Skip to main content

Planning » Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

16/P/00227 | Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission 14/P/01054 approved 11/11/14 to change drawing numbers to reflect proposed revised site layout and plans/elevations to unit 8. | Henley Business Park, Pirbright Road, Normandy, Guildford, GU3 2DX
  • Total Consulted: 36
  • Comments Received: 12
  • Objections: 12
  • Supporting: 0
  • View all comments

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 12|1|2|

Mr DAVID MAIR (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sun 13 Mar 2016

Dear Sir,

We strongly object to the revised site layout which will cause far more noise, air and light pollution to Henley Park residents.



Mr. and Mrs. Mair

Robert & Claire Gott (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 01 Mar 2016

To view this comment please refer to the documents' list.

Mr Nick Sutcliffe (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 29 Feb 2016

As a resident of Henley Park, I object to the proposal to redesign the way that Unit 8 would operate at the adjacent Business Park. All the units were designed, assessed and approved on the basis that noise would be contained within the units. There are large loading doors designed to permit large vehicles to drive into the units to unload. This is why there are no exterior loading bays with raised platforms or lifts to take in goods or for dispatch.



The Proposal seeks to introduce a side door to permit unloading and loading in the open air, to and from the back of a transit van type LCV.



It is intended that these vehicles will reverse down the narrow gap between two high sided units, in the open air, and with no provision for noise abatement whatsoever.



It is difficult to conceive of a proposed means of operation of this unit which could possibly generate more external noise from unloading equipment, with doors banging, headlights or reversing lights, reversing bleepers and vehicles running engines in close proximity to the residential properties at Henley Park.



A suitable unit should be found where loading and unloading needs can take place in an appropriate internalized manner or at the front away from the boundary rather than seeking to modify one of these large commercial sheds in this contrived manner.



The observation from the Environmental Health Officer points out that it will be extremely difficult to take enforcement action against noise should this proposal proceed with the associated extended hours. It would also set a precedent for other modifications for side or rear openings to these sheds which would be to the detriment of the residential neighbours.



The approved designs were carefully assessed and judged in the 2014 permission. There were concerns then about the potential 'tunnel effect' from noise between the high sided buildings being pushed in the direction of the residential neighbours yet there is no acoustic fence incorporated in this section where the new activity is in a very narrow passageway.



The only acceptable solution is for a proper enclosure to be built to internalise the proposed activity to avoid noise and pollution being funneled in the direction of the neighbouring rear gardens and homes. However that would require a further westward movement of the other units which increases even more the proposed area of built form and visual impact in a green belt location.



I strongly object and suggest that a more appropriate location is found for the proposed use rather than this unsatisfactory modification to this unit.



Nick Sutcliffe

Deer Springs

Henley Park

GU3 2BZ

Miss Caley Robertson (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sun 28 Feb 2016

Dear Sir/Madam,



We hereby object to this application, which proposes a significant change to plans for Henley Business Park. As the owners of Yew Trees, one of the properties immediately adjacent to Unit 8, we will be significantly impacted by the increased noise and light pollution associated with an additional door in and increased elevation of this unit. Furthermore, it will reduce the landscaping between our property and the used part of the business park, which is already woefully inadequate and does not meet original plans (border trees, for example, are almost entirely desiduous despite plans confirming they would be at least partially evergreen, a matter that increases noise from the site as well as seasonally impacting our privacy and views).



We also believe it will negatively impact of traffic levels in the area, thereby having a wider affect on the area.



We strongly urge you to reject this application.



Many thanks,



Caley Robertson and Joshua Zappacosta

Ms Sian Conway (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 24 Feb 2016

I object to this request of planning permission as I believe that the roller door on this building will generate additional traffic and extra noise which will affect me as a resident of Henley Park.

Mr Ben Cox (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 23 Feb 2016

We wish to object to the Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission 14/P/01054 approved 11/11/14, to change drawing numbers to reflect proposed site layout and plans/elevations to Unit 8 at Henley Business Park, which is immediately adjacent to our Property, Woodlands, and other residents on Henley Park.



We object to this Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission 14/P/01054 on the following grounds:



1. The drawings have been changed significantly with amendments incorporated that were not in the original drawings that supported the planning application that previously was granted permission.



Specifically, the revised drawings incorporate revisions to:



(a) the layout of the site (e.g. the re-siting of Units 9 and 10 several metres to the west of its approved position to enable vehicular access to the rear of Unit 8);



(b) the western elevation of Unit 8, by the installation of a new 3x3metre roller door sited significantly closer to the neighbouring residential properties than the current access arrangement.



Both of the above changes will have a significant adverse effect on our family as it is so close to our property, Woodlands. The noise would be intolerable.



2. The changes in the amended drawings will result in increased traffic to and from the business premises, not to mention increased light pollution. This will also impact on our young family.





3. One of our children's bedrooms overlooks the area proposed for change directly. They will be directly affected by the increased traffic and noise levels.





We respectfully suggest that granting permission to vary Condition 2 of planning permission 14/P/01054 to approve a change in drawing numbers does not provide for fair and transparent public consultation with regard to the significant proposed changes to site layout and plans/elevations to Unit 8 at Henley Business Park.







Ben and Suzanne Cox

Joint Owners of Woodlands, Henley Park, Cobbett Hill Road, Normandy, Guildford, Surrey, GU3 2BZ.

Mr Chun Lai (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 23 Feb 2016

To whom it may concern,

We object this application for the following reasons:



? This is a significant change to the original drawings

? The changes will increase the traffic to and from the business park

? Increased Noise pollution to the neighbours and area due to business activities.



Please decline and consider no further variations.



Chun Lai

Puffins, Henley Park.

Mr R Patterson (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 22 Feb 2016

To view comment please refer to the document list

Comment submitted date: Tue 23 Feb 2016

to view comments please refer to documents list

Mr Graham Duffill (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 22 Feb 2016

I object to this Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission 14/P/01054 on the following grounds:



1. The drawings have been changed significantly and have had amendments incorporated that were not in the original drawings that supported the planning application that previously was granted permission.

Specifically, the revised drawings incorporate revisions to:

(a) the layout of the site (e.g. the re-siting of Units 9 and 10 several metres to the west of its approved position to enable vehicular access to the rear of Unit 8);

(b) the western elevation of Unit 8, by the installation of a new 3x3metre roller door sited significantly closer to the neighbouring residential properties than the current access arrangement.



2. The changes in the amended drawings will result in increased traffic to and from the business premises.



3. The changes in the amended drawings will result in the neighbours in the adjacent residential area being disturbed by the noise from these business activities.



I also ask you to acknowledge that granting permission to vary Condition 2 of planning permission 14/P/01054 to approve a change in drawing numbers does not provide for fair and transparent public consultation with regard to the significant proposed changes to site layout and plans/elevations to Unit 8 at Henley Business Park.

Dr D Prinz von Hohenzollem (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 22 Feb 2016

To view comment please refer to the documents list

Showing 1-10 of 12|1|2|

an idox solution (opens in a new window)