Transcript

[ Background Conversations ]

Good morning, everyone. Apologies for the slight delay. We've been trying to accommodate everybody that's attended in person today. We've set up two rooms with a live feed webcam, and unfortunately there are still a few people who we can't fit in, but we have reached capacity, and hopefully the vast majority of people who have attended today have been accommodated. Right. Well, good morning to you all, Councillors, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to this morning's meeting. A few basic instructions. First of all, I'd like you to please note that the meeting will be webcast, and the public and press can see and hear the meeting through that webcast. In the unlikely event that there is a technical issue, the meeting will be paused until that has been resolved. There are a couple of housekeeping items to cover. Members, please remember that the use of mobile phones is not permitted during the meeting, so please either turn them off, and while I mention that, I will make sure that mine is also off or silent at least. There. And iPads can be used to access the ModGov app. Members, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand at the appropriate time. Please remember to turn your microphone on before speaking and switch it off when you have finished. It is a large chamber. There are a lot of people here, and so if I could remind everyone present in the meeting that when using the microphone, you get close to this and speak clearly so that everyone can hear. For the public gallery, I will just point out for anyone that's perhaps never attended a strategic sites meeting in the past, I do not brook any distractions such as clapping, shouting, interrupting, booing, cheering, or anything else of a similar nature. I'm sure you'll all be extremely well behaved, and it will prove I'm sure to be quite an interesting meeting. Please can I also remind members not to prejudice their ability to participate in the decision-making for today's planning application by giving the appearance of being predetermined or aligned with an external interest or lobby group. In the event of a fire alarm, please use the nearest fire exit and there, and there, or back out through the entrance to the main doors that you all came through, and assemble in the overflow car park, which is situated to the right of the main entrance when you exit the building. If there are any members of the press present, I believe we do. We have two members present, and you've already made yourself known, so that's fine. And can I just remind everyone that if you are, and particularly the press, if you are sitting at the designated press table, and whilst it is a public meeting which may be filmed, I request that you do not disrupt the meeting or move around the room during proceedings, and that's the same for everybody present. Before we move to the first agenda item, I will ask each of the members and officers to introduce themselves, starting today from my left. Susan Kitchen, Strategic Planning Advisor and Lead Officer for this meeting. John Funnan, Planning Consultant and Lead Case Officer for the Application Assessment. Jo Thornton, Highways Development Manager. Tim Ferley, Highways Development Consultant. Councillor Trevor Eagleton, Member for Stoke Poggies and Wexham Ward. Councillor Richard Newcomb, and I represent the Wendover, Halton and Stoke Mandeville Ward. I'm Councillor Peter Cooper, and I represent the Wing Ward, which is in the northeast of the county. I'm Councillor Sue Lewin, and I represent the Burnwood Ward. Councillor Alison Wheelhouse for Beckonsfield Ward. Good morning, Councillor Michael Rand representing the Grenden Underwood Ward. Councillor Neil Marshall representing Marlowe. Good morning, everyone. It's Patrick Feeley, and I represent Buckingham Waste. Councillor Ashley Bond, I represent the Wing Ward. Councillor Jackson Nunn, I represent Beckonsfield Ward. Councillor Mark Fliss, Penwood and Old Amersham Ward. Rebecca Binsted, Democratic Services. Laura Lee Briggs, Legal Officer for Legal Services. And chairing the meetings of A, I'm Councillor Alan Turner from Member for the Risboroughs Ward. Thank you, everyone, for the introductions. And the next item on the agenda is to appoint the Vice-Chairman of the committee, and I hereby appoint Councillor Fliss as my Vice-Chairman, if you'd like to. The next item is to confirm whether or not there are any apologies. Thank you, Chairman. I've received no apologies. Thank you. Now, turning to agenda item number two, do we agree the minutes of the committee meeting held on the 15th of May, 2024. These could be found on pages three to four of the agenda pack. Councillor Cooper. Thank you, Chairman. I'd like to make a comment in relation to the last full meeting of this committee when we discussed the Buckinghamshire County Council, the old Buckinghamshire County Council sports ground. And I would like to confirm that I provided a written apology to our planning officers for using the word bias during my summing up of that application. And I've also realised that the webcast by the meeting remains a permanent record. And therefore, I would like to state in this webcast that I have retracted the use of that word. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Councillor Cooper. And that's duly noted. Thank you. May I then sign the minutes as a true record? Do we, please? Thank you. [ Background Sounds ] Now, do we, do any members have any interest to declare? Councillor Neukin. Thank you, Chairman. As I often declare to this committee, I am one of the five representatives of Buckinghamshire Council on the Children's Conservation Board. The Children's Conservation Board is the authority set up under law to administer the area of outstanding natural beauty for the children, it's now known as a national landscape, and accordingly, that is relevant to the application before us. I have been very careful to play no part in any discussion whatsoever at the Children's Conservation Board or in its surroundings, as it were, in relation to this matter. And indeed, I did not see, hear, or take any part in the formulation of the observations made by offices of the Board in relation to this planning application and read it for the first time when I was preparing for today's meeting, when I read the agenda earlier this week. So I am accordingly not predetermined in any way, shape, or form with regard to this application. Thank you for that. That's duly noted. Councillor Marshall. As I previously stated at the last meeting, a number of our councillors did make a statement of support to the Marlowe Film Studios, and I did not take part in any of those discussions or read us a report, thank you. Thank you, duly noted as well. Are there any further declarations of interest? No. Then we will proceed. We will now consider the officer report. I will clarify first the order in which the application will be considered. The planning officer will introduce the application with any relevant updates. The local members, Buckinghamshire Council members, Parrish Hotel Council representative, members of the public, and the agent applicant will be invited to read out their statement in the following order. Local member first, then Buckinghamshire Council, Parrish Hotel Council representative, objector, supporter, agent, or applicant. It should be noted that pursuant to the provisions in the constitution related to public speaking and planning committees, I have exercised my discretion as chairman and allowed the following specialists to be available to answer questions following the speaker's statement. Sam Kershaw on behalf of Councillors David Johncock and David Watson, Callum McGough on behalf of Councillor Carol Heap, Peter Lerner on behalf of Councillor Alex Collingwood, Verity West on behalf of Councillor Anna Crabtree, Mark Small, Amanda Neville, Josh Berger, Ian Dix, and Stuart Andrews on behalf of the applicant, Robert Laycock. I have also increased the speaking time limits to four minutes across all categories. Where speaking times are shared, there is an overall time limit of four minutes in total, not four minutes each. After each public speaking statement, members are able to ask speakers for clarification on matters raised in their statement and only matters raised in their statement. And these must be addressed through the chair. I will then ask members if they have any technical questions of officers. Following this, the entire committee will then discuss the application. Members may seek further clarification from officers on points regarding the application or on points raised by speakers in the main debate. Officers will respond to issues and questions raised by the members. The committee will then make a decision by vote. Members will need to propose and second the recommendations. We'll now move to item four, application, land adjacent south side of Marlow Road and A404 Junction, Westthorpe Park, Little Marlowe, and this could be found on pages five to 622 of the agenda pack. Those speaking today, please respond to indicate your presence after I call your name. Please ensure that your verbal representations to the committee relate to the relevant planning considerations regarding the planning application being considered and do not include any personal comments. Each public speaker will be called to speak and will come to sit at the public speaking table. After members have asked any points of clarification they may have, please return to your seats. So if you would please, I'd like to indicate that you are present when I call your names. Firstly, Councillor David Johncock, thank you. Councillor David Watson, thank you. I believe we have in attendance Sam Kershaw, who will be available to take questions following Councillors David Johncocks and David Watson's statements. So Sam Kershaw, thank you. As Buckinghamshire Council members, Councillor Dominic Barnes, thank you. And we, thank you. Councillor Alex Collingwood, thank you. And I believe we also have in attendance with you, Peter, Lerner, thank you. Councillor Stuart Wilson, thank you. Councillor Leslie Clark, thank you. Councillor Carol Heap, thank you. And I believe, thank you. And I believe also attending with Councillor Heap, we have Callum McGough, thank you. And then we have Councillor Ana Crabtree, on behalf of Little Marlowe Parish Council, thank you. And in attendance with you, Verity West, thank you. And then we have on behalf of the objectors, Richard Sherwin, thank you. You have to excuse me, I'm working from two lists here, so I just wanted to make sure that they actually tally up. And then on behalf of the supporters, Chris Lyons, thank you, Gerry Turner, thank you. Mark Kelleher, you know. Jeremy Hay, thank you. Marks Goyles, thank you. Jenny Craig, John Thorpe, thank you. Robert Laycock as the applicant, thank you. Then I believe we have in attendance as well, Mark Small, Amanda Neville, Josh Berger, Ian Dix, and Stuart Andrews, thank you. I will now call on the case officer, John Fanon, to introduce the report on the application. Good morning, Chair and members. The planning application, full planning permission sought for the Marvel Studios redevelopment film studio complex, approximately 168,000 square metres in area. Members will recall that this application was considered by the committee on the 23rd of October last year, and it was resolved that the application be deferred to enable officers to seek to resolve outstanding issues, including highways and suitable alternative natural green space mitigation, and that the application be considered again by the committee within five months are such an extended time, as agreed by the chair. An extended period to May 2024 was agreed to enable consultation, publicity and consideration of issues following the planning application submission received in February this year. The submission in February comprised a list of documents on the slide there, an update to the planning statement with various areas addressed, an update or addendum to the environmental statement, and then a document relating to the benefits of the proposal and further information in relation to the transport work. The site is located to the east of Marlowe. I think the slide has become distorted. Apologies for that. It's been twisted through 90 degrees. It is an appendix in your report. It's the site location plan is Appendix B1A. Apologies for that. And the aerial photograph shows the site outlined in red. It's approximately 36 hectares in area. And it's largely undeveloped greenbelt land. You can see Westhorpe House and Westhorpe Homes roughly centrally located within the site. And the proposal involves, if you'd like, dividing the site into five plots. That's the diagram on the left hand side of your slide. And most of the development happens to the north of the site in plots one to three, where there's, if you like, a master plan layout of the various film and TV studio related buildings. Again, apologies for this. This is supposed to show offsite BNG or biodiversity net gain assessment. The slide has been distorted. Again, this plan is located in your papers. It's Appendix E2. And to draw members' attention to some of the supplementary information that's included in the February submission. This one relates to the replacement of the voluble footbridge, which is proposed to be secured as part of any consent. It's not part of the planning application. It would require its own consent at some time in the future. But it is included in the environmental assessment addendum where a feasibility of the bridge replacement, which is sort of illustrated on the right image, is included. And this is like a close up of the ramps and stairs that would be located to the west and with some section drawings showing how this replacement bridge would be feasible. Turning to the application proposals now. The image on the left shows the master plan for the whole of the scheme. But as I said, the majority of the development is focused in the north and plots one to three, which is reflected on the image on the right. The master plan shows a campus of buildings, including film studios, supporting workshops and other specialist buildings, including a creative hub, a community building. And we'll see a little bit more of those as we go through the presentation. The supplementary information received in February included two new aspects which involve planting. The image on the left shows a band planting to the north of the Marlow Road outside the site, but within the applicant's control. And that would be secured as part of any consent. The image on the right shows planting to the south of plot 2A and that would be screen planting to limit views of the development from park homes and dwellings to the south of the site. Turning into the sort of the massing of the scheme, and this image, I think, is a good reflection of the scheme. It shows more or less the whole site with the majority of the studio development to the north. Plot four to the south of that includes the skills and training academy. And then plot five to the south is where it's the back lot of our outdoor filming would be located. And I'm going to show you a number of sections through the site to give you an indication of the buildings in relation to context. This is a north-south section and showing the various studio buildings of various scales. This is a section roughly running southwest, northeast with on the left-hand side the existing lakes. You can see west or south centrally located. And then some of the buildings in plot 2A to the right of the image. Additional section of information was provided in February. And I'll go through these ones. The top image is - it's a section number one. You can see Westhorpe House on the left-hand side with Marilyn Phillips Studios on the right-hand side. The second section below that shows Park Homes, the low-scale buildings on the left-hand side of the image with the studio buildings on the right-hand side. And then section number three shows Marlowe Town on the left-hand side. The dotted building is the existing building. That's sort of north of the section. And then some of the studio buildings that you would - that are cut through the section on the right-hand side. The image on the bottom is a section that sort of runs - that shows Corners Cottage and Thimble Cottage on the left-hand side of the image and some of the studio buildings on the right-hand side. And turning to the various buildings proposed, the yellow buildings are the large sound stages, the largest buildings in the - like the campus. The mauve or purpley colour represents smaller type of sound stages. Public buildings are in the redder colours. And there's a number of building typologies. This is sort of a key plan showing those. We'll run through some of those. This will be the entrance off the Marlowe Road, forming a gateway into the development and then into an entrance square where there'll be new bus stops. This shows like a view of how the buildings relate to each other and the lower buildings with the pitch roofs generally at the edge of the building with the higher studio buildings behind them. Those high studio buildings are large rectilinear boxes, if you like, that would be finished with various treatments, cladding some with sort of green walls as indicated on the image on the right. And other sound stages have variegated pitch roofs and would be generally towards the edges of the site and other supporting workshops and office buildings. Looks like this. Some of those are in rectilinear form like this, and some of them are lower scale like this one. And again, another view of the architectural approach using pitch roofs and lower scale buildings towards the edges of the site. This is a multi-storey car park. And this is the Skills and Cultural Academy in plot number four. Sort of like an oversized single to two storey building. This is the the the hub, if you like, the building for special activities, some public access to this building. And this is a community, a smaller community building towards the east of the site. Some photographs now, this photograph is taken from the existing Volvo Bridge looking over the northern part of the site and towards the right and center of the image. These are some images inside the site. It's it's it's a former gravel landfill site that's partially restored, but there are a number of paths and routes through the site, including lakes, which you can see here. Some of the views inside. This is a view from Winters Hill south of the site. And this is a photograph taking. And the next image shows the the view in the landscape, a visual impact assessment with the Children Hills area, outstanding natural beauty, higher land to the north with the site in the lower ground, mid ground. And this is a view of the development superimposed on that. And then turning to the north of the site, this is a photograph that I've taken from Bloom Hill. And and you might be able to make out some of the popular trees towards the center right of the site that demarcate the northern boundary with Marlowe town then towards the right. And this image is from the landscape and visual impact assessment showing that that view and then with the development superimposed on it. And that ends my presentation, if I could turn to the report, the report for you and identifies the planning issues. And these are summarized in section 22 of the report. And I had to draw the members attention to a correction to paragraph 22.7, where we cite the relevant local plan policies and the determination of this application. And we need to add CP3 settlement strategy and B2 Holland Farm to that list of relevant sites of relevant policies. In the assessment, we've effectively had to carry out a balancing exercise. It's a Greenbelt site, and we've had to consider whether very special circumstances exist, that is, whether the benefits of the proposal outweigh the harm to the Greenbelt and the other harm identified. We have set out those benefits. They include socioeconomic benefits in terms of providing jobs, training opportunities, spend, supporting the expansion of the film industry, which aligns with both local and national policy and other benefits, including the provision of biodiversity, net gain and access improvements to the retained to the site itself and to the retained country park lands. In terms of harm, there's a harm to the Greenbelt. There's a conflict with the Marlows Country Park and policy RUR4. There's landscape harm, impact on the setting of the children's area, about standing natural beauty, impact on views. There's impact on residential amenity. There's highway impacts, including severe impact on the highway network. And there's harm to the spatial strategy in terms of our ability to deliver suitable alternative natural green space to mitigate the impact of our site allocation at Holland Farm. In terms of the conclusion, it's considered that the harm to the Greenbelt and other harm are not clearly outweighed by the benefits and very special circumstances do not exist in this case. It's it's considered that the Greenbelt and landscape harms alone are cumulatively very substantial. And it's clear that even if the applicant's needs case and the absence of alternative sites was accepted in full, that the very special circumstances balance would still come out adverse to the development. The clear conflict with little Marlowe Country Park policy RUR4 and the adverse here highways impacts reinforces the conclusion on where the balance lies. It's not considered that any resolution of the alternative suitable alternative natural green space mitigation for site allocation B2. That's Holland Farm will change the conclusion of the balance, and it's recommended that permission be refused for the reasons outlined. If I could draw members attention to the update report where we've documented further representations that have been received from Councillor Heap, Councillor Bowne and Woodburn and Bournain Parish Council and a statement from Joy Morrissey, a response from Natural England and a letter from Oxford Bus Company Carousel, a statement from Wilkinson Air, the architects, and further representations made directly to the strategic sites committee. And we've documented an application, a pack of information that the applicant has submitted to the committee. And we draw your attention to one misleading comment in the covering letter to that submission. And we've also documented further representations from the public, including objections and support. And there is two minor updates or corrections to their report. And one relates to a risk, a road safety audit, a statement on the status of that ongoing audit that relates to the highway's consideration of the proposal and one correction to the appendix A1B, where some measurements are corrected. But members have to note that they the highway section of the report, the substantive report reflects the corrected position. The attachments to the update include the Marlowe Parish pole result, Natural England's response and the statement from Joy Morrissey. We've also had a further consultee response from National Highways. And they have recommended that the application is not approved before the 21st of August this year to allow further assessment of the highways aspects of the scheme. And they have stated that wouldn't preclude the committee from refusing the application or agreeing and a further extension of time. And sure, that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you, John. We will now move to public speaking. First up is Councillor David Johncock speaking as local board member. And please could Mr Sam Kershaw also join Councillor Johncock at the table? Councillor, you have four minutes speaking time, which you may begin once the timer starts. Now. Thank you, Chairman. Before I speak on my main topic, which is the lack of economic benefit, I want just to say that I fully support the recommendation of our officers, which for the second time refuses this bill recommends to refuse this application. Their conclusion is quite simple in that it shows that the harm significantly outweighs any possible benefit. As I hope we can show, there is no longer any sound economic case for this studio, whereas what is certain is that it will damage an area planned to be a country park, create traffic chaos and cause misery for local people. Most of all, it would be a huge blot on the landscape and must be seen as inappropriate development within the green belt. Colleagues will talk about each of these serious concerns in turn. But for now, I shall focus on the so-called economic case for the studio. It is obvious to say that any studio will only bring economic benefit if they are being leased by film and TV production companies. In other words, it's the investment in productions that provides the benefits, not the buildings. If there were a shortage of studios, then building another one might allow more productions to be made and so increase economic benefit. However, the reality today is that there is already far more studio space than is needed by the industry. In short, this one would be surplus to requirements. And so we can't create an additional economic wealth either for the local economy or for UK PLC. As I think I said at the last committee meeting, when this application was first considered, there was a huge amount of investment previously by companies such as Netflix and Amazon. New studios were built. Existing ones were expanded in order to support the demand. Consequently, over the last three years, the amount of UK studio space has doubled. However, the bubble has burst and inward investment in film and TV production has declined by over 40%. TV advertising revenues have fallen by 15% and the number of UK productions has dropped by 30%. Not because of Covid, not because of Hollywood strikes, but because the structure of the film and TV industry has changed. So fewer and fewer studios are needed. And the introduction of AI is expected to reduce that need even more. So where are we today? Many studios are underutilized. Some have gone bust. And as some committee members already know, even Pinewood has shelved the expansion plans that were approved by this committee just last year. I know that the Bucks Economic Development Office takes a positive view of this application, which is presumably why the report considers the economic benefit to be significant. However, I respectfully suggest they are wrong. I believe their assessment is out of date and therefore misleading to the committee. In conclusion, the film and TV bubble has burst. There is already an excess of studio space and even more developments are in the pipeline. There is no need for this studio and there is no certainty that it would provide any benefits, economic or otherwise. However, we do know it would cause a huge amount of harm, therefore urge you to agree with your officers and refuse this application. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions, Chairman. Thank you, Councillor. And we will now start taking any points of clarification from members of the committee in relation to comments. So I will remind everybody on relation to comments made within the statement. Councillor, you were first. Thank you, Chairman. Councillor John Cobb, thank you very much for speaking in front of us today. I'm interested in your comments about job creation and your views that film production in the UK is dropping. But as the member for Beckonsfield, which is the home of NFTS, the national government pledged £10 million to invest in the NFTS in Beckonsfield back in March. And I think there's a total of £20 million going to expanding it. And the national government actually pledges or actually recognises that, you know, I quote the secretary of state for cultural media and sport, Louisa Fraser, movie makers are queuing up to film in the UK, and this is creating one of the most exciting and fulfilling job opportunities in the world. How would you react to that? Is the national government wrong? Or why would the national government say, well, actually, we need to invest more in film production and the NFTS in Beckonsfield? But on the other hand, film production apparently is dropping in the UK. Thank you. If I could answer this question, it's a good point. The Department of Culture, Media and Sport has had a select committee investigating the problems within this film industry. And there are a lot of a lot of information. As I think Lord Vasey, who is here today, would recognise from his previous being minister of that group, there are a lot of concerns about the film industry. And so what's clear is that there is a large problem with the smaller parts of the industry, the creation of the smaller films. The large productions within Pinewood and Shepperton and the other studios, which are the result of bookings of the space by my Netflix and Amazon are are reasonably secure, although I'll come into those problems in a moment. But the smaller end of the industry, the independent productions, the smaller productions is what the government is focused on supporting. That's why in the last budget, they introduced a tax credit to enable the smaller production to to thrive. So I think that whilst everyone recognises the strength and world fame of the British film industry, there can be no doubt at the moment that there is a significant problem, and it's not just a problem in the UK. The problem is a global problem. And as Councillor John Cook explained, the reason for that is that there has been a huge expansion in the amount of content that's been produced over the last 10 years as a consequence of the transition from linear television to to streaming. And as is always the case, when a new market opens up, there's a scramble for growth and subscribers. And consequently, these companies spend a huge amount of money creating new content to attract subscribers to their platform. Now, that this was in the area of cheap money, low interest rates. And so this was a reasonable approach for them to to to achieve that. But now they have actually succeeded in in in growing the market. Markets established and basically it's gone. The bubble has burst of the consequences are that the the the the companies are now focused on profitability. That means they're producing less content. If you look at the the the investment in content from from Disney, from Paramount, from Netflix and from from the others, it's flattened off. In fact, there's an analyst report by Ampere Analysts, which shows that the growth and the prediction of investment in the industry is now flat. And consequently, the the the the the studio space, which was which was created in order to support that growth with the usual optimism of entrepreneurs that the growth will go on forever has sort of come to an end. And consequently, the the studio space that exists today and that which is in the pipeline consented developments in the pipeline will exceed any analyst forecasts of what is required. There can be no doubt that the report that was commissioned by Bucks Council from Lammersmith Hampton makes clear and the renewed information that the planning officer obtained from them makes clear that there is more than enough capacity to support the growth that was forecast prior to the bubble bursting. Now, with the bubble bursting, the growth is likely to be significantly less. I think I think you've made your your point very clearly, very concisely. I have your your question for the time being, Chairman. Thank you, does. Hi. Thank you. And next, I have Councillor Cooper. Yeah, thank you for that previous answer, because it's answered quite a lot of what I was going to ask. But I would just like to be clear where your evidence comes from, because clearly we're going we're going to get a contrary set of statements from the applicant. OK, so we need to be able to make a firm judgment here. So I do need to know where you are, which evidence you're relying on. OK, absolutely. And so the the letters of objection, which I've submitted, are all referenced with evidence from the British Film Institute, from from the the BECTU, which is the Union for Studio Workers, from a number of analysts, including Knight Frank, Lambert, Smith Hampton and and others. So the evidence is there. But in terms of the the lack of investment or the reduction investment, the key fact is and it's in the BFI's own assessment of the industry in 2023, inward investment, which makes up the majority of spending on film production in this country. Inward investment dropped by 40 percent last year. So that is evidence, which I can point you to. But it's also in the information that I submitted. So that that is without question a huge impact on the industry. And that's why there are many studios standing empty. Why the stage 50 studios have gone bust. Why Pinewood has decided not to expand. I mean, if Pinewood, who want to assume if we can stick to the the whether this is a subject, it was basically Councillor Cooper wants you to know what your information was based upon. Well, I have one more piece of information which I can quote, which is which is pertinent to this if it's relevant to the question asking. But I will ask you to be concise. We do have a very long list of speakers. I have a lot to say, but I understand that I understand. Yes. So Pinewood, as I say, has canceled the expansion, which was permitted by this committee just last year. Evidence for that is in the report from Fitch, which is a ratings agency for debt. And they noted this in one of their recent notes. But also, I think that one of the members of this committee is actually on the Pinewood liaison committee as well. And I believe that at a recent meeting of that Andrew Smith, is it, who's the the the public affairs officer for Pinewood, have stated the same thing. And the consequence. And this is because there isn't sufficient work to fill the studios. Can I just pick up one of the figures that you mentioned? That's the 40 percent reduction in investment. Right. Can you demonstrate exactly where that comes from? The BFI. Thank you. Thank you. Next, have Councillor Phealy. Thank you, Chairman and Councillor John Cook. You talked about the country park and they still redeveloped. And my understanding is that this started back in 1960. Could you give me an update of the history of that and why it's still not completed? You might want to ask Bucks Council officers that question. We've had a planning document in existence for the country park. I think it's dated 2002. I personally don't go back as far as the 60s when it comes to this subject. But certainly from 2002, we have been working on the development of the country park. And when it was Wickham district, it was, I think I'm using the wrong word, but I'm going to use designated as an area to be produced as a country park. We were working with the landowners to roll that out as a district council. We have money invested in earmarked for to be spent on it. We have actually caught a lot of Section 106. I've no idea what's happened to that. So a lot of work was done up until that point. And I think without sounding unkind, when we became Bucks Council, we'd seem to have gone into the longer aspect. And as local members, we have been trying to get a result and some decisions made. And we haven't made much progress on that. I asked the the country park officer recently where we were on it. And he said it's nowhere. So I think the answer perhaps needs to go to Councillor Clive Harris. And maybe he would answer that question. It's frustrating, though, to put it bluntly. Thank you. Councillor Newcombe. Thank you, Chairman. Councillor John Koch, I fully understand the argument you're making, but others may make an argument that would effectively be that even if a bubble is burst, it is important to invest in modern up to date facilities so as to maintain one's position and also to invest in facilities that have making economies of scale or whatever else. And sometimes in a vigorous economy, those who have not done so would go to the wall, whereas those who have might actually succeed. That's an argument. What do you say to that? Yeah, I think you correct. And and that's what we look to on from others to do, in a sense. But I think one of the things you need to bear in mind is a lot of money, including government money, has been invested in the northeast with new studios, and we know there are other studios coming forward. You've got Shinfield not far down the road. So the investment in new technology and you're quite right. And I make mention of AI, and I don't think any of us really understand, even in everyday terms, what the impact of AI is going to be on our lives. But certainly in the film industry, it's being used widely already and probably going to get more and more use. So you're correct in terms of, yes, we need to exploit the technology. But to do that, you don't necessarily need huge studios. If I may just add a small point, I'll be brief. You're right. It is important that the infrastructure is able to support the requirements of the industry. But as Councillor John Cox said, the amount of studio space has doubled over the last three years doubled. So there already are sufficient, modern, capable studios of supporting the film industry's needs. And they are very hard pushed at the moment. I've been speaking to the managing director of Shinfield studio. He can't fill his studios. He thinks this application is pointless. The point is that it was a boom, a boom of property developers who saw an opportunity encouraged by state agents such as Lambersmith, Lambton. I think we do need to keep specifically to the point of the question. So I think that's been OK. Thank you. Any further points before I move? I've got next, I've got Councillor Eggleton. Thank you, Chairman. Just a point of information, because I believe there was a comment directed at me by the Speaker. The Pinewood Liaison Committee no longer exists, which is why I didn't mention it at the start of the meeting and when we were points of interest. No, I haven't got a conflict. That has been discontinued. I think we need to be careful when we're talking about Pinewood. And it was said that the next stage has been cancelled. Now, I don't believe that is the official statement from Pinewood. As I understand it, it's been delayed. It is still a planning permission. It is still in place. And it is a subject I do know because Pinewood bounds my ward. But we don't know. The shape or size that they might decide to develop on the site. But I would just like some clarification. You've said that the market has decreased and small studios are failing. Are you aware, is there any movement to to make films and these streaming services locally? In different countries to suit those countries. You know, or is it just going to be, in your view, the future that everything is done in large international hubs? That's a good question. Let me just respond to your point on Pinewood first. You're right, a council was the wrong word, delayed. But the point being that if Pinewood can't see justification expanding, then they know the business. There must be some real question marks about the need for that space. But on your other question. Yeah, production is an international business. I mean, the main hubs of Los Angeles, Atlanta, Toronto, London. I mean, these are the main ones where all the big studios are. There are, of course, lots of local studios, but it's an international business. And producers go where it's cheapest. At the end of the day, a film studio is just a soundproof box in which they can make movies. So where they can do that cheaply, they will go. Now, the quality of the production stuff is clearly important, but cost is the ultimate decider of what happens. Now, Britain's competitiveness in international filmmaking, its comparative advantage, if you like, has decreased because our costs have increased, because our tax breaks aren't as generous as other countries. Atlanta, particularly good tax breaks over there. And so we're running problems, which is why I think Britain is suffering disproportionately compared to the rest of the world. Now, building another studio is not going to help that. This is a question of government policy. That's the only thing which is going to fix that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other? Councillor Cooper. Yeah, thank you, Chairman. I wanted to ask you about AI, and I didn't think you'd mentioned it, but you've confirmed now that you did mention it. So I'm just wondering, because I will ask this question of the applicant as well. How you see AI, what do you believe it is and why do you believe it's going to have such a big effect? Well, it's early days, but we know that one of the causes of the Hollywood strikes last year was because of AI, because of the fear. I think writers are fearing that the AI will be used for producing scripts, but also it can be used in production as well. A large, I think, $800 million studio in Atlanta, which was going to be built by a mogul called Tyler Perry, has been canceled. And his reasons for canceling it, where he thinks that AI is going to make large studios such as that irrelevant. I don't know whether that's the case or not. And neither does he. But there's sufficient risk. There's sufficient concern that he's decided not to invest. Now, how could it be used? Well, you know, there are programs at the moment which are used for generating movies. They look a bit cartoonish, but, you know, technology develops. And so even actors are concerned that some of their income will be affected because there'll be AI representations of them on screen. And and if they can represent actors and they can represent scenes as well and don't need a studio. So the question is, no one knows. But there are significant concerns about it. Thank you for that. Counselor, thank you, Chairman. I just wanted to second views. I just want to clarify a point. You talked about Britain not being attractive for filmmaking anymore. Costs being one of the issues taxation. But then surely if we were to build hypothetically more studios demand and supply, it takes that you'll bring our cost or the cost of making films or TV productions in the UK cheaper, therefore making us more attractive globally. So how do you square that? Yeah, no doubt the laws of supply and demand would reduce cost. I don't think it's the rental of the studio space, which is the predominant cost within this. I think there are other staff costs. I think a much more significant than the actual renting of the space itself. But yeah, oversupply will inevitably result in a stronger negotiating position for those renting out the studios. And the cost will reduce. Bear in mind that this will hurt Pinewood as well. This will hurt Pinewood because Pinewood is one of the jewels in the crown of Buckinghamshire. And Pinewood would suffer as a consequence of more studios being built, as it indeed is. It's not running at full capacity at the moment. And as we said, it's not planning to expand. So, you know, we have to balance these things. Thank you. I don't see any further points of clarification. So thank you very much, gentlemen, if you'd like to return to your seats. OK, we'll now take Councillor David Watson, who will also speak as local ward member. I'm sorry, Mr Kershaw, you're back at the table as well. And once the timer starts, as previously mentioned, you may begin and you will have four minutes of speaking time, Councillor. Just wait for the time to start. There we go. Good morning, colleagues. The applicant claims that the development will create approximately 4000 new jobs, 2000 at the film studio and 2000 in the wider economy. This claim is unsubstantiated, and I would suggest it is not credible. If this were an application for an office block with space for 2000 people, you wouldn't simply assume that it will create 2000 jobs. You'd investigate the demand for office space in the area. If this were an application for a shopping centre, you wouldn't simply assume full occupancy. You'd examine investment levels in the retail industry. But this is an application for a film studio. So the 2000 jobs depend on the health of one sector of the economy. And as you've heard, the film industry is not in good health. According to the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Communication and Theatre Union, the unemployment rate is currently over 60%. Film studios directly employ only a handful of admin support staff. Pinewood and Shepparton employ less than 250 people combined. Shinfield, a similar size to this development, employs 11 people. The vast majority of workers are employed by film production companies that lease the studios. The decline in investment means that fewer films are being produced and the oversupply of studios means that many of them are underutilised. If there isn't enough work for the existing studios, then how would an additional one create any new jobs? From a national perspective, it wouldn't. Marlowe film studios would be in competition with the other studios for a limited supply of work. But the jobs would be created no matter which studio gets the work and the jobs would be created whether the studio is built or not. The applicant claims that the jobs at their studio will be of particular benefit to Buckinghamshire. I would challenge this because studio workers are freelance and travel to whichever studio has the work. Most live in the West London cluster. The applicant also claims that their studio has special characteristics that will allow it to secure work that is unavailable to other studios. This is highly unlikely since Pinewood, the most successful and special studio in Britain, has delayed its expansion plans due to economic uncertainty. And as for the claim of providing approximately 2000 new jobs in the wider economy, no analysis or breakdown is supplied. And the calculation methodology does not appear to consider utilisation levels in the supply chain. In summary, their analysis is flawed. They cannot create 4000 new jobs and they've not demonstrated very special circumstances to build in the green belt on land adjoining AONB. Colleagues, for this committee to not once but twice not vote in line with the recommendations of the officers would be extraordinary. This speculative application should be refused. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for that, Councillor. And do we have any further points of clarification? Councillor Newcombe. Yes, Councillor Watson, I fully understand your point that the jobs aren't in themselves created by a new studio, apart from a small number. It's about the people who work in the industry. And obviously, if there are a large number of studios in the country as a whole, then that's going to create more jobs, and if there's a small number, there are fewer jobs, etc. But what I don't fully understand is your argument that it doesn't amount to a location for employment for people in Buckinghamshire, because surely, if there's a cluster of studios in the West London, Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Surrey area, then a proportion of those people are going to live in Buckinghamshire. And therefore, if there are studios in Buckinghamshire, a proportion of the people who are employed in the industry as freelancers will indeed be Buckinghamshire people. I don't, there's no sort of cordon sanitaire, so to speak, around Buckinghamshire, which prevents people in that industry living in Buckinghamshire. So I don't understand that part of your argument. I do understand the first part of your argument. So I will try to respond to that. You're right. There are many people in Buckinghamshire who work in the film industry. And they currently work at other studios, Pinewood, Shepperton, Leveston, and they would continue to work at those other studios, whether this one is built or not. This one wouldn't give any special privileges to the people of Buckinghamshire. Those people could go anywhere, and they do go anywhere at the moment. So it has no particular advantage for Buckinghamshire. That's the point. OK, thank you. Councillor Feeley. Councillor Watson, you looked at it at the start of the 2000 employees, and clearly if it was a supermarket, they would do the background to the need. Why is it, do you think, then, not the case that the applicant has done that and in considering a huge investment if you think it's not required? If I may answer on behalf of Councillor Watson. Simple matter is I don't know. I think they're wrong. I think they've made a mistake. I think their calculations are based on outdated information about the bubble that did exist, which no longer exists. I think they're simply wrong. People make mistakes. Businesses make mistakes. Politicians make mistakes, and they have made a big one. And I think that the bigger mistake will be to allow it to go ahead and cause all the harms that you were hearing about. OK, any further points of clarification? OK, thank you, Councillor, Mr Kershaw. We'll now invite Councillor Dominic Barnes, speaking as a Buckinghamshire Council member, to come forward. And once again, Councillor, you have four minutes of speaking time beginning once the timer starts. Now, Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about this application. I'm speaking in my capacity as a Councillor in the adjacent ward, Chiltern Villages, which with the boundary changes will encompass Little Marlowe in 2025. Unfortunately, I was unable to speak at the previous planning committee as I was out of the country. However, I was able to view a fair amount of the proceedings online. I've been aware of this application when I was first approached by the applicant almost three years ago, but it could be longer in my capacity as the then community board chairman covering the area and kept an open mind. Is it important to note that I've consistently voiced my concerns about transport parking consistently through the process? Colleagues, I'm afraid these concerns have not been satisfied, and I have a number of points that I will raise in a few moments to explain why I believe you should accept the recommendations of the offices for refusal. I will be referring to the items in Appendix A1B Consultation Response from the Highways. My concerns pivot around the Westthorpe Interchange, the A404 and the A415 going out of Marlowe to Bournend and again returning journey from Bournend to tomorrow. We have seen instances where the 404 has had major congestion due to lane reductions due to problems with Thames Water, which has caused major congestions within Marlowe and the surrounding areas, diversion through Marlowe High Street. In the report, it also revisits some of the waiting times supplied by the applicant, also potentially increasing queuing times substantially and potentially queuing past the BP petrol station and further back to Westthorpe Interchange. And for reference, that's on page nine and 10 of the appendix. So I'm referring to that. Bus services and the mitigation for transport. Again, I'm not convinced due to the infrequency of bus services and the volatility of the market that we've recently seen to be able to deliver a solution that reduces cars in the area. And I'm fairly sceptical that technicians, carpenters will be willing to use public transport and carrying their tools. Thus vehicles turning out will exceed the car parking spaces and people visiting the studio will find alternative parking, which will lead towards antisocial parking within Little Marlowe and towards Marlowe, causing more congestion. I do understand the film studio just does not work a nine to five. However, I'm very concerned that traffic coming out of Globe Industrial Park, adjacent to the Westthorpe Interchange at rush hour traffic coming from Marlowe down and traffic from the Marlowe from the A404 from High Wycombe and Maidenhead will see major congestion issues, potentially gridlock. For example, if there's another Thames Water incident or Marlowe Bridge has to be closed for maintenance, work could further exacerbate the situation. I understand the proposal is for traffic lights at Westthorpe Interchange. We have seen on occasions that handicross roundabout lights went out of sequence or people jumped the lights. We have we've seen gridlock with the increased traffic from the film studio. This was further exacerbated. Chairman, colleagues, I feel the risk of congestion, delay, added pollution within the surrounding areas outweighs any benefit that may be brought to the area. I respectfully request that you refuse the application in line with the opposite recommendations. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Councillor, members of the committee, Councillor Newcombe. Councillor Barnes, I understood everything you said, except for your point on the car parking provided being insufficient for the number of people working at the film studios. And I'm just wondering what your evidential support for that that part of your statement is. Thank you, Councillor. Well, it's my interpretation. And again, this is this is from perception from meetings historically. So if I've got it wrong, I apologise. But it looked at the numbers and the potential visitors. It's not just the people working there, the technicians. I felt that it would stimulate, as I said in my comments, the bus service. We've seen volatility in the market in the last few weeks. I'm just not convinced. And I mean, when you see big events and they're talking about doing events in that, I think that it would end up overspilling into Little Marlow. And we've seen when events have been held in the area, whether it be pub in the park or other events, that if you don't manage it properly, you could end up with overspill. And that's my concern. But it's just from that interpretation. I get your point. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Bond. And just a quick one, do you think that the highway issues could be conditioned or is there an answer to that? Councillor, as you know, I'm talking my capacity as a ward member. I just think I think the officer, when he was talking presentation, and I think if you're minded to approve there, even the highways are recommending you defer it until August. I just you know, I thought long and hard about this. I am really sceptical about the transport infrastructure. We have seen, lack of better words, bedlam when one lane is removed. We've seen congestion coming in. And I'm just not convinced. Hence why after contemplation, after the recommendations of the of the officers that I can't support this application. My primary thing is on transport and parking. I take Councillor Newcombe's points, but I just have seen the effects of increased traffic. You know, the highways officers are usually quite cautious and they're quite adamant about this. The Councillor Louis. Yeah, thank you, Joe. Just a very quick one. Just picking up on what you said about you're worried about people parking in Little Marlowe. Are you suggesting people coming to events would park in Little Marlowe and then walk through? I have. You know, we were asked constantly about evidence. It's human nature. We see where an event comes up. People will look at particular areas. If you know the area of Little Marlowe, it's a quaint and beautiful village. People will find opportunities. Yes, they will. There's plenty of footpaths to park there. And for the lack of parking, I'm going to take on Councillor Newcombe's point. They will find places to park. And I thought about writing this speech to you. I thought of antisocial. They will park, you know, a park where they like. We all as ward members, we see people parking anywhere. If we look at school and I think we have topic chairman, but if you look at school, they'll park anywhere. They'll block people's drives. You will see it. And I'm convinced that from my experience as a ward Councillor, seeing where the events are organized, they will literally park where they like and Little Marlowe with the nearest. Then they'll push towards Marlowe, the Globe Industrial Park. Any further points of clarification? No. Thank you very much, Councillor. Next, we will take Councillor Alex Collingwood, who will now speak as a Buckinghamshire Council member and also will be accompanied by Peter Lerner. And again, once the timer starts, Councillor, you will have four minutes. There we go. Thank you, chairman and committee members. This application will massively negatively impact the town of Marlowe. I'll cover three aspects. Greenbelt, impact on Marlowe and local democracy. Greenbelt. The proposed development will be inappropriate development, resulting in a very substantial spatial and visual harm to the openness of the Greenbelt and a significant loss of open countryside. It conflicts with the fundamental purpose of Greenbelt policy, i.e. preventing urban spool by keeping land permanently open. There will be 18 massive black boxes. What you saw in the pictures, they are big black boxes covering up to 40, yes, 40 football pitches, and there'll be up to 72 feet high. Yes, 72 feet high. That's equivalent to five double decker buses. The scale, the mass and the size of the realm will be blossomed with a landscape character, the setting of Children's A&B, the country park where the application sits. The proposal will also be contrary to policies CP 1, 2, 3, 8, DM 42 and RUR 4. The impact on Marlowe, part of the site is subject to the risk of flooding, which will only be made worse by this application. Thames water was recently fined for a sewage spill locally in the River Thames and as Steve's backshore was recently highlighted in the last few weeks, the Thames is still polluted and can't be swum in. Currently, there are 15 Thames water tankers in Marlowe in multiple locations, pumping out raw sewage from the streets as the current pumping stations overwhelmed every time it rains. This infrastructure is already broken and any additional development this scale proposed will mean it will fail completely. Marlowe is already subjected to an air quality management area and the additional 4000 to 10,000 journeys per day through Marlowe and the Australian area will just lead to breach of the AQMA that cannot be mitigated. Economy, the Volta case report now says it's a total of 5740 full time equivalents. Is it 4000, 5000? Are these jobs local or in the world economy? In Royal Byron, Windsor-Mate and Hollyport and the Buckingham Film Studio applications, they gave a comprehensive breakdown of the nature of proposed jobs. Yet this application contains nothing more than a vague notion of 4000 jobs. In terms of local deployment, there is no quantification of how many jobs will be created locally. Local democracy. The Marlowe Parish poll, you may or may not have worked out. Actually produced 2034 votes, of which 1730 were against. There was no publicity, no polling cards, no postal votes. Just five hours between 4 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eighty five percent against the proposal suggests a high level of opposition. And that's even after three years of spending hundreds of thousands on community engagements by the applicant. The residents still don't want the film studio. In comparison, the applicant's paid survey had just 29 people. I five percent. The rest were Alesbury and beyond. So I don't know how he works out what his local survey was, because he clearly doesn't understand the geography of Buckinghamshire. To quote Joy Morrissey, the very special circumstances is a deliberately high bar to prevent inappropriate development of the Greenbelt land. This application fails to reach that bar. Do you want your children and grandchildren asked why you approved the application? Well, it's clear that it's clear there's no harm clearly outweighs the unproven benefit. In conclusion, I request the committee support the officer recommendation to refuse the application on the grounds that the post-evolution would constitute inappropriate development, result in very substantial spatial and visual harm in the openness of the Greenbelt and significant loss of open countryside and conflict with Greenbelt policy. In addition, the policy, as you said, as I said before, conflicts with CP one, two, three, eight, DM42 and RU4. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Councillor. Points of clarification from anyone. Clearly, you were very precise. Thank you. Right. Well, if there are no further points of clarification required. That's why I have the specialist with me for Greenbelt. Yeah. OK, thank you very much. You may return to your seats. Thank you. OK, we will now take Councillor Stuart Wilson, who will speak as a Buckinghamshire council member. And once again, Councillor, you will have four minutes speaking time once the timer starts. And there we are. Thank you, Chairman. I speak for all three Buckinghamshire councils for the Woburns, Bournend and Hetzer and the Woburn and Bournend Parish Council Planning Committee. We board the ward and parish proposed for this speculative application. We still fully support the recommendation for refusal by the planning officer and endorse the planning policy reasons that underpin the grounds for refusal. As the elected representatives for our villages, we might reasonably be expected to support any scheme that would make the proposed excessive housing development at Hollands Farm and Slate Meadow difficult to deliver. However, we stood on the principle of protecting the Greenbelt and we stand by our principles. The Wickham local plan identified housing and economic development need in the area. It made clear choices that were examined in detail by a planning inspector, including removal of Greenbelt in Bournend and Woburn for sites allocated for significant housing development. Policies B1 and B2, as the officers referred to at Slate Meadow and Hollands Farm, regrettably will result in a coalescence of the villages of Woburn, Bournend and Hetzer. Greenbelt and Little Marlow, tested in the Wickham local plan, only back a few years ago, is necessary to prevent a coalescence of communities between Bournend and Marlow. As the officer's report notes, the planning application fails on the Greenbelt purpose tests for very special circumstances. The impact of housing at Slate Meadow and Hollands Farm also requires substantial mitigation for the Bournend Beach's special area of conservation, including a suitable alternative natural green space within the Little Marlow Lakes Country Park area covered by policy RUR4, which Councillor Feeley's earlier question was only in the recent Wickham local plan. Policy RUR4 is not compatible with building multiple 22 metre high sheds or five storey car parking alongside the provision of suitable alternative natural green space. The appropriate assessment in the Hollands Farm development brief includes mitigation elements on both the public and permitted pathways that would run through the proposed site for the film studios and backlog. Backlot. Backlot. The Councillors competent authority for the habitats regulation assessment in consultation with Natural England has concluded that the proposed film studio development puts the deliverability of the sang at risk, not least because it looks increasingly unlikely that the same cannot be delivered on council and land as proposed by a cabinet in 2022. Another significant before I go on to that, the Natural England statement that's included in your update and the Natural England statement that's actually on the planning portal as of 29th of May are actually inconsistent. And I think this is a really important point. You might want to ask me a question because the Natural England statement goes on to say if the Milf Marlowe Film Studios work to gain planning permission, Little Marlowe Lakes Country Park would no longer function as suitable mitigation for the same. That is on their letter published on the planning portal that I took off this morning. It does not match the comments that are in the officer update. Another significant concern for development at Hollands Farm is the impact on our transport infrastructure, as well as the ongoing parking issues across our villages. The Highways report states this film studio application fails to demonstrate the proposed development will not have an impact at two critical road junctions in Bournend. Indeed, Highways state that financial contributions will be required towards active travel and undefined actions. It concerns me when developer contributions are not specifically allocated to projects in the community that takes the pain. We have good reason to be delighted if you approve this application to film studios in Little Marlowe, further jeopardizing the possibility of development at Hollands Farm. However, we were elected on a point of principle, the sanctity of our green belt and the protection of our communities from unwanted and necessary development. We support the officer recommendation for refusal, and I'd be delighted to take any questions regarding Hollands Farm, the SANG and policy RUR4. Thank you, Councillor. Members, yes, Councillor Wilhouse. Thank you, Councillor Wilson. I've got a question about RUR4 and Hollands Farm. How critical is it that the SANG is provided, as anticipated, to enable the Hollands Farm development to go ahead? Is it critical or are there alternatives that could be looked at? Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Wilhouse. I think as Mr Fanon opened up in his section, he said B2, which is Hollands Farm, is an important policy addition to the policy considerations. And B2 policy specifically makes reference within the policy to mitigation at Little Marlowe under policy RUR4. So the two go hand in hand, and I've been in constant dialogue with both planning policy officers and also with Natural England through the through over the last couple of years. And from a Natural England and a planning policy point of view, the principles are either to try and get the SANG mitigation on the council and land at Spadoe Quarry. To do that, plus potentially using a footpath to the northern parts of the site, which is included within the BNG land that Mr Fanon referred to, or as Natural England have always preferred using the whole site under policy RUR4. So in a sense, Natural England start from a premise of when we, you know, part of the local plan preparation, the understanding was that RUR4 included the whole of the area from Coldmore Home Lane over to the A404. And it's actually this planning authority that is trying to compress it back down into into a narrow area. So the most recent correspondence I had with Natural England was that, you know, that's still very much the case in terms of that position. And this letter posted on the planning portal only yesterday, I think, you know, makes it very, very clear where their position is that if Marlowe Film Studios were to gain planning permission, little of Marlowe Lakes Country Park, debate whether or not it's designated, would no longer function as suitable mitigation. I hope that answers your question. But if you want further clarification, I'm happy to go into that. Councillor Feeney. Thank you, Chairman. Again, with RUR4. The information we have here, page 31, is looking at that there is criteria for it. It fails criteria one because it's a country park and it doesn't meet the requirements. But it goes on to talk then about providing environmental improvements, including public access, space, biodiversity, etc. And I don't read a whole lot. Then immediately it comes up on the basis of this development is considered to comply with the policy requirement. And of all the others, the six, five of the six means policy. So that's I'm asking the question is, is RUR4 that driver to not allow this to take place? So I can only go on basis of what I know that the discussion you're actually asking me is a question really between the local planning authority and Natural England. But I can give you my point of view, if you wish, is that the delivery of Sanh is an absolute requirement for Holland's farm. And that has definitely got to be done in the area that's designated as RUR4. So I think you're asking me two different questions. Is is the application compatible with RUR4? And there's a separate point, which is, is the application compatible with delivering Sanh at the Little Marlowe area? And from what Natural England are saying is it's incompatible. I would question whether or not from a personal point of view, and I've probably spent more time looking at this than pretty much anybody else, that I would consider this to be incompatible with RUR4. But that would be a matter for officers and the planning committee to do. Because I will take it up with the officers. I just wanted your view, because clearly of the five criteria, they only fails on one. I think it's one of interpretation always, isn't it, in terms of planning judgements as to what does RUR4, what was the intent of policy RUR4 in the Wickham local plan was to create an area of cultural and recreational amenity for residents? One would question whether or not the number of 22 meter high sheds and a five storey car park creates that kind of recreational amenity that was envisaged in the Wickham local plan. I would imagine the architect who's already been in this chair of that local plan would disagree with that interpretation. As it was, as you've quite rightly identified, there's always an element of subjectivity with everything. But yeah, thank you. Any further points? No? OK. Thank you, Councillor. Right, we'll now take Councillor Leslie Clark, who will speak as a Buckinghamshire council member. Yes, Councillor Heap will come after Councillor Clark. I'm not aware of any issue as to the order. OK, thank you, Councillor Clark. You have four minutes once the time starts. Thank you, Chairman. And still, good morning, colleagues. My ward is Abbey Ward, which is in High Wickham and within Abbey. There are five primary schools, one being the largest in Buckinghamshire, a special needs school, three secondary schools, each with around 1000 students. Buckinghamshire University and soon to be completed building of Buckinghamshire College, again, with a large number of students. You may ask why this is relevant. In this council, there is a great concern that we lose a lot of talented young people who leave and never return because we do not have the sufficient levels of employment. Well, here we have the offer of employment, not only for local artisans, but for some of the young local talent, talented people we have. We also have the opportunity of apprenticeships. This application was deferred in October, and my apologies, I was unable to talk to you then I too was away. And in October, our officers gave two reasons for this application to be deferred, and the applicant has taken this away and has come up with a suitable offer. And both the reasons that were given in that October meeting have been dealt with. Yet still we see that our planning officers are pushing for refusal one has to ask them why at the recent UKREIIF conference in Leeds, the Buckinghamshire logo was probably above the slogan, probably above the boards, and the slogan was the world's favourite film and screen production location. Yet these seem in sharp contrast to what planners are putting forward. We have a golden opportunity to again put Buckinghamshire on the map and become part of the global film industry. Yet our officers and others appear not to accept that we do have special circumstances to approve this application. Yes, we have a vociferous minority against the application, 'twas ever thus', but at least we allow them the ability to show they are not supportive. We have heard of some of their fantastical reasons why the application should not be approved. Yes, this is in green back land. It cannot be used for much. It is the former gravel extraction pit for the A404, which in turn was used as the Marlowe tip. It cannot be used for housing. So no block of flats are suggested by those objecting. It is a brownfield greenbelt site. And by using this site, it saves others other beautiful greenbelt land in Buckinghamshire. From this application, we have new improved road infrastructures, new bus routes, apprenticeships, offers, community facilities and lots more. So what else does it offer? Firstly, look at the investment. A really strong planning reason to say yes, with everyone in Buckinghamshire standing to gain. It adds to the local economy. With Buckinghamshire economy, again, we all benefit. Keeping our local grown talent local, something we desperately need to do. And knowing that 67 pence. Yep, 67 pence in every pound invested will aid not only the Buckinghamshire local economy. Thank you, Councillor. That's the four minutes up. Thank you. Members, any points of clarification? Councillor Louis. Thank you. I just wanted to go back to what you said about apprenticeships. Are you suggesting that this would provide a dedicated, absolutely promised number of apprenticeships for Buckinghamshire young people? Yes, I do believe that there will be apprenticeships for a lot of young people. Sorry, you believe it, but is there, have you had confirmation that these will exist? Yeah, other than confirmation that anything is given for anything, I believe there will be apprenticeships for many young people. And that is something we do need. We have a lot of unemployable people, particularly young people, and we need to ensure that those young people can be employed. Councillor Thiele. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor. You referred to in your presentation about it being a brownfield site. You said in your presentation that you now considered it to be a brownfield site because previously it had been used for extraction of minerals and also for waste. Do you see it as a potential development site if it wasn't for the development that's been proposed? I know that this site was the gravel extraction site for the A404, and I then further know that it was used as the Marlow waste tip. Nothing can be built on a waste tip once it's been used, particularly in times gone past. We never really considered what was being put into that site. Today we're a lot more knowledgeable about what we put into those things, and we also have the same problem in High Wycombe with exactly the same reason. So nothing can be really built on that site because of what is under the ground that we don't know of, that might cause some issues if we were to look at building, housing or something like that. There are possible health issues if it was a housing site. OK, thank you. Council Member Wilhelms, sorry. Thank you, Chair. So you've mentioned that this site was a former gravel pit. Why do you think this site wasn't designated for any employment use when the recent Wycombe Local Plan was adopted? I'm awfully sorry. I have a problem with hearing at the moment. Could you just speak up a little louder? I'm deaf in one ear today. Sure. You mentioned that the site was a former gravel pit. Why do you think it was not nominated as an employment site in the recently adopted Wycombe Local Plan? The employment... Beyond the employment site that we've got here is the community facility of offering the apprenticeship type of employment. So there's other issues or other facilities being offered on this site. So I do think there are a lot of benefits to employment here. It's not just a great big studio, a great big block, a hall that we've been told. Thank you, but I don't think that really answers my question. Why was this site not included as a development site in the recently adopted Wycombe Local Plan? Very good question. It was because of it being... Well, that is a very good question. Maybe that's a question to ask Mr Johncock as he put the local plan together. Why wasn't he put in or with Mr Watson? Because that's in their ward. Why didn't they put it in as a local employment site? Very good question. I know it doesn't answer yours, but it's a very good question. Well, thank you. I don't think my question has been answered, but thank you. No, you're quite right, it hasn't. Any other, Councillor Hayne. Thank you, Chairman. Councillor Clarke, like you, I've got a number of schools in my ward. I think I've got five schools in, of course, the world famous NFTS. I'm very concerned as a Councillor in my ward about young people, youth, along the lines of apprenticeships. They get educated in our county, in our town, and then they have to move out of the area because of lack of job opportunities or apprenticeships. Now, if this proposal were to go ahead and film studios were built and apprenticeships would be created, would it be, how much of an impact would you say would it have in retaining youth in your ward or in High Wycombe? Do you know what I mean? Have you done any studies in relation to that or have you spoken to school teachers about this, for example? Thank you. As I said in my ward, Buckinghamshire College is going to be opening shortly. In the Buckinghamshire New University with the media faculty, those people are the people we need to keep in Buckinghamshire. We don't need to see them leave. We have wonderful local talent. We need to keep our local talent local. And this gives us the opportunity of actually encouraging young people to think differently about what they want to do with their future. It gives them an offer to actually get to work because the transport links are there and it also ensures that young people can think differently about their future, know that there's an opportunity, apprenticeships, and this is something that we need to really push. We need to keep our local young people local. Can I follow on? Yes. Yes, we are aware of the Buckinghamshire College University and the expansion plans because it came from this committee, I think, about a year, a year and a half ago. Where do you think, if I could ask you this, the students of the media department of Buckinghamshire Council are going to at the moment for their apprenticeships and they are career prospects because there is a film studio in and around how we come at the moment. Where are they going instead? We don't have anything to offer them. We have a lot of young people that leave once they go away to either college or university and they never ever come back and it's those people we need to keep. Those are the future for Buckinghamshire to make sure that we stay economically viable and it's not just graduates. It's every young person has the opportunity. We need to make sure that we give them that opportunity. This offers a different type of employment for them and I think it's something that we should grasp with both hands. These opportunities don't come down the line very often. Can I follow on, Chairman? We've heard from other speeches in front of you today that actually the film industry and there's a lack of demand and lack of jobs created locally. Is that what you're hearing from Buckinghamshire College? Are numbers increasing in our local area for media studies and filmmaking? Is it flatlining or is it decreasing? Do you have that information? Thank you. It's not just the Buckinghamshire College. It's our wonderful schools. We have a lot of talented young people from those schools. They don't all go through university. They don't all go to Buckinghamshire College and sometimes when you leave school not knowing what to do and you have this offer presented to you, that's the opportunity that you're going to be offered with the application that we got in front of us. I'm sorry if I'm not answering your question fully. Okay, thank you. Next, I have Councillor Cooper and then Councillor Frisk. Thank you, Chairman. You spoke about the green belt and argued that... I'm very sorry, could you just speak up? Yes, yes, okay, I'll do my best. You spoke about the green belt and argued that special circumstances are engaged. Now, if we were to follow that line, it's a high bar for us to get over. So I'm just wondering if you can tell me precisely, if you were a member of this committee, what would you be arguing? How would you argue your case that the special circumstances apply? We're told by government that we are to have special circumstances to use green belt. I don't think we've got special circumstances. I think we've got truly exceptional circumstances to actually give way to this. Yes, I know people are very concerned about green belt and I appreciate that. But this is not true green belt in the sense. It's a brownfield site. It's a brownfield site on green belt. And I think it gives us the opportunity to actually say that we're happy for this application to be permitted here. Thank you. Councillor Phyllis. Thank you. Trying to square the circle with some comments you made earlier. You said, just picking up on what you just said, about it being a brownfield site and about it not being suitable for housing due to being a tip in the past. I'm assuming that's about noxious gases, possibly methane, this kind of thing, makes it unsuitable for housing. Why would that, in that case, make it suitable for employment for, say, 2,000 people on the same site? I don't understand how it can not be liable for one thing, but it can be fine for another. There are other areas that we have given permission when it's been green belt. We've looked at the special circumstances and I think if this application doesn't offer those special circumstances, I think it comes down to it that whatever we ever have in front of us, will we consider them a green belt? Could I just ask you to talk up, please? Sorry, that didn't answer my question. My question is, why is it unsuitable for housing due to it being a tip in the past, but it would be suitable for the employment of 2,000 people on the same site? I don't understand why it's unsuitable for one, but suitable for another. I think sometimes when you get applications that look like we've got, we have to look at them in all the circumstances that are presented to us. Green belt, I know, is special and I appreciate that. It's the additional bits that have been added to this application. The additional bits to the local park, you're actually having other areas added to the application to make this truly, truly wonderful. We've got the use of biodiversity, we've got solar panels. It's adding back a little bit into the green belt. I think the point, and I appreciate you've got the hearing difficulty today, Councillor, I think the point that Councillor Fliss was trying to ascertain was why would the site be unsuitable for housing yet suitable for workspace? We have exactly the same problem in the middle of High Wycombe. We have a site that was the old waste it for High Wycombe and within that site and having done land looking at the chemical make-up of the earth, it was shown that there were things that would perhaps not be beneficial to health if people lived there 24 hours a day, seven days a week. You don't live in your workplace. You are there for eight hours, eight hours a day, assuming you're not working from home. So the issue of the health disbenefits on former waste tips goes, you're not there 24 hours a day, you're not sleeping there. So there is the issue of the chemical make-up of the earth, particularly of things like heavy metals and whatever else was put in the waste tip at the time. So where we have done in High Wycombe, we have actually covered that area and we have put some building, not a lot, but it's spacious building to allow free flow of air. We don't allow it to be used for allotments or anything, but it actually can be used for employment. I'm awfully sorry I'm having this awful problem I can't hear properly. I do apologise. Now, somebody that's deaf in one ear full-time, I really appreciate that, sir. Councillor Lewin. Not related. Is it possible to have a short comfort break, Chair? Yes, once we finish this part, we will. The intention is, going forward for the rest of the day, is that once we will hold a comfort break in a moment, and once we have completed public speaking, we will break for lunch and then resume. Okay. Any further points of clarification? Councillor Newcombe. Yes, Councillor Clark. It seems to me that you are talking really in close opposition to the point made by Councillor Watson, assisted by Mr Kershaw, in which it was basically said that this site would actually provide no additional jobs, and the people who had those jobs, as it were, could come from virtually anywhere. It strikes me that your point is that when people grow up living in a vicinity where a particular industry is strong, there is an incentive, partly because the local educational institutes run particular courses, partly because, shall we say, job placements, work placements, etc., are available to those young people, and partly because a lot of people just go into the local industry, whatever the local industry may be. You're saying that, in fact, over a period of time, this site would actually provide a significant amount of employment to people from your ward. Do I understand your argument correctly, and that therefore you reject the argument put forward by Councillor Watson and Mr Kershaw? Is that correct? As always, Councillor Newcombe, you have summed it up incredibly well. Thank you very much for that. But I want to extend it one little bit further. You represent Abbey Ward in the centre of High Wycombe, and can you just remind me, is Abbey Ward one of the Opportunity Bucks wards, one of the ten wards in Buckinghamshire, which has the highest level of deprivation? Again, I'm impressed with your knowledge of High Wycombe. Yes, you're quite right. We are an Opportunity Bucks ward. Thank you very much. And the jobs would be brilliant. Any further points of clarification required? No, at that point, thank you, Councillor. And again, my apologies about not being able to hear. That's not a problem, thank you. Right, now we're going to have a comfort break now. We will return at 12. Just before you go, please, I will remind everybody, this is for the public, local councillors and for committee members, please do not speak to members of the committee. Do not approach them, otherwise you jeopardise the whole meeting. And that goes for everyone. Thank you. Back here at 20 past. Everybody, we will now resume the meeting. As you are aware, we are still in the section for public speaking. And next on the list, I have Councillor Carol Heap, who will now speak as a Buckinghamshire council member and will be supported by Carol Maccuff. Also, if you would both like to come up. And as per the other speakers, Councillor, you will have four minutes once the timer starts. Here we go. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everyone. Councillor Carol Heap, BUCKS member for Marlowe, neighbouring ward. I'm taking this back now to transport and traffic issues. It's clear from BUCKS latest transport assessment report that there are still many outstanding issues in this application. There can be no doubt that the development of the size of Marlowe Studios will have a severe impact on traffic and residents in the local area. Up to 2000 production staff are expected to travel to and from the studios every day and a constant stream of vans and heavy lorries will be delivering materials. How could this not have a huge impact on residents and local businesses? The applicant has claimed that this will be OK because their travel plan is based on 40% of commuters using public or sustainable modes of transport. This is a very ambitious target and the transport assessment report recently published simply does not support this. By comparison, at Pinewood, only 5% travel by train and just 2% by shuttle bus with 88% of staff driving to work. So how will Marlowe Studios achieve this target of 40% sustainable travel? It's a good question and it's most likely that they won't and this has been acknowledged in their proposal with a contribution being offered towards parking enforcement in the nearby Marlowe streets. With insufficient parking on site, I believe there are 1100 parking spaces on site, cars and vans will use nearby streets in Marlowe causing inconvenience to residents and local businesses. This is simply not acceptable and is of great concern to our residents. So what about the 404? This road is a strategic transport link between the M4 and the M40 and is one of the most congested, if not the most congested, roads in Buckinghamshire. The additional traffic resulting from the studios would make the congestion worse. It will almost certainly cause an impact on local businesses and a decline in Buckinghamshire's productivity levels. To be fair, the applicant has tried hard to mitigate the harm. They are proposing spending 20 million on upgrading the West Thorpe Interchange to address concerns raised by national highways. But their unproven scheme for reducing queuing on the A404 slip roads would have a devastating knock-on effect for local traffic. Analysis by Bucks Highways shows it could cause widespread congestion, especially on the busy A4155 in Marlowe. Thousands of residents, commuters, local schools and businesses would suffer the consequences every day. Globe Business Park could be particularly badly affected as there are already queues entering and leaving there at peak times. The increased congestion is likely to put off prospective tenants and even drive existing ones away. Another worrying aspect of the mitigation plan is its potential impact on road safety. Bucks Highways makes clear in their assessment that the changes to the West Thorpe Interchange that have been proposed could have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. The proposed cycle and pedestrian path improvements, though highly desirable, would not meet current design and safety standards. That's the four minutes up. Thank you, Councillor. Members, any points of clarification on those issues within statement? Councillor, please. Hi, Councillor. Am I right in assuming that the closest railway station is Marlowe itself? That is correct. And what's the distance to the site, roughly? Ooh, great question. I don't know, half a mile? OK. More than that, surely. Why are you asking the question? Is it going somewhere? No, I just want to know the distance from the site. You know, 40% of the people are expected to come by public transport and that's the closest station. I'm wondering how they're going to get there between the two sites. Yeah, I'm afraid I can't call the exact distance, but I think what I draw your attention to is that... Could you just bring the microphone a bit closer to you, please? Yeah, aside from the distance, which I think is not a huge barrier in and of itself, it's the quality of the route, and we have two routes, one of which involves crossing the A4/A4 at the West Thorpe interchange and, as you'll have seen from the highways report and we agree, I point out with all the conclusions made there, the improvements there don't meet current design standards and the alternative is over the Volvo footbridge, the delivery of which is uncertain and even if it were to be delivered, the onward route down Wiltshire Road has been identified as a substandard, requiring people to walk in the carriageway. So I think the quality of the route is a bigger barrier than the distance itself. I think as well, once we get to technical questions, you'll be able to ask the same question to officers. Councillor Willhouse. Thank you, Chair. You mentioned sustainable active travel. How realistic do you think that this modal shift will be to get people to use public transport or walk or come by public transport? How realistic do you think that is? And if Marlow is the nearest train station, is there a good train service to Marlow? Thank you. So I think on this point, the comparison to Pinewood is very pertinent. So Pinewood, as some of you may well be aware, runs a series of shuttle buses and lots of measures similar to what was proposed here. In terms of the baseline modal shift assumed as part of this application, before any of these measures are accounted for, they use census data as a starting point. In terms of Pinewood, in 2013, significantly more people traveled by car than the average for the area based on census data. By 2016, they'd succeeded in reducing it to a level only slightly above the average for the area. It's now increased back above 2013 levels. So there's a clear example, local, where similar measures have been taken and it's wholly failed to achieve the sort modal shift painful here. So may I answer that? About Marlow station, Marlow station is a very small branch line coming from Maidenhead, essentially all born end. So there are services there, but they only link to Maidenhead for the main line. So it's not particularly convenient as a way to get to the site. However, I would say the applicant has proposed bus services from Maidenhead and also I think High Wycombe station to the site. Thank you. Councillor Cooper, I believe you were next. Yes, thank you, Chairman. You've mentioned that this development will produce 2,000 jobs. At least that was part of your argument as far as traffic was concerned. But would you not welcome 2,000 jobs for Marlow and immediate surroundings? Is that not something that you would wish to have your residents, particularly including apprenticeships and such like? Yes, but that wasn't really what I was speaking on today. I was thinking about traffic concerns. I understand that, but that was my question. Why not? But I'm not sure this is the way to deliver it here. I think you were right, Councillor Heap. You didn't mention that point, so we will keep to points of clarification. Thank you. Councillor Linn. Thank you, Chairman. Councillor Heap, I completely hear you on the concerns on traffic and transport, et cetera, et cetera. I'm looking at the submission from Marlowe Town Council, which is, I gather, an informal vote between members. This is in the appendix, page 485, which you are a member of. I'm trying to understand your appearance from the committee today as ward member, as a Buckinghamshire Councillor. Are you in favour of the application, supportive or neutral? Because it says in the Marlowe Town Council submission that you were neutral on it. So I'm just trying to establish your view as ward Councillor. I am here today representing my residence as a Buckinghamshire Councillor. I am a member of Marlowe Town Council, you're quite right there. I did not support that representation that was put into planning, along with several other Councillors on Marlowe Town Council. I was against doing it completely. But the report says you're neutral. When that representation was put in, that was quite some time ago, that was last year. And at that point, all Marlowe Town Councillors were taking a neutral stance so that we could speak openly and frankly to our residents. And I've maintained a neutral position because at that point I haven't made up my mind about the application. Thank you, Chairman. I think that's okay. Any further points of clarification from anyone? Councillor Newcombe. Yes, thank you, thank you, Chairman. Just trying to elucidate a little bit of what you were saying earlier on. Perhaps I can just, as an aside, say that paragraph 14.13 is the answer to Councillor Fliss's question. It's 1.8 kilometres from Marlowe railway station to the side. But am I right in understanding that your objection is primarily about the adequacy of the road traffic system and that you're not objecting to the adequacy of the parking at the site? Which according to paragraph 2.11 is 1,117 spaces, or are you objecting to the application because it has inadequate parking facilities and you are objecting to it on the basis of the adequacy of the road system? I think it's actually both, but we have no control really over the current adequacy of the road system. It is what it is. My concern is about the added congestion from the additional cars coming and going. And also because there probably aren't enough spaces on site, that those cars will then start making additional journeys looking for parking spaces into the town and parking in the town and clogging up the residential roads on that side. And can you just tell us a little bit more as a local resident, because I'm not a local resident, about the adequacy of, putting it bluntly, how much parking could the local roads absorb? Well, on that side of Marlowe, adjacent to the 404, this is South East Marlowe and North East Marlowe, we have large estates of housing, it's very dense housing, it's nearly all small terraced housing. There's very little off-road parking and not very many garages, so most residents do rely on parking on the road. And this is already a pressure point for residents in that area, because what happens now is that quite a lot of people that work on Globe Park, where there's also not quite enough parking, go into South East Marlowe in particular and try and park on the roads there. So we already have a lot of congestion and difficulties there without any more cars. And that then would create a substantial amount of pedestrian traffic as well, which Mr Schmell is highlighting as a further problem. Yeah, and if I might expand slightly on the parking while we're on it. The applicant has recognised that there's potential for on-street parking to cause an issue, and they put forward an offer of funding a traffic regulation order, putting in place additional restrictions. In order to mitigate it, I'd just point out to the committee that a traffic regulation order is a legal order subject to a consultation process outside of planning. And you would need to take into account residential immunity and any objections to the time that order was made, so there is a question mark over the deliverability of those parking restrictions, should they be needed. Thank you. Just one question, follow-up on parking. Would the car parks at Marlowe water ski pub or the rugby football club or the Crowne Plaza be a good option if there was demand for more parking? In reality, film studios have considerable internal space available, yet having worked both for and again, the school studios in the past have got quite a bit of experience in this industry and the transport implications. Each stage has a large open space adjacent to it, which when it's in use for filming, it's got ventilation equipment, cable runs, film crews, et cetera. So there's considerable space within the site that could be used for over-civil parking. Clearly, if that were to be the case, we'd be looking at more traffic arriving as well. So failure to potentially worsens the congestion, even if the parking is accommodated within the site, which is why the African sought to address that concern with a management plan, which would supposedly prevent that parking occurring within the site outside the dedicated car parks. Okay. There are no further points of clarification. Thank you very much. And we'll now take Councillor Anna Crabtree, who is representing Little Marlowe Parish Council, and I believe you have Verity West with you as well. Thank you. And once again, once the time starts, you have four minutes. Thank you, Chair. My name is Councillor Anna Crabtree, and I'm speaking on behalf of Little Marlowe Parish Council, the parish the proposed studio is in. I would like to explain why the parish council believes this development would cause significant harm to our community and offer no benefits to offset that harm locally. First of all, the parish is a beautiful one, partially within the children's area of outstanding natural beauty and the rest stretching down to the banks of the tents. There is an application currently being considered to expand the AONB to include all of this area. In contrast, the film studio project proposes the construction of vast, looming warehouse style buildings, and the industry is known for its use of HGVs, cranes and heavy duty equipment, both inside and outside. The incessant noise of reversing beeps, hammering of set construction or pyrotechnic effects would dominate the area. We see from the applicant's own documents that the site will be visible and audible for miles around. Little Marlowe is a conservation area, and the proposed film studio would be completely out of keeping with the AONB and the village nearby. This land is currently part of Little Marlowe Lakes Country Park. Although the fields are not open to the public, many enjoy walking the footpaths and seeing the wildlife thriving in the area. We know that there are bats, barn owls and other protected species living here. This green belt is a place of nature and recreation that benefits the physical and mental wellbeing of our residents and should be protected. Whilst the developers say they can tick the biodiversity net gain box for this project, they propose destroying both existing habitat and valuable local agriculture by creating a meadow in a field that is currently growing oats. The site plans show there are numerous homes at West Thorpe, surrounded on three sides by film studio land, accessed only through the centre of the film studio. For the residents of the 56 park homes and additional apartments, it is distressing to see that the planning officer gives only moderate weight to the impact this development would have on their lives. The park homes are buildings of lightweight construction, poorly insulated for both heat and sound. With the closest studio building only 25 metres away, residents will be living in close proximity to the studio. In summer, the homes can be too warm and it is essential to keep windows open to prevent overheating. With major construction or the noise associated with backlot filming, it is undeniable there will be significant impact on the daily lives of dozens of residents. It should also be noted that residents of West Thorpe Park include a high proportion of elderly and vulnerable individuals. Many require access from carers, hot meal providers and often ambulances. There is a serious concern that ambulances trying to attend calls to these homes may face traffic blockages on the roundabout by the fire station, then further delays to get past studio security. The plans do not take into account a situation where film crews needing to cross from one side of the studio site to the other temporarily block all access to West Thorpe. If an ambulance is delayed and a resident dies, who will be responsible for this? From the perspective of the parish council, this plan offers nothing for the local community, only huge risks and downsides, including the chance of polluting the aquifer. I have not met a single resident of the parish who aspires to work at the site. There is nothing in the section 106 agreements that is really needed locally. We already have two community buildings in the parish and the suggestion that elderly residents would prefer cheap cinema tickets to quiet enjoyment of nature on their doorstep is frankly ridiculous. Please refuse this application. Thank you for that. Points of clarification. Councillor? Thank you, Sharon. Thank you very much. You've talked about the elderly residents of Little Marlow and I take very good value points on board about access to carers, hot meals and ambulances, etc. But what you've not touched upon, which I want to clarify from you as the local councillor, is what about the youth of Little Marrow and the surrounding areas? Where would you expect them to seek future joint employment opportunities? We are talking about points of clarification that were mentioned in the statement, so I think we're stretching the bounds there. I'm happy to take any other points at you of confirmation, clarification, sorry. Well, I'll rephrase that then. You've talked about the elderly residents of Little Marlow being concerned about access by carers, hot meals, etc. How would you make of, what would you think the residents of Little Marlow, the elderly residents of Little Marlow will make of the opportunities that could be offered to the youth of Little Marlow and the surrounding areas? If this application were to be refused or to go ahead, thank you. I take your point, Councillor Ng. I actually sit on the board at Buckinghamshire New University and have done for the last seven years, so I am very invested in the opportunities available for young people locally. But I am very much aware that we have 10 film studios within a 30-minute drive of our area already, and I know that there are training opportunities being included as part of this proposal, but they include only £148 allocations per person per month for a handful of trainees. When I know that what's being offered at Buckinghamshire New University far exceeds those opportunities in terms of the quality of what's being delivered and the actual qualifications that people receive at the end of it. And not only are Buckinghamshire New University providing training within High Wycombe, they also have a tie-up agreement with Pinewood where I've been and toured the facilities that are available on site at Pinewood, and they are providing those types of training opportunities which are simply not included in this plan for Little Marlowe. Just to follow up, so it is your position that the elderly residents of Little Marlowe will feel that their concerns about greenbelt and access will outweigh what possibly might be the opportunities provided to youth? If I could rephrase it that way. You can mute it as well. Hello? Thank you. What was the question? The question was that the elderly residents of Little Marlowe and the surrounding areas will take the view that the end needs and concerns about access, green spaces, outweigh what options that the youth might benefit from this? Thank you. We are clearly having some issues with microphones. Okay, if it continues, we will stop until we get the result, but let's hope. Right. Hopefully, that is the technical issue resolved. Technology is a wonderful thing when it works. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next, I have Councillor Lewin. Thank you, chair. I just want to go back to what you said about the 56 Park homes. And you talked about their access being through the site. And you also said that you think they would have to go through security. Can you just clarify that that is your understanding? I am not specifically concerned about them requiring security access. What I am concerned about is that if there are any delays at security, anyone waiting to get through the gates, that could lead to traffic congestion, which we expect to spill out onto the A4155. So if there are delays on the roundabout, if there are delays at the gates, then any ambulance or emergency vehicles trying to get through will then have to go past all of that before they can get down to people's homes. Thank you. If I could just add to that from a security point of view, I live on the Park homes, I have lived there for 18 years, and I speak to a lot of the elderly and vulnerable people. One side of me, I have a gentleman that has a hospital ambulance, transport, three days a week for dialysis. Another side, there is a lady that is bed-bound that has carers twice a day, plus hot meals delivered. If every single day it is different drivers, it is different carers, it is different people, and every single security checkpoint that they have to get through in order to access causes delays, and that means your meals will get cold, and that has a knock-on effect for everybody on that route. It means that when people have medical emergencies, the ambulances are not getting there quickly. So one of the options that we have said we are concerned about studio staff using our residential parking, which is limited, on the home site, which is right in the centre of their development, they have said no problem, we will put up a barrier so that staff can't get through. But that also means we can't get through. Residents may get a fob, that's fine, but what about all the carers, all the ambulances, all the deliveries, the support network, the family, friends, you know, the list goes on. I can't see it, I'm yet to be convinced that it's a workable solution for the residents and the support network that is required for health and wellbeing, and I think there's a genuine safety concern for us. Thank you, that's very clear. Okay, thank you. Next I have Councillor Bond. Just a small point. You were alluding to the fact that an ambulance couldn't get through the security on blue lights. Have you got any evidence? No, it's not so much about the security, it's the gates, it's the traffic, and we also know that the Westthorpe Interchange is the site of the Marlowe Fire Station, so there are a lot of emergency vehicles that need to be able to get out onto that road before you even get to the issues of the people in Westthorpe Park. But if you look at the plan, the access route that goes straight through the centre of the film studio divides the plot on the north side from the plot on the south side. So I think it's unrealistic to expect that during the day-to-day operations of such an important industrial site that there won't be requirements to get vehicles and probably large pieces of equipment and machinery from one side to another. So if you have an ambulance trying to get through, waiting for the crossing gates to let a whole load of film crew people through, what is the delay going to be for people who haven't had a medical emergency, for example, in those homes at the bottom, and what will the implications be? Because I genuinely do think there is a risk to life. Yeah, I can understand what you're saying, but you were implying that if an ambulance turns up on blue lights, they wouldn't let it through the gates. That's what I'm trying to get for them. I don't know what the absolute situation would be. I think we're in the world of supposition. I'll come back to you as I've had several bites. Councillor Cooper. Yes, it's interesting that we have somebody here from Park Homes, actually, because I'm wondering if you can tell us a bit more about the anticipated effects on the people who live there, particularly in relation to the outdoor lot. So that will be from a visual and a noise point of view, and from a visual point of view as far as the buildings are concerned. One thing we can't see very well from the information we've got is changes of levels, etc. So perhaps you can tell us whether the outdoor lot... I think that's a technical question for officers as regards levels. It wasn't a point mentioned... But with respect, Chairman, I'm just thinking of people living on that site and looking across the site as it is. I understand that, but we are in the section which is points of clarification on those points that have been made within the statement that was made by the Speaker. So I have to be very strict on this because otherwise we will be here tomorrow. Thank you, Chairman. But I think you get the gist of my question. So it's the effect on residents compared to what it is now. So without trying to remove emotion from this, because obviously this is quite a devastating project potentially for us living down there. And this has been going on for many years. It's felt like an axe has been swinging over our heads for a very long time. And obviously it's quite an emotive subject for me because I live there because I love it and I love it because of the wildlife and the peace and quiet. It's also low-cost housing. So we don't have the luxury of being able to just sell up and move. Our homes aren't worth anything. Well, this is undecided or certainly not if it's approved. And there's not an alternative locally where we could go so people would potentially lose their support network and their family and things. So on a grand scheme of things, this has been incredibly stressful for a lot of people. And it's caused an impact on many people's health and wellbeing already because of the stress. I've had I've had at least two of my neighbours who are quite elderly say, you know, hopefully I'll die before it ever happens. One of them had her wish granted. Another one is still with us, still hoping that she doesn't live long enough to see it happen. And that's that's quite heartbreaking to hear that. I hope I never see it happen. But obviously, I'm still in my 40s. You know, I've probably got a little bit longer than most. But I think we feel like many, many of the elderly people, especially feel like because they're elderly, they're being ignored and they're not being listened to and their lives aren't considered as important as potential youth opportunity. Which is sad because you can't sacrifice the lives of people for for a possible job opportunity that may not even be local. And those job opportunities exist locally at other local studios. So so when Councillor Ng was saying that what do the elderly people think about, you know, their peace and quiet being more important than potential youth opportunities? Youth opportunities exist and our health and well-being shouldn't be ignored. And I think just because you've reached a certain age doesn't mean that you're invisible and it doesn't mean that you should be silenced and your life doesn't count and isn't important anymore. That being said, should this this proposal go ahead, the impact on our daily lives will be massive. There will not only will we be battling through the traffic outside the site, we then have to drive through the site and the studio traffic and security barriers and all that just to get to and from our homes. There's this impact on the support network and the deliveries and the emergency vehicles and and all that, which is going to cause delays and be a problem. But we've also got the constant noise. And as Councillor Crabtree said, you know, they're not standard construction buildings. They they don't have the sound insulation that a brick built property would have. Therefore, even with all our doors and windows closed at nighttime, I can hear the owls hooting. You know, I can I can hear the deer barking. We can hear things outside. There isn't a lot of noise right now because we're in the middle of nature, in the middle of countryside. But when you're in the middle of an industrial estate, there is constant noise, whether it's vehicles, whether it's generators, whether it's machinery, air conditioning units. And that's once the studio has been built. So we've got four or five years of construction that we have to live in the middle of that. We we have the constant noise and dirt and stress and upset when we live there because it's peaceful and quiet and we love the wildlife. And so when you ask about the the impact on us, it's life changing and quite detrimental. And there's there's no doubt in my mind. I'm sorry, I sound a little emotional, but it's important. There's no doubt in my mind that it will change my life drastically and that of my neighbours. And I think, yeah, I think we've we've got to express yourself very eloquently. So I was going to say exactly that, Chairman. Thank you for the eloquent answer and thank you, Chairman, for allowing that to come forward. Thank you. OK, thank you. No, OK. There are no further points of clarification then. Thank you. Now, on behalf of the objectors, we have Richard Sherwin. And as previously, once the time starts, you will have four minutes. There we go. This is the wrong development in the wrong place at the wrong time. They say the film industry needs it. It doesn't. There is already too much studio space approved. And even Pinewood has put its expansion on hold. What do these property developers know that Pinewood doesn't? They say that it will create jobs. They can't. Film producers create jobs, not studios. And with so much studio space available, the jobs will be created, whether this one is built or not. Anyway, as you've heard, the unemployment rate is over 60 percent. They say they'll get the young into film. They won't. A training budget of one hundred and forty eight pounds per person per month won't make any difference. And it's not even clear what the training is on. And just to clarify, there is no mention of apprenticeships. And the real training is provided by production companies. Studios have no control over what they will offer. And with the greatest respect to Leslie Clark, you do not need to worry about talent leaving the area. As Mrs. Crabtree said, there are 36 studios within a 30 mile radius of Marlowe and 10 within 30 minute drive. They say Marlowe is the only location. It isn't. Large studios have been built all across the UK. So its proximity to West London clearly isn't a must. And the owners of Wickham Studio, just three miles away, have gone into administration. Anyway, there's plenty of alternative sites that the developers have not considered. They say that the locals want it. They don't. The Marlowe Town Parish poll showed that 85 percent of voters were against it. This was after the developers had spent three years and vast sums of money trying to persuade locals that this is a good thing. Their telephone survey of 500 people, which suggested some support, is statistically insignificant. Particularly as over 80 percent of those asked knew nothing about the studio, and the majority surveyed were from Milton Keynes. 80 percent of those surveyed who believed they understood what the proposal would mean for the area were against it. Their data. They say that their showbiz cheerleaders loved it. Film director Richard Curtis says it will be convenient, maybe for him, but not for the people living nearby. No love actually. Film director James Cameron said he might base Light Storm 3D there. It's a graphics company employing computer programmers. No need for an office or a film studio. Anyway, this is a planning matter, so weak celebrity endorsements are irrelevant. They say they'll build and operate it. None of them has actually worked for a film studio, let alone run one. They are property developers who jumped on the studio bandwagon after the wheels fell off. Their ability to deliver on their promises is highly questionable. But what they won't say is how much harm it will cause. Ruined landscapes, congested roads, environmental damage, farmland given up, devastated communities in Marlowe, Little Marlowe, and especially Westthorpe, and the Greenbelt destroyed. Consequently, many individuals and organisations have objected, including the National Trust, Chilk Conservation Board, CPRE, Marlowe Society, and Bucks Highways. It's of most importance that a planning officer who has carefully examined the regulations and all the harms and benefits has again recommended refusal. It's not needed, it's not wanted, and it should not be allowed. Thank you for that. Tom? Sorry. We may have some questions for you. Excellent. Hope so. All ears. We have had quite a lot of points of clarification today, so we'll see if there are any further ones. Anybody like any points of clarification for items raised in that? Yes, Councillor Lewin. Just a very brief one. I didn't pick it up. You mentioned the film company going to administration. Can you just tell me what that was? Yes. Studio 50, Winish Triangle, just down the road, went into administration, I think it was two weeks ago. There is another local studio. I can't remember the exact location. It's within 10 miles of here, which has also been put up on the market for sale. When you look at the occupancy rates of Wickham Studios as well, they're very, very poor. And even the new studio, as you've heard, at Shinfield, has got poor occupancy rates. As you've heard, the demand's not there. There's oversupply. This is not going to create jobs. Okay. Thank you. Any further points of clarification? No? You are clear now to go back to your seat. Do I have to? Can I stay? All right. Now we have this longer list. Okay. We'll now take those speaking on behalf of the supporters, who will jointly have four minutes in total. So we have Chris Lyons, Jerry Turner, Mark Kelleher, Jeremy Hay, Mark Scoyles, Jenny Crane, John Thorpe. Sure. Sure. Sorry. Of course. I have a T instead of an S on my list. So apologies for that. I will remedy it. Okay. I'm not sure how you're going to distribute this between you, but it will be four minutes in total. So once the timer starts, it will be over to you. Okay. Chair and members, we're a panel of local people, an ex-president of Marlowe Chamber of Trade, who's also an ex-district solicitor, Marlowe's Living Streets, the MD of Chiltern Rangers, chief exec of Talkback UK, director of Fangs Effects Limited, and myself, Jenny Craig, principal and chief exec of Bucks College Group. We provide technical and vocational education to over 5000 students, 16 to 18-year-olds, apprentices and adults wishing to reskill and upskill, including over 400 film and TV students a year. We're opening a new campus in High Wycombe, which will be just a short bus ride away from the studios. Many of our students are resident in the Opportunity Bucks wards in Aylesbury and High Wycombe. Our role is to create opportunity for our disadvantaged communities and pathways through to jobs and careers that matter, and importantly, keep them here. We play a vital role in providing the talent pipeline into the industry, which speaks to the world-leading role that the industry already enjoys in Bucks. We also train hundreds of students and apprentices who have the potential to work in the sector, carpenters, joiners, electricians and accountants. The creative industries can also play a key role in providing jobs for those with neurodiversity, with the national charity Talkback UK based in High Wycombe. We have the National Film and Television School in Beckonsfield, as well as courses at BNU. Together, we bring in students at all levels. Partnership with the studios will give us all the chance to show students pathways into these careers to really stretch their ambitions. The Culture and Skills Academy propose will provide unrivalled access to industry training with direct work experience placements and critically rare on-the-job training. The studios are directly funding 600 training places and we're dedicated to increasing that number further. We are committed to ensuring that students can progress into fulfilling jobs and careers so that they can stay in Bucks and enrich our communities. We know that of the 4,000 plus people with learning disabilities in Bucks, only 6% of them ever get work. The studios represent perhaps the most significant investment in Bucks jobs in a generation. 2,000 jobs in the wider economy and 2,000 new jobs in the creative sector are extraordinary prizes for Bucks if we can take the opportunity. I'm Chris Lyons. I've lived in Marlowe's surrounding area for 52 years and have worked in the film industry for over 30 years with over 1,000 feature films to my name. During the last 10 years, the industry in the UK has grown to global significance. But studio space has become very difficult to source in the UK and is frequently booked up years in advance, despite other studios being built. If we don't act, we can be sure that Europe and the US will steal our business. We have extraordinary talent in Bucks in competitive industry. Marlowe is centrally placed. It has easy access from major motorways and airports. The studios, if built, will quadruple capacity in Westport to change, solving existing problems, providing new lanes, bus services and cycle paths. These are reasons to grant permission not to refuse. And in any event, most film crews start work early and finish late, so before and after rush hour. For instance, yesterday morning I went to set in Shepperton and back to my studio all before 9am. The landing question has been left empty for as long as I can remember and it is not managed for its wildlife. There will be more wildlife in the local area, not less, as a result. My business is in make-up, an ever-growing department that thousands of students every year are desperate to get into. Marlowe Film Studios would offer local on-site career opportunities and its own educational platforms into career they want to progress in. The studios represent perhaps the most significant investment in Bucks' jobs in a generation. We urge the committee to have the courage to take this extraordinary opportunity for Bucks. Thank you for listening. Thank you for that. Thank you for that. Councillor? Thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much for coming to speak. The committee has heard from other people who were very downbeat and negative about the film industry, prospects for UKPLC and the creative industries, about unemployment rates, occupancy rates, etc. Why are you and your group of people so optimistic about it? What data do you have to back it up? Why are you, for example, colleges investing in this? How is your business thriving? I'd love to hear your side of why you think this industry is optimistic. Why, as a county, we should be supporting this or as a country we should be. Thank you. Thanks. Maybe if I just take that first from a sort of careers and skills perspective. As a college, we're really excited to be working in partnership with Marlowe Film Studios. And I would stress that's not a financial partnership. That's about doing the right thing. And it's about giving young people and adults as well who want to reskill and upskill. It's about giving them additional opportunities. And I think it's really important to remember that within the film and TV industry, there is a whole skills ecosystem within that. So, as I mentioned, this is not just about media graduates, for example, this is about carpenters, it's about engineers. And actually, there are a lot of similarities and connections, I think, between what's happening potentially here and also what's happening in Westcott. A lot of similarities in terms of that skills development and that crossover. And for too long, I think, particularly around Opportunity Bucks students of whom we serve, the vast majority of young people and adults actually living in those Opportunity Bucks wards. They don't see the opportunities and the ambition there for them. And having a significant new investment on their doorstep really provides that ambition. And we've seen that with other studios and their links with other further education colleges throughout the country. It's really supported those young people to get on that ladder. Often in the film and TV industry, you need to have some experience and you need to understand the etiquette, how it actually works. You need to be able to see yourself working in that industry. And by having this partnership, that means that our students will have that opportunity. Thank you. As far as the economic state of the film industry, there has been a lull because of the strikes last year and the end of the financial year. There's over 70 films waiting to come into this country. I know somebody who works for Lionsgate and she's never ever had so many phone calls for films and projects to bid on, to take over. The big studios are normally booked up. You've got DC moving into Leavesden or take over Leavesden. You've got Disney in Shinfield. You've got The Witcher over in Long Cross. And so all the big studios are taking over. For the smaller, lower budget films, there is no studio space. So they're all going abroad. You've got The Wheel of Time being filmed over in Prague. You've got another job I'm working in in Slovenia. They're going abroad instead of coming here. Hollywood is dead. The only thing being done in Hollywood at the moment is TV work. There's no films being done in TV because all the best crew in the world are in this country. This country has got a massive talent pool. Look at the Oscar-winning makeup artists. I know several and I've been part of Oscar-winning makeup teams. The crews are all here. I know somebody who lives in New Zealand. She's over here working because there's nothing going on over there. It's all here. Yes, there is a lull. The bubble hasn't burst. There is just a lull due to the stripe and then getting rid of the backlog of films that were held up. And that's the studio space can't be released because of the backlog that's coming in and new films can't go in. There's plenty of work coming. Okay, next I have Councillor Feeley. Thank you, Chairman. Two points, just a point you just made. We're getting a very mixed message here and we have a warning because one side is saying there's no work. The other side is saying there is. It's very difficult for us to fully understand that. Thank you for that. If I could just come back to the apprenticeship bit. And I understand totally what you're saying about carpenters, electricians and all the other bits. What's the funding arrangements for that? Is that something you fund? Because we've heard about this £148 per student per month. How does this work? So to explain in a nutshell quite a complicated funding scheme for apprenticeships. So for apprenticeships you have an employer who effectively is offering that job with training. And that employer will work with a training provider, e.g. the college, e.g. Bucks New University, who actually provides the training. And effectively it's 80% working on the job, 20% off the job training. So depending on the size of the employer depends on how much funding the government will provide. So the government has just recently announced additional flexibilities within apprenticeships. And where you've got small employers then the government will fund the vast majority of that training for the apprentice. Where you've got a larger employer they will be paying the apprenticeship levy. And then the funding for that training comes out of that. But the employer is still paying the apprenticeship wage for that individual. So I think that's outside of that £148. It's a different... If you want to make a situation complicated that's it. Yes, welcome to my world. That's very much so. Do you have any statistics at all about apprentices and apprenticeships that have come before? I'm particularly looking at the electricians, carpenters and that, that will go into the film industry. So we do know within Buckinghamshire that we are a lower performing county compared to the national performance. In terms of the number of firms who are offering apprenticeships at the moment. And particularly at those lower, more entry level positions, carpenters, joiners, electricians, etc. So we know nationally with apprenticeships that actually the way that the fundings worked previously. Some of that has gone into sort of traditional graduate training schemes if you like. So with Buckinghamshire because of the... I think because of the particularly the increase in and the significant numbers of very tiny companies. We've got a significant proportion of small SMEs haven't been in bucks. We do know that we are underperforming at the moment. And so a larger injection into the, into the locality will really support that. Do the course of their apprenticeship, do they also continue to study for things like maths and science and stuff? Yes, depending on their entry point. So if they come into an apprenticeship and they've yet to achieve their English and maths at grade four or above. They will most likely continue to study that, yes. But effectively they are continuing to study all the way through their apprenticeship. It is a job with training. Thank you. Thank you for that. Councillor Lewin for you next. Thank you. You know, Councillor Vealy asked the first part of my question. Anyway, my second part was you threw, you threw an interesting statistic out there. You said that we have 4000 young people with learning difficulties and only 6% of them get jobs. What, I just want you to unpick that for me. Are you talking about people with ECHPs or just children on the register at schools? And where's this statistic come from? And how is it going to be helped? So it's, it's all, all people with a registered learning difficulty. So it's not just those with education, health and player plans. It's anybody who has identified as having a learning difficulty. And so what we know is that additional opportunities for those young people, and actually it's not just young people either, it's adults as well. And we know that the studio is committed to providing inclusive job opportunities. And certainly a lot of those individuals don't get that opportunity to, to develop those entry level jobs, jobs and see themselves in those industries. So anything that can support them within that has got to be a good thing. So, so how do you see those, those people as being supportive and all being supported? And I'm still not sure about the 6%. How have you come to only 6% of people with a registered learning disability getting employment? So in terms of the support, I think the support comes from a number of different angles. It comes from people who are working in the education industry, who are helping those individuals to develop those skills. So sometimes it's about developing confidence. Sometimes it's developing skills. Sometimes it's working with individual employers so that they become more inclusive in terms of their employment practices. And therefore those individuals see that they can work within those industries. Does that off the top of my head give you the, give the exact reference for that stat? I'm afraid. Because what I'm trying to link is what's that got to do with supporting this application? I would assume if it assists, Councillor, that the implication is that if there are more job opportunities available there is a commitment to include within those opportunities people with learning difficulties. I'm assuming that's the point you're trying to make. That's exactly that. I don't think there's any further we can drill down after that. Next I have Councillor Eggleton. Thank you, Chairman. I'd just like some clarification on this encouraging youth and educating and training youth. Because every developer application that I've ever seen in my years in local authority planning, they all promise that they will have apprenticeships, they will have local employment, they will encourage local youth, etc. And this, putting aside the fact that this is a film studio, this is a property company that is proposing this, how do we get a feel for what the numbers will be? Because I've seen Pinewood grow and grow over the years and I know it used to have a home-based workforce going as far as into Hillingdon. But now all they do is put up buildings and production companies come in with their own staff. So I'm not quite sure how this apprenticeship is going to work because unless you're going to be very, very different to Pinewood, all they do is rent space. They put up a box. That's the sound stage. And production companies come in and my experience of having a lot of people in my sort of area working in the industry, the film industry because of Pinewood and Ealing. They work in teams with specific producers, developers of films and they move around all the time. They don't stay in one place. So what are the numbers of particularly young people I'm interested in that you're going to train and that will stay in Buckinghamshire and live in Buckinghamshire? How do you assess that? I think there's two parts there. One is definitely relevant for the speaker, which is the last point you've made. The earlier point about the numbers and the individual companies that make the films rather than the applicant is probably one more suited for the officers on the technical. But I do think you're right in the question in relation to how they assess the numbers. All I was trying to do was to get some information from people in the industry, Chairman, about how it's working nowadays. Yeah, that's fine. Can I just say most studios do have production companies bringing their own staff, but also most studios have businesses that are resident on the lots, like ARRI Lighting, Panavision, there's special effects workshops, pyrotechnic workshops. There's lots of workshops that are based in the studios all the time and they are the people that will be employing people as well as the production companies. So most studios have inbuilt resident companies there in workshops surrounding the studios. So they will be offering a lot of apprenticeships, I can imagine. So they will employ young people, if we could clarify that. They will be doing the apprenticeships. As far as I can see it, they will be the ones, and also the production companies will also take people on. Because there is a shortage of staff in the industry. There is a massive talent pool, but there is a shortage of industry. And when it kicks off, there will be a massive shortage in the industry of people. Okay, Councillor Willaps, you were next. Thank you, Chair. This planning committee approved massive expansion at Pinewood not so long ago. And we were told at that time that Pinewood would become the biggest film studios in the world. And my question is to the gentleman who works in the film industry in the black t-shirt. You've mentioned this pent-up demand. So can you tell us, why do you think that Pinewood have decided to delay their development? I've got no idea why Pinewood have delayed. All I know is that the studios have gone up. Shepperton South Studios yesterday, which is a new development, which is much bigger than the original Shepperton. Half of that is owned by Amazon and the other half is Netflix. At the moment, the Amazon side has got a new Ryan Gosling film in there. When that comes out, Power of the Rings is going in there for about the next four years. So that side of the studio is going to be blocked. You've got Sky Studios in Elstree that's got 13 sound stages, brand new studios, has had major films in there. They've just had planning turned down to expand on there. They need to expand. So why Pinewood have not been expanding, I have no idea. Because the studio space is in demand. Everywhere is looking for studio space. Long Cross is being levelled and rebuilt, section by section. Because it wasn't a film studio, that's being rebuilt. And that's The Witches in there, taking over the whole of that. And I believe Tom Cruise has bought the other half of it as well, to develop for his film company. Okay, thank you. Next I have Councillor Cooper. I think you've jointly claimed that the bubble has not burst and indeed the industry is booming. But how do you see that continuing from now into the future? Do you see the industry remaining in the same form as it is now? Or indeed, will AI come into the picture and start to reduce the need for sound stages? And all the support elements that go with it. I understand that you're in make-up. So make-up, you've mentioned pyrotechnics, all those things. Are they going to continue at the same level as they are now or is AI going to take over? I can only obviously talk from my field in the industry. A few years ago when visual effects were getting much, much better. A lot of people in the make-up industry were worried about not doing prosthetics and it all being done by visual effects. I've just done Power of the Rings, where we're doing all the, I can't say what they are, but the creatures, the baddies in Lord of the Power of the Rings. I can't say because of NDA, there's a certain word I can't say. But they're all done physically and then they are then digitally reproduced. So the market for prosthetics and make-up has not decreased, in fact it's increased. And we've just done Beetlejuice 2 and Tim Burton film and he wanted to go old school, where it's all practical effects, no visual effects. And the way it's going is almost going all more practical now rather than visual effects in my field. And there is definitely not a shortage of work. I mean at the moment, yes there is a lull, I'll admit there is a lull in the industry at the moment. But I'm picking up jobs, sitting here today I've picked up two jobs this morning. I mean and it's picking up on a daily basis and so it is coming. And I've got some, I've already got films booked in for January next year. I've got four films already starting January. In your view is there an ongoing need for conventional sound stages for instance? Most definitely. And not only are all these sound stages, they're all soundproofed so you can't hear. When you're in them you can't hear anything outside and when you're outside them you can't hear anything that's going on the inside. They've got air-locked doors and it's all self-contained. Because obviously they can't film a quiet scene if there's noise outside. So everything is self-contained. Thank you for that. Councillor? Thank you Chairman. We're seeing more youth now being content creators themselves via TikTok and Instagram stories as well. Do you think that will have an impact on independent film studio, filmmaking for example? So for example they'll have their mobile phones and you know you don't need to go to a film studio anymore. With AI, with computers, you know your industry is getting smaller and smaller. Thank you. I'm just working on a big blockbuster that's all being filmed on iPhones. But they're still doing it in sound stages and out on location. I've also worked for people that have done TikTok and little short videos on YouTube and everything. And they've now moved into making the progress one further so they'll make a short film. And then hopefully their career will develop into sound stages. We've just done one with Adam Ant's bass player actually. He's just done a little short film. He's written it and done a short film. And then he wants to progress into that industry and just expand. So I don't think it's going to have a negative effect. I think it's going to have a more positive effect because people are going to realise that they can do stuff. And they want to then expand it and get bigger and bigger. So I can only see it as a good thing myself. I was just going to add to that actually. I think that's exactly right. What we do need to do though is for those often young people who are starting to do their own content creation. What they don't know then is how to get into the industry. They don't, particularly those students who are living in opportunity box wards etc. They don't have those links with the film and TV industry. So what we need to do is make it easier for them to find out what those jobs are and actually link in and gain some of that experience. And that's exactly what Marlowe Film Studios has committed to do. Okay. Thank you. If there are no further points of clarification I'm going to take this as the most opportune time to break for lunch. I think it's been quite a long session already and I'm sorry. Now just before we break for lunch what I would like to say and make extremely clear again. Please members of the public, other board councillors who are here present. Please do not approach any of the committee members or officers present here in relation to the application. Please do not approach us because it could pre-determine or conflict with our decision making at the end of the meeting. So please do not confer or approach any of the committee members. The letter time for lunch will make it fairly short because we still have a lot of ground to cover. So I'm going to say 20 past two when we return. All right. Good afternoon everybody. We will now restart the meeting and the point at which we left off is still in the public speaking section. And so therefore we will now invite Robert Laycock speaking on behalf of the applicant to come to the table. And also Mark Small, Amanda Neville, Josh Berger, Ian Dix and Stuart Andrews. And we will have four minutes shared between you and you can start once the timer begins. Chair members, last week I attended a youth group in Wickham. As you know, a third of the children in Wickham's Booker's Book Award live in absolute low income families. Within walking distance of this very chamber in Aylesbury Southwest 13 per cent live in fuel poverty. That's why when I was last before you, you voted not to refuse Marlowe Film Studios application. Because you know Marlowe Film Studios is a once in a generation opportunity. So does James Cameron. His films, including Avatar, Terminator, Titanic, have grossed $8 billion. He, and I quote, sees Marlowe Studios as a UK and European base and training center. In October you received a long report, you considered it at great length and after a significant debate you resolved not to refuse our application. You could have left it at that, but you didn't. You instructed officers to seek to resolve outstanding issues, principally highways and SAG. We spent well over a million pounds on that basis, finding the solutions you instructed your officers to seek. We have found them and National Highways and Natural England agree. Government relies on consistency and decision making which relies on your resolutions to be followed. There is no change in circumstances that justifies their approach in this new report. It does not seek to resolve outstanding issues but has instead struck out in the opposite direction. This is not what you actually asked for. You asked for outstanding issues to be resolved focusing on SAG and highways. I'm delighted to tell you that since officers published their initial report, Natural England has removed their objection. The issue of SAG is now solved. On highways, my colleagues will speak to a host of infrastructure investments that will take cars off the road. I'll mention just one. The Westhorpe Junction layout, it's 50 years old. Without major investment, by the council's own metrics, accidents are going to rise. If you approve our proposal, we will ensure that the Westhorpe Junction is safe and efficient for the next generation. If, on the other hand, you turn us down in this time of acute constraint, who else is going to fund these critical investments in our infrastructure? The potential of young people across Bucks never fails to inspire me. Many are here today asking you to invest in their future. Our Skills Academy will provide hundreds of traineeships giving direct access to jobs in an industry that one-fifth of young people describe as their dream career. Great people who need phenomenal jobs near where they live. Are we perfect? No. Are we wildly better than the alternative? Yes. What other economic powerhouse is going to transform a disused bit of landfill into a place of opportunity, improving infrastructure, providing sound, bringing jobs, new bus routes, upgraded habitats, cycling and footpaths, training and opportunities for all. Not to mention three and a half billion of inward investment every decade, of which 67p in every pound is spent locally. Setting aside Andy Serkis, James Cameron, Richard Curtis, Jeremy Irons, Paul Greengrass and the host of others who endorsed us, over 5,200 people have written to you in support of our scheme. The Bucks College Group, BNU and the Film and TV Academy have joined the chorus. Many of their students and staff are with us today watching as you make this historic decision. And here are two titans of the British film industry, Amanda Neville and Josh Berger, to assist you in doing that. Think of your legacy, make your own assessment and grant a generation of kids that most precious commodity, hope. Thank you. Thank you for that. We'll now take points of clarification from members and who would like to start. Councillor Feeley. Thank you, Chairman. You talked about the highways aspect of it. One of the things that's come up today is particularly the highways access for park homes. And I just wonder if you could talk us through that because there was a concern about getting emergency vehicles into the site and going there. It's just something that was raised by a number of people. I think I'm going to pass that over to Ian to answer if that's OK. Ian Dix is our highways consultant. Obviously I was here and I heard the point that was raised. As you come into the film studios, you don't actually have to pass through the gate security to get to the homes because there's a room around the outside. The idea is that there would be a barrier to separate the film studios from the parking, et cetera, for the homes to protect their parking, to keep them separate. So there shouldn't be any delay beyond the delays that you'd have on the highway network. And I think as we all know, when an ambulance got a blue light, people do get out of the way and let the ambulance through. Because everybody understands if an ambulance got a blue light on, it's serious and people are allowed through. So I think I don't see there being any issues there. OK. I just wanted to clarify because the other point you raised was about carers coming in and people like that. So they would have direct access to the parka. Yes. And can I just chip in, we have secured temporary alternate access during construction, so that is deliverable. OK. The other point, if I may, Chairman, was raised this morning, that this site is not suitable for development of homes because it's an old waste site. Can you tell me from a technical point of view how you're ever going to come to that problem? I'm going to pass over to Mark Schmall, our planning consultant. Thank you, Councillor. Yes, the site has been subject to a number of ground conditions assessments to understand the condition of the land, what's in there. That's all been reported and submitted within the application. It is actually safe and capable for development for a film studio's applications before you now. And that's been signed off by the Environment Agency and the Council's Environmental Health Officer as well. And that includes flooding? Does that include flooding as well? Yes, yes, we fully assess flooding as well. And again, the Environment Agency, acting from a flood risk perspective, as are Buxlow Flood Authority. Just to point out, this is a known issue. Both extensions currently operating at Pinewood and Shepperton were built on landfill. So I think the point about homes is probably more easily asked by somebody who's a technical expert. But as far as I understand it, the risk of a child going to eat some soil is effectively the problem with developing homes on landfill. And as far as I understand it, that risk is very significant because, you know, when you're making films, you don't go and eat the soil. Hopefully not. But presumably there's other things like methane and other substances coming out. We don't have anybody from the design team here, but as far as I understand it, all that is dealt with by a membrane. Thank you. Thank you for that. Next I have Councillor Cooper. Yes, you've spoken, not unsurprisingly, very positively about the proposal you have. We've heard polar opposites today so far, as you will have heard. And it's been said that you've made a mistake. It's been said that the bubblers burst. It's been said that AI will kill the project dead. It's also been said that there is an excess of studios in the area, some of them heading for administration or have gone into administration. And that effectively you could be pinching business from other areas of the film industry. I wonder if you could just clarify from your point of view the answers to all of those questions. OK, well, just first and foremost, on competition. Dame Donna Langley, the most senior Brit in film and entertainment, is running Universal in Hollywood. And she had a really good quote at Cannes last week, which I thought really reflected this. She says, I'm a big believer in this competitive landscape, kind of all boats will rise. There's enough to go around. I like having healthy competitors. It's much more fun and interesting as just best business. So that frames our philosophy. We are constructively competitive. And I think probably for the other questions, except AI, which you can pass back to me. So I'm going to introduce Amanda Neville was the chief executive of the British Film Institute for its most prosperous 10 years and most successful film policy of probably all time. And her chair is Josh Berger at the British Film Institute. And obviously that was part of his what he can describe his career. But but I thought you'd be better off asking questions about film and demand from them. OK, thank you. I'm very glad to have the opportunity to address it and just to reassure, not at the BFI anymore, but working wide, widely across the globe, actually. So I've got a very good understanding of what's going on outside the UK and what's likely to come back into the UK. So I don't think for one second it's a bubble. I mean, if it's a bubble, it's a bubble that's lasted 20 years because actually the creative industries and film in particular has consistently outperformed the economy in a sustained way. And yes, we have absolutely had a blip, which was caused extensively by the writers strike last year. But if you talk to the industry and we had some of that evidence earlier, they will tell you that there was a strike, but the writers didn't stop writing. They just didn't hand in those scripts. So there is a backlog and a glut coming up which will need to be met. The other thing that has happened is that if you really want to hear what's going on in the industry, one of the best places is Cannes, because the world's industry meets there to watch film, sell film and buy film. I was there last week and obviously really questioning significant players about their future plans. And what was absolutely loud and clear is that the UK and obviously Buckingham remains absolutely the destination of desire if they can get in here. They are really reassured by how seriously the government is taking the sector and indeed they've introduced a new tax incentive, which means that slightly smaller films, 15 million, still big really in my eyes, but nevertheless smaller films. And what that means is we will get smaller films, but also films that we're planning to shoot overseas are now seeking to come back to shoot in the UK. It also means that the streamers, quite a few of them are now looking at new slates of 15 million films because it's their way of developing stories and developing directors, writers and actors as they come through. So we have had a dip, but my reading of the situation is that it is going to be as buoyant as it has ever been and the UK is so well positioned massively through the work that Buckingham has done over the last 20 years to ensure that the UK retains that position globally. So I see a very positive, very buoyant picture. What I would add to that is, first of all my name is Josh Berger, thank you for inviting me here today. I've spent 40 years in this industry running Warner Brothers here, running the Harry Potter business, I was chairman of the British Film Institute, so I'm like Amanda, a veteran of the industry and I'm now a producer so I'm actually making films and television shows and theatre today. I think the point that has been debated today about the bubble being burst, there's no bubble being burst. We've seen a growth spurt in the filmed entertainment world in the last years that is unprecedented and even if it were to dip, which had dipped because of COVID and then a once in a lifetime double strike of writers and actors, so we are now coming out of that. Even in that dip more money is being spent and more productions are being made than at any time in history and the competition for attracting that production is more and more fierce. A lot of countries have seen the success that we've had in Britain, which I remember when it really kicked off because it was the investments that the company I was working for at the time made in buying Leavesden Studios and investing in the Harry Potter franchise, which really was quite a critical moment because it was a decade long investment of many hundreds of millions of pounds. And a visual effects industry sprouted up on the back of that as did many other ancillary parts of the value chain of making film and television. And so today we still have this mass amount of investment by players such as Netflix, Amazon, Apple who weren't even in that game when we started that 20 years ago and 15 years ago and the competition for where to put those productions is ours to lose here. And the investments that have been made in places like Pinewood and Leavesden and Shepparton and Elstree, as has been heard by some of the people who work in the industry who see it every day, there's still massive competition to get in here, but it's a little like the hotel industry. Maybe when there was a time when there was a five star hotel, the Ritz, and I don't know the hotel industry history well enough, but bear with me, at that time we could have said, well, we've got a great five star hotel, why do we need another? But then another pops up and finds themselves busy because people continue to come here. And as long as they keep building them and it's hard to say at what point you're oversupplied, we are definitely not oversupplied with five star film studios. And the demand for those five star film studios, we're not even close to attaining that limit yet. And to the point that I heard earlier today that all people care about in what I do is cost, that is just patently untrue. If that were the case, nobody would be making films here. This is an expensive place to work. The reason why people come here and the reason why we came here and why I still come here is that it's the best place to make movies. And why is that? The facilities are the best in the world. The behind and front of the camera people are the best in the world. The tax credit is competitive. It's not the best in the world, but it's competitive. And now with the independent tax credit, it's going to be that much more competitive. And as Amanda says, there are going to be a whole slew of films being made at that price point, especially driven by streamers because it's very good for them as they change the way that they make films and look at filmmaking. So Marlowe Film Studios is another five star film studio made by filmmakers. I don't know why people keep calling them property developers. They're filmmakers. I'm sitting at this table because I talk to people who are in my industry in that company. I wouldn't be talking to property developers. When we made Leavesden Studios, we were a film studio made by filmmakers for filmmakers. That's what we believe in. So anyway, I hope that I've clarified a couple of things. I'm just going to hop in on the point about Pinewood cancellation. I wasn't sure if that was part of your multi-party question. So the reason that there is some doubt about that still is it was only recently in the budget that the rateable values were, as far as this is a bit Byzantine, but there was one there was a ratings officer who made a mistake. And the VOA is entirely separate from central government. So it wasn't something central government could fix. So they increased the rating on studios to an intolerable position. And that has not been fixed as of the budget. So obviously nothing gets built in a month or two that we've had a text from Andrew Smith, who I'm sure you will know this morning, but it is definitively not canceled that project. So just if you allow me on AI to creativity is the last refuge. I mean, if I was personally asked this question, I would say it's probably the same reason your roles as council are not going to be automated. Art is something very human. There are many, many, many roles that are going to be automated. But I think that as human beings, we don't want computers making art for us. It's a tool. It's like the lens. It's like it's like a microphone. It's like all these amazing things that in 100 years young, this industry is. And it's only accidentally in Hollywood. We are now the place to beat. So it was only accidentally in Hollywood. And I don't think that with our culture in this country, a global reserve culture, frankly, in this in Buckinghamshire, there are so many talented people. I've I won't bore you, but I've made notes for all of your words about the amazing things. No less than Michael. Michael Rand had Shakespeare in staying in the ship in his ward. So I don't think that that continuity of culture is going to go anywhere, frankly. And I just say, Chairman, thank you for accusing us of being human. Thank you for that. And we did hear a lot previously this morning on that particular issue. So it's useful to have the counterbalance. Right. Next, I have Councillor Egerton. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you for your presentation so far. You did speak for quite some time on the youth of Buckinghamshire and you spoke very passionately. Now, we did hear from your supporters who were some of who were involved in the education sector. How do we actually put some sort of target level on the amount of young people that you can train and give apprenticeships to? And also, you know, everyone always says it will serve the local economy and jobs, et cetera, on all the applications we get. How robust do you think your argument is and do you think you can actually achieve the sort of targets I think you will be setting? So we'll come back to the technical point, but I think this is a philosophy point. And this is very achingly relevant to Denham. So I'm third generation in this industry. I've been in my entire life. So my grandmother in 1945 made a brief encounter of Denham Studios. And so I have understood the benefits of being in a multigenerational family. That is not what I want to see the industry. It is ripe for opening up for opportunity across the piece. That's why we heard Jenny talk so passionately about and also Leslie Clark talk about Bucks Opportunity Awards. So this is baked in at the very heart of what we're doing. We're not don't mistake this studio for another studio. This is very purposely designed to have best outputs, including world-beating architecture, excellent master planning, landscaping, BNG, all those things. But at the very center of it in its own safeguarded campus is a training academy. And that is something we can talk about the 106 commitments. But as far as I understand it, those are just based on what Pine would have committed and our aspiration. You've heard with Jenny and with BNU Film TV Academy are here and we've had early discussions with NFTS to go much further, much further. And we know there's the appetite out there for that. So I think Mark is better off just describing what's in the 106 now. And I think there's some you know, there's some maybe that's for later discussion. But I think that Mark would sum that up very well. Thank you. Yes. Two points I would make is there is a draft Section 106 legal agreement that's before the council. It's on the public access website and it's been published. That's been crystallizing our commitment to this. And I'm reading from the document now where there is a commitment within this legal agreement to provide at least 60 new training places as apprenticeships for a period of 10 years. And using also reasonable endeavors to ensure that a minimum of 20 of these are from local people. And also at least not less than 40 percent are selected from culturally, ethnically or racially inclusive candidate groups. So there's a commitment in there to the apprenticeships in the legal agreement that's been put before the council. There's two further commitments in there as well. There's a further commitment to a bursary in the sum of £105,000 a year for a period of five years to support new employees within the film production facilities in progression of their careers. In the industry as well. There's also a commitment around the construction program as well. The commitment to use apprenticeships throughout that program as well in the building of the studios. It's not just focus on once they're up and running. It's actually that period in the construction there. And I think the further point I'd add about the young people and apprenticeships and training is key components of the campus film studios is the cultural skills academy. That you've seen that you've seen the architecture of that. It's not just a throwaway thing that's hidden in the corner. Actually it's sat within its own plot, its own area. And within the February submission we put in a sort of indicative phasing build program. And that confirmed that that would actually be built right up front in the first phase of buildings going up would be that academy. So this is not just studios. It's not just space that people are going to be creating film. It's a place people are going to be learning. And that opportunity is there and that commitment is there through the legal agreements, through the build program, through actually what we've designed before the council now. And one other thing that's important, it's in the unilateral undertaking I believe, is that we are probably the first studio who's going to publish our performance standards in terms of all the things that you would want measured that are intangible. We will report them and we will send them into your inbox. And if we're not doing well enough you will have my mobile number and I will be the biggest evangelist for training inbox. Just so I think maybe the last committee heard it, but we ran the most phenomenal day long summit at the NFTS last March. We had Oscar winners, we had a huge number of people turning up and showing amazing goodwill. The leader of this council was there for five hours I think and heard all of this. We had culture secretaries, we had messages from ministers. So I think they all knew and it was starkly clear the fuel for this fire is right here in Buckinghamshire. Thank you for that response. Thank you. We have Councillor Newcombe, you were next. Thank you, Chairman. I'm going to ask two questions. The first, I'm going to talk about some of my thinking in this particular case, which won't be any particular surprise to anybody, but I thought I'd still vocalise it. For me this is a two-sided application. On the one side we have the need to ensure that the prosperity of this country continues and is increased and that involves industry which we are able to compete with the rest of the world and provides good quality jobs for the people who live in this country. And so at the moment we are doing extremely well in the film industry and that needs facilities and I'll talk later on about the competition in terms of other studios and such like. But for me that means that this is a really good application. On the other hand, it is an application that is located in the green belt near an area of outstanding natural beauty and there are all sorts of other issues relating to the Wycombe District Plan and such like, etc, which point in the opposite direction. So the question arises for me is why have you sought that conflict by not going to somewhere else within a number of miles in the what people call the West London cluster South Bucks or whatever you will. Why is it that you have chosen this particular location? That's my first question. I'd like to pick this up but I'm just going to give Mark a chance to deal with the technical aspects of why this is the unique site and why it has to be the site. So, so Mark will do that, and then if you wouldn't mind hanging back to me that'd be great and we can join Josh and Amanda. Thank you, thank you for the question I think you know I'd share that, why have we gone for a constraint difficult sites to be perfectly honest, if there was an easy site, we would have picked it. You mentioned about looking elsewhere, as you know and as officers have confirmed, there is a West London cluster there is a desire area we've had to start from that top area about where is the need for the industry where are how is that met and where is that location so that's a sort of starting point for search the sites for films do has a number of specific needs needs to be proximity to road and rail bus connections and so on so for accessibility proximity to workforce, and we've looked at over 22 local authority areas within the application material as a sequential site search that narrows down from those 22 authorities various sites based on the criteria sets out in there such as distance from settlements land use designations flood risk and so on. Going through those 126 sites at the end of it, you're left with a very short list of sites, and ultimately this is the site that performance sequentially most preferable out to all of those ones there. You need a large area flat land, you cannot build it on a hillside because if you've got studios and workshops and you're having to move things about you can't take them up slopes and down slopes, straight away that's their brownfield land would be great, but you know, a fully previously developed land and old industrial estate something like that land of that size for this type of use is not available, and where it's, if it were to be available. We've already discussed about transport and so on, actually been located right next to strategic road network dual carriageway that connects to major motorways proximity to road networks and rail network with the Elizabeth line at Maidenhead and bus connection that again, if you're in a certain industrial state or somewhere like that you may not have that benefit and location and certainly we can find those. So believe it if we could have found a better site and easier site. You know, I don't think we'd be sat here now two years after we submitted the planning application, but having looked at all of the constraints there are all of the needs to make this a successful studio campus. This is ultimately where we've ended up. So, so just to get to give you a really clear industry perspective so the studio zone in Los Angeles is 30 miles around sunset and vine, and that's what we don't have we don't have a fixed travel area but there's a de facto place where the top skills based in the world and it's substantially here in Buckinghamshire because of your largest employer at Pinewood, that's Buckinghamshire largest single employer. And so, skills based is very glued and aggregated to major studios the BFI demonstrates this. So, when you look at the equivalent to the TMZ studio zone as it's known, that is here that's right here you've had maps and packs and it shows you, it's equally split pretty much in terms of geography between Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and Surrey and, and there's a bit of activity in greater London, but but call me, call me naive but I'm a localist I believe in bringing jobs to a local places sometimes it's my detriment but I really believe that. And, you know, it's a divergence but but when no one wants to save the post office in nether bed I saved it. I was someone tried to send me to prison for that but we won't go into that, but I really believe in this point about you give great jobs where you live. That's very very important, and can I if I don't know if there's more last year but if, but if Josh and Amanda want to hop in on that particular particularly on on the person who raised the good. I think, just to add you also have to think about your market and where they want to come. And it's the market is going to make the whole endeavor commercially and economically successful. And my experience of working with the global players is that they want to come somewhere where they know the infrastructure is there the crews are there. The transport and proximity is that, rather than go to some other barren place where none of that has already been proven so you Buckinghamshire have already created this. So this is about building on something that you have invested in for the last 20 years. Thank you. The only thing I would add is, I'm a very big believer in the power of clusters and clusters in, you know, the economic theory of courses that it provides competitive advantage to the particular cluster in the particular industry. And we do have one here, and it's a very very powerful one and it's thanks to a lot of the work that I'm sure you've all done in enabling that cluster with the existing players, and the ones who are within this, this zone. And if there's a premise that this is a, there's still a huge market out there, which I do and we do, then if you can fortify the cluster and make it even stronger. That is a huge benefit, and that is what this does. Thank you. My second question is, is rather more particular, and relates to the point raised by cancer heap, and I think it was counselor Barnes but I apologize to him if it was somebody else. And, and that is about the car parking. Now, forgive me if I've missed something in the agenda about this, but as I understand it, the expectation is something in the order of 2000 people are expected when the site is up and running, to be to be working there. I understand your concept of bus service and all the other ways of stopping people using a simple straightforward car. If I understand that figure of about 2000 is right. The car parking. However, and there's some slightly different figures of a matter of less than 10, but it's either 1000. But let's put it 1008 spaces which is about 14.130 the agenda. That's way way way below the 2000, and then there's talk about how you would ameliorate overflow parking in the local, local area, etc. But forgive me but I'm very skeptical about schemes which encourage people to use public transport. Now that's not to say that some people won't use public transport. And, and for many people who live in certain particular places in Greater London, the journey to maidenhead or indeed the journey to highway can whichever the main traffic stations and main head I think is on the list with line all these other factors, I'm sure that those will be of some, some help, but at the same time, I think it will be very difficult to put a lot of people out of their cars. And so what I'm really interested in is if your forecast proves to be wrong. And those systems of avoiding people parking in little Maro etc. don't work. Where are they going to park. If you've only got 1000 odd spaces. It does seem to me to be really under provided. So I'm going to give you an overview and then I'm going to pass it to the real expert he's, he's dealt with us for nearly three years now. So, during the lunch break I was talking to some of the students here, and they raised the really important point is that they don't have cars they don't believe in cars. A lot of them don't have driving licenses. So, we see this forward looking point about changing the attitude. It's not a very big reach because we have exactly the same commitment as Warner Brothers leaves and does in their current application exactly the same. And it's probably worth in pausing what that what the actual makeup looks like. But the point here is the buses that we will run our public buses, and we've made commitments in one or six we can talk about those, but it seems rather counterintuitive that there's been 20 billion spent on the Elizabeth line and bringing Buckinghamshire, nearly to one of the most powerful economic development tools in the country. But there's no bus service to Marlo there's no bus service to maintenance. The key thing is attractiveness for our studio is that we can solve a lot of those problems for investors, because as you know, Amanda may chime in this later but everybody is thinking about sustainability, ethics, and the new forward looking industry, because this industry is judged very tough but I'll pass you to Ian who can run you through the numbers of why we have such certainty, and then maybe still jump in to explain to you about the amazing tools that you have in front of you in the one or six. I think if we just start with the agreement it's around 1100 spaces that's probably close enough because it is 1100 but I think the 1100 is close enough isn't it between us. So, and the way we look at it in the way we look at moving people is slightly different to the old fashioned predict and provide I provide for the cars make sure the cars can come in and things like that because I think someone said said earlier well, if you provide more parking you'll get more traffic, and we need to manage that as well so we need to manage the level of level of car parking. So, how we do that is a combination of things. And we've got as well that's mentioned the bus services. So we're looking to work quite closely with carousel buses and I know they've made representations, both previously and recently, on what we're proposing. They see what we're proposing as filling a gap in the existing network, and I'll come back to the situation with a waiver in a second. So they're looking at the route from High Wycombe across to Marlow then on to Maidenhead. What we can do, because we will be purchasing those services and coordinate those services with the trains, because it's important there's no point just taking the services there. They don't fit with the train so you've got a good transition between the trains and those buses. We've got the local shuttle bus which obviously doesn't exist at the moment, which is also something we're looking to bring forward. And we have discussed that carousel that they've looked like we have of the benefits of that and what we've seen happen at other sites where that high level of bus service has been provided from the outset, which is what we're proposing to do. And we've seen the levels of motor shift that have happened. There was a blip because of COVID, and it took a bit of time after COVID for people to get back used to using, you know, mass transit being on a vehicle together. Carousel are saying it and we've seen it that that's sort of over, people are now backed and comfortable to using buses. And to build on the point that Robert said, we are seeing trends with younger people who aren't necessarily when they're 17 straight away getting in a car, learning how to drive, they're putting it off, they're looking at other measures of travel, which also brings me then into the active travel, because I think it's also important not to get the people for health reasons for other reasons in their lives. More people are looking to how can I make walking and cycling part of my regular daily life, so I'm exercising so we've got more people who are looking to walk to work who are looking to cycle to work. So if we provide the facilities to allow that we've got that style of things as well. And I think it's very important that this sort of vision and validate approach is very much along the lines of what the DFT and the government are putting forward that we shouldn't be doing. Predict to provide all the time, we shouldn't be saying everyone will drive as they've always drive because we've seen the trends changing. So I think the 1100 spaces we see is sufficient from the site. 2000 people on site, they won't all be there at the same time. That's one thing to say because obviously you get people coming and going. We've got the 60% motor shift target, which if we apply that suggests that our level of parking is sufficient. We know that's ambitious, but we've actually got quite a strong plan behind it to achieve that. And we've had others vet that, such as National Highways have looked at it and they've said it's ambitious, but they think it's achievable. Carousel buses have been very strong and we heard earlier on about the shuttle buses that are run for Pinewood. That's a completely different offer than we're talking about here. We're not talking about just shuttle buses at the start and end of the day going to Uxbridge station and places like that. We're talking about all day public services that are regular that people can use. So we're looking to take it to another level. And just one point to make, there was some suggestion that everybody would have to take planes, as in carpentry things. That's the point about having a really beautifully designed studio that has the facilities there. And the great majority of people don't have to bring cars anymore because they don't carry the tools. The tools are there. And the working day is such an important working day that people would rather not lug their tools around. So I think just to be really clear, the equivalent is there at Warner Brothers right now for their extension. And they have made almost identical commitments to us. And as far as I know, it's pretty functioning pretty well because of the youth involved in this industry. I think just one further point to add as well is a point about new development versus expansion of existing. Nobody's driving there currently. It's not something where people have established existing patterns where they're used to getting in the car and now they're suddenly told you can't anymore, you've now got to get on the bus. So from day one, people will be told you don't have a parking space, you've got to get on the bus and so on. So that's baked into that mentality from the very first day of operation rather than an existing facility that's expanded, extended. Some people then told you you've got to change your travel patterns. So it might sound a small distinction, but it's a very important distinction. And to go back to your point about issues in guarantee, I think that I'm going to bounce to Stuart to really talk about what tools are available to you and why National Highways have agreed the conditions they have. And there is a very impressive toolbox there available to you. I think then we've had a very full response, so we'll make that the last comment on that particular point. Thank you, Councillor. I've drafted the section 106 agreement. I started because why reinvent the wheel? I started with the Pinewood section 106 agreement and the checks and balances and the mechanisms to deliver modal shift and then the penalties for failing to meet modal shift and re-engineering the modal shift model is based upon Pinewood. But we then elevated that with further commitments and further obligations, which are positively drawn in expectation that we can make a significant change in normal habits to utilise public transport to realise the cycle, pedestrian links, car sharing and other mechanisms to realise a very effective way of dealing with car movements. We have to remind ourselves that we're dealing with a operation within a controlled site. It's not an industrial estate with disparate units. We have a controlled entity with a gatehouse and a means of controlling activities. So it's very positively drawn, but then it's backed by obligations and commitments that hold our feet to the fire and very firmly hold our feet to the fire. If we have an issue with parking, there is then a process of survey analysis and then a discipline that requires us to take the burden and deal with regulating parking offsite. It's a very clear commitment. The list of streets and neighbouring roads that we have to survey and analyse to make sure that there isn't an issue is extensive and it's listed in the 106 agreement. The mechanisms then, if there is issues with peak traffic movements and issues that we think we can resolve, become a problem. Again, there are very punitive measures that are identified in the 106 agreement to just give force to what we believe we can achieve. Not in the belief that we have to fall back on them, but just to hold our feet to the fire in the way that you'd expect us to be held to account. Thank you. I think we've had a very, very full response. Chair, can I raise a point of order? Amanda has to leave very shortly, so if there are any policy specific questions that the committee has, she's going to have to walk out very shortly. OK. Councillor Neill, anything further? Thank you, that's very helpful. Right, thank you. I do have a list of those speakers. Next? Yeah, I have that. But are there any specific questions that you think may be relevant? I mean, I have Councillor Marshall and Councillor O'Neill next, but are there any specific questions from either of you that would be most suitable? No? OK. So, Councillor Marshall, we're next. Thank you, Chairman. I just heard one from your opening address that you say that National England have approved of the Tsang situation. But the way I read it is they've said the Marlowe Film Studio doesn't impact the Burner Beaches sack, but there was a caveat that there's still a consequence on the Hollands Farm development part of the Tsang. So I'm going to bounce that to Stuart to answer that, because obviously Tsang and sack are quite esoteric, so I think he's probably the best place to answer that. I don't think you're wrong in your assessment, but it is nuanced. The nuances of that, if you go back to the committee we were at previously on the 25th of October, Natural England wrote to the Council in the form that they've written before, and indeed they wrote again in April, where they summarise their position and identify objections to the development scheme. And if you remember those correspondence, they include a box. There's a box in the centre of the front page of the letter titled in capitals Objection, and then listing out in summary the objection points to the scheme. The letters of the 28th and 29th of May don't contain the same approach, and if you read into the letter, they are effectively a withdrawal of the original objection to the application. What they identify is that the appropriate assessment submitted by the authority is valid, reliable, and gives certainty that the site doesn't result in an adverse effect upon the SAC. It's clear in its terms, Natural England advised that they concur with that position. So it takes us out of habitat regulation territory. So when Mr Fanon and Mrs Kitchen advised the members at the meeting in October last year that this was a very serious issue, we had a habitat regulation breach in front of us, and that was an impediment to organic consent, that is now taken off the wicket. And you can see that in the putative reason for refusal that's at the back of the committee report doesn't talk about habitat regulations. It talks about local policy, local judgment against policy as a development management issue. Now what they've said, going on and turning to your point, is that as far as the Burnham Beaches SAC is concerned, it's a requirement for you to have due consideration, duly considered the position as it relates to Holland's Farm. It's a judgment call. And it's a judgment call based upon the impact of this development on the delivery of the BA2 development that was mentioned this morning by one of the objectors. They suggested BA2 points to RUR4 as being the requirement for mitigation. BA2, BE2, sorry, says nothing of the sort. It says that there should be mitigation. BE1 may reference that. BE2 didn't in any way reference the position that the country park site should be the place for mitigation. The capacity to find a solution to mitigation for housing development within the local area is in your control. And actually, in many respects, the control's already with you. Because you've gone into an exercise of looking at spade oak as a solution. That's still the hanging issue. There's still some further information to satisfy Natural England. That's achievable. The alternative is our own scheme, which provides the facility within the Little Marlowe land for an extension, which would then resolve the issues relating to odour to do with the sewage works, which makes spade oak a deliverable concept. The important point, and this turns to your question, is that Natural England don't say you must refuse the application on that basis. What they say is please note that if the authority is minded to grant planning permission, contrary to the advice of this letter relating to that issue. So it's not saying you can't. They say you can. The terms on which it's proposed to be granted and how, if at all, your authority has taken account of Natural England's advice has to then be reported back in a 21-day period. So there is no longer a bar to development relating to SANG. There's a process to go through satisfying Natural England that it's a resolvable issue. I'm not taking that off the wicket. That has to be done. But that's what we've been involved with and engaged very helpfully with your officers over the course of the past six months in identifying how that can be achieved. Either through spade oak in its existing form with mitigation or the resolution of the air quality issue, or in further provision of land, which we offer gratis as part of our scheme as a means of resolving that issue as part of this development proposal. Okay, I think that's it. Right. Counselling. Thank you, Chairman. Councillor Newcombe very astutely sort of succinctly put together, Councillor Newcombe very succinctly put together the difficulties that this committee has to weigh up in making these decisions. A lot of it will come down to economic benefits. You're confident that you can, you know, there is there is a benefit to the wider UK PLC and the local economy. But then we've heard from other people in front of this committee tonight that says, well, today that said, well, actually, that's not the case. The market's against us. Governments can be wrong. Businesses can be wrong. As you know, green belt spaces once it's built upon concrete upon, it cannot be reversed. So why are you so confident that, you know, the Marlowe film studios will succeed, will bring benefits to the area? And if you're wrong in your assessment, you know, what is the back up plan? Thank you. So certainty after the deferral, I spent three separate trips with James Cameron. I showed him all the all of the things that he asked for. I went to try his 3D cameras in California. And I think it's pretty certain that an indication of the outstanding qualities of this application. That means that he personally wrote about his new 3D company. And I think that issue is lost a little bit here because everybody's talking about screens as if they're a static thing. And, you know, there are probably better people to talk about the extraordinary opportunity of all kinds of screens, particularly in 3D and headsets and all those things. He you know, if you get the best filmmaker in the world, I think that's probably the best indication. And I have absolute confidence because I've spoken to almost all of the major heads of physical production in Los Angeles. And in summary, they said if you were open today, you'd have first refusal. And if you're wrong, what is the back up plan? Well, I am a filmmaker. I don't know. There's no there's no there's no root B. It's this is about filmmaking. I mean, Pinewood is 70 years old. It doesn't look like it's dying on its feet, honestly. I mean, it's there's been big announcements from Lucasfilm about that reshoring all the production to Buckinghamshire. So it's you know, I had put best part of a decade's work into this plan because I've come from this industry. And as I understand it, I've assembled this amazing team that is landing very well with the market very well. Hey, no further points of clarification. Then thank you, like to return to your seat. Thank you. OK. Now we will move to the next section, which encompasses any technical questions for officers. I suspect that having listened to all of the comments from public speakers, members may have quite a few. So we will stop with Councillor. Thank you, Chairman. I may have other questions later on, in which case I'll put my hand up again. And I've got one question at the moment which is troubling me somewhat. Normally, when this committee has applications before it and most of those, quite frankly. But by no means near the all our housing applications, we usually get an outline application in principle, which usually are. Are we going to allow something to be built? And what are the highways implications of that being built? And then it will come back on a later occasion for all the reserved matters. Now, in this particular case, that is not so. In this case, we have we are presented with a package. And so far, all the questioning has really been about the principle. There's been no questioning or indeed, I think, any real issues about the details. Say, perhaps policy, perhaps the parking point about what's actually within the site and proposed by the the applicants. I accept that a development of this nature is going to have a degree of height about it. Sounds sound stages are relatively tall buildings and not tower blocks, but they are relatively tall buildings. But there are some other buildings in here which are also relatively tall. And I really wonder about their height and the reason I'm mentioning height. Probably not solely as a sole factor, but as an example of what I'm talking about is that. Mr. Fanon, quite rightly, in his introduction, showed us a few landscapes and what we could see from from various locations, including particularly Winter Hill. And then there's a modification showing what we can see. And I thought actually some of the buildings looked really quite intrusive. And, of course, one can always put forward sort of ideas such as trees. But of course, to all the building that more typically is for the tree to camouflage it. So I'm really wondering from the officer perspective, what exactly we can do, if anything. I suspect the answer will be nothing. But what can we do, if anything, about aspects of this application which we do not like, even if we were to approve the application? Sure. And it's an application for full planning permission, so full details are before you for consideration. And your question is slightly difficult. I think I would hope it was. Clearly, the design strategy put forward does, if you like, tend to ameliorate the impact of the scale of development, particularly by having less tall buildings on the periphery. And then there's boundary planting. The amount of mitigation you can achieve, particularly close to the site where boundary screening and lower buildings will screen the higher buildings behind. But it's also clear – Sorry, can I just interrupt? Yeah. We are increasingly short of time. I didn't really want to get into detail. I was just using height as an exemplar of the issue that I'm trying to raise. And I think the answer that you're going to come to is that since it's a complete application, we either reject it or approve it. And there's no way that we can really modify it. Is that the case? In short, yes, that is the case. Okay. Right. Next, I have Councillor Marshall. Just a follow-up to the question that I put to the applicant about the SANG. Do the officers feel assured that Holland's farm part of the SANG is achievable? It's not certain at the moment. Clearly, Natural England's position is that there is an agreed SANG strategy which involves routes through this site. And until another option is confirmed, you know, their preference is to stick with what they've already seen and agreed. And our work is ongoing to try and identify an alternative SANG provision focused around Spadoke. There's some issues around that at the moment given proximity to the sewage work and the odour. They're not fully resolved and it will take some time to do that. But in the long run, do you still believe it's achievable? So there's quite a lot of work that's been looked at in terms of the alternative. Because as you've seen from the papers, Marlowe Film Studios Development is actually on that part of the site that was identified as part of the Little Marlowe Lakes Country Park. Which would serve as a SANG to mitigate the impact of B1 and B2 allocations at Bournend. So that's Holland Farmers' Lake Meadow. And obviously, through this development, Natural England and ourselves have identified that that mitigation would not be deliverable. And that mitigation was set out in the SPD related to Holland Farm. So the position that we've reached with Natural England is that they're not objecting to the application in terms of the direct impact of Marlowe Film Studios on the SAC itself. But the concern that they've got is that the B2 Holland Farm allocation is currently relying on the Little Marlowe Lakes Country Park. So let me just read out what they've actually said. So they said that the B2 Holland Farm is currently relying on Little Marlowe Lakes Country Park coming forward as a suitable alternative natural green space. And Natural England have confirmed that the Little Marlowe Lakes Country Park is the approved mitigation strategy for Holland Farm as outlined in the Wickham Local Plan. And that remains an acceptable mitigation solution. If the Marlowe Film Studios were to gain planning permission, Little Marlowe Lakes Country Park would no longer function as suitable mitigation. So what we've been working on is focusing an alternative sang solution at Spadoke. The first option is to focus on the council's own land. And the second option is to look at the council's own land plus the public right of way and a landscape buffer to the north of the council's own Spadoke. Which would run on the southern side of the applicant's biodiversity net gain offsetting area. We had hoped to be in a position where we knew by this stage what option is likely to move forward. But we don't have that clarity at present. And there's still some work to be undertaken. We've still got to agree with Natural England what option may be available. We're very much aware that the section 106 does allow for the second option in terms of utilising the public right of way if that is required. But at the moment the position is that we have no certainty over the delivery of the alternative. And so we're highlighting to you that the development on Marlowe Film Studios site therefore has the potential to prejudice the delivery of the housing allocation at policy BE2. And that is where we are looking at it in terms of not a breach of the habitat regulations but an impact in terms of the housing growth strategy which is set out in the local plan. And the delivery of that allocation. And that is a matter which we have not got certainty over at present. And Natural England require us to have certainty over sound provision. So at the moment what we said to you at the previous meeting there was a breach in terms of the habitat regulations if you were willing to grant permission for this. What we're saying now is that it actually has a prejudicial impact in terms of delivering the housing growth strategy in the Wickham local plan and in particular the allocation of BE2. And we're probably about three to four months minimum away from actually having certainty over that aspect. So the difficulty that we have and how we set it out in the report is that there is that consequential impact in terms of the housing strategy growth. So that's why we've been looking at a solution. So that's a little bit of a long-winded response but I hope it gives you the context within which we are actually... It doesn't really give me the answer. It's like an indication of a balance of probabilities if you could. We don't have certainty that an alternative SANG can come forward until such time as we have an agreement on the options, we've got a maintenance and management plan for that SANG option in place and that we've got certainty over its delivery and Natural England have approved it. And that's why I'm saying a minimum of three to four months away from actually achieving that. So if we're determining it at this present moment in time, we do not have that certainty and therefore there is that frustration in terms of the delivery of the housing strategy and the allocation. I think that's as clear as you're going to be able to articulate, Councillor. We are where we are, I think is the simplistic. Right next I have Councillor Cooper. Thank you again, Chairman. So we heard quite a lot from the applicants about capacity and about the spread of capacity across the local film industry. And what we're thinking about here is whether there are special circumstances or not. That's really I think the big decision we're going to have to take. What we've heard from the applicant is that they believe there's a lot of business waiting in the wings. That's what they're telling us. But I think they're also telling us that there's possibly two classes of film industry and they described what they're developing here as a five star facility. And I think they're suggesting one or two others are in the same category. So I think they're suggesting that even if some others suffer as a result of the current slowdown in the industry, for instance, that Marlow, because it's going to be so high tech and so forward thinking and so well supported by experts in the industry, that it would indeed succeed. So really my question to the officers is, having heard that, does that change anything about the way you've established the balance here? And incidentally, our ED officer also seems to be in favour of this application. So I'm just wondering whether he or she is thinking in the same way. But does it affect what you've heard today, does that affect the balance that you've put on the case as a whole? Sure. No, Justin. Clearly the points that we've made today have been part of the planning submission that's been assessed and considered. And our report is based on that, particularly Section 8, the economic section of our report, where we've looked at that issue in as much detail as we can and taken advice on it. And there isn't, if you like, a definitive, if you like, conclusion that the so-called five-star nature of the proposal is an overriding factor, given the really significant uncertainty about the level of demand that there exists for additional studio space. There's a clear consensus that there's enough space in the short and medium term. There's also probably a consensus amongst the people who commentate on this, that growth is not going to be sustained at the rate it has in the past, it's going to be a plateauing of growth. And if you like, the case in terms of need is based on very optimistic growth projections, based on historic growth, which the experts suggest to us isn't going to be sustained. So based on the information we have, acknowledging that there's a significant design attribute to this scheme, it is well designed, as well as it can be for an industrial-type complex. One of the other points that's been made about a best-in-class facility has got to do with the scale of it. But the advice we've taken is that a development like this would always be implemented in phases to test the concept and it would never be built out all at once. So the notion that you have to have something this big isn't a proven point that's been made. And having taken into account the cases that have been put forward, we've come to the conclusion that there isn't a compelling need argument, there isn't a compelling argument around a five-star facility overriding what we believe are significant uncertainties about the need for the accommodation. I wonder if you can clarify the position of our Economic Development Officer, because the report says to me that he is in favour of this application. So we don't have that person here today, but are you able to clarify what the ED department position is? Yes, clearly the Economic Development Officer, the team, has given their comments to us and there's clearly no doubt about it. There is local policy that supports the growth of this industry, there is national policy that supports the growth of this industry. That's absolutely acknowledged. It does fit very well with the objectives around industrial growth strategy. It fits very well around the commitments to training and providing opportunities to local people. And those factors have been acknowledged, they are real benefits of the scheme and they've been attributed to significant weight in the planning balance. Thank you for that. Next we have Councillor Wheelhouse. Thank you, Chair. I was going to ask about Tsang. Thank you, Mr Fanning, for clarifying that the Tsang issue hasn't been resolved. But I've also got a related question about RUR4. What is the permitted use of this site under RUR4? Thank you. In short, its outdoor sport and recreation use is compatible with the country park designation. It does preclude large scale development of any kind and certainly precludes employment generating development per se. Can I just add something? Quite a few of the speakers referred to this site as being a brownfield site. It's not a brownfield site. The MPPF is really quite clear that sites which have been used for mineral extraction or waste infill are not regarded as previously developed land. Where there is restoration plans in place to restore it to its original state or an enhanced state. So we are not regarding it as a previously developed or brownfield site. I just want to make that clear because I think that is quite important. Whilst it's not directly an RUR4 answer, it is an important point, I think, for members to understand. Okay, thank you for that clarification. Next I have Councillor Newcombe. Thank you, Chairman. I've got three questions now. Firstly, picking up on the Sandpoint and Hollands Farm. As I understand it from the report, an SPD was adopted for Hollands Farm back in August 2021. We are now in May, almost June 2024. And clearly the sand is an important aspect of Hollands Farm. But as I understand it, if we were to grant permission here, it would prevent the use of the currently proposed site for sand. But would not prevent the finding of an alternative site for the sand and therefore would not in itself be a terminal event for Hollands Farm development, if I understand that rightly. But can I just check, A, that that understanding is right? B, given that it's now almost three years since that SPD was adopted, have there been any planning applications put in for Hollands Farm? And that's A and B, and I've forgotten what C is for the minute, but I'll have it in a moment. Part A, you're correct. So yes is the answer to your question. Part B, there is a current planning application for the Hollands Farm development, which is under consideration. Thank you very much. Moving on then, because I haven't remembered what C is, moving on, the Little Marlowe Country Park, and I'm asking these questions because I was on AVDC and not on Wickham, so I'm therefore not wholly familiar with the Wickham Liverpool Planning District. In terms of the Little Marlowe Country Park, that was designated in 2017, a report before the Cabinet, at around about the same time as this planning application was received. And so my question is, because reference was made to it as being, as it were, the gleam of someone's eye for quite a long period of time. Why is it that Little Marlowe Country Park has not made any more significant progress than it has up until now? So the Cabinet report in 2022, looked at alternative looking at was looking at an alternative approach. To the designation of the Little Marlowe Lakes Country Park, to look at bringing that forward, essentially in phases. So what it was looking at was looking to focus attention with the view to bring forward the alternative for the delivery of the sang at Spade Oak on council-owned land. And it was looking at seeking to designate the country park as, sorry, the Spade Oak as a country park, with a view to then looking at bringing forward the country park on the remainder of the land at some future time. And it has taken quite a lot of time to get to the position that we are at today, because there's an awful lot of work that needed to be done. In terms of looking at the suitability, undertaking various different visitor surveys, there's ODA surveys that are still being undertaken at the moment. And then there's maintenance and management plans. So it has taken a quite significant amount of time. We're nearly there in coming to a conclusion on it, but we are not there yet. And we're, as I said, we're probably another three to four months at least before we know the sort of direction of travel. And that would look to bring forward the Spade Oak as the country park, with a view to rolling the rest out later. But it doesn't change the status of the policy on RUR4. There is still an allocation for outdoor recreation in the local plan relating to that. So that cabinet report does not change that planning position. Thank you. I remember what C was now. It is if Holland's farm is not delivered, does that have any prejudicial effect upon the five year housing supply within the former Wickham District Council area, bearing in mind the modifications to the NPPF last December by the Secretary of State? I don't I don't have those figures in terms of what the impact is on the five year housing land supply. The the Holland's farm application, as I understand it, was submitted prior to the NPPF change in December last year. So it does mean that five year housing land supply would be a material consideration, but I don't have the figure in terms of what that is. But this is a second tier allocation. So the first tier is High Wickham, second tier was Princess Risborough, Bourn, End and I think it's in the report, I can't remember what the what the other settlement was. But so it is quite a significant number in terms of the allocation that in essence is potentially under threat of not having a sang in place to enable it to be delivered. And obviously, through the local plan process, they were actually looking at where that mitigation could could be provided and the appropriate assessment that was carried out under the habitat regulations at that time. And again, at the SPD time was identifying little Marlowe lakes as as that mitigation in order to ensure that there is an alternative sang solution to deter people. Who would be occupying the dwellings at Collins Farms Lake Meadow from going to Burnham beaches and causing additional recreational pressure. Thank you. The last question is that just just since this is the sort of application this committee does not often deal with, can we just be clear as to what's the future course of this application is likely to be? Or rather, not likely could be after today. On the one hand, if we refuse in accordance with the officer's recommendation and on the other hand, if we decide to approve. Sure. And clearly, if if members, if you like, accept the recommendation and resolve to refuse the application and then clearly the applicant will have the right to appeal. And that would be one course taken forward. And if members were minded to approve the application, then that would be a discussion about that. That would be subject to satisfactory completion of a section one six agreement and indeed the application of the planning conditions and clearly there'd be some work involved in resolving that detail, but that would be that would be the course. If I can just sort of take you through the various different steps in terms of the statutory requirements and other requirements. There is a statutory requirement for a referral to the Secretary of State for development in the green belt, we would have to undertake that before any determination of the application. I think my recommendation to you is that there would need to be a resolution of the alternative sang solution in order to be satisfied that you are not undermining the housing strategy in the local plan and the be allocation. Be to allocation. And so there would probably be a need to actually enable that alternative solution to be further explored. If we were going against the natural England's advice, there is a 21 day period notification. So we'd have to notify them. And there's also the resolution of the outstanding national highways issues. They are actually requiring further work to be undertaken on the road safety audit. So, so in addition to those matters that John Fanon has addressed in terms of Section 106 and requiring that to be completed and to to agree on any conditions, then then we would need to obviously deal with deal with that. So there's all of those steps that would need to be taken before you like a positive determination could be made and a decision issued. So hopefully that answers your question. Yes, that's very helpful. So if we were to grant the planning application, we don't have a Section 106. We never do have a Section 106 in front of us, but I don't think we actually have this. Don't think we actually have potential conditions either, do we? You don't have conditions in the pack. We wouldn't normally put conditions where the officer recommendation is for refusal. But having said that, we have been in discussions on a without prejudice basis with the applicant about potential conditions. So we do have an understanding of what could be covered. Thank you. I think that covers all the options. And I mean options. Yes, indeed. Thank you. Next, I have Councillor Feeley. Actually, I don't think it does. The situation is we've got a couple of issues around here. The first one my colleague over there talked about is if we are minded to grant it, that any items on site would be delegated to officers, such as lighting and things like that, because we've not had a discussion about that. But, Mrs Ketchum, is it possible if we were minded to grant it, that we could defer and delegate it to officers to sort out the SAC? With any mind, you were talking about three to four months. So if we are minded to grant it, can that go down that route? Apologies, I should have made that clear that if you were looking to go down the route of supporting and looking to say that you were minded to approve, it would be to defer and delegate to officers, subject to all of those matters being and those steps that we set out being undertaken. So that is the way forward, if we were minded to grant it. Yep. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Eggleton. Next. Thank you, Chairman. I'm grateful to officers for actually confirming what is previously developed land in the Greenbelt. It's quite clear in the report, but it's always good to have you stated so we don't have any confusion, because if we were to approve every X gravel pit in the south of the county, we would disappear in a great big hole. So that's cleared up. I just got one point that I'd like to know. I forgot to ask it. Do we have any idea of the time scale, the build time scale on this? Because I'm very conscious that Pinewood's been going on longer than I've been a Councillor, which is a long time. You know, is it going to be built out in one go? Is it going to be done in stages? That's important. And the other thing I would just wish to flag up is that in 7.42, it does say the report, it's very significant impact on the spatial and visual harm to the openness of the Greenbelt. So it's something we need to consider. And Mr Chairman, it looks to me that we're in the same position as Pinewood all those many years ago when it first started being expanded. Is it Great Britain PLC that trumps everything, or is it our local plan? And we do know that we won't have the same Secretary of State looking at that, because he's now said he's resigning. A few years too late, but there we are. But Ed, could I have an answer to the question on do we know on the construction? Section 2.24 of the report addresses this issue of time scales and phasing. And we don't know definitively. We have what they call a phasing sequence plan. We know roughly how the development would be undertaken and they've identified, you can see there's a diagram on page 14 that identifies the phases from 1 to 8. When the application was made initially in 2022, there was an indicative program, bill program of 3.6 years, 44 months. But we have no certainty that that would be the case. I'm just concerned with this rise and fall market in film production that you might start, and by the time you've finished it, we're down in another slump and waiting for the next rise. Right. Thank you for that. Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Chair, and I apologise, and I know you'll tell me if I'm verging into debate rather than clarification, because you've told me before. I want to follow up from Councillor Cooper's question to Mr Fanon about basically what we've got to do is decide if there are very special circumstances for this to go ahead in Greenbelt. That's all we're here for. It just takes a long time to get there, but that is all we're here for. And Mr Fanon finished his summer by saying the experts have indicated to him that there's significant uncertainty. Yet today we've heard from other experts, and Josh Berger isn't an expert, that there's significant certainty. So to me, I don't know. This could be a debate. I don't know. But you've said there's significant uncertainty from the experts, but we're hearing that there's significant certainty from the experts. Clear off my confusion. It's a common situation very often for this committee, where you will have our own advisors will have an opinion, and you will have speakers, advisors who may or may not have a similar or different conclusion to draw. That's something that we are faced with on virtually every major application. And it is, as you say, quite likely, it's down to us as members to assess. My view, and I've made this clear on numerous occasions, is that where we have that difference of opinion, and it will often arise, is that the starting point is that we, as a council, have employed individuals, highly qualified, very experienced, to advise us. They are there to advise us. You would need to have pretty good reasons why you might feel that they've got it wrong, based on other person's advice. It is subjective. At the end of the day, this is a committee that doesn't have easy jobs. I think is the best way to describe it. Okay, if there are no further technical questions, Councillor Marshall. Sorry, Jim. Highways. In the Highways Authority appendix, they are saying that there are still a number of areas where the impact is assessed as being severe. Which, my understanding is that's not approval. Where do our own Highways people stand? Thank you. The traffic modelling carried out by the applicant of the 84155 network in particular shows queuing that extends back beyond the modelled area, which is a direct result of the development and development traffic. So the results, as they stand, show a severe impact. And because the queuing goes outside the modelled area, we don't know exactly where that queue finishes and we don't know the true impact. So the results could be worse than what I suggested. Sorry, I think it is also worth noting that the results at some junctions in particular, the West Corbyn interchange, for instance, are already showing as being severe. But we think that they could extend beyond what is already appearing severe. So you could in some circumstances have a queue that extends towards Great Marlowe School, for instance. So there will be severe congestion. And that is with the signalling on the Wiltshire roundabout. That's right, yes. The Westthorpe roundabout. That's in the managed scenario. Okay. No further technical questions, so we will move to the general debate now. Who would like to start? Councillor Marshall. I'll have a crack at it. This is an incredibly difficult one to assess, incredibly complex. The one half of me on the economic side thinking the bigger picture wants to see it through. The other half of me being Marlowe resident has great concerns about the traffic impact in particular. And I note that the highways are saying that the impact is severe in certain areas, which is normally a no. And that they don't know the full extent of where that impact could reach. Just to give a bit of background in how the workforce could access the site. Obviously the applicant is aiming a very ambitious sustainable travel element, which our national highways say is challenging. Even with that ambitious, it is hitting the limits of what we can take on the road. So if we didn't achieve that, the potential impact could be absolutely severe. In terms of means of access, Marlowe Station was mentioned as a possible route through. That has very, very limited capacity. It's a single track line, which originates in Maidenhead, then through Bournend and into Marlowe. Being a single track, its maximum frequency is half hourly. It is also limited to two coaches because it deserves an in and out in Bournend. So there is very, very limited capacity for that to help with access into the film studio. It's also a considerable walk distance away. To bring 40% of the workforce in by these sustainable means is extremely challenging. I fully appreciate the efforts that are being made in bus transportation from the likes of Wickham and Maidenhead. But when you think your workforce or a flexible workforce that work in various different locations, them having access to reach those bus service points could be quite challenging. And national highways have flagged up that very point as well because it's multi-modal transport. They have to bus walk, bus walk, et cetera, in order to make that connection into the feeder service for the site. I think it's really challenging. I'll hand on. Thank you. Thank you for that. Councillor Cooper. As Councillor Marshall said, it's not an easy decision, this. I have to say, first of all, from the applicant's point of view, we're looking at application here. So what the applicant has put to us is a brilliant development, actually, for Buckinghamshire and for the country. And I believe that it does have national importance. The problem we have is that it's probably in the wrong place. And that's really the decision I think we are faced with more than anything else. I mean, there's all sorts of decisions around this, but we're looking at an area of green belt. And we have to be satisfied that there are very special circumstances for approving this, should we approve it. And that's really the difficulty as far as I'm concerned. Just thinking about the site, if you look at it either from the north, down the slope, or from the Thames looking up, there's no doubt that it's a special green site, despite the fact it's an ex-gravel pit. It is an emerging green space. There's another word used in the report, I can't remember what it was now, but it's a green space that is developing over time. And bearing in mind where it is, it's an important green space, I believe, because it's associated with the Thames. It's associated with Marlow and Little Marlow. And it's well defined by the 404 and the road system. So it has lots going for it, actually, despite being an ex-gravel pit. So, again, it comes back to very special circumstances or not. Just going back to the film industry, we've heard a lot of information about whether it's a viable proposition or not. And I was not convinced, to be honest, until we heard the applicants speak. And when they were talking about five-star developments, that sort of makes some sense to me, because although we've got an absolute plethora of film studios in the area, I think it's right to say that this one is likely to be a step above some of the others. And if you put this together with Pinewood and Elstree and some of the established and better quality ones, I can see that people would want to go to them. So I think there's some logic in that argument. However, we never really got to the bottom of the future of the film industry, because I guess nobody really knows. So this studio is not going to open probably for a period -- did we establish a period? Maybe three years, five years, I don't know, whatever it is. And in these days, that is a long time in terms of technological development. I've asked a number of people about the future of AI and where that's taking us. And I do suspect that that's going to have quite an impact on the traditional way of making films, with buildings and sound stages and all of that. So that's a sort of slight doubt in my mind. So I am, to be quite honest with you, Chairman, I'm quite undecided at this moment. Incidentally, the situation with the sang and the offsets of the five-year housing supply and all of that, that's sort of a side issue, but it is relevant to us. And I think we can count it as relevant in this application. So that might be a tipping point one way or the other. One other thing I'd like to mention is Park Homes. Now, we heard early on from a lady who actually lives there and spoke very passionately about their situation. And to be honest, I don't think their situation has been fully brought out either in the report or indeed by a lot of the evidence we've heard. And those people are the ones that are most directly affected by this application, without a doubt. And if we were to approve it, I would want to see very special efforts made to protect their situation. So I'm not going to go any further than that at this stage. I want to hear what others have to say. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for that, Councillor Cooper. I think a number of the points that you raised and that Councillor Marshall raised were very important. And the number of it is, as you began by saying, that we have in front of us an application which would certainly appear, certainly in my mind, to be an excellent application. I think it's very difficult for us to look to the future and decide what may or may not happen within a certain industry or the national economic position. We are here to look at the application and make a decision based on what's before us. And listening to all of the arguments, discussion, the current debate that we're having, to me it's very clear that this is a very good application. And the one sentence that you said earlier on was, if this were somewhere else, would we hesitate? We will ask the due questions and probe, as we do. But I think that in all likelihood we would probably find it very favourable. The real question is its location. And the question that we need to answer today is, does this application show that the benefits clearly outweigh the harm to the green belt? That's the question. I will listen to the rest of the debate at the moment. I would love to see this application built somewhere. But at the moment I'm not sure in my mind whether it actually meets the level that would be required for the benefits to clearly, that's a critical word, clearly outweigh the harm to the green belt. Right, we had, I think Councillor Feeley was first. And of course we will, during the course of this debate, we will ask for, you know, some further clarification from officers if required. So let me just take down the list of names first. We have Councillor Feeley, Councillor Newcombe, Councillor Willhouse, Councillor Eggleton, Councillor Bond, Councillor Marshall. I think that's it at the moment, so we'll start from the top. Councillor Feeley. Chairman, thank you. First of all, I'm really disappointed. We met in October and we identified two areas that needed further clarification. Both namely highways and the SAG. And here we are now, so many months later, and I don't believe we're very far forward. Which is really disappointing because this is a major application which we were asked to look at. When we last met, we actually said the whole application was very finely balanced. These are the two areas that we need clarification on, which we haven't moved forward. Having listened today, there's been so much conflicting information from our witnesses. Is it a declining industry, is it a booming industry, et cetera. One of the things that I find most important and looking forward for the future, for both Buckingham and for the young people, is the economic growth. Economic growth, to me, is a government policy. We've got skill shortages, we've been told in skill shortages. Film and television growth areas, so this is an area that's going forward. Lack of facilities and the requirement for space and skills and training. And this application, to me, is actually covering a number of those. And I believe it's something that we should support. I asked earlier about defer and delegate. Those two areas which we need still further clarification is highways and the SAC. But my view would be that we were minded to grant this application, subject to those being looked at under delegated authority. There are other areas that need further clarification, which in normal circumstances, as my colleague Richard Newcombe said, we would deal with and reserve matters. But we don't have the opportunity to do that today. So things like the Volvo Bridge and what that would look like and DDA would be something that we would really focus upon. But because we are where we are, my view would be that we should grant this application with the deferred and delegated officers to clarify the SAC and also clarify the highways with the 106 Agreement as well. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Newcombe. Thank you, Chairman. It's a real privilege to sit on this committee to decide applications of this quality of such importance for the nation. The importance of this country doing well economically cannot be understated. And this application itself has been put together very well. I may quibble, as it indicated, and would have carried that quibbling further had this been the sort of thing where we would have had the outline followed by the reserve application about certain aspects of the design and such like. But I don't have that opportunity in any event. It's relatively narrow compared to the wider aspect of this. So this is really, really important from the point of view of, as I said, the nation's economic progress. I don't think that the discussion with regard to whether or not there are adequate numbers of sound stages either in being or potentially in being whether or not this is granted, et cetera, is really very helpful. What we know is that the applicants have decided to literally put their money where their mouth is, and they feel that there is progress that they can make in terms of this particular development. And history is littered with examples of people looking too finely about the bureaucracy of something, a point I'll come back to shortly, and not allowing entrepreneurs and so forth to put their ideas into existence, the most famous, of course, being Christopher Columbus, who, if nobody had backed him, we would never have discovered the new world and everything, the way in which the world was completely transformed at that time. And there are numerous other smaller examples. So this is a really important application. On the other hand, there are a significant number of drawbacks to it. I did ask questions effectively as to why in this particular location. I got an answer, which was to a certain extent a self-fulfilling prophecy, as it were, because, of course, when you've actually got so far, you're going to say this is the best location, and it was clear that there were a number of other locations that were in consideration, and it's not a matter of worrying as to whether it's within the borders of Buckinghamshire or not, because it clearly has to be somewhere in the western half of London, or Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire and Surrey, et cetera. So I think the fairest way to look at this is, first of all, to look and say, if this were not in the green belt, what would I be doing in terms of a decision? And my first concern about it, having lauded it, first of all, would be that the highways position is actually very serious. And it's very serious because -- and I quite understand the point about it being on what is effectively the link between the M4 and the M40, very accessible to people coming in motorized transport from all over the place, and I accept the point about Maidenhead Station and High Wycombe Station and the possibilities of railway transport, et cetera, et cetera. But this actually is in a very difficult location when it comes to the road system in terms of the volume of traffic currently using that road system, and although, as I indicated, I don't come from the Wycombe area, I do use this road on a number of occasions and can testify to the tailback, so they're often there, et cetera. And then you go on to the A4155 and it gets even worse. And that is a real problem in terms of safety. Now, no doubt, if someone was willing to invest a significant amount of money on improving the junction's way over what we have in this particular application, some of those problems could be solved. What we're doing is at the A3 Junction on the M25 at the moment where you get tailbacks coming off the M25, it's a similar sort of problem. So the road situation really is dreadful. I probably think that the parking situation will also get worse, notwithstanding the reassurances given on that for the people of Little Marno. So that would be a pretty good reason for refusing the application in itself. As we have training sessions, we are told that the approach that we should adopt is by, first of all, looking to see what the local plan says and what we should do with the local plan. And the local plan, of course, has the benefit of having been approved by a planning inspector. It's gone through numerous stages within, in this case, the former Wycombe District Council. It's gone through numerous bits of public consultation and been formulated in that way. And that designates this part of this land as being for the country park. It doesn't designate this land for development, although it could easily have taken it out of the green belts and designated it for development. It's also related to the Hollands Farm development, and that's land set aside in order to achieve the five-year housing supply in the former Wycombe District, and that's a matter of public policy, et cetera, in terms of the number of houses built, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So there are all sorts of public policy reasons as to why one should support the existing local plan. I think the only bit that has not been mentioned is any former neighbourhood plan, which rather surprises me that there isn't one. But never mind, there obviously isn't. And so one should look to basically enforce the local plan. And this application effectively puts a horse and coaches through that local plan. And that's unfortunate. There are then other consequences, such as the effect upon the AOMB or National Landscape, call it what you will, which would be unfortunate to say the least. And all of that, I think, in normal circumstances would be very good reasons for turning down this application before we then get to the issue of the green belt. And the fact that one needs very special circumstances in order to, as it were, overcome the issue of the green belt and to grant the application. And what's the green belt orientated towards? Well, it's orientated towards, just to go through the factors, checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, no doubt such as Marlowe, to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one, namely Marlowe and Bournend, to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and there are other substantial settlements in the area, not least, of course, High Wycombe itself. So there are very good reasons for this being a green belt area. I really don't credit the argument that this has been a quarry, or well, let's put it quarry, taking the sand and gravel from the bed of the Thames, so therefore it can be built upon, because frankly, the Thames, as the nature of the river is, that it's bounded almost entirely by areas which can be exploited for sand and gravel and will be exploited for sand and gravel if they haven't already been. So exploited and therefore we'll end up with it entirely built up if that argument applies. So I don't credit that at all. So there are all sorts of green belt reasons as to why this really should be green belt. Are there very special circumstances for going against all those factors? It's a difficult question. For that reason, I'm not going to move a motion. My current view is that there are not sufficient very special circumstances. If the Secretary of State wishes to intervene at a later stage, he can intervene at a later stage. As Councillor Eggleton said, in a Pinewood situation, we may well be. But I think we as local councillors, notwithstanding what I said about causing problems for entrepreneurs, etc., are required to act in a certain way in accordance with policies as they are. And I don't think it's democratic, frankly, to go against those policies. Voting by the people of Maro, 18 per cent turnout, it's better than not having a vote at all. So that's another democratic point. But my current view is that I should be voting in favour of the officer's recommendation. But I'm not going to move a motion, because I'm still able to be persuaded otherwise. Thank you for that. Councillor Lynn. Thank you, Chairman. This is a very difficult planning application for us as a committee to make a decision on. Because, well, I personally agree with a lot of the issues raised around greenbelt, sang, transport, traffic, etc., etc. For me it comes down to whether there were very special circumstances. I'm not convinced by what I've heard from the officers today that, you know, I don't agree with the officers, I think, in relation to where they see the economic outlook for our film industry is. I think as councillors we are elected to represent our local area and the wider county on this committee. In my local area we have the NFTS, which, you know, has produced 14 NOSCAs and 165 BAFTAs. And 90% of the graduates end up in employment. For me that weighs heavily on me, because it concerns the youth of not only our local area, but also internationally. I travel a lot for work. I think that, you know, we as councillors have a role in playing in shaping where our nation, or where our competitive industry is globally. And I think this is one of the areas where the national government, the creative industries have said it is where we are competitive globally. I think we need to put weight into it. But of course today we've heard from various experts and it's unclear, you know, where the global outlook is going to be. But for me personally, as someone who spends a lot of time on their screens, you know, who has TikTok, you know, I think, you know, we are going to spend more time on our screens on Netflix, on Amazon Prime, on Disney. And I do think this is a growing industry. You know, I'm heartened by the fact that, you know, our universities and colleges locally are investing in it. I'm encouraged by the fact that, you know, the government is investing in us. So I think, you know, on a balance we should look at that and come to our own conclusion as to where the economic benefits are locally and nationally. Because I don't think the experts, whether from Bucks or from the applicant or from the local residents, have been able to tell us about that. I don't wish to repeat a lot of the points that my fellow councillors have made. I'm still open to persuasion, but at the moment I'm reminded to go along with Councillor Feeley's suggestion. Thank you. Thank you for that. Councillor Wheelhouse. Thank you, Chair. I would like to say thank you to the planning officers. I think they've done an absolutely sterling job, twice actually. Not all of us on this committee was here in October when the original application was deferred. It was deferred to try to enable the issues of highways and sang to be resolved. Those were the two outstanding issues. And those issues have not been resolved. Only insofar as the sang issue is still uncertain. And also in relation to highways, the highways authority is recommending refusal on page 380 of the report. The impact on the highways network and the environment, and I quote from the report, it is substantially negative. And the second supplementary transport assessment didn't change this assessment. And that's both in terms of traffic and pedestrians and cyclists. West thought roundabout is a very hostile environment for cyclists and pedestrians. And safe access simply cannot be provided. And that's what the highways authority advice is. In terms of sang and RUR4, I mean, first of all, as Councillor Newcombe has so eloquently explained, we do have a plan led system. When the Wickham district plan, local plan was adopted, it went through the entire evidence procedure, was examined and adopted by council. And policy RUR4 provided that this area, this land was allocated for outdoor recreational use. It was not allocated for employment use. And we have a plan led system. It was not allocated for anything to do with employment in the local plan. And we've heard from the planning officers, they've been very clear that there is no certainty over the alternative sang solution. So that's still very much outstanding. Turning now to Greenbelt. This proposal is just in the wrong place. Marlow is a jewel in Buckinghamshire's crown. It's a beautiful town. And it ends at Globe Park on its western side on the A404. Traffic when Globe Park has its exodus at the end of the day is very, very severe already. And to have all of the extra movements associated with film studio, it would have a significant, very, very substantially negative impact on the traffic. It's in the Greenbelt. It abuts directly up against the AONB. It's highly visible from both Winterhill on one side and Bloom Wood on the other side. The site is also highly visible from the public right of way, which crosses it. And it's also visible from the Volvo Bridge, which was discussed at length at our last meeting. And the issue of the Volvo Bridge hasn't been resolved. Councillor Newcombe has also mentioned the proposal would conflict with four out of the five Greenbelt purposes. The town ends at the 404, this very, very massive development would extend beyond the other side of the A404, well into the Greenbelt. It's simply in the wrong place. It would harm the setting of the AONB. And not only that, there are proposals, hopes to extend the AONB outwards to include this site. We've heard from somebody who lives in one of the park homes. And the amenity of the people who live in the park homes would be decimated. And also then there's the impact of heritage assets such as West Thorpe House. The impact on them would also be detrimental. The landscape and visual impact assessment, which has been gone through by planning officers with a fine tooth comb. And the officers have said where they agree with the applicant's assessment from a visual or spatial aspect and where they disagree. I think it's very clear from what the officers have said that the harms very substantially weigh more heavily than any benefits. Turning to the economic argument, we've heard arguments for and against. The experts employed by the council, Lambert Smith Hampton, they say that there was no growth at all in 2023. Existing studios remain unfilled. There are plenty of sites with planning permission, as we know. Pinewood, the biggest studio in the world, that's in the pipeline. And we heard today that the winner studios have gone bust. So Lambert Smith Hampton are not convinced that even larger five star facilities would provide any disproportionate benefit to the sector than a collection of what we already have. What's in the pipeline. I actually don't think that we need to make this complicated. I think the planning officers have done a sterling job and I would actually want to move to support their proposal, their recommendation that we actually refuse this application. Okay, thank you for that. We'll continue the debate before we go to those two differing proposals. Yes, Councillor Eggleton, you were next. Thank you, Mr Chairman. You'll be delighted to know I'm going to be very brief. We have a very detailed application before us. Lots of detail, more than we normally get. And we do appear to have a very passionate applicant. However, as has been said by my colleagues, we are plan led. And I'm very conscious that in the Wickham area you have a local plan. If you want to come to South Bucks area, we haven't got one, which gives us great problems. Where we have definite policies in a local plan, I think we should demonstrate that they are being followed. And I would just say that if you're going to overturn an officer's recommendation, I've always got the senior planning officer in my ear on my south planning committee saying material planning considerations, please. So if you are going to refuse it and overturn the officer, you've got to come up with some material planning considerations that will pass through the system. That's all I've got to say. It's a very, very difficult decision and I think we have to abide by our planning guidance and our plans. Thank you for that. Councillor Bond. Just a quick listening to the debate. If you're going to build this film studio anywhere, you'd always be partly green belt because there wouldn't be a site big enough to hold it. It's just an observation. Okay. Councillor Marshall. Thank you. The only we've had some very full discussions, the only bit I was going to expand on a little was the economic side, because we've had so many conflicting views on where we're going. But I think the officer's assessment captures both sides in a way. If we look at 2221, it was inevitably uncertainty in the forecast. There is a consensus in the pipeline as a general agreement. The pipeline studio space coming forward will meet the minimum demand up to 2029. And then in conclusion, he says that having regard to the lack of certainty outlined above his significance and this benefit is afforded significant weight in the client balance. So that assessment in spite of the uncertainty is still a strong weighting in favour. But when you balance all the harm weighting against the benefit weighting, the harms still strongly outweigh. And I support the proposal for supporting the recommendation. Is that a second of the motion? Okay. Firstly, if it's very quick, it does occur to me we have an election coming up, so we don't have a government until the 5th of July. I suspect that whichever most likely party gets into power, that they will consider this application to be really important and may well call it in. Now, just the thought that we may be better off keeping control of it ourselves than letting it go out of control with the Secretary of State. I think that that goes way beyond consideration of this committee. You know, what happens at government level happens at government level. Whoever the government are, I am always and always have been very passionate about the fact that we make our decisions, our deliberations at this committee purely based on what we have before us. I don't disagree with any of that, Chairman. All I was going to go on to say was that as far as the public in Marlowe are concerned, they might be better off if we keep control of it. But okay, I accept that it's outside. Okay, now two points. Firstly, I just want to confirm who the seconder was for Councillor Feeley's proposal. The next point just before we move to any votes, I would just like, as per usual, to ask Mrs Kitchen to just sum up from the officer point of view. Thank you, Chairman. I think there was just one point of clarification. I've been advised in terms of the question on the five-year housing and land supply, that in fact, because of the uncertainty over the delivery of Holland's farm, that it does not currently count as part of our five-year housing and land supply. But obviously, if that uncertainty were released, then it would. So at present, it doesn't. So I wanted to make sure that that wasn't actually then a sort of deciding factor for you. I think you've heard many a time that we've said that the statutory duty before us is to determine an application in accordance with the development plan unless there's material considerations that indicate a decision otherwise. And I think we've set out a very, very detailed report. And I think in terms of if I can just run through what the issues are and the weighting on this, because I think that this is really important. And it's particularly important if we're taking Councillor Feeley's motion first, because that is looking to overturn the officer's recommendation. So if I just go through the various different levels of benefits and the harms arising from it. So in terms of Greenbelt, we've said that there's very significant harm to the spatial aspects, very significant harm to visual, significant harm to purposes A, B and C and considerable harm to purpose D. So overall, that comes to a very substantial harm and the MPPF requires us to provide substantial weighting to any harm to the Greenbelt. We also, in terms of looking at very special circumstances test of the Greenbelt need to look at other harm as well. So it's not just Greenbelt harm, it's looking at other harm. So the other harms that we've identified are in terms of landscape, the character, visual and the AOMB setting. And we deem those to be significant impacts on the character, significant impacts on the visual. And in terms of the AOMB setting, again, a significant impact and the MPPF requires you to give great weight to any harm to the AOMB. And the AOMB is now a national landscape. So I think you need to look at that very, very carefully. I think what we have also looked at is moderate weight to residential amenities and the harm arising from that. And then the less than substantial harm to the heritage assets of West Thorpe House, the cottage and the conservation area to which we give great weight. Highways, we have given significant weight to the harm and I must advise that whilst National Highways have said that there's just a matter of the road safety audit to be resolved. Our own local highway officers, Buckinghamshire Council highways officers, they advise that there is a severe impact in terms of the network. And there are also safety concerns. And whilst I think severe impact might be balanced against some of the other matters. I don't believe that highway safety can be balanced in the same way. So I would urge you really to consider that very, very carefully. There's also in terms of ecology, having a sort of neutral effect and, and also the housing strategy, and the issue that we have in terms of the sang and the relationship also in terms of, I think I've referred you to our are you all for the conflict that we see there in terms of that being an allocation for outdoor recreation. And the relationship between, if you like, the housing strategy and, and the provision of sang. So, if members were minded to support this, I would certainly advise that you should be looking to try and resolve the alternative sang solution for be to because otherwise, you could actually frustrate that delivery of that important allocation in the local plan. I think, members when you are looking at the waiting we need to understand those offices, where you might disagree with the level of weight that we have identified in terms of those harms, if you feel that actually you disagree in terms of the level of weight, or the level of weight in terms of the benefits and I'll just go through the benefits. So we've identified the socio economic benefits has been significant. We've looked at the very special circumstances, being put forward by the applicant in terms of meeting the need for film and television facilities meeting local and national government policy and the co location and the benefits arising from the West London cluster the impact in terms of additional jobs the impact in terms of the economic growth factors. There's also, we've given that significant weight, but we've taken that as part and parcel of the socio economic benefits which is the normal way in which we would look at that, so we haven't dealt with those as specifically separate. We've given significant weight to the BNG, we've given moderate weight to the impact in terms of the country provision and the public access benefits. We've also given limited weight to the public use that's proposed in the cafe. The limited benefits to the cycle and pedestrian path improvements, public transport improvements moderate and heritage assets, having the benefit to heritage assets, having great weight. So I think it's really important from from officers point of view, and to ensure that if you are taking the vote in terms of vote to support the application that you give a clear reasons for taking that decision, contrary to officers recommendation in order to ensure that you have got a robust reason for determining it favorably. In the same way as you would have had to, if it was a recommendation for approval and you wish to refuse, just so that it's quite clear and transparent, the reasons for you making a decision in that way. And our members are perfectly entitled to come to their own judgment on an application, but I think you need to be very, very clear as to why you are making that judgment and the basis for it. As I've said before, and as I've advised, there are a number of steps that would need to be taken in terms of referral to the Secretary of State on Greenbelt, the resolution of the alternative sound provision to serve B2, the resolution of outstanding national highway issues, section 106 agreement and conditions. So all of those would need to be to be fully sort of considered. So I think, I think I would really request that members quite clearly articulate any changes to the level of weight that we've given to the particular issues, so that it's quite clear, the basis on which you would be making such a decision. Thank you for that. That's very useful. Right. We have two motions. Yes, the first of those motions is a motion in favour of the application and has just been outlined before we go to the vote on that. You need to give some clear guidelines as to why. Okay Chairman, thank you. My motion is that we could support the application and that we defer and delegate it to the officers for clarity and clearing up of the sag and the highways issues. For that reason I think we've got special circumstances for this Greenbelt and I'm particularly focusing on the economic benefit for the development of this studio and it's in line with government policy and to meet some of the restrictions we have within Buckinghamshire at the moment for that industry. So that's where I'm coming from. So in terms of the officers waiting, your waiting of the ballots, you're saying that there should be greater weight put on the economic argument and the issue over the sag? The issue over the sag is that I think we should delegate it, defer and delegate it because Mrs Kitchen has said there's going to be another three to four months work to finalise that. She also indicated there may be opportunities between one scheme and another so if that is the case then I would delegate it to them to solve that issue. So defer and delegate subject to the saying issue being resolved and successful completion of a section 106 agreement and successful resolution of the conditions. So Councillor Feeley, just to clarify, are you saying that in terms of socio-economic benefits whilst officers have given it significant weight that you want to give it more than that, such as very significant weight? And are you also saying that because of the ability to try and overcome the issues in terms of housing strategy and part of your resolution is to deal with that, that you're putting less weight than is significant on that factor? Correct. Okay. I also think Councillor knows the second point to make on that perhaps would help some clarity. Thank you, Chairman. I think that more weight should be given on your socio-economic benefits. We've not talked about education. We've heard today from supporters how the higher educational sector within our local area are, you know, supportive of it and how we benefit apprenticeships, whether you put it as economic or social. I mean, our thing actually is social because it helps also with mental health, motivation of our youth, but not only our youth, but our wider workforce. On the economic side of things, I don't think our officers have looked in or their experts have looked into or provided evidence in relation to the international outlook of film studios and Britain's position globally in relation to that. In line with government policies, it seems to be quite focused locally on job creation locally and nationally, but where, you know, if this studio were to go ahead, you know, how would that help, you know, Britain globally? I don't think that's been looked into in our report. Thank you. Yeah. In terms of the counterargument, if you like, to the officers waiting, I think that's where we need to be absolutely clear on those points. Sorry to interrupt you. Sorry, those points were made by the seconder. I'm just confirming that the proposal, the proposer of the motion is in agreement with that as well. Okay. So I'm just looking really at the sort of level of weight and both in terms of the benefits and to the harm. So what you're saying is that there's very significant weight rather than significant weight that should be given. I'm not sure that you can go higher than very significant weight to socioeconomic benefits and in terms of the housing strategy, that actually, if it's resolved, doesn't result in a significant, it comes down to a sort of neutral level, but I still think that there is a tilt in the other way. And that particularly relates in my view to how you deal with highways, landscape and RUR4, because I don't believe that the weighting in terms of the green belt is something that can quite easily be, if you like, downgraded. Just because of the scale and extent of that. So I think I'm looking for some further guidance from you in terms of where you see that sort of level going. So if I just reiterate again, green belt, very substantial, RUR4 significant, landscape significant and great harm to the AOMB setting, moderate weight to residential, great weight to the less than substantial harm to heritage, significant weight to highways. So those are the matters, if you like, that are still, in my view, still tipping that balance. So I think I'm really looking to you to guide in terms of what you think might actually be the level or the weight that you feel should be given to it in order to tip that balance. I think it's consideration to the highways. Once you've had the delegated power to negotiate with them, and once we've agreed whatever the strategy going forward is, then that will change that weight. Can I be clear? The only thing that I think I had understood that would be a matter to resolve would be the national highways. It wouldn't resolve the local highway network because I don't think we've got a solution to that. We've been in negotiations for quite some considerable period of time. We've still got a severe impact and we've still got a highway safety issue. National highways are just looking at the A404, they're not looking at the local network. So my understanding is that, and forgive me if I've misunderstood, that the defer and delegate was related to the strategic highway network and not the local network. Because I'm, and I'm sure my colleagues will support me, I'm not aware that there is a solution that is ready to put on the table to deal with all of those issues on highways. And what are highways saying about the A404? Because from what we've heard it's overloaded, there's substantial delays on it. What's going to happen? What's the highways that require us to do? So national highways are saying that most of their concerns in terms of strategic network, the A404, have been overcome but there are still some matters that need to be resolved. And in particular it's the road safety audit process that needs to go through some further stages on it. The issue that we have highlighted is not, and the reasons for refusal that are put before you, are not based on the impact on the strategic network. It's the impact based on the local highway network, in particular the A4155, and also the impact in terms of the pedestrian cycle and safety across the West Thorpe roundabout and that link along there. So we have not come to any agreement or any way forward on how those have been resolved. We've been speaking to the applicants since October last year on those very issues. So I just want to be clear so that you're also quite clear as to what you think we can resolve through a deferred delegated in highway terms. Councillor Neill, you were indicating. I was just wondering that it seems to me that the motion put forward by Councillor Phelan and seconded by Councillor Neill is very clear. The exact technicalities of how one expresses that and supports it are really quite detailed, and I was just wondering whether it wouldn't be better just to go to a vote on the principle of what they're saying and then invoke the paragraph in the constitution which allows us to adjourn elsewhere in order to resolve the technicalities of supporting that motion should that actually, should that motion succeed. Of course if it doesn't succeed we then get on to something else. Yes, we have done that before. So it might be a sensible way forward if you're happy with that legal point. That would mean, as just been pointed out to me by legal, that we would have to do that before rather than after the vote. So that members are aware clearly of what they'd be voting on. So it may not move us. I'm not so sure I agree with that. But in any event, I'm having an unseemly bargaining on detail, which ultimately if that detail is needed can be dealt with, but if it's not needed then we can get on with things. I think officers are looking for clarity on how the weighting is by the decision makers, which is all of you today. But what I'm also hearing from Councillor Feeley is that he considers that whatever section 106 is eventually resolved by officers, including highways officers, would favourably resolve the highways impacts. I'm sorry, but I don't agree with that. And the training I've been to, if you're going to refuse an officer's recommendation you have to put material planning matters. Now that is not for us to sit here to discuss. That is for the person who has made the proposal on a motion. I'm sitting here, I'm not interested in what they're going to say, and I'm afraid we've wasted another half an hour. It's not our responsibility, it's the person who makes the proposal. Sorry, but that's why I'm... Okay. I'm just trying to clarify what I believe Councillor Feeley's position is. You're correct. You are correct. One moment while I just float a suggestion through to the officers. Okay. Okay. If I can be of some assistance to Councillor Feeley. I think the two main issues that I think you can make a judgement on are whether or not you're looking to give significant weight to RUL 4 and the conflict there, and significant weight to landscape impact. The others I think it would be very difficult to argue otherwise, so whether or not... So normally what we're looking at is we're looking at very significant, significant, considerable, moderate, and then down to limited and very limited. So that's the sort of range that we normally, if you like in planning speak, we normally refer to. So I think you need to have a difference in terms of the level of weight that you're giving to either one of those in order to tip the balance in the favour that you're looking at. That's in addition to the socio and the housing strategy changes. Chairman, can we have an adjournment of five to ten minutes to discuss among ourselves? I'm trying at the moment to find a way of bringing this to a speedier conclusion. Thank you, Chairman. I've been very quiet throughout. I've been listening. We've got 117 pages of highways report, which is very extensive, and at the end of the day it says it's not workable. And Councillor Feeley isn't able to put forward in his motion something to counteract this. So until he does, I cannot see how I can vote for it because I'm voting on something that in my view isn't challengeable. As Chairman, I am now taking the decision that we will move to the vote. Right. That having been settled, we have a proposal for approval of this application from Councillor Feeley, seconded by Councillor Ng. I would now take a show of hands on those in favour of that proposal. Those in favour? Those against? And abstentions? And that should be the right number. On that basis, the motion fails. We have a second motion, which was proposed by Councillor Wheelhouse and seconded by Councillor Marshall, which is to go with the officer recommendation as laid out in the report before us. So can I have a show of hands for those in favour of that motion? Those against? And abstentions? On that basis, then the officer recommendation is approved and the application falls. Thank you very much, everyone, for your attention today. And I close the meeting at five minutes past five. Thank you very much, Chairman.