Strategic Distribution Option C

Showing comments and forms 31 to 42 of 42

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5279

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Mr Hugh Robertson Smith

Representation Summary:

Local Plan not yet approved.

Cannot be considered without taking into account the impact of all three Proposals

Total identified demand for such development in the entire county is said to be 103 hectares. Does anyone imagine that this has to be all in one of the furthest reaches of HDC alone.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5286

Received: 13/03/2016

Respondent: Cllr Rosita Page

Representation Summary:

Totally unacceptable development into open countryside, not suitable and not sustainable as requires massive infrastructure.

Option B and C is by vurtue over provision and totally unacceptable.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5293

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: 5297

Received: 15/03/2016

Respondent: Daventry District Council

Representation Summary:

Option C would meet the identified need for the entire Leicester and Leicestershire Housing Market Area (HMA). Making provision for the full need in one location would prevent sites coming forward in other parts of the HMA and could therefore restrict economic growth in other areas. Option C may also have implications for Harborough District (and adjoining authorities) regarding additional housing growth needed to support the increase in employment provision.

Outside of the HMA, Option C would also compete with Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) and its future expansion (Phase III which is currently under construction). Given the relatively close proximity of Magna Park and DIRFT, it is considered that any additional large scale provision should be focused toward sites with existing rail connections and capacity to expand.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5306

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs June Whiting

Representation Summary:

Option C would well exceed total provision needed in Leicestershire. As well as increasing in-commuting (resulting in traffic problems, road safety issues and air pollution), a chunk of agricultural land will be lost forever.
I fail to see the point of replacing a tract of open countryside with established networks of walks, bridleways and wildlife habitat and recently planted woodland with a country park of smaller dimensions looned over by vast warehouses.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5311

Received: 15/03/2016

Respondent: Ms Kerry-Anne Browne

Representation Summary:

I unequivocally object entirely to any further development and/or expansion to Magna Park.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5313

Received: 09/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs Lynn Stringer

Representation Summary:

- provision of Option C threatens the viability of consented rail led sites. This has been reflected in the comments of the adjoining

- Option C is inefficient as a development requiring massive infrastructure. It is elongated and extends unnecessarily into the open countryside as opposed to the alternative of minimal highway works and a compact development at option B.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5315

Received: 09/03/2016

Respondent: Mr Malcolm Stringer

Representation Summary:

(Option C) proposal is totally disproportionate to individual rights when balanced against the contended benefits.

Option C (a road-served site) threatens the viability of consented rail led sites. This has been reflected in the comments of the adjoining authorities.

Option C is inefficient as a development requiring massive infrastructure. It is elongated and extends unnecessarily into the open countryside as opposed to the alternative of minimal highway works and a compact development at option B.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5321

Received: 15/03/2016

Respondent: Mr W Carlton

Representation Summary:

Any further expansion, whether by option B at 88 h. and/or option C at 232 h. will far exceed any estimates of need identified for the whole County.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5325

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Historic England

Representation Summary:

Earthwork and below ground remains of medieval settlement at Bittesby are a Scheduled Monument designated on the basis of national archaeological importance.

The scheme will be harmful to the monument's significance through the transformation of its historic landscape setting from agriculture. An important north-south axis through the monument and along the Claybrook Steam to Ullesthorpe and Claybrook Magna and Parva is retained, but Bittesby House with its landscape approach and surviving ridge and furrow cultivation remains would be lost.Your authority should weigh harm against public benefits giving great weight to the conservation of the designated heritage asset.

As per the outline element of planning appliication 15/-1531/OUT, Option C preserves under grass the rising ground to the east of the medieval village and retains views and connectivity along the Claybrook Stream. These measures arguably constrain the harm of the scheme to a level below substantial harm. However all harm must be clearly justified and weighed against public benefits.

The transformation of much of the historic agrarian landscape setting of the scheduled monument to one of large buildings, fences and roadways will represent harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset and notwithstanding mitigation measures would tend to the site's isolation from its historic context.

Authority should give great weight to the conservation of the designated heritage asset, weighing harm against public benefits. Assessment of significance should be used as a basis to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset's conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

We draw your particular attention to the impact and necessity to the scheme (Option C) of the loss of Bittesby House and its grounds. The setting contribution made by this undesignated heritage asset to the significance of the Scheduled Ancient Monument should be carefully considered.

In taking a strategic approach to options for Magna Park you should give great weight to the conservation of the scheduled ancient monument and consider whether there is clear and convincing jusification for this specific option, as required for any harm or loss to a designated heritage asset under NPPF para 132.
Should your authority be minded to select (Option C) the retension of Parcel D in postive management and the optimal natural and historic management of the Scheduled Ancient Monument must be secured by the most robust forms of tenure, funds, undertakings and oversight such that further harm or loss in those areas is secured against in perpetuity.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5333

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation Summary:

According to Environment Agency maps there is an area of land through the site (Option C) which lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3. The LPA should be satisfied that the site is sequentially preferable from a flooding perspective.
To meet the NPPF no development or ground raising on any area that is designated as Flood Zone 2or 3 should be permitted. Appropriate mitigation measures are required to; protect the underlying Secondary A aquifer, and protect the water environment. Additional foul sewage capacity and / or a new private sewage treatment facility required.

Comment

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

Representation ID: 5337

Received: 16/03/2016

Respondent: IDI Gazeley

Agent: Now Planning

Representation Summary:

* Planning application on which Option C is modelled is for just 83.5 ha of distribution land (not 232ha), of which 22ha is accounted for by Option A.
* Option C adds 61.5ha to the operational area of Option A and would account for 78% (of 107ha) and not "significantly exceed" SDSS requirement
* Description fails to recognise range of other uses delivered; green infrastructure (48ha Country Park, 22ha meadow, 33ha structural landscape with public access - 105ha in total), Logistics Institute of Technology (D1 use - 3,700m2) with campus / playing field, Innovation Centre (B1 uses - 2325m2), Company expansion (B1 use - 7,000m2), and Estate Office incl. Local Heritage Centre (300m2). All are relevant considerations for the SA.
* Ought to acknowledge 7ha parcel that includes; a no-low emission road-based Railfreight Shuttle, HGV park and Driver Training Centre
* Option C provides for just 12.5% more distribution floor-space (and less land area given to distribution warehousing) than the combination of Options A + B - a point which eludes ISA2 because of the errors in the description of Option C.
* Option C is also an extension of an existing site and thus satisfies the first preference in the sequential approach to site selection advised by the SDSS.