Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement.

Proposal: Full application for the erection of TV Studio Building including studio space, workshop/storage area and production/office along with parking facilities.

Applicant: University of Reading

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 17 to 74.

The Committee were advised that the supplementary planning agenda included:

·           Correction to the site address, to state Land at Thames Valley Science Park, Shinfield, RG2 9LH;

·           Addition of CP16 to the list of policies;

·           Clarification regarding policy TB13 relating to this application;

·           Clarification relating to floor areas;

·           Updated condition 3 via insertion of a number of plan numbers;

·           Clarification of condition 3 to state that 175 additional car parking spaces would be required for this development;

·           Updated wording of condition 14;

·           Update to condition 17 to extend delivery hours to 1am.

Mark Owen, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Mark stated that the global market for film and TV production in the UK had grown rapidly, due to a number of factors including digital streaming services and the continued attraction of the UK and its skill base as a location for filming and post-production work. There was a central demand for studio space outside of the M25, which was a key reason why the proposed location at Thames Valley Science Park was suitable. Mark added that the development of the science park was a key driver in improving skills, productivity and competition in a rapidly changing global economy. The proposals would form part of the University’s future concept for the Science Park in creating “Innovation Valleys”, focussed on film, TV and media. Mark stated that the proposals would create employment opportunities including 95 direct full-time employees, whilst ensuring that student engagement was a priority via close working with the University of Reading’s School of Film, Theatre and Television, offering work placements, specialist training and mentoring schemes. Mark added that the design of the building had been carefully considered, and dark metal cladding was proposed to minimise the visual impact of the building. The existing earth bund to the south of the proposed development would assist in reducing the visual impact of the building as viewed from residential dwellings to the south of the Eastern Relief Road. Mark stated that additional screening would be placed on the existing earth bund, secured by condition, to further screen the facility. Mark stated that there was good pedestrian and cycle connectivity to the site, in addition to a frequent bus service. The parking arrangements for the development would utilise the existing Science Park car park in addition to an adjacent car park extension area which had planning consent. Mark concluded by stating that carbon emissions would be reduced by fourteen percent as a result of the proposed development, above the minimum ten percent reduction required by policy, and this was in addition to a biodiversity net gain of twelve percent, including the planting of an area of wildflower grassland.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey queried whether apprentices would be available for young people within the Borough. Chris Howard, case officer, confirmed that the applicant would be making a contribution to the Borough employment skills plan, and additional detail would be provided in future.

Andrew Mickleburgh sought assurances as to how far the earth bund would be extended in the south eastern direction, queried whether any other additional planting would occur on the site, queried why there was no landscaping plan attached to the large car parking area, and sought assurances that given the large public audiences that shows could attract – whether the revised 175 spaces was sufficient. Chris Howard stated that the earth bund was in situ on the site and ran to the eastern relief roundabout. Chris added that officer would seek a contingency sum of S106 contributions to strengthen landscaping on the Hawthorn site. Chris confirmed that officers felt that the nearest residential properties would be sufficiently screened from the proposed buildings. Chris confirmed that the car parking was part of a separately approved reserved matters application, which had a landscaping condition attached. Chris confirmed that Highways officers were satisfied that the proposed 175 spaces were sufficient.

Stephen Conway sought clarification regarding the alternate recommendation, and queried whether public audiences could be accommodated within the proposed 175 spaces. Connor Corrigan, Service Manager - Planning and Delivery, confirmed that the alternative recommendation gave officers authorisation to refuse planning permission without having to come back to Committee in the event that a S106 agreement had not been completed in a timely manner. Relating to audience members and car parking, Chris Howard stated that around 350 to 550 audience members could be expected, with an average of three people per car. Judy Kelly, Highways Development Manager, stated that there was a regular bus service to the site, and an event management plan would be required for major events. Judy added that much of the wider Science Park car park would be vacant in the evening, as office staff would have left for the day.

Pauline Jorgensen queried whether there was additional detail regarding the bus service, and sought clarification relating to the accommodation block as stated on agenda page 17. Judy Kelly stated that there was a public bus service which ran 200m from the site, and the applicant was required to produce an event management plan for major events, which could run a shuttle bus to and from the railway station for example. This plan would be considered by officers, and could be reviewed on an ongoing basis. Chris Howard confirmed that the accommodation block referred to the area for the dressing rooms, behind the scenes, and public holding areas.

Angus Ross commented on his surprise that the car parking was taking up so much space, rather than being of a two-storey nature. Angus queried whether amended condition 14 should be reworded, to state that agreement of the local Planning Authority was required. Connor Corrigan stated that the condition could be reworded as follows “No recording or filming activity shall take place between the hours of 23:00 and 07:00 Mondays to Sundays, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local planning Authority.” Angus Ross proposed this new wording, which was seconded by Chris Bowring, and subsequently agreed by the Committee.

Sam Akhtar queried how many freelancers and contractors may work on site, and how many electric vehicle charging points would be provided. Chris Howard stated that officers had no control over the configuration of staff on site. In relation to electric vehicle charging points, the car park was approved in 2016 and therefore associated conditions could not be revisited at this stage.

Gary Cowan was of the opinion that in a climate emergency, every effort should be made to have electric vehicle charging points for all relevant planning applications. Judy Kelly stated that that electric vehicle charging would be available to the north of the car park, and the travel plan for the site committed to additional electric vehicle charging points as and when demand rose.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey queried whether the electric car charging infrastructure would be developed, to allow easy expansion in the future. Connor Corrigan confirmed that part of the car park was already in existence, and the extended are of the car park would allow the infrastructure to be placed underground as the car park was developed.

RESOLVED That application number 210210 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 19 to 25, amended conditions 3 and 17 as set out in the supplementary planning agenda, and amended condition 14 as resolved by the Committee.