25/01838/FULL | Construction of ice rink and attractions annually from October 2025, 2026, 2027 to January 2026, 2027 and 2028. | Alexandra Gardens Barry Avenue Windsor SL4 5JA

Here is the unedited version of my objection to the new planning application. I needed to reduce it down to nearer 2,000 characters for the online submission.

Members of the Committee, I urge you to vote to refuse this planning application. While it has been revised, it fails to address the fundamental issues that led to its previous withdrawal and poses a significant threat to our treasured heritage asset, Alexandra Gardens.

A core concern, as highlighted by the Windsor & Eton Society, is the complete lack of proper consideration for tree roots. The applicant’s own tree map, which includes weight load indicators for each ride, clearly shows that multiple attractions—specifically rides 3, 5, 8, and 11—encroach upon the designated root protection zones. This is not a matter of opinion; it is a direct failure to protect the very foundations of the gardens. This careless approach demonstrates a fundamental disregard for the health and longevity of our trees.

We must also apply the Proportionality Principle, a key tenet of the NPPF. Our beautiful Alexandra Gardens is a highly significant heritage asset. The NPPF dictates that any proposed development’s impact must be proportionate to the asset’s importance. A simple analogy illustrates this: a garden hedge averages 2 meters in height. By allowing rides of up to 5.5 meters, we are being more than generous. However, the proposed application includes rides that far exceed this height, dominating the space and overwhelming the historic character of the gardens. The taller the ride, the greater its weight, and the greater the potential for irreversible damage to the soil, the roots, and the overall biodiversity of this living space. It is easy to dismiss what cannot be seen, but the health of the soil and the roots beneath our feet are the lifeblood of this park.

I understand there has been a call to approve this on economic grounds. Yet, where is the compelling evidence? Is a single testimonial from a large department store truly representative of the economic benefit to our entire town? I have spoken to a local business and they saw no benefit. The term “economic” appears to be weaponized as a convenient but unproven plus factor. We need to see concrete, detailed evidence of a genuine economic benefit to the community, not just a vague assertion. The public and this committee have a right to scrutinize this claim.

I recall my own efforts to raise these issues previously. It seems my advocacy may have led the applicant to withdraw their last application just 24 hours before a scheduled meeting. This action saved them from the embarrassment of a formal refusal.

I ask the applicant to reconsider their approach entirely. Return with a proposal for rides under 5.5 meters, take up less space to reduce the dominant feeling, and use innovative solutions like the green camouflage screen that was so effectively employed on the wheel. This would show genuine respect for our heritage asset and a willingness to work with, not against, the character of Alexandra Gardens.

The camouflage screen was a great idea by Cllr Devon Davies, or was it Cllr Mark Wilson… he probably pointed it out to Devon 😉

Let us not make the same mistake twice. The revised application is a repeat of past failings. It disrespects the heritage, ignores the health of our trees, and presents unsubstantiated economic arguments. We must protect Alexandra Gardens for future generations. I urge you to vote to refuse this application.

Thank you.

Jon Davey

I’ve published the relevant section of the NPPF for those who might be interested in the detail.

16. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Paragraphs 202 to 214

202. Heritage assets range from sites and buildings of local historic value to those of the highest significance, such as World Heritage Sites which are internationally recognised to be of Outstanding Universal Value ⁷³ . These assets are an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations ⁷⁴ .

203. Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. This strategy should take into account:

(d) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

(e) the wider social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits that conservation of the historic environment can bring;

(f) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness; and

(g) opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place.

204. When considering the designation of conservation areas, local planning authorities should ensure that an area justifies such status because of its special architectural or historic interest, and that the concept of conservation is not devalued through the designation of areas that lack special interest.

205. Local planning authorities should maintain or have access to a historic environment record. This should contain up-to-date evidence about the historic environment in their area and be used to:

(h) assess the significance of heritage assets and the contribution they make to their environment; and

(i) predict the likelihood that currently unidentified heritage assets, particularly sites of historic and archaeological interest, will be discovered in the future.

206. Local planning authorities should make information about the historic environment, gathered as part of policy-making or development management, publicly accessible.

Proposals affecting heritage assets

207. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes, or has the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.

208. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

209. Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of, or damage to, a heritage asset, the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision.

210. In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of:

(a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

(b) the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and

(c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

211. In considering any applications to remove or alter a historic statue, plaque, memorial or monument (whether listed or not), local planning authorities should have regard to the importance of their retention in situ and, where appropriate, of explaining their historic and social context rather than removal.

Considering potential impacts

212. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.

213. Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of:

(a) grade II listed buildings, or grade II registered parks or gardens, should be exceptional;

(b) assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, registered battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional ⁷⁵ .

214. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to (or total loss of significance of) a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:

a) the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and

b) no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and

c) conservation by grant-funding or some form of not for profit, charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and

d) the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.

215. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

216. The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

217. Local planning authorities should not permit the loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred.

218. Local planning authorities should require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible ⁷⁶ . However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.

219. Local planning authorities should look for opportunities for new development within Conservation Areas and World Heritage Sites, and within the setting of heritage assets, to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to the asset (or which better reveal its significance) should be treated favourably.

220. Not all elements of a Conservation Area or World Heritage Site will necessarily contribute to its significance. Loss of a building (or other element) which makes a positive contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site should be treated either as substantial harm under paragraph 214 or less than substantial harm under paragraph 215, as appropriate, taking into account the relative significance of the element affected and its contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area or World Heritage Site as a whole.

221. Local planning authorities should assess whether the benefits of a proposal for enabling development, which would otherwise conflict with planning policies but which would secure the future conservation of a heritage asset, outweigh the disbenefits of departing from those policies.