Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Proposal: Full planning application for the proposed erection of a temporary Film Studio Backlot (for a period of 5 years).

Applicant: Shinfield Studios Ltd.

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 41 to 78.

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included:

·         Amendment to the address name;

·         Removal of condition 15 following provision of an Archaeological Evaluation Report;

·         Addition of approved plans;

·         Amendment to the consultation responses table, to confirm that the Environment Agency had no objection subject to conditions.

Nick Paterson-Neild, agent, spoke in support of the application. Nick stated that this application was for a five-year temporary permission for a film studio backlot, adjacent to the existing studios, following successful use of part of the land via permitted development. Nick added that there had been no objections received with regards to this application. Nick added that the proposal would facilitate the filming of outdoor scenes, and would be surrounded by landscaping to further screen the development. Nick stated that the application was supported by a S106 agreement, facilitating further renewable energy provision on the main site and a twenty-percent biodiversity net gain in excess of the Council’s requirements. Nick added that the application would help meet the pressing demand for film studio space production, whilst providing economic benefits for the local economy. Nick stated that the application supported the University of Reading’s ambitions for the expansion of Thames Valley Science Park’s ‘creative cluster’. Nick asked that the application be approved.

Andrew Mickleburgh noted that there were no objections to the application whilst the development would bring with it a number of merits. Andrew added that he was inclined to support the application.

David Cornish was of the opinion that this was a good quality application with a number of merits. David queried what would happen in practice with regards to restoration of the site and the end of the temporary permission. Benjamin Hindle, case officer, stated that standard practice remediation measures would be required, which may include removing the temporary surfacing, re-seeding and additional planting.

Stephen Conway commented that much of the site had prior approval, whilst the development would bring with it a number of merits and very minor and temporary harms, whilst contributing to the local economy.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey commented that she was very supportive of additional local jobs within the creative industries sector within the Borough.

Wayne Smith echoed comments raised with regards to restoration of the site, and urged officers to work with the applicant to ensure that suitable restoration took place once the temporary permission had ceased.

Andrew Mickleburgh proposed that the application be approved as per the officer recommendation within the agenda pack, and revisions contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda. This was seconded by Stephen Conway.

RESOLVED That application number 222906 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 67 to 72, removal of condition 15 and addition of approved plans as contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda.