Today (Tuesday 21 Oct 25) the Strategic Planning Committee by a 10 – 0 vote REFUSED the very defective planning application for this site.
Up until May, I was the ward member for this site and was familiar with its mad ideas and magical thinking. The problems that this proposal created were not resolved despite five years of trying.
On two occasions I asked for it to come to Committee and be refused. The planning department did not want to do that and advised that any time until 2029 would be acceptable to bring for determination.
This is what I said when I addressed the Committee:-
YouTube link below my contribution 1hr 13m 45s in
Mr Chairman, since this proposal was submitted I have been one of eleven councillors to represent the site.
We’ve also seen, four prime minsters, three council leaders, two monarchs and ONE pig in the poke, THIS application.
It is, as problematic and noncompliant today as it was 1770 days ago when it was submitted.
The problems raised by this application are not solved and likely unsolvable as the report states at para 7.44 and 45.
It says the officers are doubtful that the traffic changes can ever be delivered and it isn’t possible to deliver the improvements policy demands.
Do not ignore it as officers recommend. Refuse it.
Do not put any faith in conditions as we know this council’s record on enforcement is woeful.
Conditions can be easily ignored, removed and appealed.
Para 7.11 contradicts AL4 (1) requiring a master plan to be approved PRIOR to the submission of a planning application.
Not alongside it.
The development must deal with its own run off water. It can’t. So proposes to use more land than allocated.
The council allocated 10 hectares. This application proposes an additional 2.8 hectares. This almost 30% increase is NOT in the allocation and NOT policy. Refuse it.
These buildings are too tall and I doubt conformance to the SPD. The landscape and heritage impacts are severe.
It is spurious to argue that the presence of nearby solar farms change the character of the area to make it more industrial.
Chairman, these solar farms have a 3 metre height limit, from a 25 year permission granted in 2012. In just over a decade they must revert back to green fields.
You can’t use a temporary permission to justify a permanent one. Refuse it.
The policy calls for a public transport contribution. With some creative reinterpretation they propose just 4 years.
Is the life of this project just 48 months? We’ve taken longer than that to get to this point today!!
By para 7.36 reason is abandoned all that’s left is HOPE.
HOPE the buses will work out when the money runs out.
Lets be clear:-
HOPE is not a plan, HOPE is not a planning tool, HOPE is not a strategy – unless you’re buying a lottery ticket.
Return to reason – Refuse it
The traffic assessment is farcical.
Up to a thousand workers plus business traffic, yet only 107 peak hour movements?
This fantasy assumes the use of cycle ways and footpaths that can’t be built. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature must logically assume higher numbers.
When it comes to the traffic assessment the only numbers I trust are the page numbers.
The use of Cowpastures? Absolutely not. That road needs a weight limit to force the use of the Towcester Relief Road.
We spent millions bypassing Silverstone to now propose that 65% of the traffic is rerouted back though the village and past the school.
It takes a special kind of genius, to call that progress.
If you approve this insane proposal, at least, protect Silverstone and Whittlebury from 24 hour HGV traffic with stronger conditions on hours of working, limiting to 6 am to 6pm only
So how has such a shonky application made it to committee?
Why do we ignore adopted policy, creatively reinterpret, rewrite,
push, pull and press policy to justify this masterclass of nonsense?
Because the Planning Department take the view that on an allocated site, something will be built, this is something, therefore we have to agree something.
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
Chairman, if this application, and this report are to be judged, let’s send them to a literary festival for a creative writing award not this Planning Committee for a permission.
This proposal does not conform to our adopted polices.
It breaches AL4, SS1, SS2, S10, C1, C4, C5 and the NPPF on sustainable travel.
Chairman, colleagues, this proposal has no merit its flawed, non compliant and indefensible.
Now is your chance
to stand up for the integrity of our planning system,
to stand up for our policy as it is written
and to stand up for the residents we represent.
I implore you refuse this application.
