" it would be stupid to relax the green-belt rules....because this would ruin the point of Britain"  
Jeremy Clarkson

In November 2007 Pinewood Studios announced plans for a substantial development of permanent live-in film lots on 100 acres of prime greenfield, Green Belt land next to their current studios. On 2nd June 2009 they submitted their plans to South Bucks District Council and on 21st October the application was unanimously and unequivocally rejected by South Bucks District Council in front of an audience of four hundred objectors. Despite the fact that South Bucks planning committee have shown that there is nothing in the proposal that cannot be accommodated on Pinewoods current site, except the 1400 housing unitsthey have lodged an appeal with the planning inspectorate, which will be held in April 2011.

The previous government gave local people have little faith that they would uphold the legislation that should protect this land and who can blame them? The area to the west of London was repeatedly let down by government planning decisions; 90% of responses to the Heathrow consultation said NO to a third runway and 90% of the population of Gerards Cross said NO to a new Tesco in their village yet both schemes were given the greenlight by a remote and dictatorial government, will the new government listen?

"I'm implacable on green belt" 
Caroline Spelman, Environment Secretary

The new Environment Secretary, Caroline Spelman, Conservative MP for a "green belt constituency" on the edge of Birmingham, has said she would stop the practice of building on existing green belt sites in return for creating new green belt land in areas with little or no development threat, and would abolish regional planning committees allowing local authorities to take responsibility for protecting their own communities from urban sprawl. "Green belt was created in the 1950s in order to protect the countryside from urban sprawl ... and green belt needs to be maintained."

"All the low-flush toilets in world can't make dumping a housing estate on green fields somehow eco-friendly."
Grant Shapps, Housing Minister

Pinewood are presenting the project in terms of the benefit to their business, the film industry, the national economy and even claim it is eco-friendly! In claims, now throughly rebutted by the SBDC's planning committee, they describe the project as "one of the most unique and ambitious projects ever undertaken in the UK for the creative industries...a living working media community, set within a collage of permanent film and TV locations." They describe "atmospheric streetscapes in generic architectural styles set in landscaped open spaces potentially comprising woodland, waterways, gardens and recreational areas used for both filming and by the community..."

It sounds idyllic but it is, in effect, simply an attempt to create a substantial residential development on 100 acres of greenfield, greenbelt land next to a small village in South Buckinghamshire.

The scale of this proposal cannot be overstated, the graphics clearly show it dwarfing the adjacent village of Iver Heath. Many of the streetscapes will contain buildings double the height of the local properties and will be clearly visible from the surrounding streets. The Studio has been keen to stress the value of the film industry to the British economy, that the project is of "national importance" and will bring jobs and homes to the area. What it fails to mention is the value of greenbelt land to the national economy, the predominantly rural character of the area or that the projected 600 to 900 jobs will fail to provide employment for the 3,000 people who will be moving onto the site let alone provide opportunites for the people of the local community. Further, many film professionals believe that it is a blatant attempt to build housing on Green Belt land and its use for filming will be minimal and also expensive industry and that it will be of little value to film makers. Location directors will not want to repeatedly use other peoples sets and will require more than one scene per location, likewise the film industry is more likely to follow tax breaks and other cost advantages rather than fake locations, however convenient.

So no new jobs - no benefit to the film industry, just an inappropriate property development to make money for the studio.

Even the government's own advisor on architecture, urban design and public space is equivocal on the benefits of the project stating that "given the complex and unusual nature of this project, we think a detailed planning application is needed, at least for the first phase of development, to make a convincing case for the scheme." To read the full report visit;
  http://www.cabe.org.uk/design-review/project-pinewood

The studio has spent millions on architects, construction experts, development experts, PR experts and full time staff of their own, working for months, probably years to develop and promote their scheme and will no doubt spend even more to try and influence the government and planning inspectorate while local residents have no full time staff, little expertise and no money to refute Pinewoods claims in order to protect the landscape and their community, but we will NEVER give up. So return here frequently to find out more about what you can do to object to the plan and help our campaign to ensure that Project Pinewood does not succeed in destroying a valuable natural resource.