Zooming in: the Holyport Film Studios decision in focus

The decision of the Government to throw out proposals for a new Holyport Film Studios made waves immediately across the community last week.

The final say went to the the Minister of State for Housing and Planning, Matthew Pennycook MP, on behalf of the Secretary of State, Angela Rayner.

In an 80-page document, Mr Pennycook largely backed up the conclusions of the Planning Inspectorate, which held a 10-day inquiry into the arguments for and against the plans.

Here are some of the key points picked up by the inspector and Mr Pennycook.

Background

This proposal, submitted in December 2022, aimed to demolish existing agricultural buildings across a 43-hectare site north and south of Gays Lane.

In their place, the developer Greystoke Land Ltd planned seven sound stages, virtual reality and production facilities, office space, workshops, parking for 1,000 cars, and a backlot area. Buildings would reach up to 21 metres tall.

It also included a new nature park, a cricket pitch, and a roundabout entrance from Forest Green Road.

The council refused permission in March 2024, largely over greenbelt concerns, causing Greystoke to appeal.

Bray Parish Council and The Holyport and Fifield Community Action Group took part in the inquiry, strongly opposing the plans.

Then the appeal was ‘recovered’ for ministerial decision due to its national significance.

A ‘very significantly adverse’ impact on the countryside’

In the decision, dated June 6, Mr Pennycook said he agreed with the inspector that the development would have a ‘very significantly adverse’ impact on the countryside.

Although landscaping was proposed, it would not offset the scale and dominance of the buildings, which were more than 1.5 times taller than typical agricultural structures.

“Noise and activity generated by the large film studio complex would dramatically alter the character of the area,” the decision states.

Harm to the tree-lined Gays Lane and the introduction of roads, lighting and urban features would further ‘urbanise’ the rural setting.

There were also concerns over the impact on the conservation area. The site lies just outside the Holyport Conservation Area and near the Grade II-listed John Gay’s House.

While the visual impact on the listed building was considered ‘very low’, the studios were found to cause a ‘high’ level of harm to the conservation area’s setting.

National policy gives ‘great weight’ to any harm to designated heritage assets.

‘Not convincing’ economic argument

Greystoke’s argument was largely a business case. They argued that Holyport’s proximity to Heathrow, the M4 and other studios in the West London Cluster made it an ideal and globally attractive site.

They also cited national backing for the creative sector and forecast that the investment could generate between 3,100 and 3,800 jobs.

On this point, parties involved in the inquiry ‘differed fundamentally,’ with opposition questioning the economic benefit.

The inspectorate found Greystoke’s case for demand was confused partly by disruptions from Covid and recent US writers’ strikes.

These factors ‘have made assessments of demand difficult’ and made the evidence for the need ‘not convincing.’

Rather, the appeal decision concludes that Holyport Film Studios ‘would simply displace film making and the associated economic benefits from other studios.’

The report also criticised the developer’s search for alternative sites, calling it ‘far too narrow’ and saying they could not be confident other viable non-greenbelt locations had been ruled out.

The belt is not ‘grey’ enough

One controversial aspect of new Government policy came into play – namely ‘the grey belt’, a change in greenbelt designation which smooths the way for more building projects.

Greystoke argued that the site qualified as grey belt, changing the balance of considerations.

Policy defines grey belt as land in the greenbelt comprising land that ‘does not strongly contribute’ to the purposes of the greenbelt. One such purpose includes contributing to the prevention of urban sprawl.

But the inspectorate said the site ‘makes a very strong contribution’ to preventing urban sprawl – and as such, disagreed with Greystoke’s view.

Another key concern was sustainability. The report says there were limited options for travel by foot, bike or public transport, and that the proposal’s promised shuttle bus and car share schemes were vague and lacked detailed planning.

Provision for 1,000 parking spaces suggested a ‘general reliance on travel by car’, in conflict with local and national policies promoting sustainable transport.

In summary, Mr Pennycook found the economic, environmental and community benefits of the scheme did not outweigh the combined harms to the greenbelt, landscape, heritage, sustainability and farmland.

This decision formally ends this iteration of the film studio plan. However, it remains open to the applicants to challenge the ruling in the High Court within six weeks of the decision date.