850-home development at Land South and East of Grange Park, Northampton

What was proposed

The outline scheme sought up to 850 homes, 45% affordable housing, a local centre, primary school land, open space, paths and highway works.

“Development: Outline application for up to 850 dwellings including 45% affordable, a new local centre, land for a new 2FE primary school, open space including an extension to the adjacent country park, community allotments, landscape buffers, enhanced off-site pedestrian and cycle links, and associated off-site highways works, with all matters reserved other than site access…”

Officer report

The site

The 43.6-hectare site was mainly agricultural land between Grange Park and Quinton, adjoining Foxfield Country Park and the M1.

“The application site comprises 43.6Ha of predominantly agricultural (arable) land between Grange Park and Quinton. The site is roughly L-shaped, comprising 3”

“The site directly abuts Foxfield Country Park (to the north of the southern area and west of the eastern area). The site’s eastern and southern boundaries adjoin public highways and the western boundary of the southern area abuts the M1 motorway.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier outline scheme for up to 300 homes and a school was dismissed on appeal in December 2020.

“S/2019/0856/MAO – Outline application for up to 300 dwellings and land for a new school (up to two forms-of-entry) along with open space, drainage, footpath improvements, new off-site footpath links, vehicular access and all matters reserved other than access. APPEAL DISMISSED December 2020.”

“WNS/2022/0256/SCO - Scoping Opinion for the proposed development comprising of residential development comprising approximately 900 dwelling, a local centre, school, open space, landscaping and connections to local road, footpath and cycle network. SCOPING OPINION ISSUED March 2022.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because the proposal was acceptable subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement, despite identified planning issues.

“THE COMPLETION OF A PLANNING OBLIGATION UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990, AS SUBSTITUTED BY THE PLANNING AND COMPENSATION ACT 1991, TO SECURE THE FOLLOWING (WITH DELEGATED AUTHORITY GRANTED TO THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT TO AMEND AS DEEMED NECESSARY):”

“The report looks into the key planning issues in detail, and Officers conclude that the proposal is acceptable subject to conditions.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Several parish councils and other consultees objected, while highways, ecology, heritage and other technical consultees raised no objections subject to safeguards.

“The following consultees have raised no objections to the application: • WNC Highways, WNC Environmental Protection, WNC Heritage, WNC Archaeology, WNC Ecology, WNC Arboriculture, WNC Strategic Housing, WNC Developer Contributions, National Highways, Environment Agency, Natural England, Lead Local Flood Authority, Northamptonshire Integrated Care Board (NHS)”

Officer report

What residents said

Residents mainly opposed countryside loss, coalescence, traffic, unsafe connections, inadequate services, flooding, pollution and car dependency; two submissions supported the scheme with safeguards.

“This has since been removed from the scheme) • Additional pressure on Foxfield Country Park as a result of increased usage (wear and tear, vandalism, reduced tranquillity) • Harm to wildlife, flora and fauna, including protected species and nearby protected sites (such as the Upper Nene Gravel Pits SPA and SSSIs) • Inadequate public transport provision for the development • Walking distanced and times have been under-represented • Re-routing buses away from Quinton will harm…”

“Concern the proposed site drainage will be inadequate and that the site geology prevents infiltration/soakaway • Increased crime, anti-social behaviour and fly-tipping • No provisions for young people to socialise within the development • Direct impacts on neighbouring properties abutting the site, including harm to security, loss of privacy, damage to trees and hedges, noise, light pollution, surface water flooding and prolonged disturbance during the construction phase •…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Parish representatives, councillors, a statement read for an MP, residents and the agent spoke about the scheme’s impacts and claimed benefits.

What members debated

Members debated housing supply, the site’s allocation and sustainability, school and healthcare provision, transport, the country park, coalescence, infrastructure and affordable housing.

“During the course of the committee members considered: • Whether other sites may be available and compliant with the brown field first policy in Northampton • Whether the approval of the application would enable the 850 houses to be included in the 5 year land supply figures, the inability of the Council to demonstrate an adequate supply of housing and the implications for consideration • Caroline Chisholm School catchment area and its capacity to accommodate children from…”

“There was a policy to encourage brown field development, but it was not a sequential test and each application was to be assessed on its own merits • If the application were approved a proportion of the 850 houses could contribute to the 5 year land supply figures • The developer would build the market and affordable housing, and a register provider would be assigned. Current adopted guidance would require that affordable units be pepper-potted through the development.”

Minutes

The votes

Members first rejected the officer recommendation, then carried a refusal proposal by six votes to four, with one abstention.

“Councillor Sally Keeble proposed that the application be approved in accordance with Officer recommendation the proposition was seconded by Councillor Adrian Cartwright and on being put to the meeting the motion was lost with 4 voting in favour of the recommendation, 6 against and 2 abstentions.”

“The proposition was seconded by Councillor Jonathan Harris and on being put to the meeting was declared carried with 6 voting in favour of the recommendation, 4 against and 1 abstention.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee refused the application because the rural, unallocated site lay outside settlement boundaries, threatened Quinton’s identity and vitality, and its adverse impacts outweighed benefits.

“Councillor Richard Pipes proposed that the application be refused on the grounds that the location was not an allocated site for development, it was situated in a rural area and was outside the settlement boundaries resulting in the coalescence of villages, harming the identity and vitality of Quinton, and would not deliver housing that reflects local needs in rural areas.”

“Resolved: that the application be refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation for the following reason: 1. Contrary to the Local Plan policies SS1, SS2 and policy S10 of the Joint Core Strategy.”

Minutes