Take action! 

Raise a subsequent objection by email

Comments after the consultation period has ended should be directed to planning@rbwm.gov.uk, with the subject line: "Objection to 22/03270/OUT"

​

Some of the key points that you can mention are as follows: 

We strongly oppose the proposed redevelopment of the Maidenhead Office Park (proposal 22/03270) on the following grounds:

An unacceptable increase in HGV traffic

• The applicant's figures show that daily HGV movements will increase from 53 to 803- an incredible 15-fold increase. This increase equates to at least one lorry every two minutes, travelling along Westacott Way, which is the boundary of Woolley Hall and Fiennes Park and sole access point. Given that HGVs will take up to 2 minutes to travel along our sole access road, allowing for stopping at the roundabout, virtually continuous HGV traffic will detrimentally affect our homes and lives day and night in the following ways:

• The net daily increase in HGV traffic of 750 movements will increase carbon dioxide emissions along Westacott Way by 217 tonnes if the proposed distribution hub runs five days per week or 330 tonnes if it runs seven days per week. Other emissions, such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides, will also significantly increase, resulting in adverse health outcomes for residents, in particular, the young children at Fiennes Park and Woolley Hall who regularly use two playgrounds that are less than 50 metres from the Westacott Way and Bath Road/A4. The plans are in conflict with the Borough’s Environment and Climate Strategy to deliver net zero carbon emissions by 2050 due to the proposed traffic volumes, and will discourage walking and cycling.

• The HGVs would generate significant noise pollution and vibrations particularly while accelerating and braking as they navigate Westacott Way and the roundabout with the A4. The increased HGV traffic noise and vibrations will adversely impact several properties within Fiennes Park and Woolley Hall, particularly those that are not even 100 metres from Westacott Way and Bath Road/A4.

• The HGVs will have to queue to access the A4 at the Westacott Way roundabout and will back up along Westacott Way, increasing the amount of time it will take residents to access and depart their homes. This will impact our day to day life, including commuting to work, taking children to school, going to the shops, social activities etc. The HGV traffic is only a proportion of the overall traffic forecast, with total vehicle movements amounting to nearer 3,000 per day (paragraph 5.3.3 of AECOM Transport Assessment).

• The volume of traffic, both moving and stationary, poses a real and significant danger to pedestrians (adults and children), cyclists and other road users along Westacott Way and those attempting to cross it at the Public Right of Way halfway down the road. In addition to the traffic impact along Westacott Way, the traffic volume will also significantly impact congestion along the A4 and the A404.

• The rich wildlife and biodiversity of Westacott Way (well documented and including badgers and deer) will be severely impacted and the proposal would likely destroy this wildlife. The impact of the HGVs along Westacott Way has been ignored by the applicant's Transport Assessment and, rather alarmingly, by the Officer's Report. The Transport Assessment concerns itself with road capacity and ignores the environmental impact. The Officer's Report refers to residential properties being too far away from the site (at 420m – 900m) to be affected, but this completely ignores the proximity of properties to Westacott Way and the A4 which will be massively affected with some being less than 100m from the road.

Overdevelopment within the Green Belt

• Regarding the Planning Policy, this site is located in the Green Belt, where the fundamental principle is that increased development should not be allowed. Although the site is allocated in the Local Plan as an Established Employment Site, intensification can only be justified in exceptional circumstances. The amount of proposed intensification is massive. The proposed floor space is 103% greater than the existing buildings and, more significantly, the volume is 300% greater than existing.

• The Officer's Report acknowledges that the proposal is contrary to the Green Belt Policy but identifies social and economic benefits as overriding factors. We strongly disagree with this conclusion, particularly as the Council has recently allocated a very large site for this type of development at the Braywick Triangle (South West Maidenhead Development Framework Supplementary Planning Document – Dec 2022), which has far better access to the motorway network without blighting nearby residential properties. The Officer's Report appears to be fixated on the redevelopment of the business park into distribution hub but does not consider other development options for the site.

Social and Economic Benefits

• The Officer's Report states that the logistics hub will create 891 jobs following the redevelopment of the business park. The majority of these jobs will be low-skilled and will likely be replaced in the next few years by robots and automation. This is already occurring, for example by Amazon and Ocado, demonstrating the promised jobs is based on an outdated business model. We believe Maidenhead would benefit from the business park being marketed to business at a more realistic, lower, annual rent, which would attract new tenants and high-quality jobs.

• A further point to note is that there are over 17,000 open job vacancies within 15 miles of Maidenhead town centre (https://uk.indeed.com accessed on 17th September) The most recent employment data for Windsor and Maidenhead (NOMIS April 22 to March 23) suggests an unemployment rate of 3% vs the national average of 4.3%.

Procedural Issues with the Consultation

• The Officer's Report contains several inaccuracies and, more worryingly, the consultation process was flawed and inadequate as it did not invite residents most impacted by the proposed development. The key issues being:

  • The only residents on the Neighbour Notification List were eight properties located along Cherry Garden Lane, who are not impacted by the increase in HGV traffic. The residents of Fiennes Park and Woolley Hall, who will suffer the greatest detrimental impact to their quality of life and health, were excluded.

  • A number of the 17 submissions purporting to support the proposal are incomplete, none are from local residents or businesses, all submitted on 17th and 18th August and should be disregarded given the veracity of these are in question.

  • The Cratus ‘Statement of Community Involvement’ Nov 22 (and possibly other documents), have been significantly redacted making it impossible for local residents to understand its conclusions and recommendations.

In summary, we ask that you REFUSE planning applicahon 22/03270.