Planning round up: RBWM pay costs to Fifield farm after 'unreasonable' decision

Here are the latest and most significant planning applications in Windsor and Maidenhead. To read more, enter their reference numbers into RBWM's online planning portal.

Approved: The council will have to pay appeal costs to a farm in Fifield after 'unreasonably' turning down an application there.

Applicants at Coningsby Farm simply wanted to put in a new private track and hardstanding – which they already built, but without the required council permission. As such, they had to apply for retrospective permission.

If a retrospective application is turned down, applicants may face enforcement notices, fines and may have to remove what was built.

RBWM turned this scheme down originally, believing the new gravel track and hardstanding was inappropriate development of the greenbelt, harming the rural character of the countryside.

The applicants argued these changes were needed to improve access to a barn there, and were typical features of a farm – not visually intrusive at all.

Planning inspector C Butcher sided with the farmers, concluding that because none of the features stick up far above the ground, they do not change the open feel of the area.

C Butcher also agreed that gravel tracks are normal on farms, hence no encroachment into the countryside. It is in keeping with the character of a rural area.

Although some hedgerows may have been removed, this was minimal and didn’t cause harm.

Parties in planning appeals normally meet their own expenses – unless a party has ‘behaved unreasonably.’

The appellants argued that the scheme should never have been refused, saying RBWM ignored fallback options – ie what they might have been able to do without full permission.

Inspector C Butcher agreed that the council’s refusal was unreasonable and led to unnecessary time and expense for the applicants - therefore, awarding costs to them.

Approved: An appeal has overturned RBWM’s decision to refuse permission to one caravan for a traveller family in Waltham St Lawrence.

The application was a site at Old Oak Farm in Pool Lane.

RBWM turned down the plan over flood risk concerns, inappropriate development of the greenbelt, harm to habitats, and a belief the caravan would harm the rural look of the area.

By contrast, the appellant claimed that there is a ‘significant unmet need’ for traveller pitches in RBWM, and no alternative pitches were available for the family – which was not disputed.

The appellant also highlighted the family’s previous roadside existence and stressed the disruption to children’s education if they were forced to move again, as well as a general lack of secure accommodation.

The proposal aimed to provide a settled base to support the family’s nomadic way of life and access to services such as education and healthcare, in line with government policy for traveller sites.

The appellant further stressed that the caravan would be placed on a concrete pad within the boundaries of what was once a barn, arguing this makes it a modest, well-contained development that would therefore have no harmful impact on the openness of the greenbelt.

Ultimately, inspector J Bowyer did not agree with RBWM’s flood fears, nor did he think serious harm would be done to biodiversity.

J Bowyer also didn’t agree with the council about the caravan’s visual impact on the character of the area.

Perhaps most crucially, the inspector believed this site counts as ‘grey belt land’, a new designation by the Labour government. It creates an exception to building restrictions on greenbelt land, if the site is ‘low quality’ greenbelt.

As such, RBWM’s decision was overturned and planning permission granted.

However, conditions were imposed – namely, that one caravan is allowed on the site, and only one family can live there.

Refused: An appeal to put two custom/self-build home plots in Birds Hill, Maidenhead has been dismissed.

The plan is for land adjacent to Orchard Cottage in Drift Road.

It was turned down by RBWM because the council felt the plans would harm the countryside, leading to harm of trees and hedgerows, and would further be inappropriate development of the greenbelt.

Moreover, they worried about poor sustainability – the site is in a rural location with no footpaths, lighting, or nearby public transport. This means residents would rely heavily on cars, which isn’t considered sustainable.

By contrast, the appellant, Community Build, argued the site had been part of a garden in the past, so it should count as previously developed land (which can sometimes be built on in the greenbelt).

Moreover, the homes would be self-build, which supports national and local policies encouraging people to build their own homes.

They highlighted a local shortage of self-build plots, which councils are required to help meet.

They also said the development would provide housing quickly, bring environmental benefits (like tree planting and energy efficiency), and support the local economy.

But the inspector sided with the council, saying the harm to the greenbelt would be too great.

In addition, the self-build claim was not convincing enough – there was no guarantee the initial buyers would stay involved, and later buyers might not meet the self-build criteria.

Pending: Applicants are looking to pin down some more details surrounding 26 new homes at Berkshire College of Agriculture – homes needed to fund ‘urgently’ needed restoration works.

Permission was already granted in 2023 for the 26 homes themselves. The housing serves to fund an 'urgently required programme of restoration works to the campus historic buildings and parkland.'

The homes will consist of 20 four-bed and six two-bed units in two-storey buildings. Elivia Homes is contracted to purchase the land to deliver the development.

That first application was an ‘outline’ application which covers some important parts of the application but not all. After this, there is a reserved matters application, covering other elements.

In this case, these reserved matters are the appearance and landscaping of the scheme.

Soft landscaping will include new trees and shrubs, areas of wildflowers, a mixture of native and ornamental hedges at site boundaries and house frontages, as well as private gardens.

All homes will have of dedicated cycle stores.

The applicants’ representatives, Solve Planning, said: “Overall a high quality, attractive residential development scheme is provided which will respect the existing character and appearance of the area.

25/00856/REM 

For the previous application for the homes themselves: 20/01779/OUT

Pending: A plan is submitted to change a shop to a takeaway at 19 St Leonards Road in Windsor.

The building, Roz Clarke at 19 St Leonards Road, is currently used as a shop on the ground floor.

Applicants want to change this use and also put in a part single, part two storey rear extension and rear staircase, while demolishing the existing single storey rear extension.

Not much has been written in the way of justification for this proposed change of use.

However, the applicant’s representatives claim the character, context and the nature of the site and surroundings were ‘well considered’ and the proposed works ‘will fully utilise the site.’

“[This scheme will] produce [a] high quality form of development which will enhance the area without any compromise to existing developments,” they wrote.

25/00708/FULL