Issue - meetings

24/1963/FUL: Construction of warehouse units (Use Classes E(g)(iii), B2 and B8) including access and servicing arrangements, car parking, landscaping and associated works at Maple Cross House, Denham Way and Kier Offices off Maple Lodge Close, Maple

Meeting: 17/07/2025 - Planning Committee (Item 13)

13 24/1963/FUL: Construction of warehouse units (Use Classes E(g)(iii), B2 and B8) including access and servicing arrangements, car parking, landscaping and associated works at Maple Cross House, Denham Way and Kier Offices off Maple Lodge Close, Maple Cross, WD3 9SW pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Construction of warehouse units (Use Classes E(g)(iii), B2 and B8) including access and servicing arrangements, car parking, landscaping and associated works at Maple Cross House, Denham Way and Kier Offices off Maple Lodge Close, Maple Cross.

 

Recommendation: that following the completion of a S106 agreement to secure financial contributions toward biodiversity monitoring, travel plan monitoring and sustainable transport improvements, planning permission be granted subject to conditions.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The application was for construction of warehouse units (Use Classes E(g)(iii), B2 and B8) including access and servicing arrangements, car parking, landscaping and associated works at Maple Cross House, Denham Way and Kier Offices off Maple Lodge Close, Maple Cross.

 

The application had been deferred at the meeting held on 19 June 2025, in order for officers to seek further information in relation to noise impacts, noise mitigations, building orientation and on-site car parking management.  These were addressed in the updated report.

 

The Planning Officer provided updates as follows:

 

·        Further information had been received from the applicant in relation to the acoustic fence, confirming that it would have a maximum height of 5.3m.  The applicant had provided a note from their acoustic consultant setting out that the reduction in height would have a negligible impact on noise levels compared with those which had been presented with the assumption of a 6m high acoustic barrier.  The information had been reviewed by the Environmental Health Officer who maintained their view that, with the proposed mitigations secured by condition, the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact.

 

·        As a result of the new information provided by the applicant in relation to the acoustic fence, a number of amendments were required to several conditions.  New drawings had been provided confirming the reduced height of the acoustic fence: Conditions 2, 21 and 26 would therefore require updating to ensure they related to the latest versions.  Similarly Condition 13 would require updating to reference the latest version of the landscaping drawing.  Condition 29 would need to be updated to remove the reference to a 6m fence.  The title of Condition 36 required updating to reflect that it applied to all of the units (not just 5 & 6) and the definition of an HGV vehicle would be added within the condition.  Condition 37 required updating to reflect the revision of the lighting drawing as a result of the reduction in height of the acoustic barrier.

 

Councillor Raj Khiroya spoke on the application.

 

County Councillor Paula Hiscocks spoke on the application.

 

Committee Members asked questions about the detail of the application which were responded to by officers.  The Committee’s discussions included the following:

 

·         Committee Members remained concerned about the impact of noise on nearby residents and considered that in addition to further restrictions on delivery and collection hours, there should be no collection or deliveries at all on Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Years Day, Good Friday, Easter Sunday or Easter Monday.

 

·         A Committee Member questioned whether the Construction Management Plan could include a requirement for the construction to have no impact on road congestion.  Officers responded that as there was already an access to the site and so construction vehicles would not be blocking the road, and as the vehicle numbers would not be sufficient as to have a severe impact on the highway, the officer view was that such a condition could not be considered reasonable.  Should the construction require any work on the highway, then  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13