News

Announced in February 2021, but descoped in December 2022: Marlow’s Newt Ditch Flood Alleviation Scheme is being significantly descoped “due to the current economic climate”.

The presentations showed promising and idyllic scenes of a new & widened footpath alongside the stream.

And what is the first to go? Public amenity improvements, such as the new, widened footpath and lighting to the footpaths. What a surprise – and a stark warning for when the economic reality inevitably meets the film studio plan.

Importantly, the scheme now also removes any work to the east of the “siphon structure”, near the Spinney Path at the south-western tip of Roach Lake in the Little Marlow Lakes Country Park. In the next 9 months, Jacobs intend to assess the flood risk in this area. The outcome of that will undoubtedly show that a film studio, if approved, represents a major concern.

Any flood alleviation work will be subject to planning consent (expected 2023/204) and is only to be expected to be finished “later in 2025”. That still means 2-3 years of misery for those who depend on the Newt Ditch for their flood protection in Marlow…

In the last of our series on comments by Buckinghamshire Council officers, we look at the Policy comments – effectively the claimed “very special circumstances” (VSC) that would justify overriding the Green Belt status.

First, the officer questions why there is no mention of the benefits of developing “non-virgin Green Belt land” or any other community benefits, which would have been expected to be part of a VSC argument.

The officer also criticises the application’s so-called “sequential test”:

In terms of the sequential test they mention the damaged nature of land as a criteria – this is not part of [Green Belt] purpose – it is not about quality of an area or piece of land.  Virgin Green Belt sites are screened out because they would be similar to the application site, however, despite there having been some historic landfill on the site, I am not sure that this description applies to the application site aerial photography does not show it to look much different to neighbouring grassed fields. (…)
 On this basis [their] sifting would be different so you might want to ask them to redo the assessment ruling in all GB land and then availability etc..”

The application also misses some primary school maths: the documents state that they assessed 91 sites, but only 68 + 20 = 88 are listed in paragraph 5.24 of the Sequential Assessment Report.

Unsurprisingly, “the assessment table appears to lack detail in explaining why some sites [are] ruled out and is incorrect in many cases”.

The officer then lists several factual errors with land ruled out, which should actually have been considered. This includes several pieces of land claimed to be in the AONB but they are not (Wilton Park, Stoke Poges, West Taplow, Thorney Business Park). In some cases, these are actually close to a motorway, so arguably more accessible than Marlow’s Green Belt.

Needless to say, Guernsey-based Dido Property Limited are attempting to fudge the site selection process to end up with land that they own – not where a film studio project would be the most beneficial for the industry. Thankfully their mistakes and false assumptions make it so obvious to officers and every one of us.

As part of the series of comments by Buckinghamshire Council officers, there was a consultee comment regarding Urban Design & Landscape.

The officer agrees with much of the detail and conclusions set out by the Chilterns Conservation Board in their objection. The location for the proposed film studio is right next to the Chilterns AONB and currently being assessed for inclusion into an expanded AONB. On the other side of the Thames, the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local Plan “seeks to conserve and enhance the special character and visual amenity of the River Thames” (policy QP4). In conclusion: “on account of the function, scale and character of the proposed development”* it will cause significant harm and does not satisfy local plan policies.

Aside from these policy incompatibilities, the officer also highlights that the planning application deliberately tries to obfuscate the impact on the landscape:

“Photomontage View 3 demonstrates the significant harm to views from the Chilterns AONB broadly north / northeast of the site. (…) Photomontage View 9 also demonstrates a major incursion of commercial development into an otherwise intact rural landscape as seen from the Chilterns AONB overlooking the Thames Valley.”

“Photomontage View 8 would help illustrate this but is unhelpfully presented as a very wide angle panorama, which reduces detail and the perception of scale; there is no reason why this could not have been presented in the same manner as others in the set, (…)”

And the obfuscation is highlighted further down in more explicit terms:

“There is a variable approach to the horizontal angle of view and framing of photomontages which confuse and distort the perception of scale and impact of the proposed development. (…) Accompanied by the relatively low resolution of the images in the submitted PDF files, these do not fairly represent the proposed development and how it would be seen in the field.”

Equally, the “improvements” to the footpath between the A404 and Little Marlow are questioned:

“[The planning documents] and supporting photomontages demonstrate a profound change to the environment of this footpath where it passes through the site. There will be a loss of openness and views from the footpath, with a change of character from open rural landscape to a much more enclosed urban landscape. ‘Improvements’ to this right of way include surfacing and lighting that are likely to improve accessibility but ultimately diminish any sense of its existing rural character. (…) Such change to the user’s experience of the existing landscape is considered a major harmful effect. **The applicant suggests this is part of a positive contribution to the RUR4 outdoor recreation objective of a Country Park, but is in fact the opposite. ** “

Turning to landscape design, whereby the planning application tries to “blend in”:

“The principle of screening with planting to supposedly reduce visual harm is a universal approach by almost all developers and is not unique to this development. It is also a frequently harmful approach, as it overlooks the important contribution made to visual amenity by the open undeveloped landscape and views to other features or locations. Creating ‘green walls’ around development, and ‘green tunnels’ on routes through development are both harmful to visual amenity where the existing landscape is open and attractive.”

Also, the “green walls” on the warehouses are considered inadequate:

“The applicant proposes green walls to some of the taller buildings. I am not satisfied with the approach proposed – wires and climbing plants are not sufficiently substantial and do not qualify as a ‘green wall’ in the conventional sense. Of the five climbing plants proposed, only one (deciduous) plant is likely to achieve over 12 metres of height, and none will have any immediate impact.“

What about the public space? Well, the officer is quite clear on that:

“The proposed ‘public art opportunity’ is intrusive and unwelcome. If nothing else, public art should be in a public or publically accessible space, which this is not. It appears to serve as no more than an advertisement/icon for the proposed development and serves no public interest.“

“(…) I do not agree with the design approach for the Hub building. The [document] describes this as a building that will ‘engage the public’, but the design language says otherwise. “

In summary: Dido Property Limited’s planning application for the film studio will be a terrible eyesore that destroys the rural character of the area, the views from all angles and they try to hide with “green walls” that won’t work and photomontages that deliberately change the perception.

In a recently published statement on the planning portal, Buckinghamshire Council’s Directorate for Planning Growth & Sustainability has indicated Marlow Film Studio’s much touted environmental plan is insufficient and lacking in any credible detail.

The modelling & calculations for building emissions are “acceptable as part of an initial, high-level assessment”. It goes on to say that “the Energy Statement (ES) that has been provided is suitable only as an initial, high-level estimate” and “we disagree with the explanations for “Be clean” and “Be green” within the [Energy Statement]”.

Also the proposed “sustainable construction” lacks substance: “the Climate Response Team would require the applicants to provide evidence of waste reduction throughout the entire development”.

It shows that the sustainability angle of the speculative proposal is a tick-box PR exercise from Guernsey-based Dido Property Limited rather than a well-thought-through, inclusive plan.

The ecology analysis of Dido Property Limited’s planning application for the film studio by Buckinghamshire Council’s Ecology Officer was recently published.

The summary is clear:

‌”Further and better ecological information is required prior to determination.

At this stage, there are both in principle and specific reasons to object to the proposals on ecological grounds.

The fundamental problem with the application is the location in which it is proposed. If the same application were located on a less constrained site it would be able to overcome the objections and may well be welcomed. “

The opening statement is especially damaging:

“If the submitted documents are correct, a very substantial Biodiversity Net Loss would occur on site 20.64 Habitat Units (9.81%) and 0.13 Hedgerow units (1.35%). However, it is questioned whether this has been recorded correctly (both baseline surveys and post-development proposals). I am sure that the actual loss would be greater.
(…)
The proposals suggest that an off-site gain of 20% is aspired to, however, no solid proposals of where this would take place have been put forward.”

The detailed analysis goes on to point out missing information (the actual ecology survey results, rather than the methodology), inconsistencies (in the habitat plans & surveys), lacking justification (on habitat designation) and errors (claiming there are no waterways nearby whereas maps show there are; doing 5 instead of 10 surveys).

“As the problems with the surveys result in a down playing of abundance, diversity or value, the level of impacts will automatically be under estimated.”

Based on the Ecology Officer’s analysis, it seems that Dido Property Limited’s biodiversity & ecology assessments/statements are either a display of incompetence or deliberately obfuscating to reduce the site’s natural value. We have our own opinion…

When Guernsey-based Dido Property Limited started touting its idea for the speculative film studio application, Save Marlow’s Greenbelt immediately identified areas of concern, around traffic, environment & flooding. We also questioned their economic case based on film studio/warehouse rental.

The planning application documents were vague and full of holes and hand-waving promises, affirming our key areas of objection:

1. there are no “very special circumstances” (i.e. economic reasons) to build this monstrosity on Marlow’s Greenbelt
2. it will be devastating for nature & wildlife.
3. it will be horrendous for traffic
4. flooding & sewage treatment are a major issue

This week several documents were published on the planning portal, outlining the analysis from Buckinghamshire Council’s own officers. On all fronts, they are damning for the planning application: inconsistencies, errors, obfuscations, omissions… Once you scratch the surface of the PR, things are not so glossy.

We will release more information on each key topic over the next week, starting today with ecology.

We want to track the level of foul odours (or otherwise) as a result of the Thames Water Sewage Treatment Plant. We want to gather data over time and also how it relates to weather events (e.g. heavy rain).

Specifically, we are looking for everyone to report their experience on the path along Spade Oak Lake, between the railway and The Moor (in Little Marlow). This is between ///shepherds.laptop.clocks and ///parrot.beast.purchaser.

So whenever you walk in the area, please let us know the odour level via . Please share with your friends and neighbours.

On 10th November, Buckinghamshire Council approved the planning application (reference 22/05132/FUL) for a boat house in the Greenbelt in the Little Marlow Lakes Country Park, set against the A404. The facility is intended to be used by Great Marlow School and Sir William Borlase School.

The planning officer report explicitly mentions the RUR4 policy in the 2019 Local Plan as a deciding factor, as it allocates the entirety of the area for outdoor recreation and leisure use. Not a smaller area, as the Buckinghamshire Council Cabinet are trying to argue.

The BIG Sustainable Marlow Challenge is a community engagement and communications programme, promoted by Marlow Town Council, encouraging all residents to live greener. One of the headline “eco-missions” is “Helping Nature”.

One way to help nature is of course to not remove it when it is already there. This is what Save Marlow’s Greenbelt has been promoting for more than a year. We are pleased that Marlow Town Council is finally demonstrating support for our cause and look forward to reading their official objection to the Marlow film studio planning application soon.

If you live in Marlow, please write to your town councillors to ensure they live up to their own Challenge.

Following the Save Marlow’s Greenbelt online auction, we are holding a Cake, Cookies and Cracker sale on Saturday 26th November 2022. Located in the car park of Emmett’s Farm Shop, Little Marlow, from 9 am to 1 pm.

All donations of homemade cakes and cookies would be very welcome, please. Please come along and see us and help support the fundraising efforts – the more the merrier!

If you can’t make it on the day, contributions can be delivered to the Farm Shop before the event.