Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

Object

Representation ID: 13938

Received: 02/05/2025

Respondent: GLP

Agent: Iceni Projects

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

GLP supports the overall aims of Policy DS02, particularly in terms of meeting strategic B8 needs through the allocation of additional land at Magna Park. However, we have identified the need for additional flexibility in relation to anticipated site capacities and the potential for small-scale alternative uses. We consider that it is necessary to update the overall quantum of development identified at Part 7 of the policy, based on a masterplanning exercise and a greater approximate or maximum figure, and to amend the wording of Part 8 c) to ensure the requirements associated with alternative uses is not unduly onerous.

Support

Representation ID: 13942

Received: 02/05/2025

Respondent: GLP

Agent: Iceni Projects

GLP support the principle of the proposed Area of Separation between the extension of Magna Park to the north (allocation MP2) and the nearby settlements.
The proposed Area of Separation between Magna Park and Ullesthorpe overlaps with the western part of allocation MP2. This is consistent with GLP’s emerging proposals for the site, which include a significant extension of Bittesby Country Park and structural landscaping on the western and northern boundaries of the allocation, and will not impede delivery of the allocation.

Support

Representation ID: 13947

Received: 02/05/2025

Respondent: GLP

Agent: Iceni Projects

We support the overall aim of DS05. We consider that the site allocations at Magna Park are supported by a detailed and robust evidence base, which confirms the acceptability of the Council’s strategy and identifies potential mitigation measures and infrastructure to support proposed development. Apex Transport Planning’s review of the evidence has however identified that the indication of potential mitigation measures may be overly-robust for the reasons detailed in their Transport Note (Appendix 4). Future applications should be supported by detailed Transport Assessments which will consider up-to-date traffic data, appropriate junction modelling and vision-led scenario planning. This will then inform a more detailed understanding of any mitigation required.

Support

Representation ID: 13949

Received: 02/05/2025

Respondent: GLP

Agent: Iceni Projects

Strongly support the allocation as a logical infill site.
Initial technical work by GLP indicates that the site can accomodate approximately 70,000sqm of floorspace. The Ecological Review (Appendix 5) indicates that there are a number of locations within the existing Magna Park estate where enhancements to biodiversity can be achieved, resulting in an overall gain of at least 10% directly attributed to MP1.
Reference to a sequential approach to site layout is unclear, unjustified and unecessary, because the existing topography will be altered by the proposed development and surface water will be dealt with through a SUD's.

Object

Representation ID: 13950

Received: 02/05/2025

Respondent: GLP

Agent: Iceni Projects

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

GLP strongly supports the allocation of Land at Mere Lane, Magna Park as a key location for strategic logistics development in the district.
In relation to the Policy Requirements for MP2 amendment or clarification, to ensure soundness, is required in respect of; light impact assessment, Solar PV Panels, Transport, Flood Risk.
We object to the requirement to include a 3ha site for Travelling Showpeople within the allocation because; of concerns regarding the assessment of need, land at Mere Lane is not suitable or available for such uses, and the relevant need can be best met elsewhere in the district.

Object

Representation ID: 13951

Received: 02/05/2025

Respondent: GLP

Agent: Iceni Projects

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

GLP objects to Part 2 of the policy (3ha at Land at Mere Lane) for the reasons outlined in response to the MP2 Site Specific Requirements set out in Policy SA01, these include; concerns regarding the assessment of need, and the suitability and availability of the site for such uses.
Issues include; the apparent over-reliance on interviews to inform the TSP need figures, plot need in the first 5 years, a failure to assess the potential for new development in close proxmity to existing sites, overlooking land around Fairacres, the compatability of MP2 with residential type uses, and reduction in land available for employmnet purposes.

Object

Representation ID: 13952

Received: 02/05/2025

Respondent: GLP

Agent: Iceni Projects

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The reference to justification within Part 6 of the draft policy text is materially different from the ‘balanced judgement’ set out in the NPPF para 209, and in our view places a greater burden of proof on an applicant to justify a development proposal in such circumstances.
The site MP2 is considered suitable for development and capable of complying with the requirements of Policy DM03.

Support

Representation ID: 13953

Received: 02/05/2025

Respondent: GLP

Agent: Iceni Projects

We support the inclusion of a policy requirement to undertake a review of the Local Plan where relevant criteria are met, including the identification of a need for a significantly greater quantum of strategic B8 floorspace than the emerging Plan currently provides for.
Leicestershire authorities are in the process of preparing joint evidence relating to such issues, and further work will be required in due course in terms of apportioning the identified sub-regional need.
This mechanism is pragmatic, sound and allows Harborough to progress its Local Plan without undue delay and to plan positively for growth, whilst ensuring that provisions are in place to trigger a review of the Plan should this be necessary in due course.