GD3 clause 1

Support A to l, these criteria should ensure the continuation and steady realistic growth of rural communities. Agriculture, tourism and local small businesses are the life blood of small rural communities. However, mineral extraction and waste development can act in a retrograde step for such communities
Should a reference to excluding development in areas of Separation also be included?

This is very open to abuse. This policy states that all of these forms of development WILL be permitted. There are no control measures to limit any attempted abuse. The explanation states that these are the types of developments "in appropriate circumstances" but gives no guidance on what these circumstances are.

This section would seem to preclude development at MP as per BE2;2

We object to this policy since it is overly restrictive. It places tight controls on rural development, which conflicts with paragraph 28 of the NPPF. It is more akin to Green Belt policy, than paragraph 28.
This policy specifies which types of development will be permitted, however, paragraph 28 explicitly supports "the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both the through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings."
Whilst we do not object to the support for these types of development, the policy is presented as a 'closed list', implying other types of uses will not be appropriate. This conflicts with the NPPF requirement for plans to support new and converted buildings for all types of business and enterprise.
Furthermore, some of the development types within the list have additional provisions which limits the support given, in conflict with the NPPF.
The inclusion of the words "permanent and substantial" in criterion g) is taken from Green Belt policy and is contrary to the provisions for re-use set out in NPPF paragraph 55, which contains no such restriction.
Criterion h) is also taken from Green Belt policy and conflicts with the provisions of the General Permitted Development Order.
Criterion l) could allow other uses beyond those listed, however, it places the onus on the applicant to justify the proposal and demonstrate that it is compatible with a countryside location. The NPPF, in contrast, requires planning policies to "support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development."
We disagree with supporting paragraph 4.5.1 which claims the policy strikes a suitable balance between encouraging a thriving rural economy and protecting the countryside.
The reference to paragraph 17 (bullet point 5) in paragraph 4.5.3 and its recognition of the "intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside..." neglects the second half of this sentence which continues "...and supporting thriving rural communities within it."
This inherent conflict with national policy frustrates the delivery of sustainable development and as such fails the tests of soundness as set out in NPPF paragraph 182.

We object to this policy since it is overly restrictive. It places tight controls on rural development, which conflicts with paragraph 28 of the NPPF.
Criterion g), h) and l) are particularly restrictive and we object to the policy being presented as a 'closed list' of acceptable uses, which are in direct conflict with the NPPF paragraph 28 support for "all types of business and enterprise in rural areas".

Infilling should be allowed in all settlements, including those categorised as "other villages and rural settlements (such as Leire), because this will ensure their long-term life. All settlements should be allowed to grow in proportion to their size and not just via affordable or exception housing. These settlements should not be considered as open countryside.

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031: Proposed Submission Representation
17 November 2017


1. Gazeley UK Ltd are the developer of Magna Park - Harborough District's single largest employer and the focus of Policy BE2 in the Proposed Submission Local Plan (PSLP). Gazeley are also the applicant for an extension to Magna Park to provide a further 419,800 sq m of strategic distribution floorspace together with a range of ancillary uses, including an Innovation Centre, Logistics Institute of Technology and Railfreight Shuttle and Terminal. The ancillary uses are aimed both at creating the efficiencies of the logistics cluster that Magna Park stands to become and at capturing the benefits that would follow for the industry, its employees, local communities and the environment. Almost uniquely in the sector, Magna Park is proactively managed by Gazeley. That fact, coupled with the concentration at Magna Park of blue chip logistics businesses, generates the opportunities that Gazeley's extension proposals would realise.

2. Gazeley welcome and support Harborough's PSLP. The PSLP provides a welcome strategic platform for achieving the ambitions for Magna Park, and in particular for ensuring that Harborough's economy, communities and environment gain accordingly.

3. This representation sets out the basis for Gazeley's support for the PSLP, together with suggested amendments to Policies GD3, HE1 and BE2.2. The change to GD3 is needed to make it consistent with BE2.2; the change to HE1 is needed to bring the policy into line with NPPF 132-135; and the changes to BE2 are suggested to strengthen the policy's expectation that large scale distribution development around Magna Park should create a valuable logistics industry cluster that will benefit local communities as well as the economy and in all other ways constitute sustainable development as defined by NPPF 15-149.

The PSLP policies Gazeley particularly welcome

4. Gazeley particularly welcome the following policies for the reasons explained.

* SS1 The Spatial Strategy and the accompanying written statement, because of:

i. the recognition of the significant role the district plays in the strategic distribution sector because of its competitive advantages (strategic infrastructure, land, labour and cluster efficiencies)

ii. the recognition of Magna Park's role in the significance of the sector for the district, county and region

iii. the recognition that with more employment in the district, there is a chance that out- commuting for work could reduce (no chance otherwise) - and in that context note the wide range of occupations in strategic distribution and the sector's a good match with the district's skill set;

iv. the consistency with the Strategic Economic Plan for the Leicester and Leicestershire Local Enterprise Partnership (LLEP) and with the Midlands Engine for Growth strategy;

v. the use made of the extensive evidence base commissioned by LLEP, the Leicestershire authorities and HDC on the strategic distribution sector; and

vi. the acknowledgement that the evidence is a projected need for a minimum quantum of 608,000 sq m in the county to 2031, provided in market-facing locations, offering development plots of a scale and with the flexibility required to meet the increasing size needs of the sector, with sequential approach to site selection starting with a first preference for extensions to existing sites.

* CC1 - Mitigating Climate Change, because of the obligations CC1 places on major developments to provide and use renewable energy, minimise resource consumption and reduce carbon emissions.

Policy not sound as drafted: Policy GD3 Development in the Countryside

5. Policy GD3 is not sound as drafted, but solely because it fails to account for Policy BE2.2, the delivery of which will require development in the countryside for a use which Policy GD3 precludes.

6. Policy BE2.2 is not accompanied by a site allocation, but requires the development of land in the countryside to deliver the up to 700,000 sq m of strategic distribution floorspace that BE2.2 locates next to Magna Park. Therefore, as drafted, GD3 is neither positively prepared nor effective.

7. To make GD3 sound, we suggest simply adding a new criterion 'j.' to refer to BE2.2, and to renumber the remaining criteria in GD3 as follows: criterion j., and renumber the remaining criteria as follows:

8. Should a site or sites ultimately be allocated for Policy BE2.2, then the change to Policy GD3 would clearly not be necessary.

Policy BE2 Strategic Distribution: sound but would benefit from setting a higher bar for what would constitute sustainable development

9. Gazeley welcome policy BE2 and its criteria-based approach, and in particular the recognition of the particular merits of the Magna Park location in meeting the needs of a growing and dynamic logistics sector for which Harborough has compelling competitive advantages.

10. Nonetheless - and with regard to the sheer scale of development that is promoted by BE2, the concentration of an additional 700,000 sq m of strategic distribution space on land that extends or adjoins Magna Park and the concerns of local communities (voiced since the first planning permissions were granted for Magna Park) - Gazeley take the view that the policy is less ambitious than it should be. Magna Park itself is already unique: its existing size (some 772,000 sq m of large B8 units); its occupation solely by blue chip companies; its dominance by national distribution centres; and the high share of the site given to landscape, habitat and woodland (Gazeley planted over a million trees to create the publicly accessible Magna Wood). Magna Park is also in the open countryside but close not just to the strategic highway network but to a small town and many smaller rural villages. These factors, together with the prospect of a further 700,000 sq m of large B8 units, combine to present a singular opportunity for Harborough - not just to meet the floorspace needs of the logistics sector in an optimal location, but in doing so also to optimise the economic efficiencies for the competitive growth of the industry by promoting Magna Park as the centre of a logistics cluster and, at the same time, setting a new bar for socially responsible and environmentally sustainable logistics development.

11. The key challenges to the logistics industry's competitive growth are, alongside securing an adequate supply of optimally located land, its image, the availability of suitably skilled and qualified labour, and its environmental footprint. These are all closely related: the ability of the industry to grow productively as well as sustainably is fundamentally dependent on attracting and providing people with the skills needed to drive up innovation in the sector, reduce the costs of the supply chain, improve its value to end users and minimise its environmental effects. The sector's ability to do this is, in turn, fundamental to the performance of UK plc, including environmentally.

12. These considerations create the opportunity for policy BE2 to drive and support the singular opportunity to build on the standing and scale of the existing Magna Park and to both drive and capture the benefits of the logistics cluster that BE2 is capable of creating. A cluster is a group of similar and related firms in a defined geographic area that shares common markets, technologies, worker skill needs, and which are linked by buyer-seller relationships. Clusters are drivers of economic efficiencies, innovation and productivity resulting from competition and inter- trading between firms and the further efficiencies entailed in resources, factor inputs, labour skills and markets.

13. The logistics industry has particular features of its operation that makes it particularly well-placed to secure the economic benefits of clustering. One feature of this is pure geography. There are a limited number of optimal locations with supporting infrastructure from which logistics operators can most efficiently fulfil demand. Magna Park is one. But there are also particular operational advantages for logistics from cluster activity. Moving between large centres of freight activity rather than highly dispersed centres lowers transportation costs and almost certainly creates greater reliability as well. In any competitive cluster environment these costs savings get passed on to the logistics operator's customers and hence lower costs across the economy as a whole.

14. Logistics clusters also tend to encourage value-added activities such as product differentiation, repair and servicing - and increasingly, amongst the more innovative, also various forms of 'trialling' of new systems of supply change management and other forms of R&D and its application. Long and complex manufacturing supply chains, for example, mean that firms often have to respond quickly to changing technologies, fashions and consumer tastes to stay relevant to the market. The closer and later this can be done to point of delivery to market, the greater the competitive edge for the selling firm. Logistics clusters provide the ideal base to perform such value added functions. Thus the notion, particularly in the Golden Triangle, that the National Distribution Centres that tend to dominate the occupier base, 'only' do stock-holding and distribution is incorrect, and increasingly so.

15. The other merit of the scale of development promoted by BE2 is the cost savings achievable in the development process itself. For example, shared infrastructure means the costs of providing it are lower per unit of occupation. The margins achieved can be diverted to less commercial, but nonetheless needed and valued services to the cluster are greater. Gazeley, for example, is capturing those margins to promote, as part of its application to extend Magna Park:

* a Logistics Institute of Technology (LIT) in partnership with Aston University and North Warwickshire and South Leicestershire to address the industry's rising needs for more skilled, better qualified labour and for the kinds of applied research innovations needed to continue to drive the industry's sustainable, competitive, growth;

* an 'innovation centre' to supply easy-in, easy-out small business space to encourage new firms to start up and grow on the back of the out-sourcing opportunities the Park provides and the output of the applied research functions;

* a Driver Training Centre to address the shortage of skilled and professional HGV drivers;

* a railfreight shuttle - using low or no carbon fuelled traction units - to provide and 'on- demand' service to nearby DIRFT and on-site container storage, to overcome these hurdles to the take-up of railfreight by Magna Park's largely road-based distribution firms;

* an HGV park, fuelling station and vehicle wash;

* a 70 ha country park and meadow supported by public car parks, public lavatories and shared use of the innovation centre's café - targeted on local communities but also occupiers' employees;

* the dual use of the LIT's campus facilities, including playing fields, with the community and again with Magna Park employees;

* a Local Heritage Centre to exhibit and explain the history of the site's habitation in its landscape and the economic forces that have shaped both, with focuses that include parts of the Key Stages 1 (heritage) and 2 (climate change) curriculum; and

* the re-use of a non-designated heritage asset on the site as a conferencing centre and marketing suite.

16. The value that the logistics cluster is able to return to the economy, environment and local communities is very significantly increased by the addition of these complementary uses. Yet the market - in the absence of the kinds of margins that large scale schemes create - could not and would not be able to deliver these wider uses. Though these uses deliver public benefits in line with policy, constraints on the public finances make it unlikely that funding for such uses will be forthcoming for the foreseeable future.

17. Their delivery at Magna Park is made possible for Gazeley by the sheer scale of the extension scheme, the existing concentration at Magna Park of blue chip logistics businesses to provide an initial customer base for these complementary uses and by Gazeley's proactive engagement with partner bodies for their delivery. The commercial return for Gazeley is achieved by the competitive advantages gained from attracting the industry's best and most socially responsible occupiers.

18. Finally - and again in recognition of how firmly Magna Park is already embedded in the community which hosts it - Gazeley convene and chair a 'Community Liaison Group' which meets quarterly to listen and respond to the concerns of local parish councils and residents groups, operates a community fund of £20,000 per year which awards project funds on a competitive basis to local schools, community groups and charities and hosts annually a family fun day at Magna Park open to the wider community as well as the Park's employees.

19. With all of this in mind, Gazeley suggest the amendments and additions to policy BE2 that are set out below. We also request that a site allocation(s) be made (which if done would obviate the change requested to policy GD3). The certainty of a site allocation(s) would, in Gazeley's view, greatly assist the industry and local communities.

20. The amendments proposed to policy BE2.1 acknowledge the cluster benefits of the concentrating logistics businesses around Magna Park and the consequences for the growth of related but ancillary activities that support or are spun out of the cluster; and the amendments to BE2.2 aim to take advantage of the scale of the development(s) to benefit the community and local environment as well as the wider economy. While it is appreciated that additional criteria are covered by development management policies in other parts of the Proposed Submission Local Plan, these are generic. The scale and nature of the BE2 development and its concentration at Magna Park merits in Gazeley's view a more specific set of criteria.
BE2.1 As drafted)

BE2.1a (As drafted)

BE2.1b. any new building or the change of use of an existing building is only for Class B8, ancillary uses to Class B8 only, or for a use for which a location as part of the Magna Park logistics cluster is necessary and beneficial

BE2.1c. the proposal for any non-strategic storage and distribution use is small-scale, proportionate in scale and function to Magna Park's strategic storage and distribution use and ancillary to the use of individual plots

BE2.2 Additional development of up to 700,000 sq.m. for non rail-served strategic storage and distribution (Class B8) use will be permitted where it would:
BE2.2a form an extension of, or be on a site adjoining, Magna Park;
BE2.2b support or at least have no adverse impact on the viability and deliverability of existing or further Strategic Rail Freight Interchanges (SFRIs) within or serving neighbouring authorities and Leicestershire;
BE2.2c increase employment opportunities for local residents, including training and apprenticeships;
BE2.2d include measures to enable an increase in the proportion of the workforce commuting from locations within Harborough District;
BE2.2e not lead to severe traffic congestion anywhere on the nearby strategic and local road network, particularly the A5, whether within Harborough District or outside; and
BE2.2f ensure 24 hour operations do not have an unacceptable environmental, community or landscape impact
BE2.2e: mitigate significant adverse impacts on the not lead to severe traffic congestion anywhere on the nearby strategic and local road network to achieve nil detriment or better particularly the A5, whether within Harborough District or outside;
BE2.2f include measures to encourage car-sharing, cycling and sustainable alternatives to private car use;
BE2.2g include measures for regular community liaison;
BE2.2h include measures for publicly accessible green infrastructure;
BE2.2i optimise the bio-diversity of the site and its capacity to sequester greenhouse gases;
BE2.2j make use of optimal technologies for the construction of buildings and their operation to reduce resource consumption and optimise the use of renewable energy sources;
BE2.2k achieve the highest practicable environmental standards for buildings;
BE2.2l adopt a design approach to the buildings, materials and lighting to minimise the visibility of the buildings during the day and at night time;





BE2.2m site buildings and service infrastructure to respect the character of the landscape;
BE2.2n site gatehouses, yards and HGV circulation routes so that visual intrusion and noise beyond the site is minimised; and
BE2.2o mitigate landscape and visual impacts using, in particular, tree planting and other species that will optimise carbon sequestration.

I am responding to the above consultation on behalf of the National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups, with particular regard to Policies H6 and GD3.
In H6 we strongly support the recognition in section 2ci and 2cii that allocation of pitches needs to have regard to potential changes affecting those who meet the definition of gypsies and Travellers and to meet the "unknown" need.
We have the following concerns relating to section 5:
* Criterion a) is unnecessary and unduly restrictive. There will be situations where limited ancillary commercial activity is appropriate and acceptable. If commercial activity would be unacceptable at the particular location for which permission is being sought, then this could be controlled by a planning condition.
* Criterion b) is too restrictive. Sites which are within walking distance of a settlement will usually be unavailable as Gypsy and Traveller sites due to affordability, availability and local opposition. In allocating new sites, it is reasonable for the local authority to first consider Such locations, but such a rigid approach could prevent suitable sites from coming forward in other suitable locations. Local authorities need to be realistic about the availability of alternatives to the car in accessing local service"

In section 7, we strongly oppose criterion b) which is not in accord which paragraph 22e) of PPTF, which advises against restricting sites to those who have local connections.

Finally, in Policy GD3, there needs to be a recognition that Gypsy and Traveller sites are acceptable outside settlements. This is crucial to the delivery of sufficient sites.

I am responding to the above consultation on behalf of the National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups, with particular regard to Policies H6 and GD3.
In H6 we strongly support the recognition in section 2ci and 2cii that allocation of pitches needs to have regard to potential changes affecting those who meet the definition of gypsies and Travellers and to meet the "unknown" need.
We have the following concerns relating to section 5:
* Criterion a) is unnecessary and unduly restrictive. There will be situations where limited ancillary commercial activity is appropriate and acceptable. If commercial activity would be unacceptable at the particular location for which permission is being sought, then this could be controlled by a planning condition.
* Criterion b) is too restrictive. Sites which are within walking distance of a settlement will usually be unavailable as Gypsy and Traveller sites due to affordability, availability and local opposition. In allocating new sites, it is reasonable for the local authority to first consider
Such locations, but such a rigid approach could prevent suitable sites from coming forward in other suitable locations. Local authorities need to be realistic about the availability of alternatives to the car in accessing local service"
In section 7, we strongly oppose criterion b) which is not in accord which paragraph 22e) of PPTF, which advises against restricting sites to those who have local connections.
Finally, in Policy GD3, there needs to be a recognition that Gypsy and Traveller sites are acceptable outside settlements. This is crucial to the delivery of sufficient sites.

I am writing this in specific reference to the proposed district plan in reference to the Parish of Arnesby.

I have seen the proposal from the planners at Harborough Council which I am broadly in support of. However I am concerned that the Parish Council is seeking to use a local "Referendum" to effectively override the proposed plan and impose a reversion to the existing plan which has a number of anomalously designated land.

Historically significant areas within the village have been subject to the designation of "Important Public Open Space" which, following our discussions with the planning officers are not supportable in legal terms, as that much of the land so designated is neither public, open or serving any important function.

I believe that much of this was imposed in the 1970s as a blunt tool to restrict a proposed major development, however in the current era where such matters are more open to scrutiny it would be legally dubious to try and sustain the designation.

I would hope that the planners will resist the pressure from the Parish Council to revert to the old plan.

The unforeseen impact over the 40 years that the existing plan has been in place has limited the possibility of even small scale building in the village and contributed to the loss of local amenities such as Post Office, Public House, bus service, shops and factories. Indeed the Post Office, shops and factories have been converted or demolished to generate housing.

Maintaining such restrictions will simply continue the negative impact on the village, forcing the young and elderly to leave because many of the areas simply because of the limited housing.
I fear that the Parish Council is being excessively influenced by residents seeking to prevent local building to maintain the exclusivity and thus cost of an Arnesby House.

I grew up in the village but like many was forced to leave for study and work and priced out of returning and seeing the continued unjust imposition of excessively restrictive planning rules would be unfortunate for future generations.