The Strategic Planning Committee of West Northamptonshire Council refused planning permission for the development of nine employment units at Furtho Pits, Old Cosgrove Road, Old Stratford. The committee's decision went against the case officer's recommendation to grant permission, with reasons for refusal to be detailed in the minutes.

Furtho Pits, Old Cosgrove Road, Old Stratford

The Strategic Planning Committee refused planning permission for the proposed development of nine employment units, a country park, and associated infrastructure at Furtho Pits, Old Cosgrove Road, Old Stratford. This decision was contrary to the case officer's recommendation to grant permission.

The application, WNS/2022/1741/EIA, proposed approximately 69,744 sq.m. of floorspace within Class B2 (general industrial) or B8 (storage and distribution) uses, with ancillary offices and research and development space. It also included a country park, ground reprofiling for flood storage, and a new vehicular access from the A508.

Numerous objections were raised by local residents, parish councils, and statutory consultees, including concerns about:

• Highway Safety and Access: Many argued that the proposed priority T-junction access from the A508 was unsafe and did not comply with Policy AL5 of the South Northamptonshire Local Plan Part 2, which stipulated access via a roundabout. Concerns were also raised about the underestimation of traffic, particularly Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) movements, and the cumulative impact on the already congested Old Stratford roundabout. The lack of a completed Section 106 agreement at the time of the decision was also highlighted as a reason for potential unsustainability.
• Ecology and Biodiversity: A significant point of contention was the loss of Open Mosaic Habitat on Previously Developed Land (OMHPDL), an area of ecological importance supporting a notable invertebrate assemblage. Objectors, including the Council's Ecologist, the Wildlife Trust, Buglife, and Bioscan, argued that the habitat's value had been underestimated and that the proposed compensation measures, including habitat recreation in the country park, carried significant uncertainty regarding success. This was seen as a conflict with Policy NE5 and paragraph 193 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which prioritises avoiding harm to biodiversity.
• Flood Risk and Drainage: Concerns were raised about the development's location within an acknowledged flood zone and the potential to exacerbate flooding downstream. While the Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) ultimately raised no objection subject to conditions, they noted that the proposal introduced a residual risk to the catchment downstream and did not consider it to be sustainable development. The effectiveness and long-term management of the proposed Flood Storage Area (FSA), which would fall under the Reservoirs Act 1975, were also questioned.
• Design, Scale, and Visual Impact: Objectors argued that the scale and massing of the proposed units, particularly Unit 1 at 18.9 metres in height, were out of keeping with the rural character of the area and the Grand Union Canal Conservation Area. The visual impact assessments were criticised for underestimating harm and using unreliable visual evidence.
• Compliance with Policy AL5 and SPD: Several objectors argued that the proposal did not comply with Policy AL5 of the South Northamptonshire Local Plan Part 2, particularly regarding the requirement for a roundabout access and the mix of employment uses, which was seen as predominantly B8 warehousing rather than the mixed employment generating development envisaged. Concerns were also raised about the size of Unit 1, which significantly exceeded the guidance on unit sizes provided in the Employment Sites Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).
• Heritage: Less than substantial harm was identified to the setting of the Grand Union Canal Conservation Area, with Historic England also raising concerns that the heritage impact assessment had not fully addressed impacts on the Scheduled Monument at Old Wolverton and other heritage assets.

Despite the case officer's recommendation to grant permission, citing significant economic benefits, job creation, and the delivery of a country park, the committee ultimately refused the application. The decision was based on the cumulative weight of the identified harms and policy conflicts, particularly concerning ecology, highway safety, and compliance with the development plan.