Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

In summary we believe elements of the plan are unsound on the basis of Positively Prepared, Justified, Effective and Consistent with National Policy

More detail is provided against the relevant points below but in summary our view is:

It will not create a greater breadth of employment opportunities.
* It will not lead to opportunities for local skilled workers to save out commuting.
* Positions will be filled by those having to commute into Magna Park.
* It is not rail served.
* There is no provision to improve the road network in the surrounding area.
* It will have an unacceptable impact on the environment and the landscape.
* It will contribute to the poor air quality in the area.
* It is likely to lead to an oversupply of warehousing/distribution land.

It is our representation that the proposal to expand Magana Park by 700,000 square metres (over and above that recently approved ) is unsound because of the following:
Key Issue 3 asserts that the local plan should:
"contributing significantly to wider sub-regional land requirements for road based strategic distribution business space"
There is already a huge warehousing development ( rail served which is clearly more environmentally friendly) only a few miles South on the A5 at DIRFT as well as another huge rail served development near East Midlands Airport. We also understand there are plans for another substantial warehouse at the A5 / M69 junctions. Again, are we not looking at a the potential of vast tracts of productive land being covered in warehouses that are not required here?

The NPPF states there is a preference for rail served warehousing locations. Magna Park clearly is not and never will be but only a few miles south on the A5 DIRFT is.
The evidence for the additional 700k sq mtrs is that there are currently two planning applications equating to this total. Our summation is therefore that the proposal is purely opportunistic / tactical hence not strategic or focused on employment needs in the area.

Summary

* It is not rail served.
* There is no provision to improve the road network in the surrounding area.
* It will have an unacceptable impact on the environment and the landscape.
* It will contribute to the poor air quality in the area.
* It is likely to lead to an oversupply of warehousing/distribution land.


Research suggest that there is not demand for this level of road only served warehousing in the county. As its stands today, there is empty warehouse space in Magna Park so such a development could lead to even more unused space.

The result would be the destruction of farmland, countryside and wildlife which once developed will never come back again

Key Issue 3 asserts that the local plan should:
"Reducing dependence of Harborough's residents on commuting and increasing wage rates by providing a breadth of employment alternatives, including more opportunities for Harborough's higher skilled residents"

Given we have virtually full employment in and around the Lutterworth area would this development, should it go ahead, not take potential employment away from other areas that need it more?

There is virtually full employment for anyone who wants it in the district and in Lutterworth in particular, and demand for employees will only be increased when the aforementioned developments at DIRFT and East Midlands come on stream.

Increasing the size of Magna Park would only increase the number of low skilled low paid jobs on offer to local people should they want them. We do not see this proposal in anyway providing a breadth of employment alternatives for higher skilled residents. Quite the opposite, the creation of 10,000 warehouse operative jobs will not stop residents commuting elsewhere in search of higher quality, wage work opportunities.

The Lutterworth area has a dearth of good quality office locations. If effort was put into this type of development, then local opportunities would be created for higher skilled local people and attract and maintain higher value jobs and businesses. We need to be attracting Hi Tech, innovative business to the region not low skill, low wage organisations. They are the type of job that disappear in any economic downturn.

Given the full employment situation in the area it has to be recognised that these warehouses would be staffed by people who are having to commute into Magna Park putting even greater pressure on the road networks around Magna Park e.g. A5, which we note there are no plans to improve. We note that the recently approved development at Magna Park includes the provision for a few hundred yard of dual carriageway and a roundabout, unlikely to suffice for that development let alone something of the proposed scale of development to come.

As an example, the cross roads at High Cross is already a very busy junction and sadly we witness fatal accidents most years. One can only assume that increased levels of traffic will only exacerbate this problem particularly if we take into account the proposed warehouse near the Hinckley Island Hotel and the huge warehousing development near Crick, both of which will generate further traffic movements.

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?

Most of the provision for Gypsy and Traveller sites are situated in the South West of the district around the Lutterworth Area. The proportion of Gypsy and Traveller sites, in proportion to the resident population of the area, is far higher than the Market Harborough area for instance

Showmen and Gypsy and Traveller sites appear to be in over provision if there is a potential further 10 sites in Gilmorton and 18 for which planning could be resurrected in Moorbarns Lane.

That being said, an additional 3 pitches on the Ullesthorpe site would be easier to Manage rather than starting another new site at Spinney Farm

Whilst the Spinney Farm site is away from the road and would be largely unobtrusive (provided the authorities could enforce only 3 pitches) there is still a concern about the safety of walking on the paths at night or in the winter for children walking to either the Ullesthorpe or Claybrook schools as they are unlit, very dark, and dangerous. The same would apply to walking to the surgery in Ullesthorpe as part of that journey (the bridge over the brook) has no footpath at all.

It is unclear why the Claybrookes have been identified as a Selected Rural
Village, they don't appear to meet the criteria either individually or
collectively. One pub at the extreme northern and of Magna and a primary
school in Parva that will soon be at capacity (following the latest housing
development consent in Magna) does not appear to constitute selection as an
SRV and subsequent opening of opportunities to developers. The commute to
the school in Parva by Magna residents requires a long walk through an
unlit stretch of road where traffic flaunt the 30mph speed limit. The road
is particularly dangerous between late October and late February.
Understandably parents prefer to drive their children to school. causing
dangerous congestion on the tight bend outside of the School. This is
already an accident waiting to happen without the already approved
developments, let alone more.

Experience from other sites such as Ullesthorpe suggest that "prevent adverse impacts on the character and appearance of the locality and on neighbouring uses" is difficult to manage.