Holyport Studio DISMISSED – Anyone for Cricket ;)

Having read through the decision, it would seem to me the Minister of State for Housing and Planning, Matthew Pennycook MP, on behalf of the Secretary of State, agreed with the Inspector and has decided that a film studio is not appropriate in Holyport because:

• The tall buildings would ruin the view
• It’s Green Belt and should remain so
• The location isn’t sustainable in relation to transport links
• It would damage the Public Right of Way network
• It would adversely impact the Conservation area
• Be in conflict with existing heritage assets 
• Remove farmland

Although a new cricket pitch would be rather nice 😉

The summary is below and the full report below that, read for yourself.

Planning balance and overall conclusion 

47. For the reasons given above, and in the light of her conclusion at paragraph 51 below, the Secretary of State considers that the appeal scheme is in conflict with Policies QP3, QP3(a), QP5 in respect of Green Belt, HE1, IF2, and is in partial conflict with QP5 (criterion 2) of the development plan, and is in conflict with the development plan overall. She has gone on to consider whether there are material considerations which indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in line with the development plan. 

48. Weighing in favour of the proposal are the economic benefits, BNG, the BREEAM excellent rating, and the new cricket facility which each carry moderate weight; the proposed nature park which carries limited weight; locational benefits which carry limited weight; and lack of alternative sites which carries very little weight. 

49. Weighing against the proposal is the harm to landscape character and the harm to Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, harm to openness and harm to purpose c), which each carry substantial weight; the lack of sustainability which carries significant weight; heritage harm to the settings of the Conservation Area and John Gay’s House which carries great weight; and the loss of BMV land which carries moderate weight. 

50. For the reasons set out at paragraph 18 above, the Secretary of State has found that the heritage balancing exercise under paragraph 215 of the Framework is favourable to the proposal. 

51. The Secretary of State considers that in this case, the potential harm to the Green Belt through inappropriateness, harm to openness and harm to purpose c), and any other harm resulting from the proposal, as identified in paragraph 49 above, is not clearly outweighed by other considerations and therefore there are no VSCs which would justify this development in the Green Belt. 

52. Overall, in applying s.38(6) of the PCPA 2004, the Secretary of State considers that the conflict with the development plan and the material considerations in this case indicate that permission should be refused.

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3

Thank you.