Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Object

Representation ID: 7204

Received: 17/11/2017

Respondent: C Walton Ltd

Agent: Marrons Solicitors

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The criteria is not sound as it prevents any new development other than development which is considered ancillary to the existing uses on site. Any future planning applications with employment generating uses for new companies allied with the range of sectors currently supported at BPG would therefore raise a conflict with the policy. in its current form, the policy is directly contrary to Para. 21 of the NPPF. The policy fails to comprehensively include all lawful and authorised uses on site, including the on-site research and development facilities, fleet management activities and the Events Centre.

Object

Representation ID: 7231

Received: 17/11/2017

Respondent: C Walton Ltd

Agent: Marrons Solicitors

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In order to ensure compliance with the Framework, the Highways Authority need to exercise reasonable judgement.

Object

Representation ID: 7234

Received: 17/11/2017

Respondent: C Walton Ltd

Agent: Marrons Solicitors

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The policy is not sound because it fails to support employment generating uses. Expressly prohibiting B1a Office use fails to account positively for the location, promotion and expansion of the knowledge driven, creative and high technology industries present at Bruntingthorpe Proving Ground and the needs of the employers to place high value employees, many of whom have office based technical roles; For example, BIAS has a total of 70 office based employees.

Object

Representation ID: 7235

Received: 17/11/2017

Respondent: C Walton Ltd

Agent: Marrons Solicitors

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The criterion is not sound as it is not positively prepared and prevents any new development other that development which is considered ancillary to the existing uses on the Industrial Estate. Any future planning applications with employment generating uses for new companies allied with the range of sectors currently supported at BIE would therefore raise conflict with the policy. In its current form the policy is diametrically opposed to Paragraph 21 of the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 7236

Received: 17/11/2017

Respondent: C Walton Ltd

Agent: Marrons Solicitors

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The above policy is not sound because the policy fails to account for the £10M investment which has been made at BIE over the previous 10 years, including refurbishments to Hangar T2 by Volvo (supporting c.15 jobs), the development of Royal Enfield's Research and Development Centre (80 jobs), the erection of a commercial vehicle paintshop for BIAS (30 jobs) and the erection of a Pre-Delivery Inspection building for BIAS (70 jobs). These developments have been granted planning permission with allied landscaping improvements which are currently in the process of being constructed. The refurbishment or redevelopment of the balance of the Industrial Estate should not require an approved masterplan to include development proposals already undertaken.

Object

Representation ID: 7237

Received: 17/11/2017

Respondent: C Walton Ltd

Agent: Marrons Solicitors

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In order to ensure compliance with the Framework, the policy should be caveated to ensure that the Highway Authority are required to exercise reasonable judgement.

Object

Representation ID: 7239

Received: 17/11/2017

Respondent: C Walton Ltd

Agent: Marrons Solicitors

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The site owners welcome any initiative to create public transport access to the site. However, the site is not currently serviced by public transport. The policy is predicated on a non-sequitur (as no public transport services the site) and new development proposals would therefore be inherently conflicted. It is considered that the suggested policy is not sound, because it would potentially undermine proposals for sustainable economic development. It is unjustified and obviated by criteria d and e of the proposed policy, because the impacts arising from any additional development can be assessed.

Object

Representation ID: 7240

Received: 17/11/2017

Respondent: C Walton Ltd

Agent: Marrons Solicitors

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The proposed policy is demonstrably not sound because any future planning applications with employment generating uses for in excess of 500msq Class B8 use allied with the range of sectors currently supported at BIE would raise a conflict with the policy. In its current form, the policy is directly contrary to Paragraph 21 of the NPPF. The policy, if applied now, would prevent the occupancy of Volvo on the site of Hangar T2, and the development of Royal Enfield's Research and Development Facility would be contrary to policy due to the incorporation of in excess of 500sqm of B8 floorspace in the building.