Historic 19th century yard refused for new flats amid 100+ objections

RBWM has turned down a contentious town centre redevelopment of one of Windsor’s last remaining 19th century industrial yards.

After a lengthy debate, the Windsor and Ascot Development Management Committee refused a proposal for 20 flats at Trinity Yard in St Leonards Road, set in the Windsor Conservation Area.

This application (ref 25/00460) fetched a phenomenal number of objections – more than 111 objection letters were logged in RBWM’s online planning portal over the course of a year.

Further highlighting the strength of feeling, a score of people showed up to witness the committee’s deliberations last night (Thursday, February 12).

Objectors speaking at the meeting said the scheme ‘ignores’ the local character and council guidelines on appropriate building heights for the area.

They also suggested that living conditions for future occupants would be ‘cramped and unsatisfactory’ due to the buildings being too close together.

The panel’s discussions centred on these harms and whether housing pressures outweighed them. Its final decision went against officer recommendations.

Officers said harm to the area would be on the lower end of the scale, but councillors felt differently.

Adding complications, the conservation area is a designated heritage asset, and several nearby buildings are listed – but the yard buildings themselves are neither.

This ‘bizarre’ quirk caused much back and forth, with councillors trying to pin down how important the site should be considered from a heritage standpoint.

Whatever its labelling, councillors concluded that the historic character of the area was important and the proposed modern redevelopment didn’t match that character.

Building height was another concern, echoing public comments; the scheme would dominate neighbours and cause uncomfortable overlooking, some panel members thought.

Access and manoeuvrability on the tight site added unease. Councillors highlighted the difficulty of cars making multiple turns in the courtyard layout, describing the arrangement as ‘barmy’.

But officers stressed there was no objection from the highways authority about this.

Under national policy, all harm must be weighed against public benefits, including the need for new housing.

As such, the committee considered the ‘tilted balance’ – a planning term meaning that, since RBWM has a shortage of housing compared to expected future need, it needs strong reasons to refuse any housing applications,

In other words, the harm would have to be significant compared to the benefits.

Chair of the meeting, Cllr Neil Knowles (OWRA, Old Windsor), said: “My personal feeling is that [this application brings] a much bigger harm than is actually illustrated [in the documents].”

“I can’t get over the fact that I don’t think it fits with the townscape conservation.”

Cllr Gurch Singh (Lib Dem, St Mary’s) was the lone voice in favour of the scheme, saying the number of conditions to be imposed made this application ‘as good as we’re going to get.’

Another positive is the ‘significant amount’ of section 106 contributions involved, ie money from the developer for infrastructure that mitigates the impact of new development.

“These residents have had this development looming over them for years. I think this [proposal] is as good as we’re going to get,” said Cllr Singh.

“Quite frankly, developments [like these] come back year after year – and eventually, something will be approved.

“The Government is really pushing for housing at the moment, [and] we are desperate for housing,” he added.

“I don’t think we have defendable reasons [for refusal] should this go to appeal. My concern is that the Borough will be left picking up the costs.”

But his motion to approve the scheme fell flat because it was not seconded by any of the five other panel members.

Instead, a motion to refuse won out, with Cllr Singh being the only dissenting vote.