New Local Plan Options

Search Representations

Results for IDI Gazeley search

New search New search

Object

New Local Plan Options

Q12. Do you have any comments on the list of proposed Local Green Space?

Representation ID: 5033

Received: 12/10/2015

Respondent: IDI Gazeley

Representation Summary:

Proposed Mere Lane Lagoon (Magna Park) LGS: It would be inappropriate to designate this area as a LGS. The Lagoon and the land around it is operation al land for MP, is within MP's secure area and is wholly ownded by IDI Gazeley in order to manage and protect its operational functions. It is a water attenuation area for the Park, and the land around it supports that function. IDI Gazeley fully support the public use of the area but from an operation al perspective the lagoon is an intrinsic part of the surface water flow contral and regualation for 34 hectares of the existing Magna Park strategic and infrastructure facilities. It is imperative that this area is properley serviced by a management company similar to the existing arrangement and unrestrained from green space designations.

Comment

New Local Plan Options

1. Introduction

Representation ID: 5036

Received: 22/12/2015

Respondent: IDI Gazeley

Agent: Now Planning

Representation Summary:

Para 7
Omission of the SA Interim Report (Options Consultation) to assess the strategic distribution Options A-C could raise implications for; legal compliance of the Local Plan with the Duty to Cooperate and with the SA/SEA Directive.


Comment

New Local Plan Options

1. Introduction

Representation ID: 5037

Received: 22/12/2015

Respondent: IDI Gazeley

Agent: Now Planning

Representation Summary:

Para 11
Absence of evident collaboration with other Leicestershire / wider regional authorities, puts at risk chances of meeting ambitious LDS timetable.

Comment

New Local Plan Options

1. Introduction

Representation ID: 5038

Received: 22/12/2015

Respondent: IDI Gazeley

Agent: Now Planning

Representation Summary:

Para 12.
SEA Directive 2001/42/EC, which national planning policy responds to, requires all reasonable alternatives to be considered, and for the final choice of options (both those progressed and rejected) to be justified on the basis of their environmental, economic and social effects.

Comment

New Local Plan Options

1. Introduction

Representation ID: 5039

Received: 22/12/2015

Respondent: IDI Gazeley

Agent: Now Planning

Representation Summary:

Para 13.
The final report of the SA/SEA, to be legally compliant, will need to explain why, in each case, the strategic Options A-C have been chosen or dropped in the final draft plan.

Comment

New Local Plan Options

1. Introduction

Representation ID: 5040

Received: 22/12/2015

Respondent: IDI Gazeley

Agent: Now Planning

Representation Summary:

Para 14.
The absence of an up to date, robust, assessment of the districts employment land needs and the absence of any evident collaboration with other Leicestershire and wider regional authorities (on HDC's prospective contribution to the strategic distribution needs of the area for additional strategic distribution floor-space) puts at risk HDC's chances of meeting the ambitious timescale set out in the LDS.

Comment

New Local Plan Options

1. Introduction

Representation ID: 5041

Received: 22/12/2015

Respondent: IDI Gazeley

Agent: Now Planning

Representation Summary:

Para 15.
The account of the NPPF is not complete, accurate or objective enough to allow the public to respond effectively. Further reasoning provided in full submission.


Comment

New Local Plan Options

Q2. Do you have any comments on the Draft Objectives, or any additional objectives to suggest?

Representation ID: 5042

Received: 22/12/2015

Respondent: IDI Gazeley

Agent: Now Planning

Representation Summary:

OCP offers no scenario for employment which aims to reduce the levels of out-commuting, despite Strategic Objective 2. To achieve this, given levels of out-commuting, would clearly require a very substantial increase in workplace jobs, including workplace jobs that would appeal to its resident workforce.

Comment

New Local Plan Options

Q5. Which is your preferred Option for Development in the Countryside?

Representation ID: 5043

Received: 22/12/2015

Respondent: IDI Gazeley

Agent: Now Planning

Representation Summary:

Paragraph 82-83 fails to point out that the highly restrictive approach of CS17 to the countryside is inconsistent with the approach of the NPPF. CS17 adopts a level of protection that the NPPF affords only to nationally designated areas (e.g. Green Belt).

Comment

New Local Plan Options

Why do we need to provide land for more jobs?

Representation ID: 5044

Received: 22/12/2015

Respondent: IDI Gazeley

Agent: Now Planning

Representation Summary:

Lack of any mention either of the LEPs or the travel to work area of which HDC is part puts the OCP out of step with the NPPF and is misleading. Identifies 4 LEPs that HDC should consult with, who all have logistics as a SEP priority.

If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.