12 Comments

In an interview with Konstantin Kisin (https://www.samizdata.net/2024/05/liz-truss-in-office-but-not-in-power/ ), Liz Truss says (possibly not 100% seriously) that the one thing that would really help Britain would be repeal/radical reform of the 1947 Town and Country Planning act. These cases seem to be examples of exactly why that is necessary

Expand full comment

Reading an article in the local newspaper (Bucks Free Press) on the council's reasons for refusal, they argued against it on nine separate grounds in their six hours meeting (although several seem to be linked):

* Inappropriate development on the greenbelt;

* Conflicts with a long proposed Country Park (the studio framed 89 acres of their development as a contribution to the country park, but councillors decided the plans would prejudice the intended function of the area)

* It would intrude on and obscure views of the Chiltern Hills AONB

* It would have a “severe impact on the safety and flow of users” on the local roads plus cause overspill parking on nearby residential streets

* Provision of new bus and cycle routes were deemed insufficient incentive for users of the studios to use public transport rather than driving;

* The large scale nature of the 16.78 hectare complex was judged to be “a form of development contrary to the National Policy Planning Framework”, as well as the Wycombe District Local Plan and Buckinghamshire’s Council’s Local Transport Plan

* It would have a “detrimental outlook, noise and disturbance impact” on residents at the nearby housing estate as well as creating "increased traffic on access roads”

* The development was in conflict with the Wycombe District Local Plan both in its conflict with the Little Marlow Lakes Country Park and its "frustration of the delivery of much-needed housing", and

* The proposals lacked a s106 agreement.

The detail will provide a lot of material for the studios to work with when considering whether to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

Expand full comment

Did Marlow appeal?

Expand full comment

UK is broke. . Have you seen the state of infrastructures, outside London. UK economy is London centric. P

Expand full comment
Jun 11·edited Jun 11

I know a fair bit about this project and I do support it going ahead. However the project hasn’t been handled well in terms of its relations with the public.

Firstly it wasn’t clear to me for a long time that the film studio wasn’t at the Bisham roundabout on the A404 which is genuinely extremely congested at peak times.

Secondly it wasn't clear until today that money was going to be spent improving the local road network.

Thirdly they could have funded a High Wycombe station - High Wycombe Coachway - Marlow Film studio - Maidenhead town centre - Maidenhead station express bus.

Additionally they could have at least added peak time traffic lights or grade separated the Bisham roundabout to make it more usable.

Expand full comment

Why are all these questions for the developer rather than the council? The way this sort of investment usually works is that councils offer incentives to bring investment in (like upgrading transport links) because they realise that investment in the area is beneficial. Instead we have a bizarre system where investment is desperately needed but developers are treated like lepers and must offer to pay for infrastructure just to get a project approved.

Expand full comment

Buckinghamshire council doesnt have the spare money to invest in the infrastructure. The infrastructure has to be paid for by developer contributions.

If you want that to change then council tax would need to go up a lot which would be politically unpopular.

Expand full comment

Oh I dunno, call me crazy, but maybe increasing economic activity in the area will increase council revenues?

Expand full comment

I think that would take a very long time.

As it is most capital improvements are funded by developer contributions.

Expand full comment

Councils are continually strapped for cash (e.g. between 2010 and 2017 alone, government grants to councils declined to the extent of an average 40% reduction in spending power, which could only partially be offset by council tax rises and increasing the cost of chargeable services), so a lot of major infrastructure projects have to be funded via s106 agreements. Naturally, developers will try and reduce that figure (which also for housing schemes will include contributions to help fund additional school places or even a new primary school, and either a proportion of the development designated as "Affordable" housing [20% below average market rate in the area] or a contribution to provision elsewhere). Interestingly, the Financial Viability Assessment included in such schemes usually assumes 15-20% return on costs as the minimum needed to make the scheme viable.

Expand full comment

You sound like a NIMBY to me

Expand full comment
Jun 11·edited Jun 11

If you want anything built you have to keep the “maybe in my backyard” people (which honestly is where I sit) onside.

The Dutch merchants rejected a boulevard down one of the canals in the 17th/18th centuries and the people in the home counties rejected the London-Birmingham railway in the 19th century and forced it to use the current suboptimal route. So none of this is something that has only happened recently.

Expand full comment