Netflix studios in Chertsey to be made permanent
A film studio in Surrey used by Netflix is to be made permanent after full planning permission was granted.The site of Longcross Studios in Chertsey had been originally approved on a short term basis because of its green belt location.This building was erected in 2020 and has been used continually since.The application was unanimously approved by Runnymede Borough Council on Wednesday.
The council wants to see the area eventually become an office hub as part of its Longcross Garden Village plan, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service.The site was previously occupied by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (Dera) with many of its old buildings now used by Netflix as film studios, including some in Surrey Heath.The Longcross North site, together with the former Dera land south of the M3 including Longcross Barracks, form the designated Longcross Garden Village and has been removed from the green belt through the 2030 Local Plan.The building is near the northern boundary within the wider Longcross North site.A council spokesperson said: "The appearance of the building is appropriate in the context of the wider film studios site."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
13 minutes ago
- Times
Ineos hits out at government ‘madness' after green subsidy is pulled
Sir Jim Ratcliffe's chemicals giant Ineos has accused the government of 'madness' over plans to effectively punish it for making one of its major plants more environmentally friendly. Ineos Acetyls, which makes the acetic acid used in food production, medicines and synthetic fibres, spent more than £30 million switching the fuel source at its factory in Hull from natural gas to low-carbon hydrogen. The move has cut its carbon emissions by 75 per cent. However, the Environment Agency has said that, rather than support the move, it would cut Ineos's carbon subsidies, costing it £23 million over the next three years. Ineos Acetyls chief executive David Brooks said: 'We are being punished for doing the right thing. We've delivered on decarbonisation, exceeding our expectations, and this is the response we get.' He added that he was fighting competition from imports from China, which use cheap, coal-fired energy to produce acetic acid with a carbon footprint eight times greater than his Hull plant. 'It feels like, instead of fighting our competitors, we're fighting our government,' he said. The factory is already lossmaking, he said, and the Environment Agency's decision meant he was having to pause all further investment decisions. The site employs more than 300 workers. The facility was opened by Queen Elizabeth in 1981, but the agency had decided to reclassify it as a 'new-build' factory as a result of the improved process. This means it will not receive its allowances from the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) until 2028. Under the ETS, industrial plants are gifted allowances by the Environment Agency to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gases, beyond which they have to buy credits. The idea is to incentivise polluters to emit less. However, the agency's stance on Ineos Acetyls means that, for the next three years, it will have to buy all of its allowances on the market, which at present prices will be approximately £23 million. Ineos has been appealing to the Environment Agency, which operates the ETS system and is run under the umbrella of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Officials from the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero, the Department for Business & Trade and the Treasury, as well as the devolved governments, are also involved, Brooks said. 'It's a civil service soup of decision-making and it's very difficult to see who is actually making the decisions around this. 'So we're frustrated to get to the right people to talk to, we're frustrated it's taking so long to get what we believe is a slam dunk, and we're frustrated it's such a battle to get people to see common sense.' He described the Environment Agency's reaction as 'computer says no' because the Ineos technology is new. Ineos shut its refinery in Grangemouth after spending three years trying to obtain government subsidies to keep it open. Its decision to halt further investment in the Hull plant comes as Britain's biggest bioethanol plant nearby, owned by Associated British Foods, is threatened with closure after the US-UK trade deal allowed tariff-free US ethanol to enter the UK. The MP in Ineos Acetyls' neighbouring constituency, Kingston upon Hull West & Haltemprice, where many of the plant's workers live, is Emma Hardy, parliamentary under-secretary at Defra. Brooks said he had written to her and been told the decision is 'in the system'. Brooks has a meeting with officials from the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero and the Department for Business & Trade this week, but Defra and the Environment Agency are not due to attend. The Environment Agency said it was the regulator for the UK ETS Scheme and was supporting the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero in its discussions with company representatives about activities at the site. On Saturday afternoon the Environment Agency contacted The Sunday Times again and said Ineos would continue to receive free allowances. It said that Ineos needed to provide 12 months of activity data under the new, cleaner technology for its allowances to reflect the switch.
Daily Mail
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Charity donors' anger over 'tip traps' on fundraising websites
Three in four adults are 'frustrated' with the 'tip trap' set by some fundraising websites, fresh research reveals. Some 76 per cent of those polled by advisory firm Strand Partners are annoyed at the way tips are collected on online fundraising platforms and are calling for the Government to tackle the practice. Fundraising websites act as a middleman between charities or fundraisers and donors, making donations to good causes simple. But many now automatically add a 'tip' on to the donation amount, which goes straight to the platform – and not the charitable cause. It's catching out many generous donors, who end up frustrated after unintentionally paying the automatic charges. When a donor reaches the checkout stage of the fundraising platform, the tip is shown on a sliding scale, which is automatically set at 17 per cent on popular website JustGiving. This means on a £50 donation, an £8.50 fee is automatically added. Donors can change or opt out of these tips, which go directly to the platforms, but only if they spot them – and work out how to reduce them to £0. There are two higher options – at 19 and 20 per cent – and two lower options – 12.5 and 15 per cent. However, the sliding scale doesn't allow donors to reduce the tip to £0, as they must instead manually enter this by clicking an 'enter custom amount' button. Almost two thirds of Britons want it to be easier to remove tip options when donating online, Strand Partners found. Scores of annoyed users have vented their frustration on social media and review websites. One user says 'any tip should be opt in, not opt out', while another says they were 'disgusted' to find a donation had been automatically added. One review of JustGiving says: 'What an insult. I did not want to leave them a tip.' If you leave an unintended tip, you can ask the fundraising platform you used if you can get a refund. It's not just donors who are feeling frustrated. The research comes as MPs are piling pressure on the Government about the sliding tipping scales. Cross-party MPs including Annaliese Dodds, MP for Oxford , and Saqib Bhatti, MP for Meriden and Solihull East, have recently pushed the Government on its plans to take any action on the sliding tipping scales. One of these MPs, Jo Platt, MP for Leigh and Atherton – and a member of the Culture Media and Sport Committee – says: 'Fundraising platforms play an important role in facilitating giving. But concealed tipping options and hidden charges are unnecessarily diverting money away from charities and misleading donors.' The tip system means websites don't levy a platform fee on donations to charities or personal fundraisers anymore in order to run their service. Instead, it is these tips which now pay for the running of the platforms. The UK Fundraising Regulator has long maintained the importance of transparency in online donations. In April, it updated its Code Of Fundraising Practice to specify that all voluntary tips must be clearly presented and on equal footing to free donation options. This is due to take effect in November. A JustGiving spokesman says: 'In order for us to continue to support fundraisers, it is essential that we operate as a for-profit organisation. In recent years we have seen growth in the volume of donations which in turn has naturally increased our profitability. 'Following consultation with some of the UK's leading charities, in 2019 we moved to a voluntary contribution model, so that as much money as possible could go directly to charities and good causes. This is now standard practice across the industry. 'Today, anyone using our platform has the option to leave a tip on top of their donation to support the running of JustGiving and this is not compulsory. 'When people do choose to add a tip, this goes towards investing in and maintaining the technology that helps our site continue to securely raise funds on a global scale, 24/7.'
Daily Mail
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Labour prepared to approve BP takeover by Shell
The Government would be prepared to approve a takeover of BP by its larger rival Shell rather than allow it to fall into overseas hands. The informal guidance in Whitehall was provided before last week's reports that Shell was in early-stage talks about a possible takeover of its weaker competitor. Shell issued a statement to the stock exchange saying that no such talks were taking place. Under Britain's strict takeover rules, it is not permitted to make an offer for six months. It would require BP to invite Shell into the process should there be a bid from other sources. City investment bankers have been floating the idea of a Shell-BP deal to create a London-based European oil champion on the scale of the American behemoths for some months. Such a transaction would inevitably require scrutiny by anti-trust authorities on both sides of the Atlantic. Shell chief executive Wael Sawan publicly has made it clear that his target is to keep returning funds to shareholders through dividends and buybacks, which have been running at £3 billion a quarter. A takeover of BP is seen at Anglo-Dutch Shell headquarters as a distraction from its core mission. Nevertheless, the company felt it necessary to take informal soundings with Ministers and officials, should the opportunity to become involved with BP arise. Shell's last major UK takeover came when it bought BG Group, once the exploration arm of British Gas, for £46 billion a decade ago. Shell, with a stock market value of £150 billion, has accelerated away from BP in recent years. With a valuation of less than half that, BP would be easy pickings for most of the big oil firms. Investor interest in big oil has increased since Donald Trump returned to the White House with his 'drill, baby, drill' mantra. The open hostility of Keir Starmer's Government to fossil fuels has also softened in recent weeks. The 12-day war between Israel and Iran has been a sharp reminder of how important oil and gas is to the UK's energy and national security. BP's low valuation of £58.8 billion makes it an attractive takeover proposition for its rivals. It has been beset by problems in the boardroom, in Russia and in the newly named Gulf of America. It carries net debt of £20 billion on its balance sheet. BP is seeking to refocus on oil and gas exploration and production after flirting with becoming a carbon-zero energy group under Bernard Looney, who left under a cloud in 2023. Current chief executive Murray Auchincloss has set a challenging target to reduce net debt to £14 billion by 2027. It is also under pressure from activist investor Elliott Capital Management to improve early returns even if it means cutting back on capital investment. However, it is not clear that the big American oil companies would be interested in buying BP. Exxon Mobil is very focused on the Americas, having struck black gold in the Guyana basin. It is also deeply involved in drilling, fracking and extraction of natural gas in the Permian Basin in Texas and New Mexico with its $64 billion (£47 billion) takeover of Pioneer Natural Resources. Rival Chevron also has been doubling down on domestic development and is pursuing a $50 billion takeover of Hess Corporation, although this has been bogged down in an arbitration process. As the former Anglo-Persian oil company founded in 1909, BP has a long history of global exploration and good relations with the British Government. It has lost none of its adventurous nature and has been developing new production and markets in Azerbaijan, India and Indonesia and is a big investor in Iraqi production. The Government will fear for the fate of such a vital flag-flier for Britain at home and abroad, and for the risk to jobs, exports and oil trading should it fall into overseas hands. A loss of its London stock exchange quotation would be a devastating blow to the UK. Some City advisers have been alerted that their services will be needed should, for any reason, the current six-month cooling-off period on a Shell-BP transaction be interrupted.
