Nine employment units at Furtho Pits Old Cosgrove Road, Old Stratford

What was proposed

The application sought nine employment units, a country park, flood storage, a new A508 access and associated infrastructure including lorry parking.

“Development: Application for full planning permission for the erection of 9 no. employment units comprising circa 69,744 sq.m./750,714 sq.ft. (GIA) of floorspace within Class B2 or B8 uses of the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987, with ancillary Class E(g)(i) offices and E(g)(ii) research and development, together with a Country Park, ground re- profiling in the Country Park, provision of Flood Storage Area through ground re-profiling which, by definition, is…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The approximately 40-hectare site was mainly agricultural land beside major roads, with waterways, conservation areas, wildlife sites, flood zones and public rights of way.

“The site extends to c.40ha of predominantly agricultural land including the former Furtho Pit gravel works which has been infilled with inert waste and restored to agricultural land. The site is bound by the A5 dual carriageway and A508 major road along its southern and northwestern boundaries respectively.”

“The site levels fall from the northeast and southern boundaries towards the Dogsmouth Brook Watercourse typical of its valley setting where levels are recorded at approximately +65m AOD to +61m AOD along the brook. High points of the site are recorded at approximately +79.83m AOD at the site’s north eastern corner where it meets Stratford Road and at the site’s south western field parcel which, notwithstanding an area of made up ground, is approximately +76m AOD.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and allocation

The site was allocated for employment development and had previous permissions, appeals, pre-application advice, environmental assessment work and a pending lawful-use certificate.

“P/WNS/2021/0073/PRS – Pre-application enquiry: Logistics Units Comprising of 71.977sqm 774,743 sqft of floorspace within Class B2 or B8 of the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987 with ancillary class E(G)(I) Offices or E(G)(II) For research and Development of products and processes together with a country park, ground re-profiling in the Country park new vehicular access from the A508 and associated infrastructure including lorry Parking.”

“WNS/2021/1985/SCO - Scoping Opinion for the proposed development comprising of 9 no. employment units comprising circa 71,386 sq.m/768,385 sq. ft (GIA) of floorspace within Class B2 or B8 uses of the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987, with ancillary Class E(g)(i) offices and E(g)(ii) research and development, together with a Country Park, ground re- profiling in the Country Park, new vehicular access from the A508 and associated site infrastructure including…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended delegated approval subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement, concluding that the proposal was acceptable subject to those controls.

“THE CONDITIONS SET OUT BELOW (AND ANY AMENDMENTS TO THOSE CONDITIONS AS DEEMED NECESSARY) AND”

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

Officer report

What consultees said

Some consultees objected or raised concerns, while highways, the Environment Agency and many technical consultees raised no objection subject to conditions or further controls.

“The following consultees have raised no objections to the application: • Planning Policy, Environment Agency, Anglian Water, Buckingham & River Ouzel Internal Drainage Board, Buckingham Canal Society, Natural England, National Highways, WNC Highways, WNC Environmental Health, WNC Heritage, WNC Archaeology, Developer Contributions, Construction Futures, Minerals & Waste, British Pipeline Agency, WNC Arboricultural Officer, WNC Landscape Officer, The Parks…”

“The following consultees have raised concerns regarding the application: • Lead Local Flood Authority, Northamptonshire Badger Group, Historic England…”

Officer report

What residents and councils said

Most public representations opposed the proposal, citing traffic, flooding, pollution, ecology, landscape, heritage, rural character, need and quality-of-life impacts.

“Concerns regarding impacts from 24/7 logistics use including; • Air pollution from HGVs and cars • Noise increases • Light pollution from large buildings and operations • River contamination / runoff • Pollution linked to ecological and health impacts (especially children, asthma, mental health)”

“Development considered out of scale and visually intrusive • Harmful to the rural character of the area • Harmful to heritage settings • Concerns about warehouse height/visibility • Adverse impact on views, countryside and recreation…”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

Objectors, parish and town council representatives, an MP, a ward councillor and the agent presented concerns or support about the proposal.

What members debated

Members debated the development’s scale, landscape and ecological effects, transport, flooding, country park, employment need, habitat relocation and the proposed access.

“The loss of the current OMH, the creation of a new OMH within the country park and the methodology of transferring plant, encouraging invertebrates and relocating wildlife and the viability of the proposed translocation • The projected net gain of 910 jobs • The country park acting as a flood zone and the impact on the wildlife should the area flood. The data used to assess the flood risk of the 1 in 100 year events.”

“Policy NE5 proposals will not be permissible where they result in significant harm to biodiversity/the development will not be permitted if it damages or fragments locally designated sites and NPPF 193 paragraph (a) planning permission should be refused if significant harm to biodiversity from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or (as a last resort) compensated for • The loss of best and most versatile land, harm to the visual amenity, the ecological…”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

The committee refused the application because of ecological harm, unacceptable visual effects for Stratford Road properties and the absence of a Section 106 obligation.

“Landscape and visual impact - in particular on the properties on Stratford Road. Notwithstanding the site's allocation for employment development under policy AL5 of the South Northamptonshire Part 2 Local Plan the proposal, by virtue of the siting scale and height of units 5 to 8, will result in unacceptable significant adverse impacts to the visual amenity of the residential properties to the north of the site on Stratford Road.”

Minutes