PART I

South Bucks District Council Planning Committee

Date of Meeting: 7 May 2008 Parish: Denham

Reference No: 08/00091/OUT Outline Application Proposal: Residential redevelopment of site, associated parking and construction of vehicular access. Location: Denham Film Laboratories, North Orbital Road, Denham Green, , UB9 5HQ Applicant: Deluxe Laboratories Ltd Agent: RPS Date Valid Appl Recd: 22nd January 2008 Case Officer: ADF Recommendation: PER

LOCATION PLAN – This plan is supplied only to identify the location of the site and for no other purpose whatsoever.

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey South Bucks District Council Mapping with the permission of the Licence Number LA 100025874 Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copying. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright SCALE : NOT TO SCALE and may lead to prosecution or Civil proceedings.

Page 1

Proposal:

Outline planning permission is sought for the residential redevelopment of this site with all matters reserved for subsequent approval apart from the means of access to the site.

Location and Description of Site:

The site lies within the Colne Valley Park and the developed area of Denham Green and comprises a number of buildings used by a film production company, Deluxe and other independent but related uses. The main building on the site is the listed laboratory building designed by Walter Gropius and Maxwell Fry. The other buildings are of generally poor quality and let on short term tenancies (some are vacant). The site was formerly used by Rank Film Laboratories and was previously part of the . It lies to the east side of the North Orbital Road and there are two vehicular accesses off this road into the site. The site comes under the definition of an employment generating site and the south-west part of it is within an “Industrial Area” as designated in the South Bucks Local Plan. Green Belt land lies to the north, west and east of the site. Broadwater Park, another employment site within the “Industrial Area”, lies to the south. The redeveloped Denham Garden Village lies on the other side of the road to the south-west. A Site of Special Scientific Interest lies to the north and north-east. A substantial proportion of the site is hard-surfaced but there are significant areas, particularly in the north western and north eastern corners of the site which are densely wooded. The site has an overall area of 4.83 hectares.

Relevant Planning History:

Outline planning permission for a residential redevelopment was granted under a 1989 application (1082/89) and renewed under a 1993 outline application (93/0155). These were not implemented and have time expired. There have been a number of applications for alterations and extensions to the existing lab buildings.

07/01532/OUT: Redevelopment of site to provide 196 dwelling houses and apartments, associated parking and construction of new vehicular access. Refused for the following reasons: -

1) The proposed redevelopment of the land for residential purposes would involve the loss of a large employment site, which could be utilised for any employment generating activity. The District Planning Authority considers that such sites make an important contribution to the local economy and as such wishes to retain them in employment generating use. Moreover, such a loss from the economic base would result in an increase in outward commuting from the District, contrary to policies E3 and E5 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999). Furthermore, it is not considered that there is sufficient evidence submitted with the planning application of any exceptional circumstances that would justify overriding the aforementioned considerations.

Page 2 2) The vehicle parking provision for the proposed development is inadequate. This would be likely to result in vehicles being parked where they would be prejudicial to highway safety and convenience and detrimental to the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies TR5 and TR7 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999).

07/01538/FUL: Change of use of the Denham Film Laboratories Building from film laboratories to 48 residential apartments and cinema. Refused for the following reasons: -

1) The proposed residential conversion of the building would involve the loss of employment floorspace, which could be utilised for any employment generating activity. The District Planning Authority considers that such floorspace makes an important contribution to the local economy and as such wishes to retain it in employment generating use. Moreover, such a loss from the economic base would result in an increase in outward commuting from the District, contrary to policies E3 and E5 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999). Furthermore, it is not considered that there is sufficient evidence submitted with the planning application of any exceptional circumstances that would justify overriding the aforementioned considerations.

2) The proposal would not provide for any affordable housing accommodation within the building and although the provision of affordable housing was proposed elsewhere as part of a separate planning application, this has been refused planning permission. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy H5 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999).

07/01539/LBC: Listed Building Application for the alteration and conversion to residential use of the Denham Film Laboratories Building and demolition of buildings within the curtilage. Conditional Consent.

08/00092/FUL: Change of use of Denham Film Laboratories building from film laboratories to 48 residential apartments and cinema. Reported elsewhere on this agenda.

Parish Council Comments:

‘The Parish Council has no objection to this application subject to conditions backed by legal agreements requiring the following:

1. Adequate additional infrastructure being provided in Denham Green with regard to schooling, GP surgeries, dental health and bus services; 2. The proper phasing and coordination of all sets of traffic signals on the A412 North Orbital Road from the application site south to the junction with the A40;

Page 3 3. Improvements to the proposed pedestrian crossing of the A412 including barriers at the side of the carriageway and a fenced refuge in the central reservation.’

Representations:

Denham Green Residents’ Association commented as follows: -

‘We were informed that Deluxe needs to make £20m from the site to fund its move to Pinewood. While this may be a driving factor for Deluxe, we contend that the scheme should be considered only on its own merit as to whether it is an environmentally acceptable development and that it does not adversely impact on the local infrastructure, having due regard to schools. Roads, medical services and transport. This Association believes that these issues must be addressed properly, not merely how much accommodation can be crammed into the site to suit a financial imperative.’

A further letter has been received questioning whether the proposed restrictive covenant to control car parking on site would be workable and/or enforceable and querying the usefulness of the subsidised bus service to Uxbridge. It goes on to state that: -

‘The development is still an unsightly ‘barrack block’ over development with too few parking places for residents and visitors. The application should be refused.’

Letters in support of the application have been received from the following companies involved in the film and television industries: -

Paramount Pictures Universal Metro Goldwyn Mayer Pinewood Studios

Points made in support of the application include the following: -

- Deluxe are currently entrusted with managing the products of MGM, Universal and Paramount. MGM work from Pinewood and Paramount and Universal work with Deluxe/Pinewood. Both MGM, Universal and Paramount therefore support the relocation of Deluxe to Pinewood in order to reduce the distance their valuable products would need to travel and to encourage a closer working relationship as they look towards new technology and the expanding digital media market.

- A fully equipped new Deluxe laboratory located adjacent to the studios at Pinewood would provide a competitive suite of services for film makers.

- Full planning permission exists for the film processing building at Pinewood which Deluxe intend to occupy. This would play an important part in ensuring Pinewood retains its pre-eminent status as one of the best film studios in the world. Pinewood will be committing resources of circa £15m in delivering this building which is predicated on Deluxe entering into a long term lease to occupy the facility as an operator of the laboratory and to provide digital services.

- Technicolor’s requirements in the form of a new building currently under construction at Pinewood are not a direct substitute for the planned Deluxe

Page 4 operation. There is benefit to film-makers and film distributors of having both Deluxe and Technicolor at Pinewood. The result would not be dissimilar to the clustering effect of post-production businesses in . There is no other operator in the sector capable of occupying a facility of the scale and type proposed for Deluxe.

Three further letters of support for the application have been received from former and current employees of Deluxe and from a tenant at the Deluxe Laboratories site.

Finally, a letter of support has also been received from the Head teacher of the Tilehouse Combined School.

Internal Specialist Advice:

Landscape Officer:

‘The Landscape Masterplan shows the general proposed layout of the site and landscaping. It would appear from this drawing that this scheme has the makings of a well thought out landscaping scheme. However, further detail will be required about the planting detail – species, planting sizes and densities – of all proposed trees, hedges and shrub planting. A detailed series of drawings should be provided to identify all the planting to be retained or removed and all new planting.

Details of the play area, public art features and hard landscape features should also be submitted.

The site lies within the Colne Valley Regional Park. Lakes, the River Colne, the Grand Union Canal and woodland lie to the east of the site giving opportunities for the site to be integrated into the wider landscape. The proposals for the site should take this into account and consideration should be given to the wider landscape and ecological character of the area.

Details are also required about planting preparation. The new planting should be maintained by the developer for a fixed period after the completion of the development and thereafter a management plan should be initiated to ensure the long term survival of the planting and replacement if the original planting fails.’

Arboriculturist:

‘Whilst the proposals for the access, which is all that is being determined here would not result in the loss of any significant trees, I am concerned that the layout depicted would result in the loss of an interesting group of trees (0516-0519) to the north east of the centre of the site. However, these are awarded the ‘C’ category as the trees have limited life expectancies and should thus not stand in the way of the development. Also the required pruning back of the Oak (6550) seems to be a case to making the tree fit the development rather than the other way round, but we can give that due consideration nearer the time.

These specific details are not to be considered here, however and I have no objection to the access arrangements.

Page 5 Conclusion:

The proposal is acceptable.’

Environmental Health:

‘I note from pages 12-14 of the submitted Planning Statements, comments relating to plausible land contamination with chemicals. In light of this, I would request that the following contaminated land condition be attached to any consent granted.’

Building Control:

‘The Fire Brigade access is generally satisfactory but no turning areas shown to dead end situations. The Fire Brigade should be able to access all parts of the dwellings within 45m of the appliance. The Fire Brigade will have to be consulted at Building Regulation stage.

Disabled parking has been shown in some areas but level access not shown.’

Conservation & Design Officer:

‘The design statement which accompanies this application is a well presented and well reasoned document which sets out very persuasively the thinking behind the master-plan. The setting of the listed building by Gropius and Fry, facing the main road, would be unaffected by this proposal. To its rear the setting of the listed building would be significantly improved, establishing a spacious green cordon round the building and a backdrop of trees, re-creating, to an appreciable extent, its original isolated setting within open ground and woodland. Later buildings of no architectural merit – proposed for clearance – have encroached upon this setting. The architects have drawn inspiration from other schemes by Walter Gropius including the famous Bauhaus.

An ongoing management scheme like those adopted for Span developments such as that at Ham Common and at Taplow and in this District, will be important for the success of this development to ensure that it delivers, and continues to deliver, the benefits promised by this proposal.’

Planning Policy:

‘I have considered the Planning Statement dated January 2008 submitted by RPS. As discussed, I have limited my comments to the major strategic issue regarding employment land. I have also commented briefly on affordable housing, contamination and flooding.

I have not repeated emerging government policy on employment as set out in draft PPS4.

The starting point is the Development Plan. Policies E3 and E5 apply to the site, and are intended to retain the site in employment generating use in order to support the economy. The applicants have acknowledged that the proposals are contrary to policy, and have sought to justify a case for an exception to be made to policy in this case.

Page 6 In the Western Corridor (in which South Bucks is located) there is, in general, a supply of jobs which exceeds the local supply of labour. Notwithstanding that, emerging RSS policy is geared to the retention of existing employment land in employment use. The Panel’s report following the Examination considers that a strengthening of the approach to employment land is needed, partly to allay fears that local authorities might pay more attention to local needs and land supply issues than to strategic demands.

The 2001 Census showed that commuting levels coming into and going out of the District are both high, but balanced. Given that the District does not have high levels of unemployment, the number of jobs locally is numerically well matched with the supply of labour locally.

The Buckinghamshire Employment Land Review Study 2006 indicated that if all demand for employment floor-space over the next 20 years were to be met then there would be a need to identify a substantial increase in employment floor- space over that period. In terms of office floor-space it could result in an increase of circa 196,000m2 office floor-space between 2001 and 2026. Development since 2001 and commitments in the pipeline at 2007 provide for about 120,000 m2 (net) of such additional space, mostly at Uxbridge Business Park, Ridgeway Trading Estate, and Pinewood Studios, via the permitted Master Plan. The latter provides for the substantial modernisation of the Pinewood site, with a net floor-space increase of 67,260m2, to allow it to continue to compete effectively in future years. Clearly none of this has yet taken place, and there is no guarantee that it will all take place. A major increase in floor-space would also be likely to lead to further substantial in-commuting.

The Core Strategy Preferred Options September 2006, accepted, inter alia, that some limited loss of employment land might be acceptable in the case of sites no longer suitable for any form of employment generating use. It also sought to encourage the expansion of uses directly connected with film or television production or associated industries, on land outside of the Green Belt. In the light of other Core Strategies, a refreshed core Strategy Preferred options document is in the course of preparation.

I do not consider that a case has been presented which demonstrates that the site is no longer suitable for any form of employment generating use. However, that would not seem to be the main case put forward by the applicants. The case put forward is essentially one of seeking to demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstances in this particular instance. The argument is put that there is a need to have modern facilities, and that these cannot be provided within the constraints of the existing site. The options are essentially to either move to a new purpose built UK facility (permission has been granted, as part of the master- plan, at Pinewood studios for such a facility); move to purpose built facilities outside of the UK, or to let the business run down.

The applicants present a case which argues that a move to Pinewood would not be achievable if the Denham site were to be sold for employment use, since the valuation for employment use is far below the cost of developing the new permitted facility at Pinewood. The case being put is that whilst even residential development of the Denham site would not match the cost of relocating to Pinewood, that the company would bear that additional cost.

Page 7 The proposals are clearly contrary to policy. The proposals would involve the loss of an employment site and the employment floor-space that it currently provides. The new facility at Pinewood would have less floor-space than is currently available at Denham, although it clearly would provide much superior facilities. On the employment issue, the judgement is a finely balanced one. No matter what option is taken as regards the future operation of De-Luxe, there is the possibility that some of the other associated businesses on the site could be lost. Members may consider that in the light of draft PPS4; the developments and commitments in the pipeline as set out earlier, a good level of provision is already planned for in terms of employment floor-space; the desirability of supporting the film and television industries, and the potential for the larger scale employment loss should the company either move out of the UK or run down the business, that there are exceptional circumstances which might justify the loss of this site from employment use.

If permission were to be granted, then it must be subject to a S106 agreement as offered regarding the move to Pinewood.

There are of course, many other considerations which need to be weighed in the balance.

The Council already has a healthy supply of land for housing. However, there is a continuing substantial need for affordable housing. Existing Local Plan policy is that 20% of the bed-spaces should comprise affordable housing, although this could all be in the form of shared ownership accommodation. The emerging RSS and LDF seek 35% of new accommodation to be affordable, although neither of these are adopted. The proposed scheme offers 30% of the units as affordable housing, of which 30% would be social rented and 70% would be shared ownership. There is a need for social rented as well as for shared ownership accommodation, and accordingly the proposals would assist in making much needed provision for affordable housing.

A small area of the site close to the Colne are affected by flood zones 2, 3a and 3b as set out in the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment prepared for the District Council, and it will be important that the provisions of the SFRA are adhered to.

Finally, there is some reference to potential contamination in the Planning Statement and I would suggest that this ought to be the subject of a more detailed assessment.’

Consultations:

County Council: i) Strategic Planning Team:

‘Loss of employment land

The South Bucks Core Strategy Preferred Options and the Buckinghamshire Employment Land Review consider South Bucks to be a growing net importer of labour. The Adopted Local Plan (1999) also envisaged an increase of 1500 jobs and a decrease in the labour supply of 1800 people by 2011.

Page 8 The only saved Structure Plan employment policy deals with provision for small businesses and is not directly relevant here.

From a strategic planning point of view we would therefore not object to the change of use of this particular site providing the majority of the current employees are able to relocate to Pinewood, recognising the importance of the employer in terms of both local employment and the film industry in South Bucks.

Affordable housing

There is an issue in terms of the amount of affordable housing to be provided as part of the conversion of the listed building and therefore on the site as a whole. We would consider that there is a case for negotiating a greater proportion of affordable housing across the site so that it is at least in line with Draft South East Plan requirements (35%). As it stands, the proportion of affordable housing proposed across the site is less than 25%.

Furthermore, in the South Bucks Core Strategy Preferred Options document, Preferred Policy approach 7 suggests that sites such as this ought to be developed 'wholly or largely for affordable housing...', strengthening the case for at least increasing the proportion of affordable housing.

Code for Sustainable Homes

There is one outline and one full application under consideration and both are dealt with in the same Planning Statement. We would expect there to be some reference to the Code for Sustainable Homes and would advocate that at least the new build element of the development aspires to achieve a minimum of Code Level 4.’ ii) Highways:

‘This proposal is for 246 units on the site of the Denham Film Laboratories site including residential apartments and a cinema for community use.

The site is currently accessed from the A412 at two points both of which are ghost island junctions. The road is derestricted at this point but visibility is in accordance with national standards and I do not envisage any alterations to be necessary.

A Transport Assessment has been submitted which concludes that in the morning peak there will be an additional 48 movements and in the evening this increases to 81 net movements. Automatic traffic counts have been carried out which gives an average peak hour flow of about 5,500 vehicles passing the site, therefore the additional traffic generated by this proposal will be negligible.

Notwithstanding the above the developers are keen to promote sustainability and encourage modal shift. To encourage this, the developers are prepared to construct a signal controlled crossing over the A412 to allow those who would like to walk into Denham to cross the A412 safely. In addition the County Council has negotiated a subsidy for a peak time taxi bus service from the development to Uxbridge and Denham for a period of 5 years from the first occupation. This subsidy will be index linked. The possibility o f enhancing the existing bus service was looked at but discounted as a dedicated taxi bus service would provide a

Page 9 better peak time service and therefore would be more attractive to commuters. However it was agreed that a new bus stop would be provided in Denham Green Lane and the bridleway along Green Tiles Way will be improved. In addition a new shared footway cycleway from the new Toucan crossing into Denham Green Lane will also be provided.

Given this package of improvements which will need to be the subject of a Section 106 obligation, I do not wish to raise an objection to the proposal.’ iii) Education:

‘As with other Authorities we would hope that a S106 could be drafted and agreed including the secondary contribution and any other education agreements before a planning decision is reached.’

Natural :

‘Overall we are happy that the woodland on the site is being retained and will act as a buffer to the SSSI. In combination with a secure fence-line around the site, this will ensure that there will be no significant impacts on the SSSI as a result of the development. However the presence of this fence is key to this conclusion and therefore must be secured and maintained in the long-term.

I note that the ecological report recommends that surveys are carried out to further determine status of reptiles and bats on the site. In the case of bats an initial assessment has been made that there are no roosting opportunities for this species. Once it has been established that the removal of particular trees is necessary we would recommend that follow-up surveys confirm this. In the case of reptiles no surveys have been carried out. Paragraph 98 of ODPM Circular 06/2005 states that ‘The presence of protected species is a material consideration when a planning authority is considering a development proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat.’ Paragraph 99 also states that ‘It is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision.’ In addition I would like further clarification as to why the presence of Great Crested Newts on the site was discounted given the suitability of terrestrial habitats and the proximity of water bodies.

Finally we recommend the production of an ecological management plan for the site that includes the woodland and identifies any other opportunities for biodiversity on the site. If the Council is minded to grant planning permission this should be a condition of that permission. Furthermore the recommendations that it makes should be secured as part of a legal agreement to ensure that they are implemented, especially where funding is necessary for long term management and monitoring.’

Colne Valley Team Manager:

‘I would question whether this housing development is appropriate immediately adjacent to an SSSI. This is likely to have a huge impact on the SSSI including fly tipping, dumping of garden waste, trampling of woodland flora and disturbance to wildlife. It will also be likely to generate unnecessary extra traffic as it appears

Page 10 slightly detached from the rest of Denham Green except by car. Despite the proposed shared cycle/walking route I would imagine that most people would still drive to reach the local shops and other facilities in Denham Green’.

Thames Water:

Request the imposition of conditions.

Three Valleys Water:

Comments awaited.

Crime Prevention & Design Advisor:

‘1. A regards the new access arrangements I assume discussions have taken place with Bucks Highways Dept regarding visibility splays on entering and exiting the site for the prevailing speed limit and size of any central reservation to assist turning? I could not see anything within the planning statement. Albeit the M 25 takes a lot of traffic that used to use this road, when the M 25 has problems in the area then users do then use this road to bypass the M 25 and it can therefore suddenly have very heavy usage. With the change of use of the site this will affect traffic flows and times. Also will their landscaping or other measures used to prevent residents parking outside the site at the side of the road and reducing the visibility splays?

2. I note section 8 of the proposed 106 Agreement regarding the restriction on car parking within the site. I also note 6 x parking spaces are proposed to serve the cinema club and as it says at par 3.9 on page 15 of the planning statement there will be 21 unallocated visitor car parking spaces which could be available for use by cinemagoers. With only 6 x spaces by the cinema club I question if this will be enough at this area? As to the other possible 21 further spaces, these will be at various locations around the site and in practice will not be used for this. If car parking is tight on site, then users will park wherever they can nearby. This could mean blocking roadways on site or on the grass verge just outside the site, which could cause obstruction to emergency service vehicles. If there are transgressors within the site, who will control the problem and what sanction will there be? There is no mention of this within the section 106 Agreement nor the planning statement. Within the site it will not be the Police because it is private property.

3. I understand this is an outline planning application and is intended as per the note inside the front cover of the Design and Access Statement (DAS), to identify design principles to guide the future development of the site and that the layout is indicative and all images are illustrative only.”

Environment Agency:

No objection subject to the imposition of conditions.

South East England Development Agency (SEEDA):

‘The existing employment site occupied by Deluxe is dominated by a listed building which is unlikely to be readily convertible into modern business premises.

Page 11 In these exceptional circumstances taking into account the applicants business and its existing close ties to the film business based locally at Pinewood, together with the planning permission already granted to enable its relocation to Pinewood, it is considered that it would be unreasonable in this instance, to resist the loss of the employment site to housing.

That said, most strategic employment sites which are well located with good access to the road and rail network such as this site should be retained in order to meet Target 9 of the RES which seeks to provide sufficient employment space of the right quality, type and size to meet the needs of the region and support its competitiveness.

We consider that the application site will also provide a sustainable location for a residential development that will assist in meeting the housing needs of the District.’

London Borough of Hillingdon:

Comments awaited.

Observations:

• This proposal must be determined under adopted and saved South Bucks Local Plan policies that would include E3 (Industrial Areas), E5 (Other Employment Generating Sites in the Developed Areas), H5 (Affordable Housing), H7 (The Provision of Smaller Dwellings), TR5 (Accesses, Highway Works and Traffic Generation), TR7 (Parking Provision), L6 (Colne Valley Park), R4 (Public Open Space Provision in New Residential Developments) and C10 (Key Nature Conservation Sites).

• Relevant government planning guidance includes PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development), PPS3 (Housing), PPG4 (Industrial, Commercial Development and Small Firms), draft PPS4 and PPG13 (Transport). The Regional Economic Strategy also forms part of the policy background to this case.

• A number of supporting documents have been submitted with the application, which can be inspected on file or on line in the usual way.

• Both this application and application No. 08/00092/FUL referred to in the relevant history section of this report above are a resubmission of applications 07/01532/OUT and 07/01538/FUL. The reasons for refusal of application No. 07/01532/OUT can be summarised as follows: -

1. Conflict with Local Plan employment policies and an absence of sufficient evidence to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would justify overriding those policies; 2. Inadequate vehicle car parking for the proposed development, contrary to policies of the Local Plan

• This report therefore outlines details of the scheme and the material considerations assessed under the previous application and then sets out and analyses the additional information submitted in support of this application, which seeks to overcome the reasons for refusal summarised above.

Page 12 Details of the Proposed Development

• This application is submitted in outline form with just the means of access to the site to be considered at this stage. All other details are reserved for subsequent approval.

• The proposal would involve the removal of all the buildings on site apart from the listed building in the south-west quadrant. This is proposed to be converted into 48 apartments and a cinema under a separate full planning application reported elsewhere on this agenda. Notwithstanding the outline status of this application, detailed illustrative drawings have been submitted which illustrate how the site could be developed having particular regard to the setting of the listed building. The drawings illustrate 198 new-build residential units that would replace the demolished buildings around the site. When taken together with the proposed conversion of the listed building there is proposed a total of 246 units including a significant number of one and two bed dwellings.

• The existing access off North Orbital Road would remain as the main vehicular access to the site. Although a “new” vehicular access would be provided this would in fact appear to be an alteration of the existing southern access (also onto the North Orbital Road) for the sole use of emergency vehicles, pedestrians and cycles.

• With regard to the siting, layout and design of the houses, apartment buildings, access roads and parking/turning areas, several drawings have been submitted with the application but these are illustrative at this stage and are not to be determined as part of this current application. These are matters that would be reserved for a future application if the outline consent were granted, subject to a condition requiring any reserved matters to be in general accordance with the illustrative details. However, the applicants state that approximately 21,000 sq.m of floor-space would replace the 14,595 sq.m within the buildings to be demolished.

• The site covers an area of approximately 4.83ha and its redevelopment with 246 dwellings in total would amount to a density of approximately 51 dwellings per ha. This would be above the national indicative minimum outlined in paragraph 47 of PPS3 of 30dph and it is considered that it would represent an efficient use of this site and an effective use of previously developed land, as promoted in paragraphs 40-44 of PPS3.

• Paragraph 13 of PPS3 states that ‘reflecting policy in PPS1, good design should contribute positively to making places better for people. Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted.’

• Paragraph 48 goes on to state that ‘Good design is fundamental to using land efficiently. Local Planning Authorities should facilitate good design by identifying the distinctive features that define the character of a particular area.’

• As stated above the drawings submitted with this application are for illustrative purposes only, however, I concur with the comments of this Council’s Conservation & Design Officer detailed above that the development would enhance the setting of the listed building. Furthermore, in my view, the illustrative details accord with the principles of PPS3 outlined above.

Page 13 Affordable Housing

• In terms of affordable housing, 30% of the new-build units would be allocated for this purpose. Whilst this application is in outline only the illustrative layout would comprise 60 units. The application indicates that 18 would be social rented and 42 would be intermediate shared ownership, a 30/70% split. However, no affordable units are proposed to be incorporated within the converted listed building. The total percentage of affordable units for the site overall, including the listed building, would therefore be 24%. This is above the minimum target of 20% of bed-spaces required under policy H5 of the Local Plan and, in my view, this application could not be resisted on the basis of any desirability to provide additional affordable housing on this site or to alter the proposed split of the units. I note the comments of the County Council’s Strategic Planning Team in this regard but it is my view that until such time as policy H5 is superseded it would not be sustainable for the Council to insist on affordable provision over and above the 20% of bed-spaces detailed in the policy.

Education Provision

• With regard to the comments of the Assistant Education Officer at Bucks County Council the following can be stated. There is an absence of any evidence to suggest that there is a capacity problem with regard to education provision in the vicinity of the site. Therefore there is no suggestion that the relevant schools would not be able to cope with the likely increase in pupil numbers. Accordingly, in my view, and in accordance with the tests outlined in Circular 05/2005, a S.106 contribution could not correctly be sought towards education infrastructure in association with any permission granted for this proposed development.

• However, the applicants are proposing to provide contributions to both Tilehouse School and the National Film School in (towards a scholarship programme) under a separate Unilateral Undertaking outside of any agreement attached to any permission which this Council may grant and for these to be recorded only in any agreement associated with this application.

Car Parking Provision

• There would be a total of 377 car parking spaces proposed under this illustrative scheme serving the whole development and these can be broken down as follows: -

Houses: 124 spaces Apartments: 232 spaces Visitors: 21 spaces

• This equates to 1.53 spaces per dwelling unit, the same as indicated previously and which formed the subject of the second reason for refusal of application No. 07/01532/OUT. 19 spaces distributed across the site are designed to wheelchair accessibility requirements.

Other Associated Details

• As part of the scheme, the developers would fund or provide highway improvements incorporating the provision of a toucan crossing over the A412, a contribution towards improvement of the bridleway, traffic lights at the northern access, new road-side pedestrian and cycle paths, bus-stop improvements and also

Page 14 • a contribution towards a peak-time “taxi-bus” service connecting the site to Uxbridge and Denham rail station. These benefits would be achieved through agreements reached with the County Council as the relevant Highway Authority or through appropriate conditions attached to any decision should permission be forthcoming for the development.

• The applicants also intend to provide a Cinema Club as part of the development. This is a matter to be considered as part of application No. 08/00092/FUL reported elsewhere on this agenda but its provision should not be a pre-requisite for the approval of either of the two applications, in my view. The car parking implications of such a provision are considered in the report on application No. 08/00092/FUL.

Background to the Application

• Deluxe Laboratories Ltd is a significant long-standing employer within the District and it forms part of the film and media cluster of industries within South Bucks. A commentary on the type of operations currently carried out on the site is incorporated within the applications documentation and I would urge Members to familiarise themselves with this. The application states that it has been apparent for some years that the listed building (Building 1) is not ideally suited to modern film production and distribution. Significant parts of the building are now vacant. From a number of visits to the site I have no reason to dispute these assertions. Further to this, details have been submitted with the application that confirms that the building is not readily suited to conversion/occupation by an alternative employment generating use.

• The Company has concluded that the existing premises at Denham do not have a long term future as film laboratories and, as a result, the company has addressed a number of strategic options, principal amongst which are: -

• 1. Relocate the majority of its UK release operation to its modern Barcelona and Rome Laboratories; or

• 2. Develop a brand new, purpose built laboratory in the UK; or

• 3. Face inevitable decline and ultimate closure of the UK release business.

• It is option 2 which this application seeks to support and agreement has been reached between the applicants and Pinewood Studios to build a state-of-the-art film processing laboratories at the studios. Permission already exists for this building and the master plan planning permission at Pinewood (04/00660/OUT) provides for substantial new media related floor-space in addition to this building. Therefore, the application states that whilst this employment generating use would be lost from the application site if permission were to be forthcoming for its redevelopment for housing, the actual numbers employed at the site would not be lost to South Bucks but, rather, would be transferred to the existing Pinewood studios and accommodated within the master plan. The application confirms that active discussions are currently taking place to secure the relocation of the tenants at the Deluxe site to Pinewood Studios as well.

Page 15 Additional Information

• Members will note the first reason for refusal of application No. 07/01532/OUT. It is clear that the policies within the development plan would dictate that the loss of this employment generating site to a residential redevelopment would be unacceptable in principle. The report refusing application No. 07/01532/OUT stated that the application of policies E3 and E5 sought to maintain employment generating uses on the site in order to, in turn, maintain the local economy, ensure adequate levels of local employment and to reduce out-commuting (to help reduce the need to travel for environmental reasons).

• Application No. 07/01532/OUT was lacking in detail and/or assurances that the Company would move to the purpose-built laboratory building at Pinewood and thereby maintain employment levels within South Bucks. It was also not made clear that the building at Pinewood would not be occupied by an alternative film laboratory business. Furthermore, in the opinion of the Council, there was insufficient evidence submitted with the application to support the assertion that a residential redevelopment was the only viable option to fund the relocation and to secure a base in the District, and that an employment re-use would not be viable.

• The statement submitted in support of this application by the applicants’ planning agents’ puts forward, inter-alia, a detailed policy case for the residential redevelopment of the site. It makes reference to the Council’s Preferred Options Document and states that the imbalance between housing and employment has deteriorated since a balance was achieved in 2001 and that this imbalance is set to worsen in the coming years. In particular it states that the District is forecast to be a growing net importer of labour from a wide commute area. The Supporting Statement also states the following in analysing the principle of a residential redevelopment of the site in the light of policies E3 and E5 of the Local Plan: -

‘There are, however, a number of other material considerations which need to be taken into account, starting with the following: -

1. The Local Plan is time expired and its policies reflect a balance between housing and employment in the district which has since radically changed. 2. These application proposals do not propose the loss of industry and employment from the district – rather, they seek to secure a viable future for Deluxe by facilitating and committing to the relocation of the business in modern, purpose designed premises within the district at Pinewood Studios. 3. For the reasons explained in the Business Case, refusal of planning permission for residential development at Denham would lead directly to the significant loss of current Deluxe jobs at Denham, as the Company would be obliged to relocate its business. 4. Achieving a balance between employment and housing in the district, therefore, would not be best served by redeveloping the Denham Film Laboratory site for further employment development – indeed, to do so would exacerbate the imbalance and detract further from the objectives for a more sustainable relationship between housing and employment within the district.’

• Members also have before them, and reported above, the policy analysis of the Council’s Head of Sustainable Development. The fact that this application is contrary in principle to relevant employment policy is reaffirmed and it is not considered that a case has been presented which demonstrates that the site is no longer sustainable for any form of employment generating use. However, it is

Page 16 clarified that the actual case put forward is essentially one of seeking to demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstances in this particular case, i.e. that a move to Pinewood would not be achievable if the Denham site were to be sold for employment use, since the valuation for employment use is far below the cost of developing the new permitted facility at Pinewood.

• The supporting statement submitted with the application outlines the Business Case put forward by Deluxe as follows: -

• “The Business Case confirms that the cost to Deluxe of the new facility at Pinewood would be £40.9m. Valuations of the existing Denham site for alternative residential or employment development uses have been provided by CBRE at respectively £32m for residential development and only £9m for employment development. Employment development at the Denham site, therefore, does not begin to generate sufficient value to fund the relocation of the business to Pinewood. Even residential value would fall short of the full cost of the relocation to Pinewood but there are efficiency and other business benefits to Deluxe in moving to the proposed new laboratories which the company would fund at an additional cost of approximately £9m. The Business Case provides strong new evidence to address the crucial issue raised in the officers reports on the 2007 applications, i.e. the need for evidence to demonstrate that residential development is the only viable option to fund the relocation of Deluxe to Pinewood Studios.

• Enabling the relocation of Deluxe into purpose built new facilities at Pinewood Studios, of course, would accord directly with the Council’s existing and emerging economic strategy. It would also provide important benefits to Pinewood Studios itself. The new large scale Deluxe laboratory would compliment the smaller laboratory recently proposed by Technicolor at Pinewood (now granted permission and commenced on site). Technicolor has contractual relationships with those major film companies which are not contracted to Deluxe (Principally Universal and Warner Brothers). The development of both laboratories, together with the provision of a digital facility in the Deluxe Laboratory, would place Pinewood Studios in a substantially enhanced position to compete with major film studios across Europe and elsewhere.”

• It is my view that the judgement on the employment issue is a finely balanced one. However, again in my view, the business case put forward by the applicant’s is a convincing one.

• With regard to car parking, the following can be stated. The Design and Access Statement submitted with the application makes it clear that how and where cars are parked is crucial to the finished quality of the development. The parking strategy is aimed at reducing the dominance of parked cars on the street having particular regard to the setting of the listed building. Consequently car parking for the apartment buildings is principally proposed in semi-basement under-croft parking. Most of the new houses have been designed with double garages approached from a traditional mews at the rear of the houses and courtyard, forecourt and limited on-street parking is also proposed. In other words, the applicant has adopted a design-led approach to car parking as advocated by PPS3.

Page 17

• The report on application No. 07/01532/OUT expressed concern that the location of the site may not encourage alternative forms of primary transport and that there would be a reliance on the car which may not be accommodated within the illustrative layout. Due to the limited space within the site to park outside of the designated parking areas, concern was expressed that overflow on-street parking may take place on existing roads in the vicinity of the site.

• The applicants have sought to overcome this issue through an undertaking to impose a restrictive covenant on purchasers that would be recorded within the Section 106 Agreement. Upon disposal of a residential unit the applicants will enter covenants with the purchaser to the effect that the purchaser shall not be entitled to park any more vehicles within the development than can be accommodated in the number of available parking spaces allocated for that residential unit. This covenant would be enforced by an on-site estate management company and, according to the applicants, has been successfully implemented elsewhere. I do have some reservations over the enforceability of this measure but, in my view, it would contribute towards controlling parking at the site.

• Furthermore, as outlined above, the Applicant has agreed a range of measures to further enhance the site’s accessibility with the County Council covering a five year index-linked bus subsidy and infrastructure improvements.

• In the light of the advice in PPG13 that in developing and implementing policies on parking :-

• Local Authorities should not require developers to provide more spaces than they themselves wish, other than in exceptional circumstances which might include for example where there are significant implications for road safety which cannot be resolved through the introduction or enforcement of on-street parking control; and given that the Highway Authority has not raised an objection to the scheme, or suggested a need for any off-site controls I do not consider that any such exceptional circumstances exist in this case.

• I am also mindful that, to a large extent, the parking on this site would be self- policing. Prospective purchasers would be aware of the parking provision and any off- site, on-road parking would not be conveniently located for the site due to the juxtaposition of the site with the adjoining highway network. To conclude on the parking issue, in light of the need for a design-led approach to car parking, the sensitivity of the setting of the listed building, the proposed infrastructure improvements, the proposed unilateral undertaking and most importantly the fact that the development would not be contrary to the Council’s Interim Interpretation Guidance on Residential Car Parking Standards, I do not consider that, on its own, the proposed on-site parking provision should be fatal to this application.

Conclusion

• Members must take a view on the car parking provision proposed at this site but in light of the above commentary I do not consider that this application could be resisted on this basis alone.

Page 18

• With regard to the business case it is my view that this application has put forward a robust evidence-based analysis for the retention of the Denham Film Laboratories and its employees within South Bucks District via the proposed redevelopment of the site for housing. It is essential that the legal agreement that would ensure the relocation of the business to Pinewood is robust. Subject to this, it is my view that this application has established that special circumstances exist in this case that would warrant a decision contrary to the principles of the employment policies in the Local Plan. It is clear that this application would not result in the loss of employment within the district but rather would retain the existing business within the district which is a crucial element in the film and television industry within South Bucks. This is reflected in the comments received from the various film companies. In addition, many of the other film/television related businesses currently located at the site due to their association with the film laboratory business would also be likely to relocate to Pinewood.

• The application has the support of SEEDA and the County Council’s Strategic Planning Team and I concur with their view that on consideration of the information submitted with this application, on balance, permission should be forthcoming for this proposed development.

• I am satisfied in the light of the above report that a fair balance would be struck between the interests of the community and the human rights of the individuals in the event of planning permission being granted in this instance.

• Clearly this application raises some major issues, not least of which the suitability of the existing site for the continuation of the film laboratory uses. Consequently it is my view that value would be added to the decision making process if Members were to carry out a SITE VISIT prior to their determination of the application.

Recommendation:

THAT AUTHORITY BE DELEGATED TO THE DIRECTOR OF SERVICES TO REFER THIS APPLICATION TO THE COMMUNITIES SECRETARY AS A DEPARTURE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

SUBJECT TO: (1). THE APPLICANTS ENTERING INTO A LEGAL AGREEMENT WITH BOTH THE DISTRICT COUNCIL AND THE COUNTY COUNCIL TO SECURE; I) THE RELOCATION OF THE DENHAM FILM LABORATORIES TO PINEWOOD FILM STUDIOS, II) THE PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THE SITE AS OUTLINED IN THE REPORT UNDER THE CONTROL OF A REGISTERED SOCIAL LANDLORD AND III) THE APPLICANTS COVENANTING TO CONTROL CAR PARKING ON THE SITE.

(2). THE APPLICANTS PROVIDING A UNILATERAL UNDERTAKING TO SECURE THE PROVISION OF OFF-SITE HIGHWAY WORKS AND THE PROVISION OF A FIVE YEAR INDEX- LINKED BUS SUBSIDY.

Conditions and Reasons:

1. S02 Approval of details – outline application. – layout, appearance, landscaping and scale. 2. S03 Approval of details time limit – outline application.

Page 19 3. S04 Standard time limit – outline application.

4. The development to which this outline permission relates shall be carried out in accordance with the parameters described in the accompanying Design and Access Statement.

Reason:-To ensure a satisfactory form of development and to accord with the terms of the submitted application and with the advice contained in Circular 01/2006. (Policy EP3 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers).

5. D12 Exclusion of PD – Part 1, Classes A, B and E (density of layout reason). 6. D16 Details of levels – dwellinghouses. – land.

7. No other part of the development shall begin until the new means of access has been sited and laid out in accordance with the approved drawing and constructed in accordance with Buckinghamshire County Council’s guide note “Commercial Vehicular Access Within Highway Limits” 2001. For the avoidance of doubt the applicants will be required to enter into a S278 Agreement with the Highway Authority in order to comply with the requirements of this condition.

Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the development. (Policy TR5 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers.)

8. No other part of the development shall be occupied until the off site highway works have been laid out and constructed in accordance with details to be submitted to and first approved in writing by the District Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.

Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the development. (Policy TR5 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers.)

9. The scheme for parking, garaging and manoeuvring indicated on the submitted plans shall be laid out prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose.

Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off, park and turn clear of the highway to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway. (Policy TR7 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers.)

10. M01 Schedule/samples of materials. 11. M02 Surface materials.

12. No development shall take place until a full survey of the site has been carried out to ascertain the presence of any contaminants on or under the surface of the site and to determine its potential for the pollution of the water environment. The details shall also include appropriate measures to prevent pollution of ground water and surface water, including provisions for monitoring. Full details of this survey, together with any necessary remedial works to render the site fit for residential use shall be submitted to and

Page 20 approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The details shall also include appropriate measures to prevent pollution of groundwater and surface water, including provisions for monitoring. Such agreed remedial works shall be fully implemented before the development commences. The development shall then proceed in strict accordance with the measures approved and such measures shall thereafter be maintained.

Reason: To protect the amenities of the area and future occupiers and prevent the pollution of the water environment. (Policy EP3 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers).

13. No development shall take place until a full ecological survey has been carried out on the site and a detailed management report produced and agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority to establish whether or not Protected Species are present and to secure the future ecological management of the site. Any requisite remedial works contained in the report shall be fully implemented before the development commences and the development shall then proceed in strict accordance with the approved report. The approved management plan shall thereafter be implemented unless the District Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation.

Reason: To protect the nature conservation interests of the site and its surroundings. (Policies C10 and C11 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refer).

14. No development shall take place until a drainage strategy has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The strategy shall detail all on and off-site drainage works and the works incorporated in the approved strategy shall be completed prior to any discharge of foul or surface water into the public drainage system.

Reason: – To ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new development. (Policy EP13 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers).

15. No development shall take place until details of appropriate children’s play- space has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Such approved play-space/associated equipment shall be erected on site prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted. The play-space shall thereafter be retained and maintained solely as a children’s play space.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory level of play-space is provided for the children of the future occupants of the site. (Policy R4 of the South Bucks District Local Plan (adopted March 1999) refers.)

16. T08 Walls/fencing details. – dwellinghouses.

Page 21

Informative(s):

1. It is the responsibility of the developer/applicant to ensure that a development proceeds in accordance with the approved details and in compliance with any conditions on the planning permission. The condition(s) on this planning permission that appear in bold text and are numbered 1, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are known as conditions precedent. These are conditions which require compliance before any development whatsoever starts on site. Where conditions precedent have not been complied with any development purporting to benefit from the planning permission will be unauthorised. The Development Control section will not normally approve details required by a condition precedent retrospectively. A new planning application will normally be required under these circumstances. (IO2)

2. Attention is drawn to the contents of the attached letter dated 27th February 2008 issued by the Environment Agency. (I04)

3. The applicant is reminded that all drainage from the proposed development must accord with the requirements of Thames Water Utilities Ltd. In particular, attention is drawn to the contents of the company's letter dated 14th February 2008 a copy of which has already been provided for the applicant's information. (I03)

4. A legal agreement has been entered into with the District Council in conjunction with this grant of planning permission to ensure the relocation of the Denham Film Laboratories to Pinewood Film Studios and the provision of affordable housing on the site as outlined in the report under the control of a Registered Social Landlord. A Unilateral Undertaking has also been entered into by the applicant’s to secure the provision of off-site highway works and the provision of a five year index-linked bus subsidy.

5. I17 Access for disabled.

6. The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to obstruct the public highway by the erection of scaffolding, hoarding, skip or any other device or apparatus for which a licence must be sought from the Highway Authority. A period of 10 days must be allowed for the issuing of the licence, please contact the Area Manager at the following address for further information.

Bucks CC Transportation Transportation Area Office (Chiltern & South Bucks), Council Offices King George V Road Amersham Bucks. HP6 5BL Tel (0845) 230 2882

7. It is not the policy of the County Council to approve the erection of signs or other devices of non-statutory nature within the limits of the highway. If such signs are erected the County Council will remove them.

Page 22

8. I34 - Structure and Local Plan Policies:

Local Plan policies E3 (Industrial Area), E5 (Other Employment Generating Sites), H5 (Affordable Housing), H7 (The Provision of Smaller Dwellings), TR5 (Accesses, Highway Works and Traffic Generation), TR7 (Parking Provision), L6 (Colne Valley Park), R4 ( Public Open Space Provision in New Residential Developments) and C10 (Key Nature Conservation Sites).

9. I35 - Considerate Constructor

Page 23