Planning Committee Report
Applicants: IDI Gazeley Application Ref: 15/00919/FUL Location: Land At Mere Lane, Bittesby Proposal: Erection of 100,844sqm Storage and Distribution centre (B8) with ancillary B1(a) offices on land adjoining and linked to Magna Park, including formation of access road from Magna Park, erection of gatehouse, creation of roundabouts, partial realignment of Mere Lane and upgrading of A5 to dual carriageway, creation of SuDS facilities and associated infrastructure and landscaping works. Application Validated: 16th June 2015 Application Target Date: 15th September 2015 Site Visit Dates: 23rd June, 3rd July, 12th October, 30th November Consultation Expiry Date:28th October 2015 Case Officer: Mark Patterson
Recommendation
Planning Permission is APPROVED, for the reasons set out in the report, subject to:-
(i) The proposed conditions set out in Appendix B; and (ii) The Applicant’s entering into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (and S38/S278 of the Highways Act 1980) to provide for the obligations set out in Appendix C and justified in Section 6c of this report; and (iii) Confirmation from the National Planning Casework Unit that the Secretary of State will not be calling the application in for determination.
1. Site & Surroundings 1.1 The application site comprises approximately 60 ha of land to the north, west and east of Mere Lane and alongside the A5, adjacent to Magna Park, Lutterworth, and linked to it via the proposed extension to Argosy Way. The nearest local settlement is Willey which is 0.85 km away and separated from the site by the A5. To the north are the villages of Ullesthorpe, Bitteswell and Claybrooke Parva which are located 1.7 km, 2.1 km and 2.4 km from the application site respectively. The town of Lutterworth is located 1.7 km to the east, beyond which is located Junction 20 of the M1. See (Figure 1)
1.2 The existing Magna Park complex is a 202 hectare (500 acre) warehousing and logistic centre (distribution centre) located near Lutterworth, Leicestershire, England and was constructed on the site of a former airfield (RAF Bitteswell). It is considered to be a pioneer of large distribution centres in the UK. It is located in an area of land bounded by the M1, M6 and M69 motorways; known as the ‘Golden Triangle’ for its logistically favourable location.
1.3 The application site (see Figures 2 and 3) includes three large open arable fields, the edges of two further medium to large arable fields, three smaller enclosed fields, some mature hedgerow boundaries, with some standard trees and mixed native tree belts. The main fields of the site gently slope down from Mere Lane towards the Upper Soar Valley from circa 125 m AOD in the north east to circa 110 m in the west.
Figure 1: Contextual Site location
1.4 The site is crossed by a farm track and permissive access bridleways created under a Higher Level Stewardship scheme (HLS) administered by Natural England, with the current agreement set to run until 31st October 2017. Two cottages, known as Bittesby Cottages, are located on this farm track to the west of the site.
Figure 2: Site Location Plan
1.5 Further north, parts of three further arable fields are included within the area of the application site, up to the ridge line which is marked by a bridleway. To the north west, the red line boundary of the site also includes a 20 m wide strip of arable land with the application proposes for tree
P a g e | 2 planting. The strip lies alongside an existing hedgerow and continues across an arable field to meet the existing ridgeline hedgerow that forms the Ullesthorpe Parish boundary.
Figure 3: Aerial Photo of site
1.6 At the north eastern end of the site is the Mere Lane Lagoon which attenuates water draining from Magna Park and feeds a watercourse that runs along a small tributary valley of the River Soar to the northern and western sides of the site
1.7 To the south east of Mere Lane, the site includes an area of rough grassland and two belts of trees located adjacent to the Magna Park services farm with its associated plant and water treatment / attenuation pools and reed beds. Another water course drains from these pools flows under Mere Lane and along the south western end of the main part of the site. To the south and east of the site, also on the opposite side of Mere Lane, are the logistics warehouses of the existing Magna Park development.
1.8 Alongside the Magna Park service farm and to the west, the application site boundary includes a section of Mere Lane, existing woodland belts either side of the lane and a strip along the edge of two large arable fields. Further west, the site includes a linear parcel of land to the east of the A5 corridor where there are some scattered existing trees and intermittent sections of hedgerow and some individual native shrubs. This vegetation is located on a bank sloping down from a wide grass verge at the edge of the carriageway. To the south of Mere Lane there is a wide grass verge, running up to a mature hedgerow which is located on level ground in front of a woodland planted embankment which forms the boundary to Magna Park. Further to the north, on this side of the A5, there is a conifer belt and a line of deciduous trees located at the roadside alongside Lodge and Emmanuel Cottages. Both cottages are within the control of IDI Gazeley and will be demolished if planning permission for the application is approved.
P a g e | 3 1.9 On the western side of the of the A5, there is a public footpath and bridleway connecting to the edge of the A5 from Willey and these run up to and pass through two rows of post and rail fence set behind a wide grass verge. A mature hedge line and with occasional trees follows the fence alignment nearest to the A5 and partially follows the fence line set further back on the field boundary. Widening works (with the exception of part of a new roundabout junction) will be focused on the eastern side of the road.
1.10 The application site does not include, nor is it adjacent to, any statutory designated ecology sites such as SSSIs, SPA/SAC/RAMSAR, AONB. Furthermore, The site area does not include, nor is it adjacent to, any non-statutory designated sites. The Old Manor Reedbed Local Wildlife Site (LWS) is situated approximately 1.5 km to the north of the site. There are also a candidate LWS and a Potential LWS between 1.5 km and 2 km from the site, neither of which have been designated.
1.11 The site area does not contain any designated heritage assets. Although the Scheduled Monument of Bittesby Deserted Medieval Village is located in close proximity to the corridor of proposed planting, the closest edge of the proposed built development lies c 420m from the eastern most edge of the Scheduled Monument boundary. The geophysical and field walking surveys of the accessible areas within the site found no evidence of significant archaeological activity of any period within the application boundary although there are a small number of geophysical anomalies that may be of limited archaeological interest. Bittesby House which is considered to be a non-designated heritage asset is located adjacent to the western boundary of the site.
2. Site History 2.1 Whilst Magna Park itself has a considerable planning history, the application site has a relatively limited planning history as set out below in Figure 4:
Plan No. Decision / Date Name of Nature of Development Applicant 97/00361/3F WITHDRAWN D J R Morgan Formation of private way at Bittesby 14.11.97 House Farm Bittesby
03/00088/FUL APPROVED A M Jolly Creation of new vehicular access at 17.03.03 Bittesby House, Watling Street
03/01417/FUL APPROVED CHAPCO Change of use to offices at Bittesby 12.11.03 Directors House, Watling Street Pension Scheme
14/01721/SCP SCOPING DHL Supply Environmental Impact Assessment REPORT Chain Scoping Opinion for the erection of ISSUED a building of up to 90,000 sq m 29.04.15 floorspace for B8 (storage and distribution) use, including ancillary B1 (office) floorspace Land At, Mere Lane, Bittesby
Figure 4: Application Site History
3. The Application Submission
a) Summary of Proposals 3.1 The proposal seeks full planning permission for the development of a Supply Chain facility and comprises of the following key components
P a g e | 4 • the development of approximately 56 ha of land to the north and west of Magna Park, accessed from, and linked to Magna Park across Mere Lane by an extension to Argosy Way. The demise for the building is c 22 ha, with the remainder of the c 34 ha site given to the access arrangements and landscape works; • a 100,844 sqm distribution warehouse facility including ancillary offices, gatehouse, fuelling and vehicle washing facilities, associated service and goods yards, on-plot access roads and staff car parking; • roof-mounted photovoltaics (PVs) for on-site energy generation • the expansion of the existing Magna Park services farm to accommodate the foul water needs of the application development; • landscape (including ecology) mitigation and enhancements, planted earthworks, native woodland planting, integrated sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS), permissible bridleways and habitat connections to integrate the development in its wider rural setting; • off-site woodland spinney and hedgerow reinforcement planting to mitigate sensitive views in the wider landscape; • road improvements to the A5 trunk road to include the extension of dual carriageway between Lodge and Emmanuel cottages (to be demolished) and Mere Lane and a new roundabout at the A5 junction with Mere Lane; • a new road extension from Argosy Way across Mere Lane to connect the development site to Magna Park and the realignment of Mere Lane between the proposed A5 roundabout junction and a new roundabout junction with the extension to Argosy Way; • a realigned access track to the Holovis International at Bittesby Barn Buildings, also for access to the farm; and • a small new public car park to allow access to the Magna Park amenity land (existing and proposed) and the permissive footpath network, the Mere Lane Lagoon (the existing attenuation pond for Magna Park) and the additional attenuation lakes created by the application development.
Figure 5: Proposed Site Layout
3.2 The main building is 100,844 sq m, 540m in length and 180m in depth, with yards and loading doors to the north and south elevations. The main office accommodation and the 715 car parking spaces are on the western side (see Figure 5). The building will have a floor level of AOD
P a g e | 5 119.500 and a resultant maximum parapet height of AOD 142.500. The height of the building itself is 23m. The building will have six south facing roof slopes, which can accommodate PV installation to all these south-facing areas and concealed behind the parapets. In coordination with the PVs, 15% roof lights are provided to optimize daylight in conjunction with management systems for artificial lighting and energy performance.
3.3 The principal building is steel portal frame construction clad in a combination of steel composite and built-up cladding panels, made of recyclable materials which are themselves recyclable. The cladding is graded blue colours which are dictated by the position of the building in its context, with darker colours at lower levels and increasingly lighter to help reduce the visibility of the building against the sky line (see Figure 6).
3.4 The other facilities arranged within the site to meet the operational efficiency requirements of the operator are: • a gatehouse located in the southwest corner of the site at its principal entrance to control secure access and egress of HGVs, to also overlook the car parking which is separated from the principal building by secure fencing and provide safe pedestrian access which is controlled and concentrated by the use of secure turnstiles and gates; • fuel and vehicle wash facilities located at the south western end of the yard and are screened from Mere Lane by fencing and planting; and • 274 HGV parking spaces.
Figure 6: Proposed Elevations
b) Documents submitted in June 2015
i) Plans 3.5 Plans have been submitted showing the extent of the site, the proposed layout and details of the proposed works. The submitted plans are as follows: 3662-16-02: Ownership Layout
P a g e | 6 3662-20-09: Planning Red Line Boundary Plan 3662-24-02: Indicative Site Logistics Plan 3662-27-06: Site Layout 3662-30-15: Site Location Plan 3662-31-05: Warehouse Plan 3662-32-05: Elevations 3662-33-04: Ground and 1st Floor Office Plans 3662-34-01: 2nd Floor Plant and Office Plans 3662-35-04: Sections 3662-70-01: External Finishes Board 3662-120-04: Fencing 3662-125-01: Fencing Detail 3662-130-02: Gatehouse 3662-140-04: External Finishes 3662-150-01: Bikeshelters 3662-160-01: Fuel Island 3662-170-01: Vehicle Wash 3662-205-01: Roof Plan 47066811/A008/SK12 Rev A: Proposed Access Arrangements
ii. The Design & Access Statement 3.6 The Design and Access Statement (hereafter referred to as DAS) provides information to explain and understand the proposals, demonstrates the decision making process used to help develop them and the reasoning behind key decisions that have shaped the proposed development.
3.7 Section 2 of this statement provides a background to the current Magna Park; section 3 explores planning policy and guidance on design; section 4 describes the application site; section 5 explains the design principles and concepts; section 6 sets out the evolution of the design proposals; Section 7 explains the development proposals; section 8 highlights the landscape proposals; section 9 explains the access proposals, and; section 10 sets out the delivery of the proposal.
iii. Environmental Statement including non-technical summary 3.8 The proposal is Environmental Impact Assessment development under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011. An Environmental Statement (hereafter referred to as ‘ES’) has been produced to examine and evaluate the likely environmental effects of the development as required by Schedule 2 (Urban Development Projects of over 5 hectares in size) of the Regulations. The ES contains the information necessary to enable a decision to be made for the purpose of assessing the significant environmental effects of the development. The ES includes assessments of the following issues: • Socio-Economics • Transport • Air Quality • Noise and Vibration • Archaeology and Heritage • Ground Conditions • Hydrology and Flood Risk • Ecology and nature Conservation • Landscape and Visual Effects
3.9 For each issue identified the ES sets out the methodology used, including details of the baseline situation and impacts likely to result from the proposed development. All effects direct, indirect, secondary, cumulative, short, medium, long term, permanent, temporary, positive and negative have been analysed within the ES and measures considered such as to mitigate any identified impacts.
P a g e | 7
3.10 The non-technical summary document comprises a summary of the findings which the general public and non-technical experts can understand.
iv. Supporting Statements o Transport Assessment (prepared by URS, June 2015) 3.11 This Assessment reviews the highway and transport implications of the proposals and identifies measures required to mitigate against the impacts of the proposals.
o Travel Plan (prepared by URS, June 2015) 3.12 This Plan highlights the Travel opportunities presented by the proposals.
Statement of Community Involvement (prepared by Now Planning, April 2015) 3.13 This Statement outlines how the Applicant’s have consulted Key Local Stakeholders and the Local Community in formulating the proposals currently before the Local Planning Authority (hereafter referred to as ‘LPA’).
o Planning Statement (prepared by Now Planning, June 2015) 3.14 This Statement sets out the planning policies and guidance of particular relevance to the development proposals. It identifies the extent to which the proposed development complies or conflicts with each of the policies and, where relevant, refers to other documents in the application submission that further explore the consistency of the proposal with the intent of policy.
o Climate Change and BREEAM (prepared by Synergy BSS Ltd, May 2015) 3.15 This Statement details the expected interim design stage performances of the development as measured against the BRE Environmental and Sustainability Standard, BREEAM 2014 (SD 5076 Issue 3.0).
c) Amended / Additional Plans / Drawings and Supporting Documents o October 2015 – Additional Archaeological Information 3.16 In response to comments received from LCC Archaeology, trial trenching works have been carried out on the site, and the results of this work has been reported and submitted to LCC Archaeology for consideration.
o October 2015 – Updated Transport Assessment 3.17 In response to comments from Highways England, the applicants have updated their Transport Assessment. This work has been submitted to HE for consideration.
3.18 Furthermore, in response to comments received from LCC Highways, the applicants have redesigned the layout of the Mere Lane roundabout. This work has been submitted to LCC Highways for consideration.
o October 2015 – Updated Ecology Reports 3.19 In response to comments received from LCC Ecology, the applicants have produced additional ecological surveys and reports in support of their application. This work has been submitted to LCC Ecology for consideration.
o October 2015 – Cumulative Impact Assessments 3.20 In response to the submission of 15/00865/OUT (Land at Glebe Farm, Coventry Road, Lutterworth – db symmetry) the applicants have submitted a cumulative impact assessment of the proposal together with the db symmetry proposal in relation to visual impact, highways, noise and air quality. This work has been submitted to the relevant consultees for consideration.
d) Pre-application Engagement o LPA Engagement
P a g e | 8 3.21 Prior to submitting the planning application, the Applicant’s held extensive formal pre-application discussions with officers of the Council which culminated in the signing of a Planning Performance Agreement. The Applicant’s also undertook a stakeholder and community workshop and exhibition.
i) Planning Performance Agreement 3.22 A Planning Performance Agreement (hereafter referred to as a ‘PPA’) was originally signed in May 2015 to provide the Council and the Applicant’s with an agreed framework for the management of the development proposal. The PPA was a useful project management tool in focusing the consideration of the planning application.
3.23 The agreed timetable within the PPA indicated the application would be determined in October 2015 following the consideration of all consultation responses to the application. However, following the submission of additional information, the Schedule 2 of the PPA was amended to allow for the application to be determined and to reflect the potential call by Secretary of State.
ii) Community & Stakeholder Engagement 3.24 The Applicant’s held a number of events offering stakeholders and the local community the opportunity to get involved in developing the proposals for the extension of Magna Park.
3.25 The notification of stakeholders about the exhibition was a four stage process: o 1) Meetings and letters The applicants held a series of meetings with local parish councils to better understand their views on the proposed development and inform them of their emerging thoughts. In addition, IDI Gazeley wrote to all relevant Harborough District Councillors and Parish Council Chairs or Clerks with exhibition dates and location
3.26 Meetings were offered and letters written to the following parish councils: - Cotesbach Parish Council - Bitteswell Parish Council - Claybrooke Magna Parish Council - Lutterworth Town Council - Ullesthorpe Parish Council
o 2) Website information 3.27 Magna Park launched its own dedicated website, which was used to advertise all public exhibitions. The website was promoted to exhibition visitors and all of the exhibition boards were placed on the website after each event had concluded
o 3) Local media advert and coverage 3.28 Both public exhibitions in November 2014 and January 2015 were advertised to local residents through the Lutterworth Mail. The flyer was sent out with the Swift Flash for the first exhibition and two print adverts, in December 2014 and January 2015, were taken out in the Swift Flash to publicise the second exhibition. In addition, a press release advertising the event was given to the Lutterworth Mail to ensure coverage in the ‘news’ pages ahead of both events.
3.29 To advertise the first exhibition, a news story appeared on the front page of the Lutterworth Mail on October 16 2014. This was followed by an advert in the Lutterworth Mail on October 30 2014. A second news story appeared in the Harborough Mail on the week of the exhibition on November 11 2014. A news story also ran in the Leicester Mercury on October 16 2014.
3.30 To promote the second public exhibition in January an advert was published in the Swift Flash on December 17 2014 (the closest publication date to the event) and in the Lutterworth Mail on January 8 2015. Two news stories ran in the Lutterworth Mail, on January 8 2015 and January 14 2015, and one story appeared in the Leicester Mercury on January 12 2015.
o 4) Leaflet distribution
P a g e | 9 3.31 A leaflet advertising both the public exhibitions of 14-15 November 2014 and 16-17 January 2015 was distributed to all residents living in settlements closest to the application site. This includes the town of Lutterworth to the east of the existing Magna Park Lutterworth site and the villages of Bitteswell, Ullesthorpe and Claybrooke Parva to the northwest, and Willey to the west. A total of 6,000 leaflets were distributed across the local area to advertise each of the two exhibitions. The leaflets were sent out approximately two weeks before each event
o Public Exhibitions 3.32 Two public exhibitions were held on November 14-15 2014 and January 16-17 2015. The exhibitions took the form of clearly displayed descriptive and illustrative material together with the opportunity to have detailed discussions with members of the project team to explain the material and answer questions. Members of the project team present at both events included IDI Gazeley, planning consultants, transport specialists and drainage and landscaping experts. Responses were sought by way of feedback forms, which residents were encouraged to complete on the day to ensure the greatest rate of return. There was the opportunity for those who wished to take forms away and return them by post or email. Tables and chairs were provided, as well as light refreshments to encourage people to stay and complete feedback forms.
3.33 Meetings were also offered to Harborough District Council Planning Committee Members, Lutterworth Town Council, Bitteswell, Cotesbach, Ullesthorpe, and Claybrooke Parva Parish Councils as well as local Ward Councillors.
3.34 Topic specific meetings were also held with HDC Officers and representatives of LCC Highways, LCC Archaeology, Highways England, The Landscape Partnership (representing HDC) and English Heritage (now known as Historic England).
4. Consultations and Representations 4.1 The Council has undertaken extensive consultation in respect of this planning application. Technical consultees and the local community were consulted at the initial consultation stage (June 2015) and then following the receipt of additional information / amended plans in October 2015. The application was also advertised in the local press (Harborough Mail) and through the posting of Site notices.
4.2 As part of the consultation process, The Council held a Stakeholder Meeting on the 29th October which was attended by representatives of the interested Parish and Town Councils and Residents Groups. This meeting took the form of a presentation from Officers, followed by the answering of pre-set questions from attendees with the opportunity to pose further questions to be answered in writing. The presentation, all questions and answers and the audio recording of the meeting have been made available via HDC’s website.
4.3 Firstly, a summary of the technical consultees responses received is set out below. Where appropriate the responses will be discussed in more detail within the main body of the report. If you wish to view the comments in full, please go to: www.harborough.gov.uk/planning
a) Statutory & Non-Statutory Consultees 1. National Bodies 4.4 Historic England On the basis of detailed pre-application discussions we advise that there will likely be some harm to the significance of the scheduled monument (Bittesby Medieval Village) from the DHL scheme in terms of additional intrusion into its setting) particularly in views from the north end of the medieval village looking east, although this will be to an extent mitigated by the reinforcement of historic boundary planting.
4.5 Whilst these impacts are not in our view likely to be great from the present DHL scheme they should still be weighed by your authority against public benefits as detailed in the National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 132 and 134. Your authority should also ensure it sufficiently understands the extent and potential nature of any impacts upon water supply and
P a g e | 10 flow characteristics to Claybrooke Mill (a grade II listed building) in line with NPPF paragraphs 128/129 such that it can give the required and appropriate weight to such issues as it may identify.
4.6 With respect to other archaeological matters we refer your authority to the advice of the county Council Development Control Archaeologists.
4.7 Historic England Comments on Additional Information With regard to the additional information provided we note the archaeological reports and refer you to the detailed advice of the County Council Development Control Archaeologists, our advice overall stands as per our letter of 13 July 2015 (see above). With regard to comparative and cumulative impacts between schemes adjacent to Magna Park we refer you to the outcome of your current consultation and your strategic consideration of options for expansion.
4.8 We would urge you to address the above issues, and recommend that the application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice. If you would like further advice, please contact us to explain your request
4.9 Historic England Comments on submission by Dr Susan Tebby The submission is in respect of application 15/00919 FUL the DHL building, this application does not include the demolition of Bittesby House, our advice remains as set out our letters of 23/10/15 (on additional information) and 13/7/15 (the substantive application). As of this morning we have not received an additional request to list Bittesby House (further to its rejection in May 2015), however I understand Dr Tebby has been in touch with my colleagues in our Listing department to indicate a new application is on its way to us imminently. We do not advise that Harborough should (or should not) issue a Building Preservation Notice on Bittesby House, it is a matter for your authority's consideration of the issues.
4.10 With regard to the planning application I have read both Dr Tebby and the applicant's recent additional submissions to the LPA in respect of the live outline application. We note the depth and extent of Dr Tebby's historical research and the detailed response on behalf of the applicants. Our planning advice remains unchanged
4.11 Environment Agency We consider that planning permission could be granted to the proposed development as submitted if the planning condition set out is included. Without this condition, the proposed development on this site poses an unacceptable risk to the environment and we would object to the application.
4.12 Environment Agency Comments on Additional Information No further comments
4.13 Highways England Recommend that conditions should be attached to any planning permission that may be granted
4.14 Highways England Comments on Additional Information We can confirm that our previous conclusions in respect to the proposed development remain unchanged, therefore, our previous outcome letter still stands.
4.15 Natural England Natural England does not consider that this application poses any likely or significant risk to those features of the natural environment for which we would otherwise provide a more detailed consultation response and so does not wish to make specific comment on the details of this consultation.
P a g e | 11 4.16 The lack of case specific comment from Natural England should not be interpreted as a statement that there are no impacts on the natural environment. Other bodies and individuals may make comments that will help the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to fully take account of the environmental value of this site in the decision making process. In particular, we would expect the LPA to assess and consider the possible impacts resulting from this proposal on the following when determining this application:
4.17 Where there is a reasonable likelihood of a protected species being present and affected by the proposed development, the LPA should request survey information from the applicant before determining the application (Paragraph 99 Circular 06/05)
4.18 Natural England has produced standing advice, which is available on our website Natural England Standing Advice to help local planning authorities to better understand the impact of particular developments on protected or BAP species should they be identified as an issue. The standing advice also sets out when, following receipt of survey information, local planning authorities should undertake further consultation with Natural England.
4.19 From the documents accompanying the consultation we consider this application falls outside the scope of the Development Management Procedure Order (as amended) consultation arrangements, as the proposed development would not appear to lead to the loss of over 20 ha ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land (paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework).
4.20 For this reason we do not propose to make any detailed comments in relation to agricultural land quality and soils, although more general guidance is available in Defra Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites, and we recommend that this is followed. If, however, you consider the proposal has significant implications for further loss of ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land, we would be pleased to discuss the matter further.
4.21 If the proposal site is on or adjacent to a local wildlife site, eg Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) or Local Nature Reserve (LNR) the authority should ensure it has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal on the local wildlife site, and the importance of this in relation to development plan policies, before it determines the application.
4.22 This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
4.23 Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that ‘Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that ‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat’.
4.24 This application may provide opportunities to enhance the character and local distinctiveness of the surrounding natural and built environment; use natural resources more sustainably; and bring benefits for the local community, for example through green space provision and access to and contact with nature. Landscape characterisation and townscape assessments, and associated sensitivity and capacity assessments provide tools for planners and developers to consider new development and ensure that it makes a positive contribution in terms of design, form and location, to the character and functions of the landscape and avoids any unacceptable impacts.
4.25 If you disagree with our assessment of this proposal as low risk, or should the proposal be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural environment, then in
P a g e | 12 accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, please consult Natural England again.
4.26 Natural England Comments on Additional Information The additional information does not materially affect the basis of the advice provided in Natural England’s original response to this application for planning permission, a copy of which is enclosed for ease of reference. The advice provided in our letter of 14 July 2015 applies equally to the resubmitted application.
4.27 Health and Safety Executive (HSE) No comments received
4.28 Ministry of Defence (MOD) No comments received
4.29 National Grid As your proposal is in proximity to National Grid's apparatus, we have referred your enquiry / consultation to the following department(s) for further assessment: Gas Distribution Pipelines Team We request that you take no further action with regards to the proposal until you hear from the above. We will contact you within 28 working days from the date of this response. Please contact us if you have not had a response within this timeframe.
4.30 National Grid Comments on Additional Information No further comments
4.31 Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) From the associated Non-Technical Summary it seems that the maximum height of any new associated structure would be something less than 22m. That being the case, I can advise that the new structures would not constitute an en-route aviation obstruction. It follows that the CAA has no related comments other than to highlight the need to check any safeguarding maps lodged with the Council to identify any aerodrome specific safeguarding issues.
4.32 Note that, as aerodrome safeguarding rests with the aerodrome operator / licensee (ie not the CAA), the CAA has no requirement to be consulted on developments of this scale. Typically, in terms of permanent structures, we have interest to structures of a height of 90m (approximately 300ft) or more. To that end the council should not expect CAA response related to developments of this scale.
4.33 CAA Comments on Additional Information No further comments
2. Regional / Local Bodies 4.34 Severn Trent Water I confirm that Severn Trent Water Limited has no objection to the proposal subject to the inclusion of the recommended conditions
4.35 Severn Trent Water Comments on Additional Information No further comments
4.36 Leicestershire Police Growth and Design Officer No comments received
4.37 NHS England (Leicestershire and Lincolnshire Area) Medical and Pharmacy Contracts Manager No comments received
4.38 Leicestershire & Rutland Wildlife Trust
P a g e | 13 No comments received
4.39 East Midlands Councils No comments received
4.40 East Midlands Chamber of Commerce No comments received
4.41 Lutterworth Chamber of Trade No comments received
4.42 Leicestershire & Rutland Bridleways Association (LRBA) The Leicestershire & Rutland Bridleways Association does not object to the proposed development, although it has concerns about the concomitant increase in traffic from employees' cars, service vehicles and HGVs, but would wish the following conditions to be attached to any approval in order to: increase the connectivity of the lesser highway network for both commuting and recreational purposes and also to achieve some of the targets along the AS of the Highways Agency's Vulnerable User Road Crossings Improvement Programme of a decade ago which sought to mitigate the "Berlin Wall" effect that trunk roads, in particular, have for the non-motorised.
4.43 Proposed conditions: 1. That Woodby Lane at the N end of the existing Magna Park is restored as a through route at bridleway standard to Mere Lane. This would require a track for walkers, horse riders and cyclists cutting through the planting and bund outside the Asda compound and a bridle gate installing onto Mere Lane. This would: a. restore the historic route severed when the original airfield was built 70+ years ago, which should have been done before the original Magna Park permission was given b. provide a sustainable transport (cycling) link into Magna Park for employees coming from the villages to the N and NW of Magna Park - Leire, Ashby Parva, Ullesthorpe and the Claybrookes c. provide a recreational circuit down the almost traffic-free Woodby Lane, use the N part of Mere Lane, on which traffic is not planned to significantly increase (except from the aforesaid commuters) up to the cross roads from near which bridleway W88 and bridleway W86 form an off road multi-user recreational resource. This would keep walkers, horse-riders and recreational cyclists off a considerable length of the Ullesthorpe Road with its short sight lines, which make it dangerous for non-motorised, vulnerable, road users.
2. That the 'redundant' section of Mere Lane is dedicated as, and signed as, a bridleway in order to retain its ability to cater for all types of non-motorised traffic, ie that it includes horse riders not just walkers and cyclists.
3. That the new roundabout where Mere Lane joins the A5 is provided with a light controlled crossing that will enable users of the bridleway from Willey to cross the A5 into the 'redundant Mere Lane. This will encourage sustainable commuting from Willey into its nearest employment opportunity as well as providing recreational links. A very successful and well-used crossing of the A5 at a roundabout near Towcester can be used as a blueprint.
4. Ideally, as there is no public right of way on the Bittesby side opposite the other bridleway from Willey. A link should be created "behind the hedge" on the SW side of the A5 between the two Willey bridleways so that they have a circuit. The Leics/Warks boundary lies some metres beyond the A5 on the Willey side, so Harborough is the relevant planning authority.
P a g e | 14 5. The road from Willey comes out opposite the joined Leicestershire bridleways W88/W86 mentioned above. The opportunity needs to be taken to provide some protection for this crossing, ideally light-controlled. The exit from Willey, even if only turning left, is extremely hazardous for vehicles and needs improving.
4.44 Additionally: That footpath X3S from Lutterworth should be upgraded so as to provide a sustainable commuting route from the town to Magna Park. Physically this would mean that the path needs strengthening to be usable in all weathers. Legally footpaths upgraded to cycleways vanish from the Definitive Map unless they are designated as bridleways.
4.45 We are aware that Sustrans wishes to promote a cycling route along the A5 and would suggest that the opportunity be taken to provide a cycling/walking route in, at least, the eastern verge of the A5 right down to the Cross in Hand roundabout. (Highways Agency advice is now that cycle routes should be provided in both directions.) The current eastern verge seems able to support this for most of the length apart from a few patches where some work might be needed. Even if this does not connect with other cycling provision to the north (mainly in the Hinckley area) it seems appropriate to start the good work, particularly as the necessary construction machinery will be on site.
4.46 A purely personal observation from my recent mini-tour of Magna Park was that this huge area does not seem to have a 'social centre'. An area nearly as large as Lutterworth seems to have no eating or shopping/service facilities such as employees would expect if they were working in a town. Where do they buy their lunches? or the food for their evening meal? get their dry cleaning done or shoes mended? Is there a creche? Or any medical facility? The provision of such facilities would reduce the need for off-site travel during lunchtime/working hours, so minimising Magna Park's impact on the surrounding road network. I was very impressed by the excellent physical environment, just concerned that it was a little soul-less. Surely this, if not already provided, should be a condition of further expansion?
4.47 LRBA looks forward to being informed of the outcome of this application and is happy to be consulted on the technical requirements for equestrians, in particular re the light-controlled crossing as I was the British Horse Society's technical adviser for the Towcester crossing.
4.48 Leicestershire and Rutland Bridleway Association Comments on Additional Information No further comments
4.49 Leicestershire & Rutland Badger Group The Leicestershire and Rutland Badger Group strongly objects to this application. There is an active badger sett within the current site of Magna Park and very close to the site of the proposed development. When Magna Park was first developed the Leicestershire Badger Group worked closely with the site manager to ensure that the badger sett and its badgers were protected. If the extension to Magna Park is allowed the badgers occupying this sett will suffer. There is very little foraging available to the badgers within the current Magna Park site so the badgers must cross Mere Lane to reach the farmland where the proposed extension to Magna Park is to be sited. Indeed the Environmental Consultants reported "widespread evidence of badger activity was found within the Site Boundaries". If this farm land is built on the badgers will lose nearly all their foraging land. Moreover the proposed development includes partial alignment of Mere Lane, a roundabout on Mere Lane and the widening of part of Mere Lane to allow heavy lorries to use it. There is a danger that badgers might be injured or killed due to heavy traffic on a previously quiet country lane. The proposal would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework which states that planning should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying several principles including, that if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused (paragraph 118). The proposal would also conflict with Circular 06/2005, paragraph 99.
4.50 Leicestershire and Rutland Badger Group Comments on Additional Information
P a g e | 15 No further comments
4.51 Western Power Distributions Existing infrastructure may be affected by these proposals
4.52 Western Power Distributions Comments on Additional Information No further comments
3. Leicestershire County Council 4.53 Leicestershire County Council Senior Access & Development Officer (Rights of Way) No comments received
4.54 Leicestershire County Council Asset Management Manager No comments received
4.55 Leicestershire Local Flood Authority (LLFA) The proposed development will be acceptable based on the information provided within the application documents. Please note that this includes the revised information supplied to the LLFA on 29th July 2015 (Drainage Strategy Attenuation Storage Design, Rev 29/07/15)
4.56 LLFA Comments on additional information The LLFA have no additional comments to raise regarding this application.
4.57 Leicestershire County Council Principal Planning Archaeologist The submitted Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, Heritage Statement, Archaeological Fieldwalking Survey and Geophysical Survey reports are welcomed and provide useful information, adding to our understanding of the archaeological resource within the application site and the wider landscape around the Scheduled Bittesby Deserted Medieval Village.
4.58 The Geophysical Survey illustrates that buried archaeological remains continue outside of the Scheduled extent of Bittesby Deserted Medieval Village. However, some of the features in proximity to the Scheduled Monument appear to belong to an earlier settlement, possibly related to a concentration of Roman pottery and building material found during fieldwalking. It is unclear what proportion of the archaeological remains apparent in the Geophysical Survey are part of the medieval settlement and contribute to its significance. Although neither the scheduled remains nor the geophysical anomalies will be directly impacted by the current scheme, it remains unclear how these remain contribute to the significance of the designated asset (Historic England 2015 The Setting of Heritage Assets, Step 2, p8). The archaeological remains extend along the ridge line to the east of the scheduled area and their presence, form and character have the potential to contribute to the intellectual and visual setting of the monument. In our opinion setting of the designated asset will be affected, both by the increased proximity of imposing modern architecture and the proposed tree planting, which will create a partial screen between the ridge and the Scheduled Monument.
4.59 Archaeological remains have also been identified within the application site, including a possible trackway at the north-eastern end and a possible ring ditch (which may represent a former prehistoric roundhouse or burial mound) towards the south. Finds of prehistoric flint artefacts could indicate earlier prehistoric activity, which is often not identifiable on geophysical surveys. Archaeological trial trenching is necessary to ascertain the nature and significance of the archaeological remains within the application site, including the tree planting areas, and those that are associated with the Scheduled medieval settlement. We are in ongoing discussions with the applicant’s archaeological consultants and understand that trial trenching will be undertaken in late August-early September. We will be in a position to provide further recommendations on the proposed development when the results of this trenching are known.
4.60 The Scheduled Monument of Bittesby Deserted Medieval Village represents a former settlement and was recorded in the Domesday Survey. The documentary and place-name evidence
P a g e | 16 indicates that the settlement had an Anglo-Saxon origin with a later Scandinavian association (‘by’ Old Scand. meaning a 'farmstead' or 'village'). Antiquarian and more recent archaeological evidence also indicates the presence of Roman and possibly prehistoric activity in the vicinity. Historic documents show that the settlement was gradually depopulated in the 15th and 16th centuries by the Lord of the Manor to create extensive sheep grazing. The Bittesby House farm complex is known to date to at least the 18th century. However, the submitted Fieldwalking Survey has revealed a concentration of 16th-17th century pottery in close proximity to Bittesby House, which strongly suggests that the farm complex had earlier origins. It has also come to our attention that historic documents, including the Papist Returns, relating to the post-medieval period provide further and more detailed understanding of the ownership and land use of the area. It appears likely that Bittesby House represents the latest phase of continuous settlement and farming at Bittesby since at least the Anglo-Saxon period, and in this respect makes a positive contribution to the setting of the Scheduled Monument. The proposed development includes the demolition of the Lodge to Bittesby House, as well as encroaching on other aspects of its setting. We would recommend that a thorough Historic Building Assessment, including detailed documentary research, is undertaken to ascertain the significance of the Bittesby House complex and clarify its contribution to the significance of the Scheduled Monument.
4.61 The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (figures 9.6zt, 9.6zu and 9.6zv) illustrates views from the northern edge of the Scheduled Bittesby Deserted Medieval Village. The proposed development will create a greater sense of enclosure, the effect of which appears to be increased by the proposed tree planting as it matures. Medieval settlements had a close relationship with their surrounding landscape, which, in this case, largely consisted of open fields that were cultivated by the villagers. The Geophysical Survey shows traces of former ridge and furrow cultivation within the application site, illustrating that it formed part of Bittesby’s open field system. We also note that the proposed planting does little to screen the modern structures from the Scheduled Monument at its northern extent and consideration should be given to increased planting in closer proximity to the proposed building, to soften its visual impact. In addition, we have concerns about the impact of the proposals on views from the listed Ullesthorpe Windmill and from areas of ridge and furrow earthworks in close proximity to, and within the setting of, the Scheduled medieval village earthworks at Ullesthorpe. We recommend that the comments of Historic England and your Conservation Officer are considered in relation to the potential visual and setting impacts to designated heritage assets.
4.62 As mentioned in our response to the EIA scoping opinion request, we have concerns about the effect of the proposed development on ground water levels and water chemistry. The Scheduled Monument contains alluvial deposits and there is a potential for waterlogged organic remains to survive preserved in situ. Any changes in water levels or composition could lead to the degradation of significant archaeological deposits within the Scheduled Monument. We would recommend that you ensure that the hydrological information supplied by the applicant is sufficient to ensure that there will be no negative impacts to the preservation of archaeological remains within the Scheduled Monument.
4.63 We recommend that further information should be submitted to enable an informed decision to be made about the archaeological impacts of the proposed development. This should include an Archaeological Trial Trench Evaluation and further assessment of the significance of Bittesby House. We will provide further recommendations when this information is available.
4.64 LCC Archaeology Comments on Additional Information Assessment of the Leicestershire and Rutland Historic Environment Record (HER), supported by the results of the archaeological evaluation of the development area, coordinated by CGMS Consulting on behalf of the applicant (I D I Gazeley Ltd), shows that the site occupies an area of archaeological potential and wider heritage and historic landscape interest.
4.65 The applicant has undertaken a comprehensive staged programme of archaeological assessment comprising an initial desk-based assessment (CgMs ref.: AT/SM/17561/05), followed by field walking (MoLA ref.: 15/3), geophysical survey (ArchaeoPhysica ref.: LTL141) and
P a g e | 17 culminating in targeted trial trenching (Albion Archaeology ref.: 2015/136). Each stage has been agreed in advance of implementation and subsequently monitored by Leicestershire Council's Historic & Natural Environment Team (HNET), as advisors to the planning authority. It is not proposed to consider each of the above documents individually, previous comments offered in relation to the current scheme have addressed these in detail, and have most recently led to the completion of a phase of trenching, targeting areas of archaeological potential, geophysical anomalies, finds clusters and/or heritage assets identified during the earlier evaluative stages. This work has demonstrated the presence of a number of discrete areas of archaeological interest within and in the immediate vicinity of the proposals, predominantly comprising evidence of late Iron Age and Roman land use and occupation.
4.66 Previous archaeological information predominantly held within the Leicestershire and Rutland Historic Environment Record (HER), identifies a series of designated and non-designated heritage assets. These include the scheduled earthworks of Bittesby deserted medieval village, located approximately 450m to the west of the development site (NHLE ref.: 1012563; HER ref.: MLE1226). The scheduled area comprises a much reduced element of former village, bisected by the construction of the Midland Counties railway in the 1840’s (MLE16079), and further truncated by agricultural works in the later 20th century to bring the western half of the former village into arable cultivation. Recent archaeological investigation of part of this western area, in advance of landfill operations, demonstrated the presence of preserved archaeological remains dating from the medieval and early post-medieval occupation of the village. At the time of writing, historic records appear to show the village and associated township was affected by an extended process of desertion and accompanying enclosure of the associated open field system from the later 15th century onward, by 1536 only the Salisbury family was left. Additional research into the documentary history of the township including the settlement, associated landscape and nearby Bittesby House complex (MLE21556), may shed further valuable light on this aspect, and clarify any association between the present day house and farmstead with the nationally important scheduled earthworks to the west. At present the earliest direct evidence to demonstrate occupation of the Bittesby House site, or ‘Bitchby’ as it is recorded, dates from late 18th century mapping, pre-dating structural evidence within the main house and indicating earlier use of the site.
4.67 The current proposals whilst not directly affecting the extent of the Scheduled Monument will significantly impinge upon the setting of the designated heritage asset, primarily as a visual intrusion of significant scale. As such the applicant has offered their assessment of the scale and scope of impact and proposed mitigatory measures to off-set and minimise the development impact. This primarily takes the form of additional landscape planting to the northwest and west of the main development site, and landscape bunding and planting along the western edge of the site itself. It is recommended that the planning authority give careful consideration to the comments of Historic England as statutory consultees in respect of the designated Scheduled Monument remains.
4.68 The most obvious direct impact upon the Bittesby House complex comprises the demolition of the former Lodge building, situated to the south of the House, adjacent to Watling Street (MLE21987). Later 19th century Ordnance Survey mapping shows the House was formerly connected to Watling Street via the tree-lined avenue, with access administered via the Lodge. The building forms an important element of the setting of Bittesby House, as does the avenue, and though much altered provides testament to the former orientation and status of the latter building. The loss of the Lodge and further truncation of the avenue will further dislocate the House with Watling Street. We would refer the planning authority to comments provided by John Sharpe, the County Council’s Historic Building Officer.
4.69 Archaeological evidence of earlier activity within and in the vicinity of the development area includes identification of Watling Street, one of major arterial roads of the Roman province. The latter now forms the alignment of the present day A5. Archaeologically, in addition to the evidence of the road itself, it is likely to represent a focus for contemporary activity, such as settlement, funerary remains, etc. (MLE1225). As a route way it also had an extended period of
P a g e | 18 usage, notably providing an apparent focus of early Anglo-Saxon remains (MLE1925) and providing a defining boundary to the 9th/10th century Danelaw area (MLE1388) and subsequent county boundary. Consequently, it can be recognised as a significant historic landscape feature as well as of intrinsic archaeological interest in its own right. Recent trenching has added substance to this understanding with buried archaeological features, both dated and undated, located within the proposed development area, adjacent to the line of the road.
4.70 Located approximately 750m north-east of the line of Watling Street, fieldwalking, geophysical survey and recent trenching has indicated the presence of a Roman occupation site, apparently a farmstead with associated enclosures (MLE21337). The site lies approximately 100m to the west of the present development area, its extent, character and archaeological potential has been substantially enhanced as a result of the assessment process undertaken in support of the current proposals, most notably the geophysical survey and trial trenching. The former indicated the site comprises part of an extended ‘ladder’ settlement located on the ridge top between the proposed development and the Scheduled Monument to the west; whilst the latter demonstrates the presence of well preserved buried archaeological remains, dated to the early Roman period (1st-2nd century AD) through the recovery of a good pottery assemblage. Trenching undertaken as part of the current site assessment indicates that the site does not extend into the present development site, and has its main focus along the crest of the western ridge.
4.71 The trenching has also indicated the presence of prehistoric archaeological remains within and in the immediate vicinity of the site. These include a series of ditches and a pit producing late Iron Age pottery immediately to the east of Bittesby House, and a significant quantity of Iron Age pottery recovered from the area of the Roman ridge top settlement site mentioned above. The latter demonstrates the longevity of occupation within the area, adding to our understanding of the area’s historic time-depth.
4.72 In line with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), para. 129, the planning authority is required to consider the impact of the development upon any heritage assets, taking into account their particular archaeological and historic significance. This understanding should be used to avoid or minimise conflict between conservation of the historic environment and the archaeological impact of the proposals.
4.73 Paragraph 141 states that where loss of the whole or a material part of the heritage asset’s significance is justified, local planning authorities should require the developer to record and advance understanding of the significance of the affected resource prior to its loss. The archaeological obligations of the developer, including publication of the results and deposition of the archive, must be proportionate to the impact of the proposals upon the significance of the historic environment.
4.74 As a consequence, it is recommended that to prior to the impact of development upon the identified heritage asset(s) the applicant must make arrangements for an appropriate programme of archaeological investigation and its subsequent implementation. This will involve targeted archaeological investigation of those areas of interest identified above likely to be affected by the development proposals. These include Areas 1-6 and 10 identified in the developer’s submitted Environmental Statement (Technical Chapter 11, Archaeology and Heritage, Appendix H.3, Figure 8).
4.75 If planning permission is granted, the applicant should obtain a suitable written scheme of investigation (WSI) for the necessary archaeological programme. The WSI must be obtained from an archaeological organisation acceptable to the planning authority, and be submitted for approval to both the LPA and HNET (LCC Historic and Natural Environment Team) as archaeological advisers to your authority, before the implementation of the archaeological programme and in advance of the start of development.
4.76 The WSI should comply with the above mentioned Brief, with this Department’s “Guidelines and Procedures for Archaeological Work in Leicestershire and Rutland” and with relevant Institute for
P a g e | 19 Archaeologists’ “Standards” and “Code of Practice”. It should include a suitable indication of arrangements for the implementation of the archaeological work, and the proposed timetable for the development.
4.77 We therefore recommend that any planning permission be granted subject to the recommended planning conditions (informed by paragraphs 53-55 of DoE Circular 11/95), to safeguard any important archaeological remains potentially present.
4.78 The Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) must be prepared by an archaeological contractor acceptable to the Planning Authority. To demonstrate that the implementation of this written scheme of investigation has been secured the applicant must provide a signed contract or similar legal agreement between themselves and their approved archaeological contractor.
4.79 In addition to the recommended conditions, in the event that permission is granted the planning authority should ensure provisions are made by the applicant for the creation, strengthening and long term maintenance of the screening of the development area from the Scheduled Monument. In that respect, a condition is suggested to address the heritage interests.
4.80 LCC Archaeology Comments on submission from Dr Susan Tebby Having assessed the submission, I can confirm that, whilst the report adds depth to information already available, it raises no new information which had not already been assessed, and as such, does not alter our recommendation as previously reported.
4.81 Leicestershire County Council Better Places Officer No comments received
4.82 Leicestershire County Council Planning Ecologist The EIA submitted with the application contains a number of ecology surveys. The site surveyed was significantly larger than the application site and it should be noted that these comments relate only to the application site and should not be seen as support or otherwise of any further planning applications in the vicinity.
4.83 We note that there are a number of ecology surveys still outstanding. The dates provided in section 12.3.15 of the Ecology and Nature Conservation Technical Environmental Statement (ES) Chapter indicates that a number of these should now be finished, including great crested newts, breeding birds and reptiles. It would be useful to see a copy of these in order to make our full comments on the application. However, notwithstanding this we have made comments below.
4.84 Prior to the determination of the application we would recommend that the following information/clarification is submitted: - The results of the last Great Crested Newt (GCN) survey, any necessary updated mitigation and the location of the proposed receptor site for any GCN caught during the trapping phase. - Any additional results of outstanding surveys, including reptiles, birds and bats.
4.85 The following should be incorporated into condition(s) of the development. It should be noted that these recommendations may alter on the receipt of further information: - The final layout should be in accordance with the proposed Landscape Masterplan (drawing MPL410-AL-A00-MP-0-001). Should this be amended the buffer between the lagoon and the watercourse must be retained. No further intrusion into the area surrounding the sewerage treatment and filter beds should be permitted. - An updated badger survey should be completed prior to the commencement of works. Should badger setts be found on site, an updated mitigation plan will be required. - Ecological surveys are only considered to be valid for 2 years. If the development does not commence within two years from the date of the initial surveys (i.e. 2017) updated surveys will be required.
P a g e | 20 - Works should be in accordance with the mitigation strategy detailed within section 12.6, 12.7 and 12.8 of the Technical ES Chapter Ecology and Nature Conservation and the detailed species reports unless otherwise agreed. - Any trees to be removed with bat roost potential must be surveyed. - Lighting of boundary features to be kept below the 1 lux level.
4.86 LCC Ecology Comments on Additional Information Our recommendations on this application are now as follows. This includes the recommendation within our previous responses and updates them based on the submission of the additional information as discussed above.
4.87 Prior to the determination of the application we would recommend that the following information / clarification is submitted: - The proposed timing for the demolition of Lodge Cottage, currently containing a bat roost. The following should be incorporated into condition(s) of the development. It should be noted that these recommendations may alter on the receipt of further information: - The final layout should be in accordance with the proposed Landscape Masterplan (drawing MPL410-AL-A00-MP-0-001). Should this be amended the buffer between the lagoon and the watercourse must be retained. No further intrusion into the area surrounding the sewage treatment and filter beds should be permitted. - An updated badger survey should be completed prior to the commencement of works. Should badger setts be found on site, an updated mitigation plan will be required. - Ecological surveys are only considered to be valid for 2 years. If the development does not commence within two years from the date of the initial surveys (i.e. 2017) updated surveys will be required. - Works should be in accordance with the mitigation strategy detailed within section 12.6, 12.7 and 12.8 of the Technical ES Chapter Ecology and Nature Conservation and the most recent versions of the detailed species reports unless otherwise agreed. Specific detailed mitigation is required for bats and great crested newts. - Lighting of boundary features to be kept below the 1 lux level. - The site landscaping and management plan must incorporate any requirements for protected species mitigation. We would expect the landscaping plan to incorporate native species, particularly where ecological enhancements can be made. All landscaping plans and site/biodiversity management plans should be required as a condition of the development. A Note to Applicant should also be included stating: - The applicant must be aware that their ecologist indicates that European Protected Species Licences are required for this development. It is the applicants responsibility to liaise with their ecologist to ensure that all required licences are in place prior to the commencement of works and that all further conditions are adhered to.
4.88 Leicestershire County Council Forestry Team Leader No comments received
4.89 Leicestershire County Council Principal Historic Buildings Officer My main interest with this application concerns the impact of the development on the local, built heritage. I am aware that other officers and consultees have considered the complex archaeology of the area in considerable detail.
4.90 The submitted Heritage Statement sets out the primary legislation relating to built heritage, current National Planning Policy and guidance published by Historic England. Of particular interest in this case are the formal definitions of the ‘setting of a heritage asset’ and ‘significance (for heritage policy)’ in the NPPF Glossary. Relevant policies, contained within Section 12 of the NPPF, include paragraph 132, which confirms that significance can be harmed or lost through development within the setting of an asset, and paragraph 135, which requires that the effect of
P a g e | 21 an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application.
4.91 The Heritage Statement also provides useful background information on several historic buildings close to the application site, including Bittesby House and the associated farm buildings cottages and lodge. I agree with the conclusion reached in the document that these are of sufficient heritage interest to merit non-designated heritage asset status.
4.92 Bittesby House, the best of these assets, is described in the Heritage Statement as merely ‘of limited architectural and historic significance, being of local interest only’. I contend that whilst the house may be of insufficient, rather than limited, special architectural or historic interest to meet the statutory listing criteria, it is one of the higher quality, unlisted buildings in the county. The many attributes include much original historic fabric and several interesting architectural features from a series of identifiable phases of development that provide a clear visual reminder of the expansion of the farm during the C19. When I visited the House it was in good condition and active use. I understand that recent and ongoing research by a local historian may strengthen the contribution made by Bittesby House to the significance of the neighbouring scheduled site, which is unsurprising given the agricultural community that previously existed in the area.
4.93 The proposed new distribution centre, by virtue of its use, location and size, will have a considerable visual and environmental impact on the setting, or surroundings in which they are experienced, of the non-designated heritage assets in the area. Given the scale of the building it is unlikely that a new planting would substantially reduce the visual intrusion into the landscape.
4.94 It is clear from national planning policy and Historic England guidance that the setting of heritage assets can be an important factor in their significance and that it can include the environment in which a place or building is experienced, their local context, embracing present and past relationships to the adjacent land or buildings.
4.95 In my view the Heritage Statement underplays the contribution made by the setting of Bittesby House to its significance. As with virtually all such historic farms a fundamental, functional association exists between the house and the surrounding agricultural land. In addition the development of Bittesby House during the C19, including a tree lined avenue and new outward looking formal facades, suggest that the wider rural landscape was a significant feature to be exploited and enhanced as the status of the farmstead increased.
4.96 I am aware that previous Magna Park development has compromised this setting but feel that the proposed urbanising and discordant development will, by encroaching much closer to the house and associated buildings, cause further harm to their significance. The new distribution centre will dwarf the non-designated heritage assets and compete with Bittesby House as the pre- eminent manmade feature in the locality.
4.97 Only one of the non-designated heritage assets identified in the Heritage Statement is located within the application site. It is proposed that the former lodge to Bittesby House will be demolished. This will clearly result in substantial harm to this particular asset but also cause indirect harm to the significance of the House by removing an integral part of the C19 expansion. I agree with the Heritage Statement that changes in access and alterations to the lodge mean that the connection between assets is not readily apparent currently, but paragraph 137 of the NPPF asks that local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. I am unaware that this opportunity has been properly considered in this case.
4.98 As noted above National Planning Policy requires that your authority takes the effect of the application on the significance of all the non-designated heritage assets in the area into account in determining the application. I believe that the submitted Heritage Statement under values some of the non-designated heritage assets in the area and under plays the impact of the
P a g e | 22 development on their setting and significance. Whilst I do not claim that substantial damage will generally occur to the assets near to the development site, I disagree strongly with the conclusion of the Heritage statement that that any harm to the significance of Bittesby House and Cottages falls ‘well below the ‘less than substantial’ threshold referred to in the NPPF’.
4.99 National Planning Practice Guidance states that ‘a substantial majority of buildings have little or no heritage significance and thus do not constitute heritage assets. Only a minority have enough heritage interest for their significance to be a material consideration in the planning process’. This suggests that such buildings, even if they are of ‘local interest only’, are comparatively scarce. They contribute to an irreplaceable and finite environmental resource and their conservation in a manner appropriate to their significance is one of the twelve overarching, core planning principles set out in the NPPF.
4.100 LCC Historic Buildings Officer Comments on Additional Information No further comments
4.101 LCC Archaeology Comments on submission from Dr Susan Tebby Having read Dr Tebby’s report, I can confirm that, whilst the submission adds confirms my previous assessment, it raises no new information which had not already been assessed, and as such, does not alter my previous comments.
4.102 Leicestershire County Council Landscape Officer No comments received
4.103 Leicestershire County Council Senior Planning Officer No comments received
4.104 Leicestershire Local Access Forum The Forum takes a neutral position on the developments in this area but would offer what we trust you will feel is constructive advice. First and foremost all actual and anticipated applications in the area should be looked at together as far as possibly in respect of sustainable travel and access.
4.105 Consideration must be given to the further applications in this area and the others which are envisaged and a holistic view taken on the impacts throughout the area. Section 106 monies can be utilised to improve the inter-connectiveness of all routes outside the immediate sites. Inevitably there will be a substantial increase in traffic from service vehicles and HGVs, and employees getting to and from work and we would like to see better infrastructure for horse riders, cyclists and walkers off-road and improved public transport, especially direct from such places as Rugby and Leicester, not just extending the route and hours of the existing service linking Lutterworth and Hinckley. We would therefore strongly recommend enhanced non- motorised access routes and adequate safe crossing points.
4.106 We also feel it essential with developments of this size, with the loss of open countryside, that consideration be given to green corridors, both to avoid isolation of wildlife populations but wherever possible to afford people a pleasant and safe route to local amenities, bus routes, the wider network of rights of way and the open countryside beyond. There has been some consideration of these issues in the application but we feel more could be done. There is an attractive lagoon envisaged on the site and we would recommend a metalled track all the way round it as this would be a strong attraction to the less able.
4.107 There is mention of the retention of existing permissible bridleways, and the creation of new permanent footpath and bridleway connections. These new connections provide access to the wider network of existing public rights of way between the villages of Ullesthorpe and Willey to the north and west of the site. These should be dedicated as PRoWs as permissive routes could be withdrawn at will. There is talk of making paths cycleways but the legal status of such routes is unclear and as such we would advocate they be made into bridleways.
P a g e | 23
4.108 Bus stops are proposed to the south east of the new roundabout on Argosy Way. Providing a connection into Magna Park from Mere Lane will allow the existing bus route to divert into Magna Park from Mere Lane thus avoiding the need to join the A5 and negotiate the Cross in Hand Roundabout but is this extension adequate if so many new jobs are to be created.
4.109 There will be a segregated signed cycle route running on the north side of the A4303. Via this route Magna Park can be reached in less than five minutes from Lutterworth, but cyclists from further afield could be accommodated.
4.110 Woodby Lane is a narrow lightly used road that connects the NE corner of Magna Park to Ullesthorpe Road just to the west of Bitteswell. This lane is not open to through traffic but cyclists and pedestrians can access Magna Park at its western end. It is not lit however, and should perhaps be so, to make it an attractive and safe route for these, particularly during the winter months. It is highly likely that shift working will mean people leaving late at night and bus provision should also accommodate this. We therefore recommend that Woodby Lane is made a through bridleway to Mere Lane to facilitate access for riders and pedestrians and would at the same time restore the historic route cut when the airfield was built across it and that Mere Lane itself be dedicated as a bridleway. This would have the added benefit of enabling pedestrians, horse-riders and recreational cyclists to get off parts of the dangerous Ullesthorpe Road. To make this usage safe and realistic the proposed roundabout where Mere Lane joins the A5 should have a light controlled crossing. Similarly where the road from Willey comes out opposite bridleways W88 / W86 another light-controlled crossing would help this already dangerous exit.
4.111 There are other safety issues bearing in mind the increase in traffic we will see. Every opportunity should be taken to keep vehicles and other users apart. The safety of the network would be much improved if an off road link on the south west side of the A5 could join the two Willey bridleways. Further observations: The cycling network is patchy in this area and cannot be resolved as part of the planned developments but they could contribute to at least part of Sustrans long term ambition for the A5. The stretch involved in this development could certainly provide an off road cycleway in the verge.
4.112 The X35 path from Lutterworth should be upgraded to provide a ‘sustainable’ route to work from town into Magna Park. The LLAF is an independent statutory body, set up as a result of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (CRoW) 2000, and exists to represent the interests of everyone concerned with access to the countryside and the public rights of way network including footpaths, bridleways and byways, cycleways and areas of open access. Section 94 of the CROW act makes it a statutory function of the forum to give advice to a range of bodies, including local authorities, on access issues in respect of land use planning matters. The Secretary of State advised that in particular forums were to focus on the impact and options for minimising possible adverse effects of planning policies and development proposals, in respect of future public access to land. Forums are tasked with identifying and expressing support for opportunities to improve public access, or associated infrastructure, which might be delivered through planning policies or new developments. Members are studying these applications in detail and we may submit supplemental observations and advice
4. Harborough District Council 4.113 Harborough District Council Contaminated Land and Air Quality Officer This development may cause an exceedence of the annual mean Air Quality Objective for Nitrogen dioxide at properties along the A5 in the short term however in the longer term improvements in vehicle emissions make it unlikely that air quality standards will be exceeded.
4.114 If this development is approved along with 15/00865/OUT the likelihood in short term exceedances of the air quality objectives is increased and will depend on the rate at which the site is developed. In the longer term it is still likely that the objectives will be met
P a g e | 24 4.115 If this application and 15/00865/OUT are both approved it is likely that the air quality objective will not be met at Woodbrig House Farm, A4303 as a result of the predicted traffic volumes and the proximity of the access junction of 15/00865/OUT. If both applications are approved is it advised that the location of the access junction to 15/00865/OUT is reassessed. (i.e. increase the distance between the junction and Woodbrig House Farm, A4303 to ensure air quality objectives are met at the receptor.)
4.116 Harborough District Council Environmental Health Officer Noise The application is for a storage and distribution centre proposed for DHL. As such, the acoustic report submitted in support of the application is very much tailored to their operations, and a good degree of certainty can be made with their assessment. To undertake the assessment, both the methodology and the noise sensitive premises were agreed with myself beforehand.
4.117 As part of the supporting information, the applicant has provided a Noise Management Plan which details Best Practice Operation. Whilst I would typically request that a noise management plan is conditioned on any approval granted, I am conscious that Best Practice continually evolves as techniques are developed (for example, ways to minimise reversing sounders). Therefore, I feel it would be difficult to condition as Best Practice is developed in future years.
4.118 The noise assessment concludes that noise should not be considered a reason to impede the approval of the planning application and I concur with this statement. I would however request that a condition is placed on any approval granted to minimise the impact of the construction and development of the building (See Condition 3).
4.119 Lighting The applicant has submitted a lighting plan of the development. The only comments I would make on this is to request that the lighting is installed in accordance with the Institute of Lighting Engineers Guidance for the Reduction of Light Nuisance. In effect, this would be installing the scheme so as not to shine directly at neighbouring properties.
4.120 HDC EHO Comments on Additional Information No Further Comments
4.121 HDC Planning Policy All things considered, from a policy perspective, the proposal should be supported for the following reasons: Although the proposal is contrary to policy CS7h) following new evidence (L&L HMA ELS Update 2013 / SDSS) the new Local Plan, as detailed in the Options Consultation Publication, is cognisant of the contribution Harborough could make towards the meet objectively assessed need for large scale distribution uses in the Leicester & Leicestershire area. The proposal represents an extension to the existing & successful Magna Park site and will bring benefits to the district and wider area. It is of a scale that broadly ‘sits’ with the quantum of growth and strategy recommended by the SDSS, albeit up dated supply data for Leicestershire at October 2015 suggests no current shortfall in non rail-served provision within the plan period. Whilst the proposal extends into open countryside, it does not encroach into or adversely affect the Separation Area or designated heritage assets. It is not in an area at risk of flooding (CS10), is of a reasonable standard of design (CS11) and will provide some benefits in terms of sustainable transport (CS5), and green infrastructure (CS8). Whilst a loss of green field land will result, it avoids areas of highest agricultural quality and landscape and visual impacts can be mitigated.
4.122 Harborough District Council Business Support Manager The proposed erection 100,844sqm of B8 and ancillary B1 will provide around 1200 jobs to the local area and whilst not all will be filled by residents of Harborough it will provide much needed
P a g e | 25 employment opportunities to residents both here and to our neighbouring areas. There are also likely to be wider benefits to local traders and businesses through the supply chain which, whilst not easily quantified, will likely bring significant indirect benefits to the local economy. As identified on page 98 of the planning statement, IDI Gazeley have committed to increasing the local value of jobs and the procurement of the development through a Construction Job and Business Strategy (CJBS) which will bring added economic value to the surrounding area. On page 91-92 of the planning statement it has been identified that a range of skills levels will be catered for on site which will contribute additional GVA of approximately £42m a year. Within the CJBS it has been there is a commitment to providing apprenticeships within this construction and operational phases of the site. This means it is likely that a range of opportunities will be provided within such a development for people off all skills levels. This range of opportunities is not something that should be overlooked in determining the application and ties in with HDC’s commitment to encouraging apprenticeships in Harborough.
4.123 HDC Business Support Manager Comments on Additional Information No Further Comments
4.124 Harborough District Council Neighbourhood Green Spaces Officer I would like to improve the connectivity of Magna Park to the surrounding settlements and join up some gaps between footpaths to secure additional circular routes for walking/cycling. I note the public rights of way and proposed bridle path plan and would strongly support this approach taken by the developer. I would also encourage the developer to look for additional possibilities of connecting other footpaths to the adjoining settlements to the east and south of the existing development.
4.125 I note the SUDS landscape plan which provides to augment existing features for provision of habitat. The species noted on the landscape plans are standard landscape species and will provide good ground cover, woodland and shelter planting where appropriate.
4.126 HDC Neighbourhood Green Spaces Officer Comments on Additional Information The installation of additional pedestrian and cycling links to open space is supported. I have no further comments to add to those made in July 2015
5. Members of Parliament, Councillors and Parish Councils 4.127 Alberto Costa MP (South Leicestershire) Further to the letter from Harborough District Council dated 23"' June 2015 and your email to my secretary dated 1st July 2015, I am now in a position to express comments in respect of the above planning applications in my capacity as Member of Parliament for South Leicestershire. I will take both applications together as I consider the comments below relate to both applications.
4.128 I have received a significant amount of correspondence from concerned constituents from Lutterworth and across villages located at the southern end of my Parliamentary constituency. I have also met with constituents and with Lutterworth Town Council representatives to discuss these applications. Further, I attended two public exhibitions earlier in the year at Lutterworth Town Hall and met with representatives of the respective developers of each of the two applications. I also attended a site visit at Magna Park and was given a tour of the existing facility as well as a tour of the adjacent area which relates to one of the applications. I am familiar with the landscape and villages around Magna Park.
4.129 As a Conservative Member of Parliament, I am broadly supportive of appropriate commercial developments that benefit individual constituencies as well as the country as a whole. As the Member of Parliament for South Leicestershire, the key issue for me is whether the proposed developments will have a positive impact for both my constituency as well as the country. There will undoubtedly be occasions when a Member of Parliament has to balance the interests of his /her constituency alongside the interests of the nation as a whole.
P a g e | 26 4.130 Whilst I do not have any public function, at this stage, in the decision making process for the planning applications in question, this is an instance when I am expected, at least, to voice an opinion given the number of constituents who have contacted me about this matter. I have very carefully balanced the interests of my constituency as well as the nation, in order to form a view.
4.131 In taking a position, I have also very carefully listened to both sides; namely the proposed developers who are submitting these applications as well as the constituents who voiced an opinion to me and who are almost without exception against the proposals.
4.132 It is my considered view that the aforementioned applications do not appear to impact positively in my constituency but may well impact positively for the country as a whole. I very much appreciate that the Planning Committee at Harborough District Council will have to consider these applications extremely carefully, in accordance with planning law as well as local government policy. This, I am sure, will not be an easy task for the Planning Committee, but I am confident that the Planning Committee will undertake the task in a lawful and appropriate manner. This letter is therefore intended to assist the Planning Committee with its important deliberations and respects that the decision, at this stage, is one for the local authority.
4.133 Traffic Constituents have expressed their strong views that there are already negative issues with the significant amount of traffic currently using Magna Park. The traffic currently witnessed includes a large amount of HGVs entering and exiting Magna Park using a number of roads in addition to light goods vehicles and cars which furnish Magna Park with employees as well as ancillary services and goods. The proposed developments might significantly add to the burden of the existing road infrastructure causing potential further degradation of the roads' surfaces as well as an unwelcome increase in traffic. The arrival and departure from an extended Magna Park site might also increase air pollution. I understand that Harborough District Council is aware of the high levels of air pollution already present in Lutterworth. Further, a significant increase in traffic might also, arguably, generate an increase in existing noise pollution.
4.134 Light Pollution The existing Magna Park already emits a significant amount of light pollution which is visible in the night sky from quite a large radius from Magna Park. I have been informed by constituents that earlier promises were made by one of the developers in respect of minimising light pollution to the existing facility at Magna Park. However, I have also been informed that this remains an outstanding issue. I understand that Harborough District Council is well versed in this matter and would request that this be taken into consideration.
4.135 Economic need My constituency benefits from one of the lowest unemployment rates in the United Kingdom. The proposed developments suggest that there will be employment opportunities for a large amount of prospective employees but given the very low unemployment rate it is not reasonably foreseeable that employees will come from the immediate vicinity. I understand that it has been suggested that employees could come from as far afield as a 45 minute commute by car. If this is the case, whilst it might be a welcome boost to employment for the country, it would not appear to directly benefit my constituency. Consequently, there is a school of thought that would suggest that another more suitable location closer to prospective employees might better suit the needs of our country.
4.136 As I indicated above, I am fully cognisant of the challenge that the Planning Committee has in coming to an appropriate decision based on planning law and local authority needs. Nevertheless, I would strongly encourage the Planning Committee to take into account the substantial and well detailed objections that have been lodged with Harborough District Council. I wish the Planning Committee members well in undertaking this difficult task and look forward to your assessment.
4.137 Alberto Costa MP Comments on Additional Information
P a g e | 27 No Further Comments
4.138 Mark Pawsey MP (Rugby) No Comments Received
4.139 Cllr Rosita Page (Ullesthorpe Ward – HDC and Lutterworth Ward – LCC) I made a request for the Secretary of State to call-in the above planning application. The reason for the Call-in request is because I consider the planning issues to be of more than local importance.
4.140 I consider the planning application justifies refusal as the negative effects from the traffic intensification on the rural road network and the A5 can not be overcome by the proposals set out by the applicants. The application is against policy and there are no substantial material considerations to overcome the departure.
4.141 The proposal is in conflict with the Government’s national policy of prioritising distribution and warehousing serviced by rail - because Magna Park has no rail link.
4.142 The proposal is in conflict with the Government’s national sustainable and rail freight policy. National policy gives priority to rail related proposed warehousing distribution developments to deliver these objectives. Accordingly in the subject situation (Magna Park) where non-rail related warehouse distribution scheme is proposed close to one (DIRFT) with rail linkage priority should be given to the rail related scheme.
4.143 The proposal could have significant effects beyond the immediate locality because it undermines the Secretary of State’s recent grant of consent (July 2014) under the Major Infrastructure Planning Regime (Planning Act 2008) for expansion of the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT) and to build the nationally significant Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) at DIRFT III. (The DIRFT development is some 15 km South of Magna Park on the A5).
4.144 The proposal could have significant effects beyond the immediate locality because it compromises the Government’s decision granting approval by a Development Consent Order (DCO) allowing expansion of the DIRFT site with an additional 7.8 million sqft of rail serviced warehouse distribution floorspace and a new 15.5 ha rail port.
4.145 The proposal could have significant effects beyond the immediate locality because it risks undermining the Secretary of State’s recent decision to refuse planning permission for the Coventry A45/A46 Gateway scheme.
4.146 The proposal is in conflict with the Planning Inspectorate’s HDC Core Strategy DPD report (November 2011) on the HDC’s adopted Development Plan (Core Strategy). This specifically seeks to prevent any such extension of road served warehousing facility (CS7(h). The report says that future expansion of Magna Park is not required noting at ISI09 -Si 141 - it’s links to DIRFT some 15 km away stating ‘because Magna Park has no rail connection’ Further the East Midlands Regional Plan (March 2009) and its evidence base does not identify Magna Park as a priority area for regeneration.
4.147 The proposal will impact on the landscape and a medieval site of national significance.
4.148 The proposal being only road serviced conflicts with national policies, would undermine public confidence in a plan led planning system and will have significant long-term economic impacts on two major rail-serviced distribution warehousing developments at DIRFT and East Midlands Gateway both of which have been called-in by the Secretary of State. DIRFT has been granted approval and Gateway is currently being determined.
4.149 Cllr Tony Gillais – Revel and Binley Woods (Rugby Borough Council)
P a g e | 28 My concerns are based around my role as one of 3 RBC ward councillors representing the Revel and Binley Woods Ward. Grave concerns are already significant about the likely impact on our rural neighbourhood regarding traffic etc which already are the main topic of unrest with the Revel parishes.
4.150 Lutterworth Town Council At the Lutterworth Town Council meeting held on 14 July 2015 members RESOLVED to STRONGLY OBJECT to planning application 15/00919/FUL on the following grounds:- Highways Safety – the detrimental impact on the road infrastructure in terms of increased volume and speed of traffic (Core Strategy Policy CS5, Section 5.47); Economic – the lack of a strategic overview that the proposed development would have on Lutterworth and the surrounding area (Core Strategy Policy CS7, Section 5.73); Air Pollution – the resultant deterioration in air quality within the immediate vicinity (Section 2.32 of the Core Strategy & CS14); Noise Pollution – the impact of noise pollution owing to the increase in traffic movement, particularly HGV traffic (Core Strategy Policy CS11); Economic – the lack of direct benefit to the local community in terms of employment (Section 2.23 of the Core Strategy). Light Pollution – the detrimental increase in light pollution (Core Strategy Policy CS11); Highways Safety – the lack of a lorry park being included within the application (Core Strategy Policy CS14).
4.151 Applicable Harborough District Council Core Strategy Policies & Statements: Chapter 2: Spatial Portrait of Harborough: Employment Section 2.23 highlights that the characteristics of Magna Park (including its apparent mismatch with the better than average occupational and skills profile of Harborough residents, its function, size and location) account for its large labour catchment area, which stretches far south into Warwickshire / Northamptonshire along the M69/M1 respectively (Census 2001). Travel to Work patterns for Magna Park, confirm that the majority of people (50%) employed travel between 10-20kms to get to work, a further 16% travel between 20-30kms, greater than the average for the county and its 6 largest business parks. Chapter 2: Spatial Portrait of Harborough: The Environment Section 2.32 states that carbon emissions are of particular concern in the centre of Lutterworth where traffic fumes contribute to poor air quality. This situation is being actively monitored through the designation of an Air Quality Monitoring Area and the establishment of an Action Plan to seek improvements to the current levels.
4.152 Chapter 2: Spatial Portrait of Harborough: Key Issues Section 2.36 EC7 Current traffic problems affecting vitality and viability of Lutterworth town centre; EC10 Continuing development pressure for the further expansion of Magna Park for strategic distribution use. Policy CS5: Providing Sustainable Transport Section 5.47 indicates that Leicestershire County Council’s suggested Eastern Relief Route for Lutterworth town centre is not considered deliverable during the lifetime of the Strategy and that the level of development planned for the District and for individual settlements will therefore be controlled accordingly. Policy CS6: Improving Town Centres & Retailing Section 5.55 recognises that traffic problems are threatening the vitality and viability of Lutterworth town centre. Policy CS7 Enabling Employment & Business Development Section 5.68 advises that the amount of new land proposed for employment development to 2028 is likely to be moderate. h) Magna Park Strategic Distribution No further phase of development or large scale expansion of the site, beyond the existing development footprint (to be defined in the Allocations DPD) will be supported. Section 5.69 states that the HMA Employment Land Study 2008 concluded that in the context of a strategic approach to employment land, Harborough fulfils predominantly local market needs and there is no overall strategic need for additional employment land to be identified. Section 5.73 reports that in the context of evidence studies, against the criteria they set, and taking account of future developments in the road / rail network, travel to work patterns and the type and skill level of logistics jobs compared to local employment needs, there are more suitable locations and sites (both rail and non rail-linked) than Magna Park within the region and sub-region to meet forecast need for strategic distribution to 2026.
P a g e | 29 4.153 Policy CS11 Promoting Design & Built Heritage b) New development should be directed away from undeveloped areas of land which are important to the form and character of a settlement or locality. Policy CS14: Lutterworth 6.20 Owing to the volume of traffic in particular HGVs in the town centre, Lutterworth town centre is the only Air Quality Management Area in the District. b) Transport interventions delivered in association with additional development in and around Lutterworth will focus on improving air quality and reducing the adverse effects of traffic flow in the town centre by: i) Resisting development which would result in additional Heavy Goods Vehicles passing through Lutterworth town centre; ii) Support for routeing schemes for Magna Park and other warehousing occupiers to prevent HGV traffic passing through Lutterworth; vi) Local traffic calming measures in the town centre, and appropriate junction improvements elsewhere in the town to improve traffic flow.
4.154 Lutterworth Town Council Comments on Additional Information Lutterworth Town Council wishes to reiterate its previous OBJECTION to the following planning application on the grounds that it is contrary to:- o Highways Safety Considerations (as per Core Strategy Policy CS5, CS11, CS17) • There is concern as to the capacity of the local road infrastructure to carry both Heavy Goods Traffic and the passenger vehicle traffic that the developments will generate. • The possible restriction for vehicles accessing and egressing the Town together with the detrimental effect on the local road infrastructure, including the A5, the A426 and A4303. • The effect the proposed development will have on the A426 entering into Bill Crane Way, the A426 Whittle Island and also the A4303 Southern Bypass roundabout that meets Coventry Road. o Neighbouring Site Amenity Considerations (as per Core Strategy Policy CS11) • The resultant deterioration in air quality within the immediate vicinity. • The impact of noise pollution owing to the increase in traffic movement, particularly HGV traffic. • The impact of light pollution in view of the character and appearance of the proposed development o Economic Considerations (as per Core Strategy Policies CS6 and CS7 • The lack of direct benefit to the local community in terms of employment. o Principle of Development Considerations (as per Core Strategy Policies CS1, CS2, CS5, CS9 and CS17) • The lack of a strategic overview that the proposed development would have on Lutterworth and the surrounding area.
4.155 Claybrooke Parva Parish Council At a meeting of the Parish Council on 8th July 2015 the Claybrooke Parva Parish Council voted to object to this planning application on the grounds that: 1. It is totally against and does not comply with HDC Core Strategy. 2. It will cause additional HGV and private vehicle traffic through village and cause additional 'on street' parking on and adjacent to the lay-byes in the vicinity. 3. It will have a devastating impact on the environment. 4. Unacceptable increase in noise, light and air pollution. 5. Unacceptable by virtue of massing. 6.Disturbance of a vital archaeological site. The Parish Council can and will widen the scope of these complaints if required and will refer to them when given the opportunity to speak when this application comes before the Development Control committee.
4.156 Claybrooke Parva Parish Council Comments on Additional Information No Further comments
4.157 Claybrooke Magna Parish Council Claybrooke Magna Parish Council wishes to object to the above development on the following grounds:
P a g e | 30 4.158 Harborough District Council’s current Core Strategy states unequivocally that that there would be no more expansion at Magna Park. There is therefore an issue of integrity and public trust over this vital issue.
4.159 The development would result in a large increase in traffic from the expanded Park in terms of car use and buses as well as, of course, the lorries: a major concern in relation to congestion and road safety. Villagers already find joining or crossing A5 a real safety concern due to traffic volume and speed (another recent fatality in High Cross /Smockington Hollow area is more evidence if needed of the risk factor)
4.160 Pollution: HDC have published evidence that the air quality in Lutterworth does not meet government safety standards and further development would greatly exacerbate the problem. There will be further unacceptable pollution from the lighting at the new building 24 hours a day.
4.161 The key characteristic of the area is that it is rural/agricultural. That is why people have chosen to live here. The very nature of our surroundings will be irrevocably altered and agricultural land lost forever. We already have the existing Magna Park site, which has already exceeded its permitted floor area by a considerable margin, and which is out of keeping with the historic nature of our environment and causes a significant intrusion into what should have been a rural landscape. Further development is unacceptable and there would be an overbearing impact on the community by visual intrusion into the landscape due to the massing of the site.
4.162 The deserted mediaeval village of Bittesby, although it may be screened, could lose its relationship with farming land and landscape and the DHL building will be visually obtrusive. This development would potentially result in the obliteration of the entire parish of Bittesby,
4.163 There is considerable concern over the impact on wildlife and plant species throughout the area.
4.164 There are concerns about flooding and impacts on water courses through concreting over such a vast area; and we have the historic Claybrooke Water Mill in our village – the possibility of flooding would have a negative impact on such a valuable heritage asset.
4.165 There is understandably a case to be made for creating employment but we would query the validity of how many new jobs will actually be created. We would ask whether we really want our local economy to be built on low skilled low wage jobs? With the associated social issues and health costs? And as unemployment is low in the Harborough area it is likely that we would be looking at the vast majority of people commuting, thereby adding to the traffic/road safety/pollution issues highlighted above.
4.166 Claybrooke Magna Parish Council Comments on Additional Information No Further Comments
4.167 Bitteswell Parish Council In recognition of the establishment of Magna Park in the late 1980’s the Harborough District Local Plan included several policies specifically related to the development. For example: a policy that limited the total floorspace to 717,030m2 (Policy EM/12); another that prohibited buildings having a floorspace of less than 9300m2 (Policy EM/13). In the event, each of these policies has been breached. In the case of the floorspace limitation by a large factor, resulting in the existing floorspace value at Magna Park grossly exceeding the limit set by the then Statutory Development Plan. That the floorspace limit was permitted to be repeatedly exceeded over many years may call into question the effectiveness of the development control exercised by the District Planning Authority.
4.168 To lend perspective to the issue of need, it is relevant to note that at present there is some 2.25 million m2 of floorspace in Leicestershire, a large fraction of which is at Magna Park. As the adopted Core Strategy makes plain, the development at Magna Park serves a regional or strategic, rather than a local, need. It makes equally clear that:
P a g e | 31 ‘there are more suitable locations and sites (both rail and non-rail linked) than Magna Park within the region and sub-region to meet forecast need for strategic distribution to 2026’. (This date was subsequently revised to 2028.)
4.169 The most recent estimates of the requirement for strategic distribution are presented in the Leicester and Leicestershire Distribution Sector Study issued in November 2014. This Study contains much detail, but fails to identify any substantive need for additional floorspace. To the extent there is reference to need, this appears to be little more than speculative forecasts of demand that seem to have their foundation in a defence of the present position, including a preoccupation with concerns for the loss of the claimed ‘ competitive advantage’ of the so-called ‘Golden Triangle’. Measures that may moderate this loss are suggested. One such measure is the proposal to establish a ‘Strategic Distribution Sites Selection Task Group’. It is further proposed that the remit of the Task Group will include: ‘to foster a collaborative approach to planning for the strategic logistics sector across Leicestershire and beyond.’
4.170 On the basis of the asserted desire to: ‘maintain and enhance Leicestershire’s competitive position’, the Study claims that there is a requirement for 153 ha of land at non rail-served sites in the period to 2036. In this context it is relevant to note that the Consultant acting for Prologis UK Ltd, part developers of the extension of the Daventry international Freight Terminal (DIRFT III) claims that the value of 153ha conflicts with the findings of the Leicester and Leicestershire HMA Employment Land Study of 2013, which concludes that much less land is required. However, in consideration of any forecasts contained in the most recent Study, in should be borne in mind that at least one of the consultants involved has worked closely with IDI Gazeley and its forerunners over several years. It follows that the potential for a conflict of interests must exist and that any forecasts from this source of future requirements for strategic storage and distribution capacity cannot be regarded as wholly impartial or ‘objectively assessed’.
4.171 The NPPF at paragraph 30 encourages transport solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. To this end, the Government advocates the transport of freight by rail to reduce the trip mileage of freight movements using the road network, the longer term objective being to facilitate the progressive transfer of freight from road to rail. With regard to greenhouse gas emissions generated by motor vehicles, it is apt to note that Lutterworth experiences high levels of air pollution and has been declared an Air Quality Management Area.
4.172 At this time the Statutory Development Plan for the Harborough District comprises The Harborough District Local Development Framework Core Strategy, adopted in November 2011 and the ‘Saved Policies’ identified therein. In due course, the Core Strategy and the ‘Saved Policies’ will form part of the new Local Plan. Core Strategy Policy CS 7(h) specifically addresses the issue of the expansion of Magna Park. It states: ‘No further phase of development or large scale expansion of the site, beyond the existing development footprint (to be defined in the Allocations DPD) will be supported.’ Although the Allocations DPD has not been produced it is considered that the definition of the phrase: ‘existing development footprint’ is self-evident and beyond reasonable dispute. In our letter to the District Council of 17 November 2014 we set out the reasoning for this view.
4.173 It is clear that the Application is contrary to this Policy of the Development Plan and this is acknowledged by the Applicant at paragraph 5.102 of the submitted Planning Statement. However, due to the inconvenient obstacle this Policy presents to the proposed development, the Applicant’s Planning Statement endeavours to disparage Policy CS7(h) by claiming that it is at odds with the NPPF. In making this claim the Applicant appears to overlook the overriding fact that planning law requires applications to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is, of course, a material consideration.
4.174 Core Strategy Policy CS 8 is directed to securing a high quality accessible and multi-functional
P a g e | 32 green infrastructure network across both rural and urban areas of the Harborough District. In seeking to address this Policy, the Applicant at paragraph 6.44 of the Planning Statement claims: ‘In turn, and in line with development plan policy CS 8, therefore, the application proposals contribute to the district’s accessible high quality and multi-functional green infrastructure network-contributing accordingly to healthy lifestyles and a rich, diverse natural environment.’ Unfortunately, it is not made clear how this desirable, if fanciful, outcome is to derive from the insinuation in the countryside of an immense building of some 100,000 m2, with a height of 23m, along with its attendant facilities.
4.175 The purpose of Core Strategy Policy CS17 is to secure the protection and enhancement of the countryside by the strict control of development and ensuring such developments meet local needs and retain local services. The proposed development is contrary to this Policy as it represents development in the countryside which falls outside the purposes permitted by the Policy. Once again, the departure of the Application from the Development Plan is recognized by the Applicant, in this case at paragraph 6.27 of the submitted Planning Statement.
4.176 The companies presently operating at Magna Park represent the largest concentration of employment within the Harborough District. However, although there are some 9300 people employed at the Site less than 20% reside in the Harborough District. It is not clear that any additional employment opportunities arising from the proposed development would alter significantly this ratio. Moreover, although additional employment opportunities are to be generally welcomed, the jobs at the complex tend to be limited in the range of skills. There already exists a significant mismatch between the local need for skilled employment and the type and calibre of employment opportunities likely to arise from the enterprises located at Magna Park, now and in the future. To further increase the size of the workforce pool possessing a restricted range of skills will only cause this mismatch to become more pronounced.
4.177 As indicated in the previous paragraph, the great majority of the Magna Park workforce commutes to the Site from outside the District. For several years a significant fraction of this traffic has passed through Bitteswell. This experience is similar to that of other settlements local to Magna Park. Traffic surveys conducted by this Council clearly identify parity between the density of such commuting traffic and the shift patterns of the Magna Park workforce. In other words, there is little doubt as to the source of the traffic.
4.178 The visual impact created by the height of buildings at Magna Park, especially where there is attendant lighting, is a cause of concern for those who reside in the surrounding settlements. It is noted that the Design and Access Statement, at paragraph 7.2.3, gives the building height of the proposed development as 23m. At over 75 feet this is likely to be the tallest of all the buildings at Magna Park with the consequential visual impact being made more acute.
4.179 For many years the nocturnal glow from Magna Park has been an indelible feature of this development in south Leicestershire. Over the years there have been many representations made regarding the problem of light pollution at the Site. We understand these include objections from the British Astronomical Association in support of their Campaign for Dark Skies. Despite undertakings by IDI Gazeley UK Limited and its predecessors to tackle the problem, the issue of light pollution arising from Magna Park stubbornly persists.
4.180 At paragraph 6.38 of the Planning Statement the Applicant outlines the intentions for the design of the artificial lighting installation for the proposed development and claims that this will: ‘… reduce very significantly, compared to the existing park, the visual effects on the night sky.’ At paragraph 6.39 of the Planning Statement the Applicant expresses a commitment to: ‘..make provision for a reduction in the light pollution caused by the existing park.’ Both of these statements are welcomed. However, they will only be meaningful in effect if the magnitude of the light pollution arising from the Magna Park Site, following completion of the proposed development, is materially less than it is at this time. Should it be the case that,
P a g e | 33 notwithstanding representations, the Application is approved it is recommended that the District Planning Authority requires the Applicant to give a written undertaking that appropriate tests will be performed to verify whether or not this is the case and, if the level of light pollution is not materially less, corrective action will be taken.
4.181 The Planning Statement at paragraph 4.7 outlines the advice offered to the Applicant regarding the proposed development. The several meetings that were held with HDC, the District Planning Authority, the LCC and other bodies are identified, as are the dates on which the meetings were held. The advice offered is summarized. As policies in the Statutory Development Plan for the District of Harborough expressly prohibit the extension of Magna Park beyond a self-defining spatial boundary, it is somewhat remarkable that the advice given by the District Planning Authority appears not to have apprised the Applicant of this restriction.
4.182 The public exhibitions and other initiatives arranged by the Applicant mainly to inform the communities resident in the settlements surrounding Magna Park and likely to be affected by the proposed development, are described in the section of the Planning Statement, commencing at paragraph 4.9. The views of the people attending the exhibitions were canvassed. Of these, some 20% provided written comments; a summary of these comments is given in the Planning Statement.
4.183 In the Parish of Bitteswell with Bittesby it is the case that the development proposed has precipitated reactions that are generally hostile. This result has prompted more written representations being submitted to the District Planning Authority than have been tendered for any preceding planning application affecting the Parish. It is understood that this is an outcome similar to that experienced in other nearby settlements.
4.184 In essence, it would appear that residents who live near to Magna Park are simply weary of what has been almost uninterrupted development at the Site over many years. On the face of it, the District Planning Authority looks to be either unable or unwilling to exercise control of developments proposed by the powerful and influential commercial organization that operates the Site. It is, perhaps, not surprising that this experience has caused many in the affected communities to become disillusioned and frustrated.
4.185 In view of the matters expressed in this letter, this Council urges refusal of the subject Application.
4.186 Bitteswell Parish Council Comments on Additional Information No Further Comments
4.187 Ullesthorpe Parish Council In recognition of the establishment of Magna Park in the late 1980’s the Harborough District Local Plan included several policies specifically related to the development. For example: a policy that limited the total floor space to 717,030m2 (Policy EM/12); another that prohibited buildings having a floor space of less than 9300m2 (Policy EM/13). In the event, each of these policies has been breached. In the case of the floor space limitation by a large factor, resulting in the existing floor space value at Magna Park grossly exceeding the limit set by the then Statutory Development Plan. That the floor space limit was permitted to be repeatedly exceeded over many years may call into question the effectiveness of the development control exercised by the District Planning Authority.
4.188 To lend perspective to the issue of need, it is relevant to note that at present there is some 2.25 million m2 of floor space in Leicestershire, a large fraction of which is at Magna Park. As the adopted Core Strategy makes plain, the development at Magna Park serves a regional or strategic, rather than a local, need. It makes equally clear that: ‘There are more suitable locations and sites (both rail and non-rail linked) than Magna Park within the region and sub-region to meet forecast need for strategic distribution to 2026’. (This date was subsequently revised to 2028.)
P a g e | 34 4.189 The most recent estimates of the requirement for strategic distribution are presented in the Leicester and Leicestershire Distribution Sector Study issued in November 2014. This Study contains much detail, but fails to identify any substantive need for additional floor space. To the extent there is reference to need, this appears to be little more than speculative forecasts of demand that seem to have their foundation in a defence of the present position, including a preoccupation with concerns for the loss of the claimed ‘competitive advantage’ of the so-called ‘Golden Triangle’. Measures that may moderate this loss are suggested. One such measure is the proposal to establish a ‘Strategic Distribution Sites Selection Task Group’. It is further proposed that the remit of the Task Group will include: ‘to foster a collaborative approach to planning for the strategic logistics sector across Leicestershire and beyond.’ On the basis of the asserted desire to: ‘maintain and enhance Leicestershire’s competitive position’, the Study claims that there is a requirement for 153 ha of land at non rail-served sites in the period to 2036. In this context it is relevant to note that the Consultant acting for Prologis UK Ltd, part developers of the extension of the Daventry international Freight Terminal (DIRFT III) claims that the value of 153ha conflicts with the findings of the Leicester and Leicestershire HMA Employment Land Study of 2013, which concludes that much less land is required. However, in consideration of any forecasts contained in the most recent Study, in should be borne in mind that at least one of the consultants involved has worked closely with IDI Gazeley and its forerunners over several years. It follows that the potential for a conflict of interests must exist and that any forecasts from this source of future requirements for strategic storage and distribution capacity cannot be regarded as wholly impartial or ‘objectively assessed’.
4.190 The NPPF at paragraph 30 encourages transport solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. To this end, the Government advocates the transport of freight by rail to reduce the trip mileage of freight movements using the road network, the longer term objective being to facilitate the progressive transfer of freight from road to rail. With regard to greenhouse gas emissions generated by motor vehicles, it is apt to note that Lutterworth experiences high levels of air pollution and has been declared an Air Quality Management Area.
4.191 Core Strategy Policy CS 7(h) specifically addresses the issue of the expansion of Magna Park. It states: ‘No further phase of development or large scale expansion of the site, beyond the existing development footprint (to be defined in the Allocations DPD) will be supported.’ Although the Allocations DPD has not been produced it is considered that the definition of the phrase ‘existing development footprint’ is self-evident and beyond reasonable dispute. In our letter to the District Council of 17 November 2014 we set out the reasoning for this view.
4.192 It is clear that the Application is contrary to this Policy of the Development Plan and this is acknowledged by the Applicant at paragraph 5.102 of the submitted Planning Statement. However, due to the inconvenient obstacle this Policy presents to the proposed development, the Applicant’s Planning Statement endeavours to disparage Policy CS7(h) by claiming that it is at odds with the NPPF. In making this claim the Applicant appears to overlook the overriding fact that planning law requires applications to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is, of course, a material consideration.
4.193 Core Strategy Policy CS 8 is directed to securing a high quality accessible and multi-functional green infrastructure network across both rural and urban areas of the Harborough District. In seeking to address this Policy, the Applicant at paragraph 6.44 of the Planning Statement claims: ‘In turn, and in line with development plan policy CS 8, therefore, the application proposals contribute to the district’s accessible high quality and multi-functional green infrastructure network-contributing accordingly to healthy lifestyles and a rich, diverse natural environment.’ Unfortunately, it is not made clear how this desirable, if fanciful, outcome is to derive from the insinuation in the countryside of an immense building of some 100,000m2, with a height of 23m, along with its attendant facilities.
P a g e | 35
4.194 The basic purpose of Core Strategy Policy CS 17 is to secure the protection and enhancement of the countryside by the strict control of development and ensuring such developments meet local needs and retain local services. The proposed development is contrary to this Policy as it represents development in the countryside which falls outside the purposes permitted by the Policy. Once again, the departure of the Application from the Development Plan is recognized by the Applicant, in this case at paragraph 6.27 of the submitted Planning Statement.
4.195 The companies presently operating at Magna Park represent the largest concentration of employment within the Harborough District. However, although there are some 9,300 people employed at the Site less than 20% reside in the Harborough District. It is not clear that any additional employment opportunities arising from the proposed development would alter significantly this ratio. Moreover, although additional employment opportunities are to be generally welcomed, the jobs at the complex tend to be limited in the range of skills. There already exists a significant mismatch between the local need for skilled employment and the type and calibre of employment opportunities likely to arise from the enterprises located at Magna Park, now and in the future. To further increase the size of the workforce pool possessing a restricted range of skills will only cause this mismatch to become more pronounced.
4.196 As indicated in the previous paragraph, the great majority of the Magna Park workforce commutes to the Site from outside the District. For several years a significant fraction of this traffic has passed through Ullesthorpe. This experience is similar to that of other settlements local to Magna Park. Traffic surveys conducted by this Council clearly identify parity between the density of such commuting traffic and the shift patterns of the Magna Park workforce. In other words, there is little doubt as to the source of the traffic.
4.197 The visual impact created by the height of buildings at Magna Park, especially where there is attendant lighting, is a cause of concern for those who reside in the surrounding settlements. It is noted that the Design and Access Statement, at paragraph 7.2.3, gives the building height of the proposed development as 23m. At over 75 feet this is likely to be the tallest of all the buildings at Magna Park with the consequential visual impact being made more acute.
4.198 For many years the nocturnal glow from Magna Park has been an indelible feature of this development in south Leicestershire. Over the years there have been many representations made regarding the problem of light pollution at the Site. We understand these include objections from the British Astronomical Association in support of their Campaign for Dark Skies. Despite undertakings by IDI Gazeley UK Limited and its predecessors to tackle the problem, the issue of light pollution arising from Magna Park stubbornly persists. At paragraph 6.38 of the Planning Statement the Applicant outlines the intentions for the design of the artificial lighting installation for the proposed development and claims that this will: ‘… reduce very significantly, compared to the existing park, the visual effects on the night sky.’ At paragraph 6.39 of the Planning Statement the Applicant expresses a commitment to: ‘..make provision for a reduction in the light pollution caused by the existing park.’ Both of these statements are welcomed. However, they will only be meaningful in effect if the magnitude of the light pollution arising from the Magna Park Site, following completion of the proposed development, is materially less than it is at this time. Should it be the case that, notwithstanding representations, the Application is approved it is recommended that the District Planning Authority requires the Applicant to give a written undertaking that appropriate tests will be performed to verify whether or not this is the case and, if the level of light pollution is not materially less, corrective action will be taken.
4.199 The public exhibitions and other initiatives arranged by the Applicant mainly to inform the communities resident in the settlements surrounding Magna Park and likely to be affected by the proposed development, are described in the section of the Planning Statement, commencing at paragraph 4.9. The views of the people attending the exhibitions were canvassed. Of these, some 20% provided written comments; a summary of these comments is given in the Planning
P a g e | 36 Statement. In the Parish of Ullesthorpe it is the case that the development proposed has precipitated reactions that are generally hostile. This result has prompted more written representations being submitted to the District Planning Authority than have been tendered for any preceding planning application affecting the Parish. It is understood that this is an outcome similar to that experienced in other nearby settlements.
4.200 In essence, it would appear that residents who live near to Magna Park are simply weary of what has been almost uninterrupted development at the Site over many years. On the face of it, the District Planning Authority looks to be either unable or unwilling to exercise control of developments proposed by the powerful and influential commercial organization that operates the Site. It is, perhaps, not surprising that this experience has caused many in the affected communities to become disillusioned and frustrated.
4.201 Since the last expansion at the site the additional surface water run-off into the water course to the north of Magna Park, (between the A5 and the Ullesthorpe / Claybrooke Parva boundary), there have been increased incidences of flooding to the public highway and the allotment land. As identified in the Applicants proposals and documentation this water course is the main drainage for Magna Park surface water. As a consequence, some of the local residents are now classified as living in a flood zone. Local residents have noticed a dramatic increase in regular flooding.
4.202 Frolesworth Parish Meeting Frolesworth Parish Meeting has not been consulted on this application as an 'official consultee' a situation which the Parish finds unacceptable in view of the potential wide ranging implications of this application. As a result I am now submitting this late objection as a result of a unanimous decision taken at the Parish Meeting held on 29 July 2015. The objection is made on the following grounds: 1. There will be an inevitable increase in the volume of both domestic and commercial traffic passing through the village. This will result from vehicles seeking access to the site from the M1/M69 via Sapcote, from Leicester via the B4114 and from the north and north east of the county via Broughton Astley, Cosby and other adjacent villages. Whilst Frolesworth lies within a 7.5 Ton weight limit zone this does not of course eliminate vehicles collecting or delivering from/to sites within the zone and we have seen a significant increase in such vehicles using the village as a 'cut-through', both legally and illegally, in recent years. 2. There already exists a very high level of air pollution within the Lutterworth area and the proposed development will inevitably lead to a further substantial increase. 3. Light pollution from the existing Magna Park is already at a very high and unacceptable level in what is primarily a rural area. The proposed development will only add to the degrading of the environment.
4.203 Frolesworth Parish Meeting Comments on Additional Information No Further Comments
4.204 Ashby Parva Parish Meeting Our first objection is on the grounds that the proposal massively to increase warehousing and distribution space is not needed. We are not suggesting that the applicant goes and defaces the countryside elsewhere - that would be simple nimbyism - but its client (DHL) can choose from many other existing vacant sites. We argue that there already is a huge amount of such warehousing development in the area, either existing, under construction or planned. IDI Gazeley is currently (July 2015) advertising on its website 12 available warehouse plots, 9 in Milton Keynes, totalling 218,661 square metres), one in Daventry of 26,222 sq. m., one at the existing Magna Park, Lutterworth (10,546 sq. m.) and one plot at Ashby de la Zouch of 74,978 sq m. This is evidence that the applicant alone has over 330,000 sq. m of vacant space available in and around the east Midlands on or near the M1, M6 and M42. Added to that is the Rugby Gateway development, a five unit site now partially complete, the rest still under construction or to be started. On this 120 acre site a unit of 75,000 sq. m. has been granted planning consent. Other
P a g e | 37 applications in the area are either under consideration or at the outline stage and we exclude them as approval for them is not confirmed.
4.205 Magna Park Lutterworth is already the largest distribution park in Europe. It dominates the surrounding countryside and can be seen from miles around, despite attempts to screen it by tree planting. While trees screen it from close to, they are ineffective when viewed from a distance, whether from the north, south, east or west. The proposed warehouse for DHL will be 23.5metres high, which is 7 metres higher than the highest existing warehouse on Magna Park and tree planting will not provide effective screening. The proposed warehouse will be a looming presence in the countryside, an area of gently rolling agricultural land criss-crossed by public footpaths and enjoyed by recreational walkers and birdwatchers. On a list of the largest buildings in the world it will appear as number 7. Do the residents of rural south-west Leicestershire deserve this?
4.206 If given the go-ahead, this development will give rise to an enormous increase in traffic, consisting of both HGVs and cars or light goods vehicles. Public transport to and from Magna Park is very poor, does not exist on Sundays or late evenings, while Magna Park and the proposed DHL warehouse are 24/7 operations. Harborough's Core Strategy (2011) states (para. 2.13) that "[The] lack of comprehensive public transport services means that there is often no viable alternative to the use of the private car." A current (July 2015) job advert for a night shift warehouse operative at Magna Park states "Own transport is required due to the shift start and end times".
4.207 While HGV s will not have access to the DHL development through the villages surrounding the site, access for cars and light goods vehicles from Mere Lane will be unrestricted and it is highly likely, therefore, that many drivers of such vehicles will choose the shortest route to work and back rather than go via the A4303. The applicant states that the development will employ 1,230 people with the majority working the standard shift pattern beginning 6am, 2pm and 10pm. A significant proportion of employee vehicles will be travelling from Broughton Astley, Fleckney, Leicester, Wigston, etc. Many existing employees at Magna Park already use minor roads via Ashby Parva and Mere Lane - Ullesthorpe Road – Main Street Ashby Parva will become an even more attractive route if Magna Park expands to the north. An increase in employee traffic through Ashby Parva would become inevitable. While the applicant says staff will be encouraged to share cars, the ample number of parking spaces (over 700) proposed for a three shift operation at the DHL warehouse does not indicate any optimism that there would be a significant change in driver preferences and behaviour. The Transport Assessment attached to the application states that "Employees of the proposed DHL unit and the Park's existing employees will be discouraged from using the minor road network to the north and north east of Magna Park for the journey to and from work" and that there will be a routing plan. However, this will not be enforceable. In addition to staff traffic, the proposed development will lead to a heavy increase in HGV traffic. The proposed building is designed with 122 loading / unloading docks and parking provision for a further 274 vehicles. To ensure maximum efficiency those loading docks would involve a turn- around of several HGVs each per day, adding to the strain on the existing infrastructure in the Lutterworth area and on the A5 and A426.
4.208 Even with current Euro VI emissions regulations, the arrival and departure at the DHL site of large numbers of HGV’s will cause a major increase in pollution. With the prevailing winds being mainly in the west, this pollution will more often than not be blown in the direction of Ashby Parva and Ullesthorpe. The 2013 Lutterworth Air Quality Management Area Action Plan Framework for Harborough District Council describes the 24 hour operation of Magna Park as resulting in 'a great deal of traffic' affecting Lutterworth. As far back as 2001 it was realised that in Lutterworth levels of nitrogen dioxide (N02), a major contributor to asthma and other respiratory problems, were dangerously high, as a result of which the town centre was declared an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). Road transport is the largest cause of N02 emissions and while modern petrol and diesel engines are less polluting than those in older vehicles, a significant increase in traffic, as would result from this development going ahead, will undo any gains such technical improvements offer. Lutterworth is the principal shopping centre for villages such as Ashby Parva and our residents doing business there are consequently exposed to the harmful
P a g e | 38 pollutants caused by the very high - and increasing - number of vehicle movements through the town.
4.209 Land-hungry developments such as warehousing are covering increasing acreages of valuable food-producing land. The proposed warehouse would, if built, destroy more such land at a time when the world's population, as well as Britain's is growing rapidly. Climate change is leading to the desertification of parts of Africa while the population increases, putting pressure on Europe through migration, as we have seen in recent years. The World Bank predicts (April 2015) "The world needs to produce at least 50% more food to feed 9 billion people by 2050. But climate change could cut crop yields by more than 25%. The land, biodiversity, oceans, forests, and other forms of natural capital are being depleted at unprecedented rates. Unless we change how we grow our food and manage our natural capital, food security – especially for the world's poorest – will be at risk." Acre by acre we are losing food-producing capacity in favour of vast spaces devoted to storing and redistributing largely imported goods. Although IDI Gazeley's plans to extend Magna Park yet further along the A5 are not the subject of this application, it is worth noting now that that particular proposal, expected to be subject of an outline application later this year, would, if approved, mean that Magna Park would cover an area larger than Lutterworth.
4.210 The Harborough Core Strategy (2011) states "In March 2008 the average house price in the District stood at £252,218, the highest in Leicestershire. Household incomes are relatively high compared with county and region averages, but affordability of housing is a major issue in the District, especially for younger people looking to stay or move into the area." Warehousing jobs, however, especially at operative level, are generally poorly paid. Many operative jobs currently advertised on the Reed.co.uk website are paid £7.50 an hour or less. On such salaries, staff will not be able to buy homes locally. It is therefore inevitable that many employees will live in lower cost areas and need to commute to their work-place, mainly by car. The Core Strategy (para. 2.23) reveals that the existing Magna Park's labour catchment area "stretches far south into Warwickshire / Northamptonshire along the M69/M1 respectively (Census 2001). Travel to Work patterns for Magna Park, confirm that the majority of people (50%) employed travel between 10- 20kms to get to work, a further 16% travel between 20-30kms, greater than the average for the county and its 6 largest business parks." This, the Core Strategy points out, is in part due to the mismatch between the occupational and skills profile of the District on the one hand and the skills needed for working at Magna Park where "nearly two thirds of workers are thought to comprise warehouse operatives." The current application therefore accentuates a similar mismatch between where the jobs are needed and where they are proposed.
4.211 The 2011 Core Strategy sets out a number of objectives. These include "(3) To locate new development in sustainable locations that respect environmental capacity and which have appropriate infrastructure, services and facilities in place or where these can realistically be provided; (5) to protect and enhance the District's distinctive rural landscape, settlement pattern, historic assets, natural environment and biodiversity;. (6) to safeguard and enhance the character and built heritage of the District's settlements and ensure that residential amenity is protected; .. ... (9) to reduce the environmental impacts of road traffic, both private and commercial, and lessen the need for car use by encouraging alternative modes of transport including cycling and walking." None of the above objectives will be met by giving approval to the present application - indeed, the opposite effect will be achieved. Policy CS7 (f) in the Core Strategy supports employment development in the countryside, beyond towns and villages "only where it contributes to the retention and viability of rural services or land based businesses, aids farm diversification, or promotes the conversion and re-use of appropriately located and suitable constructed existing buildings." The present application stands in opposition to that policy. Policy CS7 (h), regarding Magna Park states "No further phase of development or large scale expansion of the site, beyond the existing development footprint ..... will be supported." The Core Strategy goes on to say that "there is no overall strategic need for additional employment land to be identified." It recommends "a move to provide different types and a more flexible portfolio of employment land and premises, to encourage higher quality jobs, and to encourage a more efficient use of land indicates that it is possible to achieve higher densities than before and therefore the need for land is less."
P a g e | 39
4.212 Para 5.73 of the Core Strategy states that Magna Park meets a regional, or strategic, rather than local need and argues that there are more suitable locations and sites (both rail and non rail- linked) than Magna Park within the region to meet forecast needs. It goes on to state that the preferred policy approach to Magna Park is to protect the site's strategic role for distribution, and safeguard its future and that of its businesses, whilst resisting a further Phase 3 of development and containing the site to its existing footprint. This strategy and the policies it contains was adopted just four years ago. What has changed which would justify the Council abandoning it?
4.213 For all the above reasons Ashby Parva Parish Meeting requests that this application be refused.
4.214 Ashby Parva Parish Council Comments on Additional Information No Further Comments
4.215 Cotesbach Parish Council Cotesbach Parish Council recognises how the applicant, IDI Gazeley, has applied some “holistic” approaches to the proposed development regarding its proximity to, and current ownership of, Magna Park. For example: Vs through the existing Magna Park and its infrastructure, minimising impact on local routes where possible.
lighting along Mere Lane and ensure the proposed development also uses low-glare, appropriately positioned lighting. ling of the A5, at an albeit relatively limited section, to increase capacity and safety of the A5 between the M1 and Magna Park. These are all reasonable measures that as a Parish Council, and community neighbouring Magna Park for 20 years, appreciate in the proposed development. However, Cotesbach residents have progressively experienced challenges in travelling around the district and having a favourable, prosperous environment to live in as Magna Park has developed over the years.
4.216 Extending what is already Europe’s largest purpose built distribution park to include the proposed development will add great pressure onto our surrounding infrastructure and could further compromise Cotesbach’s residents. 1) Traffic flow on A426
this road, this is of concern.
Planning to Rt Hon Alberto Costa MP dated 21st August 2015) advises that upgrades to key junctions will be made. improvements to the Gibbet roundabout intersecting the A426 and A5 have not been suggested by the applicant. The applicant appears to disregard the Gibbet roundabout as a key junction, even though forecast traffic flow increases south of the A4303 on the A5 (i.e. towards DIFRT, M6 and, if needed, M1 North) across the Gibbet roundabout are amongst some of the highest in the assessment (see ES Transport Chapter 6, page 30).
are already being experienced (see figures 1,2 and 3 at the end of this letter). the A426 has completely been left out of the routing plan – suggested neither a recommended nor discouraged employee route. There is no need for the A426 to be used for staff given the other key strategic routes to the proposed development. This needs to be changed. The effectiveness of routing plans, particularly that of the original Magna Park development, is under scrutiny. This needs to be addressed in the proposed development and should properly implemented and measured, through for example: o Automatic sign-up of employees to a validated vehicle register. o Regular automated vehicle monitoring along the A426. o Potential financial incentives for using certain routes.
P a g e | 40 o A budget assigned to car sharing plans that specifically includes incentives for car sharing, previously proven to be successful in other companies (Department For Transport, Making Car Sharing and Car Clubs Work - A Good Practice Guide 2005).
permitted, Cotesbach would like to agree S106 conditions that include the following as a starting point, and would like to discuss this further with you before any further S106 negotiations. o Financial support in reducing the speed limit along the A426 (e.g. legal advice / community owned speed cameras). o If the A426 is not a proposed route for HGVs, financial support in the application of a weight limit on the road. o Installation of acoustic panelling along village perimeter. 2) Mere Lane
as it is frequently used, for example, to access various popular businesses in the area, notably Palmers Garden Centre. – over 200% in some cases (see ES Transport Chapter 6, page 20). Instead of suggestions from the applicant that include “Employees at the Proposed Development will also be discouraged from using Mere Lane for the journey to and from work and this message will be reinforced in the Travel Plan” (ES Transport Chapter 6, paragraph 6.119), could the applicant put forward concrete, measurable solutions that have assigned responsibility by: o Providing data on the car sharing schemes already used at Magna Park to demonstrate existing uptake success and update the current suggested car travel plans according to this existing information and learnings. o As per the targets put forward in the application regarding increasing local jobs, highlight the need for specific targets to be reached regarding multi-modal transport including car sharing that the applicant can enforce - not as per the application’s suggestion which requires the warehouse tenant (i.e. DHL) to set currently undefined targets (Travel Plan, Page 35). o See further guidance in aforementioned report as an example (Department For Transport, Making Car Sharing and Car Clubs Work - A Good Practice Guide 2005) 3) Broader travel routing plans
single occupancy car use over 5 years. This is however based on the benchmark of the Ullesthorpe ward which is not a typical demographic for the population expected to work at Magna Park. We know, and the application itself states, that employees are travelling from urban areas around Leicestershire, sometimes up to 45 minutes. Therefore we would suggest the car sharing targets should be more ambitious and more representative of the demographic employee base.
of this in the application. Critically, this is a task that DHL will be required to oversee and initiate yet we see no evidence for penalties being introduced if targets or milestones are not met. Such penalties should be introduced. 4) Lighting
and visibility over the years.
for the effects but still do not solve the core problem.
voluntary condition to the application under S106 (see S106 Agreement Heads of Terms Annexe in letter from Now Planning to Rt Hon Alberto Costa MP dated 21st August 2015). In order to sensibly maximise the benefit of improved lighting to the proposed development, such measures should also be carried out on the south side of Magna Park as an economies of scale exercise. We would like IDI Gazeley to consider this in their plans going forward. 5) Air Quality
P a g e | 41 sbach itself would not be exposed to increased air pollution as a result of the proposed development. This is of concern to us and we would like clarity and reassurance of this risk. the applicant has not carried out any air quality monitoring along the A426 (see Chapter 10 Air Quality Assessment, Figure 10.1), yet it states that air quality should be measured and considered when near residential areas. Receptors are also not located along Brookfield Way / Bitteswell Road – a known area of frequent vehicle travel for Magna Park employees but also a growing new housing location. The applicant has for some reason carried out air quality analysis based on receptor locations in and towards Pailton, where HGV and vehicle traffic is not as frequent as the A426. We urge HDC to enforce further air quality assessments specifically along the A426 parallel to Cotesbach.
mean Air Quality Standard (AQMA) for NO2 over the past 9 years running are well known. The proposed application simply exacerbates this issue yet no reasonable mitigation for the town can be seen in the application. e action plan that Leicester City Council is putting in place to improve the City’s air quality, and access to the potential £35M Go Ultra Low funding, or at least gain leverage from the procurement or supply chain development for this. ke clarity on which council is ultimately responsible for the air quality action plan – whether it is Harborough District or Lutterworth Town – and who could bear any potential fine for not achieving European Standards on AQMA.
4.217 There are a number of other suggestions for HDC and the developer to consider if, albeit against Cotesbach Parish Council’s preferences and maintenance of our village heritage, the proposed development does go ahead, 1) No need for large corporate signage on the warehousing. Ideally none at all, but if it is necessary Rugby Gateway’s new “H&M” warehouse is more considerate approach, compared to, for example, the current large signage of Lidl at Magna Park. 2) A direct route from Magna Park to M6 J1, or at minimum full widening of the A5 from M1 J18 to M69. 3) As mentioned, at the very least, upgrades to the Gibbet roundabout beyond the current approved scheme as a result of the Prologis DIRFT III development. 4) Automated recording of vehicles along Mere Lane (and A426, Coal Pit Lane and other pinch points) to capture recurring vehicle information and make targeted incentives to car share (i.e. London Congestion Charge model). 5) Investment from HDC to encourage greater diversity in Lutterworth town businesses. This has been stated in the consultation and current drafts of the New Local Plan, and HDC should reinvest some of the profits due to prospective Magna Park business rates into the town’s economy. Otherwise we risk it becoming a convenience town for an industrial estate. 6) The above should be carried out in combination with a HGV access only enforcement along the Leicester Road in Lutterworth to enhance the town and finally stop its poor Air Quality. This should be considered as part of the SHLAA consultation and potential bypasses.
4.218 We also wish to highlight the strong objection in the village to the proposed development. At a recent public meeting on 18th May in Cotesbach organised by the constituted parish council sub- group, Cotesbach Action Group, where approximately 60 people attended, there was overwhelming opposition to IDI Gazeley Magna Park expansion. 93% voted against the proposed development in a questionnaire from the meeting with 38 respondents.
4.219 We would ask that you take our objections to this proposal and ensure they are considered seriously as part of this significant expansion to what is already Europe’s largest logistics park. If you are not already aware, the proposed warehouse would be the world’s 7th largest building by capacity – equal to the O2 dome in London. To place this on a small section of Leicestershire countryside is quite astounding when there are many other areas shouldering the M1 in Leicestershire that provide better distribution access, without such impacts or long-term investment requirements in infrastructure improvements. P a g e | 42
4.220 When combined with the Symmetry Park application, we are gravely concerned about our surroundings and the ability for our residents to travel to work and enjoy their residence as a consequence to these developments.
4.221 Cotesbach Parish Council Comments on Additional Information No Further Comments
4.222 Churchover Parish Council Churchover Parish Council (CPC) wishes to register its objections to the above application on the grounds of unacceptable harm from traffic/highway issues, as follows. Churchover lies on the Warwickshire side of the A5, the parish being astride the A5/A426 and extending north to the Gibbet roundabout at that junction. For many years, congestion on the A426 has been increasing, especially between the M1 and A5 junctions. That has derived perhaps mostly from warehouse developments in Warwickshire, but also increasing traffic from Magna Park and DIRFT. In the last couple of years, the A426 has reached the state of near-stationary northbound traffic in the afternoon peak between those junctions, usually during the period 1630 – 1730 and often earlier, especially on Fridays. Also in that period, morning southbound queuing at the Gibbet by traffic from Lutterworth is increasingly frequent, often backing up almost to Cotesbach.
4.223 The A426, at least at peak hours, is already operating at over its capacity. DIRFT III is now permitted and a part of that scheme is to reconstruct the Gibbet roundabout to 3 lanes, within the existing highway boundary. When that same tactic was applied to M6 junction 1 a few years ago, it failed to increase capacity as planned because the lane widths and geometry were inadequate for three lanes of HGV traffic. The same will apply here. The A426 is, in addition, a rat run for traffic avoiding problems at the Catthorpe M1/M6/A14 junction. However, we ought to stress that congestion on the A426 is not associated only with incidents or road works at Catthorpe, nor at the Gibbet, but occurs routinely under conditions of normal flow. The road and junctions are simply too small for the flows existing and permitted, and no further increase in traffic can be acceptable. The M1/A426 junction will be at near capacity at peak times, as is the Gibbet. Even with the proposed improvements at the Gibbet that roundabout will still be still above capacity. Several Churchover residents live on the roundabout and the noise, air quality, traffic and congestion impacts upon them, already severe, will be unacceptable. Overall, we consider that the development will be unacceptable on traffic and highway grounds and therefore request that planning permission be refused.
4.224 Churchover Parish Council Comments on Additional Information No Further Comments
4.225 Willey Parish Council Willey Parish wish to object to the proposed development at Magna Park. We as a parish are just as close as those neighbouring the development but have been neglected in all correspondence and consultation on the matter. Magna Park II: plot 1 Statement of Community Involvement lists all those invited to be part of the process. Our village will suffer the change in view as a result of any development and yet despite this we have been excluded from involvement.
4.226 The parish wishes to object on several grounds as set out below. Environment: Any development will fundamentally change the landscape irretrievably forever. It is believed the land has benefitted from several years of the higher stewardship scheme resulting in a protection and development of high quality nature preservation. This will be lost. The "likely relocation" of species is not an acceptable argument; leaving the environment as it is will be the only sure-fire way to protect what habitat and surroundings are there; they have after all taken centuries to develop. There are several "red listed" species (as per DEFRA's listing) shown to be on this site and intruding on their habitat will only increase their potential demise. Whilst less than 10% of UK land is actually built on, it does seem an atrocity that good agricultural land will be lost for profit. The natural water tables, ponds/springs will all be affected.
P a g e | 43 Traffic/highways: As a small village we are blighted already with traffic problems. We already have mis-directed lorries through the village, taking a short cut to the existing site. Having a new development further down the A5 will increase this potential traffic. Many (mainly European) drivers simply follow their sat-nav systems for the shortest route to save fuel. We have an existing issues with HGV's using the Coalpit Lane entrance to our village as a suitable area for three-point turns and have lost several street marking signs in the process. More traffic will increase the likelihood of this event. There will be an increased number of worker's vehicles which will lead to higher traffic volume, increasing noise, pollution and risk of accidents. Presently Coalpit Lane already suffers from an excess volume of vehicles travelling at high speed and there have been accidents and several near misses on the short stretch between our village turning and the A5. This appears to be mainly from Magna Park workers going to (presumably running late) or from (presumably desperate to get home) the existing site. More development will mean more of this behaviour. Employment: There appears to be a claim that an additional number of jobs will be created but it has not been made clear why or where from. DHL who intend to occupy the new development already have 4 sites on the existing Magna Park. It is doubted they are keeping these as well as the new development and so realistically the job creation is not accurate to state DHL are creating/securing 1200 jobs. they are already there. Assuming the vacated DHL units have to be sold/rented (which is not guaranteed) then these will be the new employments and we do not know how many jobs this will be. In either event the number of additional jobs created still means only one thing and that is additional vehicles bringing those workers into and away from Magna Park. The towns of Lutterworth, Market Harborough and the surrounding villages appear to be fortunate to be able to command very low levels of unemployment. Nationally there is higher unemployment and it seems to make more sense to locate these developments nearer those areas. Large calls centres have been placed in just this way (e.g. HMRC) to take advantage of these situations. The emphasis is from the employee point of view not the Blue Chip company. There is already a housing shortage and existing developments (e.g. Rugby mast site) have been quoted as where potential new workers will come form, yet this residential development is not sufficient to solve the existing housing shortage in the region. Creating more employment opportunities in areas where there is low unemployment will only then lead to higher house prices and further shortages in the local housing supply. Existing residents may end up being forced out of their community as a result. HDC Core Strategy: It was believed that HDC's own Core Strategy stated that no further development should take place at Magna Park. Granting of any additional permission would be against the councils own advice; surely setting a dangerous precedent for any future advice to be taken as only right at the time rather than right for the future. Local residents presently rely on HDC to keep open boundaries between Lutterworth and Magna park etc. but if the core strategy can change, then surely so can anything else? Pollution: Light pollution is already an issue with the existing site. Whilst proposals to change the existing lighting to newer LED technology are welcomed they should only be considered for the existing site. The simple fact still remains that adding more development will increase light pollution. Referring to the environmental issue above, adding more lighting to the area will change the habitat of existing species which is not acceptable. Noise pollution will increase for the very same reason. Adding more development will increase the noise. As a village we can already suffer from the noise of vehicle movements and having a 24/7 operational warehouse can only exacerbate this effect. Emissions will increase for the locality due to the increase in vehicular activity. Lutterworth already suffers from the highest recorded pollution levels in Leicestershire and it can only be assumed the development will add to this. Size: The overall size of the development is enormous, as a village we feel this is too great. As a comparison it looks to us as though our entire village could be fitted inside the proposed development which in our opinion is overbearing. for and on behalf of Willey Parish Council
4.227 Willey Parish Council Comments on Additional Information
P a g e | 44 No Further Comments
4.228 Monks Kirby Parish Council Monks Kirby Parish Council recommend refusal of this application because of the lack of infra structure strategy regarding the A5 corridor in this area. If this application were approved without sufficient traffic mitigation the negative effect of the traffic increase would be unacceptable. Past experience has shown that planning conditions applied post approval do not have any effect. Additionally the main road in Monks Kirby Parish which suffers when there are problems on the A5 is the Coalpit Lane C206 on which there was no traffic count in May 2015 when all local roads were surveyed. Monks Kirby Parish Council urges Harborough District Council to lobby Highways England to formulate a strategy to improve the situation, a move which Monks Kirby would be happy to support. I shall be grateful if you will keep Monks Kirby Parish Council informed of future developments at this site and the outcome of the final decision.
4.229 Monks Kirby Parish Council Comments on Additional Information No Further Comments
4.230 Wibtoft Parish Item 4 at out meeting for discussion was the above planning current planning application being considered by MHBC, & after a short statement of facts by the chairman, relating to the current and previous applications on this site, a vote concluded all villagers were unanimously opposed to the proposal. It was also concluded the meeting should put in a formal objection on behalf of the village residents, and businesses operating from or around Wibtoft.
4.231 Individuals were given the opportunity to express their concerns and the following points were made: By allowing an expansion of the land adjacent to Magna Park to increase & in time double what is already believed to be the biggest warehousing site in Europe was seen as too much for the infrastructure too cope with, we already frequently have our local roads blocked by accidents & one fatal crash in Wibtoft already this year! Every day it seems like there is another serious accident creating gridlock on not only the a5 but also the village routes and coal pit lane... there is one today for example A5 south 0900 at Highcross involving 3 cars... The rural nature of the land we live around and enjoy and the little hamlet we occupy, would further by eroded by more intensification & expansion of Magna Park and the enjoyment of local properties would also be unnecessarily compromised. We feel the council has a duty to ensure the existing residents, local land owners and business operators are not prejudiced by this massive scheme adding to already a massive & very intensive site..
4.232 The chief reason for objection was the fact that our village is dissected by the A5 and there is already an alarming number of accidents on the stretch of road between Smockington Hollow and the Gibbet Island. The Green Lane, Wibtoft junction onto the A5 is becoming increasingly dangerous especially since the speed restriction for HGVs has been lifted from 40mph to 50mph. Our fear is that further development would add to the problem with the increase in local lorry movements and doubling of employees.
4.233 Other roads are also affected - when there are road blocks on the A5 the local narrow lanes are used as rat runs. Also generally there is a massive increase in the volume of traffic on the Coalpit Lane and Pailton Road from workers especially at shift changeover times when they tend to drive too fast considering the roads are bendy and used by a lot of farm traffic. The Coalpit Lane (unlike the Rugby Road, Pailton) does not have any speed restriction and is regularly used by cyclists.
4.234 Wibtoft Parish Comments on Additional Information No Further Comments
4.235 Brinklow Parish P a g e | 45 Object to the above application for the following reasons: 1. Approved Development Plan. The HDC Core Strategy CS7h specifically restricts further development at Magna Park to a refined footprint in accordance with proven need. The scale of this current proposal. along with other current applications is unprecedented and not supported by any empirical evidence to show that it is sustainable or viable. This is large-scale speculative land banking of land in the open countryside blighting the local communities and valued landscapes. 2. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). A fundamental feature of these guidelines is for Sustainable developments that would help to achieve the Government's objectives to reduce carbon emissions. The extremely low local unemployment means the majority of employees will be from outside the Lutterworth area and thus unlikely to use or stimulate the need for improved public transport, thus the location is only accessible by car which is not a sustainable approach The government is investing heavily in rail infrastructure to reduce road based transport to promote freight terminals such as that at DIRFT. This development introducing significant quantities of HGV based road transport on already busy roads is not sustainable and effectively undermines the Governments rail freight objectives. NPPF objectives for carbon reduction and nitrous-oxide emissions are being undermined by unsustainable transport needs contrary to NPPF. 3. Traffic lmpact. Presently all the major roads in the environs of Magna Park are heavily loaded and there are also constraints at the many interconnections with the A5. At peak times and at shift change over queuing is already excessive. Additionally consistent queuing already occurs at the Gibbet roundabout and Whittle roundabout and traffic along the A425 through Lutterworth and toward the M6. Rat runs have developed through all the surrounding villages and suburbs providing alternate routes to Magna Park. This development will only exacerbate the situation further causing more distress to other commuters and residents. 4. Economic Case. No compelling case has been made for this development being needed in the local Area and the scale of the development proposed is not justified in terms of land and employment requirements for the Local area. This contravenes policy CS7f "Support employment development within the countryside only where it contributes to the retention of rural services or land based business's". ls there any good planning reason why HDC should by this scheme provide employment for in commuters from long distances in other areas? 5. Countryside. The application is enormous, if taken with other current planning applications they will take over 600 acres of farmland, and represents unacceptable intrusion into pristine open countryside and valued landscape and the unprecedented and incomprehensible scale would have an overbearing and visual impact on all the surrounding land and amenities. The developments include 23metre high buildings (6m higher than existing) and are impossible to effectively screen and thus will be dominating to their surroundings. 6. Noise and Air Pollution. Significantly extending the size and activity of the Magna Park complex will clearly aggravate the effects of noise and air pollution. The statutory limits for air pollution are already regularly exceeded in Lutterworth which is simply being ignored. 7. Light Pollution. The illuminated sky around the park will be severely worsened by such a large Development and bring the light intrusion closer to Lutterworth as well as nearby villages. 8. Biodiversity. The destruction of countryside coupled with noise, air and light pollution will drastically deplete the biodiversity of the development area and put the flora and fauna on the adjoining land at severe risk
6. Other Interested Bodies 4.236 Ancient Monuments Society No Comments received
4.237 Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport No Comments Received
4.238 Coventry Airport At 19km from Coventry Airport, the outlined plans do not raise any immediate issues linked to Obstacle Limitation Surfaces or Wildlife Birdstrike Risks to Coventry Airport operations.
P a g e | 46
4.239 Coventry Airport Comments on Additional Information No Further Comments
4.240 Prologis The representations set out within this letter describe the extent to which the above proposals for an additional large scale warehouse building fail to support the national policy objective of prioritising distribution and warehousing developments served by rail. The proposals also have the potential to undermine the delivery of the nationally significant Strategic Rail Freight Interchange ('SRFI') at DIRFT III - an expansion of the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal ('DIRFT') which was granted consent by the Secretary of State under the Major Infrastructure Planning regime (Planning Act 2008) in July 2014.
4.241 The representations set out below also demonstrate how the proposals conflict with the adopted Development Plan which specifically seeks to prevent any such extension of this road-served warehousing facility as well as the former East Midlands Regional Plan (March 2009) and its evidence base, which does not identify Magna Park as a Priority Area for Regeneration. The application proposals are particularly concerning given that the above application is one of two such submissions that seek permission for the substantial expansion of Magna Park. Combined, these applications propose approximately 379,553 sq.m of road-served warehousing. Furthermore, it's understood that a further application is in preparation for an additional 500,000 sqm extension to the facility on land adjacent to the A5, that will transform the existing nature of Magna Park. All proposed floorspace can only be served by road. Please note that additional representations have also been submitted objecting to this second application (ref no. 15/00865/0UT) and whilst this comprises a separate representation as appropriate, the themes and comments expressed are consistent between the two submissions and objections are raised on both applications.
4.242 The detail of Prologis' objection is provided below but in summary, given the inherent conflict with national rail freight policy objectives, and the overwhelming policy presumption against the expansion of Magna Park, Prologis respectfully request that Harborough District Council refuse Planning Application 15/00919/FUL.
4.243 The proposed development, comprising the erection of over 100,000 sqm of B8 warehousing on a non-rail connected site appears to directly conflict with the overall strategic aims of the National Planning Policy Framework ('NPPF') which seeks to reduce carbon emissions through promoting sustainable transport modes, and the National Networks National Policy Statement ('NPS') which prioritises distribution and warehousing sites served by rail.
4.244 Officers will be aware that at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development which should be seen as a goldèn thread running through both plan making and decision taking (para. 14). Transport policies have an important role to play in not only facilitating sustainable development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives. Paragraph 30 stipulates that 'solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and congestion' and promote 'the use of sustainable modes of transport' should be encouraged. This national policy gives a priority to rail-related distribution developments, which can deliver these objectives. Thus, in a situation where non-rail related distribution schemes are promoted close to those with rail links, priority should be given to the rail-related schemes.
4.245 This priority is repeated in the NPS which sets out the need and government policies for nationally significant rail and road infrastructure projects in England. This confirms that key to achieving sustainable distribution networks is the transfer of freight from road to rail. The guidance establishes a compelling environmental and economic need for the modal shift from road to rail to transport goods and prioritises the delivery of distribution and warehousing sites served by rail rather than road:- "The Government's vision for transport is for a low carbon sustainable transport system that is an engine for economic growth, but is also safer and improves the quality of life in
P a g e | 47 our communities. The Government therefore believes it is important to facilitate the development of the intermodal rail freight industry. The transfer of freight from road to rail has an important part to play in a low carbon economy and in helping to address climate change" (Para. 2.43).
"Even with significant future improvements and enhancements to the Strategic Road Network, the forecast growth in freight demand would lead to increasing congestion both on the road network and at our ports, together with a continued increase in transport carbon emissions. Modal shift to rail therefore needs to be encouraged" (Table 4).
4.246 To achieve this, the Government promotes the use of Strategic Rail Freight Interchanges (SRFls) as they are a key element in:- "Reducing the cost to users of moving freight by rail and are important in facilitating the transfer of freight from road to rail, thereby reducing trip mileage of freight movements on both the national and local road networks" (Para. 2.44).
4.247 Clearly, neither the application site nor the land subject of the application ref no. 15/00865/0UT offer any sort of rail connectivity.
4.248 As evidenced above and detailed in our representations submitted in respect of the db symmetry proposals, the delivery of SRFls is considered key by Government to enable the transfer of freight from road to rail, and with this, supporting sustainable distribution and rail freight growth. Again, not all distribution facilities can sensibly be rail-served but where a particular proposal has the potential to act as an alternative to such a rail facility, concerns are heightened. Proposals that are the subject of Planning Application 15/00919/FUL have the real potential to prejudice the delivery of an alternative nationally significant and sustainable rail-served scheme. Prologis, the owners and operators of DIRFT, have made a significant investment in complying with national, regional and local planning policies to create rail freight capacity at the DIRFT site. As above, the Council will be aware that the DIRFT site was the subject of a recent decision by Government to grant approval for a Development Consent Order (DCO). The DCO allows for the expansion of the DIRFT site, with an addition of 7.8 million sq.ft of rail-served distribution floorspace. Prologis is now proceeding with the implementation of this project. Work has started on site which will deliver a new 15.5 ha rail port in the near future.
4.249 Should the additional 100,000 sqm building be permitted at Magna Park (the first building in a much larger extension to the Park that will be the subject of a further application in due course), DHL who could have considered rail-based options to increase their distribution networks, will be provided with a road-based alternative. Whilst those occupiers who have invested in rail are beginning to see the benefits of such a modal switch, it remains an on-going educational process, to the extent that providing an alternative road-based option has the potential to undermine this process. Clearly, an extended Magna Park would offer such an alternative and could well deter the on-going investment at the DIRFT, to the detriment not only to its operation as the Country's leading SRFI, but also the implementation of the DCO-approved expansion scheme issued by the Secretary of State. Equally, the sustainable transport benefits of this project, delivered through an increase in rail-based distribution traffic that were pivotal to the success of the application, will be placed at risk.
4.250 There is a further implication of allowing non-rail related distribution development close to DIRFT III or any Rail Freight Interchange NSIP (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project) due to the relatively lower cost of bringing forward non-rail based development (without the added financial burden of securing rail linkages and the associated infrastructure). This is that the non-rail developments secure a competitive advantage on accommodation costs and unfairly compete with the rail-linked schemes. This is like to then have the effect that occupiers gravitate to the non-rail-linked schemes and hence the government's objective of securing a movement of freight by rail is prejudiced.
P a g e | 48 4.251 Much weight within the applicant's case is given to the "Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic Distribution Sector Study" (2014) and statements within this document of a requirement for a total of 153 ha of land for non rail-served sites to be brought forward within Leicestershire up to 2036. It is relevant to note that this conclusion appears to conflict with the findings of the Leicester and Leicestershire HMA Employment Land Study (2013) that for Harborough concludes that significantly less land is needed and furthermore, this demand should be satisfied at a sub- regional level, with the potential of the DIRFT site specifically highlighted. It is also relevant that when combined with the other current planning application seeking a further extension of Magna Park, these proposed developments alone would take almost all of this County-wide requirement (143 ha) for the entire 21 year period. The additional 500,000 sqm floorspace that would be forthcoming in the emerging proposals for the further extension at Magna Park would of course significantly exceed this figure.
4.252 The sheer scale of the application proposal, on its own and when combined with the other application currently before the Council at Magna Park represent development of a similar scale to the DIRFT III expansion, which was in itself an NSIP. These developments, individually and cumulatively, represent distribution development of more than local significance. A concern of Prologis is that this development (again in isolation or cumulatively) takes so much of the potentially available 'need' for the such development over the longer term, in one location, where no other benefits are delivered.
4.253 The applicant appears to ignore the over-riding conclusions of the Leicestershire HMA Employment Land Study that unsurprisingly, given prevailing policy guidance, seeks to focus future development on rail-served sites. Specifically, para. 2.27 of the Study states: "Consequently, the key to addressing the above identified challenges to the golden triangle (and by implication Leicestershire), and hence maintaining Leicestershire's established competitive advantage, is the development of new commercially attractive strategic sites in the East Midlands which will be directly rail-served (Strategic Rail Freight interchanges or SRFls, as promoted by central Government - see Section 7 of Part A). "
4.254 Paragraph 2.28 acknowledges that not all future development can be accommodated at rail- served sites, but a significant proportion should be. Paragraph 2.29 concludes that: "Overall, therefore, the key to addressing the challenges outlined, and hence maintain the established competitive advantage, is the continued development of new commercially attractive strategic sites in the East Midlands, a significant proportion of which will need to be directly rai/-served (in addition to the usual requirements for high quality connections to the strategic highway network)."
4.255 This important emphasis from the Study is not detailed in the applicant's submission but perhaps more importantly, the Study's role in the plan preparation process is misunderstood. Throughout the study, reference is made to an on-going requirement for a collaborative approach to planning and an associated acknowledgement that the Study should not be seen as.a "one-off" - it should, in contrast, be reviewed on an on-going basis. Section 3.6 specifically identifies a Duty to Cooperate, and it recognises a requirement to liaise with neighbouring authorities in Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and the West Midlands region. We are not aware of any such collaboration having occurred to inform the conclusions reached, and as one of the Study's key conclusions, it is recommended that a 'strategic distribution sites selection task group' be established, designed to identify opportunities and determine the most suitable sites to bring forward in local plans.
4.256 Reliance on the document, therefore, to justify such a large road-based distribution development is therefore premature, as until such cooperation has been progressed and appropriate discussions held, the document's conclusions are no more than an consultants' interpretation of an isolated single authority requirement.
4.257 Within this context it is anticipated that relevant adjacent authorities will make their own representations on the application. However, it is relevant to note policy within the West
P a g e | 49 Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy Local Plan (Dec 2014), as an example, provides very clear guidance for new large scale distribution developments, with the document stating any such proposals would normally be expected to be provided at DIRFT. This consistent policy preference across the sub region should direct discussions held under the Duty to Cooperate and it is anticipated that as Leicestershire planning authorities move towards further plan preparation, the clear priority for rail served distribution will be universally adopted.
4.258 Consistent with the above account of need, it is not surprising that the Harborough Core Strategy policy document specifically rules out the potential for any further expansion at the Magna Park site. Core Policy CS7(h) states: "Protect Magna Park's unique role as a strategic distribution centre (88 uses / Min unit size 10,000m2) of national significance and an exemplar of environmental performance. No further phase of development or large scale expansion of the site, beyond the existing development footprint (to be defined in the Allocations DPD) will be supported."
4.259 Furthermore and is highlighted in the representations submitted on the db symmetry proposals, the Harborough District Council Core Strategy DPD Inspector's Report (November 2011) indicates that the future expansion of Magna Park is not required noting at [109 - 114] its links to DIRFT some 15km away, stating that Magna Park itself has no rail connection. In terms of the Regional Strategy, Magna Park is not in a Priority Area for Regeneration. Significant expansion of the site would not contribute to the regeneration of urban areas, nor would it be consistent with the policy of urban concentration. Evidence on a local level does not suggest a need for additional land for warehousing in the District. There is evidence to support additional non-rail connected sites for strategic distribution uses in the East Midlands, towards the end of the Regional Strategy period. However, there is no substantive evidence that further expansion at Magna Park would represent the most appropriate option in the region as a whole, particularly given the inconsistency with Regional Strategy policy objectives.
4.260 Equally, the East Midlands Regional Plan fails to identify Magna Park's location as a preference for strategic distribution. Again, this document establishes a clear priority for sites which can be served by rail freight and can operate as intermodal terminals.
4.261 To have such a clear policy objection to a particular proposal is unusual, but given the continued primacy of the Plan in development control decisions, it is difficult to envisage a credible case that would present circumstances where such a definite policy objection should be ignored. This is particularly the case given the above account of the proposal's ability to prejudice Government
4.262 Objectives on sustainable transport, and the lack of any substantive need for additional HGV- served distribution floorspace across the Region. It is clear that in the context of the NPPF (para. 14) that the principle of the development is not in accordance with the recently adopted Development Plan policies, it is contrary to national policy guidance and if the development were to be permitted it impact would be so adverse that it would significantly and demonstrably outweigh any transport related or other major benefits that may be outlined by the applicant.
4.263 In conclusion and consistent with representations submitted in respect of App. Ref. 15/00865/0UT, not only do the proposals for an additional large scale warehouse building conflict with national policy objectives of prioritising distribution and warehousing sites served by rail but they also have the potential to undermine the delivery of the nationally significant SRFI at DIRFT, which was recently granted Consent by the Secretary of State as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). There is no evidenced need for the development and the proposals are also contrary to the adopted development plan which specifically seeks to resist an expansion of Magna Park.
4.264 Prologis Comments on Additional Information No Further Comments
4.265 Ramblers Association
P a g e | 50 No Comments received
4.266 Woodhall Planning and Conservation (on behalf of Local Resident) (Full report can be viewed online) As a result of the above review of the three documents that contain heritage impact assessments (see 4 above), we consider that their scope is generally appropriate, although the Watling Street Roman Road should not have been scoped out of Chapter 11 of the Environmental Statement.
4.267 We have major concerns regarding the failure to make use of the methodology suggested in the Good Practice Advice Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (English Heritage 2015) or its equivalent. This has led to a failure to properly assess the contribution of setting to the significance of a number of heritage assets and the impact that the proposed development would have on those settings. We therefore consider that the methodology adopted within these three documents is not appropriate and, as a result, their conclusions should not be considered to be reasonable.
4.268 In particular, we consider that the impacts of the proposed development upon Bittesby Deserted Medieval Village (a scheduled ancient monument), the Watling Street Roman Road, Bittesby House and Bittesby Cottages (non-designated heritage assets) have been significantly underplayed.
4.269 In addition, there are a number of inconsistencies within the Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment and Chapter 11 of the Environmental Statement.
4.270 As a result of our assessment, we consider that the harm to the setting of Bittesby Deserted Medieval Village (a scheduled ancient monument) would be considerable. In relation to the definitions in the National Planning Policy Framework, we consider this to be towards the upper end of ‘less than substantial harm’ and this level of harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset would therefore need to be assessed in relation to paragraph 134 of that document. We also consider that there is the potential for some direct harm to the Watling Street Roman Road, and considerable harm to the setting of Bittesby House and Bittesby Cottages. The levels of harm to the significance of these non-designated heritage assets would need to be assessed in relation to paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
4.271 Watson Haynes (Manor Farm)(Issues specific to operation of Wind Turbine, general issues reported under 4b) The location of the proposed DHL warehouse is of significant concern with regard the wind turbine which is located in my field behind the site. Even more so is the proposed second phase proposed for submission imminently.
4.272 The siting of this turbine is critical taking into account the prevailing South Westerly wind. The windstream would flow over and around the proposed warehouse (DHL) splitting the wind’s path and creating a turbulence zone at least 3 x the diameter of the obstacle. This would suggest a significant affect on my turbine. “Turbulence primarily occurs behind the obstacle and to a lesser extent in front of it” My turbine is located within the zone behind the proposed new warehouse. “Major obstacles must be strictly avoided in the siting of wind turbines particularly if they are located down wind in the prevailing wind direction.” The turbine already in situ would become in an unsuitable position down wind of the proposed warehouse taking into account the prevailing wind direction.
4.273 The decrease/unreliability of wind speed and direction due to the warehouse obstacle is proportional to the height and width of the obstacle.” [534m x 180m x 23.5m.] The size of the proposed warehouse when used in the equation to calculate the efficiency of the wind turbine would cast a large shadow, affecting the wind available to my wind turbine. Obstacles of this size and nature are taken into account in the calculation and are critical to the potential for wind energy production at a given site, if they are located less than 1km away from a wind turbine in the prevailing wind direction. The warehouse would clearly be located within this distance.
P a g e | 51
4.274 In strong wind conditions such turbulence due to an obstacle can cause dangerous conditions for blades which can result in the shearing off of the blades and damage to gearing. This wind turbine was placed in its optimum position with its environment and its maximum energy production potential taken into account with consent given by HDC. The location of warehousing in the path of the prevailing wind would be seriously detrimental to the safe running of the wind turbine as well as having a significant negative impact on the energy production and was installed in accordance with Government policy on renewable energy sources and has become and essential factor in the running of my agricultural business.
4.275 B-Rite Pallets Limited Logistics is an important industry for the UK, online shopping is one the rise and an effective this sector is invaluable for our international economic competitiveness. Lutterworth, and in particular Magna Park, are understandably very good locations for a new DHL logistics plant. It has excellent access to the Ml and M6 meaning that a significant portion of the country is within a reasonable journey. This would mean Lutterworth is able to contribute to economic growth and productivity, something which is currently a national challenge. We believe the economic benefits would be spread across the county as the jobs and benefits will be accessible to people across Leicestershire. Magna Park employs many people in the district and the wider county, providing employment opportunities at all levels of skill and salary. Extending these opportunities to another thousand people would be very positive.
4.276 Baldwins Charity, Ullesthorpe As trustees of the Baldwins Charity, we would like to raise our concerns about this application. The Baldwins Charity owns land which runs between Claybrooke Road and Manor Road, Ullesthorpe, to the north west of the proposed DHL site: OS map Explorer 222 grid reference 502877. The land is held in trust for the benefit of Ullesthorpe residents. In particular it includes an area comprising allotments used by local people as well as fields where livestock graze on a regular basis. Critically, the watercourse which passes through Bittesby and leads on to the Baldwins Land, receives water discharged from water courses and ditches emanating from Magna Park and the proposed site for the DHL warehouse.
4.277 We note the conclusion of Capita in their Revised Drainage Strategy Report submitted to Harborough District Council on behalf of the applicant dated July 30th 2015 that: 'The surrounding drainage ditch network has sufficient capacity to discharge the existing Greenfield flows generated from the site and surrounding catchment.'
4.278 We believe that this claim needs further independent investigation for the following reasons: Ever since Magna Park Phase 2 was completed, around 2001, the Baldwins land has become more susceptible to flooding from the brook, including sudden flash floods. This causes the crops on the allotments to become submerged for days at a time, causes damage to structures including a footbridge, erodes the bank, and causes serious problems for the protection of grazing stock. See photos taken during 2012/13, being sent by post to HDC. We are concerned that the inevitable increase in water discharge that would be generated by the DHL development, and the further large scale building on countryside in the vicinity of this watercourse, will exacerbate these problems. The amount of concrete which will be poured into ground which previously had natural drainage and run-off is likely to mean that the Baldwins allotment and grazing land will become increasingly susceptible to sudden flooding and consequent damage. In order to manage the run-off, and maintain and protect its land, the Charity is also concerned about the financial detriment it will incur. Our concerns are corroborated by the comments submitted by Mr John Eales of Claybrooke Mill, who also depends on the steady flow of this watercourse, along with other settlements and businesses further along its course.
P a g e | 52 4.279 We urge the Council to interrogate the applicant's claims about the increase in water discharge, in order to ascertain the real extent of potential environmental and financial detriment in the nearby countryside and rural settlements further downstream.
4.280 DHL DHL is the UK's leading contract logistics provider with a workforce of 40,000 employees. Its Supply Chain division provides services across the entire supply chain Including warehousing. transportation, value-added services and management services. DHL is a major inward investor in Harborough District Council area, occupying four units at Magna Park - together totalling 55,319 sq. m and employing some 700 people (rising to 1,000 at the peak Christmas season). IDI Gazeley's application is for a facility that will enable DHL to realise its growth agenda locally, while facilitating the company to reduce Its carbon footprint and that of its customers. Based on comparable facilities, including those at Magna Park. the proposed distribution centre has the potential to accommodate up to 1,230 additional permanent full time equivalent (FTE) employees.
4.281 DHL has selected Magna Park to accommodate its future expansion in this area on account of the quality of the park and its management, the operating efficiencies it confers for DHL and the quality and availability of the employees disposed to work at Magna Park. We are aware of discussions between IDI Gazeley and the local planning authority relating to initiatives to increase the local value of the jobs and procurement of the development. to extend the management of Magna Park and secure permanent amenities for local communities while mitigating the traffic and transport effects. These are commitments that we support and welcome whilst ensuring the application is of a technically sound nature.
4.282 Given the operational and strategic benefits the proposed development would confer on DHL, we encourage the District Council to support the Application. A favourable decision at the very earliest opportunity will assist greatly with our operational requirements and strategic planning.
4.283 Wells McFarlane on behalf of Watling Farm I act on behalf of Messrs R and B Bevin of Watling Farm, Willey. I have attached a plan showing a large block of their farmland edged in red. They have only recently become aware of the detail for significant road alterations which directly and significantly impact on their land. They have had no notice from the Developer and have not, therefore, previously been able to raise their significant safety concerns arising from the Gazeley Application.
4.284 My Clients have access directly to the A5, over a thin strip of land owned by Gazeley at three points, as marked X, Y and Z on the attached plan (See Figure 7). Two of these access points, Y and Z, allow them the ability to turn left or right with large tractors and trailers, combine harvesters and other large agricultural machinery. You can see from the attached Google Earth images that these access points are well-used, the reason being that they only have a narrow old railway bridge to gain access from other land that they own and it is not suitable for large or heavy traffic.
4.285 The Gazeley Application has, without consideration for my Clients, proposed an altered road layout which will make their typical farming activities impossible. Access ’Z’ appears to be ‘closed off’ and access points ‘X’ and ‘Y’ are both onto a dual carriageway and prevent a right turn from my Clients’ land. It would mean that my Clients’ tractors and trailers would need to travel along the A5 towards Hinckley, all the way to the M69 roundabout and back to be able to go towards Lutterworth. This is not only impractical, but also dangerous, as the length of some of the tractor/trailer combinations will mean that the swept path of the vehicle would need to cross into both carriageways when turning left out of their land.
4.286 It seems that my Clients’ use of these access points has been completely overlooked in the design of the roads proposed and I request that no decision is made on this Application until a suitable solution has been found that resolves these safety and practical issues. I look forward to
P a g e | 53 receiving your confirmation that you have received this email and that appropriate steps will now be taken to address my Clients’ concerns as a matter of urgency.
Figure 6: Composite plan of two plans submitted by Wells McFarlane indicating farm accesses and relationship with proposed roundabout.
4.287 Well McFarlane response to Now Planning (see Para 4.525) I write further to my letter of 11th December on behalf of my Clients, Messrs R and B Bevin of Watling Farm, Willey, and email receipt of a copy letter from Now Planning sent to you on 18th December in response to my letter to you. My Clients continue to have significant concerns with the current application proposals as submitted.
4.288 The current application proposal poses a number of significant constraints on their abilities to continue to farm their land interests to the south of the A5. As previously stated, my Clients have had no direct notice of the application from the developer at any stage, nor were they contacted in any way by Harborough District Council as part of the planning application process. As adjoining landowners to the application area and as they are affected by the road proposals impacting on their farming activities, I am surprised you did not send any letters to them as neighbours. My Clients do not use the internet and were completely unware that their access arrangements would be changed as part of the application proposals. The only plans I have seen that were issued by the Developers in their update proposals sent in the Swift Flash are of such a scale that it is impossible to see what is proposed and it should be no surprise that my Clients were not aware of what is proposed. Frankly, I have found it difficult to decipher the drawings on the planning portal at HDC. I am, therefore, surprised that Now Planning state "There was no obligation upon IDI Gazeley otherwise to consult the Messrs Bevin" when clearly, their proposals directly affect the farming operations of my Clients. I have also raised these concerns with Highways England and Leicestershire County Council as County Highway Authority.
4.289 The current application is a full application, therefore, all necessary information to consider all potential impacts of the development should be available for consideration by all relevant parties at this stage, before a decision is made. This includes sufficient detail regarding the proposed access arrangements and dualling of the A5 which are essential to the proposed development being able to come forward. It is simply not appropriate to leave matters for resolution until a later stage, as no such stage that allows for valid input on legal and safety grounds exists. Now Planning acknowledge that the access points X and Y will become restricted to left-in and left-out only access points and further suggested that access point Z will remain unrestricted. My clients
P a g e | 54 do not accept that this is an acceptable answer. Firstly, the drawings do not show any retained access at position Z, but rather show it in an isolated position away from the carriageway. Additionally, the access would be very close to the roundabout and any queuing / stationary traffic could block off their access and make it very difficult to get in or out of the site, particularly as the traffic is typically large and slow, being tractors and trailers etc. There is not sufficient detail on the drawings to know what it will be like and whether or not it will be fit for its required purpose. I am surprised that Gazeley have not looked to provide an access for my Clients directly off the roundabout to avoid the potentially hazardous turning manoeuvres that they will otherwise face. This would seem a sensible approach. The current proposal for the access to remain in a location so close to the roundabout is unacceptable until detail can be shown as to how this will work. I am not a traffic engineer, but it is clear to me that tractors and trailers or indeed any agricultural traffic looking to turn right into the site at point Z whilst heading south-east on the A5 will have to slow down and wait to turn right across the oncoming traffic at a point just after the roundabout where most drivers will be expecting to start to accelerate away from the roundabout. This is not what you would expect to see and can only be described as a dangerous road layout that is likely to lead to serious accidents.
4.290 In relation to access points X and Y, while left turns would in theory be possible, it is not clear that any assessment has been undertaken in either highways safety or environmental terms of the impacts of the dualling of the A5 on these access points. The machinery movements involved will result in vehicles needing to swing out and cross both lanes of the north/west bound carriageways, resulting in an increased risk of collisions and accidents as drivers accelerating from the new roundabout may not appreciate the extent of the swept path required by these manoeuvres. At present, this section of the A5 has very wide carriageways and there is not sufficient information to know if my clients vehicle movements can be safely undertaken when the road is dualled.
4.291 Assuming our understanding that there will be a central reservation between the north/west and south/east bound carriageways is correct, and that these two access points are proposed to be 'maintained' for my Clients to effectively facilitate a right-turn from these two field accesses (which is often the case and has been ever since they owned the land), this would require a significant detour westbound along the A5, up to the M69 roundabout, eastbound back down the A5, and across the new proposed development roundabout - an additional distance of approximately II miles. It is clear that the environmental impacts of the development on my Clients' agricultural business and operations, including the additional costs that this would impose, have simply not been considered and would render it totally impractical to do so. It is simply arrogant to suggest that my Clients only need one field access for their land, when for more than 40 years they have continuously used all three access points to meet their farming needs.
4.292 In summary, there is a clear absence of information and uncertainty regarding what is actually proposed by the development in terms of the dualling of the A5 and the potential implications of this on my Clients' property and the existing access points to the south of the A5. A decision on the merits or otherwise of this application cannot be taken while the above matters remain outstanding.
4.293 Should a decision be taken on the basis of the currently available information, then the current application proposals would be very dangerous. A new access off the roundabout should at the very least be proposed in the application drawings to help address my Clients' concerns.
4.294 On behalf of my Clients, I would request that full consideration is given to the above matters by Highways England, Leicestershire County Council and Harborough District Council, and appropriate reassurances and safeguards given that their farming operations and rights of way will not be impacted on in any way.
P a g e | 55 4.295 I look forward to receiving your confirmation that you have received this letter and that appropriate steps will now be taken to address my Clients' concerns, and would request a meeting with you week commencing 11th January 2016 to discuss the above matters further.
4.296 Dr Susan Tebby in relation to the History of Bittesby I wish to object to the above application and the proposed DHL building off Mere Lane, Bittesby, Leicestershire. Firstly I would like to comment on the Heritage Assessment June 2015 submitted on behalf of Gazeley Properties. PP 35 & 36 show views across the fields south of Bittesby House but no view east is shown. This view would show how Magna Park already encroaches upon the vista and if the DHL building is erected will impact on the setting of Bittesby House in its landscape and farmland which is an essential aspect of the whole. The Heritage Assessment June 2015 report acknowledges that Magna Park is already intrusive from the east and south east. This report was conducted in the early summer. During the winter Magna Park is readily visible. The proposed DHL building would dominate the setting and destroy any sense of the historic setting. The sense of place would be lost. See my photograph across to the east in my interim report.
4.297 No mention is made of the superb chestnut and lime-tree avenue which leads to Bittesby House, planted in the 1880s by George Simpson. Each tree is planted in a furrow of the last remaining ridge and furrow field of the once 1,000 acre parish. In my view the site should be . preserved on this basis alone.
4.298 Gazeley's Appendix I which summarises Bittesby House and its occupants in my view belittles Charles John Bond (1856-1939) who became an important surgeon, probably the most "distinguished" of his era: he is described as "outstanding" in his field in a review in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine in 1984. He contributed much to Leicester life, at the Royal Infirmary - there is a room dedicated to him there and a memorial plaque. A trust fund set up in his honour at the University of Leicester has benefitted numerous students. His childhood years were spent at Bittesby House and he returned from time to time, not least because the house remained in the tenancy of his father-in-law, but because he owed so much to the countryside around. He returned to his early student years and interest in wildlife in a seminal publication in his retirement. His observations and experiments with animals at Bittesby he discussed in several of his books, emulating Charles Darwin in many respects and not least in the study (short-lived) with eugenics and voluntary euthanasia: these were the current scientific areas of a surge of interest at the time, representing the developing "Victorian intellectualism and scientific discovery". Charles and his family did much for the locality, his father George in terms of employing many men, women and boys on the farm and Charles Bond, Charles John's uncle, was a co-founder ofthe Lutterworth Horticultural and Cottage Gardeners Society in 1860, one of the oldest in the country (Lutterworth, A H Dyson, 1913). Charles John Bond became President of the Leicestershire Literary & Philosophical Society in 1901-02 and in 1935-36 for the second time. He was made an Honorary Freeman of the City of Leicester in 1925. The paragraph in the Heritage Assessment from Gazeley would appear to have relied on a short text from Wikipedia (which has an error), rather than those in the Journals of the Royal Society's pages or those of the Leicester Literary & Philosophical Society; or the British Medical Journal. In my view, Bittesby House should have a Memorial Plaque to Charles John Bond for his services to medicine and contributions to public service and life.
4.299 The entire history of Bittesby House, with its forebears and its inhabitants, appears to have been disregarded in the Heritage Assessment. (Please see my interim report, Bittesby House for additional information on Bittesby House occupants. My essay on Charles John Bond is in preparation). Yet it is precisely the gradual accumulation of at least a thousand years of tenants' husbandry, owners' will to improve the land and enlightened thinking in similar pursuits such as landscape design and philosophy that wrought the changes that have become the landscape we see and admire today. There is much that is special to Bittesby because farmers have carried on their work with the support of their owners.
P a g e | 56 4.300 The Heritage Assessment provides some good information but I believe the tone is dismissive in places. Together with the attached essay from 1984 on Charles John Bond, giving his connection its true position, there is every reason to re-assess the special inter-relationship of Bittesby House with its landscape setting, the relationship with the House in its location to the Deserted Mediaeval Village and the people who lived and worked here as I have set out briefly in my interim report.
4.301 In the Heritage Assessment June 2015, p 25: Conclusion, 8.4 states: "Bittesby House and cottages are of local historical and architectural interest [' only' is inferred]. The proposed development will not result in direct harm to the fabric of these buildings. With the exception of the tree-lined avenue to the south west, setting does not make a major contribution to the building's significance. Therefore, any harm to their significance will be low. .." On the contrary, see below for the extraordinary national significance of owners and their aims and aspirations within the parish of Bittesby, their and their tenants achievements which reflect in a microcosm the aspirations of the Age of Improvement, late 17th to late 19th centuries, sweeping the country at this time. The fact that Bittesby has not been built on, nor altered much in its field boundaries nor purpose in maintaining the land and landscape for farming and grazing, means that a remarkable time-capsule has been maintained in the heart of England and thus the setting in relation to Bittesby House is highly significant in landscape and related architectural history.
4.302 Ullesthorpe Subscription Windmill, Grade II building in the visual and physical vicinity Ullesthorpe Subscription Windmill (Grade II) is described in the Heritage Assessment p.21 without considering its role in the locality. As shown on the cover of my Interim Report (enclosed) the view from the cap camera beamed into the ground floor bake-house on the large screen, throws the mediaeval landscape into confusion. The Ullesthorpe Preservation Trust managed funds from DEFRA to install cameras on several floors and the one on the cap was supposed to be a stunning addition: the view of Magna Park is dismaying. (The view is photographed in Gazeley's submission: ES Vol 3, Technical Appendix F.1, Chapter 9, Landscape & Visual, F 9.60 and opposite photograph given the same number). The view point for the panoramic photograph is only from the 5t floor - indicated on the left hand side, - so when printed out the landscape is squashed vertically. Compare with my photograph taken from the cap at the height of where the camera would be and you can see that far more of Magna Park and the landscape enters the visual frame. The proposed DHL building will encroach much closer to Ullesthorpe and further reduce the historic setting.
4.303 The role the windmill plays is that of educator, amongst other things. From the outset local history has been a fundamental part of the education programme - as attested by programmes, articles and posters from installation of the unique camera position in 2007. The mill has conducted workshops using the earliest OS map of 1835 to identify all the surrounding features of historic and other features, using the camera images - manipulated by joystick as well as the view from the lower floors (as seen in Gazeley's submission). This will be so reduced as to be meaningless in terms of the historic heritage here before enjoyed.
4.304 I urge you to consider all these aspects in your assessment and in particular with regard to "the conserving and enhancement of the Historic Environment" that is Bittesby.
4.305 2. The archaeology statement August 2014, revised June 2015, Geophysical Survey Report of April 2015 and the Archaeological Evaluation of 21st September 2015 appear to omit some results of the trial trench findings during the summer. Grafting the finds from field-walking on to the geophysics for some areas would indicate that there are Roman features consistent with human occupation on the terrace levels between the proposed DHL building and the Deserted Mediaeval Village (DMV), and Bittesby House north towards the DMV. On inspection after the trenches had been dug and finished, in one trench east of the DMV on the rise, I noticed that there were a number of additional roman finds in the twenty or so spoil heaps: pottery, tile and what one might call geological specimens, such as finished marble slabs, approximately 100 x 20
P a g e | 57 x 15 c and other dark green veined marble. The trench also appeared to have distinct division at the bottom consistent with an inside and outside of a finished surface - the outer surface being untouched subsoil as far as I could observe from the perimeter. The spoil heaps had not been sifted or disturbed in any way and may not have been investigated. I would appreciate knowing where the report on these two trial trenches is and their evaluation is. It is crucial not only to understanding the different levels of occupation from the mediaeval periods but almost certainly from Roman times. Can it be called in under the Freedom of Information Act?
4.306 I ask why the extensive geophysical features straddling field A7 and A8 (Fig.8 September 2015) were apparently not trial-trenched - according to the Gazeley plans? In my view they should be properly excavated, not simply trial trenched. There are too many features to ignore. The archaeological excavators must be a properly qualified, certified and accredited organisation.
4.307 The deserted mediaeval village and archaeology The DMV should be geophysically surveyed as soon as possible once winter water levels have subsided. We are fortunate that the ground survey of the area, including the covered over west side, was surveyed by F. Hartley and is due to be published in 2016. But this should be supported by geophysics.
4.308 3. My objection to the proposed DHL building is also that it will be visible from the deserted mediaeval village and the surrounding areas and be overpowering and intrusive on the scheduled ancient monument. Photographs to follow
4.309 4. From almost any viewpoint from the DMV Magna Park warehouses are visible. The DHL building would tower over it, enclose it when its whole existence was originally in open fields - that was the farming system then and which has not changed in probably 1,000 years or more. As a Scheduled Ancient Monument notice should be taken of this unique heritage asset in this part of the county within its setting. There is no other settlement of this nature. Once destroyed by encroaching warehouses the setting is irretrievably lost.
4.310 The proposed DHL building is so tall that no screening by trees will be possible or successful. Even if the DHL were to be set down into the hillside/terrace it will still be so dominant because of its sheer width and length. Giant redwoods might have a screening effect in a century but they are entirely the wrong kind of tree in this part of Leicestershire and bear no relationship to the surrounding countryside. The type of tree is determined mainly by the geology and soil type, clay and high water levels. Bittesby is notoriously sparse in native trees because of the nature of the soil: this is clear from all the detailed leases from past owners to their tenants, who kept the few trees for themselves, or allowed some for the repair of windows and doors - see appendix 8 in my interim report. The planting by Gazeley on the existing Magna Park site has only met with partial success. I will comment on this in the Hybrid application. The so-called Bittesby Wood on the raised embankment of the old railway line is not pleasant, the trees consisting mainly of birch. A look at any of the small indigenous trees in the area, mainly ash, shows that they are always bare and straggly and in spite of some age never grow much above 15 metres or so. Bittesby is not a natural tree area. There was only one spinney in the parish and that is still partly in existence on the Bitteswell border. In all the leases I have found, from over the last five hundred years, the attention was given to hedges - as that was the natural vegetation of the area. Conifers are not suitable.
4.311 For these reasons I do not believe that any tree planting would be sufficient to screen the proposed DHL building nor retain the sense of place that is required for the heritage asset that is the DMV. This part of south Leicestershire has few heritage assets I urge you to consider the DMV as a significant contribution to the historic landscape. Just because it has not been further listed or currently formally recognised does not mean that it should be ignored.
4.312 Precedent: Barnwell Manor Wind Farm ruling
P a g e | 58 I ask you to consider the case of the Barnwell Manor Wind Farm and the historic setting which included a number of historic assets. In particular Lord Justice Sullivan, in summing up stated that inter alia Policy HE9.4 advised that: "Where a proposal has a harmful impact on the significance of a designated heritage which is less than substantial harm [ie, in the case of the heritage assets of Bittesby and Ullesthorpe of which only one is designated yet the others are of special significance] in all cases the local authorities should: (i) Weigh the public benefit of the proposal (for example that it helps to secure the optimum viable use of the heritage asset in the interests of the long-term conservation against the harm; and (ii) Recognise that the greater harm to the significance of the heritage asset[s] the greater the justification will be needed for any loss" "Policy HE10.1 advised decision makers that when considering applications for development that do not preserve those elements of the setting of a heritage asset, they: . "Should weigh any such harm against the wider benefits of the application. The greater the negative impact on the significance of the heritage asset, the greater the benefits that will be needed to justify approval". There are no benefits from Gazeley that would justify approval in this area, as is borne out by all the letters of objection already submitted.
4.313 There is no doubt that the proposed DHL building "will be visible from all around the site, to varying degrees" as the trees will not screen the building adequately. The visible presence of the proposed DHL building will have a clear influence on the surroundings in which the heritage assets are experienced and as such, will fall within, and affect, the setting of the group of assets". Historic England 2015 states that the protection of the setting of a heritage asset need not prevent change and that decisions relating to such issues need to be based on the nature, extent and level of significance of a heritage asset. Bittesby House and Cottages are non- designated heritage assets. Thus they have a low level of significance and changes in their setting cannot be accorded much weight. With the exception of the tree lined avenue, setting does not contribute considerably to Bittesby House's and the Cottages' significance. Under para 135 of the NPPF, any impact must be assessed as a pure balancing exercise. The impact of the proposed development on these non-designated heritage assets is indirect, and as such constitutes a very low level of harm, far below the 'less than substantial' threshold set out in the NPPF"
4.314 That the landscape of the parish is an intended landscape is borne out by the copious details of field reorganisation, leases and comments found pertaining to Bittesby and its House over the last five hundred years, particularly during the Age of Improvement and to which many of the Bittesby owners aspired and practised. The man-made industrial unit that would be the DHL building would be a distraction that would make it more difficult to understand the place and the intentions underpinning its design and the efforts of many generations of farm land people. This would impact on and cause harm to the group of heritage assets.
4.315 Special Significance Although the application for the listing of Bittesby House was turned down in May 2015, subsequent discussion with Historic England have proved to be decidedly encouraging for re- submission and this is currently in progress. No architectural history was given in the original submission, nor history of owners, tenants and workers all of whom had an impact on the subtle changes to Bittesby as a whole, nor the nature of the inter-relationship with the DMV, land and resultant landscape. Setting is a recognised and valued aspect of Bittesby House and its surrounding, and is a recognised aspect of listing. Far from having a low level significance all these aspects have a high level significance once their true history and relevance is known. This was not known at the time of original submission; that history and significance is now appearing and is recognised. Please see below for a brief summary of the importance of the influence of some of the owners' contributions.
4.316 5. I wish to draw your attention to the question of significance of the history of Bittesby parish as a whole as formed by the people who have owned the land. Bittesby is not confined to local
P a g e | 59 people or issues or history. In the same way that Runnymede does not have anything left there which is about Magna Carta, it is its association with history that makes it significant. A parallel case can be made for Bittesby. Bittesby has national significance in that the people who owned, managed and developed its heritage assets including the landscape, operated on not just a local scale but a national scale.
4.317 Please refer to the list of owners at the beginning of my interim report for further detail. Nicholas de Verdun was one of the rebellious Barons who had his lands confiscated by King John in 1216 as a result. Henry was petitioned by the Verduns for the return of the lands and was successful. Court Rolls report the events. John Talbot fought with Henry VI against Joan of Arc. Henry created John Talbot Earl of Shrewsbury in 1442 for his valour at this and other battles. John Talbot and his son, the 2nd earl of Shrewsbury, who also fought with Henry VI appear in Shakespeare's Henry VI, Pt 1, Act 1, Scene 1.
4.318 In 1494 sixty one villagers were evicted from Bittesby mediaeval village, the event recorded in history, the case being recorded in court rolls. A summons to answer the case against the then owner is also recorded and made legal history. Charles, 12th Earl of Shrewsbury, bought back Bittesby from the earl of Arundel because of its value. Charles was one of William of Orange (William III)'s favoured courtiers. In 1694, Queen Mary died and William went to the Netherlands and then France, leaving England in the hands of Charles and a few other trusted men as co- Regents of England. Charles lived at Hampton Court during this period. On William's return in 1696 he ennobled Charles as the 1st Duke of Shrewsbury. No other courtier was so recognised. John Towneley gave much of his wealth to build the first British Museum; a Gallery was named after him. Most of Charles Towneley's collection of Greek and Roman antiquities formed the Greek and Roman Galleries that can be seen today.
4.319 This brief list of the contribution of six of the owners of Bittesby contributes an extraordinary and significant layer to the history of England. The heritage assets were those provided originally by the owners, who influenced the landscape in a special and unique way that must not be allowed to disappear or be reduced by the presence of such a large industrial unit. Sinking it into the land by a few metres will do nothing to lessen its impact on the heritage assets, not will a screen of inadequate trees.
4.320 I urge you to reject the application.
4.321 Magna Park is Big Enough I am writing on behalf of residents who live in Lutterworth and surrounding villages (in HDC and beyond) who have been campaigning against any further expansion of Magna Park under the banner of Magna Park is Big Enough.
4.322 As you know many people in the area surrounding Magna Park are very concerned about the impact that an expansion of the park will have on the local area. To date there are 882 objections on the HDC website and all the local Parish Councils/Meetings have written expressing their objections to 15/00919/FUL. We also understand that residents have expressed considerable concern about the changes proposed in the local plan which would see an expansion of Magna Park.
4.323 We understand that the Planning Committee will consider the first of the three current planning applications, 15/00919/FUL, on Thursday 28th January and we have produced this summary of our concerns about this application, which we hope you will find useful.
4.324 It is very difficult for residents to view each of these applications individually, particularly when we know that the building planned under 15/00919/FUL is also included in a second application 15/01531/OUT. We understand that planning applications need to be taken in the order in which they are received but it seems that the developers are trying to have two bites of the cherry by behaving in this way. Would it not be more appropriate in these circumstances to consider the two (or three) planning applications at the same time?
P a g e | 60
4.325 Our main concerns are o Policy and planning o Roads and traffic o The need for more warehousing at magna park o Archaeology and impact
4.326 POLICY AND PLANNING 1. HDC has an approved Development Plan with retained policies in the Core Strategy. This is one of the compulsory local development documents. 2. The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies and is a material consideration in planning decisions. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for making decisions. 3. The Transmodal SDS and later LLEP Logistics and Distribution Sector Growth Plan June 2015 (the Studies) are both prepared by the industry to predicate the case for expansion on a commercial basis and to retain and expand market share for Leicestershire alone. 4. This is not de facto good strategic planning and does not take into account the duty to cooperate both within the Studies and NPPF. It cannot do so because no cooperative study, which is a central recommendation to the Studies, have yet been carried out. Neither of the Studies can therefore be conclusive and cannot provide supporting evidence for the determination of planning applications and departure from the current Core Strategy. 5. The case for the expansion of Magna Park footprint is a matter for the Strategic Land Options Review not current development control. The results of the public consultation have made clear the concerns of the community regarding any proposed expansion.
4.327 ROADS AND TRAFFIC 1. The increase in volume of traffic, up to a calculated +13%, on the local road infrastructure, which already carries an excessive load; 2. The particular key junctions that will be overburdened even further if any expansion of magna park is permitted, and our lack of confidence that mitigating proposals will resolve the impact of increased traffic; 3. Road safety as a result of these traffic increases; 4. The increased effects of labour force commuting as a consequence of the addition of 1230 fte new jobs to the 9300 already on site; 5. The negative economic impact on lutterworth and surrounding areas due to traffic delays.
4.328 THE NEED FOR MORE WAREHOUSING AT MAGNA PARK 1. HDC is not compelled to follow The Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic Distribution Sector Study (LLSDSS) final report (November 2014). 2. The planned warehousing is not based on a railhead or next to a motorway junction. 3. There is insufficient evidence to show that more warehousing is needed in the Lutterworth Area.
4.329 ARCHAEOLOGY AND IMPACT 1. The application fails to properly assess the contribution of the total setting to the significance of a number of heritage assets and the impact that the proposed development would have on those settings. The methodology adopted within the documents is not appropriate and, as a result, their conclusions should not be considered to be reasonable. 2 The impacts of the proposed development upon Bittesby Deserted Medieval Village (a scheduled ancient monument), Ullesthorpe Mill (a Grade II listed building), the Watling Street Roman Road, Bittesby House, its former Lodge, and Bittesby Cottages (non-designated heritage assets) have been significantly underplayed. 3. The harm to the significance of Bittesby Deserted Medieval Village (a scheduled ancient monument) would be considerable. In relation to the definitions in the National Planning
P a g e | 61 Policy Framework, it is considered to be very close to being substantial harm . Paragraphs 134 and 135 NPPF need to be considered in this context and that of other assets.
4.330 ECOLOGY The proposed site for this huge warehouse is part of a larger area of approximately 600 acres, all of which, if Planning Permission is gained will see massive, overbearing expansion of Magna Park, In addition there is a further application on another, adjacent site of 300 acres, also wishing to build more warehousing and associated buildings, parking etc, a total of 900 acres. It is vital that planning decisions made regarding the impact on the ecology are considered taking account of the impact on the total area that may be swallowed up in the expansion and the wider environs. 1. It may be considered by the Developers as merely farmland and of no great importance, however it is also a very valuable wildlife habitat, an ecology allowing a wide range of species, flora and fauna to prosper. 2. The current Landowner has been in receipt of large sums of Public money through the 'Higher level Countryside Stewardship Scheme', the land was identified as worthy of this grant and has been very successful in developing and improving the landscape and environs for wildlife. 3. If this and other proposed warehouse developments go ahead it has to be recognised that there has been a huge waste of Public money. 4. The proposal would conflict with National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 118) which states.... "Planning should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying several principles including THAT IF SIGNIFICANT HARM RESULTING FROM A DEVELOPMENT CANNOT BE AVOIDED, ADEQUATELY MITIGATED OR, AT LAST RESORT COMPENSATED FOR, then planning permission should be refused". Suggestions made by the Developers to mitigate are unsatisfactory, even if carried out. It has to recognised that this is part of a wider area providing wildlife corridors to adjoining farmland and so cannot be viewed in isolation.
4.331 OTHER CONCERNS 1. Air pollution – Lutterworth has some of the worst air pollution in the UK and the increase in traffic will only make this worse. 2. Light pollution – the current Magna Park lighting can be seen as far away as Junction 22 on the M1. In the villages we have suffered from this pollution for many years and the addition of another warehouse much nearer to Ullesthorpe and Claybrookes will make this worse. 3. Noise pollution – it is particularly of concern that because this warehouse is nearer to Ullesthorpe and Claybrookes and will operate 24/7 then there will be noise pollution particularly when people are trying to sleep. 4. Flooding – the flow of water off the existing Magna Park site has resulted in localised flooding e.g. on the allotments in Ullesthorpe. Again this will be made worse by moving on to fields which will then be covered in concrete. 5. Loss of productive land - the planned expansion is to be on land currently used as farmland. This will be lost to productive agriculture at a time when we have an expanding population to feed.
7. Other Local Authorities 4.332 Warwickshire County Council No Comments Received
4.333 Northamptonshire County Council No objection to raise to the proposal
4.334 Blaby District Council No Comments Received
4.335 Rugby Borough Council No Comments Received
P a g e | 62
4.336 Daventry District Council No Comments received
4.337 Oadby and Wigston Borough Council No Comments Received
4.338 Leicester City Council No Comments Received
4.339 Melton Borough Council Melton Borough Council has no comments to make on the application
4.340 Rutland County Council No Comments Received
4.341 Charnwood Borough Council No Comments Received
4.342 North West Leicester District Council With reference to your consultation on the above, I am writing to advise you that North West Leicestershire District Council has no objections to the proposals, provided your Council are satisfied that that the proposed development complies with the relevant development plan policies. The planning application has not been formally reported to the District Council's Planning Committee. In these circumstances the comments made are those of an officer of the council under delegated power arrangements agreed by the Planning Committee.
4.343 Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council No Comments Received
4.344 Corby Borough Council Thank you for consulting us on the proposed B8 Storage and Distribution site. It is noted that policy CS7 of the adopted Harborough District Core Strategy states that no further phase of development or large scale expansion beyond the existing development footprint of Magna Park. will be supported. Corby Borough Council has no objection to the proposed scheme but request that the Highways Authorities' and Highways England's advice in terms of traffic impact is given appropriate weighting.
4.345 Kettering Borough Council This Council has no comments to make, but this application has been referred to our Joint Planning Unit
4.346 East Northants District Council On behalf of our planning development manager please be advised that East Northamptonshire Council have no comments to make on the above application.
4.347 Wellingborough District Council The Planning Committee which met on 5 August 2015 resolved that no objections are raised against the planning application and that Harborough District Council is advised to consult directly with the North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit.
4.348 Wellingborough District Council (comments on additional information) No objections, HDC is advised to consult directly with the North Northampton Joint Planning Unit.
4.349 Northampton Borough Council No Objections
P a g e | 63 4.350 South Northants Borough Council No observations
4.351 Warwick District Council No Comments Received
4.352 Coventry City Council No Comments Received
4.353 Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council No Comments Received
4.354 North Warwickshire District Council I have no comments to make on the planning policy issues as these are best left to your Authority however I am concerned about the additional impact that this will have on the A5. I appreciate that the respective Agencies are looking at the future of this road particularly the stretch between the M69 and the M42, but this proposal will again add to the pressure. I would request that you look at the potential for enhancing bus services as a consequence of the proposal - either from Magna Park into Lutterworth itself or along the A5 linking Magna Park to the other main population centres along the A5. Much has been done by both this Council and the Hinckley Borough Council in response to the MIRA and Birch Coppice developments.
4.355 Rushcliffe District Council No Comments Received
4.356 West Northants Joint Planning Unit No Comments Received
4.357 North Northants Joint Planning Unit No Comments Received
8. Local Enterprise Partnerships 4.358 LLEP – Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership No Comments Received
4.359 CWLEP – Coventry and Warwickshire Local Enterprise Partnership No Comments Received
4.360 NEP – Northamptonshire Enterprise Partnership No Comments Received
4.361 SEMLEP – South East Midlands Local Enterprise Partnership No Comments Received
4.362 D2N2 – Derby and Nottingham Local Enterprise Partnership No Comments Received
4.363 SEMLEP – South East Midlands Local Enterprise Partnership No Comments Received
b) Local Community Comments in relation to initial consultation 1. Objections 4.364 1638 letters were distributed to individual properties within the Lutterworth, Bitteswell, Ullesthorpe, Claybrooke Parva and Cotesbach areas. Officers note that several of the representations are very detailed and whilst regard has been had to these in assessing this application, it is impractical to copy these verbatim and therefore a summary of the key points is provided below.
P a g e | 64 4.365 875 objections have been received (from 565 individual households) in the following areas: Lutterworth – 249 from 183 households Ullesthorpe – 250 from 143 households Claybrooke Parva – 80 from 33 households Bitteswell – 69 from 41 households Claybrooke Magna – 54 from 30 households Willey – 41 from 21 households Cotesbach – 27 from 17 households Frolesworth – 16 from 9 households Ashby Parva – 14 from 11 households Dunton Bassett – 9 from 9 households Wibtoft – 9 from 6 households Swinford – 9 from 6 households Pailton – 6 from 5 households Shawell – 4 from 3 households Barwell – 4 from 3 households Welford – 4 from 3 households Market Harborough – 4 from 2 households Great Glen – 4 from 1 household Churchover – 3 from 3 households Broughton Astley – 3 from 3 households Earls Shilton – 3 from 2 household Brinklow – 2 from 2 households Burbage – 2 from 2 households Hinckley – 2 from 2 households Leicester – 2 from 2 households Sapcote – 2 from 1 household Quorn – 2 from 1 household Brownover (Rugby) – 1 from 1 household High Cross – 1 from 1 household Kibworth Beauchamp – 1 from 1 household Rugby – 1 from 1 household Bicester – 1 from 1 household Coventry – 1 from 1 household Yeovil – 1 from 1 household Ramsgate – 1 from 1 household Wanstead – 1 from 1 household Edgbaston – 1 from 1 household Stapleton – 1 from 1 household Gilmorton – 1 from 1 household Whitwick – 1 from 1 household Tamworth – 1 from 1 household Whetstone – 1 from 1 household Huncote – 1 from 1 household Sharnford – 1 from 1 household Wellesbourne – 1 from 1 household Birmingham – 1 from 1 household Monks Kirby – 1 from 1 household Isleworth – 1 from 1 household Margate – 1 from 1 household Ashby de la Zouch – 1 from 1 household Badby – 1 from 1 household Limerick (Ireland) – 1 from 1 household Stockton on Tees – 1 from 1 household Bristol – 1 from 1 household Winnipeg (Canada) – 1 from 1 household Leamington Spa – 1 from 1 household
P a g e | 65 Kettering – 1 from 1 household Walton – 1 from 1 household Birstall – 1 from 1 household Coalville – 1 from 1 household
Traffic issues raised through representations: There is already far too much HGV traffic coming from Magna Park. The Gibbet roundabout on the A5 is clogged almost every day! Further expansion should not even be considered in this location, which has no rail link and is unlikely ever to get one. There is also no mention of contributing towards the improvement of the traffic through the town with its inherent noise and pollution At peak times it is already difficult to exit Mere Lane onto the A5 because the queue of traffic from the A4303/A5 island already backs up well beyond Mere lane. Islands do not work when the traffic is stationary! At present, the vehicles slow down as they leave the dual carriageway which will not be the case if it is extended. The proposal is for 2 lanes going into the Island and one out which is an obvious shortcoming and unnecessary hazard! Having lived in Wibtoft for 67 years it is my belief that a bypass should be constructed around Wibtoft as some 40 or 50 years ago was proposed but never carried out and that the applicants should be made to pay for this. Otherwise the extra traffic through Wibtoft would be snarled up and cause serious congestion. The A5 is not fit for use and proposed roundabouts and SHORT ADDITIONAL dual carriageways will not alleviate the congestion. This particularly applies to traffic trying to join the M6. The A426 to Rugby being a black spot now before any further vehicle movements are involved, particularly working 24/7. If the planning does get passed I’d like to make a few suggestions, there needs to be traffic lights on the Fairacres roundabout or at least a public bridge crossing at the A4303 at Fairacres roundabout. The entrance on the A5 for emergency vehicles only needs to be made into a secondary entrance for all vehicles to accommodate the traffic from the M6 easing the traffic on the A4303. the east European drivers always go in the left lane when turning right it's a wonder there aren't more serious accidents. I think it also worth mentioning that quotes in respect of the A5 Study are conveniently taken out of context. The TIA states the A5 is not fit for purpose but neglects to mention the study extends from Rugeley to Stoney Stratford. It also states no infrastructure works are intended in HDC presumably indicating it is fit for purpose here and disproportionate burdens would be imposed by the proposed development? Although I live some way from Magna Park I frequently cycle along the local roads, particularly those north of the A5, which currently are safe for cyclists. With the anticipated extra lorry traffic on the A5 even more local traffic will avoid using it and come onto these country roads making them congested and unsafe.
Public transport issues raised through representations The proposals will not bring any new public transport to the area
Residential Amenity issues raised through representations If the plan goes through, I will make it my personal duty to ring the Council every day to complain about the issue. I will also seek legal advise about the HGV's damaging my property due to the vibrations. The substantial increase in CO2 emissions from HGVs and increased commuter traffic will pose a detrimental risk to the public health of residents living in the area of the proposed development.
P a g e | 66 The development exemption under the 1998 Act, where disturbance is justifiable if for “the economic well-being of the country”, would be better adhered to if IDI Gazeley Ltd were to consider a brownfield site for this expansion as was the case with the original Magna Park development which took place on a pre-existing airfield site. The excessive disturbance to local residents from the proposed site would be unlikely to satisfy the proportionality requirements of the 1998 Act, even if the economic well-being of the country exemption was successfully argued.
Noise issues raised through representations There is already far too much HGV traffic coming from Magna Park. The proposed development will lead to significant increase in noise, air and light-at-night pollution. The 24-hour nature of the business, which will operate from the proposed development, is inconsistent with a predominantly rural area and would seriously disturb local residents.
Air Quality issues raised through representations There has to be a major concern for pollution levels of all kinds for this side of Lutterworth The 2013 Lutterworth Air Quality Management Area Action Plan Framework for Harborough District Council describes the 24 hour operation or Magna Park as resulting in 'a great deal of traffic' affecting Lutterworth. As far back as 2001 it was realised that in Lutterworth levels of nitrogen dioxide (N02), a major contributor to asthma and other respiratory problems, were dangerously high, as a result of which the town centre was declared an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). Road transport is the largest cause ofN02 emissions and while modem petrol and diesel engines are less polluting than those in older vehicles, a significant increase in traffic, as would result from this development going ahead, will undo any gains such technical improvements offer. According to Leicester City’s Air Quality Action Plan 2011 – 2016, the city suffers at least 750 premature deaths per year as a result of poor air quality, the vast majority of which is caused by road traffic. In order to protect the health of the public, the European Commission has the right to impose fines on Local Authorities who fail to bring emissions down to acceptable levels. The scale of such penalties is not yet clear, but precedent suggests that they are likely to be severe enough to bankrupt any Local Authority at one fell swoop.
Visual Impact issues raised through representations There is too much light pollution already coming from Magna Park There is an important boundary between Lutterworth and the already huge Magna Park which is going to be diminished further by this development. The warehouse proposed is enormous by any definition being 3.5 Million cubic meters and would be the Largest warehouse in Europe and the second largest in the world (ref Wikipeadia). The illuminated sky around the park will clearly be severely worsened by such a large development and brings the light intrusion closer to nearby villages. The mitigation by “High Tech lighting is not convincing because if it were considered to be effective it should have been done already. Mere Lane is the Western boundary to the existing brown field site and a breach of this boundary by this gross intrusion into open countryside, would establish the precedent for unlimited further expansion and the applicant has already declared their ambition to double the size of Magna Park by adding a 2 .2 Square Kilometre extension West for which they intend a further planning application in September 2015. Not acceptable to be blue in colour, will not blend in with existing surroundings. The light pollution from the current Magna Park is an obscenity and further pollution in that direction is unacceptable The very fact that it has to take in larger areas of land demonstrates the inherent inefficiency of this proposal in soaking up open countryside where there is no proven need nor contractual relationship with the "occupier" explicitly published.
P a g e | 67
Flooding issues raised through representations What about flooding issues as our climate changes probably due to so many vehicle emissions when so much green space is concreted over - we do not want to end up like the Somerset Levels Disposal of excess water, this will contain water tainted by diesel and other substances. Therefore cannot be diverted into streams, lakes and wetlands as this will have an enormous effect on wildlife. The excessive dimensions of the proposed DHL warehouse will cause a huge runoff of rainwater with no extra provision for this in an area already blighted by large areas of concrete.
Heritage issues raised through representations We own 3 Grade 2 listed buildings - Claybrooke Mill Claybrooke Magna - one of which is a working watermill and sustaining a business milling flour which is sold locally. Should the water levels fluctuate to much then this will no longer be usable and will then unfortunately fall in to disrepair The DHL proposal will impinge on the landscape, Bittesby House and the DMV. Already the proximity of the warehouses to the DMV at certain points is shockingly disruptive to the historical setting. The new DHL building will hang even closer and appear far higher, on the crest of the hill, overbearing and destroying any sense of retaining the historical context of the DMV, which totally depended for its existence on the surrounding landscape astride the stream. The inhabitants of Bittesby Village, whose husbandry saw that the local landscape was maintained for centuries, were famously evicted by their landlord in 1494. This was so that he could change the use of the land to what he saw as a far more profitable use for himself. This had happened once before and was to happen again the following century. The current fields are lush and productive. Are we to be evicted a fourth time from enjoying our local lands by IDI Gazeley, for a gigantic warehouse? I now see we have an application for proposed development at Magna Park I still have concerns regarding the Hydrology study carried out This does not take into account the future water supply to Claybrooke Mill and only takes historic data. I am very disappointed that we have not been contacted or visited regarding this problem and there seems to be some confusion about where our water originates from in the report I would like to suggest that a detailed survey of all the affected water course is carried out before permission is granted, you may not be aware that Claybrooke Mill is currently one of a few remaining commercially operating water mills left in the country. It's existence depends upon a regular flow of water to maintain production and to keep this listed building in operation. There's also the issue that Mere Lane is a Neolithic track and would be destroyed by the proposal. That's a lot of history to be buried under a warehouse, isn't it? Awful. Awful. Awful.
Issues of Principle raised through representations Lutterworth is being dwarfed by these developments. I am now minded to object to 15/00865/OUT, although initially I wasn't going to - time to make a stand! This tiny village (Cotesbach) of c. 80 residents and 184 dwellings will be completely dominated by these developments We do not deserve the pressure placed on residents by requests for further developments at Magna Park, and more requests for planning consent for wind turbines (in large numbers) – all of which encroach on open countryside and good agricultural land. It is the duty of the planning authority (the District Council) to take the whole picture into account and the cumulative effect on the village of all these proposed developments before making any decision about any one request in isolation. The expansion of Magna Park would be unsustainable not only in its use of open countryside but in its reliance on road communications.
P a g e | 68 In the absence of a Local Plan by Harborough District Council one major aspect was retained from the Core Strategy, namely, that the footprint of Magna Park would not be extended. There appears to be no evidence that Lutterworth and the surrounding villages need such a development, now or in the next quarter of a century. Magna Park is already the largest purpose built warehouse development in Europe and is already the same size as Lutterworth. We significantly object to having such a significant development of this size so close to a residential area, that is not in keeping with the local area and will destroy what is special about Lutterworth. Other developments in nearby towns are significantly separated and out of town, such as DIRFT in Rugby and the lorry park on the A5 (close to Rugby). I do not want this development to go ahead and cannot think of one good reason for it. There are better alternative sites such as DIRFT, and in Rugby near the truckstop. I do not want the worlds largest distribution centre on my doorstep. I bet the owners/directors of this proposal do not live locally ? Would they want it where they live ? No....but happy to take the money from the development as they're not directly affected, as we are. I hope 'money doesn't talk' in this instance and the vast majority of people objecting to this are listened to. We have a brand new Logistics pathway academy supported by Lutterworth College. We do not need another logistics academy. Is the need actually there for more places than Lutterworth College can supply? It would be a loss of green belt land. In support of the objection made by Prologis/DIRFT One of the factors which enables rail freight to be competitive is the close proximity of customers to a rail terminal, for this reduces transport costs and therefore enhances the viability and competitive attraction of rail over road. Thus, the development of large warehousing in close proximity to the rail terminal facilities is an important economic consideration. The gross to net site ratio is grossly out of kilter with good development criteria, when compared with other similar developments. I have just read this comment made on Twitter, The 5p charge for #plasticbags means a better future for our beautiful landscapes and wildlife #environment...... I agree completely. So how Harborough District Council can you even contemplate building a Warehouse as large as the Millennium Dome in our beautiful landscape, with our beautiful wildlife?? Can we have some sense and logic here please.
General issues raised through representations This is the second application within a week In my opinion we have now reached saturation point with these applications, with this one coming hard on the heels of 15/00865/OUT for development of Glebe Farm and land. This application must be read in conjunction with Application 15/00865/OUT. It must also be remembered that this application is only the beginning as plans have been published to extend Magna Park considerably on the North side of Mere Lane There are plenty of warehouses at Crick and Rugby why expand here and ruin our beautiful countryside I want to live in the countryside., not side-by-side with a logistic park The first action should be to compensate (& I mean with actual money) the people of Ullesthorpe for living next to rows of oversize lego boxes., rather than open fields after all the only reason they want to expand the site is to make money for themselves Several extensions to Magna Park have already been approved. Each one promised to be the final extension to the site. A halt must be called as the local infrastructure is already unable to cope. A development of this size will almost certainly have to automate many of its procedures and processes, including - but not limited to - forklift drivers, pickers, stackers and movers, jobs most likely to be available to local workforces. Such jobs will be controlled by one person sitting at a keyboard. We do not need another logistics academy. Is the need actually there for more places than Lutterworth College can supply? Of the 30 new Technical Academies in the UK which cater
P a g e | 69 for a path in logistics - set up and approved by the Government - the first of these, at Walsall, will be closing at the end of this month due to lack of uptake, amongst other criteria. I believe the benefits of the proposed DHL building are non-existent. There is increasing evidence that there will be increased pollution, increased traffic, no requirement for a logistics academy, irredeemable damage to the landscape, ecology and historic context, and a reduction in employment as automation takes over and the years progress. We already have a country park: the landscape itself, the walkways and paths. We don’t need artificially created ones around warehouses. Finally, as population increases we will need farmland even more than at present in order to be self-sufficient and not to become dependent on importing food whose supply in any case may dwindle. The existing DHL staff will simply move to the new facility and it may take several years to re- let the old units and in fact they may be demolished and left vacant for years as per the old former George facility! The increase in the number of people employed at Magna Park, particularly those in lower paid jobs, would increase the demand for housing. There is already a lack of affordable housing for young people and those on limited incomes in the area. This development would exacerbate the shortage of such accommodation. Same as objections on other Magna Park application Some people might think it could be quite a useful thing; but not when it ruins the countryside me and my friends live in; Think of the trees and the buzzy bees where will they all go; The crops and flowers will not be able to grow; Big big lorries carrying heavy loads; There'll be more and more traffic jams filling up the roads; What about all those fumes polluting the air; Ruining our environment and they don't even care; When those fields have gone forever and there is nothing we can do; When all we can see is lorries we have lost our lovely view Lutterworth already has more than its fair share of noise, pollution and other disagreeable issues. Pointless windfarms sprouting up in our faces, Magna Park as it stands now, so-called 'Traveller' sites getting bigger by the week (if only they WOULD travel) and new housing built on the green fields around us. Everything hinges on growth and consumption to the point of lunacy and Magna Park will be the stockroom for all the imported goods that will fill tomorrows landfill site. This objection is pointless of course as money is all that matters and its money that will decide the outcome....nothing else. As Gazeley own a further 220ha and are proposing to submit yet more development plans I view with horror the future with a completely changed landscape from rural to the largest warehousing complex in Europe. I consider the proposal a step too far. Spread the load. Do not poison us further. Mobile telephone signals in the area are not good and I need a booster to receive any signal at all. I am informed by my current and previous provider that this is almost certainly due to high building structures in my area. More factual detail is needed with such a major development and its impact on the local community otherwise HDC will be making a decision on incomplete information. That would be unsafe. If the development went ahead, it seems probable that DHL would then vacate their existing facilities within Magna Park, so creating further vacant space within the current development. The building footprint to site area ratio is diluted due to taking in larger areas of land needed to facilitate highway alterations not otherwise needed in the absence of the proposals, and to mitigate the huge impact of the size of the building alone. Please reconsider. Or go to the Isle of Sheppy where it is run down empty and in need of an economic boost there isn't any work and great transport links to Europe. ??? The current S106 Agreement between Magna Park, HDC & LCC Highways states that no vehicles over 1.5 Tonnes shall use roads in an area coloured yellow on a map attached to the Agreement. Mere Lane is contained in this area of exclusion. I contend that this would exclude vehicles in 15/00919/FUL being allowed to use Mere Lane. The current application has not sought to vary the current S106 Agreement on Magna Park. I suggest, therefore, that any use, widening, re-siting of Mere Lane in this application should be refused as it is already not allowed. What is the point of a legal agreement if it is ignored??
P a g e | 70 I think that if the planning applications are allowed despite local opposition, the following conditions should apply: he A4303 and A5. (Proposed Mere Lane Access from A5 blocked off for traffic approaching from Bitteswell/Ullesthorpe for emergency vehicles only, and enforced) This ensures commuter and light goods vehicle traffic is less likely to use village routes - of a guaranteed height - to completely screen the warehouses from all lines of sight from local communities ehouses to be visible from Lutterworth or the Villages In addition the following measures should be put in place and funded by the developers: gestion on the current single carriageway A426 that causes tailbacks and delays from the A5 back to the M6 Junction 1 through a large part of the day, as well as at peak morning and evening periods
s arehousing and other facilities to be set aside annually and donated to a charity run by independent trustees from the local community. The charity would provide funds for local community groups and services, including local schools, the Cottage Hospital, Lutterworth Food Bank, the Lutterworth Volunteer Bureau and the Citizens Advice Bureau. llages for social housing to be built on, including provision for sheltered housing for the elderly
As Harborough Council only have a blinkered view on this, meaning they are only interested in what goes into there coffers, I think this decision should be taken out of there hands and given to an independent body to decide and by that i don't mean the government. Regarding the seemingly unsigned letter dated 17 November 2015 sent to HDC by the CEO of DHL. Although this letter prosecutes a case for the "favourable" determination of the current planning application it still does not unequivocally state that DHL have subject to consent entered into an enforceable contract to take either a lease or acquire the freehold of the unit. It has a familiar ring to earlier correspondence in this case. Would it be unreasonable to assume that if this is central to the operational requirements and strategic planning of DHL that neither of the the parties (DHL and/or IDIGazeley) would have a rooted objection to the inclusion of a condition in any consent that the first occupation should be restricted to DHL alone? To otherwise take account of this contention would be contradictory to assertions that any application will be decided having regard solely to planning criteria for a building of this size in this location and not to whom the occupier may be. DHL could occupy the soon to be vacant Primark building instead of building a new one
2. Support 4.366 3 letters of support have been received (from 3 households) in the following areas: Lutterworth – 1 from 1 household Cotesbach – 1 from 1 household Thorpe Langton – 1 from 1 household raising the following issues: It is an extension of the applicant's Magna Park and would operate as a fully integrated part thereof. There is therefore the great benefit of continuity - involving the same governance, control and responsibility. One may take the comparison of mineral planning where the benefits of 'extension' have been readily perceived. There is, moreover, the consequential advantage of releasing from the pressure of potential development land which lies to the south of Magna Park. This land is clearly not as appropriate and is also the subject of defects set out in our letter to you of 13th June relating to application number l5/00865/0UT.
P a g e | 71 A narrower point of particular significance to Cotesbach is that the proposal should not lead to the increase of traffic on the A426 passing by our village. This is an aspect of special significance to residents including ourselves. As a business owner in the town, and living in Lutterworth all my life, Magna Park has definitely only been good for the town, ask any business owner in the town, from the small shop to the hotels all have benefited from the site. It continues to bring people in to Lutterworth to shop, and to use the facilities. It has brought many new families to the area with the jobs it has created and also provided employment for 100s in the local community. So as long as the traffic issue is sorted to stop the lorries coming through the town, I see the expansion of Magna Park can only be a good thing for Lutterworth. Also with all the new houses being built, which will definitely house people that are moving this way with the jobs that Magna Park creates, the facilities in Lutterworth need to reflect this growth, schools, doctors etc.
3. Neutral 4.367 4 letters of comment (neither supporting or objecting to the proposal) have been received (from 3 households) in the following areas: Wibtoft – 3 from 2 households Lutterworth – 1 from 1 households raising the following issues: I do not object to the proposed development in itself but do have serious concerns with regard to increased traffic which will impact not only the major roads in the area, particularly the A5 which is already very dangerous to cross or turn onto from some junctions that are miles from the Magna Park development, but also the local roads such as Coalpit Lane which attracts very fast moving traffic. There is insufficient accommodation in the local area (ie Lutterworth and surrounding villages) for up to 6000 extra employees so they will be travelling in and out by road. I am also concerned that a significant increase in the number of lorry movements will increase emissions pollution around Lutterworth. I understand that the developers say that they are only responsible for transport issues in the immediate vicinity of Magna Park, but the impact is significantly more far reaching than that and they should be prepared to contribute to road development and alternative transport proposals outside of their legal obligations if they want to garner positive support from people like me who live in the area. Should such issues not be addressed by the developers my neutral stance may change to one of objection. I also have concerns that in the longer term, the expansion of Magna Park would presumably strengthen the possibility of approval being given for the building of several thousand new homes near Lutterworth - which has been mooted in the past. Whilst I am in favour of providing people with jobs and somewhere affordable to live, I am concerned that such a development would not be accompanied by the infrastructure necessary to provide additional school places, doctors surgeries etc. and that the burden for provision of such facilities would fall upon Lutterworth. Having lived in Wibtoft for 67 years it is my belief that a bypass should be constructed around Wibtoft as some 40 or 50 years ago was proposed but never carried out and that the applicants should be made to pay for this. Otherwise the extra traffic through Wibtoft would be snarled up and cause serious congestion Secure on Site Overnight Accommodation for Lorry Drivers is Essential. There will be a need to fully dual the main road from M6 junction One through to Lutterworth. There is a railway track bed from Rugby Station to Willey - directly opposite Magna Park. Warwickshire County Council Should be fully involved. Has Severn Trent been contacted about the capacity of the Moorbarns waste water treatment plant?
P a g e | 72 c) Local Community Comments in relation to secondary consultation on additional information 1. Objections 4.368 6 objections have been received (from 6 households) in the following areas in response to the consultation upon the additional information submitted in support of the application by the applicants: Lutterworth – 2 from 2 households Bitteswell – 2 from 2 households Willey – 1 from 1 household Frolsworth – 1 from 1 household raising the following issues: It is gratifying to see the applicant is sufficiently rattled by the scale, accuracy and specificity of objections to this inadequate application that it was felt necessary to submit additional information. The panic in the further explanation of the speculative section 106 inducements is especially satisfying and informative. These additional details do not alter our fundamental objections to this application- it will change the entire area visually, create traffic chaos, have little if any effect on work prospects for people in the area. A bad plan.
2. Support 4.369 No letters of support have been received in the following areas in response to the consultation upon the additional information submitted in support of the application by the applicants:
3. Neutral 4.370 No letters of comment have been received in the following areas in response to the consultation upon the additional information submitted in support of the application by the applicants:
d) Applicants Response to Representations 4.371 Response to Pro-Logis comments National policy does not “prioritise” rail freight over road distribution, nor could the paragraphs from the NPNN quoted in the objection be construed in that way. Neither National Networks (roads and rail) National Policy Statement (NPNN), which sets out Government’s specific policies for promoting both road and rail distribution, nor the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, March 2012), which sets out Government’s planning policies, specifies such a preference. It therefore does not follow that an objection to Magna Park is justified because of a conflict (which does not exist) with national policy. Amongst other reasons, Government cannot and would not fetter competition in that way. If Government felt that market forces alone would be insufficient to deliver its objectives for increasing modal transfer to rail and the number and geographical spread of Strategic Railfreight Interchanges, Government could mount a “market failure” case and justify subsidies for their delivery to level the playing field with road-based distribution investment. The NPPN (paragraph 2.54) encourages the delivery of a spread of Strategic Railfreight Interchanges across the country as one of the means of encouraging a modal shift to rail for the trunk haul of the supply chain and for minimising some elements of the secondary distribution leg by road (paragraph 2.44). The NPPF (paragraph 35) states only that development should be located and designed where practical to accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies, and (paragraph 32) that development should only be refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.
4.372 Similarly, the HMA does not promote the delivery of rail freight interchange facilities in lieu of expansion of road-based facilities. Both are needed to achieve the objects of policy and strategy for logistics – including the strategy of the Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic Enterprise Partnership (LLEP) with which the planning authority is obliged to collaborate (NPPF paragraph 180). Logistics is the LLEP’s priority sector – not just railfreight. The same is true of the Northamptonshire and Warwickshire & Coventry LEPs’ strategies. They all target logistics growth as a priority – not just railfreight or railfreight in preference to road-based logistics. The 2009 East Midlands Plan was revoked by the Secretary for State for Communities and Local Government in March 2013. It forms no part of planning policy, and its evidence base is out of
P a g e | 73 date and has been superseded. The East Midlands Plan can play no role in the determination of IDI Gazeley’s planning applications (NPPF, paragraph 214 and footnote 41).
4.373 We wholly accept that the Harborough District Council Core Strategy (the development plan) policy CS7h precludes the extension of Magna Park beyond its existing footprint. The evidence base for that plan, however, dates back to 2008. The fact that it is out-of-date makes it inconsistent with the requirements of the NPPF (e.g., at paragraphs 22, 160-161 and 182). Policy CS7h is also out of step with entire thrust with the NPPF – which seeks the positive and proactive pursuit of sustainable economic growth. Both factors – and others – limit the weight that can be accorded policy CS7h in planning decisions (NPPF paragraph 215). Moreover, HDC is embarking on a replacement Local Plan in recognition of the need to bring local policy into line with national policy.
4.374 The Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic Distribution Study (SDS, dated 2014 and published early in 2015; Part B, Table 5.5) forecasts a total requirement by 2026 for 1,036,000 sq m of additional distribution floorspace in Leicestershire and 4,001,000 sq m in the East Midlands (rising by 2031 to 1,445,000 sq m and 5,570,000 sq m respectively). The SDS takes the view that 58% of this requirement should be rail-connected – which would leave a requirement by 2026 for solely road-based distribution space in the county for 435,000 sq m (rising to 607,000 sq m by 2031) and in the East Midlands for 1,681, 000 sq m (rising to 2,339,000 sq m by 2031). The SDS land quanta are derived from the floorspace projections. The DHL facility, for example has a site density of 18.5% on the 56 ha application site. Similarly, the outline application for the further c 350,000 sq m of distribution warehousing covers less than 70 ha of the 227 ha application site (220 ha for outline element and 7 ha for the detailed element). Thus the extension of Magna Park – at the very southern end of the county and next to the boundary with Warwickshire – cannot justifiably be measured in quantitative terms as a share of either the forecast land need, or as a share solely of the projected need, either of floorspace or land, in Leicestershire alone.
4.375 It is far from the case that the extension of Magna Park creates “no other benefits”. The S106 heads of terms for the DHL Supply Chain detailed application include, amongst other things, local labour and supplier initiatives (to increase the local value of the c 1,230 jobs and increase still further the supply links with local businesses), new investment to modernise the street lighting in Magna Park and along Mere Lane to reduce the existing Park’s light impacts, a range of travel planning measures and funding for road improvements that will be secured through a S278 agreement. The further extension to Magna Park for distribution warehousing enables the delivery of the Logistics Academy, innovation centre, country park and railfreight shuttle terminal and HGV training centre – plus another c 4,000 jobs. The s106 will also lever further improvements to the existing park, both the lighting and HGV impacts, strengthened enforcement measures for the HGV Routing Agreement and will again contain local labour and supplier initiatives. DHL Supply Chain did not choose, for their expansion requirement, DIRFT. To equate a location decision in favour of Magna Park with the notion DHL Supply Chain would otherwise, if at DIRFT, operate a wholly rail-connected operation is incorrect.
4.376 Finally, only IDI Gazeley can extend Magna Park and achieve the scale efficiencies of an extension – including efficiencies for occupiers (like DHL Supply Chain) who stand to benefit by clustering their activities and making it feasible commercially to address people’s concerns with the existing park (e.g., with the lighting investment IDI Gazeley propose).
4.377 Response to Alberto Costa MP We have read your submission to the planning authority on IDI Gazeley’s detailed planning application (Application 15/00919/FUL) on behalf of DHL Supply Chain for a 100,844 sq m distribution facility that will extend Magna Park. DHL Supply Chain already operate four distribution units at Magna Park that employ some 700 people. The application proposals, if permitted, will be a fifth adding a further c 1,230 jobs to the number they employ in Harborough. DHL intend to retain the existing operations and jobs. The existing jobs will not be affected, although DHL stand to gain considerable operating efficiencies of benefit to the firm, their employees and their customers by clustering their activities at Magna Park.
P a g e | 74
4.378 We appreciate that your aim in writing to the planning case officer at Harborough District Council (HDC) is to assist the planning committee and request that the local authority’s decision take account of the substantial concerns expressed by your constituents. You point out that those concerns centre on three main considerations – traffic impacts, light pollution and economic need – and that these are registered in the context of their views of Magna Park now as to the existing traffic and lighting pollution and of the low levels of unemployment locally. You explain that while the application proposals may benefit the country, a key issue for you is whether the proposals will benefit your constituency. Your present view, having listened to both sides, is that the application proposals would appear not to benefit your constituents
4.379 On our part, we confirm that the feedback that you have received from your constituents mirrors our own findings of people’s principal concerns. Thus we can also assure you that we are taking the steps that we can and are permitted to take by the planning system to address those concerns. We are using every design, planning and related legal measure available to us to neutralise the potential for adverse environmental effects and we are doing so in consultation with local, county and national experts and agencies.
4.380 Please also be reassured that we are very happy for our impact assessments to be scrutinised for their accuracy and robustness and for our mitigation proposals to be assessed for their efficacy. We agree that it is essential that local people are able, on the basis of the evidence we provide, to believe that the mitigation we propose is sufficient, operable and binding on us to deliver. Our planning application is in full, and the design of the scheme – which builds in much of the mitigation needed – is what we would deliver should planning permission be granted.
4.381 For mitigation that cannot be built into the scheme’s design, we have put forward, in the heads of terms of the legally binding S106 Agreement, the further steps needed to ameliorate adverse effects: a range of highways improvements to improve capacity and safety (to be delivered through the S278 Agreement with the highways authorities); the extension of the HGV Routing Agreement; travel planning initiatives to reduce dependence on private car travel for employees; the lighting investment to reduce the night time glare and glow of Magna Park now; and local employment and supplier initiatives to increase the local value of the scheme’s economic benefits. The heads of terms of the S106 Agreement (set out in full in the Planning Statement) are summarised in the annex to this note. We stress that we continue to consider these undertakings – so are open to further suggestions from local people as well as from the planning authority and other agencies.
4.382 For example, we have learned that local people feel that the enforcement measures for the HGV Routing Agreement are inadequate, and as a consequence take the view that Magna Park’s HGV drivers are using village routes, Mere Lane, Lutterworth town centre and the A426. We are therefore in discussions with the highways authority to explore the potential to establish what further measures might be taken, both to ensure HGVs do observe the Agreement and enforce where not. The measures could include improved signing, penalty fees, resourcing automated monitoring in key locations, an emergency routing plan and resources for a dedicated Magna Park enforcement officer to implement and monitor the effectiveness of the measures and who local people can confer with, consult and telephone if there are problems.
4.383 The evidence is that the highways effects of the application proposals will be within the limits the highways authorities find acceptable because of the steps we are taking: • improvements in the performance of the Cross In Hand roundabout (A5/A4303) as a result of the proposed new access arrangements; • the further dualling of the A5 between Emmanuel and Lodge Cottages and the proposed new roundabout at the A5/ Mere Lane junction; • a new roundabout junction with the A5 and Mere Lane providing safety and capacity enhancements; • improvements to the capacity of the Whittle roundabout (A4303/A426); and
P a g e | 75 • extensive travel planning that will be binding on the DHL scheme and promoted to existing occupiers of Magna Park through proactive work with existing occupiers and via the new Magna Park website and other media sources. The travel planning includes a car sharing initiative and an Employee Routing Plan designed to encourage employees to use the strategic highway network and discourage the use of Mere Lane and routes through villages and Lutterworth town centre unless necessary. Both the car sharing initiative and Employee Routing Plan will be binding on DHL Supply Chain and proactively promoted by IDI Gazeley amongst Magna Park’s existing occupiers. All of these undertakings will be secured by the S106 and S278 Agreements.
4.384 Although the lighting in Magna Park complies fully with the requirements of the relevant planning permissions, we accept that Magna Park causes the night time light pollution that concerns local people. The reason is that many of the occupiers’ lighting schemes use lighting technology that is now outdated but that, if modernised, is capable of very substantially reducing the light pollution that causes the concern. We are therefore taking advantage of the opportunity that IDI Gazeley’s ownerships in Magna Park (chiefly the streets and common infrastructure) and the planning system presents with the DHL Supply Chain development to take all the steps we can to address the existing problem. We have three main approaches: 1. IDI Gazeley is undertaking, on grant of permission for the application proposals, both to update all of the street lighting within Magna Park to directional LEDs (very significantly reducing the light spill and glow of the existing son luminaire street lighting that the 1992 planning permission for the second phase of Magna Park required) and, in cooperation with the owners of the Mere Lane properties, to finance the modernisation of all the yard and building lighting along Mere Lane again to reduce spill, glow and glare. Both initiatives will also significantly reduce energy consumption. 2. IDI Gazeley is proactively engaging with existing occupiers to encourage them to modernise their lighting. Many are, voluntarily, so as to reap the benefits of the reduced energy costs of modern LED lighting. 3. The DHL Supply Chain lighting design incorporates the mitigation needed to control lighting impacts through the use of modern LED lighting technology to prevent light spill, glow and glare. Fittings are designed to be directional and employ cut-off devices wherever consistent with health and safety. New lighting is limited to where it is required solely for operational and health and safety reasons. The expected lighting impacts of the application proposals have been assessed as not significant. Additionally, and outwith the DHL Supply Chain application, IDI Gazeley is implementing modern lighting schemes for the plots which are candidates for redevelopment. The recently consented scheme for Plot 2110 is a case in point. Those measures too will help reduce the lighting impacts of the existing Magna Park over time.
4.385 Magna Park is a strategic development and, as the Secretary of State said when he granted planning permission for the second phase in 1992, it is a self-evident success in meeting the needs of the logistics sector. There are now 25 blue chip operators at Magna Park who make, by far, the most significant contribution to inward investment in the district, and who together employ about 9,300 people (more still at seasonal peaks). Also, because at least 5% of Magna Park’s floorspace is in office use (at least some 50,000 sq m), Magna Park is the most significant concentration of office-based employment in the district.
4.386 About 18% of Magna Park’s jobs – c 1,700 jobs – are taken by residents of a post code that lies at least in part within Harborough. Thus a significant share of local jobs is already dependent on Magna Park’s continued success in meeting its occupiers’ needs. Nonetheless, as the Secretary of State said in 1992, the fact that Magna Park attracts employees from a wide area ought not be considered an adverse characteristic. Moreover, the 2011 Census shows that 52% of Harborough residents now travel outside the district for work. Were it not for Magna Park, that percentage would be higher still – including amongst the district’s best qualified, skilled and paid.
4.387 While the planning system has changed since 1992, the planning basis on which the Secretary of State made his decision has not. Harborough continues to be obliged to contribute to the
P a g e | 76 strategic needs of the businesses and markets that operate within and across its area. All the same, we are doing everything we can to ensure that the locality is the principal beneficiary of the expansion proposals. While the proposals would be a very significant benefit to the logistics sector – a sector that is a key growth priority for the Leicester and Leicestershire LEP – IDI Gazeley is fully committed to ensuring both that local people benefit from Magna Park and would not be adversely affected by its expansion.
4.388 We also wish to make clear that although the two applications you comment upon together total up to some 380,500 sq m of distribution warehousing, the two applications are not comparable. IDI Gazeley’s (15/00919/FUL) is a detailed application for 100,844 sq m that extends Magna Park to meet the specific needs of an existing occupier whose choice is to expand at Magna Park in preference to alternatives elsewhere in the county or Golden Triangle. That preference reflects the company’s many years’ experience of Magna Park and IDI Gazeley’s management of it. The site density of the DHL Supply Chain facility is 18% (compared to the site density of c 38% of the existing Magna Park). More than half of the c 56 ha application site for DHL Supply Chain is given to extensive landscaping and public amenity space, including footpaths, bridleways and cycle paths.
4.389 The application (15/00865/OUT) on land to the south of Magna Park is for a wholly new logistics park unconnected to Magna Park and is promoted by a different developer. That application is in outline for up to 278,709 sq m on c 88 ha – a site density of about 32%. IDI Gazeley created, own and manage Magna Park and the Magna Park brand; only IDI Gazeley can physically or conceptually extend Magna Park. For the same reasons, only IDI Gazeley can take the steps possible to redress the problems Magna Park is seen by local people now to cause, to increase the benefits that Magna Park now generates and to capture the further benefits that would be generated with the extension to Magna Park proposed.
4.390 Response to Cotesbach Parish Council and Action Group As the Parish Council recognise, there are advantages to permitting that expansion – for DHL Supply Chain and its employees, for Harborough’s economy and the initiatives that a planning permission would unlock to reduce the lighting impact of Magna Park and improve the capacity of the local strategic highway network.
4.391 We also stress that IDI Gazeley is in Lutterworth for the long term. IDI Gazeley is not a trader- developer – which explains why IDI Gazeley invests heavily in Magna Park and its management and takes very seriously Magna Park’s responsibilities to its neighbouring communities. There are however limits to IDI Gazeley’s ability to address the concerns the Parish Council express. Those fetters are imposed both by IDI Gazeley’s limited ownership in Magna Park and by the planning system. The limited ownership means that IDI Gazeley is dependent upon the cooperation of occupiers for any changes that are not written into the terms of the planning permissions that apply to the park. It is critical that the Parish Council understands that the planning system is a legal process and evidence-based.
4.392 Two aspects of the planning limit require emphasis in the context of the Parish Council’s objection: i. All development at Magna Park is fully compliant with the terms of every planning permission granted. Compliance with the HGV Routing Agreement is a contractual obligation upon all occupiers, and will extend to DHL Supply Chain. HDC and LCC are obliged by the terms of that agreement to serve notice on IDI Gazeley of any persistent breach in compliance. No such notices have been served. ii. The development is captured by the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, and thus has been subject to a fully compliant assessment of every matter related to the DHL Supply Chain proposal that has the potential to give rise to significant environmental effects. The outcome is set out in the submitted Environmental Statement (ES). The scope and methodology of the ES was agreed with the planning authority and the relevant statutory consultees at the outset, and none has lodged an objection to the DHL Supply Chain application on grounds of an unacceptable impact on any matter covered by the ES or found
P a g e | 77 the ES to fall short of what is required in any way. Thus as far as IDI Gazeley is aware, none will lodge an objection. Although further information was requested by Highways England and Leicestershire County Council (LCC) as highway authority, that further information was prepared in consultation with both and has not led to a change in the conclusions in the June 2015 ES. No matters are outstanding. All of the additional information has now been (or shortly will be) notified by HDC to the Parish Council and all others with an interest in the application proposals. The Parish Council will have the statutory 21 days to comment on the additional information.
4.393 The significance of i.-ii. (above) is as follows: IDI Gazeley cannot be obliged to deliver “mitigation” in Magna Park beyond compliance with the provisions of the existing planning permissions and S106 Agreements. All compliance is already in place. In any case, IDI Gazeley own only the streets and their lighting, the common infrastructure and just two plots. Nonetheless, through Magna Park Management Ltd, IDI Gazeley works closely with occupiers to promote “good neighbour” behaviours, including the travel planning initiatives that are underway in partnership now with Leicester County Council. The Environmental Impact Assessment (a highly regulated process) for the DHL Supply Chain application sets key parameters: o The nature and significance of any potential environmental impact is assessed against the relevant technical guidance – standards that have long been rehearsed and found sound, including at appeal. The highways authorities, for example, provide the technical guidance that determines the significance of traffic impacts, establishes junction capacity and so on. National planning policy states that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts (after mitigation) of the development are severe. It is a high bar. There are parallels in guidance and policy for every matter covered by the ES. o Any mitigation that is not built into the design proposals for which planning permission is sought must be legally compliant, or it cannot bear on the planning determination. Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy requires all obligations under S106 (and conditions) to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind.
4.394 IDI Gazeley cannot undertake to provide, or be obliged to provide, mitigation which the evidence does not show to be necessary. While the statutory consultees are obliged to test IDI Gazeley’s evidence (and have done so and not found it wanting) that option is also available to the public. The Parish Council will be aware that IDI Gazeley has gone to some lengths to assist its members, and others in the Cotesbach local community, to understand the traffic evidence in particular.
4.395 The Design and Access Statement and Environmental Statement set out in full what mitigation is designed into the application scheme and what is needed outwith its design. The Planning Statement sets out the Heads of Terms of the proposed S106 Agreement and work on the S106 is underway with HDC and LCC. The discussion below explains.
4.396 IDI Gazeley’s undertakings in respect of modernising the street lighting in the park and, with the owners’ cooperation, along Mere Lane relate to the impact evidence. There is no evidence for the same measure on the south side of Magna Park. Even these undertakings are subject to HDC’s legal compliance assessments which are not complete.
4.397 There is no increase in traffic predicted on the A426 between the Whittle Island and Gibbet Hill roundabout as a result of the proposed development. Traffic flows are expected to increase on this section as a result of committed development but this is outside the control of IDI Gazeley. This section of the A426 does not provide a logical route for any trips to and from Magna Park. To emphasise the point, the distance from the proposed development to the Gibbet Hill roundabout via the A5 is approximately 5 kilometres. The comparable distance via the A4303 and the A426 is approximately 9 kilometres.
P a g e | 78 4.398 In relation to the Gibbet Hill roundabout there is a committed scheme as part of DIRFT III to upgrade the junction to a signalised roundabout. It is understood that the scheme has been approved by Highways England. It is also understood that the Development Consent Order for DIRFT III has identified for the improvements to be implemented prior to the occupation of no more than 305,000m2 of the development. This is less than half of the total floorspace (731,000m2) and based on completion of the first building at the end of 2016 (ProLogis Website http://www.dirft.com) and a 17-year build out programme, the expectation is that the junction will have been upgraded by 2023. It should also be emphasised that the proposed development is predicted to increase the number of trips passing through the Gibbet Hill roundabout by 25 and 18 in the AM and PM peak hours respectively – or put another away it represents approximately 0.5% of the total traffic flow through the junction. This represents a very minor impact that would not justify the provision of any significant improvements at the junction.
4.399 The A426 between the Whittle Island and Gibbet Hill roundabout has been excluded from the Magna Park Employee Routing Plan because as explained above under normal network conditions it does not provide a logical route for any trips to and from Magna Park. On this basis it does not need to be identified as a route to be avoided by employees.
4.400 A Travel Plan has been prepared for the proposed development and there is a commitment in the Plan for a 15% reduction in the number of employees driving to work in the first five years of occupation. The most significant contribution to achieving this reduction is an increase in car sharing which is predicted to increase from a base of around 11% to almost 19%. This will be achieved through the establishment of bespoke car sharing databases aimed specifically at employees of the proposed development and by encouraging employees to join more general schemes such as Leicestershire (https://leicestershare.liftshare.com/). This scheme is part of the national Liftshare network where individuals can register as a member and provide their journey details on the website for free. This will provide scope for car sharing to take place with individuals employed at other locations.
4.401 On the basis that the proposed development is not predicted to increase traffic flows on the section of the A426 between the Whittle Island and Gibbet Hill roundabout, there is no requirement for IDI Gazeley to offer any mitigation in relation to highway matters on this section of the road.
4.402 Improvements to the capacity of the Whittle Island junction are put forward in the Heads of Terms of the S106 for DHL Supply Chain, and the new roundabout with Mere Lane and the dualling proposed for the short section of the A5 will lead to improvements in function of the A5/A4303 junction.
4.403 The section of Mere Lane where traffic is expected to increase significantly is the short section between the A5 and the proposed new roundabout that will provide access to the site – not the full length of Mere Lane.
4.404 To accommodate the predicted increase in traffic, this section will be realigned and widened. A new roundabout is also proposed at the A5/ Mere Lane junction to replace the existing priority junction. This provides the necessary additional capacity to accommodate traffic related to the development and provides a safer connection with the A5. To the north east of the new roundabout on Mere Lane, the impact of the proposed development is predicted to be very small – only four additional trips in the AM peak and six in the PM peak. It is recognised however that the provision of a connection from Mere Lane into the existing Magna Park could encourage more existing employees to use it as an alternative to the A4303 as a route to Lutterworth and areas to the north of Lutterworth.
4.405 In recognition of this an Employee Routing Plan is proposed. The Plan identifies recommended access routes to be used by Magna Park employees and those where use is to be strongly discouraged. This message will be reinforced on the Magna Park website and through a formal request by Magna Park Management to individual existing occupiers.
P a g e | 79
4.406 IDI Gazeley has indicated a willingness to fund a permanent position at LCC to create and implement a robust HGV enforcement strategy. Discussions have already been held with officers at LCC and there is a determination on both sides to secure the position at the earliest opportunity. Discussions regarding details of the proposals are in the very early stages but it is considered that a cornerstone of the scheme will be to set up permanent monitoring sites at sensitive locations to measure any increase in HGVs that can be attributed to Magna Park. Monitoring reports will be prepared on a regular basis and the results will be shared with all interested parties with a view to implementing further enforcement measures if necessary. There is the potential that the monitoring could be extended to include all vehicles although it should be emphasised that any vehicle under the specified weight restriction (7.5 tonnes) has a legal entitlement to use Mere Lane. Any measures to restrict its use by smaller vehicles will therefore need to be on a voluntary basis.
4.407 A 15% reduction in the number of single occupancy cars over the first five years of the development is a requirement of Leicestershire County Council’s Sustainable Travel Team. The use of journey to work data for the daytime population in the Ullesthorpe ward is considered to provide a typical demographic for the population expected to work at Magna Park as Magna Park represents the only significant employment site in the ward.
4.408 Sections 10 and 11 of the Travel Plan provide information on Monitoring and Resourcing and Review respectively. The proposals for monitoring are clearly set out in Section 10 including a commitment to annual staff travel surveys and a link to LCC’s i-Trace monitoring website. Section 11 clearly sets out how the Travel Plan will be resourced and identifies a range of measures that will be introduced in the event that specified targets for use of sustainable transport modes are not being met.
4.409 With specific regard to air quality conditions along the A426, as stated above in this Response, there will be no increase in traffic along this section of road as a result of the proposed development. It was therefore not considered necessary to carry out monitoring or modelling predictions at receptors adjacent to the A426.
4.410 The Lutterworth AQMA is acknowledged in Chapter 10 of the ES. There would be a strictly- enforced ban on HGVs associated with the proposed development using the A426, and there is no logical reason why they chose to do so, given the proximity of the M1. A very small number of non-HGV vehicles would use the A426 (estimated to be no more than two additional vehicles in any hour). This would represent a 0.16% change to existing traffic flows and would be undetectable in air quality terms.
4.411 Paragraph 008 (ID: 32-008-20140306) of the Planning Practice (National Planning Practice Guidance) states that “should mitigation measures be necessary they need to be location specific and proportionate to the likely impact”. Given that no significant air quality effects are predicted, there is no requirement for IDI Gazeley to offer any mitigation in relation to air quality. However, the Travel Plan described in Section 1 above, will lead to a reduction in employee car journeys and will benefit air quality. In addition, IDI Gazeley has committed to providing alternative fuel infrastructure (LPG or CNG) which will promote the use of LPG/CNG vehicles (and which is one of the principal measures identified in Leicester City Council’s Air Quality Action Plan).
4.412 It is not for IDI Gazeley to advise Harborough District Council on its responsibilities under the Local Air Quality Management regime. However, it is important to draw a distinction between the air quality objectives and the European limit values; in the UK, only monitoring and modelling carried out by the UK Government meets the specification required to determine compliance with the limit values. The UK Government does not recognise local authority monitoring or local modelling studies (with regard to the air quality objectives) when determining the likelihood of the limit values being exceed, and these data are not included in reporting to the European Commission. As stated in Paragraph 10.46 of Chapter 10 of the ES, the national maps identify no exceedences of the limit values along the M1, M6, A4303, A426 or A5.
P a g e | 80
4.413 It is acknowledged that there is a light pollution problem on the existing Magna Park – notwithstanding that the lighting is wholly compliant with the planning permissions that were granted. The light pollution is caused by reflected light causing the sky glow effect that is noticeable from the surrounding village, and there is also the aspect of glare which is highlighted in the winter months, particularly along Mere Lane when the foliage reduces greatly. The light pollution is the consequence of the lighting technology that was available when the lighting schemes were installed. Technology has advanced greatly, and it is now possible to very substantially to limit reflected light and glare.
4.414 IDI Gazeley has undertaken in the S106 Agreement proposed for the DHL Supply Chain scheme to upgrade all of the Parks c 225 street lights from high pressure sodium to LED (with additional dimming facilities) which will reduce sky glow effect to an extent. The same undertaking includes reasonable endeavour provisions to upgrade the external lighting at the properties on Mere Lane, subject to the agreement of their owners.
4.415 The focus on the street lighting and Mere Lane is for three reasons: i. The impact of the DHL Supply Chain scheme on night glow will not be significant because of the lighting design approach and use of LEDs. It will, however, be additional and thus IDI Gazeley’s view is that there is the necessary planning justification to undertake to intervene to reduce the light impacts of the existing park where the lighting is within IDI Gazeley’s control. ii. IDI Gazeley own the streets and can thus undertake to modernise the street lighting. iii. IDI Gazeley is also seeking the agreement of the six occupiers with yards or buildings on Mere Lane to modernise their lighting at IDI Gazeley’s expense. Mere Lane shares a boundary with the extension site and the modernisation of the external lighting of these premises will have a greater benefit in reducing the overall lighting impacts than lighting modernisation on plots elsewhere in Magna Park. The agreement of the occupiers along Mere Lane is being sought, and IDI Gazeley expect it will be secured.
4.416 IDI Gazeley is also - as part of the work on the hybrid planning application - taking advantage of its good relationship with the occupiers to meet and discuss with them the potential for external and internal lighting upgrades. Questionnaires have now been issued to all occupiers with the offer of free lighting surveys, lighting calculations, cost in use and payback for upgrading to LED lighting. The initial feedback (following return of the questionnaires) is positive, and IDI Gazeley hope to start the lighting surveys early November. The aim is to team up with a service/maintenance contractor team to provide this facility.
4.417 Meanwhile, a number of occupiers have already updated their lighting (e.g., Disney) and others are planning to do. IDI Gazeley will, as it re-acquires plots when it can, redevelop to modern specification with no contribution to night light pollution. The planning permission for Plot 2110 is a case in point. Construction has begun in response to strong market demand.
4.418 Response to Lutterworth Town Council It is noted that the Town Council’s letter also objects to the separate and unrelated speculative application to create a wholly new distribution park by db symmetry (15/00865/FUL). The Town Council’s letter refers to the proposed DHL Supply Chain warehouse as a ‘3.5 million’ square metre (sq m) warehouse as a first “phase” to an extension of Magna Park that the symmetry park application completes. That is not correct – either the floorspace (which is 100,844 sq m), job count (c 1,230 permanent full time jobs) or the notion that the DHL Supply Chain application is related to the symmetry park application (it is not).
4.419 For the avoidance of doubt, of the two applications that the Town Council objects to, only the application for DHL Supply Chain would extend Magna Park. IDI Gazeley is the sole developer who is in a position to extend Magna Park. Key factors, over and above its location, that explain Magna Park’s success are the quality of the development and IDI Gazeley management of it. IDI Gazeley will carry both through to the extension proposals – delivering all the benefits, for
P a g e | 81 occupiers, employees and local communities, of a dedicated distribution park that operates at the top end of the logistics sector under the single management of its owner-developer.
4.420 It also needs to be emphasised that DHL Supply Chain is the global leader in logistics and a major inward investor into Harborough that already operates four facilities at Magna Park employing some 700 people. DHL Supply Chain wish to expand at Magna Park in preference to alternatives, and there are advantages to permitting the expansion – for DHL Supply Chain and its employees, for Harborough’s economy and for the initiatives locally that a planning permission would unlock and that local people have told IDI Gazeley that they want. Those initiatives extend, insofar as they would be legally compliant with a planning permission, to aspects of the operation of Magna Park as it is now.
4.421 IDI Gazeley has also submitted (2 October) a hybrid application (15/01531/OUT) which seeks planning permission for the full extension of Magna Park on which it consulted in November last year and in January and July this year. That application is in two parts: an outline application on land to the north and west of Magna Park, for up to 427,194 sq m of strategic warehousing (which includes the 100,844 sq m for DHL Supply Chain) together with Logistics Institute of Technology (LIT) and its campus, an Innovation Centre, expansion space for a local high tech firm and a 42 ha country park; and on land adjoining the George HQ, a detailed application for an HGV parking facility, a Driver Training Centre and a Railfreight Shuttle and associated Terminal. The HGV park and Shuttle are for Magna Park’s firms only.
4.422 The proposals also include works to the A5, including (as with the DHL Supply Chain application) a new section of dualled highway, a roundabout at the junction with Mere Lane and, for the hybrid application, also a roundabout at the northern end of the site.
4.423 The warehousing component of the hybrid application adds, speculatively, 326,350sq m of strategic warehousing space to the 100,844sq m for DHL Supply Chain. The speculative quantum of 326,350 compares to the speculative quantum of 278,709sq m of strategic distribution space by db symmetry to create the new symmetry park. That is, comparing like-for- like, IDI Gazeley proposes 326,350sq m of speculative distribution space that extends Magna Park, and db symmetry proposes 278,709sq m of speculative distribution space to create a second distribution park. IDI Gazeley’s speculative quantum is 47,641sq m greater than symmetry park’s speculative quantum. IDI Gazeley’s hybrid application, however, proposes in addition to develop and deliver Harborough’s first further and higher education institution (the Logistics Institute of Technology partnered with Aston University and South Leicestershire and Northwest Coventry & Hinckley Further Education Colleges), the co-located Innovation Centre and country park, as well as the other uses for which planning permission is sought.
4.424 The Town Council suggests that IDI Gazeley’s proposal for the Railfreight Shuttle and associated terminal, with its linkages with the Daventry International Railfreight Terminal (DIRFT) and to explore a future terminal facility at Rugby, would both ‘increase the traffic flow on the A5 between Daventry/Rugby and Magna Park considerably’. That is not the case. Those vehicles would be on the highway network regardless of whether they made use of the Railfreight Shuttle.
4.425 The Shuttle would only be available to Magna Park’s occupiers and would not generate any additional HGV movements. Magna Park already plays an established satellite role for DIRFT (16% of DIRFTS in and out trips). The Shuttle will deploy electric, LPG or CNG-fuelled traction units (the detailed proposals seek planning permission for HGV electric charging points and an LPG/CNG fuel island), and would be quieter than the road journeys now and with low or no emissions would put Magna Park on a level playing field with DIRFT for the road-leg of the journey from an environmental perspective.
4.426 The Town Council’s letter raises concerns about both the capacity of the local road infrastructure to accommodate the development and the potential for other detrimental effects on the local road infrastructure. The letter also seeks information relating to the current design capacities at three locations and the associated impacts on them, namely: the A426 entering the Bill Crane Way; the
P a g e | 82 A426 Whittle Island, and; the A4303 Southern Bypass/Coventry Road roundabout.
4.427 IDI Gazeley confirms that environmental impact assessment (EIA) scoping meetings were held with Leicestershire County Council (LCC) to establish the scope of the Transport Assessment for the DHL Supply Chain application. LCC did not identify the A426/Bill Crane Way as a junction that needed to be assessed as part of the application.
4.428 The Whittle Island and A426/Coventry Road roundabouts were identified by LCC as junctions to be assessed and the impact of the development at both junctions is reported in the Transport Assessment and in four Supplementary Transport Assessments. The junction modelling undertaken at the A426/Coventry Road roundabout indicates that it would operate within capacity with the addition of traffic related to the development. At the Whittle Island junction improvements are proposed as part of the DHL Supply Chain application and are put forward in the Heads of Terms of the S106. These improvements would provide substantial capacity enhancements at the junction and offset the impact of the development by restoring capacity at the junction.
4.429 The Town Council’s letter raises concerns about the potential for access and egress restrictions on Lutterworth. IDI Gazeley is committed to delivering a number of measures that will adequately safeguard existing traffic conditions in Lutterworth arising from the proposed extension of Magna Park.
4.430 The Travel Plan commits to a 15% reduction in the number of employees driving to work in the first five years of occupation, and a separate Travel Plan for LIT commits to virtually no provision for private car use.
4.431 The most significant contribution to achieving the reduction employee trips is an increase in car sharing which is predicted to increase from a base of around 11% to almost 19%. This will be achieved through the establishment of bespoke car sharing databases aimed specifically at employees of the proposed development and by encouraging employees to join more general schemes such as Leicestershire (https://leicestershare.liftshare.com/). This scheme is part of the national Liftshare network where individuals can register as a member and provide their journey details on the website for free. This will provide scope for car sharing to take place with individuals employed at other locations.
4.432 In addition to the improvements to the capacity of the Whittle Island junction referred to above, there will be a new roundabout with Mere Lane and dualling of the short section of the A5; these measures will lead to improvements in function of the A5/A4303 junction.
4.433 An Employee Routing Plan is also proposed. The Plan identifies recommended access routes to be used by Magna Park employees and those where use is to be discouraged. This message will be reinforced on the Magna Park website and through a formal request by Magna Park Management to individual existing occupiers (as well as to DHL Supply Chain’s employees, and those of the occupiers of the wider extension site).
4.434 Both the DHL Supply Chain and the wider extension proposals will trigger enhancements to the existing HGV Routing Agreement that will also extend to the existing occupiers of Magna Park. The details of IDI Gazeley’s proposals are being worked up in collaboration with HDC and LCC, but will include both Automatic Number Plan Recognition technology located at key points on the local network together with the creation of a permanent post on the Magna Park management team to oversee the implementation of the Agreement. The post’s responsibilities will include the monitoring, reporting quarterly on the monitoring outcome (to HDC, LCC and the community), notifying offending occupiers and their hauliers of any breach in compliance with the HGV Routing Agreement, implementing sanctions where appropriate and liaising with (and responding to) the community.
P a g e | 83 4.435 IDI Gazeley is fully aware of the Town Council’s (and others’) views that the Routing Agreement is regularly breached by Magna Park’s hauliers. HDC and LCC are responsible for notifying IDI Gazeley of any persistent breaches, but have never served such a notice.
4.436 The Town Council query whether either developer (IDI Gazeley or db symmetry) has proposed to make contributions to what are assumed by the Town Council to be increased maintenance costs, consequent upon the two developments, of Bill Crane Way, Brookfield Way, the A426 and the A4303.
4.437 IDI Gazeley have no proposals to contribute towards the maintenance costs of Bill Crane Way, Brookfield Way, the A426 or the A4303, all of which are the responsibility of the Highway Authority.
4.438 IDI Gazeley, however, propose capacity improvements at the Whittle Island in conjunction with the DHL Supply Chain application, and these proposals are also put forward as mitigation for the hybrid application.
4.439 It must be emphasised on all these matters both that: Legal compliance in the planning system prevents IDI Gazeley from committing to any mitigation which bears on the determination of a planning application where the mitigation is not necessary to make the application proposals acceptable in planning terms, is not directly related to the planning proposals or is not reasonable in scale or kind; and Magna Park is in full compliance with all planning permissions granted and with the conditions and obligations that ride with those permissions.
4.440 Response to LCC Principal Historic Buildings Officer’s comments My rebuttal cites the relevant planning policy and guidance, in particular the tests of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and how they are applied to designated and non-designated heritage assets. The Historic Buildings Officer’s consultation response is addressed paragraph by paragraph in this rebuttal. The Officer uses the term ‘substantial harm’ in relation to the proposed demolition of the former lodge to Bittesby House. It is agreed that the former lodge should be considered a ‘non-designated heritage asset’. Therefore, paragraph 135 of the NPPF applies in this instance as it relates specifically to ‘non-designated heritage assets’. Paragraph 133 of the NPPF relates to ‘substantial harm’ to ‘designated heritage assets’, and recent case law is referred to in order to demonstrate the correct application of the term ‘substantial harm’. The Historic Buildings Officer has erroneously applied the tests of the NPPF by conflating the terminology. For clarification, the following definitions must be reiterated:
4.441 The NPPF defines heritage assets as follows: Heritage asset. This is ‘a building, monument, site, place, area or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions’. Heritage asset includes designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing).’ Designated Heritage Asset. ‘A World Heritage Site, Scheduled Monument, Listed Building, Protected Wreck Site, Registered Park and Garden, Registered Battlefield or Conservation Area designated under the relevant legislation.’
4.442 The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) states that ‘Local planning authorities may identify non-designated heritage assets’ and defines these as ‘buildings, monuments, sites, places, areas or landscapes identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions but which are not formally designated heritage assets. In some areas, local authorities identify some non-designated heritage assets as ‘locally listed’.’ The guidance asks that ‘when considering development proposals, local planning authorities should establish if any potential non-designated heritage asset meets the definition in the National Planning Policy Framework at an early stage in the process. Ideally, in the case of buildings, their significance should be judged against published criteria, which may be generated as part of the process of producing a local list.’
P a g e | 84
4.443 These definitions have different levels of significance attributed to them, and paragraphs 132 – 134 of the NPPF explicitly relate to ‘designated heritage assets’ and levels of harm to such assets: 132. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional. 133. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply: ● the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and ● no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and ● conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and ● the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use. 134. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.
4.444 The following paragraph of the NPPF considers levels of harm relating to ‘non-designated heritage assets’: 135. The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.
4.445 The Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: Note 3 (GPA3) The Setting of Heritage Assets focuses on the management of change within the setting of heritage assets. This document is an update to guidance previously published by Historic England (The Setting of Heritage Assets, 2011) in order to ensure that it is fully compliant with the NPPF and is designed in order to aid practitioners with the implementation of national policies and guidance relating to the historic environment found within the NPPF and PPG. The guidance is largely a continuation of the philosophy and approach of the 2011 document and does not present a divergence in either the definition of setting or the way in which it should be assessed.
4.446 As with the NPPF the document defines setting as ‘the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve’. Setting is also described as being a separate term to curtilage, character and context. The guidance emphasises that setting is not a heritage asset or a heritage designation and that its importance lies in what it contributes to the significance of the heritage asset. It also states that elements of setting may make a positive, negative or neutral contribution to the significance of the heritage asset.
4.447 While setting is largely a visual term, with views considered to be an important consideration in any assessment of the contribution that setting makes to the significance of an asset, setting, and thus the way in which an asset is experienced, can also be affected by other environmental
P a g e | 85 factors including noise, vibration and odour, while setting may also incorporate perceptual and associational attributes pertaining to the asset’s surroundings.
4.448 This document provides guidance on practical and proportionate decision making with regards to the management of proposed development and the setting of heritage assets. It is stated that the protection of the setting of a heritage asset need not prevent change and that decisions relating to such issues need to be based on the nature, extent and level of the significance of a heritage asset, further weighing up the potential public benefits associated with the proposals. It is further stated that changes within the setting of a heritage asset may have positive or neutral effects. It is stated that the contribution made to the significance of heritage assets by their settings will vary depending on the nature of the heritage asset and its setting and that different heritage assets may have different abilities to accommodate change within their settings without harming the significance of the asset and therefore setting should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
4.449 Although not prescriptive in setting out how this assessment should be carried out, noting that any approach should be demonstrably compliant with legislation, national policies and objectives, Historic England recommend using the ‘5-step process’ in order to assess the potential effects of a proposed development on the setting and significance of a heritage asset, with this 5-step process continued from the 2011 guidance: 1. Identification of heritage assets which are likely to be affected by proposals. 2. Assessment of whether and what contribution the setting makes to the significance of a heritage asset. 3. Assessing the effects of proposed development on the significance of a heritage asset. 4. Maximising enhancement and reduction of harm on the setting of heritage assets. 5. The final decision about the acceptability of proposals.
4.450 The Historic Buildings Officer notes that, with regard to the submitted Heritage Statement, ‘of particular interest in this case are the formal definitions of the ‘setting of a heritage asset’ and ‘significance (for heritage policy)’ in the NPPF Glossary. Relevant policies, contained within Section 12 of the NPPF, include paragraph 132, which confirms that significance can be harmed or lost through development within the setting of an asset, and paragraph 135, which requires that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application.’
4.451 I must reiterate the findings of the Heritage Statement, whereby, Historic England (2015) states that the protection of the setting of a heritage asset need not prevent change and that decisions relating to such issues need to be based on the nature, extent and level of the significance of a heritage asset (see paragraph 12, p. 6. of Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: Note 3 (GPA3) The Setting of Heritage Assets, Historic England, 2015). Bittesby House and Cottages are non-designated heritage assets. Thus, they have a low level of significance and it follows that changes in their wider settings cannot be accorded much weight.
4.452 The Historic Buildings Officer states: ‘Bittesby House, the best of these assets, is described in the Heritage Statement as merely ‘of limited architectural and historic significance, being of local interest only’. I contend that whilst the house may be of insufficient, rather than limited, special architectural or historic interest to meet the statutory listing criteria, it is one of the higher quality, unlisted buildings in the county.’
4.453 Regardless of its level of interest, it is agreed that Bittesby House has a degree of significance that merits consideration in planning decisions. There are no tiers of significance or hierarchies within the criterion of ‘non-designated heritage assets’ in the NPPF and NPPG, and the relevant parts of this policy and guidance were cited earlier. Therefore, any postulations with regard to its position on a scale or spectrum of local interest is irrelevant and not for consideration in this context.
P a g e | 86 4.454 The Historic Buildings Officer also states: ‘When I visited the House it was in good condition and active use.’ This particular application must be judged on its own merits. Reference to the viability of Bittesby House is irrelevant in this context. The proposed changes in its setting with regard to this particular application are unlikely to change its current ‘active use’.
4.455 The Historic Buildings Officer notes: ‘I understand that recent and ongoing research by a local historian may strengthen the contribution made by Bittesby House to the significance of the neighbouring scheduled site, which is unsurprising given the agricultural community that previously existed in the area.’ No compelling evidence has come to light to prove or disprove any relationship between Bittesby House and the Scheduled Bittesby Deserted Medieval Village. We are pursuing research in this area, and any findings will be disseminated in the separate Hybrid Outline planning application.
4.456 The Historic Buildings Officer observes: ‘The proposed new distribution centre, by virtue of its use, location and size, will have a considerable visual and environmental impact on the setting, or surroundings in which they are experienced, of the non-designated heritage assets in the area. Given the scale of the building it is unlikely that a new planting would substantially reduce the visual intrusion into the landscape. It is clear from national planning policy and Historic England guidance that the setting of heritage assets can be an important factor in their significance and that it can include the environment in which a place or building is experienced, their local context, embracing present and past relationships to the adjacent land or buildings. In my view the Heritage Statement underplays the contribution made by the setting of Bittesby House to its significance. As with virtually all such historic farms a fundamental, functional association exists between the house and the surrounding agricultural land. In addition the development of Bittesby House during the C19, including a tree lined avenue and new outward looking formal facades, suggest that the wider rural landscape was a significant feature to be exploited and enhanced as the status of the farmstead increased. I am aware that previous Magna Park development has compromised this setting but feel that the proposed urbanising and discordant development will, by encroaching much closer to the house and associated buildings, cause further harm to their significance. The new distribution centre will dwarf the non-designated heritage assets and compete with Bittesby House as the preeminent manmade feature in the locality.’
4.457 Whilst we agree somewhat with the Historic Buildings Officer, I must again reiterate the findings of the Heritage Statement, whereby, Historic England (2015) states that the protection of the setting of a heritage asset need not prevent change and that decisions relating to such issues need to be based on the nature, extent and level of the significance of a heritage asset. Bittesby House and its associated structures do not benefit from statutory protection. We accept they should be considered non-designated heritage assets. Again, I state, they have a low level of significance – they have no statutory protection - and changes in their wider settings cannot be accorded much weight.
4.458 The Historic Buildings Officer states: ‘Only one of the non-designated heritage assets identified in the Heritage Statement is located within the application site. It is proposed that the former lodge to Bittesby House will be demolished. This will clearly result in substantial harm to this particular asset but also cause indirect harm to the significance of the House by removing an integral part of the C19 expansion.’ I agree that the demolition of the former Lodge will result in ‘substantial harm’, i.e. the building will be lost. However, the terminology of ‘substantial harm’ should not and must not be conflated with paragraph 133 of the NPPF, cited earlier. Paragraph 135 of the NPPF applies in this instance.
4.459 The Historic Buildings Officer opines: ‘I agree with the Heritage Statement that changes in access and alterations to the lodge mean that the connection between assets is not readily apparent currently, but paragraph 137 of the NPPF asks that local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance. I am unaware that this opportunity has been properly considered in this case.’ I must reiterate the ‘heritage asset’ in question is non-designated, and as such, paragraph 135 of the NPPF applies, whereby: ‘The effect of an application on the significance of a non-
P a g e | 87 designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.’ This element of the Historic Building Officer’s argument caries little weight.
4.460 The Historic Buildings Officer says: ‘As noted above National Planning Policy requires that your authority takes the effect of the application on the significance of all the non-designated heritage assets in the area into account in determining the application. I believe that the submitted Heritage Statement under values some of the non-designated heritage assets in the area and under plays the impact of the development on their setting and significance. Whilst I do not claim that substantial damage will generally occur to the assets near to the development site, I disagree strongly with the conclusion of the Heritage statement that that any harm to the significance of Bittesby House and Cottages falls ‘well below the ‘less than substantial’ threshold referred to in the NPPF’. The Officer also states: National Planning Practice Guidance states that ‘a substantial majority of buildings have little or no heritage significance and thus do not constitute heritage assets. Only a minority have enough heritage interest for their significance to be a material consideration in the planning process’. This suggests that such buildings, even if they are of ‘local interest only’, are comparatively scarce. They contribute to an irreplaceable and finite environmental resource and their conservation in a manner appropriate to their significance is one of the twelve overarching, core planning principles set out in the NPPF. The Heritage Statement certainly does not ‘under value’ or ‘under play the impact of the development on their setting and significance’. It quite simply recognises the low level of significance of non-designated heritage assets in relation those with statutory protection, and applies the NPPF and NPPG accordingly.
4.461 I would like to note the following: the distinction between ‘harm’ and ‘substantial harm’ in heritage terms has long been a contentious issue, with little to define the terms prior to the publication of the National Planning Practice Guidance, supported by the conclusions reached by the Planning Inspectorate and Court of Appeal in recent decision making. The combination of these different sources allows a clear definition to be synthesised. However, as will be demonstrated below, the term ‘substantial harm’ relates to ‘designated heritage assets’, i.e. those that benefit from statutory protection, and not ‘non-designated heritage assets’.
4.462 The NPPG provides some clear guidance on where harm may be considered to be substantial, and should be considered within the context of (and was, indeed, developed in the light of) recent appeal and high court decisions, referred to in more detail below. The NPPG provides the following guidance on substantial harm: In general terms, substantial harm is a high test, so it may not arise in many cases. For example, in determining whether works to a listed building constitute substantial harm, an important consideration would be whether the adverse impact seriously affects a key element of its special architectural or historic interest. It is the degree of harm to the asset’s significance rather than the scale of the development that is to be assessed. The harm may arise from works to the asset or from development within its setting. While the impact of total destruction is obvious, partial destruction is likely to have a considerable impact but, depending on the circumstances, it may still be less than substantial harm or conceivably not harmful at all, for example, when removing later inappropriate additions to historic buildings which harm their significance. Similarly, works that are moderate or minor in scale are likely to cause less than substantial harm or no harm at all. However, even minor works have the potential to cause substantial harm. While this guidance is rather broad, the extent to which substantial harm can be considered to be a ‘high test’ has been confirmed within a number of recent legal decisions, most notably Bedford Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and NUON UK Ltd [2012] (‘Nuon’), and the decision by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government relating to the site known as Land at Chapel Lane, Wymondham, Norfolk (‘Wymondham’).
4.463 In the Nuon case, focusing on setting issues, the Inspector originally identified that:
P a g e | 88 There is no specific guidance as to the level at which harm might become substantial but on a fair reading, it is clear that the author(s) must have regarded substantial harm as something approaching demolition or destruction (‘Nuon’ Judgement, para. 22). While it was queried whether this was setting too high a bar for substantial harm, Mr Justice Jay identified that the above statement, given that the harm under consideration was indirect, and based on setting, rather than physical intervention, was clearly intended to be appended by the words ‘to significance’. J Jay therefore concluded that: What the inspector was saying was that for harm to be substantial, the impact on significance was required to be serious such that very much, if not all, of the significance was drained away. Plainly in the context of physical harm, this would apply in the case of demolition or destruction, being a case of total loss. It would also apply to a case of serious damage to the structure of the building. In the context of non-physical or indirect harm, the yardstick was effectively the same. One was looking for an impact which would have such a serious impact on the significance of the asset that its significance was either vitiated altogether or very much reduced. (‘Nuon’ Judgement, para. 24-25) As such, the Nuon judgement provides context for the NPPG’s identification that substantial harm will occur where an ‘adverse impact seriously affects a key element of its special architectural or historic interest’; such an adverse impact would have to impact upon a ‘key element’ of the building’s significance, such that the significance of the asset as a whole was ‘either vitiated altogether or very much reduced’.
4.464 Additionally, the Wymondham judgement has provided further clarification of the meaning of substantial harm, and the ‘draining away’ of significance. In this case, again focused on an impact upon the setting of a heritage asset (in this case, the Grade I listed Wymondham Abbey), it was identified by the Inspector that it was ‘untenable to say the scheme would cause substantial harm to the significance of the Abbey’, and this was then upheld by the Secretary of Statement for Communities and Local Government. It was concluded that: The scheme would not call into question the Grade 1 status of the building, and when in the immediate environs of the Abbey its special architectural and historic interest would be unaffected. I therefore do not share the Council’s view that substantial harm would be caused to the setting of this listed building. Rather, the harm caused by the development in this regard would be less than substantial. As such, it is quite clear that substantial harm is only relevant where harm will be caused to a ‘key element’ of the designated heritage asset’s significance, such that its significance is ‘drained away’ to such an extent that its statutory designation should either be reduced or removed. It can logically be concluded that while, in the case of the Grade I Wymondham Abbey, it might be considered appropriate to degrade the building’s listing to Grade II*, and to similarly treat other assets, in the case of a Grade II listed building or Conservation Area, ‘substantial harm’ can be identified as harm sufficient to challenge its statutory designation.
4.465 The former Lodge to Bittesby House, Bittesby House or Bittesby Cottage have no form of statutory protection. Therefore, the Historic Buildings Officer has clearly misapplied paragraph 133 of the NPPF by concluding the proposed demolition of the former Lodge will lead to ‘substantial harm’. Instead, paragraph 135 applies in this instance.
4.466 Response to Ullesthorpe Parish Council The paper responds to the points made by the Parish Council in its 21 October 2015 objection to IDI Gazeley’s detailed planning application to extend Magna Park to provide a single facility to allow DHL Supply Chain to satisfy its expansion requirement at Magna Park. DHL Supply Chain is the global leader in logistics and a major inward investor into Harborough who already operates four facilities employing c 700 people at Magna Park. DHL Supply Chain prefers to expand at Magna Park in preference to alternatives and secure the associated benefits for the business, its employees and the local economy.
4.467 1.0 Background It is not correct that the development of Magna Park has breached any “limiting” policies in an extant Local Plan. Local Plan policies EM/12 and EM/13 were replaced by the 2011
P a g e | 89 Core Strategy. Harborough District Council (HDC) has determined every planning application as obliged by the planning system.
4.468 2.0 Need There are a number of points here which require correction. The supply of distribution floorspace: It is not correct that all distribution floorspace – regardless of location, operating environment, size or quality of the building and site, or the management of the site – is interchangeable and of equal value to prospective operators. Needs across all of these vary by operator and operation, and in a market economy, competitiveness requires there to be a choice. Magna Park offers a premium product, which explains why all 25 of its occupiers are blue chip companies. Operators who elect to take space at Magna Park would not consider less optimally located, less well-managed or less sustainable alternatives. And it is in no one’s interests – and directly contrary to national planning policy – to force businesses to operate from uneconomic locations and premises for the lack of well-designed, suitable and optimally located strategic distribution floorspace. It is also incorrect to state that there is a large fraction of distribution floorspace available at Magna Park. We refer you, for example, to the full, independent, assessment by Gerald Eve of the competing supply of strategic distribution floorspace – which covers the whole of the East Midlands region – that is set out in Appendix 1 to the “Economic Case for Magna Park”. That report was submitted in support of the hybrid planning application for Magna Park’s extension (15/01531/OUT) and is available on the application website. Gerald Eve is a leading authority nationally on the distribution property market.
4.469 As a general principle, the more optimal a distribution location for a distribution operator, the lower the operator’s transport costs and the better its customer service. Both considerations relate to the number and length of distribution journeys (the aim being to minimise both) and also to the efficiency with which an operator can use its resources (e.g., ensuring that HGVs are full in both directions). Both are also fully in the interests of consumers (lower costs of goods), the environment (shortest and fewest HGV journeys and therefore also reduced emissions) and the UK economy. Cost-efficiency of the distribution function is particularly important to the UK economy because much of the country’s manufacturing capability has been lost to cheaper locations. Cost competitive logistics is vital if the lower cost benefits of Eastern Europe / the Far East are maintained through the supply chain.
4.470 DHL Supply Chain is a case in point. DHL Supply Chain wish to expand at Magna Park where they already have four operations because it is optimally located and well-managed. By concentrating its operations at Magna Park, DHL Supply Chain can use its resources efficiently, ensuring for example that HGVs are full and its labour force is deployed to effect; employees in turn gain because they have more opportunities for internal promotions and greater job security; and the company can reduce its demands on local infrastructure by minimising the number of HGV trips needed to achieve the same high quality of customer service.
4.471 The Core Strategy. The Core Strategy from which the quotes are excerpted was adopted before the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published. The NPPF (paragraph 215) explains that the weight that HDC can accord to relevant policies in plans adopted before the NPPF was published depends on the degree of consistency with the NPPF. The greater the degree of consistency, the greater the weight that can be accorded.
4.472 The Core Strategy’s provisions for Magna Park, however, are inconsistent with the NPPF to a very significant degree:
evidence base on which Policy CS7h based is out of date, contrary to the requirements of the NPPF. – which takes the view that Harborough need serve only a local economic purpose – is wholly inconsistent with the NPPF: - Harborough plainly plays more than a local economic role. The district lies within the logistics sector’s golden triangle, and Magna Park, which accounts for as much as a quarter of the district’s jobs, is self-evidently of strategic importance.
P a g e | 90 - The central purpose of the NPPF is to deliver the sustainable development the economy needs. HDC is obliged to understand the needs of the economic markets that operate within an across its area, and objectively assess and meet those needs within its area unless, for example, there is a lack of physical capacity or because to do so would cause significant harm to the principles and policies of the NPPF. - HDC is obliged in plan-making – a legal obligation under SEA Directive 2001/42/EU – to assess all reasonable alternatives for meeting evidenced needs. The NPPF provides no basis for failing to provide for an evidenced need simply on the basis of assertions that there are “more suitable locations” elsewhere. As consequence HDC can accord very little weight to the provisions of the Core Strategy that preclude the expansion of Magna Park.
4.473 The Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic Distribution Study (SDS). It is not correct that the SDS fails to identify a substantive need for additional strategic distribution floorspace (i.e., units greater than 9,000 sq m). One the central purposes of the commission was the provision of forecasts which would substantiate that need.
4.474 The SDS, Part B, Table 5.2 sets out the forecast needs for strategic distribution floorspace in the East Midlands (a robust forecasting scale) to 2021, 2026 and 2031 (a forecast 2,918,000 sq m, 4,001,000 sq m and 5,570,000 sq m respectively).
4.475 The SDS derived a county share of that need by holding constant the 25.9% Leicestershire’s current (2008) share of the strategic distribution floorspace stock. The SDS also asserted that 58% of the need should be met on rail-served sites. However, the SDS provides no evidence for either of those assumptions (the county and rail-connected shares), and thus neither can justifiably be used as if they were factual data for planning purposes. All of the SDS’s forecasts of land needs are derived from the forecasts of floorspace needs on the basis of a 40% site density (i.e., the forecast floorspace requirement is divided by 0.4 to derive a land requirement). The comparable site density calculation for the DHL Supply Chain application would be 18.4% (and Magna Park’s site density on the same basis is 35%).
4.476 The SDS (Final Report, paragraph 3.15) also advises a sequential approach to identifying suitable sites to provide the additional floorspace needed (i.e., sites that will be needed in addition to already permitted developments). First in the sequential approach is extensions to existing sites; next in the sequence, where rail-served sites cannot be extended, are sites that can function as a satellite to an existing Strategic Railfreight Interchange (SRFI). The application proposals fall into both of the top sequential preferences.
4.477 It is correct that the SDS proposes the Site Selection Task Force – but the criteria the SDS adopt for site selection are set out in the report and the Task Force’s approach would have to be consistent with the provisions of the NPPF.
4.478 IDI Gazeley responded to the errors in the Prologis consultant’s comments on the DHL Supply Chain application. That response is on the DHL Supply Chain application website. Prologis’s consultant rebutted nothing in IDI Gazeley’s response.
4.479 The Leicestershire HMA 2013 study is superseded by the SDS. It was prepared using a different methodology and base data and is not comparable. There were also problems with the methodology (including assignment errors with Standard Industrial Classifications to the B Use Classes) as the brief for the SDS makes clear. That study also makes it clear that its forecasts do not take into account one-off major requirements – of which the DHL Supply Chain requirement is an example.
4.480 Consultants could not succeed commercially if they produced research reports which could not withstand critical scrutiny. There is no conflict of interest at all.
P a g e | 91 4.481 3. Policy NPPF. National policy also seeks (paragraph 60) the efficient distribution of goods and supplies. The National Networks Planning Statement (NPS) promotes an increase in SRFIs. But the NPS also stresses that even if there were a 50% increase in railfreight take-up, there would be reduction of just 7% (measured in tonne kilometres) transported by road. That fact is why the NPS also promotes improvements in the strategic highways network.
4.482 There is already a close relationship between Magna Park and DIRFT (and with DHL Supply Chain and DIRFT). The satellite function stands to be increased – in line both with the NPS and the advice of the SDS on the identification of sites.
4.483 Development plan. No Core Strategy policies, once the Core Strategy is replaced by the new Local Plan, will be saved. The adoption of a new Local Plan is at least two years off.
4.484 Core Strategy Policy CS7h. CS7h is out of date on its evidence base and thus the position it adopts is inconsistent, quantitatively and qualitatively, with the NPPF. As stated above, the significant degree of that inconsistency means that HDC can give the conflict of CS7h with the application proposals very little weight in the planning determination. That view is not a claim, but is a reasoned position having regard to Secretary of State and High Court judgments on the point. HDC’s Options Consultation Paper (OCP) for the new Local Plan also acknowledges that CS7h is out of date.
4.485 The Planning Statement for the DHL Supply Chain application sets out the material considerations which HDC must weigh in the planning balance given the limited weight that HDC can accord to CS7h.
4.486 Core Strategy Policy CS8. The DHL Supply Chain application is wholly in line with CS8 for all the reasons set out in the Planning Statement. CS8 is about green infrastructure – which the application proposals provide for. The application is in detail, and thus nothing about the proposals is “fanciful”. While the building is large, it is not taller than the existing buildings (topography needs to be taken into account, and it is the height above ordnance datum (AOD) which is relevant). Chapter 9 of the Environmental Statement and its appendices (ES, Volume 2, e.g., Technical Appendix F.1 at Figure 9.5a and 9.5b) show in full the detail of the visual impact of the building.
4.487 Core Strategy Policy CS17. The application is also in conflict with CS17 on the principle of the development. The Planning Statement again sets out the reasons why CS17 is also inconsistent with the NPPF (with the NPPF in general and specifically with paragraph 28 for rural prosperity). As the Planning Statement sets out, the application proposals nonetheless comply with the criteria set by CS17c (albeit for the narrow range of largely agricultural uses that CS17 finds acceptable).
4.488 4. Employment Opportunities The statements on the mismatch between the nature of the jobs to be created by DHL Supply Chain and the skills of the local labour market are inaccurate – as the Planning Statement explains on the evidence. The jobs will be created across the occupational spectrum – including c 44% in upper and mid-level professional, managerial, technical, customer services, sales and administrative occupations.
4.489 The proposed S106 agreement also includes an initiative to increase the share of jobs taken by residents of the District. The approach is a practiced one used by many planning authorities – including throughout London.
4.490 5. Traffic Generation Magna Park accounts for about one-quarter (2011 Census) of the in-commuting to Harborough. Some 62% of Harborough’s residents (after discounting those who work mainly from home or who have no fixed workplace) commute out of the district for work. As HDC’s “Open for Business”
P a g e | 92 prospectus acknowledges, Harborough as a consequence is heavily dependent on jobs elsewhere for its prosperity. More jobs are needed in the district – with a reasonable match to the resident workforce’s skills base – if over the longer term the levels of out- and in-commuting are to fall.
4.491 We are unable to comment on the results of the survey undertaken by Ullesthorpe PC. What we can say is that surveys that we (URS on behalf of IDI Gazeley) undertook in June 2013 demonstrated that there was no significant increase in traffic flows through local villages to coincide with the shift changeover at Magna Park. Although the surveys did not include Ullesthorpe, they did include Bitteswell and Claybrooke Magna. To maximise the reliability of the data surveys were undertaken for a continuous four week period.
4.492 One of the reasons Ullesthorpe was not included is that it was not (and is not) considered to be on a route that is sensitive to increases in traffic that may result from expansion at Magna Park. Any increase in flows through Ullesthorpe would be likely to originate from nearby towns/villages to the north east such as Frolesworth, Sapcote, Broughton Astley, Cosby and Croft. For these, the route through Ullesthorpe will, in many cases, be the most direct.
4.493 6. Building Height The details of the building height are in the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (Chapter 9 of the Environmental Statement and accompanying Technical Appendix F). The relevant consideration is not the absolute height of the building, but its visual impact – which is a function of its “above ordnance datum” (AOD) height. Chapter 9 of the Environmental Statement contains the following statements on the approach adopted by the application proposals to mitigate the visual effects of the building for DHL Supply Chain: of the building is limited] “above ordnance datum, to a level below the height of existing Magna Park buildings [and] by colouring the façade of the building to blend with the sky and the light colour of existing buildings on the edge of Magna Park. Also, reduction of the visual effects of the building in longer views through the incorporation of spinney planting along existing and former field boundaries in key strategic locations, including on some local ridge lines, to progressively filter views in a manner that is not inconsistent with the pattern of the surrounding landscape. The site occupied by proposed building also benefits from existing vegetation which restricts view to it from Mere Lane, from the permissive paths passing around the Mere Lane attenuation lake and along the permissive bridle ways to the south and west. In places this existing planting is being further strengthened. Views to the new building from the south from the A5 and walkers on footpaths on the west side would be further restricted by new planting installed to the east of the A5 to remedy the loss of existing scattered trees during widening works”
parking and service areas with surrounding planted banks or cuttings to shield them from near views. The use of banks and cuttings is combined with the use of dark green enclosure fencing and associated native planting, to provide further visual containment at an early stage, in particular in near views from bridle ways.”
western elevation and purposefully away from the west or northern façades.”
4.494 Images of verified views of the new building from the several viewpoints agreed for assessment with HDC’s special advisors on landscape are included in Technical Appendix F to Chapter 9. The statements made in the Parish Council’s objection are not, therefore, borne out by the evidence.
4.495 7. External Lighting IDI Gazeley is entirely content to make the commitments requested subject to legal compliance with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended). The commitments are, in any case, mirrored in IDI Gazeley’s S106 proposals (set out in Section 9 of the Planning Statement which also explains what Regulation 122 obliges).
P a g e | 93
4.496 IDI Gazeley, in terms of the impacts of the application proposals, is wholly reliant on the objective evidence as to whether these impacts necessitate mitigation to make the proposals acceptable in planning terms. IDI Gazeley have made the undertakings in respect of the modernisation of the park’s existing lighting in expectation that the undertakings would meet the tests set by CIL Regulation 122.
4.497 8. Community Engagement IDI Gazeley is of course aware of the concerns expressed by residents of the settlements closest to the extension site. IDI expressly invited their expression at three two-day public consultation events and several presentations to local parish councils, and sets out both in the Planning Statement and Design & Access Statement how local views have shaped the proposals.
4.498 But IDI Gazeley must stress too that the existing development is wholly compliant with all planning permissions, including that granted by the Secretary of State (SoS) in 1992 when many of the same issues were raised by local people. The Planning Statement reviews the reasons why the SoS granted planning permission for Magna Park’s second phase and explains why that reasoning remains material to the determination of the present application.
4.499 9. Surface Water The claims and statements made on flooding are not borne out by the evidence. Both the Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authority – who have fully assessed the technical submissions on the issue – are content with the proposals.
4.500 Response to Ashby Parva Parish Council The paper responds to the points made by the Parish Council in its 13 July 2015 objection to IDI Gazeley’s detailed planning application to extend Magna Park to provide a single facility to allow DHL Supply Chain to satisfy its expansion requirement at Magna Park. This paper aims to assist the Parish Council with the queries it raised in its objection – but notes too that the Parish Council may have had the time since July to review the planning, design and technical information submitted with the application. Those submissions, together with the further information submitted by IDI Gazeley on 16 October, address each of the points the PC made.
4.501 Harborough District Council (HDC) has also now provided written answers to the questions that were raised by the Parish Councils and action groups together and put to the 29 October “stakeholders” meeting (HDC’s written answers were uploaded on the 15/00919/FUL website on 25 October 2015). Those answers also cover some of the PC’s points. Nonetheless, IDI Gazeley provides the responses below in an effort to reassure the Parish Council that IDI Gazeley is both fully aware of the concerns and has made every endeavour, short of forgoing the proposed development, to address them.
4.502 1. Need. It is not correct that there is no need for further strategic distribution warehousing space. There are two reasons: i. DHL Supply Chain specifically requires a facility of the size and the specification proposed by the planning application. That requirement relates directly to the firm’s ability to provide its customers with cost-efficient services. DHL Supply Chain wish to expand at Magna Park in preference to alternatives because Magna Park is optimally located for DHL Supply Chain (meaning that journey lengths are minimised with related carbon savings and customer service is competitive), is well-managed, operationally efficient, has sound environmental credentials and is attractive to employees. DHL Supply Chain, by concentrating its operations (the firm already operates four warehouses at Magna Park), can coordinate the use of its resources so that they are used efficiently. One important example is the scope for ensuring its vehicles are fully loaded on both legs of a distribution journey – to contain costs to consumers, limit highway congestion and reduce carbon/NOX emissions. The firm’s employees also gain because they have more opportunities for internal promotions and greater job security.
P a g e | 94 ii. There is also a wider and very substantial need for well-located strategic distribution floorspace. HDC, together with the other Leicestershire local authorities, commissioned the Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic Distribution Study (SDS, 2014) to provide an up-to-date evidence base on the need in the region and county for well-located, market- facing distribution warehousing units of 9,000 sq m or larger. The SDS forecast that the East Midlands region (a spatial level at which such forecasts tend to be reliable) needs an additional 2,918,000 sq m of such floorspace by 2021, rising to 4,001,000 sq m by 2026 and to 5,570,000 sq m by 2031. The SDS derives a county share of the regional forecast by assuming that the county will continue to account – over the whole of the forecasting period – Leicestershire’s current (2008) 25.9% share of the region’s distribution warehousing stock > 9,000 sq m. The SDS also assumes that 58% of the total regional requirement will need to be met on rail-served sites. The SDS, however, provides no evidence for either of these assumptions (the 25.9% county share or the need for 58% to be provided on rail-connected sites). More evidence is needed to substantiate both assumptions, and in the absence of that evidence, neither can justifiably be treated as factual data for planning purposes. The SDS forecast land needs are derived from the floorspace forecasts on the basis of 40% site densities. The comparable site density calculation for the DHL Supply Chain application is 18.4% (and Magna Park is 35%).
4.503 The SDS (Final Report, paragraph 3.15) also advises a sequential approach to identifying suitable sites to provide the additional floorspace needed (i.e., in addition to already permitted developments). First in the sequence is extensions to existing sites; next in the sequence, where rail-served sites cannot be extended, are sites that can function as a satellite to an existing Strategic Railfreight Interchange (SRFI). The application proposals fall into both of the top preferences.
4.504 It is also not correct that all distribution floorspace – regardless of location, operating environment, size or quality of a building, site size and configuration or the management of the site – is interchangeable and thus of equal value to prospective operators. Needs across all of these vary by operator and operation; in a market economy, competitiveness requires there to be a choice. Magna Park offers a premium product, which explains why all 25 of its occupiers are blue chip companies. Operators who elect to take space at Magna Park would not consider less optimally located, less well-managed or less sustainable alternatives. And it is in no one’s interests – and directly contrary to national planning policy – to force businesses to uneconomic locations and premises for the lack of suitable, optimally located strategic distribution floorspace.
4.505 2. Visual Intrusion The application proposals contain a full “landscape and visual impact assessment” that provides the technically accurate evidence on the prospective visibility of the proposed building. The claims made in the objection are inaccurate having regard to that evidence. We refer the Parish Council to Chapter 9 of the Environmental Statement and to its Technical Appendices (all provided at Appendix F). The material includes verified visual views from all of the vantage points agreed with HDC’s landscape advisers which should help. The Parish Council may also wish to refer to the response to our submitted evidence by The Landscape Partnership – HDC’s specialist advisers. All of this material is on the application website.
4.506 The facility for DHL Supply Chain would not be one of the largest buildings in the world, let alone the 7th largest! That is simply incorrect on the facts. There are, for example, in the distribution sector alone several buildings of a similar size (e.g., the Waitrose building at Magna Park Milton Keynes and in Leicestershire the recently permitted 120,733 sq m building for Amazon in Coalville). As explained in Appendix 1 to the “Economic Case for Magna Park” report (submitted with application 15/01531/OUT), key trends in the logistics sector are the increasing size of warehouse units (for scale efficiencies – with consequent cost savings and environmental benefits) and their concentration in optimal locations (golden triangle – including to reduce the number and length of lorry journeys and improve service quality).
P a g e | 95
4.507 The proposed DHL Supply Chain facility is very likely to be a national distribution centre (NDC). NDCs act as inventory holding points in which goods can dwell for considerable period of time. Inventory tends to be collected over a long period and, if a retail operation, then distributed during the period of seasonal demand.
4.508 3. Traffic Increase The Transport Assessment shows that the residual cumulative impacts of the traffic – HGV and employee – generated by the scheme will not be significantly adverse. The proposals include a range of mitigation measures, including dualling of the A5 and the new roundabout with Mere Lane which creates both safety benefits and improved function of the A5/A4303 junction. Highways England (responsible for the A5) has already stated that it will not object to the application; and the county highway authority is shortly to submit its comments. IDI Gazeley has worked closely with both from the outset.
4.509 The National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 32 bullet 3) states that developments should not be prevented or refused planning permission on transport impact grounds unless the cumulative residual impacts (i.e., after mitigation) would be severe.
4.510 4. Air Pollution. A full assessment of the impacts of the scheme, alone and cumulatively with both already permitted developments and with (should both be permitted) symmetry park, on the Air Quality Management Area in Lutterworth town centre and on every other receptor assessed is found to be not significant.
4.511 There are also increasingly strict controls over HGV emissions of both NOx and Particulate Matter which are governed by European legislation (the so-called “Euro standards”). The introduction of the Euro VI standard for HGVs (that officially came into force at the beginning of 2014) represents a very significant step towards much cleaner vehicles. Euro VI HGVs are equipped with sophisticated technologies (Engine Gas Recirculation and Selective Catalytic Reduction) to significantly reduce NOx emissions, and with particle filters to reduce emissions of Particulate Matter. In addition, the legislation stipulates significantly tighter test procedures to ensure that the standard is met during “real world conditions”, i.e. when actually being driven on the road outside of a laboratory. As a result, modern Euro VI HGVs are, on average, ten times cleaner in terms of NOx emissions than previous generations of Euro IV and Euro V vehicles, and are equivalent to the real-world emissions from current diesel cars.
4.512 The uptake of Euro VI HGVs is relatively rapid (compared to the uptake of new cars), and by 2016 (the opening year of the DHL Supply Chain scheme) there is expected to be more than 50% Euro VI HGVs on the road. Take-up is higher and faster amongst the blue chip end of the industry that occupies Magna Park.
4.513 5. Loss of food producing capacity The application site is not the “best and most versatile” agricultural land that is protected by planning policy. The application proposals take every opportunity, in line with national and local planning policy, to increase bio-diversity on the application site.
4.514 6. Housing and commuting The Core Strategy 2001 Census data are out of date; in any case, the use of (sample-based) travel to work data for such small scale areas is highly unreliable; and the data on the occupational profile of the logistics sector are also out-dated (and have been for many years). The match between residents’ skills and the needs of the logistics sector is good at many occupational levels. Overall, in a sector in which skill levels are rising rapidly, some 44% of the sector’s jobs are in upper and middle level professional, managerial, technical, sales and administrative occupations, with a further 9% are in customer services, sales and personal services occupations.
4.515 As it is, Harborough (2011 Census) has a very open labour market, with high levels both of out- commuting and in-commuting for work. Some 62% of residents (excluding those who work mainly
P a g e | 96 from home or have no fixed workplace) travel out of the District for work. Thus local prosperity is heavily dependent on jobs elsewhere. Magna Park’s in-commuters, moreover, account for no more than about a quarter of the in-commuter workers to the district.
4.516 Any long term strategy to create a better balance between jobs and residents in the District would seek to deliver higher levels of employment locally. The application proposals include an initiative both to increase the share of jobs that are taken by local residents and the levels of business done by Magna Park in the locality (the Planning Statement at Section 7 sets out the details). Wages in the logistics sector are also on average 10-17% higher than wages in manufacturing and some 19% (2013) higher than the national average wage.
4.517 7. Harborough Core Strategy. The facts in relation to the policies of the Core Strategy are these. Both Core Strategy policies CS7f and CS7h are inconsistent with the NPPF to a very significant degree. The NPPF supports rural prosperity through the sustainable development and expansion of all kinds of business; and CS7h is out-of-date, quantitatively and qualitatively, with the evidence on the need for additional strategic distribution floorspace as well as out of step with the central purpose of the NPPF (to deliver the economic growth the country needs unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits).
4.518 There is also no provision in national policy to allow for the Core Strategy’s view that Harborough need not play a strategic role economically. Instead, the NPPF obliges Harborough to objectively assess and meet the needs of businesses that operate within and across its area unless there are sound reasons for not doing so – for instance because of a lack of physical capacity or because the impacts of doing so would significantly outweigh the benefits.
4.519 The consequence of these inconsistencies between the Core Strategy and the NPPF is that HDC cannot accord any significant weight to the conflict of the application proposals with policies CS7f, CS7h. The same is true for CS17 which is also inconsistent with the NPPF in precluding all development in the countryside save for a narrow range of largely agricultural uses. HDC, in contrast, can give full weight to the relevant policies of the Core Strategy that are consistent with the NPPF; and we take the view, as set out in the Planning Statement, that the application proposals are in accord with those.
4.520 Response to Watson Haynes concerns relating to Wind Turbine On behalf of IDI Gazeley Capita Property & Infrastructure, Consulting Engineers, wish to respond to a planning objection from Watson Haynes dated 11th September, and posted on Harborough District Council’s application website on 2nd October, relating primarily to the position of a wind turbine at Manor Farm and its relationship/proximity with regards the proposed DHL unit.
4.521 The details of the objection are set out in a brief written comment, supported by an aerial photograph of the site together with engineering assessment diagrams. The objection states that the DHL proposals are of “considerable concern” on grounds that, “The windstream would flow over and around the proposed warehouse (DHL) splitting the wind’s path and creating a turbulence zone at least 3 x the diameter of the obstacle.” As a consequence, the objector goes on to say, “The location of warehousing in the path of the prevailing wind would be seriously detrimental to the safe running of the wind turbine as well as having a significant negative impact on renewable energy production … [which] has become [an] essential factor in the running of [the Manor Farm] agricultural business.”
P a g e | 97
Figure 8: Aerial View showing proposed development outside Prevailing Wind Zone and Direction of Wind Turbine (submitted by applicant)
4.522 To assist with the evaluation of this objection, we refer to the attached Capita aerial view of the wind turbine and proposed DHL Unit (See Figure 8) together with section drawing showing their combined height and distance apart relationships (See Figure 9). The section drawing also encompasses one of the wind engineering assessment diagrams extracted from the Watson Haynes report material.
Figure 9: Schematic showing proposed development has no effect on Wind Turbine (submitted by applicant)
P a g e | 98 4.523 The objection infers that the presence of the proposed building for DHL Supply Chain would cause an obstacle in front of the wind turbine, thereby causing turbulence adversely affecting its rotating mechanism. However, it can be seen from the parameters set out in the wind engineering diagram, as received from Watson Haynes, that this is clearly incorrect. For example, the Capita section drawing shows the bottom of the wind turbine blade is higher than the height of the obstacle, therefore, no such turbulence arises. It is also apparent from the Watson Haynes diagrams that providing the separation is greater than ten times the height of the obstacle, also no such turbulence arises. This is demonstrated on the Capita section drawing which shows that the separation of 600 metres is greater than 230 metres (i.e 10 x obstacle height of 23 metres). Furthermore we refer to Capita aerial photograph showing the prevailing wind direction as it relates to the wind turbine. Perusing the photograph it is also evident that the DHL unit does not affect the prevailing wind flow in any adverse manner.
4.524 Consequently it can only be concluded that the bases of the objection cannot be demonstrated and is without any technical justification.
4.525 Response to Wells McFarlane (acting on behalf of Watling Farm) Thank you for forwarding, late on Friday afternoon, 11 December 2015, the objection referenced above that you received slightly earlier that same afternoon. As I explained when I telephoned you by return, the grounds for objection do not hold on the facts. As promised, I set out here the details as to why that is so.
4.526 I also point out, with reference to the statement in the objection that Messrs Bevin have only recently become aware of the details of the proposals, that the detailed planning application for the DHL Supply Chain facility has been in the public domain since 16 June 2015. The submitted details include those for the highway proposals. In addition to the November 2014 and January 2015 public consultations on the emerging proposals, IDI Gazeley circulated an “update” newsletter on the proposals via Swift Flash in October 2015 that included the same image of the highways proposals that Wells McFarlane included in its objection. In each of these cases, c 5,400 households in the locality were notified / sent the newsletter, including all households in the Willey area. Thus, though the Messrs Bevin may have been unaware of the detail of the highway proposals, those details have been in the public domain for six months and were fully consulted on before that. There was no obligation upon IDI Gazeley otherwise to consult the Messrs Bevin.
4.527 Mr Wells explains that the Messrs Bevin gain access to the A5 from each of their fields at the points X, Y and Z indicated on the plans attached to Mr Wells’ objection, and that to do so the Messrs Bevin cross over a strip of land that is owned by IDI Gazeley. Mr Wells claims that the highway proposals will make typical farming activities impossible: that for tractors, trailers, combine harvesters and other large machinery to turn right onto the A5, these farm vehicles would have to travel along the A5 all the way to the M69 roundabout and back to be able to go towards Lutterworth; that the swept path of these large vehicles would mean that left turning vehicles would have to make use of both carriageways (though we point out that the swept path would be the same as it is now); and that access Z would appear to be closed off.
4.528 The actual situation for the Watling Farm access that would be created by the proposals to dual the section of the A5 at issue and create roundabout junction with Mere Lane is this: 1. All existing access points can be retained. Accesses X and Y will become restricted to left-in, left-out only on highway safety grounds. 2. Access Z will remain unrestricted. 3. All of the fields shown in the plans appended to Mr Wells’ objection can be accessed from Access Z alone.
4.529 We have also reviewed Mr Wells’ client’s land. Although not a planning matter, you may wish to be aware that we are asking him to clarify the basis on which his client claims to have rights of access over IDI Gazeley’s land.
4.530 Rebuttal of Dr Susan Tebby’s report re History of Bittesby Parish
P a g e | 99 Please accept this covering letter and the attached statements by CgMS (heritage), Nicholas Pearson Associates (visual impact) and Grant Associates (landscape) on behalf of IDI Gazeley in response to the objection by Dr Susan Tebby to the DHL Supply Chain planning application referenced above.
4.531 The objection is dated 30/31 December 2015 by Dr Tebby and dated by your Council as having been received on 4 January 2016. You brought it to our attention early evening on 7 January 2015 – just three weeks before the anticipated committee date for the application’s determination but close to seven months since the application was validated and a full three months since the EIA Regulation 22 update was notified (with the results of the archaeological trialling). We would like to think neither the lateness of the objection nor its timing have any more meaning than the time Dr Tebby has evidently needed to be able to absorb and reflect upon the substantial body of research and other material on Bittesby House and its setting that was submitted by our specialist and appropriately qualified team (historic buildings, archaeology and landscape).
4.532 We provide the attached statements with two main purposes: i. to correct, with reference to the submitted application material, the matters of fact in Dr Tebby’s objection; and ii. to set out why Dr Tebby’s additional material does not amount to new information that would require our specialists to revisit their judgments on the significance of Bittesby House and the contribution of its setting to it.
4.533 We find, therefore and after careful consideration of Dr Tebby’s late objection, that our specialists’ judgments remain robust as to the residual impact of the application proposals on both the non-designated heritage asset (Bittesby House) and the Scheduled Monument (Bittesby Deserted Medieval Village). The residual impact on the former is not significant, and on the latter constitutes less than substantial harm. Both impacts, in line respectively with paragraphs 135 and 134 of the NPPF, are judged to be justified by the public benefits that accrue from the proposals. Those benefits and the balancing case obliged by the NPPF are summarised in the submitted Planning Statement.
4.534 While much of what Dr Tebby has uncovered is clearly of interest, we cannot agree that the research amounts to evidence that Bittesby House is any more significant than judged and substantiated by the evidence already before the Council. Bittesby House is a non-designated heritage asset which means that, in planning terms, Bittesby House has a low level of significance. The setting of Bittesby House is not itself a heritage asset.
4.535 We think it very unlikely that the additional material put forward by Dr Tebby will be sufficient to convince Historic England (HE) to revise its view and conclude that Bittesby House has either (or both) the special architectural and/or historic interest meriting inclusion on the national heritage list. Regardless, the outcome of any further review by HE of its earlier decision is not material to the determination of the DHL application: the proposals do not directly affect either the building or the tree-lined avenue that forms part of its setting.
4.536 Although there is nothing in anything submitted by Dr Tebby that causes us to review the submitted information, we acknowledge that there is much that is of value and we welcome it. Of particular interest is the exhaustive research into the ownership and land-holding of Bittesby parish and Bittesby House.
4.537 Finally, we stress that – as you know – we have carried out the heritage, visual impact and landscape design work in an inclusive, collaborative and consultative manner. The CgMS, NPA and Grant Associates technical teams are all appropriately accredited professionals and CgMS has used similarly accredited and experienced heritage professionals to undertake the archaeological fieldwork on its behalf. The teams have agreed all of the steps that have been taken with HDC and statutory consultees, and prepared thorough and robust baseline evidence to scopes of work and methodologies that have also been agreed at each stage in the development design process. Discussions have continued post submission and updated work, all
P a g e | 100 of which has been accepted without objection by the statutory consultees, has been formally submitted for consultation with statutory consultees and the wider public. Even the updated information has been in the public domain for three months, well beyond the 21 day minimum obliged by the EIA Regulations.
5. Planning Policy Considerations 5.1 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 provides that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the development plan (this is the statutory presumption) (hereafter referred to as the ‘DP’), unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
a) Development Plan 5.2 Section 38(3) (b) of the 2004 Act defines the DP as the DP documents (taken as a whole) that have been adopted or approved in that area.
5.3 The DP for Harborough therefore comprises: • The Harborough District Core Strategy adopted November 2011; and • The saved polices of the Harborough District Local Plan adopted April 2001.
Harborough District Core Strategy 5.4 The Core Strategy (hereafter referred to as the ‘CS’) was adopted in November 2011 and covers the period from 2006 to 2028.
5.5 Policy CS1: Spatial Strategy for Harborough sets out the spatial strategy for Harborough, the principal aim of which is to maintain the District’s “unique rural character whilst ensuring that the needs of the community are met through sustainable growth and suitable access to services”. CS1 seeks to achieve that aim by, amongst other ways, (CS1f) developing Lutterworth as a “Key Centre” with additional housing, employment, retail, leisure and community facilities to serve the settlement and its catchment area; (CS1j) allocating new employment land with the Allocations Development Plan Document to ensure that “any losses in the overall stock of employment land are suitably replaced”; (CS1k) identifying existing sites of “important employment use” and safeguarding their function through the designation of Key Employment Areas; (CS1n) developing the green infrastructure assets of the District; (CS1o) supporting development which protects, conserves, and enhances the District’s built heritage whilst ensuring that new development is safe, well designed, adapts to climate change and helps to reduce the District’s carbon emissions.
5.6 Policy CS5: Providing Sustainable Transport states that future development in the District will seek to maximise the use and efficiency of existing transport facilities and achieve the “best overall effect” for transport for the District “as it looks for a lower carbon future”. To achieve this aim, CS5 states (amongst other things): (CS5a) the “majority” of future development will be located in areas well-served by local services, where there is convenient access to public transport services for longer journeys and where local journeys can be undertaking on foot or by bicycle; (CS5b) all significant development proposals should provide for the co-ordinated delivery of transport improvements outlined in the place-based policies of the Strategy; and (CS5c) the type of transport enabling and mitigation works provided by each development should be geared to transport improvements that are beneficial to the wider area and which can complement works to be provided by other developments.
5.7 Policy CS7: Enabling Employment and Business Development states that economic and employment development “will be enabled within Harborough District in support of the sub- regional economic growth of Leicester and Leicestershire”. CS7c states that to achieve that aim, the spatial strategy “seeks to” review existing employment sites and allocations in the District in the Allocations Development Plan Document and “confirm a portfolio of sustainable sites, of the right quality and at the right time, to meet any identified shortfalls in future need” using a criteria based assessment that will include “accessibility tests, policy factors, market attractiveness, sustainable development and strategic planning factors”. CS7d says that it will designate “Key
P a g e | 101 Employment Centres” in Market Harborough, Key and Rural Centres; and CS7e says that proposals to renew or upgrade other employment areas where, “based on an up to date assessment of employment land needs” it is not detrimental to the overall level of employment provision in the area.
5.8 CS7f supports employment development within the “countryside, beyond towns and villages, only where it contributes to the retention and viability of rural services or land based business, aids farm diversification, or promotes the conversion and re-use of existing buildings “particularly those adjacent to or closely related to towns or villages”.
5.9 CS7h seeks to protect “Magna Park’s unique role as a strategic distribution centre (B8 uses / Min size 10,000 m2) of national significance and an exemplar of environmental performance.” CS7h goes on to say, “No further phase of development or large scale expansion of the site, beyond the existing development footprint (to be defined in the Allocations DPD) will be supported.”
5.10 The CS written statement explains that the employment need evidence base for the policy is the 2008 Leicester and Leicestershire HMA Employment Land Study 2008 which found “no overall strategic need” for additional employment land in the District over the plan period (paragraph 5.89). Paragraph 5.70 of the statement goes on to explain that “Harborough’s contribution to Leicestershire’s economic growth is to sustain local economic prosperity; enable businesses to start and grow; and making local as opposed to strategic provision for employment needs.” Paragraph 5.73 elaborates on that position in respect to Magna Park and says the “site meets a regional, or strategic, rather than local need and concludes – on grounds that because of future road / rail network developments, travel to work patterns, the mismatch between the logistics’ sector’s occupational structure and the Districts’ skills base, that there are “more suitable locations and sites (both rail and non rail-linked) than Magna Park” to meet the forecast need for strategic distribution to 2026. That is despite, even the 2008 study finding a shortfall of 32.9 ha over the 2007-2026 period between the demand for logistics warehousing and the supply of land to accommodate it.
5.11 Nonetheless, paragraph 5.69 of the statement explains, “existing employment provision will be re-assessed and depending on particular circumstances, additional site allocations will be considered via the Allocations DPD and applications for additional employment sites may be permitted.” However, no Allocations DPD was ever prepared. Instead consultation on the options for the location of development to inform a new Local Plan is in progress.
5.12 Policy CS8: Protecting and Enhancing Green Infrastructure seeks to secure a high quality, accessible and multi-functional green infrastructure network across rural and urban parts of the District. Green infrastructure will be encouraged through the promotion of, amongst other things, recreation, tourism, education, biodiversity, and the protection and enhancement of heritage assets. The means include developer contributions to improve the quality, use and multi- functionality of the green infrastructure assets and making use of opportunities to maximise the potential of existing and new green space.
5.13 Policy CS8d states that the Council and its partners will (amongst other things): protect, manage and enhance the District’s biodiversity assets (including those that are not designated); encourage the restoration of fragmented habitats, promote the management of biodiversity (encouraging the maintenance of wildlife corridors, ecological networks and “stepping stones” at a local level that contribute to the sub-region’s Green Infrastructure Network); avoid demonstrable harm to habitats or species which are protected or important to diversity; require proposed new developments to incorporate beneficial features for biodiversity “as part of good design and sustainable development”; and support measures aimed at allowing the District’s flora and fauna to adapt to climate change.
5.14 Policy CS9: Addressing Climate Change states that development which adapts to climate change and helps to reduce the District’s carbon emissions will be supported through the means listed in CS9a)-CS9f). CS9a directs new development to the most sustainable locations and
P a g e | 102 militates against any impacts on the environment; CS9b prioritises brownfield land; CS9c supports and encourages sustainable construction materials and methods; CS9d encourages new non-residential developments to meet a BREEAM assessment of “very good” and, from 2016, “excellent” and on-site or decentralised renewable energy to provide a minimum of a site’s total energy requirements. CS9e promotes the use of standalone renewable and low carbon energy sources – subject to (amongst other things) siting that avoids harm to heritage assets, minimal impact on local landscape character and does not create overbearing cumulative noise or visual impacts. CS9f supports additional innovations which have a positive impact on climate change adaptation – and states that the innovations supported include appropriate shading and planting, Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems, rain harvesting and storage, and grey water recycling.
5.15 CS10: Addressing Flood Risk states that new development will be directed towards areas at the lowest risk of flooding within the District; with priority given to land within Flood Zone 1. The use of Flood Zones 2 and 3a for recreation, amenity and environmental purposes will be supported where an effective means of flood risk management is evident. All new development will be expected to ensure that it does not increase the level of flooding experienced in other areas of the District. Surface water run-off in all developments should be managed, to minimise the net increase in the amount of surface water discharged into the local public sewer system.
5.16 CS11: Promoting Design and Built Heritage seeks the highest standards of design in new development to create attractive places for people to live, work and visit. CS11a states that development should be inspired by, respect and enhance local character, building materials and distinctiveness of the area; CS11b obliges all development to respect the context in which it is taking place and respond to the unique characteristics of the individual site and wider local environment beyond the site’s boundaries, and states that new development should be directed away from undeveloped areas of land which are important to the form and character of a settlement or a locality. CS11c states that development should be well-planned so that, amongst other ways, it is of a scale, density and design that would not cause damage to the qualities, character and amenity of the area in which it is situated; ensures that the amenities of existing and future neighbouring occupiers are safeguarded; where appropriate, encourages travel by a variety of modes of transport; and minimises waste and encourages re-use and recycling wherever possible. CS11d states that the heritage assets within the District, and their setting, will be protected, conserved and enhanced, ensuring that residents and visitors can appreciate and enjoy them, safeguards Scheduled Monuments and non-scheduled nationally important archaeological remains and other areas of archaeological potential, and encourages improved access to buildings and places of heritage for local people and visitors. In this context it is important to note section 66(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which provides that In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, a local planning authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. In substance this provides for statutory presumption in favour of the preservation of listed buildings and their settings and any harm to the significance of a listed building should be given considerable importance and weight in the overall balance. Section 72 of the same Act places a requirement on a local planning authority in relation to development in a conservation area, to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. This too is a statutory presumption in favour of preservation and, if harm is caused to a Conservation Area that should be given considerable importance and weight.
5.17 CS Policy CS14: Lutterworth states that the town will be developed as a Key Centre for the District to provide new housing, employment, retail, leisure and community facilities to serve the settlement and its catchment area. The policy states that in doing so steps will be taken to accommodate businesses dependent on HGV access in locations where such traffic does not need to travel through the town centre.
P a g e | 103 5.18 CS14b states that transport interventions associated with additional development in and around Lutterworth will focus on improving air quality and reducing the adverse impacts of traffic flow in the town centre. Amongst other ways, this is to be achieved by resisting development that would result in additional HGVs passing through the town centre; supporting routeing schemes for Magna Park; locating future HGV generating business developments to the south of the town with good access to the M1, the A4303 and A426; and improving links within the existing urban area for walking, cycling and local bus provision.
5.19 CS14d states that employment development will be supported which strengthens the role of Lutterworth as a Key Centre within the District and reinforces the Spatial Strategy set out in Policy CS1, and that any additional proposals for business development in Lutterworth which require access by heavy goods vehicle should be located near the M1, A426 and A4303.
5.20 CS14e states that the principle of a separation area between Magna Park, Bitteswell and Lutterworth will be maintained to ensure the retention of the identity and distinctiveness of these nearby places. Proposals leading to the formation of accessible natural and semi natural green space, tree planting, improved local routes for walking, horse riding and cycling and the promotion of improved biodiversity will be supported in this area.
5.21 CS17: Countryside, Rural Centres and Rural Villages states that outside the named rural settlements, “new development in the Countryside and other settlements not identified as selected rural villages will be strictly controlled.” Only development required for the purposes of agriculture, woodland management, sport and recreation, local food initiatives, that supports visits to the countryside and renewable energy production will be appropriate in the countryside. CS17c states that “rural development” will be located and designed in a way that is sensitive to its landscape setting, retaining, and where possible, enhancing the distinctive characteristics of the landscape character area in which it is situated. CS17c refers to the district’s five landscape areas, and sets a number criteria to be met by development in those areas – including: protecting and, where possible, enhancing the character and quality of the landscape in which the development is situated (CS17ci) conserving and, where possible, enhancing local landscape distinctiveness (CS17cii) protecting and, where possible, enhancing local character through appropriate design and management which is sensitive to the landscape setting (CS17ciii) avoiding the loss of features and habitats of landscape, historic, wildlife or geological importance, whether of national or local significance (CS17civ) safeguarding important views and landmarks (CS17cv) protecting the landscape setting of individual settlements (CS17cvi) restoring, or providing mitigation proportionate in scale for damaged features/landscapes in poor condition (CS17cvii) improving the green infrastructure network, including increased opportunities for public access to the countryside and open space assets (CS17cviii).
Harborough District Local Plan – April 2011 5.22 The sole saved policies of the 2001 Local Plan that are relevant are: saved policy EV2, which seeks to protect the open and undeveloped character of defined Green Wedges (one of which lies between Lutterworth and Magna Park) saved policy EV3, which responds to the statement (paragraph 3.9) that most settlements in the district are physically separated from each other such that “there is little danger of new development resulting in the coalescence of villages” – but that Lutterworth, Bitteswell and Magna Park (and two others) are exceptions. Thus EV3 says it will refuse planning permission for development between Lutterworth, Bitteswell and Magna Park that would adversely affect the predominantly open character of land, or result in a reduction of open land separating these settlements.
P a g e | 104 b) Material Planning Considerations 5.23 Material considerations are relevant matters which sit outside of the Development Plan (DP). The material considerations to be taken into account in considering the merits of this application include, amongst others, the National Planning Policy Framework, the National Planning Policy Guidance, the Environmental Statement information, together with responses from consultees and representations received from all other interested parties in relation to material planning matters.
The National Planning Policy Framework 5.24 The National Planning Policy Framework (hereafter referred to as ‘The Framework’) published in March 2012 replaces previous national guidance set out set in Planning Policy Guidance and Planning Policy Statements.
5.25 The overarching policy objective of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan making and decision-taking.
5.26 Paragraph 7 of The Framework identifies three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These can be defined as follows: an economic role – contributing to building a strong, response and competitive economy by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type and in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirement, including the provision of infrastructure; a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities by, amongst other things, creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support health, social and cultural well-being; and an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.
5.27 These issues are mutually dependent and in order to achieve sustainable development economic, environmental and social gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system (paragraph 8). The presumption in favour of sustainable development is the “golden thread” that should run through both plan-making and decision-taking.
5.28 Paragraph 11 confirms that planning applications must, by law, be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise – and that the statutory basis for such decisions is not changed by the NPPF. It counsels, however, that it is “highly desirable” that local planning authorities should have an up-to-date plan in place.
5.29 The Framework indicates that where development accords with an up to date DP it should be approved (paragraph 12).
5.30 Paragraph 14 of the Framework states that when making decisions on development proposals the decision maker should “approve development proposals that accord with the DP without delay”. It goes on to say where the DP is absent, silent or where relevant polices are out of date, permission should also be granted, unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole, or specific polices in the Framework suggest development should be restricted.
5.31 Paragraph 17 sets out the 12 core ‘planning principles’ which should underpin decision making. Summarising, they: 1) are led by local plans which set out a vision for the future of the area; 2) enhance and improve the places where people live; 3) drive sustainable development; 4) secure a high quality of design and a good standard of amenity;
P a g e | 105 5) protect the diversity of different areas; 6) support the transition to a low-carbon future; 7) help conserve and enhance the natural environment; 8) encourage the re-use of land; 9) promote mixed use developments; 10) conserve heritage assets; 11) make full use of public transport, walking and cycling; and 12) improve health, social and cultural wellbeing.
5.32 Paragraph 19 states, “Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.”
5.33 Paragraph 20 states that in order to help achieve economic growth, local planning authorities should plan proactively to meet the development needs of business and support an economy fit for the 21st century.
5.34 Paragraph 21 states that in drawing up Local Plans local planning authorities should, amongst other things, support existing business sectors, taking account of whether they are expanding or contracting.
5.35 Paragraph 29 says that the transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes but that the Government recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary from urban to rural areas.
5.36 Paragraph 31 states that local authorities should work with neighbouring authorities and transport providers to develop strategies for the provision of viable infrastructure necessary to support sustainable development, including rail freight interchanges and other major generators of travel demand within their areas.
5.37 Paragraph 32 advises developments that generate significant amounts of movements should be supported by a Transport Assessment and decisions should take account of whether: the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.
5.38 Paragraph 35 states that plans should protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of goods or people. Developments should be located and designed where practical to: accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies; have access to high quality public transport facilities; create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists; incorporate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles; and consider the needs of people with disabilities.
5.39 Paragraph 56 explains the great importance Government attaches to the design of the built environment: that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.
5.40 Paragraph 58 states that planning decisions should aim to ensure that developments will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, establish a strong sense of place, optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, respond to local character and history, create safe and accessible environments, and are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping. P a g e | 106
5.41 Paragraph 60 states that planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles.
5.42 Paragraph 61 states that securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. Planning decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment.
5.43 Paragraph 69 sets out how the planning system can play “an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities”. Paragraph 69 states that LPAs, in making planning decisions, should aim to achieve places which promote safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion, and safe and accessible developments, containing clear and legible pedestrian routes, and quality public space.
5.44 Paragraph 73 states that access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities.
5.45 Paragraph 75 seeks to protect and enhance public rights of way and access and seek opportunities to provide better facilities for users, for example by adding links to existing rights of way networks including National Trails.
5.46 The NPPF recognises that action to reduce the impact of human activity on the climate system will be achieved primarily through reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Paragraph 93 emphasises that planning plays a key role in helping to shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to the impacts of climate change, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure; and makes it clear that it is this that is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.
5.47 To support the move to a low carbon future, new development should comply with adopted local plan policies on the requirements for decentralised energy supply and seek to minimise energy consumption unless it can be demonstrated that this is not feasible or viable; and (Paragraph 96).
5.48 Paragraph 99 restates the need for new development to be planned to avoid increased vulnerability to the range of impacts arising from climate change. Paragraphs 100 and 103 direct development away from areas at the highest risk of flooding and which does not increase flood risk elsewhere.
5.49 Paragraph 109 states the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services and minimising the impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible to establish coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures. It seeks to prevent both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution and land instability.
5.50 Paragraph 118 states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity. They should refuse planning permission for development that would cause significant harm where this harm cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or compensated for. Opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged.
P a g e | 107 5.51 Chapter 11, Paragraph 112, advises planning decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed; take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land; conserve and enhance biodiversity and green infrastructure; ensure new development is appropriate for its location taking account of ground conditions.
5.52 Paragraph 120 states that where a site is affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or landowner.
5.53 Paragraph 123 states that planning policies and decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development. Decisions should mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions.
5.54 Paragraph 124 states that planning policies should sustain compliance with, and contribute towards, EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas.
5.55 Chapter 12 outlines how LPA’s should determine applications that affect the historic environment. Paragraphs 126 and 131 state that LPAs should take account of the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness, as well as opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place. The positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities, including their economic vitality, should be taken into account in decision taking.
5.56 Paragraph 128 states that LPAs should require applicants for planning permission to describe the significance of any affected assets (including their setting), providing a level of detail appropriate to their significance using appropriate expertise to do so where necessary.
5.57 Paragraph 131 states In determining planning applications, local planning authorities should take account of: ● the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; ● the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and ● the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.
5.58 Paragraph 132 advises that great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset. The more important the designated asset, the greater the weight should be. It goes on to advise, that significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the designated heritage asset or development within its setting and as heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.
5.59 Paragraph’s 133 (referring to substantial harm) and Paragraph 134 (referring to less than substantial harm) of the Framework advise that where a development proposal will lead to harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.
5.60 Paragraph 135 refers specifically to non designated heritage and requires a balanced judgement to be made.
5.61 Paragraph 136 provides that local planning authorities should not permit the loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset without taking reasonable steps to ensure that the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred.
P a g e | 108
5.62 Paragraph 137 states that LPAs should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites and within the setting of heritage assets “to enhance or better reveal their significance”; and states that proposals that “preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably”.
5.63 Paragraph 157 explains the “crucial” requirement for local plans to “plan positively for the development and infrastructure required in the area” (bullet 1); be based on cooperation with neighbouring authorities; allocate sites to promote development and flexible use of land, bringing forward new land where necessary (bullet 5).
5.64 paragraphs 160-161 set out the obligation on LPAs to have a clear understanding of the business needs within the economic markets operating in and across their area - and, in developing that understanding, to work together with neighbouring authorities to develop and maintain a robust evidence base and to work closely with the business community to understand their changing needs and identify and address barriers to investment. (NPPF paragraphs 160-161)
5.65 Paragraphs 178-179 guide performance of the “duty to cooperate” within plan preparation in relation to planning issues that cross administrative boundaries - to meet development requirements which cannot be met in their own areas – “for instance, because of a lack of physical capacity or because to do so would cause significant harm to the principles and policies of the NPPF”
5.66 At Paragraph 186 The Framework advises LPA’s to approach decision-taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development and seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.
5.67 Paragraph 187 states that LPAs should “look for solutions rather than problems”. Decision-takers “at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible”, working “proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.”
5.68 Paragraph 190 recognises that the more issues that can be resolved at the pre-application stage, the greater the benefits. Paragraph 191 also states that the participation of other consenting bodies in pre-application discussions should enable early consideration of all the fundamental issues relating to whether a particular development will be acceptable in principle.
5.69 Paragraph 196 reiterates Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires all applications to be determined in accordance with the DP unless there are material considerations which indicate otherwise and advises the Framework is a material consideration in planning decisions.
5.70 In respect of planning obligations, the Framework advises that these should only be used where it is not possible to address unacceptable impacts through a planning condition. They should, in addition, meet all of the following tests, which mirror those in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010: 1. necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; 2. directly related to the development; and 3. fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
5.71 Where obligations are being sought or revised, LPA’s should take account of changes in market conditions over time and, wherever appropriate, be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development being stalled.
5.72 Paragraph 206 advises LPA’s to only impose planning conditions where they meet six tests: i) necessary,
P a g e | 109 ii) relevant to planning iii) relevant to the development to be permitted, iv) enforceable, v) precise and vi) reasonable in all other respects.
5.73 Annex 1 to the Framework advocates how the Framework should be implemented. In particular it advocates: only due weight should be given to relevant polices in a Local Plan according to their degree of consistency with the Framework and the weight to be afforded to emerging plans, which is to be determined having regard to their stage of preparation, the extent of unresolved objections and the degree of consistency with the Framework.
o Noise Policy Statement for England 2010 (NPSE) 5.74 The vision of the NPSE is to promote good health and a good quality of life through the effective management of noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development. The aim of the NPSE is that, Through the effective management and control of environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development: avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life; mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and quality of life; and where possible, contribute to the improvement of health and quality of life. The intention is that the NPSE should apply to all types of noise apart from noise in the workplace (occupational noise). For the purposes of the NPSE, “noise” includes: “environmental noise” which includes noise from transportation sources; “neighbour noise” which includes noise from inside and outside people’s homes; and “neighbourhood noise” which includes noise arising from within the community such as industrial and entertainment premises, trade and business premises, construction sites and noise in the street.
5.75 The application of the NPSE should mean that noise is properly taken into account at the appropriate time. In the past, the opportunity for the cost effective management of noise has often been missed because the noise implications of a particular policy, development or other activity have not been considered at an early enough stage.
5.76 In addition, the application of the NPSE should enable noise to be considered alongside other relevant issues and not to be considered in isolation. In the past, the wider benefits of a particular policy, development or other activity may not have been given adequate weight when assessing the noise implications.
5.77 There are two established concepts from toxicology that are currently being applied to noise impacts, for example, by the World Health Organisation. They are: NOEL – No Observed Effect Level - This is the level below which no effect can be detected. In simple terms, below this level, there is no detectable effect on health and quality of life due to the noise. LOAEL – Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level – This is the level above which adverse effects on health and quality of life can be detected.
5.78 Extending these concepts for the purpose of this NPSE leads to the concept of a significant observed adverse effect level. SOAEL – Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level – This is the level above which significant adverse effects on health and quality of life occur.
5.79 It is not possible to have a single objective noise-based measure that defines SOAEL that is applicable to all sources of noise in all situations. Consequently, the SOAEL is likely to be
P a g e | 110 different for different noise sources, for different receptors and at different times. It is acknowledged that further research is required to increase our understanding of what may constitute a significant adverse impact on health and quality of life from noise. However, not having specific SOAEL values in the NPSE provides the necessary policy flexibility until further evidence and suitable guidance is available.
5.80 The first aim of the NPSE is to avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life from environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development. The first aim of the NPSE states that significant adverse effects on health and quality of life should be avoided while also taking into account the guiding principles of sustainable development.
5.81 The second aim of the NPSE is to mitigate and minimise adverse impacts on health and quality of life from environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development. The second aim of the NPSE refers to the situation where the impact lies somewhere between LOAEL and SOAEL. It requires that all reasonable steps should be taken to mitigate and minimise adverse effects on health and quality of life while also taking into account the guiding principles of sustainable development (paragraph 1.8). This does not mean that such adverse effects cannot occur.
5.82 The third aim of the NPSE is to, contribute to the improvement of health and quality of life through the effective management and control of environmental, neighbour and neighbourhood noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development. This aim seeks, where possible, to positively improve health and quality of life through the pro-active management of noise while also taking into account the guiding principles of sustainable development, recognising that there will be opportunities for such measures to be taken and that they will deliver potential benefits to society. The protection of quiet places and quiet times as well as the enhancement of the acoustic environment will assist with delivering this aim.
Planning Practice Guidance 5.83 The Planning Practice Guidance (hereafter referred to as the PPG) published 6th March 2014 replaces a raft of previous planning guidance documents that have been cancelled as part of the Government’s drive to simplify the planning process. The PPG complements The Framework.
5.84 Set out below are the topic areas contained within the PPG that are of most relevance to the consideration of the proposal: Design Design and Climate Change Air Quality Housing and Economic Development Needs Natural Environment Heritage Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Noise
New Local Plan 5.85 On 3 December 2012, the Council resolved to prepare a new Local Plan for Harborough District. The new Local Plan will incorporate a focused review of the Harborough CS (adopted in November 2011) and will also identify key areas of land for development, thereby obviating the need for an allocations plan.
5.86 The new Local Plan scoping consultation was completed in April 2013. The Scoping Consultation noted that the Plan Period would be extended to 2031. The current timetable is for the pre- submission consultation to take place in June-July 2016, with an examination timetabled for November 2016. It is envisaged that the plan will be adopted no earlier than March 2017. Consequently, the emerging plan carries very limited weight in determining this application.
P a g e | 111 5.87 On the 27th July 2015, the Full Council of Harborough District Council approved the publication of a consultation paper on the future options for housing and employment development across the District to 2031, taking into account committed levels of development.
5.88 The document is not a draft plan but sets out available options for consideration. Appendix E is of particular note for this application in that it relates to employment land options. 6 week public consultation held 17/9/15 to 30/10/15. Alternative options currently being assessed in the light; of consultation responses, national policy and guidance, results of SA and local evidence, to identify most appropriate approach for each topic. Decision making on options begins spring 2016 with likely progress to a pre-submission plan published for further representations late in 2016.
5.89 However in the opinion of Officers, it should be given no material weight in terms of planning decisions taken. It is a consultative document seeking peoples views on development options which the Council is considering in order to decide on the most appropriate and sustainable approach for the proposed Plan.
c) Other Relevant Documents o Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 5.90 The Community Infrastructure Levy (hereafter referred to as ‘CIL’) is a planning charge, introduced by the Planning Act 2008 as a tool for local authorities to help deliver infrastructure to support the development of their area.
5.91 Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations 2010 introduced into law three tests for planning obligations in respect of development that is capable of being charged CIL. Obligations should be:- • necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms • directly related to the development • fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development
o Circular 11/95 Annex A - Use of Conditions in Planning Permission 5.92 Although publication of the PPG cancelled Circular 11/95, Appendix A on model conditions has been retained. These conditions are not exhaustive and do not cover every situation where a condition may be imposed. Their applicability will need to be considered in each case against the tests in paragraph 206 of the Framework and the guidance on the use of planning conditions in the PPG.
o Supplementary Planning Guidance 5.93 A series of guidance notes were adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance (hereafter referred to as ‘SPG’) to the Harborough District Local Plan in March 2003. They cover a range of topics relating to layout and design issues. Council agreed (19th December 2011) to retain the said SPGs and link them to CS policies as applicable, until a new Supplementary Planning Document is produced. The relevant SPGs are: SPG 7 - Industrial and Commercial Layout and Design SPG 10 -Trees and Development SPG 11 - Hedges and Development SPG 12 - Lighting in the Town and Country
o Leicester & Leicestershire Strategic Economic Plan 2014-2020 (LLEP) 5.94 The Economic Plan sets ambitious targets for ‘Place’, ‘Business’ and ‘People’ development in terms of job creation (45,000 jobs), levering private investment (£2.5bn) and increasing GVA (by £4bn). It identifies a lack of suitable land for our most land intensive priority sectors (logistics and manufacturing) as 1 of 5 major risk to the areas economy. In particular the SEP promotes 5 growth areas in Leicestershire (keep Figure 9), including South West Leicestershire which impacts on the west of Harborough district.
o LLEP-Logistics Distribution Sector Growth Plan (June 2015)
P a g e | 112 5.95 The Growth Plan sets out actions to support growth in the sector addressing people, business, place, and the environment. It identifies issues of recruitment (i.e. Drivers, warehouse operatives, the young and unemployed), career development, training and sector perception, business advice and support, land and roadside facilities provision, and environmental improvement. Underpinning the ‘Place’ element of the action plan is a commitment to implementing the recommendations of the SDSS for collaboration between LPAs to ensure that land and premises provision continues to meet sector needs in the short, medium and long term.
5.96 Leicester & Leicestershire Growth Plan 2050: the Strategic Planning Group, on which the LLEP and local authorities are represented, is in the formative stages of agreeing combined governance arrangements and a schedule for the preparation of a strategic growth plan for the area which aligns long term economic and spatial development ambitions.
o Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic Distribution Sector Study (SDS) (November 2014) 5.97 In December 2013 the Leicester and Leicestershire Housing Planning and Infrastructure Group (HPIG) commissioned MDS Transmodal and Savills to undertake a study examining the strategic distribution sector in the county. HPIG represents the county’s local planning authorities, Leicestershire County Council and the Leicester and Leicestershire Local Enterprise Partnership (LLEP) on spatial planning matters. The main objectives of the study were to enable a better understanding of the sector and objectively determine future need, together with managing change and supporting sustainable economic growth.
5.98 It is also important that the SDS is considered alongside the LLEP’s Strategic Economic Plan 2014-2020 (SEP). The ‘ambition’ of the SEP is to create an additional 45,000 jobs, lever £2.5 billion of private investment and increase GVA by £4 billion to 2020. In particular, the SEP is promoting five growth areas in Leicestershire, as illustrated at Figure 10.
Figure 10 – The LLEP Growth Areas (Source: SDS: Executive Summary)
5.99 The study was undertaken in three phases, with Parts A and B being of most relevance to the decision making process: • Part A: Review and Research;
P a g e | 113 • Part B: Planning for Change and Growth; and • Part C: Developing a Strategy for the Distribution Sector in Leicestershire
5.100 Analysis was undertaken in Part B of the SDS assessing total supply chain operating costs which would be incurred by a National Distribution Centre (NDC) occupier located in the golden triangle and at competing locations/sites to the north and east of the Golden Triangle or within Port areas. The outputs of the analysis demonstrated that, given a choice of sites, a major distribution centre operator would be expected to locate at a rail served site in the Golden Triangle as it continues to offer the most competitive location, particularly when handling a mixture of deep-sea, EU and domestic sourced cargo. Consequently, the key to addressing the identified challenges to the Golden Triangle (and by implication Leicestershire), and hence maintaining the established competitive advantage, is the development of new commercially attractive strategic sites in Leicestershire and the East Midlands which will be directly rail-served.
5.101 Conversely, the inability to bring forward a range of commercially attractive sites in Leicestershire (and the wider golden triangle) would most likely result in an overall reduction in the region’s total warehouse floor space capacity. As described in Part B of the SDS, the vast majority of new-build floor space is actually replacing existing obsolete capacity. Consequently, this replacement capacity along with any growth build element would migrate to other regions given a lack of sites in the Golden Triangle. This clearly has GVA and employment implications.
5.102 The southern part of the East Midlands region (including Leicestershire) became the preferred location for most large scale National Distribution Centres (NDCs). This was for three main reasons, namely: • It was broadly central to the major domestic production sites, the deep-sea and Channel ports (for imported cargo) and Regional Distribution Centres (RDCs) in other regions (the next stage in the supply chain). • The release of large competitive sites by local authorities for B8 use during the 1980s which were close to junctions on the M1/M6. This, combined with the above reason, meant that most inbound or outbound cargo movements could be undertaken within 4.5 hours drive time, this being half a HGV driver’s daily driving limit. Consequently, a HGV could round-trip within a driver’s shift (enabling a HGV to undertake at least two round-trips over a 24 hour period); and • Historically, relatively low road haulage costs (in turn driven by low fuel costs) and competitive labour rates. The combination of these factors meant the southern part of the East Midlands region became the competitive ‘location of choice’ in both supply chain cost and performance terms when sourcing and distributing on a national basis. The area has become known as the ‘Golden Triangle’1, and has to date consequently established a distinct competitive advantage in the strategic logistics sector.
5.103 This position was evidenced by the analysis undertaken in Section 4 (warehouse floor space) and Section 6 (Employment) of the Part A report. A significant quantum of large scale warehouse floor space has been developed in the golden triangle. In Leicestershire, there currently exists 2.25 million square metres of floor space across 89 large scale warehouse units2. Around 72% of East Midlands floor space capacity is located in Leicestershire or Northamptonshire. The East Midlands region records around 8% of the population of England and Wales, however it accommodates 20% of total English and Welsh warehouse capacity. This means that the identified warehouse capacity in Leicestershire is predominantly serving a national market.
1 There is no one standard recognised definition of the ‘golden triangle’. It may be referred to as the area bounded by the M1, M6 and M69, albeit that others consider it to be a larger area broadly enclosed by Milton Keynes, Birmingham and north Leicestershire (along the M1 and M6 corridors). The SDS has taken the broader definition. 2 As defined in the Part A report, units greater than 9,000sqm (approx 100,000 sq ft)
P a g e | 114 5.104 The table at Figure 11 compares the expected forecast demand at road-only sites to 2036 with land supply at existing sites with B8 consents. The preferred high replacement scenario suggests around 153ha of new land at non rail-served sites will need to be brought forward within Leicestershire up to 2036. To put this figure into context, the existing Magna Park development has a gross land area of around 220ha i.e. plot footprints plus service roads etc. The application proposal has a plot area of c22ha. While a lower replacement build element was also undertaken as part of the forecasts (low replacement scenario), it is the view of the authors of the SDS that the ‘high’ replacement scenario should be considered as the preferred option going forward for planning purposes.
Figure 11: Land required at Non-rail-served sites, Potential Land Supply and Shortfall to 2036 (Source SDS Executive Summary)
5.105 In order to ensure that there is a sufficient pipeline of strategic distribution sites, new land should be identified and allocated in the following sequential order, namely: • The extension of existing strategic distribution sites, both rail-served and road-only connected. For existing rail-served sites, this should only be permitted where there is spare capacity available at the existing rail freight terminal or capacity can be enhanced as part of any extension. Likewise, site extensions should only be permitted where there is adequate road capacity serving the site and at adjacent motorway/dual carriageway junctions or capacity can be enhanced as part of any extension; • In circumstances where rail-served sites cannot be extended, local plans should consider satellite sites (which shall be located close to the existing strategic distribution sites) which meet the site selection criteria and could utilise the existing rail freight infrastructure at the core site. A prerequisite for satellite sites to be considered should be spare rail capacity being available at the core site rail terminal or capacity that can be enhanced as part of any satellite development; • Identifying suitable new strategic distribution sites on previously developed land which meet the site selection criteria; and • Identifying suitable new strategic distribution sites on greenfield land which meet the site selection criteria.
5.106 The SDS states that the process of identifying new sites for development (the pro-active approach) should be guided by and based around the following site selection criteria: • At least 50ha of developable land; • Good highway connectivity – demonstrating that the motorway/dual carriageway junctions serving the prospective sites and the approach routes have sufficient network capacity; • Showing that a prospective site can be connected to the railway network and that it is served by a railway line offering a generous loading gauge (minimum W9), available freight capacity and connects to key origins/destinations directly without the requirement to use long circuitous routes; (RAIL CONNECTED SITES ONLY)
P a g e | 115 • Are the prospective sites sufficiently large and flexible in configuration to accommodate an intermodal terminal and internal reception sidings; • Similarly, are they sufficiently large and flexible in configuration to accommodate the size of distribution centre warehouse units now required by the market; • Demonstrating that they are accessible to labour, including the ability to be served by sustainable transport, and located close to areas of employment need; and • Located away from incompatible land-uses.
5.107 The report identified ‘key areas of opportunity’ and these are illustrated at Figure 12. Those enclosed in red are key areas of opportunity for both rail and road only connected sites, while those enclosed in blue are key areas of opportunity for road only connected sites. It is broadly within these identified key areas of opportunity where individual sites commercially attractive to the logistics market might be located. These are therefore the key areas where a strategy for growth should be allocating new sites to meet the identified land shortfall, through a pro-active search for sites alongside a ‘calls for sites’ process with the commercial property sector (see above). As part of the Local Plan Options Consultation, HDC issued such a call for sites, which informed the options formulation process. The call for sites did not identify any rail served sites within the District.
Figure 12: Key Areas of Opportunity (Source: SDS Executive Summary)
5.108 Four over-arching conclusions can be drawn from the SDS, namely • A need to identify and allocate new land at commercially attractive strategic sites, the purpose of which is to maintain and enhance the established competitive advantage, enabling the sector to growth in a sustainable manner; • To deliver the identified need, there will be a requirement to continue long-term strategic and collaborative planning across the county of Leicestershire, and potentially with authorities in neighbouring areas. This study should therefore not be viewed as a ‘one-off process’, and HPIG or a similar grouping will need to take the strategy forward on a longterm basis (and review the strategy periodically); • While the strategy outlined is a long-term plan (up to 2036), the preparatory work will need to begin immediately. Infrastructure delivery is by its nature long-term, albeit that the underlying evidence base and the preparation of local plan policies needs to commence now so that the right sites in the most competitive locations can come forward for development as and when they are required by the market; and • The strategy requires the implementation of a number of highway and railway enhancement schemes. Consequently, there will be a requirement for the planning authorities and LLEP
P a g e | 116 to liaise with (and lobby) the Highways Agency and Network Rail to ensure that the enhancement schemes are ultimately delivered.
o Local Plan Options Consultation 5.109 As set out above in para’s 5.85 – 5.89, HDC are currently formulating a New Local Plan for the District. The latest stage of the process is the publication of an Options Consultation Paper (Sept 2015). The paper focuses on meeting the districts’ future need for homes and jobs. It sets out 9 different options for locating housing and employment across the district and other proposed policy approaches that are being considered by the council. The paper is accompanied by an interim Sustainability Appraisal of the options.
5.110 Magna Park is a major strategic distribution park, home to established national and international businesses. It covers some 200ha with 922,000m2 of distribution floorspace. Phases 1 and 2 are now fully developed, except for 11ha covered by outstanding commitments.
5.111 Following the completion of the SDS (2014) (summarised above) which identified the M1 corridor south of Leicester as a Key Area of Opportunity for road linked distribution and a subsequent Call for Sites, a number of sites on the edge of Magna Park have been put forward through the plan- making process for potential strategic distribution use. Additional opportunities to potentially accommodate these uses also exist at a site on the edge of Shawell village and at another adjoining the M1 Junction 20 which forms part of the potential Lutterworth Strategic Development Area.
5.112 In terms of the new Local Plan, the evidence supports the allocation of some additional land for strategic distribution use (large B8 units > 10,000m2), hence it is not considered reasonable to include an option of no additional growth. Through the Options Consultation Paper HDC are focusing on options for the allocation of land adjoining Magna Park as these offer a range of potentially deliverable alternatives adjoining this established development. HDC will consider other opportunities that may come forward during the period this new Local Plan is under preparation. The options reflect those sites for which planning applications have either been submitted or are envisaged, which together provide a pool to contribute to employment development under any / each of the 3 strategic distribution options.
5.113 Expansion of strategic distribution use under all of these options will require further assessment relating to their impact on landscape character, noise, light and other environmental effects. Impacts on the local and national road network will also need to be assessed including, but not limited to the A5 / M1 Junction 20. Opportunities for local infrastructure improvements, economic and community benefit may also arise. Such impacts may be greater if delivered in combination with a potential Strategic Development Area in Lutterworth under Options 6, 8 or 9 of the Local Plan Options Consultation Paper. Representations (Est. total 3897 from 563 individual respondents, with approx. 90 respondents commenting on Strategic Distribution Options A-C) along with the Strategic Transport Assessment findings are currently being analysed. Analysis will be reported to the Councils Local Plan Advisory Panel (LPAP) beginning spring 2016.
5.114 HDC, for plan-making purposes (NPPF DtC), has identified strategic distribution as a strategic issue. Collaborative working to date has identified that targeted co-operation is needed (and is ongoing) with the following LPA’s in Leicestershire; NWL, Charnwood, Blaby, Hinckley & Bosworth, Leicester City, and Rugby, Daventry, and potentially Coventry on this matter (replies from other LPA’s outstanding). Of the non-Leicestershire LPA’s, all have stated intent to meet employment needs in full in their area via their development plan. None has identified a quantum of need for large scale / general B8 uses, which cannot be met within their own areas.
o Planning Obligations Developer Guidance Note 5.115 The Planning Obligations Developer Guidance Note was approved by the Council’s Executive in September 2009 and sets out the range of infrastructure, services and facilities that the Council will normally seek to secure via planning obligations in relation to development proposals within the District.
P a g e | 117
5.116 The Note advises if the requirement for developer contributions or for the provision of infrastructure result in viability concerns being raised it will be the responsibility of the Applicant’s to provide an independent financial viability assessment to substantiate the situation. If the assessment is accepted as reasonable the Council may request lower contributions for a particular Site provided that the benefits of developing the Site outweigh the loss of the developer contribution.
5.117 The Note also advises that an Applicant’s may be required to enter into a bond with a bank or insurance company in order to prevent any default in payment through bankruptcy, liquidation or refusal to pay. The Council will also seek a contribution of 15% of the total planning application fee to recover costs associated with the negotiating, production and subsequent monitoring of developer contributions.
5.118 There are two supporting documents associated with this guidance note: • Provision for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (September 2009) which provides details of the arrangements for assessing contributions to open space; and • Assessment of Local Community Provision and Developer Contributions (October 2010) which provides additional evidence to support the case for developer contributions to local indoor community and sports facilities.
o Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire 5.119 The Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire is the County Council’s developer contributions policy document. The document was approved as Leicestershire County Council policy in December 2014.
5.120 The District Council will take account of the adopted guidance and responses from all services providers, including the County Council in deciding which contributions are necessary to mitigate the impact of a development for the benefit of the community.
o Harborough District Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Capacity Study (Sept 2007) 5.121 This Assessment included an identification of Landscape Character Areas across the District. The detail of the report is considered further in Section 6 of this report.
o Lutterworth and Broughton Astley Landscape Character Asse4ssment and Landscape Capacity Study (December 2011) 5.122 This Assessment built upon and refined previous landscape character, sensitivity and capacity work carried out by The Landscape Partnership in 2007 for the land around Lutterworth. The assessment provided a detailed landscape sensitivity/capacity of the area. The detail of the report is considered further in Section 6 of this report.
o Leicestershire Local Transport Plan 5.123 The 3rd Leicestershire Local Transport Plan (LTP3) covers the period 2011-2026. It sets out the transport vision and longer term strategy for the County and identifies priorities and objectives to help deliver the vision. Objectives include tackling congestion, improving access to facilities for all, reducing the impact of transport on the environment, and improving road safety.
5.124 The LTP3 focuses, in particular, on the need to tackle congestion by increasing the use of public transport, walking and cycling with less growth in car mileage. This would be achieved by improving access to facilities including employment, education, health care and food shops.
o Leicestershire County Council 6C’s Design Guide 5.125 The 6Cs Design Guide (hereafter referred to as 6CsDG) deals with highways and transportation infrastructure for new developments
P a g e | 118 o 6C’s Green Infrastructure Strategy 5.126 The 6C’s Green Infrastructure Strategy (hereafter referred to as ‘6CsGIS’) was prepared on behalf of a partnership of local authorities and agencies for the East Midlands, setting out a strategic spatial framework needed to safeguard, manage, and extend networks of Green Infrastructure.
o 5 Year Housing Land Supply Statement 5.127 The Council produces bi-annual monitoring reports on the level of housing supply within the District. These reports include a five year housing land supply calculation and a housing trajectory for the remainder of the DP period. The latest report of 25th November covers the period from 1 October 2015 to 30 September 2020 and demonstrates a housing supply of 4.36 years.
d) Additional Information o Appeal Decisions 5.128 Within the main body of the reports reference is made to appeal decisions including high court judgements and recovered secretary of state decisions. Whilst every application is considered on individual merit, appeal decisions and judgements are helpful in demonstrating the weight to be applied to material considerations and the correct interpretation of planning policy.
o Business Rates 5.129 The increase in business rates for the district (assuming a rates contribution pro-rata to the park’s existing £20m), would be in the order of £2.6m annually, of which HDC would be entitled to keep some 50%3.
o Vision and Priorities for the District of Harborough 5.130 The Council adopted a vision and four priorities in February 2014. Approving sustainable developments is one way in which the vision and priorities can be achieved.
o Reason for Committee Decision 5.131 These applications are to be determined by Planning Committee because: a) of the scale and nature of the proposed development b) the proposed development is a departure for the Development Plan c) of the level of community interest
6. Officer Assessment
a) Principle of Development 6.1 The application site is located outside the settlement development boundary (limits to development) of Lutterworth (as defined by the Harborough District Local Plan Proposal’s Map), and furthermore, are outside of the current development area of Magna Park. The Site therefore lies within the countryside (See Figure 13).
6.2 Policy CS7c states that existing employment sites and future allocations would be reviewed as part of the Allocations Development Plan Document. This work has now been replaced by the forthcoming New Local Plan, a paper on the Options has recently been consulted upon, and the results of this process are currently being collated and analysed.
6.3 CS Policy CS7h relates specifically to Magna Park and states that no further phase of development or large scale expansion of the site beyond the existing development footprint of Magna Park will be supported. CS7h does not define the development footprint, rather, this would have been considered as part of the Allocations DPD. The absence of that definition does not
3 The Government formula for the retention of business rates is complex, but Government’s policy since 2013 has been to induce local authorities to support economic growth through this “localism” measure. The present indication is retention locally of about 50% of rates.
P a g e | 119 alter the meaning of CS7h, and, as such, any further phase or large scale expansion of Magna Park would be contrary to Policy CS7
Figure 13: Local Plan Proposals Map indicating Limits to Development with application site overlaid
6.4 The written justification in support of Policy CS7 explains why Magna Park - which is stated at 5.73 of the CS to be a successful and in demand location and a significant employment site and generator of jobs contributing to the local economy - should not be allowed to expand: Harborough fulfils predominantly local market needs and there is no overall strategic need for additional employment land to be identified. However, existing employment provision will be reassessed and depending on particular circumstances; additional site allocations will be considered via the Allocations DPD and applications for additional employment sites may be permitted. The existing level of employment provision comprising; existing premises, sites with outstanding planning permission, and outstanding / or partially developed allocations will, subject to review, substantially meet future employment needs in the District to 2028. Past development in the District has been at various densities, and dominated by take up at Magna Park. A move to provide different types and a more flexible portfolio of employment land and premises, to encourage higher quality jobs, and to encourage a more efficient use of land indicates that it is possible to achieve higher densities than before and therefore the need for land is less. In the context of the evidence studies, against the criteria they set, and taking account of future developments in the road / rail network, travel to work patterns and the type and skill level of logistics jobs compared to local employment needs, there are more suitable locations and sites (both rail and non rail-linked) than Magna Park within the region and sub-region to meet forecast need for strategic distribution to 2026. On the balance of evidence the preferred policy approach to Magna Park seeks to; support the national / regional drive for a modal shift of freight from road to rail, protect the site’s strategic role for distribution, and safeguard its future and that of its businesses, whilst
P a g e | 120 resisting a further Phase 3 of development and containing the site to its existing development footprint. The Core Strategy was adopted prior to the publication of the NPPF. When Policy CS7 is assessed against The Framework, it becomes clear that there are inconsistencies between the approaches taken in the policy and The Framework.
6.5 Rather than promoting and encouraging economic growth in the district that is demonstrably achievable, Policy CS7h restricts development within the Warehousing sector. Table 11 of the Core Strategy (See Figure 14) established that there was an under supply of land within the “Warehousing” sector within the District of 32.9Ha.
Figure 14: Table 11 from Core Strategy
6.6 Subsequent updating of the Leicester & Leicestershire Housing Market Area Employment Land Study in 2013, reconfirmed that demand for strategic warehousing land reflected demand for locations next to the highway network within an area of England called the Golden Triangle’ and is not demand specific to Harborough. Its recommendation that the LLEP and the LPAs strengthen the evidence base for employment land planning for supersize warehouses, underpinned the commissioning of the SDS. The object of which was to objectively identify future need specifically for large-scale warehousing, and set out a strategy for allocating land to meet that need.
6.7 The SDS is the evidence base on which, in accordance with the NPPF, Leicester & Leicestershire is jointly and co-operatively seeking to address the larger than local issue of strategic distribution (rail-served and Non-rail-served) and to plan positively and sustainably for the needs and growth of the sector.
6.8 The out-of-date nature of elements of CS7 and the existence of new evidence studies is acknowledged in the scoping of the new LP. The options presented in the OCP are also informed by the more up-to date evidence. In addition the SDS study itself, recent work to update its supply data, and ongoing engagement with Leicestershire and other adjacent LPAs in terms of the duty to co-operate demonstrates a commitment to and progress towards an up-to-date, positively prepared and NPPF compliant policy for strategic distribution in future. Although, the relatively recent evidence and recommendations of the SDS, have not yet been assimilated into the development plan for Harborough, those for other LPA in the county or the strategic Growth Plan for the area#.
6.9 The NPPF expects Local Planning Authority’s to meet their assessed needs for housing and economic growth where to do so is consistent with the principles of sustainable development. The Core Strategy approach which seeks to avoid meeting an identified need in favour of providing for a different type of employment development whilst relying on unidentified locations elsewhere to provide for the need is not consistent with the generally positive approach of the NPPF in the absence of some clear justification having regard to the principles of sustainable development. None of the factors relied upon in the preparation of the Core Strategy as justifying a restrictive approach to development at Magna Park are supported by an evidence base which would stand scrutiny when assessed against the NPPF as a whole. Furthermore, things have moved on since the adoption of the Core Strategy in terms of the quantitative and qualitative requirements for strategic distribution provision.
P a g e | 121
6.10 The recently published SDS (as summarised in Section 5 of this report, sets out that parts of the District, specifically the area between the M1 and the A5, falls within the “Golden Triangle” which has become the competitive ‘location of choice’ in both supply chain cost and performance terms on a National basis. It is therefore no longer realistic to seek to rely on a policy approach to provision for such uses which assumes that Harborough performs a local market role only.
6.11 In terms of quantative need, the SDS states that there is a County wide requirement for 80ha of Warehousing up to 2021 (see Figure 11). There is currently an availability of 45ha across the County, leaving a shortfall of 35ha required up until 2021. The application site totals in excess of 50ha, however, a large proportion of this relates to structural landscaping, access and highways works, SUDS and other infrastructure. As such, the demise of the building (including service yards, parking, gatehouse, lorrywash etc) is 22ha. This is within the 35ha County wide requirement for provision up to 2021. As the application is in detailed form, were consent to be granted, given the identified need it would be reasonable to impose a condition requiring development to commence within 2 years of the date of the consent in order to bring forward the development. As such, it is conceivable that the development could be online and contributing to the identified need well before 2021.
6.12 The SDS has also identified a requirement in the county by 2026 for between 811,000 and 1,036,000 sq m of additional warehouse space in units larger than 9,290 sq m. This equates to between 203 and 259ha at a development density of 40%. The SDS split the land requirement between rail and non-rail based provision and identifies that 58% of that requirement should be based at strategic rail sites. This leaves a balance of 109ha of land to be found for warehousing up until 2026. This increases to 198ha by 2036. There is a current supply of 45ha of available land leaving a shortfall of 64ha until 2026 and 153ha until 2036. This can be seen at Figure 11.
6.13 Having assessed the quantative and qualitative needs, the SDS sets out a suggested sequential approach for identifying the additional land the growth of the logistics sector needs in the county, and places the extension of existing sites at the top of the sequential hierarchy. The first, and sequentially most important of these tests, is that new sites should be brought forward via the extension of existing strategic distribution sites, both rail-served and road-only connected. Site extensions should only be permitted where there is adequate road capacity serving the site and at adjacent motorway/dual carriageway junctions or capacity can be enhanced as part of any extension. The current application is considered to be an extension of the existing Magna Park, with both physical (ie direct road links and services), corporate and managerial connections between Magna Park and the application site. Furthermore, as will be discussed in more detail later in the report, it is not considered that the proposal will have a significant and demonstrable impact upon the immediate road network or the junction capacity at J21 of the M1 or J1 of the M6. As such, it is considered that the application site is, in terms of the SDS, a sequentially preferable location. Whilst it is acknowledged that the SDS is an evidential report and not Policy, it is considered to provide a reasonable platform for assessing locational requirements for distribution sites within the study area.
6.14 The SDS sets out 6 criteria for the identification of new sites around which the identification of new road based sites should be based. The application meets 5 of the 6 criteria recommended by the SDS for the selection of new road based sites. It has • Good highway connectivity • It is sufficiently large and flexible in configuration to accommodate the size of distribution centre warehouse units now required by the market • It is accessible to labour, • It is located away from incompatible land-uses – as set out later in the report, the proposed building is located immediately adjacent to the existing Magna Park and is approximately 750m from the nearest non-financially involved dwelling
6.15 The SDS identifies “Key Areas of Opportunity” (KAO) for the provision of warehousing land across the County and establishes a hierarchy of those key areas of opportunity. Only those sub- regions meeting each of the four criteria to the highest level (i.e. offering both road and rail P a g e | 122 connected opportunities, central golden triangle location and close to available labour) have been considered for inclusion in the top category (termed the ‘best key areas of opportunity’). Three ‘best key areas of opportunity’ were subsequently identified. A further three sub-regional areas meet the criteria, albeit to a lower level. These have been termed ‘good key areas of opportunity’. The application site falls within “KAO D” and falls within the lower level category of a ‘good key area of opportunity’. The reason that “KAO D” is good rather than best is that it does not offer a rail connected opportunity. However, whilst the SDS recommends that the ’best’ KAO’s should be brought forwards before the ‘good’ KAO’s, the pressing need to provide road based only NDC’s is such that officers consider that significant weight should be given to the benefits of releasing a site now which meets the three criteria that are relevant to road based NDC’s i.e. it offers road connected opportunities, a central Golden Triangle location and is close to available labour.
6.16 The proposed development would have the additional advantage of redefining the footprint of the site to encompass adjacent areas covered by recent planning consents and would provide a limited amount of extra land (in relative terms) to the north of the existing site. This would enable the expansion of existing occupiers and facilitate the ‘recycling’ of existing plots to help retain and support the growth of existing companies.
6.17 There is therefore a compelling quantitative and qualitative need for additional road based warehousing provision within the District which cannot be met other than on greenfield sites in the countryside.
6.18 CS7f supports employment development only where it contributes to the retention and viability of rural services or land-based businesses; aids farm diversification; or promotes the conversion and re-use of appropriately located and suitably constructed existing buildings. The justification for the CS7f is not dissimilar to that for CS7h. It is stated that there is no need for further employment land in the district because demand outstrips supply save for warehousing and that warehousing is strategic, not local and therefore not for Harborough to supply. It is also stated that any unlikely need for further employment land will be dealt with through the Allocations DPD as discussed previously. Furthermore, Policy CS17, the overarching policy on the countryside, precludes any development in the countryside that is not for the purposes of and related to agriculture, renewable energy or public amenity (including sport).
6.19 The extension of Magna Park for strategic warehousing does not constitute one of the circumstances which would be allowed by either CS7f or CS17, and therefore the application proposals are also contrary to both policies.
6.20 However, the NPPF makes provision for the prosperity of rural areas at paragraph 28 and states that plans should, amongst other things: support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings;
6.21 The NPPF does not promote such a restrictive approach to employment development in the countryside as that contained within Policy CS7f. In that respect, policy CS7f is inconsistent with the NPPF. In particular, the Policy: does not positively and proactively promote economic development; does not support economic growth in a rural area; does not support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise; and relies on an out-of-date evidence base to justify its position
6.22 Policy CS17, a largely blanket restriction on development in the countryside, is also inconsistent with the provisions of the NPPF which provides no such general restriction. Whilst some of its objectives, such as the protection of intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside are consistent with the NPPF, it is a Policy which in the context of the current application should be given limited weight because: It does not positively or proactively promote sustainable economic growth in the countryside.
P a g e | 123 It is underpinned by a spatial strategy which is not consistent with the NPPF’s central purpose – to deliver the sustainable economic growth that the country needs.
6.23 On the basis of the above, it is considered that policies CS7 and CS17 are out of date and should be accorded limited weight in the determination of the current application.
6.24 Policy CS14d states that employment development will be supported which strengthens the role of Lutterworth as a Key Centre within the District and reinforces the Spatial Strategy set out in Policy CS1, and that any additional proposals for business development in Lutterworth which require access by heavy goods vehicle should be located near the M1, A426 and A4303. The application site is located immediately adjacent to the A5 with direct links to the A4303 and therefore on to the M1. The proposal therefore is in accordance with this policy.
6.25 Policy CS14e states that the principle of a separation area between Magna Park, Bitteswell and Lutterworth will be maintained to ensure the retention of the identity and distinctiveness of these nearby places. It goes on to state that proposals leading to the formation of accessible natural and semi natural green space, tree planting, improved local routes for walking, horse riding and cycling and the promotion of improved biodiversity will be supported in this area. The application site is not located with in the Separation Area as defined on the Local Plan Proposals Map which can be seen at Figure 13. Furthermore, the application seeks to improve the connectivity between the public open space element of the application site and the Lutterworth Country Park which is located within the Separation Area. The proposal therefore is in accordance with this policy.
6.26 The proposal will result in the loss of 3 residential properties. Whilst this would result in 3 additional properties having to be provided across the plan period (up until 2031), the loss would not count against the 5 year supply of available housing land. It is therefore considered that, in the context of the proposals, the loss of these 3 properties would not carry significant weight.
6.27 On the basis of the above, Officers conclude that very limited weight should be accorded to the policies which are restrictive of the principle of the development in this area.
b) Planning Considerations 6.28 The detail of the proposed development will be considered under the following headings: 1. Landscape and Visual Impact Page 124 2. Highways Page 138 3. Residential Amenity Page 144 4. Noise Page 152 5. Air Quality Page 152 6. Drainage and Hydrology Page 155 7. Ecology and Biodiversity Page 157 8. Heritage and Archaeology Page 166 9. Design Page 174 10. Socio-Economics Page 179 11. Footpaths Page 180 12. Agriculture and Soils Page 181 13. Contamination Page 181 14. Other matters Page 182
1. Landscape and Visual Impact 6.29 The ES contains a chapter (Chapter 9) on Landscape and Visual Impact which was prepared by Nicholas Pearson Associates.
6.30 The ES confirms that the Site does not lie within any nationally designated landscapes (e.g. Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or National Park).
o Landscape Character
P a g e | 124 6.31 The ES highlights the majority of the Site as falling within the “Upper Soar” landscape character area as identified by the Council’s Landscape Character Assessment (prepared by The Landscape Partnership (hereafter referred to as ‘TLP’), 2007). Mere Lane forms the boundary of this character area. The remainder of the site to the south east of Mere Lane falls within the Lutterworth Lowlands character area (See Figures 15, 16 and 17).
Figures 15 and 16: Landscape Character Assessment Map (District Wide)
6.32 The Upper Soar is a large character area, which stretches beyond Harborough District with only its easternmost edge falling within the District. Overall, the character is an open, elongated basin serving the River Soar with ridges to the perimeter of the character area looking in on a rolling valley. The characteristics of this eastern edge area are less distinct than those of the character area as a whole. The area is a mix of pasture and arable agriculture with a series of urban settlements set within a tight network of connecting roads. There are few woodland areas with hedgerows acting as the dominant vegetated elements of the area.
6.33 The wider Upper Soar area has very little established woodland, with no significant woodland within this eastern area. Mature, densely planted boundaries which screen Magna Park Distribution Park represent the most dominant vegetation of the area. The established but declining hedgerows divide the medium to large sized agricultural fields. The hedgerows are generally well maintained and tend to include thorn, field maple and elm trees. There are scattered hedgerow trees and formations of copses, usually found closer to settlements with the most common tree types being oak and ash.
6.34 The eastern part of the Upper Soar is on the edge of a basin which supports predominantly pasture. The area is adjacent to a number of large storage units centred on the current Magna Park which are associated with the major road network in the area. These structures and associated planting along their boundaries, contribute significantly to the land use of the eastern section of the Upper Soar character area. In addition there is a high concentration of settlements in the area which is crossed by a network of connecting road infrastructure.
6.35 Magna Park represents a significant area of warehouse and storage units set within the adjacent Lutterworth Lowlands character area but due to the topography is more visible from the Upper Soar. The large scale warehouse units are surrounded by heavily planted boundaries that part screen them from the surrounding boundaries.
6.36 There is a relatively high density of roads connecting the settlements within the Upper Soar. The A5 along the southern character boundary follows the Watling Street Roman road and runs north west to south east connecting with Magna Park, Lutterworth and the M1. The M1 is well screened from the Upper Soar although noise from the road is apparent in the more northern areas.
P a g e | 125
Figure 17: Landscape Character Assessment Map (Upper Soar and Lutterworth Lowlands)
6.37 Whilst the 2011 Lutterworth and Broughton Astley Landscape Character Assessment and Landscape Capacity Study looked at the area in more detail, however, this focussed more on the urban areas of Lutterworth and Broughton Astley and not the application site and its immediate area.
6.38 Whilst part of the site does fall within the Lutterworth Lowlands character area, due to the screening influence of the existing Magna Park, the proposals will have no impact upon the character of the Lutterworth Lowlands character area.
o Landscape Capacity 6.39 With respect to the capacity of the landscape to accommodate development, the 2007 LCA states that the Upper Soar character area as a whole has a Medium capacity to accommodate development. The rural character of the Upper Soar has already been encroached upon by the urban character of its settlements. The rural character which remains undisturbed requires protection and has low capacity to accommodate change. Overall, the Upper Soar represents a relatively developed landscape with the capacity to accommodate further change subject to appropriate design and mitigation.
o Landscape and Visual Impact 6.40 A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) formed part of the ES. The LVIA includes a methodology section, a description of the baseline, definitions for sensitivity, magnitude and then makes judgements of significance for impacts on both landscape and visual receptors arising from the proposals. It also includes measures to assess the nature of the effects i.e. whether they are positive or adverse.
6.41 The LPA commissioned TLP to review the LVIA undertaken by Nicholas Pearson Associates (NPA) on behalf of the Applicant and submitted in support of the application. TLP’s original review of the LVIA and application was submitted in July 2015. This was then updated and submitted in November 2015 to take into account the additional viewpoints submitted since the previous review.
P a g e | 126 6.42 The two Addendums to the LVIA which were submitted in response to TLP’s comments have been assessed by TLP and are considered to provide well-structured and clear reports. The Clarifications Addendum document provides a reasoned response to most of the points previously raised by TLP. Additional information/clarification which TLP are still requesting includes: Identification of which properties in the existing Magna Park are under the control of IDI Gazeley where improvements can be made to the existing lighting. A summary table of tree loss and hedges based on BS Grades A-U.
6.43 There are a few remaining areas of difference in the approach and judgements including: NPA have not chosen to provide a more detailed assessment of the effects on the local area i.e. (c. <1.5km) as an intermediate scale between the site effects and on the district scale Upper Soar LCA. The effects at operation stage are assessed by NPA as Minor to Moderate adverse on the Upper Soar LCA. TLP consider that they are Moderate and locally (<1.5km) Major to Moderate adverse and significant. The study of additional cumulative effects in the Addendum ES is clear. TLP agree with the findings of the study as presented.
6.44 The effects on landscape character are principally assessed in the LVIA using the district scale units (LCA 1, Lutterworth Lowlands, LCA 2 Upper Soar and LCA 3 High Cross Plateau). While this is an appropriate and important level of the assessment, the use of these larger scale units alone is considered by TLP to underestimate the more local effects on landscape character. In TLP’s opinion there would be some locally significant effects at construction and operation stage. This would extend to both the site itself and some of the immediate area. There will be some significant effects during the construction period. However, as this is temporary and of relatively limited duration such effects are not considered by TLP to be significant overall.
6.45 The LVIA considers that landscape character effects would be at most ‘Minor to Moderate’ on the Upper Soar LCA and therefore not significant (i.e. a level set at Moderate-Major and above inn the ES). In contrast, TLP consider this to be too low for such a substantial development and would in TLPs opinion be more likely to be ‘Major’ on the site itself and in close proximity reduce to ‘Major-Moderate’ and then ‘Moderate’ in the locality up to c. 1.5km to the north west of Mere Lane within the Upper Soar LCA. This would constitute a locally significant effect on the landscape character. This would arise due to the effects on landform, loss of vegetation and change of land use. It is agreed that these adverse effects would reduce over time as the landscape proposals develop. It is agreed that there are unlikely to be significant effects on the other two landscape character areas LCA 1 - Lutterworth Lowlands and LCA 3 -High Cross Plateau.
6.46 The LVIA has assessed the effect on views within the area through the use of a range of viewpoints. Some Moderate effects are identified during construction but only one (12 on a permissive bridleway within the site) is considered to be significant. In contrast TLP consider that there would be some significant and greater levels of effect (from Major/Moderate to Moderate) on a number of the viewpoints including from locations: 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 16. The extent of these locations are all located to the north-west of Mere Lane and within c. 1.5km. None of these represent residential locations but rather a mix of roads and rights of way users including both definitive and permissive routes.
6.47 It is appreciated that the proposed development would be seen in many of the views from the west against the context of the existing Magna Park. The proposed graduated colour of the cladding would help to assimilate the building into the landscape setting to a degree together with the landscape works to the perimeter and along the various road corridors. However, the proposed building is of a very large scale and will take some time to be absorbed in the landscape from certain directions and will remain a permanent feature from other directions. From some of the closer representative viewpoints e.g. Viewpoint 7 the building would break the
P a g e | 127 skyline above the existing units on the horizon despite the fact that the height of the building parapet is lower than other units within Magna Park.
6.48 The Addendum has considered the cumulative effects with the DB Symmetry scheme. TLP agree with the findings in accordance with the approach used. However, TLP consider that the addition of both the Gazeley and DB Symmetry scheme would result in a moderate adverse cumulative effect on the character of the whole area by virtue of the total aggregate expansion rather than the effect on individual LCAs alone. TLP also consider that the sequential effect on road users would be higher than identified in the Addendum when including all the routes in the area. However, the combined effects are not likely to exceed moderate. The Gazeley scheme is unlikely to contribute to any significant cumulative visual effects on night glow.
6.49 While TLP have identified some significant effects the quantum of landscape and visual effects arising from these proposals would be expected for a project of this magnitude in a rural greenfield location. In a number of respects the effects are mitigated by both the presence of the existing adjacent Magna Park and the landscape proposals. The scheme will involve direct effects on rural agricultural land and in a character area that is not currently physically affected as the site is located north west of Mere Lane. The scheme would represent a clearly identifiable addition to Magna Park seen from the west. This would be significant from the local rights of way in the area but less so from the settlements due to distance and design. o Lighting 6.50 Lighting at the existing site is one of the main concerns for local residents, and, it is a key theme which has come through the consultation on the application. The Site is located within an area defined as brighter and adjacent to an area of greater light saturation, on the CPRE night skies Map for the East Midlands. At night, the site can broadly be classified into two Institute of Lighting Engineers ‘Environmental Zones’. The area of the Site to the south east of Mere Lane is enclosed on three sides by the existing lighting of Magna Park and there is some existing street lighting where the Site adjoins the existing Argosy Way, in Magna Park. Therefore although not directly lit from within, this part of the Site is heavily influenced by and can currently be considered to closely reflect the characteristics of ‘Environmental Zone 3 - a medium district brightness area, equivalent to a small urban location’.
6.51 On the part of the Site to the north-west of Mere Lane the context and nature of the night time baseline conditions is considered to be different. Whilst there are the immediate effects of illumination arising from a context alongside Magna Park, there is no existing street lighting on Mere Lane, or on the section of the A5 to the west. This part of the Site does not have any existing lighting and is only otherwise currently lit up by passing car headlights and the headlights of vehicles moving to and from Bittesby House and farm. Therefore, the existing Environmental Zone for this part of the Site is considered to be ‘Environmental Zone 2’ – ‘a low district brightness area’ – equivalent to a ‘rural, small village or relatively dark urban situation’.
6.52 A separate lighting engineer report for Magna Park and a lighting strategy for the proposed Site have been included in ES Volume 3, Technical Appendix F.6, to inform the night time visual assessment and judgements made regarding potential night visual effects, arising from the proposals. The existing Magna Park building and street lighting consists of High Pressure Sodium Luminaires mounted on buildings and street lighting columns. The type of luminaire varies throughout the park from angled floodlights to full cut off flat glass luminaires. The result of this is a yellow/orange sky glow when viewed from the surrounding villages on nights with low cloud or highly illuminated buildings. This is caused by light reflecting from the horizontal surfaces and from the building elevations. Notwithstanding the sky glow effect, the lighting design in the existing park complies with the planning permission granted and the legislation prevalent at the time. Figures 18 – 21 indicate the current situation.
P a g e | 128
Figure 18: Existing night time view from Willey Figure 19: Existing night time view from site
Figure 20: Existing night time view from Ullesthorpe Figure 21: Existing night time view from Bitteswell
6.53 A visual ‘night time’ /darkness survey was carried out in the field, in February 2015, and this has enabled a baseline assessment of potential visual receptors, to be established, in the following locations, which have been agreed with HDC. Viewpoints have been identified as representative of the surrounding communities of Willey, Ullesthorpe, Woodway Lane and Claybrooke Parva. An assessment of the impact of lighting arising from this development on the village of Bitteswell, was scoped out of the assessment, on the basis that effects on the community of Bitteswell are considered to principally arise from the existing Magna Park which is in an intervening location.
6.54 High pressure Sodium (SON-T) lamps at the time of installation had the highest luminous efficacy (most efficient) available, but also a high luminance intensity as all of the light is derived from a single light source (ie the lamp) SON-T lamps also have poor colour rendition and visual acuity when compared to white light source (fluorescent/metal halide/LED). Until very recently High pressure Sodium luminaires were used for external lighting for most industrial buildings around the country
6.55 It is proposed that the external Lighting scheme for the application site shall be fully LED. (See Figures 22 and 23 for examples of LED lighting installations). The Performance of LED’s has significantly improved in the last 5-6 years, such that they are now routinely installed for office, warehouse and more recently external lighting schemes. They have the advantage over SON-T lamps that the reduced light source intensity due to the LED fitting consisting of multiple light sources compared to single light source (lamp). This reduces upward light caused by reflection from horizontal surfaces and building illumination (see visualisation plots)
P a g e | 129
Figure 22: Example of LED Lighting
6.56 Also, incorporated into the design, is the Institute of Lighting Engineers ‘Guidance Notes for the reduction of intrusive light, 2005’ through a compliant lighting scheme and further measures to reduce spill and sky glow from the existing Magna Park. These measures would be delivered and monitored through implementation of approved drawings, planning conditions and a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP).
Figure 23: Examples of LED Lighting
6.57 At night, operation stage, residual effects, with design and mitigation measures in place, are considered to be neutral, on the communities of Willey, Ullesthorpe and Claybrooke Parva, with a neutral to minor adverse effect experienced from some residents on Woodway Lane and a minor adverse effect experienced by road users on the A5 and on sections of Mere Lane, where lighting will be introduced at new junctions, which were previously unlit.
6.58 Overall, on the basis of the above, and following consultation from TLP and HDC EHO’s the night time visual effects of the proposals are considered to be not significant, as the proposed development would avoid being visually intrusive and would not cause an obvious deterioration or improvement of existing views afforded by visual receptors. During construction or immediately following construction, any temporary disruption to views afforded by visual receptors would not outweigh long term mitigation of such views.
o Visual Effects
P a g e | 130 6.59 The LVIA has assessed the effect on views within the area through the use of 17 viewpoints (some of which are then subdivided a, b etc) (See Figure 24). Some locally ‘Moderate’ and therefore significant effects are identified during construction but only one significant effect on a permissive bridleway within the site is recorded during operation period. In contrast TLP consider that there would be some significant effects of differing degrees (from Major/Moderate to Moderate) on a number of the viewpoints including from locations: 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 16. These locations are all located to the north-west of Mere Lane and within c. 1.5km. It is appreciated that the proposed development would be seen against the context of the existing Magna Park in most of the views from the north-west both those which are closer and further away. The proposed graduated colour of the cladding would help to assimilate the building into the landscape setting together with the landscape works to the perimeter and along the various road corridors. However, the proposed building is of a very large scale and will take some time to be absorbed in the landscape from certain directions and will remain a permanent feature from other directions. From some of the closer representative viewpoints e.g. Viewpoint 7 the building would break the skyline above the existing units on the horizon despite the fact that in AOD height of the parapet is lower than other units within Magna Park.
Figure 24: Photo Viewpoint Location Plan
6.60 For each of the viewpoints identified a judgement has been made with regards to sensitivity, magnitude of effect and significance of effect. TLP largely agree with the findings of the LVIA, but do make some comments on the proposals. In terms of the visual effects during construction, TLP agree with most of the judgements of sensitivity, magnitude and effect with the following exceptions: • The scale of change is likely to be higher at Viewpoints 6, 7 and 8 due to the closer proximity and presence of cranes on the skyline which would be very much out of character and likely to result in Moderate to Major effects for the duration of the works. Significant visual effects during construction are noted in the LVIA for viewpoint locations: 3, 4b, 5, 6, 8aii, 9ac, 12a-f, and 15. TLP consider there would also be significant effects on Viewpoints 7, 8ai.
P a g e | 131 6.61 With regards the Visual effects during the Operational phase of the development, TLP agree with many of the judgements of sensitivity, magnitude and effect with the following exceptions: • TLP consider the magnitude of change is likely to be higher at Viewpoints: 6 (moderate) See Figure 25), 7 (moderate) (See Figure 26), 8i (moderate to minor), 9 (major to moderate), 12b, c and d (major to moderate) (See Figure 27) and 16b (moderate) (See Figure 28) due to the scale of the development and extent occupied within the views. This is likely to result in some significant Moderate to Major effects during the operation of the scheme of the scheme from these locations at Year 1. The magnitude would then slowly reduce in time. It is noted that the LVIA does not find any significant visual effects at moderate or above from any of the 17 representative viewpoints.
6.62 The LVIA and TLP also assessed the Residual effects of the development, ie, the impact after mitigation. The LVIA considers the residual effects on the site to the north west of Mere Lane would be ‘Minor to Moderate’. TLP do not agree with this but consider an effect on the site of ‘Major to Moderate’ is more appropriate after allowing for the mitigation. There would be a complete change of character to most of the site mainly by the introduction of built form and hard standing. The effect would be moderated by the considerable landscape treatments mainly to the perimeter. This would result in a new landscape character being created – effectively an extension of Magna Park but on the relatively more undulating/sloping landscape of the soar compared with the plateau landscape of the existing Magna Park. The LVIA concludes that the effects on landscape character are not significant in the medium to long term. It is not clear if the LVIA considers there would be significant effects in the shorter term and if so what the area involved would be.
6.63 TLP consider there would be significant effects on the site during construction and operation stages at Major to Moderate levels. This would reduce to Moderate with the establishment of the mitigation from Year 10 onwards. TLP also consider that there would be significant effects at a moderate level on the local landscape extended to c.1.5km to the west. These effects would slowly reduce with time but take a number of years as evidenced by the VVMs from Viewpoint 7. TLP do not consider there would be any significant effects east of Mere Lane – LCA1 or south of A5 – LCA 3
6.64 The LVIA concludes there would be one significant moderate effect on a permissive bridleway within the site. All other effects are below moderate. In contrast TLP consider there would be some significant effects along Mere Lane, from rights of way to the west of the site up to c. 1.5- 2km distance. These would range from Major at construction and Year 1 reducing to Moderate and below from Year 10 onwards. This reduction is aided by the approach to the design of the proposals including the landscape mitigation. It is agreed that night time effects are unlikely to be significant subject to a suitable scheme of lighting being approved including the use of suitable cut off lanterns that effectively reduce the existing impact of lighting within Magna Park to the west.
P a g e | 132
Figure 25: Existing, Year 1 and Year 10 views from footpath to south of Ullesthorpe
P a g e | 133
Figure 26: Existing, Year 1 and Year 10 views from Bittesby Medieval Village
P a g e | 134
Figure 27: Existing, Year 1 and Year 10 views from Mere Lane
P a g e | 135
Figure 28: Existing, Year 1 and Year 10 views from A5
6.65 The LVIA also assesses the cumulative effects of the proposal with a number of other schemes as set out in table 9.5 of the LVIA. At the time of the LVIA being prepared the site at Glebe Farm was not subject to an application. However, an application was submitted before the IDI Gazeley application was itself submitted. In view of the very similar nature of the proposals at Glebe Farm and its close proximity it was considered that a suitable assessment of the potential cumulative effects on landscape character and in sequential visual terms should be provided. This was provided as part of the October addendum to the submission and was considered to be acceptable subject to the proposed landscaping mitigation included as part of both proposals.
6.66 The LVIA states there are predicted ‘moderate’ adverse cumulative effects in conjunction with the HGV park at construction stage which would reduce to minor to moderate in short term. Para 9.8.15 of the LVIA identifies there could be additional sequential effects from the Glebe Farm site but that due to uncertainty of the scheme it was omitted from the assessment. Now the Glebe P a g e | 136 Farm site is submitted an addendum to the ES covering cumulative impacts is merited. TLP agree that the other schemes (apart from Glebe Farm and the HGV Park south of Asda/George HQ) assessed in section 9.8 of the LVIA are unlikely to cause any significant cumulative effects
6.67 Whilst it is acknowledged that there will be a level of visual harm caused by the development, ranging from negligible to Major (for the construction period and at Year 1) there would be no Major long term (Year 10) visual harm caused by the development. On the basis of this, it is considered that the proposal accords with Policies CS11 and CS17, and as such, only limited weight should be given to the impact of the proposal on the visual amenity of the surrounding area.
o Landscape Effects 6.68 The effects on landscape character are principally assessed in the LVIA using the district scale units (LCA 1, Lutterworth Lowlands, LCA 2 Upper Soar and LCA 3 High Cross Plateau). While this is an appropriate and important level of the assessment, the use of these larger scale units alone is considered by TLP to underestimate the more local effects on landscape character. In TLP’s opinion there would be some locally significant effects at construction and operation stage. This would extend to both the site itself and some of the immediate area. There will also be some significant effects during the construction period. However, as this is temporary and of relatively limited duration such effects are not considered by TLP to be significant overall.
6.69 The LVIA considers that landscape character effects would be at most ‘Minor to Moderate’ on the Upper Soar LCA. This seems to be too low for such a substantial development and would in TLPs opinion be more likely to be ‘Major’ on the site itself and then reduce to ‘Moderate’ in the locality up to c. 1.5km to the north west of Mere Lane within the Upper Soar LCA. This would constitute a locally significant effect on the landscape character. It is agreed that these adverse effects would reduce overtime as the landscape proposals develop. It is agreed that there are unlikely to be significant effects on the other two landscape character areas LCA 1 - Lutterworth Lowlands and LCA 3 -High Cross Plateau.
6.70 The proposals generally provide a comprehensive package of information apart from the identified items detailed above. The landscape proposals are suitable and appropriate for a scheme of this type and scale. TLP consider that despite the findings of the LVIA there would be some localised significant adverse effects on both the landscape character of the countryside and visual receptors within 1.5km. This would be most noticeable during construction and in the initial years of operation. Moderate levels of significance are likely to remain from the immediate area and some viewpoints mainly from rights of way and on permissive routes and open access land to the north-west. However, it is unlikely that the effects would be unacceptable on the closest settlements of Ullesthorpe and Claybrooke Parva. The adverse effects identified would progressively reduce over time as the landscape measures fully establish.
6.71 In terms of the effects and mitigation for the operational phase of the development, the LVIA states that the main magnitude effects on LCA 2 - Upper Soar are: The loss of open rolling farmland and the conspicuous nature of the building. The presence of the existing logistic buildings at Magna Park is seen to help to provide similar context to the proposals. The geographical influence increases from construction up to ‘low to medium’ accepting a moderate visual influence but mitigated by the graduated colour of the panels. The overall levels of effect on the LCA are considered in the LVIA to be ‘minor to moderate’ adverse. TLP consider that the effects overall are more likely to be ‘moderate adverse’ in Year 1 on LCA 2 Upper Soar moderating to a degree from c. Year 10-15 subject to satisfactory plant establishment. There would be some locally ‘major’ and ‘major to moderate effects’ on the site and in closer proximity
6.72 Whilst it is acknowledged that there will be a level of harm to the landscape caused by the development, this would predominantly be Minor to Moderate, with Major harm only occurring on
P a g e | 137 the site itself. This would be significant locally, however, the magnitude of harm would reduce over time as the landscape mitigation works establish. On the basis of this, it is considered that the proposal accords with Policies CS17 c(i) – c(iii), and as such, only limited weight should be given to the impact of the proposal on the surrounding landscape.
2. Highways 6.73 The ES includes a chapter on Transport (Chapter 5), which was informed by a Transport Assessment (hereafter referred to as a ‘TA’) and a Travel Plan (hereafter referred to as ‘TP’) both undertaken by URS (June 2015). There have been several iterations of both the TA and TP in response to comments provided and subsequent discussions with both the Highways Agency (HA) and the County Highway Authority (hereafter referred to as ‘CHA’).
o Access proposals 6.74 Access to the application site has been proposed via a new roundabout to be constructed on Mere Lane that will connect the site to Magna Park to the south and the A5 to the west. The connection to Magna Park will be achieved by extending Argosy Way between two existing plots. To access the proposed unit, a new access road will be constructed to form the north western arm of the proposed roundabout (see Figure 29). An emergency access is proposed in the north east corner of the plot onto Mere Lane. This would be locked and gated and only used in the event that the main access road becomes impassable.
6.75 The section of Mere Lane between the A5 and the new access roundabout is proposed to be realigned and upgraded. It is also proposed that the redundant section of Mere Lane will be stopped up. The proposal is for it to then be reclassified as a public footpath providing an informal link to an existing public footpath on the west side of the A5 (see Figure 29).
6.76 The applicants have proposed that, between the A5 and the proposed site access, the existing 7.5 tonne weight restriction on Mere Lane will be removed to allow HGVs to access the DHL building and the existing Magna Park from the A5. It is further proposed that the weight restriction will be relocated to the north east of the new roundabout on Mere Lane to prevent HGVs from using Mere Lane as an alternative route to Lutterworth and the A426. The applicants have proposed a new roundabout is also proposed on the A5 to replace the existing junction at Mere Lane. As part of the scheme the dual carriageway on the A5 will be extended from Emmanuel / Lodge Cottages to the new roundabout over a distance of approximately 500 metres (see Figure 29).
Figure 29: Access Plan
P a g e | 138
6.77 A separate feature of the access arrangements is a new junction on Mere Lane to the north east of the proposed unit (see Figure 30). This will provide access to a small visitor’s car park (approximately 20 spaces) providing increased public accessibility to the lagoon and the surrounding area. The access to the car park will be gated and controlled by Magna Park security to prevent access during the hours of darkness.
Figure 30: Access to public carpark
6.78 A new access is proposed from the realigned section of Mere Lane between the two new roundabouts in order to maintain access to Bittesby House via the existing access track. This replaces the existing access to Bittesby House which is also from Mere Lane and will remove two existing right angle bends at the southern end of the access track.
6.79 The existing access to Bittesby Farm and the adjoining complex which is on Mere Lane some 850m north east of the access to Bittesby House, will be closed as part of the proposals. Access to the farm and the barn will be maintained by vehicles sharing the first part of the access road for the proposed building and by the formation of a new vehicular connection extending in a north westerly direction from the end of the access road for the proposed building (see Figure 31).
Figure 31: Proposed access arrangements for Bittesby Farm
P a g e | 139 o Existing Highways Network 6.80 The application site benefits from a central location within the UK and has connections to the motorway network with Junction 20 of the M1, Junction 1 of the M6 and Junction 1 of the M69, reachable in less than 10 minutes.
6.81 The proposed development site lies to the north west of Mere Lane which is a rural road with a carriageway width of approximately 5.5 metres. It is subject to the National Speed Limit and is unlit. It is also subject to a 7.5 tonne weight restriction except for access prohibiting its use as a through route for HGVs.
6.82 At its eastern end Mere Lane forms a crossroads with Lutterworth Road and Ullesthorpe Road. These roads are rural in nature and to the north west, north and south east they provide direct routes to the villages of Ullesthorpe, Ashby Parva and Bitteswell respectively. At its western end Mere Lane forms a ghost island priority junction with the A5(T). The A5 corridor is a key arterial route which supports and provides access to economic activity and growth. The A4303 is a dual carriageway and is subject to the National Speed Limit and provides a link between the M1 and the A5 and also provides a bypass of Lutterworth to the south of the town. At its eastern end it forms a junction with the M1 at Junction 20. To the east of the motorway the road becomes reclassified as the A4304 and continues as a single carriageway to Market Harborough.
6.84 At the western end of the A4303 is the Cross in Hand roundabout, which is where the A4303 forms a junction with the A5. This roundabout has five arms with the A5 forming the northern and southern arms and the A4303 the eastern arm. Two minor roads, the B4207 and Coal Pit Lane form the other arms at the junction. On the approach to the roundabout, the A5 is a single carriageway although both to the north and to the south of the junction there are sections of dual carriageway.
6.85 Approximately 4kms to the south of the Cross in Hand roundabout is the Gibbet Hill roundabout. This also has five arms and is at the junction of the A5 and the A426. On the approach to the roundabout both roads are single carriageway. Some 2kms to the south west of the roundabout, the A426 provides a direct link to Junction 1 of the M6 Motorway. This is a large four-arm junction which has traffic signals on the motorway off-slips. The final arm at the Gibbet Hill roundabout is Gibbet Lane, a local route that provides access to Shawell and a large aggregates plant.
6.86 To the north of the A4303, the A5 is a combination of dual and single carriageway. There are two sections of dual carriageway, one between Emmanuel and Lodge Cottages and White House Farm with a length of 2.1kms and the other between the settlements of Wibtoft and Smockington with a length of 2.6kms. Figure 32 indicates the relationship of the site with the surrounding highway network.
o Impact on the Strategic Highway Network 6.87 In terms of the strategic road network, the Highway Agency’s main concern in relation to this development is for the safety and operation of the A5 and the impact of the development upon this, including the provision of the new roundabout at the Mere Lane junction. As a result of these concerns, the Applicant provided further information to demonstrate that the proposed development will not have an impact on the operation of the A5. After extensive dialogue, the Highways Agency removed its Direction to withhold determining the application and has recommended conditions on any approval.
P a g e | 140
Figure 32: Highway Network context
o Impact on the Local Highway Network 6.88 The CHA have provided a substantive response to this application and a copy of their full comments is attached at Appendix A however, a summary of their comments is provided below. The access strategy, in principle, is acceptable. LCC have some concerns over the operation of the roundabout as a result of the design along the A5, particularly for southbound traffic when exiting the roundabout, and how this could potentially cause re-routeing to occur. However, this is not within LCC’s network and LCC concur with HE that this detail can be considered at the detailed highway design stage and can be controlled by condition. Notwithstanding this, HDC Officers were also concerned that to alter the highway design could lead to further environmental impacts which would not have been adequately assessed as part of the application. In order to address this, the applicants transport consultants provided a plan to indicate how the additional merge lane could be accommodated within the same land take as the submitted design, and therefore not have any greater environmental impact than that which has been assessed. (See Figure 33)
6.89 Beyond the Mere Lane roundabout, it is not proposed to offer any of the roads for adoption. Therefore, LCC have not undertaken any checks for suitability of adoption and would seek an agreement that they would be privately maintained in perpetuity. LCC agree with the TA that the main impact will be at the A4303/A426 roundabout. LCC have confirmed that the submitted mitigation scheme is acceptable. Condition 16 is recommended to secure the mitigation. Parking provision within the site is considered to be reasonable.
P a g e | 141
Figure 33: Plan showing how merge lane could be accommodated (Blue lines indicate the submitted layout, Red lines indicate the potential merge lane solution)
6.90 LCC have agreed and signed off the proposed Travel Plan. Again, as with public transport, LCC would have liked to see more commitment to this, however, for the scale of the current application, it is considered to be acceptable and LCC are having ongoing discussions with IDI Gazeley to investigate area-wide initiatives.
6.91 LCC have reviewed the traffic survey information submitted with the application and have not found any evidence of excessive rat-running. This issue is discussed in greater detail in the main comments as it is appreciated by LCC that this is a point of particular interest and concern for local residents.
6.92 The improvements at the A4303/A5 junction, combined with the new A5/Mere Lane roundabout linking to the existing Magna Park will take pressures off the A4303 and the Cross in Hand junction. Both of these would make the M1-A4303 routes more attractive than they are now, particularly compared to Mere Lane.
6.93 LCC acknowledges that a routeing agreement was drawn up as part of the obligation for historic applications at Magna Park. The first of these is understood to have been in 1991. Correspondence from members of the public suggest the routeing agreement has not been observed. Since the first of the Magna Park applications, the highway network in the area has changed substantially. The Lutterworth southern bypass was built in 1999, and vast majority of the area (with the exception of the A5, M1, A4303, A426 through Lutterworth) is now covered by a weight restriction, as shown in Figure 3 of Appendix A. These measures mean that it is now not necessary for traffic to go through Lutterworth and the neighbouring villages. Furthermore, it is not legal for HGVs to use the routes covered by the weight restriction (as enforced by the Police), and a routeing agreement would therefore be a redundant measure.
6.94 LCC Highways therefore conclude that a request for a routeing agreement would not meet the CIL regulation tests. However, it is understood that IDI Gazeley are looking at measures such as ANPR to manage traffic generated from Magna Park and any such measures which are
P a g e | 142 developer led, implemented and monitored could be useful in supporting the legal measures already on the network and would be encouraged by both LCC and HDC.
6.95 Concerns have been raised locally regarding access provisions to farmland to the west of the A5 (see Paras 4.283 – 4.295). Access is currently gained from the A5 via three existing field gates, across land under the ownership of the applicants. The concerns relate to the continued use of these accesses, and the ability to use the accesses in a safe manner. Highways England have assessed the proposals as submitted, and, given the low intensity of the use of these accesses, raise no concerns regarding the proposal in light of these concerns
6.96 In summary, subject to the conditions and S106 contributions set out within their response (and which are repeated within Appendix B & C), The CHA are satisfied that the proposals are in accordance with the policies set out in the LTP3, CS, the Framework & PPG and will not have any severe impacts on highway safety or capacity.
6.97 It should be noted, that alongside Landscape and Noise matters, a significant level of the objections received from the local community, parish councils and Lutterworth Town Council concern the traffic implications of a development of this scale. These concerns are fully appreciated and the CHA have considered all issues and concerns raised.
o Existing Public Transport facilities 6.98 The existing Magna Park facility is served by a single bus service. Route 8 operates between Hinckley and Lutterworth via Magna Park where there are bus stops on Hunter Boulevard and Wellington Parkway. From Lutterworth there are connections to Market Harborough as Route 58 and to Leicester as Route X44.
6.99 Route 8 provides one service per hour between 6am and 7pm. The journey time between Magna Park and Lutterworth is around 10 minutes and between Magna Park and Hinckley is around half an hour. The service operates on a Monday to Saturday basis. There is no service on a Sunday or on Bank Holidays. Route 58 takes just over half an hour to travel between Lutterworth and Market Harborough. There are six services per day operating approximately every two hours between 7am and 5pm. The service operates on a Monday to Saturday basis. There is no service on a Sunday or on Bank Holidays.
6.100 Route X44 takes an hour to travel between Lutterworth and Leicester. There are six services per day to Leicester and four making the return to Lutterworth. The service operates on a Monday to Saturday basis. There is no service on a Sunday or on Bank Holidays.
6.101 The application includes a new bus stop at the back of the existing Magna Park, which will enable diversion of the existing No 8 service via the new Mere Lane roundabout. Whilst LCC would like to have seen a stronger commitment, it is accepted that this brings the bus stop within policy compliant levels, and that the diversion would both save time as well as potentially make the service more attractive to employees within the existing Magna Park site. It is also consistent with the level of investment which has been requested from comparable proposals (in terms of travel demand) elsewhere in the County.
6.102 LCC do have a slight concern in that the diversion would be through Magna Park which is not part of the adopted highway, and bus operators have been known to be reluctant to provide a service on non-adopted routes given that there can be no certainty of passage. However, the service currently serves the southern end of Magna Park and LCC therefore consider this risk to be low. Notwithstanding this, LCC also understand that the applicants are looking to secure a letter of confirmation from the operator and LCC will obligate that a suitable route is maintained for a reasonable, serviceable and practicable period. This would be secured by way of S106 agreement, upon which negotiation on the finer details is still ongoing. LCC also note WCC’s objection on the basis of public transport.
P a g e | 143 o Pedestrian and cycle facilities 6.103 The location of the existing Magna Park facility results in a limited potential to attract large numbers of pedestrians or cyclists and it has been reported that, in 2001, only around 1% of Ullesthorpe chose either of these modes to travel to work.
6.104 The applicants have identified that the greatest potential for cycling to Magna Park is to encourage trips to and from Lutterworth (see Figure 34) and there is an existing segregated shared footway/ cycleway that runs along the north side of the A4303 between Coventry Road and Magna Park. At the access to Magna Park there are uncontrolled crossings together with dropped kerbs and tactile paving on all but the western arm of the roundabout.
Figure 34: Existing cycle and pedestrian links between Lutterworth and Magna Park
6.105 Woodby Lane is a narrow lightly trafficked road that connects the north east corner of Magna Park to Ullesthorpe Road just to the west of Bitteswell. Woodby Lane is not open to through traffic but cyclists and pedestrians can access Magna Park at its western end. Although not lit, it is part of a potential route for these modes particularly during the summer months.
6.106 That neither Highways England nor LCC Highways have objected to the proposed development carries significant weight in the planning balance. Furthermore, the benefits of the increased connectivity of public rights of way is also a material consideration in the determination of the application.
6.107 Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal will inevitably result in increased traffic flows, subject to the required mitigation, the increased traffic flows would not result in a demonstrably significant impact upon the surrounding highway network. Furthermore, improvements to existing junctions in the area, coupled with improvements to foot and cycleways in the locality will result in a highway gain. It is therefore considered that the proposal is in accordance with Policy CS5 and the Leicestershire Local Transport Plan. It is therefore considered that considerable weight should be given to the highway benefits of the proposal
3. Residential Amenity 6.108 Core Principle 4 of the Framework seeks to ensure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings and this is also reflected in CS Policy CS11.
P a g e | 144 6.109 The application has been submitted in detailed form, and as such, from the information provided it is possible to provide detailed observations on whether or not the amenity of existing residential areas/properties located adjacent to or within close proximity will be affected. The properties mainly affected by the proposals are as follows: 1 and 2 Bittesby Cottages 1 & 2 Lodge Cottages and 1 & 2 Emmanuel Cottages Springfields Farm Mere Farm Travellers site Bittesby Stables and Orchard Lodge The impacts of the proposals on the above properties are assessed in detail below.
o ‘1 and 2 Bittesby Cottages’ 6.110 These properties were originally 2 semi-detached cottages, however, they have now been combined as one property and are approximately 70m from the proposed building. They are currently in the control of the applicant and are in commercial use rather than residential. The properties are proposed to be retained and are accessed by the existing concrete road from Bittesby Farm. Although the properties are currently in commercial use, they could potentially be bought back into residential at some stage in the future.
Figure 35: Aerial View showing Bittesby Cottages in relation to site
Figure 36: Cross Section indicating relationship between Bittesby Cottages and the Application site
P a g e | 145 6.111 The properties are orientated on an approximate north-south axis with the garden area to the north looking away from the application site (see Figure 35). To the south of the properties a large bund is proposed with a maximum height similar to the ridge height of the properties. It is proposed to plant this bund with trees as part of the strategic landscaping proposals. The combination of the bund and the planting would eventually largely screen the proposed building from the properties albeit there would likely be glimpsed views of it through the landscaping, particularly during the winter months (See Figure 36).
Figure 37: View of front elevation of Bittesby Cottages and existing boundary planting
6.112 On the basis of the above, it is not considered that the proposal would result in any long term demonstrable detrimental impact to the ‘residential’ amenity of the properties. o ‘1 & 2 Lodge Cottages’ and ‘1 & 2 Emmanuel Cottages’ 6.113 These properties were originally 2 pairs of semi-detached cottages, however, they have now been combined to form 2 detached properties which lay adjacent to the A5, approximately 500m from the proposed building. As can be seen from the photo at Figure 38, the properties are within the application site. The assessment of the effects of the proposal assume that, as part of the application, both of these properties would be demolished. It has been considered whether or not it would be reasonable or appropriate recommend a condition so as to ensure that these properties are demolished prior to the commencement of development. It is considered that such a condition would not meet the necessity test which is one of the 6 tests required to be met in accordance with para 206 of the NPPF. Should the position regarding the Cottages change, then a further planning application could be submitted and the Environmental Statement be amended and/or updated. It is at this stage that impact to the occupants of the Cottages would fall to be assessed.
P a g e | 146
Figure 38: Aerial photo showing Lodge Cottages and Emmanuel Cottages in relation to the application site o ‘Springfields Farm’ 6.114 Springfields Farm is the closest (approx. 750m) affected property which is to be retained and is not under the control of the applicant. The property itself is on an approximate east – west axis and as such will have only oblique views of the proposed building with views also being partially obscured by the existing barn at the farm (see Figures 39 and 41).
6.115 The property is a chalet style bungalow with accommodation within the roofspace (see Figure 40). There are existing sections of Magna Park which are closer to the farm than the proposal (approx. 250m and 350m from the farm house to the two closest warehouses).
Figure 39: Aerial photo showing Springfields Farm in relation to the application site
6.116 Additionally as can been seen from Figure 41, the corner of the existing building closest to the pond can just been seen through a low section on the hedge / tree line. The proposed building will be further from Springfields Farm and to the right of the existing building in this viewpoint. On the basis of this, it is not considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact upon the residential amenity of Springfields Farm.
P a g e | 147
Figure 40: Photo showing front elevation of Springfields Farm
Figure 41: Photo showing view from front of Springfields Farm towards existing Magna Park development o ‘Mere Farm’ Travellers site 6.117 Mere farm travellers site lies approximately 1km to the north of the proposed building (see Figure 42). Contrary to the common misconception that travellers sites are predominantly empty for large parts of the year, there are a number of residents on the site who reside there for a large proportion of the year, particularly those with children who attend the local schools. Furthermore, although many of the residents of the site do travel for work during the summer months, they still retain a permanent presence at Mere Farm. It is considered that yards within the site should be afforded the same protection as a dwelling occupied by a member of the settled community.
P a g e | 148
Figure 42: Aerial photo showing Mere Farm in relation to the application site
6.118 Figure 43 shows a viewpoint from within the Mere Farm travellers site. On the left hand image the corner of the existing building closest to the pond can just be seen on the horizon. The proposed building will be slightly further away from the viewpoint than the existing building and glimpses of it may be visible through the existing boundary treatment. Given the distance from the site to the proposed building, it is not considered that the proposal would have any demonstrable detrimental impact upon the residential amenity of the residents of Mere Farm.
Figure 43: Views towards site from Mere Farm o ‘Bittesby Stables’ and ‘Orchard Lodge’ 6.119 Bittesby Stables and Orchard Lodge lie approximately 2km to the north west of the application site (see Figure 44). The site consists of three residential units, two of which abut the southern boundary. Both of these properties have their main aspect towards the application site (see Figure 45). Orchard Lodge has substantial planting along the boundary which largely obscures views towards the site. Bittesby Stables is a recently completed conversion project which has been design so as to take advantage of views to the south east (See Figure 46) through the substantial gaps and low points in the existing boundary treatment.
P a g e | 149
Figure 44: Aerial photo showing Bittesby Stables and Orchard Lodge in relation to the application site
6.120 As can be seen from Figure 46, the existing park can be seen from the patio of Bittesby Stables across the valley and on the horizon in the distance. Figure 47 shows the approved internal layout of the property, and whilst this has since altered (the approved “sitting room” is now the “kitchen / diner”, “Bedroom one” is now the “siting room” and the “kitchen / diner” is now “Bedroom one”, it is clear that the property has been designed to take advantage of the views available and that the view in Figure 46 is representative of those from the main living areas of the property.
Figure 45: Aerial photo showing Bittesby Stables and Orchard Lodge in closer detail
6.121 The proposed building will be clearly visible from the patio of the Bittesby Stables, however, given the distance between the property and the proposed building, it is not considered that the P a g e | 150 proposal would have an oppressive impact upon the residential amenity of the property. Furthermore, whilst skyglow from the existing park is an issue experienced by the residents of the property, as described in more detail in Para’s 6.47 to 6.54, the proposal includes modern standard low glare LED directional lighting to reduce the impact of the proposal, and it is considered that, subject to the submission of a detailed lighting scheme which could be secured by way of condition (see Condition 24), the effect of lighting on the property would not be significantly harmful.
Figure 46: View towards site from Bittesby Stables
Figure 47: Approved floorplans of Bittesby Stables
6.122 Whilst the proposed building will be visible from some of the surrounding properties, it is not considered that the structure would have a demonstrable overbearing impact or result in a loss of privacy to the residents of these properties. Furthermore, direct shining of light can also be controlled, and the impact of skyglow has been assessed earlier in the report (Para’s 6.47 –
P a g e | 151 6.54). The impact of noise and vibration upon the area, and therefore the adjacent properties will be assessed in the next section of the report (Para’s 6.124 – 6,128).
6.123 On the basis of the above, Officers consider that there will be no demonstrable impact upon the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties. It is therefore considered that the magnitude of harm caused by the development would be negligible and that the proposals would accord with Policy CS11 of the Core Strategy. On this basis, only minimal weight should be given to the impacts of the proposal upon residential amenity.
4. Noise 6.124 The ES includes a chapter (Chapter 7) on Noise. A Noise Assessment has been undertaken to survey existing noise levels at the Site and neighbouring, noise sensitive, locations. The Noise Assessment was prepared by Cole Jarman, Consultants in Acoustics. The NA considered the effect of operational activity noise, road traffic noise, and construction noise upon existing residential receivers due to the proposed development.
6.125 A noise survey was undertaken to help establish the existing background levels at the nearest noise sensitive locations to the proposed development site. These levels were used to set noise criteria at each of the assessment positions, which were chosen represent these closest noise sensitivities.
6.126 There will, undoubtedly, be an increase in traffic during the construction phase, however, this is an increase of approximately 1-2% which would not be considered to be significant. Construction noise, particularly in the early phases of development has the potential to cause an adverse noise impact at Springfield Farm. The precise impact cannot be properly determined until a construction programme has been finalised which will only occur once a contractor has been appointed. However, the noise effects are considered to be capable of satisfactory mitigation. To this end a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) condition is recommended at Condition 3.
6.127 The applicants have identified and acknowledged as part of the ES that the operational phase of the development, in particular lorry movements in the service yards, will have an impact upon Springfield Farm, however, the assessments of the noise impact upon the property is below the LOAEL threshold.
6.128 The Environmental Health Officer has assessed the proposals and is satisfied that, subject to a Noise Management Plan which can be secured by condition (see Condition 3), in association with the CEMP, the living conditions of residents would not be unduly affected by the development. It is therefore considered that the proposal accords with Policy CS11 of the Core Strategy CS11c of the Core Strategy. Accordingly, minimal weight should be given to issues related to noise.
5. Air Quality 6.129 The ES includes a chapter (Chapter 10) on Air Quality which has been informed by an Air Quality Assessment which established existing air quality conditions at the Site, which were found to be good.
6.130 Data for future traffic levels was used to predict whether increased traffic would give rise to an impact on air quality. It was found that there would be a negligible effect on air quality i.e. any effect would not be detectable.
6.131 The construction phase would give rise to temporary dust emissions which, unmitigated, could have potentially significant impact on amenity. Dust mitigation measures including the adoption of a Construction Dust Procedure and Dust Management Plan (DMP) have been suggested by the applicants as being issues to be covered by a condition on any approval. Mitigation measures would include dust control measures such as damping surfaces and screening dust generating activities. This should mitigate the construction impact on air quality to an acceptable
P a g e | 152 level. (See Condition 3). As a result of this, it is considered that the residual impact would be minor adverse and non-significant.
Figure 48: Air Quality Management Area Plan
6.132 The operational impacts of increased traffic emissions arising from the additional traffic on local roads, due to the development, have been assessed. Concentrations have been modelled for 16 worst-case receptors, representing existing properties where impacts are expected to be greatest. In the case of nitrogen dioxide, the modelling for the year of 2016 has been carried out assuming both that vehicle emissions decrease (using ‘official’ emission factors), and that they do not decrease in future years. This is to allow for uncertainty over emission factors for nitrogen oxides
6.133 The proposed scheme will increase traffic volumes on local roads. These changes will lead to an imperceptible increase in concentrations of small particulates at all existing receptors, however, the applicants state that the impacts of this will all be negligible. In the case of nitrogen dioxide, in 2016 there will be imperceptible to small increases. Assuming that vehicle emissions reduce between 2014 and 2016 the impacts will be negligible at most receptors and slight adverse at Receptor 1. Without a reduction in vehicle emissions over this period, the impacts will still be negligible at most receptors, but now slight adverse at three receptors (1, 2 and 4). In 2031, there will be imperceptible increases at all receptors and the impacts will all be negligible.
6.134 The overall operational air quality impacts of the development are judged to be minor adverse. This conclusion, which takes account of the uncertainties in future projections, in particular for nitrogen dioxide, is based on nitrogen dioxide concentrations being below the annual mean objective in 2016 at most receptors, but above the objective at two receptors (1 and 2), and although most of the impacts are predicted to be negligible, there will be slight adverse impacts at three isolated properties (Receptors 1, 2 and 4). In 2031, all concentrations are predicted to be below the objective and all impacts are predicted to be negligible.
6.135 As part of the consideration of the proposals, HDC commissioned a detailed review of the Air Quality assessments submitted in support of the application. The outcome of this review is that, due to advances being made in vehicle emissions and regulations around this subject, none of the submitted applications will have a significant longterm impact upon Air Quality in the area. In the short term however, there is potential for the development to cause an exceedance of the P a g e | 153 annual mean Air Quality objective for Nitrogen Dioxide at properties along the A5 (See Figures 49 and 50 for examples of such properties).
6.136 HDC’s EHO’s have advised that all applications if approved should be required to comply with a HGV routing agreement similar to that in place on the existing Magna Park development in order to ensure that impacts on Lutterworth town centre are minimised. The applicants for this application have indicated that they would be in agreement with such a condition. This would be in line with the routing agreement which is in place for the existing Magna Park and could be secured by means of the S106 agreement. A requirement for a monitoring and enforcement scheme for the HGV routing agreements to the implemented and funded by the developers should also be agreed, and this is being discussed with the applicants.
Figure 49: Wibtoft Cottage Figure 50: Peach Tree Cottage
6.137 EHO’s have also advised that access points and junctions in the vicinity of receptors should be optimized for air quality rather than simple traffic delay. Developers should undertake microsimulation assessments of junctions coupled with instantaneous emissions modelling to achieve a balance between traffic improvements and minimizing air quality impacts. It should not be assumed that what is good for traffic is good for air quality.
6.138 Whilst it is acknowledged that there proposal could lead to a short term exceedance of the Air Quality objective at a limited number of properties along the A5, it must also be acknowledged that monitoring and predicting Air Quality levels is inherently unreliable. This is due to atmospheric and meteorological changes as well as conditions on the ground. Furthermore, it must also be acknowledged that the potential for exceedances is only in the short term, which, in this case, relates to no more than 5 years. If consent were to be granted, given the significant amount of both off site and on site works which would be required prior to the erection of the building commencing, coupled with the build time of the building, it is anticipated that it could take 2 years to see the completion of the building. It is also feasible that, once the building is complete, it could take at least a year to complete the internal fit out and fully stock the building, It is therefore likely that the building will not be fully operational until a minimum of 3 years following the grant of Planning Permission. This results in the potential for exceedances of the Air Quality objective reducing only being possible during the last two years of the predicted “short term” window.
6.139 In light if the above, it is considered that, notwithstanding the potential for short term exceedances along the A5, the longer term compliance results in the proposal according with Policy CS14 and Para 124 of The Framework. As such, it is considered that limited weight should be given to issues related to Air Quality.
P a g e | 154 6. Drainage and Hydrology 6.140 The ES includes a chapter (Chapter 8) on flood risk and drainage, which has been informed by a detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA).
6.141 The ES and FRA confirm that the Site falls within Flood Zone 1 (low risk of flooding) as defined by the Environment Agency’s (hereafter referred to as ‘EA’) flood maps. Such development is acceptable in principle, but the FRA should set out framework proposals for the provision of a suitable Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDs) scheme that would adequately manage surface water run-off.
6.142 The catchment of the River Soar covers an area of approximately 1,380km2, covering much of the county of Leicestershire, together with small areas of south Nottinghamshire and north east Warwickshire. The River Soar is a significant tributary of the River Trent. From its source, south east of Hinckley, the river follows a northerly course towards its confluence with the River Trent near Ratcliffe on Soar, south west of Nottingham. The watercourses that convey surface water flows from the application site discharge into the River Soar approximately 6.5km north of the site.
6.143 Small unnamed watercourses, tributaries of the River Soar, follow the north western and south western boundaries of the application site and these fall within within the site boundary. Within the application site, there is a watercourse which has been culverted under Mere Lane. The watercourse follows a northerly course, and is open channel following the culverted road section. The watercourse is then culverted for approximately 150m and discharges to into another watercourse.
6.144 At the north eastern end of the application site is the Mere Lane Fisheries Lake which attenuates water draining from the existing Magna Park and feeds a watercourse that runs along a small tributary valley of the River Soar to the northern and western boundary of the site. To the south east of Mere Lane, the site includes the Magna Park water treatment and attenuation pools and another watercourse draining from these pools flows along the south western end of the site.
6.145 Downstream of the Proposed Development, the Ordinary Watercourses that accept surface water from the site feed into a larger watercourse that is tributary of the River Soar. This watercourse runs northerly through the Medieval Village of Bittesby. This larger watercourse, is located approximately 650m north west of the proposed building. The immediate area surrounding this watercourse was identified as being Flood Zone 3 by the Environment Agency. This area is outside of the red line boundary of the site.
6.146 The Environment Agency’s Risk of Flooding from Surface Water indicates that the site has varying levels of risk from surface water, with areas of low and medium risk generally following the paths of the Ordinary Watercourses on the site. Flooding can also result when sewers, typically combined foul and surface water, are overwhelmed and surcharge water into the nearby environment. The Harborough District Council SFRA Level 1 states: The majority of sewers built in the last 30 years are built to the guidelines within “Sewers for Adoption” (WRC, 2006). These sewers have a design standard to contain up to and including the 1 in 30 year rainfall event. Therefore the majority of sewer systems will surcharge during rainstorm events with a return period greater than 1 in 30 years (e.g. 100 years). Many sewers are however much older and date back to the Victorian era and are of an unknown capacity and condition.
6.147 Groundwater flooding usually occurs following a prolonged period of low intensity rainfall. Harborough District Councils SFRA Level 1 cites the DEFRA Strategy for Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Study (2004), which did not find any recorded instances of groundwater flooding within the development site. The SFRA recommended that the risk of groundwater flooding should be considered as part of site specific FRA.
P a g e | 155 6.148 The Local Flood Risk Management Strategy concluded that the majority of Leicestershire is sited on strata that is at low risk of flooding. As there is potential for springs to be present on the site, the risk of groundwater flooding is considered to be low.
6.149 Claybrooke Mill, a Grade 1 listed building, is located approximately 3.4 km north west of the application site at Frolesworth Lane, Claybrooke Magna. The Mill is adjacent to the River Soar, which receives flows from the Ordinary Watercourses from the Proposed Development. A Scheduled Monument (the Medieval Village of Bittesby) is located to the north west of the Proposed Development, approximately 650m from the storage and distribution building. The Village is adjacent to an unnamed Ordinary Watercourse that is downstream of the watercourses which would receive surface water discharges from the application site.
6.150 Historic England have raised the potential impact on the operation of Claybrook Mill as an issue which would fall to be assessed. Water from the site flows indirectly into watercourses which supply the mill run, and concerned are held that that a significant reduction in water flow could impact upon the operation of the Mill. The Leicestershire LLFA have assessed the potential for such an impact, and, in relation to this proposal, are content that the flow rates predicted as a result of the proposed SUDS facility are not significantly different to the existing flows rates, and as such, the LLFA do not consider there to be any threat to the operation of the Mill.
6.150 The assessment of potential construction effects carried out as part of the application has identified the potential for adverse impacts with regard to water quality, biodiversity, recreation, amenity and heritage. However, the assessment suggested that these can be addressed by ensuring that an appropriate construction management regime is in place. This could include, for example: the use of standard construction practices to manage the generation and release of sediments; the use of standard construction practices to manage the use, storage and release of fuel and other chemicals; and If works adjacent to a watercourse take place, then an Ordinary Watercourse Consent will be required from the LLFA.
6.151 An assessment of operation effects from the proposed development identified potential significant effects to water quality, surface water, recreation, amenity and heritage. However, following the implementation of mitigation measures, all effects were considered to be not significant. Mitigation measures specified include, but are not limited to: Storage of hydrocarbons and chemicals away from surface water sources in appropriately designated locations and with strict procedures to manage the operation of such facilities; Surface water runoff from the property not to exceed the greenfield runoff rate, and to maximize the use of SuDS to the greatest extent feasible; and Culverts should be designed to ensure the existing flows regime would be maintained with only a minor loss of vegetation at the culvert locations. The only potentially significant effect of the proposed development during construction and operation after the mitigation arises from the risk to water quality in the watercourses from severe spillages, however, the likelihood of such an event is low.
6.152 The proposed development is located in an upstream part of the River Soar catchment, which minimises the potential of it being affected as a consequence of other developments within the catchment. As such, the increase in flood risk to the proposed development from other developments in the surrounding region is considered negligible. The development of a surface water management scheme that restricts runoff to the greenfield runoff rate would ensure that there would be increase in flood risk on site or to those downstream.
6.153 The LLFA are satisfied with the FRA and Drainage Strategy and Flood Modelling Report (dated November 2011) and have no objections to the proposed development subject to suitably worded conditions relating to surface water. See recommended Conditions 8 and 19
P a g e | 156 o Foul Water Drainage 6.154 In terms of foul sewerage arrangements, the application proposes the expansion of the existing Magna Park services farm to accommodate the foul water needs of the application development. The central services farm treats the foul water in an environmentally sensitive way via bio-discs and reed beds. Magna Park Management will be working equally closely with the newly established (April 2015) Lead Local Flood Authority. A condition is recommended to ensure the submission of details relating to the systems to be installed. (See Condition 28)
6.155 The proposed development is considered to accord with Section 10 of the Framework and Policy CS10 of the CS. It is therefore considered that limited weight should be given to drainage and hydrology related issues.
7. Ecology (Flora & Fauna) and Biodiversity 6.156 The ES includes a chapter on Ecology (Chapter 12), which has been informed by a detailed Ecological Appraisal. Delta-Simons was commissioned by IDI-Gazeley to undertaken an Ecological Assessment of the Proposed Development. Chapter 12 of the Environmental Statement (ES) addresses the potential effects of the Proposed Development on Ecology and Nature Conservation, having due regard to both the physical proposals, recommended mitigation measures and ecological features included within the scheme design proposals.
o Statutory Designations 6.157 The results of the MAGIC data search and the Leicestershire and Rutland Environmental Records Centre (LRERC) and the Warwickshire Biological Records Centre (WBRC) desk search indicate that there are no statutory designated sites within 2 km of the Site centre. Due to the nature of the Proposed Development and the distance to the nearest statutory designated site, the authors of the report considered that it was not necessary to assess these any further. LCC Ecology and Natural England do not contest this stance.
o Non-Statutory Designations 6.158 The LRERC data search carried out buy the Delta-Simons indicates Old Manor Reedbed Local Wildlife Site (LWS) is situated approximately 1.5 km to the north of the Site. The geographical level of value of this site is considered to be Local (Low value). The records centre also indicate a candidate LWS and a Potential LWS between 1.5 km and 2 km from the Site. Numerous Parish, District and County sites have been identified within the search area, including two associated with the stream approximately 10 m from the north-western Site boundary and a pond approximately 30 m to the south-east of the Site. The value of these sites is considered to be Local (Low value).
6.159 The WBRC desk search indicates 4 EcoSites are present within 2 km of the centre of the Site, which are sites of nature conservation importance that have either been identified as potential LWS or are currently ungraded. The closest site is the disused railway line to the south of the A5, adjacent to the south-western Site boundary. This is identified as being a valuable linear habitat, supporting a range of plant species, all of which are rare in the county. A good range of mosses, lichens and liverworts have also been recorded. There are also records for a range of invertebrates. Badgers have also been recorded there, and the site is considered suitable for great crested newts. The value of this site is considered to be Local (Low value).
6.160 Due to the localised nature of the potential construction effects, the applicants consider that it is highly unlikely that the proposed development will have any direct effect on the majority of the non-statutory designated sites that have been identified. However, the construction phase of the proposed development does have the potential to cause direct and indirect impacts to the three Parish Sites identified by LRERC. There is the potential for these three non-statutory sites to be adversely impacted upon by pollution events and raised water levels. The construction of the proposed development has the potential to cause a temporary change in water volume within the water bodies, changing the conditions for aquatic and marginal vegetation and associated faunal species. In addition, the construction phase has the potential to adversely impact on water quality, with possible pollution events occurring. This would affect the survival of both floral and
P a g e | 157 faunal species occurring within the standing water, as well as the quality of the habitat as a whole. All these effects are capable of being mitigated by measures secured by condition.
6.161 Although the EcoSite identified by WBRC is situated adjacent to the south-western corner of the Site, any impact due to noise or vibrations during the construction phase is considered to be minimal given the already busy nature of the A5 and the location of the main works proposed. The temporary indirect effect from increased disturbance as a result of lighting, noise and vibration will be negligible. Adherence to best practice methodology with regards to noise, pollution and impacts on water courses, as described above, will minimise the potential impacts on the non-statutory designated sites within close proximity to the Application Site.
6.162 The operational phase of the proposed development has the potential to cause direct and indirect impacts to the three Parish Sites identified by LRERC, located closest to the Site. Situated within close proximity to the Application Site boundary, there is the potential for these three non- statutory Sites to be effected by pollution events during the operational phase, impacting upon water quality and the survival of both floral and faunal species. The increased noise from the development may also adversely impact upon the existing ecological features of the designated sites including disturbance to both floral and faunal species.
6.163 Again, as with the construction phase, it is considered that adherence to best practice methodology with regards to pollution and impacts on water courses will minimise the potential impacts on the non-statutory designated sites within close proximity to the Application Site. The potential impacts post-mitigation are considered to be negligible, and therefore, not significant.
6.164 A full impact assessment of both construction and operational phase of the development and, where necessary (ie where a significant impact has been identified), mitigation measures and strategies, is set out in the ES. The following paragraphs give a summary of these elements.
o Habitats 6.165 The following habitat/vegetation types have been identified by Delta-Simons as being present within the within the proposed development site: Broadleaved Plantation Woodland; Scattered Broadleaved Trees; Scattered Coniferous Trees; Poor Semi-Improved Grassland; Standing Water; Running Water; Arable; Intact Hedgerow – Species Poor; Dry Ditch; Scattered Scrub; Buildings; and Hard Standing. Each habitat is discussed in detail within the Chapter 12 of the ES with the key floral species within each habitat and any observation of current faunal use. The location of these habitats is shown in Figure 2 of Appendix 12.1. Without the Proposed Development it is considered that the existing land use and associated management at the Site would continue and the range and status of the habitats would remain largely unchanged.
6.166 The majority of the tree planting and woodland is to be retained following the development. Approximately 3000 m2 of plantation woodland towards the centre of the Site is to be removed and replaced elsewhere on the site in order to facilitate the proposed development. This area of woodland is immature in nature, which in turn limits its value to fauna. Furthermore, copses of this size are widespread throughout the local area. The scattered trees within the central area of the Site would be required to be felled in order to facilitate the development, whilst any other
P a g e | 158 trees to be felled have been selected by an arboriculturalist for removal because they are in poor condition. These trees are immature and semi-mature and comprise widespread species.
6.167 At least three of the trees identified for removal have been assessed as suitable to support roosting bats. However, following a survey of the local area to the west of the site, these trees are considered to provide a small proportion of the available bat tree roosting opportunities within the local area, and their loss is unlikely to have a significant impact upon the favourable conservation status of bats, should they be found to be roosting within any of the trees. The legal status of a bat roost, should it be found, will be dealt with separately.
6.168 Any construction works within close proximity to the retained woodland and lone tree habitat, has the potential to cause damage to the structure, roots and health of the trees. Taking into consideration the extent of woodland and tree loss and the low value of the existing local ecological feature, the impacts will cause a minor adverse effect that is, therefore, not significant, but it will be direct and permanent in nature.
6.169 The construction of the proposed development will result in the loss of the majority of the poor semi-improved grassland habitat at the Site. This includes all the grassland within the arable field margins, as well as partial loss of grassland surrounding the pond within the northern extent of the Site. The grassland has been assessed to be species-poor, supporting few widespread species. Taking into consideration the extent of grassland loss and the low value of the existing local ecological features within it, the impacts are considered to have a minor adverse effect that is, therefore, not significant. The effects will be direct and permanent in nature.
6.170 Mere Lane Lagoon is to be retained following the development. The construction of the development has the potential to cause a change in water level within the pond changing the conditions for aquatic and marginal vegetation and associated faunal species. In addition, the construction phase has the potential to impact on the water quality, with possible pollution events occurring. Given the low value of this habitat, the impacts are considered to have a minor adverse effect that is, therefore, not significant albeit direct and permanent in nature.
6.171 All arable land at the Site is to be lost in order to facilitate the proposed development, resulting in the direct permanent loss of habitat. Given the limited value of the arable land to fauna, and its low floral value, the impacts of the construction phase are considered to have a minor adverse effect that is not significant.
6.172 Approximately 25% of the hedgerow on the Site, is proposed to be removed in order to facilitate the Proposed Development. The hedgerow to be retained includes the majority of the site boundary hedgerows. The hedgerows offer commuting and foraging corridors for wildlife, shelter, and bird nesting opportunities. Any construction works within close proximity to the retained hedgerows have the potential to cause damage to the structure, roots and health of the shrubs. This impact would be direct and permanent and is considered to have a minor adverse effect that is, therefore, not significant.
6.173 Bittesby Cottages are to be retained following the development. The construction phase of the development is not considered to have any permanent impacts on the building structure, however, increased noise, vibration and lighting may disturb or potentially deter any bats which roost in the property. Lodge Cottage and Emmanuel Cottage are both to be demolished in order to facilitate the proposed development, resulting in their direct permanent loss. Taking into consideration the resulting medium value of this habitat at District level, the loss/ disturbance of the buildings is considered to have a moderate adverse effect that is, therefore, significant.
6.174 The applicants have proposed mitigation measures in order to offset the impact of the construction phase of the development. It is proposed that trees and hedgerows to be retained following the development will receive appropriate protection during the construction phase, including the use of tree root protection zones and barriers in accordance with BS5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction (see Condition 11)
P a g e | 159
6.175 A section of existing immature woodland within the western extent of the Application Site is to be replaced into proposed areas of landscaping, thereby reducing the amount of woodland loss at the Site. Furthermore, the landscape proposals include habitat enhancements in order to strengthen retained features as well as providing additional biodiversity gains. The proposed development incorporates additional native woodland and hedgerow planting as well as species- rich grassland, wet woodland, wetland grassland and SUDs features.
Figure 51: Proposed Ecology Strategy
6.176 The terrestrial habitats to be retained at the Site, will receive appropriate management following the development in order to maintain their ecological value (see Condition 11). The proposals for the Site include a range of habitat enhancement measures in order to strengthen existing features (see Figure 51) and to increase ecological value and diversity of the Site. Additional SUDs features are proposed for the northern extent of the site. The proposed development also incorporates the preplacement of existing woodland and additional native woodland planting across the site, replacement hedgerow planting, and the provision of species-rich wildflower
P a g e | 160 grass within the northern and southern extents of the site and species-rich grassland suitable for wetland conditions to the west. It is anticipated that these habitat enhancements will support a greater diversity of fauna than currently occurs
6.177 Overall the proposed habitat management, enhancements and habitat creation works are considered to create a significant gain in the biodiversity value of the site, which is considered to be minor beneficial. The permissive bridleway within the northern extent of the Site is to be retained following the development, with additional linkage along the former Mere Lane and the provision of a visitor’s car park to the north of the Site. Whilst increased disturbance may occur as a result of pedestrians and dog walkers, it is anticipated that members of the public will utilise the permissive bridleway rather than more wildlife friendly habitats, such that disturbance will be limited in sensitive areas of habitat.
o Species 6.178 Species records obtained from the local biological data centres as part of the 2014/15 Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Wintering Birds, Badger Survey and Bat Habitat Assessment to support the Baseline Assessment are summarised within Chapter 12 of the ES together with data gathered from the field surveys.
6.179 Both the LRERC and WBRC data searches included records of protected and notable bird species within the local area which are all listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). During the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey visits, in September and October 2014, a total of 27 species of bird were recorded at the Site and within adjacent land to the west. Of these, five are UK BAP Priority Species. A further survey was completed of the Site and adjacent land to the west, twice a month between October 2014 and February 2015, inclusive. A total of 49 species of bird were recorded including ten red list bird species of conservation concern, eight of which are UK BAP species. Thirteen amber list species were recorded on site. The Site is occasionally used by dog walkers, and as a result is subject to low levels of disturbance particularly along tracks and field margins that generally run adjacent to hedgerow habitats. Overall the wintering birds assemblage recorded during the surveys is considered to be of Site (Local) value in terms of its importance due to the relatively low diversity of species and numbers of birds recorded, and the fact that the Site is likely to be used in combination with other similar habitats in the surrounding area.
6.180 The LRERC data search revealed that common frog, common toad and smooth newt have been recorded at several locations within the local area, including within a water body approximately 400m to the north-west of the Site in 2011. The WBRC does not hold any records for the area of the County that falls within a 2 km radius of the Site centre. The majority of the Site comprises arable land and managed grassland field margins which are not considered ideal terrestrial habitat to support Great Crested Newts (GCNs). However, the network of boundary hedgerows and woodland at the Site may provide opportunities for foraging, sheltering and hibernating GCNs, as well as connectivity between potential off-Site breeding ponds and suitable terrestrial habitats. The Site supports a single waterbody, and there are a further 21 ponds within 500 m of the Site. Records indicate that this species has a favourable conservation status within the region and, therefore, the geographical level of value of this species is considered to be County (medium value).
6.181 A review of the data search revealed the closest record of roosting bats is of common pipistrelle and an unidentified bat that are 500 m to the north-west of the Site. Field records have also been recorded of brown long-eared bats, whiskered bat and natterer’s bat. A total of 19 trees have been identified as having features suitable to support roosting bats on-Site. These included 12 assessed as having medium BRP and six with low BRP, supporting features such as dense ivy cover, woodpecker holes, broken limbs and trunk fissures. Due to their age and construction Bittesby Cottages were considered to have features suitable to support roosting bats. An inspection of the roof void did not identify any evidence of a bat roost, however, the building was assessed as having medium BRP. Lodge Cottage was recorded to support a bat roost with evidence of both pipistrelle and brown long-eared bat droppings within the roof void. Emmanuel
P a g e | 161 Cottage was also recorded to support suitable features for roosting bats, and whilst no evidence of a bat roost was identified during the inspection, the building was assessed as having low BRP. Two additional outbuildings associated with Lodge Cottage and Emmanuel Cottage were assessed as having low BRP. The other outbuildings at the Site were not considered to provide the necessary environmental conditions suitable to support roosting bats. Taking into account the results of the assessment of the trees and buildings, there is the potential for the Site to support a number of bat roosts of widespread species. Whilst all bats are protected under European law, possible species which may occur at the Site are widespread, and the available roost features at the site are considered to represent only a small proportion of those occurring within the wider landscape. The main bat foraging habitat present at the site is the network of hedgerows and woodland, which connects the potential roost features on-Site to suitable foraging habitat, as well as to the wider area and potential roost sites within nearby farmsteads, and buildings in surrounding hamlets and villages. The arable fields which make up the majority of the Site provide sub-optimal foraging habitat for widespread species whilst the wider countryside offers habitat for roosting and foraging bats being largely arable farmland with hedgerows field boundaries, scattered mature trees and hedgerow trees, agricultural and residential properties, and limited areas of woodland habitat.
6.182 The LRERC provided five recent (within the last ten years) records of badger setts within 2 km of the Site. The Leicestershire and Rutland Badger Group (LRBG) provided eight recent records of badger activity within 3 km of the Site. A main sett comprising 12 entrance holes has been recorded within 1 km of the centre of the Site, with an additional six setts recorded within 2 km of the centre of the Site recorded between 2005 and 2015. During the Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey, the badger survey, and during other site visits by the Ecologists, evidence of badger activity has been recorded throughout the Site, including dung and snuffle holes, which have largely been confined to the field margins. A five entrance subsidiary badger sett has been recorded within the south-eastern area of the Site (exact location withheld) and was assessed to be active at the time of the survey.
6.183 No evidence of reptiles was recorded at the Site during the Extended Phase 1 Habitat survey. The majority of the Site comprises arable land and managed grassland field margins which are not considered to provide the structural diversity and shelter suitable to support reptile species. However, Mere Lane Fisheries is surrounded by dense marginal vegetation, grassland, woodland and hedgerow habitat, providing opportunities for reptile species. These habitats also have good connectivity across the site through the network of hedgerows and woodland vegetation. Neither records centre holds any records of reptiles for the area within a 2 km radius of the Site centre. Further reptile surveys were undertaken during May- June 2015.
6.184 Although no evidence of otter was recorded on-site, Mere Lane Fisheries may offer foraging habitat for this species due to the extent of foraging opportunities. The pond is fragmented from other suitable water bodies, however, some connectivity to a stream to the north-west of the site may occur through the network of hedgerows along the northern site boundary. Evidence of otter, in the form of a spraint, was recorded within the stream to the north-west of the Site and there is, therefore, the potential for otter to venture across the Site.
6.185 A single brown hare has been recorded at the site as an incidental sighting during the survey period. The arable land at the site and within the immediate surrounding area was considered suitable habitat for brown hare.
o Construction phase Impacts on Species 6.186 The construction phase will include the removal of hedgerow, trees, woodland, scrub and arable land, all of which is suitable to support nesting birds. There is, therefore, potential for direct adverse effects on nesting birds that are permanent in nature as a result of such clearance. In addition, construction works being carried out within proximity to nesting birds may affect them indirectly, depending on the works being carried out, and the species of bird affected. Noise and vibration disturbance effects may result in birds being repeatedly flushed off nests, causing
P a g e | 162 disruption to feeding activity, or even abandonment of nests. This is considered to be a temporary impact.
6.187 There are no suitable breeding ponds to support GCNs on Site. The majority of suitable terrestrial habitat is to be retained on the Site, however, the direct loss of sections of hedgerow, woodland and grassland may result in the loss of favoured terrestrial habitat for GCNs and, therefore, limit the proportion of the Site used for foraging and hibernating GCNs. Loss of these habitats may also result in a loss of connectivity between suitable habitats at the Site and within the wider area, including between off-Site breeding ponds, resulting in limited GCN dispersal that would lead to genetic impoverishment.
6.188 The majority of suitable habitats for reptiles are to be retained following the development with areas of planting and habitat enhancements proposed within the northern extent of the Site. However, any movement of vehicles in and around suitable habitat has the potential to result in a direct adverse impact on reptiles, with potential injury or fatalities, which would constitute an offence under English Law. Given the retention of suitable habitat, the potential impact to reptiles during the construction phase is considered to have a minor adverse effect that is, therefore, non- significant.
6.189 Several scattered trees, which have been identified as suitable to support roosting bats, are to be removed in order to facilitate the Proposed Development. Should any of these trees support a roost, there is the potential to kill, injure or disturb bats during felling and vegetation clearance works, which is an offence unless the works are licensed by Natural England. Both Lodge Cottage and Emmanuel Cottage are to be demolished in order to facilitate the development. Lodge Cottage has been recorded to support a bat roost with evidence of at least two species. A bat roost within either property would be lost during demolition works, resulting in the destruction of a roost as well as killing or injuring individual bats.
6.190 The demolition of buildings at the Site as well as removal of trees with suitable features, even if they do not currently support roosting bats, will reduce the available roosting sites for bats. The direct loss of hedgerows, woodland and scattered trees may also result in the loss of favoured foraging and commuting corridors for bats and, therefore, limit the proportion of the Site used for foraging and commuting. Furthermore, important corridors of connectivity could be lost in between roosting sites and important foraging grounds.
6.191 Bittesby Cottages are to be retained following the development. As such, should a bat roost be present within the building, it will be subject to temporary increased noise and vibration from adjacent construction works during daylight hours. This could result in an adverse impact on bat activity and could cause the abandonment of the roost.
6.192 Taking into consideration the County level value of bats at the Site, the potential impacts are considered to have a moderate adverse effect that are, therefore, significant.
6.193 Evidence of badger activity was recorded throughout and adjacent to the Site, indicating that the Site is both within a badger clan’s territory and is used for commuting between different areas of habitat. There is, therefore, the potential for this species to venture onto Site during the construction phase and there is the direct risk of harm to them should they fall into pits or trenches left open overnight during the works. Furthermore loss of arable land and grassland at the Site will reduce the available foraging habitat and connectivity between different areas of habitat for badgers. Given the extent of suitable habitat within the local landscape, the potential impacts to badgers are considered to have a minor adverse effect such that they are non- significant.
6.194 Mere Lane Lagoon at the Site has potential to provide foraging opportunities for otter. Furthermore, the ditches, supporting running water at the Site, may provide suitable connective habitat for this species. Although no evidence of this species was recorded on-Site, evidence to indicate their presence within the local area was recorded within the stream to the north-west.
P a g e | 163 There is, therefore, the potential for otter to venture onto Site during the construction phase. No habitat suitable to support an otter holt or resting place has been identified at the Site. The noise and vibration disturbance of the construction works are, therefore, unlikely to affect otters during daylight hours. Otters are naturally inquisitive animals and, therefore, there is the potential for this species to venture onto Site during the construction phase and to become trapped within any temporary excavations and trenches created as part of the works and left open overnight.
6.195 Loss of woodland habitat and sections of hedgerow at the Site will result in the reduction of suitable connectivity for otter, from nearby watercourses to the on-Site pond. Furthermore, proposed culverting of sections of on-Site ditches and drains has the potential to disturb or sever commuting routes. The potential impacts upon this species is considered to have a minor adverse effect and, therefore, be not significant.
o Construction phase mitigation for Species 6.196 Where practicable, the applicants have stated that the removal of the existing vegetation from the Site will be undertaken outside of the main nesting bird period (i.e. only within the months September to February inclusive). Where these works cannot be restricted to within this period, an Ecological Watching Brief will be maintained during the main bird breeding season to ensure that no nesting birds are adversely affected.
6.197 A mitigation strategy for GCN’s will be prepared once the detailed construction schedule has been developed (see Condition 11). The location of a temporary receptor site will be agreed with Natural England and temporary amphibian fencing will be installed around this area, whilst all other areas of the Site considered suitable to support GCNs during their terrestrial phase will be fenced and trapped out during suitable weather conditions. Reptiles will also be trapped out and similarly translocated
6.198 A Bat mitigation strategy (See Condition 11) will be prepared once the detailed construction schedule has been developed. Compensatory bat roosts will be created at the Site before any demolition works commence. They will include a permanent bat house or a series of bat boxes that would be installed on trees to be retained as part of the proposals. New habitats and landscape planting, in particular enhancements and new habitats within the western and northern areas will offer enhanced opportunities for foraging as part of the proposed development, whilst new tree planting will ensure commuting corridors are retained around the western, northern and eastern Site boundaries.
6.199 A Badger mitigation strategy (See Condition 11) will be prepared once the detailed construction schedule has been developed. As part of this there will be a requirement for a suitably qualified ecologist to undertake a check for badger setts on the Site and land within 20 m of the Application Site boundary prior to the commencement of vegetation clearance. Furthermore, during the construction phase no open trenches or pits will be left uncovered or without a mammal ramp in overnight to prevent badgers becoming trapped.
o Operational phase impacts on Species 6.200 It is anticipated that foraging, sheltering and nesting opportunities for birds will be retained at the site through the retention and translocation of existing hedgerow and woodland habitat as well as additional landscape planting throughout the site. The woodland strip along the edge of Mere Lane is to be strengthened with additional native woodland plantation, creating a wider vegetation buffer and greater opportunities for nesting and foraging birds. Additional native planting is also proposed to the north, west and south of the Site, creating connective corridors, landscape buffers and additional woodland habitat. In addition, bird nest boxes will be installed in appropriate places throughout the Site.
6.201 It is anticipated that a change in bird communities will occur across the site, with those species associated with hedgerows and woodland becoming more prevalent, and typical farmland bird species locating elsewhere. This could result in a decrease in farmland bird numbers, or the population becoming restricted to Site-edge habitat such as the retained hedgerows. The existing
P a g e | 164 pond at the Site is to be retained and additional SUDS will provide further opportunities for birds associated with wetland habitats.
6.202 Although there will be increased lighting on the Site as a result of the development, areas of ecological enhancement and landscaping particularly within the northern extent of the site will remain unlit. As discussed in the Landscape section of the report (see Paras 6.47 – 6.54) lighting at the site is proposed to be fully LED, which will reduce upward light and glow and creating more targeted illumination. The increased cover from planting will counteract any potential negative impacts, providing dark corridors, such that it will have no adverse impact on birds at the site. It is anticipated that the change in habitat composition at the Site will benefit some bird species, whilst causing displacement of others. The potential impacts of the operational phase of the development on birds overall are, therefore, considered to have a negligible impact.
6.203 It is proposed that GCNs will be released from the receptor area and allowed back into the wider Site at the start of the Operational Phase of the development. Enhanced habitats and newly created habitats will be incorporated into the proposed development, including both aquatic and terrestrial habitats. A series of SUDs features are proposed for the northern extent of the Site, adjacent to the existing pond. Habitats at the Site will receive appropriate management following the development in order to maintain their ecological value and suitability to support faunal species present (see Condition 11).
6.204 The operational phase has the potential to impact on the water quality, with possible pollution events occurring. This would affect the survival of both floral and faunal species occurring within the standing water, as well as the quality of the habitat as a whole. Increased traffic volume at the Site, following the creation of new access routes across the Site has the potential to directly impact upon the GCN population through road fatalities. There is also the direct risk of harm to this species and other amphibians should they fall into roadside gulley pots within the site.
6.205 Whilst it is anticipated that the majority of the general public will remain on the permissive bridleway/ paths around the Mere Lane Fisheries, increased anthropogenic disturbance has the potential to adversely impact upon the GCN population occurring at the Site through the introduction of fish species into breeding ponds, non-native plants, or through disturbance by allowing dogs in the ponds. The potential impacts on GCNs are considered to have a moderate adverse effect that is significant.
6.206 The majority of suitable habitats for reptiles is to be retained following the development with areas of planting and habitat enhancements providing additional opportunities and connectivity for reptile species. Translocation and planting of native woodland, hedgerows and the incorporation of species-rich grassland and wetland grassland will increase the available suitable habitat for foraging, dispersing and hibernating reptiles, whilst additional SUDs features will provide opportunities for grass snake. Habitat piles are to be incorporated at suitable locations around the Site providing further opportunities for reptile species.
6.207 The permissive bridleway within the northern extent of the site is to be retained following the development, with additional linkage along the former Mere Lane and the provision of a visitor’s car park to the north of the site. Whilst increased disturbance may occur as a result of pedestrians and dog walkers, it is anticipated that members of the public will utilise the permissive bridleway rather than more wildlife friendly habitats, such that disturbance will be limited. The potential impacts of the operational phase for reptiles are considered to be minor beneficial.
6.208 It is anticipated that the enhancement of existing habitats at the Site and creation of new habitats will increase the availability of invertebrate prey for bats, increase commuting corridors and sheltered foraging areas for bats, whilst the addition of bat boxes along Mere Lane will increase roosting opportunities for bats at the site. The potential impacts of the operational phase for bats are considered to be minor adverse and, therefore, not significant.
P a g e | 165 6.209 All arable land at the Site is to be lost in order to facilitate the proposed development, however, proposed planting of species-rich grassland and wetland grassland within the northern and western extents of the Site will provide continued opportunities for foraging badger. Increased human activity is considered likely to discourage badger activity from certain areas of the Site, concentrating activity within the ecological enhancement areas to the north and west. However, since most human activity is anticipated to occur during daylight hours, the impact from disturbance is considered to be negligible. The operational phase has the potential to cause direct harm to this species through road casualties due to increased traffic volume on Site, especially along the new access route onto the Site. The potential impacts to badgers are considered to have a minor adverse effect that is, therefore, not significant.
o Operational phase mitigation for Species 6.210 Once the proposed development plans have been finalised, amphibian tunnels and permanent amphibian fencing will be incorporated into the infrastructure plans for the application site at points where connectivity between suitable GCN terrestrial habitat, or to breeding ponds has been severed. Thorny native hedgerow planting will be incorporated into the landscaping plans if, once the mitigation strategy for GCNs has been finalised, the general public are considered to pose a risk to any GCN breeding pond(s) that will be incorporated into the scheme. With the inclusion of mitigation, any impacts upon GCNs are considered to be minor adverse and, therefore, non-significant.
6.211 All lighting at the Site will comprise LEDs to ensure that it is both directional to limit spillage onto adjacent vegetative corridors which are likely to be used by Bats, and also limits any ‘glow’ that would impact upon the wider area beyond the Site boundaries. There will be no lighting on the northern and western areas of the site which are designated as habitat enhancement areas. A landscaped earth bund along the western aspect of the access road to the west of the warehouse building will create a buffer that will limit any human disturbance to Bittesby Cottages which are situated immediately east of it. With the inclusion of mitigation, any impacts upon bats are considered to be minor adverse and, therefore, not significant.
6.212 Natural England and LCC’s Senior Ecologist has fully appraised the submitted statements and reports including the addendum information, and has commented accordingly (see Section 4.a.1 and Section 4.a.3 of the report). LCC have requested that details of the timing of the demolition of existing buildings be provided prior to determination of the application, however, until a consent is in place, the applicants will not in a position to program the demolition of buildings. On the basis of the evidence submitted, and subject to securing the proposed mitigation outlined in the report, no objections have been received against the proposal on ecology grounds. The proposal is considered to comply with both local and notional policy, and that both Natural England and the County Council’s Senior Ecologist have raised no objections to the proposed development on Ecology grounds weighs in favour of the development.
6.213 In general terms, following the completion of mitigation proposed which is to be secured by condition, the overall impact of the development upon the ecology of the surrounding area is considered to be minor, and therefore not significant. It is therefore considered that minimal weight should be given to ecology related issues.
8. Heritage and Archaeology 6.214 The ES contains a chapter (Chapter 11) on Heritage and Archaeology which was prepared by CgMs.
o Heritage Legislation / Policy 6.215 Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 places a duty on a local planning authority, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting, or any features of architectural or historic interest it possesses. Likewise, Section 72 of the same Act places a requirement on a local planning authority in
P a g e | 166 relation to development in a conservation area, to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.
6.216 CS Policies CS1(o) and CS11 are the relevant DP polices. Protecting and enhancing the historic environment is an important component of the Framework’s drive to achieve sustainable development. The appropriate conservation of heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance forms one the ‘Core Planning Principles’ (Core Principle 10) that underpin the planning system. This is expanded upon principally in Paragraphs 126-141.
6.217 The PPG states: the significance of a heritage asset derives not only from the asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting. the harm to a heritage asset’s significance may arise from development within its setting. that public benefits could be anything that delivers economic, social or environmental progress and they may include heritage benefits, such as: sustaining or enhancing the significance of a heritage asset and the contribution of its setting.
o Designated Heritage Assets 6.218 There are two Scheduled Monuments within the 1.5km search area. The first is Bittesby Deserted Medieval Village, located c.340m north-west from the main element of the Site, however the site boundary does extend c.10m to the Scheduled Monument’s eastern boundary by way of the structural landscaping element of the proposal. This has been considered in detail as part of the Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment which has been submitted in support of the application. The second is a Moat, fishponds and village earthworks at Ullesthorpe. Due to the location of this monument away from the Site the proposed development is not considered to have an impact on the setting of this monument. There are eight Listed Buildings within the search area. The Conservation Area of Ullesthorpe is approximately 1.5km north-west of the study site. The Conservation Area covers the historic core of the village. The Conservation Area of Claybrooke Parva is approximately 2.5m to the north west of the proposed building. Figure 52 maps the locations of the heritage assets.
o Impact of the development on the Ullesthorpe Conservation Area 6.219 Ullesthorpe Conservation Area is located to the north of the application site and is elevated above the surrounding landscape. Due to the close knit pattern of development within the village, and in particular the historic core element of it, there are only glimpsed views of the surrounding landscape from within the Conservation Area itself. Due to relatively modern development on the fringes of the village, particularly to the east of the railway line as well as to the north and south of the centre of the village, the Conservation Area is not clearly perceptible from the wider landscape and therefore any impact upon it would be negligible.
o Impact of the development on the Claybrooke Parva Conservation Area 6.220 Claybrooke Parva Conservation Area is located to the north west of the main element of the application site and is at approximately the same elevation as the application site. Due to the nature of the village, in particular the historic core element of it, there are only glimpsed views of the surrounding landscape from within the Conservation Area itself and therefore any impact upon it would be negligible.
P a g e | 167
Figure 52: Location of Heritage Assets
o Impact of the development on the setting of Listed Buildings 6.221 The Church of St Leonard in Willey dates from the late 14th/15th century. Its immediate setting is predominantly defined by the graveyard to the north-west. This building shares a historic and spatial relationship with the historic core of Willey which forms the wider setting of the Church. Cottage Nurseries – also in Willey - is a thatched cottage which dates from the 17th century. This building’s setting is relatively confined to the immediate streetscene. Willey village is surrounded by open fields to the west and north-west, the A5 to the north and the former Midlands Counties Leicester to Rugby railway to the east. Given the distance and topography between the two, the settings of the church and cottage will not be affected by the proposal. Similarly, for the same reasons, the setting of Claybrooke House, Claybrooke Parva, and St Peters Church is not considered to be affected by the proposed development. Furthermore, due to the topography of the surrounding area and intervening development it is considered that settings of the Congregational Chapel, Home Farm House, The Manse and 5 Station Road will not be affected by the proposed development.
6.222 Ullesthorpe Windmill (Grade II) is located in the northern part of the village, and is predominantly surrounded by residential development. There are also a number of older buildings within the immediate vicinity of the windmill which add to its value. The sails of the windmill have been removed at some stage in the past, however, consent has previously been granted for their reinstatement. Whilst this consent has lapsed, it is feasible that a similar application for the reinstatement of the sails could be granted. The Windmill sits on the highest ground in the village, and is particularly prominent when looking north from Main Street and is a key focal point in the surrounding landscape (See Figure 53). The main significance of the building lies in its
P a g e | 168 architectural and historic interest, as well as its social contribution to the development of the village. Given the relationship and distance between the proposal and the Windmill, it is not considered that the proposed building will have any impact upon the setting or significance of the Windmill.
Figure 53: View towards Ullesthorpe from North East
6.223 Claybrooke Mill lies approximately 2km to the north west of the proposed site. The Mill is a functioning water mill, and its operation relies upon a consistent flow of water through the mill run. The water feeding into this predominantly comes from the south, and therefore potentially watercourses which may be affected by the application. As outlined in the earlier Hydrology section of the report, the proposed development will not involve significant change to run off rates into the river, nor will it create significant changes to soil chemistry or hydrology. Consequently, it is not considered that the construction and operation phases of the development will affect the hydrology of the Scheduled Monument or the Listed Buildings at Claybrooke Mill.
6.224 On the basis on the above, it is considered that the impact of the proposal upon designated heritage assets is not significant.
o Non-Designated Heritage Assets 6.225 Bittesby House (see Figure 54) and Bittesby Cottages – located to the west of the main section of the application site – and the former lodge to Bittesby House, to the south-west of Bittesby House, have some historic merit and as such are considered to be non-designated heritage assets. This view is shared by the applicants for the purposes of their assessment. Local parties have recently applied to English Heritage (now Historic England) to have Bittesby House added to the National Heritage List for England, however the application was turned down on the basis that mid-late C19 houses of this type survive in very considerable quantities in both urban and rural contexts throughout England, and only examples of architectural distinction merit designation in a national context. Notwithstanding this, in the context of the NPPF, it is considered Bittesby House and its associated properties should be considered as a non- designated heritage asset, as identified by the applicants.
P a g e | 169
Figure 54: View of Bittesby House
6.226 The applicants claim that Bittesby House has only limited architectural interest and that the overall incoherent design of the property is a result of the rather eclectic and visually uneasy mix of different architectural elements. During the Listing application process, Historic England (formerly English Heritage) determined that there is little of national importance in the building’s construction, craftsmanship and decoration. It is considered that the evolution of the building in the 19th century is of local interest, due to the social history and the fact that the productivity of the farm is reflected in the architectural aspirations of the building’s occupiers
6.227 The former ‘lodge’ to Bittesby House lies to the south-west of the site. This lodge originally served Bittesby House, which was accessed past this lodge and along a tree lined avenue. Entrance lodges were placed for security and to give the passer-by or visitor a hint of the quality of the principal house beyond. However, this particular lodge has no significant architectural or historic interest, and is devoid of distinguishing features or aesthetics. The building has been significantly altered over time and the loss of original features such as windows further damages its character and appearance. The former lodge has also lost its spatial and functional relationship with Bittesby House through the reconfiguration of the principal access and changes in ownership. Therefore, the former lodge whilst being considered as a non designated heritage asset, it is considered to have limited importance.
6.228 The semi-detached cottages to the north-east of Bittesby House - Bittesby Cottages – have also been judged by the applicants to be non-designated heritage assets, a view also shared by the LPA. The cottages are of limited architectural significance, and, as with Lodge Cottage, they have been much altered with their original windows having been removed. They do however have a historical association with Bittesby House, potentially having housed farm workers employed by the occupants of the House. The setting of Bittesby House has changed over time. It was originally accessed from the north, however, by 1886 the principal entrance had been relocated to the south-west. The ‘lodge’ was built adjacent to Watling Street, and a tree lined avenue planted between it and the house. C.1838 the railway was constructed to the west of Bittesby House, and was laid on an embankment, thus detracting from this previously open aspect. The approach to Bittesby House has now changed again with the access being off Mere Lane, but the
P a g e | 170 tree lined avenue remains. Despite these changes, the avenue continues to contribute positively to the significance of the setting of Bittesby House
o Impact of the development on the setting of Bittesby House and associated properties (non designated Heritage Assets) 6.229 Bittesby House is described in the Heritage Statement as merely ‘of limited architectural and historic significance, being of local interest only’. It is contended that, whilst the house may be of insufficient, rather than limited, special architectural or historic interest to meet the statutory listing criteria, it is considered to be one of the higher quality, unlisted buildings in the county. Its many attributes include much original historic fabric and several interesting architectural features from a series of identifiable phases of development that provide a clear visual reminder of the expansion of the farm during the C19. When LCC’s Principal Historic Buildings Officer (HBO) and HDC’s Conservation Officer (CO) visited the House in January 2015 it was considered to be in good condition and active use. It is also understood that recent and ongoing research by a local historian may strengthen the relationship and contribution made by Bittesby House to the significance of the neighbouring scheduled site, which is considered to be unsurprising given the agricultural community that previously existed in the area.
6.230 The proposed new distribution centre, by virtue of its use, location and size, is considered to have a considerable visual and environmental impact on the setting of the non-designated heritage assets in the area. Given the scale of the building it is unlikely that new planting would substantially reduce the visual intrusion into the landscape. It is clear from national planning policy and Historic England guidance that the setting of heritage assets can be an important factor in their significance and that it can include the environment in which a place or building is experienced, their local context, embracing present and past relationships to the adjacent land or buildings.
6.231 LCC HBO considers that the Heritage Statement submitted in support of the application underplays the contribution made by the setting of Bittesby House to its significance. As with virtually all such historic farms a fundamental functional association exists between the house and the surrounding agricultural land. In addition to this, the development of Bittesby House during the C19, including a tree lined avenue and new outward looking formal facades, suggest that the wider rural landscape was a significant feature to be exploited and enhanced as the status of the farmstead increased.
6.232 It is acknowledged that the existing Magna Park development has compromised this setting however, it is considered that the proposed development will, by encroaching much closer to the house and associated buildings, cause further harm to their significance. The new distribution centre will be larger the non-designated heritage assets and compete with Bittesby House as the building of prominence in the landscape.
6.233 Only one of the non-designated heritage assets identified in the Heritage Statement is located within the application site. This is the former lodge building to Bittesby House. The development proposes the complete demolition of the lodge in order to facilitate the widening of the A5. This will clearly result in the loss of this particular asset, which will cause indirect harm to the significance of Bittesby House by removing a building which was an integral part of the C19 expansion and development. The HBO agrees with the author of the Heritage Statement in that changes to the access and alterations to the lodge mean that the connection between the assets is no longer readily apparent.
6.234 As noted above The Framework requires that LPA’s consider the effect of the application on the significance of all the non-designated heritage assets in the area when determining the application. The HBO considers that the submitted Heritage Statement under values some of these non-designated heritage assets in the area and furthermore underplays the impact of the development on their setting and significance. Whilst it is not claimed that substantial harm will generally occur to the assets near to the development site, the conclusion of the Heritage
P a g e | 171 Statement (that any harm to the significance of Bittesby House and Cottages falls ‘well below the ‘less than substantial’ threshold referred to in the NPPF’) is strongly contested.
6.235 As such Polices 135 and 137 of the Framework should apply. These policies require that both the significance of the asset and scale of the harm or loss be taken into account. The HBO considers that the demolition of the Lodge will result in substantial harm to this element, but in less than substantial harm to the group of assets as a whole.
6.236 HDC knows from a letter dated 31st December that a third party may apply to Historic England for Bittesby House to be entered onto the National Heritage List for England. HDC does not know with certainty if and when that request will be made nor what any outcome will be. Should the request be made prior to this Planning Committee or the issuing of any decision then the implications of any change in material considerations will have to be reviewed and assessed. Any assessment now in advance of a potential change in material consideration (eg a building may become listed) cannot be reasonably done in absence of any factual change in circumstances.
6.237 Members may recall that, in the determination of the recent Airfield Farm application to the north west of Market Harborough (1/00112/OUT, 2nd March 2015), a similar situation occurred due to the loss of the canal footbridge. In that particular case, the balancing exercise required by national policy could not ignore the overarching statutory duty imposed by Section 72 Listed Building and Conservation Area Act and as such the LPA had to give considerable weight to the desirability of preserving the setting of the Conservation Area (a designated heritage asset) when carrying out the balancing exercise. This current proposal differs from the Airfield Farm application in that, whilst both the canal footbridge and Bittesby House are considered to be non- designated heritage assets, the canal footbridge also contributed to the character and appearance of the Grand Union Canal Conservation Area, and therefore the proposal affected a designated heritage asset and the statutory requirement was engaged, whereas Bittesby House does not contribute to any statutory designations, and as such, the statutory requirement to give considerable weight to the desirability of preserving the statutory asset does not arise.
6.238 Para 136 of The Framework states that Local planning authorities should not permit loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred. HDC have no reason to believe that, if consent is granted, the development will not proceed, and as such, it is not considered that a condition be imposed so as to control the timing of the demolition of Lodge Cottage
6.239 In light of the above, and in accordance with Para 135 of The Framework, the impact of the proposals on built heritage assets should be taken into account in a balanced judgement. It is considered that the proposal results in less than substantial harm to the setting of a non- designated heritage asset, and as such, the impact upon non-designated heritage assets is considered to be not significant.
o Archaeological Impacts 6.240 The application was originally supported by an Archaeological Desk Based Assessment (CgMS).
6.241 Based upon the results of the geophysical and fieldwalking undertaken in support of the current application and a future wider application area and following comments from the LCC Senior Archaeologist, six areas containing anomalies of archaeological interest were identified within the application area. These anomalies – artefact concentrations and ‘blank areas’ on all surveys – have now been investigated by trial trenching. The results of this work, including an additional area of archaeological interest, are considered to be non-designated heritage assets. In addition to these three further areas containing anomalies of archaeological interest have been identified in the zone between the current application area and the Scheduled Monument of Bittesby village, these too should fall to be assessed as non-designated heritage assets. Trial trenching and metal detector survey has been undertaken of the geophysical anomalies identified between
P a g e | 172 the current application area and the Scheduled Monument. These trenches have been monitored by the Senior Planning Archaeologist for Leicestershire County Council.
6.242 Two linear anomalies (A1) were the only features, within the Proposed Development Area, assessed as likely to be of Roman date within the archaeological desk-based assessment. This was based on their alignment, at right angles to the A5, and the recovery of Roman pottery in relatively close proximity. These features have been investigated through trial trenching, together with ditches that may be associated to the north. The ditches to the north proved to be early Roman in date. Whilst no dating evidence was recovered from the features within the application area they are likely to be field ditches of Roman date, peripheral to settlement. It is considered that these features have limited evidential value.
6.243 One linear anomaly, interpreted as a ditch likely to be associated with a ring ditch (A2 and A3), crosses the proposed development footprint in two places and where it crosses the south-eastern tip of the application area it may be associated with an additional linear anomaly and also a ring ditch. These features have been investigated through trial trenching. No evidence was found for the ring ditch, and no dateable evidence was recovered from the extensive linear feature. The linear feature at the south-eastern extent of the application area was not dated. These features have limited evidential value.
6.244 Only one Archaeological Asset (A5) within the application area was assessed as likely to be of Medieval date within the archaeological desk-based assessment. This is a trackway, which appears to connect an enclosure (Archaeological Asset A9) to the north-eastern boundary of the Scheduled Monument of Bittesby Village. This feature was investigated by trial trenching. The trackway ditches, together with another parallel ditch were excavated, but no dating evidence was recovered. The trackway clearly leads to Archaeological Asset (A9), which has been investigated through trial trenching and is early Romano-British in date. This trackway is therefore reassessed as being Romano-British in date, significant for its evidential value and its contribution to the significance of the Scheduled Monument.
6.245 Geophysical anomalies interpreted as Medieval enclosures and trackways (A7) were identified extending from the south-eastern boundary of the Scheduled Monument, up the slope and onto the ridge. These features have been investigated through trial trenching and are, where dated, of early Roman date, together with the trackway (A5) and enclosure to the north (A9). These anomalies are considered to be significant for their evidential value and for their contribution to the significance and setting of the Bittesby Deserted Medieval Village Scheduled Monument.
6.246 Geophysical anomalies interpreted as multi-phase Roman enclosures (A7, A8 and A9) were identified predominantly along the ridge located between the study site and the Scheduled Monument to the west. The long, ladder-type settlement arrangement has been dated to the Romano-British period following the results of the trenching, although there are Iron age elements within it. The bulk of the Roman pottery recovered from the fieldwalking undertaken in support of the current application and for future planning application is from this area. In addition to this over 300 shards of Roman pottery and c.20 fragments of Roman tile, including tegulae and imbrices (roof tile) were recovered during fieldwalking (MLE21337 and ELE8535) c.50 m west of the site. On the basis of the available evidence it is therefore likely that there is a Roman settlement and associated enclosures located just off the top (to the north-west) of the ridge, above the Scheduled Monument.. These features have been investigated by trial trenching and metal detector survey. There was only a very limited amount of metalwork recovered, but the excavated features have produced relatively significant quantities of Roman pottery, animal bone and fuel ash, together with limited evidence for Iron Age activity. There is currently no evidence for a Medieval component to these anomalies. These features are typical of late Iron Age/Romano-British rural settlement and are significant for their evidential value and for their contribution to an understanding of the historical development and landscape setting of the Bittesby Deserted Medieval Village Scheduled Monument.
P a g e | 173 6.247 Two further trenches (21 and 22) were excavated, at the request of the Senior Planning Archaeologist for Leicestershire County Council, in the location of a concentration of post- Medieval pottery, close to Bittesby House. The trenches contained features of Iron Age date (A10), but no evidence for post-Medieval activity and nothing to suggest continuity of activity between the Deserted Medieval village and Bittesby House. These features are significant for their evidential value.
6.248 The CgMS assessment submitted in support of the application has identified that, unmitigated, the proposed development is likely to have a Moderate impact upon the setting of the Scheduled Monument (Bittesby Deserted Medieval Village). The applicants assert that the proposed planting, once mature, will mitigate the visual intrusion on the Scheduled Monument from the proposed development. There is no mitigation proposed to mitigate the impact upon the setting of the buried archaeological features occupying the ridge between the application area and the Monument. The effect of development will be to increase the visual intrusion, into the setting of these features, which, in themselves, are non designated assets, albeit, they do contribute to the setting of a designated asset (NPPF Para 132). The impact of the development has been assessed by the applicants as being Moderate and therefore, even with the proposed planting, it is considered that there will continue to be a Moderate impact upon the setting of the Scheduled Monument. This impact is considered to be less than ‘substantial harm’ (NPPF para 134).
6.249 Trial trenching, in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation submitted to and approved by LCC Archaeology has been undertaken across the application area, targeting known anomalies/areas of potential and blank areas. This work will allow the formulation of programme of limited conditioned mitigation works, which can be secured by archaeological condition (see recommended Condition 5). With appropriate mitigation the impact of the development upon these assets is assessed as Minor.
6.250 The Senior Archaeologist is satisfied with the recent Assessment, however has requested any permission is conditioned to include archaeological monitoring and recording during groundwork (see recommended Condition 8). On the basis of the above, it is considered that the impact upon archaeological assets is considered to be not significant. The impacts of the proposal upon the surrounding heritage assets (both designated (NPPF Para 132) and non-designated (NPPF Para 135)) have been considered in detail as part of the formulation of the recommendation by Officers. It is considered that the proposals accord with Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy. Furthermore, As detailed above, it is considered that the impact upon designated assets, non-designated assets and archaeological features are all considered to be not significant, and as such, limited weight should be given to Heritage related issues.
9. Design 6.251 The proposals for the development of the proposed distribution facility (see Figure 55) comprise the following key components: • the development of approximately 56 ha of land to the north and west of Magna Park, accessed from, and linked to Magna Park across Mere Lane by an extension to Argosy Way. The demise for building itself is c 22ha, with the remaining 34ha of the site given to the access arrangements and landscape works; • a 100,844 sqm distribution warehouse facility including ancillary offices, gatehouse, fuelling and vehicle washing facilities, associated service and goods yards, on-plot access roads and staff car parking; • roof-mounted photovoltaics (PVs) for on-site energy generation • the expansion of the existing Magna Park services farm to accommodate the foul water needs of the application development; • landscaping including ecology mitigation and enhancements, planted earthworks, native woodland planting, integrated sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS), permissible bridleways and habitat connections to integrate the development in its wider rural setting; • off-site woodland spinney and hedgerow reinforcement planting to mitigate sensitive views in the wider landscape;
P a g e | 174 • road improvements to the A5 trunk road to include the extension of dual carriageway between Lodge and Emmanuel cottages (to be demolished) and Mere Lane and a new roundabout at the A5 junction with Mere Lane; • a new road extension from Argosy Way across Mere Lane to connect the development site to Magna Park and the realignment of Mere Lane between the proposed A5 roundabout junction and a new roundabout junction with the extension to Argosy Way; • a realigned access track to the Holovis International at Bittesby Barn Buildings, also for access to the farm; and • a small new public car park to allow access to the Magna Park amenity land.
Figure 55: Proposed site layout
6.252 The main building is proposed to be 100,814 sq m which would equate to 540m in length and 180m in depth, with principal yards and loading doors to the north and south elevations. The principal offices and 715 car parking spaces are on the western side. The proposed finished floor level is AOD 119.500 with a resultant maximum parapet height of AOD 142.500. The height of the building itself is 23m (See Figure 56).
6.253 The main building will be built of a steel portal frame construction clad in a combination of steel composite and built-up cladding panels, which are made of recyclable materials and are themselves recyclable. The cladding is graded in blue colours which respond to the position of the building in its context, with darker colours at lower levels and increasingly lighter to reduce visibility against the sky line (see Figure 56).
6.254 The construction method offers six south facing roof slopes, which will accommodate PV installation to all these south-facing areas and concealed behind the parapets. In coordination with the PVs, 15% roof lights are provided to optimize daylight and minimize the need for artificial lighting within the warehouse.
6.255 Other facilities to be provided within the site (see Figure 57) include: • a gatehouse located in the southwest corner of the site at its principal entrance to control secure access and egress of HGVs and natural surveillance of the car park; • fuel and vehicle wash facilities located at the south western end of the yard; and • 274 HGV parking spaces.
P a g e | 175
Figure 56: Proposed Elevations of main building
6.256 The proposed gatehouse will measure 8.8m long by 4.3m deep and 3.2m high with a flat roof. The building will be clad in blue composite cladding to match the main building and will be located at the entrance to the yard (see Figure 58)
Figure 57: Proposed Site Layout
P a g e | 176
Figure 58: Proposed Elevations of ancillary structures
6.257 The design of the building is in keeping with the modern design ethos of warehousing on the existing Magna Park (see Figure 59) and will help to ensure that the site is seen as an extension to the existing park. Recent developments within the existing park feature the same graded approach to the colour scheme of the cladding, and it is considered that this approach is more successful at integrating into the landscape, particularly in longer distance views, than the standard grey boxes which typify the appearance of the standard warehouse, particularly in the eye of the general public. As has been acknowledged in the Landscape section of this report, the graded approach helps to minimise the impact of the building upon the appearance of the surrounding countryside.
Figure 59: Internal; view of existing Magna Park indicating design ethos (Source: Google Maps Streetview)
P a g e | 177 6.258 It is considered that the design of the proposal is acceptable in its context and that it sits well as an extension to Magna Park, and that, in terms of warehouse development, the design of the proposal is of high quality. It is therefore considered that the proposal accords with Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy. The acknowledged quality of the design of the building weighs in favour of the proposal and must be assessed against the harm of the development in the overall planning balance.
o Open Space & Green Infrastructure 6.259 A wide range of open space and green infrastructure have been proposed alongside the development proposal. The Open Space to be provided includes: additional hedgerow planting and new spinneys along the edges of Mere Lane and along the new road link to the A5; a maintained grassland ride, to be defined with new planting, along the permissive bridleway alongside Mere Lane; the reinstatement / replacement of the boundary vegetation on the north western boundary; a network of SuDS ponds to manage run off and maintain water quality; measures to reinforce existing planting and to enhance wetland habitat will be incorporated; attractive routes for cyclists and pedestrian links to a bus stop and through Magna Park; and the retention of the permissive routes in the vicinity of the application site and alternative provision to compensate for the loss of one route.
6.260 The DAS indicates that the footpath routes would generally be incorporated within green corridors, which would help to enhance their routes (see Figure 60). Additional footpath links would be created throughout the area surrounding the development, which would help to improve access to the countryside and create a range of different user experiences. The new Green Infrastructure is intended to be multi-functional and will assist Harborough District’s GI Strategy as outlined in CS Policy CS8 by providing opportunities for recreation and biodiversity enhancement.
Figure 60: Cross sections through site showing footpath treatment
6.261 The Landscaping Strategy has provided a suitable response to the proposal and will ensure that the long term impacts of the proposals are sufficiently mitigated. The detailed landscaping of the site can be considered by condition (see recommended Condition 21). To ensure the landscaping is appropriately managed and maintained, a condition seeking the submission of a Landscape Management Plan is recommended (see recommended Condition 23).
P a g e | 178 6.262 Matters relating to levels, refuse & recycling facilities, cycle storage within the curtilage of the buildings; extraction / ventilation equipment and external lighting can all be controlled by way of condition (see Condition 27). It is therefore considered that the proposal accords with Policy CS8 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.
6.263 The design of the proposal has been fully considered as part of the formulation of the recommendation by Officers. It is considered that the proposals accord with Policies CS11 and CS8 of the Harborough District Core Strategy. As such, it is considered that limited weight should be given in favour of design related issues.
10. Socio-Economics 6.264 Chapter 5 of the ES looks at the socio-economic factors of the application. The applicants have stated that the application proposals lead to very significant economic, social and employment benefits over and above the value locally of the construction and permanent jobs to be created. A baseline study of the local economy identified that HDC functions within the Golden Triangle, with a large proportion of in-commuting from neighbouring districts to take up logistics career opportunities at Magna Park. The HDC population is ageing, with a relatively high proportion of the population entering the age of retirement, which, in turn, generates replacement demand for labour by employers.
6.265 The applicants have stated that the application proposals: will deliver, 1230 permanent full time equivalent (FTE) on site, based on the employment density of the existing park will deliver, net for Harborough District, an additional 1,199 permanent full-time equivalent jobs after allowing for displacement and the local multiplier value of the jobs – a 3.4% increase on the total number of jobs in the district in 2012 (employment fell in Harborough by 4% between 2009 and 2012)9 generate on site an estimated: o 344 jobs in high value occupational groups (i.e. Managers; Professional Occupation; and Associate Professional Occupations) o 197 jobs in mid-level occupational groups (i.e. Administrative and Secretarial and Skilled Occupations); o 111 jobs in lower level service and sales occupations; and o 578 process plant and elementary occupations. contribute, annually, additional GVA of some £42.4 million create some 296 (gross) construction jobs, with a net value to the district of between 111 and 144 jobs (depending on the assumptions on leakage and displacement).
6.266 The employment opportunities will include temporary jobs, apprenticeships and training opportunities during the construction phase and a new permanent workforce during the operational phase. These occupations are likely to include highly valued managerial and professional level employment in logistics sectors, enabling HDC attract a highly skilled workforce to the area. In the long-term this will help encourage HDC’s resident population of highly qualified young people to remain in the district and take-up such opportunities rather than commuting. This will be beneficial to the local economy, for instance, through a higher proportion of spending of workers at MPL retained in HDC.
6.267 Additionally, the increase in business rates for the district (assuming a rates contribution pro-rata to the park’s existing £20m), would be in the order of £2.6m annually, of which HDC would be 4 entitled to keep some 50% .
6.268 Research by the applicants indicates that, within the area in which the majority of Magna Park’s existing employees live (45minute drive time), there are 13,500 Job Seeker allowance claimants.
4 The Government formula for the retention of business rates is complex, but Government’s policy since 2013 has been to induce local authorities to support economic growth through this “localism” measure. The present indication is retention locally of about 50% of rates.
P a g e | 179 Their occupational profile shows a generally good match with the anticipated occupational structure of the jobs to be created by the operation of a Supply Chain facility. The SoS stated in 1992, the fact that there is a wide labour market catchment for the park is not a mark against the proposals. The combination of the scale of the proposal and its location adjacent to the District and County boundary means that proposal has far more than local implications, and that the benefits of the scheme need to be looked at on a regional basis.
6.269 The proposals will contribute to the objectives of HDC’s Open for Business Action Plan (September 2013), including providing local benefits and supporting the reduction in operating costs of an existing business (through the efficiencies to DHL Supply Chain of being able to retain the advantages enjoyed by its existing operations in the park), and investing in measures aimed at increasing the integration of the park’s businesses with the local economy. Furthermore, the proposals will also contribute to the objectives of the strategic economic plans of the four LEPs within the Magna Park labour market in particular adding to the competitive advantages of the area in the priority logistics sector.
6.270 The social benefits of the application proposals include the added opportunities to take permanent employment across a spectrum of occupations in a growing sector for which the local area has a strong competitive advantage. Furthermore, the proposal would increase in the amenity open space on the site and the enhancements in the public access to those amenities.
6.271 These benefits contribute to the development plan, both in assisting the aim of improving the health of residents of the Lutterworth area (CS paragraph 2.25) and policy CS8 which aims to secure the green infrastructure that is essential to healthy lifestyles.
6.272 It is considered that the benefits of the proposal as outlined above are significant and weigh very substantially in favour of the proposal and must be assessed against the harm of the development in the overall planning balance.
11. Footpaths 6.273 The distance from the centre of Lutterworth to the site is around 4km while the main residential part of the town, which has grown up to the west of the centre, and some of the surrounding villages are a little closer at around 3km.
6.274 There are a number of footpaths and bridleways crossing the site. An important component of the proposed Green Infrastructure Strategy which has been submitted in support of the application is the retention of existing permissible bridleways, and the creation of new permanent footpath and bridleway connections to facilitate access to the countryside. These new connections will provide access to the wider network of existing Public Rights of Way between the villages of Ullesthorpe and Willey to the north and west of the site.
6.275 A new visitor’s car park at the north east of the site facilitates access to the existing Mere Lane Lagoon and proposed wetland habitat as well as to the circuitous routes around the site. The former route of Mere Lane equally creates footpath access to connect to the Public Rights of Way that emanate from Willey and terminate at the A5 providing improved connectivity. Figure 61 highlights the existing and proposed footpaths both on and around the site.
6.276 The increased accessibility across and around the site weighs in favour of the proposal and must be assessed against the harm of the development in the overall planning balance.
P a g e | 180
Figure 61: Existing and Proposed footpaths on and around the site
12. Agriculture and Soils 6.277 The ES includes a section on the agriculture and soil quality of the Site.
6.278 The proposed development site is not classified as best and most versatile agricultural land under the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) system and there is no overriding case to safeguard the area for agriculture, nor conserve its soil resources. Further information on the composition of the agricultural landscape is provided in the Agricultural Land Quality Report. Nevertheless, IDI Gazeley has taken steps to minimise the loss of, and impact on, agricultural areas and adopted proposals for soil management within the CEMP.
6.279 None of the Site has been identified as ‘best and most versatile’; 78% is grade 3b, moderate to poor, and 1.1% is grade 4, poor and the remainder is non-agricultural. It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with NPPF Para 112.
13. Contamination 5.280 The ES includes a stand alone report on Contaminated Land which has been informed by a detailed Phase 1 Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment to determine whether the ground conditions are suitable for construction and whether any contamination present from historic uses could cause adverse impacts during construction or to future residents and users of the Site.
6.281 The Site is located within a predominantly agricultural area with some limited residential housing to the northeast, west and southwest of the Site, with commercial/industrial use to the southeast, in the form of the existing Magna Park. The Site is located within an area of mixed agricultural and commercial/industrial use. The bedrock geology strata are classified as a Secondary A Aquifer. It is anticipated that there will be a significant depth of superficial material across the
P a g e | 181 Site. These superficial deposits are classified as a mixture of Secondary A Aquifers, and Unproductive Strata. The two tributaries to the Soar Brook are present on Site. As such, the environmental sensitivity of the Site’s setting is considered to be moderate.
6.282 Potential sources of contamination identified at the Site are primarily from the agricultural use of the Site, including the farming processes and buildings, the presence of any Made Ground on- Site, and the presence of Alluvium, likely around the northern and western boundaries. Potential sources of contamination identified in the surrounding area include the agricultural land use, the former railway line, and the commercial/industrial warehouses in the existing Magna Park.
6.283 From available regulatory information, there are potential sources of contamination present on the Site, which relate to landfilled material, understood to have been deposited in the south of the Site, associated with the former aerodrome. Considering the future commercial use of the Site, possible pollutant linkages were identified.
6.284 It was recommended that intrusive Site investigation be undertaken at the Site, targeting historical sources of contamination, as well as gaining coverage of the Site area. It was concluded that in the unlikely event that significant contamination be identified, remedial works may potentially be required, in order to be protective of sensitive controlled water receptors, and the human health of end-users of the proposed Site development.
6.285 On the basis of the information reviewed as part of the Phase I Preliminary Environmental Risk Assessment, it is considered that the risk of significant pollutant linkages with respect to ground contamination is low to medium. It is therefore considered that the proposal complies with NPPF Para 120 and would be a significant consideration.
14. Other Matters o Renewable Energy 6.286 The proposed development would be required to meet the statutory minimum contained in the Building Regulations on sustainable build standards in accordance with CS Policy CS9. With regard to renewable energy, the submitted Assessment (Synergy BSS Ltd 2015) considers photovoltaic panels and solar thermal water heating could be considered further for this Site,
6.287 The most sustainable form of energy is that which is not required in the first place. Consequently the energy demand reduction achieved by energy efficiency measures and good design standards is considered more sustainable than renewable energy. The energy efficiency measures should be incorporated where they are cost effective as this then reduces the burden of the absolute energy supplied by renewable sources.
6.288 Notwithstanding the above, the development is proposed to benefit from the installation of roof mounted Photo voltaic panels (2.99MWP). The Photo voltaic panels will generate approx 2,700,000 Kwhrs per annum saving 1,409,400 KG CO2. This equates to over 60% of the projected annual building energy usage. Solar Thermal cells will be installed the main office areas to provide a pre heat facility for the main office hot water installation. This will reduce the gas usage by up to 2000 Kwhrs per annum. Air source heat pumps shall be installed for the heating and cooling of the main office areas. The Heat pump installation will have extremely high efficiency for both the heating and cooling cycles. A Condition seeking details of such measures is recommended at Condition 4. That the proposal seeks to provide forms of sustainable energy production and a low carbon built are both issues which would weigh in favour of the proposal.
6.289 Concerns have been raised by the operators of the Manor farm Wind Turbine to the south west of Ullesthorpe regarding the impact that the development could have upon the efficiency of the turbine. Capita Property and Infrastructure have assessed the relationship between the two and have confirmed that the wind turbine is outside of the zone of influence of the proposed building, and as such, it is not considered that the proposal would have a demonstrable impact upon the operation of the turbine
P a g e | 182 c) Section 106 Obligations & Viability 6.290 Planning obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), commonly known as s106 agreements, are a mechanism for securing benefits to mitigate against the impacts of development.
6.291 Those benefits can compromise, for example, monetary contributions (towards public open space or education, amongst others), the provision of affordable housing, on site provision of public open space / play area and other works or benefit’s that meet the three legal tests.
6.292 Planning obligations must be: • necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms • directly related to the development • fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development
6.293 These legal tests are also set out as policy tests in paragraph 204 of the Framework whereby Planning obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests: necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development..
6.294 Policy CS12 provides that new development will be required to provide the necessary infrastructure which will arise as a result of the proposal. More detailed guidance on the level of contributions is set out in The Planning Obligations Developer Guidance Note, 2009.
6.295 IDI Gazeley propose all of the following via the S106 agreement, a draft Heads of Terms of which is available at Appendix D, the heads of terms of which provide for: A reduction in the cumulative night time artificial lighting effects of the extended Magna Park IDI Gazeley will at its expense agree with HDC a Lighting Management Plan: o to replace the existing street lighting within Magna Park with directional LEDs to bring it into line with the lighting design strategy proposed in the application proposals; and o for the improvement of lighting on those properties on the Mere Lane elevation to directional, cut-off, LED lighting (including the installation of new light mounts, fittings and LEDs.) IDI Gazeley shall comply with the approved Lighting Management Plan by way of the Magna Park Management Company. An increase in the local value of the jobs and procurement of the development IDI Gazeley will, at its own expense, prepare and agree with HDC a Construction Job and Business Strategy (CJBS). The CJBS will: o apprenticeships and the employment of Harborough District residents for the construction and operational phases of the development, o make construction contractors aware of the Procurement Programme in order to give local businesses access to opportunities arising from the demolition and construction phase of the Development. o provide the Council’s list of local businesses to operators and occupiers of the development and encourage them to procure local businesses for the fitting out of the premises and the supply and servicing and estate management o specify the targets for both initiatives and the measures to be taken to achieve the targets o monitor the performance of the CJBS; and o revise the strategy from time to time as needed to achieve its objectives. The extension of the management of Magna Park to include the application site to secure permanent amenities for local communities IDI Gazeley will, at its expense: o Extend the management of Magna Park to include the application development o Identify and agree with HDC an Informal Space Management Plan for the delivery and ongoing management of the public amenity space and permissive footpaths and bridleways within the application site and outwith the Supply Chain facility to secure their permanent benefit for local communities
P a g e | 183 The mitigation of the traffic and transport effects IDI Gazeley will, at its expense: o extend the existing HGV Routing Plan to the construction and operation phase of the application development and enforce and monitor its application o introduce and promote, including with the park’s existing operators, an Employee Routing Plan o agree and implement a Travel Plan (in line with the separately submitted Travel Plan), including the appointment of a Travel Plan Coordinator with the responsibility for monitoring and enforcing the TP o widen the A5 between Emmanuel and Lodge Cottages and Mere Lane o provide a new roundabout at the A5/Mere Lane junction o provide a new roundabout on Mere Lane to connect existing Magna Park to the application site o realign Mere Lane between new roundabout on Mere Lane and the A5 o make improvements to the roundabout at the A4303/A426 o provide for new bus stops on Argosy Way with seating, shelters and timetable information o provide new footways to connect the bus stops to the proposed development
6.296 Appendix C identifies the developer contributions sought by consultees, an assessment as to whether the requests are CIL compliant and a suggested trigger point to advise when the contribution should be made. With regards to the trigger points they should not necessarily be seen as the actual or final triggers points for the S106 agreement but treated as illustrative of the types of trigger points which may be appropriate.
6.297 The Assessment concludes that all stakeholder requests are CIL compliant. However, some of the suggested obligations outlined by the Applicants do not pass the tests. For instance, it is not considered that improvements to the lighting on the existing Magna Park could be considered to be directly related to the development, however, it could be argued that the suggested improvements to lighting on Mere Lane elevations of buildings on the existing Magna Park would reduce the background lighting levels, therefore reducing the overall lighting impact of the development, and as such, this element would meet the tests for CIL compliance.
6.298 As set out in LCC Highways comments at Appendix A, due to the presence of the Lutterworth Southern Bypass and operational weight restrictions on the local highway network, it is not considered that a traffic routing agreement would be necessary to make the development acceptable in highways terms. However, it is considered that, in terms of meeting the Air Quality Objectives, a HGV Routing Agreement so as to ensure that HGV’s do not enter the Lutterworth Air Quality Management Area (other than for purposes of access) would meet the tests of Para 204 of the NPPF. It is considered that all other contributions and obligations proposed by the Applicants would also be compliant with the Para 204 tests.
d) Assessment of Alternatives 6.299 As part of the consideration of the proposals, Officers have assessed the alternatives for a development such as the proposal. Through the Local Plan Options consultation and the associated call for sites, only three options have been forthcoming in relation to distribution land, two of which relate to the same area of land. The other alternative relates to a current application 15/00865/OUT at land at Glebe Farm, Coventry Road, Lutterworth, an area which has no heritage assets in its vicinity. As part of this proposal the applicants have set parameters for different zones. One such zone was identified as being able to accommodate a building of up to 125,000 square metres with a maximum height of 23m. Clearly, this would provide an alternative to the current application site. However, Officers have raised strong concerns with the proponents of 15/00865/OUT regarding the maximum height of 23m in this location, and have requested that this be amended to 18m in order to bring the ridge height of the building below the skyline of the existing Magna Park when viewed from the south. This amendment has been made to the parameters of the outline application. As such, whilst there is an alternative location which could provide the quantum of floorspace which is proposed as part of the current application, the intended height of the proposed building could not be accommodated on the
P a g e | 184 alternative site without causing significant and demonstrable harm to the surrounding landscape. As such, it is considered that there are no viable and available alternative sites for the proposed development.
d) Article 2(3) Development Management Procedure (Amendment) Order 2012 6.300 In assessing this application, the Case Officer has worked with the Applicant’s in a positive and proactive manner consistent with the requirements of paragraphs 186-187 of the NPPF. This included the following:- • Provided or made available pre application advice to seek to resolve problems before the application was submitted and to foster the delivery of sustainable development. • Have encouraged amendments to the scheme to resolve identified problems with the proposal and to seek to foster sustainable development. • Have proactively communicated with the Applicant’s through the process to advise progress, timescales or recommendation.
e) Recommended Planning Conditions 6.301 If Members are minded to approve the application in line with the Case Officer recommendation, a list of suggested conditions is attached at Appendix B. The conditions have taken into account the advice contained with Annex A of the former Circular 11/95 and the PPG.
7. Conclusion – The Planning Balance 7.1 The proposed development will deliver a distribution scheme that will provide a substantial quantum of B8 floorspace which will contribute to meeting the deliverable road based distribution land supply in the District and to meeting longer term needs across the County. This carries significant weight in favour of the proposal.
7.2 The proposed development whilst on Greenfield land and within open countryside is not subject to any statutory landscape designations (e.g. AONB - Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or National Park). The proposed development will have some significant adverse effects in landscape/visual terms, which weigh against the proposal however this is inevitable on any Greenfield Site accommodating major development. Furthermore, the proposals have been designed to minimise these effects with significant areas available for open space and structural landscaping. It is considered that harm caused by the proposal upon the surrounding landscape would not be significant, and as such, limited weight should be given to the impact of the proposal in landscape terms.
7.3 The Site is well connected to the local and strategic highway network within an accessible location, central to the Region’s and Country’s manufacturing and distribution core and able to take advantage of and provide service to these industries. The proposed development includes enhanced footpath, cycling facilities.
7.4 The CHA are satisfied that, subject to appropriate mitigation measures, there would be no unacceptable adverse impact on the safety or free flow of traffic on the local road network. Furthermore, the Highways Agency has also confirmed that it is satisfied that the development would cause no adverse impact on the strategic road network. It is considered that, subject to the required mitigation, there would be no harm caused by the proposal upon the surrounding highway network and that there would be a net benefit to the network, and as such, considerable weight should be given to the benefits of the proposal in highways terms.
7.5 The proposed development would be visible from some local properties, however, it is not considered that the proposal would have any demonstrable impact upon these properties, and as such, minimal weight should be given to the impacts of the proposal on residential amenity. Furthermore, whilst there may be some audible noise emanating from the development, given the existing background noise levels in the area, it is not considered that there would be any demonstrable harm caused by noise from the development, and as such, minimal weight should be given to the impacts of the proposal in terms of noise issues.
P a g e | 185 7.6 Concerns have been raised regarding the impact of the development on Air Quality on the area. However, due to advances in technology and stricter legislation with regard to vehicle emissions, it is considered that the impact of the development will only be a short term impact on a limited number receptors, and as such, limited weight should be given to the impacts of the proposal on Air Quality.
7.7 The proposal provides inherent mitigation against flood risk, in particular surface water run off, by means of, amongst others, surface water attenuation facilities. It is considered that the mitigation provided by the development will off-set any harm that may be caused, and as such, limited weight should be given to the impacts of the proposal on residential amenity.
7.8 The proposed development will enhance the overall biodiversity of the Site. Where negative effects have been identified in terms of species and habitats, mitigation measures are proposed to minimise any potential impact, and as such, minimal weight should be given to the benefits of the proposal on Ecology.
7.9 The proposed development would result in the demolition of the Lodge Cottage which is a feature associated with the Bittesby House, a non-designated heritage asset. The harm identified is of limited importance and weight in terms of NPPF Paragraph 135. The adjacent Scheduled Ancient Monument will remain physically unaffected, however, the proposal will have a limited impact upon the setting of this asset. The harm identified is less than substantial in terms of NPPF Para 134. As such, limited weight should be given to the impacts of the proposal on heritage assets.
7.10 The scheme is considered to be a high quality development in its sector which has be informed by more recent developments at the existing Magna Park, and as such, limited weight should be given to the impacts of the proposal on design.
7.11 The proposed development would provide employment in the short term (construction) and longer term (operational phase). Whilst such benefits would arise irrespective of where development occurs, the economic benefits would be an outcome of this scheme and moderate weight should be afforded in favour of the development.
7.12 The proposed development will remove the existing agricultural use of the Site, however, none of this has been identified as the ‘best and most versatile’ with 4% being classed as poor quality, and therefore the impact of the proposal on the best and most versatile agricultural land is neutral.
7.13 The remediation of the land and removal of contaminants is a significant consideration , and as such, moderate weight should be given to this issue
7.14 The provision of a low carbon building and renewable energy facilities as part of the proposal is a significant consideration, and as such, moderate weight should be given to the benefits of the proposal low energy related issues.
7.15 It is acknowledged that the proposal has caused considerable concern within the local community, and this is evidenced by the level of objection which has been received. Notwithstanding this, on balance, it is considered that the benefits of the scheme (principally Socio-Economic, design, highways and footpaths) are not significantly or demonstrably outweighed by any adverse impacts (principally Landscape, Air Quality and Heritage) and as such Members are asked to endorse the officer recommendation that planning approval should be granted (subject to the suggested conditions and the signing of the s106 agreement/s38/2278 agreement)
7.18 In reaching this recommendation, Officers has taken into account the ES which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations, the two further statements submitted under Regulation 22(1) and the further
P a g e | 186 clarification and errata statements. Officers consider that the ES and the further information provided complies with the above regulations and that sufficient information has been provided to assess the environmental impact of the proposals.
P a g e | 187 Appendix A: LCC Highways Comments
RESPONSE OF THE LOCAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY TO CONSULTATION BY THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY
REVISED OBSERVATIONS ______DETAILS OF APPLICATION Planning Ref No: 2015/0919/03/HCON/REVOBS1 CE/EN Ref: See Geomap Application Address: LAND AT, MERE LANE, BITTESBY Parish: Bittesby CP Applicant: IDI Gazeley Brief Description of Development: Erection of 100,844sqm Storage & Distribution centre (B8) with ancillary B1(a) offices on land adjoining & linked to Magna Park, including formation of access road from Magna Park, erection of gatehouse, creation of roundabouts, partial realignment of Mere Lane & upgrading of A5 to dual carriageway, creation of SuDS facilities & associated infrastructure & landscaping works ______GENERAL INFORMATION County Council Member: Mrs. R. Page Road Class: Adopted - Class C District Planning Officer: Mark Patterson
Substantive Response provided in accordance with article 22(5) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015:
The Local Highway Authority advice is that, in its view, the residual cumulative impacts of development can be mitigated and are not considered severe in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the NPPF, subject to the Conditions and Contributions as outlined in this report. ______ADVICE TO LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY
Background The County Highway Authority (CHA) understands that this is a full planning application for a single storage & distribution unit. The unit is proposed to be situated to the north of Mere Lane and the existing Magna Park distribution centre.
P a g e | 188 The Application has been supported by a Transport Assessment (TA) and Travel Plan (TP). In addition to the original TA submitted in June 2015, several Supplementary TAs have also been submitted as follows:
- Supplementary TA1: revised growth assumptions, taking only committed developments (as requested by Highways England) - Supplementary TA2: revised growth assumptions, taking committed developments and half the Tempro growth (as requested by the CHA) - Supplementary TA3: reassessment of key junctions on the Leicestershire network with refined HGV proportions according to specific turning movements (based on STA2) - Supplementary TA4: sensitivity test including Symmetry Park (Harborough District Council ref: 15/00856/OUTM) (based on STA2 and STA3)
The relevance of each of the Supplementary TAs is discussed within this report and the CHA has considered all the above submissions in the formation of the advice presented in this report.
In accordance with the CHA’s policy on the use of the Leicester and Leicestershire Integrated Transport Model (LLITM), the TA has been based a Select Link Analysis extracted from the existing Magna Park zone (zone ref: 5807 and 5808). This means that the distribution of the development is based on existing model zones, rather than testing the development within the model. As discussed later in this report, the likely trip generation of the proposed site is likely to fall just under the threshold above which a full test of the model would be required (250 two-way trips in the peak hour). Full testing is not considered to provide significant benefit in this instance for the following reasons:
- The proposal is for a single unit extension to an existing adjacent development with which is it likely to share similar travel characteristics. - The trip generation level, which is used to consider whether full testing is required, has been calculated using a robust 85th percentile trip rate, and in reality, could potentially be lower.
Committed development and growth considerations The following committed developments were considered specifically within the TAs (i.e. impact at specific locations on the network):
- Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal - Rugby Radio Station - Rugby Gateway - Land Bounded by the Ashby Canal, Hinckley - Leaders Farm, Coventry Road, Lutterworth - Land North of Lutterworth Road, Lutterworth - Land North of Bill Crane Way, Lutterworth - Land East of Leicester Road, Lutterworth - Former George House, Hunter Boulevard, Magna Park - Cawston Extension Site - Land off Crowfoot Way, Broughton Astley - Sutton Lodge Farm, Broughton Astley - Land at Mere Road, Bitteswell
In addition to committed developments, during scoping stage, it was agreed that Tempro would also be included. Tempro factors represent overall growth on the network and include an element of growth associated with new developments; therefore taking committed
P a g e | 189 developments and Tempro in their entirety constitutes an element of double counting. It is understood that the potential double counting was the basis on which HE requested for the analysis provided in STA1, which only included for the traffic growth associated with committed developments.
The CHA has taken a different approach. The extensive list of committed developments accounted for approximately 10% growth, whereas the Tempro growth factors indicate approximately 20% growth, when considered in the context of total traffic flows. To ensure that a realistic level of growth has been considered, STA2 was submitted which accounted for all the committed developments and half the Tempro growth. The CHA is content with the level of additional traffic accounted for within STA2.
Trip Generation The likely level of trip generation has been calculated based on existing Magna Park trip generation rates. The TA has been supported by a traffic survey, which collected traffic data at the existing entrances to Magna Park. The surveys were undertaken in June 2013 when automatic traffic counters were in place on Hunter Boulevard and Shackleton Way for a period of four weeks. The total number of vehicles recorded as entering and leaving the development was related to the occupied floor area of Magna Park at the time to derive the peak hour trip generation rates. The 85th percentile trip generation rates have been adopted within the TA. The CHA has verified these 85th percentile trip generation rates against the industry standard TRICS database and is content that the site specific rates are realistic and robust.
Table 1 below summarises the total level of trips which are likely to be generated by the development:
AM Peak PM Peak Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures Light Vehicles 140 42 43 104 HGVs 15 21 10 13 Total 155 63 53 117 Table 1: Proposed development trip generation
Site Access Strategy The site access strategy has been subject to a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit and is shown in URS drawing no. 47066811/A008/SK12 Rev B which has been reproduced in Figure 1 below.
P a g e | 190
Figure 1: Proposed site access strategy (reproduced from URS drawing no. 47066811/A008/SK12 Rev B)
Access to the site is proposed via a priority junction which will be served off a new access road joining Mere Lane via a new roundabout. The new roundabout on Mere Lane will also provide a new access to the rear of the existing Magna Park development. Mere Lane will also be realigned to facilitate the site access strategy, and will be joined on to the A5 via a new roundabout replacing the existing ghost island priority junction. In addition, a new set of bus stops is proposed at the rear of the existing Magna Park.
The new alignment of Mere Lane will continue to form part of the CHA’s network and it has been proposed to reduce the speed limit to 50mph between the two new roundabouts. Whilst the reduction in speed limit is not consistent with the CHA’s speed limit policy, the Police have provided confirmation that they would be willing to enforce the 50mph speed limit and the CHA would not seek to resist this. A Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) will need to be implemented for the 50mph speed limit to be in force.
It is the CHA’s understanding that the development roads which will join on to the proposed Mere Lane roundabout will not be offered for adoption. Suitability for adoption has therefore not been checked and the CHA requests an agreement that the Applicant will maintain the development roads at their expense in perpetuity. The CHA will also require that any gates are set back a minimum of 60m from the highway boundary to ensure that any waiting HGVs do not obstruct traffic on the public highway.
A stopping-up order will be required for the extinguishment of highway rights on the existing alignment of Mere Lane. Following the extinguishment of highway rights, relevant orders will
P a g e | 191 need to be applied for re-establishing footway and cycleway rights on the existing alignment of Mere Lane. Agreement for the adoption of the new alignment of Mere Lane will also be required. Applications for stopping-up should be made directly to the Department for Transport.
Internal Layout As mentioned above, the CHA has not reviewed the design of development roads beyond Mere Lane which are intended to remain under control of the applicant.
Parking Provision The CHA has reviewed the proposed car parking provisions against the 6Cs Design Guide.
Car Parking 715 car parking spaces are proposed, compared to the maximum provision of 833 spaces set out in the 6Cs Design Guide. To support this level of car parking, the TA has undertaken a first principles approach to ensure sufficient car parking provision, particularly to cover the shift changes to minimise the potential for overspill car parking on the surrounding highway network. It is considered that the 2pm shift change is likely to result in the greatest demand, as new shift workers will need to arrive before the previous shift ending, and office staff and visitors will also be present on site. The first principles approach indicates that at 2pm, just under 700 car parking spaces will be required to meet the multiple demands. Therefore, the CHA concludes that car parking provision is consistent with the requirements set out in the 6Cs Design Guide and is reasonable in line with the likely end user.
HGV Parking 274 HGV parking spaces are proposed, compared to the minimum provision of 250 HGV spaces set out in the 6Cs Design Guide. The CHA concludes that HGV parking is reasonable and consistent with the requirements set out in the 6Cs Design Guide.
Motorcycle Parking 3no motorcycle shelters have been proposed, each accommodating 10 motorcycles. The 6Cs Design Guide states that 1 motorcycle parking space, plus 1 per every 10 car parking spaces should be provided. For this application, this would mean the provision of 72 motorcycle parking spaces. In view of the level of development alongside the existing and predicted mode share (1.08% to 1.83%) the CHA advises that requirements for motorcycle are reviewed regularly.
Off-Site Implications Junction capacity assessments were undertaken at the following junctions within the CHA’s network.
- A5/Mere Lane (proposed) roundabout - Mere Lane/Hunter Boulevard (proposed) roundabout - A5/A4303 (Cross in Hand) roundabout - A4303/Hunter Boulevard roundabout - A4303/Coventry Road roundabout - A4303/A426 roundabout - M1 J20 - A5/A426 (Gibbet Hill) roundabout - A4303/Shackleton Way priority junction
The CHA has reviewed the submitted models in STA3 and STA4, which are considered to have the correct consideration of the impact of heavy goods vehicles. The submitted models
P a g e | 192 contained a number of measurement errors, however the impact of these errors is considered to be minimal and does not alter the conclusions which are summarised below. However, models submitted with this TA (and all the STAs) should not be referred to for future assessments without modification.
A5/Mere Lane (proposed) roundabout The proposed A5/Mere Lane roundabout has been shown to be operating within capacity in the TA. However, the CHA considers that this will be largely dependent on lane utilisation on the approach to the roundabout, particularly in the southbound A5 direction. Improved lane utilisation could be achieved by the provision of an extended merging section on the southbound exit. Notwithstanding, it is understood that the design is acceptable in principle to Highways England, as well as the CHA, subject to consideration of lining and merging areas during detailed design stage.
Mere Lane/Hunter Boulevard (proposed) roundabout The proposed Mere Lane/Hunter Boulevard roundabout has been shown to be operating within capacity.
A5/A4303 (Cross in Hand) roundabout Traffic from the proposed development travelling to/from the A5 (south) will increase traffic at the Cross in Hand roundabout. However, as a result of the new roundabout which is proposed on Mere Lane, vehicles currently travelling between the A5 (north) and the existing Magna Park site will now be able to access the A5 via Mere Lane, thereby avoiding the A5/A4303 roundabout. There will be a net reduction in traffic at the A5/A4303 roundabout.
A4303/Hunter Boulevard roundabout As a result of the new roundabout which is proposed on Mere Lane, vehicles currently travelling between the A5 (north) and the existing Magna Park site will now be able to access the A5 via Mere Lane, thereby avoiding the Hunter Boulevard roundabout. This will result in a net reduction in traffic at the A4303/Hunter Boulevard roundabout.
A4303/Coventry Road roundabout The A4303/Coventry Road roundabout has been shown to operate within capacity with the proposed development. No mitigation is therefore required.
A4303/A426 (Whittle) roundabout The A4303/A426 roundabout is currently operating over capacity and the impact of additional development is considered to be at a level which will require mitigation. A mitigation scheme has been proposed, as shown in Figure 2 below, which the CHA considers will be acceptable in mitigating the development and will result in a better operation overall than the without the development and without mitigation.
P a g e | 193
Figure 2: A426/A4303 proposed mitigation (reproduced from URS drawing 47066811/A008/SK14)
It should be noted that although the proposed scheme is sufficient for mitigating the proposed development and providing sufficient capacity to bring the junction to within capacity, should the Symmetry Park proposal also be approved, the junction will again be over capacity in the AM peak. However, compared to a situation without any development and without any mitigation, during the AM peak the queues will be re-allocated to the A4303 arm instead of the A426 arm, although the overall operation will be similar.
M1 J20 The M1 J20 has been shown to operate within capacity with the proposed development. No mitigation is therefore required.
A5/A426 (Gibbet Hill) roundabout The A5/A426 junction is due to be improved as part of the recent DIRFTIII permission. As such, the DIRFTIII improvement scheme is considered to be committed. With the DIRFTIII improvements, the impact of the proposed development on the approach with the CHA’s network is considered to be minimal. The CHA advises that the DIRFTIII is also conditioned as part of this development, as this has formed the basis of the assessment.
Further comments on this junction should also be sought from Warwickshire County Council and Highways England.
P a g e | 194 A4303/Shackleton Way priority junction The A4303/Shackleton Way priority junction has been shown to be operating within capacity with the proposed development. No mitigation is therefore required.
In addition, junction capacity assessments were also undertaken at the following junctions outside the CHA’s network:
- M6 J1 - M69 J1
For those junctions which fall outside the Leicestershire highway network the CHA advises that the relevant authorities are consulted for approval of assessments at these locations as the CHA has not undertaken any checks on predicted increases in traffic or operation.
Transport Sustainability Walking and Cycling The following measures have been proposed to support walking and cycling:
- Publicity for health benefits - Provision of information (such as maps and facilities) - Emergency ‘get you home’ service - Cycling user group - Promotional days - Interest free loans and/or subsidies - Changing and shower facilities
Further information provided by the Rights of Way officer should also be noted.
Public Transport At present, the Arriva no 8 service which runs between Hinckley and Lutterworth calls within the existing Magna Park site on Hunter Boulevard at an hourly frequency between 0630 and 1830 (at Magna Park) from Monday to Saturday. There are no Sunday services. There are no bus stops within reasonable walking distance to serve the proposed DHL unit and the current level of service provision is insufficient to support shift working.
As part of the highway works, a pair of bus stops is being proposed on Argosy Way, at the rear of the existing Magna Park development. This will bring the bus stop to with 400m of the proposed unit, which is consistent with the requirements set out in the 6Cs Design Guide. All new bus stops should be equipped with raised kerbs, timetable information, bus shelters and Real-Time Information.
The Applicant has proposed to divert the existing Arriva no 8 service into the site via the new A5/Mere Lane roundabout, through the existing Magna Park development. This is likely to have some time saving benefit as the route would miss out the Cross in Hand roundabout. There is also potential to attract further patronage with the existing Magna Park with careful consideration to the route within the development.
It should be noted that the proposed diversion will require the service to operate on a route not within the adopted highway. Bus operators have been known to be reluctant to serve on non- adopted routes given that there can be no certainty of passage. However, the service currently serves the existing Magna Park on the private development roads and the CHA therefore
P a g e | 195 consider this risk to be low. The CHA would, however, advise an obligation to permit access to buses and to maintain the roads to a reasonable standard.
In order for bring the level of service to a standard to meet the needs of the proposed development, amendments would be required to the existing timetable to support shift working (around the 6am, 2pm and 10pm changeover times), office hours (9am and 5pm) and also provide services on Sunday.
Although the CHA would wish to see stronger commitment to public transport and the consideration of service links to/from Leicester as well as Rugby which are likely to be the major trip origins of employees, the proposed improvements to the existing Arriva no 8 service is consistent with the level of provision for other developments of a similar scale within Leicestershire.
It should be noted that the Arriva no 8 service is currently subsidised by the CHA; however recent local government funding changes is likely to result in these subsidies being withdrawn in the future. At the same time, the Applicant is working with the CHA on Travel Planning, including area-wide initiatives to improve the commercial prospects of sustainable accessibility to the site. The CHA would therefore advise that a service level provision is obligated which would ensure that public transport accessibility can be provided to cover shift and office working, with a view to expanding to area-wide measures.
Car sharing Car sharing is proposed to be promoted both by a private database and by linking to the Leicestershare database. 36 car sharing spaces are proposed, representing approximately 5% of the total car parking spaces. The CHA advises that regular monitoring is undertaken to assess whether additional dedicated car sharing spaces should be provided. Any additional spaces should be considered as a remedial measure under the Travel Plan.
Travel Planning The submitted Travel Plan is sufficient and consistent with the scale of the proposed development. Whilst the CHA would welcome further measures, it should be noted that IDI Gazeley are working with the CHA to introduce area-wide initiatives to improve opportunities for sustainable travel to the site.
Other Observations that affect the highway network which in the view of the Local Highway Authority cannot be considered “severe” in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the NPPF, but which may impact on the amenity of the local community. The Local Planning Authority is advised to consider if these are material and the relative weight which that they can give in planning terms to these amenity issues in their decision making processes:
The CHA has received correspondence from a total of 8 residents as well as 3 Parish/Town Councils, raising concerns over the potential for increases in traffic levels through villages in the local area. In order to assess the extent to which the issue currently occurs, and the likely impact from the proposed development, the CHA has reviewed the following:
- Existing traffic survey information - Modelling information - Accident information - Site visits
P a g e | 196 Existing traffic surveys show that the two-way traffic (during the peak periods) on Mere Lane is vehicles. The traffic level is within the link capacity for this type of road.
As part of the surveys which were undertaken for the TA, traffic flows were recorded for a period of 4 weeks using Automatic Traffic Counters placed on:
- Hunter Boulevard, Magna Park - Shackleton Way, Magna Park - Lutterworth Road, Bitteswell - Ullesthorpe Road, Bitteswell - Mere Lane, Bitteswell - Woodway Lane, Claybrooke Parva - High Cross Road, Claybrooke Magna - Brookfield Way, Lutterworth - Coventry Road, Lutterworth
A number of additional ATCs were also undertaken within the Warwickshire highway network.
The ATC surveys showed distinct peaks at the Hunter Boulevard and Shackleton Way sites consistent with traditional shift changeover times at 6am, 2pm and 10pm, as well as a slight increase an hour later than these times. There were also peaks consistent with traditional morning peak hours.
At locations within the surrounding villages, the most prominent peaks formed during the traditional highway peaks (8am to 9am and 5pm to 6pm). Whilst there appeared to be some fluctuations in traffic throughout the day between these times, there were no distinct increases in traffic which could be conclusively identified with shift change patterns. Regardless, the total flows (irrespective of peaking) were significantly below the link capacity of these roads.
The Applicants have undertaken modelling within LLITM for the related hybrid application (HDC Ref: 15/01531) to assess the impacts of the wider development. The initial results of the LLITM test indicate that, as a result of the proposed roundabout on Mere Lane providing direct access to the existing Magna Park site, there is likely to be an increase in the number of vehicles from the existing Magna Park development to use Mere Lane. This is likely to be approximately 85 and 72 vehicles two-way in the AM and PM peak hours respectively. Although these may represent a large percentage increase against the baseline levels, the total resulting flow will still remain within normal operational levels.
In view of the information available, it is the CHA’s conclusions that whilst there is likely to be an increase in traffic volumes on Mere Lane, it is not of a magnitude which will result in severe harm to the network (in the context of the NPPF). Overall traffic volumes even at their peak are within acceptable levels.
In addition, the CHA acknowledges that a routeing agreement was drawn up as part of the obligation for historic applications at Magna Park. The first of these is understood to have been in 1991. Correspondences from members of the public suggest the routeing agreement has not been observed.
Since the first of the Magna Park applications, the highway network in the area has changed substantially. The Lutterworth southern bypass was built in 1999, and vast majority of the area (with the exception of the A5, M1, A4303, A426 through Lutterworth) is now covered by a weight restriction, as shown in Figure 3 below. These measures mean that it is now not necessary for
P a g e | 197 traffic to go through Lutterworth and the neighbouring villages. Furthermore, it is not legal for HGVs to use the routes covered by the weight restriction (as enforced by the Police), and a routeing agreement would be a redundant measure.
Figure 3: Lutterworth Weight Limits (reproduced from Leicestershire County Council website)
The CHA therefore concludes that a request for a routeing agreement would not meet the CIL regulation tests. However, it is understood that IDI Gazeley are looking at measures such as ANPR to manage traffic generated from Magna Park and any such measures which are developer led, implemented and monitored could be useful in supporting the legal measures already on the network.
Conditions The CHA advises the following conditions:
1. Notwithstanding the site access arrangement shown on URS drawing no. 47066811/A008/SK12 Rev B, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to provide a new roundabout at the A5/Mere Lane junction. In particular, the scheme shall consider lane designation and the requirements for merging distances on the roundabout exit arms.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to provide adequate site access.
2. Save for any works associated with the formation of the access and highway network connections as shown on URS drawing no. 47066811/A008/SK12 Rev B (or as otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority), no development shall commence on
P a g e | 198 the site until such time as the Mere Lane site access roundabout and the A5/Mere Lane roundabout as shown on URS drawing no. 47066811/A008/SK12 Rev B (or as otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority) has been provided in full and is available for use by vehicular traffic.
Reason: To provide vehicular access to the site, including for construction traffic and in the interests of highway safety.
3. No part of the development shall be occupied until such time as the car parking, HGV parking bays, motorcycle parking and cycle parking is provided in full. All parking facilities shall thereafter be maintained for use as such.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety, to ensure that sufficient parking facilities are provided.
4. Prior to the proposed downgrading of the existing Mere Lane (between the proposed roundabout at Argosy Way and the proposed roundabout at the A5) and the provision of the realigned Mere Lane to vehicular traffic, all necessary orders and agreements shall be in place.
Reason: To ensure clear and legal designation of highway rights.
5. Any new gatehouses shall be situated a minimum of 60m (travel distance) from the proposed Mere Lane/Argosy Way roundabout.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety, to provide sufficient space for vehicles waiting at the gatehouse to do so without impeding the safe operation of the highway network.
6. No development shall commence on the site until such a time as a construction management plan, including wheel cleansing facilities and vehicle parking facilities, and a timetable for their provision, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timetable.
Reason: To reduce the possibility of deleterious material (mud, stones, etc) being deposited in the highway and becoming a hazard to road users, and to ensure that construction traffic associated with the development does not lead to on-street parking problems in the area.
7. No part of the development shall be occupied until such a time as the mitigation scheme at the A426/A4303 roundabout as shown in URS drawing 47066811/A008/SK14 has been provided in full and is available for use by vehicular traffic.
Reason: To ensure that adequate steps are taken to mitigate the vehicular impact of the development.
8. No part of the development shall be occupied until such time as the mitigation scheme at the A5/A426 roundabout has been provided in full and is available for use by vehicular traffic.
Reason: To ensure that adequate steps are taken to mitigate the vehicular impact of the development.
P a g e | 199
9. Notwithstanding the submitted Travel Plan, a scheme of measures to reduce the amount of single occupancy car journeys to/from the site, including a timetable for their implementation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The measures shall be implemented in accordance with the submitted details prior to occupation of the development.
Reason: To comply with Government guidance in NPPF in the interests of encouraging sustainable travel to and from the site, achieving modal shift targets, and reducing car use; and to promote sustainable travel to the site.
10. No part of the development shall be occupied until such time as a scheme for Public Transport has been agreed with the Local Planning Authority and implemented in full. Additionally, no part of the development shall be occupied until such time as the proposed bus stops on Argosy Way are provided with raised kerbs, timetable information, bus shelters and Real Time Information.
Reason: To ensure that adequate steps are taken to provide a transport choice/a choice in mode of travel to/from the site.
Contributions/Obligations The CHA advises the following Contributions and Obligations to be secured through S106 Agreement.
1. A Construction Traffic Routeing Agreement to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Highway Authority. During the period of construction, all traffic to and from the site shall use the agreed route at all times. The agreed route shall require construction traffic to access the site via the A5/Mere Lane roundabout, which shall be constructed in accordance with the relevant Condition regarding its delivery.
Justification: To ensure that all construction traffic associated with the development does not use unsatisfactory roads to and from the site.
2. A contribution of £5,000 per order for Traffic Regulation Orders to deliver the site access arrangements as shown on URS drawing no. 47066811/A008/SK12 Rev B.
Justification: To ensure that legal orders are in place to support the delivery of the proposed highway works.
3. Appointment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator from commencement of development until 5 years after first occupation. The Travel Plan Co-ordinator shall be responsible for the implementation of measures, as well as monitoring and implementation of remedial measures.
Justification: To ensure effective implementation and monitoring of the Travel Plan submitted in support of the Planning Application.
4. Provision of a bus service to the proposed development for a minimum of 5 years. The bus service shall commence on first occupation and shall serve the proposed bus stops at Argosy Way, as a minimum, at times to coincide with shift changeover times (6am, 2pm and 10pm) and office hours (9am and 5pm) at Magna Park. The bus service shall
P a g e | 200 be available everyday (including Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays). Details of the bus service shall be agreed with the Highway Authority.
Justification: To encourage employees to use bus services as an alternative to the private car.
5. Provision of a suitable route through the development to permit unhindered use by buses.
Justification: To encourage employees to use bus services as an alternative to the private car.
6. One Travel Pack per employee, to be provided from first occupation. This can be provided through Leicestershire County Council at a cost of £52.85 per pack. If not supplied by LCC, a sample Travel Pack shall be submitted to and approved in writing by LCC.
Justification: To inform new employees from first occupation what sustainable travel choices are available in the surrounding area.
7. One six-month bus pass per employee to be provided from first occupation; this can be provided through Leicestershire County Council at an average cost of £350.00 per pass.
Justification: To encourage employees to use bus services as an alternative to the private car.
8. A Travel Plan monitoring fee of £6000.00.
Justification: To enable Leicestershire County Council to provide support to the appointed Travel Plan Co-ordinator, audit annual Travel Plan performance reports to ensure that Travel Plan outcomes are being achieved, and to take responsibility for any necessitated planning enforcement.
Notes to Applicant 1. This planning permission does NOT allow you to carry out access alterations in the highway. Before such work can begin, separate permits or agreements will be required under the Highways Act 1980. For further information, including contact details, you are advised to visit the County Council website as follows:-see Part 6 of the “6Cs Design Guide” at www.leics.gov.uk/6csdg
2. C.B.R. Tests shall be taken and submitted to the County Council’s Area Manager prior to development commencing in order to ascertain road construction requirements. No work shall commence on site without prior notice being given to the Highways Manager.
3. If it is the developer’s intention to seek either; the adoption of roads which incorporate non- standard features/materials, or the adoption of additional areas beyond that which would normally be considered necessary for the safe functioning of the highway, then commuted sums for future maintenance will be payable. The Applicant should refer to the 6C’s Design Guide available at www.leics.gov.uk/index/6csdg.htm for more information.
4. If the applicants do not wish to seek adoption of the roads, the Highway Authority will serve APCs in respect of all plots served by all the roads within the development in
P a g e | 201 accordance with Section 219 of the Highways Act 1980. Payment of the charge MUST be made before building commences. Please note that the Highway Authority has standards for private roads which will need to be complied with to ensure that the APC may be exempted and the monies returned. Failure to comply with these standards will mean that monies cannot be refunded. For further details see www.leics.gov.uk/htd or phone 0116 3057198.
5. The Applicant shall be advised that a minimum of 6 months’ notice is required by Leicestershire County Council for the making of a Traffic Regulation Order. This is to allow all statutory processes to be completed. Further information can be found in the 6C’s Design Guide available at: http://www.leics.gov.uk/index/6csdg.htm or by contacting the Network Management Team via 0116 305 0001.
6. The Applicant shall be advised that a Stopping-up order under S247 and/or S248 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 will be required. Applications should be made directly to the Secretary of State for Transport.
7. All works within the limits of the highway with regard to the access shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Highways Manager (tel 0116 305 0001).
8. You will be required to enter into a suitable legal Agreement with the Highway Authority for the off-site highway works before development commences and details plans shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Highway Authority. The Agreement must be signed and all fees paid and surety set in place before the highways works are commenced.
9. In order to provide the visibility splays/access shown on the submitted plans, it would be necessary to remove/carry out works to trees and/or vegetation within the limits of the Highway but before any works to such are commenced you must first obtain the separate consent of the Highway Authority. If approval is granted you may be required to provide appropriate replacements.
10. All highway related structures must be designed and constructed in accordance with the current relevant Highways Agency standards, codes of practice and technical memoranda. The design will be subject to the technical approval procedures set out in BD 2/12 “Technical Approval of Highway Structures” which is part of the ‘Design Manual for Roads and Bridges’ that can be found on www.standardsforhighways.gov.uk. You must employ a chartered civil or structural engineer with experience in highway structures and approved by the County Council to carry out the design and oversee construction. You should start this approval process at an early stage to avoid delays in completing the Section 38 road adoption agreement, which may delay site works.
11. Highway related structures will normally include bridges, retaining walls, reinforced soil and anchored earth structures, environmental barriers (including noise barriers and fencing) and all drains, piped and box culverts, sewers and drainage structures, other than bridges , that have a diameter or clear span of more than 900mm. There should be discussion at an early stage to agree which structures we are to adopt. You will have to pay the additional design checking and inspection fees for any highway structure. You must also pay a commuted sum for future maintenance of any highway structure to be adopted.
P a g e | 202 12. If you intend to provide temporary directional signing to your proposed development, you must ensure that prior approval is obtained from the County Council’s Highway Manager for the size, design and location of any sign in the highway. It is likely that any sign erected in the Highway without prior approval will be removed. Before you draw up a scheme, the Highway Manager’s staff (tel 0116 305 0001) will be happy to give informal advice concerning the number of signs and the locations where they are likely to be acceptable. This will reduce the amount of abortive sign design work.
13. Highway conditions and contributions/obligations will be sought for the planning permission. For details, please refer to items listed under ‘Advice to Local Planning Authority’.
Date Received Inspector Signed Off 23 June 2015 Eri Wong 11 December 2015
Note: Response provided by the Local Highway Authority under the delegated authority of the Director of Environment and Transport.
P a g e | 203
Appendix B: Recommended Planning Conditions
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
REASON: To accord with the provisions of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans: 3662-16-02: Ownership Layout 3662-20-09: Planning Red Line Boundary Plan 3662-24-02: Indicative Site Logistics Plan 3662-27-06: Site Layout 3662-30-15: Site Location Plan 3662-31-05: Warehouse Plan 3662-32-05: Elevations 3662-33-04: Ground and 1st Floor Office Plans 3662-34-01: 2nd Floor Plant and Office Plans 3662-35-04: Sections 3662-70-01: External Finishes Board 3662-120-04: Fencing 3662-125-01: Fencing Detail 3662-130-02: Gatehouse 3662-140-04: External Finishes 3662-150-01: Bikeshelters 3662-160-01: Fuel Island 3662-170-01: Vehicle Wash 3662-205-01: Roof Plan 47066811/A008/SK12 Rev A: Proposed Access Arrangements
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt.
3. Prior to the commencement of development, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), Construction Method Statement (CMS) and Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These shall deal with the treatment of any environmentally sensitive areas, aftercare and maintenance as well as a plan detailing the works to be carried out showing how the environment will be protected during the works. Such a scheme shall include (but not be limited to) details of the following: The timing of the works; The measures to be used during the development in order to minimise environmental impact of the works (considering both potential disturbance and pollution); The ecological enhancements as mitigation for the loss of habitat resulting from the development; A map or plan showing habitat areas to be specifically protected (identified in the ecological report) during the works; Any necessary mitigation for protected species; Construction methods, including (but not restricted to) hours of work, including deliveries; Any necessary pollution protection methods; Information on the persons/bodies responsible for particular activities associated with the method statement that demonstrate they are qualified for the activity they are undertaking; the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; loading and unloading of plant and materials;
P a g e | 204
storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; wheel cleaning facilities; measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works; measures to control the hours of use and piling technique to be employed measures to control and minimise noise from plant and machinery details of any security lighting on site a restriction on construction and delivery traffic during construction a route to the development site The approved statements shall be adhered to throughout the construction period and verified where appropriate.
REASON: In the interest of highway safety, residential amenity and the amenities of the area, and to mitigate against the impact of the development during the construction phase and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policies CS8 and CS11
4. No development shall commence on site until a schedule indicating the materials (to include renewable energy provisions) to be used on all external elevations of the approved development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained as such in perpetuity.
REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area and to accord with the Harborough District Council Core Strategy Policy CS11.
5. No demolition/development shall take place/commence until a programme of archaeological work including a Written Scheme of Investigation has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. This will make provision for targeted archaeological investigation and recording and historic building survey of all affected heritage assets. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and: The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording The programme for post investigation assessment Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation.
REASON: To ensure satisfactory archaeological investigation and recording and to ensure compliance with Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.
6. No demolition/development shall take place other than in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition 6.
REASON: To ensure satisfactory archaeological investigation and recording and to ensure compliance with Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.
7. The development shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition 6 and the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured.
P a g e | 205
REASON: To ensure satisfactory archaeological investigation and recording and to ensure compliance with Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.
8. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.
REASON: The protection of controlled waters. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of water pollution. Government policy also states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented (NPPF, paragraph 121).
9. The approved scheme must comply with the requirements of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, including those relating to road safety and non-motorised user audits. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied unless and until highway improvement works to the A5 detailed in URS Drawing No. 47066811/A008/SK12 (or as amended by Road Safety Audit or Detailed Design) are complete and open to traffic.
REASON: To ensure that the A5 continues to serve its purpose as part of a national system of routes for through traffic in accordance with Section 10(2) of the Highways Act 1980 by minimising disruption on the motorway resulting from traffic entering and emerging from the application site and in the interests of road safety .
10. An updated ecology survey should be completed prior to the commencement of works if those works do not commence within 2years of the date of the surveys forming part of the application submission. Should badger setts be found on site, an updated mitigation plan will be required.
REASON: Ecological surveys are only considered to be valid for 2 years. If the development does not commence within two years from the date of the initial surveys (i.e. 2017) updated surveys will be required and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS8.
11. Development hereby approved should be carried out in accordance with the mitigation strategy detailed within section 12.6, 12.7 and 12.8 of the Technical ES Chapter Ecology and Nature Conservation and the most recent versions of the detailed species reports unless otherwise agreed. Specific detailed mitigation is required for bats and great crested newts.
REASON: In the interests of the ecology of the area and to ensure compliance with Policy CS8 of the Harborough District Core Strategy
12. Notwithstanding the site access arrangement shown on URS drawing no. 47066811/A008/SK12 Rev B, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to provide a new roundabout at the A5/Mere Lane junction. In particular, the scheme shall consider lane designation and the requirements for merging distances on the roundabout exit arms.
REASON: In the interest of highway safety and to provide adequate site access and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.
13. Save for any works associated with the formation of the access and highway network connections as shown on URS drawing no. 47066811/A008/SK12 Rev B (or as otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority), no development shall commence on the site until such time as
P a g e | 206
the Mere Lane site access roundabout and the A5/Mere Lane roundabout as shown on URS drawing no. 47066811/A008/SK12 Rev B (or as otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority) has been provided in full and is available for use by vehicular traffic.
REASON: To provide vehicular access to the site, including for construction traffic and in the interests of highway safety and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.
14. No part of the development shall be occupied until such time as the car parking, HGV parking bays, motorcycle parking and cycle parking is provided in full. All parking facilities shall thereafter be maintained for use as such.
REASON: In the interest of highway safety, to ensure that sufficient parking facilities are provided and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.
15. Any new gatehouses shall be situated a minimum of 60m (travel distance) from the proposed Mere Lane/Argosy Way roundabout.
REASON: In the interest of highway safety, to provide sufficient space for vehicles waiting at the gatehouse to do so without impeding the safe operation of the highway network and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.
16. No part of the development shall be occupied until such a time as the mitigation scheme at the A426/A4303 roundabout as shown in URS drawing 47066811/A008/SK14 has been provided in full and is available for use by vehicular traffic.
REASON: To ensure that adequate steps are taken to mitigate the vehicular impact of the development and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.
17. No part of the development shall be occupied until such time as the mitigation scheme at the A5/A426 roundabout has been provided in full and is available for use by vehicular traffic as per URS drawing 47066811/A008/SK14 submitted as part of the Transport Assessment.
REASON: To ensure that adequate steps are taken to mitigate the vehicular impact of the development and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11.
18 Notwithstanding the submitted Travel Plan, a scheme of measures to reduce the amount of single occupancy car journeys to/from the site, including a timetable for their implementation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The measures shall be implemented in accordance with the submitted details prior to occupation of the development.
REASON: To comply with Government guidance in NPPF in the interests of encouraging sustainable travel to and from the site, achieving modal shift targets, and reducing car use; and to promote sustainable travel to the site and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS5
19. The surface water drainage for the development hereby approved shall be by way of soakaway (or alternative Sustainable Drainage System), unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The SuDS system will be installed in accordance with Chapter 8 of the submitted Environmental Statement, in particular Chapters 5 and 6 of this report. Prior to the first occupation of the hereby approved building, details of the ongoing maintenance of the facility shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: To ensure that sustainable drainage techniques are utilised (where practicable), to mitigate flood risk and to accord with Policy CS10 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.
P a g e | 207
20. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting or amending those Orders with or without modification), no development within Part 7, Classes H and J shall take place on the buildings hereby permitted or within their curtilage.
REASON: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to enable the Local Planning Authority to consider individually whether planning permission should be granted for additions, extensions or enlargements and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11
21. No development shall commence on site until a scheme of hard and soft landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the details of which shall be consistent with the submitted landscape strategy and shall include: (a) indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land; (b) details of any trees and hedgerows to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development; (c) all species, planting sizes and planting densities, spread of all trees and hedgerows within or overhanging the site, in relation to the proposed buildings, roads, and other works; (d) written specification (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); (e) finished levels and contours; (f) means of enclosure; (g) hard surfacing materials; (h) minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse and other storage units, signs, lighting etc); (i) programme of implementation Thereafter the development shall be implemented fully in accordance with the approved details and retained in perpetuity.
REASON: To enhance the appearance of the development in the interest of the visual amenities of the area and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11
22. All soft landscaping comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the first occupation of the building(s) or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; All shrubs, trees and hedge planting shall be maintained free from weeds and shall be protected from damage by vermin and stock. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from the date of first occupation of the development , die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species. All hard landscaping shall also be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with a programme to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: To ensure a satisfactory landscaped setting for the development and the protection of existing important landscape features and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11
23. No development shall commence on site until a landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, other than small, privately owned, domestic gardens, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained as such in perpetuity
REASON: In the interests of the establishment and management of the landscaped areas and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS11
24. External lighting to be installed on site shall be in accordance with the External Lighting Strategy
P a g e | 208
and drawing refs 7284-PL-100B, 7284-PL-101B, 7284-PL-102B, 7284-PL-103A and 7284-PL- 200B submitted in support of the application. The lighting approved shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details.
REASON: In the interests of the ecological interest of the surrounding area and the visual amenities of the area and to minimise unnecessary light spillage above and outside the development site and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policies CS8 and CS11
25. No development shall commence on site until a Risk Based Land Contamination Assessment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in order to ensure that the land is fit for use as the development proposes. The Risk Based Land Contamination Assessment shall be carried out in accordance with: BS10175 Year 2011 Investigation Of Potentially Contaminated Sites Code of Practice; BS8485 Year 2007 Code of Practice for the Characterisation and Remediation from Ground Gas in Affected Developments; and LR 11 Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, published by The Environment Agency 2004. Should any unacceptable risks be identified in the Risk Based Land Contamination Assessment, a Remedial Scheme and a Verification Plan must be prepared and submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Remedial Scheme shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of: CLR 11 Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, published by The Environment Agency 2004. The Verification Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of: Evidence Report on the Verification of Remediation of Land Contamination Report: SC030114/R1, published by the Environment Agency 2010; CLR 11 Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, published by The Environment Agency 2004. If, during the course of development, previously unidentified contamination is discovered, development must cease on that part of the site and it must be reported in writing to the Local Planning Authority within 10 working days. Prior to the recommencement of development on that part of the site, a Risk Based Land Contamination Assessment for the discovered contamination (to include any required amendments to the Remedial Scheme and Verification Plan) must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained as such in perpetuity, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: To ensure that the land is fit for purpose and to accord with Core Strategy Policy CS11
26. Prior to occupation of any part of the completed development, a Verification Investigation shall be undertaken in line with the agreed Verification Plan for any works outlined in the Remedial Scheme relevant to either the whole development or that part of the development. Prior to occupation of any part of the completed development, a report showing the findings of the Verification Investigation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Verification Investigation Report shall: Contain a full description of the works undertaken in accordance with the agreed Remedial Scheme and Verification Plan; Contain results of any additional monitoring or testing carried out between the submission of the Remedial Scheme and the completion of remediation works; Contain Movement Permits for all materials taken to and from the site and/or a copy of the completed site waste management plan if one was required; Contain Test Certificates of imported material to show that it is suitable for its proposed use; Demonstrate the effectiveness of the approved Remedial Scheme; and Include a statement signed by the developer, or the approved agent, confirming that all the works specified in the Remedial Scheme have been completed.
P a g e | 209
REASON: To ensure that the land is fit for purpose and to accord with Core Strategy Policy CS11
27. Prior to the commencement of development, details of any extractions and ventilation equipment and refuse and recycling facilities, will be submitted to, and approved by the LPA. The development shall thereafter be carried out only in accordance with these details.
REASON: In the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area and to ensure compliance with Policy CS11 of the Harborough District Core Strategy
28. No development shall commence on site until full details of the means of foul water drainage for the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained in perpetuity.
REASON: To ensure the satisfactory drainage of the site and to accord with Harborough District Core Strategy Policy CS10
29. No part of the development shall be occupied until such time as a scheme for Public Transport has been agreed with the Local Planning Authority and implemented in full. Additionally, no part of the development shall be occupied until such time as the proposed bus stops on Argosy Way are provided with raised kerbs, timetable information, bus shelters and Real Time Information.
REASON: To ensure that adequate steps are taken to provide a transport choice/a choice in mode of travel to/from the site and to ensure compliance with Policy CS5 of the Harborough District Core Strategy.
NOTES TO APPLICANT 1 The Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) must be prepared by an archaeological contractor acceptable to the Planning Authority. To demonstrate that the implementation of this written scheme of investigation has been secured the applicant must provide a signed contract or similar legal agreement between themselves and their approved archaeological contractor.
2 The Historic and Natural Environment Team, as advisors to the planning authority, will monitor the archaeological work, to ensure that the necessary programme of archaeological work is undertaken to the satisfaction of the planning authority.
3 We understand that the foul sewage from the proposed development will be pumped back to the existing on-site sewage treatment plant. Provision will need to be provided for this extra flow. An application will need to be made under the Environmental Permitting Regulations to increase the flow discharging to the watercourse and there may be changes to the water quality limits on the discharge consent.
4 During the period of construction, oil and fuel storage will be subject to the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001. The Regulations apply to the storage of oil or fuel of any kind in any kind of container which is being used and stored above ground, including drums and mobile bowsers, situated outside a building and with a storage capacity which exceeds 200 litres. A person with custody or control of any oil or fuel breaching the Regulations will be guilty of a criminal offence. The penalties are a maximum fine of £5000 in Magistrates' Court or an unlimited fine in Crown Court. Further details of the Regulations are available from the Environment Agency.
5 The highway mitigation works associated with this consent involves works within the public highway, which is land over which you have no control. The Highways Agency therefore requires you to enter into a suitable legal Section 278 agreement to cover the design check, construction and supervision of the works. Contact should be made with the Highways Agency’s Section 278
P a g e | 210
Business Manager David Steventon to discuss these matters on [email protected].
6 Any lighting must be installed in accordance with the Institute of Lighting Engineers Guidance for the Reduction of Light Nuisance.
7 The applicant must be aware that their ecologist indicates that European Protected Species Licences are required for this development. It is the applicants responsibility to liaise with their ecologist to ensure that all required licences are in place prior to the commencement of works and that all further conditions are adhered to.
8 If there are any works proposed as part of an application which are likely to affect flows in a watercourse or ditch, then the applicant may require consent under s.23 Land Drainage Act 1991. This legislation is separate from the planning process. Guidance on this process and a sample application form can be found via the following website: www.leics.gov.uk/watercourse
9 No development should take place within 5 metres of any watercourse or ditch without first contacting the County Council for advice.
10 Following the DEFRA/DCLG consultation and subsequent legislation change surrounding the future adoption and maintenance of SuDS brought into power on April 15th 2015, Leicestershire County Council are no longer the SuDS Approval Body (SAB) and are now a statutory consultee in the planning process. For all enquiries regarding the application and future adoption and maintenance of SuDS features, please direct these to your local District or Borough Council.
11 This planning permission does NOT allow you to carry out access alterations in the highway. Before such work can begin, separate permits or agreements will be required under the Highways Act 1980. For further information, including contact details, you are advised to visit the County Council website as follows:-see Part 6 of the “6Cs Design Guide” at www.leics.gov.uk/6csdg
12 C.B.R. Tests shall be taken and submitted to the County Council’s Area Manager prior to development commencing in order to ascertain road construction requirements. No work shall commence on site without prior notice being given to the Highways Manager.
13. If it is the developer’s intention to seek either; the adoption of roads which incorporate non- standard features/materials, or the adoption of additional areas beyond that which would normally be considered necessary for the safe functioning of the highway, then commuted sums for future maintenance will be payable. The Applicant should refer to the 6C’s Design Guide available at www.leics.gov.uk/index/6csdg.htm for more information.
14. If the applicants do not wish to seek adoption of the roads, the Highway Authority will serve APCs in respect of all plots served by all the roads within the development in
accordance with Section 219 of the Highways Act 1980. Payment of the charge MUST be made before building commences. Please note that the Highway Authority has standards for private roads which will need to be complied with to ensure that the APC may be exempted and the monies returned. Failure to comply with these standards will mean that monies cannot be refunded. For further details see www.leics.gov.uk/htd or phone 0116 3057198.
15. The Applicant shall be advised that a minimum of 6 months’ notice is required by Leicestershire County Council for the making of a Traffic Regulation Order. This is to allow all statutory processes to be completed. Further information can be found in the 6C’s Design Guide available at: http://www.leics.gov.uk/index/6csdg.htm or by contacting the Network Management Team via 0116 305 0001.
P a g e | 211
16. The Applicant shall be advised that a Stopping-up order under S247 and/or S248 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 will be required. Applications should be made directly to the Secretary of State for Transport.
17. All works within the limits of the highway with regard to the access shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Highways Manager (tel 0116 305 0001).
18. You will be required to enter into a suitable legal Agreement with the Highway Authority for the off-site highway works before development commences and details plans shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Highway Authority. The Agreement must be signed and all fees paid and surety set in place before the highways works are commenced.
19. In order to provide the visibility splays/access shown on the submitted plans, it would be necessary to remove/carry out works to trees and/or vegetation within the limits of the Highway but before any works to such are commenced you must first obtain the separate consent of the Highway Authority. If approval is granted you may be required to provide appropriate replacements.
20. All highway related structures must be designed and constructed in accordance with the current relevant Highways Agency standards, codes of practice and technical memoranda. The design will be subject to the technical approval procedures set out in BD 2/12 “Technical Approval of Highway Structures” which is part of the ‘Design Manual for Roads and Bridges’ that can be found on www.standardsforhighways.gov.uk. You must employ a chartered civil or structural engineer with experience in highway structures and approved by the County Council to carry out the design and oversee construction. You should start this approval process at an early stage to avoid delays in completing the Section 38 road adoption agreement, which may delay site works.
21. Highway related structures will normally include bridges, retaining walls, reinforced soil and anchored earth structures, environmental barriers (including noise barriers and fencing) and all drains, piped and box culverts, sewers and drainage structures, other than bridges , that have a diameter or clear span of more than 900mm. There should be discussion at an early stage to agree which structures we are to adopt. You will have to pay the additional design checking and inspection fees for any highway structure. You must also pay a commuted sum for future maintenance of any highway structure to be adopted.
22. If you intend to provide temporary directional signing to your proposed development, you must ensure that prior approval is obtained from the County Council’s Highway Manager for the size, design and location of any sign in the highway. It is likely that any sign erected in the Highway without prior approval will be removed. Before you draw up a scheme, the Highway Manager’s staff (tel 0116 305 0001) will be happy to give informal advice concerning the number of signs and the locations where they are likely to be acceptable. This will reduce the amount of abortive sign design work.
23 Prior to the proposed downgrading of the existing Mere Lane (between the proposed roundabout at Argosy Way and the proposed roundabout at the A5) and the provision of the realigned Mere Lane to vehicular traffic, all necessary orders and agreements shall be in place.
24. Highway conditions and contributions/obligations will be sought for the planning permission. For details, please refer to items listed under ‘Advice to Local Planning Authority’.
25 Lighting of boundary features to be kept below the 1 lux level.
26 The site landscaping and management plan must incorporate any requirements for protected species mitigation. We would expect the landscaping plan to incorporate native species, particularly where ecological enhancements can be made. All landscaping plans and site/biodiversity management plans should be required as a condition of the development.
P a g e | 212
APPENDIX C: PLANNING OBLIGATIONS (HEAD OF TERMS)
Request Obligation Amount /Detail Delivery CIL Justification Policy Basis By LCC Highways 1. A Construction Traffic Routeing Agreement to be Prior to the 1. To ensure that all Core Strategy: submitted to and approved in writing by the commencement construction traffic Policy CS12, Highway Authority. During the period of of development associated with the Appendix 2 construction, all traffic to and from the site shall development does not (Infrastructure use the agreed route at all times. The agreed use unsatisfactory roads Schedule), route shall require construction traffic to access to and from the site. the site via the A5/Mere Lane roundabout, which Leicestershire shall be constructed in accordance with the Planning relevant Condition regarding its delivery. Obligations Policy Adopted 3rd 2. A contribution of £5,000 per order for Traffic To be confirmed 2. To ensure that legal December 2014. Regulation Orders to deliver the site access orders are in place to arrangements as shown on URS drawing no. support the delivery of 47066811/A008/SK12 Rev B. the proposed highway works
3. Appointment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator from Prior to the 3. To ensure effective commencement of development until 5 years commencement implementation and after first occupation. The Travel Plan Co- of development monitoring of the Travel ordinator shall be responsible for the Plan submitted in implementation of measures, as well as support of the Planning monitoring and implementation of remedial Application. measures.
4. Provision of a bus service to the proposed Prior to first 4. To encourage employees development for a minimum of 5 years. The bus operation of the to use bus services as service shall commence on first occupation and development an alternative to the shall serve the proposed bus stops at Argosy private car. Way, as a minimum, at times to coincide with shift changeover times (6am, 2pm and 10pm) and office hours (9am and 5pm) at Magna Park.
P a g e | 213
The bus service shall be available everyday (including Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays). Details of the bus service shall be agreed with the Highway Authority.
5. Provision of a suitable route through the Prior to first 5. To encourage employees development to permit unhindered use by buses. occupation of to use bus services as the development an alternative to the private car.
6. One Travel Pack per employee, to be provided Prior to first 6. To inform new from first occupation. This can be provided occupation of employees from first through Leicestershire County Council at a cost the development occupation what of £52.85 per pack. If not supplied by LCC, a sustainable travel sample Travel Pack shall be submitted to and choices are available in approved in writing by LCC. the surrounding area.
7. One six-month bus pass per employee to be Prior to first 7. To encourage employees provided from first occupation; this can be occupation of to use bus services as provided through Leicestershire County Council the development an alternative to the at an average cost of £350.00 per pass. private car.
8. A Travel Plan monitoring fee of £6000.00. Prior to first 8. To enable Leicestershire occupation of County Council to the development provide support to the appointed Travel Plan Co-ordinator, audit annual Travel Plan performance reports to ensure that Travel Plan outcomes are being achieved, and to take responsibility for any
P a g e | 214
necessitated planning enforcement LCC Monitoring To be agreed Payment prior to To be advised Core Strategy: Fee Xth dwelling /To Policy CS12, be agreed Appendix 2 (Infrastructure Schedule),
Leicestershire Planning Obligations Policy Adopted 3rd December 2014. HDC Air Quality To be agreed To be agreed To ensure that the Core Strategy Monitoring development does result in a Policy CS14 breach Air Quality Objective levels at properties on the A5 NPPF Para 124
P a g e | 215
APPENDIX D – Draft S106 Heads of Terms
IDI GAZELEY ("GAZELEY") LAND ADJOINING MAGNA PARK LUTTERWORTH ("The Site")
DRAFT HEADS OF TERMS FOR SECTION 106 AGREEMENT WITH HARBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL ("THE COUNCIL") AND LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL ("THE COUNTY") IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICATION 15/00919/FUL AT THE SITE
P a g e | 216
Note: These Heads of Terms are subject to the agreement between the parties that the restrictions and provisions are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and thus satisfy the requirements of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2012 Description of Development Demolition of the Emmanuel and Lodge cottages and the construction of a 100,844 sq m warehouse distribution facility with ancillary B1 office space, gatehouse, associated vehicle fuelling and washing facilities, HGV, car and cycle parking, fencing and security infrastructure, structural landscaping and associated highway layout within and around the site, including alterations to existing vehicular and pedestrian access, creation of a new access to Business Barns, creation of a new A5/Mere Lane roundabout and partial dualling of the A5 and development of public transport infrastructure including bus stop and lay-by, together with drainage and water management infrastructure including attenuation ponds and water treatment facility, waste management facilities, rooftop solar photovoltaic panels, and necessary enabling works all in accordance on land immediately adjacent and linked to Magna Park, Lutterworth.
P a g e | 217
Obligations to the Council 1 EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING 1.1 Gazeley shall at its own expense prepare Construction Job and Business Employment Strategy and training as may be agreed between the Council and the Owner from time to time a sum of money nor shall it require the Owner to make any financial payment to the Council. 1.2 To submit the Construction Job and Business Employment Strategy to the Council not less than three months prior to the Implementation of the Development (or such other shorter period as may be approved by the Council) and not to Implement the Development unless and until three months (or such other shorter period as may be approved by the Council) have lapsed since the submission of the Construction Job and Business Employment Strategy 1.3 To comply with the Construction Job and Business Employment Strategy upon its approval in writing by the Council. 1.4 Not to Implement the Development until such time as the Construction Job and Business Employment Strategy has been approved in writing by the Council. 1.5 Every one year following the date of approval of the Construction Job and Business Employment Strategy, to review and submit a revised Job and Business Employment Strategy to the Council for its written approval (unless otherwise agreed by the Council). 1.6 Gazeley and the Council shall use reasonable endeavours to work together collaboratively to ensure the implementation of the approved Job and Business Employment Strategy (or as subsequently amended and approved) during demolition and the construction and fitting out and operation of the Development. 1.7 Nothing in the Construction Job and Business Employment Strategy shall require Gazeley to act in a way or publish a document which contravenes English or European legislation, including (but not limited to) employment, training, discrimination or equal opportunities legislation 1.8 Nothing in the Construction Job and Business Employment Strategy shall require Gazeley to make any financial contribution to the Council RECRUITMENT OF LOCAL RESIDENTS AND APPRENTICES 1.9 Following the date of written approval of the Construction Job and Business Employment Strategy, to work collaboratively with the Council during demolition and the construction and fitting out of the Development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Council) to identify and promote within the Local Area employment, training and business opportunities for Local Residents and Local Businesses in relation to the demolition, construction and fitting out and operation of the Development. 1.10 Where job applicants meet the essential requirements of any particular advertised role, encourage the contractor(s) or sub-contractor(s) or occupiers to consider all applications from Local Residents to ensure local people are given the first opportunity to secure employment from the Development. 1.11 To notify the Council of anticipated and actual employment, training or apprenticeship vacancies arising from the Development. 1.12 To use reasonable endeavours to ensure that at least % of the workforce employed in the construction of the Development are Local Residents 1.13 Subject to paragraph 2.7, to employ a minimum of: 1.14 ( ) Apprentices during the construction of the Development; and 1.15 ( ) Traineeships during the construction of the Development; and 1.16 ( ) Work Experience Placements during the construction of the Development. LOCAL PROCUREMENT 1.17 From the date of the Agreement, to comply with and make Contractors aware of the Procurement Programme in order to give Local Businesses access to opportunities arising from the demolition and construction phase of the Development.
P a g e | 218
1.18 To provide the Council’s List of Local Businesses to operators and occupiers of the Development and encourage them to procure Local Businesses for the fitting out of the premises and the supply and servicing and estate management. MONITORING 1.19 To provide the Council with annual reports detailing the number and percentage of Local Residents employed in the construction of the Development, the number of Apprentices, Work Placement and Traineeships employed in the construction of the Development and all other targets contained in the Construction Job and Business Employment Strategy 2 Informal Open Space Management Plan 2.1 Prior to the Implementation of the Development to identify and agree with the Council the Informal Space Management Plan to secure the maintenance of the public parts forming part of the development. 2.2 Prior to Occupation of the Development to transfer the informal open space land to the Management Company 2.3 Prior to the transfer of the informal open Gazeley shall maintain the informal open space in a tidy condition in accordance with the specification agreed with the Council prior to implementation of the development. 3 Lighting Management Plan Gazeley shall agree with the Council a Lighting Management Plan prior to the Commencement of the Development for the improvement of lighting on those properties on the Mere Lane elevation to directional LED lighting (including the installation of new light mounts, fittings and LEDs.) Gazeley shall use all reasonable endeavours to comply with the approved Lighting Management Plan by way of the Magna Park Management Company. 4 Management of Common Parts Gazeley shall agree with the Council a Management Agreement for the Common Parts prior to the Commencement of the Development Gazeley shall comply with the approved Management Agreement for the Common Parts by way of the Magna Park Management Company Obligations to the County Construction Routeing Agreement A Construction Traffic Routeing Agreement to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Highway Authority. During the period of construction, all traffic to and from the site shall use the agreed route at all times. TRO Contribution A contribution of £5,000 per order for Traffic Regulation Orders to deliver the Site access arrangements as shown on URS drawing no. 47066811/A008/SK12 Rev B. Travel Plan Co-ordinator Appointment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator from commencement of development until 5 years after first occupation of the development. The Travel Plan Co-ordinator shall be responsible for the implementation of measures, as well as monitoring and implementation of remedial measures. Bus Service. Provision of a bus service to the proposed development for a minimum of 5 years. The bus service shall commence on first occupation of the development and shall serve the proposed bus stops at Argosy Way, as a minimum, at times to coincide with shift changeover times (6am, 2pm and 10pm) and office hours (9am and 5pm) at Magna Park. The bus service shall be available everyday (including Saturdays, Sundays and Bank
P a g e | 219
Holidays). Details of the bus service, including the route through the development for the buses, shall be agreed with the County. Travel Pack One Travel Pack per employee, to be provided from first occupation of the development. This can be provided through the County Council at a cost of £52.85 per pack. If not supplied by the County, a sample Travel Pack shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County prior to Occupation of the development. Bus Pass One six-month bus pass for 10% of total employees to be provided from first occupation of the development; this can be provided through Leicestershire County Council at an average cost of £350.00 per pass. Travel Plan Monitoring Fee A Travel Plan monitoring fee of £6000.00 to be paid prior to commencement of the development. Proposed Highway Improvements Widening of A5 between Emmanuel and Lodge Cottages and Mere Lane New roundabout at the A5/ Mere Lane junction New roundabout on Mere Lane to connect existing Magna Park to Magna Park Extension Realignment of Mere Lane between new roundabout on Mere Lane and the A5 Roundabout improvements at the A4303/ A426 roundabout Other Proposals New bus stops on Argosy Way with seating, shelters and timetable information New footways to connect the bus stops to the proposed development New access on Mere Lane to a small visitors car park to promote public accessibility to the lagoon and surrounding area. The Highways and Transport works shall be secured by a highways agreement under S278 of the Highways Act 1980 to be entered into prior to Implementation of the Permission. 5 General Terms 5.1 Liability under the Agreement does not attach to owners of a legal interest in the Site once they have parted with their interest in the site. 5.2 Gazeley shall pay the Council's and the County's reasonable legal costs and disbursements in connection with the negotiation, preparation and completion of the Section 106 Agreement in a sum to be agreed.
P a g e | 220