Back to list

Date submitted

10 Sep 2025

Submitted by

Interested Party

As a neighbour to this site, I lodge my objection to this application as submitted on the following grounds: 1. Noise: The noise emitted from the site has resulted in significant loss of amenity, regularly intrusive outside, often intrusive internally. The noise has impacted sleep and induces a feeling of nausea, particularly when continuous over several hours. Noise issues from the site, in order of impact, are as follows: a. Low frequency noise from multiple idling engines and refrigerated trailers b. Tonal noise from some refrigerated trailers when on electric hook-up c. Reversing beepers d. Clanging of curtain-sider poles. e. Horns As the site is operational 24 hours a day, disturbance can happen at any time of the day or night. Operation of refrigerated trailers on Diesel, when singular, creates a tonal noise which can be heard inside the house. When more than one, the noise phases, amplifying and cancelling out, which becomes extremely unpleasant both inside and outside the house. During winter when many engines are idling for warmth, the LFN can have the effect of distant rumbling thunder that can continue for days. The route for HGV's to exit the southern part of the site is via a road which is closest to the residences on Church Road, between tall buildings, which reflect noise towards Church Road residences. As this is on a hill, the low drone of each and every accelerating HGV through the gears can be heard inside the house whenever this road is used. Any refrigerated trailers pass with a dominant tonal disturbance until they are well in the distance. Whilst it is recognised that operational changes have been made to address repeated complaints from myself and neighbours, issues remain which are caused by the current arrangement and operation of the site. When the site is busy, the noise increases exponentially. Complaints made generate a response of 'the site was extremely busy, and there's nothing we can do about it' With the site expected to increase in use, it is fundamental that the sites configuration and acoustic treatment is improved. The low frequency noise has impacted sleep and ability to spend time outside of the house pursuing hobbies. Its effect is that of an increasing sense of agitation, stress in the neck and shoulders and a slowly increasing feeling of nausea. Options to re-locate were explored but costly. Therefore, to attempt to resolve, we have sought advice and soundproofed our bedroom with acoustic insulation, mass loaded vinyl barriers and window treatment. Whilst this has helped, windows must be shut year round which is unpleasant for someone who previously enjoyed sleeping with the windows open. During waking hours, our time is spent in the quietest rooms, usually to the rear of the house. Our living room and dining room are rarely used now, as it is often unpleasant. The local EHO has monitored noise in the house and confirmed elevated levels of LFN were present. Issues were logged and a 70 page report detailing the noise issues and readings were submitted as part of the public consultation in 2024. The aim of providing this information was for the noise issues to be better understood and be addressed as part of the permanent application. The records of public engagement show noise issues being raised by numerous residents. However, the issue does not appear to be addressed or even acknowledged. The noise report as submitted makes no consideration of the complaints made, nor does it consider any tonal or low frequency sources. It is therefore fundamentally flawed as it has not fully considered noise sources at the site. This alone is reason to refuse and for the applicant to address the site configuration and acoustic treatment. The consideration of tonal noise, of which LFN can be considered, is detailed in guidance supporting the NPPF. There is also growing research in the health impacts of LFN. The original noise report as submitted for the SDO highlights the requirement for refrigerated trailers to be kept to the northern part of the site. The current operation of the site requires refrigerated trailers to enter and dwell on the southern part of the site and the proposals as submitted appear to permit the site to emit significantly more noise that current. Early residents meetings informed us that earth bund gabion style acoustic barriers would be used to provide the required attenuation. We were therefore surprised to see timber screening being installed, through which daylight could be seen in some locations. Timber fencing, with no absorptive materials, has minimal effect on LFN. The resulting effect is higher frequencies being attenuated, whilst the LFN becomes more dominant in the soundscape. The timber acoustic treatment is not fit for purpose. Disclosure - I am located near High Speed 1. Any claim to the presence of High Speed 1 and associated noise generation outweighing disturbance from the IBF must be considered in context. High speed trains cause 5 seconds of noise every 15 to 30 minutes depending on the time of day, and not after 10pm or before 6am. Therefore, the noise impact from High Speed 1 on a busy day represents approximately 0.6% of the day. In addition, noise sources from the Waterbrook railhead are treated with significantly superior barriers. 2. Landscaping The original proposed development provided significant benefit to local residents through quality landscaping and accessible spaces. This can be seen within Ashford planning application 19/00579/AS which provided details of the proposed landscaping and amenity. During the initial works, we were informed that the landscaping was proceeding to the above approved plans and would not be part of the SDO. As the area took shape, it was clear the proposals were for a 'security no-mans land' with multiple cameras (now removed following complaint) and no planting. Objections were lodged and ABC Planning confirmed during a December 2020 Teams meeting with DfT representatives, the parish council and local residents that the buffer zone as being constructed was not in line with 19/00579/AS. Of particular note is drawing 'Stour Park Phase 1 Landscaping (Coloured) Sheet 2 April 2019.pdf' which demonstrates how the site was to provide significant accessible open space. Following the aforementioned intervention, additional planting was proposed but the execution of the landscaping was poor with most trees dying and areas being left baron due to no topsoil (Google satellite images clearly illustrate areas with no topsoil). Whilst it is acknowledged that additional planting is proposed within this application, it is a far cry from what the area deserves and a move closer to the approved plans under 19/00579/AS should be provided along with a long term maintenance plan. As a minimum, better quality soil, more planting and greater access to the footpath for local residents should be provided, giving the site the opportunity to disappear behind walls of green. 3. Lighting The light spill from the site turns footpaths and areas designated as biodiverse areas, into permanently daylit spaces. However, for me, the greatest issue is building mounted lighting which has been added inconsiderately, above existing barriers, glaring straight through my study window and into my sight line when at my desk. The lighting at the site seems poor by design. Whilst baffles are proposed in the application to help mitigate, it does not go far enough. 4. Aesthetics Considering the significant number of listed buildings near to the site (most of which are not recognised in this application), and its presence on a main route into Ashford, the sites aesthetics (entrances, buildings etc) are extremely poor. The staff entrance, in the heart of Sevington, near listed buildings and Church, is very poor. It would not be permitted as a new development today and therefore should not be considered acceptable now. Its aesthetic also draws HGV's into Church Road, of which two became stuck just this afternoon as one followed another. Each HGV causes damage to the road, curbs and property whilst also delaying local residents and road users. 5. Utilities & Drainage The site has had significant impact on local utilities, yet there appears to be no thorough impact assessment within the utilities statement. Whilst power has been upgraded and the significant power cuts reduced (172 in one year during early operation) brownouts regularly occur and water is significantly affected, particularly at night. Pressure at night can be so low, the washing machine fails with lack of water error and taps upstairs dribble. Footpaths are continually impacted by drainage issues. During heavy rain, surface water flows from the site down the staff entrance road, flowing into Church Road, Sunnybank & entering the footpaths washing away the surface. The drainage design to other areas of the footpath adjacent to Church Road have failed to understand the existing drainage strategy, resulting in a continual flow of water needing to cross the footpath to reach the culvert / drain in the corner of the site that was a pre-existing feature of the site and largely ignored by the designers. 6. Name Sevington is a settlement in its own right, recorded in the 1086 Domesday book. Following consultation, the previous proposed development made significant improvements to aesthetics and changed its proposed name from Sevington Park to Stour Park following requests for Sevington to remain the name for the settlement rather than a business park. It appears none of the previous consultations, which were publicly available and a good starting point, were considered. Now 'Sevington' is only known by most as the lorry park. Any opportunity to re-brand and change the name should be encouraged. The use of Sevington should never have been permitted without consultation and evidence was already available to suggest it would not be welcome. 7. Conclusion In conclusion, the proposal submitted does not meet local or national planning policy guidance. Enhancements should be required to ensure that this ear and eyesore blends into its surroundings much better as an asset to Ashford rather than an embarrassment. The national planning policy framework alongside local policy aims to enhance opportunities for development whilst protecting the amenity of existing development. Passing this as it stands will be a significant failure of the planning system when this development could be adapted to operate in harmony with its surroundings. 8. Attachments Noise issues as raised with the applicant.

Attachment(s)

• (PDF, 5 MB) (opens in new window)