®Planning appeal decision
Land to the North and South of Gays Lane, Holyport, SL6 2HL
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.
Framework references: 11, 57, 58, 85, 87, 109, 110, 115, 116, 143, 155, 180, 187, 212, 215
Plan policies cited: Policy QP3, Policy QP3(a), Policy QP5, Policy HE1, Policy IF2, Policy SP1, Policy H1, Policy OP1, Policy ED1, Policy NR1, Policy ED4, Policy NR2, Policy SP2, Policy EP1, Policy IF5
Judgments cited: R. (Lea Valley Regional Park Authority) v Epping Forest DC 2016 Env LR30; Samuel Smith Old Brewery v North Yorkshire CC
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.