Appeal dismissed again for eight-flat scheme in Shoppenhangers Road

A second bid to build eight flats in Shoppenhangers Road has failed at appeal over potential harm to a protected tree and nearby ancient woodland.

The flats were intended to be built in place of Fairview, a detached home in Shoppenhangers Road.

Similar proposals have been rejected by the Royal Borough before.

There has been an attempt to try to get something built there going back a while; a scheme in 2024 for five flats was refused, as was a second application for eight flats last year.

In June, developer Gill Capital Homes Ltd took the matter to appeal and lost, with the Government planning inspector saying that there would be a risk to protected trees and ancient woodland backing onto Maidenhead golf course.

While this appeal was being determined, the developer put in another application for the same site and the same number of flats, set within a smaller block of three and a half storeys.

This, too, was refused by the Royal Borough – at about the same time as the appeal for the previous application was quashed by the Planning Inspectorate.

Application documents claimed the new scheme had been ‘carefully developed to address all concerns raised in the previous refusal’.

But the Royal Borough’s answer was the same, saying the case had already been ‘assessed in detail’ by the tree officer and there are ‘fundamental issues’ with the development.

Gill Capital Homes Ltd ploughed ahead with another appeal – and again, the company has been unsuccessful.

The inspector said the works would likely cause damage to the root network of a protected tree, causing it to deteriorate and likely need to be removed, harming the area’s character.

Moreover, the demolition of the existing house would whip up dust, while construction vehicles might spill fuel or other pollutants, causing a contamination risk to the ancient woodland.

Although proposals mention steps to protect the woodland, they are quite vague, the inspector thought – they do not explain clearly how it would stop contaminated water from spreading.

The inspector, D Marley, thought that pollutants would not be properly controlled and could pollute the ground around the trees in the woodland.

“Such an outcome … would result in the deterioration of the ancient woodland, and to the other habitats and species which benefit from its presence,” they wrote in their decision.

“Although the proposal would include bat and bird boxes, hedgehog highways, and other measures to improve biodiversity … these would not mitigate the harm I have identified that would result to ancient woodland.”

D Marley noted the council does not currently have enough housing land – called its five-year housing land supply – which usually means that any proposal for new homes carries more weight at appeal.

However, the inspector said the proposal goes against key planning policies, and that problem should carry ‘significant weight’ when making a decision.

There is a ‘strong reason’ for refusal where there is a threat of harm to ‘assets of particular importance’ including ‘irreplaceable’ habitats – as is the case here.

As such, the appeal has been quashed.

See the plans in more detail by entering planning reference number 25/00857 into RBWM’s online planning portal.