Mega warehouse approval denounced as blow to local community
Just weeks after turning down a similar scheme North Northamptonshire Council has approved a large warehouse park
By Nadia Lincoln, local democracy reporter
A decision to approve a huge warehouse park in Northants countryside has been blasted as a ‘blow to the local community’.
Applicant IM Properties now has permission to build the large employment zone to the north of the Haldens Parkway industrial estate, Thrapston. Criticism of the plans before the meeting was rife, with Corby and East Northants MP Lee Barron encouraging councillors to listen to the 800 plus residents who objected to the project and turn it down.
The first unit will be occupied by global freight forwarder DSV and four further plots of different sizes will consist of general industrial units, warehouses, space for small local businesses and supporting offices. According to the developer, the business park is set to deliver more than 2,000 jobs and bring in business rates income of around £5m per year.
North Northamptonshire Council (NNC) planning committee met on Wednesday (July 9) to assess the proposals. An officer’s report published ahead of the meeting recommended that councillors approve the plans.
‘We will be engulfed’
Appealing to the committee to throw out the development proposals, Titchmarsh parish councillor Sylvia Prestwich said that the village would be “ruined by a monstrous warehouse development” if approved.
She added:
“This development will be many times bigger than Titchmarsh itself, it will be overpowering and dominating, and we will be engulfed.”
Local resident Julia Fletcher told members they were “the legal protectors of the jewel of the Northants crown” and its rich environment. She also touched on the impact on Thrapston residents just across the A605, saying they would feel trapped behind a 4m tall acoustic “prison barrier” by the Lazy Acre estate.
NNC ward member Cllr Joseph Garner made the point that the location of the warehousing scheme did not fit with NNC’s local plan, which encourages large industrial sites to be built near expanding urban areas.
He said:
“Every year the council spends a considerable amount of time, money and effort in maintaining and updating the local plan. Yet, when the time comes to actually use and implement the local plan it is simply shredded and ignored.
“The local plan is quite clear: developments of this scale are to be sited in towns designated as growth towns. Thrapston is not.”
‘Thrapston is absolutely the right location’
David Smith, director of planning and communities at IM Properties, told the planning members that they had worked hard to strike a balance between the employment zone and mitigating its impact on the environment.
He added:
“This development would represent over £100m of investment at a time when Northamptonshire, let alone country, need to find ways to kickstarting growth. Thrapston business park is one such catalyst of growth.
“Logistics is an important part of our proposals which responds to an overwhelming market need in 2025 which was not envisaged in a local plan adopted in 2016.
“Thrapston is absolutely the right location for occupiers who want close proximity to a route of national and international importance.”
Moving to discussion, Cllr William Colquhoun (Lab, Corby West), said he had a “strong feeling of deja vu”, referencing plans for another 60 hectare warehouse scheme to the east of Haldens Parkway which they rejected in June. He said that voting for the development would be to ignore the local plan and be “disrespectful” to officers and residents.
The committee ultimately voted to approve the plans, with eight voting for and just two voting against. Heckles of “shame on you”, “how dare you” and “my life will be ruined” exploded from campaigners in the gallery as the decision was made.
‘Local communities will be severely damaged’
Chair of Staunch, Kevin Shapland, described the development as “inappropriate, disproportionate and unsustainable”. Speaking to the LDRS after the meeting, he said the approval decision had “just driven an absolute bulldozer through all of the planning in North Northants”.
Councillor David Brackenbury, who removed himself from voting on the plans at the committee so he could speak against them, said the plans were “nodded through” despite the vocal opposition from the community.
He added:
“Reform councillors on the Planning Committee voted to approve the application, making a mockery of their election pledges to oppose over-development.
“All the representations were completely ignored by the committee and were barely mentioned in the brief debate. The impression was made that the decision had been made in advance of the meeting.
“I have been a councillor since 2007 and have never seen a committee completely ignoring the policy context, the facts before them and the representations made by the local communities that will be severely damaged by this development.”
Thrapston Town Council, who was not able to speak at the committee meeting, has also called the committee’s decision “a blow to the local community, to the environment, and to the integrity of the Upper Nene Valley landscape”.
Growth at any cost? Excessive growth like this, is a cancer. It will destroy, and enhance nothing. Ne need to shout about 'Jobs!' either, as I expect a lot of this will be automated. Do better, NNC
Under Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972, planning decisions must be discharged by a planning committee, sub-committee, or delegated officer—not by the executive. This framework is reinforced by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, ensuring that planning decisions are made within a statutory and lawful context.
Councillors are legally obligated to determine planning applications based solely on material planning considerations. These include the adopted local development plan, national planning policy (NPPF), and relevant factors such as traffic access, environmental impact, design and appearance, noise, privacy, amenity, flood risk, heritage, and infrastructure. Each of these considerations carries varying weight and must be carefully balanced in evaluating any proposal.
Decisions made outside this framework risk being deemed invalid and can carry significant consequences. Applicants retain the right to appeal, and if a refusal is found to be unreasonable, the local authority—such as North Northamptonshire Council (NNC)—may be held liable for costs. Furthermore, unjustified refusals can damage the council's reputation and lead to delays in development.
A recent Class B8 development was refused, and if memory serves correctly, the applicant is now pursuing an appeal on grounds of non-determination. Based on available information, it is highly likely that this appeal will succeed.
Cllr David Brackenbury being a very experienced Cllr and indeed previously an executive member of NNC would surely be aware of this outcome, raising questions as to why the then Conservative-controlled council failed to determine the application for nearly three years. Given Cllr Brackenbury's experience, and that of his colleagues, it would appear they recognised from a legal standpoint that they had no viable means to prevent these developments. The suggestion that the developments could be stopped appears to be misleading and may be politically motivated, particularly with an election in the not-too-distant future.