Comments on Application 26/01344/FULL | Full planning application to demolish and re-develop the site to provide new warehouse buildings of flexible B2/B8 Use floorspace and associated office space, infrastructure, parking, yard and landscaping | Glaxo SmithKline Norreys Drive Maidenhead SL6 4BL

The developer has canvassed local opinion, and their primary concerns appear to be noisy operations in unsociable hours, spillage of light from external lighting, employment opportunities, and parking outside the site boundary. However, as the document from Cascade Communications has been comprehensively redacted, this can only be an assumption.

Operations outside normal working hours should be restricted to those deemed acceptable when the site was in use as a personal and oral care factory. Any use of a facility by another party should be on the condition that sufficient parking for employees is to be provided within the site boundary.

The total number of office employees across the three warehouses can be estimated from the office size and car parking spaces, and appears to be in the range of 160-180 employees. Other workers would be forklift drivers, packers, and dispatchers. Former employer Haleon employed 435 people. The toilet provision is confusing. Equal accommodation is provided at first- and second-floor levels, and either this is mixed-use (is this acceptable?) or male on one level and female on another, although no urinals are shown. Firethorn has claimed that the site could create up to 530 new jobs. If this is the case, the parking and toilet facilities appear to be totally inadequate.

40 – 60 jobs would be needed for the demolition and construction phases, but there is no evidence that any of these workers would be local. There is currently a great shortage of construction workers, and this development will be competing for those used in the many new housing and office developments in Maidenhead. Firethorn has stated that it would support training and skills development, and it is hoped that RBWM is satisfied with these proposals.

The three warehouses are likely to generate considerable traffic, mainly articulated trucks. The roundabouts at the intersection of Shoppenhangers Road/Norreys Drive and the A404(M) access are not easy for articulated HGVs to navigate and require them to weave across lanes. In fact, it would appear that these roundabouts (two of them are not defined as mini roundabouts or compact roundabouts in design codes) may not be compliant with design code CD116, which was written when the maximum length of an articulated HGV was 15.5m. Since then, the standard articulated vehicle length has become 16.5m and is allowed up to 18.55m, whilst drawbar combinations can be 18.75m long. The width of the roundabout central island is approximately 6m or a little less, and the design code stipulates that an Inscribed Circle Diameter (ICD) of at least 28.8m is required, but the two roundabouts only have an ICD of about 26m each. Because of increased vehicle lengths, the CD116 directive is now inadequate, and a proper swept path analysis needs to be undertaken. The width of the entry lanes to the roundabout should be not less than 3m, but ideally 3.5m if accommodating many HGVs. Some entry lanes are not wide enough. The design of these roundabouts needs to be reassessed, and if necessary, traffic signals may need to be installed, and road-widening measures undertaken.

Active Travel England, a Government agency (https://www.activetravelengland.gov.uk/) states: Conventional roundabouts aren't suitable for residential areas due to their negative impact on vulnerable road users and their poor contribution to placemaking. Roundabouts with no additional cycle facilities are unsuitable for most people wishing to cycle and can pose a high risk even for experienced cyclists. Roundabouts are associated with a significant portion of cyclist casualties. Roundabouts with higher traffic flows and speeds should have protected space for cycling, both around the junction and on all approaches and exits, so that cyclists do not need to cycle in mixed traffic. The design of the protected space should reflect the local context. Fully kerbed cycle tracks will often be appropriate.

Until these roundabouts are made safe for cyclists, it should be assumed that only workers living to the west of Shoppenhangers Road will access the development by cycle or motorcycle, necessitating more parking spaces and/or public transport than is planned in this application. Main access to the M4/A404(M) can only be achieved using two or three small roundabouts, which are unsuitable for modern HGVs. Planning permission should be conditional on these junctions being made suitable for the HGVs as well as cyclists. A safe pedestrian crossing point is required in Norreys Drive. The BLP section 14.2 (Developer Contributions) advises that developer contributions should be sought regarding improved infrastructure to support growth.

The A404(M) Cox Green exit (Junction 9A) is not recommended for standard HGVs. The slip roads are famously tight, featuring sharp, looping bends with a 30-mph advisory speed limit. This exit is a relic of the old Maidenhead bypass, designed and constructed in the early 1960’s, and it has never been modified since. Manoeuvring large, heavy articulated vehicles around these tight corners can be extremely difficult. However, if HGVs accessing Norreys Drive avoid this junction, the alternative route off the M4 is via Harvest Hill Road. This road is also difficult for long articulated vehicles to navigate, being narrow and bendy in places, resulting in trucks mounting pavements and verges to pass other vehicles. This road will shortly become increasingly congested with construction vehicles, delivery vehicles, parents delivering and collecting school children, and residents accessing the golf club site with 1,500 homes. A petition to make improvements to Harvest Hill Road was launched in 2021, collecting over 400 signatures. The petition asks the Royal Borough to ‘consider pedestrian and cycle improvements to Harvest Hill Road to encourage sustainable travel.’ Residents have highlighted problems with Harvest Hill, which has been the site of some serious accidents in recent years, including the death of a cyclist. and can be ‘quite dangerous’ in the dark. Pavements (footpaths) for pedestrians only extend for about half the length of this road. Avoiding Harvest Hill Road will result in vehicles using Shoppenhangers Road, which is frequently obstructed near the station by cars and taxis waiting to pick up rail commuters. Just beyond this location, there is a steep incline on a bend with speed humps, which is difficult for HGVs to negotiate.

Approaching the site from the north (off the A4) necessitates passing under the railway bridge in Norden Road. This railway bridge is not suitable for large HGVs due to 4m height restrictions and narrow single-file traffic managed by traffic lights with bends on the road each side of the bridge. Most articulated HGVs are between 4.0 and 4.95 meters (13 ft to 16.2 ft) tall (bridge pictured looking north and south, respectively).

In conclusion, the location of the proposed warehouse site is currently suitable for rigid lorries up to 12m long, and although Haleon did use some articulated lorries in the past, these may not have been excessively long or high. If suitable modifications are made to junctions at Shoppenhangers Road and the A404 (M) exit and Harvest Hill Road is widened in places, it should be possible to accommodate HGVs of any size without endangering other road users, damaging the road and bridge infrastructure, and putting at risk the goods vehicles and their drivers. The A404(M) exit is the responsibility of National Highways, who have no obligation to improve junctions constructed under “grandfather” conditions, but this agency should be advised of possible increased truck lengths impacting the safe use of junction 9A, should planning permission be granted. If a junction is failing due to high traffic volumes or a historically poor layout, National Highways must evaluate these issues as part of their regional Road Investment Strategy.

RBWM does not have to adhere to national roundabout design guidelines, but should they wish to deviate from these, they must publish their own design standards with rigorous safety and technical reviews and a risk analysis. There is no published evidence that RBWM Highways Department has chosen to do this. Any accidents that result in fatalities or injuries being partially or fully the result of design inadequacies due to a road junction failing to meet national standards could put RBWM at risk of severe legal and financial consequences. Under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980, councils have a strict, non-delegable legal duty to maintain public highways in a safe condition. BLP policy IF2 mentions support for development proposals that “create a safe and comfortable environment for pedestrians and cyclists”. This proposal does not do this.

The Phase 1 environmental assessment states: If the site were to be redeveloped, further action (such as an intrusive investigation and/or remedial action) is likely to be required as part of the planning process. It is unclear if this has been undertaken. The demolition method statement fails to mention the protection of trees, which is mandated in the Preliminary Arboricultural Method Statement. The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Preliminary Roost Assessment Report highlights several enhancement measures (section 9) that must be implemented.

Recommendations to minimize the potential impacts of artificial external lighting on bat activity are provided by the Bat Conservation Trust, 2023, and require a time sensor on external lights, the need to avoid prolonged use of outside lighting during the period dusk to dawn, particularly during the bat active season (April to October). Security lighting should be on a motion sensor and a short-duration timer (1 minute). Lighting that is required for security or safety reasons should use a lamp of no greater than 2000 lumens (150 Watts) and should comprise sensor-activated lamps. Unless bat activity has been ruled out, these guidelines should be followed.

There is a general concern that there are several reports relating to environmental measures in the application, which conclude that certain measures should be adopted, but there is no confirmation by the applicant that these will be implemented.

Residents are naturally concerned about noise from a 24/7 operation, with the reversing beeping from vehicles being particularly problematic. It should be made mandatory that these alarms are inactivated or silenced outside traditional working hours, with fines for non-compliance. Section 10.11 of Quantum Acoustics report suggests that planning conditions be imposed to reduce noise disturbance. Section 8 of the report suggests mitigation measures that must be mandated.

 

Some members of the local community would like the company to provide community facilities. Whilst this may not be practical on site, perhaps a S106 or other contribution can be made to enhance such facilities in the area. Refer to BLP policy IF6.

  Back To Listing