(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Weymouth & Portland Borough

Public Document Pack

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Members of Planning Committee are invited to attend this meeting at Commercial Road, Weymouth, Dorset to consider the items listed on the following page.

Matt Prosser Chief Executive

Date: Wednesday, 11 April 2018 Time: 9.00 am Venue: Council Chamber - WPBC Members of Committee: M Tewkesbury (Chairman), M Leicester (Vice-Chairman), K Brookes, H Bruce, I Bruce, J Ellis, C James, O Kanji, P Kimber, C Page-Nash, A Weaving and S West

USEFUL INFORMATION For more information about this agenda please telephone Elaine Tibble, 01305 838223 email [email protected]

This agenda and reports are also available on the Council’s website at www.dorsetforyou.com/committees/ Weymouth and Portland Borough Council.

Mod.gov public app now available – Download the free public app now for your iPad, Android and Windows 8.1/10 tablet from your app store. Search for Mod.gov to access agendas/ minutes and select Dorset Councils Partnership.

Members of the public are welcome to attend this meeting with the exception of any items listed in the exempt part of this agenda.

Disabled access is available for all of the council’s committee rooms. Hearing loop facilities are available. Please speak to a Democratic Services Officer for assistance in using this facility.

Recording, photographing and using social media at meetings The council is committed to being open and transparent in the way it carries out its business whenever possible. Anyone can film, audio-record, take photographs, and use social media such as tweeting and blogging to report the meeting when it is open to the public, so long as they conform to the Council’s protocol, a copy of which can be obtained from the Democratic Services Team. A G E N D A

Page No.

1 SITE VISITS

No Site Visits.

2 APOLOGIES

To receive any apologies for absence.

3 CODE OF CONDUCT

Members are required to comply with the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 and the Council’s Code of Conduct regarding disclosable pecuniary and other interests.

Check if there is an item of business on this agenda in which the member or other relevant person has a disclosable pecuniary or other disclosable interest Check that the interest has been notified to the Monitoring Officer (in writing) and entered in the Register (if not this must be done within 28 days) Disclose the interest at the meeting (in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct) and in the absence of dispensation to speak and/or vote, withdraw from any consideration of the item where appropriate. If the interest is non-pecuniary you may be able to stay in the room, take part and vote.

For further advice please contact Stuart Caundle, Monitoring Officer, in advance of the meeting.

4 MINUTES

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting held on 7 February 2018, previously circulated.

5 REQUESTS FOR SITE VISITS

6 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Members of the public (and planning applicants or their representatives) are allowed to address the Committee for up to 3 minutes, either in support of, or objecting to, applications on the agenda. Notice to speak has to be given directly to the Democratic Services Department (01305 838223) by 12.00pm on the Tuesday prior to the Committee meeting. Full details of the procedure are available on request. Members of the public can indicate if they wish to reserve their right to speak at the beginning of the agenda item.

7 APPLICATION NO: WP/18/00034/FUL, 1A MOORDOWN AVENUE, 5 - 10 WEYMOUTH

8 APPLICATION NO: WP/18/00010/VOC, WEYMOUTH BEACH, THE 11 - 20 ESPLANADE, WEYMOUTH

9 APPLICATION NO: WP/17/00971/FUL, HUT 5, WEST WEARES, 21 - 26 PORTLAND

10 URGENT ITEMS

To consider any items of business which the Chair has had prior notification and considers to be urgent pursuant to section 100B (4) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972. The reason for the urgency shall be specified in the minutes.

11 EXEMPT BUSINESS

To move the exclusion of the press and the public for the following items in view of the likely disclosure of exempt information within the meaning of paragraphs 3 & 5 of schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7

APPLICATION NO: WP/18/00034/FUL 11th April 2018

Erection of single storey extension to the upper ground floor.

1A MOORDOWN AVENUE, WEYMOUTH, DT3 6HU

Mr & Mrs Shardlow

Case Officer: Darren Rogers FOR DECISION

1. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

1.1 Approve

2. PROPOSAL

2.1It is proposed to erect a single storey extension to the upper ground floor of this dwelling which was approved under ref WP/14/00389/FUL. Condition 5 of that permission sought to prevent any external use of the flat roof area above the existing garage and side bedroom as an external amenity area stating;

There shall be no use of the flat roof garage and side bedroom flat roof area as an external amenity area for occupiers of the dwelling hereby approved.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and residential amenity in accordance with Policy B1 and D3 of the West Dorset Local Plan (adopted July 2006) and ENV12 and ENV16 of the emerging West Dorset Weymouth and Portland Local Plan.

2.2The proposed extension would not be over the existing garage but would be located over the lower ground floor bedroom 1 and would comprise a new dining room. As with the lower ground floor area it would be built no closer to the 2 highways at this corner location but would be at upper ground floor level; which appears as ground floor level from Moordown Avenue. The applicant's design and access (D&A) statement explains that:

This proposal is to build a dining room adjacent the kitchen on the left side of the entrance. The current dining area is on the lower ground floor, a new dining room on the same level as the kitchen will greatly improve safety & access within the house, reducing the potential to fall down stairs whilst carrying hot food.

2.4 The D&A continues by stating that:

The decision for a flat roof over the new dining room is to keep the height down so the neighbours on the north side of Moordown Ave will still have a view over the Lodmoor Wetlands. The new dining room will not be much higher than the existing hedge.

Page 5 2.3 The proposed extension would be constructed from reconstituted stone to match the existing; white framed windows to match existing; and the roof would be grey lead effect GRP with rollmops and a small lantern rooflight.

3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Permission for a detached dwelling on this site was refused in December 2007 (07/00778/FUL) for the following reasons:

‘The proposed development by virtue of its scale, design and relationship with the neighbouring property would result in over development of the site creating a confined form of development that fails to reflect the established pattern and style of dwellings in the area to the detriment and character of the locality. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies D3 and B1 of the Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2005.’

3.2 A subsequent appeal was dismissed in June 2008.

3.3 A subsequent application for a dwelling seeking to overcome the above Inspectors concerns was again refused in December 2008 (08/00726/FUL) on these grounds;

‘The proposed development by virtue of its confined scale, design and appearance in the street scene, fails to reflect the established pattern and style of dwellings in the street scene and would not respect the areas local distinctiveness. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies D3 and B1 of the adopted Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2005’.

3.4 Another appeal against that decision was again dismissed in June 2009.

3.5 WP/14/00389/FUL - Construct single dwelling with access and garage alongside existing bungalow, was approved 24th Sept 2014 after a Committee site visit. Condition 5 sought to prevent any external use of the flat roof area above the existing garage and side bedroom as an external amenity area stating;

There shall be no use of the flat roof garage and side bedroom flat roof area as an external amenity area for occupiers of the dwelling hereby approved.

3.6 Finally WP/15/00646/FUL - Construct conservatory over bedroom 1 of property was refused 06-Nov-2015 on the grounds that:

The proposed development would be an unduly prominent and dominant feature being erected on top of the flat roof area of the dwelling fronting Hazeldown Avenue which would by reason of that prominence detract from the character and appearance of the

Page 6 area. It would be contrary it is considered to Policies ENV10 - The landscape and townscape setting and ENV 12 – The design and positioning of buildings - of the newly adopted West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan; and the design guidance as set out in Section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework

4. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Adopted West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan: As far as this application is concerned the following policies are considered to be relevant.  INT1- Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development  ENV10 - The landscape and townscape setting  ENV 12 – The design and positioning of buildings  ENV 16 – Amenity  SUS2 – Distribution of development

National Planning Policy Framework (2012) Part 7: Requiring Good Design

Para 56 - The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

Para 57 - It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes.

Para 60. Planning Policies and decision should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms of styles. It is however proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness.

Decision taking: Para 186 - Local planning authorities should approach decision-taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development. The relationship between decision- taking and plan-making should be seamless, translating plans into high quality development on the ground.

Para 187 - Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Page 7 Supplementary Planning Documents WPBC Urban Design (2002) Weymouth and Portland Landscape Character Assessment 2013

5. STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS

5.1 DCC Highways - no objections

6. OTHER CONSULTATIONS

6.1 None

7. REPRESENTATIONS

7.1 At the time of writing there has been 8 representations received with objections on the following grounds:

 adverse impact on the visual amenity - reducing the views for all those using Moordown Avenue and Hazeldown Avenue.

 object to a property being built on the hillside above us where the living room windows look DOWN into our bedroom and kitchen/dining area as well as the whole of our back garden. The design of the 2014 plans was approved on the basis that the ground floor rooms with flat roofs were at a low level to reduce the visual impact on this prominent corner site.

 this site was not developed by the original builder, partly to keep an open aspect for surrounding properties and partly because of ground water problems which affect the hillside.

 in the original plans the dining area was on the first floor and the ground floor rooms were all bedrooms. The previous owners chose to use one of the bedrooms as a dining room. This was not the original plan.

 the development will double the daytime-use –window-space looking down into the bedroom and kitchen/dining area of 22 Southdown Avenue and the large and well used conservatory in 20 Southdown Avenue.

 object strongly to yet another Application on this site and even more invasion of privacy (to 22 Southdown Avenue).

 four initial plans that were rejected for the construction of this property, for very valid reasons, before this latest application for a new build south facing extension. This of course flies in the face of the original condition imposed of NO such extension to be allowed

Page 8  it will further increase the loss of privacy already endured due to the large high windows which overlook my house directly into my conservatory. I have to lower the blinds along the west facing length in order to use this facility.

 Condition 5 of WP/14/00389/FUL stated that there shall be no use of the flat roof garage and side bedroom flat roof area as an external amenity area for the occupiers of the dwelling. Planning Application WP/15/00646/FUL was also refused in a letter dated 6-11-15. I trust the current application would be refused for the same reasons as the two previous applications.

 there exists a legal covenant under which any no extension or alteration may be made to 1A Moordown Avenue without my written consent. (NB these are private and civil matters not material to the planning merits)

 Due to its elevated position it would detract from neighbouring privacy.

8. PLANNING ISSUES

8.1 The main planning issues relevant to this application are:

 Impact on the character if the area; and

 impact on neighbours amenity

8.2 There is understandable concern given the planning history of this site that neighbours are concerned that the proposal is unacceptable to them given their representations as set out above.

8.3 Condition 5 of the planning permission granted for a new dwelling here only sought to prevent any external use of the flat roof area above the garage and side bedroom as an external amenity area in order to safeguard the visual amenity of the area and residential amenity of neighbours. This condition did not relate to any extension to the property.

8.4 The proposal for a conservatory was for a pitched roof and clear glazed structure and was refused planning permission on grounds that "it would be an unduly prominent and dominant feature being erected on top of the flat roof area of the dwelling fronting Hazeldown Avenue which would by reason of that prominence detract from the character and appearance of the area". This reason relates to design and appearance and not amenity.

8.5 This current proposal seeks to minimise the impact of a development on this corner by incorporating a flat roof extension (with small lantern roof light within the roof) and incorporates matching external materials to the existing dwelling. In that regard the design and appearance of the proposal is considered it be acceptable; notwithstanding the conservatory refusal as set out above. The proposed extension is essentially single

Page 9 storey when viewed from Moordown Avenue and is not considered to be significantly prominent /dominant or obtrusive to warrant refusal of permission; being set back from Southdown Avenue the same distance as the existing ground floor part of the house.

8.6 Neighbours are also understandably concerned about the impact on their amenity particularly those at the rear (lower level) in Southdown Avenue at no.22 and the neighbour on the opposite side of the road to the east at no.20 who has a conservatory. However I consider their concerns to be overstated and do not consider that the proposal would impact on their amenity significant to warrant refusal of permission. Given the distances to neighbours (around 30m elevation to elevation to 22 Southdown Avenue) and the slope of the land (Southdown Avenue dwellings being at a lower level); the internal use of the structure is not likely to impact significantly on the privacy and amenity of neighbouring occupiers. This is having particularly regard to the property to the south of the site and those opposite in Moordown Avenue or the east side of Southdown Avenue. The proposal incorporates a Juliette balcony to the dining room area but this is set back from the garage and main rear wall of the house and would offer views of Lodmoor Country Park and the coast above and beyond the sloping rear garden of 22 Southdown Avenue. As such it is not considered that the impact on neighbours is so detrimental to warrant a refusal on this amenity issue alone.

9. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

9.1 It is considered that the extension would not be an unduly prominent and dominant feature, nor would it have any significant adverse impact on neighbours’ amenity to warrant refusal of planning permission.

10.RECOMMENDATION

10.1 Approval is recommended subject to the following conditions:-

1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location and Site Plan - Drawing Number P-001 Existing and Proposed Floor Plan - Drawing Number P-002 Proposed Elevations and Sections - Drawing Number P-004

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Page 10 Agenda Item 8

APPLICATION NO: WP/18/00010/VOC 11th April 2018

Arrangement and design of beach attractions and kiosks (variation of condition 2 of planning permission 10/00118/FUL3 regarding size and location details of facilities)

WEYMOUTH BEACH, THE ESPLANADE, WEYMOUTH

Mr Weldon

Case Officer: Darren Rogers FOR DECISION

1. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

Approve

2. PROPOSAL

2.1 Some Members may recall that in 2010 planning permission was granted for a range of beach attractions and kiosks along the esplanade frontage. This permission was part of the Seafront Regeneration project at that time. It was approved subject to the following 6 conditions:

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2.The facilities hereby approved shall be in accordance with the detail and shall not exceed the size limits stated in the attached table (NB - an attached table referred to what was approved in each area).

Reason: To ensure that development does not detract from the character and appearance of the Weymouth Town Centre Conservation Area, or from the listed buildings along the Esplanade, in accordance with Policies B1, B8 and TO6 of the adopted Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2005, and PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment.

3. The kiosks and any associated awnings hereby approved shall be constructed as detailed on plan reference 2010 27 01A and 2010 27 02A, with the exception that any alternative arrangements of doors and serving hatches shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to the erection of that kiosk.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the character and appearance of the Weymouth Town Centre Conservation Area, or from the listed

Page 11 buildings along the Esplanade, in accordance with Policies B1, B8 and TO6 of the adopted Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2005, and PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment.

4. Before the construction of any kiosk, details of the colour scheme of the building and any associated awning shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The colours to be used shall be restricted to the agreed colour palette and the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the character and appearance of the Weymouth Town Centre Conservation Area, or the listed buildings along the Esplanade, in accordance with Policies B1, B8 and TO6 of the adopted Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2005, and PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment.

6. Before the commencement of development, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority a Beach Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; this shall include details of flood warning procedures, evacuation plans and the procedures for removal of assets from the beach at times of flood and/or storm.

Reason: In order to safeguard the development from unnecessary risk, in accordance with PPS25: Development and Flood Risk and the Weymouth and Portland Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.

2.2 The original permission has obviously been implemented and this current application seeks the variation of condition 2 to allow for the provision of a Ferris Wheel. The Ferris wheel would be 15m high and as such would exceed the limits currently imposed for this area of the beach (Area A5) which are as follows:

“A5 – height restriction of 8m plus one attraction up to 11m” Currently the attraction up to 11m is the Helter Skelter

2. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Page 12 Application No. Proposal Decision 10/00118/FUL3 Arrangement and design of Approved 5th Oct 2010 beach attractions and kiosks

3. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012

As far as this application is concerned the following sections of the NPPF are considered to be relevant:

1. Building a strong, competitive economy 2. Ensuring the vitality of town centres 7. Requiring good design 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

4.1 Adopted West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015)

As far as this application is concerned the following policies are considered to be relevant:

• Int1. Presumption In Favour Of Sustainable Development • Env1. Landscape, Seascape And Sites Of Geological Interest • Env4. Heritage Assets • Env5. Flood Risk • Env7. Coastal Erosion And Land Instability • Env10. The Landscape And Townscape Setting • Env12. The Design And Positioning Of Buildings • Env15. Efficient And Appropriate Use Of Land

Page 13 • Env16. Amenity • Econ5. Tourism Attractions And Facilities • Wey5. The Esplanade (South)

5. OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

Supplementary Planning Documents

WPBC: Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas (2002) Urban Design (2002)

WPBC Conservation Area Appraisals Weymouth Town Centre

Weymouth and Portland Landscape Character Assessment 2013

Shoreline Management Plans

4. STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS

Historic England – no comments to make

5. OTHER CONSULTATIONS

DCP Conservation Officer – The proposals are for a beach leisure structure to be situated amongst other (albeit lower) leisure structures. The use of the beach for leisure activities is intrinsic to the heritage of the area and the conservation area already includes similar activities and structures. Bond Street is flanked by two Grade II listed terraces and it is not anticipated that the setting of these assets (or other listed-buildings in the immediate or wider area) will be subject to major harm by the introduction of a beach leisure structure.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

Weymouth Civic Society - We consider that the proposed Ferris wheel would be an unsuitable intrusion into the ambience of Weymouth’s popular family beach. It is too high a structure, too dominant and not appropriate for this location. It would not only change the atmosphere of the family beach, but it would also spoil the line and curve of the beach as seen from key vantage points.

At 15 metres high it would breach the Council’s own rules on the height of structures on the beach, which are primarily limited to 3m, 6m and 8m, with one exceptional allowance of 11 metres for the Helter Skelter. Condition 2 of the original permission specifically limits the height of structures to ‘ensure that development does not detract from the character and appearance of the Weymouth Town Centre Conservation Area, or from the listed buildings along the Esplanade’.

Page 14 7. PLANNING ISSUES

8.1 The main planning issues relevant to this application are:

 Impact on character and appearance of the area given the adjacent Heritage Assets (Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings)

8.2 There is no doubt that the frontage of the Esplanade has many Heritage Assets it being located within the Weymouth Town Centre Conservation Area (WTCCA). The Town Centre Conservation Area is divided into five Sub-Areas including The Esplanade.

8.3 The Sub-Areas relate to identifiable physical characters and the fact that several areas of the Conservation Area were designated at different times. Each Sub-Area is analysed in some detail, according to the English Heritage (now Historic England) guidelines for conservation area appraisals. Historic Importance is described, with an overview of development history. Building Uses is briefly assessed, especially where these have had a major influence on Building Types and Layouts.

8.4 It is recognised in the WTCCA that “The Esplanade is an important example of late Georgian town planning, related firmly to the sea and to the requirements of the Borough Council’s land ownership, a 1776 Act of Parliament and local building bylaws and the design framework and influence of James Hamilton. Its origins are roughly contemporary with the development of the Bathwick Estate by Thomas Baldwin, in Bath, and the concept predates Regency Brighton by about twenty years”.

8.5 The WTCCA also states that “The beach is an extension of The Esplanade and, at low tide; expanses of drying sand extend the usable space. The pebbles and shingle to the north of the Jubilee Clock and the sands to the south are a large public space. There are various entertainment and amenity features, including chalets and boat and canoe hire (north), refreshment huts, Punch and Judy, fairground rides and trampolines and sand sculpture. The sands accommodate special events, at specific times of the year, notable a Kite Festival, motorbike races and a beach volley ball festival”.

8.6 This current proposal would simply see another entertainment feature provided within area A5. The current permission allows for one attraction of up to 11m in height on site A5 and this proposal seeks an amendment to that condition to allow up a Ferris wheel proposal - at 15m.

8.7 Given the above and the fact that area A5 would only see one extra amusement ride albeit it at 15m high, that in itself is not considered to detract significantly from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area to a degree that would result in sufficient harm to refuse planning permission. No adverse comments have been received from Historic England or from your Conservation Officer. As such it is considered that the proposal would have a neutral impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and in that sense the area would be preserved as set out in Section 72 of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990.

Page 15 8.8 Likewise it is not considered that the setting of the many listed buildings along the Esplanade would be adversely affected. They are on the opposite side of the Esplanade and separated from area A5 by the road and pedestrian walkway along the Esplanade. As such the proposal is not considered to harm the setting of these buildings sufficient to refuse planning permission. They would be safeguarded such that Section 66 (setting considerations) of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990 is considered to have been met. The proposal would therefore be acceptable having regard to Policy ENV4 of the adopted Local Plan.

8.9 The proposal would also be acceptable having regard Policy ENV16. It is not considered that the proposal would raise any significant amenity issues to neighbours in terms of visual impact or noise given the current amusement and attractions that are permitted here.

8.10 There are no other issues of note that would be raised by the proposal.

8. SUMMARY OF ISSUES

9.1 The proposal to vary condition 2 of the 2010 permission is considered to be acceptable having regard to the Heritage impact issues and considerations as set out above, to allow the installation of an additional ride up to 15m. Other conditions are repeated as appropriate to this new permission to provide on-going controls as necessary.

9. RECOMMENDATION

10.1 Approval is recommended subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Refreshment Kiosk - drawing number 2010. 27. 01 A; Retail kiosk - drawing number 2010. 27. 02 A; Site Plan - drawing number 2010. 27.03 A and Details - drawing number 2010. 7. 04 received 6th Aug 2010

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning

2. The facilities hereby approved shall be in accordance with the detail in the attached table and shall not exceed the size limits stated.

Reason: To ensure that development does not detract from the character and appearance of the Weymouth Town Centre Conservation Area, or from the listed buildings along the Esplanade

Page 16 Type Location Dimension SC1 Opposite 114 The Esplanade Kiosk & Decking: 9.0m frontage x 9.5m depth site

SC2 Opposite Gloucester Lodge/PH, adjacent steps Kiosk & Decking: 9.0m frontage x 9.5m depth site

SC3 Opposite 76 The Esplanade, adjacent steps Kiosk & Decking: 9.0m frontage x 9.5m depth site

SC4 Opposite M&S, adjacent steps/slipway Kiosk & Decking: 9.0m frontage x 9.5m depth site

R1 Opposite south end of former TIC 8.0m frontage x 6.0m depth site

R2 Opposite 72/73 The Esplanade 8.0m frontage x 6.0m depth site

R4 Opposite 44/45 The Esplanade 8.0m frontage x 6.0m depth site

A2 Opposite Tea Cabin 20m x 10m Height restriction 3m

A3 Opposite 58 The Esplanade 20m x15m Height restriction 6m

A4 Opposite M&S 10m x 15m Height restriction 6m unless open structure up to 8m

A5 Opposite Bond Street 30m x 23m Height restriction 8m plus one attraction up to 11m and one attraction up to 15m

A6 Opposite Sir Henry Edwards statue 18m x 18m Height restriction 6m

H1 Punch and Judy as existing 15m x 20m

H2 Donkeys as existing 8.5m x 5m

Page 17 3. The kiosks and any associated awnings hereby approved shall be constructed as detailed on plan reference 2010 27 01A and 2010 27 02A, with the exception that any alternative arrangements of doors and serving hatches shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to the erection of that kiosk. Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the character and appearance of the Weymouth Town Centre Conservation Area, or from the listed buildings along the Esplanade.

4. Before the construction of any new kiosk, details of the colour scheme of the building and any associated awning shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The colours to be used shall be restricted to the agreed colour palette and the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the character and appearance of the Weymouth Town Centre Conservation Area, or the listed buildings along the Esplanade.

5. Detailed drawings and specifications showing the design, construction and colour scheme of any new built structure and/or fencing enclosure for the attraction sites and any enclosure or barrier for the kiosks shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the character and appearance of the Weymouth Town Centre Conservation Area, or the listed buildings along the Esplanade.

11. HUMAN RIGHTS

Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property

This Recommendation is based on adopted Development Plan policies, the application of which does not prejudice the Human Rights of the applicant or any third party.

12. PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITIES DUTY : As set out in the Equalities Act 2010, all public bodies, in discharging their functions must have “due regard” to this duty. There are 3 main aims:- • Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics • Taking steps to meet the needs of people with certain protected characteristics where these are different from the needs of other people • Encouraging people with certain protected characteristics to participate in public life or in other activities where participation is disproportionately low.

Page 18 Whilst there is no absolute requirement to fully remove any disadvantage the Duty is to have “regard to” and remove OR minimise disadvantage and in considering the merits of this planning application the planning authority has taken into consideration the requirements of the PSED

Page 19 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9

APPLICATION NO: WP/17/00971/FUL 11th April 2018

Replacement of existing beach hut

HUT 5, WEST WEARES, PORTLAND

Mr Keith Barnett

Case Officer: Jo Riley FOR DECISION 11th April 2018

1. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

1.1 Approve subject to conditions

2. PROPOSAL

2.1 Hut 5 is a timber hut in blue without a small outshot and sits towards the front of the coastal slope within the group of huts at West Weares. The last known planning history for the hut was in 2011 for a ten year permission which does not expire until 2021. The existing hut has a height of 2.1m and footprint of 3.7 by 3.7m including a small outshot. The proposal is to replace this hut with a new timber hut with double glazed windows and GRP roof. The proposal footprint would remain “as existing” but would square off the side by incorporating the outshot into that footprint. There would be shutters and louvres. There is a mix of styles of huts in West Weares, generally in dark colours with the overall appearance of low key huts set within the backdrop of the staggered shrub land.

2.2 The application site is not listed and is not sited within a Conservation Area.

2.4 The application site is situated within an area designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), an Area of Local Landscape Importance, a Regionally Important Geological Site and forms part of the Heritage Coastline.

2.5 The application site is outside of the defined development boundary (DDB) for Portland.

3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 See table below:

Application No. Proposal Decision 11/00973/BHUT Replacement Beach Hut Approved (resubmission) expires 31.11.21

Page 21 4. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

WPBC SPG6: Supplementary Planning Guidance Portland Beach Huts (2003).

Para 3.2.1 At West Wears, Church Ope Cove and outside the hut fields at Portland Bill, additional beach huts, extensions to beach huts and the replacement of beach huts with larger structures are unlikely to be appropriate due to the critical landscape, nature conservation and recreational interests in these areas.

Para 3.1.2 - It is important that beach huts retain the appearance of temporary timber built structures without permanent foundations in order to preserve their essential character, enable future siting improvements and avoid the incremental development of inappropriate buildings in these sensitive locations. Likewise, huts should remain as single storey structures without loft storage and should not develop further patio, decking or veranda areas or ‘garden’ enclosures. These would fundamentally alter the character of the huts, the development of outdoor structures or gardens being additionally damaging to nature conservation interests.

A.1.1 The beach huts at West Wears are more or less randomly scattered across the vegetated toe of the boulder strewn scree slope formed from the discarded stone from the C19th working at Tout and other quarries. The difficulties posed by the terrain have prevented the development of consolidated groups or rows or huts. thought most huts are located on hollows or on intermittent terraces. The lack of any common orientation and the exposure of the site to views from the sea, Chiswell Sea Wall, the cliff footpath, the cliff top path and the footpath along he edge of the built development of Underhill would render any extensions extremely prominent in this otherwise open coastal landscape.

West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan 2015

In this particular case the following policies from the Local Plan are considered to be relevant.  INT 1 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development  ENV 1 – Landscape, seascape and sites of geological interest  ENV10 - The landscape and townscape setting  ENV 16 – Amenity  ENV12 - The design and positioning of buildings

National Planning Policy Framework (2012) Part 7: Requiring good design Para 56 - The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

Page 22 Para 57 - It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes.

Part 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Para 109 - 109. The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils.

Para 187 - Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work pro actively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

Managing Coastal Change: Coastal Risk Planning Guidance for West Dorset and Weymouth and Portland (March 2013).

2.5.1 Development Constraints.

Based upon the available data assessed in developing this coastal risk planning guidance, the following constraints on development are recommended along this section of coast:

 No permanent development should occur in the area of risk of erosion along the cliff top or the coastal slope seawards of the defined erosion bands.  Time limited planning consent for a limited range of development is most appropriate within the risk zone.  Any development that does occur will need to be appropriate for the area given the expected timing of future risks and should be limited in its size and extent. Any development should also demonstrate how it will adapt to future coastal change.  The types of development likely to be appropriate in this area are short term holiday lets or camping/caravan sites or facilities associated with tourism and leisure (eg cafes, access, provision etc.) Extensions to existing properties may also be appropriate.  Any time limited planning consent should include re-appraisal periods to enable the consent period to be extended or reduced depending upon the actual rate of coastal change experienced in the future.

Page 23 HUMAN RIGHTS Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property

This Recommendation is based on adopted Development Plan policies, the application of which does not prejudice the Human Rights of the applicant or any third party.

Public Sector Equalities Duty (PSED) As set out in the Equalities Act 2010, all public bodies, in discharging their functions must have “due regard” to this duty. There are 3 main aims:- • Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics • Taking steps to meet the needs of people with certain protected characteristics where these are different from the needs of other people • Encouraging people with certain protected characteristics to participate in public life or in other activities where participation is disproportionately low. Whilst there is no absolute requirement to fully remove any disadvantage the Duty is to have “regard to” and remove OR minimise disadvantage and in considering the merits of this planning application the planning authority has taken into consideration the requirements of the PSED

5. STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Natural England – No objection, they do, however, recommend that any permission is subject to the following condition: “No additional paving, decking, verandas or permanent garden features shall be laid or erected in the area surrounding the hut.”

5.2 Portland Town Council - Objection. On the grounds that the schemes contravenes planning policies 2.6.1 and 3.1.3 and the emerging Portland Neighbourhood Plan by the proposed hut being higher and having a larger footprint than its predecessor.

5.3 DCC Minerals - The application site lies within the Mineral Safeguarding Area delineated in the Bournemouth, Dorset & Poole Minerals Strategy (adopted 6 May 2014), however it is not considered that the development would pose a serious hindrance to future mineral development in the vicinity and therefore the Mineral Planning Authority has no objection to the proposal.

5.4 Highways - No objection.

6.0 OTHER CONSULTATIONS

6.1 DCP Infrastructure Engineer - Technical Services - No comments received.

7 REPRESENTATIONS

Page 24 7.1 None received

8 PLANNING ISSUES

8.1 The main planning issues relevant to this application are:

 Principle of development  Design and appearance

8.2 Principle of development – The principle of development, that being the replacement of a beach hut at the existing site, is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Supplementary Planning Guidance 6. However the changing nature of this area of coastline which is susceptible to storm damage needs to be monitored to assess its changing stability. In the past a ten year period had been granted in order to monitor the beach huts and to ensure that they do not become permanent structures. The Council's Technical Services Manager has in the past recommended that a five year period is more appropriate in this location to review the actual rate of coastal change and given the guidance within Managing Coastal Change and I consider that a permission be subject to a condition to that effect.

8.3 Design and appearance – The overall design and appearance of the hut and the surrounding pathways would remain largely unaltered as part of this planning application. The materials would still be timber and permission is not required to alter the colour at any future date. There is no overall change in footprint and the inclusion of the outshot into the overall design is not considered to adversely affect the character of the hut. The huts at West Weares are low key small scale and this proposal retains that character. The use of double glazing which would be visible when the shutters are opened is not considered to be highly significant from the footpath or the bay as the doors would look towards the west (Underhill school). It is considered that the siting, design, scale, and mass of the replacement hut is in keeping with the surrounding context, which is an area of recreation. A temporary condition limiting its siting for five years is applicable.

9.0 SUMMARY OF ISSUES

9.1 To conclude, as per the reasons in this report, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in design terms, would be in keeping with the character of the area and would not have a seriously detrimental impact on nature conservation interests at the site.

10 RECOMMENDATION

10.1 Approved subject to the below conditions.

1. The beach hut hereby permitted shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition on or before 6th February 2023 unless a further application for

Page 25 planning permission is approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to that date.

Reason: To enable the condition and appearance of the beach hut and its impact on the surrounding area to be monitored and reassessed, to protect the visual amenity and nature conservation interest of the site, and to review the vulnerability of the site from coastal change, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012, policies INT1, ENV1, ENV10, ENV16, ENV12 of the West Dorset and Weymouth and Portland Local Plan and the Portland Beach Huts Supplementary Planning Guidance, Managing Coastal Change 2013.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be retained in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3. The hut shall not be used other than for daytime recreational purposes only, and in particular shall not be used as overnight holiday or permanent residential accommodation.

Reason: The hut is suitable for daytime recreational use only. Residential or holiday occupation of the hut would conflict with Policy INT1, SUS2 of the West Dorset and Weymouth and Portland Local Plan, in view of its location outside the development boundary.

4. No additional paving, decking, verandas or permanent garden features shall be laid or erected in the area surrounding the hut.

Reason: These features would be detrimental to the character of the area and potentially damaging to nature conservation interest, which would be contrary to Policies N13 and N15 of the adopted Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2005, Policy ENV1 of the West Dorset and Weymouth and Portland Local Plan, and Supplementary Planning Guidance - Portland Beach Huts.

11 BACKGROUND PAPERS

WP/17/00971/FUL

Page 26