SP3: Meeting regional and national demand for strategic distribution (logistics) development.

This objective is simply about enabling massive expansion of Magna Park to an unsustainable level. The evidence base is sketchy and it is unclear if other neighbouring authorities are in agreement with the proposal. It is reckless to allow such huge expansion of a road-based logistics site with all the commensurate sustainability issues about traffic, air quality, road safety, irrevocable loss of open countryside, light pollution etc when there is a logistics site with railhead in nearby Northants. In addition unemployment is demonstrably low in Harborough so surely jobs should be sited elsewhere in the better interest of UK PLC?

Best proposal for a bad requirement

There is already a considerable amount of vacant warehousing in the surrounding area without adding to it with this proposal , The employment that this proposal will require will have to come from outside the area adding to the congestion and poor air quality in Lutterworth

2.0 Duty to Co-operate
2.1 The Framework [§178] states public bodies have a duty to cooperate on issues that cross administrative boundaries, particularly those which relate to the strategic priorities. The Government expects joint working on areas of common interest to be diligently undertaken for the mutual benefit of neighbouring authorities.
2.2 The Practice Guidance goes on to state [Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 9-001-20140306] "that the Localism Act 2011, places a legal duty on local planning authorities, county councils in England and public bodies to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis to maximise the effectiveness of Local and Marine Plan preparation in the context of strategic cross boundary matters....... The duty to cooperate is not a duty to agree. But local planning authorities should make every effort to secure the necessary cooperation on strategic cross boundary matters before they submit their Local Plans for examination".
2.3 Prologis and RRSLP consider that Harborough Council has not fully met the duty to co-operate on strategic cross boundary matters when identifying a strategic extension to Magna Park. It is clear that the allocation of an extension to Magna Park would have significant cross boundary implications because of its scale. Policy BE2: Strategic distribution, seeks to protect Magna Park and allow up to 700,000m² of strategic floorspace subject to certain criteria being met.
2.4 To put the level of potential expansion at Magna Park into context, the existing Magana Park development is 202 ha . The Harborough District Council Strategic Employment Land Availability Assessment (SELAA) 2017 Update states that the need for further land for strategic B8 use is assessed separately to the HEDNA as part of the 2014 Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic Distribution Sector Study (L&LSDSS) (further confirmed by the 2016 Update report). This identifies minimum gross land requirements for strategic B8 development of 361 hectares by 2031 and 472 hectares by 2036 across the Functional Economic Housing Market Area (FEHMA) (Leicester and Leicestershire) (para 1.2.3). The L&LSDSS (2014) preferred high replacement scenario suggests around 153ha of new land at non rail served sites will need to be brought forward within Leicestershire up to 2036. Using the site areas from the applications that have been submitted at Magna Park (one of which has been approved), it is noted that the Magna Park extension will deliver 383 hectares ha of land . Thus, the Magna Park extension will 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 by 2031.
2.5 Furthermore, we also aware of the fact that there is currently a significant amount of vacant and available floorspace at the existing Magna Park Site. The SEELA and SEELA Update make no reference to the existing level of availability. We are aware that planning permission has been granted for 100,844 sq m of floorspace at the Magna Park Site [LPA ref: 15/00919] which has not been implemented. The Council has not been clear in demonstrating or assessing the amount of vacant floorspace on Magna Park or the likelihood and impact of redevelopment, which is probable due to the age of some of the buildings at Magna Park in the near future.
2.6 Prologis and RRSLP consider that concentrating such a substantial amount of the employment requirement in this part of Harborough will have serious implications for the delivery of sustainable economic development in the balance of the Leicestershire area.
2.7 The close proximity of Magna Park to DIRFT III, this extent of strategic non-rail B8 development, prosed through this allocation, will impact on the ability of the DIRFT III scheme to be delivered and have a negative impact on Daventry's ability to deliver its employment and GVA aspirations. It is also noted that this scale of allocation is not justified by evidence.
2.8 Prologis and RRSLP note that L&LSDSS (2014) states that when preparing local plans and policies, in practical terms this means the Leicestershire planning authorities, the County Council and LLEP working together on a long term collaborative basis to allocate appropriate sites within the county to meet the identified shortfall. In the event that the identified shortfall cannot be entirely allocated within Leicestershire, this implies a requirement to bring forward further appropriate sites in neighbouring authorities outside the county. The duty to cooperate principle will therefore have to extend into neighbouring authorities in Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and the West Midlands region (para 3.2.6). The evidence base for the Plan therefore requires such cross boundary consideration.
2.9 It is clear from the Harborough Local Plan Draft Submission Stage (Regulation 19) Duty to Co-operate Statement (September 2017) that the Council has not given due consideration to the concerns raised by Daventry DC ,who requested that the Council demonstrate that an assessment is prepared to demonstrate that the level of employment being planned for at Magna Park is justified. Harborough Council rebutted Daventry DC's request that the Council has not justified this requirement stating that "No assessment has been made as to whether the proposed maximum floorspace limit would have an impact on existing and proposed strategic rail freight interchanges (SRFI) (2b) as it is considered that the scope and scale of such a study would not be proportionate or conclusive. It is considered that the existing requirement set out in criteria 2b provides sufficient protection and consideration of SRFIs". It is clear that this work needs to be undertaken otherwise the Council's evidence has been retrospectively prepared to justify the approval of the applications at Magna Park .
2.10 Prologis considers that the reference in the policy to ensuring that any proposal, brought forward under the terms of Policy BE2 supports, or at least does not prejudice, the viability and deliverability of an SRFI in adjoining areas (a reference to DIRFT), demonstrates the clear acknowledgement by the Council that this is a genuine concern. This matter should be considered in the context of Plan making. If the Council considers this assessment to be disproportionate (which Prologis contests) and likely to be 'non-conclusive', then what basis is there for including this as a policy criteria?
2.11 Prologis and RRSLP note that Daventry District Council in their Committee Report [Report reference: SG.121017/4] [Appendix 1] to the Strategy Group on the 12th October 2017 in relation to the 'Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Strategic Planning Issues' raise concerns with the soundness of the policies relating to the extension of Magna Park and:
1 Recommend that "further cross-boundary work with stakeholders is required to fully take into account the potential impact of different growth scenarios which could in turn indicate the amount of floorspace to be provided for at Magna Park".
2 Raise concerns with the scale of the Magna Park as being still far in excess of the identified need for the whole of Leicester and Leicestershire in one location. This also raises a further issue with the policy that the level of growth being planned for is not justified by evidence.
3 Note that through the examination of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy [WNJCS] WNJCS that the examiner reduced the capacity of the proposed J16 employment area on the basis that its proposed scale was not justified by need and could discourage the increased transfer of freight to rail.
2.12 We also note that the Harborough Local Plan Draft Submission Stage (Regulation 19) Duty to Co-operate Statement (September 2017) identifies that North West Leicestershire District Council are unclear as to clear how the 700,000 sq m relates to the needs identified in the Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic Distribution Sector Study which identifies need in terms of land take, but the proposed policy uses floorspace.
2.13 Overall, 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.