Three entrance piers at a housing estate in Berkshire have been granted planning permission despite an Inspector finding that they were inappropriate development in the Green Belt. A realistic permitted development fallback proved decisive.
Inspector S E Hughes allowed appeal 6007126 on 27 October 2026. The dispute concerned three 2.1-metre-high entrance columns already erected at De Havilland Place, off Waltham Road in White Waltham, near Maidenhead. The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead had refused permission.
This matters beyond a dispute about three small structures. The appeal illustrates how the realistic alternative to a proposal can outweigh Green Belt harm, even where the proposal itself does not qualify for a national policy exception. It also shows why the precise boundary of previously developed land matters.
Why entrance piers were inappropriate in the Green Belt
The entrance piers marked a recently built residential scheme associated with the former Grove Park Industrial Estate. Each was a freestanding square column, 2.1 metres high and topped with a decorative stone cap. Their presence was not in dispute: they had already been erected when the Inspector visited.
Under Policy GB6 of the August 2026 National Planning Policy Framework, Green Belt development is inappropriate unless it falls within the categories in Policy GB7. The appellant, Shanly Homes, argued that the structures formed part of the permitted residential development. The Inspector nevertheless found no GB7 category directly covering entrance piers or gateways.
An attempt to rely on the provision for appropriate outdoor recreation and similar facilities failed because the piers were not associated with any of the specified uses. The Inspector also rejected reliance on the exception for redevelopment of previously developed land. Although the wider estate occupied the former industrial site, the particular entrance site was on land that had been undeveloped, to the south of the former access road.
That distinction is easy to overlook. A development can be connected to a brownfield scheme without the particular land under consideration necessarily being previously developed. The conclusion was that the entrance piers were inappropriate development, not that they automatically had to be removed.
Limited harm to Green Belt openness
The Inspector assessed openness in both spatial and visual terms. The columns introduced built features where none had previously existed, so they reduced spatial openness. They could also be seen from Waltham Road and nearby public viewpoints, creating some visual harm.
However, the columns were separated from one another and did not form a solid boundary. The Inspector considered their adverse effect on openness very limited and the additional Green Belt harm very minor. That did not cancel the separate harm caused by their inappropriate status under national policy.
St Mary’s Church and Bury Court Conservation Area lies across Waltham Road, around 20 metres away. The Inspector agreed with the council that the entrance piers did not harm its setting. Importantly, the absence of heritage harm was treated as neutral rather than as a positive benefit that could justify Green Belt development.
The 1m permitted development fallback changed the balance
The turning point was an alternative available to the developer. The appellant maintained that the entrance piers could be reduced in height to one metre and retained using permitted development rights. The Inspector considered whether this was a genuine prospect rather than a theoretical argument.
Because the structures were already in place, alongside the estate signage, the Inspector considered it likely that the developer would implement the shorter alternative if this appeal were dismissed. The fallback columns would have the same materials, width, depth and footprint as the appeal proposal, so they would remain recognisable entrance features.
The Inspector accepted that the permitted development fallback would have a similar adverse impact on the Green Belt’s openness. The decision described that comparison as a consideration of very significant weight in favour of the appeal
. This exact quotation is from Planning Inspectorate decision material, reproduced under the Open Government Licence.
This is a useful example of the two-stage fallback analysis. First, ask whether the alternative is more than a theoretical possibility. Only then consider what weight it carries, including how the fallback’s actual effects compare with those of the development under appeal.
Although the appeal was allowed, the Inspector did not formally certify that the columns already erected were lawful. The decision expressly observed that any separate question of lawfulness could be put to the council under sections 191 or 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Why very special circumstances were found
Green Belt policy required substantial weight to be given to the harm arising from inappropriate development. The very minor additional harm to openness also weighed against the scheme. Neither the modest scale of the entrance piers nor the absence of conservation area harm, by itself, made the scheme acceptable.
The compelling consideration was the credible one-metre alternative. Dismissing the appeal would probably not remove the entrance feature, but would prompt an arrangement with a comparable effect on openness. The Inspector concluded that this alternative clearly outweighed the identified Green Belt harm, so very special circumstances existed.
The decision also referred to the presumption in favour of sustainable development under Policies S3 and S5 of the revised Framework. The Inspector allowed the appeal and did not impose a compliance-with-plans condition, explaining that the works had already taken place.
This is not a general permission for taller walls or gateways in the Green Belt. The outcome depended on the particular site’s policy status, the physical comparison between schemes and convincing evidence that the fallback would be implemented.
What this entrance piers appeal means in practice
For applicants, a fallback argument is strongest when its legal basis, physical characteristics and likelihood of implementation are shown rather than merely asserted. An alternative carrying less weight than the appellant claims may not overcome an inappropriate development finding.
For councils, it is worth separating the threshold question of whether a proposal falls within a Green Belt exception from the later balancing exercise. An Inspector can answer the first question against an applicant while still allowing the appeal because of other considerations.
The distinction between the former industrial estate and the actual location of the entrance piers is also instructive. Planning Geek’s guide to Green Belt, grey belt and previously developed land explains why that classification must be established carefully. Its permitted development guide provides background on the principle of development rights, without establishing the lawfulness of a particular fallback.
The appeal did not determine a large housing scheme or create a new general Green Belt exception. It resolved a narrower dispute about three built columns at an estate entrance. Its broader value lies in demonstrating how an Inspector applies a realistic fallback to the very special circumstances balance.
Decision and sources
Read the Planning Inspectorate appeal record for reference 6007126. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase.
0 Comments