Agenda item

Change of use of existing buildings to commercial filming and erection of 5 no. temporary workshops

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Officers introduced the application and highlighted the addendum, which confirmed that the applicant had submitted a letter setting out additional information relating to site operation. The additional information did not impact upon the officer’s recommendation, which remained refusal for the reasons as set out in the report.

A petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Key points raised included:

·         The application constituted inappropriate development within the Green Belt, and was contrary to policy.

·         The site’s operations were resulting in significant noise and disturbance to local residents, including vehicle, equipment, and radio noise.

·         Noise disturbance remained during weekends, and both very early in the morning and late at night.

·         The site had impacted upon local wildlife, which was now rarely seen.

·         Operations had resulted in flooding of nearby land.

·         The applicant’s claims that the site had resulted in employment for local residents was doubtful.

·         The site had resulted in increased traffic and congestion.

·         Contrary to the applicant’s assertion, the site had not been vacant but had been in use by the nearby university and hospital.

·         It was requested that the application be refused and enforcement action be undertaken.

In response to a question from the Committee, the petitioner advised that they had witnessed flood water run off form the site to common land.

The agent for the applicant addressed the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

·         The film industry was a fast growing sector with a shortage of support studio s and storage structures.

·         The applicant required the site to support a large scale international production’s with a budget in the 100s of millions.

·         There were special circumstances which should allow for development within the Green Belt, as the site was the only suitable location.

·         The development was re-using a vacant lot, and was a temporary measure that did not require intrusive or permanent construction.

·         The development would support substantial investment in Hillingdon including increased employment, commerce, and education opportunities.

·         The production had been required to use the site prior to planning application or the production would have been lost to another European country.

·         The site supported a large number of staff.

·         Letters of support from the industry had been received.

·         The applicant had sought to engage with officers to overcome their concerns, but this had not been possible. It was requested that the application be deferred to allow the applicant time to discuss the matter with officers.

In response to questions from the Committee, the agent advised that the landlord for the site had been the University. Regarding flooding, a flood risk assessment had been submitted as part of the application though if concerns remained, further review was needed. The applicant had not submitted an alternative site assessment as this was not required under national policy.

Officers advised that flooding had not been included as a reason for refusal as it was felt that any such concerns could be overcome via conditions, were the application to be approved. Officers confirmed that the Mayor of London had also objected to the application.

The Committee supported the officer’s recommendation for the reasons as set out in the report. This was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.