1.
SUMMARY
1.1 The proposed
development relates to a site within the Green Belt. It proposes an
inappropriate form of development which is ‘by
definition’ harmful to the Green Belt. Furthermore, it
would result in harm to the
openness of the Green Belt and to the character and appearance of
an area which is valued locally as a place for tranquil informal
recreation.
It is not considered that ‘very
special circumstances’ exist that clearly outweigh the harm
to the Green Belt and any other harm.
1.2 In addition, the proposal as it stands
would result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety. The
applicant is proposing that part of the parking requirement be met
off-site, but has not demonstrated that feasible or available
parking can be secured.
1.3
The applicant has not
demonstrated that the proposed development would not have a
detrimental impact on biodiversity.
|
RECOMMENDATION
|
|
Planning
permission be refused for the reasons set out in Section 11 of this
report
|
2
REASON FOR REPORTING APPLICATION TO COMMITTEE
2.1 This application is reported to
committee at the request of Councillor Brunel-Walker.
3. PLANNING STATUS
AND SITE DESCRIPTION
|
PLANNING STATUS
|
|
Green Belt
|
|
Outside the settlement boundary
|
|
Sited within 5km of the Thames Basin
Heaths SPA
|
|
Biodiversity Opportunity Area
|
|
SSSI 500m buffer (access track
only)
|
3.1 The 12.9ha site is located
within the south eastern part of the over 200ha Swinley Forest
which lies between the A332 Swinley Road to the west and the Ascot
to Bagshot railway line to the east. The site is an open area of
land that has been recently cleared and which forms part of a large
commercial forest that benefits from permissive public
access.
3.2 The vehicular access
to the site would be from the west, off the private Buttersteep
Rise and Swinley Road. Within the site, forest tracks would provide
access to the film set and support area.
3.3 Swinley Forest Golf
Course and residential properties on Bodens Ride are approximately
320 metres away to the south.
4. RELEVANT
SITE HISTORY
4.1
12/00642/T Validation Date:
15.08.2012
Two year
temporary permission for the holding of a family based Christmas
Event to be open to members of the public between 1st December and
24th December 2012, and 22nd November and 24th December 2013, with
set up and dismantling between 10th October and the opening of the
event and 27th December and 31st January each year respectively,
together with ancillary works to improve the existing access
arrangements onto Swinley Road (A332) and in the formative year to
strengthen existing forest access routes and pathways with the
removal of all structures from site and the reinstatement of the
land in the intervening periods.
WITHDRAWN
12.09.2012
5. THE
PROPOSAL
5.1 Planning permission is sought
for the temporary use of land for film making including the
creation of a film set on the land, to allow for the filming of a
television series for a US Production company. Filming use of
the land is required for a 12-month period, with filming proposed
to occur over 30 days within a four-month period following the
required preparation period. Following the conclusion of filming,
the land will be reinstated to its former appearance.
5.2 In addition to the construction
of the film set, adjacent areas will be used for the creation of a
unit base, and for parking on filming weeks. The built film
set would be created in the northern section of the application
site and would involve the construction of temporary buildings and
fencing. In addition, the proposal would require associated
activities including parking and a Unit Base including portacabin
site office; toilet facilities; technical vehicles including
power supply generators; waste water and fresh water bowers;
storage containers; two marquees for costume/dining (during the
filming period) and construction and general waste skips. The
Unit Base would be located to the south west of the main set.
It would also include areas of hardstanding to accommodate up to
20-25 vehicles, typically in the range from 7.5 tonnes to 18
tonnes.
Set layout –
showing approximate location of temporary set structures
5.2 There are no permanent or fixed
structures proposed to be built. Set structures would not exceed
7.8m in height and would be made and constructed in situ and
removed at the end of the filming period. Overnight
accommodation would be provided on the site for security reasons
during the construction and filming phases.
Examples of set
structures
6. REPRESENTATIONS
RECEIVED
Winkfield Parish Council
6.1 Winkfield Parish Council
supports the proposals subject to submission by the applicant of an
acceptable highways report and a comprehensive traffic management
plan.
CPRE
Berkshire
CPRE
Berkshire objects to this application on a number of grounds
including:
-
inappropriate development in the Green Belt resulting in
encroachment and visual and spatial loss of openness to the Green
Belt. Does not accept the very special circumstances put forward as
the site is isolated, and unlikely to benefit local businesses some
miles distant. Overall, there would be few if any benefits, and
these are outweighed by the harm to the Green Belt.
- Several
SSSIs are nearby, the nearest Swinley Park and Brick Pits SSSI, and
the application site is in proximity to the Thames Basin Heaths
SPA, a network of heathland sites that provide habitat for
important ground-nesting bird species, for which it was designated.
The filming schedule could impact particularly on nesting birds and
young fledged birds, potentially reducing breeding success and
populations.
- There is
no assessment of the access route, which traverses the Forest from
the west. The Habitats Study considered parking areas, but not
potential disturbance from cars, buses and other heavy vehicles
traversing the Forest during filming. The route goes through some
of the alternative breeding/foraging areas that the report suggests
will mitigate the proposal. There is also no consideration of
potential vehicle pollution on the Forest and nearby vulnerable
habitats. In addition no consideration is given to wider
disturbance of the Forest in terms of potential (recreational)
footfall from up to 350 extra people. These are significant gaps in
the ecological assessment.
- The
study did not cover other species of conservation concern in the
Forest, yet potential impacts could be significant. Both Woodcock
and Nightjar are seriously affected by night-time light and noise.
While the report concludes that viable Woodlark and Nightjar
habitat will be restored onsite from 2022 onwards, intervening
seasons may be critical.
- There is
inadequate consideration of whether the proposed access route is
safe or adequate, or of impact on the quiet residential area. The
proposal indicates that site traffic would turn off and exit onto
the fast (60mph limit) and busy A322. There is no evidence safety
has been adequately assessed.
- It is
proposed the site would then be accessed via a residential road and
a forest track. These are not intended or capable of the estimated
volume or types of traffic. Heavy vehicles would be in use
throughout construction/removal and the filming period. While
forest tracks are undoubtedly suitable for forestry vehicles, such
vehicles are few in number and are also designed for the terrain.
Buttersteep Rise is a small, quiet road. Consideration does not
seem to have been given to whether it is adequate for the traffic,
or of adverse impact on residents. Multiple heavy-vehicle movements
during the construction/ removal phases and an overwhelming number
of vehicles during filming is more than the road can cope with and
would be severely disruptive to the tranquil community.
-
The site is accessed via roads passing through or near the TBH SPA.
There are other European sites in the vicinity. We are not clear
whether this development, given the traffic volume including heavy
traffic (albeit sporadic and temporary), needs to be considered
under the Habitats Regulations.
The
Society for the Protection of Ascot & Environs
(SPAE)
6.3 SPAE objects to this
application on a number of grounds including:
-
The set pieces would remain in situ for the whole of the year. They
therefore would have a high degree of permanence, physically
changing the character of the site for the elapsed duration. They
would be visually intrusive, and the proposal would represent
encroachment into the countryside. In spatial and visual terms, the
proposal would cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green
Belt. It is inconceivable that such use of this land would not have
major adverse impact on the Green Belt and so would amount to
inappropriate development.
- The case
put forward for very special circumstances has an emphasis on the
economic benefits that may be derived. However the nearest
locations for retail and other services are in Ascot Centre (2.8
miles away and in the Royal Borough) and Bagshot (2.9 miles away
and in Surrey Heath BC). SPAE considers that there would be little
economic and financial impact on the local area. Further, there
would be little employment gain in the set-up and take-down for the
set pieces. Employment would inevitably come from outside the area
and it is also very doubtful that acting talent and support staff
would be drawn from the local community. As such, the proposal is
highly unlikely to outweigh the detrimental harm that would result
from development in the Green Belt.
- The
proposed development is in an area of high biodiversity value and
is located adjacent to the Swinley Park and Brick Pits SSSI. The
proposal is therefore likely to have a direct adverse and harmful
impact on the habitat and wildlife. The proposal should contribute
to minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity.
If significant harm to biodiversity resulting from the proposal
cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with
less harmful impacts), then adequate mitigation should be
provided.
- The
proposal would adversely affect the character and appearance of the
land, it would
damage its
landscape quality and it would injure the visual amenity of the
Green Belt.
- The
proposed access is from the A332 which has a 60mph speed limit. We
would expect Thames Valley Police to be satisfied that the
additional traffic would not result in safety concerns. Further,
car movements, light and noise within the site would seriously
disrupt those residents who live within the Green Belt land on
Swinley Road.
Creative England (CE)
6.4 CE supports this
application. CE is the national agency that provides support
to the creative industries in England, outside London. It
supports international and domestic film and TV production to shoot
in England and works to improve the environment for filming in
England. It works in close collaboration with the British Film
Commission, to attract inward investment from film and TV
production. CE states that the film and TV industry in the UK
generates significant value for the UK economy. In 2019, film
production in the UK generated a total spend of £1.95
billion.
Creative
England estimate the average amount a production spends when
filming on location per day is in excess of £42,000 on a
major feature film and in the region of £22,000 for a
high-end television drama. The impact to both the national and
local economy is clear to see.
High-end
UK productions create outstanding content in demand by audiences
globally and generating much-needed expenditure and support more
than 180,000 jobs to drive the UK’s economic and social
recovery. Despite the UK’s success in attracting
international productions in film and high-end TV, the supply of
studio and alternative build space is not in-step with demand. This
temporary planning application directly responds to the shortage of
studio and alternative build space in the UK that Creative England
have seen over the last number of years. Temporary planning
permission would also ensure that the UK remains internationally
competitive by ensuring sufficient infrastructure to support inward
investment.
Given
Berkshire’s proximity to the M3, M4, Central London, Heathrow
and the largest Studios in the UK its unsurprising that the County
has been home to some of the biggest productions to shoot in the UK
over recent years such as Netflix’ The Crown and Bridgerton,
Universals’ Fast and Furious 9, MGM’s No Time To Die
and Sony’s Cinderella to name but a few. This validates
Berkshire’s importance as a filming destination in the UK and
the opportunity to ensure communities across the County enjoy the
profile, job opportunities and economic benefits that the sector
generates.
Other
Representations
6.4 78 letters of objection have
been received, the vast majority of these from local residents
living in Ascot and Bracknell. They raise the following
concerns:
Transport
-
Buttersteep Rise, is a small
road, barely wide enough for two cars to pass each other. 300 cars
on this per day will not only block our entrance, but there is no
provision in the application for restoring the road surface once
production is completed (that number of
heavy
vehicles will destroy it).
- additional
traffic would further impact already busy routes. The junction of
the A322/A332 is already notorious and often leads to incidents
which then cause a gridlock on the M3 junction 3 roundabout.
Furthermore, traffic destined for Ascot Race Course and
Sunningdale/ Wentworth Golf courses often lead to horrendous
traffic issues for local residents.
- Traffic leaving
the A322 to enter the tight Buttersteep Rise track will create
another accident danger spot on entry and exit.
Green
Belt/ Harm to character of area
- The woods are
used by thousands of walkers, dog walkers and ramblers everyday. It
is an attractive and unspoilt area of land providing a quiet,
secluded area of peace and tranquility for local residents.
In addition, many people pay a substantial membership fee to
park at Buttersteep in order to have a safe place to exercise and
walk their dogs. If this goes ahead it will be unsafe for walkers
using the forest, and will impact on the ability to park,
unload/load dogs safely, and reduce the area of forest people can
access, due to a large area being closed off, which will push all
the dog owners/walkers onto a smaller space.
- By any
standards, the proposed development is huge. A total of 15
buildings (Types A, B, C and D) each ranging between about 18sq.m
and 570sq.m, is massive. The potential is for in excess of
4,000sq.m, or more.
- Although the
application is for a ‘temporary’ development of one
year, experience shows that these types of applications get
extended over time and may become permanent, which would be totally
unacceptable. Furthermore, any temporary development approval would
set a dangerous precedent for potential future
development.
Environment and Ecology
- The proposed
development is incredibly unsustainable in terms of land
use,
impact on the environment and ecology, use of high carbon
materials, use of power
generation
(assumed diesel and associated pollution), lack of public transport
links etc.
Developments of this type should be built on brownfield or
regeneration sites with
existing
infrastructure.
- This
Application has not addressed biodiversity aspects at all.
The area is known for endangered species, including ground nesting
birds and rare reptiles.
Economic benefits
- Whilst
any assistance to the local economy is very welcome especially in
today’s climate, it queries what proportion of this is going
to be brought to BFC.
- will
have a significant negative impact to dog walking
businesses.
6.5 42 letters of support
received. The vast majority of these are not from local
addresses and include support from across the country including
London, Bedford and Leeds. The supporting letters highlight
the economic benefits of this proposal.
7. SUMMARY OF
CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Highway Officer
7.1 Objection for the reasons set
out in the report.
Biodiversity Officer
7.2 To demonstrate
how the application protects and enhances biodiversity, further
information is required to address the following points:
1.
Local records and survey information
2.
Ecological Impact Assessment
3.
Potential impacts and mitigation
The application in its current state does
not demonstrate that it protects and enhances biodiversity in
accordance with EN1, CS1, CS7, NPPF, Circular 06/05, NERC Act 2006
and Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as
amended). Therefore, it should be withdrawn or refused unless such
information can be provided within the timeframe of the
application.
Parks
& Countryside Officer
7.3 There are
almost no public rights of way in the Crown Estate land that falls
within the Bracknell Forest area. All access for recreation
and leisure is by permission, which could be withdrawn at any
time. (The exception is Crowthorne Woods which the Crown
Estate took over from the Forestry Commission, so different rights
were already in place there.)
The Crown Estate website for Buttersteep
Forest and Swinley Park refers to the fact that these are working
forests where large machinery operates, and areas are clear felled
and replanted in a sustainable method of commercial timber
production. It is considered that this sets the recreational access
in context. It is not a static landscape with inalienable
rights of public access; rather a working forest where the public
are allowed to have permissive access. There is no open
access land in this area of the Crown Estate.
Would not recommend refusal based on loss
of access to the countryside as:
1 It is a
relatively small area compared to the total area that the public
are allowed to use and explore.
2 It is used by
permission, not by right.
3 The area of land
will have been forest plantation in the past and probably will be
again in the future.
4
The application is for
temporary use, and the land will be restored after 12 months
5 The forest
tracks are primarily for forest operations, maintenance, timber
extraction, and the public access is a by-product of the layout of
tracks and parcels of forest.
It may well be possible to create an
alternative path to the west of the film set, connecting
Buttersteep Hill northward to Passmore’s Plantation.
Environmental Health Officer
7.4 No objection.
Lead Local Flood Authority
7.5
No comments received.
SPA Officer
7.6 This proposal is not located on
the SPA or SANG. It also does not involve a net increase in
dwellings and the filming area lies approximately 2km from the SPA.
Therefore, it is not considered that this proposal requires an
Appropriate Assessment.
Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead
7.7 No comments
received.
Surrey Heath Borough Council
7.8 No comments
received.
8. DEVELOPMENT
PLAN
8.1 The key policies and
guidance applying to the site and the associated policies
are:
|
|
Development Plan
|
NPPF
|
Weight to be attributed, with
reference to para.
213 of NPPF
|
|
Sustainable development principles
|
SALP Policy CP1
CSDPD Policy CS1
|
Para. 11(d) refers to ‘policies which are
most important for determining the application are out-of-
date’. CP1 wording differs to this.
Furthermore, the PPG states that there is no need
for a policy to directly replicate para. 11.
Consistent (Paras. 7, 8,
11, 12, & 117 - 119)
|
Limited (policy not used in
planning application decision-making)
Full
|
|
Principle
of development
– Green
Belt
|
BFBLP ‘Saved’ Policies GB1 and
GB2
CSDPD Policy CS9 and BFBLP ‘Saved’ Policy
EN8
|
Elements are acknowledged to not be fully
consistent (para.145 & 146) however the thrust of these
policies remains consistent
Elements are acknowledged to not be fully
consistent (para. 170 a) and b) however the thrust of these policies remains consistent (paras.
78-
79, 103, 104a, 117
&
170)
|
Not fully consistent therefore
not full weight
Not fully consistent therefore
not full weight
|
|
Design
&
Character
|
CSDPD Policy CS7
BFBLP ‘Saved’ Policy EN20
|
Consistent (Chapter 12)
“
|
Full
Full
|
|
Trees
&
Landscape
|
CSDPD Policies CS1 & CS7
BFBLP
‘Saved’ Policies EN1, EN2 &
EN20
|
Consistent (paras. 127
& 170) “
|
Full
Full
|
|
Residential Amenity
|
‘Saved’ Policies EN20 & EN25 of
BFBLP
|
Consistent (paras. 127,
170 & 180)
|
Full
|
|
Transport
|
CSDPD Policies
C23
BFBLP ‘Saved’
Policy M9
|
Consistent (Chapter 9)
“
|
Full
Full
|
|
Biodiversity
|
CSDPD Policies CS1 & CS7
BFBLP
‘Saved’ Policies EN1, EN2 &
EN20
|
Consistent (paras. 170
& 175)
“
|
Full
Full
|
|
Noise and Pollution
|
CSDPD Policy CS1
BFBLP ‘Saved’ Policies EN15 &
EN25
|
Consistent (paras. 118,
170, 178 & 180)
“
|
Full
Full
|
|
Other publications:
|
|
|
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
(2019) National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) (2019)
Bracknell Forest Borough Landscape
Character Assessment (LUC) (2015)
|
|
9. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
9.1 The key issues for
consideration are:
(i) Principle of
the Development – Green Belt issues
(ii) Impact on the
character and appearance of the area
(iii) Transport
Implications
(iv) Impact on residential
amenity
(v) Biodiversity
(vi) Planning Balance
i. Principle of
Development
9.1 Section 38(6) of the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that
applications for planning permission must be determined in
accordance with the Development Plan, unless material
considerations indicate otherwise, which is supported by the NPPF
(paras. 2 and 12). Policy CP1 of the Site Allocations Local Plan
sets out that a positive approach should be taken to considering
development proposals (which reflects the presumption in favour of
sustainable development set out in the NPPF), and that planning
applications that accord with the development plan for Bracknell
Forest should be approved without delay, unless material
considerations indicate otherwise.
9.2 The proposed film
set would be located in an area of countryside designated by the
Bracknell Forest Borough Policies Map as Green Belt. National
Planning Policy, (set out in the NPPF 2019), states “The
Government attaches great importance to Green Belts” and that
“the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban
sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential
characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their
permanence.”
9.3
The NPPF states that “Inappropriate
development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should
not be approved except in very special circumstances, (paragraph
143). It goes on to state, in paragraph 144, “When
considering any planning application, local planning authorities
should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the
Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist
unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of
inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal,
is clearly outweighed by other considerations.”
9.4
Paragraph 145 states that “A local
planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings
as inappropriate in the Green Belt”, with the exception of
the certain types of buildings. Paragraph 146 states that
certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in
the Green Belt provided they preserve its openness and do not
conflict with the purposes of including land within it, and these
include material changes in the use of land.
9.5 In order to make a more robust
assessment of the harm to the Green Belt the Government has
provided additional guidance on how to assess the impact of a
proposal on the openness of the Green Belt. This
states:
“Assessing the impact of a proposal on the openness
of the Green Belt, where it is relevant to do so, requires a
judgment based on the circumstances of the case. By way of example,
the courts have identified a number of matters which may need to be
taken into account in making this assessment. These include, but
are not limited to:
·
openness is capable of having both
spatial and visual aspects – in other words, the visual
impact of the proposal may be relevant, as could its
volume;
·
the duration of the development, and
its remediability – taking into account any provisions to
return land to its original state or to an equivalent (or improved)
state of openness; and
·
the degree of activity likely to be
generated, such as traffic generation.”
9.6 The proposed change
of use of the land for the construction of a film set and
associated activities, for a 12 month period involves a set build
of a number of temporary buildings, rising to a maximum height of
7.8m, and fencing covering an area of approximately 9.7ha (although
the majority of the buildings would be confined to a core area of
approximately 1.6ha). In addition, the proposed unit base, would
cover a further area of approximately 0.63ha, and would accommodate
parking, a portacabin site office, power and water supplies,
storage containers, marquees for costumes and dining, technical
vehicles and generators and construction and general waste
skips.
9.7 While an argument could be made
that the duration of the development and its remediability count in
favour of the proposed development, it is considered that, on
balance, the proposed development would cause substantial harm to
the openness of the Green Belt taking into account the following
spatial and visual impacts:
- the fact
that the site is currently completely undeveloped;
- the
scale and number of the proposed structures, plant and parking
areas comprising the set and unit base;
-
the fact that this is clearly a popular area for public outdoor
recreation and thus would be readily perceived in public
views;
-
the degree of activity that would be generated.
9.8 Cumulatively these factors
would result in a significant loss of openness albeit for a limited
period of time. This would conflict with one of the five
purposes of Green Belts, namely that of assisting in safeguarding
the countryside from encroachment. As such the proposed development
is considered to constitute inappropriate development within the
Green Belt. The NPPF makes clear that inappropriate development is
‘by definition’ harmful and should not be approved
except in very special circumstances and that these will not exist
unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of
inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal,
is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
9.9
The principle of development is unacceptable
unless there exist any “very special circumstances”
which clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, and any other
harm. These are considered within the ‘Planning
Balance’ section of this report.
ii Impact on character and appearance of
area
9.10
CSDPD Policy CS7 states that development will be permitted which
builds upon the local character of the area, provides safe
communities and enhances the local landscape where possible. BFBLP
'Saved' Policy EN20 states that development should be in sympathy
with the appearance and character of the local area. It further
states that the design of the development should promote local
character and a sense of local identity.
9.11
The Bracknell Forest Borough Landscape Character Assessment (2015)
(LCA) provides a comprehensive landscape character assessment for
all land outside defined settlements. It identifies different
landscape character areas, describes their key characteristics and
features of value and suggests an appropriate landscape strategy
for each character area. The application site is identified within
the LCA as falling within landscape type A Forested Sands.
This character area comprises a large expanse of forest plantation
between the settlements of Bracknell to the north, Crowthorne and
Sandhurst to the west, Camberley to the south and South Ascot to
the east. Key characteristics of this landscape type relevant to
the application site include:
- Large areas of
forestry plantation interspersed with broadleaf woodland and
limited areas of open heath, giving a sense of enclosure and
remoteness.
- Typically short
views, contained by trees, with occasional distinctive long views
along historic, straight rides through the trees and glimpsed views
from more elevated areas. Where areas have been felled or trees
lost to forest fires, views open out to enable appreciation of the
undulating landform and the scale of the landscape
- A very low
settlement density and few transport corridors.
- Well-used
recreation areas valued by the local community. Substantial parts
of the forest are owned by the Forestry Commission and Crown
Estate, with public access allowed in most of these
areas.
- Despite the
non-native land cover and presence of forestry operations the area
has a sense of remoteness; a sense of removal from the surrounding
urban settlements and a connection to the history of Windsor
Forest.
-
Used as a film location - Swinley
Forest was used as a film location for Harry Potter and the Deathly
Hallows in 2009.
9.12
This is an area characterised by extensive forest which provides a
continuity of character as well as a large sense of scale. The
influence of the suburban development at its edges is limited. The
area is an important recreation resource for the adjacent
settlements of Bracknell and Ascot and includes large areas of
publicly accessible land where provisions are made for a range of
activities, including biking and walking.
9.13
The report identifies the following valued features and
characteristics of this landscape area which are considered of
particular relevance to the application site:
- The extensive
areas of forest and woodland where an undeveloped
character
predominates,
providing opportunities for recreation and enjoyment of the
landscape
as well as a
wooded setting to the surrounding settlements and forming a
physical and
visual separation
between Crowthorne and Bracknell.
- The forest and
the historic rides are particularly important, providing
associations with the
historic Royal
Forest of Windsor created in the 11th century by William the
Conqueror.
The woodland and
undeveloped areas are key to Bracknell Forest borough’s
character as
a whole; and
areas of Swinley Forest have more recent film and literary
associations,
having been used
as a location for the filming of Harry Potter and the Deathly
Hallows in
2009.
- Mosaics of
broadleaf and mixed woodland, remnant heathland and
grasslands
which provide
important habitats as well as contribute to the visual diversity of
the area
(a variety of
colours and textures and changing seasonal interest).
- The
undeveloped character, sense of naturalness and remoteness provided
by
the lack of built
development and the remaining deciduous and mixed
woodlands and
heathlands. This sense of remoteness and escape is highly valued
so
close to dense
urban parts of the borough.
- Heavily
enclosed character with distinctive long but framed views opening
out along
historic,
straight rides through the trees.
- Recreational
areas of open access land (although this is in part controlled due
to the
Thames Basins
Heath SPA).
9.14
The report proceeds to identify a detailed landscape strategy for
this landscape character area, including the protection of the
valued attributes identified above, and in particular to protect
the undeveloped nature, sense of remoteness and dark skies in the
interior areas of forest, which provide an escape from the settled
parts of the borough.
9.15
The application site comprises an open clearing within an area of
generally forested countryside and lies at the intersection of two
of the straight rides characteristic of this area. It is evident
from numerous of the objections from local residents that the
informal recreational function of this area of countryside is a
highly valued feature. The siting, scale and design of the
proposed development would therefore be incongruous and harmful to
the rural character and appearance of the area. The weight
attributed to this harm is set out in the Planning Balance section
of this report.
9.16
It is also significant that one of the identified characteristics
is that areas of Swinley Forest have recent film and literary
associations. It is therefore considered that the small scale
and temporary use of the land for filming would not in itself be
harmful to the character of this area. However, it is
considered that there is a substantial difference between using
this site as a film location and developing a substantial film set
with all the associated activities over an extended period of
time. It is the proposed erection of set buildings and the
scale and duration of the proposed activity here as evidenced by
the amount of traffic that would be generated and length of time
involved, that are considered to be the main causes of harm to the
character and tranquillity of this remote countryside
location.
9.17 On balance, it is therefore considered
that the proposal would result in harm to the character and
appearance of the area and is therefore considered to be contrary
to CSDPD Policy CS7, and, 'Saved' Policy EN20 of the
BFBLP.
iii Transport Implications
Access
9.18 The site would be accessed via Buttersteep
Rise, which is a private road which serves several residential
properties and provides access to Crown Estate land and car park at
its eastern end. It is understood this car park is there to cater
for the wider public who pay to use it whilst walking in the
surrounding woodland. Buttersteep Rise has been improved over
the years and now has bollards on one side and a low post and wire
fence on the other, both of which are located close to the edge of
the road and therefore provide very little room for vehicles to get
close to the edge of the road. The road is around 4.5m wide and
this coupled with proximity of the bollards and fence provide very
little room for cars and larger vehicles to pass.
9.19 The junction with Swinley Road is
relatively informal with limited kerbing and the junction will need
to be tracked for the expected vehicles to ensure that the safety
of motorists both on Buttersteep Rise and on Swinley Road is not
compromised. Visibility in both directions is good but as Swinley
Road has a 60mph speed limit it is imperative that the junction
into and out of the site can operate safely.
9.20 The applicant has submitted a Transport
Assessment that sets out the likely trips and types of vehicles
expected from the intended use of the site and provides information
on the tracking of delivery vehicles that will access Buttersteep
Rise during the site set up and take down (strike) events. The
original proposal indicated that all vehicles would be expected
to
come from
the south and exit southwards through the junction. Whilst it is
understood that deliveries may be advised to use this route, this
cannot be guaranteed and as the strategic local road network also
exists to the north of the site it is quite possible for such
deliveries to arrive and exit in this direction.
9.21 In relation to the tracking that has been
provided it is clear from the movements executed that the largest
vehicles will overrun the centre line of Swinley Road on exit and
this gives rise to safety concerns. Large goods vehicles by their
very nature are heavy and slow moving from a standing start. This
coupled with the speed limit and straight alignment of Swinley Road
means that the potential for conflict between turning vehicles is
greater. Should a vehicle try to turn earlier to avoid
overrunning the centre line then the adjacent
ditch and
headwall are likely to be overrun and thus could lead to damage to
the highway. It is also noted that any vehicles turning right into
Buttersteep Rise take up a lot of the road space and so with a
vehicle waiting at the junction to exit this would restrict the
ability for a HGV to turn in easily, or if already turning and a
vehicle is exiting the potential for such a vehicle to stop
suddenly and be partially on Swinley Road could occur also leading
to conflict.
9.22 As stated above the Transport Assessment
does not consider the potential harm that might arise from vehicles
accessing from the north of the junction, which could not be
precluded. Tracking for minibuses from either direction into and
out of the junction should also be undertaken for the maximum size
of vehicle expected to be used. This could include smaller buses
that are commonly used to serve businesses that have private
shuttle bus contracts and hold approximately 30 - 40
passengers.
9.23 In response to these concerns the
applicant has reviewed the situation and is now proposing that
vehicles enter from and exit to the north of Buttersteep Rise.
However the tracking that has been provided still raises concerns
as the amount of road space needed is excessive for the size of the
junction and existing vehicles along Buttersteep Rise would not be
expecting a HGV so would not naturally stop over 25m from the
junction to allow it to pass. This in reality is likely to lead to
the incoming HGV to suddenly stop potentially
overhanging Swinley Road which could lead to
conflict.
9.24 In addition, visibility for exiting
vehicles would be restricted by a waiting HGV and with its
indicators on an approaching vehicle from the north may choose to
try and overtake as forward visibility would be good and this could
lead to conflict with an emerging vehicle from the junction.
The swept paths submitted have considered the manoeuvre, but this
has not considered such vehicles waiting at the stop line. The
current tracking would require vehicles to make such turns without
being able to see oncoming traffic. This is unacceptable and
should be carried out with vehicles appropriately waiting at the
stop line and then turning out.
9.25 It is also expected that the larger HGVs
will overrun the edge of Swinley Road leading to highway safety
issues and damage to the highway adjacent. In order to safely allow
such operations to occur, alterations to the northern kerb line on
Swinley Road and on Buttersteep Rise would be required to allow
sufficient space at the junction for vehicles to enter the site
safely as well as provide sufficient room for exiting vehicles as
well. An increase in junction radii and compound curve or splay
arrangement are expected to be required to facilitate safe access.
It is anticipated that such changes would be required over the
first 25-30m of the junction. There appears to be a T service
chamber that could be affected by such changes as well as a
headwall but this would need proper investigation. Such changes
would be expected to be carried out under a S278
agreement.
9.26 Alterations to the northern kerb line may
be possible within the ancient highway and it is assumed that the
Crown Estate has control of Buttersteep Rise and the verge areas
adjacent. However the applicant has not carried out the required
investigations or submitted acceptable proposals for the required
highway improvements. It should also be noted that while
signage and instructions can be provided this would not completely
preclude some deliveries either arriving from or exiting to the
south. For the above reasons it is considered that the applicant
has not demonstrated that a safe access can be provided onto
Swinley Road.
9.27 Furthermore Buttersteep Rise itself is
limited in width when considering the potential for HGV's and cars
to pass each other and alterations to the current bollards or fence
adjacent to the road edge would be required to widen the road
nearer the junction and provide passing places along the road.
However, this would not address the form of the junction and the
safety issue relating to increased use by this proposal.
Parking
9.28 The Transport Assessment also outlines the
trips associated with the day to day operation of the site when
filming is in progress and sets out that a large proportion of the
site staff and crew as well as cast members and extras will be
collected by mini busses from local rail stations or from off-site
car parking to be secured elsewhere. The applicant has stated
that two off-site parking options are being looked at which could
also accommodate parking for delivery vehicles to wait until they
are permitted to enter the site. As both options are located
off-site the Council would need to be satisfied that such off-site
parking was feasible and that the applicant had secured control of
such parking.
9.29 One option is at Lapland. However,
this option would appear
to conflict with the extant planning permission for Lapland which
is limited to LUK only and to specified time periods. In
addition, it would appear that this site may not be suitable for
the HGVs required for this development. It would therefore
appear that in order to pursue this suggestion a further planning
permission will be required on the Lapland site. Furthermore
the junction arrangements at Lapland are limited and the use of the
site by HGVs would need to be carefully controlled and the
applicant has not set out which access to that site would be used,
this would be required to ensure the highway is not damaged leading
to safety issues.
It should
also be noted that there is a narrow railway bridge on the section
of Swinley Road south of Lapland and increasing the amount of
traffic from cars but more specifically HGVs could create a
enhanced risk of conflict in this area from those directed to wait
at this location. It is therefore not considered that Lapland
would be a feasible option and would not be a suitable location for
vehicles to wait off site.
9.30 The second option suggested is Ascot
Racecourse. If Lapland is unavailable for the reasons set out above
then the use of the racecourse could have significant implications
if it displaced parking for racecourse functions. The
applicant has also failed to demonstrate that this would be a
feasible or suitable option or that it has secured the necessary
control required to implement this.
9.31 Overall without certainty over the
off-site arrangements it is considered very likely that more
parking will be drawn onto the main site and this will impact on
the use of Buttersteep Rise and could further increase the impact
on the surrounding area and potentially the junction with Swinley
Road.
9.32
Pedestrian access from the car parking for walkers into the areas
of woodland will also have to be managed to reduce any conflict
with vehicles entering or exiting the site. However, it is
considered that this could be secured by condition.
Traffic
impact
9.33 The impact of the development will be
impacted by the extent of what occurs on site and how people arrive
at the site. Due to the uncertainty over the off-site parking
arrangements the full impacts of this proposal cannot be fully
assessed as they could be different from what has been
outlined.
Pedestrian
safety
9.34 There is a potential conflict between
vehicles and pedestrians using the forest routes between
Buttersteep Rise and the unit base/ film set. However, the routes
within the wooded area are predominantly straight with verge areas
to the side of them. In that regard, with mitigation measures such
as suitable alternative routes for pedestrians and advisory signage
on speed and of potential users along the route so that both
vehicles and pedestrians are made aware of each other such matters
could be addressed by a suitable condition.
iv Residential
Amenity
9.35 Saved Policy EN20, criterion vii considers
that new development should not adversely affect the amenities of
neighbouring residents.
9.36
The nearest residential dwellings to the proposed film set
are on Bodens Ride,
approximately 320 metres away to the south. It is considered
that this distance is adequate to prevent undue noise or light
impacts on these properties and no objection has been raised by the
Environmental Health Officer.
9.37
There are also residential properties on Buttersteep Rise.
Although there are unlikely to be any direct impacts on the
amenities of these properties, some inconvenience in accessing
these properties may arise as a result of the additional traffic,
narrow width and any issues entering or leaving from Swinley Road
as set out above. Although it is not considered that this
would result in sufficient grounds upon which to refuse the
application in its own right, it adds weight to the highway
concerns about the suitability of the access
arrangements.
9.38 The proposal is therefore considered to
comply with ‘saved’ Policy EN20 vii) of the
BFBLP.
v Biodiversity
9.39 The application in its current state does
not demonstrate that it protects and enhances biodiversity in
accordance with EN1, CS1, CS7, NPPF, Circular 06/05, NERC Act 2006
and Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as
amended). In particular the insufficient information has been
submitted on the following matters:
Local
records and survey information
9.40 The Habitat Survey does not provide
sufficient information to determine the existing value of the site
for biodiversity. The proposed site is located within an area that
shares characteristics of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA and Swinley
Brick Pits SSSI. Therefore, it is likely to support a range of
notable and protected species that could be affected by the
proposed film set.
9.41 The UK Guidelines for Accessing and Using
Biodiversity Data (CIEEM, 2016) explain that for ecology surveys
supporting a development application “The sources consulted
for the background data search may vary depending on the location
of the proposed development, but must always include the LERC where
one exists.” The Habitat Survey does not include any
local records search, and this leads to a lack of information about
the potential impacts of the proposals on protected and notable
species. Local records are required to provide an indication as to
the potential for species that may be present on the site and could
require further assessment.
9.42 The Habitat Survey provides information
about the habitat structure on the site but no habitat map to show
the distribution of differing habitat types or structures. The
report comments on the rides and suggests “They are largely
poorly vegetated with any species richness confined to the
margins.” The rides in this area provide margins of short
heather and acid grassland up to 3 metres in width and in many
areas these margins occur on both sides (particularly on the south
side of the site). These rides are known to support reptiles and
invertebrates such as Silver Studded-Blue butterfly. Therefore,
this value should be recognised and included in an ecological
impact assessment.
9.43 The Habitat Survey does provide detailed
consideration of the three Schedule 1 birds Nightjar, Woodlark and
Dartford Warbler but does not refer to any survey data to support
the statements in the report. It is highly likely that these birds
are present but unclear how important this site may be in the local
context to assess whether the loss of a breeding season could be
compensated by the extended provision of young plantation habitat
(i.e. setting back the restocking to allow a longer period of open
habitats). This area is regularly surveyed, and survey information
is held by the Crown Estate which should be included as an evidence
base.
9.44 Strict adherence to Standing Advice from
Natural England would require further surveys for schedule 1 birds,
reptiles, amphibians, and notable invertebrates. However, given the
short-term nature of the proposals and the good potential for site
restoration it should be possible to use a thorough ecological
impact assessment based on survey information to address the
potential impacts of the proposals.
9.45 Paragraph 43 of the NPPF explains
“The right information is crucial to good decision-making;
particularly where formal assessments are required”. The
Habitat Survey provided with this application does not provide
sufficient information for the council to conclude that the
proposals will protect biodiversity and requires revision to
include a local records search and survey information.
Ecological
Impact Assessment
9.46 The Habitat Survey does not follow
recognised methodology and provides limited consideration of the
potential impacts of the proposals on biodiversity. The report does
not follow guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (CIEEM,
2018) which results in an inconsistent approach to assigning the
ecological value of the site, identifying potential impacts, and
recommending appropriate mitigation.
9.47 The report focuses mainly on the schedule
1 birds (Nightjar, Woodlark and Dartford Warbler) and considers
some short-term impacts during site set-up and long term impacts on
their habitat. However, it does not systematically identify
potential impacts through the different stages of the film set and
it does not consider other species. The report identifies a ditch
and seasonal pond at the site but does not make any further comment
as to their suitability for great crested newts which are known to
be present at the Swinley Brick Pits SSSI.
9.48 The area is likely to be suitable for
reptiles such as Adder (Viperus berus), which may also use
hibernacula of particular importance for population that would need
to be protected from any clearance or human activity. In
particular, there is a potential hibernaculum on the ride to the
west of the site (Kings Ride). The local area also has
records of Silver-studded Blue (Plebejus argus) which has poor
dispersal and could be using heather on the rides. Adder,
Silver-studded Blue and several other species recorded in this area
are Species of Principal Importance (SPI). Under section 40 and 41
of the NERC Act 2006, the Council must have regard to the
conservation of listed habitats and species of principal
importance.
9.49 Therefore, further information is required
to assess how species will be affected by the proposals and what
mitigation will be implemented to avoid, reduce and compensate for
these effects. Paragraph 99 of the ODPM Circular 06/2005 states
“It is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected
species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed
development, is established before the planning permission is
granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not
have been addressed in making the decision.”
Potential
impacts and mitigation
9.50 As mentioned above, the Habitat Survey
report does not provide an ecological impact assessment which means
that potential impacts are not readily identified. There is little
information about the activities during the lifetime of the film
set in the Supporting Statement which leads to uncertainty
regarding the potential impacts of the proposals. Therefore,
further information and a precautionary approach to assessing
impacts will be needed. A number of potential impacts are
described below. These need to be considered and addressed
through the mitigation hierarchy in an ecological impact
assessment. While it is recognised that the Crown Estate will
continue management works in agreement with Natural England that
may affect habitats and species in this area, this application has
to be considered on its own merits against planning policy and
guidance and in a consistent manner with other planning
applications.
i) Direct
habitat loss – temporary/permanent
9.51 Section 3.10 of the Support Statement
provides a schematic diagram of the site with various blocks on an
aerial photo but it is not clear whether all vegetation within the
site would be removed. The potential impacts of the scheme
including direct habitat loss and potential disturbance of schedule
1 birds depends on the extent of vegetation removal. The Habitat
Survey does not provide any details of the remediation of the site
following the strike of the film set except to mention “an
assumed forestry restocking regime”. While the Crown Estate
will have a stocking regime and standard working practices to
replace vegetation at the site, the presence of a film set is
additional to their original stocking plan. To demonstrate that
biodiversity will be protected and enhanced by these proposals, the
ecological impact assessment should identify specific mitigation
and compensation which could take the form of a restoration
plan.
9.52 It would appear that the ditch line and
ponded area are outside the area required for the film set but
there is no confirmation of this in the Habitat Survey. These areas
should be specifically protected from any vehicles or vegetation
clearance. There are four ride areas which appear to be marked for
parking and facilities which may have differing habitat and
impacts. There is no information to show how these areas would
function. Some of these rides include heathland that could be lost
to parking and temporary buildings. In the first instance,
consideration should be given to avoiding rides with heathland
margins or fencing off areas of this habitat. As a second measure,
protective matting could be used to preserve the existing habitat.
If protection is not possible or fails, a restoration plan should
be outlined as compensation in the ecological impact assessment.
There is a risk that some activities on the site could result
in permanent habitat loss through compaction of the soil,
impounding of the ditch lines and importing materials, particularly
if ground conditions are poor.
ii)
Killing, injury or disturbance of protected species/species of
principal importance
9.53 Depending on the timing of the site
clearance, breeding birds, reptiles and invertebrates could be
killed, injured or disturbed. The Habitat Survey suggests that
clearance will be outside the bird breeding season in February but
depending on the extent of the clearance and the activity at the
site, schedule 1 birds may still nest close to the site and be
disturbed by later activities. In addition, there is no
consideration of clearance methods that will protect reptiles which
could be active in February depending on weather conditions.
In addition, Kings Ride located adjacent to the west of the
site includes a pile of partially buried logs and wood chippings
which could be used by reptiles as a hibernaculum that appears to
be in a parking area. This feature should be protected from
physical clearance and fenced off for the duration of the site
activities.
iii)
Disturbance – temporary
9.54 Due to the lack of information regarding
filming activities, there are a range of potential impacts that may
need to be considered. If Schedule 1 birds attempt nesting on any
remaining areas of heathland near the film set before filming
begins, they could still be disturbed. This would depend on the
frequency and severity of human presence, animals, vehicles, noise,
vibration, explosions or lighting. Lighting at night could
have impacts beyond the immediate site depending on the lighting
being used. Security and film lighting could have impacts on a wide
range of species such as bats, nightjars and invertebrates
depending on its intensity, duration and type.
iv) Air
Quality
9.55 There could be localised temporary impacts
from particulates emissions caused by generators or running
vehicles. These could smother some areas of vegetation which may
not be an issue within the cleared area of the site but it may be a
potential impact in parking areas where there is presence of
heathland/acid grassland and some priority species. This could be
remedied by using parking areas close to conifer rather than more
open habitats and/or using renewable energy and electric
vehicles.
9.56 In the absence of adequate information in
respect of local records and survey information; Ecological Impact
Assessment and potential impacts and mitigation, the application in
its current state does not demonstrate that it protects and
enhances biodiversity in accordance with saved Policy EN1 of the
BFBLP, Policies CS1 and CS7 of the CS, and national policy
contained in the NPPF, Circular 06/05, NERC Act 2006 and
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as
amended).
vi
Other material
considerations
Permitted
Development Rights
9.57
Schedule 2 Part 4 Class E of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 2015 specifies that the temporary use
of any land or buildings for a period not exceeding 9 months in any
27 month period for the purpose of commercial film-making ; and the
provision on such land during the filming period of any temporary
structures, works, plant or machinery required in connection with
that use is permitted development, i.e. does not require planning
permission. Class E development is permitted subject to the
condition that (a) any structures, works, plant or machinery
provided under the permission must, as soon as practicable after
the end of each filming period, be removed from the land; and (b)
the land on which any development permitted by Class E has been
carried out must, as soon as reasonably practicable after the end
of the filming period, be reinstated to its condition before the
development was carried out.
9.58
However, development is not permitted by Class E where the
land in question is more than 1.5 hectares or the use of the land
is for overnight accommodation. Furthermore development is
only permitted subject to the condition that before the start of
each new filming period the developer must apply to the LPA for a
determination as to whether prior approval of the authority will be
required for the dates and hours of operation of the filming
period; the transport and highway impacts of the development; the
noise and lighting impacts of the development, in particular the
effect on any occupier of neighbouring land and the flooding risks
of the site.
9.59 Accordingly and theoretically, the
applicant could erect a substantially smaller film set on a smaller
site up to 1.5ha (including any base unit and parking), with no
overnight accommodation and film for no more than 9 months without
requiring planning permission subject to the prior approval
process. Due to the size of the site being restricted to 1.5
hectares, a film set and base unit of a comparable size to that
proposed under the current application could not be provided under
permitted development. The set would also have to be removed from
the land after each filming period and the land reinstated to its
original condition.
9.60 If the applicant chose to take the
permitted development route they would need to apply to the Council
for prior approval. It is important to note that the relevant
permitted development rights criteria do not require any
consideration to be given to the impact of the proposal on the
Green Belt, character of the area in which the site is located, or
biodiversity. However, they do include a consideration of
transport and highway impacts and, in view of the highway concerns
discussed above it is unlikely that prior approval would be granted
for a development of the scale of that proposed.
9.61 The
Permitted Development Rights available to the applicant are a
material consideration in the assessment of this planning
application and the weight given to this is set out in the Planning
Balance below. In particular it demonstrates Government
support for the film industry. It is also considered relevant
in that it establishes a fallback position for the applicant
whereby some form of film making may be acceptable on this site in
principle albeit on a much smaller scale. The highway safety
issues would still have to be assessed, but a much smaller scale
proposal would be likely to have reduced the highway impacts, and
subject to any required mitigation, could potentially be deemed
acceptable.
Economic
benefits
9.62 Paragraph 80 of the NPPF states that
planning decisions “should help create the conditions in
which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. Significant weight
should be placed on the need to support economic growth and
productivity, taking into account both local business needs and
wider opportunities for development.” Para.82 states:
Planning policies and decisions should recognise and address the
specific locational requirements of different sectors. This
includes making provision for…creative or high
technology
industries…”
9.63 The applicant has submitted a
‘Statement of Very Special Circumstances’, which sets
out the economic benefits of the proposal. These benefits are
supported by the letter submitted by Creative England (CE).
CE states that the film and TV industry in the UK generates
significant value for the UK economy, and that in 2019, film
production in the UK generated a total spend of £1.95
billion. 2019 also saw the second highest level of spend by
international filmmakers ever recorded, reaching £1.77
billion. CE claims that this highlights the confidence
international filmmakers have in the UK’s creativity, the
expertise of our crews, and world-class production facilities
combined with the generous UK film tax relief. On a more local
level, CE estimate the average amount a production spends when
filming on location per day is in excess of £42,000 on a
major feature film and in the region of £22,000 for a
high-end television drama.
9.64 The applicant claims that this proposal
would provide both direct and indirect benefits to the local
economy resulting from local spend in the immediate surrounding
area on staffing, hotel, transport, cleaning, security, catering
and waste requirements along with spending in nearby restaurants,
shops and petrol stations. During the period of construction
and filming the staff and the production company will use local
facilities and services. This will bring a boost to the local
economy and provide local employment and use of local services.
This will feed directly into the local economy. It should
however be noted that in view of the remoteness of the site from
Bracknell the nearest local centres are Bagshot and Ascot, both
outside the Borough.
9.65 The economic benefits of the proposal are
material considerations relevant to the assessment of the proposal
and the weight given to this is set out in the Planning Balance
section below.
Lack of
suitable and available alternative sites
9.66 In its supporting letter, Creative England
states that “despite the UK’s success in attracting
international productions in film and high-end TV, the supply of
studio and alternative build space is not fully in-step with
demand.” It adds that “temporary planning permission
for the proposal would ensure that the UK remains internationally
competitive by ensuring sufficient infrastructure to support inward
investment.”
9.67 It is therefore considered that there is
evidence that there is a demand for additional film studios and
filming locations, especially within the local area on account of
its proximity to the M3, M4, Central London, Heathrow and the
largest studios in the UK. Indeed, this is recognised by this
Council’s support for the industry, including the promotion
of filming locations within the Borough, and its work with the
Berkshire Film Office.
9.68 However, the applicant has not
demonstrated that any alternative sites were considered during the
site selection process, in particular it has not been demonstrated
why a Green Belt site is necessary. Notwithstanding this, the
applicant has submitted details of a number of sites within the
region where planning permission has been granted for filming,
including previously developed and non-Green Belt sites. The demand
for and availability of suitable film sites are material
considerations relevant to the assessment of the proposal and the
weight given to this is set out in the Planning Balance section
below.
Precedent
and cumulative impact
9.69 It is established practice that each
application must be determined on its own merits and concerns about
setting a precedent must be treated very cautiously. However,
a common feature in several other similar proposals submitted by
the applicant is
the
multiple number of applications made for temporary film sets on
these sites. Once a
temporary
permission has been granted this establishes the acceptability of
the principle of creating a film set on a site, and as can be seen
in other cases, further similar applications, either on different
parts of the general site or at different points of time may be
made.
9.70 A ‘very special circumstance’
will not normally be considered to create a precedent where a
particular development, site characteristic or planning history is
unique to an area. However if there is a possibility that the
very special circumstances relied upon could be replicated, leading
to a number of subsequent similar permissions on a site that would
cumulatively, or through repeated operations over an extended
period of time result in a recurring loss of openness to the Green
Belt, this may be a potent reason for rejecting a proposed
development. Even if individually a proposal would be
relatively inconspicuous or have a limited effect on the openness
of the Green Belt, if such arguments were to be repeated, the
cumulative effect of many permissions could destroy the very
qualities which underlie Green Belt designation.
9.71 Precedent and cumulative impact are
considered material considerations relevant to the assessment of
the proposal and the weight given to this is set out in the
Planning Balance section
below.
vii Planning Balance
9.72 As set out in paragraph 9.3 above,
inappropriate development in the Green Belt is, by definition
harmful and should not be approved except in very special
circumstances. Local Planning Authorities are required to give
substantial weight to any harm to the Green Belt and ‘very
special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential
harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any
other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by
other considerations.
9.73 In addition, while the NPPF specifies the
amount of weight to be given to certain issues, for example, any
harm to the Green Belt is to be given substantial weight, there are
other material considerations where the weight given is a matter
for the decision-maker, having regard to the information before
them. Accordingly, the ‘weighing-up’ exercise
outlined below is an Officer recommendation and the weight, for
issues in favour or against, could be varied according to the
Committee’s judgement of the proposal.
9.74 In this case, the proposal is considered
to constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, would
lead to loss of openness in the Green Belt and would lead to
encroachment of development in the countryside. This harm to the
Green Belt is given substantial weight, albeit that it would be
limited to one year. Given the undeveloped and rural nature of the
land, harm to the character and appearance of the area would also
be caused and this is also given significant weight. Highway
safety is also very important and in view of the advice from the
Highway Authority that the proposed access has not been
demonstrated to be safe, and the uncertainty that remains about any
off-site parking, this issue is also given significant weight. The
Council has a statutory duty in regard to protected species and
their habitats and, as the potential harm to these are unknown due
to lack of information, this is also given significant
weight.
9.75 The proposed development would have a
negative impact on the current informal
recreational use of the land as evidenced by the very large
number of objections to this
application from local users. The urbanising nature
of the film set, supporting base facilities and traffic would be
very evident to forest users both visually and audibly, especially
given the central location of the film set within the publicly
accessible area of Swinley Forest. Furthermore, many more
people may choose to come and walk in Swinley Forest to have a look
when there are sets being built or filming activity going on than
at other times. This would all detract from the tranquil rural
experience that existing users currently enjoy. This harm is
considered to have moderate weight as opportunities to mitigate
this impact may exist, and public access would be maintained.
However, this issue further adds to the cumulative concerns about
this site. It is not considered that the proposal would directly
harm the living conditions of any residents living within the
vicinity of the application site so this is considered to have a
‘neutral’ impact and therefore no weight in given to
this issue.
9.76 In
favour of the proposal, the site benefits from Permitted
Development Rights (PDR) which allows the temporary use of any land
or buildings for a period not exceeding 9 months in any 27 month
period for the purpose of commercial film-making; and the provision
on such land during the filming period of any temporary structures,
works, plant or machinery required in connection with that use.
However the application site area and the development proposed far
exceeds the amount that could be provided under permitted
development and would be permanently in place for 12 months, as
opposed to being removed from the site after each filming period as
required by the PDR. Furthermore, it is far from clear that
prior approval would be granted in view of the transport and
highways impact of the proposal. Accordingly, this consideration is
given limited weight. Based on the limited information submitted,
only limited weight is given to the lack of alternatives to the
application site.
9.77
Having regard to the supporting information provided, significant
weight is given to the economic benefits arising from the proposal,
(as required by paragraphs 80 and 82 of the NPPF). The
claimed economic benefits may be limited by the remoteness of the
site to Bracknell, although closer centres at Bagshot and Ascot may
benefit. These benefits would be limited due to the temporary
nature of the proposal, although it may result in long term
benefits by securing further investment into the UK’s Film
and TV Industry. It is also a possibility that despite the
temporary nature of this application, should it be permitted,
further similar applications may be made in the future as an
expectation of a successful outcome would have been created.
Should this happen, the economic benefits may become
recurring.
9.78 Given
the weighting attributed to the other considerations set out above
and, as the test requires that for ‘very special
circumstances’ to exist the harm to the Green Belt and any
other harm must be clearly outweighed by other considerations, it
is not considered that this test has been met in this case.
Therefore the proposed development is considered to result in harm
to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and that this harm
and other harm identified is not clearly outweighed by any other
considerations. In addition, the proposal as it stands would
result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety, would result in
harm to the character and appearance of the area and has not
demonstrated that it would not have a detrimental impact on
biodiversity. For these reasons refusal is
recommended.
10.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Head of Planning be authorised to
refuse the application for the following reasons:
1. The proposed
development constitutes inappropriate development within land
designated as Green Belt, and as such is contrary to Saved Policies
GB1 and GB2 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan; Policy CS9
of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and paragraphs
143-146 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The applicant
has not demonstrated that any very special circumstances exist that
would outweigh the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of
inappropriateness or any other harm.
2. The proposal,
by reason of its siting, design and scale, would detract from the
rural character and appearance of the area and be detrimental to
the enjoyment of its recreational value. This is contrary to Saved
Policy EN20 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan and
paragraph 170 of the NPPF.
3. The proposal
fails to provide a safe access to the site from Swinley Road. This
will result in an unacceptable detrimental impact to highway
safety. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Saved
Policy M4 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan and Core
Strategy Policy CS23 and paragraphs 108, 109 and 110 of the
NPPF.
4. The applicant
has not demonstrated that off-site parking options are available or
feasible. In the absence of secured off-site parking the
proposed amount of car parking on site is insufficient which is
likely to lead to overspill parking or parking obstructing the
highway to the detriment of road safety and/or biodiversity.
The proposed development is therefore contrary to Saved Policies
EN20 and M9 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan and Core
Strategy Policies CS1, CS7 and CS23.
5. It has not been
demonstrated that biodiversity can be adequately protected and
enhanced. As such, the development would be contrary to Policy EN20
of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan and Policies CS1 and CS7
of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and paragraphs 170
and 175 of the NPPF.
Informative(s)
01. The
Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in
determining this application. However, given the fundamental
concerns with the proposal it has not been possible to negotiate a
satisfactory way forward, and due to the harm which has been
clearly identified within the reasons for the refusal, approval has
not been possible.
02. This refusal is based
on the following plans:
- PL-010-Site Location
Plan
- PL-100-Proposed Block
Plan
- PL-200-Proposed
Structures - Plans and Elevations
