Land to the North and South of Gays Lane, Holyport, SL6 2HL

Planning appeal 3346409 at Land to the North and South of Gays Lane, Holyport, SL6 2HL (Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead) was dismissed on 27 February 2025 by Inspector Worden M, following an inquiry. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: The effect of the proposal on: the landscape character of the area; the Holyport Conservation Area and the setting of John Gay's House; highway safety; the Public Rights of Way network; the best and most versatile agricultural land, and drainage/flood risk and whether the appeal site is in a sustainable location for the proposal or one that could be made sustainable.

outline planning application with matters reserved apart from principal point of access for the demolition of the existing agricultural buildings to create a new state of the art Film and TV Studio including sound stages, ancillary offices, virtual reality studio, storage and warehouses, workshops, specialist studio facilities and outdoor backlot; the creation of a new Nature Park incorporating hard and soft landscaping, green infrastructure, sustainable drainage systems and new cycle and pedestrian facilities, the provision of a new cricket pitch and associated pavilion, with new cycle and pedestrian route, together with supporting infrastructure to include long stay car parking, cycle parking, boundary treatments, waste storage, sub-stations, and new access roundabout and vehicle route

Authority: Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
Appeal type: other · Planning Appeal
Procedure: Inquiry
Development: leisure-sport · Unknown
Inspector: Worden M

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

The effect of the proposal on: the landscape character of the area; the Holyport Conservation Area and the setting of John Gay's House; highway safety; the Public Rights of Way network; the best and most versatile agricultural land, and drainage/flood risk and whether the appeal site is in a sustainable location for the proposal or one that could be made sustainable.
The extent to which the proposal is consistent with Government Policies for the Green Belt (NPPF Chapter 13) including whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations including need and economic benefits, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

What decided it

The substantial harm to the Green Belt (by reason of inappropriateness, harm to openness and to Green Belt purpose (c)), combined with other harms, was not clearly outweighed by the benefits of the proposal, so very special circumstances did not exist.

The benefits of the proposal (economic benefits, BNG, BREEAM excellence, cricket facility, nature park, locational benefits and lack of alternative sites) did not clearly outweigh the harms (substantial Green Belt harm, very substantial landscape harm, significant unsustainability harm, great heritage harm and moderate BMV land loss), so very special circumstances did not exist and the development plan conflict was not outweighed by other material considerations.

What the Inspector cited

Development plan policies: Policy QP3Policy QP3(a)Policy QP5Policy HE1Policy IF2Policy SP1Policy H1Policy OP1Policy ED1Policy NR1Policy ED4Policy NR2Policy SP2Policy EP1Policy IF5
National Planning Policy Framework: Paragraph 11Paragraph 57Paragraph 58Paragraph 85Paragraph 87Paragraph 109Paragraph 110Paragraph 115Paragraph 116Paragraph 143Paragraph 155Paragraph 180Paragraph 187Paragraph 212Paragraph 215
Judgments: R. (Lea Valley Regional Park Authority) v Epping Forest DC 2016 Env LR30; Samuel Smith Old Brewery v North Yorkshire CC

How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.

See how each was applied

The decision letter

Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.

Appeals plan, £15 a month

With an account

What an account adds to this decision

85 other decided appeals within two kilometres of this site. In the app every dot opens its decision, and its letter wherever one was published, and you can draw your own site to see what has been decided around it.AllowedDismissedSplitThis decision

An appeal decision in the app, with the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out beside the letter — Every letter, there to read. We pick out the main issues, the policies and the judgments cited, so you can work through the letter faster.

Searching the full text of appeal decision letters in the app — Search inside every letter. By words or by meaning, filtered by authority, outcome, appeal type and procedure, with every locatable decision on the map and the Inspector named on each.

Start your free trial

More decisions in Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2025

Allowed27 October 20266007126
Grove Park Industrial Estate Waltham Road, White Waltham, Maidenhead, SL6 3JF
Dismissed21 October 20266009694
Land Adjacent to Stud Green Farm, Sturt Green, Holyport, SL62JH
Dismissed4 September 20266009260
2 Island Cottages Stanwell Road, Horton, SL3 9PQ
Notice upheld10 August 20263369085
Land to the Side of 16 Halfway Houses, Maidenhead Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire, SL6 6PP
Dismissed29 July 20266007938
Challen's Chicks, Land Adjacent to Honey House, Land West of Winter Hill Road, Bisham, SL6 6PJ

The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.