Angela Rayner blocks plans for huge film studio in countryside village
Angela Rayner has blocked plans for a new film studio the size of 66 football pitches in a Berkshire village.
The Housing Secretary said plans for the studios, which would have been the third-largest in the UK, would have been harmful to the green belt and backed claims they were 'simply not needed'.
Greystoke Land, an investment company, applied for planning permission to build the complex next to the village of Holyport, near Maidenhead, in 2022.
The £260 million plans included sound stages, workshops, offices, a multi-storey car park and a roundabout.
It would also have included a 'media village' with a virtual reality studio and an area for open-air filming.
Studios 'simply not needed'
Councillors at the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead rejected the application in March 2024, as they agreed with a planning report that said green belt development should only be allowed in 'very special circumstances' and that the studios were 'simply not needed'.
The council said the case for the studio was 'overstated' because several others had already been built nearby.
It also made the case that less TV and film are being made in the UK, citing statistics from the British Film Institute that the production volume fell by a quarter between 2022 and 2024.
The company argued that the studios would provide economic benefits to the local area, and that the threat to green belt land had been 'exaggerated' by the council.
The site, which spans more than 100 acres, is currently made up of fields on either side of a narrow lane near the village of Holyport, which dates back to the 13th century and was once home to the British racing driver Stirling Moss.
The studio developers said the project offered 'the opportunity to create an entirely new film studio complex directing hundreds of millions of pounds of new investment into the local economy, and creating hundreds of new jobs'.
Not considered 'alternative sites'
The company's appeal was heard in November, then 'called in' by Ms Rayner's department for a final decision to be taken by ministers.
She agreed with planning inspectors that 'there is likely to be sufficient capacity within existing studio space' for the industry in Berkshire and the rest of the South East 'for the immediate future'.
She also argued that Greystoke had not searched enough for 'reasonably alternative sites' that would not have such a significant impact on the green belt.
Responding to the appeal, the junior minister Matthew Pennycook said Ms Rayner was 'not persuaded that a clear and convincing need case has been demonstrated'.
In a letter published on Friday, he insisted that the Government supports 'the growth of the creative industries in the UK'.
But he said that the harm to green belt land 'is not clearly outweighed by other considerations and therefore there are no very special circumstances which would justify this development'.
Labour to reduce green belt protections
It comes despite Labour plans to relax protections for the green belt, which the Government said would help drive economic growth and the housing supply.
Countryside campaigners have opposed the reforms, which made it easier to receive planning permission for green belt projects, especially on sites that have already been developed, now known as the 'grey belt'.
Sir Keir Starmer said in December that he wanted to 'get the balance right with nature and the environment'.
But he said that 'a human being wanting to have a house' would be the Government's priority, rather than protecting unspoiled land or commercial developments.
The new grey belt is defined as green belt land that 'does not strongly contribute to green belt purposes,' which include limiting urban sprawl, stopping towns merging into one another and preserving historical character.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
32 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The closing of a local hair salon tells you why Britain is going bust
On Wednesday, Rachel Reeves will stand up in the House and announce her latest plans for saving the country from bankruptcy. Somehow, she will have to produce plausible remedies for a crisis that seems insoluble: how to deal with catastrophic levels of government debt when there are endless demands for more public spending including a brand new commitment to provide more funding for defence. Having ruled out tax rises that clearly impinge directly on what they call 'working people' – income tax, VAT and employee National Insurance contributions – Labour has made this situation more complicated. But, perversely, they have chosen to make it even worse by pushing many of the most productive contributors to the economy out of business. The Labour Government, by putting supposed ideological solidarity over economic reality, has created the perfect formula for the failure of precisely the business sector which contributes most to national vitality and growth. Let me offer an illustration in the hope that it might prove instructive to the present and any future Chancellor. A hairdressing salon that I know in a prosperous North London neighbourhood closed for good several weeks ago. It had been at its current location for over thirty years and was so popular that it often took days to get an appointment. After lockdown it recovered well with its loyal customers delighted to return. The emergence of the four day working week meant that Fridays became as busy as Saturdays and the salon was humming. So what went wrong? The owner was hit simultaneously by the increases in the minimum wage and employer NICS. Added to ever-increasing energy costs (exacerbated by green levies), this burden finally broke them. Even though they were a well-run thriving business, they could not survive. Sadly all of the junior staff and trainees were laid off. Given the economic climate now, they will struggle to find similar jobs anywhere else so they will not be paying any tax for the indefinite future and will almost certainly have to claim unemployment benefit: a double loss for the Treasury. The salon as a company has gone so it will no longer be paying corporation tax. The senior stylists who have carried on working privately are now self-employed which means they can, perfectly legitimately, claim all their work expenses against tax – so they will pay less income tax than they did under PAYE when they were employees. You get the picture. The net effect of the Government's measures has been to reduce the tax take for their own coffers and increase unemployment among people starting out in their working lives whose chances are further damaged by the ridiculous stipulation that they must have full rights to secure employment from the day they are hired. What happened to one hair salon might not seem all that significant to the nation's future. But this pattern is being repeated in small businesses – particularly the ones that provide employment to young people starting out in working life – in countless numbers. Retail shops, building services and hospitality outlets are cutting staff and failing to hire new recruits because the cost of employing them is back breaking. As a result, they are not expanding and developing their businesses as they might have – and so not contributing to the growth of the economy in the significant way that small businesses, with their inherent dynamism and industriousness, once did. Labour, in its supposed determination to support 'working people' has created a doom loop in which fewer people will be joining the workforce and the consequent reduction in tax revenue will make the government even less able to meet the limitless demands of the welfare system as well as pay off its debts. Needless to say, there have been some obvious winners in the Labour dynamic: public sector employees have had their mouths stuffed with gold not only because Labour is historically inclined to favour the unions which represent them but because they can threaten disruption on a scale that reduces any complaining chorus from the small business sector to an inconsequential squeak. But there is more to it than that, in ideological terms: business generally, and small business in particular, are seen as inherently self-interested enterprises. Because they have been created, developed and run by private individuals in the hope of making a profit, they must be morally suspect and less worthy of support than the services that the state funds and operates for the general good of society. Carry this to its logical conclusion and it becomes admirable to penalise people who want to profit from other people's need for their services in order to pay for the provision of services dispensed 'fairly' (and without profit) by the government. You know where this ends, don't you? The most innovative, resourceful, determined individuals who might have developed new ways of creating real wealth and employing more people in experimental ways have impossible demands put on them which threaten their survival or, at the very least, make their continued existence as difficult as possible. They are encumbered with inflexible employment conditions which might possibly be appropriate for huge public sector organisations but are death to experimental emerging enterprises. Their tax arrangements are made so horrendously complicated and difficult to master that expensive accountancy advice becomes essential. I know self-employed sole traders in the creative industries who would like to enlarge their practice but are terrified of crossing the income threshold that would require VAT registration which now involves coping with Making Tax Digital – a peculiarly sadistic form of monitoring which, as HMRC has just discovered in its attempt to introduce it in self-employed income tax, can be susceptible to cyber hacking. Yes indeed, create a business on your own and try to make it a success – just try. The Government, and its agents in HMRC who can't even be bothered to answer the phone, will make your life as difficult as possible. And the more obstacles they put in the way to prevent you from flourishing and expanding, the more virtuous they will feel even though you and the real wealth that you create are the only things that might have saved them.
The Independent
38 minutes ago
- The Independent
NHS set for boost of up to £30bn as other budgets feel squeeze
The NHS is expected to receive a funding boost of up to £30 billion in the spending review next week at the expense of other public services. The Department of Health is set to be handed a 2.8% annual increase in its day-to-day budget over a three-year period. The cash injection, which amounts to a rise of about £30 billion by 2028, or £17 billion in real terms, will see other areas including police and councils squeezed, The Times newspaper reported. Sir Keir Starmer has pledged to ensure that by the next election 92% of patients in England waiting for planned treatment are seen within 18 weeks of being referred. Latest NHS data suggests around 60% of people are currently seen in this time and figures released last month showed the overall number of patients on waiting lists had risen slightly from 6.24 million to 6.25 million. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has acknowledged that she had been forced to turn down requests for funding in a sign of the behind-the-scenes wrangling over her spending review. She insisted the blame for the tight economic situation lay with the Conservatives rather than her rigid rules on borrowing and spending. The Chancellor said despite a £190 billion increase in funding over the spending review period 'not every department will get everything that they want next week and I have had to say no to things that I want to do too'. On top of the increase in day-to-day spending, funded in part by the tax hikes Ms Reeves set out in her budget, looser borrowing rules will help support a £113 billion investment package. Economists have warned the Chancellor faces 'unavoidably' tough choices when she sets out departmental spending plans on June 11. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) think tank said defence and the NHS will dominate the review, raising the prospect of cuts to other unprotected departments.
The Sun
41 minutes ago
- The Sun
Nationwide customers could make up to £759 by making simple switch
NATIONWIDE customers can get a huge boost to their savings of up to £759 thanks to a new offer. The building society is Nationwide members exclusive access to a new Member Exclusive Bond account. The 18-month fixed term account comes with a very attractive 5% interest rate - and it means you can get a great return on your savings. You can put anything between £1 to £10,000 into the account. If you save away the maximum £10,000, you'll get a huge return of £759 at the end of the 18 months. According to the best fixed-rate bond savings accounts up to one year offer rates of 4.45%. That makes the Member Exclusive Bond account one of the best options if you want to lock your money away in a fixed-rate account. However there are some terms and conditions you'll need to meet to be eligible to open the account. Firstly you'll need to be an existing Nationwide member - which just means you need to have a bank account, savings account or mortgage with the building society. You'll also need to be aged 16 or over, be registered to use the internet bank and have a valid email address. Once you've started the process of opening an account, you'll have two weeks to add funds to it. If you don't make a payment into the account in that time then your account will be closed. Inside the hubs restoring high street banking and reversing the tide of mass branch closures You can close the account within the same two-week timeline if you would like. But like with other fixed-term accounts, you won't be able to take money out of the account or close it before the end of the term. The interest is paid annually on the date the account was first opened. So if you opened your account tomorrow then you would receive your interest payment when the account matures on June 8 2026. What is a fixed-term account and what other options are there? A fixed-term savings account generally means your money is locked away for a fixed amount of time - such as one year, two years or five years. You'll receive a fixed interest rate that won't change over this time. Usually fixed-term accounts have higher interest rates than easy access savings accounts. Fixed accounts are best if you know you won't need your money for a certain amount of time but want to get more return on your savings. If you want to be able to get your money more easily, you are better off looking at easy access savings accounts. These might offer unlimited withdrawals, or a set number of withdrawals per year. Another option for putting away your savings is to look at ISAs, which allow you to save up to £20,000 tax-free per year. You can either go for a Cash ISA which is more similar to having a standard savings account, or if you are willing to take on more risk you can look at Stocks and Shares ISAs. These let you use your tax-free ISA allowance to invest in the stock market. Of course, another option is to look at investing. You can see our ultimate beginner's guide to investing here. What are the best interest rates around right now? Cash ISAs are currently paying some of the best interest rates - although bear in mind you can only save away up to £20,000 in these per tax year. The top easy-access rate right now is Plum 's 4.85% Cash ISA. This includes a 1.57% 12-month bonus, so it's worth noting down to switch after a year as your rate will drop dramatically then. You should also be aware that your rate will drop if you withdraw more than three times a year, so this is best if you're not planning to withdraw often. A similar option is Chip's Cash ISA deal, which has an interest rate of 4.82% but allows unlimited penalty-free withdrawals. If you have more than £20,000 to save, Atom Bank has an easy access account with a rate of 4.75%. However the interest rate drops in any month you withdraw so it's best if you just want to store money. If you're looking for a one-year fixed account, Cynergy Bank pays the top rate at 4.4% and can be opened with a minimum of £1,000. The top two-year fix is only slightly higher at 4.43% and it comes from Birmingham Bank. It can be opened online with a minimum of £5,000.
