Pippa Middleton ordered to dig up her ‘unsightly’ car park
Pippa Middleton ordered to dig up her ‘unsightly’ car park
Cameron HendersonSat, August 15, 2026 at 12:51 PM UTC
0
Residents were concerned the facility would take away from the area’s scenic beauty - Chris Gorman/ Big Ladder For The Telegraph.
Pippa Middleton faces having to dig up an “unsightly” car park she built on her Berkshire estate without planning permission.
The Princess of Wales’s sister, together with her husband James Matthews, submitted a retrospective planning application for approval of the facility, which was built last year.
West Berkshire council received objections to the car park and told Ms Middleton that it was out of keeping with the “beauty, landscape, character or rural setting” of the area.
Planners agreed with the objections, ruling in February that the car park and hard standing had introduced “an urbanising and visually intrusive feature into a highly sensitive rural landscape within the North Wessex Downs National Landscape”.
The Telegraph can reveal that on July 21, Ms Middleton’s appeal to overturn the ruling was dismissed amid concerns the facility would take away from the area’s “scenic beauty” and biodiversity.
Ms Middleton and Mr Matthews submitted a retrospective planning application for the car park - Chris Gorman/ Big Ladder For The Telegraph
The car park is located on the Wessex Downs, one of 46 areas of countryside across England, Wales and Northern Ireland designated as National Landscapes, which have enhanced protections for preserving scenic beauty.
Planners said that before the construction of the site, which was built for use by fishermen and angling clubs, the area was “largely undeveloped” and contributed to the “openness and tranquillity of the rural area”.
“Due to its size and engineered appearance, the development has introduced a visually intrusive and urbanised feature into an otherwise open meadow,” planners said.
There are also concerns that vehicles exiting the car park do not have “adequate visibility”, and that it could interfere with the nearby River Kennet, which is one of England’s premier chalk streams.
Planners said “no mitigation measures” had been put forward to protect the river from potential “adverse impacts”.
Advertisement
Ms Middleton and Mr Matthew’s appeal to overturn the ruling has been dismissed - Max Mumby/Indigo
Residents of the nearby village of Kintbury, in the Kennet Valley, previously complained that the car park, fencing and agricultural hard standing put down by the couple ruined the scenic approach to the village.
Some alleged that the parking space was built to keep cars from spoiling views closer to the couple’s Barton Court country home.
One resident said: “Ample parking already exists on the Barton Court estate. Additional parking is unnecessary.
“This application is to move unsightly parking out of sight of the applicants on entry to the Barton Court estate to the detriment of the residents and the heritage of Kintbury.”
Others warned of a possible threat caused by building on the surrounding grasslands flood plain, with one resident stating: “Additional hardstanding will inevitably increase surface run-off, reduce flood storage capacity and worsen flooding.”
The couple’s Barton Court country home
In their retrospective application for the car park, JPCC, the couple’s chartered town planners, stated: “Historically, the anglers have been able to use the small station car park opposite the gate entrance. However, new parking rules have been introduced, which means the car park is now only available to rail users. As such, alternative arrangements have had to be made. The hard surface is sufficient to park up to 6 cars and will only be used seasonally.
“The use is only from Monday to Thursday, from about mid-April through to the end of September for parking. It will be used at other times to assist in land management (holding hay that has been cut before removal to dry storage or in association with the grazing of adjacent land). The surface has the added benefit of being clean and thus preventing any mud tracking from the paddock onto the adjacent highway.”
The decision to dismiss Ms Middleton’s appeal means that the original ruling to deny planning permission stands.
Planners ruled in February that “the applicant has not shown how the development contributes to the long-term viability of the wider agricultural business, nor why the existing parking provision in the vicinity cannot reasonably accommodate the angling activity”.
They added: “The proposal, therefore, results in landscape harm without clear agricultural justification.”
Ms Middleton and Mr Matthews were approached for comment.
Source: “AOL Entertainment”
