Maple Cross: Decision to build two warehouses deferred by council

Three Rivers District Council's planning committee met last night (October 21) to re-discuss contentious plans to develop land in Maple Cross.

Around 50 people gathered at the council's offices in Rickmansworth and watched as the majority of members voted to defer the application in order to seek "independent expert advice" about an issue relating to the application.

Afterwards, campaigners reconvened outside, clearly unhappy the council had refused to turn the application down there and then, with one person labelling the evening a "disgrace" while another said it was a "loss in faith of democracy".

Keith Pursall, the chairman of the Maple Lodge Conservation Society, said after the meeting: "We will take this to the High Court if it is necessary. The building would change the area beyond recognition. At the moment it is a green field. To have two 24 hour giant warehouses would be a nightmare.

"That’s why everyone is up in arms about it. There have been 286 objections and not a single person has spoken in favour of it."

A CGI of how the new warehouses could look. Credit: C4 Projects

When the council turned down the same plans to build warehouses in 2019, it was because of concerns piling would have an "adverse impact" on groundwater, public water supply, and the Maple Cross Nature Reserve.

Mr Pursall said: "One of the biggest concerns is the water. As several people said, the developer is going to drive 3,310 piles into the chalk aquifer which could pollute the groundwater. They are going to be driving piles and the developer cannot prove it won't harm the water. Affinity Water says the risk to water still exists."

Affinity Water, which has its Springwell Pumping Station near Maple Lodge, objected in 2019 because it was concerned piling could cause magnesium in the gravel groundwater to migrate to the chalk groundwater, which could potentially impact the quality of drinking water.

Marked within the red lines is the land proposed for the two warehouses. Credit: Google Maps

The applicants went away and drew up new plans, including a 'piling method statement and risk assessment', which included mitigation measures. It was enough for Affinity Water to withdraw its objection - although the water supplier stated the "the risk to public water supply still remains" due to the proximity of the development to its pumping stations.

But at last night's meeting, Conservative member Alex Hayward said she felt the groundwater issues had not been "adequately addressed" while Liberal Democrat member Sara Bedford suggested she was not "satisfied" the risks to the nature reserve had been "understood".

Cllr Bedford's motion to defer the application to allow the council to appoint an independent expert such as a hydrologist to take a look at the plans received support from her party colleagues.

A photo from last night's planning meeting in Rickmansworth

Cllr Hayward had proposed to refuse the application on the night but Cllr Bedford's proposal was voted on first and received the necessary support.

Mr Pursall suggested he struggled to understand why an independent report was needed.

He said: "It (the piling) can impact on drinking water and water going into the reserve. The developer themselves has admitted it will have an adverse effect on the reserve – why do you (the council) need to employ a hydrologist to prove it?"

District councillors Phil Williams and Paula Hiscocks spoke at the meeting against the warehouse plans, as did resident Gavin Cooper.

Cllr Hiscocks called for residents in neighbouring Longmore Close to be "protected" from the development, while Cllr Williams picked up on noise concerns.

He said: "This needs to be put into touch....how can they say it won't affect residents 13 metres away when they can hear the M25 two miles away."

A banner against the warehouse plans. Credit: @MapleSave/Twitter

After the decision to defer, one resident left the meeting almost in tears, accusing the committee of ignoring concerns raised about noise. Campaigners reportedly spent £4,500 to commission an independent expert to carry out a noise assessment.

Mr Pursall said: "They didn’t discuss noise properly. The residents produced a report that proved this operation will have an adverse effect on them.

"There were also two issues that were going to be covered by Cllr Michaels (who is not a member of the planning committee) but he was refused permission to speak. That is the loss of the forester moth, which is on site and a nationally rare species, and the other is failure to achieve biodiversity net gain."

A map shows where the new warehouses would be located. Credit: C4 Projects

When the applicants appealed the 2019 refusal, a planning inspector echoed concerns about groundwater but dismissed complaints relating to noise, traffic, and air quality.

Yesterday, the council acknowledged the "strength of feeling" for this development from residents, but a statement signed by all four political leaders at the council condemned the "increasing level of threats, aggression and intimidation faced on a daily basis, both by local councillors and officers", describing it as "unacceptable".

The council had recommended the scheme be approved.

Related: Councillors call for calm ahead of Maple Cross warehouse decision

But despite some chuckles and evidence of frustration from the public in response to some of the comments made by the committee and officer Claire Westwood, the meeting ended up being largely peaceful.

The applicants BCL (Maple Cross) LLP say its Maple Cross development will deliver 16,115 sqm employment floorspace which it says will provide a "significant contribution" to meeting the need for floorspace in Three Rivers, as identified in the 2018 South West Herts Economic Study.

The planning statement adds the warehouses would deliver "significant economic benefits" including nearly 600 direct and indirect jobs once built, and around £1million in business rates per year.

There would be around 140 car parking spaces and nearly 40 HGV spaces. The council has previously allocated this site as an employment space.