CORRESPONDENCE

Letter to The Right Honourable Michael Gove MP

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing, & Communities


8th June 2023


Dear Secretary of State,


Concerns regarding application for full planning permission for 9 employment units at Old Stratford,

Northamptonshire. Application number: WNS/2022/1741/EIA


You have stated that you want to “re-empower people to decide whether and how their communities should

grow, change and appear. . .” and this letter is asking you to help us with exactly that.


We represent people living in the villages of Cosgrove and Old Stratford, Northamptonshire, plus other

communities in the surrounding area. West Northamptonshire Council are proposing a development of nine

warehouses, plus a country park, on land bordering both villages. The land was included in Local Plan 2, which

was approved during the Covid lockdown, without consultation with residents.


Our concerns are numerous and detailed on our website www.stop3000trucks.org. In summary they are:

  1. Consultation. There were no attempts to consult with the local population when this land was approved for development in the Local Plan and signed off during lock down.
  2. Flooding. The site is on a flood zone. The river Great Ouse flows adjacent to the site and regularly floods Old Stratford and Stony Stratford (less than a mile upstream) and Newport Pagnell (5 miles downstream). The fields marked for this development are an essential part of the soakaway and losing more than 750k sq ft of that will exacerbate the problem. The Environment Agency is concerned about the flood risk as well as leaching of pollutants into the Great Ouse (see below).
  3. Traffic. The development will be connected to a road network that National Highways agree is already over capacity. HGVs from the site will travel through the villages of Yardley Gobion, Grafton Regis, Roade, and others, or through the centre of Towcester, to reach the M1.
  4. Employment. The developer claims creation of 900 jobs when the site is up and running, and more than 350 during the construction phase. Their own documentation later admits that the actual figures will be at least 36% lower in both cases. In addition, the jobs created will mainly be low skilled, low paid manual jobs that are already being replaced by automation.
  5. Land contamination. Area 1 (the original Furtho Pit field) was used for the disposal of toxic waste from a local iron and lead oxide works. This area smouldered for several years following the landfill and was deemed too contaminated for several other planning applications. Contaminants from the landfill are still leaching into the Dogsmouth Brook.
  6. Pollution. The development will have 96 HGV loading bays operational for 24 hours a day. There are also 847 car parking spaces. The air pollution will be significant as will the noise and light pollution in this rural area. The development will be just 60 metres from the nearest houses, and the pollution effects will spread widely across the area. In addition, run-off from the HGV wash included in the site will enter the Dogsmouth Brook and then the Great Ouse.
  7. Wildlife. The area includes grassed fields, patches of woodland, the Dogsmouth Brook, and the Stratford Arm of the Grand Union Canal. It is rich in wildlife including deer, badgers, foxes, bats, otters, and a myriad of birds and insects. The developers claim that there is very little wildlife here, even though their plans include relocating a badger sett!
  8. Flouting planning requirements. The local plan stipulates that any development in this area should be a mixture of B1, B2, and B8 use and “conserve the tranquillity of the natural and build environment in South Northamptonshire.” Supplementary planning guidance sets 80k sq ft as the maximum size of any unit. In addition, it states that any development must be “respectful to heritage assets and their settings, biodiversity, and the environmental character of the locality.” The proposed site will be between 48% and 90% B8 use, with serious detrimental impact upon the rural villages and communities. The largest unit will be 350k sq ft. An independent Environmental Consultant commented that the development will be “Quite extraordinarily incongruous to its location and threatens significant impacts on the landscape.”


At the time of writing, West Northamptonshire’s planning page has more than 1000 objections from residents

and community groups. However, we are in a real David and Goliath situation, standing up against a multi-

million pound developer and not being assisted by the council – to the contrary, they have actively opposed

our campaign.


We ask you to investigate this proposed development and our concerns. We would be delighted to show you

the site if you are able to visit.


Yours sincerely,


On behalf of the Furtho Development Objection Group (FDOG).

Questions submitted by the Furtho Development Opposition Group to Frampton's Town Planning's Question & Answer online presentation, 1st August 2023


  1. As has been established via manifold documented objections, (not least by local town and parish councils) your development proposal does not comply with South Northants Local Plan Part 2. On what basis are you still pursuing this application in its current format?
  2. Why have you submitted a flooding assessment using outdated methods from the 1970s, meaning your conclusions are inaccurate?
  3. You plan to build on the floodplain for the River Great Ouse. The Environment Agency (letter 23 July) says ‘the updated Flood Risk Assessment must also explore any impacts for a range of events for the River Great Ouse and whether it would be impacted by the dam and associated Flood Storage Area.’ Why did your hydraulic modelling stop short of the Great Ouse, given the importance of this river to the flooding situation?
  4. How will you explain to the potential occupiers of these warehouses that the site is liable to flood up to 2 metres in depth? Or will you leave that for them to find out?
  5. In view of the report from Old Stratford Parish council of contamination of land at the site, what measures do you have to deal with this, and how will you ensure that excavation of this land will not lead to further contamination of water downstream?
  6. Slow traffic means increased air pollution. The new junction will lead to traffic being both slowed and stationary & unquestionably an increase in air pollution. Why have you not addressed this in your application?
  7. Large areas of the site are priority habitat and therefore your claim for net biodiversity gain is incorrect and the site would actually be offending Core Strategy policy BN1 by failing to properly protect and enhance existing assets and delivering net biodiversity loss. Why has your environmental assessment missed that?
  8. Regarding noise pollution, the WNC’s Environmental Protection officer has requested that ‘the original BS4142 condition is used.  New development should seek to improve matters so we should aim for no impact rather than low impact’.  How will you achieve this?
  9. The Northampton Gateway planning application has an HGV routing strategy and environmental weight restrictions requiring all departing HGV traffic to travel north to minimise the impact of HGV traffic travelling southbound on the A508, with these restrictions only lifted when the A508 is required to function as a diversion route.  Given that currently A508 closures send traffic through villages including Cosgrove, Castlethorpe, and Hanslope, what is the routing strategy for this development?
  10. Your proposals identify a right turn junction to the A508. Why are you not adhering to a roundabout as stipulated in policy AL5? Why have you ignored WNC's request for a Road Safety Audit?
  11. Why is your traffic assessment based upon a traffic survey taken during one week in March when road closures and the seasonal closure of Cosgrove Park meant the traffic flows were atypical?
  12. Whilst the Transport Assessment that supports the application suggests that the site is within 300m walking distance of an existing bus stop on Stratford Road, it has been established that the majority of the site is not within 300m of the identified bus stop, and in fact the local bus service terminated at the end of June 2023. As such, no account has been made for an increase in car trips due to the fact that there is no opportunity to access the site via public transport. Policy AL5 states that the proposed development should ensure “good accessibility to public transport services”, which it clearly does not. What discussions have been undertaken with the public transport provider to ensure a policy compliant provision to public transport?
  13. Pedestrian and cycle links to the site are limited with a single pedestrian link towards the north and a shared pedestrian/cycle link towards the south via the Country Park. As limited details have been provided to demonstrate compliance with LTN 1/20 – Cycle Infrastructure Design, how will it be demonstrated that the predicted number of pedestrians and cyclists will in fact access the site by these sustainable modes and not travel by private car?
  14. Due to the fact that there is no access to public transport and limited connections for pedestrians and cyclists, it is expected that a considerably higher number of car trips could be expected to be associated with the proposed development. As a higher number of car trips are expected, has a suitable sensitivity test been undertaken with regards to the traffic impact analysis on the wider network?
  15. The application includes a number of site access options, including a traffic signal arrangement and T-junction with ghost island right turn arrangement. The traffic signal junction is proposed to be the preferred site access arrangement. As the “2031 Do Minimum + Proposed Development” scenario identifies that this junction would operate very close to practical capacity, particularly in the PM peak hour, has consideration been given to the fact that the proposed development identifies a lack of any connection to public transport, and limited connections for pedestrians and cyclists, all of which are expected to lead to considerably higher numbers of private vehicle trips?
  16. Whilst the Transport Assessment Addendum suggest that the parking provision for the proposed development will be in accordance with the Northamptonshire Parking Standards (September 2016), a review of the actual parking provision identifies a shortfall of as much as 25%. This would be further exacerbated by the fact that that there is no access to public transport and limited connections to the site for pedestrians and cyclists. As such, parking provision should be provided in excess of the parking requirements. Why has no justification been made to identify why a shortfall in parking provision is proposed?
  17. Why have you revised plans for the country park to include a wetlands area where normally there is a brook? Is it because your initial analysis was incorrect about the amount of water running off the site in times of heavy rain and high ground water? If not, why was it changed?
  18. Peter Frampton has said the development will be “a mix of B1, B2, B8 - these are small industry, offices and warehouses.” The Local Plan Pt 2 requires A variety of employment types. But this proposal is for 9 warehouses only. Why are you ignoring the Local Plan and why is Peter Frampton making false claims?
  19. iven that this site will employ mainly low paid, manual workers, the vast majority of whom you acknowledge will come from Milton Keynes, how is this beneficial for the residents of the West Northants villages of Cosgrove and Old Stratford who will be most impacted by the development?
  20. Your traffic assessment is flawed. Your flooding assessment is inadequate. Your environmental claims are wrong. Your 900 jobs was exaggerated by nearly 40%, your light pollution analysis refers to a different area. You are blithely ignoring and overriding WNC requirements for this site that were put in place to protect tiny rural settlements from developments like this. Are your consultants incompetent, or did you think you didn't need to bother? Why should anyone believe anything you say?


On behalf of the Furtho Development Objection Group (FDOG).

Letter to Rachel Jordan, Assistant Inspector of Ancient Monuments, Historic England


27th July 2023


Your ref: P01543637


Dear Ms Jordan,


I have read your responses to the planning application with West Northamptonshire Council regarding the erection of 9 warehouses at Furtho Pits, Old Cosgrove Road Application No. WNS/2022/1741/EIA.


I am surprised that none of your letters mention two scheduled monuments and one listed building that will be impacted by this development.


  1. The Iron Trunk Aqueduct carries the Grand Union Canal across the river Great Ouse. The aqueduct is a scheduled monument, list number 1006934, and it just 1.5 km from the development. The aqueduct is so high above the river valley and the warehouses so large (plus being floodlit all night) that surely this impact must be assessed?
  2. The Roman Villa at Cosgrove (list number 1003874). This is about 1km from the site and although it was reburied after excavation in the late 1960s, the archaeological report at the time was very clear that there is likely to be other buildings as well as the villa, bath house, and temple found at the time. Again, I am very surprised that this has not been considered, especially given the high risk of flooding – acknowledged by the developer – if these warehouses are built on the floodplain.
  3. The Old Mill at Wolverton (list number 1310497). This is grade II listed and has a direct eyeline to the proposed warehouses, 900m away. Again, the developer has not assessed this in their application.


Chapter 9 of the developer’s environmental assessment mentions some archaeology within the site boundary, but although the Roman Villa is noted on diagram 9.1, it is not referred to at all in the analysis. The Iron Trunk and Wolverton Mill are not acknowledged at all. The Heritage Statement submitted (appendix 10.1) by the developer only mentions Wolverton Mill out of the three but overestimates the distance and says that the “lack of intervisibility” excludes it from their assessment. This lack of intervisibility claim is false.


In your letters to WNC, you advised them to consult other bodies but bafflingly, neither of the council’s Heritage Team nor their Archaeology Team include these three sites in their responses. This is concerning to me as all three are very significant to people who live in this area and are integral parts of the character of the place. I ask Historic England to make sure they are not overlooked.


Yours sincerely,


[Name] On Behalf of the Furtho Development Objection Group



Share by: