Strategic Distribution Option C

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 42

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5108

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: 5113

Received: 04/03/2016

Respondent: Mr David Chapman

Representation Summary:

This option would provide 232 hectares of land, which is well in excess of the total needed in Leicestershire. The additional problems that would accompany this development, traffic, road safety, pollution, loss of countryside would far outweigh any benefits. Given that Option A has been agreed along with other non-rail sites in the county/region, Option C should be dismissed as unnecessary.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5118

Received: 04/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs Jaqueline Strong

Representation Summary:

Totally un-necessary development when set against need/quota of warehouse space and planning applications across the county already approved.
All the dis-benefits already itemised under options A and B apply in spades.

This development is
un-needed
un-wanted
un-necessary and
provides hazards for local residents that far exceed any suggested benefits, many of which are overstated.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5124

Received: 07/03/2016

Respondent: mr rory mcallister

Representation Summary:

: this option would provide 232 hectares of land, which is well in excess of the total needed in Leicestershire. The additional problems that would accompany this development, traffic, road safety, pollution, loss of countryside would far outweigh any benefits. Given that Option A has been agreed along with other non-rail sites in the county/region, Option C should be dismissed as unnecessary.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5127

Received: 07/03/2016

Respondent: Mr Gerard Williams

Representation Summary:

Option C ludicrously proposes 116% more hectatres of warehouse development in this small area than is required for the whole of the region. There is not infrastucture to support this and there is no local need for the employment. This proposal does not fulfill central governments policy of having such developments on a rail hub. I strongly urge the planning committee to reject this development and protect our community and environment from the further advance of this superfluous facility.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5132

Received: 07/03/2016

Respondent: Dr Paul Dimmer

Representation Summary:

This option exceeds the amount of land required for strategic distribution for Leicestershire on its own. Furthermore, the report significantly over-estimates the benefits of the option, while under-estimating the negative impacts. A country park surrounded by warehouses is an odd concept. Existing walking activity in the area would no longer be attractive and would cease. Add to that the additional traffic and pollution that would result the overwhelming conclusion is that Option C should be dismissed.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5134

Received: 07/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs Maria Dimmer

Representation Summary:

Option C should not be pursued because it exceeds the amount of warehousing space required and would have the negative impacts which I have already submitted.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5141

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: 5153

Received: 13/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs Kathleen Rowell

Representation Summary:

This option is huge and speculative, 232 hectares well in excess of identified need. I disagree with the statement regarding creation of jobs, there is little need for jobs in this area, so will inevitably bring workers from a distance, so adding to traffic misery and pollution.
I dispute the statement on provision of a country park, there will be loss of countryside and existing networks, field margins etc are in excess of anything planned. It is nonsense to try to suggest that any proposals would be superior that already created.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5165

Received: 13/03/2016

Respondent: Ian Lewis

Representation Summary:

Both Options B and C would soak up the availability of land and deprive other locations of the opportunity to provide high skilled employment where it is needed.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5169

Received: 14/03/2016

Respondent: Mr Alan Pankhurst

Representation Summary:

Option C should be given no consideration at all when agreeing a new local plan for HDC. The 232 hectares are well in excess of the area of warehouse space needed according to the studies. The effect on roads and local employment would be devastating not to mention the loss of countryside. There is a real danger of giving the go ahead to these options only to find that the warehousing cannot be let because of surplus capacity. However our countryside will have been ruined for ever. This option should be completely disregarded.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5172

Received: 14/03/2016

Respondent: Mr Alan Pankhurst

Representation Summary:

At 232 hectares Option C would lead to an over provision of space by 125 hectares. Countryside could be taken over by sheds that would never be needed. Too much weight is given to the provision of a country park - which will be smaller and with less amenities than the current land. There is over emphasis on the benefits of jobs - we have little unemployment indicating that warehousing should be built in areas of unemployment. The impact of Option C would be overwhelming for the roads, neighbouring areas, and the employment market. Reject it.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5175

Received: 14/03/2016

Respondent: Mr Alan Pankhurst

Representation Summary:

Option C is completely unnecessary and will lead to an over supply of warehousing space in Leicestershire. At 232 hectares it will in itself provide more than double the area needed of 107 hectares. There is no justification for including this Option in the Local Plan.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5179

Received: 14/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs Maggie Pankhurst

Representation Summary:

At 232 hectares Option C would lead to an over provision of space by 125 hectares. Countryside would be taken over by sheds that would never be needed. Too much weight is given to the provision of a country park - which will be smaller and have less amenities than the current land.. There is over emphasis on the benefits of jobs - Lutterworth has little unemployment. Additional warehousing should be built in areas of unemployment. The Impact of Option C would be overwhelming for roads, neighbouring areas and the employment market. No to C.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5182

Received: 14/03/2016

Respondent: SHAWELL Parish Meeting

Representation Summary:

This proposal is way in excess of any demonstrated need. The health and amenity of local residents should take precedence over pressure from big business.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5190

Received: 14/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs Shiela Carlton

Representation Summary:

This option matches Gazeley's hybrid application 15/01531 as a further pre=emptive 'drive' to the Local Plan, thus making a nonsense of local consultation.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5195

Received: 14/03/2016

Respondent: Mr Tony Farquharson

Representation Summary:

If adopted this option would result in an over provision of space even if neither of the other options were adopted. There is no proven need for this amount of space and it will take away countryside unnecessarily if it is built - possibly to lie empty if there is an over provision. I do not think this option should be added to the Local Plan.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5199

Received: 14/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs Helen Heath

Representation Summary:

With its 232 hectares of land, this option exceeds the total needed in Leicestershire.
Traffic problems, road safety problems and pollution problems would all greatly increase.
We would loose valuable countryside with its rights of way that we all currently value and use.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5203

Received: 15/03/2016

Respondent: Mr Neil Ridley

Representation Summary:

this option would provide 232 hectares of land, which is well in excess of the total needed in Leicestershire. The additional problems that would accompany this development, traffic, road safety, pollution, loss of countryside would far outweigh any benefits. Given that Option A has been agreed along with other non-rail sites in the county/region, Option C should be dismissed as unnecessary. 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: 5208

Received: 15/03/2016

Respondent: Miss Alison Bent

Representation Summary:

There are numerous problems that would accompany this development - increased traffic, road safety, pollution, loss of countryside would far outweigh any benefits. It only takes an incident on one of the nearby motorway networks to illustrate how the whole infrastructure comes to a grinding holt as it is! The area at peak times is already a death trap on occasions.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5214

Received: 15/03/2016

Respondent: Suzanne Hayto

Representation Summary:

I reiterate, if this option goes ahead, together with option A and B, it will provide more hectares of land than is required in Leicestershire (and beyond!). This area does not need the employment, more traffic congestion, additional pollution etc etc, We are at capacity already!

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5219

Received: 15/03/2016

Respondent: Ms Kerry-Anne Browne

Representation Summary:

Option C: this option would provide 232 hectares of land, which is well in excess of the total needed in Leicestershire. The additional problems that would accompany this development, traffic, road safety, pollution, loss of countryside would far outweigh any benefits. Given that Option A has been agreed along with other non-rail sites in the county/region, Option C should be dismissed as unnecessary.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5222

Received: 15/03/2016

Respondent: Mr John Rowlands

Representation Summary:

Option C is more than twice the 107 hectares needed, and is therefore totally nonsensical. To consider an Option B+C, total 320 hectares, is ridiculous. Option C would have an even bigger negative impact than Option B due to HGV traffic congestion, air pollution, and commuter traffic. For the consultation document to show a positive effect on landscape for Option C, due to the creation of a "Country Park" is outrageous: the unspoilt countryside is currently a haven for wildlife, and a place of beauty for walkers using existing public footpaths; it would be destroyed for ever by this development.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5227

Received: 15/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs Helen Farquharson

Representation Summary:

Option C should not even be considered as it would result in a gross over provision of land for non-rail warehousing. This could mean that farmland is taken for building sheds which would then lie empty. If 107 hectares of land are needed this can be provided by Option A which is already agreed and other parts of Leicestershire.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5231

Received: 15/03/2016

Respondent: Ashby Parva Parish Meeting

Representation Summary:

Option C would add 232 ha. to the 37 already decided, making a massive total of 269 ha., more than double the presumed total for the county as a whole. This is excessive and I strongly oppose it,. If both it and option B were chosen, the total of 357 ha. would pose unsupportable strains on the road network and cause a huge increase noxious pollution and CO2.

By not being rail-linked, it contradicts government preference for more environmentally acceptable solutions and would undermine such development and make them less viable

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5236

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Simon Silvester

Representation Summary:

This option would provide 232 hectares of land, which is well in excess of the total needed in Leicestershire. The additional problems that would accompany this development, traffic, road safety, pollution, loss of countryside would far outweigh any benefits. Given that Option A has been agreed along with other non-rail sites in the county/region, Option C should be dismissed as unnecessary.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5250

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs Anne Rowlands

Representation Summary:

Option C is more than twice the 107 hectares requirement shown in the consultation document, so should not even be considered. Option B+C, which is a total of 320 hectares, should likewise not even be considered. Option C would have a huge negative effect due to HGV traffic and commuter traffic congestion and associated air pollution. The consultation document shows the creation of a so-called "Country Park" in Option C as a positive effect, however the area that would be built on is already unspoilt countryside with existing public footpaths; this countryside would be destroyed for ever by this development.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5264

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Mr Graham Logan

Representation Summary:

MAGNA PARK IS BIG ENOUGH

Option A has already been approved. Approving Option C would mean exceeding Leicestershire's quota of 107 hectares of warehousing as well as contravening HDC's latest approved Local Plan.

Unemployment in this area is 0.5% and many local organisations struggle to recruit now.

Build new warehouses nearer to those who would value these new jobs and at locations with a rail hub.

Our roads don't cope with existing volumes.

Approving this option would significantly increase HGVs and commuter cars, leading to more congestion, RTAs and road fatalities.

Leicestershire is already 6th worst county in England for road deaths.

Reject this unwanted application!

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5269

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Mr Michael Stanhope

Representation Summary:

This proposed development is not adjacent to any motorways and relies on long stretches of already overcrowded single lane carriageway to reach the motorway network. The development will bring more traffic and more pollution to an area already suffering with the consequences of the Magna Park distribution centre.
If approved another vast tract of our precious Leicestershire countryside will disappear under concrete.

This scheme is detrimental to the quality of life of local residents and brings no benefits to the people Harborough District Council represent.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5275

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs Clare Robertson Smith

Representation Summary:

Option C is unthinkable. The implications as regards traffic congestion, litter, noise and light pollution are too onerous to summarise in 100 words. This is green field land alongside the A5 which is not fit for purpose, in an area of extremely low unemployment and would provide strategic distribution far in excess of the recognised need.