it included in the consultation? This means we have already provided 37 hectares of the total 107 needed. Perhaps the rest could be found elsewhere in the county/region.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5116

Received: 04/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs Jaqueline Strong

Representation Summary:

As I understand it this planning permission has already been given. Why is it included i this new consultation?
Magna Park is Big Enough. Local residents already suffer from traffic pollution, traffic, congestion, traffic hazards (try crossing the A426 near Cotesbach on a working day!).
Air pollution in Lutterworth is amongst the worst in the country.
HGV use country roads rather than motorways and dual carriageways and there is no policing of this.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5122

Received: 07/03/2016

Respondent: mr rory mcallister

Representation Summary:

This has already been given permission, so why is it included in the consultation? This means we have already provided 37 hectares of the total 107 needed. Perhaps the rest could be found elsewhere in the county/region

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5133

Received: 07/03/2016

Respondent: Dr Paul Dimmer

Representation Summary:

I find it odd that the public are asked to comment on an option that has already been approved. Does this mean it can be overturned? The Local Plan should have been determined before any planning permission was granted as it may have led to a different outcome.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5139

Received: 09/03/2016

Respondent: LUTTERWORTH TOWN COUNCIL Parish Council

Representation Summary:

There is reference on page 16: Communities that development would improve job opportunities and access to employment within Harborough, in particular Lutterworth. The unemployment rate in Lutterworth is however less than 0.5 per cent and less than 6% of employees are drawn from the population of Lutterworth according to statistics recently provided by IDI Gazeley Ltd.
There are contradictory references to accessibility contained within the report. Lutterworth Town Council does not agree that transport is considered 'reasonable' as it is currently too infrequent and indirect.
Lutterworth's existing status as an Air Quality Management Area is seemingly ignored throughout the report.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5142

Received: 10/03/2016

Respondent: Susan Jukes

Representation Summary:

Points apply to all three options. Summarised as follows - see attachment.
1. The Local Plan as currently drafted does not provide a framework against which to evaluate future planning applications. It seems to be more of a reaction to an agenda set by commercial developers: Gazeley/DB Symmetry 'tail' wagging the Harborough 'dog'.

2. Strategic consideration should be given to the cumulative impact of all potential developments on the A5 corridor, including those beyond Leicestershire. This is not being taken into consideration.

3. Environmental impact seems to have been downplayed, and undue emphasis placed on the mitigating effects of a country park.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5166

Received: 13/03/2016

Respondent: Ian Lewis

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 low bringing in jobs increases and competition for labour locally plus the disadvantages of the development because of the increase in traffic, pollution. The country park would be smaller than the open land, network of walks/bridleways and wildlife habitat that currently exists. Add to this the fact that the country park would be alongside huge warehouses, it seems that there will be a negative impact from providing a country park.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5167

Received: 14/03/2016

Respondent: Mr Alan Pankhurst

Representation Summary:

This question seems to ask for retrospective approval for Option A as part of the Local Plan so that HDC can justify giving planning permission for this option on 28th January. I do not approve of this being included in the new local Plan and would like the new plan to state no more expansion of Magna Park as per the current Core Strategy.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5170

Received: 14/03/2016

Respondent: Mr Alan Pankhurst

Representation Summary:

Is this an admission that the 15/00919/FUL should not have been consented as it is not in the Core Strategy? This feels like retrospective planning which in this case is not leading to good/appropriate planning decisions. If this option had not already been consented I would not wish it to be included in the new Local Plan as it will bring little or no benefit to the local area but will bring many difficulties re traffic, loss of countryside, too much competition for labour driving existing businesses of Lutterworth.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5173

Received: 14/03/2016

Respondent: Mr Alan Pankhurst

Representation Summary:

Option A has already received planning consent. Why is it included in this consultation? Does this mean that it the planning consent can be overturned. If not then does it mean that we have already provided our share of the 107 hectares needed in the county. I would not want this Option included in the Local Plan if this option were truly available.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5177

Received: 14/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs Maggie Pankhurst

Representation Summary:

It is unclear why this option is included as 15/00919/FUL has been consented. However if there is a choice about whether this is included in the Local Plan I would not want it included as it will cause considerable problems locally with little perceived benefit to the local community. As the SoS has said this is a local matter then I think we need to think locally when making the decision.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5180

Received: 14/03/2016

Respondent: SHAWELL Parish Meeting

Representation Summary:

This appears to be a done deal in contravention to the approved current core strategy that ruled out further expansion at Magna Park.
Harborough District has no requirement for additional low wage employment. This will significantly increase unsustainable commuting from distant conurbations.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5188

Received: 14/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs Shiela Carlton

Representation Summary:

This option matches Gazeley's planning application 15/00919 already approved, therefore pre=empting' the Local Plan preparation

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5193

Received: 14/03/2016

Respondent: Mr Tony Farquharson

Representation Summary:

This option has already been agreed so not sure why it is being consulted on. However if only 107 hectares if required in the whole of Leicestershire this warehouse option could be placed nearer to areas of unemployment.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5197

Received: 14/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs Helen Heath

Representation Summary:

Why is Option A included here when it already has permission? With its 37 hectares this area has supplied a substantial part of the identified total. What have other areas provided?

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5201

Received: 15/03/2016

Respondent: Mr Neil Ridley

Representation Summary:

this has already been given permission, so why is it included in the consultation? This means we have already provided 37 hectares of the total 107 needed. The rest should be be found elsewhere in the county/region. No account of the 780 acre site at Burbage has been made.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5210

Received: 15/03/2016

Respondent: Miss Alison Bent

Representation Summary:

This has already been given permission (despite opposition from everyone living in the area), so why is it included in the consultation? Perhaps the rest could be found elsewhere in the county/region or in areas where unemployment is high.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5217

Received: 15/03/2016

Respondent: Ms Kerry-Anne Browne

Representation Summary:

Option A: this has already been given permission, so why is it included in the consultation? This means we have already provided 37 hectares of the total 107 needed. Perhaps the rest could be found elsewhere in the county/region.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5220

Received: 15/03/2016

Respondent: Mr John Rowlands

Representation Summary:

Has Option A already been approved? Can approval be rescinded? If already approved, why is it included in the current consultation which considers its positive and negative effects? Decisions made on any planning applications before the new Local Plan has been agreed should have followed the existing HDC Local Plan and Core Strategy, in which case Option A should have been rejected as the current Core Strategy states that there should be no expansion of Magna Park.
Option A provides 37 hectares of the 107 stated as needed; the rest should be found elsewhere, in areas where jobs are needed.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5225

Received: 15/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs Helen Farquharson

Representation Summary:

This option has already been given consent so it seem strange to be asking us whether we want it included in the Local Plan. Given a choice I would not want this Option in Local Plan.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5234

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Simon Silvester

Representation Summary:

This has already been given permission, so why is it included in the consultation? This means we have already provided 37 hectares of the total 107 needed. Perhaps the rest could be found elsewhere in the county/region.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5247

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs Anne Rowlands

Representation Summary:

Has Option A already been given planning approval? If so, why is it included in the current consultation? Option A provides 37 hectares of the 107 hectares stated as needed; the remaining area should be found in other areas of Leicestershire.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5257

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Mr Graham Logan

Representation Summary:

MAGNA PARK IS BIG ENOUGH

Thousands of local people are entirely convinced of this.
Please read their written objections and material considerations to all Options.
Road fatalities in Leicestershire are the 6th worst in the country.
Our roads do not cope with existing traffic volumes.
Air quality is some of the worst in the region.
HGVs travel on small local roads, contravening the unenforced restrictions.
Build new warehouses nearer to the people who would take up and value these new jobs. Unemployment is less than 0.5% in the local area, meaning staff would have to inward commute over lengthy distances = more congestion and pollution!

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5267

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Mr A Adcock

Representation Summary:

This option should not be included given it is already consented, and option C includes the allocation for this land.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5272

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs Clare Robertson Smith

Representation Summary:

Why is Option A still under discussion if IDI Gazeley have already been granted planning permission? Perhaps the Council should have made their Local Plan decisions before hearing the application.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5276

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Mr Hugh Robertson Smith

Representation Summary:

Apparently approved by HDC but before the Local Plan had been approved. How does that work?
Notwithstanding, if HDC approved this for fear of legal and financial repercussions from Gazeley, banking on the SoS calling it in then HDC guessed wrongly. There will be repercussions now for HDC.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5291

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Anglian Water Services Ltd

Representation Summary:

No further comment.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5295

Received: 15/03/2016

Respondent: Daventry District Council

Representation Summary:

It is considered that Options A and B are the most appropriate

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5307

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs June Whiting

Representation Summary:

Option A will undoubtedly have a devastating affect on our local environment because of the nature of the warehouse and its service needs.