Buccleuch Properties' plan for the development of the land adjacent to Bright Trees Road and Chase View Road has generated much debate and comment since it was put forward last summer. As you probably know, an application for outline planning permission has now been submitted and a decision on this application will probably be made by a planning committee of Kettering Borough Council on 19th February. You can attend this meeting yourself; members of the public each have have the right to speak for three minutes.

This page will attempt to keep you informed of what's going on and give you a forum to express your views of the proposed development.

Planning Application Refused
26th February 2008: This is the full text of the Borough Council's response to the application, which it appears was made by council officers using 'delegated powers', rather than by the planning sub-committee:

Town and Country Planning Acts  

The Local Planning Authority has now determined this application.

The application has been Refused.

Where the application was refused, the reasons for refusal are set out below:-

1. RSS Policies 2, 5, and MKSM Northamptonshire Policy 1 set out the sequential approach to identifying residential sites for development and emphasise the priority towards focusing development at the growth towns of Kettering, Corby and Wellingborough, with limited residential development in rural villages to provide for their development needs generally, particularly where this involves the use of previously developed land and where sites are or will be well served by public transport. RSS Policy 13 requires that the quality of villages should not be degraded by inappropriate growth.

This site is not previously developed land and it is considered that the site is not, nor will be, well served by public transport. The proposed development would result in a substantial increase (8%) in the size of the village, which is considered an inappropriate level of growth given the policy aims and objectives. The site was allocated for residential development in the older Local Plan but it is considered that significantly greater weight needs to be given to the more recent RSS policies and national policy guidance. As such the proposed development is considered to be contrary to the aims and objectives of RSS Policies 2, 5 and 13; MKSM Northamptonshire Policy 1; PPS1: 'Creating Sustainable Communities'; PPS3: 'Housing' and PPG13: 'Transport'.

2. RSS Policy 6 states that new development should strengthen rural enterprise and linkages between settlements and their hinterlands. It stresses that Plans should identify settlements, or groups of settlements, which are accessible to the rural population for local needs housing including affordable housing and the provision and retention of most other services. This approach is reflected in the emerging CSS Policy 11 where modest growth is proposed at the smaller towns and "local service centres", with limited development in the villages. The evidence base supporting CSS Policy 11 by defining settlements, established that Geddington is not a "local service centre". It is considered that there is very limited existing provision of local services in Geddington and that the proposed development fails to demonstrate how it would support or retain such services, or strengthen rural enterprise, and as such is contrary to the aims and objectives of RSS Policy 6; PPS1: 'Creating Sustainable Communities' and PPS3: 'Housing'.

3. The proposed priority junction would lead to congestion on the A43 caused by vehicles turning right into the site from Kettering and thereby would create adverse impacts on highway safety and efficiency that do not currently occur. It is also considered that the proposed access arrangements do not demonstrate they are a suitable solution for the scale and detail of the proposed development or its effect on the wider highway network. As such the proposed development is contrary to the aims and objectives of RSS Policy 2; Policies T9 and T10 of the Northamptonshire County Council Structure Plan; and PPG13: 'Transport'.

4. The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) submitted with the application does not address the issue of surface water drainage from the site and in particular in the southwest corner of the proposed site and surrounding development, should there be an excess rainfall. As such the proposed development is not fully compliant with PPS25: Development and Flood Risk.

Parish Council Response to the Application:
Here is the text of the Parish Council's official response to the planning application:

14th January 2008

GEDDINGTON NEWTON AND LITTLE OAKLEY PARISH COUNCIL

Planning Application KET/2007/1077 by Buccleugh Estates for 52 Dwellings off Stamford Road

The Parish Council objects to this application on the following grounds :-
1. The village has no need for this scale of development. It is much too large. It will increase the village population by about 10% which will put pressure on the existing facilities in the village. The housing need for the village is for a limited number of affordable houses for which the Parish Council has other sites under consideration.

2. The residents of the development will be car dependent as are the majority of current residents. There will be an additional 100+ cars with insufficient parking provision and the avoidance of car dependency is national, regional and local policy.

3. The proposed vehicular access to Bright Trees Road and Chase View will produce wholly unacceptable traffic flows. Residents in the North of the village will use these as routes to the A43 via Wood Street which is already congested. At most times of day Wood Street is a single track multi- chicane due to parking on both sides. There is also the added danger of satellite navigation misdirection of lorry traffic which already occurs at other access points to the village centre.

4. There are real concerns about the control of surface water run off. There is little or no flood risk to the site itself but since it is sited above an aquifer there will be minimal soak away. Major downpours which are predicted to become more frequent will overwhelm the proposed retention pond and run down Stamford Road into the river. All of this will eventually reach the River Ise upstream of the bridge and may render ineffective the flood relief system which has brought relief to residents living close to the river.

5. There is serious concern about the capacity and condition of the sewerage system from this site and indeed any other to the North of the village. Sewage from this area is pumped from the river valley to the sewage farm situated towards Kettering. In times of spate, for reasons which are unclear, does not cope and raw sewage spills into the river. Given the added load on this system that would result from this development we would expect these occurrences to be more frequent and more serious.

6. Should the design be changed and access be solely from Stamford Road the development would be isolated from the rest of the village and be extremely difficult to integrate. There are also road safety concerns about this access unless a roundabout is provided.

Support for this view comes from the response of the public following the presentation of the plans for the development by the Parish Council. There were 32 written responses from all quarters of the village, all of which opposed the development and raised some 72 specific points of objection.

Of these 69% expressed major concern at vehicular access to Bright Trees Road and Chase View.
41% thought the scale of the development was too large.
28% expressed concern about surface water drainage.
19% raised general concerns about traffic impact.
19% showed concern at the safety of access from the A43.
16% raised design concerns.

The planning situation with regard to this development is quite complex. At this moment we have the Local Plan for Kettering Borough which was adopted in 1995. Since then the planning system has undergone several changes the biggest of which is that the Borough has become part of the nationally designated Growth Area of Milton Keynes and the South Midlands (MKSM). This has resulted in the division of the County into two with Geddington being part of the North Northamptonshire area. A Joint Planning Unit and its elected committee have been formed and given the initial task of preparing a Core Spatial Strategy for the whole area which encompasses the four local authorities of Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough and East Northants. A purpose of the Core Strategy is to establish the distribution of the required housing and this they have done after extensive public consultation. The strategy document is now complete and under public examination for its soundness in regard to nationally determined criteria. It is expected to be adopted early in this year.

By whichever measure, the 1995 Local Plan or the Core Spacial Strategy the dwelling numbers required in the Kettering Borough rural area have already been met. There is no need for this proposed development to meet any obligation by the local authority. Development has taken place in Geddington between 2001-2007 and there have been 29 completions. Five are under construction. There have been nine applications which have outline planning consent and two outline planning consents. Therefore there has been development in Geddington over the past six years which has satisfied most of the need for housing in the village.

The most important national planning document with regard to this application is Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3) Para.14: Local Planning Authorities should develop a shared vision with their local communities of the residential environments they wish to see……aimed at “ Creating places, streets and spaces which meet the needs of the people…….. and maintain and improve local character. We consider that the blatantly urban character of the proposed development does not accord with this requirement.

Para 16: Matters to consider when assessing design quality include the extent to which the proposed development: “Is well integrated with, and complements, the neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally in terms of scale, density, layout and access.” We believe this proposed development fails in this. “Takes a design –led approach to the provision of car-parking space, that is well-integrated with a high quality public realm and streets that are pedestrian, cycle and vehicle friendly” We consider that this proposal fails in this due to the provision only of the urban standard of 1.5 vehicle spaces per residence when we know that there will be a much higher car ownership.

Para 38: Refers to the necessity to take into account the spatial vision for the local area which is set out in the relevant Regional Spatial Strategy. In our case this is the MKSM Sub-Regional plan which has led to the production of the Core Spatial strategy for North Northants. that is so near to adoption. This paragraph also refers to the need to cut carbon emissions by locating developments in places with good public transport accessibility and/or by means other than the private car. This development clearly fails to meet this requirement.

The other document which the planning department consider carries much weight is the report of the inspector after the Bryant Homes appeal against rejection of their plan for this site. Significant comments are:- “Furthermore, it is in my opinion that taking account of the significant scale of the proposal and the peripheral location of the site, it is likely that the assimilation of the development and its residents into the community of Geddington would take a considerable period of time.” Also “ the development is unlikely to improve accessibility by public transport to Kettering and Corby………………..I consider future occupiers of the development would be heavily reliant on the use of private cars.” Nothing is different with this proposed development.

Taken together we consider that the information we have shows a strong case for rejection of this planning application.

Borough Councillor, Jonathan Bullock
Jonathan was asked for his comments on the proposals shortly after they were announced last summer. He replied:
"My views were well presented in my successful Election campaign. I am opposed to over-expansion of the villages in Northamptonshire and it is vital that Kettering doesn't become a linear city with Corby and Wellingborough. Each proposal needs to be judged on its merit but clearly there are infrastructure issues for larger developments. I think a word of warning here. I or the Council leadership do not have the power to decide these things. Planning is a quasi judicial function and the planning committee is independent and is guided by the Development Plans which are obliged to meet Government requirements to build thousands of houses in the borough in the future.The committee is not an arm of the Council leadership so the ruling group has no power over it. I also feel as a representatative of the local people I want to listen to their concerns on individual applications and make up my mind accordingly. This is why I attended the recent exhibition."

More recently, Jonathan has said: "One of the roles of a borough Councillor is as a representative of the community. Therefore I do like to hear feedback from local people particularly on planning issues before making my mind up- and this is certainly how I would approach the Boughton Estate application. Notwithstanding that I am sceptical generally about additonal housing and would need to be convinced it is in the interest of the community. However I will certainly listen to people about this and the parish boundary issue.... when the application goes to planning committee I will be happy to make my views known."

County Councillor, Jim Harker
Jim was similarly asked for his comments and sent us this statement:
"Whilst clearly this issue is a Kettering Borough Council Development Control one, the County Council will have some highways observations to make when consulted. These can only be of a technical nature but I look foward to becoming involved once consultation commences. Clearly, there are traffic issues both with the A43 and with the village roads which need to be taken account of by the Borough Council Planning Committee in due course."

Parish Councillor, John Padwick:
John Padwick recently submitted this piece to the website:
"Buccleuch Property's application for outline planning permission for 46 houses and 6 apartments on the land between Stamford Road, Bright Trees and Chase View Road is likely to be decided by Kettering Borough Council on Tuesday 29 January at a Planning Committee. Members of the public can attend and speak for 3 minutes by arrangement.

This is a very significant development for Geddington, and could increase the population of the village by over 10%. At this stage, it is the principle of a development of this scale on this site and access to it that are the main issues rather than the details of the design. The Parish Council will put forward its view following consideration of residents' comments, the relevant planning policies and the Appeal decision when the last application - for over 70 properties - was refused. We will also be advised on Policy by Kettering Borough Council.

A sub-committee to tackle the application has been formed and is meeting regularly on Thursday evenings over the Christmas and New Year period ready to come up with a proposal for the Parish Council meeting on 14 January. Meetings of the sub-committee and the Parish Council are open to the public and start at 7.30pm in the Village Hall. The full details of the planning application have been lodged at the Post Office and brief details will be in the village pubs."

Bright Trees Road Resident, Maurice Chittock:
Maurice has been producing a news letter and distributing it to residents near the proposed development site. You can see the latest of these by clicking here - you will need the Adobe Reader to view this document. If you don't have it, you can download it here.