REPORT ON STUDIO AND COMMERCIAL SPACE PROVISIONS


Reduction in square footage of studio and commercial space = 16%

From 5048 m2 to 4218 m2

Reduction in cubic footage of studio and commercial space = 34%

From 17083 m3 to 11283 m3

On studio spaces only there has been a reduction of 48%

From 10448 m3 to 5343 m3

Reduction in the number of studios provided from 8 to 6.

STUDIOS ONLY

NB. A studio complex of this sixe must be capable of handling up to 750 + people at any time. Vehicles, animals and large items would be shot for both stills and moving images. Sets would be constructed and broken down frequently. The provision of a one way ramp and 5.5metre corridor linking the Western block and Core 6 to two street level crossovers would be essential to the function of the studios and the safety of staff, crew and visitors.

Studio 1. Could function as a fashion studio subject to the note above, but it does have restricted height.

Studio 2. Because of structural pillars this studio would be restricted to headshots and still life only.

Studio 3. This still life studio would not be accessible because of the ramp required as described above.

Studio 4. Two structural columns and restricted height make this studio unusable.

Studio 5. Central structural column and restricted height makes studio unusable.

Studio 6. Restricted height and width would restrict this studio to still life and head shot use

Rest of the commercial spaces available on the ground and first floors would be unsuitable for stills or motion pictures because of very restricted height and structural issues.

SUMMARY

These studio spaces have been drawn by someone who has probably never visited and certainly never worked in a large studio complex. An underground complex must have a viable ramp into and exit from the premises. This ramp and corridor would enable the safe and necessary access to all studios. A large goods lift and two pedestrian lifts are not an option as will be confirmed by Building Control and the Fire Officer. Of the six supposed still and moving image studios only three could be used for low value use only and a studio complex could not operate. A study of the existing resident companies on the site would suggest that they would not wish to operate without the proximity of a studio complex.

The proposed project is not viable and would fail.

Vincent McCartney September 2015

Related web pages


Planning App 2015/2596

Examples of Objections