Commercial warehouse building at Former Rbs Data Centre, Kegworth

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the gatehouse and building a commercial unit with offices, parking, landscaping, drainage and boundary works.

“Demolition of the existing gatehouse and construction of 1 no. commercial building (use class E(g(ii)/(iii)/B2/B8) with ancillary offices, cycle, car, van and HGV parking; and all other ancillary and enabling works including landscaping, drainage, engineering and boundary treatments.”

Officer report

The site and building

The 4.15-hectare former data centre site lies within Kegworth’s development boundary and Primary Employment Area; the building would be 14.5 metres high.

“Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing gatehouse and construction of 1 no. commercial building (use class E(g)(ii) / (iii) / B2 / B8) with ancillary offices, cycle, car, van and HGV parking; and all other ancillary and enabling works including landscaping, drainage, engineering and boundary treatments at the former RBS Data Centre, Packington Hill, Kegworth.”

“The demolition of the former RBS Data Centre was granted under application reference 24/01444/DEM on the 6 th December 2024, and the building has subsequently been demolished.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council and 200 individual representations objected, while key authorities including highways, ecology, flood, airport and environmental protection officers raised no objection subject to measures.

“Active Travel England. East Midlands Airport Safeguarding. Leicestershire County Council – Ecology. Leicestershire County Council – Highways Authority. Leicestershire County Council – Lead Local Flood Authority. NWLDC Environmental Protection. NWLDC Urban Designer.”

Officer report

Main concerns raised

Objections focused on HGV movements, highway safety, the building’s scale and visual impact, residential amenity, pollution, biodiversity and the need for employment development.

“There is no right turn filter lane at the junction of Derby Road with Packington Hill to enable HGVs to be clear of the highway which will be detrimental to highway safety and vehicular movements on the highway network.”

“1) The unjustified reversal of the professional opinion of Leicestershire County Council (LCC) as the Highways Authority (CHA) given that the development proposes no fundamental changes to the junction layout, surrounding highway network or the constrained geometry of the signalised crossroads; 2) An over-reliance on theoretical swept path modelling which only represents idealised vehicle tracking under controlled circumstances, does not reflect real-world driver behaviour,…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish councillor, an objector, the agent and two ward members addressed the committee, presenting opposing views about safety, amenity, employment and design.

What members debated

Members questioned the proposal’s effects on residential amenity, visual impact, noise, light pollution, policy compliance and the claimed number of jobs.

“Members mentioned that it would have negatively impacted residential amenity, and an inconsistency was observed between the officer’s report and the agent’s speech regarding the number of jobs it would have generated through the Section 106 agreement. This matter was, however, addressed by the Council’s Legal Advisor who advised on how the contributions would be secured.”

“During a further discussion, members commented on the overbearing visual impact for new and existing residents, as well as the potential issues related to noise and light pollution.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Councillor Bigby moved refusal, Councillor Legrys seconded it, and the motion was carried with members voting for refusal.

“It was moved by Councillor D Bigby, seconded by Councillor J Legrys and…”

“Motion to refuse the application on the grounds that it does not comply with Policies D1, D2 and Ec3 of the adopted Local Plan, that it would have an overbearing visual impact on new and existing residents, and that it would cause issues with noise and light pollution.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused because members found conflict with Policies D1, D2 and Ec3, an overbearing visual impact, and issues with noise and light pollution.

“The application be refused on the grounds that it did not comply with Policies D1, D2, and Ec3 of the adopted Local Plan, that it would have had an overbearing visual impact on new and existing residents, and that it would have generated issues with noise and light pollution.”

Minutes