Agenda item

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.

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 Planning Officer reported that since the agenda had been published, an updated Landscape Masterplan drawing and site plan had been received.  These provided further detail on the tree planting (which was also contained on another drawing).  Reference to plan/drawing numbers in conditions 2 and 21 therefore required updating to reflect the revision.  Condition 39 also required updating to reference a later revision of the landscape maintenance strategy document, which had been updated to provide clarity on the provision of replacement planting should any of the existing boundary trees fail.  The Planning Officer also reported that officers would like to add an informative note to any approval to remind the applicant of the acceptable hours for noisy construction works in Three Rivers i.e. 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday, 9am to 1pm on Saturday: this was a standard informative for most planning permissions.  Finally, the Planning Officer also reported that the applicant had provided further clarification on noise levels around the site and the predicted operational noise, and on this basis had requested that the hours for deliveries and collections at units 5 and 6 be amended to allow a 6am start on Monday to Friday.  This request had been reviewed by the Environmental Health Officer (EHO), who had not been able to agree the 6am start time.  However, the EHO had commented that based on the information provided, they considered that condition 36 could be amended to allow collections and deliveries from 7am on Saturdays and from 8am to 11pm on Sundays.  If Members considered this acceptable, condition 36 could be updated on this basis.

The Planning Committee noted that the application was a major development which proposed the redevelopment of the entire site to provide 6 warehouse units within 2 buildings (one containing 4 units (units 1-4), and the other 2 units (units 5 and 6)).   The Planning Officer clarified that condition 36 which restricted the hours of use, applied only to units 5 and 6.  This was due to concerns about the potential noise and disturbance to neighbouring residents from loading and unloading of vehicles to those units.  Restriction on the hours for collections and deliveries were not proposed for the other units as the buildings themselves were considered to provide noise mitigation due to their location between the residential dwellings at Franklins and the loading bays and the attenuation provided by the construction quality, which would be to BREEAM standards.  Access to the site would be solely from Denham Way; the access from Maple Lodge Close would be conditioned to only be used in connection with maintenance of the grounds.  A 6m high timber acoustic barrier was proposed along the bottom boundary of the site to mitigate noise from units 5 and 6; this would be softened by planting on the residents’ side.

A local resident spoke against the application.

The agent spoke in favour of the application.

County Councillor Paula Hiscocks spoke on the application.

District Councillor Louise Price 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 expressed significant concern about the potential for noise disturbance to nearby residents, particularly arising from the 24-hour proposed operational hours for units 1-4, and the siting of units 5 and 6.  Officers clarified that there was no legal maximum noise limit: any noise nuisance reported would require investigation by Environmental Health under the Control of Pollution Act.  An operational noise management plan had been conditioned in order to secure other details of how the site would operate (such as refuse collection arrangements).  This would enable refuse collections to be limited to specific hours in order to minimise the disturbance to nearby residents.  In relation to the 24-hour operation of units 1-4, the planning officer reported that the Environmental Health Officer had reviewed the noise impact assessment and was satisfied that operations could take place 24/7 without causing significant adverse impacts: Committee Members would therefore need to be satisfied that any condition restricting the operation hours for units 1 – 4 was reasonable and evidence based and could be justified if appealed.   It was noted that there were a number of other potential sources of noise, such as shutters and reversing vehicle alarms, which could cause nuisance to nearby residents: officers advised that these were mostly covered by the operational noise management plan: aside from refuse collection which was site-wide, the matters captured by the operational noise management plan related solely to units 5 and 6.

·         The application was for Use Classes E(g)(iii), B2 and B8; however, as the application was speculative the precise use of the units, and whether or not the nature of their businesses would require 24/7 operation, was not yet known.  Several Committee Members expressed concern about the potential impact on neighbouring residences arising from 24/7 operations at units 1-4, and also the operating hours proposed for units 5 and 6.  It was noted that the applicant would be entitled to appeal any condition, and there was potential for costs to be awarded against the Council if an appealed condition was found to be unreasonable.

·         A Committee Member noted that the report set out that the parking provision was at the lower end of compliance with the parking standard and commented that those working at the site were probably more likely to travel to the site by private rather than public transport, particularly if they were working unsocial hours.  It was recommended that officers should seek further information from the applicant as to what would happen in the event of parking pressures at the site, and how parking arrangements would be managed.  Officers commented that to some extent the parking was expected to be self-managing, as employees would not wish to restrict their employer’s business by parking in such a way as to affect operations.  If overspill parking took place this would not in itself be considered harmful; refusal on the grounds of parking provision would require it to be demonstrated that there would be an adverse impact on highway safety arising from overspill parking.  A car parking management plan could be conditioned if considered appropriate by Members.  A travel plan was already conditioned, with a financial contribution to be secured to improve the cycle route between Denham Station and Rickmansworth Station, so that there were other ways to reach the site aside from by car and bus.

·         Several Committee Members suggested that a change to the orientation of units 5 and 6 may help further mitigate the potential noise issues which were causing concern.

Councillor Whately-Smith proposed, and Councillor Mitchell seconded, deferral of the application to seek further information in respect of noise impacts, noise mitigations, building orientation, and on-site car parking management.  On being put to the vote this was agreed unanimously.

RESOLVED: that the application be deferred in order for officers to seek further information in respect of noise impacts, noise mitigations, building orientation, and on-site car parking management.