Date of Meeting: 8 July 2020 APPLICATION NO: 20/0315/FULEI DATE OF APPLICATION: 2 March 2020 STATUTORY START DATE: 2 March 2020 SITE LOCATION Land East Of Rowley Lane, Borehamwood, Hertfordshire OS grid ref: 51”39’371’N 0”15’03.7W DEVELOPMENT Development of film / production studios (Use Class B1b) and ancillary floorspace, new access arrangements, car parking, landscaping, infrastructure and associated works. AGENT APPLICANT Mr Tom Willshaw The Minster Building 21 Mincing Lane London, EC3R 7AG

Legal And General Assurance Society Limited C/O Agent

WARD: Borehamwood Kenilworth GREEN BELT: Yes CONSERVATION AREA: No LISTED BUILDING: No TREE PRESERVATION ORDER: None REASONS FOR COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION This is a major development, exceeding the threshold of delegated authority in the constitution. The submission includes an Environmental Statement. 1.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 RECOMMENDATION A: In the event that a satisfactory completed section

106 legal agreement has been submitted prior to the meeting of the Planning Committee, the recommendation is that planning permission be granted subject to conditions, as set out at the end of this report.

1.2 RECOMMENDATION B: In the event that a satisfactory completed section

106 legal agreement has not been submitted prior to the meeting of the Planning Committee, the recommendation is that authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Economic Development to grant planning permission when such an agreement has been received, subject to conditions as set out at the end of this report.

1.3 RECOMMENDATION C: Should the section 106 agreement not be

completed and signed by 8th January 2021 (or by such later date as has been

agreed by the Chair of the Planning Committee and the Head of Planning and Economic Development) the recommendation is that authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Economic Development to refuse planning permission for the following reasons: “1. Suitable provision has not been made for access to the development by sustainable modes of transport, and the application is therefore contrary to Policies CS25, CS26 and SADM40 of the Hertsmere Local Plan. 2. Adequate compensation has not been made for the loss of wildlife habitat through provision of new or improved habitat elsewhere, and therefore the application is contrary to Policy SADM10 of the Hertsmere Local Plan.”

2.0 APPLICATION SITE AND SURROUNDINGS 2.1 The site is land between Rowley Lane (which forms its western boundary) and

the A1 (its eastern boundary) to the north of the Holiday Inn hotel and the A1 road junction for Borehamwood. Its area is 11.34 hectares. The site’s southern boundary is formed by Mimmshall Brook, which is located approximately opposite the petrol station. There is a small wood outside that southern boundary, between Mimmshall Brook and the Holiday Inn.

2.2 Mimmshall Brook runs along the southern boundary of the site (the water

flowing from west to east) then it turns northward to flow parallel to the A1, marking the eastern boundary of the site. It then merges with the Rowley Lane Drain (see details below) and they pass through a culvert beneath the A1. Mimmshall Brook is usually a few centimetres deep – even in wet winter weather - and it runs between tall and steep banks which are approximately 2m high relative to the bed of the stream. Trees and bushes grow along the banks. Mimmshall Brook is a watercourse that is under the jurisdiction of the Environment Agency. Some of the land adjacent to this brook is designated by the Environment Agency as Flood Zone 3.

2.3 A shallow drainage ditch crosses the site from west to east, and is marked by

a line of scrub and bushes. This ditch is usually dry; it is not a stream. It has no name, but it is designated as an Ordinary Watercourse. Unlike the Rowley Lane Drain and the Mimmshall Brook, this ditch does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Environment Agency; but rather it is under the jurisdiction of Hertsmere Borough Council as regards the Hertsmere Drainage Byelaws, and of Hertfordshire County Council in as much as they are the Lead Local Flood Authority.

2.4 The application site is part of the land which is identified by Policy SADM9b of

the Hertsmere Local Plan, Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (adopted 2016), as shown on Map K and Map L in the appendix to the Local Plan. The land referred to in Policy SADM9 also includes the small wood and the Holiday Inn hotel: neither of which are parts of this application site (nor are they currently owned by the applicants). The land covered by Policy SADM9 has its northern boundary as a drainage ditch known as the Rowley Lane Drain, which follows an irregular course roughly south-eastwards before it joins Mimmshall Brook and they pass through a culvert beneath the A1. Rowley Lane Drain (like Mimmshall Brook) is a

watercourse that is under the jurisdiction of the Environment Agency. The water in it flows from west to east, and it is usually a few centimetres deep. The land to the north of the drain lies within the Green Belt and it is not covered by Policy SADM9. That land belongs to the applicants, but it is not part of the site for this application.

2.5 To the west of the site lies Rowley Lane, which is a local road connecting the

A1 junction to the south with the village of Well End to the north. On the other side of this road lies the Elstree Way Employment Area, which extends westwards as far as Studio Way and Manor Way. That is land that is allocated for employment (B-class) uses such as warehouses, offices, industrial units, research and development facilities etc. It includes one block of flats, which was formerly an office building but which has been converted to flats under Permitted Development regulations – which is Elstree House on York Crescent.

2.6 To the north of the site lie fields which are within the Green Belt. They are

dotted with trees and crossed by hedges. A single house called Sunnyside Cottage stands among them, fronting onto Rowley Lane. That house is approximately 120m from the northern boundary of the site. Further north, on the other side of Rowley Lane, are the houses on Studio Way and other residential streets. There are some more houses further north up the hill in the village of Well End. The Mops and Brooms pub in Well End has its rear windows and garden looking south. Being on higher ground, it looks over the site; the distance being approximately half a kilometre from the northern boundary of the site. Although that pub is not a listed building, the house adjacent to it – Nelson’s Cottage – is a Grade II nationally listed building. There is another Grade II listed building in the area, which is a barn within Rowley Farm, which is further to the North-East of the pub.

2.7 The application site lies close to the borough’s boundary, but it is entirely

within Hertsmere. The land on both sides of the A1 is within Hertsmere where that road lies to the north of Borehamwood’s A1 junction (i.e. level with this site) but to the south of that junction the land to the east of the A1 is in the London Borough of Barnet.

2.8 The A1 is part of the national Strategic Road Network. Mainly it is under the

jurisdiction of Highways England, but the part that lies south of Borehamwood (into London) is under the jurisdiction of Transport for London (TfL). Local roads in the area are under the jurisdiction of Hertfordshire County Council.

2.9 Most of the site consists of grass land, which is semi-improved land that was

last used as sports fields (see the Planning History below). It is mostly flat. That use as sports fields ceased approximately at the turn of the millennium, since when the grass land has been disused. The strip of land that runs alongside Rowley Lane is not grass but rather it consists of concrete hardstanding, and this makes up approximately a quarter of the site (3.13 hectares of the total 11.34 hectares). A sports pavilion once stood on some of this land, but that was destroyed by fire in November 2001, having previously fallen into disuse. The rest of the hardstanding was used for car parking

associated with the sports fields. In recent years that hardstanding has been used for the parking of vehicles associated with local businesses, including a breakdown recovery business. There is a brick-built electricity substation within this part of the site.

2.10 There are numerous trees in the hedgerows around the periphery of the site,

and a few in its centre. Some of these are large mature oaks – notably some impressive specimens along the boundary with Rowley Lane and along Rowley Lane Drain. There are currently no Tree Preservation Orders on the site. As the site is not in a Conservation Area, there are currently no controls to prohibit the removal of trees within the site.

3.0 THE PROPOSAL 3.1 The proposal is to erect a complex of film studios and ancillary buildings. The

applicants are Legal and General who own the site. Sky / NBC Universal (whose American parent company is Comcast) would lease the site and be the developers and operators of the studios. The development would comprise twelve sound stages, most of which would be in semi-detached pairs or a row of three, and some of which would have office space attached to them (the offices being three or four storeys tall). There would be a multi-storey car park and a reception and administrative block. There would also be two production support buildings: which would be large buildings similar to warehouses, containing mezzanine floors; these would serve as workshops for building sets, working on costumes, props and so on.

3.2 In all there would be 9 buildings as follows:

Sound stages 131 and 132 with attached offices 133 (3 storeys) fronting onto Rowley Lane

Sound stage 141 with attached offices 142 (4 storeys) and the reception / administration building 110 (4 storeys) fronting onto Rowley Lane

Sound stages 151, 152 and 153 with attached offices 154 fronting onto Rowley Lane

Sound stages 161 and 162 backing onto Mimmshall Brook

Sound stages 171 and 172 backing onto a garden with the A1 behind that

Sound stages 181 and 182 backing onto a garden with the A1 behind that

Production support building 121 with attached offices 183 (3 storeys) facing into the central plaza and backing onto Rowley Lane Drain

Production support building 122 facing into the central plaza

Multi-storey car park (5 levels including its ground floor and its open roof deck – note that this was originally to have been one storey taller prior to the amended design being submitted on 18.05.2020)

3.3 There would be circulation space for vehicles and electric buggies to drive

around the site. Each sound stage would have a paved parking area for trailers and lorries in front, which is referred to as its “base camp”, and the ground floor of the multi-storey car park would have a high ceiling so that part of it could serve as an additional “base camp” (the other part of the ground floor would be for disabled parking spaces).

3.4 The open central area of the complex would be a landscaped space forming a

central plaza: partly paved, partly laid to lawn, and set about with trees. This is intended as an outdoor amenity area for staff to use during their breaks, and also for corporate events.

3.5 A series of gardens incorporating three new ponds would be created down the

eastern part of the site, between the buildings and Mimmshall Brook, which runs along that boundary with the A1. These gardens are intended for staff to enjoy during their breaks, but they also play a role in the surface water drainage and flood prevention strategy for the site, as well as being intended to benefit wildlife and increase biodiversity.

3.6 Planting of trees and hedges is proposed around the perimeter of the site.

Along the southern boundary it is proposed to remove some existing trees (see section 7.73 of this report for details). This is necessitated partly by the fact that two of the buildings will be located only a few metres from that southern boundary, and partly by the remodelling of the Mimmshall Brook that the applicants have agreed with the Environment Agency (who have jurisdiction over that watercourse). Along the western boundary with Rowley Lane and also along the northern boundary there are numerous large mature trees, and the proposal is to retain as many of those as possible, and to augment them with newly planted trees and hedge plants. Security fencing is also proposed. There are to be small gardens for the use of the staff between the offices that front onto Rowley Lane and the hedges, trees and fences that will form that boundary.

3.7 There would be three accesses to the site, all being from Rowley Lane. All

three would be supervised and have gates well set in from the public highway, and all would be capable of serving vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists; although the northern entrance (just north of the York Crescent junction) would only be used by vehicles occasionally or in emergencies. Most vehicular traffic would use the southern entrance (opposite the Travelodge hotel and the petrol station) as that would lead directly into the multi-storey car park. The central access (opposite the junction with the gyratory road that connects Rowley Lane with Elstree Way) would serve the reception building, and it would have a small forecourt for dropping off, for the use of taxis and the electric shuttle bus, and for VIP parking.

3.8 The application has been accompanied by numerous supporting documents

which have been produced for the applicants by various specialist consultants. Some of these are stand-alone documents, but most of them are appendices of the Environmental Statement – the paper version of which fills five large lever arch files, plus an Environmental Statement Addendum (submitted later) which fills another two large lever-arch files. Some of the supporting documents are appendices of appendices (i.e. they are sub-appendices) of the Environmental Statement. For a list of the documents that have been submitted please refer to Condition 2 at the end of this report.

3.9 Key Characteristics

Site Area 113,423 square metres = 11.34 hectares

Density Not applicable as this is not a residential development

Mix Not applicable as this is not a residential development

Dimensions Reception & administration building: Max height: 21m, length: 38.2m, width: 25.4m Multi-storey car park: max height (as amended): 17.7m (previously 20.8m), length: 93.4m, width: 64m Sound stages 131,132 & Production Offices 133: max height: 19.5m, length: 92m, width: 67.5m Sound stage 141: max height: 21m, length: 72.5m, width: 55m Sound stages 151, 152, 153 & Production Offices 154: max height: 18m, length: 115m, width: 53.3m Sound stages 161 & 162: max height: 18m, length: 76.7m, width: 52.8m Sound stages 171 & 172: max height: 18m, length: 76.7m, width: 52.8m Sound stages 181 & 182: max height: 18m, length: 76.7m, width: 52.8m Production support building 121 & Production Offices 183: max height: 15.4m, length: 102m, width: 52.6m Production support building 122: max height: 14.3m (previously 15.4m), length: 111m, width: 52.6m

Number of Car Parking Spaces

931, of which 908 would be in the multi-storey car park (revised down from the original proposal which was 1,023, of which 1000 would have been in the MSCP).

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The land was once part of a site that was used by a defence electronic

research business called Elliot, which became part of Marconi Transport Systems. That firm operated nearby before, during and after World War II, and this site was added to it as an extension in the 1950s, although few buildings were erected here. The use of the site for defence electronic research ended in the 1990s.

4.2 The Holiday Inn hotel to the south of the site stands on land which between the 1930s and 1980s was occupied by a mock Tudor style hotel called The Thatched Barn, which was secretly used by the Special Operations Executive (SOE) during World War II for work on camouflage and explosive devices. It was called “Station XV”.

4.3 Elliot / Marconi had its own sports facilities on this site: known as the Elliot

Sports and Social Club. Members of staff at the Council who have been long-term residents of the borough recall that there was a nine hole golf course, football pitches (for Elliots Star Football Club), tennis courts, cricket, indoor bowls and a gym.

4.4 The sports and social club had a pavilion on the site measuring 80m by 20m,

the foundations of which can still be seen. It burned down in November 2001, and a local newspaper article from the time records that it was already disused and boarded up when that occurred. Exactly when the site ceased to be used for sports is difficult to ascertain; but it must have been between June 1997 and November 2001 because a member of staff at the Council who has long resided locally recalls attending a football-related event there in June 1997, and believes that it continued in use for a year or two after that. We can estimate therefore that the turn of the millennium was the approximate date on which the use of the site for sports ceased.

4.5 In the period of approximately twenty years since then the grassed area has

been disused. It no longer resembles sports fields. The hardstanding alongside Rowley Lane has been used for parking vehicles associated with local businesses, including a breakdown recovery service.

4.6 The Planning history for the site consists only of the following records:

Reference Description Outcome and date

20/0153/FUL Enabling works including site levelling, removal of existing structures, erection of 2 substations, 1 switching room and 1 gas housing, stripping of topsoil, formation of a temporary bridge and the temporary storage of topsoil in a bund and associated works.

26 May 2020 Grant Permission

19/1923/EI2 Request for scoping opinion (Environmental Impact Assessment).

Response given by letter on 16 January 2020

14/1735/OUT Outline Planning Application for the Development of a Centre of Sporting Excellence comprising: the Erection of Buildings to accommodate a full size Indoor

Permission subject to/linked to Section 106 26 February 2016 This planning permission

Artificial Pitch, Sports Hall, Sports Academy and Associated Facilities (including Education, Office and Medical facilities); Hotel (including Conference and Leisure Facilities) and Hostel; Office/Commercial and Research Buildings; Community Sports Facility; Outdoor Grass and Artificial Sports Pitches (including Floodlighting); New Access Arrangements, Parking, Landscaping, Infrastructure and Associated Works. (Additional Information received 3/2/15 - Supplementary Environmental Statement)

was not implemented. The Reserved Matters were never submitted for approval. It has now expired.

14/1355/EI2 Request for scoping opinion (Environmental Impact Assessment).

Response Given 17 September 2014

5.0 CONSULTATION & RESPONSES 5.1 Notices

Initially site notices were put up at ten locations on 12.03.2020, with an expiry date of 17.04.2020. This was for the first round of consultation. The expiry date was set to coincide with that of the press notice (see below).

5.2 Following the submission of additional and amended documents on 18th May 2020, a second round of consultation was carried out which entailed replacing all ten of the first batch of site notices. This was done on 27.05.2020. The new site notices had an expiry date (which again was set to coincide with that of the press notice) of 27.06.2020.

5.3 Initially a press notice was published in the Borehamwood Times on 18.03.2020, with an expiry date of 17.04.2020. That was a 30 day period (rather than the usual 21 days) to comply with regulations regarding consultations when an application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement, as in this case. Following the submission of additional and amended documents, a second press notice was published in the Borehamwood Times on 28.05.2020, with an expiry date of 27.06.2020.

5.4 Summary of consultation responses 5.5 The following bodies and organisations were consulted:

Consultee Date Consulted

Cadent Gas Limited (Previously National Grid Company Plc )

5th and 16th March 2020

Sport England 16 March 2020

Elstree & Borehamwood Residents Association 5 March 2020

Well END Ers (Well End residents’ association)

5 March 2020

Natural England Consultation Service 5 March 2020

Heathrow Airport 5 March 2020

Met Office 5 March 2020

Elstree & Borehamwood Town Council 5 March 2020

Sport England 1 April 2020

Elstree Aerodrome 5 March 2020

Drainage Services 5 March 2020

Environmental Health & Licensing 5 March 2020

Policy & Transport - Majors Only 5 March 2020

Policy & Transport - Majors Only ( LW) 5 March 2020

Tree Officer 5 March 2020

HCC Archaeology 5 March 2020

HCC Director Of Public Health 5 March 2020

Thameslink Railway 5 March 2020

Thames Water Development Planning 5 March 2020

Highways England 5 March 2020

Hertfordshire Ecology 5 March 2020

Natural England Consultation Service 5 March 2020

EDF Energy Networks 5 March 2020

HCC Spatial Planning And Economy Unit 5 March 2020

Highways 5 March 2020

Environment Agency 5 March 2020

Place Services - Essex County Council - Conservation Advice 5 March 2020

Place Services - Essex County Council - Urban Design Advice 5 March 2020

Senior Flood Risk And SuDS Officer 5 March 2020

Affinity Water Limited 5 March 2020

Herts & Middlesex Wildlife Trust 5 March 2020

UK Power 5 March 2020

London Borough Of Barnet 5 March 2020

Transport For London 5 March 2020

BBC Operations Manager 5 March 2020

HCC Spatial Planning And Economy Unit 5 March 2020

Uno Bus Company 5 March 2020

Arriva Bus Company 5 March 2020

Transport For London 9 June 2020

5.6 Responses that have been received are set out in the table below. Short

responses are reproduced verbatim; long responses have been summarised and paraphrased by the planning officer for the sake of clarity and brevity, but all these representations are published in their full original form on the Council’s website.

5.7 The table below shows that there are two bodies or officers who are still

objecting to this application: one is Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust which is a local environmental charity (not to be confused with Hertfordshire Ecology which is a department of Hertfordshire County Council) and the other is the council’s own Trees Officer. Hertfordshire County Council’s Flood Risk and Drainage unit had initially objected, but they subsequently removed their objection in the light of the additional and amended documents that were submitted on 18th May, and in light of the fact that the Environment Agency had supported the application. It should also be noted that Transport for London have expressed some reservations about the proposal – albeit they have written in their second letter (responding to the additional and amended submissions) that they are now less concerned than they had initially been. In considering how much weight to afford to these representations, members of the Planning Committee should bear in mind that Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust are not a statutory consultee (and also that they are not to be confused with Herts Ecology, which is part of the County Council), that none of the trees on the site are protected because it is not in a Conservation Area and there are currently no Tree Preservation Orders here, and that Transport for London has no jurisdiction in Hertsmere, which is not a London borough and is not covered by the London Plan nor by any of TfL’s guidance documents (although TfL do have a legitimate interest in traffic flows on the section of the A1 that lies to the south of Borehamwood and into London).

Consultees Response

Drainage Services Hertsmere Borough Council

A response was received on 31.03.2020 VERBATIM: These comments relate to land drainage matters that are not areas of interest covered by the Environment Agency and / or Hertfordshire County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority. Please apply planning condition CG01, standard drainage condition, and CG02, Drainage Impact Study, to this application. There is an Ordinary Watercourse crossing the site which is subject to Hertsmere Borough Council Land Drainage Byelaws, HBC is the Land Drainage Authority for the Hertsmere area. No building works within 9m of the watercourse without prior consent from HBC. This is a separate requirement to the planning process and that of the Lead Local Flood Authority. ………………..…………………………………………………… FURTHER COMMENTS On 08.06.2020 further comments were received, in response to a second round of consultation on amended and additional plans and documents that had been received on 19.05.2020. The further comments were identical to the first set of comments. ………………………………………………………………………

PLANNING OFFICER’S NOTE The second representation that was received from Hertfordshire County Council in their capacity as the Lead Local Flood Authority (see below) also requested conditions relating to drainage. To avoid duplication, the wording that the County Council requested is to be used for those conditions (Conditions 9, 10 & 11). Both the borough and county councils state that their consent is required for works affecting an Ordinary Watercourse: in the former case because of local byelaws in the latter case because the County Council are the Lead Local Flood Authority. An informative note will be applied to make this clear.

Environmental Health & Licensing Hertsmere Borough Council

A response was received on 03.04.2020 as regards CONTAMINATED LAND matters. SUMMARY A condition should be applied to require further site investigations for contaminated land. Because of the hardstanding having had tenants on it, so far it has not been possible to test beneath that concrete for contamination. The land around the electrical substation should be tested in case the decommissioning works resulted in any contamination. In the past the site was once used as part of a defence industry site, so consideration should be given to whether there is any residual radiation on the site. A remediation strategy should be required, with a separate condition requiring the submission of a validation statement once the remediation works are completed. Water pipes to the development should be barrier protected to guard against contaminants. It is possible that the site might have been targeted by German bombing during WWII, given its use by the defence industry. An unexploded bomb survey should therefore be required by a condition. ……………………………………………………………………….. A response was received on 07.04.2020 as regards NOISE. SUMMARY: An inconsistency was noted between the Construction Environment Management Plan and the Environmental Statement chapter J (Noise & Vibration) regarding the proposed working hours. Both refer to working hours at the weekends that would be outside the hours at which Environmental Health normally permit noisy construction works. For that reason the Environmental Health Officer agrees with the proposal in the Construction Environment Management Plan that the developers should apply to Environmental Health for permission to work outside the normal working hours of

08:00 to 18:00 on weekdays or 08:00 to 13:00 if that work would be audible outside the site’s boundaries. This would be an application under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (i.e. not a Planning application). ……………………………………………….……………………… A response was received on 14.04.2020 as regards AIR QUALITY. SUMMARY: The Environmental Health Officer disagreed with the methodology that had been used in the Environmental Statement as regards air quality issues. ……………………………………………………………………….. Following the submission of an additional document on AIR QUALITY (responding to the points raised by Environmental Health) the Environmental Health Officer reviewed that document and made additional comments on 12.05.2020 as summarised below: SUMMARY: Queries were raised about the locations of some of the receptors. It was suggested that diffusion tubes on Elstree Way could be used in the report. …………………………………………..………………………….. Following some correspondence and a telephone conversation between the Environmental Health Officer and the applicants’ consultants on the subject of AIR QUALITY, the EH officer wrote on 19.05.2020 that she now considered the proposals to be acceptable; albeit she hoped that air quality can be improved through the provision of the electric shuttle bus and other sustainability measures.

Tree Officer Hertsmere Borough Council OBJECTS

A first response was received on 06.04.2020 VERBATIM: An arboricultural impact assessment has been submitted, this identifies the need to remove approximately 30 trees for the proposal (including 3 Cat A and 11 Cat B trees). Overall an estimated 83% of trees on site are suitable for retention with the current scheme. With proposed planting, the loss of the 30 trees is deemed to be acceptable given the mitigation offered. The requirement to excavate within the RPA of a number of retained trees is briefly covered within the AIA, the major concern with this is that the report implies that should any roots be encountered (highly

likely within an RPA) that the trees will be removed rather than incorporated. This approach is unacceptable, particularly as the initial TPP indicates the requirement for excavation within the RPA of multiple Cat B trees. This briefly considered potential for loss is not covered by the reports summary that only 30 trees are required for removal nor is the potential impact of these losses on retained trees covered. A subsequent arboricultural method statement should be submitted providing further detail into recommendations within the AIA and a final TPP produced. ……………………………………….……………………………….. A second response was received on 09.06.2020. This was in response to the revised and additional documents that had been submitted on 18th/19th May. VERBATIM: Amendments to plans and additional proposed works such as the alteration to the brook are not reflected in the previously submitted arb documents. As such these documents are no longer relevant and an updated arboricultural impact assessment must be submitted to take into account changes to the proposal. ……………………………………………………….………………… PLANNING OFFICER’S NOTE: In fact an updated arboricultural impact assessment had already been submitted: it was included in the revised and additional documents that were submitted on 18th May as Appendices 4 and 5 of the Environmental Statement Addendum. The Planning Officer has written to the Trees Officer to point this out, but no further comments have been received.

Place Services (historic environment consultants to Hertsmere Borough Council)

A response was received on 16.04.20 VERBATIM: Built Heritage Advice pertaining to an application for the development of film/production studios (use class B1b) and ancillary floorspace, new access arrangements, car parking, landscaping, infrastructure and associated works. When considering this application there are two Grade II listed buildings which warrant consideration. These are both situated to the north of the application site: • Nelson Cottage (HE Ref: 1103547)

• Barn at Rowley Farm (HE Ref: 1103548) Heritage is considered in chapter 7 of the applicants Planning Statement (Pg.29-31). The historic development of the area is shown

within the Design and Access Statement though this does not focus on these heritage assets. Given the distance between the application site and the aforementioned heritage assets, which includes a number of field boundaries, I do not consider the proposed to have a significant impact upon their setting. Each would retain an agrarian context. Whilst the consideration of heritage does not explore issues of light pollution or noise, I consider it very unlikely that the impact would be to an unacceptable level when compared with the existing situation. As such, I do not object to permission being granted.

Archaeology Officer Hertfordshire County Council

A response was received dated 17.04.2020 SUMMARY The County Council refer to their letter of 08.01.2020 in which they commented on the recent application (19/1923/EI2) for an Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Opinion. The County Council note that, although the applicants’ consultant have carried out a study in the form of a geophysical survey of the site (which found no evidence to suggest there are archaeological remains under the site) this was not done under the supervision of the County Council and the methodology used did not accord with their guidance; therefore the County Council consider that it might be necessary to repeat those investigations if (as they recommend) a planning condition is applied to require further studies. The County Council write that they consider it likely that the development could have an impact on heritage assets of archaeological interest, and therefore they recommend that 3 conditions should be applied to the planning permission, for which they provide suggested wording. The first would be a pre-commencement condition requiring the submission of a written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation. The second would require that the development be carried out in accordance with the agreed Scheme of Investigation. The third would be a pre-occupation condition preventing use of the site until the site investigation and post-investigation assessments have been completed. ………………………………………………………………………… PLANNING OFFICER’S NOTE This letter of 17.04.2020 mentions that “we believe that the proposed development is such that it should be regarded as likely to have an impact on heritage assets,” but it does not give any detail as to why HCC believe that to be likely, or what those heritage assets might be. In their previous letter of 08.01.2020 (regarding the EIA Scoping application 19/1923/EI2) HCC had written that they did not consider it likely that this site, being on low lying ground and on London clay,

would have been favoured for Roman or prehistoric settlement, and they wrote that there was no reason to suppose that Anglo Saxon or medieval remains would be likely to be here either. The application has been accompanied by a geophysical survey which has found no evidence to suggest any likelihood of archaeological remains being beneath the site. The National Planning Policy Framework states that a Local Planning Authority should not apply conditions to a planning permission unless they are necessary to prevent harm, directly relevant to the site and reasonable. This applies to all conditions, but especially to pre-commencement conditions. Given that there does not seem to be any particular reason to suppose that there are likely to be archaeological remains beneath this site, it is difficult to see how the three conditions that the County Council are now recommending could be justified.

Hertfordshire Ecology Hertfordshire County Council

A first response was received on 05.05.2020 SUMMARY While the Hertfordshire Environmental Records Centre holds no evidence of notable species or habitats at the site, surveys and an Ecological Impact Assessment have been undertaken by the applicants which HCC regard as robust and up to date. HCC agree with the conclusion of the Ecological Impact Assessment that mitigation measures will be needed to ensure that the construction and operation will not result in harm to the watercourse habitat, loss of potential bat roosting opportunities and light spill on neighbouring habitats to the north, east and south. HCC accept the application’s proposal that these mitigation measures should be delivered via a Construction Environmental Management Plan and a Landscape & Ecological Management Plan, which can be controlled by a condition. Such an approach is regarded as thorough and robust. However existing and emerging policy and legislation expects development to deliver a net gain in biodiversity, and the current proposals cannot guarantee this. Although not mandatory, offsetting metrics are a tool for quantifying loss or gain of biodiversity. Metrics have not yet been submitted because the applicants are unable to do that until they have finalised the details of their river realignment proposals. Discussions have already taken place between HCC Ecology and Stantec (the applicants’ consultants) about the idea of their making financial contributions, per unit of land lost, towards provision of suitable compensation activities elsewhere. Given the amount of grassland lost, as well as some hedgerows, this might amount to a significant sum. Without having yet seen a final assessment of net biodiversity loss it is not yet possible for HCC

Ecology to reach a conclusion on this matter. They recommend that a decision on ecological matters awaits the completion of a biodiversity offsetting exercise. HCC are willing to provide further advice at that time. ………………………………………………………………………….. PLANNING OFFICER’S NOTE: After that first letter was written (on 05.05.2020) revised and additional documents were submitted on 18.05.2020, including a biodiversity metric, and a second round of consultation took place. ……………………………………….………………………………… SECOND REPRESENTATION RECEIVED FROM HCC ECOLOGY (03.06.2020). VERBATIM: Thank you for your letter dated 22 May 2020 which refers, and for consulting Herts Ecology. We have provided comments on previous iterations of this proposed development most recently by letter of 5 May 2020. Reference to that letter and previous emails and letters is encouraged for essential background information. In our letter of 5 May we identified no objection to the principle of development on this site but noted the absence of a completed biodiversity metric calculation and assessment. Accordingly, we advised that the Council did not have access to the evidence required with which to determine the application if it was to meet the expectations of existing and emerging policy and law. This new consultation provides the metric. It appears to follow contemporary best practice and in so doing identifies a considerable net loss of biodiversity; we have no reason to disagree with its findings. To meet existing policy expectations it is essential that a corresponding ‘offset’ of suitable size and quality can be met or a suitable financial contribution can be agreed. Whilst implementation of the LEMP may play a small part in this, given the general lack of suitable opportunities within the red line boundary, this will have to be secured by an appropriate mechanism for delivery off site. Ideally, this should be in Hertsmere and located in relatively close proximity to the application site. It can be secured via a bespoke legal mechanism to be agreed with the Council or via an independent broker. Fundamentally, it should be guaranteed via inclusion within a s106 planning agreement. We would be happy to advise further on suitable next steps and continue the existing dialogue with the applicant’s agents in this regard. Should this be secured (alongside all other requirements described

in our previous letter for suitable conditions in terms of the CEMP and LEMP, for instance) and shown to be acceptable, all ecological constraints associated with this proposed development would be removed.

Spatial Planning & Economy Unit (Minerals & Waste team) Hertfordshire County Council

A response was received on 06.03.2020 SUMMARY The County Council (in their capacity as the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority) note that the applicants are proposing to produce a Resource Management Plan, and they suggest that this should include the level of detail that would normally be included in a Site Waste Management Plan. It is noted that the applicants propose to re-use crushed concrete and stripped top spoil from the existing site, and this should be detailed. Although it is considered unlikely that significant quantities of contaminants will be found on this site, it is possible that some might be found, in which case they should be disposed of appropriately, as per the relevant regulations. HCC are satisfied with the proposals for managing operational waste, and they approve of the intentions to prevent and reduce waste, such as by not using single use plastics on the site. HCC note that Sky are intending to keep records of their operational waste, and they would be interested to see these records as they could be a useful research resource. ………………………………………………………………….. PLANNING OFFICER’S NOTE A draft version of a Construction Environment Management Plan (which includes proposals for resource management and waste management) has been submitted. Condition 8 will require the submission of a final version.

Highways Dept. Hertfordshire County Council

A response was received on 19.06.2020 SUMMARY: During the planning application consultation period the proposed junction improvements at access point 2 have been subject to a design review process between Hertfordshire County Council and the agents, as a result of which the layout has been amended several times. The revised layout is shown on drawing 46287/5501/051, but further work is needed for construction purposes. HCC are satisfied that all accesses will comply with the Manual For Streets (2007) and with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (2019). It is noted that the proposals seek to significantly improve the pedestrian and cycling environment around the site. All three access points will include access for pedestrians and cyclists. Two new pedestrian crossings are proposed, and the existing pedestrian crossing will be moved to a more suitable location. It is understood that the section 106 agreement will include

a contribution to cycle docking facilities at Elstree and Borehamwood Station, at the site, and in the town centre. The additional demand that the development would be likely to place on local bus services would be low, and it is noted that the development would be served by its own shuttle bus, which will run at zero cost to employees and to visitors to the site. It is expected that a large majority of staff will use the shuttle bus service. The County Council accept the Framework Travel Plan that has been submitted, on the understanding that a more detailed version will be submitted closer to the time of occupation, and that this will be controlled by a condition. The County Council consider that the proposed central location for cycle parking should be reconsidered, and that it might be more effective to spread the cycle parking across the site. They suggest that this be addressed by a condition. The County Council welcome the fact that the applicants have amended their proposal to reduce the size of the multi-storey car park by one storey, and to reduce its capacity to 908 spaces. They consider that 908 space will still comfortably accommodate the likely demand. A further reduction, or other mechanisms such as a Car Park Management Plan might also help to encourage a modal shift towards sustainable transport. The County Council has had detailed discussions with the applicants on proposals to improve the main access junction outside the site, and they have exchanged ideas on how best to remodel that junction. The County Council request that 10 conditions be applied to the planning permission, for which they have supplied their suggested wording. The first is to ensure that the accesses are created and retained as shown on plan 46287/5501/051 revision A, and properly drained. The second is to ensure that visibility splays are provided as shown on plan 46287/5501/051 revision A. The third is to ensure that, prior to first use, the proposed access, servicing, loading, turning and waiting area is laid out, levelled, surfaced and drained as per drawing 19083 P100 revision B, and retained as such thereafter. The fourth requests the submission of a Construction Environment Management Plan. The fifth states that no accesses other than those shown shall be created and that existing access points that are no longer needed shall be closed up. The sixth states that the Proposed Access Strategy Scheme Plan 46287/5501/051 revision A should be implemented prior to commencement and retained thereafter. The seventh condition requires the submission of a full Travel Plan. The eight requires the submission of a car parking management plan. The ninth requires the submission of details regarding electric vehicle charging points. The tenth condition requires the submission of a scheme for cycle parking. Some informative notes are also suggested.

……………………………………………………………………….. PLANNING OFFICER’S NOTE Some of the conditions that the County Council have suggested refer to drawings that do not form part of this planning application, or to works that would be outside the application site. These works will be subject to an agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act (which will be made directly between the applicants and the County Council). A “Grampian condition” can be applied to ensure that the development is not brought into use until the highway improvements have been implemented (see Condition 23).

Flood Risk & Sustainable Drainage Officer Hertfordshire County Council Initially objected but subsequently removed their objection

A first response was received on 25.03.2020 VERBATIM: We understand this application seeks full planning permission for a major development, and we have assessed the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Assessment prepared by Stantec, project reference 46287, document reference 2001, dated February 2020 and the additional information submitted in support to this application. However, the information provided to date does not provide a suitable basis for an assessment to be made of the flood risks arising from the proposed development. We would advise the LPA that the applicant should satisfy the Environment Agency’s requirements for any flood compensation scheme, flood zones modelling and the proposed main river diversion before the LLFA is re-consulted. We therefore object to the grant of planning permission and hold our further comments until the above information is submitted to the LPA. …………………………………………………………………… Following the submission by the applicants of additional and amended documents (on 18.05.2020) HCC reviewed them and they then submitted their further comments dated 12.06.2020, which are summarised below. ………………………………………………….………………... A second response was received dated 12.06.2020 SUMMARY: HCC are now satisfied with the proposed drainage scheme, and they remove their former objection on the understanding that three conditions should be attached to the planning permission. The first

would be a compliance condition to ensure that the proposed measures are implemented; the second would be a pre-commencement condition requiring the submission of a more detailed surface water drainage scheme, and the third would require the submission of a management and maintenance plan for the sustainable drainage system. An informative note regarding the “ordinary watercourse” is also recommended to remind the developers that a consent for any works affecting that will be required from the County Council, separately from planning permission. ………………………………………………………….……….. PLANNING OFFICER’S NOTE Both the borough and county councils note that their consent is required for works affecting an Ordinary Watercourse: in the former case because of local land drainage byelaws, and in the latter case because the County Council are the Lead Local Flood Authority and because of section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991. An informative note should be applied to make this clear (see Informative 9 at the end of this report).

Elstree & Borehamwood Town Council

A response was received on 27.03.2020 VERBATIM: At its meeting on 17 March 2020 the Environment and Planning supported the application which would promote the local Film and TV industry, support employment and a thriving local economy and approved of the shuttle bus element to the plans.

Natural England

A response was received on 06.03.2020 VERBATIM: Based on the plans submitted, Natural England considers that the proposed development will not have significant adverse impacts on statutorily protected nature conservation sites or landscapes. ……………………………………………..……………………….. A further response was received on 29.05.2020 in relation to the second round of consultation regarding the revised and additional documents that had been submitted. SUMMARY: No further comments.

Heathrow Airport

A response was received on 22.05.2020 VERBATIM We have now assessed the above application against safeguarding criteria and can confirm that we have no safeguarding objections to the proposed development.

Met Office

A response was received on 10.03.2020 VERBATIM: Thank you for contacting the Met Office regarding the above application. We have no objections.

Thames Water Development Planning

A response was received on 18.03.2020 VERBATIM: Waste Comments Thames Water would advise that with regard to FOUL WATER sewerage network infrastructure capacity, we would not have any objection to the above planning application, based on the information provided. The application indicates that SURFACE WATER will NOT be discharged to the public network and as such Thames Water has no objection, however approval should be sought from the Lead Local Flood Authority. Should the applicant subsequently seek a connection to discharge surface water into the public network in the future then we would consider this to be a material change to the proposal, which would require an amendment to the application at which point we would need to review our position. Water Comments With regard to water supply, this comes within the area covered by the Affinity Water Company. For your information the address to write to is - Affinity Water Company The Hub, Tamblin Way, Hatfield, Herts, AL10 9EZ. Tel - 0845 782 3333.

Cadent Gas Limited (Previously National Grid Company Plc)

A response was received on 15.03.2020 VERBATIM: Thank you for consulting Cadent Gas for this application. We do not object to the proposal in principle.

Environment Agency

A response was received on 02.06.2020 SUMMARY: The Environment Agency note that the loss of grassland on the site will be the main loss in terms of natural habitat, and that this could be compensated for by provision of alternative habitat off the site, secured through a s106 agreement. They would like to be consulted on that, as they might have relevant projects in the Mimmshall Brook catchment area. They do not object to the application, subject to the inclusion of 3 pre-commencement conditions and 1 informative on the planning permission. They provide the wording for those. The first condition requires more details on the river re-alignment design. The second condition requires the submission for approval of a

compensatory habitat creation and landscape management plan. The third condition requires the submission of a Construction Environment Management Plan. The informative reminds the developers about the need for a Flood Risk Activity Permit.

Herts & Middlesex Wildlife Trust OBJECT

A first response was received on 11.03.2020 SUMMARY: The application does not comply with BS 42020, nor with the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 170, 174 and 175) because no Biodiversity Metric has been applied to calculate what gain or loss there might be. This approach is supported by the Hertsmere Local Plan, Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan 2016 in paragraph 4.2 which states that the Council will consider applying such a metric where appropriate. Excluding onsite mitigation, this development will result in the destruction of approximately 7.5 ha of semi improved grassland habitat. The demonstration of net gain is a requirement of NPPF and the quantification of net impact a requirement of BS 42020. Until the metric has been completed, claims of net gain are unsubstantiated and the development cannot be approved. The baseline impact of the development on the 11.5 hectares of land (assuming the condition of the grassland is moderate) could be approximately 120 biodiversity units. This is a substantial impact which will require a substantial offset. It must be feasibly demonstrated that this offset can be provided before the development can be approved. Offsets must preferentially be located in Hertsmere because that is where the impact on biodiversity will be felt. Offsets must be accountable, supported by legal agreement and guaranteed to meet the required number of biodiversity units. Once the number of units has been agreed, the delivery of these must be secured by a section 106 agreement with clear condition and monitoring targets, that can be enforced. …………………………………………………………………. PLANNING OFFICER’S NOTE: The objection letter is incorrect when it states that the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 170, 174 and 175) requires the submission of a biodiversity metric. That is not the case; none of those paragraphs say that, although they do state that biodiversity is important, that it should be protected and enhanced, and that net gains should be sought. NPPF paragraph 170 makes it clear that protection and enhancement of sites should be “commensurate with

their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan.” This site has no statutory status, nor does it have any status in the Development Plan as regards ecology. The objection letter states that the Hertsmere Local Plan, Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (the letter refers to paragraph 4.2 but actually it is 4.7) states that a biodiversity metric must be submitted with a planning application; but actually that paragraph relates specifically to developments which would threaten a habitat or species that is protected in European or Statutory legislation; which is not applicable in this case as there are no protected habitats or species on this site. No metric was submitted originally (because discussions were then still underway with the Environment Agency about the details of the remodelling of Mimmshall Brook) but one was submitted with the revised and additional documents on 18.05.2020. The Biodiversity Metric Report is Appendix 3 of the Environmental Statement Addendum that was among those documents. In response to the submission of those further documents on 18.05.2020, a second round of consultation was carried out, and a second letter was received from Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust as follows: ………………………………..……………………………………….. A second response was received on 03.06.2020 SUMMARY: The Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust maintain their objection. They consider that, although a biodiversity metric has now been submitted, it has not been correctly populated (details of the alleged errors are given in the objection letter) and therefore its results are inaccurate as regards the sum that should be payable through a s106 agreement to fund habitat improvements off the site. Planning permission should not be granted until this has been resolved. ……………………………………………………………………… PLANNING OFFICER’S NOTE: As is note above, the Wildlife Trust is incorrect in suggesting that the submission of a biodiversity metric is mandatory (although it is likely to become mandatory next year when the Environment Bill becomes law), and this makes the question of whether the metric has been correctly filled in somewhat academic. In the same week that we received this objection from the Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust (who are a local charity and campaigning group) we also received a letter from Hertfordshire Ecology (who are a department of Hertfordshire County Council who provide us with specialist advice on ecology matters) stating that they are satisfied that the submitted biodiversity metric is accurate and that it has followed best practice.

Clearly there is a difference of opinions between the experts in this case - although they all (including the applicants’ consultants) agree that some off-site compensation is called for via the s106 agreement to ensure that there will be a net gain in biodiversity - but the question of exactly how the metric has been filled out seems somewhat academic when one considers that submitting a biodiversity metric at all is not currently compulsory.

London Borough Of Barnet

A holding response was received on 28.05.2020, acknowledging receipt of the consultation notification. No comments were provided. They wrote that they intended to consider the matter and write again, but at the time of writing this report no further communication had been received from them.

Transport For London

A first response was received on 09.04.2020 SUMMARY: TfL are the strategic transport authority for London, with responsibility for the A1 south of Rowley Lane, and for cross boundary bus services 107 and 292. The development proposes over 1,000 car parking spaces, for 1,532 employees. The Transport Assessment indicates that during the AM peak (8-9) that 75% of trips to site will be by car, and a lower percentage (60%) during 7-8 am and evening peak (5-6pm). TfL is concerned that the proposed level of car parking and car dependent nature of the development could undermines London Plan policy due to the additional car trips which would cross the boundary into London and would conflict with National Planning Policy Framework, particularly para 103. TfL advice is that the level of car parking set at the beginning of development should support sustainable mode choices as set out in the London Plan, MTS and NPPF, and should be consistent with London Plan policy which applies to adjacent areas of outer London, where we expect 75% of all trips by public transport, cycling and walking by 2041. TfL would expect the level of car parking will need to be substantially reduced. Based on the number of AM arrivals that would equate to 238 spaces, based on employee numbers it would be 383 spaces. The accessibility and location of bus stops should be reviewed, although that is a matter for the local Highway Authority. TfL may consider installing bus shelters outside London if that is funded by developers. Proposed improvements to infrastructure for cyclists are welcomed. The proposal that 2% of the parking spaces are for disabled users seems low. The proposal to install ducting to allow for more parking spaces to be for electric vehicles in future is welcomed, but this should apply to all of the parking spaces.

Cycle Parking: 160 long stay spaces are proposed, and 20 short stay. This appears to a reasonable level of provision that is 1 space per 10 employees plus 20 short stay spaces. Active Travel Zone (ATZ) is welcome. However, the methodology is not fully in accordance with TfL guidance. …………………………………………………………………….. A second response was received on 05.06.2020 in response to amended and additional documents that had been received on 19.05.2020. TfL submitted further comments as follows. VERBATIM:

1. Welcome reduced car parking. Still the level of car parking does represent a high proportion of trips by car, whilst acknowledging the intention to reduce this dependency further, reducing car parking at the outset would be more effective. (I note the high level Transport Assessment of Hertsmere Local Plan supports mode shift and reduced car dependency – doesn’t look like this being followed here)

2. TfL favour bus stop clearways on the carriageway as giving

priority to buses, rather than bus laybys, more info: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/bus-stop-design-guidance.pdf

3. Bus shelters improve the customer experience of waiting

passengers and help ensure buses are accessible to all users. Shelters are also useful to pedestrians more generally (legibility, place to rest or shelter). TfL bus stops are modular, and narrower version if necessary can be provided. Suggest secure additional funding for shelters where necessary, you can decide if you want to work with TfL or work through your own suppliers. For info, I attached some info about our shelter that TfL uses.

4. Not clear, why the 292 was excluded from the assessment?

5. Can footway be provided on the eastern side of Rowley Lane?

Why no provision for cyclists? Has the risk been assessed?

6. Note removal of segregated cycle provision, as stated it is for the highway authority to review the design. We would encourage the provision of safe cycle routes to site, TfL has prepared a spreadsheet tool to help assess provision: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/cycling This may help make you mind on whether provision is acceptable.

7. I stand by my observations on parking for disabled people, however, it for the Hertsmere / Hertfordshire to decide what is required We should be enabling people access to work, and accept this can be facilitated by accessible buses and shuttle buses; and well-designed cycle provision. Our buses are fully accessible, but this partly relies on bus stop design.

8. Note comments on EV Charging, nothing further to say.

9. On ATZ, if you live in Barnet or Arkley, its 20 minute cycle ride

along Rowley Lane and across the A1. If you are coming from Mill Hill you would cycle along the A1 to Stirling Corner, and come off the A1 from their north.

10. Mode share - we shouldn’t predict and provide, or we won’t

break out of car dependent development.

11. Trip assignment remains unclear to me. Is there independent data that HCC has used to validate the assignment?

12. TfL welcomes that HCC has audited the models. Can TfL see

those audits?

13. As observed above, for cyclist traveling from Barnet or Arkley, they would cross the A1 at Rowley Lane, TfL would support measures to make sure this route is as safe as it could be, and would support measures to reduce road speed to 30 mph. For works on the TLRN, the developer would enter an agreement with TfL under Section 278 of the Highways Act. For works on adjacent highways, we can enter a section 8 agreement. The principles within TfL Vision Zero Action Plan applies to all roads in London.

14. TfL concern is impact from traffic generation delaying buses.

Hence, my comments above. ……………………………………………………………………… PLANNING OFFICER’S NOTE: It should be noted that the site lies within the Borough of Hertsmere, which is not a London Borough and which is not covered by the London Plan; nor is it covered by any of TfL’s guidance documents. Hertsmere Borough Council is the local parking authority, and Hertfordshire County Council are the local highway authority. TfL has no jurisdiction in Hertsmere. However it is accepted that TfL have a legitimate interest in matters pertaining to the volume and flow of traffic on the part of the A1 that lies to the south of the site.

Sport England Although Sport England were not consulted initially, they wrote on 16.03.2020 to state that they would like to comment. Then on

31.3.2020 they submitted comments as summarised below. SUMMARY: The last use of the grassed part of the site was as sports pitches, albeit that was more than five years ago and therefore there was no statutory requirement to consult Sport England. Never the less, they do have comments that they would like to make. They do not consider it necessary to provide sports pitches on the site as part of the development, and neither do they consider it necessary to provide new pitches elsewhere (unless it is possible to insert more pitches on land already used for sports), but they do consider that the applicants should be required to make financial contributions as part of a Section 106 agreement for the qualitative improvements of sports pitches in Borehamwood. They point out that the supporting text of Policy SADM9 (paragraph 3.11b) of the Hertsmere Borough Plan supports this because it includes this sentence, which relates to this particular site: “Any future proposal for employment development would be expected to establish whether there is a need for new or improved playing field provision, in light of the previous use of the site and any current or future community playing field needs.” Sport England further point out that the applicants’ own Planning Statement considers this issue in paragraphs 7.19 to 7.24 where it refers to an evidence base that Sport England were themselves participants in drawing up: HBC’s Playing Pitch Strategy (2019) which concludes that there are deficiencies in Borehamwood as regards the provision of football and rugby union pitches which should be addressed through qualitative improvements of existing facilities. In conclusion, Sport England do not object to the proposal, but they request that a Section 106 contribution be required towards qualitative improvements to existing football and rugby union pitches in Borehamwood. ……………………………………………………………………… PLANNING OFFICER’S NOTE There would be no justification for requiring financial contributions to sports facilities in this case because the proposed development would not result in the loss of any existing sports fields or sports facilities. It is true that the site was once used as sports fields, but it fell into disuse twenty years ago.

5.8 Responses from neighbours and the public

Consultation letters were sent (twice) to 331 premises in the vicinity. The second round of consultation was done because amended and additional documents had been submitted on 18.05.2020. The expiry date for the second round of consultation was 27.06.2020. Both batches of letters had a 30 day consultation period (the same was true of the site notices and of the press notice) rather than the usual 21 days because of the special EIA regulations that apply when an application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement – as this was.

In Support

Against Comments Neighbours Notified

Contributors Received

11 1 2 331 14

5.9 Representations received from the public 5.10 Consultation letters were sent (twice because of the second round of

consultation) to 331 local residents. Ten site notices were put up at locations on Rowley Lane, York Crescent, Studio Way, Well End Road and Alexandra Road, and all ten were replaced for the second round of consultation. A press notice was published (twice) in the Borehamwood Times. That newspaper covers Barnet, Potters Bar, Elstree and Borehamwood.

5.11 14 responses have been received from the public. None of them state that

they are opposed to the development of film studios on the site in principle, but some of them raise objections on particular issues (mainly transport related). According to their overall tone they have been categorised as follows: 11 are supportive, two are neutral and 1 has been categorised as an objection. The following is a summary of the points that were raised.

5.12 COMMENTS IN SUPPORT:

This will be a positive development for the local area.

Pleased to see that the area’s traditional industry of film making will be

reinforced by this development. This is a thriving industry with a bright future.

The development will bring prestige to Borehamwood.

The development will provide prosperity to the borough and to the UK by

attracting international investment.

The development will provide a substantial proportion of the 9000 jobs

envisaged in the Local Plan.

Workers at the studios would become new customers for local businesses

such as shops, restaurants etc, thereby contributing to the local economy

generally.

It is to be hoped that workers in the studios will become residents of the

borough: for instance they might choose live near the studios in the new

homes that are planned for the Elstree Way corridor.

The location is well chosen as it will be unlikely to exacerbate Borehamwood’s

traffic congestion, given that it can be accessed directly from the A1, without

having to drive through the town.

The scheme is well designed.

5.13 OBJECTIONS:

Disappointing that only 2% of the parking spaces will be for electric vehicles.

Charging infrastructure should be included in the development so as to

provide future infrastructure for electric vehicles of EVs. [PLANNING

OFFICER’S NOTE: Although the proposal is that only a modest number of

spaces will initially be reserved for EVs (because currently EV ownership is

relatively low) the proposal is that many of the other spaces will be served by

ducting to allow for the easy installation of more charging points in future, as

EVs become more common among the studio’s workforce.]

The proposed shuttle bus to the station is insufficient. A comprehensive

public transport strategy for the wider area is required. [PLANNING

OFFICER’S NOTE: The electric shuttle bus will accommodate up to 60

passengers, and will run at 25 minute frequencies. Hertfordshire County

Council have advised that they consider this adequate.]

If insufficient parking is provided for crews on site they might park on local

streets. [PLANNING OFFICER’S NOTE: Hertfordshire County Council, who

are the local Highway Authority, have advised that they consider the proposed

parking provision to be ample – even now that it has been reduced on the

amended plans]

Figures suggesting that thousands of jobs will be created are mostly referring

to filming and set construction crews who will come in temporarily from all

over the country; those figures are not necessarily referring to permanent jobs

for local people.

Traffic on local roads, including Elstree Way, is already congested at peak

hours, and this problem might be exacerbated by this development.

5.14 NEUTRAL COMMENTS:

CIL funds from the development should be used to improve local

infrastructure including roads around the development, medical and

educational facilities. [PLANNING OFFICER’S NOTE: This type of B-class

development is not liable for CIL contributions. CIL applies mainly to

residential and retail developments. However the upgrading of the public

highway on Rowley Lane and the nearby gyratory system will be funded by a

Section 278 agreement between the developer and Hertfordshire County

Council.

6.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

6.1 National Policy / Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework 2019

Planning Practice Guidance

6.2 The Development Plan The Hertsmere Local Plan comprising the following three documents:

Core Strategy (adopted 2013)

Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (adopted 2016)

Elstree Way Corridor Area Action Plan (adopted 2015)

The following County Council documents also form parts of the Development Plan:

Hertfordshire Minerals Local Plan Review 2002-2016 (adopted March 2007)

Hertfordshire Waste Core Strategy & Development Management Policies

(adopted November 2012)

Hertfordshire Waste Site Allocations Document (adopted July 2014)

Relevant policies from the Hertsmere Local Plan:

Core Strategy 2013:

The most directly relevant policy in this case is CS11, as it relates specifically to the

promotion of film and TV studios developments in Borehamwood.

SP1 Creating sustainable development

SP2 Presumption in favour of sustainable development

CS10 Land use within employment areas

CS11 Promoting film and television production in Hertfordshire

CS12 The Enhancement of the natural environment

CS16 Environmental impact of new development

CS17 Energy and CO2 reductions

CS22 Securing a high quality and accessible environment

CS24 Development and accessibility to services and employment

Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan 2016:

The most directly relevant policy in this case is SADM9 as it relates specifically to

this site.

SADM5 Employment areas

SADM9 Safeguarded land for employment development

SADM10 Biodiversity and habitats

SADM11 Landscape character

SADM12 Trees landscaping and development

SADM13 The water environment

SADM14 Flood risk

SADM16 Watercourses

SADM19 Waste storage in new development

SADM20 Environmental pollution and development

SADM21 Hazardous substances

SADM30 Design principles

SADM40 Highway and access criteria for new development

7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that

'If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purposes of any

determination to be made under the Planning Acts, the determination must be

made in accordance with the development plan unless material consideration

indicate otherwise'.

7.2 Principle of Development 7.3 Policy CS11 (Promoting Film and Television Production in Hertsmere) of the

Hertsmere Local Plan, Core Strategy (2013) is as follows: “To promote film and television production industry in the Borough, the Council will support proposals relating to film and television production and ancillary or associated uses in Borehamwood. Proposals to develop, refurbish and upgrade film and television studios will be supported, subject to environmental constraints and other relevant polices.”

7.4 This site falls within the area defined by Policy SADM9 (Safeguarded Land

For Employment Development) of the Hertsmere Local Plan: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (adopted 2016). This is one of two areas defined by that policy as having been safeguarded for development as employment land. The area defined by part B of the policy is this site plus the land to the south on which the Holiday Inn is located.

7.5 In planning parlance “employment uses” are those which fall within the B

classes of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, which are: B1a (offices other than those within class A2), B1b (research and development uses such as laboratories and studios, B1c (light industry), B2 (heavy industry), and B8 (storage and distribution). The proposal is the erection of a complex of film studios, which would fall within Use Class B1b,

and that would be consistent with Policy SADM9 which safeguards this site for any “employment use”.

7.6 A condition should be applied to ensure that the studios complex, once

established, cannot be changed to some other use under Permitted Development regulations without having been properly scrutinised through an application for planning permission (see Condition 24). Other uses could have significantly different impacts on the area – for instance as regards traffic movements – and for this reason, given the large size of the development, the usual Permitted Development rights should be limited in this case.

7.7 It is clear that this proposal complies with Policy CS11 which supports the

development of film and television studios in Borehamwood, and that it complies with Policy SADM9 which safeguards this particular site for employment development. The proposal should therefore be regarded as acceptable in principle; subject to an assessment of its environmental and other impacts.

7.8 Employment and socio-economic benefits 7.9 A film or TV studio is an “employment use” (i.e. a B-class use) because it falls

under Use Class B1b (which applies to research and development uses including laboratories and studios).

7.10 This site is located within an area that is safeguarded by Policy SADM9b

(Safeguarded Land for Employment Development) of the Hertsmere Local Plan: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (adopted 2016). The policy includes this site and also the land to the south on which the Holiday Inn is located. As this site is adjacent to the existing Elstree Way Employment Area, this development would have the effect of enlarging that employment area so that it would extend from the A1 in the east as far as Manor Way in the west – making it a large area of economic activity.

7.11 For the last two decades approximately three quarters of this land (the

grassed area which covers 8.21 of the site’s 11.34 hectares) has been disused, making no contribution to the borough’s economy and providing no jobs. The smaller portion that is covered by hardstanding has been used by some local firms for the parking of their vehicles – one example being a vehicle breakdown recovery business - but this has generated only a few jobs.

7.12 The nature of film studios is that they are rented out to film production

companies, so many of the jobs that will be created will not be conventional full time permanent posts; but the applicants’ consultants estimate that the studios would provide the equivalent of 1,532 full time permanent jobs (of which 1,468 would be in the production of film and TV content and 64 would be managing or maintaining the studios). An Economic Impact report by consultants Oxford Economics (in Appendix G1 of the Environmental Statement) concludes that, in terms of the overall number of jobs that is likely to be generated each year (i.e. not necessarily full time or permanent) the

estimate is that 7,100 jobs per annum would be generated as a result of the development.

7.13 Of course some of these will be permanent jobs involved in the administration,

management and functioning of the studios complex. It should be noted that Sky already has a large complex of TV studios (whereas these would be film studios) located not far away at Osterley, on the western edge of London, and there are likely to be synergies between the two sites.

7.14 Borehamwood was once famous for having several major film studios (they

named themselves after the nearby village of Elstree because Borehamwood scarcely existed as a town when the first studio was built here in the early twentieth century) and it still has two: the Elstree Studios (owned by the Council) and the BBC Studios Elstree. Although these are both busy and productive establishments, they are not of a size to compare with the major studios complexes a few kilometres away at Leavesden (on the edge of Watford) and at Pinewood (near Slough). However the proposed development would make Borehamwood and Elstree a significant participant in the UK’s film making community. The proposed development would have twelve large sound stages: making it approximately the same size (in terms of the number of stages, albeit not in area and without a backlot for outdoor shooting) as Leavesden Studios (which has either 11 or 13 sound stages depending on how they are configured, as two of them can be divided, with one of the stages containing a deep water pool), and making it nearly half the size (again in terms of the number of stages) of Pinewood (which until recently had 16 sound stages, but which has built an extension on adjacent land and now has 24 sound stages, 3 TV studios, 1 underwater stage and 1 external water tank). If one considers the offer that Borehamwood / Elstree would represent as a whole (i.e. Sky Studios, plus Elstree Studios which has 7 sound stages, plus BBC Elstree Studios) it is clear that the town would once again be a major contributor to the UK’s film and TV industry.

7.15 The Economic Impact report (appendix G1 of the Environmental Statement)

by Oxford Economics (consultants to the applicants) concludes that the demand for film studios in the UK is such that all the existing major studios are operating at capacity much of the time, or tied up with exclusivity deals with other film production companies, and that the proposed Sky Studios would therefore not be depriving existing studios in the UK of business, but rather it would be augmenting them and helping the UK to attract business from overseas. The development would strengthen the existing cluster of studios that are located close to each other in Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Surrey namely: Pinewood, Leavesden, Shepperton and Elstree. Bolstering an existing cluster of specialist businesses in this way is an approach that is encouraged by paragraph 82 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which states that: “planning policies and decisions should recognise and address the specific locational requirements of different sectors. This includes making provision for clusters or networks of knowledge and… creative… industries.”

7.16 The conclusion of the Economic Impact report is that operations at the new studios would contribute £720 million to the UK’s annual gross domestic product, and that it would support nearly £140 million in annual tax revenues.

7.17 To ensure that economic benefits are felt at the local level, Condition 14 (set

out at the end of this report) will require the submission of a Training and Employment Management Strategy which must be approved before the development can be brought into use as film studios. The strategy should promote training and employment opportunities for people who live or study in the borough, including details of apprenticeships and of engagement with local education providers.

7.18 No Loss of Sports Fields 7.19 A representation has been received from Sport England, who recommend that

funds should be sought via the Section 106 agreement (which is a “planning obligation”) to fund improvements to local football or rugby pitches; the rationale being that the site was once used as sports facilities.

7.20 However it should be noted that it was twenty years ago that those sports

pitches and facilities fell into disuse. This development will not result in the loss of any sports facilities. Paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) states that: “Planning obligations must only be sought where they meet all the following tests: (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development, and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.”

7.21 It is the opinion of the planning officer that the suggested sports contribution

would not meet those tests, and that therefore the Council would not be justified in requiring such a contribution. However there are some other matters that are considered to be justified as regards Section 106 contributions (particularly as regards transport, employment and training) and these are addressed in section 8.3 of this report.

7.22 Green Belt 7.23 The neighbouring land to the north between Rowley Lane Drain and Well End

is Green Belt, and some of that land belongs to the applicants. The fields on the other side (i.e. to the east) of the A1 are also covered by a Green Belt designation. However the application site itself is not Green Belt land. Policy SADM9 states that this site is safeguarded for development in the employment use classes – although it does say that for the purposes of any other (i.e. non-B class) proposed development its former status as Green Belt land should be respected. The Green Belt will not lose its open character as a result of this development; the site itself will no longer appear “open” but it is not part of the Green Belt.

7.24 Design and Visual Impact

7.25 The site is safeguarded by policy SADM9 of the Hertsmere Local Plan for a development in the employment (i.e. B-class) uses, which could include warehouses or office buildings for example, as well as studios or laboratories. Clearly therefore the principle of allowing large buildings on this site is consistent with the adopted Local Plan.

7.26 The buildings would have roofs that would appear to be flat when seen from

the ground because their hipped and ridged roofs would have shallow pitches and they would be concealed behind parapets.

7.27 The main architectural feature would be the bold horizontal “gateway”

structure beside the central entrance, which would give the development an obvious focal point, and which would provide a sense of arrival to those who pass beneath it and into the landscaped central plaza. The reception office would be located beside this gateway feature.

7.28 Several of the neighbouring buildings on the opposite side of Rowley Lane

and on York Crescent are large. Estimated heights of these are provided in the Design and Access Statement (section 3.14) for instance Elstree Tower (an office building which stands opposite this site) is approximately 26m tall, which is taller than any building that is proposed by this application. Elstree House (a former office building on York Crescent which is now flats) is approximately 24m tall.

7.29 The proposed buildings would vary between 15.4m tall (the production

support buildings) and 21m tall (the reception / administration building and Sound Stage 141). Most of the sound stages would be 18m tall, but one would be 21m tall. When the scheme was revised (amended plans were submitted on 18.05.2020) the multi-storey car park was reduced in height by one storey: it would now be 17.7m tall. The heights of the buildings are given in the Key Characteristics table in section 3.9 of this report.

7.30 Inevitably film sound stages are large structures, as they must be to

accommodate large film sets. For comparison, the Council’s own Elstree Studios in the centre of Borehamwood has sound stages that are 15m tall (Stage 1 also known as the George Lucas Stage, and Stage 2) and 9.8m tall (Stages 5, 6 ,7 ,8 and 9). The George Lucas Stage can be seen by anyone standing in the adjacent car park of the Tesco store. The sound stage buildings that are proposed by this application would mostly be 18m tall, except for one which would be 19.5m and another that would be 21m (see the Key Characteristics table in section 3.2 of this report for all the building heights).

7.31 A large site on the opposite side of Rowley Lane to this site is currently being

developed as a new complex of large modern warehouses. That site is known as the former Sainsbury’s distribution depot site. Outline planning permission 19/0401/OUT was granted in July 2019 for that development, allowing the buildings to be up to 11m tall in one part of the site (the part where the first building is currently being erected, which is adjacent to a residential area) and up to 18m tall on the remainder of the site. That height

of 18m is similar to most of the buildings that are now proposed for the Sky Studios development (although the tallest are to be 21m). In comparing the proposed building heights on the two sites it is worth remembering that the former Sainsburys’ Distribution Depot site has the amenity of its neighbours to consider, whereas the Sky site has no neighbours so overshadowing would not be a problem in this case.

7.32 Modern warehouses (as on the former Sainsbury’s Distribution Depot site

across Rowley Lane) and modern film studios are both large rectangular buildings, so comparison of the two sites is pertinent. An issue to consider is the colour of the proposed buildings, because colour can make a significant difference to the way in which a large building imposes itself upon a street-scene or upon a landscape. Most of the warehouses that have been consented on the former Sainsburys’ site (except for Unit 2 which will front onto Elstree Way) are to be dark grey, which gives them a solid and “heavy” appearance; albeit that is not inappropriate on an industrial estate. That palette is in contrast to the proposed Sky Studios buildings, most of which (apart from the multi-storey car park and the central Production Support buildings) are to be a very light grey.

7.33 Light colours make large buildings appear less dominant and obtrusive when

seen against the sky. Pinewood Studios have recently built an extension to their studios complex in which all of the new buildings are a very pale colour. As part of the presentation at the Committee meeting the planning officer will show members a photograph of the new Pinewood development which illustrates that this approach to their palette has successfully enabled those large new buildings at Pinewood Studios to appear self-effacing in the otherwise open landscape in which they are located.

7.34 There is to be some variation in colours and tones across the development so

as to make a clear visual distinction between different types of buildings. Thus the sound stages will all be finished in light grey, while the office buildings will be a mixture of light and dark grey, and the production support buildings (in the centre of the site) will be finished in a darker grey. The large doorways to the sound stages will be marked out in a copper coloured finish.

7.35 The multi-storey car park will be partly open-sided rather than being a solid

building, but it will partly be clad in “scrims” which are fabric screens that are tied to the exterior of the building and held taught. At the presentation to the committee meeting the officer will show members a photograph of a similar design approach already taken at Sky’s existing TV studios site at Osterley. They can be changed easily; for instance to have advertising printed on them promoting a newly released film. Signage will require separate applications for Advertisement Consent, and is therefore not considered in this report; but the planning officer has advised the applicants that the preferred approach will be to favour some limited signage on the multi-storey car park, rather than allowing advertisements along the whole perimeter of the site. The advice given has been that some signage within the site itself, which would not be visible from the street (for instance facing into the central plaza) might also be permitted.

7.36 Heritage Impact 7.37 This site is not located in a Conservation Area. There are only two heritage

assets nearby, which are both nationally listed buildings (both Grade II) that are located half a kilometre or more to the north of the site. They are Nelson’s Cottage (Historic England Ref: 1103547) which stands adjacent to the Mops and Brooms public house in Well End, and a barn at Rowley Farm (HE Ref: 1103548) which is to the north-east of that pub.

7.38 Shortly before this application was submitted the planning officer visited the

site with the Council’s Built Heritage Consultant (Place Services) who considered the proposal as regards its potential to impact the setting of the two Grade II listed buildings. The Built Heritage Consultant has now reviewed the application and made the following comments:

“Given the distance between the application site and the aforementioned heritage assets, which includes a number of field boundaries, I do not consider the proposed to have a significant impact upon their setting. Each would retain an agrarian context. Whilst the consideration of heritage does not explore issues of light pollution or noise, I consider it very unlikely that the impact would be to an unacceptable level when compared with the existing situation. As such, I do not object to permission being granted.”

7.39 Archaeology 7.40 This application was preceded by an application for a scoping opinion as to

what topics should be covered in the Environmental Statement (that ES is now included with this application). Hertfordshire County Council has an archaeology unit which provides us with advice, and they were consulted on the EIA scoping opinion application, as well as on this current application.

7.41 In their response to the EIA Scoping Opinion application HCC’s archaeology

unit wrote that they did not consider it necessary to scope the subject of archaeology into the Environmental Statement (although they did write that they would like to see relevant conditions applied to the planning permission) because they did not think it likely that there would be any archaeological remains beneath this site – their reasons being firstly that the site is on low lying ground and on London clay, whereas prehistoric and Roman settlements did not tend to favour such sites, and secondly that investigations that had been carried out on comparable sites in the county had found nothing.

7.42 Although the County Council had advised that it would not be necessary to

scope archaeology into the Environmental Statement, the applicants have nevertheless addressed archaeology in their submission; not in the Environmental Statement, but as two separate supporting documents: the Archaeological Desk Based Assessment and the Geophysical Survey (both by RPS Group and both dated February 2020). These conclude that the likelihood of archaeological remains or artefacts being beneath the site is low. The geophysical magnetometer survey that they had conducted (by SUMO

Geophysics Ltd in November 2019) found nothing to suggest that archaeological remains might lie beneath the site.

7.43 A letter has been received from Hertfordshire County Council’s archaeology

unit (dated 17.04.2020) in response to the consultation on the application that is before us now. They complain that the applicants’ consultants did not inform them of, or involve them in, the geophysical survey when it was being carried out in November; and they write that, because they did not supervise it and because their preferred methodology was not used, it might be necessary for the applicants to undertake that study again.

7.44 The County Council write that they consider it likely that the development

could have an impact on heritage assets of archaeological interest, and therefore they recommend that 3 conditions should be applied to the planning permission - for which they provide suggested wording. The first would be a pre-commencement condition requiring the submission of a written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation. The second would require that the development be carried out in accordance with the agreed Scheme of Investigation. The third would be a pre-occupation condition preventing use of the site until the site investigation and post-investigation assessments have been completed.

7.45 This letter of 17.04.2020 includes this statement: “We believe that the

proposed development is such that it should be regarded as likely to have an impact on heritage assets,” but the letter does not explain why HCC believe that to be likely, nor does it explain what those heritage assets might be. This seems to be inconsistent with their previous letter of 08.01.2020 (regarding the EIA Scoping application 19/1923/EI2) in which they had written that they did not consider it likely that this site - being on low lying ground and on London clay – would have been favoured for Roman or prehistoric settlement, and they had written that there was no reason to suppose that Anglo Saxon or medieval remains would be likely to be found here either.

7.46 We should consider whether the three conditions that the County Council are

requesting would be justified in Planning terms. The application has been accompanied by an archaeological desk based assessment and by a geophysical survey, which have found no evidence to suggest any likelihood of archaeological remains being beneath the site. The National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 55) states that a Local Planning Authority should not apply conditions to a planning permission unless they are: “necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects”. This applies to all conditions, but especially to pre-commencement conditions. Given that there does not seem to be any particular reason to suppose that there are likely to be archaeological remains beneath this site, it is difficult to see how the three conditions that the County Council are now recommending could be justified. For this reason the list of conditions at the end of this report does not include the three that were requested by the County Council’s archaeology unit.

7.47 Impact on Neighbours

7.48 This is not a residential area, although there is one nearby to the north. The site’s neighbours to the west are commercial premises in the Elstree Way Employment Area; to the east is the A1 with nothing beyond it but fields; to the south is a small wood, and to the north are fields. This area is therefore not particularly sensitive as regards problems of noise nuisance. For this reason it is not considered necessary to impose time limits on the works during the construction period in the way that would typically be done by means of a condition if a site were in a residential area.

7.49 However there are two hotels located to the south of the site - the Holiday Inn

and the Travelodge - and Elstree House is a former office building nearby on York Crescent that has been converted to flats. Sunnyside Cottage stands approximately 120 metres to the north of the site, and there are streets of houses beyond that to the north (in Well End) and the west (the aptly named Studio Way etc).

7.50 Given that it has no immediate residential neighbours, there is no reason to

prohibit quiet works from being undertaken at any time. Planning conditions should only be applied if they are necessary. Regardless of any planning permission that might have been granted, the council’s Environmental Health service has powers to take enforcement action against noise that constitutes a statutory nuisance – for instance because it is occurring at unsociable hours. An informative note should be applied to remind the applicants of this. This approach of applying an informative rather than a condition has been agreed between the planning officer and the Environmental Health officers.

7.51 The application has been accompanied by a Draft Construction Environment

Management Plan which includes an Outline Construction Logistics Plan and an Outline Site Waste Management Plan. These set out how the developers propose to carry out the works so as to minimise disturbance to neighbours. The draft CEMP includes a proposal that they will use contractors who are members of the national Considerate Constructors Scheme. It also undertakes to install an information board on the outside of the site hoardings with contact details for queries or complaints. Given that these are draft and outline versions of these documents, a condition should be applied to require the submission of final versions (see Condition 9).

7.52 Some committee members might be familiar with Leavesden Studios which

are located on the edge of the neighbouring town of Watford. That complex includes a similar number of sound stages (11 or 13 as two of them are flexible stages that can be divided in two) to this proposal (which would have 12 sound stages) but Leavesden Studios also has a large backlot for outdoor filming, and they sometimes leaflet local residents to warn them when noisy outdoor filming is scheduled. The proposed Sky Studios would have no backlot and all of its filming would be done indoors. The sound stages are designed to be heavily sound-proofed so as to prevent external noise from interfering with filming inside; but it would also have the reverse benefit of ensuring that no noise would emanate from the studios, and therefore there is no risk of noise nuisance from filming affecting residents of Well End or Studio Way etc.

7.53 The issue of vehicular movements is considered elsewhere in this report; but

as regards the potential to disturb residents to the north the following should be noted. Of the three proposed vehicular entrances (all of which would be gated and controlled) the northern access would be the closest to the residential areas of Well End, Studio Way etc, but this would be rarely used by vehicles except in emergencies or for special deliveries. The middle access would be outside the reception office, but this access would be used only by taxis, the shuttle bus, VIPs etc. Most of the vehicular traffic would come and go via the southern access, adjacent to the multi-storey car park, which is as far away from the residential areas of Well End and Studio Way as is possible.

7.54 Highways, Parking and Transport 7.55 The site’s location near the junction with the A1 (which itself is connected to

the M25 a short drive to the north) means that most of the traffic coming to or from the site will not need to pass through Borehamwood itself, or indeed through any built up or residential area. It is intended that some local people will be employed or apprenticed at the site (see Condition 14) but local residents are more likely to use buses or to cycle to the site than are people who come from further afield.

7.56 A Transport Assessment has been submitted as Appendix D1 of the

Environmental Statement. It contains an analysis of the existing highways context, it sets out the proposals as regards the three access points to the site and improvements to be made to the public highway in partnership with Hertfordshire County Council (to be controlled through a section 278 agreement) and it analyses what effects these changes would have on traffic flows.

7.57 There is an existing cycle lane along Rowley Lane, but this is only alongside

the southern part of the site. It is to be retained and extended northwards by creating a new section of shared cycle and pedestrian track on the verge, running along the whole length of the site. To improve the pedestrian infrastructure an existing controlled crossing on Rowley Way will be moved slightly to the south to a more suitable location opposite Access 3. A new cycle track would be created along York Crescent to link the site with Elstree Way. A new toucan pedestrian crossing would be installed across Elstree Way 25m west of its junction with York Crescent, which will improve pedestrian links between the site and the existing bus stop on that road.

7.58 A new pedestrian refuge would be installed in the middle of the carriageway

outside Access 1. That is the northernmost access, just to the north of the junction with York Crescent, which will seldom be used by vehicles, being for emergencies and special deliveries only; although it can be used by pedestrians and cyclists at any time (as can all three of the accesses). They will all be gated and supervised by security staff, with the gates being well set in from the public highway to ensure that traffic does not back up and cause any obstruction on Rowley Lane.

7.59 Access 2 would be opposite the junction with the one-way gyratory road that

connects Rowley Lane with Elstree Way. The road junction would be remodelled as part of an agreement with the County Council under section 278 of the Highways Act 1980. Currently traffic passing along this one way link road must branch either left (to go north up Rowley Lane towards Well End) or right (to go south down Rowley Lane towards the petrol station etc). The proposal is to add an option to go straight ahead and into Access 2 of the site. This would be controlled by a new signalised junction. Access 2 would serve the reception office, the VIP parking bays and the shuttle bus and taxi bays; but most of the traffic entering or leaving the site would use Access 3, which would be adjacent to the multi-storey car park at the southern end of the site (approximately opposite the petrol station).

7.60 Hertsmere Borough Council is the local Parking Authority, and Hertfordshire

County Council are the local Highways Authority. As regards the A1 (which is part of the Strategic Road Network, and which runs adjacent to the site along its eastern boundary, with a junction nearby) there are two other Highway Authorities: mostly the A1 is under the jurisdiction of Highways England – including the section that is adjacent to the site – but the section of the A1 that begins at the Borehamwood junction and which runs southwards from there into London is under the jurisdiction of Transport for London (TfL).

7.61 All three of these highway authorities have been consulted twice: first on the

initial submission and then again on the amended and additional documents that were submitted on 18.05.2020. Highways England have not commented. Hertfordshire County Council have written that they have no objection, although they have asked that some conditions be attached, some of which would require compliance with drawings that do not actually form part of this planning application (they seem to be drawings that have been shown to HCC by the applicants’ consultants during negotiations over a Section 278 agreement). Conditions should certainly be attached to the planning permission to ensure that the proposed highways improvements are carried out prior to the site being brought into use as film studios, so as to ensure that the development does not harm the flow of traffic or result in a poor experience for pedestrians or cyclists, but these should be worded to reflect the application as it has been submitted. The developers will need to enter into a Section 278 with the local highway authority (Hertfordshire County Council) as regards the proposed works that would be outside the site on public highway land; and that process is separate from this planning application. If Hertfordshire County Council were dissatisfied with the proposals it would be within their power to refuse to sign the s278 agreement. While the conditions that are listed at the end of this report do not have the same wording as HCC had suggested in their letter, conditions 8, 15, 22 and 23 do address the issues that were raised by HCC.

7.62 Transport for London have submitted representations twice, commenting on

both rounds of consultation. In their first letter they made several criticisms of the proposals. Following the submission of additional and amended documents (one of which was a technical note responding to TfL’s comments)

they wrote again to say that they consider the revisions to be an improvement (particularly as regards the reduction in the number of car parking spaces proposed and hence the likely trip generation on the A1) although they still raised some issues that they considered unsatisfactory. Many of these issues related to details of the design regarding issues such as bus stops, disabled parking bays, electric vehicle charging points, design of pedestrian crossings and cycle routes etc which are not within TfL’s remit because Hertsmere is not a London borough and is not covered by the London Plan or by TfL’s guidance documents. However TfL does have a legitimate interest in vehicle trip generation on the section of the A1 that lies under their jurisdiction to the south of Borehamwood.

7.63 The Parking Standards supplementary planning document does not include

guidance on parking requirements for film studios, so the applicants’ consultants have calculated their parking needs based on the operational needs of the applicants and on the experience of other film studios in comparable circumstances. Originally the proposal was that the multi-storey car park would have had 1000 spaces and the main entrance car park would have had another 23. Following Transport for London’s first representation (in which they had written that they considered the parking proposals to be excessive) amended plans were submitted on 18.05.2020 which involved reducing the car park’s height by one storey and its capacity by approximately ten percent. The proposal now is a total of 931 spaces (of which 908 would be in the multi-storey car park). As before, 2% of the spaces would be for disabled users (20 spaces in the MSCP and 7 by the reception) and 2% would be for electric vehicles. Ducting would be installed around many of the other parking spaces to allow them to be easily converted for electric vehicles in future, as and when the proportion of EVs among the staff increases. This approach is intended to avoid a situation in which too many parking bays are reserved exclusively for EVs at the outset – which might mean that they would stand empty while other (standard) bays might be in demand. Over time, as more of their staff have electric vehicles, it will be in Sky’s own interests to convert more of the standard bays to EV bays; and it is therefore the opinion of the planning officer that there is no need for a condition to oblige them to review the provision of EV points, as this will come about naturally as a result of demand.

7.64 180 cycle parking spaces are proposed in an area behind the reception

building (where electric buggies will also be parked). These would be within the site and for the parking of cycles belonging to staff or visitors. In addition the Section 106 heads of terms envisage that, if a public cycle hire scheme were to be rolled out in Borehamwood in the future, the applicants would contribute to the provision of a public cycle hire rack on highway land outside the site, and another outside Borehamwood Station – those hire cycles being for the use of the general public as well as for Sky’s staff. There might also be a rack of hire cycles at the shops and restaurants of Borehamwood town centre. Motorcycle parking would be on the ground floor of the multi-storey car park.

7.65 A Framework Travel Plan has been submitted as Appendix D2 of the Environmental Statement. It includes targets that by the third year of operation 59% of people visiting the site will be a driver or passenger of a car but by the fifth year that figure would be reduced to 54%. The equivalent figures for those coming by train or underground would be 18% in year 3 and 21% in year 5. Figures are also given for other modes such as bus (8% and 9%), motorcycle (1% and 1%), bicycle (2% and 3%) and pedestrians (11% and 11%).

7.66 Besides setting out the proposals for car and cycle parking, and the

improvements to the pedestrian and cycling experience on the roads outside the site and nearby, the Framework Travel Plan also sets out proposals for an electric shuttle bus to seat 60 people, which will run every 25 minutes between Borehamwood Station and the site. Compliance with the proposals that are set out in this document should be mandated. As this involves activities outside the site, it should be done via the Section 106 agreement, rather than via a condition (as conditions can only be applied within the site).

7.67 Environmentally Sustainable Design 7.68 The Building Research Establishment (which is based a few kilometres

outside our borough in Garston) is the UK’s leading authority on modern sustainable building methods. They publish best practice guidance for the industry, and they operate the BREEAM scheme, which is the Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method. Developers who are awarded a BREEAM accreditation by a licensed third party assessor may boast that their development goes beyond the minimum standard of environmental sustainability that is required to comply with the mandatory Building Regulations. The applicants in this case have undertaken to design and build their development with the aim of achieving an Excellent rating in the Bream New Construction 2018 scheme. In view of the Council having recently declared a Climate Emergency, and of the high priority given to environmentally sustainable design both in national and local planning policies, it is considered that a condition should be applied to mandate BREEAM “excellent” accreditation for this development (see Condition 20).

7.69 Sky’s existing complex of television studios at Osterley in West London

pioneered environmentally sustainable design for studios some years ago, and a similar ethos has informed the design of this scheme. These are detailed in the Energy And Sustainability Statement which is one of the supporting documents submitted.

7.70 The high levels of sound insulation required for sound stages will also benefit

the buildings as regards thermal insulation. The use of low energy LED lighting, rather than the conventional stage lighting found in older studios which give out intense heat, means that the sound stages will not need conventional air conditioning systems for cooling. The complex is to be run entirely on electricity - there will be no gas powered heating, but instead air source heat pumps will be used for heating the sound stages, and these are capable of being run in reverse for cooling if necessary.

7.71 Solar photovoltaic panels will be installed on the roofs of both the Production

Support buildings and also on the south facing roof pitch of Unit 160, to cover a total area of 1,950 square metres (which would generate approximately 300kWp output).

7.72 The roofs of the Production Support buildings will also have skylight windows,

so that natural light will illuminate the workshops within and the use of electric lighting will be reduced.

7.73 The Energy and Sustainability Statement that has been submitted in support

of the application by consultants Hoare Lea estimates (paragraph 1.4.2) that overall the proposed strategy of using electricity only (some of which would be generated on site by the solar panels) would result in a reduction in carbon emissions of at least ten percent when compared to the figure that would have been achieved if conventional gas heating were to have been used. This is based on carbon factors as set out in Part L of the Building Regulations.

7.74 Water saving devices are proposed, as well as a leak-detection system. The

plant species that are proposed by the landscaping plan for the gardens and landscaped areas are to be mainly native species that should not require irrigation after they have been established.

7.75 Trees, Landscape and Ecological Impact 7.76 There are numerous trees growing around the southern boundary of the site

with Mimmshall Brook, and along the western boundary with Rowley Lane, and also along the banks of Rowley Lane Drain, plus a few in central parts of the site. Some of these trees (particularly those on the western and northern boundaries) are mature oaks of impressive stature.

7.77 The site is not located within a Conservation Area and currently there are no

Tree Preservation Orders on the site. The land owners are therefore entitled to remove any trees that stand on their land. However the planning officer and the applicants have agreed that as many of the large mature trees as possible should be retained as this will benefit the development in several ways: as regards the site’s visual appearance, as screening, as a habitat for wildlife, as a carbon sink, for the improvements that they make to air quality, and for the role that they play in absorbing rainwater.

7.78 In light of some amendments that have been made to the design of the

remodelled section of the Mimmshall Brook (following negotiations between the applicants and the Environment Agency who control the brook) a revised version of the Arboricultural Impact Assessment document (dated 15.05.2020) was submitted as Appendix 4 of the Addendum to the Environmental Statement. This states that over the whole site 190 trees and a tree group are to be retained, and that 63 trees and 9 tree groups are to be removed.

7.79 The area in which extensive felling will be required is the southern boundary

of the site, along to the banks of Mimmshall Brook. This is firstly because of

the works that the developers have agreed with the Environment Agency to re-route part of that brook (routing it behind the proposed multi-storey car park) and partly because that car park and building 160 would stand just a few metres from the brook, leaving no room for trees. However it should be remembered that the brook marks the southern boundary of the site and that immediately beyond it lies a small wood (which does not belong to the applicants) so there will be no shortage of trees remaining as a habitat for wildlife on the far bank of the brook.

7.80 The Council’s Trees Officer is worried about the number of trees that would

be removed from the site and he has objected to this application. In his second representation he wrote that a revised Arboricultural Impact Assessment should be required, but actually it had already been submitted as Appendix 4 of the ES Addendum. This has been pointed out, but no further comments have been received from the Trees Officer.

7.81 Besides retaining the majority of the existing trees around the perimeter of the

site, the proposal also includes an extensive planting plan for new trees and hedge plants. The proposal is that a total of just over a kilometre of new hedgerow will be laid and that over 140 new trees (mostly native species) will be planted.

7.82 An objection to this application has been received from the Herts and

Middlesex Wildlife Trust which is a registered charity which manages several local nature reserves, and which is devoted to protecting wildlife. They are not to be confused with Hertfordshire Ecology, which is a department of Hertfordshire County Council. The objection from Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust reminds us that the National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 170, 174 and 175 set out the government’s policies as regards the importance of conserving and enhancing the natural environment. The objection also mentions the DEFRA Biodiversity Metric V2, which is a tool that can be used to calculate whether a development would result in a net gain in biodiversity. Currently there is no requirement to apply the DEFRA metric; although there is an obligation on Local Planning Authorities to have regard to the importance of preserving and enhancing biodiversity (in paragraph 175 of the National Planning Policy Framework and in Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006).

7.83 Paragraph 175a of the NPPF states that planning permission should be

refused if it would cause “significant harm to biodiversity” unless that harm can be adequately mitigated or (as a last resort) compensated for. In this case approximately a quarter of the site currently consists of concrete hardstanding, and the remainder mostly consists of semi-improved grassland which was once sports fields. These areas are not rich in wildlife. The site is not designated as a wildlife site, nor as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). It has no wildlife designation. The application has been accompanied by an Ecological Assessment which has been undertaken by ecologists who have surveyed the site but found no protected species on it. The richest parts of the site for biodiversity are the rows of trees and hedges around the

perimeter, and those are largely to be retained, or re-planted with native species, or both.

7.84 Initially no biodiversity metric was submitted – partly because it was not

compulsory, but mainly because at that time negotiations were still underway between the applicants and the Environment Agency over the design for remodelling Mimmshall Brook. Subsequently a metric was submitted on 18.05.2020 in the form of an electronic calculation, but accompanied by a Biodiversity Metric Report as Appendix 3 of the Environmental Statement Addendum. Its conclusion is that on two of three issues the development will result in a net gain to biodiversity (Hedgerow Units as over 1km of new mixed native species hedgerows are to be planted and River Units as the river banks are to be improved and three new ponds are to be created), but on the third issue (Habitat Units) there will be a net loss (because most of the existing grass land is to be built upon). This loss of habitat units can be compensated for by a financial contribution to a relevant environmental project elsewhere (preferably locally) and this will be mandated through the Section 106 agreement.

7.85 Drainage and Flood Risk 7.86 Mimmshall Brook runs around the southern and eastern boundaries of the

site, and Rowley Lane Drain runs through the northern part of the site. Both these watercourses are under the jurisdiction of the Environment Agency. The banks of Mimmshall Brook are designated by the Environment Agency as being in Flood Zone 3 (which is the most susceptible to flooding of the three flood zones). The Environment Agency were consulted on this application, and they have written that they do not object, subject to the imposition of three conditions (see conditions 6, 7 and 8 at the end of this report). Even with planning permission, it would be impossible for the applicants to carry out their development against the wishes of the Environment Agency because their consent is required (independently of the planning permission) for the works to re-route and remodel Mimmshall Brook, which is under their jurisdiction. As that brook currently runs where the multi-storey car park is to be located, the development would be impossible without re-routing that section of it. As that section of the brook is currently routed through a concrete channel (which is neither attractive nor of any benefit to wildlife or biodiversity) this is an opportunity to improve the riparian habitat. Discussions on how to achieve this have been conducted between the applicants and the Environment Agency, who are now satisfied with the proposals, subject to the conditions that they have requested in their representation.

7.87 Outline proposals for a surface water drainage and flood prevention scheme

have been submitted. These involve the creation of three new ponds in a series of gardens along the eastern section of the site. The gardens will form a soft buffer to keep the buildings clear of any zone that might be at risk of flooding and the three ponds will play a role in managing water, as well as providing a pleasant amenity space for staff and an area that will benefit wildlife and biodiversity.

7.88 The Council has its own Drainage Officer, who has been consulted on this application. Hertfordshire County Council are the Lead Local Flood Authority, and they have also been consulted. Both have responded, and both have requested that pre-commencement conditions be applied that would require the applicants to submit a detailed drainage scheme and to obtain the Council’s written approval of that before works may commence on the site.

7.89 Contaminated Land 7.90 The Council’s Environmental Health Officer specialising in contaminated land

has submitted comments in which she points out that the site has a history of being associated with the defence research industry (albeit most of the land has not been developed, having mostly been used as parking and as the sports club for that business) and that there is a small electricity substation on it (which will be relocated). It is therefore possible that there might be contamination, or perhaps even radiation, in the soil. While much of the site consists of open grassland, some of the site has been covered by hardstanding and occupied by tenants, and it has been impossible to carry out tests on that area in the run up to the submission of this application.

7.91 The applicants have commissioned a desk-top (i.e. “Phase I”) study of the

site: entitled Preliminary Risk Assessment Feb 2020 by Fairhurst (ref 133555 R1.3). That report was submitted as Appendix K1 to the Environmental Statement. The conclusion of that Phase I desktop study is generally that contamination is unlikely, but that “intrusive ground investigation is required to confirm the anticipated ground model (i.e. depth to groundwater) and to investigate for the potential of elevated concentrations of ground gases and contaminants, including such that are prone to vaporisation from soil and groundwater” (from the Executive Summary).

7.92 Conditions should be attached to the planning permission to require that a

Phase II report (i.e. involving intrusive testing on the site) be submitted; and that if contamination is found then remediation proposals must also be submitted for approval. These need not be pre-commencement conditions, as they may allow for works to proceed in the meantime which would not involve excavations. See Conditions 4 and 5 at the end of this report.

7.93 Unexploded Ordnance 7.94 It is possible that there might be unexploded ordnance from World War II

buried beneath the site. The area could have been a target for German aerial bombing as there was a defence research facility nearby (Elliots which later became part of Marconi). Records show that some German bombs did fall in the vicinity. The adjacent land to the south (now occupied by the Holiday Inn hotel) was the Thatched Barn hotel, which was secretly used during WWII by the Special Operations Executive (SOE). It is understood that they developed explosive devices there; so there might also be hazards associated with that use.

7.95 The application has been accompanied by a report on this subject by specialist consultants, which is a desk-based study (i.e. no testing has yet been done on site for buried ordnance). The document is sub-appendix C of Appendix K1 (Preliminary Risk Assessment) of the Environmental Statement. Its first page features this text: “Rating: VERY HIGH. This study site requires further action to reduce risk to ALARP during intrusive activities.” On page 2 the document states that the most probable type of munitions under the site would be German high explosive bombs, which could be buried up to 2m deep. On page 3 it states: “The potential for deep buried UXO to be present within remaining areas is assessed to be extant.”

7.96 The document goes on to set out recommendations for further investigations

that ought to be done before excavations commence on the site, as well as recommending monitoring and briefings for construction workers. A condition should therefore be applied to the planning permission to require that the further investigations that are recommended in this Phase I report should be carried out in the form of a Phase II report, including on-site testing by qualified persons, and that the recommendations of both reports should be implemented. See Condition 3 at the end of this report.

8.0 OTHER MATTERS 8.1 Section 106 Planning Obligations 8.2 On the date of writing this report the wording of the Section 106 agreement is

being negotiated between the Council’s solicitors and the applicants’ solicitors; but it is possible that it might have been completed before the date of the Planning Committee’s meeting. In the event that the s106 agreement has not been completed before the meeting, the planning officer’s recommendation will be that authority be delegated to the Head of Planning to grant conditional planning permission when the s106 agreement has been completed.

8.3 The section 106 Heads of Terms are as follows:

Compliance with the terms of the Travel Plan

Pay a Travel Plan Monitoring Fee of £7,000 to Hertfordshire County Council

Pay a contribution to Network Rail for any necessary modifications to the forecourt at Borehamwood Station to allow the shuttle bus to stop there

Pay a bicycle hire contribution in the event that a public bicycle hire scheme is introduced by the Council within 5 years

Pay a Biodiversity Enhancements Contribution to fund compensatory habitat creation off the site

8.4 Section 278 Agreement 8.5 There would also be an agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act

1980, which would cover the necessary changes and improvements to the public highway outside the site and on nearby roads and verges; but that is

separate from the planning permission, it is an agreement between Hertfordshire County Council and the developers that does not involve Hertsmere Borough Council, and it is therefore not a matter for this report – although it should be noted that Condition 22 is a “Grampian” style condition that serves to ensure that those highway improvements must be carried out before the studios can be brought into use.

8.6 Community Infrastructure Levy 8.7 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a charge to support the delivery of

funds to infrastructure in Hertsmere. The Planning Authority became a CIL charging authority as of 1st December 2014. The proposed development is not a chargeable form of development under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations. CIL applies mainly to residential and retail developments.

8.8 Equalities and Diversity 8.9 The Equality Act 2010 came into force in April 2011. Section 149 of the Act

introduced the public sector equality duty, which requires public authorities to have 'due regard' to the need to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of the relevant protected characteristics, namely: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation, and to advance equality of opportunity. In relation to this specific application due regard has been made to the protected characteristics, and it is considered that there would be no adverse impact caused by this development.

9.0 CONCLUSION 9.1 The proposed development complies with Policy CS11 (Promoting Film and

Television Production in Hertsmere) and with Policy SADM9 (Safeguarded Land For Employment Development) of the Hertsmere Local Plan. The latter policy specifically safeguards this site for development as an employment site, and this proposal is for a B-class employment use (B1b).

9.2 The proposed complex of film studios would bring major economic benefits to

the borough (including the creation of the equivalent of 1,532 full time jobs) it would bolster the British creative and film making industry that is clustered in Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire, in accordance with paragraph 82 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

9.3 The proposed mitigation measures to address potential impacts on the highways network, on wildlife and biodiversity and on flood prevention and land drainage are considered appropriate, and can be controlled by planning conditions, by a Section 106 agreement, and by a Section 278 agreement with the Highway Authority.

10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 10.1 RECOMMENDATION A: In the event that a satisfactory completed section

106 legal agreement has been submitted prior to the meeting of the Planning Committee, the recommendation is that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as set out below.

10.2 RECOMMENDATION B: In the event that a satisfactory completed section

106 legal agreement has not been submitted prior to the meeting of the Planning Committee, the recommendation is that authority be delegated to the Head Of Planning and Economic Development to grant planning permission when such an agreement has been received, subject to conditions as set out below.

10.3 RECOMMENDATION C: Should the section 106 agreement not be

completed and signed by 8th January 2021 (or by such later date as has been agreed by the Chair of the Planning Committee and the Head of Planning and Economic Development) the recommendation is that authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Economic Development to refuse planning permission for the following reasons: “1. Suitable provision has not been made for access to the development by sustainable modes of transport, and the application is therefore contrary to Policies CS25, CS26 and SADM40 of the Hertsmere Local Plan. 2. Adequate compensation has not been made for the loss of wildlife habitat through provision of new or improved habitat elsewhere, and therefore the application is contrary to Policy SADM10 of the Hertsmere Local Plan.””

11.0 CONDITIONS 11.1 The following list of conditions has been shown to the applicants’ agents.

They have not objected to any of the pre-commencement conditions. 1.

To commence within 5 years The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 5 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). In view of the size and complexity of this development, and in view of the economic uncertainty arising from the Covid-19 epidemic at the time of granting this permission, a period of 5 years for commencement (rather than the usual 3 years) is considered appropriate.

2.

Approved plans and documents The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents: 19083_P0500 rev A - Site Location Plan

19083_P0501 rev A - Existing Site Plan 19083_P1000 rev C - Proposed Masterplan - Building Level 19083_P1001 rev B - Proposed Masterplan - Roof Plan Level 19083_P1005 rev B - Proposed Site Sections - Sheet 1 19083_P1006 rev B - Proposed Site Sections - Sheet 2 19083_P1007 rev B - Proposed Site Sections - Sheet 3 19083_P1008 rev B - Proposed Perimeter Fencing and Security 19083_P1010 rev A - Proposed MSCP Cycle Storage - General Arrangement 19083_P1011 rev A - Proposed Buggy Parking & Cycle Storage - General Arrangement 19083_P1012 rev A - Proposed Waste Storage - General Arrangement 19083_P1013 rev A - Proposed Timber Screening - General Arrangement 19083_P1014 rev B - Proposed Gatehouse GA - Primary Entrance (Admin & Reception) 19083_P1015 rev A - Proposed Gatehouse GA - Secondary Entrance (South) 19083_P1016 rev A - Proposed Gatehouse GA - Secondary Entrance (North) 19083_P1100 rev B - Proposed External Finishes 19083_P2100 rev A - Proposed Unit 140 - Building in Context 19083_P2101 rev A - Proposed Unit 140 - Ground Floor Plan 19083_P2102 rev A - Proposed Unit 140 - First Floor Plan 19083_P2103 rev A - Proposed Unit 140 - Second Floor Plan 19083_P2104 rev A - Proposed Unit 140 - Third Floor Plan 19083_P2110 rev A - Proposed Unit 140 - Roof Plan 19083_P2120 rev A - Proposed Unit 140 - Elevations - Sheet 1 of 2 19083_P2121 rev A - Proposed Unit 140 - Elevations - Sheet 2 of 2 19083_P2150 rev A - Proposed Unit 140 - Typical Sections 19083_P2200 rev C - Proposed Unit 150 - Building in Context 19083_P2201 rev B - Proposed Unit 150 - Ground Floor Plan 19083_P2202 rev B - Proposed Unit 150 - First Floor Plan 19083_P2203 rev B - Proposed Unit 150 - Second Floor Plan 19083_P2210 rev B - Proposed Unit 150 - Roof Plan 19083_P2220 rev B - Proposed Unit 150 - Elevations - Sheet 1 of 2 19083_P2221 rev B - Proposed Unit 150 - Elevations - Sheet 2 of 2 19083_P2250 rev B - Proposed Unit 150 - Typical Section 19083_P2300 rev A - Proposed Unit 160 - Building in Context 19083_P2301 rev A - Proposed Unit 160 - Ground Floor Plan 19083_P2310 rev A - Proposed Unit 160 - Roof Plan 19083_P2320 rev A - Proposed Unit 160 - Elevations 19083_P2350 rev A - Proposed Unit 160 - Typical Section 19083_P2400 rev A - Proposed Unit 170 - Building in Context 19083_P2401 rev A - Proposed Unit 170 - Ground Floor Plan 19083_P2410 rev B - Proposed Unit 170 - Roof Plan 19083_P2420 rev C - Proposed Unit 170 - Elevations 19083_P2450 rev B - Proposed Unit 170 - Typical Section 19083_P2500 rev A - Proposed Unit 180 - Building in Context 19083_P2501 rev A - Proposed Unit 180 - Ground Floor Plan 19083_P2510 rev B - Proposed Unit 180 - Roof Plan

19083_P2520 rev C - Proposed Unit 180 - Elevations 19083_P2550 rev B - Proposed Unit 180 - Typical Section 19083_P2600 rev A - Proposed Production Support 121 - Building in Context 19083_P2601 rev A - Proposed Production Support 121 - Ground Floor Plan 19083_P2602 rev A - Proposed Production Support 121 - First Floor Plan 19083_P2603 rev A - Proposed Production Support 121 - Mezzanine Level Floor Plan 19083_P2604 rev A - Proposed Production Support 121 - Second Floor Plan 19083_P2610 rev A - Proposed Production Support 121 - Roof Plan 19083_P2620 rev A - Proposed production Support 121 - Elevations 19083_P2650 rev A - Proposed Production Support 121 - Typical Sections 19083_P2700 rev C - Proposed Unit 122 - Building in Context 19083_P2701 rev C - Proposed Unit 122 - Ground Floor Plan 19083_P2703 rev C - Proposed Unit 122 - Mezzanine Floor Plan 19083_P2710 rev C - Proposed Unit 122 - Roof Plan 19083_P2720 rev C - Proposed Unit 122 - Elevations 19083_P2750 rev B - Proposed Unit 122 - Typical Sections 19083_P2900 rev B- Proposed Multi Storey Car Park - Building in Context 19083_P2901 rev C - Proposed Multi Storey Car Park - Level 0 19083_P2902 rev C - Proposed Multi Storey Car Park - Level 1 19083_P2903 rev C - Proposed Multi Storey Car Park - Level 2 19083_P2904 rev C - Proposed Multi Storey Car Park - Level 3 19083_P2905 rev C - Proposed Multi Storey Car Park - Level 4 19083_P2920 rev B - Proposed Multi Storey Car Park - Elevations - Sheet 1 of 2 19083_P2921 rev B - Proposed Multi Storey Car Park - Elevations - Sheet 2 of 2 19083_p2950 rev B - Proposed Multi Storey Car Park - Typical Sections BMD.19.049.DR.001 rev I - Overall landscape general arrangement BMD.19.049.DR.P101 rev C - Landscape general arrangement, sheet 1 of 5 BMD.19.049.DR.P102 rev C - Landscape general arrangement, sheet 2 of 5 BMD.19.049.DR.P103 rev C - Landscape general arrangement, sheet 3 of 5 BMD.19.049.DR.P104 rev C - Landscape general arrangement, sheet 4 of 5 BMD.19.049.DR.P105 rev C - Landscape general arrangement, sheet 5 of 5 BMD.19.049.DR.P201 rev C - Planting plan, sheet 1 of 5 BMD.19.049.DR.P202 rev C - Planting plan, sheet 2 of 5 BMD.19.049.DR.P203 rev C - Planting plan, sheet 3 of 5 BMD.19.049.DR.P204 rev C - Planting plan, sheet 4 of 5 BMD.19.049.DR.P205 rev C - Planting plan, sheet 5 of 5 BMD.19.049.DR.P301 rev B - Sections AA and BB, sheet 1 of 2 BMD.19.049.DR.P302 rev C - Sections CC and DD, sheet 2 of 2

BMD.19.049.DR.P401 - Tree pit details, sheet 1 of 3: semi-mature BMD.19.049.DR.P402 - Tree pit details, sheet 2 of 3: extra heavy standards BMD.19.049.DR.P403 - Tree pit details, sheet 3 of 3: semi-mature trees on slopes BMD.19.049.DR.P404 rev A - Typical details: surface and edging ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Vol.1: Technical Assessments ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Vol.2: Technical Figures and Appendices, as follows: Appendix A1: Site location plan Appendix A2: Developer Statement of Competency Appendix B1: Formal request for Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Opinion (3 Dec 2019) Appendix B2: Hertsmere Borough Council EIA Scoping Opinion (16 Jan 2020) Appendix B3: Correspondence with Hertsmere Borough Council confirming scope of Environmental Statement and application Appendix C1: Scheme plans Appendix C2: Draft Construction Environment Management Plan including outline Construction Logistics Plan and outline Site Waste Management Plan Appendix D1: Transport Assessment Appendix D2: Framework Travel Plan Appendix D3: Outline Car Park Management Plan Appendix E1: Site and context figures Appendix E2: Topography and zone of theoretical visibility Appendix E3: Landscape character areas Appendix E4: Landscape and visual receptors Appendix E5: Visual assessment Appendix E6: Visualisation methodology Appendix E7: Environmental lighting strategy & illumination profile Appendix F1: Ecology figures Appendix F2: Extended phase I habitat survey Appendix F3: Hedgerows and National Vegetation Classification survey Appendix F4: River corridor survey Appendix F5: Bat activity survey Appendix F6: Tree assessment for roosting bats Appendix F7: Otter and water vole survey Appendix F8: Great crested newt and reptile survey Appendix G1: Economic impact report Appendix H1: Flood risk assessment and drainage strategy Appendix H2: Flood risk statement for enabling works Appendix I1: Air quality technical appendix Appendix J1: Noise and vibration technical appendix Appendix K1: Preliminary risk assessment Appendix K2: Ground investigation report Appendix L1: Embodied carbon assessment results Appendix M1: Schemes considered in cumulative assessment Appendix M2: Cumulative assessment visualisations

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Vol.3: Non-Technical Summary ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT ADDENDUM (dated May 2020), with appendices as follows: Appendix 1: Updated drawings Appendix 2: Figure showing otter & water vole survey results Appendix 3: Biodiversity metric report Appendix 4: Arboricultural impact assessment Appendix 5: Arboricultural method statement Appendix 6: Updated flood risk assessment Appendix 7: Air quality technical note Appendix 8: Updated ground investigation report Biodiversity Metric 2.0 (this is an electronic tool, not a document) Design and Access Statement revision A (dated 15.05.2020) Planning Statement Health Impact Assessment Utilities and Physical Infrastructure Locality Review Geophysical Survey Energy and Sustainability Statement Archaeological Desk Based Assessment Arboricultural Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3.

Unexploded ordnance threat assessment No ground works (other than the removal of hardstanding, buildings and structures), excavation, soil stripping or piling shall be carried out until an Unexploded Ordnance Phase II Threat Assessment has been completed by a qualified professional. That Phase II assessment shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Phase I Assessment that has already been submitted with this application entitled 'Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Threat And Risk Assessment' by Landmark Information Group, dated October 2019 (refs 7684 / 220450652 1), which was submitted as sub-appendix C of appendix K1 (Preliminary Risk Assessment) of the Environmental Statement. The Phase II Threat Assessment shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations that have been set out in Stage 5 parts 3 and 4 (page 15) of the Phase I Threat Assessment. A copy of the Phase II Threat Assessment shall be sent to the Local Planning Authority for their records (written approval by the LPA is not required). The works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Phase I and Phase II UXO Threat Assessments. Reason: During World War II adjacent land formed part of a defence industry establishment, and also a clandestine SOE base, and as such it might have been a target for aerial bombing. This application has been accompanied by a Detailed Unexploded Ordnance Threat Assessment by consultants Landmark Information Group (dated October 2019) which is a desktop (i.e. Phase I) assessment, but which has not been informed by

any trial excavations or scans on the site. That document gives the vicinity of the site a rating of "very high" and states that: "this site requires further action to reduce risk to ALARP during intrusive activities." It notes that the most probable type of ordnance that might be buried (up to 2m) beneath the site are German high explosive bombs, but that other types of ordnance might also be present. In section 5 that document recommends further steps to ensure safety on the site including (3) non-intrusive UXO surveys and (4) intrusive UXO surveys. This condition is necessary to protect the safety of the public, of future occupants of the site, and of construction workers, pursuant to Policy SP1i (Creating Sustainable Development) of the Hertsmere Local Plan Core Strategy 2013 and Policy SADM21 (Hazardous Substances) of the Hertsmere Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan 2016. This is not a pre-commencement condition because it allows clearance and demolition works above the ground prior to the completion of the UXO Threat Assessment. This is a "compliance" condition - it does not require the written approval of the Local Planning Authority, but it does require that the recommendations of the Phase I and Phase II UXO Threat Assessments be complied with.

4.

Contamination: Phase II report & Remediation Statement to be submitted As has been recommended by the Phase I contaminated land report that has been submitted as Appendix K1 of the Environmental Statement (Preliminary Risk Assessment Feb 2020 ref 133555 R1.3) further investigation shall be carried out and a Phase II report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. No works shall commence on site prior to the approval in writing of that Phase II report by the LPA, other than the following works which may proceed: site clearance, removal of existing buildings or structures and removal of hardstanding. A 'Phase II Report' consists of an intrusive site investigation and risk assessment. The report should make recommendations for further investigation and assessment where required. If the Phase II report establishes that remediation or protection measures are necessary, a Remediation Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and no works shall commence on site prior to the approval in writing of that Remediation Statement by the LPA other than the following works, which may proceed: site clearance, removal of existing buildings or structures and removal of hardstanding. A Remediation Statement details actions to be carried out and timescales so that contamination no longer presents a risk to site users, property, the environment or ecological systems. Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other off-site receptors in accordance with paragraphs 178 and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy CS16 of the Core Strategy (2013) and Policies SADM20

and SADM21 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (2016).

5.

Contamination: Site Completion Report to be submitted All remediation or protection measures identified in the Remediation Statement referred to in the condition above shall be fully implemented within the timescales and by the deadlines as set out in the Remediation Statement, and a Site Completion Report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until that Site Completion Report has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. For the purposes of this condition: a 'Site Completion Report' shall record all the investigation and remedial or protection actions carried out. It shall detail all conclusions and actions taken at each stage of the works including validation work. It shall contain quality assurance and validation results providing evidence that the site has been remediated to a standard suitable for the approved use. Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other off-site receptors in accordance with paragraphs 178 and 180 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy CS16 of the Core Strategy (2013) and Policies SADM20 and SADM21 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (2016).

6.

River re-alignment detailed design No development shall take place until detailed design plans are provided for the Main River, Mimmshall brook re-alignment have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. The scheme shall include: - channel cross sections, in-channel design and planform alignment - plans showing the extent and layout of the buffer zone - details of any proposed planting scheme (for example, native species) - details demonstrating how the buffer zone will be protected during development - details of any proposed footpaths, fencing, lighting etc. Reason: This condition is applied at the request of the Environment Agency. River realignments can have a potentially severe impact on the ecology and geomorphology of the whole river corridor. The applicant needs to demonstrate that the risks posed by the development can be satisfactorily avoided, mitigated or compensated for. This position is supported by Hertsmere's Local Plan policies SADM10 Biodiversity and Habitats, SADM11 Landscape Character, SADM13 The Water Environment, SADM14 Flood Risk and SADM16 Watercourses.

7. Compensatory habitat creation and landscape management plan No above ground works shall take place until a scheme for the provision and management of compensatory habitat creation (local impact mitigation), along with a landscape and ecological management plan, including long-term objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules, shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local planning authority and implemented as approved. The landscape and ecological management plan shall be carried out as approved. The scheme shall include the following elements: - detailed plans for habitat creation and/or improvement, including any planting plans and plan view designs. - details of maintenance regimes - details of any new habitat created on site - details of treatment of site boundaries and/or buffers around water bodies - details of management responsibilities - details of Section 106 or alternative financial contributions to the Local Planning Authority for off-site habitat compensation if mitigation is not possible within the development red-line boundary. Reason: This condition is applied at the request of the Environment Agency. Development that encroaches on the Mimmshall Brook, associated riparian habitat, and improved and semi-improved grassland habitat will affect its ecological value. The NPPF (paragraph 175) states that if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for to achieve biodiversity net-gain through the development, then planning permission should be refused. This position is supported by Hertsmere's Local Plan policies SADM10 Biodiversity and Habitats, SADM11 Landscape Character, SADM13 The Water Environment, SADM14 Flood Risk and SADM16 Watercourses.

8.

Construction Environment Management Plan No development shall take place until a final version of the Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the local planning authority and implemented as approved. The CEMP shall be carried out as approved. The scheme shall include the following elements: - Prevention of sediment, dust and pollutants into watercourses; - Prevention of adverse impact on water quality; - Prevention of adverse impact on ecology; - Prevention of light spill over 2 lux adjacent to watercourses; - An undertaking to abide by the Considerate Constructors Scheme (including provision of a named contact point for enquiries or concerns); - Traffic and pedestrian management proposals; - Construction and storage compounds; - Areas designated for car parking; - Siting and details of wheel washing facilities; - Proposals for cleaning of site entrances, site tracks and adjacent public

highway; - Details of hoardings, gates, and any necessary footway closures; - A Construction Logistics Plan (including timings to avoid school pick up / drop off times; - A Site Waste Management Plan. Reason: This condition is necessary to prevent significant harm arising from the development and adverse impacts on watercourses and associated habitat without adequate mitigation during the construction phase of the proposed development. This position is supported by Hertsmere's Local Plan policies SADM10 Biodiversity and Habitats, SADM11 Landscape Character, SADM13 The Water Environment, SADM14 Flood Risk and SADM16 Watercourses. The versions of the Construction Environment Management Plan (including the Construction Logistics Plan and the Site Waste Management Plan) that have been submitted as Appendix C2 of the Environmental Statement are not final versions but rather they are draft and outline versions. Final versions of these documents, and a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan, are required to ensure that the development is carried out in a sustainable fashion, pursuant to Policies 2 (Waste Prevention and Reduction) and 12 (Sustainable Design, Construction and Demolition) of the Hertfordshire County Council Waste Core Strategy and Development Management Policies development plan document (adopted 2012). Compliance with the Considerate Constructors Scheme is required to ensure that the works are carried out without causing undue disturbance to neighbours or to the public. Details are also required to protect highway safety and the amenity of other users of the public highway in accordance with Policies 5, 12, 17 and 22 of Hertfordshire's Local Transport Plan (2018).

9.

Surface water drainage condition 1 of 3 The development permitted by this planning permission shall be carried out in accordance with the principles of the approved Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Assessment prepared by Stantec UK Limited, project reference 46287, document reference 2001 Rev 1, revision Rev 1, dated 19 March 2020. This includes implementing appropriate drainage strategy based on SuDS measures and the following mitigation measures: 1. Limiting the surface water runoff generated by the critical storm events so that it will not exceed surface water Greenfield runoff rates for the relevant rainfall events for up to and including the 1 in 100 year event plus 20% of climate change event. 2. Providing storage to ensure no increase in surface water runoff volumes for all rainfall events up to and including the 1 in 100 year plus 20% for climate change event providing storage volumes within permeable paving areas, Turbosider structures, an underground attenuation tank and two attenuation ponds. 3. Ensuring that the operation of proposed drainage system is not compromised during a combined fluvial and pluvial flood event for up to and including the 1 in 100 year event plus 20% of climate change event. 4. Providing an appropriate discharge of surface water from the private drainage network into Mimmshall Brook and Rowley Lane Drain.

The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. Reason: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory disposal and storage of surface water from the site, and to reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants.

10.

Surface water drainage condition 2 of 3 No development shall take place until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site based on the principles of the approved drainage strategy and sustainable drainage principles, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage strategy should demonstrate the surface water runoff generated for up to and including the 1 in 100 year plus 20% for climate change critical storm will not exceed the runoff from the undeveloped site following the corresponding rainfall event. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed and retained thereafter. The scheme shall include: 1. An appropriate surface water runoff management scheme during the construction phase. 2. Results of groundwater level monitoring undertaken for a minimum of 3 months period. Where storage features are being proposed, additional boreholes should be considered. 3. Capacity assessment of the receiving watercourses based on cumulative discharge rates from the development site. 4. Final, detailed surface water modelling for all rainfall events up to and including the 1 in 100 year plus an appropriate climate change allowance for the whole site. Drain down times for all storage features must be included. 5. Evidence that all outfalls will be available for up to and including the 1 in 30 year event for combined flood events (fluvial and pluvial). The drainage system must not be compromised for up to and including the 1 in 100 year plus 20% for climate change. 6. Final, updated drainage layout plan showing all pipe networks and SuDS features. This must include surface water drainage details of all access points and access roads. The scheme must consider results of groundwater levels investigation. 7. Required storage volumes in attenuation ponds to be provided below 300mm freeboard levels for each pond. Additional freeboard levels would be beneficial. 8. Demonstrate an appropriate SuDS management and treatment train for each separate system included in the drainage scheme. 9. Provision of silt traps for protection for any tanked elements. 10. Detailed engineered drawings of the proposed SuDS and drainage features including cross and long section drawings, size, volume, depth and any inlet and outlet features details including any connecting pipe runs.

11. Details regarding any areas of informal flooding should be shown on a plan with estimated extents and depths (for up to the 1 in 100 year including 35% for climate change). 12. Details of proposed works and impact assessment on the ordinary watercourse located along Rowley Lane. Should include details of site access crossings. A buffer zone of 3 metres from the top of the bank should be considered. Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, both on and off site.

11.

Surface water drainage condition 3 of 3 Upon completion of the drainage works in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements, a management and maintenance plan for the SuDS features and drainage network must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include: 1. Provision of complete set of as built drawings including the final drainage layout for site drainage network. 2. Maintenance and operational activities for the lifetime of the development. 3. Arrangements for adoption and any other measures to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. Reason: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site for the lifetime of the development, and to reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants.

12.

Watercourses: prevention of pollution No fuel, cement or hazardous materials shall be stored (including storage within any vehicle) in areas of the site that are designated by the Environment Agency as Flood Zone 3. Reason: To prevent hazardous substances or pollutants from entering the watercourses, pursuant to Policy SADM16 (Watercourses) of the Hertsmere Local Plan: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan 2016.

13.

Tree protection The tree protection measures that are set out in the Environmental Statement Addendum Appendix 4 (Arboricultural Impact Assessment) and Appendix 5 (Arboricultural Method Statement) shall be implemented in full; and those tree protection measures shall be kept in place throughout the duration of the works. No materials, cement, fuel or other items shall be stored within the tree protection fencing: the Construction Exclusion Zone (CEZ). No stripping of top soil shall be carried out within the CEZ of retained trees that are shown as being retained; and any topsoil stripping that is done on parts of the site that are adjacent to those root protection zones shall be carried out only under the supervision of an arboriculturalist.

Reason: To ensure the safe long term retention and continued health of the retained trees which make a positive contribution to the character of the area, benefitting wildlife, biodiversity and flood-prevention, pursuant to Policy SADM12 (Trees, Landscaping and Development) of the Hertsmere Local Plan: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan 2016.

14.

Training and Employment Management Strategy The development that is hereby approved shall not be brought into use as film and TV studios until a Training and Employment Management Strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy will promote training and employment opportunities for people who live or study in the borough of Hertsmere (including provision of apprentices and engagement with local education providers), and it shall apply during the operational stage of the development thereafter. The agreed strategy will be implemented within one year of the first use of the site as film and TV studios. Any amendments to the strategy will require further submission to and approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To promote training opportunities to people within the borough, thereby helping to ensure that the economic and social benefits of the development also apply locally, pursuant to Policy CS10 (Land Use Within Employment Areas) of the Hertsmere Local Plan, Core Strategy (2013). A yearly update shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority with details of how many placements have been made, and of what percentage of those have been people who were living or studying in the borough.

15.

Gates, hoardings and fences during construction works During the construction works, all temporary hoardings and fences shall be erected within the site, and not on land which forms part of the public highway. Any unattended gates shall be set into the site by at least 5.5 metres. Gates may be installed flush with the boundary of the site only if they are attended at all times while works are taking place on the site. Reason: To prevent encroachments on the public highway, and to prevent obstructions or hazards to traffic or to other road users that might arise if a goods vehicle or a construction vehicle were to be waiting on Rowley Lane while gates are opened.

16.

Materials The buildings shall be finished in the materials and colours that are set out in the Design and Access Statement (revision A, dated 15.05.2020) and on the approved drawings. Any material deviation from the materials and / or colours set out in the above document and drawings will require further submission to and approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the finished appearance of the development will not detract from the character or visual amenity of the area. To comply with Policy SADM30 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan 2016 and Policy CS22 of the Hertsmere Core Strategy 2013.

17.

Landscape proposals The Landscape Proposals that are hereby approved (as set out in the list of approved drawings in Condition 2) shall be carried out in the first planting season following the completion of the development. Any trees, shrubs or plants that die within a period of five years from the completion of the development, or which are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased in that period, shall be replaced (and if necessary continue to be replaced) in the first available planting season with others of similar size and species. Reason: To ensure satisfactory landscape treatment of the site which will enhance the character and appearance of the site and the area. To comply with Policy SADM12 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan 2016 and Policies CS12 and CS22 of the Hertsmere Core Strategy 2013. Also to benefit wildlife and biodiversity.

18.

Solar photovoltaic panels The development shall not be brought into use as film studios until the proposed solar photovoltaic panels have been installed as a total array of at least 1,950 square metres, as per the submitted Energy and Sustainability Statement (section 6.1 and Appendix 4). Reason: To ensure that this will be an environmentally clean and sustainable development which prioritises low or zero carbon renewable sources of energy, pursuant to Policy CS16 (Environmental Impact of Development) and Policy CS17 (Energy and CO2 Reductions) of the Hertsmere Local Plan, Core Strategy 2013.

19.

BREEAM accreditation Within six months of the first use of the development as film studios, evidence shall be submitted to demonstrate that the development has been certified as "Excellent" under the BREEAM New Construction 2018 scheme (BREEAM is the Building Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method). Reason: To ensure that this will be an environmentally clean and sustainable development, pursuant to Policy CS16 (Environmental Impact of Development) and Policy CS17 (Energy and CO2 Reductions) of the Hertsmere Local Plan, Core Strategy 2013. The achievement of an 'excellent' rating on this scheme has been proposed in the application (in section 1.4.3 of the submitted Energy and Sustainability Statement).

20.

Car and cycle parking The development shall not be occupied until all of the proposed car

parking spaces (including the proposed numbers of spaces to be reserved for disabled users and electric vehicles), motorcycle spaces and cycle spaces have been provided, as per section 10.4 of the Design and Access Statement revision A, and as shown on the approved plans. These approved parking spaces shall be provided prior to the first occupation of the development, and thereafter permanently retained for the sole use of parking for the development. Reason: To ensure that the development can accommodate its own parking needs (including cycle parking) within the site, pursuant to Policy SADM40 (Highway and Access Criteria for New Development) of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan 2016.

21.

No audiences of over 40 people No audiences or other groups consisting of more than forty members of the public shall be admitted to the development for the purpose of forming an audience or other public participation in connection with the primary use of the studios. Reason: Pursuant to Policy SADM40 (Highway and Access Criteria for New Development) of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan 2016. The proposed multi-storey car park is considered to have sufficient capacity to ensure that parked cars will not spill out from the site onto local streets; but this has been assessed on the understanding that it will serve only staff - not large public groups.

22.

Highway improvements The site shall not be brought into use as film studios until the improvements and alterations to the public highway outside the site have been completed, as set out in drawing number 46287/5501/080. Reason: To ensure that the public highways serving the site are upgraded to cope with the additional demand that the development will place upon them, and that other road users will not be endangered or inconvenienced as a result of the development, pursuant to Policy SADM40 (Highway and Access Criteria for New Development) of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan 2016.

23.

Access points The development shall not be occupied until all three of the proposed access points have been provided as shown on the drawings that are hereby approved; and they shall be retained thereafter. These accesses shall include clear visibility splays, which shall thereafter be maintained at all times to be free of obstructions between 600mm and 2m above the level of the adjacent highway. Reason: To ensure satisfactory access into the site and in the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy 5 of Hertfordshire's Local Transport Plan (adopted 2018) and with Policy SADM40 of the Hertsmere Local Plan, Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan

(adopted 2016). 24.

No change of use Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended), the development that is hereby permitted shall not be used for any purpose other than as film studios. For the avoidance of doubt, changes to other uses within the same Use Class as film studios (B1b) are prohibited by this condition. Reason: To ensure that the potential impacts of other uses can be properly and fully assessed through an application for planning permission.

GENERAL REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION 1.

This application has been granted for the following reasons. The proposed complex of film studios would bring major economic benefits to the borough (including the creation of the equivalent of 1,532 full time jobs), and it would bolster the British creative and film making industry that is clustered in Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire, in accordance with paragraph 82 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019). The proposed development complies with Policy CS11 of the Hertsmere Local Plan, which supports the development of film and television studios in Borehamwood, and that it also complies with Policy SADM9 which safeguards this particular site for employment development. The proposal is therefore regarded as acceptable in principle. The proposed mitigation measures to address potential impacts on the highways network, on wildlife and biodiversity, and on flood prevention and land drainage are considered appropriate, and are to be controlled by planning conditions, by a Section 106 agreement, and by a Section 278 agreement with the Highway Authority.

10.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS 1. The planning application (20/0315/FULEI) comprising application forms,

certificate, drawings, supporting documents, the Environmental Statement and the addendum to the Environmental Statement in support of the application.

2. Replies from statutory consultees, non-statutory consultees and correspondence from third parties.

3. Any other individual document specifically referred to in the agenda report. 4. Published policies / guidance 11.0 INFORMATIVES

1. Informative note: Report is published The planning officer's report to the Planning Committee is published on the Council's website. The minutes of the committee meeting are also published. These documents set out in detail how the application has been considered by the Council.

2.

Informative note: Positive and proactive engagement In assessing this application the Council has acted positively and proactively, in line with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 38) and in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. This has included several meetings and discussions between planning officers and the applicants prior to and since the submission of the application, at which advice has been provided.

3.

Informative note: Section 106 planning obligation The planning permission that is hereby granted is accompanied by a planning obligation in the form of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

4.

Informative note: Section 278 agreement with the local Highway Authority The applicant is advised that in order to comply with this permission it will be necessary for the developer to enter into an agreement with Hertfordshire County Council (as the local Highway Authority) under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980, to ensure the satisfactory completion of the access and associated road improvements. The construction of such works must be undertaken to the satisfaction and specification of the Highway Authority, and by a contractor who is authorised to work in the public highway. Before works commence the applicant will need to apply to the Highway Authority to obtain their permission and requirements.

5.

Informative note: Obstruction or dirtying of public highway land No materials may be stored on public highway land unless authorisation has been obtained from the Highway Authority before construction work commences. It is an offence under section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 for any person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way to wilfully obstruct the free passage along a highway or public right of way. If this development is likely to result in the public highway being routinely blocked (fully or partly) the applicant must obtain the permission of the Highway Authority before construction work commences. It is an offence under section 148 of the Highways Act 1980 to deposit mud or other debris on the public highway.

6.

Informative note: Flood Risk Activity Permit The following informative note is applied at the request of the Environment Agency. The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 require a permit to be obtained for any activities which will take place:

- on or within 8 metres of a main river (16 metres if tidal) - on or within 8 metres of a flood defence structure or culvert (16 metres if tidal) - on or within 16 metres of a sea defence - involving quarrying or excavation within 16 metres of any main river, flood defence (including a remote defence) or culvert - in a floodplain more than 8 metres from the river bank, culvert or flood defence structure (16 metres if it is a tidal main river) and you do not already have planning permission. For further guidance please visit https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-activities-environmental-permits or contact our National Customer Contact Centre on 03702 422 549. The applicant should not assume that a permit will automatically be forthcoming once planning permission has been granted, and they are advised to consult with the Environment Agency at the earliest opportunity.

7.

Informative note: Working hours and noise The planning permission that is hereby granted does not entitle the developers to cause a statutory noise nuisance that would harm the amenity of residential neighbours or hotel residents at unreasonable hours. The Council's Environmental Health department has powers to take enforcement action against developers who cause a statutory noise nuisance. The Control of Pollution Act 1974 (Section 61) requires that written consent be obtained from the Environmental Health department for any noise-emitting works outside the following hours: 08:00 to 18:00 on weekdays, 08:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays, or for any works on Sundays or public holidays (bank holidays).

8.

Informative note: Bird nesting season All wild birds, nests and eggs are protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). The grant of planning permission does not override the above Act. All applicants and sub-contractors are reminded that site clearance, vegetation removal, demolition works, etc. between March and August (inclusive) may risk committing an offence under the above Act and may be liable to prosecution if birds are known or suspected to be nesting. The Council will pass complaints received about such work to the appropriate authorities for investigation. The Local Authority advises that such work should be scheduled for the period 1 September - 28 February wherever possible. If this is not practicable, a search of the area should be made no more than 2 days in advance of vegetation clearance by a competent ecologist, and if active nests are found works should stop until the birds have left the nest.

9.

Informative note: Ordinary watercourses Works within nine metres of an Ordinary Watercourse on or near the site will require the written consent of Hertsmere Borough Council (who are the Land Drainage Authority for the Hertsmere Area). This is required by Hertsmere Borough Council's Land Drainage Byelaws, and it is separate from any planning permission. Additionally, any works (permanent or

temporary) that may affect the flow within an ordinary watercourse will require the prior written consent from the Hertfordshire County Council, who are the Lead Local Flood Authority. This is a requirement under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991.

10.

Informative note: Duplicate or similar conditions to permission 20/0153/FUL Please note that because this permission (20/0315/FULEI for the erection of the film studios) and the recently granted permission 20/0153/FUL (for enabling works) are separate and independent planning permissions, there are similar conditions on both consents requiring the submission of further information. In the event that the developer wishes to implement both permissions, it will be necessary to submit those details to discharge the conditions in respect of both permissions.

12.0 CASE OFFICER

Max Sanders, Senior Planning Officer e-mail address: max.sanders@hertsmere.gov.uk