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, 10 January 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, 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/17/00323/FUL - UNDERHILL COMMUNITY 5 - 42 JUNIOR SCHOOL, KILLICKS HILL, PORTLAND
8 APPLICATION NO: WP/17/00870/FUL - BEACH CAR PARK, 43 - 48 LODMOOR WAY, WEYMOUTH
9 APPLICATION NO: WP/17/00642/ADV - WYKE REGIS INFANT 49 - 54 SCHOOL AND NURSERY, SHRUBBERY LANE, WEYMOUTH
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: Application No. WP/17/00323/FUL 10th January 2018
Proposal: Partial demolition of the existing school buildings (class D1), conversion of the remaining school building into dwellings (class C3) and the construction of new dwellings, associated access, parking and landscaping; to form a total of 20 no. new dwellings
LOCATION UNDERHILL COMMUNITY JUNIOR SCHOOL, KILLICKS HILL, PORTLAND, DT5 1JW
Applicant: c/o the agent MH Architects Limited
Case Officer: David Hodges FOR DECISION
1. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
1.1. Approve subject to the conditions listed in para.10.3 below.
2. PROPOSAL
2.1. Proposal relates to the former Underhill School, Killicks Hill, Portland. The site consists of a fine municipal school dating from 1913 in natural stone and slate roof fronting the north side of Clovens Road, set down from the highway. The original building has later additions to its side with an outdoor swimming pool to the rear. The buildings are surrounded by hard surfacing used for playground and sports as well as car parking. There is a small grassed area to the far north- west of the site.
2.2. The land slopes considerably from south to north with a difference of approximately 10m between the south-east & north-west corners of the site with the existing buildings and hard surfaces set at different levels across the site. East of the site are the dwellings in Three Yards Close with their rear gardens backing on to the site. To the north, are the properties in Cove Cottages. These properties have small rear yards with their main amenity spaces being to the north across the road. The buildings are separated from the site by a small parcel of vacant land. On the western side, the site adjoins a footpath which is also part of the SW Coast Path and beyond this, the land falls away dramatically down the coastal slope to the Quiddles Café.
2.3. The school has been redundant since 2014 following the construction of a new a new primary school at Lerret Road, becoming known as the ‘Osprey Quay Campus’ taking pupils from Brackenbury Infant and Underhill Junior Schools after their closure.
2.4. The proposals are for the part-conversion and part redevelopment of the site for 20 dwellings. The modern school buildings are to be demolished and part of the
Page 5 original school building. The reminder of the 1913 school building will be retained and converted to 5 no. ground floor flats, each with individual entrances. To the east of this, fronting Clovens Road a terrace of 3 no. 2-storey dwellings is proposed. Beyond this running behind the area of properties in Three Yards Close is the access road into the development on the site of a current car park.
2.5. The access road leads down north into the site. The parking for the proposed dwellings is arranged around the access road. Along the western boundary, two terraces, both with four properties are shown. These are mainly 2-storey with 3- storey units at each end. These properties have their gardens to the west running up to the site boundary with the adjacent coast path and their entrances and parking to the eastern side. To the other side of the site is proposed four properties. These are arranged as a ‘FOG’ (flat over garage) in the north-east corner, a pair of semi-detached dwellings and a further detached dwelling. Each of the properties is provided with a private outdoor garden space. A total of 37 parking spaces are shown.
2.6. The site is approximately 0.45ha. With 20 dwellings proposed, this would be a density of 44 dwellings per hectare (dwpha). The schedule of accommodation proposed is as follows;
Plot Accommodation GIA
1 2-bed 4 pers house 78m2
2 2-bed 4 pers house 78m2
3 2-bed 4 pers house 78m2
4 2-bed 4 pers flat 84 m2
5 1-bed 2 pers flat 73 m2
6 2-bed 4 pers flat 89 m2
7 1-bed 2 pers flat 56 m2
8 1-bed 2 pers flat 57 m2
9 3-bed 5 pers house 167m2
10 3-bed 5 pers house 113m2
11 3-bed 5 pers house 113m2
12 3-bed 5 pers house 113m2
Page 6 13 3-bed 5 pers house 167m2
14 3-bed 5 pers house 113m2
15 3-bed 5 pers house 113m2
16 3-bed 5 pers house 113m2
17 2-bed 3 pers FOG 69 m2
18 3-bed 5 pers house 93m2
19 3-bed 5 pers house 93m2
20 3-bed 5 pers house 93m2
Total 1950m2
2.7. The land lies within the Defined Development Boundary (DDB) for Fortuneswell. The site adjoins the boundary of the Underhill Conservation Area on the northern side where it adjoins the rear of Cove Cottages. The site lies within the Portland regionally important geological and geomorphological designation which covers the wider area. Although outside of the site, the adjacent coastal slope to the west of the site contains the Isle of Portland Site of Special Scientific Interest, the Portland Coastline heritage coast designation, the designated World Heritage Site and the Isle of Portland Special Area of Conservation
2.8. The scheme has been amended during the course of the application in response to concerns raised by officers and through the consultation process. This has reduced the scale of some of the buildings and redesigned the appearance of others. The no. of units was reduced to 20 as part of these revisions. The layout was also amended to improve the parking and road layout. A consultation period on these changes has been undertaken.
Note for Members
2.9. The Planning Committee resolved to approve the application at its meeting on 8 November 2017. The recommendation at the time was to approve the proposals subject to the completion of s106 legal agreement to secure an affordable housing contribution. Since then, the Council’s viability advisor has accepted a case put forward by the applicants that the scheme is not sufficiently viable to provide the affordable housing contribution sought. This is explored in greater detail below.
2.10. Officers were not in a position to simply approve the application without the affordable housing contribution as this would have been contrary to the decision
Page 7 made by the committee. The lack of affordable housing provision in this instance impacts on the balancing exercise which members considered previously and therefore it has been necessary to bring the application back to the committee to be determined in light of the changed circumstances.
3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
WP/16/00080/PRE Pre-Application Consultation - Conversion of school to form 20 new dwellings, landscaping and access
4. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015).
4.1. 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
ENV2. WILDLIFE AND HABITATS
ENV3. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE NETWORK
ENV4. HERITAGE ASSETS
ENV5. FLOOD RISK
ENV6. LOCAL FLOOD ALLEVIATION SCHEMES
ENV7. COASTAL EROSION AND LAND INSTABILITY
ENV9. POLLUTION AND CONTAMINATED LAND
ENV10. THE LANDSCAPE AND TOWNSCAPE SETTING
ENV11. THE PATTERN OF STREETS AND SPACES
ENV12. THE DESIGN AND POSITIONING OF BUILDINGS
Page 8 ENV13. ACHIEVING HIGH LEVELS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE
ENV15. EFFICIENT AND APPROPRIATE USE OF LAND
ENV16. AMENITY
SUS1. THE LEVEL OF ECONOMIC AND HOUSING GROWTH
SUS2. DISTRIBUTION OF DEVELOPMENT
HOUS1. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
HOUS3. OPEN MARKET HOUSING MIX
HOUS4. DEVELOPMENT OF FLATS, HOSTELS AND HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION
COM1. MAKING SURE NEW DEVELOPMENT MAKES SUITABLE PROVISION FOR COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
COM3. THE RETENTION OF LOCAL COMMUNITY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES
COM7. CREATING A SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORT NETWORK
COM9. PARKING STANDARDS IN NEW DEVELOPMENT
COM10. THE PROVISION OF UTILITIES SERVICE INFRASTRUCTURE
Supplementary Planning Documents
4.2. Appraisal of the Conservation Areas of Portland (2017): In the document the school is identified as an important local building although it lies outside of the statutorily defined Conservation Area.
“Underhill Junior School, firstly 1913, unity of single storey frontage of three pediments with three pairs of sash windows, historic and community interest, enhances Clovens Rd entry and setting of conservation area.”
National Planning Policy Framework
4.3. The National Planning Policy Framework was published on 27 March 2012 and sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. In terms of decision-taking this means:
Page 9 approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and
where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, grant permission unless:
o any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole;
o or where specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted.
4.4. The NPPF also states that:
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. 186)
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. (Para. 187)
4.5. Other sections of the NPPF relevant to this application are listed below. These will be referred to in the “Planning issues” section of the report.
Section Subject
1. Building a strong, competitive economy
6. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes
7. Requiring good design
8. Promoting healthy communities
10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change
12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
Planning Practice Guidance
Page 10 4.6. On 6 March 2014 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) launched its planning practice guidance web-based resource. This includes the following statement:
This guidance is intended to assist practitioners. Ultimately the interpretation of legislation is for the Courts but this guidance is an indication of the Secretary of State’s views. The department seeks to ensure that the guidance is in plain English and easily understandable. Consequently it may sometimes be oversimplified and, as the law changes quickly, although we do our best, it may not always be up to date.
4.7. Elements of the Planning Practice Guidance relevant to this application will be referred to in the “Planning issues” section of the report.
5. STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS
Portland Town Council
5.1. Dorset Flood Risk Management Team, 15/9/17, raise matters of serious concern, particularly given the position of the site relative to Cove Cottages, Three Yards Close and the cliff edge (see below). The Town Council strongly urges that their (Holding) Objection be implemented. Wessex Water, 29/8/2017, also raise serious issues regarding drainage and sewers. These must be fully addressed and resolved in co-operation with Wessex Water before approval is granted. The photograph shows the effect of flooding from the site into a property on Three Yards Close and its destructive potential. Overdevelopment of the site as currently proposed would compound the problem.
5.2. Negative impact on key views, viewsheds, streetscape and panoramic roofscape in highly sensitive location (photograph attached). It is clear from Model View 8 that not only house no’s 9 and 13 but the whole west-facing terrace, no’s 9-16, would be significantly higher than the 1913 school building. This would have a highly negative effect on panoramic views across to Portland Harbour, Chesil Bank and the Fleet from the South West Coast Path, on the view up from Chesil Cove – a key location on Portland for locals and tourists alike (see photograph) and on the streetscape looking up from Chesil.
5.3. It would also be out of keeping with the neighbouring roofscape, for example from Fortuneswell looking west over Hambro (see photograph). The roofscape of Underhill is characterised by a graded stepping downwards. The height of the terrace, no’s 9-16, would be completely out of line with this grading. The importance of this roofscape is highlighted in the Isle of Portland Heritage and Character Assessment from the progressing Portland Neighbourhood Plan.
5.4. All this contravenes Local Plan ENV10, “i) All development proposals should contribute positively to the maintenance and enhancement of local identity and distinctiveness. Development should be informed by the character of the site and its surroundings. ii) Development will provide for the future retention and
Page 11 protection of … other features that contribute to an area’s distinctive character. Such features may not always be designated or otherwise formally recognised.”
5.5. It also contravenes ENV12, “Development will … only be permitted … where the siting, alignment, design, scale, mass, and materials used complements and respects (sic) the character of the surrounding area or would actively improve legibility or reinforce the sense of place. This means that:
• The general design should be in harmony with the adjoining buildings and the area as a whole;
• The position of the building on its site should relate positively to adjoining buildings, routes, open areas…and other features that contribute to the character of the area ...”
5.6. It also conflicts with the Strategic Objective of the Local Plan to “protect and enhance the outstanding natural and built environment – this will be the over- riding objective in those areas of the plan which are particularly sensitive to change.”
Overdevelopment and overshadowing of multiple homes
5.7. The revised plans still pack too many homes into the site. This has led to the west-facing terrace being located much closer to the cliff edge (see below) and the eastern terrace being close to the backs of Three Yards Close. The removal of one of these terraces and reduction of the maximum height of the new homes below that of the 1913 school would overcome many the objections to the current plans.
5.8. As they stand the plans contravene ENV11, “Within and adjoining existing settlements, development should ensure that: • Places are … not dominated by the road layout and parking,” ENV12, “siting, alignment, design, scale, mass” as quoted above, ENV15, “Development should optimise the potential of the site and make efficient use of land, subject to the limitations inherent in the site and impact on local character”, and ENV16, “Proposals for development should be designed to minimize their impact on the amenity and quiet enjoyment of both existing residents and future residents within the development and close to it. As such, development proposals will only be permitted provided: They do not have a significant adverse effect on the amenity of the occupiers of properties through inadequate daylight or excessive overshadowing, overbearing impact.”
Threat to stability of cliff (photograph attached)
5.9. The section of the 1913 school building to be demolished stands directly above the section of eroded cliff shown in the submitted photograph. The revised plans position the replacement buildings further forward and closer to this cliff. The local resident who maintains the grass at West Weares just below the cliff told the
Page 12 Town Council that rock and other material had fallen down from the cliff recently and he is happy to point this out at a site visit.
5.10. Inaccuracies remain in the revised Stability Report, which refers to the eroded cliff as being viewed only from a drone. It states twice that the walls and steps in this area will be retained. This is not the case. The demolition of a large section of the western side of the 1913 building and the excavation for foundations for the new buildings nearer to the cliff edge risk destabilising of the ground in this critical area. This jeopardises a stretch of the South West Coast Path, the key location of Chesil Cove and possibly even the site itself. It also contravenes ENV7, “New development will be directed away from areas vulnerable to coastal erosion and land instability to avoid putting people at risk unless it can be demonstrated that the site is stable or could be made stable, and that the development is unlikely to trigger landsliding, subsidence, or exacerbate erosion within or beyond the boundaries of the site.”
Inappropriate materials that clash with the vernacular, particularly viewed from the Jurassic Coast / South West Coast Path
5.11. The wall materials proposed, brick, reconstituted Portland stone, do not fit with the vernacular of the immediate coastal area, predominantly solid Portland stone facades and / or render. As such this contravenes ENV10, “All development proposals should contribute positively to the maintenance and enhancement of local identity and distinctiveness. Development should be informed by the character of the site and its surroundings” and ENV12 as quoted above.
Unjustified demolition of a locally treasured building of historic importance, architectural merit, referencing other key historic buildings in Underhill, mostly grade II listing
5.12. The section of the 1913 school building which the plans propose to demolish is built in solid Portland stone. It is an imposing building with features of architectural merit that reference other monumental buildings of the same period in Fortuneswell, some of which are key listed buildings. As such it is a “non- designated heritage asset.” Its destruction contravenes ENV4, “Applications affecting the significance of a heritage asset or its setting will be required to provide sufficient information to demonstrate how the proposals would positively contribute to the asset’s conservation” and “Any harm to the significance of a designated or non-designated heritage asset must be justified.”
Local highway authority (DCC)
5.13. I refer to the above application and the revised site plan received on the 25/9/17.
All of the issues previously raised in formal observations have now been addressed to the extent that it is considered that there is no sustainable reason to recommend a refusal. The County Highway Authority therefore recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
Page 13 Estate Road Construction (adopted or private)
Turning and parking construction as submitted
Lead Local Flood Authority
5.14. Comments as follows:
5.15. As previously highlighted; the site falls entirely within Flood Zone 1 (low risk / fluvial & tidal flooding) as indicated by the Environment Agency’s (EA) indicative flood modelling, and is only shown to be at (theoretical) risk of surface water flooding during severe rainfall events (1:1000yr) by relevant mapping. However the existing brownfield site is understood to be largely impermeable in nature and is assumed to be positively drained.
5.16. The surface water mapping referred to above also suggests that there may be pronounced (theoretical) risk to the adjacent (downhill) properties located within the Chiswell and Brandy Row areas. To this end, and in compliance with the recommendations of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the proposed development must be supported by a strategy of surface water management that is both appropriate and deliverable. Section 12 of the supporting application form specifies that surface water is to be discharged to a main sewer (presumably combined), but also states that the site is in proximity to a watercourse. However it remains unclear how the existing site is actually drained, although it may be reasonable to assume that some or much of the site currently discharges to an adjacent combined sewer. This should be investigated and clarified.
5.17. The amended proposal does not appear to be supported by an adequate Drainage Strategy or associated documents that give sufficient consideration of necessary surface water management. We reiterate that section 13 of the supporting Design & Access Statement (ref: MH Architects – Rev B dated 03/05/2017) relates to Flood Risk, but considers only tidal flood risk and fails to clarify how surface water is currently managed, or is to be managed following the proposed redevelopment. The proposed reduction in impermeable surfaces may offer a degree of betterment, and could permit some infiltration on site, but this is not explained or substantiated in relation to the adjacent and lower properties that adjoin the development area, and needs to be consider the findings of the supporting Ground Investigation. Under the SuDS hierarchy, the discharge of surface water to a combined or foul sewer is to be avoided, and should be discontinued or reduced where ever possible. If it is intended to discharge to a sewer, as stated on the relevant application form, the applicant should liaise with the operator (Wessex Water) to seek in-principle agreement, with which to support a conceptual strategy of surface water management.
5.18. On the basis of the information & documents supplied thus far, we recommend that a (Holding) Objection be applied to this application, pending the supply &
Page 14 acceptance of further clarification, and outline of a deliverable scheme of surface water management.
Natural England
5.19. Comments as follows: No objection and welcomes the submission of the ecological assessment and Biodiversity Mitigation Plan (BMP). In order to ensure the development delivers appropriate biodiversity mitigation and enhancement measures we recommend that any permission is subject to the submitted BMP being approved by the Dorset County Council Natural Environment Team and implemented in full.
5.20. I also note that the landscaping scheme includes the use of holm oak which is known to be invasive elsewhere on the Dorset Coast. Natural England therefore strongly recommends that the planting scheme is amended and holm oak replaced with a suitable alternative.
Dorset County Council Natural Environment Team
5.21. Comments as follows: A Biodiversity Mitigation Plan certificate of approval was issued on 10th March 2017 and so we have no further comments to make.
6. OTHER CONSULTATIONS
Wessex Water
6.1. Comments as follows:
6.2. There is an existing combined sewer on the development site which will be affected by the demolition and proposals. This will need to be looked at in detail and approved. We advise that the applicant contacts our sewer protection team to advance this so it can be demonstrated that the proposed layout is achievable. We have a duty to operate and maintain our sewerage apparatus and therefore require a protective easement to be maintained with no construction over or in close proximity to the sewer. We may agree to a sewer diversion in some circumstances. Further details and contacts are available on our website http://www.wessexwater.co.uk/Developers/Sewerage/Building-near-sewers/
6.3. No details are provided within the application of the proposed drainage strategy. Therefore it is not possible to make detailed comments. The Lead Local Flood Authority should be consulted on the proposed development. The application form indicates that it is proposed to discharge surface water into the main sewer. We do not have any surface water sewers in this location. If the applicant is proposing to connect to the existing combined sewer we would require demonstration as to why surface water cannot drain to a suds/soakaway system and for any flow to be heavily attenuated.
WPBC Building Control
Page 15 6.4. Comments as follows: I have examined the design and access statement, drawings and various consultants’ reports into the development and can confirm that a formal Building Regulation application would be required. After looking through the developments design details I cannot see any matters that would adversely effect the proposals from gaining a Building Regulation Approval. I am always available to give pre-application advice if required on any proposed changes to the scheme and its effect upon gaining Building Regulations Approval.
WPBC Engineers
6.5. Comments as follows: The site itself is located above an active coastal slope where regular, small scale, superficial surface movements occur. At the toe of the slope is a sea wall, owned and managed by WPBC, which is in a poor state having nearly reached the end of its design life. The wall provides protection to the toe of the slope from wave action and in turn provides a stabilising effect for the slope in general. Without the wall, there is likely to be rapid, relatively large scale movements that would affect the coastal footpath, residential property (including the Underhill site), the main A354 road and numerous services.
6.6. WPBC Engineers recognise the importance of the wall and the current status of it and are working with partners to monitor and come up with various management options. Funding has been made available to implement some works and commission a report on the management but it should be noted that any scheme will require a separate bid and it cannot be guaranteed at this stage that funds will be available to rebuild the wall. The residual life of the wall is estimated to be between 10 and 15 years.
6.7. With regard to the Underhill development, I would struggle to agree with it given that we cannot guarantee the stability of the slope long-term. I don’t foresee the wall being completely gone in 15 years but there is a chance that without the necessary means to fix it the coastal landslides will be reactivated as the wall breaks up. Given that I would normally expect a development to have a lifetime of approx. 100 years, the site could be lost well before that if works are not implemented.
Trees Officer
6.8. Comments as follows: No objection.
Conservation Officer
6.9. Comments as follows: Plots 4 to 16 - These proposed buildings are contemporary in design and have gabled roofs, rather than terraced roofs found commonly in the surrounding conservation area. Features have been added to some of the proposed buildings that reflect those found on the former school buildings. Windows and doors are contemporary with balconies and doors at first floor. These properties are located on the western edge of the development and
Page 16 will be largely screened by proposed properties further to the east of the site. Materials selected are predominantly London stock brick for wall facings and slate for roofs. The roofline of these buildings stand higher than the roofline of the former school building and will result in this non-designated heritage asset becoming subservient in views from Clovens Road. This is not reflected in the streetscenes A-A or B-B.
6.10. Plots 17 to 21 - The scale and form of the proposed buildings is in keeping with the surrounding built form, with terraced roofs and similar proportions to the surrounding Victorian terraces. The scale and arrangement of windows and doors is also in keeping with the surrounding built form, however, some plots do have Juliette balconies at first floor which are not a prominent feature of the surrounding housing. Materials selected are predominantly London stock brick for wall facings and slate for roofs.
6.11. Significance: The school buildings that are being retained are non-designated heritage assets. These buildings were purpose built in 1913 as a school using local materials and are a representative of the municipal buildings of that period. They are valued locally for their architectural merit (including bell tower) and for historic reference to their former educational purposes. The site itself sits outside but in close proximity of the Fortuneswell Conservation Area (CA). The northern extent of the site boundary (against gardens of Cove Cottages) forms the edge of the Fortuneswell CA. A number of listed buildings are located in close proximity to the proposed site, particularly along Cove Cottages.
6.12. Recommendation/Conditions: Use more locally relevant materials in lieu of London stock brick, The such as Portland stone or red heritage brick. Please provide updated streetscenes A-A and B-B to show how the proposed plots 8 to 16 will look behind the school building.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1. At the time of writing there have been 97 representations including from the Weymouth Civic Society and the South West Coast Path Association across the two consultation exercises (a number of third parties commenting more than once) raising the following material issues. A no comment response was received from the Jurassic Coast Trust.
Support (3 representations)
Site is in bad repair & has suffered vandalism.
Redevelopment will greatly improve area and environment
Keeping the old school is important
Good landscaping is proposed
Page 17 Footpath to sea wall side will be in a better state
Portland Community Partnership welcomes positive aspects of the scheme in retaining the majority of the old school
Objection (98 representations)
Overlooking of existing houses/loss of privacy
Cliff erosion
Excessive no. of dwellings/density
Access along Cloven Road inadequate for proposed traffic
Portland cannot take anymore traffic
Lack of parking & parking on adjacent roads
Loss of light
Proposed landscaping will not work
Excessive ridge heights on some plots and 2½ - 3-storey scale leading to overshadowing
No details of screen fencing to Three Yards Close
Who will maintain communal areas
Highway safety within site
Houses backing on to a public footpath
Disturbance during development
Portland has a lack of open spaces – opportunity should be taken to create new open spaces
Wildlife & flora in the rural area will be affected
Affect tranquillity of the area
Lack of facilities, amenities and infrastructure in Portland
No objection in principle but object to number of houses proposed
Development out of keeping with style of properties in the area
Page 18 Most likely sold as holiday homes who’s owners don’t contribute to the area
No affordable housing in the plan
Impact on views of Chesil Bank & the Fleet from SW Coast Path
Dominant in views up from Chesil Cove
Committee should make a site visit
Buildings should be in Portland stone
Lack of play area for children
Impact on adjacent SAC & Site of Special Scientific Interest
Structural damage to properties
Loss of sea-views
Location of communal refuse bins
Concerns over accuracy of biodiversity report
Need for 4-bed houses on Portland
Impact on stability of wall to rear of Cove Cottages
Detrimental impact on World Heritage site
Loss of part of the original school building
Drainage and sewerage (foul water) concerns
Against access for new properties onto alleyway to rear of Three Yards Close
Increased noise, vibration and pollution
Need to protect integrity of the Coast Path national trail
Properties are below minimum space standards
Old bell turret on the original school should be retained along with whole western side.
All buildings should be kept and retained for the community.
7.2. All representations can be viewed on www.dorsetforyou.com.
Page 19 8. PLANNING ISSUES
8.1. The main planning issues relevant to this application are:
Impact on character and appearance of the area
Impact on neighbour’s living conditions
Highway safety & traffic generation
Car parking
Affordable Housing
Sustainable development
Land stability
Impact on the setting of the Underhill Conservation Area
Impact on adjoining World Heritage Site, Portland Coastline, Land of Local Landscape Importance & Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Site
Impact on adjoining designated Site of Special Scientific Interest & Special Area of Conservation
Housing land supply
Principle of development
Development within the Defined Development Boundary
8.2. The site lies within the wider Defined Development Boundary (DDB) for Fortuneswell. This forms part of the various DDBs covering Portland, which is a focus for future development in the spatial strategy in Policy SUS2 of the adopted Local Plan. The site is otherwise surrounded on three sides by existing residential development. Notwithstanding its former use, a residential redevelopment of the site is considered in keeping with the broader character of the wider area.
Housing Land Supply
8.3. The Council has recently released its Annual Monitoring Report of its housing land supply (HLS). Due to an increase in dwelling completions which were at their highest since 2011 and thereby very close to the annual housing target of 775 dwellings per annum across the two Councils, the HLS currently stands at 4.94yrs. This is an improvement on the conclusions of an appeal Inspector who
Page 20 considered the Councils’ HLS in a public inquiry in January and determined the supply to be at 4.63 years.
8.4. Whilst the Authority is very nearly at the 5 year level required by the NPPF, it nonetheless remains below the required housing supply level. In such a situation, paragraph 49 of the NPPF advises that the relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date.
8.5. In a Supreme Court ruling Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd & Richborough Estates Partnership LLP v Cheshire East Borough Council [2017] - the Courts established that where a Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply, the “tilted balance” in paragraph 14 will apply. This advises that where policies are out-of-date permission should be granted unless;
any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole;
or––specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted
8.6. The Supreme Court decision clarified that “relevant policies for the supply of housing” has a narrow interpretation and relates only to those polices concerned with the delivery of housing. This would therefore include Policies SUS1 & SUS2 as well as the specific housing allocations in the Local Plan. It should be noted that these policies are not simply disregarded where they are ‘out-of-date’. They continue to apply and the Supreme Court ruling confirmed that the weight to be attached to these policies in such circumstances is a matter for the professional judgement of the decision-maker. However, the ruling did clarify that the weight to be applied will be dependent on ,
“the extent to which relevant policies fall short of providing for the five-year supply of housing land, the action being taken by the local planning authority to address it, or the particular purpose of a restrictive policy – such as the protection of a "green wedge" or of a gap between settlements.”.
8.7. Where, in the Council’s case the supply is only marginally below the 5 years, and moreover can be shown to be heading in the right direction, it would be reasonable to continue to apply considerable weight to these policies even if the full statutory weight cannot be applied. In addition, the ruling provides clarity that the other policies in the LP not affected by paragraph 49 shall continue to enjoy their full statutory weight.
8.8. What this means for the consideration of this application is that the principle of development within the DDB should continue to be supported. The Council will have an on-going requirement to facilitate housing growth and the settlements with DDBs remain the most sustainable locations to deliver housing growth. The current lack of 5-year supply does add a degree of weight to approving the
Page 21 scheme, however this does not automatically override all other considerations. The assessment of whether the adverse impacts demonstrably outweigh the benefits still needs to be made and is set out in the remainder of this report.
Loss of Community Facility
8.9. The lawful use of the site is as a school. Paragraph 6.3 of the Local Plan confirms that education and training facilities are regarded as local community buildings and structures and the retention of these is regulated under Policy COM3 of the Local Plan. The test in COM3 is that the loss of local community facilities will not be permitted unless
it can been demonstrated that there is no local need for the facility or that such a facility is no longer likely to be viable; and
an appropriate alternative community use to meet local needs is not needed or likely to be viable.
8.10. As noted above the construction of the ‘Osprey Quay Campus’ has replaced the former school’s educational role, rendering the site redundant. It should also be noted that the school was formally listed as an Asset of Community Value (ACV) in June 2015 following a nomination by the Portland Community Partnership. When formally listed a site remains an ACV for 5 years. The primary effect of listing as an ACV is that if the owner of the listed asset decides to sell the site, they must inform the Council of their intent to sell. The community then have up to six weeks to express an interest in buying the asset. If an expression is made, a 6 month moratorium on the sale of the premises is given to the community to purchase the asset. If the site is not purchased by the community, after the moratorium the owner is free to sell the premises.
8.11. The Council was informed of the intent to sell the site on 10 June 2015. It is understood an expression of interest was made to buy on the part of the community, triggering the full 6 month moratorium period. However it is understood that the site was not purchased by December 2015 when the moratorium ended. The site was free to be sold after this date. As a consequence it has been removed from the register as is no longer a formally designated Asset of Community Value.
8.12. The courts have held that the designation of a site as an ACV is a material consideration in the determination of any application affecting the site whilst the ACV designation is in force. However, as the site has now been removed from the register there is not considered to be additional weight to be added to the loss of the community facility as an ACV. The loss of the community facility should therefore be considered against Policy COM3 as any other of the facilities listed in paragraph 6.3 of the Local Plan.
Page 22 8.13. In this regard the academic facility has been provided elsewhere within Portland in a modern campus and there is no net loss overall of education provision. The redevelopment of the site for an alternative use would not therefore significantly reduce the community’s ability to meet its day to day needs as this need is being met elsewhere. On this basis the proposal is considered to comply with Policy COM3 and its redevelopment for residential uses is considered acceptable in principle.
Impact on the Character of the Area
Density
8.14. With regards to the extent of development on the site, a number of the 3rd party responses have referred to the density of the development being excessive. In order to assist members, officers have calculated the density of development in surrounding streets to offer a comparison. These are set out as follows;
8.15. Three Yards Close: 17 dwellings; 0.489ha = 35dwpha
Cove Cottages:1 26 dwellings; 0.412ha = 62dwpha
Clovens Road: 22 dwellings; 0.501ha = 44dwpha
1-26/29 Killicks Hill: 26 dwellings; 0.888ha = 29dwpha
1 - 29 Pauls Mead: 29 dwellings; 0.703ha = 41dwpha
St. Martins Road: 28 dwellings; 0.388ha = 72dwpha
Application Site: 20 dwellings; 0.45ha = 44dwpha
8.16. What can be seen is on surrounding streets, the density of development is in some places lower than the proposal, on others it is comparable and on others it is some way above. Overall the densities are reasonably high but not unexpected in this urban area. In this context, the proposed density of the scheme is not considered to be excessive nor particularly out of keeping with the prevailing pattern of development in the area. If the nature of the development caused harm in other respects such as its impact to neighbours or its appearance, this still needs to be considered against the relevant policies in the Local Plan and this assessment is made below. However, there are not considered to be grounds to resist the scheme purely on its density for the reasons above.
Impact on Character & Appearance of the Area
Urban Design and Dwelling Appearance
1 This figure has been calculated using the boundaries shown on the OS plan and includes the gardens to the north of the Cove Cottages road
Page 23 8.17. The scheme incorporates the retention and conversion of part of the early 20th century school building on the site whilst removing some later additions. This provides a link back to the original use of the site as part of its redevelopment. This retains the contribution of the school building to Clovens Road and to the Coast Path with its striking gable ends and large windows at a prominent point and is considered a positive aspect of the scheme.
8.18. Also fronting Clovens Road will be Plots 1-3, a simple terrace of 2-storey houses in brick & natural slate. These units were redesigned as part of the amendments to the scheme. This reduced their height and scale in response to concerns from officers that these units were overly prominent in the street scene, competing visually with the retained school building and were unnecessarily high in their relationship to properties in Three Yards Close. The revised design for Units 1-3 is now considered to be appropriate in its relationship with the retained school building and Three Yards Close with its reduced ridge height and changed design sitting comfortably in the street scene.
8.19. On the western side, Plots 9 – 16 have been considerably re-designed in the amendments to the scheme. This aspect of the original plans was subject to a number of concerns and objections, particularly over the appearance of the site from the adjoining coast path. The redevelopment of the site inevitably results in a substantial change to the appearance of the coast path at this point.
8.20. Beyond the retention of the original school building, there is not considered to be a particular aspect of the character of this part of the site which should be preserved in any redevelopment. As a fundamental point it is not considered to be unacceptable for new development to front towards the coast path along the western boundary and thereby enjoy the tremendous views from this position, providing its design is acceptable.
8.21. The revisions to the design removed a series of regular gables ends to these plots facing out to the west. Whilst this design had sought to pick up on the prominent gables of the retained school, it was felt that this design was less successful in its relationship with the retained school. In response the roof design of these units has been changed, removing the majority of these gable ends. The revised design steps these units down in height following the contours as the land falls to the north.
8.22. The resulting terrace is considered to sit much more comfortably against the retained school along this western elevation of the site. The use of natural slate continues that on the retained school retaining a link to the historic building. These units are proposed in a light multi stock brick with reconstituted Portland stone detailing which a number of responses have questioned. There is a variety of materials used in the surrounding area with red brick evident in Three Yards Close and along Clovens Road, render along Cove Cottages, reconstituted stone on Killicks Hill and natural stone within the school site. The proposed brick is
Page 24 considered to be of the same colour palette as the retained school building and appropriate for the designs proposed and the area as a whole.
8.23. Plots 18 – 20 on the eastern side of the site have also been redesigned as part of the amendments to the plans. In particular, the height of the units on this part of the scheme was criticised by residents in Three Yards Close. Officers have therefore sought amendments which have resulted in the loss of 1 unit from this part of the scheme and the reduction in the ridge height of the remaining units. This is a now a pair of semi-detached cottages and a detached unit with Plot 17 (the FOG) in the north-east corner. These properties have simple frontages in keeping with the character of Cove Cottages for example and are proposed to be constructed in render and the same brick as Units 9 – 16. These units again follow the contours through the site creating a pleasing appearance to the street created by the development.
8.24. The layout of the scheme has responded to input from the Council’s urban design officers at the pre-application stage and during the application process. It is often difficult to meet all urban design principles on tight constrained sites. However, the back-to-front designs of Plots 9 – 16 allows for the creation of a ‘street’ within the development with the front doors of the properties facing each other. The layout has also incorporated the proposed parking without the scheme being excessively dominated by parked cars. Overall the scale and designs of the properties are considered acceptable, drawing sympathetically on aspects of the surrounding character whilst incorporating more contemporary features, particularly to Plots 9 – 16 on the western side. Coupled with the positive aspects of retaining the original school building, the design and layout of the scheme is considered acceptable in its relationship to the surrounding area.
Impact on wider area
8.25. The scheme has wider impacts beyond the immediately surrounding street scenes, particularly from the SW coast path route. A number of the responses raised the issue of the impacts on views from the coast. As noted above, there are a number of designations affecting the land immediately west of the site. Currently there is a clear division between the built-up area and the cliff zone to the west of the site. The SW coast path passes through Tout Quarry below Portland Heights before entering the built-up area west of Weare Close.
8.26. At this point, it is readily apparent that the coast path is passing around a developed area with numerous residential properties backing onto the public footpath with boundary walls and fences, outbuildings and general domestic paraphernalia clearly visible. Outside the site itself, once past the fine school building, the view from the coast path is of chainlink fences above a variety of walls looking over the disused playground. This is not considered to contribute to the character of the area beyond an ability to appreciate longer range views at this point as noted in paragraph 8.36 below.
Page 25 8.27. Bearing in mind the surrounding context, a development along this frontage facing out to sea is not considered to be unacceptable in principle, subject to an acceptable design. The proposed development on this part of the site is of a scale and form reflective of the surrounding area and follows the contours of the site, stepping down the terraces towards the north. As a result it is not considered to be excessively dominant or overbearing in views from the coast path or adjoining heritage coast/WHS area. As noted above, the design of these units is considered to be acceptable in relation to the variety of architectural styles, ages of properties and their materials on the immediately surrounding streets. For this reason, the development is not considered to be significantly incongruous when viewed from the adjoining coastal area such that there would be substantial harm to the heritage coast area.
8.28. Officers have also viewed the proposals from the viewpoint to the south (by the Olympic rings). At this point the site is visible in views to the north towards Chesil beach. The site itself appears as a part of the built-up area. Following the development, with its proposed slate roofs, it is considered the scheme will appear as a logical addition to this part of Fortuneswell, adding to its attractive roofscape of properties following the land contours. The scheme is not considered to be incongruous in these longer range views and overall the scheme is considered to comply with Policy ENV1.
Impact on Heritage Assets
The retained school building
8.29. Some of the representations are critical of the extent of the school buildings to be removed. Officers sought to encourage the retention of the school buildings at the pre-application stage. It is accepted a scheme could feasibly designed which retained more of the Portland stone elements of the building. However, that is not the scheme before members and this proposal needs to be determined on its merits. Whilst the 2017 CAA identified the building as important, the Conservation Area was not extended to include the school site. Therefore any development on the site could only impact on the setting of the CA. There is no statutory requirement to consider the impacts of development outside of a CA impacting the Conservation Area itself. This is different for example to the statutory requirement to consider the setting of a listed building for example.
8.30. The building is regarded as a designated heritage asset for the purposes of applying the guidance in the NPPF and LP policies. There would be some negative impacts to the building in the removal of part of the Portland stone section to the rear. Contrary to 3rd party comments the existing bell tower is retained. There would also be some impacts on the appreciation of the building from the adjacent coast path from the construction of Plots 9 -16. Balanced against this there would be benefits from the removal of the later unsympathetic school buildings, allowing for a better appreciation of the retained school building
Page 26 particularly from Clovens Road, even following the construction of Units 1 – 3 along this frontage.
8.31. The tests in policy and national guidance differ depending on whether the impacts are “substantial” or “less than substantial”. For a proposal to result in substantial harm would in effect relate to the total or substantial loss of the heritage asset or its interest. As set out above, the are pluses and minuses in the impacts upon the original school building. But as the scheme retains a significant amount of the building and moreover secures a long-term future for this part of the heritage asset, then the assessment is that the development results in minor- to moderate harm to the heritage asset.
8.32. Where a development results in less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset, paragraph 134 of the NPPF advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. In this regard, weight needs to be given to securing a future for the retained element of the building. The balancing exercise set out in the summary below concludes the benefits of the scheme outweigh the negatives and the scheme represents sustainable development. In this situation the scheme complies with Policy ENV4.
Underhill Conservation Area
8.33. The proposal directly borders the Conservation Area along the north-west boundary and potentially impacts its’ setting. Cove Cottages lie within the CA. From this street, this imposing terrace of properties sited hard against the road frontage screens views south towards the site. Views of the site begin to open up at the west end of Cove Cottages where it meets the coast path. However, at this point, this is outside the Conservation Area.
8.34. Therefore any impacts to the setting of the Conservation Area are in longer range views from Clovens Road and Killicks Hill down through the site towards Cove Cottages. In drawing up the scheme, officers have sought to ensure views down through the site along the eastern side out to Chesil beach are retained. From these positions, the terraces at Coves Cottages are not visible and there will be limited impacts on views towards the Conservation Area itself from these points.
8.35. The final aspect is in views from the coast path at the end of Clovens Road down to the Conservation Area. This is where the greatest change will occur. Currently from the coast path there is a view past the school buildings over the playground with the rooftops of Cove Cottages visible and Chesil beach beyond. This would be replaced by the elevations of Plots 9 – 16. There is clearly an impact arising from this which would follow from any development on this part of the site. Therefore the test in this regard is not whether the designs are appropriate but whether that view should be preserved per se.
Page 27 8.36. The CAA identifies a ‘viewshed’ (an area of multiple views) and two ‘gateways’ to the Conservation Area below the coastal slope at Quiddles café. However the coast path outside the site is not identified as part of these key areas. Overall the development is considered to have a minor- to moderate impact on the setting of the Conservation Area, affecting views towards the Conservation Area but not adversely impacting any key views. Therefore as per paragraph 8.32 above, the harm needs to be weighed against the benefits of the scheme. Overall these impacts are not considered to demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme such that the development should be resisted.
Drainage and Land Stability
Drainage
8.37. The development was initially subject to a holding objection from the Lead Local Flood Authority with respect to the drainage proposals. Whilst the site is in an area of low flood risk, the surface water mapping suggests that there may be pronounced (theoretical) risk to the properties downhill in the Chiswell and Brandy Row areas and the LLFA were not satisfied that an adequate strategy which was deliverable had been demonstrated. The site is currently almost entirely covered in buildings and hard surfaces and the development may offer a modest betterment to surface water run-off rates through the provision of gardens and others permeable surfaces.
8.38. Following the Holding Objection, the applicant’s engineers have been discussing the details required by the LLFA to address their concerns. On this particular site, soakaways are not feasible to deal with surface water and a managed system with on-site attenuation is required. Furthermore, Wessex Water’s response advises that surface water cannot connect to a combined sewer unless it can be shown that soakaways are not feasible and any such discharge to be heavily attenuated.
8.39. The applicant’s revised proposals incorporate building a new sewer system within the site, connecting to an existing sewer off site. Surface water and foul water systems to be separate up to connection with existing off-site systems. An attenuation tank for surface water is to be provided, located underneath the access road and designed with capacity for a 1 in 100 year storm event plus an additional 40% capacity for climate change. These proposals have been submitted back to the LLFA.
8.40. On the basis that the revised drainage details have addressed the issues raised by the LLFA, it is considered that the applicants have demonstrated sufficiently for the planning stage that the scheme can adequately address any issues relating to necessary utilities service infrastructure thereby complying with Policy COM10. In addition, the revised strategy demonstrates sufficiently for the planning stage that the development can take place without generating flooding through surface water runoff or exacerbating flooding elsewhere, thereby
Page 28 complying with Policy ENV5. A verbal update on the holding objection of the LLFA can be given at Committee.
Land Stability
8.41. The stability of the site and the impacts development may have on this has been raised. As the Council’s engineer’s response notes, small scale, superficial surface movements occur on the cliff to the west of the site and this is readily apparent from the coast path. The site itself is not in an area designated as a land instability zone as other parts of the plan area are. Nonetheless, the scheme is supported by a Cliff Stability report by the applicant’s surveyors. This notes that the development does not propose significant excavation works to deliver the scheme or substantial changes in levels affecting the loadings on the site.
8.42. The report states the site would be adequate to carry traditional or raft foundations. With respect to the cliff edge and the dwellings closest to this, the report notes Units 9 – 16 follow the current contours which does not result in further ground build up which would add unnecessary stress to the cliff edges and affect the stability. It is noted that Building Control have considered the proposals and not raised particular comments.
8.43. With regards to the Council’s engineer’s comments, their views are concerned with the integrity of the sea wall defences below the site. This is a separate issue to that raised by third parties. In effect, what the Engineers’ response is saying is that currently the Council could not offer a guarantee of the integrity of the sea wall for the life of the development (+80 years). This issue is a wider one which affects not just the development of this site but the surrounding area.
8.44. As it currently stands it is not the Council’s policy to prevent further development in the area as a result of this issue. The ongoing responsibility of the sea wall lies with the Local Authority at this time. Furthermore, it is noted that the largest single apportionment (40%) of the CIL monies levied by the Council for Weymouth & Portland go towards Flood Mitigation and Coast Protection in acknowledgment of the issues facing the Borough. This is not therefore a bar to development on the site at this time.
Living Conditions
Impact on neighbours
8.45. The development of the site will mainly impact on properties in Three Yards Close, Cove Cottages and opposite on Clovens Road. Policy ENV16 requires development proposals will only be permitted provided they do not have a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of occupiers of residential properties
Page 29 8.46. Three Yards Close: This street forms a largely continuous terrace of properties beyond the north-eastern boundary of the site with gardens backing onto the site with an access path along the former school’s boundary. Due to the fall in the land and the position of the existing school buildings, there are views from the rear of these properties across the site and out to sea to varying degrees, but mainly from the 1st floor level and loft conversions in a number of properties.
8.47. The development will inevitably impact on these views and the current outlook from the rear of Three Yards Close. The loss of a particular view is not material to the determination of this application, nor is the fact that the outlook will change as a result of the development render it automatically unacceptable. However whether an acceptable outlook and privacy generally will be retained for these neighbours is relevant.
8.48. 20 metres between facing buildings will normally give good privacy between the rear of buildings. A back-to-back distance of less than 20m does not automatically mean occupiers will have their privacy compromised and there are many examples nearby of considerably more densely packed streets. It does however give a useful marker by which to gauge the impact of the development.
8.49. Plots 17 – 20 are back-to-back to no’s 10 – 16 Three Yards Close. At the closest point there is 19.5m between the rear of Plot 20 and the rear wing of 11 Three Yards Close. Due to the change in levels, it is likely that occupiers in Plots 18 - 20 would have views at ground and 1st floor (Plot 20 is 1st floor only) over any rear boundary fence. This introduces mutual overlooking of the rear gardens which has not existed before. Nonetheless, this is a common residential relationship and is not considered harmful in itself. Due to the distances involved, it is considered that the development would have a minor impact on the privacy of neighbours in Three Yards Close.
8.50. Plot 1 would be approximately 17m from 6 Three Yards Close at the closest point. However, these properties are in effect side-on to these existing neighbours. As a result, any views from the 1st floor bedroom of this plot towards Three Yards Close are at an angle across the access road to the development. Again, this is felt to be a common residential relationship seen across surrounding streets, resulting in a minor to moderate impact on the privacy of these neighbours.
8.51. In terms of the outlook from Three Yards Close and whether the scheme is overbearing, the higher land levels within the site means that any new properties may have a greater impact on neighbours. In parts of the scheme there are benefits from the removal of the former school buildings which need to be balanced against the new build elements. The reduction in height of Plots 1 – 3 as part of the amendments has lessened their impact overall. These units are still taller than the flat roof school extension currently on the site but have a much smaller footprint and are further away. This is considered to balance out in terms
Page 30 of the impact on outlook to the properties closest to Plots 1 – 3, resulting in a minor impact to outlook and not resulting in a significant overbearing impact.
8.52. For no’s 6 – 9 Three Yards Close, the scheme is considered to open up the outlook to a degree and there is not considered to be a negative impact on outlook or an overbearing impact. No’s 10 – 16 are more closely affected by Plots 17 – 20. The initial scheme was felt to be overbearing on neighbours by reason of the scale of the properties proposed on this part of the site and their proximity. The amendments have taken a unit out from this part of the scheme and reduce the scale and height of the remaining units. Plot 20 in particular is still set at a higher level than the neighbour, resulting in a moderate impact to neighbour’s outlook. However, at its reduced height and due to the separation involved, it is not considered to result in a significant adverse overbearing impact which is the test in Policy ENV16.
8.53. Cove Cottages: No’s 26 – 18 (incl) back onto the site. These properties have small back yards with their gardens to the front to the other side of the lane. The rear of these neighbours face the site with the land rising considerably. There is a small parcel of intervening land separating Cove Cottages from the site. Plots 16 & 17 are sited closest to these neighbours. At the closest point there is approximately 13m from the corner of Plot 16 to the rear wing of 26 Cove Cottages and around 12m from the corner of Plot 17 to the rear of No. 21.
8.54. There is a secondary living room window to the side of Plot 16 and a secondary living room and kitchen window to the side of Plot 17. These would offer views towards the rear of Cove Cottages properties. Views from all other openings in these properties would be oblique due to their position and orientation. There would a potential loss of existing privacy to the rear of the Cove Cottages properties from these openings.
8.55. Due to the location of the proposed buildings on higher land, these would affect the views from existing windows to the rear to the south. It is not considered that the scheme would result in a significant loss of light due to the distances involved, the scales and heights of the building and the spaces between the proposed dwellings. For the same reasons, the scheme is not considered to result in a significant loss of outlook or an unacceptable overbearing impact. Overall the scheme is considered to have moderate impacts to these neighbours but does not fail the test in Policy ENV16 in having a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of these occupiers.
Living Conditions for Occupiers
8.56. Policy ENV12 of the Local Plan advises that new housing should meet and where possible exceed appropriate minimum nationally described space standards. The size of the units has been assessed against these standards and officers can confirm that the proposed units meet or exceed these minimum space standards
Page 31 for the overall size of dwellings. The scheme therefore complies with Policy ENV12 in this regard.
8.57. Each of the houses is provided with private amenity space. In addition each of the flats within the converted school building also have private entrances with access to outside space and/or private gardens from these entrances. Each unit is provided with at least one off-road parking space. At the closest point the proposed properties face each other across the access and parking area at a distance of approximately 12m (between Plots 15/16 to 17). This is reasonably compact but is comparable to surrounding streets.
8.58. Plots 9 – 16 on the western side are effectively ‘back-to-front’ in their design with their principal outlook out to sea. Consequently these units are considered to have adequate privacy and a very impressive outlook. Units 17 – 20 on the eastern side have their private amenity spaces to the rear, backing onto the rear gardens of the Three Yards Close properties, a common residential relationship. As noted above in the impact on neighbours section, there is a minimum 19m building-to-building distance between these plots and the existing houses in Three Yards Close, meeting an accepted standard for privacy between properties. Due to the distances to surrounding properties, these dwellings are also considered to enjoy adequate outlook, daylight and sunlight levels.
8.59. In terms of the living conditions of occupiers of the proposed dwellings, this is considered to comply with Policy ENV16.
Traffic & Parking
Traffic generation
8.60. The traffic generated by the development is a key concern raised in the third party responses. When making assessments of the impacts of traffic generation, this needs to be balanced against the lawful use of the site as a junior school and the traffic movements associated with this. As such there is a ‘credit’ against which future proposals need to be assessed with a considerable number of traffic movements previously concentrated at drop off/pick up times during school days.
8.61. The site is in a sustainable location with good access to nearby facilities without the use of the car. However, the junction of Clovens Road with High Street is of restricted width and residents are concerned about possible highway safety. Nonetheless the test in policy COM7 is whether the development would cause severe residual cumulative impacts on the efficiency of the transport network or a severe detrimental effect on road safety. Balanced against the traffic movements associated with the previous lawful use as school, it is considered that the Council would have considerably difficulty demonstrating that the proposed 20 dwellings would cause the severe impacts on safety and congestion which are the tests in COM7.
Page 32 8.62. It is noted that the Highways Authority has confirmed they do not object to the proposals subject to conditions as set out below.
Parking
8.63. Following the amendments to the scheme, the number of units was reduced by one and the parking provision increased by four spaces. The original submission for 21 units and 33 spaces complied with the parking standards in the adopted Bournemouth, Poole & Dorset Residential Car Parking Study. Therefore the reduction in units and increase in spaces similarly complies with the adopted parking standards and thereby Policy COM9 of the Local Plan.
8.64. Parking is raised frequently in 3rd party responses and is understandable where residents live in surrounding streets where off-road parking for existing properties is limited and parking pressure in these streets is consequently high. Nonetheless, this does not give grounds to refuse an application which complies with the standards adopted across the County, whereby occupiers of the proposed development will be provided with adequate off-road parking under the standards set in the adopted Local Plan.
Affordable housing & Viability
8.65. Policy HOUS1 requires all new dwellings in Portland to make a 25% contribution towards affordable housing. However, in May 2016 National Planning Practice Guidance was updated to establish revised thresholds below which affordable housing contributions should not be sought. As this proposal exceeds 10 units, an affordable housing contribution of 25% of the units (5 dwellings) will be required. The starting position is that these will be provided on site and include a range of types and locations across the development. A s106 agreement would be required to secure this.
8.66. In addition, members are advised that as the re-use of previously developed (‘brownfield’) land, the Vacant Building Credit (VBC) is applicable to the scheme. The VBC currently forms part of Government guidance in the NPPG. The advice on the VBC states that; “National policy provides an incentive for brownfield development on sites containing vacant buildings. Where a vacant building is brought back into any lawful use, or is demolished to be replaced by a new building, the developer should be offered a financial credit equivalent to the existing gross floorspace of relevant vacant buildings when the local planning authority calculates any affordable housing contribution which will be sought. Affordable housing contributions may be required for any increase in floorspace.”
8.67. What this means in practice is that no affordable housing contributions could be sought against the units provided in conversions of existing buildings on the site (5 units). Furthermore, the floorspace of all of the other buildings within the site which are removed are credited against (or subtracted from) the amount of new floorspace created as part of the scheme.
Page 33 8.68. Based on the figures supplied by the applicant, the net increase in floorspace of the scheme is 829m2 being the difference between the proposed floorspace of 1,949m2 & the existing floorspace of 1,120m2. As a percentage of the overall development, the net increase in floorspace is 43%. Under policy HOUS1, a 25% AH contribution would be 5 of the proposed 20 units. With the application of the VBC, the Council could only require AH contributions on the net increase in floorspace - 43% of 5 units equals 2.1 units. Therefore even if the scheme were wholly viable, the maximum affordable housing contribution which the development could be required to provide once the VBC had been applied would be 2 units with an additional financial contribution equivalent to 0.1 units. This is only 10% of the total number of units.
8.69. The VBC applies to the total existing floorspace and the credit is applicable whether buildings are converted or demolished. So even if more of the school building were converted, a developer could construct or convert up to 1,120m2 of residential floorspace before the Council can apply Policy HOUS1.
8.70. The applicant has submitted a viability assessment with the proposals. The position set out by the applicants is that there is a shortfall in the value of the scheme of £453,709 without affordable housing provision, rising to £678,902 if 25% of the units are provided as AH. Their viability exercise has been run on different scenarios of types of AH provision but each time returns a deficit. The viability assessment is based on a profit margin of 20%. It is worth noting that were this profit level reduced to 17% for example – based on the remainder of the applicant’s figures – the scheme would still produce a deficit.
8.71. Officers instructed the District Valuer (DV) carry out an independent assessment of the applicant’s viability case. The initial response of the DV was that the scheme was sufficiently viable to provide the 2.1 unit contribution and this was the position at the time the application was considered and resolved to be approved by members back in November.
8.72. However, since the meeting, further information has been provided by the applicants with regards to the build costs in developing the site. This has come about through the tendering process resulting in a build rate cost of £1856.73 per m2. The DV advises that they have no grounds to question this figure and the viability of the scheme is significantly impacted on as a result, leading to a significant deficit of £591,866. This means there is insufficient surplus in the scheme to provide the affordable housing contribution. Their full report is available via the Council’s website.
8.73. Policy HOUS1 advises that; “Applicants seeking to justify a lower level of affordable housing provision will be expected to provide an assessment of viability. A lower level of provision will only be permitted if there are good reasons to bring the development forward and the assessment shows that it is not economically viable to make the minimum level of provision being sought.”
Page 34 Therefore, if the LPA accepts an application is insufficiently viable to make an AH contribution, then the scheme still complies with Policy HOUS1.
8.74. The provision of affordable housing as part of the scheme was given positive weight in the balancing exercise when members considered the scheme previously. The lack of affordable housing contribution due to a lack of viability is a neutral factor in the balancing exercise. Overall this does not alter officer’s recommendations on the scheme. However, members’ decision on the scheme needs to be made in light of the revised viability position and lack of affordable housing provision.
Community Infrastructure Levy
8.75. The adopted charging schedule only applies a levy on proposals that create a dwelling and/or a dwelling with restricted holiday use. All other development types are therefore set a £0 per sq. m. CIL rate.
8.76. The development proposal is CIL liable.
8.77. The rate at which CIL is charged is £80 per sq. m. for Portland. In this case the CIL charge is approximately £ £76,312. This is affected by the Vacant Building Credit which is applied to buildings demolished and those converted in calculating the CIL charge. Confirmation of the final CIL charge will be included in a CIL liability notice issued prior to the commencement of the development.
Biodiversity
8.78. The scheme is accompanied by a Biodiversity Mitigation Plan. DCC’s Natural Environment Team have advised that this has been agreed. Implementation of this is proposed to be conditioned below. Natural England have confirmed they have no objection and have not raised issues with regard to the adjoining ecological designations. The scheme is therefore considered to comply with Policy ENV2 in this regard.
9. SUMMARY OF ISSUES
9.1. Policy INT1 of the Local Plan contains a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This requires an assessment of the economic, social and environmental factors affecting the scheme.
9.2. In terms of economic factors, the scheme would provide a short-term benefit during the construction stage. It would bring more economically active residents to a sustainable location in one of the settlements which is a focus for future development in Policy SUS2 of the LP. The site previously provided employment in its former use but as the facility has been replaced elsewhere on Portland, overall this is a neutral factor. Considerable weight is given to bolstering the Council’s housing land supply. Overall the economic benefits are positive.
Page 35 9.3. The social factors are a balance of the loss of the community facility which has been replaced elsewhere within the settlement and would overall be a neutral impact. Similarly the due process for an ACV has been followed as set out above without the site being purchased for the community. Again overall this would be a neutral factor. The increase in population in a sustainable location in a well- designed scheme well integrated into the surrounding area has the potential to provide a moderate benefit in relation to social interaction and cohesion in the area. The development would provide further choice in the local housing market. Following advice from the District Valuer, the scheme is not sufficiently viable to provide affordable housing. The scheme still complies with Policy HOUS1 as this includes a test for viability. Therefore this is considered to be a neutral impact. Overall there are neutral to minor positive social impacts.
9.4. In relation to the environmental factors, the development retains an historic building which is identified as an Important Local Building in the adopted Conservation Area Appraisal. Thus it secures a long-term future for a designated heritage asset. Notwithstanding some of the criticism of the nature of this conversion, this is given considerable weight. Overall the scheme has acceptable impacts on heritage assets, having a less than significant impact on the setting of the Conservation Area. The scheme makes good use of previously developed land on a challenging site in a sustainable location. Its density is directly comparable to surrounding streets. The development will contribute positively to the maintenance and enhancement of local identity and distinctiveness in removing later unsympathetic school buildings and replacing these with development informed by the character of the site and its surroundings whilst introducing contemporary elements. The development is considered to have acceptable impacts on the wider area where the site is visible in more distant views and from the coast path generally.
9.5. The scheme has demonstrated it complies with Policy ENV16 in terms of its impacts on neighbour’s living conditions. It also provides acceptable living conditions for occupiers of the proposed development. The Highways Authority have confirmed that the traffic generated by the development can be satisfactorily accommodated on the surrounding network without having severe detrimental effects on road safety or without exacerbating community severance. The parking provision complies with the Council’s policy and the adopted Country- wide parking guidelines. The bolstering of the Council’s HLS with development in sustainable locations makes the Authority less vulnerable to development occurring in more environmentally sensitive locations.
9.6. The scheme is considered to have acceptable impacts on landscape and ecology designations outside the site. The development provides acceptable mitigation for its impacts on biodiversity within the site. The submission has shown there is a potential solution to deal with foul and surface water issues at the site complying with Policies COM10 & ENV5. Sufficient information with regards to the impacts of the development on the stability of the cliff edge has been provided to conclude the development is in accordance with Policy ENV7. The comments
Page 36 of the Council’s engineers are noted however at the current time the Authority does not have a policy of resisting any further development in the area. The largest single apportionment of the Council’s CIL for Weymouth & Portland is for Flood Mitigation and Coast Protection schemes. The scheme provides for acceptable mitigation in relation to its ecological impacts within the site, complying with Policy ENV2.
9.7. Overall the scheme is considered to result in economic, social and environmental benefits and therefore complies with Policy INT1 and is recommended for approval.
10.RECOMMENDATION
10.1. Approve subject to the conditions listed in para.10.2 below.
10.2. Approved plans
1. List of approved plans
Highways
2. Before the development is occupied or utilised the access, geometric highway layout, turning and parking areas shown on Drawing Number 15 – 048 03 Rev P8 must be constructed, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, these must be maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.
REASON: To ensure the proper and appropriate development of the site.
3. Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised the turning and parking shown on the submitted plans must have been constructed. Thereafter, these areas must be permanently maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.
REASON: To ensure the proper and appropriate development of the site and to ensure that highway safety is not adversely impacted upon.
Biodiversity
4. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Mitigation Plan from Phil Smith Conservation Consults dated 5 December 2016 and this shall not be altered without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: In order to safeguard and enhance the ecological value of the site in accordance with Policy ENV2 of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) and the advice in the NPPF (2012).
Page 37 Drainage
5. No development shall commence until a surface water drainage scheme for the site based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion. The scheme shall subsequently be fully implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use or completed, whichever is the sooner.
REASON: In the interests of providing adequate drainage from the site in accordance with Policy ENV 5 of the adopted West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) and the advice in the NPPF (2012).
Materials
6. The external materials and their colour shall be as shown on the approved plan and application form. These materials shall not be altered without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: To ensure a satisfactory visual appearance of the development.
Boundary Treatments
7. No development above finished floor level of the new build dwellings or works for the conversion of the former school building shall take place until details of the boundary treatments to that property have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved boundary treatments shall be installed in their entirety prior to the first occupation of the dwelling concerned and shall thereafter be retained.
REASON: In the interests of the character and appearance of the area accordance with Policy ENV10 of the adopted West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) and the advice in the NPPF (2012).
Landscaping
8. No development above finished floor level of the new build dwellings or works for the conversion of the former school building shall take place until details of hard and soft landscaping, which shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development along with surfacing materials shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
All planting seeding or turfing and hard surfacing works comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and
Page 38 seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. The landscaping shall thereafter be retained.
REASON: In the interests of the character and appearance of the location in accordance with Policy ENV10 of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) and the advice in the NPPF (2012).
Construction Management Plan
9. Prior to the commencement of development, a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan and shall not be altered without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: In the interests of the living conditions of nearby occupiers in accordance with Policy ENV16 of the adopted West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015).
Remove PD rights for roof alterations
10.Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) England Order, 2015, or any Order revoking or re- enacting that Order, no development permitted under Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes B & C (roof alterations) shall be carried out at the dwellings hereby approved without the prior grant of planning permission from the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: The Council wishes to retain control over roof alterations to the approved properties in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policies ENV10 & ENV16 of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) and the advice in the NPPF (2012).
INFORMATIVE NOTE: Dorset Highways
The vehicle crossing serving this proposal (that is, the area of highway land between the nearside carriageway edge and the site’s road boundary) must be constructed to the specification of the County Highway Authority in order to comply with Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980. The applicant should contact Dorset Highways by telephone at Dorset Direct (01305 221000), by
Page 39 email at [email protected], or in writing at Dorset Highways, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ, before the commencement of any works on or adjacent to the public highway.
INFORMATIVE NOTE: Fire safety
To fight fires effectively the Fire and Rescue Service needs to be able to manoeuvre its equipment and appliances to suitable positions adjacent to any premises. Therefore, the applicant is advised that they should consult with Building Control and Dorset Fire and Rescue Service to ensure that Fire Safety - Approved Document B Volume 1 Dwelling houses B5 of The Building Regulations 2006 can be fully complied with.
INFORMATIVE NOTE: Privately managed estate roads
As the new road layout does not meet with the County Highway Authority’s road adoption standards or is not offered for public adoption under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980, it will remain private and its maintenance will remain the responsibility of the developer, residents or housing company.
INFORMATIVE NOTE: Advance Payments Code
The applicant should be advised that the Advance Payments Code under Sections 219-225 of the Highways Act 1980 may apply in this instance. The Code secures payment towards the future making-up of a private street prior to the commencement of any building works associated with residential, commercial and industrial development. The intention of the Code is to reduce the liability of potential road charges on any future purchasers which may arise if the private street is not made-up to a suitable standard and adopted as publicly maintained highway. Further information is available from Dorset County Council’s Development team. They can be reached by telephone at 01305 225401, by email at [email protected], or in writing at Development team, Dorset Highways, Environment and the Economy, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ.
INFORMATIVE NOTE: Community Infrastructure Levy
This development constitutes Community Infrastructure Levy 'CIL' liable development. CIL is a mandatory financial charge on development and you will be notified of the amount of CIL being charged on this development in a CIL Liability Notice. To avoid additional financial penalties it is important that you notify us of the date you plan to commence development before any work takes place and follow the correct CIL payment procedure
Page 40 Page 41 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8
APPLICATION NO: WP/17/00870/FUL 10th January 2018
Beach Car Park,
BEACH CAR PARK, LODMOOR WAY, WEYMOUTH
The Bus Shelter Dorset.
Case Officer: Jo Riley FOR DECISION
1 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
1.1Approve.
2 PROPOSAL
2.1The site is the North East Corner of the Lodmoor Car Park, Preston, Weymouth. The red line of the application site is an area of 446 square metres to be given over for the siting of a double decker bus and ancillary services to provide a facility for homeless people. The applicants are the Bus Shelter Dorset which is a charity.
2.2 The siting of the bus and ancillary services would take up 6 car parking spaces from the existing 281 car parking spaces of the car park. The bus and ancillary services would be delineated from the general car park by herras fencing. The ancillary services are two portable toilets, outside seating area, and a mobile combined kitchen and shower unit.
2.3 The site is outside the defined development boundary (DDB). It is not in the AONB or a flood risk zone.
3 PLANNING HISTORY –
There is no relevant planning history.
4 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 SUS2- Distribution of development ENV10 - The landscape and townscape setting
Page 43 ENV 12 – The design and positioning of buildings ENV 16 – Amenity COM2 – New or improved local community buildings and structures COM9- Parking standards in new development WEY8 – Lodmoor gateway and Country Park Area.
Weymouth Town centre Masterplan (Supplementary Planning Document 2015).
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.
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
5 CONSULTATION RESPONSES
5.1 Dorset County Council Highways - No objection.
5.2 Dorset Waste Partnership – No comments received
5.3 Environmental Protection – No comments
5.4 Technical Services – No comments
5.5 Car parking – No comments received
5.6 Crime Prevention officer – No comments received.
All comments are available to view on dorsetforyou. com
Any further comments received will be updated verbally at the meeting.
Page 44
6 REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED
6.1 At the time of writing, we have received 86 comments. 4 neither object or support. 69 comments of support and 13 comments against.
Letters of support refer to the following issues:
I am very much in favour of trialling this Shelterbus to try and alleviate the issues we are experiencing with homelessness in Weymouth.
I believe this site is ideally placed to site the bus on as it is close enough to town for service users to get to but not too close to residential areas.
Having plenty of space and fresh air is important, as crammed conditions lead to fights and trouble in hostels that are used for this purpose. It is a beautiful location which should be conducive to helping the users get their lives back on track. And it all starts with having an address, which the bus shelter will provide.
I'm in favour of the bus for the homeless at Lodmoor. It will be great for them to have a safe, warm place to have shelter in over the cold winter months.
I support this application because there is a definite need in the Weymouth Area.
The site is not as central as it could be and therefore I would hope that if the bus did not work here that another site could be located such as the Car Park at the back of the Pavilion which would be easy accessible from Town
The location is good and it's done on a shoe string. How could anyone object?
After viewing the bus in person and being able to view the paperwork on how the Bus intends to deal with those using and working on the bus. It’s a great idea. There is room for the bus to expand its uses later on once those willing to engage in services have been helped.
Those working on this project have been thorough in consulting with multi- agencies in mental health, housing and addiction in order to create a service that is robust whilst being consciously adaptable.
Letter of objection refers to the following issues:
The skate park facility nearby the site have raised particular concern with antisocial behaviour as they have experienced problems with homeless people setting up tents by their premises, urinating, leaving needles and empty alcohol bottles. They are concerned about the proximity to the sea life centre, skate park, St Johns School and Weymouth college and the safety of younger customers.
Page 45 I believe that having the homeless shelter in this location would not work. Right next to the sea life centre, a school and the skatepark.
Given that most of the homeless people congregate in the town centre and may not be able to get to the proposed location it would appear to be the wrong location. I cannot see why a mobile unit such as a shelter bus should be fenced in and permanent toilet and kitchen facilities provided. This defeats the object of providing a mobile service which will be required in another location in the future.
If car parking spaces have to be given up to accommodate the bus would it not be better to site it on the Swannery carpark which already has toilet facilities and is closer to the town centre or even the carpark adjacent to Jubilee Sidings which is hardly ever used?
What will holiday makers and visitors think when they turn up to park? There are often tents erected here behind the bushes making the place look like a shanty town. If you really have to push on with this idea of a bus why not on an industrial estate where it will not be seen by the much needed visitors to the town.
7 PLANNING ISSUES
• Principle of development
• Visual Impact
• Local Amenity
8 ASSESSMENT AND SUMMARY
8.1 Principle:
8.2 The site is outside the defined development boundary where the general principle of development is to protect the countryside and environmental constraints. The site is not at risk of flooding as it is protected by sea defences along Preston beach Road. The proposal is not of a permanent built form being a movable bus and low key ancillary structures. It would be located in the far north east corner of this car park which is a lesser used car park than the one near to the sea life centre. There have not been any objections to the loss of car parking spaces.
8.3 This is considered to be a community facility as homeless people are still part of the community. Policy COM2 allows for new community uses to be provided where they are near to their catchment area. Some comments have been received that this is not the correct location being too far away from the town centre. However a balance has to be made in terms of accessibility for customers, and the need to protect residential amenity. In this case there are no nearby residential neighbours and the site is accessible for users and support workers. Supporting information has been provided
Page 46 with the application referring to management of the facility and their own rules for occupants.
8.4 The planning authority’s role is to deal with land use. It is not the social service authority, so should not be making a judgement on the issue of homelessness. The NPPF at Paragraph 69 does however advise that the planning system can play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy communities. Planning decision should aim to achieve places which promote safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder and the fear of crime do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion. There are comments about the potential for the proposal to cause disturbance to local amenity. Given that the Borough does not have experience of a shelterbus elsewhere, then it is considered that a temporary permission would be the right approach to assess the potential harm if any and which can then be re-considered in due course. In addition the site falls within the Weymouth Town Centre Masterplan SPD where Lodmoor has a number of key objectives to enhance and redevelop the site for improved visitor services in the future; a long term or permanent permission could conflict with those objectives.
8.4 Visual Impacts:
8.5 The impacts on the environmental interests of the country park are not considered to be affected. It is noted that the country park is a gateway site to Weymouth when entering from the east, however the location is away from the main Preston Beach frontage and screened with trees from the Sealife centre and is not considered to be visually intrusive.
8.6 Local Amenity:
8.7 There are no objections from the highways officer. It is not expected that there would be a substantial increase in traffic movements. The car park is located where there are a variety of vehicles accessing the service road to the household waste recycling centre and the garden waste recycling facility beyond. There would have to be some service vehicles to the site for the toilets for example but these are not expected to be significant. There have been no objections from the car parking department to the loss of parking spaces which are a small amount in comparison to the wider car park. The bus and its ancillary services would be contained within the red line of the site and the heras fencing. Should it be found that there is an element of overspill or noise disturbance then this is an issue that would be considered in future should a proposal to renew the scheme be required. There is no requirement to control the hours of use of the site as this is expected to be open 24 hours a day. The operators have indicated that the bus would have restricted opening hours ie 5:00 – 10:00am. This is more a management matter and not for the Local Planning Authority to control. Nor is it the LPAs responsibility to condition how the facility be managed, ie numbers of customers, and what provision is provided for them, as this is a matter for the charity.
Page 47 9 SUMMARY
9.1 Overall, with a condition for a temporary use, to enable the facility to be re-assessed in the future, planning permission is recommended to be granted.
10 RECOMMENDATION
Grant subject to 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:
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3. The bus and ancillary facilities hereby permitted shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition on or before 10th January 2023, unless a further application for planning permission is approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to that date.
Reason: To enable the condition and appearance of the facility and its impact on the surrounding area to be monitored and reassessed, and to protect the visual amenity and local amenity.
Page 48 Agenda Item 9
APPLICATION NO: WP/17/00642/ADV 10th January 2018
Advertisement Consent for signage at three entrances to the school grounds from road frontages, as well as new branding and lettering displayed above the main school entrance doors on the east elevation. This application refers specifically to Items 1, 6a, 6b, 7, 8, 9 and 10, as outlined in the supporting documents. These are either located on the road frontage and/or visible from the highway. (Retrospective)
WYKE REGIS INFANT SCHOOL AND NURSERY, SHRUBBERY LANE, WEYMOUTH, DT4 9LU
Wyke Regis Infant School
Case Officer: Dean White FOR DECISION
The application has been referred to Committee by the Chairman, as there has been a material planning objection from a Local Ward Member.
1. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
1.1 Grant Advertisement Consent
2. PROPOSAL
2.1 Wyke Regis Infant School and Nursery (known as Wyke Regis Primary Federation) is situated on the junction of Portland Road and Shrubbery Lane, adjacent to the Foord’s Corner roundabout, in Wyke Regis. The building has a flat roof design with a mixture of single storey and two storey elements, finished with stone and render. The building was designed by local architect Ernest Wamsley Lewis and was constructed in the 1950s.
2.2 The retrospective application for Advertisement Consent is in respect of installed signage at three entrances to the school grounds from road frontages, as well as new branding and lettering displayed above the main school entrance doors on the east elevation (visible from the highway).
2.3 The ‘Wyke Regis Primary Federation’ lettering above the first floor windows on the east elevation is individual white acrylic letters, with the other signage being laminated aluminium composite. None of the signage is illuminated.
2.4 The installation took place in June 2017, with the intention of bringing the school signage up to date with the federation colour scheme and emblem.
3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
Page 49 3.1 WP/ENF/17/00079 - Display of unauthorised advertisement across front elevation of school
4. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015).
As far as this application is concerned the following policies are considered to be relevant.
ENV1. LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE AND SITES OF GEOLOGICAL INTEREST (Weymouth urban Area)
ENV14. SHOP FRONTS AND ADVERTISEMENTS
ENV16. AMENITY
4.2 National Planning Policy Framework
The National Planning Policy Framework was published on 27 March 2012 and sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. In terms of decision-taking this means:
approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and
where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, grant permission unless:
. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole;
. or where specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted.
The NPPF also states that:
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. 186)
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
Page 50 secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. (Para. 187) Other sections of the NPPF relevant to this application are listed below. These will be referred to in the “Planning issues” section of the report.
Section Subject
7. Requiring good design Paragraph 67 - Poorly placed advertisements can have a negative impact on the appearance of the built and natural environment. Control over outdoor advertisements should be efficient, effective and simple in concept and operation. Only those advertisements which will clearly have an appreciable impact on a building or on their surroundings should be subject to the local planning authority’s detailed assessment. Advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of cumulative impacts.
Planning Practice Guidance
On 6 March 2014 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) launched its planning practice guidance web-based resource. This includes the following statement:
This guidance is intended to assist practitioners. Ultimately the interpretation of legislation is for the Courts but this guidance is an indication of the Secretary of State’s views. The department seeks to ensure that the guidance is in plain English and easily understandable. Consequently it may sometimes be oversimplified and, as the law changes quickly, although we do our best, it may not always be up to date.
Elements of the Planning Practice Guidance relevant to this application will be referred to in the “Planning issues” section of the report.
5. STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS
5.1 A Wyke Ward Councillor objects to the proposal, specifically with regard to the lettering on the east elevation and comments:
“the excessively large lettering in a steel colour is quite out of keeping with the original design and is so large that it over powers the whole building.”
5.2 Local Highway Authority (DCC) have made no comment.
5.3 Local Council Property Services have made no comment.
Page 51 6. OTHER CONSULTATIONS
6.1 None.
7. REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 At the time of writing there have been 9 representations – 3 objecting to the proposal and 6 in support. One of the objections was from the Weymouth Civic Society.
7.2 The main reason for objection is that the individual lettering of “Wyke Regis Primary Federation” (on the east elevation) is too large and is not in keeping with the character or design of the school building.
7.3 All representations can be viewed on www.dorsetforyou.com.
8. PLANNING ISSUES
8.1 Decisions relating to applications for advertisement consent are made with regard to amenity (including its impact on the local landscape, wildlife and historic character) and public safety (including its impact on road safety).
8.2 The main planning issues relevant to this application are:
Visual Amenity
Public Safety
Visual Amenity
8.3. The school is not a listed building and is not within a Conservation Area. The surrounding area features a variety of architectural styles and building uses, featuring a mixture of signage types, particularly along Portland Road.
8.4 It is considered that the ‘Wyke Regis Primary Federation’ lettering is not visually intrusive and is an appropriate size, using individual, non-illuminated lettering.
8.5 Overall, it is considered the signage does not significantly harm the visual amenity or character of the school building and does not harm the street scene, wider setting or landscape.
Public Safety
8.6 The DCC Highways Officer has made no comment.
8.7 It is considered that the signage would have no negative impact upon highway safety or upon public safety.
9. SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Page 52 Visual amenity would not be significantly harmed.
Highway and public safety would be maintained.
10.RECOMMENDATION
Approve consent, with 5 standard advertisement conditions.
1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
Location Plan - Drawing Number 3535 - LP received on 14/08/2017
Site Plan - Drawing Number 3535-SP received on 14/08/2017
Advert Location Plan - Drawing Number 3535-01 received on 14/08/2017
Proposed signage Drawings (items 1, 2, 5, 6a,6b & 7) received on 14/08/2017
Proposed signage Drawings (items 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 &14) received on 14/08/2017
Proposed signage Drawings (items 1, 6a, 7 & 8) received on 14/08/2017
Proposed signage Drawings (items 9 & 10) received on 14/08/2017
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
2) No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission.
Reason: In accordance with Article 14(1)(a) and Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.
3) No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to: (a) endanger persons using any highway, railway, waterway, dock, harbour or aerodrome (civil or military); (b) obscure, or hinder the ready interpretation of, any traffic sign, railway signal or aid to navigation by water or air; or (c) hinder the operation of any device used for the purpose of security or surveillance or for measuring the speed of any vehicle.
Reason: In accordance with Article 14(1)(a) and Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.
4) Any advertisement displayed, and any site used for the display of advertisements, shall be maintained in a condition that does not impair the visual amenity of the site.
Page 53 Reason: In accordance with Article 14(1)(a) and Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.
5) Any structure or hoarding erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying advertisements shall be maintained in a condition that does not endanger the public.
Reason: In accordance with Article 14(1)(a) and Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.
6) Where an advertisement is required under these Regulations to be removed, the site shall be left in a condition that does not endanger the public or impair visual amenity.
Reason: In accordance with Article 14(1)(a) and Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.
Page 54