Campaigners are furious over the government’s approval of a housing development near Hampton Court Palace. The controversial scheme had faced significant opposition before being given the green light by a government planning inspector.
The scheme, located in East Moseley, Surrey, consists of 97 homes, an 84-bedroom hotel, retail units, car parking, and landscaping. Originally rejected by Elmbridge Borough Council in 2021 due to its ‘excessive’ nature, the proposal was later approved by a government planning inspector.
Developers required approval from Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport due to rules affecting buildings near historic sites. The South Western Railway Act 1913 dictates that any development taller than 50 feet (15m) within 0.5 miles (0.8km) of the palace needs permission.
Elmbridge Borough Council initially denied permission, citing the development’s ‘excessive height and bulk’, which they believed would cause ‘harm to numerous heritage assets’ in the vicinity.
Planning inspector David Prentis countered the council’s concerns by stating the development did ‘not appear disproportionate or overbearing’. He asserted that any changes to the palace’s setting ‘would not be harmful’.
Roberts further opined that the development would remain ‘a source of permanent and visceral controversy’, unlike other large schemes that eventually gain muted acceptance.
Elmbridge Borough Council expressed their disappointment, labeling the inspector’s decision as ‘incredibly disappointing’.
Comments on social media reflected the deep divide in public sentiment. ‘This is a catastrophic decision for our heritage,’ one user lamented, while another praised it as ‘a step forward towards modernisation’.
Looking ahead, the debate over balancing development and heritage conservation is likely to intensify. The Hampton Court case exemplifies the complexities involved in such decisions, stirring strong emotions on both sides.
The approval of the housing development near Hampton Court Palace has sparked significant debate and opposition. While some see it as a modernisation effort, others believe it threatens the heritage and beauty of the area. The controversy surrounding this decision is unlikely to subside anytime soon.
