BE2 2f.

The noise and light pollution is already bad so it will become worse.
The traffic coming through the villages is increasing and will become worse even in the evenings.
The landscape in the area is already dominated by Magna Park - expanding down the A5 will ruin the landscape in the immediate area. We have walks that will be ruined - wildlife areas wrecked, Bittesby village endangered,.
Access to existing footpaths taken away and making crossing the A5 impossible.

Magna Park as it exists today aready has profound effects on the environment and on the quality of life in the surrounding area. More than twenty years after Magna Park phases 1 and 2 were built, screening with trees is still ineffective, except from very close by, along the A5 boundary. Despite mitigation measures taken, light pollution is extensive. BE2, which would double the existing size of Magna Pak, would make this worse. Unregulated employee traffic rushes through rural roads, lanes and villages, especially at shift changeover times. Employer travel plans for staff are purely advisory and unenforceable. The private car is the most convenient way of getting to work door-to-door. The B4207 (formerly the A407) is not part of the Magna Park HGV routing plan and villages along it already suffer vibration and damage to houses caued by HGVs. Peak traffic, much of it HGVs, along single carriageway sections of the A5, such as at Wibtoft just north of Magna Park present a real danger and accidents are common.

Policy BE2 is written specifically with the 2 pending applications in mind. It emerged in its final form specifying 700k sq.m. only after three-way discussions between the council and the 2 developers, after dbSymmetry withdrew their judicial review application against the approval given to 15/00919/FUL (the DHL warehouse) and after each developer undertook not to oppose the other's application (see letter from dbSymmetry's planning consultants, Framptons, to the council dated 10 May 2017 - a highly significant letter). If BE2 is approved, the two applications will require 327 hectares of what is currently agricultural land, both productive arable and pasture. This will diminish the UK's capacity to grow food at a time when the population is forecast to grow rapidly (and world demand is also growing due to population growth and the effects of climate change). BE2 conflicts with paragraphs 111 and 112 of the NPPF. The Submission Plan does not consider whether there are brown field sites which could be used in preference productive farm land. The existing Magna Park was built on a former RAF aerodrome which could be considered a brown field site, but any expansion would be outside it.

The Secretary of State at DEFRA has warned (23 October 2017) of much of the UK's arable soil losing its fertility within the next 30-40 years because of intensive farming, but such farming will increase if more and more land is taken up by warehousing.

Visually, expansion of Magna Park would be highly intrusive, especially to communities such as Ullesthorpe. MOre than twenty years after Magna Park phases 1 and 2 were built, screening with trees is still ineffective, except from very close by along its boundary with the A5. Despite mitigation measures taken at the time, light pollution is extensive. BE2, which would double the existing size of Magna Park, would make this worse.

Assuming a lot of the increased traffic travelling to and for the extended Magna Park will use the A5 24 hours a day I cannot envisage how this proviso is possible to achieve. As an example I stood on the road both in Claybrooke Parva and Claybrooke Magna (about a mile away from the A5) at just befopre midnight and the road traffic noise is clearly audible already before any increase in traffic is experienced. One can only presume air pollution will increase as a result also.

Assuming a lot of the increased traffic travelling to and from the extended Magna Park will use the A5 24 hours a day I cannot envisage how this proviso is possible to achieve. As an example I stood on the road both in Claybrooke Parva and Claybrooke Magna (about a mile away from the A5) at just befopre midnight and the road traffic noise is clearly audible already before any increase in traffic is experienced. One can only presume air pollution will increase as a result also.

How can warehousing of that scale not have and unacceptable landscape impact?

6.3.11 says that "Environmental and Economic Impact Assessments for additional development schemes will be required to address impacts for the immediate locality and wider surrounding area, the scope of which is to be agreed with the Council at the outset"
Planning application due for approval on 23rd November, how will it be possible to achieve this in time.
Air, light and noise pollution from the 24 hour operation will be an appalling blight on the area with the consequent impact on local areas and inhabitants. House prices must also be badly impacted with the consequent impact on individuals debt position.

Night time activity should be curtailed. It is already very audible at night. Any expansion will increase this and in addition it will come closer to houses and villages.
I don't know whether the plan is legally compliant as I am not a lawyer but I can only submit if I say it is so I have ticked yes.

landscape will be damaged from light pollution and from traffic increase. Large unsightly buildings that are not masked.

A 24 hour warehouse is going to cause unacceptable environmental, community and landscape impact in the area.

The existing scale of Magna Park already generates significant traffic noise 24 hours a day. The drone from the A5 can be clearly heard in Claybrooke Parva and the SW winds blows its pollution across the fields to the village.
By doubling the volume of lorry traffic and the commuting workforce will significantly impact on the air quality and noise.

The existing traffic volumes using the A5 can clearly be heard in Claybrooke Parva 24hrs a day
and with the prevailing SW winds, air pollution is adversely affected.
By doubling the volume of lorry traffic and the subsequent increase of communters needing to use the route, the situation can only deteriorate. This will sadly affect the lives of the villagers of Claybrooke Parva

Increased traffic using the A5 24 hours a day will add further air pollution and road traffic noise that can already be heard from Claybrooke Parva.

The impact on Wildlife in the area of warehousing on the scale planned is unimaginable.

I strongly object. This proposed extension to Magna park will increase traffic and light pollution in the immediate vicinity and surrounding villages on a 24 hour basis, . Any proposed road upgrades will not solve this problem but will rather add to noise pollution in the nearby villages. The landscape will be permanently disfigured and wildlife habitats will disappear. Harborough District council would be seen to be prepared to safeguard their own environment by creating an industrial wasteland on a colossal scale in a corner of the district which does not impact on Leicestershire alone.

The existing Magna Park operates 24/7/365 on shift working. This means thousands of commuter cars flood out to further congest local roads that cannot cope with this sudden surge in traffic volumes.

For those who unfortunately live near these blocked roads, it means lots of unbearable traffic noise and an even worse quality of air for us (and our children) to have to breathe. It is already insufferable and utterly unacceptable.

Plans to substantially expand Magna Park can only irretrievably make these matters far worse.

Please think about those who live around Lutterworth and remove these Magna Park plans.

Poposed enlargement of magna park area in direct conflict with environmental and pollution targets
see lutterworth town centre pollution levels above national targets and and EU levels/ In conflict with local and county authorities commitments to lower and meet targets on air pollution.

The original Magna Park site was built on a former RAF aerodrome which could be considered as a brownfield site. The two outstanding planning applications for the proposed Magna Park expansion area are for land which is currently agricultural land. This conflicts with paragraphs 111 and 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):
111. Planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value. Local planning authorities may continue to consider the case for setting a locally appropriate target for the use of brownfield land.
112. Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality.
The proposed submission of the Harborough Local Plan 2011 to 2031 does not consider whether there are any brownfield sites which could be used in preference to the agricultural land currently proposed.

The visual and light pollution impact of a Magna Park expansion would be detrimental to Ullesthorpe. Since the creation of Magna Park in 1988 Ullesthorpe has suffered from extensive visual and light intrusion. Tree screening measures are still highly ineffective meaning that overnight light pollution is highly invasive and disruptive, the aspirations of policy BE2 would further exacerbate these issues for residents in the parish of Ullesthorpe.

Policy GD6 of the proposed Local Plan suggests an Area of Separation should be implemented between Bitteswell/Lutterworth/Magna Park, to maintain separation of both Lutterworth and Bitteswell from Magna Park. There is no mention in the proposed Local Plan of maintaining an Area of Separation between Magna Park and Ullesthorpe who are equally at risk.

Implementation of Policy BE2 would certainly have an unacceptable environmental, community and landscape impact on the immediate and wider surrounding area.

The original Magna Park site was built on a former RAF aerodrome which could be considered as a brownfield site. The two outstanding planning applications for the proposed Magna Park expansion area are for land which is currently agricultural land. This conflicts with paragraphs 111 and 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): The proposed submission of the Harborough Local Plan 2011 to 2031 does not consider whether there are any brownfield sites which could be used in preference to the agricultural land currently proposed. The visual and light pollution impact of a Magna Park expansion would be detrimental to local villages. Since the creation of Magna Park in 1988 local villages have suffered from extensive visual and light intrusion. Tree screening measures are still highly ineffective meaning that overnight light pollution is highly invasive and disruptive, the aspirations of policy BE2 would further exacerbate these issues for residents in the local villages.

Implementation of Policy BE2 would certainly have an unacceptable environmental, community and landscape impact on the immediate and wider surrounding area.

The original Magna Park site was built on a former RAF aerodrome which could be considered as a brownfield site. The two outstanding planning applications for the proposed Magna Park expansion area are for land which is currently agricultural land. This conflicts with paragraphs 111 and 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): The proposed submission of the Harborough Local Plan 2011 to 2031 does not consider whether there are any brownfield sites which could be used in preference to the agricultural land currently proposed. The visual and light pollution impact of a Magna Park expansion would be detrimental to local villages. Since the creation of Magna Park in 1988 local villages have suffered from extensive visual and light intrusion. Tree screening measures are still highly ineffective meaning that overnight light pollution is highly invasive and disruptive, the aspirations of policy BE2 would further exacerbate these issues for residents in the local villages.

Implementation of Policy BE2 would certainly have an unacceptable environmental, community and landscape impact on the immediate and wider surrounding area.

Harborough District Council: Harborough Local Plan Proposed submission
Lutterworth, db symmetry

Introduction

1 These representations accept the soundness of the Local Plan in the context of Policy BE2 Strategic Distribution.

2 It is however considered that the development management process would be assisted by some clarification to the wording of the following criteria. Such amendments do not alter the underlying purpose of the Criterion, but are considered to assist developers and the public in the operation of the policy when relevant planning applications are submitted for determination.

Criterion 1 a:

3 The allocation is to make provision for strategic scale storage and distribution uses. Criterion 1a) ensures that unit sizes are not less than 9,000 m2. On this basis it seems to me that Criterion c) could be simplified to state:

'The primary use of the premises will be within Class B8. Other uses should be ancillary in function or be relevant associated uses, for example a lorry park driver facilities.'

Criterion 2 b:

4 While the underlying objective of this Criterion maybe understood it may be difficult for a developer to demonstrate 'no adverse impact on the viability and deliverability of existing or further SRFIs.' My comments are as follows. Firstly the planning system does not exist to prevent competition. A developer would be faced in having to prove a negative, which would be an onerous task especially if a competing developer claimed that consent would impact upon ability and deliverability of another site. Secondly the Criterion as presently worded appears to suggest that a developer has to address other potential SRFIs which may be at various stages in the planning process and may indeed not secure a grant of planning permission. The reference to SRFIs 'serving' other neighbouring authorities and Leicestershire could result in an underlying extensive analysis of potential impact.

5 It is submitted that the purpose of this Criterion would be clarified on the basis of it is worded as follows:

'Support or at least no substantial impact upon the delivery of committed SRFIs located within Leicestershire and the neighbouring authorities.'

Criterion 2 d:

6 I believe some wording has been omitted from this Criterion to give effective meaning.

7 I suggest adding the words 'to travel other than by private car' after 'Harborough District'.

'include measures to enable an increase in the proportion of the workforce commuting from locations within Harborough District to travel other than by private car'

Criterion 2 e:

8 'Congestion' is not a term that is defined. It seems that the criterion would be more effective with the use of the word 'conditions'.

'not lead to severe traffic conditions anywhere on the nearby strategic and local road network, particularly the A5, whether within Harborough District or outside'

Criterion 2 f:

9 A landscape impact is an environmental impact. As such the criterion could be simplified to read.

'Ensure that 24 hour operations do not have an unacceptable impact upon the environment, and the amenity of local communities.'

10 I trust that these comments are considered helpful.