Comments on Application 26/00163/VAR Bridge Clinic Bridgewater Lodge 160 Bridge Road Maidenhead SL6 8DG.

This application seeks to prove that the noise and traffic impacts of a nursery for 126 children are no greater than for other uses and the conditions applied for the use of the lodge should be removed. To justify this, two assessments have been submitted: one for transport and one for noise. 

The transport assessment seems to be written with adults in mind, not 3-year-old children. Children of this age do not cycle to the nursery along the busy Bath Road, nor do they walk over 1km from Maidenhead Station. In fact, the maximum distance they can walk comfortably is 800m, and that is provided that the weather is not inclement or baking hot (as the summers will increasingly become with climate change). A half-hourly or hourly bus service will not be used by children because that form of transport is not used for any other nurseries in Maidenhead. Unless the nursery children live locally within walking distance, they will be dropped off by car. The applicant needs to demonstrate that most of the nursery children will live within walking distance. The narrow Guards Club Road is incapable of accommodating the large number of cars that will deposit and collect the majority of the nursery children. These cars will form a queue along the road at peak periods when the Bridge Road/Bath Road/Ray Mead Road roundabout is particularly busy, as at such times, cars will have difficulty emerging from Guards Club Road. As a result, some residents will be exposed to noxious fumes and particulates. The parking and turning conditions must be maintained.

The noise assessment indicates that the noise emitted by 50 screaming nursery children at playtime is equivalent to the rustling of trees and is comparable to the occasional overhead flight or the distant rumble of slow-moving traffic. If residents do not like the noise, they must close all windows; otherwise, they can go for a walk in the park. This noise impact assessment is not based on research and is subjective: Preschool teachers’ perspective on how high noise levels at preschool affect children’s behaviour - PMC. This study demonstrates that very high noise levels are frequently found at preschools during playtime, ranging from 80–85 dB LAeq, indoors, and up to an astonishing 118 dB LAF on occasions. A proper noise assessment would include monitoring the current background noise levels during the proposed nursery opening times.

Both the traffic and noise assessments make unjustifiable assumptions. However, a condition that precludes the use of Bridgewater Lodge as a nursery may prevent the ongoing upkeep of the lodge, and the Civic Society is keen to see this Grade II listed building in a Conservation Area maintained in good condition. If, and only if, no potential applicant meeting the current conditions can be identified, it may be preferable to permit its use as a small nursery to avoid the lodge becoming derelict. An average-sized nursery has 54 pupils. A condition to restrict the nursery to about this size, instead of the proposed 126 pupils, which is over twice the average nursery size, may be a sensible measure. https://www.savills.co.uk/research_articles/229130/369333-0

Playground activity should likewise be conditioned to be limited to 25 children at any one time, with the additional measure of high acoustic fencing (1.8m may not be sufficient, and a proper acoustic assessment is required).

Once the nursery is occupied to this limited capacity, if it can be shown that any additional traffic and children creating noise would not adversely impact residents, the applicant could then make a further application to increase the allowable number of children.

Any application that is approved should be conditional on maintaining Bridgewater Lodge in good condition. See The upkeep and repair of historic buildings - GOV.UK

This will require a survey to assess the current state of repair and the need for any urgent remedial work. Suitable covenants should be negotiated to ensure that repairs are carried out, either by a current or future property owner. The NPPF Section 16 paragraphs 202-221 are pertinent. Para 221 states: Local planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from those policies.

  Back To Listing